They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues.

That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I’m aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.

– Rick Santorum

Iowa’s eventual winner, Santorum, came in third in South Carolina. The winner was the guy who proposed an open marriage to his second wife because he didn’t want to give up his mistress.

Per Jamelle Bouie in American Prospect

This was the Gingrich that Republicans love. A confident, combative firebrand, who exudes a persona of erudition, even as he offers an incoherent take on the world, the issues, and the views of his opponents. To wit, Gingrich accused Barack Obama of believing in a “Saul Alinsky European radicalism where the stage is sovereign and we are its subjects.” This is absolute nonsense—Obama is a center-left Democrat with centrist instincts—but it sounds correct to he audience. They were thrilled.

Indeed, the enthusiasm was infectious. Everyone I spoke to was either a long-term fan of the former House Speaker, or a new supporter, who was eager for Gingrich to win the nomination, and—as one attendee said—“destroy” Obama in debates. “I like him because I really enjoy watching him debate…he could just tear people apart and be really intelligent about it. And I would to see him do that to Obama”, said Cathy Nichols, a local high school student who plans to vote in Saturday’s primary.

For everyone I talked to, I asked if they were concerned about the recent revelations from Gingrich’s ex-wife, who alleged that the House Speaker wanted an “open marriage.” Chuck Gregoire, a semi-retired internet marketer, had a response that was pretty typical of the reactions I received. “We really need someone to come out and kick some but, and I think that’s really where the country is now, and he’s got the ego to get it done.”, said Gregoire. He clarified—he wouldn’t “trust him with my wife,” but he does believe that he could lead the country and correct for Obama’s presidency.

Brian and Cathy Renaud, who moved to South Carolina from Michigan after losing their homes to the Great Recession, were also dismissive of the allegations against Gingrich. “I think we all see through the media’s ploy,” said Brian, “Putting her up to talk two days before a primary? Give me a break.”

As popular feminist blogger and Facebook friend of mine Amanda Marcotte observed: “‘Family values’ is code for “putting bitches in their place”. Gingrich’s behavior is consistent with that.” South Carolina GOP primary voters preferred Gingrich to Santorum because Gingrich comes off as a tougher opponent against the Kenyan Usurper, not because there’s any difference between the two on the culture war. Individual liberty and privacy are reserved for straight white Republican men. It’s “radical”, to use Santorum’s description, for people who aren’t straight white Republican men to have those things.

That’s it in a nutshell.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

That said, Santorum finishing in a dead heat with Romney for first place in Iowa is actually no big deal, election-wise. Santorum, like his brother from another mother Huckabee four years ago, is going precisely nowhere, except maybe a Fox commentating gig, after this. But the Republican Iowa caucus is useful as a yardstick for where the hardcore Religious Right is. The two not-Romneys getting the most votes were Santorum and Ron Paul. Santorum is the more obvious social conservative and his whackadoodle ruminations on subjects ranging from birth control to gay sex are legendary. Paul, on the other hand, is treated by the media as a libertarian with socially liberal views whose popularity is largely due to his anti-war views. This persistent narrative on Paul ignores his strict anti-abortion stance (no exceptions except life of the mother), on which he campaigned vigorously in Iowa. One well-circulated ad featured Dr. Paul making the dubious claim that he witnessed a live baby being thrown into a bucket and left to die. That Paul has substantial support among religious social conservatives in addition to frat boys who want to smoke weed and not go to war (polls reflect it) is studiously ignored by both his frat boy supporters and reporters keeping the Ron Paul libertarian mystique alive.

Paul and Santorum are also useful to us progressives in examining and dismantling a couple of conservative shibboleths – so called “states rights” and the myth that conservatives really care about debt.

States rights posturing by conservatives falls into two basic categories:

A proxy for what they really want to do. Rick Santorum clearly wants to ban gay sex and birth control. But stating those desires openly as a Presidential candidate is too crazy even by conservative Republican standards. Likewise, Ron Paul really wants to return to the Jim Crow era, if not the days of slavery. But stating that desire openly would be as unacceptable as Santorum’s desire to ban birth control. The beauty of the “states rights” argument is that it alleviates conservatives from having to own and defend their desires. So Santorum tells a reporter he wants to let states ban contraception and sodomy if they want. Not because he really, really, really dislikes birth control or anything. Paul says he would have voted against the Civil Right Act of 1964 because, you know, states rights. Not because he has anything personal against black people or anything. Their hope is that enough judges and lawmakers buy the states rights argument so that these issues are returned to the states where whackadoodle right wing legislators will gleefully pass the tyrannical laws they want passed.

A cop out for people who have nothing to fear from state government tyranny. Having privilege and money (or in the fratboy case a parent’s money) tends to shield one from the vicissitudes of anti-choice, anti-gay, or racist laws so one can just say “let the states decide those things” while one agitates for freedoms important to rich white dudes, which no state dare abridge.

Posturing on the deficit by conservatives is pure malarkey:

The farcical notion that conservatives are driven by fiscal prudence in their economic policies is easily disproved when you look at Rick Santorum’s tax plan. Republican economic policies are always directed at rewarding certain people and punishing others. Always. Rick Santorum couldn’t care less about the deficit. He wants to reward straight married middle class and above parents, rich people, and corporations. He wants to punish single parents, childless people, wage workers, and of course gay people. That is conservative ideology in a nutshell, folks. Reward and punishment. It’s Rick Santorum’s ideology and that of every other right winger. Differences between them are purely cosmetic.

Lori Klein, an Arizona state Senator and Cain’s Arizona state chairman, told CBS News she stands by Cain.

She says she has known him for 12 years and he’s “never been anything but a gentlemen – and I am not an unattractive woman.”

Klein suggested that if Cain is innocent he should sue White for libel and went on to attack the media for digging up the allegations. She also said that in politics, “we want a virgin to do a hooker’s job.”

Take that, haters!

Create perfect Thanksgiving pies. Drive to Costco, select an apple, pecan, and pumpkin pie and pay for them. Then head to Fry’s or Safeway or Bashas for whipped cream and vanilla ice cream.

Argue effectively with your wingnut relatives. Many of y’all aren’t lucky like me. I’ll be feasting with a bunch of commie liberals tomorrow so the conversation will revolve around things like where to get good organic produce in Phoenix and what an appalling collection of dangerous morons the GOP Presidential Primary roster is. Those of you facing the unfortunate predicament of having to chow with your Fox News watching inlaws have a bigger challenge. I feel for you. Luckily, the interwebz provide a wealth of useful sources to help you help your brother in law to a giant cup of STFU.

MoveOn has the Top Five Fox Myths To Debunk This Thankgiving. Short, pithy, and substantiated statements to help you demolish myths about the Occupy Movement and the deficit.

Speaking of the deficit: Economist Dean Baker took NY Times privileged wanker extraordinaire David Brooks to task for falsely conflating Greece’s economic troubles with America’s. This has become a common bleat from the Right and Baker neatly lays out the case for why it’s idiotic and disingenuous to compare the two countries: 1. Greece has chronic structural debt problems that are totally unlike ours. 2. The US is a highly diverse economy (still) and our dollar is protected from inflationary pressures. 3. We have a sovereign currency, unlike Greece, which is a member of the EU. Greece is more analogous to Ohio than it is to the entire U.S.

“47% of Americans pay no taxes!” My suggestion is not to bother with the usual response about how everyone actually does pay a whole host of taxes (sales, payroll, etc). Make your brother in law defend his tax breaks! As I’ve explained here before, the increasing number of households paying no taxes is driven by stagnating wages but also in large part by exemptions and credits to parents. I cited conservative economist Keith Hennessey and here’s the link again: Why do so many Americans pay no income tax?

Fannie and Freddie totally caused the collapse!!1! This lie has been laid to waste by every sentient being who researched the matter for two minutes but it remains an article of faith with conservatives. Mother Jones debunked it, yet again, in response to Michele Bachmann last month:

The origination of subprime loans came primarily from non-bank lenders not covered by the [Community Reinvestment Act, a law pushing the two GSEs to purchase more loans in the secondary markets and thus expand access to housing loans to low-income neighborhoods];

The majority of the underwriting, at least for the first few years of the boom, were by these same non-bank lenders;

When the big banks began chasing subprime, it was due to the profit motive, not any mandate from the President (a Republican) or the Congress (Republican controlled) or the GSEs they oversaw;

Prior to 2005, nearly all of these sub-prime loans were bought by Wall Street—NOT Fannie & Freddie;

In fact, prior to 2005, the GSEs were not permitted to purchase non-conforming mortgages;

The change in FNM/FRE conforming mortgage purchases in 2005 was not due to any legislation or marching orders from the President (a Republican) or the the Congress (Republican controlled). It was the profit motive that led them to this action.

Hope this helps!

I keep playing it and it makes our Corgis bark excitedly, which is awesome.

Anyways, quoth Presidential candidate Newton Leroy Gingrich the other day:

“This is something that no liberal wants to deal with,” Gingrich said. “Core policies of protecting unionization and bureaucratization against children in the poorest neighborhoods, crippling them by putting them in schools that fail has done more to create income inequality in the United States than any other single policy. It is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods, entrapping children in, first of all, child laws, which are truly stupid.” [...]

“Most of these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor and pay local students to take care of the school. The kids would actually do work, they would have cash, they would have pride in the schools, they’d begin the process of rising.”

This makes perfect sense because when you think of all the really successful economies in the world doesn’t “large labor force of children” emerge as the key feature they all share? Right. But this is far from the first time in recent memory that a Republican has expressed a desire to repeal those annoying and bootstrap-destroying child labor laws. State legislators across the country have been floating the idea all this past year. I smell ALEC and so did PSC CUNY blogger Peter Hogness back in May.

“There was a time when children’s value was marked by the amount of money they brought home to their families,” commented Gary Schoichet of Communications Workers of America (CWA) 1180. “Employers liked children because they were cheaper, more manageable, and less likely to strike. They were everywhere.”

Among Republican state legislators across the US, Cunningham is not an isolated figure. She has chaired the Education Committee of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), an influential conservative group that drafts state-level legislative proposals and circulates them across the US. Other bills to scale back child labor laws have now been introduced in Maine, Minnesota, Ohio and Utah.

If these bills passed, children would still be protected by federal law. But a number of right-wing politicians believe that federal labor laws, including those on child labor, are unconstitutional.

I’m rather surprised Arizona Republicans haven’t jumped on this yet but if my instincts are correct that ALEC members are chatting up the idea of working the kiddies (the poor ones, not theirs) at the secret legislation drafting meetings it won’t be long before it shows up here.

It also puts the GOP’s anti-choice stance in an even more stark context. This goes beyond their depraved indifference to the needs of post-born children into the realm of outright sadism. Today’s fertilized egg is tomorrow’s nine year old janitor!

I don’t want to be a single-issue blogger but there are times when I think I should just confine my posting to reminding the ladies (and the dudes who care about the ladies) about the numerous and relentless ways that conservatives wish to impose theocratic misery upon us ladies. And Rick Santorum is one sick, scary, creepy mofo who never disappoints on making it abundantly clear how much the conservative movement is motivated by pure misogyny.

“Look at the political base of the Democratic Party: it is single mothers who run a household,” he said on the American Family Association’s radio show Today’s Issues.

“Why? Because it’s so tough economically that they look to the government for help and therefore they’re going to vote. So if you want to reduce the Democratic advantage, what you want to do is build two parent families, you eliminate that desire for government.”

As I’ve reported in past posts, the view that single women imperil freedom by voting for Democrats has a lot of traction among conservatives. I first encountered it years ago in well-known wingnut U of Chicago professor John Lott’s writings. Lott and those who agree with him (like Santorum) claim that the growing size of government (and you’re supposed to assume that’s a bad thing) can be directly attributed to women getting the vote. Now, none of them are making a serious argument that all women should lose the right to vote. Conservatives are fine with women like Ann Coulter or Cathi Herrod voting because those women are committed to keeping other women down. No, it’s women who vote for Democrats who must be stopped.

There is much discussion of voter suppression among progressives lately, what with massive GOP efforts across the country (including in Arizona) to disenfranchise likely Dem voters. Those discussions focus on how suppression efforts target voters based on race and economic class. It is certainly true that racism and classism are main drivers of voter ID laws and other anti-voting measures. But female voters outnumber male voters in nearly every Democratic constituency, particularly minority and low income so suppression efforts directed at those groups will disproportionately affect women. And that is the intention.

Cain’s plan is likely to raise income taxes on most middle and lower income people but is picking up enthusiastic support among some of the very people it will harm. This is because any regressive plan that taxes more poor Americans is going to be at least somewhat popular right now because “47% of Americans pay no taxes!” Which I have to say is one of the most brilliantly insidious GOP memes ever. I mean, man, Wall Street may have destroyed the economy and then helped themselves to fat TARP bonuses, but that $8 an hour cashier at Target paid no federal income taxes last year!
Outrageous! Liberals have been responding to this in two ways: by pointing out the payroll, state, local, and sales taxes low income workers pay (which often takes as big or bigger bites out of their take home pay) and that poor people are exempt from federal income taxes because their incomes are so, you know, low. They are correct, of course, but they’re missing major opportunities to neutralize (at least somewhat) the entire argument. Last year former GW Bush economic advisor Keith Hennessey explained why so many Americans don’t pay federal taxes.

I wonder how many Republican Members of Congress remember that they are, in large part, responsible for this outcome?

First, here’s a quick refresher on the difference between a tax deduction and a tax credit:

Suppose you make $60,000 per year. If you donate $5,000 to charity, you get a $5,000 deduction. You pay income taxes on only $55,000.

Suppose a married couple finds they owe $12,000 in income taxes before accounting for the child credit. If they have three kids, they get a $1,000 tax credit for each child, for a total of $3,000 in tax credits. They subtract this $3,000 from their $12,000 of income taxes owed, leaving them owing $9,000 after accounting for the child tax credit.

Suppose this same family owed only $2,500 in income taxes before accounting for their three children and the child tax credit. Since the child tax credit is refundable, the $3,000 credit wipes out all of their $2,500 of income tax liability and they get $500 from Uncle Sam.

The reason so many Americans don’t owe income taxes is because we have two big tax credits in the code: the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the child tax credit. I hope the above explanation shows the power of a tax credit: one dollar of tax credit wipes out one dollar of tax liability. So if you provide a big tax credit to someone who owes only a small amount of income taxes, you’re probably going to move them into the non-payer category.

The EITC benefits low-wage earners. Legislative support often splits roughly along party lines, with most Democrats wanting a bigger EITC, and many Republicans wanting a smaller (or, at least, no bigger) EITC. Republicans like to complain about the EITC on a day like today.

But most of the increase since the mid-1990s in the number of people who owe no income taxes is the result of the child tax credit. This policy was created by Congressional Republicans and expanded with Republicans in the lead.

President Clinton totally embraced the child tax credit for middle class Americans (which I opposed from the very beginning but that’s neither here nor there) but it was a Republican idea and John McCain campaigned on doubling it in 2008 (imagine how many more American households would be paying no federal income tax!) But anyway, what was it you folks were saying about so many people not paying taxes? Want to do away with your child tax credits and even your dependent deductions, middle class Republican mommies and daddies? How about losing that mortgage interest deduction too? Think you’re going not going to pay a whole lot more in taxes with a straight 9% income tax on your gross income plus a 9% federal sales tax? Did you used to be one of those lucky duckies who got a refund check because your tax obligation was less than the total of your credits because of the EITC and/or child tax credit? Say adios to that and hello to regressive and consumption based taxation. And a nice new shiny big tax bill. Is sticking it to the minimum-wage cashier really worth it now?

I realize that’s a mouthful so I suggest responding to the “47% pay no taxes” whiners and 9-9-9 supporters with the following: “Okay, so you want to do away with all tax breaks for parents? Good luck with that.”

The Obama campaign has tried to cloak the Illinois senator’s trip in some measure of secrecy for security reasons. The White House, State Department and Pentagon do not announce senior officials’ visits to Iraq in advance. link

John McCain, on the other hand, saw fit to helpfully inform the entire world, including potential suicide bombers, of Barack Obama’s probable whereabouts this weekend.

“I believe that either today or tomorrow — and I’m not privy to his schedule — Sen. Obama will be landing in Iraq with some other senators” who make up a congressional delegation, McCain told a campaign fund-raising luncheon.

Oh but,

“I am sure that Sen. Obama is going to arrive in Baghdad in a much, much safer and secure environment than the one that he would’ve encountered before we started the surge,” McCain said.

Sure John. And you were just doing your part to make him and the rest of his delegation that much safer and more secure.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/

This animosity towards candidates has gotten so bad that I wish neither Clinton nor Obama had entered the race. Where’s our safe candidate – you know, the Kerry of 2008 who was the nominee who’d unite the party without making any waves and see us safely into the White House? I guess the safe candidate this go round would’ve been Al Gore, but he’s not known to be much of a deal closer either – at least not where the presidency is concerned. (Side note, I adore Al Gore, but I’m in a particularly snarky mood and all are fair game for my snarkiness.)

I’m sorry our favorite candidates aren’t always the winners. If I had my way, we’d be sitting pretty under the watchful eye of President Dean. Unfortunately, I didn’t have my way. But I didn’t give up, and I didn’t vote for a Republican because my candidate lost. I sucked it up and volunteered for Kerry – and met some fabulous people along the way. I wasn’t all that excited about Kerry, but I knew that I’d regret it if I didn’t do all I could to try to get a Democrat elected, regardless of the Democrat.

That’s why it perturbs me when people say they’d vote for a Republican over Obama/Clinton. What Republican do you know who’d be a better leader than any of the Democrats we had in this Presidential Preference Primary? OK, so maybe we’ll gloss over Kooky Kucinich in this comparison (although I’ve always liked him, too). My point is that it’s time for both Obama and Clinton supporters to get over their animosity for the other candidate. This part of the process is over, and it’s time to look towards the bigger prize. We need to do everything we can to make sure we achieve the White House in November.

OK, so that wasn’t exactly changing the subject, but I’ve kept my typing to myself on this for far too long. A couple of months ago, I had a conversation with one of my Clinton-supporter friends. It went something like this:

Him: You still an Obama fan?
Me: he’s my man
Him: Would you vote for Clinton if she beat Obama?
Me: of course, what kind of lame question is that? i’m a dem aren’t i?
Him: Just wondering, you know with all these people saying they would vote for a republican over clinton/obama
Me: still a lame question. if obama lost, i’d just be losing a candidate, not my heart, soul, or intellect

To the Democratic Diva Clinton Coterie: You’ve inspired me with your passion and dedication. I’m proud to know you all and to have taken this blog journey with you. From the postings and comments, I can tell it’s not quite over yet, and I look forward to hearing about your exploits as Clinton delegates (and Donna’s exploits as an Obama delegate, of course). Now to move on to discussing other Democratic races, values, and issues…

…who knows, maybe the next big issue we get to discuss is how Gore staged a coup at the Democratic National Convention.