1. The Republicans’ Hispanic Problem

Since the November 2012 election ended and it was clear that President Obama and the Democrats won handily, Republicans have been saying that “Hispanic outreach” is the key to their future success. Thus far, that plan isn’t working too well. First, the Republicans trotted out Senator Marco Rubio as their great savior. However, Rubio crashed and burned in a matter of minutes, with his awkward dry mouth and “Big Gulp” moment that will live on forever as an example of a politician who literally was not ready for prime time.

Then, just two days ago, the Republicans’ Hispanic outreach effort suffered another embarrassing blow as their Director of Hispanic Outreach in all-important Florida, Pablo Pantoja, announced that he was switching his affiliation to the Democratic Party precisely because of the Republicans’ “culture of intolerance” that has turned off so many Hispanic voters.

2. The Backlash Against Rush Limbaugh’s Brand of Hate

Cumulus Media CEO Lew Dickey recently stated that the citizen boycott of advertisers on Rush Limbaugh‘s radio show carried on the Cumulus network was responsible for up to $5.5 million in losses to his company. Then, earlier this month, the Limbaugh show’s parent company, Clear Channel, reported a sharply higher loss of $203 million. The Limbaugh ad boycott began in earnest after Limbaugh fired a blast in the Republican “War on Women” when he called Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke a “slut” for her support of contraception coverage in the Affordable Care Act. Just as Hispanics and Latinos comprise a critical and growing population of American voters, so do women. That’s a problem when Rush Limbaugh is seen by many as the leading edge of, and one of the most influential people in, the Republican Party.

3. The Increasing Popularity of Marriage Equality

Just yesterday, Minnesota became the 12th state in the U.S. to legalize same-sex marriage. The last five such states have adopted marriage equality in just the past seven months, continuing a pace of social change which arguably rivals that of any period in U.S. history. It is abundantly clear from these state actions and from the polls that the majority of Americans, and especially the vast majority of young Americans, favor marriage equality. Yet many Republicans can’t get their heads around gay marriage. At best, same-sex marriage is causing a painful rift in the Republican Party.

So at the same time the three major cable “news” networks are focusing on three small shiny objects, the Republican Party is facing three massive demographic disadvantages and is alienating three or more major and growing voting blocs. No wonder the Republicans are hawking “scandals.”

The video above is the latest example demonstrating that U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts is the Democrats’ communications rock star, and the conscience — or what should be the conscience — of the Democratic Party. Here, Warren does everything right when introducing her new bill to give students the same rate on their loans as banks get from the Federal Reserve:

–Warren gives her bill a catchy and positive name, the “Bank on Students Loan Fairness Act.” In introducing the bill, Warren says, “let’s bank on students.” She then repeats this phrase, following Messaging Maxim #2.

–Warren uses very simple language at all times. For example, she lays out the problem that “on July 1, the interest rate on new federally subsidized student loans is set to double” and “today’s graduates carry more than one trillion dollars in debt, more than all the outstanding credit card debt in the whole country.”

–Warren clearly explains the benefits of her bill, asserting that educated students help America “build a strong and competitive economy” and “strengthen our middle class.”

–Warren draws an effective comparison between students and banks. She explains that banks can get a loan from the federal government at a discounted rate of just .75%, but this summer, “the federal government’s going to charge [students] interest rates nine times higher than the rates they charge the biggest banks.”

–Then Warren follows Messaging Maxim #1 and goes on offense by adding that the big banks who get such sweet discount loans from the federal government are “the same banks that destroyed millions of jobs and nearly broke the economy.” It’s nearly enough to turn some Republicans into Democrats.

Elizabeth Warren made her political reputation, fittingly, with one of the best off-the-cuff Democratic and progressive arguments in recent memory. Warren has continued her effective communication on the Senate Banking Committee, where she recently said about the banks: “too big to fail has become too big for trial.” Senator Warren is indeed a Democratic role model, both as to the policies she espouses and the manner in which she espouses them.

Effective Adversaries

In taking on Sandra Fluke, Rush Limbaugh may have bitten off more than he could chew. Fluke turned out to be an extremely articulate and passionate advocate for women’s health issues. In February 2012, the Republicans who run the U.S. House Oversight Committee committed a public relations fiasco when they held a hearing about contraception, but barred any women, including Fluke, from appearing. Fluke took to YouTube and gave an impassioned response. Then Fluke spoke at the 2012 Democratic Convention in Charlotte, NC, where she wowed the convention audience and many others who were watching her on television.

Many Twitter users picked up Sandra Fluke’s cause, starting the hashtag #StopRush. To this day, these Twitter users publicly contact companies that advertise on Limbaugh’s radio show and write, for example:

Don’t eat at @burgerking They support Limbaugh’s vile verbal assault on minorities. And the homeless. And women. And… #StopRush

Moreover, even Republicans like wordmeister Frank Luntz have criticized Limbaugh as “problematic” for “killing” the political chances of mainstream Republicans like U.S. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida.

Limbaugh Keeps Digging his own Hole

Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh shows no signs of backing off his trademark antagonistic speech, which Twitter users and others call “hate speech.” For example, Limbaugh recently suggested:

You know how to stop abortion? Require that each one occur with a gun.

Ironically, however, Limbaugh’s own bully pulpit, which has long struck fear into many Republicans, may make the case for Limbaugh’s own commercial downfall.

President Barack Obama has received glowing reviews once again for his performance at the 2013 White House Correspondents’ Dinner in Washington, D.C. last Saturday night. Audience members, pundits and comedians alike marveled at Obama’s comic timing and his combination of self-deprecating humor and effective jabs at political opponents, and that praise was well-deserved. However, what may have hindered an A performance from being an A+ was that it seemed at times that the President’s self-deprecating humor went too far against himself. You can follow along with the video above and see what you think:

1:20 “how many pegs are there left?”

2:30 “These days I look in the mirror and I have to admit, I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be.”

5:00 [To Michael Douglas] “Could it be that you were an actor in an Aaron Sorkin liberal fantasy?”

7:20 “MSNBC used to work for David Axelrod.”

8:15 “I remember when Buzzfeed was just something I did in college around 2 a.m. … It’s true.”

14:50 The “Blame Bush Library”

15:05 “some have suggested that we put [the Obama Library] in my birthplace, but I’d rather keep it in the United States.”

What was frustrating, even worrisome about some of these lines by President Obama was that he appeared to concede too much to his opponents, which is the very thing for which so many people have criticized Obama when it comes to important policy negotiations such as the Affordable Care Act, the Sequester, or Social Security. Of course, the media elite in the room got Obama’s humor. But perhaps some voters outside the Beltway did not.

It’s one thing to be self-deprecating at the Correspondents’ Dinner. President Obama did that many times, such as when he made fun of his aging looks, his basketball skills, etc. But there’s a difference between being self-deprecating and actually furthering your opponents’ frames about you. That could further their political success more than yours.

Perhaps the first sign of the Democrats’ unilateral surrender against the Republicans came in 2006 when Nancy Pelosi famously declared that, when it came to President George W. Bush, “impeachment is off the table.” That’s Constitutional malpractice. The Constitution doesn’t allow politicians to take impeachment “off the table” any more than it allows them to take the First (or Second) Amendment “off the table.”

Since then, Democrats handily won the 2008 and 2012 elections (gaining not just the White House but seats in both houses of Congress), but what do they have to show for it? President Obama‘s Justice Department prosecuting Bush administration officials for torture and other war crimes? No. Closing America’s torture prison at Guantanamo Bay? Nope. Universal single payer health care? Nein. Public option? Negative. A robust stimulus bill to get us out of George W. Bush’s Great Recession? Nugatory. A jobs bill? Nay. Infrastructure bill?  No sir. Safely ensconced head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? I don’t think so. A fair amount of federal judges appointed? Never. An end to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy that bankrupted America? Hell no, except for a pathetic one percent or less of taxpayers. Reasonable gun safety laws, such as expanded background checks supported by 90 percent of Americans? Nix. A real fix to the filibuster that Republicans have abused to a record-shattering degree? Again, nothingness.

Even worse, Democrats have let Republicans get away with sabotaging America’s economy and then turning around and saying it’s President Obama’s fault for not fixing the economy, even though the Constitution gives Congress, not the President, the ability to do so. And now, President Obama has offered a “Grand Bargain” to Republicans which would cut Social Security benefits, which have nothing to do with fixing the economy or creating jobs, but everything to do with destroying the Democratic Party’s brand. That’s not just economically erroneous and morally repugnant, it’s politically insane.

It has been clear for years that the Democrats’ method of trying to work with Republicans in a reasonable way has failed. Now it’s time to go to war against the Republicans. The only thing the Republicans will respond to is being hurt at the voting booth or the pocketbook, which are often the same thing nowadays. Therefore, Democrats should kneecap the Republicans (politically speaking) by stating in no uncertain terms that it’s the Republicans, not “Congress” or President Obama, who have stood against jobs, economic growth, reasonable gun safety laws and many other areas of progress supported by the majority of Americans.

Democrats should grab Republicans by the collar and throw them to the ground (politically speaking) by fixing the Senate filibuster in a real way that requires an actual talking filibuster rather than allowing an automatic 60-vote “quiet filibuster” on every bill. Democrats should follow Sarah Pallin‘s advice and “don’t retreat — reload” (again, politically speaking only) by crushing the Republicans on the floors and hearing rooms of the U.S. House and Senate, in tv ads and elsewhere, not just in rare cases but all the time, rather than futilely appealing to the Republicans’ nonexistent sense of cooperation, reason or patriotism. Democratic politicians who can’t do this should get out of the way or get voted out of the way.

Time is no longer running out. It has run out. The time for Democrats to go to all-out war political against the Republicans is yesterday.

First, the cable networks aired little else but the 1-minute or so video footage of the blast, over and over, with the anchors and their interviewees repeatedly talking about “legs blown off.”

Then came the speculation. With hours to fill, many cable (and broadcast) tv news anchors focused on running men and people on rooftops. And, as is often the case during major events, the cable news networks became a vanity parade, as guests like disgraced former New York City Mayor Rudolf Giuliani, disgraced former Bush Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, and even disgraced Bush Attorney General Alberto Gonzales hit the airwaves to remind people they’re still around and looking to make some money.

Then came the erroneous reporting. CNN led the way, with John King and “contributor” Fran Townsend (proving she can do just as poor a job at CNN as she did as George W. Bush‘s Homeland Security Adviser), joined by Wolf Blitzer, both citing their own “source” or “sources” to say that an arrest had been made in the Boston Marathon bombing. This follows CNN’s reporting fiasco last year when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld, yes, upheld, the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate. Fox “News” would also deserve special mention for poor journalism and unsubstantiated conclusions, but in Fox’s case that would be redundant.

As many people have noted, the lone standout in this media frenzy seemed to be NBC News‘ Pete Williams, who not only resisted the jettisoning of journalistic standards that was taking place at the other networks, he did so in a calm, reasoned way, distinguishing himself from his overcaffeinated colleagues. How sad is it that, in the coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing, good journalism was the exception to the rule rather than the other way around? Oh, but we’re not done yet.

Then came the use of citizens as journalists. For example, the television networks aired amateur footage of the bombing itself, the police shootout several days later, and events in between. Perhaps the high point came when one neighbor was on the phone with a cable news network, reporting what he was seeing outside on the street, and then taking his laptop camera and simply pointing it out the window.

Not that there’s anything wrong with eyewitnesses filming or reporting what they see on the street or out the window, but then what do we need the cable news networks for? Plenty of eyewitnesses, perhaps some of the same ones interviewed on television, were on social media such as Twitter, reporting what they were seeing in real time. No tape delays, no waiting for producers to package it, no inane commentary from the television anchors, no commercial breaks. Indeed, even one of the Boston bombing suspects’ (alleged) tweets were available for all to see.

CNN, and, indeed, 24-hour cable television news, first became extremely well-known as it covered the “Baby Jessica” ordeal in 1987, when a Texas toddler fell into a well. A few years later, during the first Gulf War, CNN (and perhaps cable news) hit its zenith with exclusive coverage upon which even Pentagon officials relied. Does anyone doubt that, if the Baby Jessica event or even the next war occurred today, hundreds or thousands of amateur journalists would be on the scene, shooting video with their cell phones or iPads, tweeting live updates, and Googling many of the same facts that would be available to the news networks? These citizen journalists might be able to shout questions at officials with the best of them, and some of them could probably even read a court decision correctly.

Indeed, last January, to the consternation of many progressives and others who know arithmetic, President Obama helped make George W. Bush‘s budget-busting tax cuts permanent for 99 percent of American taxpayers. As a result, federal taxes are the lowest they’ve been in approximately 60 years. Our top federal tax rate is 39.6 percent, and it only kicks in as to income over $400,000 (for individuals; $450,000 for couples). All those folks making $250,000, $400,000, $1 million or even $1 billion still get the Bush/Obama tax cuts on their income up to the first $400,000. Americans also got a two-year cut on their Social Security “payroll” taxes under President Obama.

Moreover, don’t fool yourself that the wealthiest Americans pay those top tax rates. They’ve arranged all kinds of tax breaks for themselves, including a 15 percent capital gains tax rate (that’s where much of their money comes from each year), carried interest tax breaks, stashing money in tax havens like Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, and more. Willard Mitt Romney is a perfect example of someone taking advantage of many of these breaks and loopholes; as a result, he’s been paying less than 15 percent in federal taxes on his annual millions.

And you can ignore that other Republican myth about America having high corporate taxes. In reality, many big, profitable corporations pay no taxes at all. That’s in part because they, like the wealthy individuals mentioned above, hire teams of lobbyists to buy off Congressmen and Senators (and sometimes Presidents) into giving them tax breaks so they can offshore their profits, rely on cheap, unregulated foreign sweatshop labor, etc.

So folks can enjoy all that extra money in their pockets that isn’t helping to support their country. They just shouldn’t lie to themselves or to others that somehow President Obama is taking it from them.

Pig at the barrel, Via Flora, West Palm Beach, FL

Here in a little corner of Southeast Florida, it’s Republican Land. You’ve got your gun-clinging rednecks, your Bible thumpers, and your One Percenters. The last group is something to behold. Their car of choice this year is the $200,000 Bentley convertible. Their home of choice is the Spanish style mansion behind the gates guarded by security personnel in starched uniforms. And their expression of choice is “I hate Obama.”

Mind you, these folks are able to drive their Bentleys and live in their Spanish style mansions in part because President Obama helped give them the highest stock market in history combined with the lowest tax rates in most of their lifetimes. And don’t forget, most of their wealth doesn’t come from salaries subject to the highest marginal tax rates; it comes from “capital gains,” which are taxed at only 15 percent. Factor in all the tax breaks and offshore tax havens they get for themselves, and you can be sure many of them, like Willard Mitt Romney, pay less than 15 percent in federal taxes. And these millionaires are quick to tout Florida’s lack of state income tax. But what you hardly ever hear them talk about is everyone else, except in the most condescending and disparaging ways.

It’s this lack of connectedness to others outside their 1 percent clique, this lack of empathy for the middle class or the poor, or for the country, that is so jarring about these Florida millionaires. Of course, this is a limited sampling and is not intended to imply that all One Percenters in this area are so greedy and selfish. Nevertheless, it appears that many of these folks are perfectly happy to drive their Bentleys on smooth highways, to get hot water when they turn on the faucet, to get electricity when they turn on the light switch, to be protected by the U.S. military (including the Coast Guard) and Florida state and local police, and yes, to get their cheap Medicare Part D prescription drugs, but then they don’t want to turn around and pay for these things. Folks, this shit ain’t free.

It may be that these One Percenters, these Lords of Florida, are beyond reach. But we Democrats and progressives will probably keep caring about them along with everyone else. Because that’s how we roll.

Congress decided to reflect an ‘honor of collective moral judgment’ and to express ‘moral disapproval of homosexuality.’

Here’s the entire quote from pages 15-16 of the 1996 House Report:

Civil laws that permit only heterosexual marriage reflect and honor a collective moral judgment about human sexuality. This judgment entails both moral disapproval of homosexuality, and a moral conviction that heterosexuality better comports with traditional (especially Judeo-Christian) morality.

Laughably, the House Report then goes on to quote Republican Congressman Henry Hyde for the proposition that:

[S]ame-sex marriage, if sanctified by the law, if approved by the law, legitimates a public union, a legal status that most people … feel ought to be illegitimate. … And in so doing it trivializes the legitimate status of marriage and demeans it by putting a stamp of approval … on a union that many people … think is immoral.

Hyde, you may recall, trivialized and demeaned the legitimate status of marriage all on his own when, as he was leading the impeachment of President Bill Clinton for lying about an affair, it was revealed that Hyde had had his own immoral union with another married woman while he was married.

It’s not clear whether Justice Kagan’s outing of the rank Republican discrimination behind DOMA (endorsed, unfortunately, by Democratic President Clinton when he signed the bill into law) will sway any votes on the Court towards striking down all or part of DOMA. However, that the language Kagan pointed out now seems so jarring, so openly prejudicial, and, like the Republican Party itself, so hopelessly out of touch with the times, can only be a hopeful sign.

• “Mr. Moneybags” and “Mr. 1%;”
• an out-of-touch multimillionaire with several mansions, one with a car elevator for his and his wife’s multiple cars;
• having offshore bank accounts in Switzerland, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands;
• being part of Bain Capital which has helped send many American jobs overseas;
• having a dressage horse that gave Romney and his wife a huge tax writeoff.

The Obama campaign was extremely clever in shaping this elitist Romney narrative very early on in the 2012 election season. But once the Obama team put the Romney narrative out there, in many cases, it was Romney (or his wife Ann, or his campaign staffers) who fed the narrative, doing the Democrats’ work for them.

A similar thing happened during the 1988 presidential campaign. George H.W. Bush‘s campaign attempted early on to define Bush’s opponent, Michael Dukakis, as weak on defense. So when Dukakis took that fateful ride in the army tank, grinning and looking like a kid wearing his older brother’s oversized football helmet, the Bush campaign and the media pounced on Dukakis, who never quite recovered.

Most of the time, you won’t be so lucky to have your opponents hand you such obvious gifts. However, American voters love a good, simple story or stereotype that defines a politician, political party or group. So make sure you help craft a true but negative story about your opponents’ ideas, actions or positions, and then look for statements or actions by them that you can point to as furthering that narrative.