Now we all know what the Clinton budget did: The budget, including tax increases, by most accounts set up the economic boom that followed. We all remember that the last Democratic president left a projected $5.2 trillion dollar ten-year budget surplus in 2000, which was squandered by Republicans on a tax cutting, overspending bender in the last eight years. We all know 22.3 million jobs were created during the Clinton administration, compared with 5.3 million during the reign of George W. Bush.

That doesn't stop Republicans from making similar shrill warnings about health care reform today. My colleague Steve Kornacki found this great clip in CSPAN's newly accessible archive: It's Newt Gingrich, John Kasich and other House GOP leaders warning of economic collapse for the country and political disaster for the Democrats after Clinton's budget passed. Gingrich called it "a great victory for the Democratic machine and a great defeat for the American people," and accused Democrats of voting against their own districts. Kasich warned that the bill would stifle investment and cost jobs and predicted working class folks would be hit the hardest, because "people won't want to invest more, and they're going to lose their jobs." He went on to decry "the job killing effects of this program," which is pretty hilarious now that we know the Clinton record on job creation.

Sadly, Gingrich was right that some Democrats would pay for their courageous vote politically (one of them, Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky, has had a new day in the political spotlight lately, urging Democrats to vote for health care reform no matter what the immediate political consequences). But maybe because the GOP was proven so wrong last time around, Democrats will be better able to fight the lies this time.

At any rate, if John Boehner and friends are pressed for time tonight when prepping their apocalyptic remarks after healthcare reform almost certainly passes, they can crib from Gingrich, Kasich and friends in this video. No need to thank us.

A year later, though, it's worth more of my time to say what many resist: The tea party movement is disturbingly racist and reactionary, from its roots to its highest branches. On Saturday, as a small group of protesters jammed the Capitol and the streets around it, the movement's origins in white resistance to the Civil Rights Movement was impossible to ignore. Here's only what the mainstream media is reporting, ignoring what I'm seeing on Twitter and left wing blogs:

• Civil rights hero Rep. John Lewis was taunted by tea partiers who chanted "nigger" at least 15 times, according to the Associated Press (we are not cleaning up language and using "the N-word" here because it's really important to understand what was said.) First reported on The Hill blog (no hotbed of left-wing fervor), the stories of Lewis being called "nigger" were confirmed by Lewis spokeswoman Brenda Jones and Democratic Rep. Andre Carson, who was walking with Lewis. "It was like going into the time machine with John Lewis," said Carson, a former police officer. "He said it reminded him of another time."
• Another Congressional Black Caucus leader, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, was spat upon by protesters. The culprit was arrested, but Cleaver declined to press charges.
• House Majority Whip James Clybourn told reporters: "I heard people saying things today that I have not heard since March 15, 1960, when I was marching to try to get off the back of the bus."
• There were many reports that Rep. Barney Frank was called a "faggot" by protesters, but the one I saw personally was by CNN's Dana Bash, who seemed rattled by the tea party fury. Frank told AP: "It's a mob mentality that doesn't work politically."
• Meanwhile, a brick came through the window at Rep. Louise Slaughter's Niagara Falls office on Saturday (the day she argued for her "Slaughter solution" to pass health care reform, though it was rejected by other Democrats on the House Rules Committee).

On Thursday MSNBC's "Hardball" host Chris Matthews grilled tea party Astroturf leader Tim Phillips of Americans for Prosperity about supporters who taunted a man with Parkinson's disease at a tea party gathering in Ohio last week. Phillips insisted the bullies just didn't represent the tea party movement. But such demurrals don't cut it any more. At the Nashville tea party gathering last month, a proponent of the kinder, gentler tea party movement, Judson Phillips, tried to distance himself from crazed and racist elements – but later endorsed racist speaker Tom Tancredo even after he told the convention: "People who could not even spell the word 'vote', or say it in English, put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House. His name is Barack Hussein Obama." Tancredo blamed Obama's election on the fact that "we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country." He got some of the loudest cheers of the weekend.

So I'm having a hard time tonight trying to believe almost uniformly white tea partiers are anything other than a racist, right-wing reaction to the election of an African American president who brings with him feminists and gays (even if he doesn't do as much for them as they would ideally like). I'm having a hard time seeing the tea partiers as anything other than the spawn of George Wallace racism – the movement Pat Buchanan bragged to me that Richard Nixon made his own. Of course, in that same "Hardball" segment, Buchanan denounced me for condescending to and "demonizing" the tea partiers. I still find that rich: I grew up in lower middle class Long Island, with a first-generation Irish father, going to public schools and universities, while the wealthy Buchanan grew up in Washington D.C. with professionals as parents and attended Georgetown University. How is he the supposed working class troubadour while I'm somehow emblematic of the pointy-headed liberal elite?

Democrats are lame about fighting stupid class-based slurs like that, which is part of why this health care fight has dragged on and become so bitter. But I think a lot of Democrats were horrified by the ugliness they saw today, and I'm hoping that helps pass health care reform on Sunday.

I'm going to close with statements issued by the offices of Emanuel Cleaver and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (no firebrand lefty, by the way), which I found on the New York Times: Cleaver (who didn't press charges against the loser who spit at him) is first:

For many of the members of the CBC, like John Lewis and Emanuel Cleaver who worked in the civil rights movement, and for Mr. Frank who has struggled in the cause of equality, this is not the first time they have been spit on during turbulent times.

This afternoon, the Congressman was walking into the Capitol to vote, when one protester spat on him. The Congressman would like to thank the US Capitol Police officer who quickly escorted the other Members and him into the Capitol, and defused the tense situation with professionalism and care. After all the Members were safe, a full report was taken and the matter was handled by the US Capitol Police. The man who spat on the Congressman was arrested, but the Congressman has chosen not to press charges. He has left the matter with the Capitol Police.

This is not the first time the Congressman has been called the “n” word and certainly not the worst assault he has endured in his years fighting for equal rights for all Americans. That being said, he is disappointed that in the 21st century our national discourse has devolved to the point of name calling and spitting. He looks forward to taking a historic vote on health care reform legislation tomorrow, for the residents of the Fifth District of Missouri and for all Americans. He believes deeply that tomorrow’s vote is, in fact, a vote for equality and to secure health care as a right for all. Our nation has a history of struggling each time we expand rights. Today’s protests are no different, but the Congressman believes this is worth fighting for.

Hoyer here:

Today’s protests against health insurance reform saw a rash of despicable, inflammatory behavior, much of it directed at minority Members of Congress. According to reports, anti-reform protestors spat on Rep. Emmanuel Cleaver, yelled a sexual slur at Rep. Barney Frank, and addressed my dear friend, Rep. John Lewis, with a racial slur that he has sadly heard far too many times. On the one hand, I am saddened that America’s debate on health care — which could have been a national conversation of substance and respect — has degenerated to the point of such anger and incivility. But on the other, I know that every step toward a more just America has aroused similar hate in its own time; and I know that John Lewis, a hero of the civil rights movement, has learned to wear the worst slurs as a badge of honor.

America always has room for open and spirited debate, and the hateful actions of some should not cast doubt on the good motives of the majority, on both sides of this argument. But Members of Congress and opinion leaders ought to come to terms with their responsibility for inciting the tone and actions we saw today. A debate that began with false fears of forced euthanasia has ended in a truly ugly scene. It is incumbent on all of us to do better next time.

UPDATE: Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., the No. 3 GOP leader, denounced tea party racism on Sunday. Mike Madden reports:

Asked about the racist and homophobic shouts from the crowd at Democrats Saturday, he was pretty blunt. "I crossed the bridge in Selma with [civil rights leader and Democratic Rep.] John Lewis a couple weeks ago," Pence said. "I denounce, in the strongest possible terms, the kind of language and statements that have been reported." But he said the GOP wasn't responsible for inciting the anti-government movement to the frenzy that it's reached. "I think we've reached a tipping point here," he said. "I think the American people are rising up with one voice and saying, 'Enough is enough.'"

It's nice that Pence isn't endorsing the shouts of "nigger" John Lewis heard Saturday. But he continues to blame the anti-government frenzy on Obama and the Democrats and ignore the role of GOP racism. Shortly after Pence's remarks, his colleague Geoff Davis (great name!) of Kentucky actually hung a tea partier's "Don't Tread On Me" sign over the Capitol Balcony. You'll all remember Davis as the guy who referred to Obama as "that boy." On Sunday Davis insisted the tea partiers are merely expressing "their fear of their own government" (now that it's led by "that boy"?) No racism there, none at all.

Oh, and Barney Frank was called a "faggot" again. Frank later demanded that his GOP colleagues stop applauding the tea partiers who were heckling House Democrats. "That's why you get this kind of virulence and hatred," Frank said, according to the Huffington Post. If Pence and other GOP leaders wanted to stop the hate, they'd stop encouraging the vicious rowdies who are behind it.

But that's not enough for Stupak; he wants his original language restored to the House bill. That's a sure way to scuttle the bill, since the House can't change the Senate bill without sending it back to the Senate for another vote, where Sen. Scott Brown has vowed to torpedo it. I can't tell if Stupak just isn't smart enough to realize the bill already does what he wants it to do, or whether he's deliberately trying to kill the bill, in concert with his C Street Republican friends. (It could be both.) Whatever. Stupak's entitled to his opinion on the issue. But he went beyond what was necessary, yesterday and today, in disrespecting the 60 Catholic nuns representing 59,000 sisters who bucked the Catholic bishops and came out for the bill Wednesday, declaring it "the real pro-life position."

"When I’m drafting right-to-life language, I don’t call up the nuns," Stupak told Fox News. Instead he said he consulted "leading bishops, Focus on the Family, and the National Right to Life Committee." Thursday, on MSNBC's "Hardball," he repeated his dismissal of nuns' opinions, insisting he listens only to the bishops and that he's never even been lobbied by nuns. To his credit, Chris Matthews pointed to his aunts and other nuns he's known who are smart about public policy and vocal in their political opinions, but Stupak was too stupid or stubborn to pick up on Matthews' invitation to walk back his remarks. (The video isn't online yet.)

There was a way for Stupak to say he disagreed with the nuns without condescending to them, but two days in a row, he didn't find it. In fact, his disrespect of the nuns seems of a piece with his stubborn stance not only on abortion but the healthcare reform bills. He joins the patriarchal leaders of the Catholic Church who never listen to the voices of women, either, and he's proud of that.

So is Catholic League blowhard Bill Donohue, who released a statement saying only the bishops could speak for the Catholic Church. Not only the nuns but the Catholic Health Association disagree with Donohue and Stupak, joining the push to pass the bill. Here's hoping Stupak's disrespect pulls away some of the handful of House members who are at risk of voting with him.

In his remarks this morning, Kucinich sounded concerned, and pained, about the crazed and vicious opposition that the Obama presidency has inspired on the right. "One of the things that has bothered me is the attempt to try to delegitimize his presidency. That hurts the nation when that happens," the Cleveland congressman said, sounding genuinely anguished. "We have to be very careful" that "President Obama's presidency not be destroyed by this debate ... Even though I have many differences with him on policy, there's something much bigger at stake here for America."

Kucinich knows as well as anyone that the president is far from a socialist; he's a centrist corporatist Democrat, and that was clear back when Kucinich stood well to his left during the 2008 primaries. And even though the Cleveland progressive normally avoids partisan calculations about power and opportunity, and votes his conscience and ideology, Kucinich decided to support Obama's healthcare reform plan because right now, partisan calculations about power and opportunity actually serve his left-wing conscience and ideology.

Kucinich understands that there will be no healthcare reform for another generation if this bill doesn't pass. There will be no second Obama term either (and don't dream about lefty primary challenges -- there won't be a Democrat in the White House in 2013 if his name isn't Obama). The only thing worse than being an alleged socialist in American politics is being a weak, ineffectual socialist, and if the president and his party can't get this package passed, despite controlling the White House and a healthy majority in both houses of Congress, they will be rebuked by the voters. And maybe rightly rebuked. What better sign that a party isn't ready to govern?

I've written extensively about my disappointment with Obama and the Democrats, particularly around the healthcare reform plan. He gave Republicans and conservative Democrats too much power for too long, and he sold out early to the insurance and pharmaceutical industry. I don't like the deals Obama made, but he did what he thought he had to do. The left thinks he's wrong; we can prove that when we have a better hold on power. But we won't move the party left by abandoning Obama on healthcare (on detention and secrecy issues, I mostly have abandoned him). Like it or not, Obama is roughly at the party's center; we should work to pull him left. If progressives set him up as a right-winger to try to demonize and defeat him, they will become irrelevant.

This bill isn't perfect, but it will help millions of people. That's why Republicans are fighting it so hard -- and why they decided to fight it before Obama made a proposal (as this profile of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell shows). Right now, I believe, conscience and ideology are served by looking at the political calculations: This bill is the best we can do right now. Obama was the best we could do in a president. A defeat hurts not just Obama, but the progressive movement in this country.

I found myself surprisingly moved by the decision of 60 Catholic nuns, representing 59,000 sisters, to buck the power-mad bishops and come out for the bill today, even as opportunists like Bart Stupak continue to insist it somehow funds abortion. (They made up for the exorcist/moron who blamed the priest/pedophilia problem on working mothers.) The nuns speak for me, too:

The health care bill that has been passed by the Senate and that will be voted on by the House will expand coverage to over 30 million uninsured Americans. While it is an imperfect measure, it is a crucial next step in realizing health care for all. It will invest in preventative care. It will bar insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. It will make crucial investments in community health centers that largely serve poor women and children. And despite false claims to the contrary, the Senate bill will not provide taxpayer funding for elective abortions. It will uphold longstanding conscience protections and it will make historic new investments – $250 million – in support of pregnant women. This is the REAL pro-life stance, and we as Catholics are all for it.

In 2010, this is as good as it gets when it comes to healthcare reform. Progressives have to work harder to build support -- real, voting support, not just opinion-polling support -- for our views. (I know people nominally support the public option in opinion polls, but it doesn't yet drive their votes like other issues do.) We can make the healthcare system better after the bill passes, and we can make Congress better. But it will be very hard to do either if Obama and the Democrats lose this one.

(An earlier version of this post included Michael Moore among the progressives who oppose the health care reform bill. Moore reversed his earlier opposition in a letter to fans Wednesday morning, which I missed.)

Even Starr is outraged by Cheney's despicable attack on Justice Department lawyers who've defended terror suspects in their past. She's labeled the group "the al Qaida seven," and suggested they should be ineligible for Justice Department work.

By contrast Starr called such work "in the finest traditions of the country." He noted that American founder and president John Adams "represented the British redcoats who were accused of the Boston Massacre – and he successfully defended seven of the British troops who were accused of these crimes." Starr worked in Atticus Finch from "To Kill a Mockingbird," remembering Finch told his kids "'I've got to do this as a matter of conscience,' and it was the conscience of a great profession… One needs to be courageous at times and stand up to power."

Starr isn't the only conservative who signed the letter. Former Solicitor General (and counsel to the anti-Clinton Arkansas Project) Ted Ols0n did too. Maybe most remarkable to me, since I've debated him, is the signature of torture-defender David Rivkin. If Cheney's gone too far for Rivkin, that's pretty far indeed.

I'm amused by the fact that Cheney's biggest defender is Wrong-way Bill Kristol, who's almost always wrong about almost everything. He predicted some conservative lawyers would sign the letter of protest, sneering "The legal fraternity doesn't like criticism of lawyers."

Starr's response? "I love Bill Kristol, I view him as a friend. But this is not consistent with the great traditions of our country and certainly of our profession...very fine traditions. [The condemned lawyers] deserve commendation. They do not deserve criticism at all. This was very unwise."

I love that it's Cheney and Kristol, two of the nation's top beneficiaries of affirmative action for conservative white people (which is far more widespread than any preferences for minorities), who are still insisting their shameful attacks are reasonable. Like naughty spoiled children, they're happy their high jinks are rattling their elders. Kewl!

But I don't think this helps Liz Cheney in her reported quest to redeem her father's legacy by running for Senate in Wyoming or Virginia. For all these conservative lawyers to immediately smack her down suggests she's a) dead wrong and b) not well respected. This is a public humiliation for Cheney, and on a lesser scale, for Kristol. It shows they don't understand "the finest traditions of our country."

Honestly, both of them are starting to look like the washed-out later generation of once-relevant elite families. We all know how that happens. I could be wrong, because being mean and conscience-free counts for a lot in politics today. But this won't be the last time Cheney is rebuked.

Before I attack that false equivalence, let me make clear: I'm not defending these Democrats. I said on "Morning Joe" Tuesday that Paterson should resign, given the mounting evidence that he abused his power to help an aide duck a serious domestic violence charge. I was a Blagojevich critic like every other Democrat, and I wrote at the time that it was wrong to seat Roland Burris in Barack Obama's Senate seat after Blagojevich's cynical appointment. 

But this is another dramatic case of the double standard the media can't seem to avoid when it comes to Republicans and Democrats. The big difference between the two sets of scandals is that GOP corruption in 2006 was big-time, it was systemic -- and much of it was covered up, ignored and, in some cases (House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, anyone?), perpetrated by congressional leadership. Nancy Pelosi's team came in and developed ethics standards and investigation protocols that are working in the Rangel case, standards that many Republicans, including House Minority Leader John Boehner, opposed. 

If you simply examine the corruption scandals, there is no comparison. (This post by the great Joe Conason is a must-read.) 

Rangel is accused of taking a free trip to the Caribbean and failing to report $70,000 in rental income on his taxes (though there are other allegations being investigated); disgraced GOP Rep. Duke Cunningham admitted he took $2 million in bribes. Rangel gave up his committee chairmanship (admittedly reluctantly) once he was admonished by the House Ethics Committee this week; Tom DeLay didn't resign his leadership post after he was admonished by the House Ethics Committee, or cited for campaign finance violations by the FEC. 

And unlike Democrats, Republicans rallied around their corrupt leader. Unbelievably, the House GOP changed its own rules so that DeLay could stay on as majority leader even if he was indicted. 

Indeed, DeLay was indicted, and he finally resigned his speaker post after that. But it took him months to resign his House seat. 

There's also nothing on the Democratic side like the Jack Abramoff scandal, which tainted a lot of GOP Congress members and reached up into the Bush White House (where Karl Rove's secretary was a former Abramoff employee; the two men enjoyed dinners and basketball games together). The Abramoff scandal resulted in the conviction of GOP Rep. Bob Ney, two Bush White House officials and nine GOP congressional aides. 

Let's move on to sex. Rep. Eric Massa resigned Friday, only days after reports surfaced that the House Ethics Committee was investigating whether he sexually harassed a male aide. Former GOP Rep. Mark Foley, by contrast, survived several reports of wrongdoing and only resigned after ABC News revealed sexually inappropriate instant messages with an underage House page. The bigger scandal in the Foley case was the way GOP House leadership treated the sexual harassment reports. A chain of high-level GOP aides, reaching into the office of former Speaker Dennis Hastert, was shown to have known about Foley's issues months before the conclusive IMs were revealed.

Finally, contrast the fates of Democrat Eliot Spitzer and Republican David Vitter. Both men admitted patronizing prostitutes. Spitzer resigned; Vitter didn't, and he's running for reelection to his Senate seat with his party fervently behind him. 

I could go on. Clearly corruption and sexual high jinks go on in both parties. But Republicans tend to rally 'round their wrongdoers, and Republican leadership protects them, while Democrats have done a demonstrably better job dealing with their messes, which are also smaller potatoes than what we witnessed with DeLay and Abramoff. But will voters be able to tell the difference? Not if the media collude with Republicans to push a false equivalence. 

I discussed these issues Friday with Chris Matthews and Bob Shrum on MSNBC's "Hardball." I think I did OK. 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy