Exercising 2nd Amendment rights

The Republican party of Bentonville County, Arkansas cuts through the obfuscation and explains their understanding of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution:

So what do we do?  While I believe that we as a party are done in Arkansas after this, if there is ANY hope of our survival, it is going to take not being forgiving.  Not only for past actions, but to show those who will come in the future that the cost of failure to do the thing they were elected to do will be significant.  We need to be making a point of this failure from this moment on.  We need to make a public statement from our groups that we no longer support those who turned on us, that we will NOT be working to their re-election, that we will be actively seeking replacements, and perhaps even working towards recall.  We as the Party have to stand up and say ‘no more – you were given a job, you campaigned on the promise to do this job, you had the ability to do this job, you had the votes each time to do this job, and yet for no legitimate reason you betrayed the trust put in you by the electorate and you are now completely and permanently politically finished.’

We need to let those who will come in the future to represent us that we are serious.  The 2nd amendment means nothing unless those in power believe you would have no problem simply walking up and shooting them if they got too far out of line and stopped responding as representatives.  It seems that we are unable to muster that belief in any of our representatives on a state or federal level, but we have to have something, something costly, something that they will fear that we will use if they step out of line.  If we can’t shoot them, we have to at least be firm in our threat to take immediate action against them politically, socially, and civically if they screw up on something this big.  Personally, I think a gun is quicker and more merciful, but hey, we can’t.

Have unpopular beliefs? Lost the political debate? Still believe that you can impose your particular policy preferences on the rest of the population? Why not go on a killing spree?

The NRA has enabled this conspiratorial, anti-democratic delusion that a priveleged, unhinged few get to determine the course of our society. Gun-rights supporters are quickly crossing the line from being a well-funded fringe into being a loose association of terror apologists.

Marathon Bombing and Shooting Spree

The shocking bombing of the Boston marathon has now devolved into a predictable series of firefights between police and two heavily armed suspects. The two suspects shot and killed an MIT police officer, and engaged in a firefight consuming more than 200 rounds, one of which wounded an MTA police officer.

They have been described as armed and extremely dangerous. This turned out to be an understatement; they were heavily armed and reckless. Their access to ammunition and firearms has effectively shut down the city of Boston for a second day this week. If we are to prevent attacks like these in the future, we have to answer some questions.

• Did these men acquire their guns legally? 
• What kind of weapons did they possess?

Suspect #2, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, is currently cornered, likely with a high powered gun and a cache of ammunition. Pray for the police officers that are charged with disarming and capturing this murderer.

"In"

Couldn't avoid pointing out the heinous writing and editing in this Forbes story on the employment law conflicts of federal and employer drug-free workplace policies and patchy state-level innovations in marijuana policy.

My favorite sentence from the article:

But in those states, employed medical marijuana card holders are not “impaired” simply because marijuana components or metabolites are “in” their systems. 

 Nice quoting, Tex.

Congressional Squeeze Play

I don't think I've ever seen a power grab praised so highly in the New York Times as this conservative plan to cut off pay for Congress.

WASHINGTON — In principle, it sounds self-sacrificing, even noble: Congress swears off collecting its paychecks until it passes a budget.

But behind the proposal, which the House passed last week when it voted to temporarily extend the debt limit, is also a basic reality: many of those who support the concept are so wealthy that their Congressional paychecks represent little more than a rounding error...

“One thing I’ve never called for is an outright reduction in salary, because I do appreciate that members come from different walks of life,” Mr. Rigell said. But as imperfect a solution as withholding pay might be, he said the concept was sound. “I am convinced that is a big enough lever to influence the institution,” he said, “and it needs it.”

Mr. Rigell can't be much more plainspoken on this one. He believes that "the institution" of Congress will be more likely to reach a deal on the budget if members are being pressed by "a big enough lever."

But this doesn't seem like a big lever for the people proposing the bill. It only seems like a big lever for people on the other end of the income spectrum in Congress. The rich will 

As moneyed as Congress is these days, some members would feel the pinch if they stopped receiving their paychecks. Senator Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, has a reported net worth of no higher than $300,000, making him one of the few nonmillionaires to support the bill. That also makes him the fifth-poorest member of the Senate, according to thefigures from the Center for Responsive Politics...

As many ordinary Americans have struggled to get by in recent years, members of Congress were largely insulated from the economic downturn, based on their net worth. The median net worth of American households is $66,740, while for the 535 members of Congress it is about $966,000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Congressional lawmakers earn at least $174,000 a year.

The poorest person who supports this bill has a net worth comparable to the assets of five average American families. This bill is seeking leverage over those who won't be as comfortable without their steady pay check.

In the House, more than a few members have an estimated net worth that is a negative figure, meaning their financial liabilities are greater than their assets.

If you have a mortgage payment coming up that's a might big lever. It may even be a big enough lever that the wealthy conservatives think they'll get a few members to vote against their consciences and their constituents' interests. Apparently the conservatives who proposed this plan believe that by virtue of their wealth, they should have leverage over the rest of Congress, and certainly the segment of Congress that has more in common with their districts.

By the way, how many is 'more than a few'? 69 members of the house have a net worth less than the average family. 34 have a $0 or negative net worth. Whether the bills are from a mortgage a care for an aging or sick relative, they are coming for these members.

I haven't looked at the individual districts, but it's an easy assumption that the poorest members of Congress represent the poorest constituents.

Republicans and their wealthy sympathizers believe they own the government. They're trying to lock the middle class out of negotiations. It's a dramatic end-run around the democratic process. We may be able to send middle class representatives to Congress, but they won't get paid for their work unless they work for the wealthy.

And [Jerold Nadler, Democrat of New York] said he was concerned about the precedent it would set. “If you want only millionaires to be in Congress,” he said, “this is a good idea.”

Preserve the Union

I didn't know that this bears saying in our nation's third century, but I'm a strong Unionist. I believe that the United States of America is greater than the some of its constituent states, and even greater than the sum of its constituent citizens.

My loyal friends, you need not suffer these secessionist scoundrels, traitors, and scallywags. If they want to leave our Union, they are free to go. However, they cannot drag any of our land, friends, or investments out of our country by fiat. The secessionists may go; that which is American will remain.

Running on Fumes: Romney Momentum

Have you noticed that the whole "Romney is going to win" argument suddenly disappeared? The GOP is back to latch ditch potshots against a popular and well trusted President who has presided over 32 months of straight job growth and a strengthening economic recovery.

Karl Rove is already making excuses for his SuperPAC's inability to buy the election. The Sunlight Foundation's preliminary study finds that "dark money," political spending from undisclosed donor, 81% has supported Republicans. A loss poses an existential threat to Karl Rove's votes-for-cash business. If Team GOP can't win this election on a red tide of capital, there is no earthly reason for plutocrats to hand him million dollar checks.

Rove has now announced that Superstorm Sandy is to blame; the news and a competent government response reminded Americans that the federal government should be muscular, agile, and smart in how it responds to disasters. That is the record of the Obama administration in crises from the automaker rescue, the Bin Laden Raid, and the destruction along the Eastern seaboard. You can compare that record to "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt," the idea that America should ask permission before a raid into Pakistan, or Romney's record of denying funds to emergency preparedness in Massachusetts.

This weekend, Team Red blogs are no longer championing their lost cause candidate. They stopped advocating for an alternative and are arguing for a critique of the President's verbiage.

Rove is filling an important role in the party, however. He's at least attempting to direct the inevitable firing-squad outward. It's in his self interest; after squandering millions of dollars, he's a pretty big target if it goes circular.

*Correction - 81% of 'dark money' has gone towards Republican candidates. This post originally cited 83%. We regret the error.

Empty Gesture

What's going to happen to all the Romney Victory Rally token donated goods? The Red Cross doesn't accept donations in goods; moving and storing food, used clothing, and shoes are complicated logistical challenges. The Red Cross wants to use emergency resources in the most efficient way possible, and receiving donations isn't efficient.

So what will happen with these donations that the Romney campaign solicited to camouflage today's campaign rally in Ohio as a disaster relief effort? The Red Cross doesn't want them. The Romney campaign doesn't have the field resources to distribute the goods themselves. To what charity are these being given?

Sandy

Jonathan Chait posts a persuasive argument explaining Why Democrats Are Right to Politicize Sandy. 

Funding for FEMA is something the parties wrangle over, with Republicans pushing to limit the agency’s budget, and Democrats pushing back. FEMA has to fight for its share of a constricted pot of money for domestic non-entitlement spending, a pot of money that the Republicans propose to radically constrict. How radically? Romney’s budget promises require shrinking domestic non-entitlement spending as a share of the economy by about two-thirds.

We should be a little careful with the language. I'm not seeing a lot of Democrats politicizing Sandy. I'm seeing a lot of Americans calling for common sense government that takes pragmatic steps to ensure the welfare of all of its citizens.

There is a choice in the 2012 election between a party that believes in this kind of cooperative effort and a party that wants to put a profit motive behind disaster response. Democrats generally believe that government is by and for the people of the United States to accomplish common goals. Republicans see government as something by other people and against their interests. Romney as a candidate said he would abolish federal emergency management and put it in the hands of security contractors. Romney as a governor vetoed funding for flood prevention.

The Republican party loudly complained that the government brought a halt to deep water oil exploration after the Deepwater Horizon blowout. Mitt Romney relied on oil company talking points during the second debate. When he claimed that oil production was down on 'federal lands,' the root talking point was that there was a drop in oil exploration in 2011 while the Administration finalized new rules to prevent repeating catastrophic failures. Romney has campaigned for the  last six years as the candidate who will put American corporate interests before the American people.

Romney said he doesn't support Federal emergency management, and implied it would be better handled if a profitable firm took over. The idea that Delaware or Louisiana even New Jersey should have to recover from a big storm without federal help is bad enough. The idea that they might contract out to Haliburton is terrifying.

It's no wonder that this sharp contrast between parties becomes evident when there is already a widespread mobilization of political forces before an unprecedented disaster. This is an historic storm. Republicans at large have been showing some awfully ambivalent attitudes toward FEMA and disaster aid this week, a sign of the tension between the tenets of the Republican Party and the need to avoid criticizing life saving operations.

GOP Intelligentsia Announce Fishing Expedition

The Republican hack train is in full panic mode. The media narrowly avoided buying the Romney momentum storyline (and accompanied remorse). The New York Times published an unequivocal endorsement of the President's reelection.

The Republican case for Romney has always been based on a mushy anxiety. In the debates, Romney failed to make the case for Republican policies, instead opting for personal advancement. In non-answer after non-answer, Romney evaded the plans he hawked in the Primaries and his own running mate's budget. Romney has attempted to run as a vague alternative to the status quo instead of offering any specific plans for a Romney administration--after Day 1 anyway.

The shallow draft of the Romney campaign is best illustrated by the campaign's concerted attempt last week to spread the false narrative of Romney momentum. Jeremy Bird (Obama for America National Field Director) linked the Republican field reported field numbers failure to add up to the Governor's failure to create realistic and arithmetically sound policy proposals. The Romney campaign's media strategy of focusing on horserace statistics while eliding substance reminded pol-watchers that the Romney campaign case has boiled down to:

1. The President is a loser
2. Don't vote for a loser

This has been the central point of most of Romney's talking points: 'apology tour,' Benghazi coverup allegations, birth certificate jokes, etc... It also explains why Boston invested a week of media contacts into touting a run of polls that showed Romney stalled just below 47 percent of the electorate and behind President Obama.

Back to the drawing board, Republican thought leaders: Billy Kristol announces his Ten Questions for the White House. Donald Trump announces his new haircut. David Brooks will just quit.