Read Tony Messenger’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial piece on the death today of State Auditor and gubernatorial candidate, Tom Schweich. It’s heartbreaking. If you don’t have the stomach for sad stories and righteous anger is more your thing, just read the excerpt that Michael Bersin posted below  

Messenger makes it clear that he doesn’t know the nature of the desperation that led Schweich to do what he did. What he does know: the chair of the Missouri Republican Party, who claimed neutrality in the primary race between Schweich and Catherine Hanaway, was, according to Schweich, planning to undercut Schweich through a “whisper” campaign. Schweich’s grandfather was a Jew and that seems to be sufficient to do damage among Republicans.

The use of a race-baiting whisper campaign is old-hat for Republicans. The Nation describes one of the more notorious examples:

Eight years ago this month [i.e.,  Jan. 2008], John McCain took the New Hampshire primary and was favored to win in South Carolina. Had he succeeded, he would likely have thwarted the presidential aspirations of George W. Bush and become the Republican nominee. But Bush strategist Karl Rove came to the rescue with a vicious smear tactic.

Rove invented a uniquely injurious fiction for his operatives to circulate via a phony poll. Voters were asked, “Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain…if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?” This was no random slur. McCain was at the time campaigning with his dark-skinned daughter, Bridget, adopted from Bangladesh.

In his editorial article Messenger hones in on racism in Missouri:

Missouri is the state that gave us Frazier Glenn Miller, the raging racist who last year killed three people at a Jewish community center in Kansas City. It’s the state in which on the day before Schweich died, the Anti-Defamation League reported on a rise of white supremacist prison gangs in the state.

Division over race and creed is real in Missouri Republican politics, particularly in some rural areas. Schweich knew it. It’s why all week long his anger burned.

True enough. But from what I’ve been seeing over the past six years, this roiling racist frenzy isn’t just a Missouri phenomena, but the new defining characteristic of the Republican Party itself. Since Richard Nixon, Republican politicians have been attempting to generate and exploit white racial resentment. But it’s taken the election of an African-American president to rouse the tribal hysteria that we’ve seen in recent years.

Republican politicians and their media counterparts on Fox television and rightwing radio routinely engage in the type of racist innuendos and slurs that would have been enough to have ruined careers a decade or so ago had anyone dared say out loud what is now par for the course. I could give examples, but there’s so many it’s hard to choose – and you already know what I mean. Take for instance,  this list of the ten most racist moments at the last GOP convention. It’s even disturbed some Republicans. Charlie Christ left the GOP because “‘I couldn’t be consistent with myself and my core beliefs, and stay with a party that was so unfriendly toward the African-American president.” Hmmm, unfriendly. Politicians are politic, but the gist is clear.

As for anti-Semitism, remember Eric Cantor? You know, the Jewish guy who used to be House Majority Leader – and the only Republican Jewish member of the House of Representatives? Prior to his defeat, which many attributed to anti-Semitism, Cantor essentially admitted that racism and anti-Semitism was a problem in the House GOP caucus. And you all know about the history of anti-Semitism in the leadership of the American Family Association (AFA), the group that has given its heart, soul and financial support to the Republican Party – which reciprocates by regularly regularly sucking up in the AFA’s direction.

Of course rightwingers become apoplectic when they hear that other R word coupled with Republican, not to mention anti-Semitism. Not Islamophobic though – they seem to like that epithet. And it’s not just the denial; there’s all the projection too. Wingers are always on about how liberals are the real racists. Sadly, though their outrage is far too shrill and contrived; their red-faced conniption fits ultimately just make the rest of us laugh.

But I’m not laughing now. Folks who have a chance of adding control of the executive branch of our state to their legislative branch trophies, are accused of waging an anti-Semitic whispering campaign against a fellow party member. It’s going to be hard to escape the fall-out from this latest, local evidence of Republican moral rot. Or at least it ought to be.

*Phrase added in next to last paragraph.

McCain didn’t call out our own Senator Roy Blunt by name, but the implication is clear; the shoe is clearly measured to fit Blunt and he’ll just have to wear it. So how did Blunt who is usually very careful to try to appear reasonable when he’s in front of adults (his Republican base is another matter – witness the Obama “monkey” comments) earn the vituperation of the admittedly often vituperative McCain?

Remember back when Democrats who had had enough of GOP obstructionism changed the requirements for approval of presidential appointments to a straight-up majority vote rather than a super majority of 60 votes? The change only went so far; it didn’t apply to legislation or to appointments to the Supreme Court. And it took lots of provocation and unfilled positions before Harry Reid was moved to act:

It represented the culmination of years of frustration over what Democrats denounced as a Republican campaign to stall the machinery of Congress, stymie President Obama’s agenda and block his choices for cabinet posts and federal judgeships by insisting that virtually everything the Senate approves be done by a supermajority.

And do you remember what Republicans said at the time? I believe that there were accusations of “irreparably damaging” the Congress and disregarding “constitutional prerogatives” along with threats of a bad outcome for Democrats down the line. Our own Republican Senator Roy Blunt echoed Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s  sinister threats of bad times ahead for folks who dared stymie GOP obstructionism:

“The last time the Democrats decided they were going to do something all by themselves it was Obamacare,” said Senator Roy Blunt, a Missouri Republican. “And I’m pretty sure they regret doing it that way and my guess is they’ll regret this at some point too.”

Now that it’s proving successful, I doubt that there are many Democrats who regret Obamacare, but Blunt, who apparently never forgets a grudge, thinks that he can insure that Democrats regret changing the filibuster rules. Along with fellow Republican Senators Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, and Mike Leeof Utah, Blunt is proposing a similar change to the approval process for Supreme Court nominees.

Oddly, though, as Politico notes, not all Democrats are as disturbed by the proposed expansion of the rule change:

“We’re witnessing a massive flip-flop in slow motion,” said Adam Jentleson, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). “Democrats appreciate the vote of confidence from Republicans in the wisdom of our rules change.”

It seems that whether or not our pols approve of changing the rules that govern congressional approval of judicial nominees depends on how confident they are that their party will take the White House and Senate in 2016. And many Democrats aren’t necessarily sure that 2014 presages a GOP victory in a presidential election in which most of the Senate seats that are up for grabs will be, contrary to the last election, in less GOP-friendly states. And of course, they’re also watching with glee the gathering of rightwing clowns, ethically-challenged governors and GOP establishment retreads who are now declaring their presidential ambitions.

In fact, the most outspoken condemnations of the Blunt/Alexander initiative comes from a Republican:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) warned his colleagues about the “sheer hypocrisy” of such a move. “We said this was outrageous what they did,” McCain said. “Not only how they did it, but what they did, OK? Some of my Republican colleagues seem to have forgotten that. Some selective amnesia.”

Sheer hypocrisy! Hear that Roy Blunt? John McCain is shocked by your sheer hypocrisy. Of course, lots of us here in Missouri could have told him all about how Blunt rolls a long time ago. But it’s not a bad thing to have Blunt outed by one of his own party, even if it is coming a bit late. As Eric Posner observes in Slate:

… . When senators argue about the filibuster, they appeal to the public interest, but if their position on the rule always reflects their political interests, then they are, essentially, lying. It all seems like a game.

A game. Indeed. But, of course, it’s a game with potentially deadly consequences. It’s just too bad that nowadays the GOP can’t find any players that aren’t plain and simple liars and hypocrites. I know why Democrats had to change the initial rule; I also know why Republicans are proposing to expand the change. The reasons aren’t even remotely similar. I’m with John McCain on this one.

Narration: In two thousand and eight Mitt Romney gave John McCain over twenty years of tax records. After reviewing the records the McCain campaign decided Romney wasn’t right for the vice presidency. We don’t know what’s in those records. But something made John McCain think that this woman was more qualified.

Previously: “…I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!”

Senator John McCain (r) via Twitter this evening:

@TomCoburn @MarkUdall @Clairemc & I announced today a bi-partisan amendment for a 2-year ban on all earmarks http://tinyurl.com/2ugj9op     less than 10 seconds ago  via web  

The press release:

SENATORS McCAIN, COBURN, UDALL AND MCCASKILL CALL FOR EARMARK MORATORIUM FOR FULL SENATE

Senators Plan to Offer Amendment at Earliest Opportunity

November 16, 2010

Washington, D.C. ­- U.S. Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK), Mark Udall (D-CO) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) today announced their intention to force the U.S. Senate to hold a public vote on a binding earmark moratorium, which would go into effect immediately and last two years, at the earliest opportunity.  A vote could happen as early as tomorrow.

“The time has come for Congress to put a stop to the corrupt practice of earmarking once and for all,” said Senator John McCain.  “Every time Congress passes an earmark laden appropriations bill we are robbing future generations of their ability to attain the American dream.  This is simply immoral.  And it is, of course, unconscionable to waste money in these difficult times on pork barrel projects that have little purpose other than to improve the re-election prospects of their authors.”

“The greatest national security threat facing our nation today is our national debt and a Congress that refuses to acknowledge the depth of our challenges.  Earmarks are not only wasteful but are terrible distraction for both parties.  The sooner we get rid of earmarks the sooner we can go to work on the difficult task of getting our budget under control,” Dr. Coburn said.

“Out-of-control spending has caused us to rack up huge deficits, which now threaten our future economic prosperity and our national security.  The American people want us to show them that we’re serious about taking action to solve this problem.  The only way we can reform the status quo is if everyone takes responsibility for the problem.  Not only will I not request earmarks, I’m going to work to end the process so that Congress can focus on what Americans want most – a secure economic future,” said Udall.

“I’ve been working to change the earmark culture in Washington since the day I was sworn in, but frankly it’s been a lonely fight for Senators like Dr. Coburn, Senator McCain and me until very recently,” McCaskill said.  “It’s encouraging to see so many new faces join this effort over the last few days and I am excited to work with them in finally ending the flawed practice of earmarks. The truth is that earmarks are simply not a good way to spend tax dollars – I believe that funding should always be based on merit, not politics.”

The bi-partisan moratorium, which would apply to all bills in fiscal years 2011, 2012 and 2013, would create rule to allow members to raise points of order against any bill that includes an earmark.  The definition of earmarks under the moratorium is:

“A provision or report language included primarily at the request of a Senator or Member of the House of Representatives providing, authorizing, or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or Congressional district, other than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process.”

###

Before anyone gets too excited about his seriousness read what he posted via Twitter a day earlier:

Happy birthday @Sn00ki     about 24 hours ago  via Twitter for iPhone  

Who the hell is Sn00ki? You’ve got to be kidding me.

Res Ipsa Loquitur – go, read the comments.

Win!:

Does this mean Snooki will be on Meet The Press?

Good question.

When it comes to immigration reform, this one?:

May 22, 2008, 3:51 pm

McCain Says Immigration Reform Should Be Top Priority

By MICHAEL LUO

….When Mr. McCain’s presidential bid stalled last summer, many blamed his advocacy for the immigration reform bill in the Senate, which included a pathway to citizenship for the illegal immigrants already here in the country….

Or this one?:

Arizona Senator John McCain supports immigration reform that would deport illegal immigrants

BY Aliyah Shahid

DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Tuesday, July 6th 2010, 1:09 PM

Arizona Sen. John McCain has a message for illegal residents of his state: Go back where you came from.

McCain, who has been veering right to try and win his Republican Senate primary against conservative former Rep. J.D. Hayworth, said on Tuesday that he supports immigration reform that would deport those living in the country illegally.

“No amnesty. Many of them need to be sent back,” McCain said…

Or on TARP, this one?:

McCain on TARP back in ’08

….And here’s the statement McCain released on Oct. 3, 2008, after the House passed TARP: “I commend the House of Representatives for coming together to pass the economic rescue bill today. I’m glad I suspended my campaign to go back to Washington to help bring the House Republicans to the table. I believe that the taxpayer protections that have been added have improved the bill. This rescue bill is not perfect, and it is an outrage that it’s even necessary. But we must stop the damage to our economy done by corrupt and incompetent practices on Wall Street and in Washington….”

Or this one?:

Sen. John McCain: I was misled on bailout

by Dan Nowicki – Feb. 22, 2010 12:00 AM

The Arizona Republic

Under growing pressure from conservatives and “tea party” activists, Sen. John McCain of Arizona is having to defend his record of supporting the government’s massive bailout of the financial system.

In response to criticism from opponents seeking to defeat him in the Aug. 24 Republican primary, the four-term senator says he was misled by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. McCain said the pair assured him that the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program would focus on what was seen as the cause of the financial crisis, the housing meltdown….

Or on gay marriage, this one?:

McCain: Same-sex marriage ban is un-Republican

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 Posted: 4:29 PM EDT (2029 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona broke forcefully with President Bush and the Senate GOP leadership Tuesday evening over the issue of same-sex marriage, taking to the Senate floor to call a constitutional amendment that would effectively ban the practice unnecessary — and un-Republican….

Or this one?:

McCain Woos the Right, Makes Peace With Falwell

Possible 2008 Presidential Contender Makes Inroads With GOP Base

By TEDDY DAVIS

March 28, 2006

….But McCain “reconfirmed” to Falwell that he would support a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman if a federal court were to strike down state constitutional bans on gay marriage….

On government wiretapping, this one?:

John McCain Q&A

By Charlie Savage

Globe Staff / December 20, 2007

….There are some areas where the statutes don’t apply, such as in the surveillance of overseas communications. Where they do apply, however, I think that presidents have the obligation to obey and enforce laws that are passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, no matter what the situation is….

Or this one?:

Adviser Says McCain Backs Bush Wiretaps

By CHARLIE SAVAGE

Published: June 6, 2008

WASHINGTON – A top adviser to Senator John McCain says Mr. McCain believes that President Bush’s program of wiretapping without warrants was lawful, a position that appears to bring him into closer alignment with the sweeping theories of executive authority pushed by the Bush administration legal team….

We could go on and on. Think Progress can and does.