Tag Archives: corruption

Shame

Posted on by
Reply

By Jay Hansen

It’s not often I dedicate an entire article to simply reiterate the words, postings, and videos of other people, but the reactions to the Senate’s abject failure to pass any sort of gun control legislation are so perfect that it’s like the words were taken right off my page. I’m not talking about the assault weapons ban or the high-capacity magazine clip ban or even universal background checks. This bill would have expanded mandatory background checks to include gun shows and online purchases, but still contained several loopholes such as if the transaction took place in a rural area it would be exempt. Even that was defeated by a minority of dangerously incompetent conservatives in both Republican and Democratic parties. The bill received 54 votes, but Republicans filibustered it, as they do all legislation, and so it was defeated.

We’ll start with President Obama.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

It’s not often I have praise for Obama’s words. Normally they’re tainted with political double-talk that, when decoded, translates into promises of selling out liberal principles. This is not one of those times. For once, I actually whole-heartedly approved of the President’s message. There were a few nit-picky things I would have done differently but, considering who Obama is, this is about as passionate, blunt, angry, and honest about how Washington really works as he gets. Everything he said was important to hear, especially when he pointed out that 91% of Americans and over 80% of Republicans supported making background checks prior to purchasing a gun universal for all sales. Despite this, the efforts in the Senate failed, and it’s entirely because of corruption in Washington, which I was actually a little shocked to see Obama talk about so honestly. The NRA bought our politicians, as all special interests do, and used their power over them to defeat this measure that nearly all Americans agreed upon. Seriously; I’ve never seen a majority like that on a political poll. So for once I am entirely sincere in my thanks to Obama for at least calling the situation out for what it was; a shameful failure of the American political system because of the corruption of special interest and big money.

But for a more passionate response, we have to go to my man Cenk Uygur. Buckle up.

I know how it can feel being asked to just watch a video of a political commentator you might not necessarily agree with, but I would hope my gun advocate and conservative friends would watch the above video. Seriously, I don’t even really have anything more to say. I would just end up transcribing everything he said into this article. If you’re taking the time to indulge me to read this article, just watch the above video to get an understanding of what happened this week, how mad people are, and the whys to both of those questions.

To explain how the NRA and their bitch politicians managed to stop this bill with such a tiny minority of Americans and Senators, just watch his second video.

In the past I’ve pointed out clear-cut cases of obvious lying on the part of politicians and media outlets, but I’ve never seen an effort on such a large scale that involved such an abject, inarguable lie. It was literally written in the bill that no federal registry of guns was to be created. It is already the law that federal registries are prohibited. This bill would have even made it a felony to even propose a federal registry punishable with up to 15 years in prison! Yet politician after politician spoke out on the grounds that this bill would create or somehow inevitably lead to a federal registry. Any politician that argued against this bill on the fear-mongering tactic of a federal registry is an abject liar.

If a politician is willing to lie about something so brazenly, in order to do the will of a special interest group (any special interest) rather than carry out the will of their actual voting constituency, let alone do their job and defend them, why on Earth should we trust them on anything else that comes out of their mouth? If they are willing to lie on something that they can so easily be busted on, why trust them on more complex issues such as taxation, regulation, spending, worker’s rights, women’s rights, or anything else?

Senators Inhofe and Coburn were among the minority that defeated this extremely weak, watered-down bill and perpetuated these brazen lies. They’ve openly, inarguably lied to you, and yet I’d be willing to bet not a single conservative will hold that against them when election time comes. I wrote about this in an article where I tried to break politics down to a more minimalist, simplistic level for the politically simple-minded. If you’re unhappy with the way Congress is working right now, why do you keep voting for the same people?

This exact same sentiment was echoed by the final voice I have to evoke today; Gabrielle Giffords. Unfortunately, she still has great difficulty speaking (you know, because she was shot point blank in the head by a madman with an assault weapon), so it’s only the written word, but it was still a powerful, brutally yet necessarily honest, political and personal story. I won’t quote the whole thing in full hear even though I’d like to; I suggest everyone head over to her article in The New York Times and read it yourself when you have the time. I’ll still share with you some of her most poignant statements, starting off with what is very possibly the most powerful right-out-of-the-gate sucker punch I’ve ever seen come from a politician (save for maybe Alan Grayson).

SENATORS say they fear the N.R.A. and the gun lobby. But I think that fear must be nothing compared to the fear the first graders in Sandy Hook Elementary School felt as their lives ended in a hail of bullets…

On Wednesday, a minority of senators gave into fear and blocked common-sense legislation that would have made it harder for criminals and people with dangerous mental illnesses to get hold of deadly firearms — a bill that could prevent future tragedies like those in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., and too many communities to count…

I watch TV and read the papers like everyone else. We know what we’re going to hear: vague platitudes like “tough vote” and “complicated issue.” I was elected six times to represent southern Arizona, in the State Legislature and then in Congress. I know what a complicated issue is; I know what it feels like to take a tough vote. This was neither. These senators made their decision based on political fear and on cold calculations about the money of special interests like the National Rifle Association, which in the last election cycle spent around $25 million on contributions, lobbying and outside spending…

I am asking every reasonable American to help me tell the truth about the cowardice these senators demonstrated…

Giffords ended her article by reiterating an earlier statement she had made the day the legislation was defeated, and where she passionately makes the case for the exact point I just made.

Let’s keep something in perspective here, people; there are 535 members of Congress. You only have say in who three of them are. That’s literally half a percent of the total Congressional body. If you are truly dissatisfied with the failures of Congress, particularly because of the inherent corruption of the current system of power and incentive structure, then you have to stop voting for these guys. I don’t care if you primary them or vote for their opponent in the general election only as a punishment vote; when someone’s been around as long as some of our most corrupt politicians it’s much more likely they’re part of the problem than solution.

The rate of incumbency and the duration of a politician’s incumbency these days is enough to corrupt even the most honorable person. Our own Senator Inhofe has served in the federal Congress for 25 consecutive years. Okies continue to complain about the federal government, but continue to vote for the same old establishment politicians that have been around for a generation or more. Next year, Senator Inhofe is up for re-election once again, and I bet Oklahomans will just ignore all the brazen lies he’s told in the debate on gun control, amongst other issues (as if there weren’t enough reasons to vote him out already).

So please heed my words when I tell you the best way to fix a broken Congress is simple; THROW. THE BUMS. OUT. Be they Republican or Democrat; corruption and complacency know no party lines.

To be fair, there are a few politicians that would be worth keeping in Congress, even though they are a vast minority at this point. Just off the top of my head, a few names that come to mind are Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Rand Paul (R-KY), and maybe Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), as well as Congressmen Ron Paul (R-TX), Alan Grayson (D-FL), John Yarmuth (D-KY), maybe Keith Ellison (D-MN), and even Walter Jones (R-NC).

Sadly though, I’m not even so sure of even them any more because of S. 716. What is that, you might ask? Well, it revised an older bill known as the STOCK act which required lawmakers and high-ranking federal employees to publically disclose all “insider trading” and other financial dealings in an online database to prevent the abuse and exploitation of their exclusive access to financial sector information for personal financial gain. Lawmakers and their associating federal employees are privy to all sorts of “behind the scenes” financial information and tips about investing because of their positions and responsibilities in investigating, regulating, or just interacting with the financial sector. Insider trading is one of the most direct ways lobbyists can corrupt a politician or worse their staffers, who are the ones actually responsible for writing their legislation, scheduling meetings with lobbyists, collecting donations, and much more When the STOCK Act passed in 2012, Obama praised it as a much needed victory to help restore the “deficit of trust” between Washington and the rest of America. Well, last Friday, S. 716 was introduced to exempt all staffers working for lawmakers from this bill entirely, even though they’re privy to the same if not more information as the actual lawmakers. Not only did it pass, but it passed in record time. It only took 10 seconds to introduce, vote, and pass this bill through the Senate, 14 seconds through the House, and just four days later was signed by President Obama. Worst of all, this all happened unanimously. Every single member of Congress, including the ones I listed above, from Elizabeth Warren and Alan Grayson to both Ron and Rand Paul and even Senator Sanders all supported it.

That’s just really discouraging. Not only discouraging, but downright heart-breaking. But on top of all that, this was rushed through last week, and signed into law on a Friday afternoon in hopes that America would be too busy worrying about the upcoming background check bill to notice. Well, we noticed. We noticed your failure to provide transparency in the STOCK Act, and we noticed your even greater failure at defending the people by voting down the most common-sense, agreeable, popular piece of legislation that has come through Congress in a long, long time.

In the words of President Obama himself, many conservatives and gun-advocates are considering this devastating loss a victory. A victory for who? A victory for what? 91% of Americans supported expanding background checks. 54% of Senators supported expanding background checks. That alone is a good enough example of how poorly our representatives actually represent us, but even then despite a majority of Senators supporting it, it still failed. So I really want to know, conservative friends, who really won here? Is this progress? Is this how a representational democracy is supposed to work in your mind? Are Americans safer today than they were before this bill was defeated? Let me add to it my question from before; how can you continue to vote for someone who so obviously and brazenly lied to you? How can you vote for someone who so obviously and openly represents the will of special interest and their donors over the will of their own voting constituency? For nearly all politicians voting against this bill, this is the sad reality that has now reached a point where it can no longer be denied, which is perhaps the one good thing to come out of this. The curtain has been drawn back and we can see the feeble men behind the Great and Powerful Oz for all the sad sell-outs they are and nothing more. I only hope more people can open their eyes and see it now, because thanks to the NRA and their bought-and-paid-for whores, it’s more obvious now than ever.

What happened this week over this bill not to control guns, not to make a federal registry, not to ban assault weapons, not to ban high-capacity magazines, not to make background checks universal for all gun purchases, but just to slightly expand the current background check system was an absolute travesty of democracy.

It’s wrong.

It’s shameful.

It’s un-American.

Members of Congress are not doing their job to represent and protect the American people.

I have no choice but to hand out the greatest insult I have yet discovered to the Senators, pundits, lobbyists, and other politicians that opposed this measure.

The 10 Levels of Republican Insanity, Part 1

Posted on by

By Jay Hansen

In the past I’ve categorized Republicans into five possible types. Well, now I’d like to add to it this scale of depth that I’ve been contemplating for a long time now. Think of it as Dante’s Inferno, with its nine levels of sin, except not as extreme. Each level is more reprehensible and unethical than the last. I even had to add a separate section just because it’s been such a hot button topic lately and didn’t really fit in anywhere else (and frankly, ten is a more psychologically appealing number than nine). Many politicians belong in multiple levels, but I placed candidates either on their big ticket issue or the most extreme aspect of their ideology. Generally, I placed candidates as deep as they could go. With that said, allow me to be your Virgil in part one of our trip into the first half of these levels.

Level One: Believers of Libertarian Fiscal Policy

Examples: Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Gary Johnson (obviously)

Look, I love you libertarians; you’re very consistent on civil liberties, and really mean what you say, but your ideas on how the free market and capitalism work are insane, which I why I put you at the very top of this pit, but still in the pit nonetheless. The core idea behind your economic principles is that there should be no government involvement or regulation of the markets whatsoever and that people as consumers and suppliers by way of supply and demand will work itself out flawlessly. Here’s the problem with this system; it doesn’t take into account human nature. Yes, in an ideal world, if a company starts doing something unethical then consumers can choose not to shop there, costing the company business, but we don’t live in an ideal world. First of all, this assumes that business owners and employers won’t result to subversive, dishonest tactics to prevent a loss of business or profit. Those in power will always seek to retain their power, no matter what. For example, how many people do you think really know where the clothing at their local Wal-Mart came from? Companies will cover-up these inconvenient truths to prevent a loss of business, and given how wealthy and powerful many of these businesses can be they can exert their money and influence to maintain that power and market dominance. On top of that, far too many consumers are forced to continue shopping at businesses despite how they may treat their employees or how unethical their management may be because they can’t afford to shop anywhere else. No matter what, those that are willing to do the most unethical things are always those that can maximize profits and keep costs down to attract the poor. All it takes is just one business owner willing to do the next most unethical thing and he will ultimately end up on top (assuming he’s smart and keeps it covered-up).

Level Two: Generic Conservative Liars.

Examples: Virtually all Republicans… and some Democrats

It’s impossible to name names for this category because so many politicians qualify for it. Virtually all Republicans qualify for it, and far too many Democrats that perpetuate their lies. Below is just a list of some of the most common lies we all hear from them on a regular basis.

  • Tax cuts create jobs
  • Tax cuts stimulate the economy
  • Regulation kills jobs
  • Less government is always better
  • Anyone who uses entitlements is a leech on the system
  • You can’t spend your way out of a recession
  • We have to protect the “job creators” otherwise they might not make jobs
  • Cutting defense spending will result in the collapse of our military
  • And many, many more

Level Three: Racists, Sexists, Homophobes and other Bigots

Examples: John Derbyshire, Pat Buchanan, Bill O’Reilly, Sally Kern, James Lankford

This one is pretty self-explanatory; people who hate or discriminate against others based on characteristics not indicative of what the bigot perceives as bad behavior or traits. Some racists today are just really old and live in another age of America, such as Pat Buchanan who mourned the “end of white America” in one of his books, and Bill O’Reilly who is incapable of understanding cultures other than his own, including others within America. For these people, their racism isn’t as bad; they just never got with the times. Hell, the average age of the Bill O’Reilly audience member is 71 years old. As Cenk Uygur often says; he’s doing his show from an old folks home. While obviously racism and prejudice is bad, we don’t have to worry as much about this category of racists because it’s only a matter of time before they die off, as their positions on the issues are already viewed very negatively.

Other racists, however, have learned how to use code talk, otherwise known as “dog whistles” that only other racists pick up on. These include using terminology like the “urban population” or “welfare moms.” Whenever evoking imagery of people on food stamps or welfare in general it often has a hint of racial undertones to it. Newt Gingrich gave us a great example of this when he accused Obama of being the “food stamp” president, while Congressman James Lankford went so far as to blame gun violence on “welfare moms.” Lankford, of course, has been even more outspoken when it comes to homophobia, using the classic clichés that homosexuals shouldn’t be entitled to “special privileges,” and therefore does not support gay marriage. He also says members of the LGBT community shouldn’t have “special protections” under the law and classifies anything from employment discrimination to anti-bully legislation as such “special protections.” Lankford even perpetuates the falsehood that sexual orientation is a choice and, therefore, people should be allowed to discriminate along those lines. He completely ignores the fact that religion is a choice, yet we don’t tolerate discrimination based on that, and… oh yeah, sexuality isn’t a choice. The fact that he believes as much, though, really tells us something about Lankford’s own sexual orientation. If he intrinsically believes sexuality is a choice, that must mean he’s making the “choice” to be straight, indicating that he himself may very well be experiencing some homosexual thoughts or urges.

John Derbyshire, former conservative writer, explained in detail how racists and those of discriminatory beliefs can still get away with it in great detail. He is an open racist against black people, but explained that having one “token” (he actually used the word token) black friend can help “shield” a racist from accusations, but cautioned to only befriend black people who have “acclimated” to “white culture,” because blacks and their culture is inherently violent and dangerous. Seriously, this is barely scratching the surface. Just watch this video about him to understand his true loathsomeness.

Then again, Bill Maher put it best when he said “the [Republican] base is actually too stupid for code.” That’s why some people like Santorum have just flat-out started saying that he “doesn’t want to make the lives of black people better by giving them someone else’s money.” That, however, still may be giving them too much credit. The infamous state representative Sally Kern from here in Oklahoma once said that “blacks” don’t work as hard as white people, that women don’t want to work as much as men, and that’s why they don’t make as much money as white males. Kern also become famous for her extreme, flagrant bigotry towards homosexuals, calling them more dangerous than terrorism and al-Qaeda. And if we’re going to talk insane sexism, we need look no further than Michelle Bachmann, who once said that she went to law school because her husband gave her permission, and that any good wife must be “submissive to her husband.”

Level Four: Extreme Donor Whores and Puppets

Examples: Scott Walker, Chris Christie, Mitt Romney

Obviously all Republicans and a majority of Democrats are sell-outs that will do whatever their donor wants, whether it’s a specific industry, company, millionaire, or just the Wall Street financial establishment in general. This level is reserved for those who are defined by their crooked politics and crony capitalism. Politicians like Scott Walker and Chris Christie are as open as politicians can be about it and completely unashamed. Christie, despite massive budget shortfalls in his state, offered tremendous tax cuts to many corporations in his state on the grounds that it would “create jobs.” The problem is not only did they not create jobs, at least one company closed a factory and cut jobs in New Jersey, but Christie still gave them the tax cut anyway. Similarly, Walker continually told the public he had no plans to weaken unions or to make Wisconsin a “right-to-work” state, only for him to turn around and support a ban on collective bargaining rights for public sector employees. He faced a recall election for this brazen lie, but he secured the backing of private sector unions because he had not yet attacked them, only the public sector. During his re-election campaign, however, a video surfaced of him speaking directly to a donor where he told them his ultimate plan was to “divide and conquer” the unions all along, and by “divide” he meant into public and private, and crush them one at a time. Because he did the will of his donors, though, he received tens of millions in out-of-state financial aid (money from people who had no legal say in the Wisconsin election) and crushed his opponent with that money, ultimately winning. As soon as the next legislative session started, despite openly promising not to cut private unions, he went after them in a bill that would allow their hours to be cut without the employee’s consent. With the public sector unions crushed, he went after the private sector in his “divide and conquer” strategy, just as he said he would to his donor. If you’re a union worker in Wisconsin, and you supported Walker, you really have no one to blame but yourself as this is one of the most clear-cut cases of special-interest prostitution by a politician in modern history.

Mitt Romney is actually at the bottom of this list because he straddles both this category and the next. Romney was defined by his multi-millionaire status in 2012 and his distant upper-classmen nature as he referred to 47% of the country as leeches and parasites. The man is a robot programmed by the wealthy to do their bidding, but doing so often required extreme flip-flopping depending on his environment.

Level Five: Extreme Hypocrites

Examples: Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Congressman DesJarlais

For Romney, I’ll just remind you of this gem: “I’m not familiar with precisely what I said, but I stand by it, whatever it was.”

Our last stop on this leg of our journey downward, though, is the level of extreme hypocrisy. Romney’s hypocrisy was mostly harmless and shallow; not even he believed his own bullshit. He knew he was lying and was just fine with that, which is why he “straddles” this level and the previous one. This category mostly exists for those that are flagrant hypocrites, but haven’t the slightest sense of irony in just how contradictory their own beliefs are. That is why Newt Gingrich makes a comfortable home here. During his intense criticism of President Clinton’s marital affair on the grounds of it being deeply immoral, he himself was cheating on his own wife, and the man doesn’t understand how or why that’s bad. He literally condoned such hypocrisy when he said “It doesn’t matter what I do. People need to hear what I have to say. There’s no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn’t matter what I live,” and claimed he was driven to commit adultery because of “how passionately [he] felt about this country.”

Even though Gingrich’s comments are outrageously offensive and mentally instable, he still isn’t the current reigning king of this stage. Congressman DesJarlais holds the spotlight as the latest addition to this stage with his astounding lack of principle and ethics. Desjarlais is a Republican representative from Tennessee who worked as a doctor prior to joining the House. He’s a very family-values, sanctity of marriage, and most of all pro-life Republican like any Tea Party favorite. As a matter of fact, abortion was arguably his number-one issue. The problem is we find out that, of course, he had a mistress. Not only that, but he had four separate mistresses. Not only that, but all his mistresses were either patients under his care or his own employees. Not only that, but he illegally prescribed drugs for them. Not only that, but he had a mistress that he got pregnant. Not only that, but he had a mistress that he got pregnant that he told to go across state lines and get an abortion, and he refused to be present for the procedure. Not only that, but he has impregnated his wife multiple times as well, and also told her to get abortions on two separate occasions on the grounds that it just “wasn’t a convenient time” to have a baby.

Not only that… but he won re-election in 2012 and still has a 100% score from the National Right to Life Committee.

On top of all of his hypocrisy he’s just stupid too. He recorded the conversation he had with his mistress telling her to get an abortion, which is mistake number one as a politician, but then he played it for his wife to prove how dedicated he was to her. Needless to say, they got a divorce.

Seriously… there’s got to be some sort of award for this guy for sleaziest politician ever. The guy actually managed to out-sleaze and out-hypocrite Newt Gingrich. Newt-freaking-Gingrich!

And keep in mind; we’re only half-way down into the pit. We’re stopping to rest here both for your sake and for mine before we press on into the less funny, far darker depths of right-wing insanity. From here on out the voyage gets much more serious as we dissect the beliefs of the sinfully greedy, uncompassionate, oppressive, and even evil.

To Senator McAffrey – Wolf-PAC and Citizens United

Posted on by

By Jay Hansen

I’ve written about Wolf-PAC on this website several times before. Wolf-PAC is a national organization supporting a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and get big money out of politics. Recently, they launched a Google Group called WolfPAC Research. It is a group dedicated entirely to researching information about state legislatures such as legislative calendars, elected officials likely to support the movement, and generally basic, essential information to help the group further its goal. After posting some information about Oklahoma’s legislative calendar I was asked to contact some state lawmakers. For now, I’ve decided to start with just e-mail, but hopefully I can find time to speak with Senators and members of the House eventually. I started with Senator McAffrey, a well-known progressive in the state of Oklahoma, and hope that he is receptive to the idea.

I chose to just do e-mail for now because my own schedule is very chaotic and starting with a nice ice-breaker e-mail that both outlines what we’re doing and even has a little fun doing it (hence my post-script) would be better than playing telephone tag. We’ll just have to see, but right now here’s my little contribution to the movement.

Letter

Dear Senator McAffrey,

My name is Jay Hansen. I’m a life-long and fifth-generation Oklahoman. Both sides of my family came here in the land run and have made it their home ever since, even through the Depression and Dust Bowl. I’m writing you today because there is an issue in America that desperately needs people’s attention, especially those in state governments. America is suffering from a plague of corruption in government by way of special interest money and big donors. As humans, we are incentivized to “work for” the person that signs our paychecks, and now we live in a society where politicians (particularly at the federal level) get tremendous gifts in the way of campaign donations and job offers from massive corporations, banks, and special interest groups. This has created an incentive structure for politicians to not “work for” their actual voting constituents, but rather their donors because of the near-limitless amounts of money and favors they are doing for them. No matter where you stand on the political spectrum, if politicians don’t put their voter’s interests first we aren’t living in a real democracy, so as a fair and free democracy, we must act to place strict regulations on campaign finance and end the influence of big money in our elections.

I am a member of an organization called Wolf-PAC. We are a national group working with state legislators across the country to support state-based legislation to call for a constitutional convention of the states in order to pass an amendment to the US constitution ending corporate personhood and overturning the Supreme Court decision Citizens United vs. the FEC. Already California, Minnesota, Montana, Vermont, Hawaii, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Texas among other states and smaller municipalities have at least introduced legislation if not passed it through their state Congresses calling for an amendment to get money out of politics. This is not an issue of left or right, liberal or conservative, or red or blue. This is genuinely something to which we can all agree; when a politician represents anyone other than his or her voters, democracy and justice is not being served and it must be rectified. That is why huge majorities of Americans – Democrats, Republicans and Independents – all opposed the Citizens United court ruling, and similarly why our federal Congress’ approval rating is so dismally low. People have figured out that their representatives don’t actually represent them, which is why putting an end to money in politics is entirely in the hands of the states.

I’m writing you to ask if you would be willing to introduce such legislation at the state level here in Oklahoma. I know there will be fierce opposition in such a heavily stacked Congress, but even just introducing the measure could at least start the conversation, and shine a light on those state officials that continue to defend the corruption in our system that now so many average citizens see. There are many reasons as to why such legislation is desperately needed but I chose to first contact you via e-mail for the sake of brevity. I would like to speak with you over the phone about this issue if at all possible, especially if you have further questions, concerns, or just an interest to learn more. I specifically chose to contact you Senator McAffrey because I have heard much about you through the Brennan Society and know you have a track record as a strong progressive willing to stand up for the little guy. There is no greater David and Goliath story of modern America than that of the American citizen versus corporate and special interest in the battle for our Republic, so I hope you can help us.

Thank you for reading my letter, and I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,
Jay Hansen

E-mail: owner@inthereddest.com
Phone (cell): (Not posting this on the website!)
Wolf-PAC Website: http://www.wolf-pac.com/
My personal website: http://www.inthereddest.com

PS – If you didn’t notice, Texas is now listed in the states moving in this direction. This means we’re being beaten by Texas on this issue, Senator McAffrey. I, for one, don’t think I can tolerate that.

America’s Dumbest Senator?

Posted on by

By Jay Hansen

You know, I spend a lot of my time perusing the progressive blogosphere and media circuits online, and a question seems to be starting to bubble up at increasing rates lately. Is Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma in fact the dumbest member of the Senate? Don’t take my words lightly here; achieving the title of “dumbest” with our current Senate is no small feat. The more I’ve thought about it, the more I’ve realized as much. But Inhofe has always had his own special brand of crazy that I’ve written about on here several times. I’m also not talking about Congress overall, so members of the House don’t count in this particular question. God knows Congressman Louie Gohmert in Texas gives him a real run for his money, not to mention Representatives Broun, Desjarlais, or Bachmann.

What most recently has drawn out this question is the controversy over the nomination of former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel to the position of Secretary of Defense by the Obama administration. For those that don’t know, allow me to explain how utterly ridiculous this entire fabricated “controversy” really is.

Hagel, despite being a Republican, is strongly opposed by many Republicans because he once had the audacity to say that he was “not the Senator from Israel, but the Senator from Nebraska” when criticizing the lobbying power Israel has over the US government, and that America’s interests and Israel’s aren’t always identical. He’s also said that war with Iran is not inevitable, and that the Iraq war, in retrospect, did not go well (even though he initially supported it). For these unforgivable transgressions of Republicanism, Hagel was branded as anti-Semitic by neo-conservatives who promptly launched a merciless propaganda campaign against him. Some even went as far as to just flat-out lie in what is one of the best examples I’ve seen of why conservative media, and those that listen to it, fail so hard.

A writer for the right-wing website Breitbart.com wrote an article called “Secret Hagel Donor? White House Ducks Question on ‘Friends of Hamas.’” In the article, Ben Shapiro (author) insinuates that Hagel is receiving funding from an organization called Friends of Hamas. Of course, extensive research has proven that no such organization does exists or ever has existed. Shapiro just made it up out of thin air, and yet his lie quickly spread. Moe Lane from RedState, another conservative website, picked up the lie in an article restating Shapiro’s ridiculous point that if the White House isn’t hiding anything, why won’t they answer their questions? You know, the ones about if the non-existent terrorist organization is funding the current nominee to Secretary of Defense? They just couldn’t imagine any other reason for the White House not responding to their question other than guilt. From there, the same lie goes to Andrew Stiles from the National Review to conservative, “pro-Israel” news organizations Arutz Sheva and Algemeiner. Conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt then picked it up and asked Senator Rand Paul about it, who only fed further into the baseless lie by adding to it the credibility of an in-office Senator saying he had “seen the information” and it was “concerning,” even though there’s absolute no real information. Remember; this was completely made up. There is no “Friends of Hamas,” and yet, from there, it gets picked up by the big boys of conservative propaganda; FOX “News.”

Former FOX “News” contributor Mike Huckabee, FOX “Business” host Lou Dobbs, and another National Review columnist Andrew McCarthy all spoke on national television about this “Friends of Hamas” organization. The appropriately named McCarthy even went as far as to say that a “report came out” with details, and added that the White House was “not denying it very vigorously,” thereby giving it the false presence of credibility despite the fact that he just admitted it was both unconfirmed and that the White House was denying it, just not “vigorously” enough for him personally. Frank Gaffney of the right-wing think tank Center for Security Policy threw in his two cents, saying that just because it’s possible these entirely fabricated rumors of Hagel could be true, the Senate should reject his appointment. So apparently, because Republicans brazenly lied enough times about Hagel and got enough people to believe it, Hagel shouldn’t be confirmed. That’s the reasoning of right-wing think tanks.

Republicans continually lied about Hagel, and that didn’t work, so next they bizarrely demanded to know more about the Benghazi attack before confirming him, even though Hagel wasn’t even in the government, let alone the administration, when the attack happened. Throughout the Republican’s obsession with Benghazi, they’ve demanded testimony from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, and multiple accounts of who the President had talked to the day of the attack. The spoken word and statements of the White House was not enough, of course, so the next day the White House provided written documentation that the Obama administration had been in communication with the President of Libya on the day of the attack. Finally, when Republican Senators did get a chance to actually interrogate Hagel over Benghazi, they used their time to ask 144 questions about Israel, not Libya, leading to this tragically appropriate SNL skit;

After all of this insanity, and despite the fact that even Senate Republicans acknowledge Hagel’s appointment is inevitable, Republicans still filibustered Hagel’s appointment to Secretary of Defense. This is the very first time in all of US history a cabinet appointment has been successfully filibustered.

And they did all of this because Hagel once said that he works for the American government, not the Israeli government. On top of that, none of the Republican grand-standing even worked; polls of the American people have continually been in Hagel’s favor since his nomination.

Now that you understand how extremely, profoundly deep the idiocy and insanity surrounding the Hagel “controversy” from Republicans is, let’s get back to the man of the hour, Jim Inhofe. Speaking with Josh Rogan from Foreign Policy (magazine), Senator Inhofe said that he could not confirm Hagel because of his “soft stance on Hamas.” What soft stance on Hamas? Who has a soft stance on Hamas? The only possible explanation as to why Inhofe believes Hagel is “soft on Hamas” is because of the completely unfounded claim I’ve just explained to you. At least Senator Rand Paul admitted he had “just heard of that,” and played the fake news like a real politician, neither confirming nor denying belief in it. Inhofe just flat out seems to believe every bullshit story written by conservative bloggers without double-checking it.

That’s not even the lynchpin of this story, though. The logical consistency behind Inhofe’s beliefs is that anyone who at any point in their career showed even the tiniest hint of opposition to Israel or support of Hamas is unfit to serve as Secretary of Defense. Well then, I’ve got some bad news for him; Jim Inhofe could not support Jim Inhofe’s bid for Secretary of Defense.

In 2006, Inhofe said Hamas has done “some good things, even as a terrorist group,” and respected their victory in Palestine’s free and fair democratic elections (even though he disagreed with it). Inhofe even went as far as to compare the work Hamas does to that of America’s largest Christian charity, the Salvation Army. That’s far worse than anything Hagel ever said or did… or, rather, did not say and did not do.

That’s the thing about Inhofe; he’s just so damn brazen sometimes it’s shocking. Remember last year when he went on the Rachel Maddow Show to talk about the extremely anti-LGBT legislation being considered in Uganda, also known as the “kill the gays” bill? Inhofe said, and I quote, “I certainly don’t have an idea on these accusations of executing gays,” even though two years earlier I had written him about this exact proposition. Inhofe had an uncomfortably close connection to the organization and people supporting the measure (it was three years ago, I can’t remember all the specifics), so I had to ask him about it. In his response, he specifically cited the legislation in question with great detail, so he did know about it, and voiced his opposition to it. So basically, to add insult to injury, Inhofe openly, directly lied on national TV about his opposition to a bill that executes homosexuals. The one time he was on the right side of history on an LGBT issue and he had to cover it up with a lie – an easily disproven one at that. Classy, Inhofe.

But that’s not even the most brazen I’ve seen Inhofe. I had to dig deep into the records to find this. I’ve been writing my representatives for years and years; long before I created this website. One of my exchanges with Senator Inhofe was about Citizens United when it first happened. Naturally, the first response I got was the typical “I support the agreement because it protects freedom of speech” response, to which I responded with the simple, indisputable fact of human nature that money corrupts, and that the ruling could lead to increased corruption amongst lawmakers. To this day, the brevity of his response shocks me. It, in full, read as follows;

–Originally sent March 26, 2010–

Dear Mr. Hansen:

Thank you for your letter and for sharing your opinions.  As your voice in Washington, D.C., I appreciate being made aware of your views.

It is a great honor to serve the people of Oklahoma as a United States Senator, and I strive always to act in the best interest of our great state.  Please know that I believe in the highest integrity and standards for government officials.  Moreover, I am working diligently to ensure a streamlined and effective federal government.

Again, thank you for your letter. I appreciate you taking the time to inform me of your views. Please do not hesitate to contact my office again with any questions, comments or concerns.

Sincerely,

James M. Inhofe
United States Senator

–End message–

The line “I believe in the highest integrity and standards for government officials” is the one that really blew me away, especially considering how fresh and naive I was to the world of politics at the time of this letter. In that line, Inhofe basically said that he believes politicians are incorruptible; that they are somehow super human and immune to the influential power of money. It stuck with me so much that I remembered to go dig up this letter nearly three years later just for this article. Inhofe, a supposed conservative that preaches about how people shouldn’t trust or depend upon the government, believes that we should have total, constant, blind trust that the politicians running it aren’t corrupt and never put special interest or their donors ahead of their constituents.

But wait; it gets even better. Not only is Inhofe’s ideology inconsistent on this front, not only is it obviously untrue that politicians are always of “high integrity,” but Inhofe himself does not believe it. All it took to completely discredit him was a simple search on Inhofe’s own website for “special interest.” I found a quote of Inhofe talking about the influential power of special interest, particularly environmental organizations, and just replied to his message to point out that his stance on the issue is impossibly contradictory, to believe that politicians are always of “the highest integrity” but can also be “bought” by special interest. Unfortunately, I could not find the original article I linked to him three years ago, but I did find another in which he speaks of special interest which you can read here, though it is not as damning as the original I found.

It may go without saying that I did not get a response to that last message.

It’s not just a fundamental lack of logic or consistency that makes Inhofe the dumbest Senator though, it’s the fundamentals of his beliefs and the purest definition of “stupid” there is. Inhofe is openly anti-science, as I’ve written about before. Even though it’s literally his job to represent the people of the state who suffered the worst man-made climatic and environmental disaster of all time (the Dust Bowl), Inhofe does not believe that man-made climatic disasters are even physically possible. Worse, he believes as much because that would imply humans are more powerful than God since they would be altering His creation. This causes him the mild inconvenience of cognitive dissonance since his religious beliefs make no damn sense in the face of science, fact, and reality, so the rest of humanity has to suffer the fallout of global climate change because Inhofe doesn’t want to admit that his personal interpretation of Christianity may be flawed.

And that’s completely setting aside all the money he’s received from the energy, oil, and other industries that have profit motives to combat environmental regulations and spread lies about global warming not being real, which would just take us back to my previous point about corruption.

But why stop at global warming? If Inhofe believes that an empirically provable science is untrue because of how he personally interpreted the Bible, or because of what his personal sky god told him, what can’t Inhofe deny?

Then again, what would you expect from a guy that endorsed Rick Perry for president.

So maybe it’s time we seriously start to consider whether Inhofe is in fact the dumbest Senator in the United States Senate. Other Senators like Ted Cruz aren’t stupid or dumb at all; they’re intellectual, just insane. Others still like Mitch McConnell are just huge corporate whores that sell-out to the highest bidder, often mandating contradictory and seemingly stupid statements, but still falling short of flat-out stupid.

There’s only two possibilities for Inhofe; either he’s flat-out stupid in that he does not understand science or human nature and forgets his own political ideology regularly, or he’s just so brazen and complacent that he’s realized no matter how directly he tells a bold-face lie, his constituents will never call him out on it. The latter would imply that Inhofe both believes and depends upon the fact that Oklahoma voters are among the dumbest voters in America that are either too stupid to notice his obvious lies or are too closed-minded and juvenile to ever question what their infallible government and politicians tell them. Even then though, especially in the information age where we have things like Google to find out a politician’s track record, doesn’t Inhofe’s carelessness in his brazen lies still involve a great deal of stupidity?

So really, either way, Inhofe could very easily be considered the dumbest Senator in Washington, which is no small feat in today’s Congress. The saddest part about that, though, is that it says more about the people of Oklahoma than it does Inhofe.