GOP Culture of Corruption to Infect Michael Steele Next?

It was refreshing that the Republicans came up with a black man as RNC Chair, but in other ways Michael Steele carries on the traditions of the GOP, and it appears we can count corruption into the bargain. Micheal Steele is being investigated for fraud in his 2006 US Senate campaign, and his finance guy at the time is the one testifying.


Commentary By: Steven Reynolds

This time the corruption does not seem to involve Mr. Abramoff. It involves Michael Steele, newly elected Chair of the Republican Party, and money his campaign paid to a company owned by his sister, evidently eleven months AFTER his sister folded the company. Money paid for services that could not possibly be rendered? Gee, that seems odd. Maybe we should investigate. A Republican US Attorney is doing just that. From the Washington Post:

Michael S. Steele, the newly elected chairman of the Republican National Committee, arranged for his 2006 Senate campaign to pay a defunct company run by his sister for services that were never performed, his finance chairman from that campaign has told federal prosecutors.

The claim about the payment, one of several allegations by Alan B. Fabian, is outlined in a confidential court document. Fabian offered the information last March as he was seeking leniency for himself during plea negotiations on unrelated fraud charges. It is unclear how extensively his claims have been pursued. Prosecutors gave him no credit for cooperation when he was sentenced in October.

Let’s see, a Republican US Attorney is investigating, and would not do so if he didn’t think this was a complete waste of time. Meanwhile the Republican Party thinks it is just peachy letting this guy make decisions about millions of dollars of its money.

Well, if they looked for someone free of corruption to run the RNC, they’d be looking for a long time.

Hey, this Washington Post article is well-researched and lengthy. That in itself does not make Mr. Steele guilty, but it outlines some shoddy practices at the very least. Gee, it’s either dishonesty or incompetence. . . isn’t that the Republican way? To that end, Michael Steele seems perfect to run the GOP.

Saturday, February 7th, 2009 by Steven Reynolds |

Sarah Palin Hates Those Nasty Bloggers!

Some fun quotes in the latest Esquire interview of Sarah Palin, one of which shows that she has a certain contempt for bloggers. Hey, aren’t bloggers citizens, too? And shouldn’t they point out facts like Sarah’s own husband being held in contempt by the Alaska legislature? Sounds fair to me. But Sarah Palin would rather whine about bloggers.


Commentary By: Steven Reynolds

That’s what she said to Esquire:

Bored, anonymous, pathetic bloggers who lie annoy me.

Hey, Sarah! Yoohoo! Bloggers are regular folk from Main Street, just like you. If they object to your imperious ways and ignorant speech patterns, then tough. You’re the one who entered the political arena, and if you abuse the system, well, having your husband Todd held in contempt may be the least of your worries.

That said, see you in 2012, Sarah!

Saturday, February 7th, 2009 by Steven Reynolds |

GOP Racism and Fake Apologies, Feb 5th Edition

We likely have an incident like this every day, but Carol Carter’s nonapology apology is significant. The Party that seems proud of Michael Steele, first Black RNC Chair, has lots of racism in its membership, and one member, in the GOP hierarchy, thinks it is a shame her racism accidently became public. It’s the media’s fault, of course.


Commentary By: Steven Reynolds

Had to make that the Feb. 5th edtion because I know there will be some GOP racism tomorrow, or the next tomorrow after that. They just can’t help the feelings of their membership, and that membership listens far too much to Rush to understand what can be said in public. Well, or even private. That’s what got Florida State Committeewoman Carol Carter in trouble, an email she thought was private. It included some racist ugliness, which she evidently didn’t have a problem with, unless it got out in public. Here’s her email fromt he story in the St. Petersburg Times:

From: Carol Carter

Friday, January 30, 9:30 AM

Subject: FW: Amazing!

I’m confused

How can 2,000,000 blacks get into Washington, DC in 1 day in sub zero temps when 200,000 couldn’t get out of New Orleans in 85 degree temps with four days notice?

Carol Carter

I’m stunned. This woman is considered a leader among Republicans in her state and she doesn’t understand that a racist joke is innappropriate even in private? Does she not get the notion that to cover your ass you keep that stuff off of the internet entirely? Yes, she is both racist and incompetent. Which makes her . . . a Republican? I love her unrepentent apology better:

From: Carol Carter

January 30, 5:54 PM

Subject: Earlier e-mail

I have been asked to send this apology for my earlier e-mail. I am sorry that it was received in a negative manner. I do hope that we are going to be allowed to keep our sense of humor.

As you can now see, it went to very few people. I did add Todd Marks in this apology, as he is in the mix now. I am also sorry to learn that some of these persons are not real team players. There really was no reason for this to go beyond those that I e-mailed (8 people). This was not an e-mail blast as I do not have that capability.

Carol

First, there’s no real apology here. She notes immediately she was forced to write what she couches as an apology, but it is clear that what she’s really sorry for is that a private email ended up embarrassing her publicly, and she’s also sorry that some people can’t take a racist joke. I am hard on Republicans, and it is clear that Carol Carter is another example of a Republican who just doesn’t get it. They’re already the white person party, and in this country we’re accepting and valuing diversity more and more each day. People like Carol Carter are going to make the Republicans a permanent losing party if the GOP doesn’t watch out, despite having Michael Steele as RNC Chair.

Thursday, February 5th, 2009 by Steven Reynolds |

Capitalism At The Crossroads: Time To Wing It?

History has long recorded humanity’s dabbling in the elaboration of the latest “ism”. Rarely do we recognize the demise of one “ism” in the midst of the emergence of its replacement. While America debates the Obama administration’s stimulus plan, we seem reticent to discuss the merits of capital “ism”. Doing so could be an important step towards embracing the underlying humanism we frequently ignore.


Commentary By: Daniel DiRito

In Beckett’s “Waiting For Godot”, time is both passed and suspended in anticipation of arrival. Neither the passage of time or the thoughtless suspension of its value is a worthwhile endeavor…yet so much of the human condition is spent accordingly.

Fortunately, the ebb and flow of life frequently compensates for this miscalculation and we are rarely forced to face the futility of our allegiance to being unaware.

At the same time, history, in retrospect, has meticulously recorded such periods of ambiguous angst with the application and affirmation of a seemingly all-encompassing “ism” of merit. Sadly, we humans rarely understand our migration from one “ism” to the next…at the moment it transpires…frequently leaving us in the same suspect and suspended scenario as those waiting for the transformational Godot to arrive.

America, in its quaint yet quixotic commitment to the courtesan we call capital “ism”, is being confronted with such a stretch of meaningless moments…waiting anxiously and aimlessly for the arrival of someone or something to remove the paralysis that permeates our propensity to participate in the chain letter economics that powers our Ponzi scheme psyche…even though we “share” in the ironic experience of watching our pyramid collapse under the weight of its own egocentric and ignoble ideations.

Two events provide perspective on our predicament – one a calamity and the other a harbinger of hope. The former, 9/11, brought us together long enough to offer consolation and condolences before scurrying out the door with our credit cards and the cash created by our homage to home equity high jinks…in hopes of perpetuating perceptions rather than recognizing realities.

The latter, the safe landing of an aircraft on the Hudson river and the preservation of every single passenger’s life, allowed us to reconnect with the principals and perseverance associated with the mythical America and the essence of the collective spirit that had come to define it…all of which evaporated so quickly following 9/11.

Here’s the problem. Today, Captain Sullenberger’s landing on the Hudson is no longer just a job well done or an act of American stick-to-itiveness; rather it must be morphed into an extraordinary act of unexpected hero “ism”…a deed beyond the pale…an act of selflessness in a society all about the self. In America, tragedy is synonymous with litigation and triumph with accolades…both of which have material enrichment as their expected outcome. Hence American decency is but a function of fault or fame…not an intrinsic component of character.

As such, in this dark hour of economic uncertainty, the core constructs of capital “ism” still trump our actual ability to embrace the noble identity that gave it life. Like spectators at a Gladiator match, we sit on the sidelines of our “Super Bowl” society admiring the exceptional athlete or the precise pilot…ever focused on the means and methods to our own nascent notoriety…never mindful of the inevitable intersection of motivation and moral maturity.

Let me be clear, when I mention moral maturity, I am not invoking an absolutist ideology or an adherence to religion; rather I’m imploring us to understand the essence of our shared humanity. Moral maturity is not the means to superiority…it is the simple act of enabling and embracing equality in lieu of cachet and celebrity. In fact, doing so not only fosters an appreciation of altruism over the accumulation of assets, it disarms the drive for deification by substituting the satisfaction of service for the seemingly endless search for the satiation of selfishness.

Should there be any doubt as to the dubious nature of our situation, and therefore our ever expanding and suspect sense of entitlement, look no further than the latest Gallup Poll on the merits of the President’s stimulus plan. Only 38% of respondents believe the stimulus plan should be passed as proposed by Barack Obama. Another 37% are in favor of a stimulus plan but they believe it must include major changes.

While the majority of Americans favor Congress’ passing some type of stimulus plan, there is remarkably little confidence on the part of the public that the plan would have an immediately positive impact on the U.S. economy. Americans are also pessimistic about the plan’s potential positive impact on their own families’ financial situations.

There’s only one way to interpret these numbers. Self-interest is the primary motivation that drives debate in America. Confronted with the worst economy since the Depression, and an uncertain future, most Americans cannot view the stimulus plan absent the bias of the status quo…and most of our elected officials must be included in this group. The shortsightedness is astounding.

A comparison may help explain my concerns as well as my contention that capital “ism”, in its current form, is no longer viable. Let’s start by assuming that our economic situation is dire. If so, then one should be able to construct a scenario to evidence the gravity of this moment as well as the complacency that has grown out of our commitment to the tenets of capital “ism” as they have existed since the Watergate years.

For this exercise, let’s assume that NASA has identified an asteroid heading towards earth in ten years and that its trajectory puts the U.S. at great risk. Now suppose that in response, our government decides to establish safe shelters in all major metropolitan areas. Logically, one should be able to presume that Americans will get behind the effort and pitch in to insure that the country is prepared for the worst. One should also be able to expect that individuals will put self-serving objectives aside in hopes of achieving maximum safety and survival. In other words, while some people might feel slighted by the placement of shelters…or other aspects of any response plan…the gravity of the situation undoubtedly dictates that such concern is set aside in order to work towards a collective solution to an anticipated crisis.

Notwithstanding, I’m of the opinion that our adherence to a “me first” mentality may well preclude our ability to react effectively to this or any other plausible threat. Therein lies the inability to visualize the risks of maintaining our seemingly insolent and intransigent mindsets. You see; the instincts we momentarily demonstrated in the aftermath of 9/11 still exist. Unfortunately, the fact that we so easily slipped back into more of the same doesn’t portend well for addressing the current economic crisis…a crisis that is more than a glitch in the U.S. economy…a crisis that won’t be solved by imploring Americans to go shopping…a crisis that is the leading edge of a reordering of the world and the manner in which we humans serve as stewards of this earth…and therefore whether we will be purposeful proponents for the ongoing existence of humankind.

The fact that so many of us latched onto the “Miracle on the Hudson” as a tangible measure of the enduring human spirit serves to illustrate the paradox we seem so unwilling to acknowledge. On the one hand, we marvel at the fact that a trained pilot was able to land an airplane on water…yet we forget that absent years of training…a concern by the flight crew for the safety of their fellow man…and finally…the presence of wings…it not only couldn’t have successfully landed on the water…it would have been unable to support and sustain the 155 individuals who stood upon those wings while waiting (and believing) that kind and compassionate passers-by would come to their aid.

America is a plane in trouble…but our fate need not be dependent upon the heroic acts of a select few. At the same time, we must be wise enough to listen to those who may have more insight. This plane of ours will never achieve a safe landing if each of its passengers demands their turn in the cockpit…regardless of ability. The role of being a good citizen is also an act of hero “ism”…even if it means sitting quietly in coach while the pilot brings us to safety or helping an elderly passenger make their way onto the wing once the plane has landed.

America can no longer wait for our Godot to arrive. We needn’t a savior or a heroin…we needn’t aspire to the adulation we believe accompanies a seat atop the pyramid…we needn’t support or negate our leaders based upon political ideology…Godot is every man and every woman…Godot is merely a belief in each other predicated upon the notion that we grant the humanity we seek…Godot need not come if he is already here…Godot does not exist if we need him…humanity does not exist if we betray it.

If we humans are too survive, it’s time for us to wing it…which is nothing more than believing that the service of humanity floats all boats…as well as the plane in which we are all passengers. Fighting over the stimulus plan while the plane is crashing is absurd. Human “ism” may lack the glitter and glamour of capital “ism”…and it may mean less in a few pockets but more in most…but it may well be the only remaining “ism” of consequence.

Its merits will never be fully known if its value is never fully affirmed…yet it has always been there for us to accept. If it isn’t adopted in the here and now, history will fail to recognize and record it. You see, in the absence of humanity, there is no future. If there is no future, there will be no history. In the end, all “isms” lead to the same destination. We can travel willingly or we can jeopardize our very existence. The waiting must end…the wings exist. There’s room for everyone.

Cross posted at Thought Theater

Wednesday, February 4th, 2009 by Daniel DiRito |

Palin Caught Lying to GOP House Members

Sarah Palin was invited to give a speech to GOP House members at their annual winter retreat and she stiffed them in order to attend the Alfalfa Club and meet Barack Obama. There’s a punch line there, but I’m not touching it.


Commentary By: Steven Reynolds

ABC’s The Note has the story. It seems the GOP House members have an annual Winter Retreat and they had asked Sarah Palin to give a speech to motivate the attendees. She said she couldn’t go because of commitments in Alaska. then she shows up for the Alfalfa Club Dinner, and followed that with a trip to Texas. Here’s a bit of The Note’s report:

Retreat organizers tell ABC News that Palin politely declined, giving a perfectly understandable reason. According to the Congressional Institute, which hosted the conference, Palin said she simply could not make it to the retreat because pressing state business made it impossible for her to leave Alaska this weekend.

So where is Palin this weekend? She’s in Washington, D.C., attending the super-elite Alfalfa Dinner.

“She lied to us,” said a Republican at the retreat.

. . .

Asked about Palin’s no-show, House Republican leader John Boehner shrugged.

“Whatever,” Boehner said.

I’m sure Sarah Palin will be able to count on their support for her run for the Presidency in 2012. What a complete F-up she is!

Wednesday, February 4th, 2009 by Steven Reynolds |

GOP Catfight Brewing In TX: Palin v. Hutchinson

Is there a cat fight brewing between two of the most prominent Republican women in the country, Kay Bailey Hitchinson and Sarah Palin? If so, Palin has scratched first, endorsing Rick Perry for Texas Governor over Hutchinson. This could be a very interesting race that pits GOP Christian conservatives against old guard Republicans.


Commentary By: Steven Reynolds

I suppose someone might have seen this coming back in the fall, when Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson was passed over the nomination as John McCain’s VP nominee in favor of Sarah Palin. Well they were both in TV news at one point, and they are both of huge value to the NRA, but it seems this cat fight is about abortion.

One thing is sure concerning the Palin nomination over Hutchinson – if Kay Bailey wasn’t pissed, she sure was channelling that feeling to at least one reporter. From NewsMax, the transcript of some candid comments on MSNBC last September:

Peggy Noonan: Yeah.

Mike Murphy: You know, because I come out of the blue swing state governor world: Engler, Whitman, Tommy Thompson, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush. I mean, these guys – this is how you win a Texas race, just run it up. And it’s not gonna work. And…

Noonan: It’s over.

Murphy: Still McCain can give a version of the Lieberman speech to do himself some good.

Todd: I also think the Palin pick is insulting to Kay Bailey Hutchinson, too.

Noonan: Saw Kay this morning.

Todd: Yeah, she’s never looked comfortable about this.

Murphy: They’re all bummed out.

Todd: Yeah, I mean is she really the most qualified woman they could have turned to?

Noonan: The most qualified? No! I think they went for this – excuse me – political bullshit about narratives…

Todd: Yeah, they went to a narrative.

Murphy: I totally agree.

Noonan: Every time the Republicans do that, because that’s not where they live and it’s not what they’re good at, they blow it.

I’m thinking Noonan and Murphy were wrong. Hutchinson and Palin are alike in several hard core Republican issues, such as gun control, and they are both women. Good candidates, except, of course, that Hutchinson can put together a sentence and Palin needs some help with that difficult task. There’s too big differences between the two. Hutchinson is older by 20 years, and thus couldn’t have balanced out McCain’s age on the ticket, and the kicker. Hutchinson supports Roe v. Wade, with restrictions. Palin is banking on the virulent anti-abortion extremist Christian vote in four years. So what does Sarah Palin do the other day? Palin endorses Rick Perry, despite that he’s rumored to be gay, because Rick Perry is the darling of the extremist right wing Christian conservatives down there in Texas. (Reports on Palin’s endorsement of Perry can be found in both the Christian Science Monitor and the Wall Street Journal.) Here’s a few quips about Perry from Palin from the Monitor:

“He walks the walk of a true conservative,” she said of Perry. “And he sticks by his guns – and you know how I feel about guns.”

. . .

“Not every child is born into ideal circumstances, but every life is sacred,” Palin wrote. “Rick Perry knows this – it is at the core of his being.”

There’s the ticket. Sarah Palin is beginning her 2012 Presidential run in Texas appealing to the extremist right wing Christian crowd by backing Rick Perry over Kay Bailey Hutchinson in the Governor’s race. Texas has a lot of delegates, so it seems a smart political move for Palin, but time will tell on that, of course. One wonders, of course, if her backing of Perry also has to do with Hutchinson’s luke warm response to Palin’s Vice Presidential candidacy. Is this a form of payback? Now that’s old fashioned politics we all know and love, isn’t it?

Well, it cannot be denied that Hutchinson was luke warm to Palin last fall. An article in the Dallas Morning News on September 4, 2008 shows Hutchinson as a bit less than inspired by Palin, and lots of folks last fall were wondering why McCain picked Palin over Hutchinson (like here) if he wanted a woman on the ticket. But I’m thinking this is not Sarah Palin playing hardball and getting back at Hutchinson, who for the most part played the good GOP soldier after McCain picked Palin. This is simply a case of Sarah Palin snubbing the woman in a shrewd poltiical move to enegrize the extremist right wing Christians she will need if she decides to run for President.

Wednesday, February 4th, 2009 by Steven Reynolds |

Boy Scouts: Forget Trustworthiness, Conservation

Today’s Boy Scouts have been embroiled in issues concerning religion and gay and lesbian rights, that’s for sure, but who would have thought they would support clearcutting over conservation, despite the wishes of the man who donated the land to them. Perhaps they are adding a clearcutting merit badge to the list of honors a boy can earn?


Commentary By: Steven Reynolds

I’ve mentioned before on these pages that I am an Eagle scout, son of a father who is an Eagle scout, brother or three Eagles scouts as well. As much as I found value in those experiences, the setting and achieving of goals, and especially of the values of the scouting oath, I would be hard-pressed to render my son’s moral upbringing even in part to the guidance of the Boy Scouts of America. As this case in Spokane represents, it appears the Boy Scouts can’t be trusted, at least not with a solemn bequest. They were given a bequest of 400 acres, and the donor showed with his own work that he wanted the land to be used for a Boy Scout camp. Well, they’ve been clearcutting it. From the San Francisco Chronicle:

It’s been 62 years since conservationist Virgil McCroskey donated 400 acres of timberland near this village in Idaho’s panhandle to the Boy Scouts, with big ideas for a big new camp.

But don’t expect any pup tents or even the faintest whiff of smoke from Camp McCroskey these days. Falling trees extinguished the campfire years ago.

Rarely used for camping, the land instead has become a moneymaker for the Inland Northwest Council of Boy Scouts. Over the past 35 years, the council has clearcut and otherwise logged parts of the gift, collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars – some going to pay off the mortgage on council headquarters in Spokane, according to a former member of the council’s directors board.

Never mind that McCroskey shunned logging in his later years, supporters say, or that he specifically cited how the Scouts should use the land when he deeded it in 1947: “for camp and recreational purposes, the site to be known as –Virgil Talmadge McCroskey Camp.’ “

Council officials interpret McCroskey’s deed to mean they can log the land, as long as revenues are spent on anything related to “recreational purposes.”

That last bit sounds like an awfully liberal interpretation of Virgil McCroskey’s wishes. Instead of building a camp at the site, they logged the site, providing income to the Boy Scouts, for sure, and they probably did use that for recreational purposes. But it should be clear to most of us that Virgil McCroskey intended that this 400 acres be used by boys enjoying the great outdoors, and even learning lessons about conservation rather than about clearcutting.

According to the wikipedia entry for Mr. McCroskey, he was dedicated to conservation even in the face of logging threats, fighting for a long while to found a couple state parks in the region with land he donated. No, reading that entry could give the Boy Scouts little doubt as to the ends he intended for the land he donated to them. They simply were not trustworthy in carrying out Mr. McCroskey’s desires. And they evidently don’t give a whit about conservation.

Sunday, February 1st, 2009 by Steven Reynolds |
« Previous Page