SCOTUS: Gilbert, Sullivan, Sotomayor And Sunlight For The Masses

This line from Gilbert & Sullivan’s H.M.S. Pinafore sums up the Beltway whole mess, doesn’t it?

I grew so rich that I was sent, by a pocket borough into Parliament. I always voted at my Party’s call, and I never thought of thinking for myself at all.

I had forgotten how much I love a Gilbert and Sullivan farce until I was reminded of them over the weekend by, of all people, Mickey Edwards, in an otherwise bland column but for the G&S reference and this:

Political theorist Bernard Crick wrote that "politics is how a free people govern themselves." Strong political parties, on the other hand, are how a free people lose that ability. Parties choose which candidates can be on the November ballot, and do so in primaries and conventions that cater to the extremes. Parties reward fealty and discourage independence. In an earlier time, before the Internet, when it was hard to get information about candidates and they had to depend on party support for campaign funds and volunteers, political parties made sense; today, they are passe, black-and-white television, remnants of a time that has passed.

There is a reason elected officials fear sunlight. Especially party leadership.

Heaven forbid the American public actually starts paying attention to all the scurrying going on in the dark nooks and crannies and underneath all those shady rocks.  Things like this:

This report from NPR’s Nina Totenberg contains a fairly remarkable piece of news: So determined to block Sonia Sotomayor, the first Latina ever nominated to the Supreme Court, McConnell took the unprecedented step of getting the NRA to do his dirty work.

One top aide to GOP leader McConnell confirmed that McConnell, at a meeting of conservative groups, asked the NRA about scoring the Sotomayor vote as a key vote hostile to gun rights. The aide conceded that in asking the question, McConnell was promoting an unusual step that the NRA then took.

You have to wonder how it is going to play in the Hispanic community around the country that the Republicans were so diametrically opposed to the nomination of Sotomayor, the Supreme Court nominee with the longest resume in nearly a century, that they called upon the NRA to twist Senators’ arms — even though they knew they didn’t have the votes to stop her nomination.

I smell 2010 electoral kabuki posturing, and not just because weird billboards have been cropping up along highways here in WV offering free bumper stickers that talk lovingly of guns, bibles and lower taxes, but gripe about "illegals."

Fool and his money and all that fundraising rot aside given that its some wingnutty business doing the advertising, it’s awfully early for this sort of posturing, isn’t it?  Especially when it’s bass ackwards and stupid as all get out given the demographics involved.

Digby is sensing something similar:

It occurs to me that they are seeing something much more devastating in their numbers than just losing the Hispanic vote of the future. It seems they must be afraid of losing the white working class. Assuming they are behaving rationally (which is assuming a lot) the only logical reason they could have for ginning up all this racial animosity is if they feel the need to secure their base with the old tried and true racial resentment.

Except…then there’s this. Nothing like the smell of stoking loony anti-Christ fear, is there? (I so wish I were kidding.) 

Who wants a dog whistle?

The Sotomayor debate and floor vote could happen as early as Tuesday.  But the level of crazy? It’s already over the top, down the hill and into a fricking ditch, isn’t it?


 
43 Responses to "SCOTUS: Gilbert, Sullivan, Sotomayor And Sunlight For The Masses"
Christy Hardin Smith | Monday August 3, 2009 05:51 am 1

Morning all. Hope everyone had a good weekend…


RevBev | Monday August 3, 2009 05:51 am 2

Good Morning…..No wonder we’re worried/sad about our country. Aren’t there some signs that the crazies may over play their hands? Even the Matthews’ panel yesterday was hooting over the birther talk after showing some nuts-so clips. Maybe the nuttiness is all being revealed.


JimWhite | Monday August 3, 2009 06:09 am 3

Good morning, Christy. I’m just now getting around to reading Krugman’s “Conscience of a Liberal” that I got at last year’s Netroots Nation. It’s really striking seeing how clearly movement conservatism is based, at its roots, on racism and virtually everything else they do is dog whistling to incite racism. The McConnell/NRA story fits that explanation perfectly.


TarheelDem | Monday August 3, 2009 06:24 am 4

It seems they must be afraid of losing the white working class.

They lost the lower end of it already in this area, except for the 24% who are still crazies. Even here.

The grassroots of the Republican party remains the party of small-town businessmen (and a few women) and urban staffs and lower- and middle-management. Specifically those who are happy to intimidate their employees or who think their employees are stupid. With a few, getting fewer, educated libertarian types and Ayn Rand true believers thrown in as the “local intellectuals”. Loan company managers, landlords, convenience store owners, …small town doctors, high-paid medical specialists…all kowtowing to the interests of the million-dollar-a-year crowd in hopes of getting rich.

After thirty years, more of the working class has awaken to the fact that Ronald Reagan and the “Gods, guns, gays, and immigrants” conservatives have bamboozled them and made them poorer, not richer.

Symbol of the change: in NC, the Smithfield Co plant (hams, etc) has been unionized. Hispanic workers and working-class white Southerners united to do it.

No doubt those signs are appearing in WV because WV still has a strong union presence, which got co-opted by the “God, guns, gays, and immigrants” crowd.


ghostof911 | Monday August 3, 2009 06:25 am 5

A former member of the Republican leadership in Congress, Mickey Edwards is a vice president of the Aspen Institute and is working on a book about how political parties are undermining democracy.

No surprise for Edwards’ sudden concern. It’s only because his party has become the permananent minority.


SadButTrue | Monday August 3, 2009 06:27 am 6

If you were making up a list of things that govern American politics but are not mentioned at all in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution, you’d come up with terms like campaign financing, lobbying, earmarks, media blitz,… but right at the top of the list would be the concept of a two-party system. The founders didn’t conceive of democracy as a team sport. Each congressperson and Senator was supposed to be an individual with a conscience who took responsibility for their decisions and actions. Too bad they didn’t include any language to preserve that idea.


Badwater | Monday August 3, 2009 06:27 am 7

The Republics are so close to realizing their dream of becoming a small, regional, religious political party based only in the South. I hope their dream comes true.


Ruth Calvo | Monday August 3, 2009 06:30 am 8
In response to Badwater @ 7

True, but unfortunately they will reinforce each other and remain a segment of truly gaga recidivists in the areas where they predominate. This will make them fiercely loyal to each other, like the survivalist communities, ready for the coming ‘government takeover’.


RevBev | Monday August 3, 2009 06:31 am 9
In response to Badwater @ 7

And watch their dream turn to a nightmare….


pobo811 | Monday August 3, 2009 06:40 am 10
In response to ghostof911 @ 5

I had the pleasure of hearing Mr. Edwards speak at an event earlier this year. Despite his past as a founder of APAC and the Heritage Foundation, he is not a wingnut. He is someone we should be working with to try to get accountability for all the transgressions of the Bush years. This is an issue that transcends party.


ghostof911 | Monday August 3, 2009 06:45 am 11
In response to SadButTrue @ 6

They were only to use history as their reference. The two-party system in its present form is a monster they weren’t able to envision, hence the lack of inclusion in the original document. Perhaps they left it up to future generations to address new threats as they arose. Unfortunately, that did not happen, because the parties gained power faster and before correction action could be taken.


Millineryman | Monday August 3, 2009 06:47 am 12

It would seem to me that holding onto a toxic base that no one really wants to be associated with is stupid. Also, with the dwindling numbers, less influence and the rise of a diverse corporate culture, I wonder how long the corporate support will be there?


ghostof911 | Monday August 3, 2009 06:50 am 13
In response to pobo811 @ 10

My belief is that anyone with those past associations is beyond redemption. If Mt. Edwards is amenable to assisting to get accountability, he is a rare bird indeed.


Crosstimbers | Monday August 3, 2009 06:51 am 14
In response to SadButTrue @ 6

I don’t think that would have been possible. The language would have had to preclude Jefferson and Hamilton from disagreeing. We had one adminstration (Monroe’s) in which the Federalist Party had collapsed and everyone was a Democratic Repulican. It was called “the Era of Good Feeling.” Even during that brief period, separate interests and understandings existed, increased, and soon gave rise to the Whig Party.

Maybe, if the Republican Party implodes, we will have something like Democrats, Blue Dog/Repub Moderates, and Foaming Mouth Crazies. Like Christy and Digby, I don’t understand the fact that Republican officials who passed the sixth grade seem to feel a need to secure the knuckle dragging base, at the expense of moderate, independent , and growing minority support.


foothillsmike | Monday August 3, 2009 06:54 am 15

Morning Christy and all.
Met with my state rep. Sat and voiced my dissatisfaction with the money flowing from industry to the politicians. Told her of my desire to see a constitutional ammendment that would require federal lawmakers to recuse themselves from participation on any measure for which they have received industry contributions or benefits in excess of what an individual can contibute in a campaign. She was very receptive and we will be getting together later this week to pursue.


Sufilizard2 | Monday August 3, 2009 07:03 am 16

Be careful in writing off the Republicans with phrases like “permanent minority” etc. It wasn’t very long ago at all the Democrats looked to be in the same position.

Just remember the Nazi party was a joke for years in Germany before their rise to power. But during severe economic times their platform of blaming “the other” for all their problems and fomenting fear, anger and hatred took root and brought them enough public support to seize power.

It’s a strategy we’re seeing today even if the targets of the anger have changed. There is historical precedent for such a strategy working.

I just think it’s dangerous to underestimate the Right in this country.


ghostof911 | Monday August 3, 2009 07:04 am 17
In response to foothillsmike @ 15

A most worthy goal. It boggles the mind though to think of the torrent of money that would flow from industry to defeat this initiative.


oldgold | Monday August 3, 2009 07:09 am 18

No question, the political parties are frustrating. But, despite this, on the whole, having a two party system is probably as good as it gets in a republic that spans a continent and contains 300, 000,000 diverse citizens.

I think our biggest systemic problem is the Senate. It was a bad idea that has gotten worse over time. It’s virtually a House of Lords with real power.


Crosstimbers | Monday August 3, 2009 07:11 am 19
In response to Sufilizard2 @ 16

I agree. I actually experienced a time, in the mid 1960’s, when Goldwater was tromped, popular movies included Inherit the Wind, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, Judgement at Nuremburg, and popular music involved folk revival groups making fun of the John Birch Society. In my youthful ignorance, I thought we had them beaten permanently.


ghostof911 | Monday August 3, 2009 07:12 am 20
In response to Sufilizard2 @ 16

Point well taken about the rise of the Nazi party in Germany, but that analogy only goes so far. The blame for the economic malaise was placed on victors of Versailles, and on a certain minority population. The impending economic collapse is the fault of the Right themselves, and they will be hard pressed to find suitable scapegoats as did the Nazis.


foothillsmike | Monday August 3, 2009 07:13 am 21
In response to Crosstimbers @ 19

What year was DR. Strangelove?


foothillsmike | Monday August 3, 2009 07:16 am 22
In response to ghostof911 @ 20

Hey it is all Barney Frank and Chris Dodd’s fault dontcha know!


cbl2 | Monday August 3, 2009 07:16 am 23

Good Morning Christy and Firedogs,

anyone know how to retrieve a diary draft ??? the tabs for “my drafts” is no longer on “my page”

thanks


Crosstimbers | Monday August 3, 2009 07:20 am 24
In response to oldgold @ 18

The link to Nate Silver’s 538,on the previous FDL post, has some intersting facts about the effect of PAC contributions in unduly expanding the influence of small state senators. My mind still boggles in trying to understand the actual way in which money effects the voting electorate.

On Silvers’ list, Iowa’s Grassley raised around 7 million, with almost half coming from Corporate PAC’s. In the same state, Tom Harkin raised around 8 million, with only 19 percent coming from PACs. They contend for the same electorate. You would think Harkins’ much greater fund raising from individual donations would indicate a larger part of the electorate supporting liberal Democrates. Yet, they continue to elect Grassley.


Crosstimbers | Monday August 3, 2009 07:24 am 25
In response to foothillsmike @ 21

Dr. Strangelove was 1964. Failsafe, On the Beach, and a host of others were in the same time frame.


oldgold | Monday August 3, 2009 07:27 am 26
In response to Crosstimbers @ 24

Iowans have figured out the value of seniority in the Senate when it comes to bringing home the bacon. Specifically, when it comes to keeping the farm subsidies riduiculously high.
The chance of either of these rubes ever getting beat is about as likely as Hell going Baptist.


SadButTrue | Monday August 3, 2009 07:29 am 27
In response to ghostof911 @ 17

Correct you are. That is THE catch-22 of politics. You will never get the representation you need as long as the system is geared to rewarding corruption and greed. You will never change the system significantly so long as you have the current type of corrupt and greedy politicians.

It’s a small detail that Adam Smith forgot to mention when he was going on about that there invisible fist, I mean hand of the marketplace.


Elliott | Monday August 3, 2009 07:30 am 28
In response to cbl2 @ 23

I don’t think you can (right now), click on your name over there and look through your diaries. Apparently the drafts are back there somewhere but since the draft tab is missing now from “your page” there’s no way to access them….

I will ask the techies what the scoop is, I’ve been missing that feature myself.


Crosstimbers | Monday August 3, 2009 07:30 am 29
In response to oldgold @ 26

Well, my concept of it does include a lot of Baptists. What else would you call eternity in the company of Jerry Falwell, et. al.?


mui1 | Monday August 3, 2009 07:30 am 30

Speaking of strange billboards and bumperstickers, I used to see cars in E. Tenn. with the bumpersticker: death to traitors. For some reason that bumpersticker freaked me out. Especially when 4-5 cars with that bumpersticker would scream past us on the highway as if they had a date with Jeebus.


Elliott | Monday August 3, 2009 07:30 am 31

Morning Christy, and all!


RevBev | Monday August 3, 2009 07:30 am 32
In response to Crosstimbers @ 25

I certainly agree with your earlier post of the view from the ’60s. Hope was palpable and in action. Then Vietnam, Watergate, all mistrust and lies.


Elliott | Monday August 3, 2009 07:32 am 33

and “dog whistle” ?
Yesterday Eugene Robinson pointed out that it’s now a train whistle, nothing silent about it.


cbl2 | Monday August 3, 2009 07:34 am 34
In response to Elliott @ 28

thanks sweetie – although some can’t tell from the content, I am one of those who obsesses/edits/previews about 2 dozen times – guess the universe is telling me to get over myself :D


oldgold | Monday August 3, 2009 07:38 am 35
In response to Crosstimbers @ 29

I must admit, that is a great point.


JClausen | Monday August 3, 2009 07:38 am 36
In response to Crosstimbers @ 24

It is certainly frustrating to this Iowan that Grassley hangs on and on. I even asked him his age rather pointedly recently but he doesn’t seem to want to retire.

I wonder, though, as he looks at his party how different it looked back in the early 80’s.

Grassley’s got a great ground operation to aid his constituents and GOP Iowans are even thinking of running old Terry Bransted against our popular Democratic Gov. Culver.
Sometimes it feels like Iowans were the first to insert “balance” into our dialogue. Grassley has been a hard core Bushite, a sponser of our wonderful bankruptcy reform, and has gotten very extreme.
Harkin, however has held my esteem for years. A Liberal with a voting record to match!


mui1 | Monday August 3, 2009 07:52 am 37
In response to Millineryman @ 12

I suspect they have their reasons.


Crosstimbers | Monday August 3, 2009 08:02 am 38
In response to JClausen @ 36

But, you would think Grassley’s effective ground organization would result in a greater portion of his fund raising coming from individuals, as does Tom Harkins’. That’s what I meant about my mind not being able to grasp the actual relationship between the effects of campaign money and voting.

The only thing I can figure is that there is a very large group of people who pay no attention whatever to politics until two weeks before they feel obligated to vote, and are greatly influenced by the advertisements they see. It seems like the greatest portion almost always tend to vote Republican. I attribute that to the fact that they prefer very simplistic answers to nuanced explanations and that laissez-faire capitalism fits more easily with traditional homilies than do more counter-inuitive Keynesian ideas.


oldgold | Monday August 3, 2009 08:35 am 39
In response to Crosstimbers @ 38

Grassley has run virtually unopposed for decades. In each of his last four elections he has averaged roughly 70% of the vote. Ads in the last two weeks have virtually nothing to do with his being re-elected.


timr | Monday August 3, 2009 08:44 am 40

talking to people from independent businessowners to employees I have discovered a huge problem. The rethugs lies about health care and the stim have taken root. Those lies continue daily and it seems that not one dem has gotten up on his hind legs and shouted out about this lies. Nothing. Crickets. So the lies take root and become truth.The Big Lie. Goebbels gave it birth, Atwater perfected it and Rove exploits it.
We all know what the thugs are doing, we even know how they are doing it. We also know how to kill the lies. and yet, the dems do nothing at all. Who is the current head of the dem party?…. The rethug party? Everyone knows its Steele.
The dems are sitting on their victory, believing that everyones eyes are now open so the rethugs will lose forever. Hubris rules.

Face it, the majority of american adults are in truth sheeple. Easily led to perdition by demagogues. Truth and rationality mean little or nothing. An irrational world view rules because it preys on fears of the OTHER. It places blame for all things wrong on those who look or sound different. The rethugs desire power over all else. Absolute authoritarianism. + corporate greed = a theocratic dictatorship. Damn but I am glad I am an old man near the end of my life. Because life is going to get a whole lot harder unless you subscribe to the rethug authoritarian world view.or even if you do, because the authoritarian world view needs a huge underclass to support the leaders in the manner that they want to become accustomed to. Lies play to fear, the rethugs want to get rid of all social programs. Fire up the military industrial complex by buying lots of expensive war toys and invade someone. Meanwhile, the evangelical and neocon wings of the rethugs desire an apocalyptic war because they believe that will bring the **rapture** and the **end of times**. and a very large portion of the sheeple are dim enough to go along. We are, as a country, fucked unless the dems get up off their dead asses and start refuting all the lies. Kerry ignored the swift boaters and lost. Obama ignores the birthers at his peril. Kill it now before it overwhelms every thing else.

If the idiot dems in congress and in the party don’t get their shit together real quick then they will have lost the race before they even realize that there is a race. Reed and Pelosi, 2 idiots in search of leadership.


JClausen | Monday August 3, 2009 09:12 am 41
In response to Crosstimbers @ 38

I talk to Iowa Rethugs all of the time.(I live in a Republican dominated county)

Iowans are ready to talk for hours on politics, will respect others point of view, feel good afterward about the “agreement to disagree” but will agree that the issue was explored in depth.

I know I am addressing this with a broad brush but, having lived everywhere in my sojourn, that I returned to Iowa where everyone cares,sometimes despite your political views.

My disagreement with Grassley is that he is an honorable man who had earned my vote until he embraced the radical Bush agenda without a murmur.
Iowans trust Grassley but do not realize the extreme vies that he has embraced.


Hugh | Monday August 3, 2009 09:20 am 42

The Republicans have imploded as a party. They are speaking to a smaller and smaller base in crazier and crazier ways. This could have been a historic moment for the Democrats to create a long term majority and lead the country in a more progressive direction. Instead they have moved to the right taking over much of the ideological terrain that Republicans like Reagan and Bush II used to occupy. Unfortunately, this is not where most of the country is. Obama and the Democrats are currently trying to sell a vision of healthcare reform that has nothing to do with “care”, “health”, or “reform”. Americans are not necessarily buying into the Republican frame. They are just not buying the Democratic one.

I think there is a large group of voters out there who are feeling more and more neither party represents them or their interests. I suggested a few days ago this would be a good time to start organizing a new party to take advantage of this disaffection. Progressives have had almost no input into Obama’s policies but are likely to take the blame if and when they fail. Creating a new party would be a way of dissociating ourselves from Obama, the Democrats, and their increasingly Republican ways.


AngelsAwake | Monday August 3, 2009 07:41 pm 43

What I’m worried about is that they’ll figure out a new thing to piss people off with. Let’s face it, people are stupid. A true Christian is smart enough- hell, is almost demanded by his religion to be smart enough- to figure out very quickly that Obama is not the Anti-Christ, women’s health care is not a freaking issue, and Randall Terry is a psycho.

But most people are stupid, and therefore, stupid Christians.

What scares me is that, when Christianity stops being a majority religion in this country, immigrants don’t scare people no more, and racism quiets down, that they’ll find something new. Hatemongers always find something to hate; it’s how they achieve and maintain power. What will be next, I wonder?

What will be next?


Sorry but the comments are closed on this post

Close