Raising Cain.

For those of you who don’t watch The Colbert Report and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, you’re not only missing some of the best comedy on TV. You’re missing some of the most accurate news analysis anywhere.

Lately, Stephen Colbert and Stewart have been exposing the absurdity of the decisions by conservatives on the US Supreme Court ruling that money equals free speech and that corporations have the rights of people. To do so, Colbert created a Super PAC called Americans For A Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow. Then after he learned that he out-polled John Huntsman in his native state of South Carolina, Colbert created an “exploratory committee” to assess his chances of running for President. (No doubt that he would be better than any of the Teapublican candidates, but that’s beside the point.)

Colbert then turned his Super PAC over to his good friend and business associate, Jon Stewart. Now labeled The Definitely Not Coordinating With Stephen Colbert Super PAC, Stewart claims it is keeping him busy sorting receipts for crown polish, first-class airfare and his new diamond tiara, the intent is to show that there are virtually no restrictions on how much money can be contributed on behalf of candidates and how little control the FEC exerts over that money.

Now Colbert and The Definitely Not Coordinating With Stephen Colbert Super PAC are asking that South Carolina primary voters vote for Herman Cain. Why? Colbert is too late to get on the primary ballot, and the 9-9-9er has dropped out of the race. So any votes for Cain may be assumed to be votes for Colbert and against the Supreme Court decision.

So, if you’re eligible to vote in the South Carolina primary, please vote for Colbert…er…I mean Cain. After all, if we must have a clown in the presidential race, it may as well be a good one.

The Continuing Destruction Of Our Two-Party System.

Destroy limits on corporate political donations – check. Marginalize President Obama – check. Block Democratic presidential appointments – check. Block all attempts to improve the economy – check. Destroy ACORN – check. De-fund Planned Parenthood – in progress. Destroy labor unions – in progress. Suppress minority voters in key swing states – in progress. Destroy confidence in mainstream media – check. De-fund Public Broadcasting – in progress. Destroy the Environmental Protection Agency – in progress. Destroy confidence in government – check.

I will probably be dismissed as a leftist conspiracy crackpot for writing this. But if you think these things are unrelated, you’re wrong. More than 40 years ago, right wing Republicans along with conservative Christians set out to change the political landscape. They pushed moderate politicians from their party, labeling them RINOS (Republicans In Name Only). They attacked the media for daring to publish any story counter to their beliefs then eliminated the Fairness Doctrine to allow right wing media to lie as much as they want.

They focused on judicial appointments to replace moderate “activist” judges with conservative “activist” judges. Evangelist “Christian” Pat Robertson prayed (or should it be spelled preyed) for the death of moderate Supreme Court justices so George W. Bush could appoint “true” conservatives. They even attacked science for daring to teach such “leftist” ideas as evolution and climate change.

As a result, politics in this country have undergone a dramatic shift to the extreme right. Many traditional Republicans have switched parties or left politics altogether. Many moderate Democrats are former Republicans. And traditional Democrats are relegated to the Progressive Caucus and dismissed as extreme lefties.

In many states, thanks to the 2010 census and lack of Democratic voter turnout in 2010, Teapublican legislatures are hard at work gerrymandering congressional and legislative districts to benefit their candidates. But the most disturbing development of the Conservative/Religious alliance is the current attempt to suppress minority votes.

In 38 states (particularly swing states), Teapublicans are busy pushing bills to eliminate “voter fraud” by demanding photo IDs for voters. Nevermind that confirmed instances of voter fraud are virtually non-existant. In some states, it’s estimated as many as 50 percent of minority and elderly voters do not have driver’s licenses. Many of those people will find it difficult to obtain photo IDs. So Teapublicans are hoping that they won’t make the effort. And who will it help to suppress minority votes? Certainly not President Obama.

Our two party system and, as a result, our middle class have never been more at risk. If you think that’s accidental or the product of circumstances, think again.

Justice (At Least Temporarily) For Arizona.

Two weeks ago, I wrote about Governor Jan Brewer and her political cronies’ removal of the independent chair of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. It seems the Teapublican congressional representatives were unhappy with the commission’s proposed maps which placed two Teapublican congressmen in the same district. More important, the Teapublicans were angry that the maps would create a few more competitive districts, which meant that the winner of the Teapublican primary wouldn’t be able to waltz through the general election.

So the scorpion-eating governor did the only thing she could do. She phoned her office from New York where she was peddling her self-congratulatory and largely fictional autobiography, demanding that the chair be removed for “gross misconduct.”

Of course, her obedient Teapublican minions in the State Senate voted in lockstep to impeach the chair. Then they patted themselves on their backs and crawled back into their hidey holes to plot the next attack on Democrats, independents, immigrants and anyone else who dares challenge their gun-toting, Latino-bashing, Obama-hating authority.

There was only one problem with the Teapublican power grab. The Arizona State Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to the impeachment.

For some reason, the Supreme Court justices did not accept the argument that Teapublican power in the state is absolute. They didn’t buy the argument that Brewer could dismiss the independent chair if she didn’t like the chair’s haircut or dress (yes, Brewer’s attorney actually made that case). Instead the justices quickly ruled that Brewer’s action was an unconstitutional over-reach.

But reasonable people in Arizona (they actually represent about two-thirds of the state’s population) shouldn’t relax yet. Brewer’s spokesmouth says the governor is reviewing the decision and contemplating the next step. Of course, the next step should be to allow the commission to do its job without interference. But that seems unlikely. This is, after all, Arizona.

The Planned Destruction Of Our Two-Party System.

If you wanted to destroy the opposing political party – not just defeat it – what would you do?

You’d probably look to take away its source of funding while finding ways to dramatically increase yours, such as destroying labor unions while legalizing unlimited corporate contributions as “free speech.” You’d try to marginalize and delegitimize its leader by claiming he was not born in the US. You’d try to destroy its local organizers (ACORN). And knowing that most disputes will end up in court, you’d try to stack the courts with your own appointees while blocking the other party’s.

When the other party is in power, you’d try to block any attempts to improve the economy through filibusters. You’d try to destroy confidence in any media outlets that don’t support your point of view by eliminating the Fairness Doctrine and defunding public broadcasting. You’d try to eliminate as many regulations as possible, so when you regained power you could do whatever you want. And you’d try to destroy public confidence in a government run by the other party.

When your party is in power, you’d try to change the rules to favor your candidates. You’d try to redraw the congressional and legislative districts so you could get more candidates elected. And you’d try to suppress voting blocs that tend to vote for the other party’s candidates through voter suppression efforts such as those being pushed through Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin.

Finally, to ensure your party’s future dominance, you’d try to control our schools so you could teach your own version of history and pseudoscience by rewriting textbooks such as those published in Texas.

If you think that I’m being paranoid, that these events are coincidental, or that both parties do the same things, you simply haven’t been paying attention.

The Ghosts of George W. Bush and Richard (The Dick) Cheney.

On January 20, 2009, you probably thought the Bush/Cheney administration had come to an ignominious end.  You were wrong.  The problems generated by these goons still haunt us.  The war in Iraq may be winding down (although we can’t be certain), but the war in Afghanistan is growing.  The oil companies and Big Pharma are still holding a gun to our collective heads.  The Wall Street tycoons are still gambling with our money and paying themselves six to eight figure bonuses.  The corporations and utilities are still spewing poisons into our atmosphere.  The gun lobby is still rewriting laws to permit more weaponry.  Health insurance companies are still hauling in record profits while denying care to millions. 

Don’t blame Obama.  These issues all began or at least ballooned under Bush/Cheney and it will take years to change them. 

But these issues are the least of our problems.  Seriously!  The most problematic legacy of the Bush years is a Supreme Court dominated by conservatives who liberally support big corporations while denying rights for individuals.

And now that the Roberts Court has over-reached by over-turning 103 years of established law to allow unlimited funding for candidates by large corporations, what Senators or Congressional representatives will dare to vote against corporate interests when those corporations can spend millions, maybe billions, to defeat them in the next election?  What Gubernatorial or Legislative candidate will be able to raise enough money to compete with a corporate-sponsored foe?  The majority opinion of the Court says it ruled to erase limits on free speech.  The effect will be very much the opposite. 

The Most Activist Court Ever!

For years, conservatives and the religious right have decried what they considered “activist” Justices on Supreme Court.  They howled about the Roe v. Wade decision on abortion.  Indeed, they screamed about any decision that restrained anti-abortionists.  They whined about any decision that protected the rights of gays and racial minorities.  And they went ballistic over decisions that affirmed separation of church and state.  On radio and television, some evangelists even prayed (or should I say preyed) for liberal Justices to die so that George W. Bush could nominate more conservative Justices.

Today, the conservative Supreme Court committed its most activist action ever. 

By undoing decades of prior decisions that limited the role of corporations in political campaign, the conservative Court gave a blank check to corporate intervention in our elections.  More precisely, they created an environment that will provide blank checks to candidates who are willing to legislate on behalf of corporations.

Let’s say the financial industry wants to fight regulation (and it does) it may now take all of those billions of dollars in bonuses and spend them on advertising for candidates who are opposed to financial regulation.  Or, let’s say the insurance industry wants to fight health care reform.  The insurance companies may now spend billions on candidates who will fight for the status quo.

If you think those prospects are chilling, imagine the impact on candidates themselves.  Will any candidate or elected representative be willing to make decisions that could be perceived negatively by large corporations?  Doubtful.  It’s almost a certainty that our Congressional Representatives, already unduly influenced by corporate lobbyists, will obediently pander to those with the money and influence to affect their political future.

How will independent individuals compete?  The short answer is they won’t be able to.  Thanks to Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, Justice Alito and Justice Thomas, corporations and organizations now enjoy free speech and, soon, you will not.  From this day forward, it will be a government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations.