BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG
We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
verse of the day
You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.
- John 8:32
voice of the day
You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you odd.
-Flannery O'Connor
prayer of the day
Lord, may your truth make us both free and odd in a world that breeds bondage and demands conformity. Amen.
OBAMACARE. The very mention of the ACA / Affordable Care Act can set repiglicans and tea-baggers off on a foaming at the mouth, spit flying rampage. While that is all some of their supporters need to justify their voluntary ignorance and racist hatred, others need lies, deception and manipulation to make their voluntary ignorance and racist hatred more acceptable to themselves and those like them. Here are two examples of the continuing lies, manipulation, deception and fear started by greedy fascist pig koch brother's american action forum being spread on the internet by anonymous cowards and the blatantly fascist, racist and hateful karl rove's & ed (lost the VA Senate race) gillespie's american crossroads organization. From +PolitiFact .....
As a result of Obamacare, "California seniors face benefit cuts of over $1,700."
By Lauren Carroll on Friday, October 31st, 2014 at 9:30 a.m.
A recent American Crossroads ad attacks Rep. Ami Bera, D-Calif., for supporting Obamacare.
Even though Rep. Ami Bera, D-Calif., wasn’t in office when
Obamacare passed, a pro-Republican ad in California’s seventh
congressional district is using the law to attack him.
Bera is running against Republican Doug Ose for a second term, and
it’s a tight race. Less than six months into his first term, Bera voted against
repealing the Affordable Care Act, and American Crossroads, Karl Rove’s
conservative political action committee, used this fact to appeal to
California seniors in a recent ad.
"Bera voted to keep Obamacare, which cut $716 billion from Medicare,
slashing Medicare Advantage," the ad’s narrator says. "Now California
seniors face benefit cuts of over $1,700."
Many times, we’ve rated the claim that there are $716 billion in Medicare cuts as Half True. But we hadn’t heard claims about specific benefit cuts by state before, so we decided to check it out.
We found that the claim that California seniors will see $1,700 in
benefit cuts as a result of the Affordable Care Act is misleading. The
statistic comes from a report that ignores critical context and evidence
that the law has expanded Medicare’s benefits packages. Advantages
We should first note that the statistic comes from an April 2014 report by the American Action Forum,
and they have a stake in the election. The American Action Forum is an
arm of the American Action Network, which is a conservative political
nonprofit with financial ties to the Koch brothers. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the group shares office space with American Crossroads -- the group that produced the very ad we’re checking.
Now to the claim. The ad makes it sound like all California
seniors will face cuts to this degree. However, the report only
addresses Medicare Advantage. About one-third of seniors use Medicare
Advantage, which is a private coverage option.
Medicare Advantage plans are required to provide at minimum the same
array of benefits as traditional Medicare. Many Advantage plans offer
extra benefits -- things like gym memberships, vision exams or generous
cost-sharing -- that have contributed to escalating program costs.
The creators of Medicare Advantage thought that letting seniors
choose plans from private insurance providers would be more
cost-effective than traditional Medicare. But Advantage has turned out
to be more expensive. Medicare paid insurers about 114 percent more for
Advantage plans than for traditional plans, as of 2009 before enactment of the federal health care law.
The law attempted to close that gap in part by gradually reducing how
much Medicare pays Advantage plan providers. It was estimated that its
changes would slow down spending
on Medicare by about $716 billion over 10 years, and Medicare Advantage
cost-saving measures accounted for about one-third of that. (Though the
Obama administration has reversed these cuts for the past two years -- facing pressure from insurance providers, Republicans and some Democrats, including Bera.)
Critics argue that the cuts will force insurance providers to reduce
the benefits they offer to Medicare Advantage enrollees. However,
Medicare Advantage plans are still required to offer, at minimum, the
same level of benefits as traditional plans. And Obamacare includes language protecting that set of guaranteed benefits from shrinking.
In fact, the law expanded Medicare’s required benefits to include
certain preventative services, annual visits, closing a gap in
prescription coverage and more.
Additionally, the law rewards Medicare Advantage providers
with financial bonuses to encourage quality and cost-efficiency.
Providers are required to use the bonuses to offer extra benefits,
attracting more enrollees. Nearly all Medicare Advantage plan providers received these bonuses in 2012, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. A matter of speculation
It’s possible that Medicare Advantage providers could respond to
their pay cut by reducing benefits, but the only benefits they could cut
would be those extra benefits that go beyond Medicare plan
requirements.
"It's not automatic and won't affect every (Advantage) enrollee or
any of the (traditional Medicare) enrollees," said Dylan Roby, an expert
in health economics at the University of California Los Angeles Center
for Health Policy Research.
Insurance providers could also respond to lower payments by offering
the same benefits while operating more efficiently. They could cut
administrative costs, adjust cost-sharing plans, take in less profit or
drop out of the market altogether.
But, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the Department of Health and Human Services
and more, insurance providers’ response to the cuts has been less
dramatic than was expected when Obama signed the legislation in 2010. In
fact, Medicare Advantage enrollment is at an all-time high, and the
percentage of plans with four or more stars in the program’s five-star
rating system is increasing.
"When Congress debated the payment reductions in 2010, forecasters
and analysts also projected that reductions would drive insurers to
raise premiums, cut extra benefits and even pull out of the Medicare
Advantage market," Kaiser experts wrote in May. "Thus far, however, the
response by insurers to the (Affordable Care Act) cuts has been more
muted."
Health and Human Services reported in fall 2013
that "The average number of plan choices will remain about the same in
2014 and access to supplemental benefits remains stable. Since passage
of the Affordable Care Act, average MA premiums are down by 9.8
percent."
Experts also told us that they haven’t seen evidence of reduced Medicare Advantage cuts.
"The evidence is that plan participation has been stable, premiums
have been stable or even a little bit lower, and there are no overall
changes in the benefits provided," said Jack Hoadley, a research
professor at Georgetown University and a member of the nonpartisan Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.
"In my view, the claims in this advertisement are misleading,"
Hoadley added. "Seniors have not faced benefit cuts in Medicare
Advantage, even though the plans (and providers) have to manage with
somewhat lower payments."
So how did the American Action forum report come up with their estimated benefit cut figures?
The American Action Forum report breaks down the reduction in
Medicare payments to Advantage plan providers by state and county. It
says, compared to pre-Obamacare, Medicare Advantage benefits in
California are down $1,718 per beneficiary.
We asked several experts to take a look at the report, and they told
us that it is misleading because it assumes that Obamacare’s spending
reductions directly results in reduced benefits.
Yes, Obamacare reduces Medicare’s spending per Advantage beneficiary,
but this does not necessarily mean fewer benefits for seniors with
Advantage plans. Like we said before, there are multiple ways that an
insurance provider can deal with the spending cuts other than slimming
down its offerings.
"To immediately treat it as a cut to benefits is an exaggeration,"
said Judith Feder, a professor of health policy at Georgetown
University. Our ruling
American Crossroads said that as a result of Obamacare, "California seniors face benefit cuts of over $1,700."
First of all, this claim is misleading because it makes it seem like
all seniors will face these cuts, when the statistic actually refers to
Medicare Advantage enrollees -- only about one-third of seniors.
The statistic comes from a report that assumes all reductions in
Medicare Advantage spending results in fewer benefits for enrollees.
While insurance providers feel the cuts, there are multiple ways for
them to respond other than reducing benefits, such as trimming
administrative costs. We heard from multiple experts and researchers who
said Medicare Advantage benefits have remained stable.
The ad also leaves out the fact that the federal health care law
expanded Medicare’s minimum required benefits and established incentives
for Advantage plans to provide extra benefits.
It’s possible that some Medicare Advantage enrollees could see their
benefits shrink, but this ad blows that possibility out of proportion
and ignores important context. We rate this claim False.
By Steve Contorno on Thursday, November 6th, 2014 at 4:11 p.m.
A chain email
claims more than 200,000 doctors aren't accepting patients with coverage
bought on Affordable Care Act marketplaces.
Are doctors en masse refusing patients who gained health care coverage due to the Affordable Care Act?
That’s the claim in a chain email a reader asked us to check. "More,
truly scary Obamacare news," said the email, sent just before Halloween.
The accompanying story was from CNSnews.com, a site operated by the conservative Media Research Center.
"Over 214,000 Doctors Opt Out of Obamacare Exchanges," read a headline on CNSnews.com.
We found the source of the claim. It was coming from American Action
Forum, a self-described "center-right policy institute." The
organization put out an analysis on Oct. 27 titled: "Health Care
Providers are Opting-Out of Obamacare Exchange Plans."
How many? According to the post, "as many as 214,524 American
physicians will not be participating in any (Affordable Care Act)
exchange products." It went on to list some reasons "doctors are opting
out of the exchange plans."
That’s a lot of doctors. Have that many decided to turn away patients with insurance purchased on the marketplaces?
Let’s take a look. Can doctors opt out of Obamacare exchanges?
The Affordable Care Act requires essentially everyone to have
insurance. To make it easier for people to buy insurance, the government
created federal and state insurance marketplaces, sometimes called
exchanges. The biggest one is HealthCare.gov, but some states elected to operate their own as well.
These marketplace policies are private plans sold by insurance
companies. In some states, just one or two companies are providing
plans; in others, it’s many. Consumers typically have dozens of choices
ranging from bronze policies, which pay 60 percent of health costs on
average, to platinum, which pay 90 percent of costs. (For comparison, a typical employer-based plan covers about 80 percent of costs.)
Can doctors choose not to participate in the networks of policies
purchased on exchanges? Sure. While some states require doctors to
accept any plan for an insurance provider they do business with, in most
cases insurance companies are constantly negotiating with physiciansand hospitals to determine which policy networks they will participate in, experts and industry officials told us.
Some doctors might decide they don’t want to be in the network of
plans purchased on federal or state marketplaces. In other instances,
insurance providers might choose not to include certain doctors or
health groups in policies they created for the marketplaces.
It’s a two-way street, and marketplace policies are just the latest
twist to a contracting process that has always existed between doctors
and insurance companies. 200,000 doctors?
We asked American Action Forum to explain their analysis to us. The
organization based its findings on an April survey from the Medical
Group Management Association, a trade organization for physician groups.
"The survey found that 23.5 percent of doctors said they would not
participate in (Affordable Care Act) exchange plans," said Marisol
Garibay, spokeswoman for American Action Forum.
That percentage was multiplied by the total number of professional
active physicians, which Kaiser Family Foundation estimates is 893,851.
That equals 210,054 doctors, close to the American Action Forum number.
Garibay called it an "upper bound" estimate.
But when we looked at the survey ourselves, we found this to be a pretty dubious figure.
Here’s the rub, from the research: "The survey includes responses
from more than 700 medical groups in which more than 40,000 physicians
practice nationwide."
While there’s a lot of interesting information gleaned from this
survey, the results cannot be extrapolated to represent all the doctors
in the country. Why not? Because the Medical Group Management
Association only represents doctors who are part of medical groups. This
does not include physicians who run independent practices, for example,
and there’s no reason that a poll of 700 medical groups is
representative of all 900,000 physicians in the country.
"That’s a significant difference," said Anders Gilberg, a senior vice
president of government affairs for Medical Group Management
Association. "I wouldn’t generally suggest using it as a proxy for all
physicians."
Let’s put that aside for a second and dig further. The survey found
that as of April, 76.5 percent of respondents were accepting health
insurance sold on a state or federal marketplace.
Of those not participating in marketplace policies, 42 percent said
it was because insurance companies in their area didn’t ask them to
participate in the networks of plans sold on marketplaces.
Meaning, even if this limited survey could be extrapolated to
represent all doctors, not all of them are "opting out" of Obamacare.
Many — almost half — weren’t asked to participate in ACA marketplace
policies.
Why weren’t they asked? One reason is that the insurance companies
want to limit which doctors will serve their customers by creating
narrow networks.Narrow networks are a way for insurance providers to keep costs lower for insurers.
How? If you create a narrow network, it guarantees a doctor will get a
bigger share of your patients, and a doctor would be willing to accept
lower reimbursement rates in exchange for more business.
Narrow networks are also more common on the exchanges because
consumers can pick the plan with the doctors that fit their needs, said
Paul Ginsburg, a professor of the practice of health policy and
management at University of Southern California.
"Employer plans tend to have a broad network because they’re trying
to satisfy everyone (at the company)," Ginsburg said. "On an exchange,
you don’t have to satisfy everyone with one policy, you can offer many,
so you can have narrower plans."
There are plenty of broad plans on the exchanges, they just tend to
be more expensive. According to a May survey of individuals likely to
use the marketplace, 54 percent said they would accept more limited
networks to get a cheaper sticker price. As it is, 85 percent of plans
bought on federal and state marketplaces were the less expensive bronze
or silver plans, according to the Department of Health and Human
Services.
To be sure, it appears some doctors want nothing to do with these cheaper marketplace plans or the customers who buy them.
Among other things, doctors worry that many of the plans on the
marketplace, particularly bronze and silver plans, have high
deductibles. Some patients won’t be able to meet their obligations for
cost-sharing, potentially forcing physicians to eat those costs or shake
down customers.
These are legitimate concerns, and there is reason to believe that
some doctors are choosing not to contract with marketplace insurance
plans. But there is no evidence to suggest the number is anywhere near
214,000. Our ruling
A chain email claimed that more than 214,000 American doctors are
"opting-out of Obamacare exchange plans." That is based on a survey of a
select group of doctors and even the makers of the survey said it can’t
be extrapolated for the entire country. Further, of the doctors
responding to the survey, 42 percent said they weren’t participating in
marketplace plans because they were never asked to, not because they
were "opting out."
The estimate is the result of a flawed methodology and a misreading of survey data. We rate the claim False.
GREAT news for the people of Virginia and a strong message for the repiglican / tea-bagger funded super-pacs that have flooded the Virginia Senate race with their money....our US Senate seat is not for sale! From the Washington Post....
Timothy M. Kaine enters the final days of Virginia’s U.S. Senate contest with a clear advantage over George Allen, a new Washington Post poll shows, keeping an edge despite a tightening presidential race and an avalanche of outside spending against the Democrat.
Kaine (D) leads fellow former governor Allen (R) among likely
Virginia voters, 51 to 44 percent, nearly unchanged from the 51 to 43
margin the Democrat enjoyed in the Washington Post’s mid-September poll.
While that survey showed the Senate race mirroring the presidential —
Kaine and President Obama held identical 8-point leads — Kaine is now in
a stronger position than his party’s standard-bearer.
The race to
succeed retiring Sen. James Webb (D) has been a consistently tight
affair, closely watched by both sides as Republicans see capturing the
Virginia seat as crucial to their narrowing path toward control of the
Senate. The two men have raised nearly $30 million combined, and more than $40 million has been poured into the race by outside groups
— the most of any non-presidential race in the country, according to
the Center for Responsive Politics — with the majority coming from
Allen’s allies.
Kaine’s lead is fueled by a continued strong
showing among women voters and voters in the Northern Virginia suburbs
closest to the District, and comes despite growing advantages for Allen
among whites and seniors. Kaine enjoys a 12-point edge on the question
of which man would do a better job working with the other party on
Capitol Hill — a focal point of Kaine’s message.
Brenda
Dobbs, 52, a federal employee in Hampton, said she voted for Allen in
his 1993 gubernatorial race. But times have changed, and now she’s
backing Kaine.
“When he was running for governor, there was more
cohesiveness in Virginia so he could listen to both sides,” Dobbs said
of Allen. “I don’t think he will do that in Washington.”
Dobbs
said she really wants the two parties “to get along and get something
done,” and she’s hoping that Kaine’s “reputation for working together”
will help.
Kaine has repeatedly portrayed himself as a
bridge-builder who has worked with presidents of both parties. Allen and
his allies have sought to dent that reputation by playing up Kaine’s service as Democratic National Committee chairman, portraying him as a simple follower of Obama’s lead.
Yet
59 percent of likely voters say Obama was not a factor either way in
their choice for Senate, while 25 percent say they would use their
Senate vote to express support for the president and 13 percent say they
wanted to express opposition.
Allen is hoping to find more voters
like T.B. Wright, 55, who manages a fuel distribution company in
Concord, in central Virginia.
“I’m going to vote for Allen,” said
Wright.“I like his conservative ideas. I think Kaine would be nothing
but a puppet for Obama.”
Kaine has a seven-point lead on the
question of which man better understands the economic problems of
Virginians, and also has a 12-point advantage on which candidate is “the
more friendly and likable person.”
That’s a big reason why Joseph
Kern, who works for his family’s moving and storage business in
Hopewell, is planning to back Kaine this time despite having voted for
Allen in some past races.
“It’s a likability issue,” said Kern, 48.
Overall,
Kaine is viewed favorably by 57 percent of likely voters and
unfavorably by 33 percent. Allen’s rating is 50 percent favorable, 37
percent unfavorable.
The poll was conducted among a random sample
of 1,504 adults from Oct. 22 through Oct. 26 on conventional and
cellular phones. Among the sample of 1,228 likely voters, the poll
carries a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
In
the Post poll, Allen has the support of only 2 percent of Democrats,
while Kaine draws 9 percent of Republicans. The two men are essentially
tied among independents, and there may be little room for movement in
the last week of the race: 84 percent of Kaine voters say their choice
is definite, while 85 percent of Allen backers say the same.
The
gender gap in the race continues to widen, with Kaine leading among
women by 18 points and Allen holding a narrow four-point edge with men.
Allen has the backing of 56 percent of white likely voters, while Kaine
is supported by 77 percent of non-whites, including 86 percent of
African Americans.
The close-in D.C. suburbs remain strong for
Kaine, giving him a 28-point lead and offsetting an eight-point margin
for Allen in the Northern Virginia exurbs. Allen has a double-digit
advantage in the region that includes central and western Virginia, while Kaine has similar leads in the Richmond and Tidewater areas.
One
bright spot for Allen is seniors. Likely voters 65 and older now lean
to the Republican by 10 points, while the September Post poll showed the
two men essentially tied.
Sharon McCormick of Midlothian, 65,
said she plans to vote for Allen, as well as Mitt Romney, because she
feels both Republicans will be more fiscally responsible than their
Democratic rivals.
“We just keep spending money like there’s no
tomorrow, and, gee, wouldn’t it be great to help everybody out and just
keep handing money out?” McCormick said. “But when the money’s not
there, you just can’t do it.”
A number of voters who expressed strong opinions on the presidential race were fuzzy on the Senate contest.
Some struggled to name one or both candidates, despite an onslaught of
TV ads for both. A middle-aged man who said he planned to vote
Republican for Senate needed a moment to come up with the candidate’s
name.
“Hang on — Allen!” And his opponent? “Griffin?” he guessed.
A young woman who said she planned to vote Democratic in the race wasn’t sure of his name either.
“Is it, like, Tim Kaine?” she asked. She could not name the Republican.
Polling director Jon Cohen, polling analyst Scott Clement and
staff writers Errin Haines, Rachel S. Karas and Laura Vozzella
contributed to this report. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/poll-kaine-maintains-lead-over-allen-as-senate-race-nears-climax/2012/10/27/ff161ce4-2067-11e2-afca-58c2f5789c5d_print.html
HERE'S a great piece from Robert Reich kicking whining Progressives in the ass and making everyone who is thinking about not voting a dose of reality......
This is for those of you who consider yourself to be progressive but
have given up on politics because it seems rotten to the core. You may
prefer Obama to Romney but don't think there's a huge difference between
the two, so you may not even vote.
Your cynicism is understandable. But cynicism is a self-fulfilling
prophesy. If you succumb to it, the regressives who want to take this
nation back to the 19th century win it all.
The Koch brothers, Karl Rove, the rabid Republican right, CEOs and
Wall Street titans who want to entrench their privileges and tax
advantages -- all of them would like nothing better than for every
progressive in America to throw in the towel.
Then America is entirely theirs.
The alternative to cynicism is to become more involved in politics.
Help create a progressive force in this nation that grows into a
movement that can't be stopped.
We almost had it last year in the Occupy movement. We had the
arguments and the energy. What we lacked was organization and
discipline.
I've spent years in Washington and I know nothing good happens there
unless good people outside Washington are organized and mobilized to put
pressure on Washington to make it happen.
This isn't new. In the election of 1936, a constituent approached FDR
with a list of things she wanted him to do if reelected. "Ma'am," he
said, "I'd like to do all those things. But if I'm reelected, you must
make me."
We must make them.
I suggest a two-step plan.
Step one: Vote for Barack Obama for President and vote for every
Democratic senator and representative in Congress. Get off your ass and
make sure your friends and relatives do the same.
Step two: Starting Election Day, regardless of who's elected, commit
at least three hours every week to political organizing and mobilizing.
Connect with other progressives in your city and state. Help find and
recruit new progressive candidates to run against Republicans in swing
states, and against conservative Democrats. Support the members of the
progressive caucus in Congress. Raise money. Raise a ruckus.
Make it our goal to reverse Citizens United, even if it takes a
constitutional amendment. And have public financing of elections
(including requiring the media to provide free political advertising as
part of their commitment to public service).
Also break up the biggest banks and resurrect the Glass-Steagall Act.
Put a 2 percent surtax on wealth in excess of $3 million. And a
one-tenth of 1 percent transaction tax on every financial transaction.
And restore top tax rates to what they were before Ronald Reagan became
president.
Use half this revenue to pay down the national debt and half to make sure every American has a world-class education.
Put a tax on carbon, and use the revenues to reduce or replace payroll taxes.
Have a single-payer health-care system that delivers care at far less cost than our current balkanized and inefficient one.
And much else.
You say it can't happen -- the system is too rotten.
It won't happen if you wallow in the comfort of your cynicism. But it will happen if you and others like you get fired up.
We've done it before.
I remember when progressives joined with African-Americans to get
enacted the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts. I remember when
progressives stopped the Vietnam War. When women finally got freedom of
choice over their own bodies. When the Environmental Protection Act
became law.
Who would have imagined two decades ago that America would elect an
African-American as President of the United States? Who would have
supposed gays and lesbians would begin to achieve equal marriage rights?
Of course we can take America back.
Stop complaining and start organizing.
And by all means, vote. ROBERT B. REICH, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the
University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the
Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most
effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written
thirteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock" and "The Work of
Nations." His latest is an e-book, "Beyond Outrage," now available in
paperback. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect
magazine and chairman of Common Cause. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/if-you-succumb-to-cynicis_b_2017866.html?utm_source=Alert-blogger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2BNotifications
WHEN you have nothing good to offer the electorate then you lie, and that is what american crossroads gps is doing, with george allen's approval, about Tim Kaine. allen's only chance to win Virginia's US Senate seat is to lie and deceive through a massive propaganda campaign funded by extremist right wing groups like karl rove's crossroads gps. Virginia deserves better, and definitely deserves better than george allen. Check this out from Tim Kaine's campaign and click the like to go to his campaign website to find out his stand on the issue important to Virginia and the nation, and make a donation if you can.
Associated Press: "...disconnected, out-of-context patchwork of Kaine sound bites.”
Roanoke Times: "creatively edited clips"
Associated Press: “…it neglects the role a crippling recession born under Republican President George W. Bush played in creating them.”
Daily Press: "One of the biggest
false claims the latest American Crossroads ad contains is that Kaine
supported $500 million in spending cuts to Medicare... This claim has
been repeatedly debunked by PolitiFact as false as in these two 2011
fact checks..."
Richmond, VA-
This week, Karl Rove rode to George Allen’s rescue for the third time,
spending millions to date in outside money to flood Virginia airwaves
with yet another misleading ad full of “creatively edited” claims that have been described as “false” and “partisan.”
Adding insult to injury, Virginia news organizations note that the Rove
attack rings more true for George Allen than Tim Kaine. As the
Associated Press writes, "Allen, however, has also split time between
duties as a Virginia elected official and head of a national partisan
organization with the explicit goal of increasing the GOP Senate
majority at the time.”
Unfortunately, these misleading, hypocritical attacks are what
Virginians have come to expect from George Allen and Karl Rove, two key
members of the fiscal wrecking crew that helped George W. Bush turn
record budget surpluses into massive deficits, and take the economy to
the brink of disaster. Since their first attempt to bail out George
Allen's reelection effort, Crossroads' Virginia ads have been debunked
and criticized by newspapers, editorial boards, and independent fact-checkers across the state, and called "erroneous," and filled with "demonstrable falsehoods and distortions."
Below is a sample of what Virginia media is saying about Karl Rove’s latest dishonest attack ad:
“American Crossroads, an independent super PAC that can raise and spend
unlimited amounts of cash, is paying $1.6 million for the 30-second ad
that knits together disconnected, out-of-context patchwork of Kaine sound bites.” [Associated Press, 06/14/12]
“I did some fact checking on the American Crossroads ad, as well, and found there were some problems.” [Aaron Martin, WSLS Fact Check, 06/14/12]
“The spot mixes creatively edited clips…” [Roanoke Times, 06/13/12]
“The ad also claims that Kaine is selling policies that he knows hurts Virginians, which of course is a partisan claim that really can't be proven either way.” [Aaron Martin, WSLS Fact Check, 06/14/12]
“…it neglects the role a crippling recession born under Republican President George W. Bush played in creating them.” [Associated Press, 06/14/12]
“The ad claims that Kaine supported $500 billion in Medicare spending
cuts ... PolitiFact groups in Ohio and Oregon found similar claims
against politicians in their states to be false.” [Aaron Martin, WSLS Fact Check, 06/14/12]
“One of the biggest false claims the latest American Crossroads ad
contains is that Kaine supported $500 million in spending cuts to
Medicare...This claim has been repeatedly debunked by PolitiFact as false.” [Daily Press, 06/13/12]
“Kaine’s camp also noted that the ad’s claim about Medicare cuts has
been rated false by fact-checking organizations such as PolitiFact.”
[Roanoke Times, 06/13/12]
“Allen, however, has also split time between duties as a Virginia elected official and head of a national partisan organization. For two years, during his previous Senate term, Allen was chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, with the explicit goal of increasing the GOP Senate majority at the time.” [Associated Press, 06/14/12]
“Democrats scoff at the attacks on Kaine as a Beltway insider, given that Allen
previously served as National Republican Senatorial Committee chairman
and later ran an Alexandria-based public policy firm.” [Washington Post, 06/13/12]
“But he's not the first recent sitting Virginia governor to head a national party.
In 2000 President-elect George W. Bush asked Gov. Jim Gilmore to head
the Republican National Committee. Many media outlets at the time wrote
pieces that showed Rove himself was the acting force behind Gilmore's
appointment.” [Daily Press, 06/13/12]
“Kaine, by the way, was not the first Virginia governor to serve
simultaneously as a national political party chairman. Gov. Jim Gilmore
accepted the top post at the Republican National Committee in 2000
following the election of George W. Bush. Bush’s top political advisor
was none other than Rove, the co-founder of Crossroads GPS.” [Roanoke
Times, 06/13/12]
“In the first ad that ran last November, American Crossroads claimed
that under Kaine Virginia had ‘a big deficit.’ The Associated Press and
others called this claim "erroneous" because Virginia, like most other
states, are required by state law to have a balanced budget - i.e.
deficit spending is not allowed.” [Daily Press, 06/13/12]
“Kaine’s campaign called the latest Crossroads ad ‘misleading,’
pointing to inaccuracies in previous ads.” [Richmond Times-Dispatch, 06/13/12]
“Not so fast, says the Kaine campaign, which points out that American
Crossroads two previous ads against the former governor have been
‘debunked and criticized’ by newspapers, editorial boards, and fact
checkers.” [Daily Press, 06/13/12]
REVOLTING, but not shocking. They are directing super pac funds to george allen's Senate campaign. They are the only two names we know because george allen, after stating he has always been for transparency and that he knows campaign funding needs to be reformed REJECTED Tim Kaine's request that both campaigns be open and transparent about funding, including secret super pac funding. Watch this video and then do yourself a favor and check out Tim Kaine's campaign website at http://www.kaineforva.com/home
karl rove's and crossroads gps' attack ad on Tim Kaines campaign for Senate in Virginia doesn't stand up to FactCheck's scrutiny. Check this out, click the header to go to the article on the FactCheck.org wegsite....
Shortfall Becomes Deficit
Crossroads is spending $616,000 on an ad in Virgina attacking Democrat Tim Kaine, claiming that as the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, he was “Obama’s partisan cheerleader” and that he was a “reckless” spender when he served as Virginia’s governor. In the Senate race, Kaine faces Republican challenger George Allen, also a former Virginia governor and a former U.S. senator.
The ad claims: “As Virginia governor, Tim Kaine’s reckless spending turned a budget surplus into a big deficit. Reckless spending, massive debt.” Text in the background reads: “2006: $1.2 billion surplus, 2009: $3.7 billion deficit.”
For backup, Crossroads provided two stories from the Virginian-Pilot. The first story, published on Jan. 8, 2006, just before Kaine took office as governor, stated that the budget “debate centers on whether the $1.2 billion surplus should be used for one-time expenses such as construction rather than to create new programs with recurring costs.” The second story, from Feb. 17, 2009, a year before Kaine left office, states, “In December, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine projected that Virginia faced a $2.9 billion budget shortfall. He increased that estimate to $3.7 billion on Monday based on much-lower-than-expected tax payments.”
But those are misleading snapshots. And shortfalls aren’t deficits.
Virginia adopts a new budget every two years, and amendments are added to it in the odd year to square the numbers. There’s no question that Virginia experienced serious budget shortfalls during the recession due to much lower-than-anticipated revenues. But the shortfall was closed by the end of the biennium. The same Virginian-Pilot story in which Kaine talks about a $3.7 billion shortfall, notes that the stimulus provided $1 billion in budget relief, and that lawmakers were forced to cut $2.7 billion to balance the budget, as required by the state constitution.
Responding to the ad on Nov. 10, Kaine told WVEC ABC 13: “I left office with two balanced budgets that I submitted because you have to, by law, submit balanced budgets.”
TIM KAINE is a threat to the gop / tea-baggers in Virginia, and so the campaign of george allen is being financed by karl rove's "george allen's cavalry". Virginia and the nation deserve better than george allen. Virginia and the nation need people like Tim Kaine to be elected to the U.S. Senate. Please contribute to Tim Kaine's campaign if you can, and even if you can't check out his campaign website for more information on his candidacy....
The Roanoke Times got it right: “When outsiders wade into Virginia politics, they tend to get the facts wrong.” And that’s exactly what's happening with George Allen's Cavalry, led by Karl Rove, spending more than a half million dollars to air an attack ad against Governor Kaine here in Virginia.
We can’t sit back and let this inaccurate television commercial go unchallenged. By raising $100,000 -- just a fraction of what the other side is spending -- you can help send a message that when George Allen's friends air 30-second ads attacking Governor Kaine, it only emboldens our campaign to fight harder. Contribute now -- before the deadline tomorrow -- and prove to George’s Cavalry we won’t back down. Your gift will put us that much closer to the $29,912 we still need to raise.
George and Karl know each other well. They had breakfast to discuss their strategy for the 2004 Senate races so frequently that George once said he knows what Karl eats for breakfast. You can bet Karl Rove will be at the ready to protect his good friend every chance he gets.
You and I know this won’t be the first time we push back George’s Cavalry, and it won’t be the last attack ad run against Governor Kaine. Your help will ensure that we have the resources to set aside partisan politics as usual and focus on bridging divides and bringing people together.
Thank you for supporting Tim.
Jenny Nadicksbernd
Finance Director, Kaine for Virginia
CHRISTIAN rick perry doesn't see a conflict in lying about his position on Social Security...quite a testimony gov! Two pieces from ThinkProgress, one on karl rove's opinion on perry's postion on Social Security and the other covering perry's lies and political propaganda campaign on Social Security.
This morning on ABC, Karl Rove said Rick Perry’s extreme views on Social Security — detailed in his book “Fed Up!” — are “toxic” both in the Republican primary and the general election. Rove also dismissed Perry’s response thus far as “inadequate.”
In Perry’s book, released just nine months ago, he writes on page 48 that Social Security is “by far the best example” of a program “violently tossing aside any respect for our founding principles.” On page 50, he says that we have Social Security “at the expense of respect for the Constitution and limited government.”
Rove said Perry’s views amounted to calling for the end of Social Security and replacing it with a state-level program. At the end of August, Perry confirmed to ThinkProgress that he hasn’t “backed off anything in my book.” Karl Rove believes this will be a major problem:
STEPHANPOLOUS: And a lot of questions about how how Rick Perry will handle this test. So much talk about his books and what he’s written in his books, “Fed Up!” Questioning the 16th Amendment, which imposed the income tax. The 17th Amendment, direct election of Senators. And I think he’s gotten the most attention for what he said about Social Security, calling it a Ponzi scheme. Compares it to a “bad disease” that’s been “imposed on us for 70 years.” You know how much trouble that can be for a Republican candidate in a general election. So how does he handle it and must he disavow some of these statements in the book.
ROVE: What they’ve done thus far is, I think, inadequate. Which is to basically say, “look, we didn’t write the book with the presidential campaign in mind.” Well, okay, fine. But they are going to have to find a way to deal with these things. Because, as you say, they are toxic in a general election environment and they are also toxic in a Republican primary. If you say Social Security is a failure and ought to be replaced by a state-level program, then people are going to say: “What do you mean by that?” And make a judgment based on your answer to it. Each candidate has strengths. Each candidate also has challenges. This, for Governor Perry is his challenge. Now he’s got formidable strengths. But this is his biggest challenge.
ThinkProgress filed this report from the Republican presidential debate in Simi Valley, California.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) just doesn’t know what to do with his radical book arguing that Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional. The Perry campaign has alternatively embraced the book, distanced itself from it, run away from voters asking him about it, and misrepresented what it says.
ThinkProgress’ Scott Keyes caught up with Rick Perry’s campaign manager yesterday, and learned that Team Perry is back to simply not telling the truth about what their candidate believes:
KEYES: Does the governor still think that Social Security exists at the expense of the Constitution?
PERRY SPOX: In the book he never said — he didn’t say it was unconstitutional. Is that what you’re getting at?
KEYES: Well, just that he wrote that Social Security exists at the expense of the Constitution.
PERRY SPOX: He believes Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and that we’ve got to address it. We’re starting a national conversation.
For the record, here is the passage in Fed Up! where Rick Perry says that Social Security is unconstitutional:
There is no ambiguity in this passage. Nor is there ambiguity in a subsequent interview where Perry reiterated his belief that Social Security and Medicare violate the Constitution:
I don’t think our founding fathers when they were putting the term “general welfare” in [the Constitution] were thinking about a federally operated program of pensions nor a federally operated program of health care. What they clearly said was that those were issues that the states need to address. Not the federal government. I stand very clear on that.
IT is sad, disgraceful, hypocritical, hurtful and disturbing how so many evangelical Protestants and conservative Catholics, Christians all, have allowed themselves to be used by those whose only interest are to enrich themselves with more money, more power, more of everything they already have too much of. What I did notice missing in all the pronouncements of all these Christian groups is the basic foundation of Christianity, LOVE. The love of God for all humanity and His creations, the great pronouncement of the grace of God in the words "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son.....", the beauty of the words of Christ in his Beatitudes...and because they have turned their backs on this fundamental teaching of the Bible I believe they are in for a rude awakening when the fruits of their labors for the controllers of the tea party movement ripen, and they find themselves financially, economically, politically and spiritually left behind. Added this to my 'TEA-BAGGERS, RIGHT WING FANATICS...' page on this blog. This from Alternet...
The bible-thumping white underclass have given a big boost to the corporate bottom line.
Tens of millions of American voters got duped badly in the 2010 election. The bible-thumping white underclass thought they hit back at what they regarded as the nefarious forces trying to “take our country away.”
They were bought, paid for, sold, traded and manipulated by the most powerful in the US election: a Billionaire Lynch Mob led by Rupert Murdoch, Karl Rove, the Koch brothers, and hundreds of millions in organize corporate cash. They peddled a fear agenda: fear of immigrants, fear of government control of our lives, fear that their country would become irrevocably changed.
Here's how it happened:
Where the fear and loathing began
A bedrock article of faith among many of the anti-Obama white voters is that America had “Christian origins,” and that today America must be “restored” to “our religious heritage.” The “Puritan heritage” of America is constantly cited as evidence for our need to return to our “biblical roots.” The Constitution is also waved around as if it too is some sort of Bible to be religiously believed in. Of course the Billionaire Lynch Mob doesn’t care about such quaint ideas as individual liberties, let alone “biblical absolutes,” but many of the people who believed the anti-Obama lies did care.
The earnest, mostly Evangelical dupes have a point: by calling for a “return to our roots” (be they biblical and/or constitutional) they are actually maintaining a grand old American tradition: religious delusion as the basis for conquest. The Puritans believed that they were importing “authentic Christianity” to America, especially as written in the Old Testament. They said that they were on a divine mission, even calling themselves “The New Israel” and a “city set upon a hill.” John Winthrop (governor of Massachusetts Bay) transferred the idea of “nationhood” in biblical Israel to the Massachusetts Bay Company. And the Puritans claimed they were God’s “Chosen People.” They said that they had the right to grab land from the “heathen.” These were the American Indians whom the Puritans thought of as the “new Canaanites,” to be slaughtered with God’s blessing and in the case of the Pequot Indians burned alive.
There are many threads in the anti-Obama tapestry but three are ignored at our peril: 1) The End Times fantasies of the Evangelicals; 2) The rise of so-called Reconstructionist theology and 3) the culture war launched over the legalization of abortion.
These “threads,” not the economy alone, are also the source of the vote where white lower class and white middle class Americans voted in droves against their own self-interest. Let’s unpick these fraying threads one at a time.
1. “End Times” Fantasies
The evangelical/fundamentalists/Republican far right is in the grip of an apocalyptic “Rapture” cult centered on revenge and vindication. This “End Times” death wish is built on a literalist interpretation of the Book of Revelation. This fantasy has many followers. For instance to take one of many examples, Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye’s “Left Behind” series of sixteen novels represents both a “reason” and a symptom of the hysteria that grips so many voters.
The “Left Behind” novels have sold tens of millions of copies while spawning an “End Times” cult, or rather egging it on. Such products as Left Behind video games have become part of the ubiquitous American background noise. Less innocuous symptoms of End Times paranoia include people stocking up on assault rifles and ammunition, freeze dried food (pitched to them, by the way, by Billionaire Lynch Mob-handmaid Glenn Beck), gold (also sold to them by Glenn Beck), adopting "Christ-centered" home school curricula, fear of higher education (“we’ll lose our children to secularism”), embracing rumor as fact (“Obama isn’t an American”) and fighting against Middle East peace iniatives, lest they delay the “return of Jesus,” for instance through Houston mega church pastor John Hagee’s Christian Zionist-centered “ministry.”
John Hagee, mega church pastor and founder of Christians United for Israel said: “For 25 almost 26 years now, I have been pounding the Evangelical community over television. The Bible is a very pro-Israel book. If a Christian admits ‘I believe the Bible,’ I can make him a pro-Israel supporter or they will have to denounce their faith. So I have Christians over a barrel you might say.” The assumption Hagee makes -- that “Bible-believing Christians” will be pro-Israel -- is the dominant view among American Evangelical Christians. These are the people who goad us to make perpetual war worldwide. And these are the people who supposedly follow a teacher who said, “Blessed are the peacemakers.”
Few within the Evangelical community have dared to publically question such Haggee’s approach. The Christian Zionists led by Hagee et al even went after their very own George W Bush for backing peace talks between Palestinians and the Israeli government. So can you imagine the hatred the Christian Zionists have for President Obama, who also wants peace in the Middle East?
The momentum for building a subculture that’s seceding from mainstream society (in order to await "The End Times" has irrevocably pried loose a chunk of the American population from both sanity and from their fellow citizens. The Christian Zionist franchise holds out hope for the self-disenfranchised that -- at last -- everyone will know "We born-again Christians" were right and "They" were wrong. But here’s the political significance of the Christian Zionist dominance: the evangelical/fundamentalists’ imagined victimhood.
I say imagined victimhood, because the born-agains are hardly outsiders let alone victims. They’re very own George W Bush was in the White House for eight long, ruinous years and Evangelicals also dominated American politics for the better part of thirty years before that by enforcing a series of “moral” litmus tests that transformed the Republican Party into their very own culture wars lickspittle.
Nevertheless, the white evangelical/conservative Roman Catholic sense of being a victimized minority only grew with their successes. “You are not alone!” said Glenn Beck, playing to these “disenfranchised” “victims,” who – as the midterm results once again proved -- turn out to look more like a majority of white voters who had the power to turn Sarah Palin into a multimillionaire overnight and send the likes of Rand Paul to the Senate.
2. The Rise of Reconstructionist Theology
Where did the “victims” on the Far Right get their “theology” of perpetual damn-the-facts victimhood from? The history of theology (Christian or otherwise) is the history of people desperately trying to fit the way things actually are into the way their “holy” books say they should be. And since the facts don’t fit and never will, religious believers can either change their minds, embrace paradox, or find someone else to blame for their never-ending loss of face and self-esteem.
Most Americans have never heard of the Reconstructionists. But they have felt their impact through the Reconstructionists’ (often indirect) influence over the wider Evangelical community. In turn, the Evangelicals shaped the politics of a secular culture that barely understood the Religious Right let alone the forces within that movement that gave it its rage.
If you feel victimized by modernity (let alone humiliated by reality) then the Reconstructionists have The Answer to your angst: apply the full scope of the Biblical Law to modern America and to the larger world! Coerce “non-believers” to live in your imaginary universe! In other words Reconstructionists wanted to replace the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights with their interpretation of the Bible.
Most Evangelicals are positively moderate by comparison to the Reconstructionist “thinkers.” Most libertarians, who formed the backbone of the Tea Party (at least until the Far Right Evangelicals began to take the Tea Party over) would hate them. But the Reconstructionist movement is a distilled version of the more mainstream evangelical version of exclusionary theology that nonetheless divides America into the “Real America” (as the Far Right claim only they are) and the rest of us “sinners.”
The Reconstructionist worldview is ultra Calvinist, but like all Calvinism has its origins in ancient Israel/Palestine, when vengeful and ignorant tribal lore was written down by frightened men (the nastier authors of the Bible) trying to defend their prerogatives to bully women, murder rival tribes and steal land. These justifications probably reflect later thinking: origin myths used as propaganda to justify political and military actions after the fact—i.e., to justify their brutality the Hebrews said that God made them inflict on others and/or that they were “chosen.”
In its modern American incarnation, which hardened into a twentieth century movement in the 1960s and became widespread in the 1970s, Reconstructionism was propagated by people I knew personally and worked with closely when I too was a Religious Right activist claiming God’s special favor. The leaders of the Reconstructionist movement included the late Rousas Rushdoony (Calvinist theologian, father of modern-era Christian Reconstructionism, patron saint to gold-hoarding Federal Reserve-haters, and creator of the modern Evangelical home-school movement), his son-in-law Gary North (an economist, gold-buff, publisher and leading conspiracy theorist), and David Chilton (ultra-Calvinist pastor and author.)
Reconstructionism, also called Theonomism, seeks to reconstruct “our fallen society.” Its worldview is best represented by the publications of the Chalcedon Foundation, which has been classified as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. According to the Chalcedon Foundation website, the mission of the movement is to apply “the whole Word of God” to all aspects of human life: “It is not only our duty as individuals, families and churches to be Christian, but it is also the duty of the state, the school, the arts and sciences, law, economics, and every other sphere to be under Christ the King. Nothing is exempt from His dominion. We must live by His Word, not our own.
It’s no coincidence that the rise of the Islamic Brotherhoods in Egypt and Syria and the rise of Reconstructionism took place in more or less the same twentieth-century time frame—as modernism, science and “permissiveness” collided with a frightened conservatism rooted in religion. The writings of people such as Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna and those of Rushdoony are virtually interchangeable when it comes to their goals of “restoring God” to his “rightful place” as he presides over law and morals. Or as the late Reconstructionist/Calvinist theologian David Chilton, writing in PARADISE RESTORED--A Biblical Theology of Dominion (and sounding startlingly al-Banna-like) explained:
Our goal is a Christian world, made up of explicitly Christian nations. How could a Christian desire anything else? Our Lord Himself taught us to pray: “Thy Kingdom come; Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6: 10)… The Lord’s Prayer is a prayer for the worldwide dominion of God’s Kingdom… a world of decentralized theocratic republics.... That is the only choice: pagan law or Christian law. God specifically forbids “pluralism.” God is not the least bit interested in sharing world dominion with Satan.
The message of Rushdoony’s work is best summed up in one of his innumerable Chalcedon Foundation position papers, “The Increase of His Government and Peace.” He writes: “[T]he ultimate and absolute government of all things shall belong to Christ.” In his book Thy Kingdom Come -- using words that are similar to those the leaders of al Qaida would use decades later in reference to “true Islam” -- Rushdoony argues that democracy and Christianity are incompatible: “Democracy is the great love of the failures and cowards of life,” he writes. “One [biblical] faith, one law and one standard of justice did not mean democracy. The heresy of democracy has since then worked havoc in church and state… Christianity and democracy are inevitably enemies.”
3. The Culture Wars Launched over the Abortion Debate
The significance and rise of the Reconstructionists and their (often indirect) impact on the wider evangelical subculture can only be understood in the context of the January 22, 1973 Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade.
Roe energized the culture war like nothing else before or since. This war has even fed the passion that burned within the so-called Tea Party movement’s reaction to Obama’s moderate legislative health care reform predicting “Death Panels.” Roe also indirectly energized even those members of the Far Right – for instance the Tea Party’s pro-choice libertarians -- who didn’t care about abortion per se. Roe had such far-reaching effects because reactions to Roe defined the scorched-earth, winner-take-all and rabidly anti-government tone of the culture war fights since 1973.
Fast forward thirty years to the first decade of the twenty-first century: The messengers and day-to-day “issues” changed but the volume of the anti-government “debate” and anger originated with the anti-abortion movement. “Death Panels!”, “Government Takeover!”, “Obama is Hitler!” and all such “comments” were simply updated versions of “pro-life” rhetoric. And ironically, at the very same time as the Evangelicals who began the anti-abortion crusade (along with conservative Roman Catholics) had thrust themselves into bare knuckle politics over Roe, they also (I should say we also) retreated to what amounted to virtual walled compounds.
Evangelicals created a parallel “Christian America,” our very own private world, as it were, posted with “No Trespassing” signs. Our new “world” was about creating a Puritan/Reconstructionist-style holy-nation-within-our-fallen-nation.
This went far beyond mere alternative schools and home schools. Thousands of new Christian bookstores opened, countless Evangelical radio programs flourished in the 1970s and 80s, and new TV stations went on the air. Even a “Christian Yellow Pages” (a guide to Evangelical tradesmen) was published advertising “Christ-centered plumbers,” accountants and the like who “honor Jesus.” New Evangelical universities and even new law schools appeared, seemingly overnight with a clearly defined mission to “take back” each and every profession – including law and politics – “for Christ.” For instance, Liberty University’s Law School was the creation of the late Jerry Falwell, who told me in 1983 of his vision for Liberty’s programs: “Frank, we’re going train a new generation of judges and world leaders in the law from a Christian worldview to change America.” This was the same Jerry Falwell who wrote in America Can Be Saved: “I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won’t have any public schools.”
To the old-fashioned Goldwater-type conservative mantra of “big government doesn’t work,” in the 1970s the newly-radicalized Evangelicals added “the US Government is Evil!” Our swap of spiritual faith for the illusion of political power – I say “illusion” since even in the 70s and 80s the real power was in the hands of the Billionaire Lynch Mob -- meant that we would tell people how to vote, but that we didn’t want our kids going to school with theirs. We’d wind up defending not just private schools and home schooling to “protect” our children from the world, but also private oil companies and private gas-guzzling polluting cars, private insurance conglomerates and so forth.
The price for the Religious Right’s wholesale idolatry of private everything was that Christ’s reputation was tied to a cynical political party owned by billionaires from the fast-food industry, raping the earth (not to mention our health), to the oil companies destroying our climate. It only remained for a Far Right Republican-appointed majority on the Supreme Court to rule in 2010 (Citizens United V. The Federal Election Commission), that unlimited corporate money could pour into political campaigns – anonymously -- in a way that clearly favored corporate America and the super wealthy who long since were the only entities served by the Republican Party’s defense of the individual against the government. The “individuals” turned out to be Exxon, the Koch brothers, Rupert Murdoch, McDonald’s and Goldman Sachs et al.
Conclusion
It’s a question of legitimacy and illegitimacy. What the Religious Right, including the Religious Right’s Roman Catholic and Protestant “intellectuals” (like my father) did, was contribute to a climate where the very legitimacy of our government, even any government, is up for grabs. Then the internet came along and Fox News came along and Rush Limbaugh, Michele Bachmann et all came along and no fiction was too fantastical to be believed as fact. We passed into a high tech stone age, myth superstition and outright lies gained a new currency.
Following the election of our first black President, the “politics” of the Evangelical, Roman Catholic and Mormon Far Right was not the politics of a loyal opposition, but the instigation of race-tinged revolution first and best expressed by Rush Limbaugh when he said, “I hope Obama fails.” All that happened in the midterm election of 2010 was that the corporate interests (unleashed by the Supreme Court), the Republican Party leadership and the Tea Party
This was the politics that won in the Republican gains in the 2010 midterm elections. This was the logical conclusion of the process of delegitimizing the Federal Government that was launched by the Reconstructionists, the anti-abortion movement and of course is fed by the “Left Behind”/Christian Zionist apocalyptic revenge fantasy.
The Billionaire Lynch Mob’s only sacrament is fear. Their reward for cashing in on white religiously-believing middle class American’s addiction to Bronze Age biblical mythology is to walk away with our country. And fear-filled white Americans don’t get anything in return, unless you count their fleeting visceral pleasure of putting “that uppity black man” in the White House in his place.
Dark money, shadowy groups, and secret millionaires.
One result of the 2010 campaign is clear before any ballots are counted: Democracy is in danger.
That sounds hyperbolic. But whatever remains of the quaint notion—call it a myth—that in a democracy citizens are more or less equal is in the process of being shredded, due to the rise this year of super PACs and secretive political nonprofits. Thanks to the Supreme Court's notorious Citizens United decision and other rulings, a small number of well-heeled individuals (or corporations or unions) can now amass a tremendous amount of political influence by throwing an unlimited amount of money into efforts to elect their preferred candidates. And certain political nonprofits, such as Crossroads GPS—the outfit set up this year by GOP strategists Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie (which with an affiliated group is spending about $50 million)—can pour tens of millions of dollars into the elections without revealing the source of their campaign cash.
The secret and unlimited flow of dollars into congressional campaigns this year is largely unprecedented—at least since campaign finance reform was implemented following Watergate in the 1970s. Almost half a trillion dollars have been spent so far by outside groups—with about one-quarter of that coming from dark-money groups that don't disclose donors. And it's not just a Republican phenomenon. Unions and Democratic-leaning advocacy outfits are playing the game. Still, the advantage goes to the GOP. Of the outside groups not connected to either political party, those supporting Republicans and opposing Democrats have so far spent $119.2 million, and those supporting Democrats and opposing Republicans have dumped $73.8 million into races. This split is dramatic, but there's another factor to consider: Much of the pro-Democratic money comes from large membership groups (including the SEIU and the National Education Association), yet much of the pro-Republican money originates from a small number of millionaires (or billionaires). Consequently, fat cats have gained even more disproportionate influence.
The White House has complained about the rise of super PACs and the spread of secret money, though it miscalculated by focusing on the possible flow of foreign money into these endeavors—blasting the Chamber of Commerce's pro-Republican efforts—when the issue is the overall boost in special interest money. And here's the kicker: The 2010 campaign is merely a warmup for 2012 and campaigns after that.
It doesn't take a New York Timesarticle—such as the one headlined "Conservative Donor Groups Lay a Base for 2012 Elections"—to predict what's coming. The permanent, neverending campaign will become even more permanent and neverending. These big-and-secret-money groups will be working 24/7, opposing and discrediting President Barack Obama and the Democrats in the so-called off-year and then revving up for the 2012 presidential and congressional elections. The negative ads never have to stop. ("President Obama and Representative [fill in the name of a local House Democrat] are trying to ruin this nation's future with their reckless and risky schemes to [expand government spending/raise taxes/provide amnesty to illegal immigrants/impose socialized medicine on American families].") Surely, Rove and others can find enough right-wing millionaires to underwrite a constant blitzkrieg against Obama and the Democrats.
The argument for this is an obvious one: It will soften up the Dems for the final kill in 2012. Rep. Tom Perriello, the incumbent House Democrat freshman in Virginia's 5th Congressional District, has faced such a daunting reelection this year partly because outside conservative and corporate groups started running ads against him soon after he took office in January 2009. Perriello stood out as a target, given that he won by a measly 727 votes in a GOP-friendly district. But if enough money is bagged, Rove and his comrades will be able to target not just out-on-a-limb Democrats but a host of House and Senate Democrats year-round. Local television station owners, your payday has come. Secret money will flow before, during, and after elections.
Campaign finance reform advocates are in total despair. For decades, they have tried to lessen the impact of special interest money on the political system. (The House Democrats passed Obama-backed legislation earlier this year to force disclosure of contributors, but the bill stalled in the GOP-obstructed Senate.) Now the dam seems gone, blown up, in rubble. Moreover, the Federal Election Commission, which is responsible for enforcing the campaign finance rules that still exist, is in shambles. And the Internal Revenue Service has not yet demonstrated an ability or willingness to go after the political nonprofits under its jurisdiction, which may be violating IRS rules that supposedly limit their campaign-related activities. (And how bad would it be for any of these groups to be slapped with an IRS fine after succeeding in changing the political landscape?)
All this places Obama in a jam. Does he continue to decry the rise of super PACs and secret-donor nonprofits? Or does he encourage Democrats to fight big-secret money with big-secret money of their own? In the past, the Democrats have had success marshaling such resources. (See George Soros.) But can Obama do both—assail the new campaign finance order and explain that Democrats have no choice but to play by these anti-democratic rules? Mixed messages tend not to resonate well with voters. If Obama signals Democrats that he'd like them to unleash their own big-money hounds, he will likely find it tough to score political points by opposing the GOP's big-money efforts. Then again, can racking up debate points help Obama and his Democrats stand up to a tsunami of campaign cash? It's a dilemma.
The election news tomorrow night and in the days ahead will naturally focus on who won and who lost and the subsequent shift in the balance of power in Washington. But this campaign season has brought about a profound and fundamental shift in systemic, money-based political power. And it's far from done.
David Corn is Mother Jones' Washington bureau chief. For more of his stories, click here. He's also on Twitter and Facebook. Get David Corn's RSS feed.
ThinkProgress filed this report from the Republican presidential debate in Simi Valley, California.
