Election 2012: Sen. Scott Brown: 20% Moderate, 80% Kochhead

by Sunnyjane

After scrutinizing the disgusting performances of several outrageously inept and deliberately obstructive Tea Partiers currently taking up valuable space in the House of Representatives, it is time to perform a full-body cavity search on one member of the Senate who needs to be sent home with the ignominy he so richly deserves: Scott Brown of Massachusetts.  

In a special election held in January 2010, Brown won the senate seat left vacant by the death of Ted Kennedy in August 2009.  The back-story of how a Republican won the seat held for forty-seven years by Kennedy in a traditionally Blue State was a bellwether for the time.  It was 2010, a time of Tea Party rage; Koch Brothers money; and Sarah Palin's desperate attempt to redeem herself after her first major endorsement of New York GOPer Doug Hoffman failed so miserably. All of this meddling was given succor by an apathetic or disappointed voting population (they had expected the President to change the world in eleven months) that couldn't decide whether to vote or skip the whole thing and go to the dentist on election day. They must have chosen the thrill-of-the-drill: only fifty-four percent showed up at Massachusetts polling stations on January 19, compared with seventy-three percent who exercised their right to vote in 2008.

Political ‘Chameleonology’ 101

Like his close lizard relative of the tropics, Brown has the ability to change his colors according to the situation and as the mood strikes him.  Aided by the Chamaeleonidae's super-fast tongue, he's able to talk his way into more prism shades than can be found in a toddler's Easter basket. He can be a moderate pink Republican in the Massachusetts senate, a Nancy-Reagan-red Tea Party darling during an election, and even take on a pinkish-pale-blue hue when trying to cozy up to the Democrats on Capitol Hill, or the current-and-future resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Amazing, isn't it?

Cosmopolitan for College, Kochs for Capitol Hill

Money was very important to Scott Brown when he showed his ass abs in Cosmo to get money for college in 1982. (I guess he was too busy studying to tour with the Chippendales and obviously didn't have a sweet stock portfolio like Ann and Mitt when they were in college learning hard lessons about life as impoverished students.)

As part of Palin's penalty for not securing adequate Tea Party support for Greg Hoffman in a Congressional district that had been Republican for 136 years, she was sent out on the stump to make damn sure that the tri-cornered-hatters were gonna line up behind a real conservative to get Scott Brown in the United States Senate, you betcha!   The Tea Party held its nose (knowing that Brown was not their idea of a true conservative) and eventually ponied up $300,000. The upshot of that whole thing, of course, was that after winning the election, Brown dumped the Tea Party and refused to acknowledge that he had ever spoken to Palin, even after she called on election night to congratulate him. I've never had any contact with Sarah Palin, he told Barbara Walters. Palin didn't take being kicked to the curb very well, and by August of 2010 she was sneering at Brown on Fox News for not being a hardcore constitutional conservative.   (Hey, Sarah, you knew that at the time, right? Oh, you didn't? Couldn't Google Scott Brown Massachusetts, huh?)

As for the Tea Party owners, Scott Brown met David Koch at an event in March 2011 and begged for more money for this election cycle. Caught on video, the conversation went thus:
BROWN: Your support during the [2010] election, it meant a ton. It made a difference and I can certainly use it again. Obviously, the –
KOCH: When are you running for the next term?
BROWN: ’12.
KOCH: Oh, okay.
BROWN: I’m in the cycle right now. We’re already banging away.

Any lingering doubts about where Scott Brown's allegiance lies?  


For the Record

A quick look at the Senator's voting history reveals exactly what "color" he has been and the kind of anti-middle-income legislating we can expect from him should he be re-elected in November.

Taxpayer Protection Pledge:  The only lawmaker from Massachusetts to do so, Brown sold himself to political-extortionist Grover Norquist and signed the anti-American piece of crap designed to protect the One Percent from paying their fair share to support the needs of ALL Americans. 

Tax on Banks: He was against a proposed multi-billion dollar tax on banks to recoup bailout money and prescribing of bank executive compensation, saying that he was opposed to higher taxes, especially in the midst of a severe recession. 

Financial Institutions Protections:  During the Wall Street regulatory overhaul negotiations in the summer of 2010, financial institutions poured $140,000 of cold hard cash into Brown's coffers as he used the leverage of his swing vote to win key concessions sought by firms inside and outside of Massachusetts. 

Affordable Care Act:  While he staunchly supported the Massachusetts health care act, he refused to  support the national ACA, saying that this plan is financially unsound and vowing to be the 41st vote to filibuster the bill in the Senate.

Clean Air Act:  All we need to know about this particular issue is that the Kochs spent $500 million supporting candidates who would keep us from having clean air, and one of the grateful recipients of their largess was Scott Brown, who supported the effort to put profits for Big Oil before the health and welfare of American citizens.   Who needs clean air, anyhow?

The Massachusetts Connection

It should come as no shock that Scott Brown is tight as an August tick on a dog's neck with former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, under whom he served as a state legislator.   Although Brown has a way to go before he becomes as adept at changing his colors, he's working on it.  Who can forget one of Romney's most infamous quick-change-artist lines when he's looking for Tea Party support: I'm just as conservative as I was four years ago. Maybe more so. And yet, as Which Mitt reports, Romney stated (with a straight face, I might add) in 2002 when he needed Independent support, that: I think people recognize that I'm not a partisan Republican, that I'm someone who is moderate, and that my views are progressive.

Riiiight.


End Note

Election 2012: Focusing on a Few Feckless Fools – Congressmen John Fleming, Trent Franks, and Patrick McHenry

by Sunnyjane

Feckless is a wonderful adjective that is rarely used these days, but one that accurately describes the woeful state of the 112^th  Congress:  useless, incompetent, hopeless, spineless, weak, worthless, ineffective…  

There have always been a few political oddballs who somehow make it to Capitol Hill with their peculiarly opinionated agendas, but usually they are sized up very quickly and neutralized by their own party leaders.  However, paralyzed by their inability to think and act for themselves, the current congress is rife with cranks who have taken over the House, and leaders who are now in charge of their union, Congressional Crazies  Local 112.  It is a strange and dangerous coalition that worships at the throne of Koch Industries in order to Take Back America  – to somewhere around the Seventeenth Century.


John Boehner confirmed this, telling the Wall Street Journal recently, We got some of the smartest people in the country who serve here, and some of the dumbest. We got some of the best people you'd ever meet, and some of the raunchiest. We've got 'em all.

It’s way past time to change that.

Model Members of the Congressional Crude Crew

John Fleming of Louisiana is a Jack-of-all-trades extraordinaire: Congressman, physician, and owner of Subway shops and UPS stores.  But the man has serious money problems.  No, no, he isn’t losing money on his businesses, he’s not in debt, and he’s not fighting with the IRS.  His financial predicament is right up there with the kind many Americans would like to have these days: he’s got lots of money.   A card-carrying member of Grover Norquist's anti-tax mob, Fleming is seriously against any dadgum socialist tax hikes that would take away a smidgen of it.

At millionaire status (we’re talking $6.3 million here, folks), Fleming whines fretfully that after he gets $600,000 from his businesses, he only has $200,000 left on which to “feed my family.”  (Note: his four children are all grown, so feed my family obviously refers to “me and the little wife.”)  I'm no financial wizard, but it appears there’s some serious fiscal figure-finoodling going on here that’s never really been explained by the good doctor/congressman/sandwich maker/mail shipper. 

In typical far-right religionist-speak, Fleming warned a group of Republican women that the 2010 elections would be a choice between godlessness and Christianity: We have two competing world views here and there is no way that we can reach across the aisle -- one is going to have to win.  We are either going to go down the socialist road and become like western Europe and create, I guess really, a godless society, an atheist society. Or we're going to continue down the other pathway where we believe in freedom of speech, individual liberties and that we remain a Christian nation. 

There is so much wrong with this kind of uninformed anti-American rhetoric from an elected representative that it almost takes your breath away.  

From the If They Weren't So Pathetic, They Would Be Funny department: In February of this year, radically pro-life Fleming (or one of his ignorant staff members) actually believed a May 2011 story from The Onion that announced that Planned Parenthood had opened an $8 billion "abortionplex" in a Topeka, Kansas mall that offers quick, easy, in-and-out abortions to all women, and represents a bold reinvention of the group's long-standing mission and values.   (So enraged by this...this obscenity  were the congressman's staff that they put it on his Facebook page for all his constituents to see.   DUH.)

Since 2003, Trent Franks of Arizona has been a major contributor to the toxic atmosphere in the House of Representatives.  A little background: Before being elected to add his far-right muck in the U.S. Congress, Franks was appointed in 1987 by then-Gov. Evan Mecham to head the Arizona Governor's Office for Children. We can assume that this meant white children only, because Mecham once indignantly defended his right to refer to African American children as pickaninnies. (Mecham was later removed from office following conviction in his impeachment trial of charges of obstruction of justice and the misuse of government funds.)

A strong advocate of a man's right to tell a woman what to do with her own body, Franks is, of course, an adamant and unapologetic pro-lifer.  In 2010, he said in an interview that, Half of all black children are aborted. Far more of the African American community is being devastated by the policies of today than were being devastated by the policies of slavery.   If this statement sounds just a tad familiar, it's because Franks was the co-chairman of Michele Bachmann's 2012 presidential campaign, which explains her astonishingly dim-witted sense of history and her offensive verbal dysentery.  Further, while defending a bill introduced in the House in late 2011 to ban abortions based on the sex or race of the fetus, Franks admitted that the real intent was a ploy to criminalize abortion overall.

In essence, Trent Franks is a pro-guns, anti-abortion, anti-affordable healthcare, anti-Muslim, anti-tax hikes on the wealthy,  anti-same-sex marriage, pro-James Dobson's Focus on the Family, pro-impeach the President for his stand on DOMA, obstructionist who needs to be as far away from Capitol Hill as possible!

Proving himself to be no Southern Gentleman, Patrick McHenry of North Carolina is a little man with a big ego who possesses a trait that we true Southerners refer to negatively as having a real mouth on him. This ugly characteristic took center stage the day he called Elizabeth a liar, not a wise idea in light of Ms. Warren's reputation as one of the most intelligent, experienced, and honorable people in the public arena today.

Briefly, in May 2011, McHenry invited Warren to attend a sub-committee hearing he was chairing because, according to reports, he felt she had given misleading testimony during another hearing. Earlier that day, McHenry had appeared on CNBC and accused Warren of lying to Congress about her involvement in government inquiries into mortgage servicing. The meeting had several late and last minute changes, so Warren altered her schedule to accommodate the chair's request. Around 2:15 pm, McHenry called for a temporary recess to partake in a floor vote. In response, Warren indicated that McHenry's staff had agreed to the 2:15 pm closing time to allow her ample time to attend another meeting.  McHenry replied, "You had no agreement. ... You're making this up, Ms. Warren. This is not the case." As Warren and some in the audience reacted with surprise, Rep. Elijah Cummings  interjected, "Mr. Chairman ... I'm trying to be cordial here, but you just accused the lady of lying. I think you need to clear this up with your staff."  Even after proving that Warren was correct, McHenry refused to apologize, and was roundly denounced by the media, including his home district's newspaper, the Hickory Record, (not, I understand, a newspaper that could ever be called liberal) and the more widely read Charlotte Observer, to apologize for his brutish behavior.


A darling of the Tea Party and Hero of the Tax Payer, McHenry is a soul-selling anti-American Grover Norquist puppet and a money-grabbing Kochhead.  He's accepted money from Countrywide Financial and was embroiled in voter-fraud scheme committed by a former aide. On top of all these less-than-savory activities, McHenry proposed a bill in 2010 to put Ronald Reagan on the $50 bill.   


Your tax dollars at work, fellow Americans!


END NOTE

+++

Bonus - by Patrick:

How about adding an amazing new video to Sunnyjane's excellent post?

Well, it's a bit off topic, but as many, if not most of us are "celebrating Game Change" these days, here'as wonderful video which went viral today: Compare Julianne Moore to the real Sarah Palin - and be amazed!

Watch:

American Dreams: My Father, Karl Marx and the Man who Sold the Rope 1/2

by Nomad

Let’s Begin With My Father

My father, born in 1929, grew up in the midst of the Great Depression, in what most people would consider extreme poverty. His father died one week after his birth leaving his widowed mother to raise her five children alone. Had it not been for a productive farmland, it is doubtful they would have survived. “We didn’t have two nickles to rub together,” he’d often tell me,”but we never even realized we were poor. Everybody we knew was in the same situation as we were.”  In 1951. he left the farm to join in the Korean War to fight the spread of the Communist threat. The Red Menace- China- was on the verge of expanding across the border into Korea. Following that, he received credit from a GI loan which allowed him to buy a very humble mobile home to start his married life.

In the economic boom of the 1950s, my father found employment as a precision sheet metal worker at a aircraft manufacturing plant. Along with thousands of other unskilled workers returning from Korea, the company trained my father with the idea of steady long term employment. In turn, my father worked at the company for thirty years. He did not particularly desire to rise up in the hierarchy of the company. He told me that he’d prefer not to have the stress that went with the responsibility. He preferred to spend more time at home at the end of his shift. There was also the goal that he knew that his children would, by his hard, boring and unsatisfying labor, have a better life than he did. It was an attainable goal. Through the use of collective bargaining of his union or the rare labor action, my father’s wage steadily increased.

The company respected the union and the union bargained in good faith. In a delicate balance, the workers, too, knew that union would represent them fair and square and, if a strike could not be avoided, the union would do its best to make sure no family went hungry.

I remember one protracted strike back in the late 60s when I was quite young. The unions delivered specially prepared food packages for worker families. I’ll not forget that. Wheat bulgur (or was it corn grits?) to the families. It was strange to see my mother hesitatingly take charity. Yet, she took it, knowing that my father was walking the picket line with the other workers night after night when the company refused to negotiate. How could this be considered a handout?

In the thirty years he worked at the plant, my father was able to pull himself and his family out of the depths of the poverty he had known in his youth and install himself firmly into middle class. A large home- not grandiose, mind you, but comfortable and safe and affordable. The little boxes of suburbia, it’s true. A car that suited a family  of five (a station wagon) but not at all showy. (“If you keep it maintained, it will last you for years.”) A quiet neighborhood in the suburbs and a high quality school for his children to attend. This was the American Dream and the dream was real. 

As his child, I noted other traits of my parents that helped them support their “American Dream.” The sparing use of credit, for example; scrupulous saving through US Bonds and other long term investments. (My mother, fumbling through the precious bank notes she stored in a safe under the bed, would explain it thus, “It’s like investing in country.” I thought that was silly because, after all, didn’t the government make the money?) For my father, it was all about “living within your means.”  Credit, he warned as I would roll my eyes, was a dangerous thing.

As a teenager, when I found and quit my first job, my father was quite upset with me. “You can’t go from job to job like that. It’ll look bad on your record,” he told me. (I had been a waiter in a Chinese restaurant.) The age was changing and in my time, it was already becoming harder and harder to find a decent job in the way my father had. Employment would come and go and no matter how hard you might be willing to work and under what conditions, there was absolutely no guarantee that you would have a job the following week. The message was constantly drummed into my head. You are expendable. Don’t complain. Consider yourself lucky to be working.

It was the dawn of the replaceable worker and the end of Big Labor- the beginning of the end of the American Dream.

I was not much of a scholar. I couldn’t have spelled proletariat or bourgeois, much less understood what the terms meant and the only Marx I knew of was Groucho. Like most Americans all those political terms sounded like pretentious European concepts that didn’t really apply here at home. I was never given the opportunity to play the student revolutionary on campus. After some less than successful attempts at higher education, I went to work in a mid-sized plastics factory. The pay was better than the minimum wage and the work, while mind-numbingly boring, was, for the most part, not very arduous.

By the 70s, the situation was noticeably different than from my father’s time. Generally speaking, union reps were never to be seen. The local shop steward was the mother-in-law to the company supervisor and nobody seemed to see this as a conflict of interest. On the one occasion, I, along with a group of other workers, met our union rep, he came to the meeting- held in a Denny’s- late, driving a very nice car, smelling of expensive cologne and dressed in a pricey three piece suit. His message to us was “Don’t complain about unsafe conditions. It’s not the right time. It could cost you your job.” That was it. The meeting was over in less than twenty minutes.

By that time and starting from the 1950s, organized labor in the US had become heavily infiltrated by organized crime. The Mafia had, for example, used unions to create extortion rackets so that, by their command, workers would slow or halt construction if contractors or developers didn't make the right payoffs. Also large unions had immense union pension funds to play with and would inevitably finance other criminal operations. At one point, the Mafia could have brought nearly all construction and shipping in the United States to a halt. Such alliances tarnished the reputations of all union and organized labor associations in America.

Therefore, when the Right to Work laws came along around 1978, which made union membership a matter of free choice and not mandatory, most of the workers questioned the necessity of joining the union, at all. What was the point?  What good was a union?

Reasons for the Crash

It is no accident that the fall of the Soviet Union has been attributed to many factors but, in the US, one important factor is usually forgotten. According to the neo-conservative version, promoted by such Koch-supported think-tanks as The Heritage Foundation, President Reagan demanded that Gorbachev “tear down” the Berlin Wall and the whole Communist bloc unraveled like a cheap sweater. It is a pleasant sounding fairy tale, I suppose, a tale for children or childish minds.

In fact, one of the factors that invariably goes unmentioned in post-Reagan America is the Polish Solidarity Movement. And there’s a very logical reason.

According to one historian,

August, 1980, sixteen thousand workers at the Lenin shipyard in Gdansk, (formerly the German city of Danzig) led by an electrician named Lech Walesa, struck and occupied the plant. They were soon joined by other workers “in solidarity” as well as intellectuals, and had the support of the Catholic Church. The Solidarity Movement was thus born. The workers demanded free trade unions, freedom of speech, release of political prisoners and economic reforms. Poland’s Communist leader, Wajciech Januzelski responded by proclaiming martial law, arresting the leaders of Solidarity, and thereby “saving the nation.”  He was unable to stop the movement, however, because the government was unwilling (and perhaps unable) to impose a full scale reign of terror. Solidarity continued to grow as an underground movement, and the Polish people began acting as if they lived in a free state, even though they did not. 

In 1989 with the country on the brink of economic collapse, Solidarity convinced Poland’s communist leaders into legalizing the movement and to allow free elections to Poland’s Parliament. The Communists expected to win most contested seats, and still controlled a majority in the Parliament, but were roundly defeated in the election. Most of the contested seats were won by Solidarity leaders. Many angry voters crossed off the names of unopposed Communist candidates and wrote in the names of Solidarity candidates. The result was the Communist Party did not achieve the majority it had anticipated. By forming a coalition with two minority anti-communist parties, Solidarity took control of the Government and the editor of Solidarity’s weekly newspaper was sworn in as Poland’s leader. The new government slowly eliminated the Secret Police, Communist government ministers, and other officials; but did so at a deliberate pace so as not to invite military intervention from the Soviet Union. A free market system was introduced, and Poland became the first Soviet Bloc country to experience revolution.

And it didn’t stop there.

 Solidarity had caused a domino effect on the rest of the Eastern Bloc. Inspired by Poland’s reforms East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Romania quickly followed their neighbour’s lead. East Germans took to the street in 1989 and called for reforms such as visits to West Germany and West Berlin. Eric Honecker the East German leader had to eventually bend to the pressure of the people which led to the collapse of the Berlin Wall.

There’s a good reason why the role that unions played in the fall of the Soviet empire has not been given its rightful place. There has been a purposeful attempt to minimize the role the unions played in the fall of the Soviet Union.

One year later, on August 3, 1981, President Ronald Reagan announced that he would fire the striking air traffic controllers who were seeking better working conditions, better pay and a 32-hour workweek. He told reporters:

Let me make one thing plain. I respect the right of workers in the private sector to strike.... But we cannot compare labor-management relations in the private sector with government. Government cannot close down the assembly line. It has to provide without interruption the protective services which are government's reason for being. It was in recognition of this that the Congress passed a law forbidding strikes by government employees against the public safety. Let me read the solemn oath taken by each of these employees, a sworn affidavit, when they accepted their jobs: ``I am not participating in any strike against the Government of the United States or any agency thereof, and I will not so participate while an employee of the Government of the United States or any agency thereof.''

Ironically Reagan’s position on government unionized workers’ right to labor action would, no doubt, have been unanimously approved of in Communist Moscow. After all, the same argument might well have been made against the Polish workers, where ALL workers were government workers.

At the time, many Americans sympathized more with the government’s position than with the union. Still the move was breath-taking. On one hand, the president spoke of the danger of a strike of government workers to such an important sector and yet, the move to fire and re-train new workers as fast as possible could only be equally as dangerous. 

When Air Florida Flight 90 crashed upon takeoff into the Potomac on one snowy January afternoon in 1982 in Washington D.C., followed by the crash a few months later of PanAm flight 759 from Miami to Las Vegas, many worried that about the safety of the air industry. During the investigation, Reagan played up the “heroes” of the rescue, perhaps as a means to divert attention. In fact, no evidence was ever found to connect the training air traffic controllers to any of the crashes. There was only a suspicion which quickly faded.

Reagan’s bold move should not be underestimated. According to Damon Silvers, Associate General Counsel for the AFL-CIO

In the first days of his administration, President Ronald Reagan responded to a strike by air traffic controllers by ordering the firing of the striking controllers and their replacement by “replacement workers.”By this act, Reagan sent a signal to private sector employers, a signal comparable in power to that sent forty years earlier by the War Labor Board. The message was—the federal government fires strikers and hires replacement workers; you can too.

By doing so, the right of employers to hire permanent replacement workers, a right that had been recognized in theory by the NLRB in the 1950’s, but never acted on, became a living part of American labor law. Employers used permanent replacements to break strikes across the industrial landscape in campaigns like International Paper, Hormel, Caterpillar, Continental and Eastern Airlines. Of course,  Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) was followed by the effective cessation of labor law enforcement by the Reagan National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a pattern, which after a hiatus under the Clinton Administration, has been resumed with renewed vigor in the George W. Bush Administration. In the decade that followed PATCO, even where union density remained, bargaining power was fundamentally weakened. And not just for union members. Though there has been a dramatic revolution in workplace productivity driven by the information technology revolution, America’s workers have, with the exception of a brief period in the late 1990’s, been unable to bring those gains home with them in their paychecks. And the root of this disconnection between worker productivity and worker income lies in the change in the spirit of American labor law that took hold in 1980.

Thus, while unions were leading the march toward a liberal democracy in Poland and the other Communism countries, Reagan and the neo-conservatives were dismantling the effectiveness of unions in the United States. 

The consequences of this policy were as predictable as they were grim.

In part two, I will examine the effects of Reaganomics on the country, explain why capitalism- American style had- until recently- managed to prove Karl Marx incorrect.