Tag Archives: Johnny Isakson

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

a message from Alan Grayson



He Even Was a Failure at Pizza. 

Herman Cain came to Orlando to campaign against me last week. And yes, it’s still more than six months before the November election. But as the Republicans see it, I am what the military refers to as a “high value target.” So they bring out the big guns early, and the bombardment begins.

I’ve told people that I was secretly hoping that Herman Cain would win the Republican nomination. Because if both parties nominated an African-American for President, then every racist in America would feel like committing suicide.

Nevertheless, I was surprised to see Herman Cain leading in the Republican polls both in Iowa and nationwide, last October and November. I understand the Republican’s desperation to nominate someone other than Mitt Romney, but Herman Cain for President? Seriously?

What were his qualifications? Cain ran a pizza chain for ten years, during the last century. What Cain was very good at was paying people only $10 an hour, to deliver $20 pizzas. (Or the Herman Cain Special, two pizzas for $40.) After Cain took over, the chain quickly slipped nationwide from third to fifth. By the time Cain left, in 1996, he had wiped out thousands of jobs. Sort of like Mitt Romney, but with toppings.

Then Cain was a lobbyist for three years, with the National Restaurant Association. He shamelessly lobbied against the minimum wage, against health coverage, against smoking regulations and in favor of drunk driving (actually, against lowering the blood-alcohol limit). And when I say “shamelessly,” I mean it; did you ever hear Cain apologize for any of that?

Cain’s business career ended more than a decade ago. But rather than call himself “unemployed,” Cain called himself “running for office.” He ran for the Senate in Georgia in 2005. Johnny Isakson beat him like a drum, winning the Republican primary by more than two-to-one.

Then Cain sponged off of the Koch Brothers for a while. He became a paid public speaker for “Americans for Prosperity” (which, by the way, ran $2 million of lying TV ads against me in the last election). Cain was particularly adept at mouthing free-market pieties, like any failed businessman would be.

Which brings us to 2011. And me scratching my head, wondering why someone who had demonstrated a lifelong ability to help no one but himself was leading in the Republican polls. Was it actually because Cain had demonstrated a lifelong ability to help no one but himself? Was that what Republican voters found so attractive about him?

Then five women stepped forward and said that Cain had sexually harassed them. Cain’s defense: there were lots of women whom he had not harassed. Yet Republican voters apparently were OK with Cain’s history of sexual harassment, because Cain remained on top in the Republican polls.

But then . . . it came out that Cain had had a lengthy, apparently affectionate and supportive relationship with a woman who was not his wife! Whoa! Unlike sexual harassment, that is something that those sanctimonious right-wingers simply would not stand for, and Cain was done, done, done. (Maybe Cain should have tried BB King’s excuse: “When love comes to town I’m gonna jump that train. When love comes to town I’m gonna catch that flame. Maybe I was wrong to ever let you down, but I did what I did before love came to town.”)

So here is Herman Cain, a failure as a businessman, a failure as a Senate candidate, a failure as a Presidential candidate, and even a failure as the devout Christian he claimed to be (take a look at the Seventh Commandment), coming to Orlando to campaign against me. And right-wingers welcome him here as though he is some kind of hero.

Apparently . . . some people . . . have lost sight of the difference between notoriety and fame. By every rational consideration, Herman Cain is notorious, not famous. Why would any decent human being think that Herman Cain would be a wonderful headliner at a fundraiser for my Republican opponent? Charles Manson is quite notorious, yet you don’t see Manson welcomed as the guest of honor at political fundraisers, do you? (Although, to be fair, it would be hard for Manson to attend.)

But it worked. My opponent raised a ton of money, simply because Herman Cain came to town. It’s a pretty big year for predators, it seems.

I look at the ugly spectacle of the right-wing treating Herman Cain as though he were some kind of hero, and I say to myself, “we’ve got to win. We’ve really got to win.”

Maybe you feel that way, too.

Courage,

Alan Grayson  For Congress

It was a pretty big year for predators.
The marketplace was on a roll.
And the land of opportunity,
Spawned a whole new breed of men without souls.
This year, notoriety got all confused with fame.
And the devil is downhearted,
Because there’s nothing left for him to claim.
He said, “it’s just like home,
“It’s so low-down, I can’t stand it,
“I guess my work around here has all been done.”
And the fruit is rotten,
The serpent’s eyes shine,
As he wraps around the vine.
In the Garden of Allah.

– Don Henley, “The Garden of Allah” (1995).

8419 Oak Park Road, Orlando, FL 32819

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

GOP’s Test START


Despite Tuesday’s elections, the work of the 111th Congress is far from over. Chief among the urgent tasks that must be completed before the end of the year is the ratification of the New START treaty. President Obama  stated yesterday in a meeting with his cabinet that the START treaty (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) “is something that traditionally has received strong bipartisan support. … This is not a traditionally Democratic or Republican issue, but rather an issue of American national security and I’m hopeful we can get that done before we leave.” The New START Treaty poses the first real test of the seriousness of the GOP as a governing party. The treaty contains modest reductions in U.S. and Russian nuclear arms and importantly updates and extends the verification and monitoring measures of the original START treaty, which helped maintain nuclear stability since the end of the Cold War. Thus far, the New START treaty has been one of the few areas where bipartisanship has largely prevailed. The treaty received significant bipartisan support in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote in September, and the treaty is supported by a who’s who of Republican foreign policy figures. It looks as though there are the 67 votes needed to ratify the treaty in the upcoming Senate lame duck session. But despite the entire U.S. military top brass insisting that the treaty is needed now, the question remains whether the Republican leadership in the Senate will insist on being the party of no and block the treaty.

CLOCK’S TICKING:  335 days have passed since the original START treaty expired last December. Since that time, on-the-ground inspections of Russia’s nuclear arsenal have stopped. Now, U.S. inspectors are sitting idle; others are simply leaving the field taking their experience and expertise with them. Meanwhile, the U.S. military’s understanding of the make-up of Russia’s nuclear forces is eroding. This is dangerous and poses a severe potential threat to nuclear stability. Ironically, some Republicans have attacked the treaty, because they don’t trust the Russians, but without the new treaty, the U.S. will be forced to just blindly trust Russia in regards to its nuclear arsenal. The New START treaty would fix this verification gap , as it updates and extends the verification and monitoring measures that were negotiated by Ronald Reagan. Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell stated, “This treaty is absolutely critical to the effectiveness of our nuclear arsenal, our knowledge of Russian nuclear capabilities and U.S. national security overall. … We’re advancing it at this time and pushing for ratification because we need this. And we need it sooner, rather than later.” If the New START treaty is not ratified by the end of the year, the entire ratification process would have to start from scratch, needlessly preventing the resumption of inspections of Russian nuclear sites for months, and even prompting concern about the treaty’s ultimate ratification.

VOTES ARE THERE:  Following the election, there have been multiple media reports speculating that the outcome of the election means trouble for New START. But in reality, the election changes almost nothing. The composition of the Senate remains virtually unchanged for the lame duck session. The only change is that instead of 59, there are now 58 Democrats and Independents in the Senate for the lame duck (due to the election of Republican Senator-elect Mark Kirk in Illinois, which will take immediate effect). For START to be ratified, it needs 67 votes. That means nine Republicans must vote ratify the treaty. While that seems impossible in the present political climate, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote in September START received the votes of three conservative Republicans: Bob Corker (R-TN), Johnny Isakson (R-GA) and Richard Lugar (R-IN). Six more Republicans are now needed to ratify the treaty. But with the support of the four moderate Senators from New England, retiring Senators George Voinovich (R-OH) and Bob Bennett (R-UT), and potentially a number of other more moderate Senators, such as Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Lindsey Graham (R-TN), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), there are enough potential Republican votes to ratify the treaty.

TEST OF THE GOP:  While there may be enough Republican support to ratify the treaty, the Republican leadership in the Senate could still resort to obstructionist tactics to block the treaty from coming to the floor during the lame duck period. The New START treaty therefore represents a first clear test of the seriousness of the GOP as a governing party. The GOP is still not trusted in its ability to govern, as a recent ABC/Washington Post poll indicated, only 40 percent of the American people trust Republicans with governing the country, compared with 45 percent for Democrats. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) himself admitted yesterday that “voters didn’t suddenly fall in love with Republicans.” While obstructionism has been the norm in the Senate, following the election the question now becomes whether the GOP is willing to responsibly govern. Rejecting or obstructing START — a treaty originally negotiated by Ronald Reagan and that is unanimously backed by the U.S. military and has overwhelming bipartisan support from senior foreign policy leaders, including Republican officials like Henry Kissinger, Stephen Hadley, Brent Scowcroft, James Schlessinger, Colin Powell, George Schultz, Sen. John Warner (VA), and James Baker— would send a clear signal that the GOP is not stepping up to the challenges. John Podesta, the President of the Center for American Progress, explained last night on MSNBC that the START treaty will tell us where the GOP stands : “Will Senator McConnell… get [START] done and go along with [the President]. … If he says no we are just going to be into obstructionism and the just-say-no-party — we’ll at least know where the Republican leadership stands.”