Asshat of the Day: Eric Cantor

Via Digby--House Minority Whip Eric Cantor has spoken out on the rash of threats and violence against Democratic members of Congress over our Maoist/Fascist healthcare reform but, not to worry, it wasn't helpful. His disgusting statements simply boil down to blaming the victim for the crime.

"That is why I have deep concerns that some, Chris Van Hollen and Tim Kaine in particular, are dangerously fanning the flames by suggesting that these incidents be used as a political weapon."

Nice, he even gives particular names, just in case the Tea Partiers are confused about who they're supposed to attack next. Apparently, reporting violence foments violence. How well did this work for the Catholic Church? Covering up child abuse clearly caused a decline in the abuse. The only kids who actually got molested were those who had previously reported molestation? What kind of sense does this make?

What happens if Cantor uses this argument about rape victims? There's no shortage of blame for rape placed on the victim, but he won't stay in office too long if he says, "Don't report the crime because you'll get raped again." Or on domestic violence, "Now, ladies, I know that abuse is wrong and terrible, but don't go to the police; you'll just make your husbands angrier. Do you really want that?" Absurd as all of this is on the face, he really is giving us the "I'll give you something to cry about" line. I guess that, because the threats, the violence, the blatant racism is happening to elected Democrats, it somehow makes it all excusable.

Cantor and the rest can try to deflect this stuff away from their party and onto crazy extremists, but who initiated the cries of Socialism? Whose media outlets discuss constantly the rising need for revolution? If Democrats became part of the axis of evil for questioning the veracity of WMDs in Iraq, I can hardly imagine the outrage and investigations if a Democrat faxed Michael Steele a picture of a noose, but I guess you deserve it if you have a D by your name and hold some crazy idea of justice. Up yours, Cantor, if the violence that appears to be coming happens, some of this blood will splash onto your hands, though you'll never accept that responsibility...asshat.

More Thoughts on Health Care Reform

-It's more than a little understatement to say that it's great to see legislation that is actually designed to help people. In many ways, the fact that, even after all the amendments and tinkering, this was a progressive bill, just reinforces one of the broader divisions in politics, between those who are always seeking to improve the United States and are labeled progressive, in no small part because they are in favor of "progress"; and those who see the United States as already perfect and who believe tinkering or trying to improve will only lead to a fall from American perfection (which much better describes their view of the United States than "American exceptionalism" does). It's a sad-but-true fact that conservatives wish to preserve a status quo that leaves a lot of room for improvement.

-In all of this, the importance and greatness of Nancy Pelosi should not be overlooked or ever forgotten.

-To echo what Erik said, there has been no small amount of absurd hyperbole, and it hasn't even been limited to politicians. Acquaintances on facebook have made comments such as "we might as well take the Constitution out back and burn it right now," somebody being grateful John Boehner was their representative, and somebody even saying "Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do," which was also apparently uttered by some guy named Jesus on a cross. Because, after all, the Jesus being crucified and wingnuts angry that a bill designed to help rein in insurance costs and aid families are totally the same thing.

In dealing with all this, I think Barney Frank hit it dead on, pointing out that the battle over health care became "the proxy for a lot of other sentiments. A lot of which are perfectly reasonable but some of which are kind of ugly. ... People out here today on the whole were, many of them, were hateful and abusive."

I couldn't agree more, and Republican efforts to disavow the hate-speech this past Sunday are as hollow as their objections to reform. When their supporters get ugly, Republicans are quick to try to disavow those supporters, but they've been encouraging this kind of language and these attitudes since the 2008 electoral campaign (remember all those crowds at McCain rallies calling Obama a Muslim and other names?). Republican representatives can't just hide from this language when it makes them look bad - it's as much a part of their movement as Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, appeals to the Reagan years, and hawkish rhetoric. It's all part of the package, whether they like it or not.

-On that note, for those both inside and outside of Congress who claim to oppose the bill on Christian principles, I might recommend they go back and read that part about some guy named Christ. I believe he who recommended helping those in need, rather than continuing to deny them care and side with wealthy interests. If you aren't in favor of helping people, you can't really make any pretense to standing for a religion whose main figure preached helping people.

Your Republican Party, Ladies and Gentlemen

Today, the House Foreign Relations Committee passed (by a vote of 23-22) a non-binding resolution classifying as "genocide" the Turkish massacre of over one million Armenians during World War I. While I agree that we need to call a spade a spade in this circumstance, I'm also sympathetic to Obama's protestations on the timing of the resolution, as the administration has made progress in reconciling relations between Turkey and Armenia (one of those little diplomatic successes of the administration that get drowned out by health care and other domestic issues). Basically, I agree with committee chairman Howard Berman that this probably won't affect U.S.-Turkey relations, but at the same time, I think Clinton and Obama are more than reasonable in their concern for their efforts on Turkey-Armenia relations.

However, Republicans were opposed to the measure (shocking, I know), and in their opposition, they once again revealed their true colors:

Republican Congressman Dan Burton opposed the resolution, pointing out that a U.S. Air Force base in Turkey is vital to American military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Knowing that we may have to take some kind of military action down the road against maybe even Iran, we need to have as many friends in that part of the world as possible," said Dan Burton. [my emphasis]

Aside from the risible fact that Republicans are suddenly worried about having "friends" in that part of the world, there's the standout issue of who we might go to war with. That's right - Republicans still have war on Iran on their agenda. It couldn't be any clearer here. The inclusion of "maybe even Iran" is about as subtle as saying "that's a nice car you got there-it'd be a shame if something were to happen to it..."

Of course, this is the party that continues to obstruct just about every bit of legislation, every diplomat, every appointee, that the Obama administration is putting forth. Helping 1.1 million Americans get their unemployment benefits extended for 30 days? Can't happen. Helping millions of Americans gain access to health care? Socialism! Spending money on another war that would send the United States even further into debt and result in the deaths of thousands upon thousands?

That's just the Republican way!

There Are No "Cracks" in Global Opposition to the Honduran Coup; There Are Only Anti-Democracy Republicans in Congress

The New York Times has a story up about the lack of progress in the Honduran talks between Micheletti and Zelaya, which Arias is mediating. It's clear that neither side wants to give an inch, and while things may improve, time is probably on Micheletti's side. The report also suggests that there are "cracks emerging in the group of countries demanding the return of the ousted president." It's evidence of these "cracks?" Congressional Republicans are in favor of the coup, and Hugo Chavez thinks Arias is erring in treating Micheletti as an equal to Zelaya.


So basically, it takes a random quotation from Chavez on diplomacy (an area that isn't exactly Chavez's strength), and Republican support for the coup, to suggest there are "cracks" in the coalition of countries against the coup?


Hardly.


The Times is clearly trying (and failing) to make something out of nothing here. I really don't know why they reported this - the story about the progress (and lack thereof) and obstacles facing Arias's talks was fine, and stood on its own. It didn't need these ridiculous insinuations that Republicans using the Honduran incident for partisan purposes plus a quotation from Chavez (who has nothing to do with the negotiations, and whose quotation is fairly mild by his own standards) to imply that support globally is falling appart. And it's not like this "breaking news" that Republicans are coming out in favor of the coup is sudden. Even before last week's congressional caucus supporting the coup formed, Republicans had been commenting since the coup in June that they supported the coup and were anti-Zelaya due to his leftist allegiances and so-called "authoritarian" tendencies (which is a rather off from the reality of things).


As is often the case, though, the Times authors (liberal media indeed) do not seem to care about such minor points. Instead, the report takes a congressional caucus designed to play the worst kind of partisan politics and to turn back to an obviously-outdated Cold War mentality in order to gain points, and conflates it to a sign of "cracks" emerging in the global opposition to the coup, when nothing of the sort has happened.


And then the Times wonders why subscriptions are down.