Breaking Up Big Corn

The Administration's new biofueld strategy was better than it looked at first glance, especially if it means the death of ethanol subsidies.

The Obama administration on Tuesday proposed renewable-fuel standards that could reduce the $3 billion a year in federal tax breaks given to producers of corn-based ethanol. The move sets the stage for a major battle between Midwest grain producers and environmentalists who say the gasoline additive actually worsens global warming.

For much of the last decade, federal officials have touted the potential of corn ethanol as a substitute for gasoline and a tool for reducing global warming and foreign oil dependence.

However, environmentalists and others have questioned the wisdom of that support.

A recent Congressional Budget Office study found that increased ethanol production was responsible for 10% to 15% of last year's increased U.S. food costs. And the rush to produce more corn for fuel has had a global environmental impact as forests and other vegetation have been cleared to make way for cropland.

I believe in alternative fuels as part of the solution, but not when it competes with that other type of fuel, the food that fuels our bodies. Not only does corn-based ethanol expend more in energy for its production than it saves, but it artificially raises food prices globally and impedes efforts to reduce world hunger. If the President is serious about following the science, he will allow the EPA tests on emissions of biofuels to show that corn and soy-based biodiesel do not meet the test. Already the Energy Department has used stimulus money to boost the cellulosic ethanol industry.

Speaking of following the science, watch Mike Pence stumble his way through an interview where he denies global warming, questions stem cell research and equivocates on evolution, and then claim not to be "anti-science." Fun stuff.

What Election?

I'm watching Hillary Clinton school a bunch of wingnuts in the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Particularly, she responded to Mike Pence, who put on his very serious voice to denounce that devastating smile and handshake between President Obama and Hugo Chavez. The Secretary of State responded that, and I'm paraphrasing, we tried to isolate enemies for eight years, and where did it get us? President Obama won an election, and won a primary against me, offering a different vision, and the people agreed with his approach.

The Republican Party and its allies, simply put, act as if there was no election in November. In some cases they quite literally act that way, trying to stall Democratic victories. But that's the overall tenor as well. Washington remains wired for Republicans, and the focus continues to be on either relentlessly trivial issues or the fundamentally conservative slant on those issues, and thus the key questions never get asked.

Meanwhile, I haven't seen any reporter ask Cheney or his staff what seems like an obvious question: If there exist documents that prove that torture prevented attacks on the US, and those documents can be released without jeopardizing national security, why didn't the Bush administration release them before leaving office?

It isn't like it's a surprise that the Obama administration has made some changes in Bush administration torture policy; Cheney and Bush had to know that was a possibility. So why didn't they release this evidence that supposedly proves that torture is a necessary national security tool? (If the answer is that they feared releasing the documents would jeopardize national security, there's an obvious follow-up: Why does Cheney want them released now?)

But of course the election has been essentially disappeared. That "accountability moment," as George W. Bush once famously called it, where the public considered the options and made their will known, didn't happen. And the likely loss of the bare minimum seats to sustain a filibuster, which even the man running the Senate races has acknowledged, doesn't impact this outlook, either. They have bought the Kool-Aid that they have a silent, non-voting (apparently) majority and refuse to be moved by public opinion but to retrench. It's actually quite remarkable and ahistorical:

After losing ground in 2006, you might have expected Republicans to start distancing themselves from the hugely unpopular president and his failed conservative policies. Instead, the caucus held remarkably firm behind Bush’s agenda. And then they lost a bunch of additional seats in 2008. At this point you again might have expected them to start acting conciliatory. But they haven’t been. Which might lead you to suspect that they have some kind of secret master plan to explain why this makes sense. But, clearly, they don’t—Cornyn acknowledges that his side is likely to lose more seats.

I've heard this called the Republican death spiral, as the rump Southern contingent gathers more and more power inside the party while eroding the party throughout the rest of the country. That the Republican Party is now less popular than Venezuela makes no difference. They have become less a political concern than a weird theater group obsessed over slights toward Miss California or Presidential public gestures than the clear expressed will of the public.

And wait until they get a load of this. Hissy fit alert!

Egyptians are cautiously rejoicing over the recent appointment of a veiled Egyptian American Muslim woman as an advisor to President Obama.

Dalia Mogahed, senior analyst and executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, was appointed this month to Obama's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

...This was good too.



"I don't consider (Dick Cheney) a particularly reliable source."

There's No Way To Make "I Hope He Fails" Sound Good

Mike Pence is trying his best, but it's just not possible.

SANCHEZ: Did you hear what Rush Limbaugh said, “the dirty little secret is all Republicans want Barack Obama to fail?” Very direct question to you, Sir. Do you want Barack Obama to fail?

PENCE: Come on, Rick. Nice try. I know what Rush Limbaugh meant. … Everyone like me, Rush Limbaugh and others who believe in limited government, who believes in conservative values, wants the policies that this administration is bringing forward, higher taxes, massive increase in government spending, a huge increase in the role of government, in our daily lives, departure from traditional values. You bet, we want those policies to fail. Because, Rick, we know big government, increases in debt, the micromanagement of the economy out of Washington, DC is a policy that will fail.

The leader of the Republican Party himself, in an email exchange with Greg Sargent, couldn't say that a successful economic recovery would be good for the country.

I asked:

I understand that you don’t think Obama’s policies are destined to succeed. Reasonable people can disagree about that. However, putting aside the question of what the policies are destined to do, is it true that if they succeed in their stated goal of righting the economy — however far-fetched that may be to you and others — then would that be good for the country?

Or, alternatively put, putting aside the question of what the policies are in your view destined to do, is it true that if they fail in their stated goal of righting the economy, won’t the country suffer further as a result?

Rush answered:

I reject your premise, especially since you are rejecting my answers. I will not put aside the question of what the policies are destined to do because that IS THE POINT.

This is actually better than the "I hope he fails" terminology, but not by much. The idea conservatives are trying to say is that they feel Obama's policies would move the country in the wrong direction. It's laughable given the direction we're in as a result of the last Republican President's policies, but it's at least an argument. But with the initial phrasing on the table, it's impossible for them to wind themselves out of this mess. They can't divorce themselves from almighty Rushbo, so they have to say "yes, I hope he fails" and then fill in the blanks with an alternative language where hoping the President fails doesn't mean that they hope the country goes into ruin.

It seems to me that conservatives are guilty of what they accused Democrats of doing for many years - wanting the war in Iraq to fail, wanting the economy to fail, etc. But of course, Democrats never put it in those terms. They argued that Bush's policies wouldn't succeed, and they were RIGHT. That's a far different construction.

Some on the progressive side like Peter Daou doesn't think that elevating Rush Limbaugh makes a lot of sense. I don't think Democrats have a lot of power in this equation. Rush is perfectly capable of elevating himself within the Republican ranks - the Big Money Boyz are offering Michael Steele a fat cup of STFU on the issue. The point is that Rush is entirely unpopular with the vast majority of the country, who don't listen to his show. Limbaugh cost the Republicans the US Senate in 2006 when his Michael J. Fox bashing elevated Claire McCaskill. It's a proven strategy, and Republicans talking about Limbaugh means they're not talking about anything appealing to the country at large. I fully agree that Obama and the Democrats will be assessed on whether or not they can bring the country out of this economic death spiral; we're always judged on cleaning up the mess, they're never judged on making it. But there's no reason that Republicans shouldn't have to run in circles and be forced to reconcile the hateful extremism of their de facto leader in the meantime. "I hope he fails" is a great tombstone for these guys.

...This is both amusing and useful. It's an automatic Limbaugh apology generator! Give to the conservative politician who criticizes Limbaugh only to have to retract it in your family.

And Clean Up That Slobber Before Leaving

So Rush Limbaugh is hoping Barack Obama fails. Which, to 90% of America, is a repulsive comment. But to the 10% of America that controls the Republican Party, it's "truth to power." And anyone who dares cross Rush will have to give penance for their insolence.

Yesterday, Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA), the chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, complained to Politico about how Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talkers are able to “stand back and throw bricks” instead of offering “real leadership” in the middle of high-profile public policy battles. Gingrey’s brave remarks got him in hot water.

This morning — because of what he called “high volume of phone calls and correspondence” in response to his comments — Gingrey issued a retraction, declaring his loyalty to hate radio. “I see eye-to-eye with Rush Limbaugh,” he said, later adding that he, Sean Hannity, and Newt Gingrich were “the voices of the conservative movement’s conscience.”

But Gingrey’s mea culpa was not yet complete. Apparently concluding that his criticism of Limbaugh was so off-base that it merited a personal, on-air apology to Limbaugh, Gingrey made a rare guest appearance on Limbaugh’s radio show this afternoon. Addressing the hate radio host as a “conservative giant,” Gingrey apologized for what he termed his “foot-in-mouth disease“:

GINGREY: Rush, thank you so much. I thank you for the opportunity, of course this is not exactly the way to I wanted to come on. … Mainly, I want to express to you and all your listeners my very sincere regret for those comments I made yesterday to Politico. … I clearly ended up putting my foot in my mouth on some of those comments. … I regret those stupid comments.

LIMBAUGH: Well, look, I appreciate that. … I’m glad that you called.

Hey Mike Pence? You're next to be called to the principal's office.

Asked whether he shares Rush's hope that Obama will fail, Pence, the no. 3 ranked House Republican and a leader of congressional conservatives, demurred.

"Let me just say, every American hopes that our president is a success," said Pence. "But I agree strongly with Rush Limbaugh that on those issues that President Obama has committed himself to more government or more spending or a departure from traditional values, that I hope Republicans and other leaders around the country will be steady advocates for the American people.

"Everyone hopes that America succeeds and our president succeeds," Pence added, "but Republicans are going to stand for conservative values..."

Rush Limbaugh is a leader among the conservative nutjobs that have taken control of that party. He is driving it right into the ocean but that's his prerogative. And Republican officeholders cannot put an ounce of distance between themselves and this pill-popping blowhard. And I can't say it any better than this:

Alan Grayson, the outspoken member from Orlando, as usual, wasn't mincing words: "Rush Limbaugh is a has-been hypocrite loser, who craves attention. His right-wing lunacy sounds like Mikhail Gorbachev, extolling the virtues of communism. Limbaugh actually was more lucid when he was a drug addict. If America ever did 1% of what he wanted us to do, then we'd all need pain killers."