Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Corporate Dems Like Schumer Aren't Done Wrecking The Democratic Party


I've never missed an election in my life-- even while living in difficult to vote places like the mountains of Afghanistan-- and I've never voted for a Republican, although before I was old enough to vote, I was a volunteer for John Lindsay, a liberal Republican-- they had them back then-- running against the conservative machine hack Abe Beame. Lindsay responded to the GOP's inexorable drift rightward by switching to the Democratic Party while he was mayor. That said, it has gotten harder and harder for me to vote for Democrats in recent years. The further Democratic candidates drift from progressive values and principles, the more I find myself voting for judges and assemblymen and leaving out congressmen (Blue Dog Adam Schiff), senators (Dianne Feinstein) governors (Gray Davis) and presidents (Barack Obama, 2012).

A week ago, in a comparison between Netroots Nation and the New Music Seminar I was grumbling about the stature accorded to conservative corporate Democrats Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer. Why not invite Rahm Emanuel, Harold Ford, John Barrow or Robert Rubin? They're Democrats too. When it started the New Music Seminar was a place you could see live shows from REM, The Pixies, The Buzzcocks, My Bloody Valentine, RomeoVoid, 10,000 Maniacs, Smashing Pumpkins, Sonic Youth, Dinosaur Jr and Run DMC. Not Chuck Schumer. Oh I don't care if Chuck Schumers and Joe Bidens come to this kind of thing-- and it's none of my business anyway (and, of course, it is a business)-- but why elevate them and give them some kind of status among the cutting edge? Bleccchhh.

The Finance Sector, or what we affectionately call Wall Street, has given Schumer $20,385,339, more than any senator in history who hasn't been a presidential candidate-- and more than several who have! Like Biden who "only" took in $4,029,797. Schumer's never been a friend of progressives and never will be-- and I remember him from the 1960s at James Madison High School in Brroklyn! A day after he strutted around Netroots Nation, he was writing an OpEd for the NY Times that would make it easier for his Wall Street backers to own even more of the American political system than they already do. "Polarization and partisanship," he writes, "are a plague on American politics." He's sad that Eric Cantor was defeated by some scruffy teabagger and claims primaries poison the health of the political system. I remember when he was head of the DSCC and progressives fought him-- and beat him-- when he put some slimy Wall Street shill up for senator and we got behind populist John Tester, who beat Schumer's candidate and then beat a Wall Street-owned Republican incumbent.

Most of the response to Schumer's proposal to do away with partisan primaries has been very negative. 538: "Here’s the problem with Schumer’s argument: There isn’t much evidence to support it." Jonathan Bernstein for Bloomberg: Chuck Schumer Gets Primaries All Wrong. And California grassroots activist Paul Hogarth points out that Schumer's proposal would just duplicate California's dysfunction.
[I]t was Schumer’s defense of California’s top-two primary that revealed how clueless he is about my home state, and how getting rid of party primaries will only make things worse.
California was racked by polarization until voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2010 that adopted a “top-two” primary system.
Oy vey. Yes, it’s true that California’s government was dysfunctional before 2010, but that did not change because we passed the “top-two primary.” It was ending the two-thirds rule for passing a budget in 2010 that finally brought some sanity, and an increasingly blue legislature in 2012 changed things for the better.

But the “top-two” primary also created a whole new host of problems that has led to abysmal voter turnout, Republican-vs-Republican general elections and the rise of corporate Democrats in the state legislature. Oh, and the Tea Party is still a relevant factor in the state.

So no thanks, Chuck. Please don't export the Golden State's dysfunction. Lots more below the fold, written by someone who actually lives in California...

[A]s state Democratic chairman John Burton predicted at the state party’s 2010 convention in Los Angeles, it was really more about helping big business elect more of their Democrats-- with cross-over votes from Republicans.

Four years later, Burton’s prediction has proven right-- as we have witnessed the rise of the corporate Democrat in deep-blue districts that should be electing progressive champions.
The rise of what might be called the Corporate Democrat can only be partly explained by shrinking GOP delegations in Sacramento. It is also the product of redistricting and effects of the “top-two primary,” by which members of the same political party can win the top two primary positions and then face off in November. Since then, powerful corporations, agricultural associations and other political high rollers have been turning away from their traditional Republican partners and placing more and more of their chips on the Democratic end of the table-- specifically, on candidates like Marc Levine [of Marin County.]
Under the new rules, Silicon Valley Rep. Mike Honda may have easily bested Ro Khanna in the June 2014 primary-- but the “top-two” primary means that corporate Democrat Khanna still has a second bite at the apple, and will attempt to beat Honda with Republican votes. Under the new rules, Republicans can even cross over and pick their Democrat.

We saw this happen in June in legislative races, such as California’s 4th Assembly district—a deep blue district in wine country (Napa County and surroundings), where Democrats enjoy a 20-point registration edge. Progressive champion Mariko Yamada was elected under the old system, and is stepping down due to term limits. But her replacement in November will now be a choice between a Republican-- and an ex-Republican turned corporate Democrat.

That’s because there were 3 Democrats and 1 Republican on the June ballot, and the top two finishers regardless of party moved on to November. The Republican came in first with 26 percent of the vote, followed by Democrat Bill Dodd-- an ex-Republican Napa County Supervisor with heavy funding from the Chamber of Commerce, who benefited because Republicans could now choose which Democrat moved ahead. Progressive Democrat (and labor-backed) candidate Dan Wolk came in a close third, and a fourth Democrat in the race played spoiler.

California will still have a solidly Democratic legislature, but enough corporate Democrats elected under the top-two primary recently colluded with Republicans to kill a fracking moratorium. Expect more of these losses in Sacramento, as Democrats from even deep-blue districts side with their corporate donors.

Sometimes, the top-two primary allows for what could be winnable seats for Democrats into a November match-up between two Republicans. GOP Rep. Gary Miller of California’s 31st Congressional District (San Bernardino) dodged a bullet in 2012, when a crowded field of Democrats on the June ballot meant that he ended up facing another Republican.

Voters in that district, by the way, preferred Barack Obama over Mitt Romney-- so coat-tails could have netted the blue team an extra House seat. But there was no Democrat on the November ballot, so it was a wasted opportunity.

Miller is retiring this year, and we almost had a repeat in that district. But Democrat Pete Aguilar managed to score a second-place finish in June (by less than 400 votes), so the blue team will at least have a Democrat on the ballot and have a potential pick-up opportunity.

But in California’s 25th Congressional District, where another Republican (Buck McKeon) is retiring, what could have been a possible pick-up for Democrats is now assured GOP representation until at least 2016 (if not further) in a district that is trending blue.

No, Chuck, top-two primary does not mean higher voter turnout

While there are no guarantees, it seems likely that a top-two primary system would encourage more participation in primaries and undo tendencies toward default extremism.

Sen. Schumer alleges that a top-two primary would result in higher turnout. That's exactly what Arnold Schwarzenegger and Abel Maldonado promised back in 2010 when California voters were asked to pass it.

But unlike Schumer, they didn’t have the hindsight to know its effects. Now we know the answer.

The 2014 California Primary Election will go down as the worst ever in terms of voter turnout.

Voter turnout in June was an abysmal 18 percent, which of course turns out the most committed and comfortable voters-- who are disproportionately white, old and conservative.

In California’s race for state controller, we came dangerously close to another November run-off between two Republicans: Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin, and conservative David Evans-- who spent practically no money, and benefited from a healthy Tea Party turnout.
The next day, Markos took a swing at the same proposition. "Let's be honest," he urged. "Just one party is polarized, and that's the GOP. That's their problem, not Chuck Schumer's or anyone else's. Let Reublicans fix their own shit. But even both parties were polarized, so what? Partisanship is deeply ingrained in the fabric of our nation's being. There's nothing wrong with it. It gives people without the time and inclination to research every single candidate a guidepost upon which to base their voting decisions. It gives people a flag to rally around, a cause to stir them to action. That's why parties exist. And voters should be allowed to determine the direction of their own parties. That's not a problem that needs solving, and even if it was, his solution does nothing to do so… But the biggest indictment? It kills voter participation."

Before Schwarzenegger and other corporate politicians got the dysfunctional new system passed in California, primary turnout was 30%-- pretty awful… but not as awful as it was with the new system: 18%. Schumer is tired and whatever sharpness he hever ad is long dulled by time. He shouldn't run again; he should make room for fresh new ideas in the Senate.

Labels: , , , ,

Does Paul Ryan Really Want To Help Working Families And The Unemployed?


Paul Ryan's voting record in Congress-- going back to 1999 when he was a 20-something with the consciousness, though not the wisdom, of an angry 80 year old-- shows pretty conclusively he has never cared a whit about working class families. He has consistently voted against unemployment insurance for the men and women tossed out of work when conservative economic agendas have passed and wrecked the economy. So has he changed his mind? I wouldn't bet on it. Last week most Republicans and a gaggle of slimy New Dems and Blue Dogs from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party voted for a tax bill that values the children of wealthy parents far more than the value of middle class and low income households' children. Paul Ryan was not one of the mainstream Republicans who crossed the aisle to vote with the Democrats opposing that grotesquely unfair tax legislation. Paul Ryan is still the chair of the House Budget Committee, although there are rumors he will be stepping down to concentrate on his goat-milking run for the GOP presidential nomination.

Ryan has been trying to paint himself as some kind of new face of "compassionate conservatism" who can help the poor folks. Ask the poor folks how that "compassionate conservatism" bullshit worked out for them last time, when Bush used it to help him win the presidency and then proceeded to destroy the economy by lowering taxes on the wealthiest families-- a kind of reverse Robin Hood effect. Is Ryan as bad as Bush? Worse… much worse. The non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities analyzed Ryan's proposal and found that it would actually increase poverty. Robert Greenstein explains that the centerpiece of "Ryan's new poverty plan would consolidate 11 safety-net and related programs-- from food stamps to housing vouchers, child care, and the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)-- into a single block grant to states"-- Ryan's flashy new “Opportunity Grant” that Greenstein asserts "would likely increase poverty and hardship, and is therefore ill-advised." Here's why:
While Chairman Ryan describes the proposal as maintaining the same overall funding as the current system for each participating state, that would be a practical impossibility. His proposal would convert the nation’s basic food assistance safety net-- the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps-- from an entitlement that responds automatically to increased need into part of a sweeping block grant that gives each state fixed funding for the year and, thus, cannot respond in the same way. This would be a particularly serious problem when need rises, such as in recessions.

All ten programs other than SNAP that would merge into the block grant serve only small percentages of those eligible, and federal funding for them (other than low-income rental assistance programs) is comparatively modest. As my colleague Donna Pavetti points out, this means that if some people receive more services under the proposal, as Chairman Ryan envisions, those services will likely be paid for by cutting assistance that helps poor families put food on the table or a roof over their head. Some of the service programs to which funds would likely be shifted have higher administrative costs than programs like SNAP and rental vouchers, so less would remain for basic assistance to needy families. And, in some cases, more powerful state and local political forces may seek to corral more of the funding. For example, many state and local officials likely would try to shift part of the former SNAP benefit dollars to CDBG-type “development” proposals that politically powerful local developers (who often make large campaign contributions) often favor.

While Chairman Ryan says he’s driven by evidence and research, his plan would jeopardize basic nutrition assistance for poor children, which research has shown is highly effective not only in reducing child malnutrition, but also in improving children’s long-term prospects. A path-breaking recent study examined what occurred after food stamps gradually expanded nationwide in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It found that poor children with access to food stamps in early childhood (and whose mothers had access during pregnancy) had an 18-percentage-point higher high school graduation rate-- and were less likely as adults to have stunted growth or heart disease or to be obese-- than comparable children who lacked access to food stamps because their counties hadn’t yet implemented the program. By eliminating poor families’ entitlement to SNAP and placing funds for basic food assistance at risk of being diverted, the Ryan plan would jeopardize these crucial gains.

Total funding to assist low-income families-- from federal, state, and local levels combined-- likely would decline, because the block grant would afford state and local officials tantalizing opportunities to use some block grant funds to replace state and local funds now going for similar services. Chairman Ryan says that the federal block grant funds would have to be used for the poor. But that wouldn’t prevent states and localities from substituting some of these funds for existing state and local funds that they now use for some of the same purposes. That’s what happened under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant, even though Congress tried to forestall that through a maintenance-of-effort requirement and non-supplantation provisions. With broad block grants of this nature, some substitution by state and local governments is almost impossible to prevent.

History clearly shows that when policymakers combine a number of programs into a block grant, federal funding typically declines over time, often dramatically. That has occurred in most broad-based block grants of recent decades. When a broad array of programs are merged into a block grant, policymakers find it virtually impossible to identify a specific level of needed federal funding-- or the likely human impact of program cuts. As a result, the broad block grant often becomes easy to squeeze in the competition for federal budget dollars.
Basically, all the problems Greenstein cites, are exactly what Paul Ryan-- devout Ayn Rand disciple-- is trying to accomplish, not accidental miscalculations. Watch the whole video of Ryan molesting the goat at the Racine County fair Sunday-- just the way he plans on molesting working class families with his new "Opportunity Grants."

Labels: ,

Is There Any Way To Measure If Cuomo Is More Corrupt Than Christie Or Christie Is More Corrupt Than Cuomo?


Andrew Cuomo and real estate donors (clockwise from left) Joseph Moinian, Jerry Speyer, Daniel Tishman, Andrew Farkas

You shouldn't have been surprised by Bill Rashbaum's stunning revelations about Andrew Cuomo's ethics problems. Ken and I have been warning readers for years that Cuomo is nothing like his father, Mario Cuomo, a pawn of the powerful and wealthy and an avatar of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. And his corruption is nothing new to anyone who's been paying attention.

Catherine Austin Fitts is a Wall Street bankster type. She was managing director of Dillon, Read, aand worked for George H.W. Bush as Assistant Secretary of Housing and as Federal Housing Commissioner at Bush's Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). After Clinton beat Bush, he appointed Cuomo Assistant Secretary and, when he was reelected in 1996, Secretary of that department; he impressed Fitts-- as a criminal. She wrote a fascinating column-- HUD is Being Run as a Criminal Enterprise-- that should be more widely read as Democrats prepare to go to the polls to chose between Cuomo/Hochul and Teachout/Wu September 9.
One of the chief beneficiaries of Cuomo’s ascendancy to Secretary and the subsequent cancellation of the loan sales were the developers, owners and managers of apartment buildings that were subsidized by HUD and often financed through FHA and Ginnie Mae. Ginnie Mae is the HUD unit which guarantees securities issued to finance pools of mortgages insured by FHA. Many of these apartment buildings had been originally financed through tax shelter syndications.

The largest HUD subsidized portfolio at the time was the one owned by Insignia, chaired by Andrew Farkas. On September 5, 2006, as Andrew Cuomo was running for the democratic nomination for Attorney General of New York, Wayne Barrett published "Andrew Cuomo’s $2 Million Man" in the Village Voice.  Barrett reported that Cuomo’s compensation from Farkas’s company, Island Capital, in 2004 and 2005 totaled $1.2 million and that Farkas family members and business associates had donated $800,000 to Cuomo’s campaigns since he left HUD. Barrett describes Cuomo’s role as Secretary of HUD in approving an-out-of-court settlement with Insignia (regarding litigation alleging a HUD subsidy being improperly used to pay kickbacks) shortly before Insignia’s sale to AIMCO (Apartment Investment And Managing Company) in 1998.

With Insignia valuations reflecting the benefits of its settlement of the kickback litigation, the cancellation of the HUD loan sales and related policies increasing the private value of HUD subsidized portfolios, Farkas sold out to AIMCO in 1998 for $910 million, described by his attorney as a "fantastic price."

A question that remains unanswered is whether the price of the Insignia sale to AIMCO in 1998 was simply fantastic or whether-- given the pattern of events around it-- it was inflated with government resources and decisions arranged in a criminal manner.

This question raises a second question-- whether the $2 million that Farkas and his network have paid to Cuomo and his campaigns since then represent a kickback from the Insignia sale to AIMCO and whether Cuomo’s compensation is simply fantastic or something more.

…Why did HUD finances melt down under Cuomo’s leadership and what, if anything, does that have to do with the billions flowing to large HUD landlords from the government and the stock market, and the millions now flowing back to Andrew Cuomo and his campaigns years later?

…In 1997, members of my team working with HUD (now led by Cuomo) asked me to authorize Hamilton helping HUD to prepare its next budget using assumptions on the multifamily portfolio that were known to be false. For example, we were to presume that HUD’s apartment portfolio would not be impacted by welfare reform legislation that had been enacted the year before. As federal data indicated that high concentrations of tenants in privately-owned HUD-subsidized housing in large urban areas were getting federal welfare and/or food stamp subsidies, this made no sense. Our assessment was that the combined assumptions that HUD wished to use would make it easier for private owners to displace tenants in a way that would leave the tenants out in the cold without vouchers, while appropriations were preserved to fund project-based subsidies for HUD landlords.

At one point, the Hamilton team leader for our work with HUD came over to my house to try to persuade me that we should help HUD do this. He said that if we did not help HUD with the budget, he was concerned that we would be fired. We agreed that HUD was probably going to persuade the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that they could trust the budget, because Hamilton helped prepare it; hence, my concern that our involvement would be used to perpetuate a fraudulent budget. I asked him to define the value of our contract in terms of an acceptable level of children going homeless or dying. How many children should we help be forced to the streets so that we could keep our contract?  Suddenly, he stopped and said something like, "Why am I doing this? So what if we lose our contract? We have better things to do in our life than be a party to murder." To which I replied, "Now you have it."

I tell this story to remind the reader that we have become a society where the most dangerous serial killers who stalk our land kill with a pen and not with a sword. The most important unanswered question about Andrew Cuomo’s time at HUD goes beyond how or why he and his agency engineered gains into Andrew Farkas, John Ervin and so many other private pockets. The more important question is how many people went without basic necessities because Cuomo diverted resources away from honest taxpayers and the people that HUD was created to serve. How many children in New York and around the country went homeless or worse because vouchers or job training were not available?

This is the most important unanswered question… [A] growing number of investors around the world who do not want to be exposed to the banana republic style corruption now perceived to be epidemic in the United States.

New York is the center of the financial markets in the United States. The health of these markets depends on investors’ faith in the integrity of their governance. The perception that the lead New York regulator is a politician who exploits the power of his or her office for personal ambition and finances will impact the flow and pricing of capital throughout the United States.

My recommendation, to both New Yorkers and members of the US financial and legal establishment concerned with America’s ability to attract capital in global markets, is that they ensure that the unanswered questions relating to Andrew Cuomo’s dealings with Andrew Farkas and Insignia and any other HUD-related 
special interests that have financed him and his campaigns be investigated and answered before Andrew Cuomo is permitted to hold public office again.
My recommendation is that Democratic primary voters do the right thing in September and end Cuomo's career and replace him with Zephyr Teachout.

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, July 28, 2014

Colleen Hanabusa's Crazy War Against The Environment


New Dem Colleen Hanabusa has built a political career not based on values or principles but on mutual backscratching and ugly corruption. She desperately, even shrilly, wants everyone to ignore the fact that when the Sierra Club, Climate Hawks Vote, Ocean Champions and the League of Conservation Voters endorsed Brian Schatz for senator, they compared both their environmental records and found her ideal and hers… far from ideal. She would also like voters in the August 9th Hawaii primary to ignore that MoveOn, the PCCC, DFA and Blue America all sited Schatz's work on environmental protection when they endorsed him. Every single U.S. Senator that cares about the environment endorsed Schatz, from Sherrod Brown, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Barbara Boxer and Sheldon White House to all the Senate Democratic leaders, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer and Patty Murray.

Not one environmental group is backing Hanabusa. Not one progressive group is backing Hanabusa. Not one senator is backing Hanabusa. And the only Members of the House who have been trying to help her are Rahm Emanuel puppet Tammy Duckworth and right-wing warmongers and anti-environment fanatics Buck McKeon (R-CA) and Randy Forbes (R-VA). Yes, two Republicans, that's what she's got… and the Laborers Union backing her because of her support for the Keystone XL pipeline.

Remember, the conservative running against Schatz isn't a Republican. Hanabusa is a New Dem from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, a purely transactional character. Her husband, John Souza, serves as her bagman. Honolulu political insiders know that the two of them are as thick as thieves with real estate developer Jeffrey Stone, who has spent and raised more for Hanabusa's political career than anyone else. She and Souza take good care of her contributors, regardless of environmental impact. In 2011, at a time when Maui’s Hawaiian Cane & Sugar's parent company (Alexander & Baldwin) was one of her largest donors, she voted with her Republican buddies to delay implementation of EPA rules governing air quality in buildings from industrial boiler systems-- two of which Hawaiian Cane & Sugar was using.

Yesterday the Star-Advertiser ran an important piece by Derrick DePledge differentiating between Schatz and Hanabusa on environmental issues. The first paragraph is very ominous for Hanabusa, who has been running away from her repulsive record and trying to twist it out of shape for months: "U.S. Rep. Colleen Hana­busa was one of just 41 House Democrats in October 2011 to vote to delay the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's tougher clean air standards on industrial boilers." She claims her vote with the Republicans against the EPA was to save the jobs at a sugar mill (and not just for her campaign donors).

In trying to justify her vote against the Clean Air Act, Hanabusa falsely claims that this vote saved the plantation which is total nonsense. Mazie Hirono, Daniel Inouye and Dan Akaka all voted the other way on this bill, and the plantation is still alive and well. The vote clearly demonstrates Hanabusa's total lack of commitment to the environment. Combine this with her vote to clear cut the Tongass Forest and her support for drilling in ANWR and it paints a pretty dim picture of a typical lockstep New Dem shill for Wall Street interests. (As does this poll question from PPP:)

U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz, Hanabusa's opponent in the Democratic primary, argues that Hanabusa made a false choice between the environment and the economy. The EPA was already in the process of revising the rule based on public feedback.

"The EPA has shown a willingness to be flexible when it comes to Hawaii," the senator said. "And if she wanted to get the attention of the EPA, there was no need to undermine the Clean Air Act and vote with tea party Republicans."

During the primary, the two Democrats have disagreed over votes on Social Security, the Bipartisan Budget Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Arctic drilling. But their dispute over the vote to delay the EPA's rule on industrial boilers, perhaps more than any other, gets closest to illustrating what each candidate believes is their own strength and, more importantly, their opponent's weakness.

…In Hawaii, environmental groups such as the Sierra Club, which has endorsed Schatz, have been concerned about air pollution at the HC&S mill. In addition to emissions from the boilers, HC&S also conducts pre-harvest cane burning.

In June, the state Department of Health cited HC&S for more than 400 alleged violations of state clean air rules between 2009 and 2013 and assessed a $1.3 million penalty. The company has said that any violations were unintentional and plans to contest the penalty as excessive.

Hanabusa considers the vote on the EPA's rule on industrial boilers one of several that demonstrate her independence and her ability to look deeper into federal legislation and see the potential impact on Hawaii. She said she would cast the same vote again today.

"It's not an easy vote to do," the congresswoman said. "But it's a vote that I feel had to be done. And the EPA slowed down. And I think the EPA needed it, too, to be able to slow down what it was doing, because it was under court order. And to come up with a set of rules that I believe is really workable."

Schatz counters that the issue was not as complicated as Hanabusa suggests.

"This was not a close call," the senator said. "Everybody wants to support the (HC&S) plantation, but there's nobody in the congressional delegation that thought it was necessary to undermine the Clean Air statute in order to make sure that it was implemented well."

Schatz said Hanabusa "continues to think that we have to make a choice between a clean environment and a strong economy," adding, "And she's flat wrong. That is not the choice that we have to make. We can and should fight for clean air and clean water and strong economic growth at the same time."
And, of course, it isn't just Schatz who has noticed how dishonest Hanabusa is. In February, 2012, the Center for American Progress commented on this very bill and said it "essentially puts the interests of polluters over that of the health and safety of American families. It creates enormous uncertainty and goes far beyond providing the EPA with extra time to finalize their rulemaking. More troubling, this bill would delay and could substantially weaken long-overdue public health protections by allowing the continued emissions of carcinogens and other toxic air pollutants that can cause developmental harm and other serious health effects." DC daily The Hill noted delved a little deeper into the consequences of Hanabusa's support for the Republican efforts to gut EPA rules. The standards imposed by boiler MACT rules, to limit emissions of harmful air pollutants from industrial boilers and incinerators, they wrote, go after mercury, acid gases and fine particulate matter, or soot, from boilers and incinerators. "The agency said the rules would affect about 1 percent of the nation's boilers. It added the rules would yield public health benefits, preventing 8,100 premature deaths and 5,100 heart attacks per year beginning in 2015."

And maybe this is why EMILY's List is rolling out the dirty campaign tactics on behalf of Hanabusa now. It's called desperation-- and it was just released this morning. When Republicans see a poll like this, they whine that PPP is a Democratic-affiliated polling firm. Is that Hanabusa's complaint too?

Labels: , , , , ,

What? You say Comic-Connies aren't big spenders? Suddenly my regard for them has jumped


NYT caption: "Comic-Con attendees lunching near the convention center. Spending by visitors to the five-day convention, San Diego’s largest by far, is about $603, a fraction of that of much smaller events."

by Ken

Hey, almost everything I know about Comic-Con comes from watching The Big Bang Theory -- and that hasn't made it seem any more like a gathering where I would want to, you know, gather. But now comes word that the Comic-Connies stand accused of one of the vilest crimes in Consumerist America: being cheapskates.

I'm not exactly free and easy when it comes to parceling out my free nytimes.com clicks, but I couldn't resist this listing on today's "Afternoon Edition" e-mail:


I suppose this sticks out because we generally think of the Connies as among America's free-spendingest suckers consumers, don't we? Now here they are being portrayed as making their pilgrimage to San Diego and keeping their mitts in their pockets! I want to know more!

You want numbers? We got numbers, from Michael Cieply and Brooks Barnes's report, "Large Crowds Spend Little at Comic-Con":
In a recent report from the San Diego Convention Center, where Comic-Con is held, the fantasy fans ranked first in terms of the convention center’s attendance, far outstripping the combined total of its next four largest conventions, expected to be about 62,500 people.

But the Comic-Con fans were expected to spend only about $603 each during a convention that began Wednesday night and ran through Sunday. And that was only a little more than a third of the per-capita spending by those who showed up for the American Association for Cancer Research gathering in April, and similarly lower than per-person spending at the next three largest conventions in San Diego.
A measly $603 for four days? Jeez, no wonder the cancer people have the Connies eating dust! The specifics are no cheerier:
At Comic-Con, dining out is apt to mean eating a sandwich while squatting on a city street. McCormick & Schmick’s, a high-end seafood restaurant across from the convention center, sold wraps from a cart, two for $10. At midday on Thursday, more than 150 people stood in line at a nearby Subway.

“For everything? I would say, like, $50,” said Arnold Duong, a fan who was dining on the sidewalk on Thursday, when asked how much he and each of his two friends had budgeted per day for their Comic-Con experience.

Some penny-pinching attendees may actually turn a profit on the cheap posters, hats, action figures and autographs handed out at the convention. As of 3 p.m. on Saturday, more than 4,000 listings were active on eBay under the title “Comic-Con 2014.”
So what if the Connies are a bunch of penny-pinching tightwads? Here's what (lotsa links onsite):
The Toronto International Film Festival has Bell, L’Oréal, and the RBC Royal Bank among its official sponsors. Sundance this year attracted Chase Sapphire, Acura, Hewlett-Packard and Sprint. At the Golden Globes, guests sip from promotional bottles of Moët & Chandon.

But at Comic-Con, a lower-rent affair, official convention sponsorships are largely confined to media companies or game companies, like NBC and Nintendo, and the giveaways — well, a visitor is lucky to snag some lime-flavored Red Bull or a pack of Stride chewing gum.

At this year’s convention, the Samsung Galaxy weighed in with both a convention sponsorship and backing for events related to a pair of upcoming films, Marvel’s “Avengers: Age of Ultron” and “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay — Part 1.”

Adult Swim, Cartoon Network’s adult-themed programming block, also picked up corporate sponsorship for individual shows from the likes of Intel, Lexus and State Farm. But those products and their companies were kept pretty much in the background as the cartoons took center stage.

“We develop all this stuff with the idea of a sponsor in mind, but not for the sponsor,” said Amantha Walden, Adult Swim’s director of events.

In truth, companies that might flock to a Tribeca Film Festival, which for years was backed by American Express and now has AT&T as its lead sponsor, would do well to stick with the soft sell here, because nobody is buying much.
The Times team notes that "for media companies, which compete as much for eyeballs as for direct spending, a crowd this large can be irresistible, even when it does not have much cash."
“I absolutely feel like it’s a pop culture carnival, and there is an unspoken competition among networks to outdo each other,” said Michael Ouweleen, a senior vice president and group creative director at Cartoon Network.
But if you're looking to score some actual sales, you probably wish you had the cancer crowd rather than the Connies. The Times-ies report glum tidings for "the few consumer brands that took a chance on Comic-Con":
One of those was Chrysler, which sponsored a popular Dodge Challenger simulator attraction in a parking lot promotional spread for the Weinstein Company’s “Sin City: A Dame to Kill For.” Another car company, Hyundai, sponsored a display for “Legends,” a crime series from TNT. And there was a snappy, flame-orange Mini Cooper in the lobby of the Hard Rock Hotel, part of the campaign for “Pixels,” a 3-D action fantasy set for release by Sony Pictures next May.

Yet even the Elio Motors Tadpole, a three-wheeled vehicle priced at a modest $6,800, looked like a reach for some of the Comic-Con types who eyed it on Friday in the doorway of the Hotel Solamar, just a few blocks from the convention center.

“The federal government says it’s a motorcycle,” said a salesman, trying to make a glamour point of the two-passenger vehicle’s exceedingly compact nature. (A rider sits behind the driver.)

“Oh,” said one of three young women who were giving the Elio a look. Then they turned and headed back . . . to the convention.
Now that's a tough crowd, sales-wise.


What I was hoping for was the characters of The Big Bang Theory at Comic-Con. I guess we'll have to made do with the actors. Says TVFanatic Matt Richenthal: "The cast of The Big Bang Theory gathers here for a photo at Comic-Con. They were incredibly nice to us at the event."

Labels: , ,

Are Governors Too Big To Jail? Christie, Cuomo, Walker And Deal Must Be Hoping McDonnell Gets Off


Kansas Governor Sam Brownback, as we've explained before, is probably the most overtly extremist governor anywhere. Polls show that Kansas voters are determined to remove him from office and that he's likely to be beaten by a moderate Democrat Paul Davis. Brownback is losing because of his political agenda and because his vision of governance has failed dramatically and, for many in Kansas, catastrophically. But at least no one wants to throw him in prison for corruption-related charges.

At least 4 other governor-- 3 Republicans and a Democrat-- are facing the prospect of leaving office not because of their conservative politics but because of their corrupt natures. Conventional wisdom-- and a helluva lot of evidence-- has it that Nathan Deal (R-GA), Chris Christie (R-NJ), Scott Walker (R-WI) and Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) have all been steeped in the kind of corruption that doesn't just make one ineligible for public trust, but also eligible for federal prison. These are all ugly, grasping little men and they all have something in common: each is an example of the classic definition of a narcissist, a "personality a disorder in which a person is excessively preoccupied with personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity, mentally unable to see the destructive damage they are causing to themselves and to others in the process" [Wikipedia]. Watch the video below for a better understanding of the disease and why so many of our politicians are afflcted with it.

Narcissism isn't a felony and we don't put politicians in prison for it-- or even force them into mental health treatment. Narcissism, however, more often than not, will lead them into committing the kinds of crimes that are bringing down Deal, Cuomo, Christie and Walker. You remember Richard Nixon, the fella in the Rachel Maddow video up top, right? He never went on trial-- let alone spent a day in prison. Are our politicians too big to jail? We may find out as a trial unfolds starting today for ex-Governor, Bob McDonnell and his wife, a pair of right-wing crooks and narcissists from Virginia. Douglas Wilder, another Virginia ex-Governor who is friendly with McDonnell: "It’s going to be ugly. The more you read, the more sleaze develops. It’s not going to be nice for anyone." It looks like The Post has decided to make its coverage… melodramatic: "McDonnell, 60, a Republican who until January held the same office once occupied by Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry, is the first Virginia governor to be charged with a crime."
Together, he and his wife are fighting 14 criminal charges of public corruption and lying on financial documents. Prosecutors have charged that in exchange for private plane rides, golf outings, expensive apparel and $120,000 in loans, the couple helped promote a businessman’s company, setting up meetings for chief executive Jonnie R. Williams Sr. with state officials and even once letting him use the Executive Mansion for the launch of his new product.

Prosecutors will allege that McDonnell, a popular politician who had served 22 years in public life as a state delegate, attorney general and then governor, led a double life.

They will say that even as he held a reputation as a squeaky clean and earnest public servant with his eye on national office, he was secretly plotting with his wife to exchange state favors with Williams for luxuries the couple could not otherwise afford.

McDonnell’s attorneys will counter that he never promised to help Williams’s company and that the garish executive, with his boastful claims of celebrity friends, his high-flying lifestyle and a checkered business past, is now lying about dealings with the governor.

Even touchier, court filings show that McDonnell’s attorneys are preparing to argue that the governor was essentially a victim of his wife, who they will say at times accepted gifts from Williams without her husband knowing about it.

The case has been dissected in hundreds of news stories over the course of the 16 months since it was first revealed that Williams, 59, then the chief executive of a dietary supplement company called Star Scientific, paid $15,000 for the catering at the 2011 wedding of the governor’s daughter.

But the trial undoubtedly will feature new revelations about the couple and about the man from whom they accepted lavish gifts.

One detail that could emerge as defense attorneys try to puncture Williams’s credibility: Williams’s boast that he was friendly with [Lindsay] Lohan and [Paris] Hilton.

The claim came as he stood chatting in the lobby of the Four Seasons Hotel in New York City in 2009 with some of McDonnell’s aides, according to people familiar with what the aides have told prosecutors.

McDonnell had only recently been elected governor and was set to take office the next month. Williams, who had lent his private plane to the victorious campaign, had requested to meet with the incoming governor during a fundraising swing in New York City.

At the time, Williams barely knew McDonnell. But as he awaited his arrival, it was not long before Williams was holding up his cellphone and scrolling through the contact list to show off to the governor’s aides that he had the actresses’ personal numbers.

Accompanied by a friend, a New York-based male model whom Williams said he was eager to introduce to the newly elected governor, Williams told the aides that he had once flown Lohan on the same private plane he lent to the McDonnell campaign.

…The case will come down to whether prosecutors can convince jurors that the McDonnells actually lent Williams the power of the governor’s office as part of a corrupt bargain.

They must prove that the McDonnells were in a conspiracy to perform “official” acts for Williams and that they did so intending to cheat Virginia voters of the governor’s honest services.

Presiding over the case will be U.S. District Court Judge James R. Spencer, a former prosecutor and army officer appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan. He is known for his stern and businesslike control of his courtroom, and he will surely attempt to limit salacious distractions.

But the human drama inherent to the case will inevitably emerge. The couple fought unsuccessfully for the right to be tried separately. Instead, the two will share a defense table as the governor argues that his wife kept him in the dark about many of her interactions with Williams, a claim that will require laying bare potentially deeply embarrassing details of their 38-year marriage.

For instance, McDonnell’s attorneys have vigorously denied that the couple were broke, even though they had invested nearly $4 million over three years in real estate and went to Williams three separate times for loans.

Their goal is to deny prosecutors the ability to argue that McDonnell was forced to strike a deal with Williams because of secret financial desperation.

…Even their final days in the governor’s mansion were marred by the kind of jarring contrasts that the federal case has revealed about McDonnell’s four years in office.

McDonnell was consumed with completing his final budget, highlighting the accomplishments of his administration and girding for the indictment that by then seemed inevitable.

Maureen McDonnell was pressing to enjoy the final perks of office.

According to several state employees familiar with her requests, she pushed to stay at the Executive Mansion as long as possible, even asking for access to the 200-year-old historic home after her husband ceded office to Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) on Jan. 11. She reasoned that her husband was elected to a four-year term and had not taken office until Jan. 16, 2010.

In the end, the couple departed the mansion only on the morning of McAuliffe’s inauguration, breaking a recent tradition in which first families have vacated the premises days in advance to allow state employees time to prepare for the new occupants.

About a month before the McDonnells’ exit, the first lady also stunned members of the mansion’s advisory council when she asked whether she could have as keepsakes four shoeboxes full of Christmas ornaments, one from each year that the family occupied the mansion, according to two people directly involved with the council.

The Citizens Advisory Council for Furnishing and Interpreting the Executive Mansion had raised the money to buy the ornaments and had donated them to the mansion, making them state property.

They offered to let her pay for them.

She declined.
Can you imagine anyone bragging that they are friends with Paris Hilton? Can you imagine a conservative Republican governor being impressed with that? The nature of conservatism-- both sides of the aisle (keep Cuomo and Gavin Newsom in mind)-- is fully integrated into the nature of narcissism. Those natures have never and will never lead to anything else but a culture of corruption. For the sake of our democracy, let's hope McDonnell, Deal, Christie, Cuomo and Walker all get life in prison for their felonious betrayal of the public trust. I don't care whether McDonnell's wife goes to prison or not; she was his victim, not the other way round the way his lawyers are trying to paint it.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Dear Nancy Pelosi-- You're Letting Steve Israel Throw Away A Winnable Seat In Michigan


If there's one district that demonstrates the venality of Steve Israel and his utter unfitness to head the DCCC, it is the race in southwest Michigan between the hereditary multimillionaire chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Fred Upton, and Paul Clements, a professor at Western Michigan University, an advocate for middle class families and for environmental sanity. MI-06 has a PVI of R+1, one of only a dozen districts in the country with that rank. Five of those seats are held by Democrats and 7 are held by Republicans. For Democrats to ever think about taking back the House, they have to win those 7 seats. Steve Israel isn't contesting 4 of the 7, which should be enough of a reason for Nancy Pelosi to fire him on the spot. People often ask me why he isn't going after MI-06, since it would be a much more likely win than almost any of the Red to Blue seats he is going after.

There are several reasons, aside from just general incompetence. First of all, Upton was a member of Israel secret society, the Center Aisle Caucus which joined Blue Dogs and mainstream conservatives into a pact to never oppose each other in elections. And second is Israel's sweet little deal with the NRCC that if he doesn't target Republican leaders or committee chairs, they won't target… Steve Israel, the only member of either party in a district with a zero PVI that doesn't have a contested race.

MI-06 is the highest Democratic performing seat currently held by a Republican in Michigan; Obama in 2008 and hometown boy Mitt Romney only won by one percentage point in 2012. Despite that, Israel has decided to ignore Paul Clements and ignore MI-06 and dump money into MI-01 where an anti-Choice conservative Democrat is trying to win in an R+5 district and into MI-07 where a moderate, garden variety Democrat is trying to win in an R+3 seat. If Israel's CIA spy wins the primary in MI-11, he says he'll spend money there too-- a district with an R+4 PVI. But nothing, not a nickel in MI-06. Someone might ask, "Is Pelosi asleep at the wheel?" I would rephrase that: "Can anyone wake Pelosi up, or is it too late?"

And what makes this even worse is this poll that Israel and the DCCC saw last October, clearly showing just how vulnerable Upton is: 53% disapproval, 51% ready to elect a Democrat, 56% saying they would be even less likely to vote to reelect Upton after his vote to shut down the government and a final score of Upton- 36%, Democrat- 56%, undecided 8%. Steve Israel may be a moron (he is) but even he can read a poll this clear and obvious.

Israel is throwing money at districts between R+8 and R+19. He's not going to win even one of them-- NOT ONE. And he's throwing away MI-06 (and WA-06), primarily because he's a Blue Dog who hates progressives. Maybe Pelosi should have thought of that before reappointing him after his catastrophic losses in 2012 while Obama was being reelected and Patty Murray at the DSCC was cleaning the Republicans' clocks in impossible state after impossible state after impossible state. Israel couldn't even win the easy ones! And Pelosi is allowing him to replay the same ugly scenario this cycle.

People in southwest Michigan deserve better; people all over America deserve better. And what if Upton loses his primary to teabagger Jim Bussler a week from Tuesday? It's not likely-- but more likely than it was for David Brat to beat Eric Cantor. Last cycle, Upton won by the smallest margin of his career, and the local media has finally-- after all these years, started telling voters about what he;s been up to in Washington. Had Israel helped 2012 Democratic candidate Mike O'Brien, Upton would have probably lost-- or at least set the state for a loss this cycle. And Clements is an even better candidate than O'Brien… and a better fundraiser. Clements has already raised over half a million dollars (with 100 days to go) while O'Brien raised only $293,987 for the entire cycle, Israel telling institutional donors not to "waste" their money on either candidate.

In the past, no one would have read this kind of unfriendly editorial about Upton from the Kalamazoo Gazette. "Dear Fred," they wrote. "Knock it off. Let go of this irrational desire to dismantle the Affordable Care Act through unending legislative maneuvers. And, stop heeling to the extremes of the Republican Party."
Your obsession, the Republican party’s obsession, with attempting to dismantle the law has now resulted in a government shut down, because you and 227 other representatives voted in favor of a plan tying government spending to a one-year delay in the ACA's mandate requiring Americans to purchase health insurance.

In August, during a live chat on MLive.com, you wrote in response to a reader's question about a potential government shutdown over the Affordable Care Act: "I know some of my colleagues have suggested that they will not support [a Continuing Resolution] unless the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is defunded. I think this would be a lousy idea and certainly harm the most vulnerable."

It was a lousy idea in August, and it was still a lousy idea a few days ago. And, yet, you decided to go along with it. Saying Tuesday, just hours after the shutdown, "The Affordable Care Act is not ready for primetime, but shutting down the federal government is not a solution” does nothing to ease the frustration of voters.

If shutting down the government is not the solution, then don’t vote for a measure that results in that. The American public is now being made to pay the unreasonable price of reduced services-- or no services-- for this partisanship.

Which brings us to the bigger point. There is serious work to be done, be it improving Obamacare, dealing with the budget and the debt ceiling, jobs, tax reform. There is serious work that requires serious statesmanship with a decidedly bipartisan bent.
Upton is too in thrall to the teabaggers he fears to be that statesman. It's time for him to leave. He's failed miserably on Climate Change, where as committee chair he could have done more than just bottling up solutions to the greatest problem facing mankind today, which has a great deal to do with why the Sierra Club has ignored Steve Israel and endorsed Paul Clements, the loudest voice on behalf of Climate Change solutions of any candidate for Congress this year-- and running against the Republican who the L.A. Times rated as the #1 enemy of planet earth. Please consider helping Clements keep his field operation and his grassroots outreach strong. You can contribute to his campaign directly on this page. No contribution is too small. This is one where we can make a very real and very important difference.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Is There One Single Best Member Of Congress? Have You Met Alan Grayson?


When Blue America weighs the pros and cons of endorsing a candidate for Congress, we often find ourselves measuring them by how similar he or she appears to be to Orlando Congressman Alan Grayson. Grayson is brilliant, courageous and, more than anyone else in the House, he defines progressivism. And you know what? One Congressman can matter. A lot-- that's why we're asking you to consider making a contribution to Grayson's reelection campaign today.

You've probably heard that Grayson passed more amendments than any other member of Congress. You've probably heard that he helped pass the first Federal media shield bill through the U.S. House of Representatives. But you probably haven't heard that he exposed a plot by the banks to form their own war council with a bunch of three letter agencies. This sounds crazy, but you can read this Bloomberg article, titled "Banks Dreading Computer Hacks Call for Cyber War Council." It's right there. Under the guise of fearing hackers and terrorists, banks have been seeking a formal way to influence the NSA and CIA into cyber-attacks. Alan Grayson is the member of Congress who exposed it, because he knows that exposure is the way to stop the banks from gaining power they shouldn't have.

This doesn't show up on a vote tally. It doesn't show up in the Congressional Record. It doesn't take a majority of Congress to do this. It takes one person, who puts the time and effort in. That's what makes Alan Grayson special. As Martin Sheen said in the video up top, "Last year, when the prospect of war between the United States and Syria reared its ugly head, Alan Grayson worked tirelessly to convince both his colleagues and the American people to give peace a chance. Alan Grayson not only won that fight, but he also established a critical principle-- that when it's our blood to be spilled and when its our money to be spent, then it's our decision to make. Tireless, tough, creative, articulate, honest, poised and persuasive, Alan Grayson has become one of the bold leaders of the renewed peace movement here in America."

Grayson is doing a money bomb this week and Blue America wants to make sure all of our members know about it. You can contribute here. As Alan said:
"'Government of the people?' Well, obviously. 'Government by the people?' Who else, space aliens? But 'Government for the people'-- that’s where the real debate is. And I know which side I’m on. I know which side Blue America is on. What about you?"

A last thought from Rep. Grayson: "We need your help in the year 2014, not in the year 3114, when Hillary Clinton the XXXIII will be running against George Bush the XXXV for President. Now, not then. Oh, and just a reminder: we will be choosing one moneybomb contributor (donating $20.14 or more) to join Rep. Alan Grayson in Orlando on Election Day, or some other date that’s good for you. Come on, Mickey Mouse is dying to see you!"

Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, July 27, 2014

Movie Watch: "Calvary" at MoMI -- first watch the movie, then watch the writer-director and principal actor talk about it


Brendan Gleeson as Father James Lavelle

by Ken

Here's something to imagine. Imagine that you've just seen a movie that so overwhelmed and shocked you that at the end you hadn't yet had time to piece together how you felt -- a film that is so centrally built around its central character that he's a central piece of the architecture of the film (into which he had substantial input) -- and you knew that when the lights went up, the film's writer-director and principal actor would be coming onstage to talk about it!

Regular readers have probably guessed that the setting was the Museum of the Moving Image in Astoria, Queens, from which I just got home with 55 minutes till my post deadline. (I should admit that I did a fair amount of mostly illegible scribbling on the long two-train subway ride home. It remains to be seen, however, how useful that scribbling will prove.) What we saw was a members-only screening, courtesy of Fox Searchlight, of Calvary, the second film written and directed by John Michael McDonagh, and the principal actor was Brendan Gleeson, who had worked with McDonagh on his first film, The Guard, which I should say I had never heard of let alone seen (though now I guess I'll have to make it my business to. Variety's Justin Chang describes The Guard as "still the most successful Irish indie of all time."

I've written a fair amount (last September, for example, and as recently as this 4th of July) about the outsize pleasure I've derived from MoMI screenings and the extraordinary discussions that often accompany them -- like tonight's. And sure enough, it was chief curator David Schwartz who introduced tonight's program and led the post-screening discussion. (It was just last weekend that David was introducing a members-only preview of the about-to-open exhibition devoted to the legendary cartoon and animated-film director Chuck Jones. That exhibition, by the way, is a collaborative undertaking that has been conceived from the outset as a traveling show, so watch for it in a museum near you.)

One thing I've learned about MoMI screenings, though, is never to read the program hand-out till after the screening. It's something McDonagh and Gleeson didn't have to think about as they talked about the film, because they knew we had all just seen it. But sure enough, although tonight's program note consisted of a really smart review by the aforementioned Justin Chang of Variety, I'm sure glad I hadn't read it before seeing the film. To my mind, it gives away much too much that it seems to viewer is meant to sort out for him/herself as the picture begins to unfold.

This much I can say. The film takes us through a week in the life of a small-town Irish priest -- a good priest and a good man. (McDonagh explained that in the conception of the film, which he was able to accomplish during the extraordinarily protracted editing of The Guard, one of the things he wanted to do was to make a film about a good man.) Father James is in a condition of imminent personal crisis, and it's a crisis that is in no way his fault. (If you're thinking that in view of the worldwide priest scandals of these growing decades priests deserve to have anything that's dumpable dumped on them, let me assure you that this is in fact the animating subject of the film.)

Writer-director John Michael McDonagh

In the course of following Father James around for that week, we are introduced to a rogues' gallery of parishioners, and here I think Justin Chang gives away just the right amount:
There's a butcher (Chris O'Dowd) who is initially suspected of beating his town-slut wife (Orla O'Rourke), until he explains that she probably sustained her injuries at the hands of her Ivorian-immigrant lover (Isaach De Bankole). There's also a vaguely sinister police detective (Gary Lydon, reprising his role from The Guard whom the priest interrupts mid-tryst with a saucy male prostitute (Owen Sharpe), a doctor (Aidan Gillen) who makes no secret of his violently atheist views; and extravagantly wealthy man (Dylan Moran) whose riches have failed to bring him any lasting happiness; a sex-starved young man (Killian Scott) considering joining the army in order to vent his violent impulses; and an aging American writer (M. Emmet Walsh) determined to end life on his own terms.

All these villagers are introduced, one after another, in a series of sharply written, compellingly acted and increasingly pointed moral discussions, during which the priest will offer his counsel  . But the richest insights here are those we glean into the character of the grizzled clergyman himself . . . whose every nugget of hard-headed wisdom resonates with bitter life knowledge.
Onstage afterward, John Michael McDonagh and Brendan Gleeson were smart and intense and funny. McDonagh explained that the climax of the film had always been part of his conception, and that in fact the exigencies of a tight filming schedule dictated that it was shot near the beginning of the film, Gleeson noted that having that already safely on film had made shooting the rest of it freer and easier for him. I've mentioned that MoMI audiences ask excellent questions, and one about the film's setting elicited the information that Sligo is where his mother's people are from, and so he had visited often growing up, and therefore knew the locations -- including a large, barren flat-topped mountain that we see a lot of in the film.

M. Emmet Walsh
Which reminds me, the film is extraordinarily beautiful, and that reminds me that both it and The Guard were shot by the outstanding cinematographer Larry Smith. McDonagh explained that early on he had been thinking that Smith would be the ideal person to shoot The Guard but that he assumed there was no way he could get him to do it -- until it occurred to him that if he didn't ask, he certainly couldn't get him. He wound up asking and getting him, now for both pictures. Which turns out to be how M. Emmet Walsh was cast as well. I think McDonagh said it was his wife who had suggested that the great character actor would be perfect for the role, and again, if you don't ask, you don't get.

Both McDonagh and Gleeson talked about how much they enjoyed working with Walsh. Gleeson mentioned that after shooting was completed, he got a note from him saying that he'd finally worked his way up to Dublin, and everywhere he ate he generously dropped Gleeson's name -- and paid full price everywhere. Gleeson also talked about what it was like working with his son, who played a seriously psychopathic murderer Father James visits in prison. He explained that after working on the scene together, they went their separate ways for a week before shooting the scene.

That's the sort of detail that you don't need to "get" the film, but that deepens your understanding of and appreciation for the kind of effort that goes into producing something of lasting value.


Can Anyone Trust Pete Aguilar?


Substance abuser and New Dem Petey-Pie lets his hair down

I don't think even someone as astoundingly incompetent as Steve Israel could lose CA-31-- the Inland Empire congressional district-- for the Democrats again this year, despite having maneuvered to get an ethics-free, corrupt ex-lobbyist,  Pete Aguilar, the nomination. After all, the district has a PVI of D+5, Obama won it both times with 57% and the Republican incumbent Israel allowed to slip in in 2012, Gary Miller, is retiring. Almost nothing short of a coke bust-- always possible considering the photo above-- or a rape will keep Aguilar from beating GOP outsider Paul Cabot, despite Chabot coming in first in the primary with 14,163 votes (26.6%) to Aguilar's 9,242 (17.4%). And a Republican came in in 3rd place as well, Lesli Gooch, with 9,033 votes (17.0%). Aguilar is counting on the 19,074 votes (35.8%) 3 other Democrats-- Eloise Reyes, Joe Baca and Danny Tillman-- got in the race. And I'm sure he'll get some of them, although Baca hates him with a passion and is telling people to not vote for him; Tillman told him to go screw himself when he asked for his support; and Reyes isn't much of a fan either, despite giving him a polite pro forma endorsement. Baca and Tillman point right to Steve Israel's heavy-handed bumbling for why they won't back Aguilar now. Even Gregg Walden, the GOP version of Israel admits that it would be next to impossible for the Republicans to hold the district.

As of the June 30 FEC filings, Aguilar had raised $1,327,366, spent $1,021,285 and was sitting with $325,729 cash on hand. Chabot had only raised $164,912 and was sitting on a pitiful $26,342. Southern California Republicans Kevin McCarthy, Ken Calvert, Duncan Hunter and Darrell Issa have promised to raise him enough cash to stay competitive with Aguilar.

There has been no outside interest from independent right-wing groups in helping Chabot so far and the DCCC and its House Majority PAC have spent $162,753 on Aguilar already and plan to spend a lot more (in a district that should be a gimme). Robert Conaway won the Democratic nomination to run in the 8th district, due north and east of the 31st. It's one of California's reddest districts (PVI is R+10) and Obama lost to McCain and to Romney with 42% each year. In 2012, the two highest vote-getters in the open primary were Cook and a deranged teabagger, Gregg Imus, andRobert Conaway's wife, Jackie came 4th after 3 Republicans with 14.3%. This time her husband avoided that came fate, coming in second with 18.7%, behind Cook with 58.1% and ahead of the second-ranking Republican, Paul Hannosh who got 13.1%. Friday, Conaway penned an OpEd in one of the local newspapers, Why I Can't Trust Pete Aguilar. Aguilar, who was never really a Democrat until he decided to front for the Chamber of Commerce as "their" appointed Hispanic on the City Council and then as their appointed mayor, is extremely tight with the Republican Machine. His conservative views mesh nicely with them as well.
On February 8, 2014, while winning the California Democratic Party’s pre-endorsement at a caucus in the Antelope Valley, I was personaly promised by Pete Aguilar that he would work with me and looked forward to working with me in Washington.

After both Pete and I earned the full party’s nomination at the California Democratic Party’s state convention on March 9, 2014 and thereafter helped each other by honoring the State Party endorsement to only support each other (despite the pressures from other democrats running against us both in each of our Districts), we both advanced in June as one of the top two finishers (Aguilar is up against Chabot and I against Paul Cook)-- with Aguilar’s supporters spending a reported $1.9 million and well my spending, well less than $5,000 (but I won by more votes and by a bigger margin-- hmm).

On July 17, 2014, long after the primary victories, Candidate Pete Aguilar shows his loyalty and trustworthiness in an interview with the Washington Post’s Jeff Simon where he says in response to “Who is your favorite republican politician?” Aguilar replies:
“You know what, I am going to say Congress Paul Cook from our area. He is a Great guy. A decorated war veteran. I’ve worked with Paul in the local government world when he was a local mayor as well and just a fantastic individual. We will disagree on a lot of issues, but if I am going to sit a plane with someone from our region, I would love to sit next to Paul Cook and pick his brain and talk about the region”
When I asked the Aguilar campaign to take the link to Facebook and campaign website link down to the Washington Post website-based interview, the campaign manager [Boris] on July 24, 2014 after a San Bernardino County Democratic Central Committee meeting wanted to talk with me and after agreeing it “was an attack” and he “was present at the interview,” conditioned removal of the links on not making a formal protest of what anyone could logically consider to be an endorsement of the opposition candidate.

That the Cook campaign or one of its surrogates will run an ad or send a flyer with Pete Aguilar’s face on it and the text of his praise for Paul Cook is the next problem, as it will be a flyer that will target Democratic voters that last time had the choice between Imus (a Tea Party Republican) and Cook due to the quirk of an open primary.

Politics are dirty in the Inland Empire and while Aguilar may be new to Congressional politics, to me, he is the same ole’ sack of shit and makes me think, just maybe Aguilar thought he was answering the Yankee Stadium fans’ question, “Who’s your daddy?”
And here I always thought Aguilar's daddy was Jerry Lewis… and Steve Israel. Oh, and Herman Aguilar who he told the media had died as an excuse for losing in 2012. Herman is back from the dead and campaigning for him again this year.

Corrupt Inland Empire conservatives rally around their boy Pete Aguilar, including his pal Jerry Lewis,  Bill Emmerson,  Mike Morrell  and, of course, Gary Miller 

Labels: , ,