History keeps repeating itself because we’re too stupid to learn from the past (hat tip to Elmo at They gave us a republic…):

Harry S Truman: …If the congressional elements that made the Taft Hartley law are allowed to remain in power and if these elements are further encouraged by the election of a Republican president you men of labor can expect to be hit by steady barrage of body blows. And if you stay at home as you did in nineteen forty-six and keep these reactionaries in power you’ll deserve every blow you get…

Uh, yep.

The republican majority in the United States Senate defeated the repeal of DADT in a vote of 40-57:

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress – 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Upon Reconsideration, Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 3454 )

Vote Number: 270 Vote Date: December 9, 2010, 03:33 PM

Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected

Measure Number: S. 3454 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011)

Measure Title: An original bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2011 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.

Vote Counts: YEAs 57

NAYs 40

Not Voting 3

YEAs —57

McCaskill (D-MO)

Claire McCaskill’s vote was not a surprise to most:

Claire McCaskill (D): “Kitchen Table Talk” in Kansas City, part 3 (December 19, 2008)

….Question: Hi, I just have a quick question, my name is Sarah…about the military. Two years ago when you were on Hardball with Chris –  

Claire McCaskill: I know what you’re going to say! Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell!

Question: Yeah. I want to know, two years later, especially with the support of Barack Obama in reevaluating Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and recent document signed by 104 Generals and Admirals, if you have rethought your position on reevaluating Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Claire McCaskill: I think you will see action on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. And, I think that – I think we’re to the point that people realize that that is a probably irrelevant consideration. And as I said to a general the other day, “I wish you guys were as worried about the problems you have in the military in terms of-” I’ve been very involved in looking at sexual assault issues that women have had in the military. And there has been an incredible problem of women being sexually assaulted in the military and us not dealing with it. Not with the right mental health provisions, not with the right criminal consequences provisions, and I think there is now, you know as time goes on, I think you are seeing adjustments, even within the military that I think, it has a very good chance of passing this time, if we, if he changes the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy and I’ll be happy to support it. And my daughter, the one that talked me into voting, publicly endorsing Barack Obama, will be so glad that I’ve said that publicly. [audience laughter][applause] She bugs me constantly about it! Constantly! I will just be sitting at my desk, in the Senate, and I’ll get a text message, in all capital letters, “WHAT ABOUT DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL?” Exclamation, exclamation, exclamation. So Maddie will be glad you asked the question. Yes…

That was two years ago.

The arc of homophobia is long and it bends toward frustration.

Rep. Todd Akin (R-2nd) could relax and have an easy life – when it comes to legislative policy, his ostensible job,  all he really has to do is continue to support the party line and mouth the supplied talking points. But Todd is not one to take the easy path – he wants to be deeply involved in the Really Big Issues.  That’s why he’s joined the charge to admonish the president for referring to the wrong national motto.  Apparently, while visiting Indonesia, Obama, in order to make a point about strength in diversity, identified the national motto as “E Pluribus Unum,” which means one from many – you can see the appeal. Akin’s preferred “In God We Trust” would, of course, have done nothing as a rhetorical trope to further that point.

In fact, “E pluribus Unum” was actually the original national motto that was established by the founders. “In God We Trust,” which is preferred by Akin and some of the other members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, kicked around for a while and only became the official national motto in the 1950s, as an offshoot of the hysterical response to “godless” communism that was prevalent at that time.  

“In God We Trust,” along with the “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, though, have been the lynch pins of Akin’s legislative career. He campaigned hard to have them reaffirmed a few years ago – and, in spite of their less venerable origin, he works hard to present them as if the founders, whom he often pretends to channel, found them engraved in stone out back in the revolutionary cabbage patch :

A bill to reaffirm “In God We Trust” as the national motto, and the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance was passed with a 99% vote in the House, and unanimously in the Senate. Rep. Todd Akin, (R-MO) voted for the measure. Apparently he is unaware that the “Under God” phrase is a relatively recent addition to the Pledge. He said: “I think the Congress was expressing the fact that they support the recitation of the pledge as it has always been supported.

Actually, concern with “In God We Trust” is just one more thing that Akin has in common with Sarah Palin. Last March Palin regaled an anti-abortion fundrasing dinner with her concerns that the godless socialists in Washington had moved the the phrase from the center of our coins to the edge. Fortunately, a Fox news anchor was able to reassure her that the change had been made under President Bush, and we have, consequently, heard no more of her angst about sidelining God on our coins. And you thought no one on Fox ever told the truth – too bad the same anchor can’t do a number on Akin and pals.  

Today St. Luis Public radio KWMU broadcast our Missouri senatorial delegation’s somewhat muddled thoughts on the President’s proposed tax deal.

Claire McCaskill, as usual, says as little as possible as deliberatively as possible:

So, I’m gonna continue to drill down and look at it very carefully, make sure that what we are doing is very stimulative. Frankly, that extra bonus for the multimillionaires, that’s not very stimulative. If it were stimulative we would have had a lot of jobs created the last decade and we haven’t.

Let’s see … McCaskill’s going to have to “drill down” to figure out how stimulative giving a hundred thousand dollar minimum tax break to each American millionaire might be? Somebody should acquaint her with the fact that economists are already on the record that there’s little stimulus to be found in that quarter. It’s actually common knowledge, which is why the Republican rhetoric is so hilarious and will cost them dearly in the long run. And why isn’t she worried abut the effect on the deficit? This is a woman who opposed a program proven to be  stimulative, the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program, because it wouldn’t be “fiscally prudent.”

Kit Bond, on the other hand, sleepwalks it in:

And I expect if this bill goes through it is going to generate the jobs. And I think it is simple economics 101 and I am disappointed that some people don’t understand that. No jobs are created by raising taxes.

Glad to know that Kit’s got those expectations. Not likely to be realized though; as those of us who actually took economics 101 know, the relationship of tax policy to economic growth is just a little more complex than he realizes. Ample evidence exists that tax cuts don’t always create jobs – if they did, the Bush tax cuts would have done so over the ten years they were in force. Instead, after years of lack-luster performance, we are in a employment crisis.    

Interesting fact: Missouri has 55,000 households that earn over $200,000. It has around 280,000 unemployed. Whose spending do you think is going to do the most for the economy? Believe me, those 55,000 aren’t going to do that much to provide an alternative for the 280,000 who need jobs – real stimulus is the only thing that will do it.

Interesting question: Who are McCaskill and Bond working for? The 55,000 households that would see their tax on income over $250,000 increase? Or those of us who muddle along – including the 280,000 who won’t muddle along too much longer without continued unemployment subsidies. How much longer will we put up with pols who would even consider holding the welfare of the majority hostage to the welfare of their wealthy pals.

Later thoughts …. Reading this over, I am not sure that I made it clear that I think the problem is that our Senators are seriously considering a deficit-busting deal that would give away $133 billion in tax breaks to 4.8 million people on the GOP side, as opposed to $214 billion in tax breaks and other provisions to benefit 156 million people on Obama’s side. It costs too much for the amount of stimulus it will provide, it’s unfair to the working poor, and there are too many risky elements – setting a precedent for raiding Social Security payroll taxes, for one.

An elegant solution: let all the tax cuts expire, come back in 2011 and introduce legislation for a middle class tax cut and let the GOP oppose that if they dare! The only issue that gives me any pause when I consider this suggestion is that of the unemployment benefits extension, but I truly believe that if they were willing to fight, the Democrats could get benefits extended for a lot less cost.  

Via our good friends at Fired Up!:

“….The Senate Conservative Fund has also begun the vetting process and is considering endorsing [Sarah] Steelman [r], according to sources involved in the deliberations. If he does back her, Steelman would be DeMint’s first endorsement of the 2012 cycle….”

Oh, pretty please, Santa, I promise I won’t ask for anything else for the holidays…

Governor Jay Nixon (D) is having a really good month.

Today at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C001135 JAY NIXON FOR MISSOURI [pdf] 12/8/2010

Noranda Aluminum, Inc

391 St. Jude Industrial Park

P.O. Box 70

New Madrid, MO 63869

12/6/2010

$25,000.00

Medical Holdings, Ltd.

Box 3068

Fort Smith, AR 72913

12/6/2010

$15,000.00

Cornerstone Health Care Inc.

222 South First St.

Rogers, AR 72756

12/6/2010

$10,000.00

[emphasis added]

Arkansas? They must really like us.

That’s $50,000.00 in three contributions today. Now they can update that website, right?

Previously:

As if contributions still come in if you’re not running for reelection? – part 5 (December 7, 2010)

As if contributions still come in if you’re not running for reelection? – part 4 (December 2, 2010)

As if contributions still come in if you’re not running for reelection? – part 3 (November 30, 2010)

As if contributions still come in if you’re not running for reelection? – part 2 (November 23, 2010)

As if contributions still come in if you’re not running for reelection? (November 19, 2010)

Campaign Finance: not quite keeping up with the Kinder (r)… (November 9, 2010)

How seriously do the Missouri Democrats take internet outreach? Here’s a screenshot of the highest ranking state Democrat’s personal website:

Nice enough website for the 2008 campaign. The only problem with it is that I took the screenshot just a few minutes ago. And Nixon pays a campaign consulting firm tens of thousands of dollars. You think that they could muster a few updates to the website in two freaking years.

…Adding that while I’m not a big fan of Nixon or McCaskill obviously, I really want them to do what I view as the right thing. That’s why I continue to needle them.  

Or man the phone banks?

Yeah, right.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

December 07, 2010

Press Conference by the President

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

2:25 P.M. EST

….Q    Where is your line in the sand?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, look, I’ve got a whole bunch of lines in the sand.  Not making the tax cuts for the wealthy permanent — that was a line in the sand.  Making sure that the things that most impact middle-class families and low-income families, that those were preserved — that was a line in the sand.  I would not have agreed to a deal, which, by the way, some in Congress were talking about, of just a two-year extension on the Bush tax cuts and one year of unemployment insurance, but meanwhile all the other provisions, the Earned Income Tax Credit or other important breaks for middle-class families like the college tax credit, that those had gone away just because they had Obama’s name attached to them instead of Bush’s name attached to them.

So this notion that somehow we are willing to compromise too much reminds me of the debate that we had during health care.  This is the public option debate all over again.  So I pass a signature piece of legislation where we finally get health care for all Americans, something that Democrats had been fighting for for a hundred years, but because there was a provision in there that they didn’t get that would have affected maybe a couple of million people, even though we got health insurance for 30 million people and the potential for lower premiums for 100 million people, that somehow that was a sign of weakness and compromise.

Now, if that’s the standard by which we are measuring success or core principles, then let’s face it, we will never get anything done.  People will have the satisfaction of having a purist position and no victories for the American people.  And we will be able to feel good about ourselves and sanctimonious about how pure our intentions are and how tough we are, and in the meantime, the American people are still seeing themselves not able to get health insurance because of preexisting conditions or not being able to pay their bills because their unemployment insurance ran out.

That can’t be the measure of how we think about our public service.  That can’t be the measure of what it means to be a Democrat.  This is a big, diverse country.  Not everybody agrees with us.  I know that shocks people.  The New York Times editorial page does not permeate across all of America.  Neither does The Wall Street Journal editorial page….

Oh, that’s a really good idea. He finally gets testy with someone – it’s just the people who got him where he is because they sort of believed what he said he was gonna do.

Unlike 2008 the idyllic fall landscapes in 2012 probably won’t be marred by very many people in t-shirts with a spiffy logo handing out campaign literature. Except for the ones wearing a t-shirt with a moose superimposed over a map of Alaska.

I probably need to find a hobby. I figure I’ll have a lot of extra time on my hands in 2012.

Every once and a while I take a look at the The Record Blog, which is sponsored by the conservative Missouri Record online journal. I like to see what the other guys are talking about and how they are arguing their points. Occasionally, my curiosity is repaid and the journal’s editor and main blogger, Patrick Tuohey, or another contributor actually construct an argument for their point of view that that is really an argument, not simply a litany of slogans. However, I am at a loss to explain this short post on Susan Montee’s appointment as the incoming Chair of the Missouri Democratic party:

.

… state Democrats have given us a chair.  To wit, Susan Montee, former State Auditor-elect has been chosen to serve as furniture.

………..

… We’re just worried about the rest of the office suite.  There is no word yet on who will be serving as table, credenza or file cabinet.  But rest assured, once a capable credenza has been elected, a margarita machine will be placed upon him or her forthwith.

I am taking up your time by drawing your attention to this clunky attempt at humor because I don’t get it. Do I have to be a right winger to understand what Tuohey is getting at? Is he that worried that substituting “chair” for chairman is too politically correct – a label that makes strong wingers tremble? Or, if he concedes to the desire for courtesy that leads some to use gender neutral words now that more women are active in business and political life, does he just prefer “chairperson”? Is he trying to lampoon Montee specifically, or the state Democratic Party (here the comparison to furniture might actually be kind of apt given the Party’s general lifelessness)? Or maybe, like some five year olds I have met, he thinks the word “chair” in this context is funny all by itself? If so, it explains a lot.

At any rate, the bit about the margarita machine on the office credenza (elected or not) is not a bad suggestion, and Montee should take it under consideration. It might liven things up a little – which would be a welcome change for the state party. Ooops! Did I just get the joke?