Bachmann Strikes Again!

Representative Michele Bachmann is back with some more delving insight, commenting on how she found it an "interesting coincidence" that the last outbreak of swine flu happened under another Democratic president, Jimmy Carter. The Republican representative from Minnesota is perhaps the darling of blogs, and the source of many late-night TV jokes, from calling Barack Obama and other Congressmen anti-American to naming the expanded AmeriCorps as "youth re-education camps".

As Jon Stewart notes below (around 2 minutes in), the last outbreak of swine flu actually occurred during Gerald Ford's term as President.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Snoutbreak '09 - What to Call Swine Flu
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis First 100 Days

More on Specter

The NYTimes has a good little discussion on its website about what type of Democrat Arlen Specter will turn out to be. A couple quotes that indicate to me that this move by Specter is a potential gamechanger, and really exemplifies the current declining state of the GOP.

"The sclerotic far-right has a death-grip on the Republican Party. Meanwhile, a third party has emerged within the Democratic party. Moderate “Rockefeller Republicans” in the North, like Senator Specter and, arguably, Joseph Lieberman, Democrats like Bobby Bright in the South and Jon Tester and Max Baucus in the Rocky Mountains have brought independents into the Democratic Big Tent...Senator Specter’s switch is based on shrewd politics, on unique voting factors in Pennsylvania. But his move is good for America." (Rachel Kleinfeld)

"Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele today mocked what he called Mr. Specter’s “left-wing record.” But the claim that Senator Specter is “liberal,” “left-wing” or even “moderate” reflects how far to the right both the G.O.P. and our overall political spectrum has shifted." (Glenn Greenwald)

"Senator Specter’s statement noted that he has been a Republican since 1966. If he were just starting out his political career today, does anyone doubt that he would be a Democrat? In 1966, Republicans were the more socially liberal of the two parties and the G.O.P. had plenty of room for politicians who were skeptical of tax cuts and friendly to new government programs." (Ramesh Ponnuru)

Specter's Big Move

Needless to say, Senator Arlen Specter's announcement that he will be switching to the Democratic party for the 2010 Pennsylvania primary elections and beyond is HUGE news. Coupled with Al Franken's likely victory in Minnesota, the Democrats would have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Of course, Specter makes clear in a statement today (below) that he will be no more of a "party-line" voter for the Democrats than the Republicans.

What's even more important about Specter's decision than the shift of power in the Senate is that this is perhaps the highest figure within the Republican party to offer public and even harsh criticism of the GOP. While Specter has always been "mavericky" and moderate, it is hard to write off comments like "the Republican Party has moved far to the right" by a 29-year Republican lawmaker. I guess we'll see the real impact of this decision in the days to come.

------
Specter's statement:

"I have been a Republican since 1966. I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am. I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.

Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.

When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.

Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.

I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary.

I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.

I deeply regret that I will be disappointing many friends and supporters. I can understand their disappointment. I am also disappointed that so many in the Party I have worked for for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate. It is very painful on both sides. I thank especially Senators McConnell and Cornyn for their forbearance.

I am not making this decision because there are no important and interesting opportunities outside the Senate. I take on this complicated run for re-election because I am deeply concerned about the future of our country and I believe I have a significant contribution to make on many of the key issues of the day, especially medical research. NIH funding has saved or lengthened thousands of lives, including mine, and much more needs to be done. And my seniority is very important to continue to bring important projects vital to Pennsylvania’s economy.

I am taking this action now because there are fewer than thirteen months to the 2010 Pennsylvania Primary and there is much to be done in preparation for that election. Upon request, I will return campaign contributions contributed during this cycle.

While each member of the Senate caucuses with his Party, what each of us hopes to accomplish is distinct from his party affiliation. The American people do not care which Party solves the problems confronting our nation. And no Senator, no matter how loyal he is to his Party, should or would put party loyalty above his duty to the state and nation.

My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.

Whatever my party affiliation, I will continue to be guided by President Kennedy’s statement that sometimes Party asks too much. When it does, I will continue my independent voting and follow my conscience on what I think is best for Pennsylvania and America."

Celebrate Earth Day, GOP-style!

So as further proof that the Republican party is in very real danger of becoming an irrelevant, outdated political entity, we need to only look at recent comments by important GOPers on the environment. Recently, Republican House Leader John Boehner claimed that the idea that carbon dioxide is bad for the environment as "almost comical" (video is below). He supported this claim by explaining that not only do humans exhale CO2, but cows fart it out.

While Boehner's fact-deprived argument seems ridiculous enough, check out what two of the leading ideologues of the conservative movement did to celebrate Earth Day yesterday. Rush Limbaugh decided to celebrate the coal industry and the inventor of the dense plastic bag. Glen Beck, our favorite prophet of apocalypse, decided to honor the Earth by attempting to cut down a forest. You can't make these stories up people! Of course, there are perfectly rational reasons to disagree about environmental policy (that will arise in the upcoming debate over the climate change bill), and there are numerous Republicans (Senator Voinovich among others) who are providing alternative perspectives with the ultimate goal of improving the environment and correcting the damage of global warming. But too many of the leading conservative figures are, like Boehner, simply abdicating any responsibility to urgently work on environmental policy; others, led by the Rushter and Beck, are in fact resolutely anti-environmental. While this type of political stance may have had considerable support in the past, I think the Republicans have to realize that Americans, while perhaps in disagreement over exact policies, are increasingly sympathetic to finding solutions to the environmental crisis. Cutting down forests won't help with that.

My Letter to the Republican Study Committee

It's been a long time since I've posted here at FreeThoughtAlert, there's been no real reason except for my inability recently to convert thoughts into written rants. I'm going to try to keep this blog fairly updated for now, as there's a lot of stuff (always) to think about.

Today I wrote a letter to Representative John Carter, a Republican from Texas, who was recently quoted by Politico in their story detailing how many Republicans are calling for Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to step down because of the recent report on right-wing extremism. Check it out...comments are welcome, and appreciated!

- - - - -

To the Honorable John Carter:

I am writing regarding your recent comments about Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. According to Politico.com, you stated that "Singling out political opponents for working against the ruling party is precisely the tactic of every tyrannical government from Red China to Venezuela...The first step in the process is creating unfounded public suspicion of political opponents, followed by arresting and jailing any who continue speaking against the regime.” This statement was intended to support your and the Republican Study Committee's claim that Secretary Napolitano should be ousted because of the recent report released by the Department of Homeland Security about the possiblity of rising right-wing extremism.

While you and other leaders in the GOP have concluded that the release of this report is a political maneuver by the Obama administration to criticize and silence members of the conservative movement, the report was initated by the Bush administration (see CNN's story, http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/15/extremism.report/). Furthermore, the DHS under Obama released a report detailing left-wing extremist threats in January, also initiated by the Bush administration. I wonder how Republican Congressmen can make the claim that Napolitano should step down for an objective report that was commissioned by the previous Republican administration! Moreover, I am curious as to why Republicans are finding this report to be an attack on the mainstream conservative movement, when the report in question focuses on white-supremacist groups and the like. Surely the Republican party is not considering these fringe groups to be part of the conservative movement?

Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to hearing your opinions on this matter.

Regards,
Neil K. Sawhney

Real Americans

The Crypt at Politico (a great source for behind the scenes news on Capitol Hill) reported on a McCain rally yesterday in North Carolina where some interesting stuff was said about "real Americans". Republican Representative Robin Hayes had the job of warming up the crowd, and told what seems to be a fiercely partisan audience that he "make sure we don’t say something stupid, make sure we don’t say something we don’t mean". He followed that point with this:

“Liberals hate real Americans that work and accomplish and achieve...and believe in God."

Hayes and others after the fact claimed that he never said that, but the Crypt has posted an audio file from the rally confirming his comments (also, did he say that when Sarah Palin was in Alaska, "she got her did"? What does that even mean?) Rep. Hayes' comment, while unfortunate on its own, is simply reprehensible when you see it as part of a more general assault by the McCain camp against "liberals", i.e. people who don't agree with them and their policies. Just look at recent events: Palin's decision to split the country into pro-American and anti-American sections, the omnipresent label of 'socialist' being pushed onto the Obama campaign (while McCain endorses the government using taxpayer money to renegotiate mortgates for homeowners), and even recent reports that the McCain campaign is going to bring up Reverend Wright again. The McCain campaign is resorting to increasingly divisive tactics while they seek to portray Obama as running the "dirtiest campaign in history" (thanks for stepping into the fray Cindy).

At this point, it seems difficult for McCain to win the race, barring some extremely unexpected, crazy event. By focusing on negative, divide-and-conquer tactics, McCain is doing terrible damage to his long-term legacy of an honorable and bipartisan politican. More importantly, he is stoking the fire of extremists to a passion not really seen since the Cold War and the civil rights movement, ensuring that there will be harsh, even dangerous, divisions throughout the country after this election. In his all-out grab to win the election, McCain is very likely sharpening the partisan polarization of the United States at a time when the country needs unity---doesn't sound like "Country First" to me.

And check out this clip (with terrible sound) of always on-point Jon Stewart at Northeastern responding to Sarah Palin's "pro-America" speech:

Sarah Palin reads Everything!

Quick entry here, I just had to post something after seeing this video from Anderson Cooper 360 with two political commentators discussing Palin's interview with Katie Couric. A new fact we learn about Sarah Palin is that she apparently reads ALL newspapers and magazines! Here's the video, followed by the key excerpt from the interview:

Couric: And when it comes to establishing your worldview, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this to stay informed and to understand the world?

Palin: I've read most of them, again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media.

Couric: What, specifically?

Palin: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me all these years.

The interview transcript doesn't do justice to the hilariousness of this answer, you have to check out the video (and note Anderson Cooper's utter amazement at Palin's ineptitude). Not to keep hammering away at a rusty nail, but how can anyone support a vice presidential candidate who can't name even one magazine or newspaper she reads. I wouldn't be surprised if she hadn't read a book in the last year!

No matter how comfortable she makes some Americans feel, I just can't believe that voters will elect someone to the second-highest post in the federal government who essentially had no interest in the world outside Alaska until August 2008. Considering that she among all recent vice presidents has the highest chance of assuming the presidency because of McCain's age, I think it's time for Americans to wake up to the fact that Palin is simply out of her league.