Known by the company they keep (Part IV): David Vitter

David Vitter, the junior Senator from Louisiana, is running for his second term with Tea Party backing.  Vitter proposed Senate Resolution 98, which would have designated April 15, 2009 and 2010 as “National Tea Party Day.”  His campaign website encourages supporters to sign his online petition to make every April 15 National Tea Party Day “to recognize the efforts of these citizens and to support their fight against the federal government’s wasteful spending and bailout policies.”

Vitter is a notably intelligent and well-educated Tea Party Candidate.  He holds an undergraduate degree from Harvard and a law degree from Tulane, and he was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford.  He has practiced law and was an adjunct professor at Tulane and Loyola law schools.   However, he has been a politician for most of his adult life: he served in the Louisiana state legislature from 1992-1999, in the US House of Representatives from 1999-2005, and in the US Senate since 2005.

A self proclaimed fiscal conservative, Vitter favors a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and the abolition of state and Federal estate taxes.  He voted against Bush’s Wall Street bailout and Obama’s bailout of the Big 3 US auto makers.  Vitter has consistently opposed any kind of public funding for health care, including the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.  However, in 2007, he did earmark $100,000 in Federal monies for a tax-exempt Christian organization, the Louisiana Family Forum, which promotes teaching “intelligent design” as opposed to evolution.  Vitter claimed that the earmark was “to develop a plan to promote better science education,” but ultimately withdrew the earmark.

Vitter is a Roman Catholic and social conservative who opposes gambling, sex education (“just say no”), the “morning after pill,” and abortion.  As Senator, he has introduced legislative amendments to prohibit health care providers and organizations that provide abortion services from receiving any federal funding whatsoever, and to prohibit the use of Indian Health Service funds to pay for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother’s life is at risk.  Both of these efforts failed.

Vitter has consistently supported a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage.   He has publicly proclaimed his commitment to protecting traditional marriage as “the most important social institution in human history.”  Meanwhile, Vitter admitted that he was a customer of the notorious “DC Madam” from October 1999 until February 2001, while he was a married US Congressman.  He was also identified as a customer of New Orleans’ “Canal Street Madam” during the 1990’s, while he was a married Lousiana state legislator.  Vitter apologized for his past “sins,” and apparently he has been forgiven by his wife and his constituents.  He saw no need to consider resigning his Senate seat, despite his publicly stated opinion that Bill Clinton should resign in the wake of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. 

The immensity of Vitter’s hypocrisy is simply stunning.  But he won’t raise your taxes.

Known by the company you keep (Part III): Carl Paladino

If you don't live in New York State, you may have overlooked this little Tea Party sweetheart.  Dubbed "Crazy Carl" by the New York Daily News (whose standards for "crazy" are pretty stiff), Carl is the Tea-Party-supported Republican candidate for Governor of the Empire State. 
Like me, Paladino is a second-generation Italian-American from Buffalo.  I grew up with guys like Paladino - think "Jersey Shore" with substantially more brains and less charm.  Paladino, supposedly a devout Catholic and the product of Catholic high school and university education, flaunts both his "family values" and his upstate prejudices with equal enthusiasm.  He has said that "Obamacare" will kill more people than 9/11.  He's also said that no mosque should be built within the area covered by the dispersal of the ash cloud of the 9/11 dead.) 
Paladino is one loud and angry hombre - and a rich one, too.  Paladino founded and owns Ellicott Development Company (strip malls and Rite-Aid Drug Stores) and several related holding and real estate management entities) and is a name partner in a Buffalo law firm specializing in corporate and real estate law. He has pledged to spend $10 million of his own money to fund his gubernatorial campaign.  (The New York Daily News reports that $1.9 million of the campaign's spending has been funneled into companies formed and owned by Paladino specifically for this purpose, including the newly formed "Ellicott Advertising Co.)
Paladino's campaign platform emphazises fiscal and educational reform, and many of his proposals are good ideas taken to illogical extremes.  There is no doubt that the state's spending needs to be curtailed, but Paladino proposes to dissolve the NYS Board of Regents, the SUNY Board of Trustees, the Lower Manhattan Authority, the Empire State Development Corporation, the Adirondack Park Agency, and the New York Power Authority.  (Meanwhile, he would have the state take over the currently independent NYS Thruway and Bridge and Tunnel authorities, as well as NYC's Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which currently operates at a $1.5 billion deficit.)  He proposes to cut the state's Medicaid budget by $20 billion, or roughly 30%, while eliminating state capital gains and corporate franchise taxes (costing the state an estimated $1 billion annually). 
Paladino also plans to declare a fiscal state of emergency (based on a debatable interpretation of the NYS Constitution), so that he can freeze compensation of state, municipal and school system employees throughout New York and cut the state budget by 10-20%.  (I haven't checked the numbers on this one, so I don't know how much of the state's expenditures goes to employee compensation.)  Paladino's focus on employee compensation most likely reflects his outspoken animus toward public employee unions, which he has likened to pigs ("Just because the pig lifts its snout from the trough and says 'I'm full' doesn't mean it won't get hungry again real soon").  Paladino has pledged to take a hard line in negotiating against the unions, and vows to give them nothing.  He is an outspoken critic of state laws which give the unions negotiating advantages to offset the prohibition against public employee strikes, and which set prevailing wage requirements for public employees.  He hopes to eliminate at least 60,000 state employee positions, and favors furloughs and shut downs to balance the budget.
One can debate the merits of Paladino's positions on fiscal issues - as I said, many of his positions contain the germs of good ideas.  The real problem is that the guy is a hypocrite and a thug.  He is a self-proclaimed devout Catholic who opposes abortion under almost any circumstances, and has been outed for distributing racist and grossly pornographic emails (think women and horses) to his business cronies.  (His company is also reported to have leased propsety to an abortion clinic.)  He is a family values proponent who fathered an out-of-wedlock child, now 10, with one of his employees, even while he was a married man with three legitimate children.  He has been an outspoken  homophobic (warning that our children must not be "brainwashed" into thinking that homosexuality is a viable alternative lifestyle, and deploring gay pride parades as displays of men dressed in "speedos . . . grinding against each other"), whose companies have collected big rents from popular gay bars in downtown Buffalo.  (He also has a gay nephew working for his campaign.)  He supports repeal of New York's ban on assault weapons; he carries his handgun "wherever it is legal"; and he famously threatened to "take out" a New York Post reporter who asked about his bastard daughter.
Paladino is an angry, angry man who personifies, in my opinion, much of what is wrong with the Tea Party.  His parent were immigrants, and his dad worked in the Civilian Conservation Corps, a New Deal program put in place by Franklin D. Roosevelt.  Thanks to America's open immigration policies and the Federal government's intervention in a time of economic disaster, Paladino's family was able to establish itself and sent Carl to good private schools.  Through substantial measures of hard work and good fortune, Paladino has prospered.  Now, when he is called upon to pay taxes to help others during hard times, he angrily refuses, and sets about to severely limit opportunities for people less fortunate than himself.  He has his - everybody else can just go pound sand.  Or screw a horse.
A final piece of information: Paladino has stated that he will lift the moratorium on fracking the Marcellus Shale pronto.  Although the NYSDEC and the Federal EPA are still studying this environmental impact that fracking has had elsewhere and would have here in New York, Paladino says that the science is in and we should "drill baby drill."   He says that anyone who opposes drilling on the basis of environmental concerns is a "numbhead," and characterized a state legislator who proposed a formal ban as "just this side of plant life."  Thoughtful debate indeed.

Known by the company you keep (Part II): Sharron Angle

What are Sharron Angle's qualifications to replace Harry Reid as a US Senator from Nevada?  (Don't get me wrong, I am NOT a Harry Reid fan, but he does have a hell of a lot of experience in national politics.)

Angle holds a BFA from the University of Nevada.  She worked as a substitute teacher for 25 years (while raising two children), ran a small Christian school for a couple of years (she's a Southern Baptist born and raised), and lectured on art for a few years at a Nevada community college.  She also served as a member of the Nevada Assembly for 6 years. 

Angle was so often the contrarian "no" vote in the 42-member state legislature that Nevada political observers started referred to Assembly votes as "41-to-Angle."  She was a dependable opponent to any measure that would raise state taxes.

Angle won the Republican Senatorial primary with the endorsements of the local Tea Party, the Tea Party Express (a California-based political consulting firm), conservative talk radio personality Mark Levin, Joe the Plumber, and Phyllis Schlafly.   Recently, she was endorsed by Nevada's largest newspaper, the Las Vegas Review-Journal.  (Anti-incumbent sentiment is very strong in Nevada, which has been hit particularly hard by the foreclosure crisis and the recession.) 

Angle's publicly stated positions and beliefs include the folloowing:

• The Constitution does not require the separation of church and state;
• There is no scientific evidence of anthropogenic global warming;
• The US should withdraw from the UN, because it is a proponent of liberal ideology and "fraudulent science such as global warming";
• The US Dept of Education is unconstitutional and should be abolished because "the best education is the education that is controlled closes to the local level as possible";
• The IRS, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae should be eliminated;
• A "militant terrorist situation" exists in the US and has resulted in the institution of Sharia law in Dearborn MI and Frankford TX;
• Citizens are distrustful of their government and are arming to "fight for their liberty in more Second Amendment kinds of ways. . . ";
• Medicare should be privatized and Social Security should be "transitioned out" and presumable replaced by a private retirement system;
• The answer to America's energy needs is to drill oil and gas and burn coal without regulation or taxation;
• Abortion should be illegal under any and all circumstances;
• The US Constitution should be amended to prohibit same-sex marriage; and
• the best way to raise a family is in a single-income household.

Angle has dismissed persistent rumors linking her with the Church of Scientology as attempts to discredit her by "marginalizing" her.  Given her positions, wouldn't marginalizing her be redundant?

PS:  Angles and Reid will be debating tonight.  C-Span will be broadcasting their debate, inter alia, in marathon political coverage beginning at 7:45 ET.  CNN is covering the debate, but I'm not sure they will be broadcasting it.  Good times!!

Christine O'Donnell is not a witch - off by one letter

So I'm watching this debate between O'Donnell and her opponent, Chris Coons.  Coons has taken the high road throughout the debate - he was practically begged by the moderators to jump on O'Donnell's wingnut background and personal financial mismanagement, and he declined to pursue it.  He said more than once that issues, and NOT personal background, etc., should be the only topics of the debate.  O'Donnell, however, has personally attacked Coons at every opportunity.  She's apparently misrepresented his record as Newcastle County Executive (for details see Coons' website) - but at least he has a record to dispute.  She also brought up the satiric essay he wrote as a college senior, about how he became a "bearded Marxist" (as a result of taking a course at Yale from a Marxist professor); she asserts that Coons' Marxist leanings were at least as important for people to know about as her religious beliefs.  O'Donnell interrupts (even when it's not her turn); she talks over the moderators; she smirks and huffs when Coons talks; and she demonstrates her ignorance at every turn.  She actually loudly SNORTED when Coons said that two wars and the Bush tax cuts contributed to the current Federal deficit!!  And now she's harping on activist Federal judges "legislating from the bench," and the "profound loss of regard for the dignity of human life" that is reflected in policies in support of embryonic stem cell research and abortion.
I will say that she's been well coached, and she's obviously a better student than Sarah Palin ever was.  She knows just enough to be dangerous; she has no scruples; and she consistently brings the debate back to President Obama and whether or not Coons will support the President's position.  She is a snarky, "ain't I cute" Palin 2.0, and she really pisses me off!  

Why some people probably should NOT be allowed to have blogs. . .

Guess what?  When you delete posts from your list of posts to edit, etc., the ones that have already been published are deleted from your viewable blog, too!  Who knew?  Certainly not moi. . .

Known by the company you keep (Part I): Christine O'Donnell

Okay, okay, this one's so easy it's almost a cheap shot, but, since O'Donnell is a Tea Party darling and one of Sarah Palin's "Momma Grizzlies," let's talk about her anyway. 

O'Donnell's dad was a TV actor who apparently played Bozo the Clown.  She holds a bachelor's degree in English literature, which (contrary to her campaign literature) she did not receive until this year.  She and her serial campaign organizations (she is a perennial candidate for public office) consistently misrepresent her academic credentials (no, she never attended Oxford or Princeton University).   O'Donnell is a former Catholic turned evangelical Christian.  Unsurprisingly, she is emphatically anti-abortion, and has actively supported the Right to Life movement.  She is the founder of The Savior's Alliance for Lifting the Truth, and has lobbied on moral issues and "Christian values" as its President.  She has actively courted publicity, as a political commentator on Fox News and a regular guest panelist on Bill Maher's "Politically Incorrect."

O'Donnell, who seems to have never had a steady job, has a history of financial embarrassment.  There was the $4800 tuition bill for which Farleigh Dickinson had to sue her - it remained unpaid for almost 10 years.  In 2008, O'Donnell's mortgage company obtained a $90,000 judgment against her.  In 2010, the IRS filed a tax lien for $11,000 in back taxes O'Donnell has owed since 2005.  O'Donnell has been dogged by questions about her personal use of political campaign funds, as alleged by her own former campaign employees.

In addition to her well-publicized views on masturbation (it's a sin), witchcraft (she unknowingly "dabbled" on a Satanic altar) and Italian food (she might have been a Hare Krishna except that she couldn't give up meatballs), O'Donnell's positions and beliefs include the following:

• evolution is a myth, and there is at least as much evidence supporting creationism;
• homosexuals suffer from an "identity disorder";
• embryonic stem cell research is immoral;
• she has classified information indicating that the People's Republic of China is plotting to take over the United States;
• Democrats have stopped America from achieving energy independence;
• Democrats are trying to dismantle the Second Amendment;
• she would never vote for any tax increase; and
• she would repeal the health care reform legislation passed in 2010.

The Tea Party not only endorsed O'Donnell, but donated over $150K (if you watch CNN) or $250K (if you watch Fox News) to her primary campaign.  Since O'Donnell won the primary, the Tea Party Express (a California-based political consulting firm) has indicated that it might spend as much as $600K on O'Donnell's senatorial campaign.  On October 2, 2010, Delaware's News Journal reported that O'Donnell's campaign has raised more money from out-of-state contributors than from Delaware voters.  O'Donnell is much more visible on the national political stage than she is in Delaware;  tomorrow night, CNN will air a live broadcast her debate against Delaware's Democratic Senatorial candidate, Chris Coons.
What kind of people would contribute $150K, or $250K, or $600K, to support a candidate with O'Donnell's history and beliefs?  Would people in Delaware really rather be represented by O'Donnell than by Coons (a former county executive who holds law and divinity degrees from Yale)?   Or is she just a decoy, as Ralph Reed has said? 

Why am I picking on the Tea Party all the time?

I've always considered myself a middle-of-the road voter - fiscally conservative and socially liberal.  When the Republicans replaced "tax and spend" with "borrow and spend" from 2001 through 2009, they totally lost me.  And it's hard to love the Democrats; they're disorganized and irresolute, and, let's face it, most of the time they can't find their asses with both hands and a Boy Scout troup. But I find the Tea Party just plain offensive.

For the most part, the Tea Partiers seem to be a fairly homogenous group: older, mostly white, affluent or at least financially comfortable, and defensive.    They project an air of self-righteous entitlement; they believe that they've earned everything they have (including Social Security, Medicare, pensions, disability, health insurance, etc.) all by themselves, and they're not going to contribute one cent of what's "theirs" to help anyone else.  They seem to believe that sharing responsibility for the common welfare is socialism.  Most of them appear to be morally offended that the President is black; they're disrespectful and seem willing to believe that he's a racist, Muslim socialist with an anti-American agenda.  They don't seem to like anyone who doesn't look and think exactly the way they do, and they want "their" America back.

The Tea Partiers believe that Obama and Pelosi have saddled our grandchildren with a crippling deficit attributable to Wall Street bailouts, bank bailouts, car company bailouts, and useless economic stimulus programs.  They are self-described deficit hawks who claim that they are motivated by a desire to save their grandchildren from the burden of the Federal government's enormous debt.  I would be willing to applaud their concern, but for the fact that ALL of their deficit solutions involve eliminating Federal agencies, programs and expenditures that benefit those less fortunate than themselves.  Meanwhile, they are unalterably opposed to paying higher taxes to increase government revenues (which seems like a necessary part of any plan to reduce the deficit).  In fact, their entire purpose is to keep their taxes at the current historically low rates put in place by the Bush tax cuts.  Their name says it all:  they are the Taxed Enough Already Party, a party of smug, comfortable hypocrites who don't really give a damn about anyone else.

And that's why I'm always picking on the Tea Party.