I just learned something new from Mitt Romney about the hard-working American people.

Can you guess what it is? Sure enough, according to Mitt Romney, the hard-working Americans are all white! Who would have thought?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0F4LtTlktm0&feature=player_embedded

If you watch the video you'll see what I mean. Set aside for the moment the fact that the claim made in the ad is a lie: nothing that President Obama has done “guts” welfare reform. Instead, pay attention to the text and subtext.

The text is pretty straightforward: by “gutting” President Clinton's welfare reform President Obama has betrayed hard-working Americans and favored people who want to just sit at home and collect welfare checks. This text follows a standard Republican theme for the last few decades.

So does the subtext. The ad shows us video of the hard-working Americans that Romney wants to protect, and every single one of those hard-working Americans is white. Every single one.

Romney here is following in the proud tradition of Jesse Helms, and other Republicans who have made blatant appeals to racism.

Usually, when Republicans do this kind of thing it works. We'll see what happens this time. Meanwhile, prepare for more as the Republicans show their true colors.

The fight over extending the Bush tax cuts moved forward yesterday, with Senate Republicans failing to block the Obama administration's proposal to extend the tax cuts for 98% of the population.

As TPM reports:

 Senate Democrats have accomplished a feat they were unable to muster back in 2009 and 2010, when they had a much larger majority: On Wednesday, they passed a bill to extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone’s first $250,000 in income.

The legislation prevailed 51-48 — a vote that signals Democrats would ultimately be willing to allow tax cuts for high-income earners to expire at the end of the year.

To my mind, there are two good things about this. First, it makes clear that the Republicans don't give a rat's ass about anyone except the richest people in the country. Second, it demonstrates that the Democrats were willing to stand up to the Republicans, and would, as TPM points out, let the tax cuts for the rich expire.

It's a start.

UPDATE: Going national.

The story has been picked up by the Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…

The story keeps on going. Here’s the new post from Rob Towle, chair of the Rutland Republican Committee:

***OFFICIAL STATEMENT***

I totally regret that some members of the Democratic party were offended by the satirical post on this page yesterday. There were some that commented on the post that they did not see how the possibly inflammatory comments were anything other political commentary. This page is not the original author and the intent was to show the author’s frustration at the current economic situation that he/she finds themselves in.

I realize now that there are those that were deeply offended and for that I am very saddened and I will make sure that our editoral process will result in posts to our pages that reflect the spirit of good natured political discussions. My hope is that we can get back to the critical dialog necessary to move Vermont and the US back towards economic prosperity.

Any comments are greatly appreciated.

Now viewed in isolation, the second paragraph is almost a legitimate, sincere apology.

The problem is that it was preceded by more of the same truculent, self-justifying stuff he was posting yesterday.

First off, he claims that “some members of the Democratic Party were offended.” In fact, the first person to challenge him was the treasurer of the Franklin County Republican Committee. The offense was not personal to those who were offended, the post was offensive in itself.

Second,I’d like to hear his view of how the suggestion that President Obama is a cornbread and fried chicken-eating, praying-to-Mecca Muslim is any kind of legitimate political comment, satiric or otherwise.

When he’s done with that, how about explaining how the suggestion that President Obama is turning the country over to Spanish speakers, and that real Americans will be forced to learn Spanish?

And finally, how does any of this have any bearing on Social Security, a Democratic idea that we have had to fight to protect against Republican attacks for more than half a century?

Rob, our door is open. If you have any response to these points I urge you to post them right here.  

(They deleted it. Sucks to be the Rutland County GOP.)   – promoted by kestrel9000)

Thanks to GMD regular NToddPritsky for cluing us in to this.

 I had never been to the Facebook page from the Rutland County Republicans before today, so I'm glad NTodd pointed out the kind of racist garbage they're posting. Here is their latest status update in its entirety:

Just wanted to let you know – today I received my 2012 Social Security Stimulus Package. It contained two tomato seeds, cornbread mix, a prayer rug, a machine to blow smoke up my butt, 2 discount coupons to KFC, an "Obama Hope & Change" bumper sticker, and a "Blame it on Bush" poster for the front yard.

The directions were in Spanish. Watch for yours soon.

Fortunately at least one Republican has objected to it.

Thanks for showing us your true colors, Republicans! 

UPDATE: Any sensible person, being called on something like this, would be apologetic or at least take it down. These guys are digging in, saying that this is the kind of comedy that is "based in reality". 

UPDATE 2 (from mataliandy):  

 The digging continues

Well, three actually.

As you know, we're all about electing more and better Democrats. Today's post focuses on the “better Democrats” side of the formula.

This week the Republicans in the House of Representatives, rather than try to do something productive for the country, voted for the thirty-second time to repeal the Affordable Care Act. And when I say “the Republicans” I mean it, because every single Republican in the House voted for the repeal.

What you might not know is that there were also five so-called Democrats who voted with them. If you're reading this the odds are that you're not eligible to vote for or against these guys, but if you are, please take my advice and vote against them.

The Filthy Five are: Dan Boren (Okla.), Mike Ross (Ark.), Mike McIntyre (N.C.), Larry Kissell (N.C.), Jim Matheson (Utah).

Boren and Ross are not running for reelection, McIntyre, Kissell, and Matheson are.

The reasons they voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act are pretty obvious: they're all in conservative districts dominated by Republicans, the voters in their districts voted against Obama in 2008, and they have little chance to get elected taking Democratic positions. So does that mean we should have a heart, recognize that they're doing the best they can, and just be glad there are D's holding those seats?

I don't think so. All of these guys voted against the Affordable Care Act when it was passed. Some of them have refused to endorse President Obama's reelection, are anti-choice, and have voted for things like a balanced budget amendment.

In other words, they're indistinguishable from Republicans of the most vicious stripe.

If you live in these guys' districts, do not vote Democratic.

Cross-posted from Rational Resistance:

There are plenty of places you can read about the decision yesterday on the Affordable Care Act, but there's one observation worth making.

Over at Slate Matt Yglesias has a story about Scalia's dissent (my very favorite sentence to read: Scalia, J., dissenting) and how he arrives at the conclusion that a number of ancillary provisions, such as a provision deregulating dental services,in the Act are also unconstitutional.

Some provisions, such as requiring chain restaurants to display nutritional content, appear likely to operate as Congress intended, but they fail the second test for severability. There is no reason to believe that Congress would have enacted them independently. The Court has not previously had occasion to consider severability in the context of an omnibus enactment like the ACA, which includes not only many provisions that are ancillary to its central provisions but also many that are entirely unrelated—hitched on because it was a quick way to get them passed despite opposition, or because their proponents could exact their enactment as the quid pro quo for their needed support. When we are confronted with such a so called “Christmas tree,” a law to which many nongermane ornaments have been attached, we think the proper rule must be that when the tree no longer exists the ornaments are superfluous. We have no reliable basis for knowing which pieces of the Act would have passed on their own. It is certain that many of them would not have, and it is not a proper function of this Court to guess which.

This paragraph is simply more evidence that everything Scalia does is unhinged from the Constitution.

Many states have a legislative rule or constitutional provision known as the title-object rule, which generally says something like “Every bill must be directed to a single object, which shall be expressed in its title”. It is specifically intended to prevent Christmas tree legislation. Under this rule, legislators can be seen to adopt any legislative provision based on its own merits, not, as Scalia warns us, because they are “hitched” to another piece of legislation. You can agree or disagree that such a rule is a good idea, but it is beyond doubt that we have no such rule in the U.S. Constitution. Scalia is just making it up as a ruse to get rid of legislation he doesn't like.

As I say, unfettered by any pretense of constitutional reasoning.

So far the only thing making this year a lively campaign season in Vermont is the Democratic primary race between incumbent Bill Sorrell and challenger T.J. Donovan for Attorney General. It seems every week we're seeing a new endorsementor position paper from both camps, and the campaign so far has been relatively substantive.

Still, while making his pitch for change, it seems odd that T.J. hasn't made a big deal of his latest policy position, which Jane Lindholm broke on Vermont Edition last week.

As you probably know, Donovan has made prescription drug abuse the centerpiece of his campaign, arguing that the impact of prescription drug abuse on public safety is a mandate to take both criminal and public health approaches to the problem, and to make it a higher priority than garden-variety nonviolent crime.

What was the hidden announcement Thursday? In response to a question late in the interview, Donovan confirmed that  he supports decriminaliztion of marijuana. You should really listen to the entire interview, but I'll just give away the surprise and let you know that about 24 minutes into the show, Jane Lindholm specifically asks him “Do you support the decriminalization of marijuana?” and Donovan say, “I do, and here's why . . .”

This seems like a big thing for Donovan, with nothing but positives for the campaign. First, it's going to be a low-turnout election, attracting mostly the core Democratic electorate, which is undoubtedly more liberal than the population at large. Second, with support from the State Troopers Association and the Sheriffs' association,  Donovan isn't in danger of being painted as soft on crime. Third, challenging an incumbent means he needs to be aggressive and make big initiatives to  gain visibility and distinguish himself from Sorrell. The decriminalization statement is just the kind of thing that should help the campaign.

There's still nothing up on Donovan's web page, and although my e-mail in box is full of his communiques I haven't gotten a decrim e-mail yet, but watch the news to see this story develop.

I think it's Sorrell's turn. 

Thanks to Morgan and Kestrel 9000 for pointing me to this story from today's Burlington Free Press:

 Vermont State Police say a man has died after being tased by a trooper during a confrontation Wednesday afternoon in Bradford.

 http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20120621/news07/120621011/vermont-man-dies-after-being-tased-by-trooper

It happened yesterday, and the State Police responded to a call indicating that someone was suicidal and was threatening to harm himself or others.

 Troopers arrived with guns drawn but switched from guns to the “less lethal” Taser. The story has it that the man was “advanc[ing] in the trooper's direction”, although there was no indication that he had a weapon or attempted to assault the trooper.

 The autopsy is supposed to be done today, but I think we can all be glad that the state police were there to prevent this man from harming himself.

So I'm just curious: since the initial call came from Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, and since the victim was supposedly suicidal, what protection will mental patients at Central Vermont Hospital in Berliln have once the Berlin police get their Tasers?

As soon as Democrats started talking about the Republican war on women the Republicans trotted out their counter-meme that not only are the Republicans not engaged in a war on women but that is the Democrats, by advocating for women's equality and autonomy, are.

 I know, it's absurd on the face of it, but that's what they claim. But if it's not a war against women, what do you call what happened in Michigan this week?

  Michigan House Republicans blocked a state representative from speaking on the floor on Thursday after she referenced certain parts of female anatomy in a speech on an abortion bill.

 That's right. The House of Representatives in Michigan was debating yet another bill to cut back on women's abortion rights and a woman, Rep. Lisa Brown, dared to say: “Finally, Mr. Speaker, I’m flattered that you’re all so interested in my vagina, but ‘no’ means ‘no,’”

 For that she was barred from speaking on a subsequent piece of legislation.

 Probably my favorite comment in the whole debate was this, from a Republican House member:

  “It was so offensive, I don’t even want to say it in front of women,” one state representative said. “I would not say that in mixed company.”

 So yes, just to recap: we have a Republican dominated legislative body, debating what women can do with their own bodies, punishing a woman for mentioning her own body.

 Is there anything else we need to do to prove that this is a war on women?

This is very unusual.

've sued the government a lot of times, but I've never had this happen.

From the Chicago Tribune:

The Cook County State’s Attorney’s office concedes in a court filing today that the state’s ban on same-sex marriages is unconstitutional, according to a spokeswoman.

Two recent lawsuits against Cook County Clerk David Orr claim that not issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the Illinois Constitution.

The state’s attorney’s response, filed today, agrees with that claim.

The government pretty much always defends its practices. This is a big deal.