Just Go Stand Over There Somewhere...

March 2010 "Awake The State" Rally

2011-03-08T20:05:00.011-05:00

So... About Those Unemployment Figures

2010-11-01T03:29:00.009-04:00

Via MiseryIndex

Here's some more perspective since so many like to tie Obama to unemployment numbers, the right's most popular lagging economic indicator:

Reagan and Obama inherited roughly the same 7.6% unemployment figures and climbing, (although what we got from Bush was hemorrhaging at a much faster rate 0.5 million jobs per month on Day 1 and the three months following).

Obama policies stemmed losses which peaked at 10.1% within 10 months and had them back down to 9.6% within 21 months (where we are now).

Reagan policies ballooned his up to peak at 10.8% after 24 months (his mid-terms), and he didn't have them back to the same 9.6% (where Obama does now) until a full 30 months into his 1st term.

We'll see how Obama does with unprecedented obstruction and renewed commitments for "zero compromise" from our friends across the aisle to help get America's jobs back.

However, Reagan didn't have his unemployment numbers back down to 7.6% (what he inherited) until 40 months into his 1st term.

And yet they want to blame Obama for the way things are at this point... after a record like that from the Consrev-a-Jesus himself?

Let's give Democrats as much time as Reagan had.
Vote the Democratic ticket on November 2nd!!

#Twittergate - Hilarious! But As Implicated... Not Me

2010-10-10T01:41:00.005-04:00

Via @Shoq

Apparently, some conservatives are having a tiff with a twitter user named @wingnutwatch. They made some convoluted youtube movie about it called "Twittergate". For reasons I cannot really figure out, two of my tweets are in this video. As best I can tell,my tweets merely mention words and concepts I'm known for, and try to explicitly or implicitly connect them to whatever bizarre effort — real or imagined — the video addresses.

Read more: http://shoqvalue.com/#ixzz11voqqSG3

DITTO! Also too...

Via pumpybeanis
Ladies and Gentleman, I present to you... @GregWHoward

Behold the awesome power of stupid, in all it's teabagging wingnut glory.

GOP ‘Young Guns’ House Nominee Loves Playing Nazi Dress-Up

2010-10-09T23:36:00.004-04:00

Via Ken Layne

What this year’s crop of insane GOP/Teabagger candidates had lacked, so far, was really only a Tea Party-backed Republican nominee hand-selected as one of Eric Cantor’s “Young Guns” who also spent all his spare time dressed up like an actual Nazi Waffen SS soldier playing German Invasion in the woods around Toledo. And now, the story of the GOP Resurgence is complete, because the dress-up Nazi has been located. Meet Rich Iott, your new teabagger congressman from Ohio!

Joshua Green of The Atlantic brings us this charming tale of a man who simply loves history, that’s all:

Iott, whose district lies in Northwest Ohio, was involved with a group that calls itself Wiking, whose members are devoted to re-enacting the exploits of an actual Nazi division, the 5th SS Panzer Division Wiking …. Iott confirmed his involvement with the group over a number of years, but said his interest in Nazi Germany was historical and he does not subscribe to the tenets of Nazism. “No, absolutely not,” he said. “In fact, there’s a disclaimer on the [Wiking] website. And you’ll find that on almost any reenactment website. It’s purely historical interest in World War II.”

Whatever, Hitler.

It only took a day for this very promising Nazi candidate to be removed from Eric Cantor’s heroic “Young Guns” group of 40-and 50-something GOP creeps chosen to be the Republican Party’s sexy new face:

Until last night, the GOP included the candidate, Rich Iott, on a list of promising potential members called Contenders — a notch below their so-called Young Guns. Now he’s gone, without a trace.

You can get away with a lot in conservative politics these days, but it turns out spending your weekends dressed as a Nazi, celebrating the brave Waffen 5th SS Panzer Division is still a bridge too far.

Haha, Talking Points Memo, always with the jokes. [The Atlantic/TPM]

Donald Duck Discovers Glenn Beck in “Right Wing Radio Duck”

2010-10-03T14:18:00.004-04:00

Via rebelliouspixels.com

Donald’s life is turned upside-down by the current economic crisis and he finds himself unemployed and falling behind on his house payments. As his frustration turns into despair Donald discovers a seemingly sympathetic voice coming from his radio named Glenn Beck.

Answers For Glenn Greenwald; Yes, We Are At War

2010-10-02T04:40:00.001-04:00

Answers For Glenn Greenwald; Yes, We Are At War - The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

Crony Capitalism: Wall Street’s Favorite Politicians

2010-09-30T03:09:00.004-04:00

Via Zach Carter

A full 90 members of Congress who voted to bailout Wall Street in 2008 failed to support financial reform reining in the banks that drove our economy off a cliff. But when you examine campaign contribution data, it’s really no surprise that these particular lawmakers voted to mortgage our economic future to Big Finance: This election cycle, they’ve raked in over $48.8 million from the financial establishment. Over the course of their Congressional careers, the figure swells to a massive $176.9 million.

The complete list of these Crony Capitalists is below, along with the money they pulled in from Big Finance, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics (opensecrets.org). The career data goes back to 1989. Of the 69 House members who voted with Wall Street on both the bailout and financial reform, 60 are Republicans, while nine are Democrats. All 21 Senators who voted with Wall Street on both issues are Republicans, and Republicans raked in over 90 percent of the total campaign contributions. Here’s a chart showing Wall Street’s total contributions to this crowd for the 2010 cycle, by political party:

And here’s one showing total Wall Street contributions over the course of their careers:

These aren’t the only politicians carrying water for Wall Street—only the most flagrant. Some of the bank lobby’s savviest servants on Capitol Hill do their dirty work early in the legislative process. They push through technical amendments and deploy complex procedural tricks to defang a bill, but when the final vote comes, they can still create the appearance of taking a stand against Wall Street’s interests. Rep. Melissa Bean, D-Ill., is a master of this technique, and Tea Party favorite Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., was able to claim credit for voting in favor of reform after demanding—and receiving—a host of big bank giveaways in return for his vote.

Nor are Republicans the only recipients of Wall Street largesse. Bean, for instance, has pulled in over $773,000 from Wall Street in the 2010 cycle alone, while working overtime to carve loopholes into new consumer protections (she’s scored $2.4 million over the course of her Congressional career). And the Democratic leadership has received millions as well.

When it comes to dealing out economic damage, no special interest group has been able to wreak more havoc that Big Finance. After inflating an $8 trillion housing bubble and sparking a recession that has cost the economy over 8 million jobs, public pressure to crack down on Wall Street was intense. And the public is still clamoring for Wall Street accountability—after two years in office, the Wall Street reform bill remains the most popular legislative effort championed by President Barack Obama, and getting tough on Big Finance has been a reliable re-election strategy for embattled incumbents.

But harnessing the Wall Street beast proved a tortuously long and difficult process, taking nearly two years despite its economic urgency. And while the bill that Congress approved this year has plenty of virtues, many of the most critical reforms were simply not addressed by the legislation. The too-big-to-fail financial behemoths that taxpayers bailed out in 2008 are even bigger today, banks can still gamble with taxpayer money, and the foreclosure crisis continues to ravage neighborhoods across the country. Until these issues are addressed, the U.S. economy will remain beholden to Wall Street’s bonus-crazed whims.

But if you follow the money, it’s obvious why so much work remains to be done on financial reform. This year alone, Wall Street spent a staggering $251 million fighting financial reform. According to a separate analysis of campaign contributions performed by Public Citizen, lawmakers who voted with Wall Street on both the bailout and reform received nearly triple the campaign cash of those who opposed Wall Street (figures in the Public Citizen study don’t correspond to those I’ve compiled, as Public Citizen examined contributions from 2007 through July of 2010).

Despite the popularity of Wall Street reform, 90 members of Congress didn’t even want to publicly pretend to support reining in almost universally reviled banks. When you’re trying to decide which bums to throw out in November, here’s one place to start. These members of Congress are okay with setting up economic calamities, and they don’t mind paying for them with your tax dollars.

Here’s how Wall Street’s contributions break down among Wall Street’s 21 Senate Cronies. For 2010:

For their careers:

And here are all of the Cronies, along with their Wall Street hauls:

Senator	2010 Wall Street Cash	Career Wall Street Cash
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)	$1,600,000	$4,900,000
Sen. Robert Bennett (R-UT)	$1,500,000	$2,600,000
Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO)	$333,600	$3,300,000
Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC)	$1,500,000	$3,300,000
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)	$2,500,000	$3,500,000
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK)	$451,700	$1,200,000
Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN)	$3,100,000	$3,300,000
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)	$3,200,000	$4,700,000
Sen. John Ensign (R-NV)	$1,300,000	$2,600,000
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)	$1,100,000	$2,000,000
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH)	$233,200	$1,100,000
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)	$1,400,000	$2,600,000
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)	$1,400,000	$4,700,000
Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA)	$1,500,000	$4,200,000
Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ)	$2,800,000	$3,800,000
Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN)	$412,200	$2,500,000
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)	$947,600	$34,000,000
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)	$4,300,000	$5,300,000
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)	$268,200	$909,700
Sen. John Thune (R-SD)	$1,600,000	$3,900,000
Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH)	$435,200	$2,800,000
21 Republicans
0 Democrats
Senate Total	$31,881,700	97,209,700

House Member	2010 Wall Street Cash	Career Wall Street Cash
Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La.	$106,500	$422,300
Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala.	$611,600	$4,400,000
Rep. Gresham Barrett, R-S.C.	$20,400	$806,700
Rep. Marion Berry, D-Ark.	$24,900	$663,700
Rep. Judy Biggert, R-Ill.	$395,000	$1,900,000
Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo.	$1,200,000	$3,800,000
Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio	$1,300,000	$3,700,000
Rep. Jo Bonner, R-Ala.	$90,400	$702,200
Rep. Mary Bono Mack, R-Calif.	$190,000	$733,400
Rep. John Boozman, R-Ark.	$257,700	$491,000
Rep. Dan Boren, D-Okla.	$123,100	$722,200
Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va.	$92,700	$1,400,000
Rep. Charles Boustany Jr, R-La.	$226,300	$934,600
Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas	$157,000	$840,500
Rep. Henry Brown, R-S.C.	$35,700	$494,000
Rep. Vernon Buchanan, R-Fla.	$336,800	$1,400,000
Rep. Ken Calvert, R-Calif.	$180,300	$940,300
Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich.	$588,000	$1,700,000
Rep. John Campbell, R-Calif.	$413,400	$1,200,000
Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va.	$2,100,000	$4,400,000
Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del.	$749,100	$3,200,000
Rep. Howard Coble, R-N.C.	$23,400	$502,500
Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla.	$110,000	$686,000
Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Texas	$161,500	$711,800
Rep. Ander Crenshaw, R-Fla.	$86,100	$717,000
Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas	$90,600	$606,900
Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pa.	$177,900	$881,000
Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas	$324,200	$1,900,000
Rep.Vernon Ehlers, R-Mich.	$8,500	$292,200
Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, R-Mo.	$143,900	$904,400
Rep. Mary Fallin, R-Okla	($1,000)	$340,700
Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-N.J.	$86,200	$840,300
Rep. Jim Gerlach, R-Pa.	$251,600	$1,800,000
Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas	$140,000	$1,100,000
Rep. Wally Herger, R-Calif.	$171,500	$1,100,000
Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich.	($1,000)	$300,600
Rep. Bob Inglis, R-S.C.	0	$572,800
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y.	$173,900	$1,600,000
Rep. Mark Kirk, R-Ill.	$1,900,000	$4,200,000
Rep. John Kline, R-Minn	$170,900	$989,100
Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif.	$31,800	$748,000
Rep. Daniel E. Lungren, R-Calif.	$147,700	$622,500
Rep. Howard McKeon, R-Calif.	$132,100	$1,100,000
Rep. Gary Miller, R-Calif.	$144,500	$902,000
Rep. Harry Mitchell, D-Ariz.	$130,900	$558,000
Rep. Sue Myrick, R-S.C.	$93,600	$1,200,000
Rep. Soloman Ortiz, D-Texas	$40,200	$381,700
Rep. George Radanovich, R-Calif.	$24,900	$462,000
Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala.	$128,200	$1,000,000
Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky.	$50,200	$468,000
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla.	$127,000	$986,000
Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis.	$531,500	$1,900,000
Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio	$121,900	$519,700
Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz.	$39,700	$1,200,000
Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa.	$30,700	$403,600
Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Ind.	$20,500	$266,900
Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo.	$112,500	$524,200
Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas	$258,900	$1,300,000
Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind.	$40,500	$405,800
Rep. Zack Space, D-Ohio	$169,300	$476,300
Rep. John Sullivan, R-Okla.	$79,200	$494,800
Rep. Lee Terry, R-Neb.	$202,600	$1,400,000
Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas	$42,500	$603,400
Rep. Patrick Tiberi, R-Ohio	$555,500	$2,800,000
Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich.	$81,700	$929,400
Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore.	$180,700	$732,400
Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn.	0	$715,700
Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C.	$155,500	$580,200
Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va.	$90,400	$1,100,000
60 Republicans	$15,873,400	$72,443,800
9 Democrats	$1,108,400	$7,233,000
House Total	$31,881,700	$97,209,700

Douchebag James O’Keefe Tries To Get CNN Reporter Onto His Dildo Lube Boat

2010-09-30T00:08:00.005-04:00

Via Jack Stuef

CNN is doing a documentary on the three or four people who are young American conservative activists, so they decided they would follow around that criminal James O’Keefe, the guy who made those ACORN videos and tried to rape Mary Landrieu’s phones. But you know the one thing they weren’t expecting? They weren’t expecting James O’Keefe to try to lure CNN reporter Abbie Boudreau alone onto a boat filled with dildos and lube and a “condom jar” and “fuzzy handcuffs” and “an obvious sex tape machine,” so this is precisely what he did. Presumably it was to record himself raping her, of course, but O’Keefe says it was just a goof. Huh?

Thankfully, Boudreau was tipped off by O’Keefe’s female colleague, Izzy Santa. (Haha, IS HE SANTA? IS HE?)

“I noticed [Santa] had a little bit of dirt on her face, her lip was shaking, she seemed really uncomfortable and I asked her if she was OK,” Boudreau said. “The first thing she basically said to me was, ‘I’m not recording you, I’m not recording you. Are you recording me?’ I said, ‘No, I’m not recording you,’ and she showed me her digital recorder and it was not recording.”

Santa told Boudreau that O’Keefe planned to “punk” her by getting on a boat where hidden cameras were set up.

Haha, “punk’d,” that is a thing hip young people say in 2010.

CNN got hold of a document that supposedly is O’Keefe’s plans.

“Instead, I’ve decided to have a little fun. Instead of giving her a serious interview, I’m going to punk CNN. Abbie has been trying to seduce me to use me, in order to spin a lie about me. So, I’m going to seduce her, on camera, to use her for a video. This bubble-headed-bleach-blonde who comes on at five will get a taste of her own medicine, she’ll get seduced on camera and you’ll get to see the awkwardness and the aftermath.

Oh, we get it! It’s because all attractive women want to have sex with James O’Keefe. How can you resist that O’Keefe charm? CNN won’t like it very much when their reporter is forced to have sex with him on a boat! (Forced as in forced by her amazing sexual attraction to him, not rape or anything like that.)

This is why CNN should not employ women. They’re too liable to want to fuck James O’Keefe.

Also included in this story? This hilarious list of items in the boat!

Equipment needed

a. Video

1. hidden cams on the boat

2. tripod and overt recorder near the bed, an obvious sex tape machine

b. Props

1. condom jar

2. dildos

3. Music

a. Alicia keys

b. 80s romance songs, things that are typically James

c. avoid Marvin Gaye as too cliche

4. lube

5. ceiling mirror

6. posters and paintings of naked women

7. playboys and pornographic magazines

8. candles

9. Viagra and stamina pills

10. fuzzy handcuffs

11. blindfold

Looks like journalism to us, James O’Keefe. [CNN]

A Political Blowjob

2010-09-26T13:54:00.001-04:00

Via Ian Millhiser

On Fox News Sunday this morning, host Chris Wallace noted that the GOP’s “Pledge To America” has been widely panned even by conservatives. In response, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), who played a lead role in drafting the Pledge, claimed that two publications praised his plan:

WALLACE: Congressman McCarthy, a number of conservatives aren’t buying this. Let’s take a look at what Erick Erickson, of the conservative website RedState had to say about this document. He said “it is full of mom-tested, kid-approved pablum that will make certain hearts on the right sing in solidarity. But like a diet full of sugar, it will actually do nothing but keep making Washington fatter before we crash from the sugar high.”

MCCARTHY: But National Review says it’s bolder than the Contract of ‘94. Wall Street Journal says it will do more to shrink the federal government. It’s like when the Contract came out. There’s going to be attacks on both sides.

Watch it:

McCarthy misrepresents the right-wing Wall Street Journal editorial page’s reaction to the Pledge. In truth, the WSJ gave a the Pledge a decidedly mixed review, stating that the pledge is “less specific in offering new ideas than was the GOP’s 1994 Contract with America,” and it attacks the Pledge for its unambitious approach to earmarks, health care and tax policy.

The conservative National Review did indeed praise the Pledge, as “compelling,” “praiseworthy,” and “a shrewd political document,” but that’s only half the story. As ThinkProgress noted yesterday, the National Review’s hagiographic editorial was prearranged with GOP leadership. One Republican aide called the editorial a “political blowjob.”

There’s a reason why McCarthy could only cite one source that wholeheartedly endorses his party’s trainwreck of a plan. The National Review’s political fellatio aside, public reaction to the GOP Pledge has been almost universally negative.

Jon Stewart Highlights the GOP's Groundbreaking Same Old Ideas

2010-09-26T05:39:00.003-04:00

People don't seem to be particularly impressed with the Republican Party's new Pledge to America, do they?

The way I see it, at least it got the Republicans recycling…

[IndecisionForever.com]

Republicans' "Pledge to America" Falls Short On Some of Its Facts.

2010-09-25T23:39:00.002-04:00

Via Brooks Jackson

Summary

The Republican “Pledge to America,” released Sept. 23, contains some dubious factual claims:

It declares that “the only parts of the economy expanding are government and our national debt.” Not true. So far this year government employment has declined slightly, while private sector employment has increased by 763,000 jobs.
It says that “jobless claims continue to soar,” when in fact they are down eight percent from their worst levels.
It repeats a bogus assertion that the Internal Revenue Service may need to expand by 16,500 positions, an inflated estimate based on false assumptions and guesswork.
It claims the stimulus bill is costing $1 trillion, considerably more than the $814 billion, 10-year price tag currently estimated by nonpartisan congressional budget experts.
It says Obama’s tax proposals would raise taxes on “roughly half the small business income in America,” an exaggeration. Much of the income the GOP is counting actually comes from big businesses making over $50 million a year.

Analysis

The document, "A Pledge to America" is posted on the website of the Republicans in Congress.

Portrait or Caricature?

The Pledge is full of high-sounding pronouncements such as "America is an idea" and "an inspiration to those who yearn to be free." We won’t argue with any of that.

It is also full of partisan political opinions. At one point it says that an "unchecked executive, a compliant legislature, and an overreaching judiciary have combined to thwart the will of the people." The GOP is certainly entitled to state those opinions, and it’s not our role to argue for or against them. Nor is it our job to say whether the promises laid out in the document would be good policy or bad policy. That will be debated elsewhere for the remainder of the campaign.

Our role here, as always, is to say when facts cited to support the arguments are false or misleading. And there are plenty of factual claims to check out.

In general the Pledge draws a gloomy picture of the sputtering economy, the horrid state of joblessness, and a federal budget wracked by record deficits and ballooning debt. Many of the claims are true. But as might be expected in a partisan manifesto, this is a lopsided rendering. At times it is more caricature than portrait: any facts that might brighten it are simply left out, and some claims are exaggerated or incorrect.

The Economy

Pledge, page 5: Our economy has declined and our debt has mushroomed with the loss of millions of jobs.

Fact: It’s true that the economy lost nearly 8.4 million jobs from the peak of employment in December, 2007 to the bottom of the job slump in December of last year. More than half (4.4 million) were lost before Obama took office. The economy has regained 723,000 jobs since hitting bottom, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Pledge, page 14: Private sector unemployment remains at or near 10 percent, jobless claims continue to soar, and the only parts of the economy expanding are government and our national debt.

Fact: It’s true that the unemployment rate is 9.6 percent, but that’s actually down from the peak of 10.1 percent reached last October. It’s also true that new claims for unemployment compensation – “jobless claims” – continue at a high level. But they are actually running eight percent lower than they did at their worst levels, so they are slowly declining, not soaring.

And it’s not the case that only government is growing. The opposite is true — the private sector has gained a net total of 763,000 jobs this year, according to the BLS.

But at the same time, the total number of government jobs has declined by about 40,000, despite a transitory spike in hiring by the Census Bureau to conduct its decennial head count. That spike is now over. The decline in overall government employment is mostly due to public schools shedding 62,000 positions as local property tax rolls decline due to plunging real-estate values.

Health Care

Pledge, page 26: The Obama Administration has been forced to acknowledge that the new law will force some 87 million Americans to drop their current coverage.

Fact: This is a misrepresentation. It’s true that the president over-promised when he repeatedly told Americans that "if you like your health care plan, you keep your health care plan." As we noted shortly before the bill passed, he can’t make that promise to everyone. It’s also true that after the bill passed, the administration released estimates showing that only about 55 percent of large employers and 34 percent of small employers would be offering the same insurance coverage in 2013 as they do now, under "grandfathering" rules. That works out to about 87 million workers — more or less — whose policies are likely to change in some way.

But it’s deceptive of the GOP to claim that employers of these workers will "drop" their coverage. It would be accurate to say they are expected to change it.

In many cases policies will be replaced by more generous coverage, accompanied by government subsidies to help pay the premiums. Some workers will lose grandfathered status merely because their employers buy substantially similar policies from a different insurance company. In other cases coverage might get worse — plans would lose grandfathered status if they were significantly changed to cut benefits; raise co-insurance payments, copays or deductibles; lower employer contributions; or add or tighten caps on payments. But while the law would allow this, it certainly does not "force" employers to reduce coverage, as many have done in the past.

Pledge, page 27: Skyrocketing medical liability insurance rates have distorted the practice of medicine, routinely forcing doctors to order costly and often unnecessary tests to protect themselves from lawsuits, often referred to as “defensive medicine."

Fact: The claim that "defensive medicine" contributes to high medical costs is true — but it doesn’t add much. For years the majority of economic studies consistently failed to validate the claim that fear of lawsuits drove up costs by any measurable amount, as we reported extensively in 2004. But last year, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office revised its thinking based on new studies, and concluded that limiting malpractice liability would reduce total national health care spending by about one-half of 1 percent, or about $11 billion in 2009.

The new health care law addresses that by giving five-year demonstration grants to states to come up with alternatives to malpractice lawsuits. The Pledge promises "common sense" reforms to "rein in junk lawsuits." Just don’t expect them to lower health costs by much.

Pledge, page 28: Roughly 16,500 IRS auditors, agents, and other employees may be needed to collect the hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes levied on the American people by the new health care law.

Fact: This is simply not true. As we reported last March, this figure "stems from a partisan analysis based on guesswork and false assumptions, and compounded by outright misrepresentation." For an eye-opening account of how Republican staff members of the House Ways and Means committee came up with this inflated figure, see our Ask FactCheck item posted March 30. Most of what the IRS will do under the law is hand out tax credits, not collect penalties.

Stimulus Bill

Pledge, page 14: The trillion-dollar “stimulus” spending bill

Pledge, page 15: . . .the trillion-dollar ‘stimulus’ was signed into law

Fact: The stimulus bill is a big one, but CBO says it won’t cost $1 trillion, even spread over 10 years. CBO’s most recent estimate puts the price tag to $814 billion. That’s higher than originally estimated at the time of passage, but still well short of $1 trillion.

Pledge, page 15: Despite the ‘stimulus’ and Democrats’ promises the unemployment rate would remain below eight percent, the unemployment rate climbed from 7.7 percent in January 2009 to 9.5 percent in August 2010.

Republicans have a point here, as we noted some time ago. Back in July of last year we wrote, “the original projections from President Obama’s economic advisers on what would happen with and without the stimulus plan are still off — and significantly so.” But nobody “promised” that unemployment would remain below 8 percent.

As we also wrote in June of last year, the White House explanation was simple: “They say President George Bush left them a worse mess than they realized" when Obama’s advisers came up with their predictions. And that’s true. The original chart – produced Jan. 9, 2009 — was based on economic projections that were in line with what private economists were forecasting. Those forecasts were being revised for the worse even before any stimulus money was spent.

And for the record, CBO’s experts calculate that the stimulus has had a positive effect on employment. In its most recent report on the measure, the agency estimated that in the second quarter of 2010, stimulus spending lowered the unemployment rate between 0.7 and 1.8 percentage points and increased the number of people working between 1.4 million and 3.3 million.

Small Business

Pledge, page 14: [Obama] also wants to raise taxes on roughly half of small business income in America.

Fact: This is an exaggeration. Republicans are equating "net positive business income" reported on individual returns with "small business income," which isn’t correct. They rely on a report from the nonpartisan staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (p. 12), which estimated that about 3 percent of taxpayers who have any business income on their personal returns would see a tax increase under Obama’s proposal, and that those 750,000 taxpayers account for about half of all the business income reported.

But some of that income is from big businesses raking in tens of millions of dollars a year. The JCT stated quite clearly that "These figures for net positive business income do not imply that all of the income is from entities that might be considered ’small.’" Some in fact are quite large, and those big businesses account for a good chunk of that income.

The JCT said: "For example, in 2005, 12,862 S corporations and 6,658 partnerships had receipts of more than $50 million."

Republicans do have a point here. Many small businesses and some large fraction of small-business income will be adversely impacted by raising the top rate on individual taxpayers.

The fact is, though, that the JCT couldn’t estimate how much of the total business income was accounted for by "small" businesses, or how many of the 750,000 individuals affected own "small" busineses. What we do know is that a good deal less than half the small business income, and something less than three percent of small business owners, would be subject to higher taxes.

Taxes

Pledge, page 14: Unless action is taken, a $3.8 trillion tax hike will go into effect on January 1, 2011 that will unravel these policies. A family of four with a household income of $50,000 a year will have to pay $2,900 more in taxes in 2011.

Fact: True, but misleading. What the Pledge fails to note is that Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress have consistently promised to extend the Bush tax cuts for all families making less than $250,000 a year, and singles making less than $200,000. It’s true that hasn’t happened yet, but the reason is that several House and Senate Democrats are agitating to extend the cuts for everybody, even those with the highest incomes.

Congress might yet fail to extend most or all the cuts before they are scheduled to expire next year. As we reported in a Sept. 3 Ask FactCheck item on this issue, there’s always a possibility that Congress will grind to a halt in a stalemate. And sure enough, on Sept. 23 Senate Democrats announced they would put off any vote on extending the cuts until after the election. A spokesman for Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said, "Democrats believe we must permanently extend tax cuts for the middle-class before they expire at the end of the year, and we will."

Can We Please Learn From TeaBaggery Mistakes?

2010-09-23T14:29:00.003-04:00

There's a lot of folks sending me DMs about me not being a purist and throwing my support behind the Democrats in Alaska and Florida Senate races.

For the record... I'm all for McAdams and Meeks. I have no problems with either of these exemplary liberal Democrats as candidates... other than their current status in electability. I am a pragmatic realist, not a pie-in-the-sky dreamer. My priority in support is as follows:

1) Keep the crazy-ass wingnut teabagger out of the US Senate.

2) Put the most electable liberal Democrat in the seat.

3) If step 2 is unattainable, refer to step 1.

Am I missing something in the way of pure logic, science and math here?

Do try to remember why we were all so overjoyed and elated when the teabaggers shot themselves in the foot for November general election Senate race in Delaware:

And what does our boys' situations look like? Let's see Meek's probability of a win...

1.7% chance of a win?? OUCH!! Not too good. How about Scott McAdams...?

This is only one Rasmussen poll of likely voters, but 3.3% is STILL not pretty.

Folks, if Scott McAdams support EVER exceeds Lisa Murkowski, or Kendrick Meek's level of support surges past Charlie Crist between now and election day... I'll get behind the mule, pucker up, kiss your ass and admit I was wrong. But not until then.

Don't blame Dems who are trying to keep the crazy teabagger out of office... just because you wanted ideological "purity" and an unelectable weak candidate.

GOP to Tea Party: Your Votes Yes, Your Ideas No!

2010-09-23T02:18:00.001-04:00

Via FrumForum

I had a good chuckle at Erick Erickson’s enraged piece on the Republican pledge, now being circulated by Democratic spinmeisters.

Question for Erickson: What did he expect?

Here is the GOP cruising to a handsome election victory. Did you seriously imagine that they would jeopardize the prospect of victory and chairmanships by issuing big, bold promises to do deadly unpopular things?

But if the document is unsurprising, it’s also unsurprising that Erickson and those who think like him would find it enraging. The “Pledge to America” is a repudiation of the central, foundational idea behind the Tea Party. Tea Party activists have been claiming all year that there exists in the United States a potential voting majority for radically more limited government.

The Republican “Pledge to America” declares: Sorry, we don’t believe that. We shall cut spending where we can – reform the legislative process in important ways – and sever the federal guarantee for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Republicans will redirect the federal government to a new path that is less expensive and intrusive than the status quo. But if you want promises of radical change? No. Too risky. We don’t think the voters want that – not the smaller, older, richer, whiter electorate that votes in non-presidential years, much less the bigger, younger, poorer, less white electorate of presidential years. And even that smaller, older, richer, whiter electorate is highly wary of cuts to programs that benefit them, Medicare above all.

But the real news is this: You can primary a Bob Bennett, you can nominate a Sharron Angle, you can balk Karl Rove and Mike Castle – but when decision hour arrives, the leadership of the party rejects the assessment of the American electorate offered by Rush Limbaugh, Dick Armey and for that matter Erick Erickson.

Yet at the same time, we so-called RINOs can take no pleasure in this document. Yes, there is good in it. (Putting legislative language online 72 hours in advance seems Good Government 101.) The silly bits are not too silly: the promise to cite specific constitutional language is an empty sop to those so-called constitutionalists who vainly hope to revive the John Randolph school of constitutional interpretation.

But the true sad news is that this is not a document to govern with in the recessionary year 2010. It’s fine to reject Tea Party illusions. But without an alternative modern Republican affirmative program, the GOP will find itself at risk of being captured and controlled by special interests instead.

The most admirable thing about the Tea Party is its zeal to find a bigger message for the Republican Party than: do what K Street wants. The message offered by the Tea Party may have been unworkable, unrealistic, or worse – but at least it was large and public-spirited.

I’d like to see a Modern Republicanism that responds better to the needs of the country, while retaining still the Tea Party’s reforming spirit. What I fear is the worst of all worlds: a Republican majority that rejects not only extremist ideas, but all ideas.

GOP 'Pledge For America' Author Lobbied For AIG, Exxon, Pfizer, Chamber

2010-09-23T00:07:00.003-04:00

Via Sam Stein

The Republican Party's 21-page blueprint, "Pledge to America," was put together with oversight by a House staffer who, up till April 2010, served as a lobbyist for some of the nation's most powerful oil, pharmaceutical, and insurance companies.

In a draft version of The Pledge that was being passed around to reporters before the official release, the document properties list "Wild, Brian" as the "Author." A GOP source said that Wild -- who is on House Minority Leader John Boehner's payroll -- did help author the governing platform that the party is unveiling on Thursday. Another aide said that as the executive director of the Republican leadership group American Speaking Out, Wild's tasks were more on the administrative side of the operations.

Until early this year, Wild was a fairly active lobbyist on behalf of the firm the Nickles Group, the lobbying shop set up by the former Republican Senator from Oklahoma, Don Nickles. During his five years at the firm, Wild, among others, was paid $740,000 in lobbying contracts from AIG, the former insurance company at the heart of the financial collapse; $800,000 from energy giant Andarko Petroleum; more than $1.1 million from Comcast, more than $1.3 million from Exxon Mobil; and $625,000 from the pharmaceutical company Pfizer Inc.

Not all of his work has been done in the world of influence peddling. From 2001 through 2004, Wild was the legislative director for then Representative Pat Toomey (R-Penn.) the current Republican Senate candidate in Pennsylvania. From 2004 through 2005 he was a Deputy Assistant For Legislative Affairs to Vice President Dick Cheney. There also was a tenure on the staff of former Colorado Republican Senator Hank Brown.

But the career door has been revolving. And in between his time in Johnson and Toomey's office, Wild served as a lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce where he helped steer more than $34 million worth of lobbying activity for the business interest group.

Past associations with entities like the Chamber are hardly character disqualifiers, certainly on the Republican side of the aisle where fidelity to the business lobby is a virtue. But having been paid to lobby on behalf of major companies with legislative business before Congress does create an obvious optics problem for Republican leaders hoping to promote their agenda as clean of big-moneyed influence.

Asked about the perception of conflicting interests, Brendan Buck, a spokesperson for the House GOP Legislative Initiatives stressed that there was none. Wild, he said, played a role in steering "The Pledge" project. But he was not involved in actually authoring its specific provisions -- a task saved for the actual members.

"Brian's job as much as anything has been to keep the trains running between all the leadership offices and members who contributed," said Buck. "The contents of our agenda, however, were written by our members, based on the priorities they heard from the American people. Staffers don't write things like this - they carry out the orders of the members they work for."

Below is a snapshot of the document priorities of "The Pledge" listing Wild as the author:

With additional reporting by Amanda Terkel

DE-Sen: O'Donnell, In Her Own Words

2010-09-16T16:29:00.009-04:00

MSNBC, Joe Scarborough's show, 11/13/2002:

CHRISTINE O'DONNELL: So Eric, what do you tell them? Do you tell them safe sex?

ERIC NIES: You're going to stop the whole country from having sex?

O'DONNELL: Yes.

Listen up Christine O'Donnell, it's our coochies!! We'll play with them whenever we damn well feel like it. It's our Constitutionally protected right. Keep your big government out of my hot mess!!

Here's Constitutional scholar Cyndi Lauper:

She bop he bop a we bop
I bop you bop a they bop

Exactly!! It's a perfectly safe and harmless procedure enjoyed by a plurality of THE ENTIRE WORLD. And if you were willing to be honest, you are too!

Hey, hey they say I better get a chaperone
Because I can't stop messin' with the danger zone
I won't worry, and I won't fret
Ain't no law against it yet

NO LAW! Nuff said. Thank you, Cyndi.

Kinda Makes Me Sad For Them... Almost

2010-09-16T03:17:00.002-04:00

Maybe my twilight years won't suck after all.

Via Andrew Pavelyev

The long election cycle of 2010 is finally (almost) over. Yes, the general election still remains, but that’s almost an afterthought, since it is shaping to be the most boring and inconsequential federal election in a generation (seriously, will it make any real practical difference whether the Republicans pick 5 or 50 House seats?). The real action in this election cycle was in the Republican primaries, they are almost over, and we already know who won: (drum roll, please!) President Obama. American conservatives have suffered a crushing and lasting defeat. The center of gravity in American politics has shifted permanently and irreversibly to the left (and conservative ideology will eventually follow).

The saddest thing is that this conservative calamity is mostly self-inflicted. More and more conservatives get Oprah-cized (one of their favorite leaders, Sarah Palin is sometimes called “the conservative Oprah”, and in my humble opinion Glenn Beck deserves that title too). They now believe that expressing their feelings (e.g. by nominating quixotic candidates) is more important than trying to influence government policies (e.g. by nominating viable candidates). They withdraw from practical politics and instead join a protest movement. They march in the streets in tricorn hats while the liberals (whom they unwittingly help to put in office) are creating new entitlements and raising taxes.

Obama’s biggest victory so far has been in the Pennsylvania Republican primary, and it occurred a whole year before any votes were actually cast: a strong primary challenge prompted Sen. Specter to change parties, and that gave the Democrats the magic 60 votes that they needed to pass Obamacare without any sort of compromise with Republicans. Apparently, for some conservatives that was an acceptable price for purging an elderly RINO. But there were many other victories as well. Many vulnerable Democratic congressional candidates got their dream opponents (the latest example is Christine O’Donnell – unfortunately, just one of many, way too many, examples). So the GOP gains in November will be smaller than they could be. Furthermore, a lot of those gains will be easily reversible. In 2012 Obama will be on the ballot, and that will almost certainly increase the Democratic turnout (just as in 2008). Many Republicans who manage to squeak by this year will not survive 2012. And it can be even worse than in 2008 since not only will a lot of newly won Republicans seats be in danger, but some long-held seats will be in play as well, because in this year’s primaries retiring GOP congressmen and even some incumbents (not only moderates but also real conservatives like Bennett in the Senate and Inglis in the House!) were replaced with candidates who may be too conservative for their districts.

Even if Republicans capture the House this November, they will have a barely functional majority – a 225-210 split is about the best we can realistically hope for – and will be almost certain to lose the House again in 2012, potentially even by a worse margin than in 2008. Such a scenario would be devastating to conservative causes, since Obama would claim that his own re-election victory combined with his party wrestling the House from the GOP (and expanding their Senate majority) gives him a clear mandate to implement his agenda (rather than pursue bipartisanship). And make no mistake, that’s the mandate Obama plans to get before pursuing his remaining agenda. All the talk about the importance of this year’s election in stopping Obama is just talk. There’s nothing to stop! Obama was done with his first term several months ago. He knew from the very start that his popularity would decline and that his party would likely lose seats in the midterm elections, so he could not have possibly planned to leave any important part of his first-term agenda for the second half of that term. He did what he could (and that’s a lot) in the first 18 months or so, and the rest will just have to wait for a new mandate. If anything, a small and rudderless (but increasingly ideological) GOP majority in the House will actually make it easier for Obama to win re-election.

Obamacare is not the only lasting effect from this year’s primaries. The Senate seats that the Republicans threw away (the seat in Delaware has just been added to this list) will now be in the hands of Democrats for 6 years, and some of them will not realistically come into play again for much longer than that. Who knows, the Republican president in 2025 (I’m not very optimistic we will see one earlier than that) may have some important part of his agenda derailed because of coming up one Senate vote short (thanks to a Democrat rather than Republican representing Delaware).

But there are still even worse and more lasting effects – which we will never be able to quantify. We will never know how many talented young people contemplating entering Republican politics (especially in swing states) will decide to pursue other career options instead because of all the ugliness they saw in this primary season (nor how many congressional Republicans will retire earlier than they otherwise would). But we can be sure that conservatism will be suffering for decades because of their decisions.

Oh, and this whole thread is like porn for liberals.

DE-Sen: Fight! Fight! Fight!

2010-09-15T23:07:00.000-04:00

An aide to defeated Rep. Mike Castle:

"She is a con artist who won by lying about Castle's positions and her own life," said Kate Dickens, a Castle aide. "Out of state support was enough to pull her through yesterday so she can rely on it through November."

Karl Rove:

“I’ve met her. I wasn’t frankly impressed by her abilities as a candidate,” Rove said during an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity. “One thing that O’Donnell is now going to have to answer in the general election that she didn't in the primary is her own checkered background.”

“There were a lot of nutty things she has been saying that don't add up,” Rove added.

“Why did she mislead voters about her college education? How come it took nearly two decades to pay her college bills so she could get her college degree? How did she make a living?”

Some random GOP "strategists":

In Wilmington, Republican strategist Don Mell and his wife, Jeanne, who is a Democrat, walked across the street from Castle's party to Coons' primary watch party at a nearby pub. The couple donned Castle pins when they arrived at the Coons event and picked up one of the Democrat's yard signs.

"I'm not voting for that woman-she's crazy," Don Mell said. "There isn't going to be any discussion about that."

O'Donnell's supporters punch back.

Back at O'Donnell's party in Dover, the mood was triumphant, rather than conciliatory.

O'Donnell supporters wearing light blue t-shirts that read, "Team Christine" gloated over their victory by posing in front of a Castle yard sign in front of the stage, on which someone had scribbled "GOOD BYE!" in bright red letters under the congressman's name.

"We could care less about the Republican Party," said O'Donnell volunteer Brad Flora of Camden, Delaware. "We want our government back.

And Rove is suddenly not so popular. One conservative blogger wrote:

Rarely have I seen such childishness from the supposed leaders of a political establishment, who set the very rules and customs they now want to ignore because they just got embarrassed on a national stage. Grow up, shut up, and get to work."

Another called for Rove to be kicked off Fox News and "investigated".

Especially given his comments on Fox News tonight, until this is resolved, it seems impossible to trust Rove as an objective analyst. In terms of the conservative movement, we should not simply ignore him, but proactively work to undermine Rove in whatever ways we can, given his obvious willingness to undermine us.

Meanwhile, Senate Republicans are furious at Jim DeMint:

“It speaks volumes that in Jim DeMint’s world, the ‘principles of freedom’ are more important than a candidate who pays their taxes, is honest with voters and who isn’t a complete fraud,” said a senior GOP aide. “Senator DeMint may be patting himself on the back tonight but many Republicans look forward to post-November 2nd when he has to explain why he helped the Democrats retain the majority for yet another two years.”

This is but a taste, people, for what's to come if Republicans don't take the Senate and/or House this fall. This is a hint of the glorious civil war that will break out amongst the GOP if we can hold the line.

They expect outright control. If we deny them that, they will fracture like we've never seen them fracture before.

If for nothing else, this preview of (possible) coming attractions should motivate you for some serious GOTV this fall.

Teabagger Values: Racism, Pornography, Beastiality...

2010-09-14T04:56:00.004-04:00

Via Daily Gotham

Remember when Republicans wanted to impeach President Clinton because he had consensual sex with a woman other than his wife? They portrayed themselves as champions of morality. Well, that facade is long shot away by people like Newt Gingrich (abandoning his wife for a younger woman while his wife was ill with cancer), Congressman Don Sherwood (abusing and attempting to choke the woman he was having an extra-marital affair with), Congressman Mark Foley (soliciting sex with a 16-year old man), well...need I continue?

For the strong of stomach, here is a list of Republican sex scandals, almost all of which make Bill Clinton's consensual affair look very tame by comparison.

Well, here in NY State we have a really, REALLY nasty scandal that is breaking. I first heard about it this morning, but it seems to be taking off.New York gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino, a darling of the Teabaggers, apparently is in the habit of emailing racist emails and videos as well as videos of bestiality and pornography. According to Daily Kos (as well as an email I saw this morning), Paladino has sent emails that include:

# A popular video among white supremacists called "Obama Inauguration Rehearsal," that includes dancing African tribesmen.

# A video titled "Miss France 2008 fucking," that Paladino called "a keeper."

# An image of Barack and Michelle Obama dressed like a pimp and a prostitute, with the subject line, "White House ball."
# An image with the caption, "HOLY SHIT, run niggers, run."

# A bestiality video featuring a man and a horse.

And apparently that is just the tip of the iceberg. I mean THIS GUY WANTS TO BE GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK!!! And the Teabaggers and Republicans love him. He even has Michael Caputo (another Republican sleaze that Daily Gotham has taken on) running his campaign.

White supremacy, racism, pornography, and bestiality. Are THESE the values of the Teabaggers, Michael Caputo, and the Republican Party? The evidence suggests it is. Paladino is just one in a VERY long line of Republican sleazebags who love to talk about morality but in practice are nastier and than "immoral" Democrats like I could ever imagine.

Will the Republicans support Paladino the way they did Mark Foley and Newt Gingrich when their sleazy hypocrisy came out? Or will they take a lesson from Democrats and reject him the way we did with Hiram Monserrate and William "frozen money" Jefferson?

Update: Via TPM:

Paladino's campaign manager, Michael Caputo, would not comment on specific emails, but acknowledged to TPMmuckraker that Paladino had sent emails that were "off-color" and "politically incorrect," saying that few such emails represented the candidate's own opinion. Caputo accused Democrats of wanting to change the subject from substantive issues to "having sex with horses."

Uh ... sure.

Why Do They All Keep Saying We're Racist?

2010-09-12T05:10:00.020-04:00

Via Vyan

At a July 4th Tea Party Rally in Lexington Kentucky... T-Shirts declaring "Yup,' I'm a Racist!" were sold.

The shirt says on the front: Yup, I'm a Racist

On the back: if the Government Says so Because...

I support the Constitution

I support Free Speech

I support the Right to Bear Arms

I support the Bill of Rights

I support Capitalism

I support NO Government Bailouts

I support closing the border

I support the Military

I support the Tea Party

I support Jesus Christ as My Savior.

This admirable list of policy opposition is not why anyone in the Tea Party was ever associated with or accused of bigotry or racism.

This is...

June 14, 2008
Stick a Pin in It

Feb 25, 2009
Mayor Hits Rough Patch Over Watermelon Pic

Sept 26, 2009
Obama as witch doctor: Racist or satirical?

Jan 4, 2010
‘N-Word’ Sign Dogs Would-Be Tea Party Leader

Feb 12, 2010
Racist Republican Reactionaries?
Why the Tea Party and Republicans are being Charged with Racism

Feb 25, 2010
Latinos Launching Campaign Exposing Tea Party Racism

April 12, 2010
1) Tea Party NY Gov Candidate's E-Mails Exposed: Racism, Porn, Bestiality
2) NY Gubernatorial Candidate Carl Paladino’s Racist and Sexist Email History

April 14, 2010
New York Times/CBS News survey
- Mr. Obama does not understand the problems of people like themselves.
- More than half say the policies of the administration favor the poor
- 25 percent think that the administration favors blacks over whites
- that too much has been made of the problems facing black people.

April 15, 2010
Tea party leaders anxious about extremists

July 15, 2010
Tea Party Leader Mocks NAACP "Coloreds" In Online Screed

April 26, 2010
Are Tea Partiers Racist?
A new study shows that the movement's supporters are more likely to be racially resentful.

July 20, 2010
Man Rightly Fired for Eating Watermelon at Company Picnic, Calling it "Obama Fruit"

July 22, 2010
Racism Rift Highlights Dilemma: Who Speaks for the Tea Party?

Aug 3, 2010
Tea Party Racism? What Tea Party Racism?

Aug 18, 2010
'N-Word' Rant Ends Dr. Laura's 30-Year Radio Career

Sept 13, 2010
Parade Float Shows Obama Whipping “Future Tax Payer”

Sept 14, 2010
How Republicans Party

Sept 14, 2010
Greer Apologizes To Obama For GOP Racism, Recants Critique Of Socialist Indoctrination School Speech

Sept 17, 2010
Republican Ex-Senator Calls Out 'Racist Bullshit' on Fox Business Network

Sept 19, 2010
Get That Worthless Nigger Out Of The White House

David Bowie - Heroes @ Concert For New York City

2010-09-11T18:41:00.002-04:00

Still as heart wrenching as it was 9 years ago.

Articulating The Message (or just typical straight up GOP lying)

2010-09-09T04:25:00.011-04:00

The audacity of "bailout blame" hypocrisy.

The awesome! It burns! Here's an excellent example of why Maddow won the
2010 Walter Cronkite award...

I swear, these idiots act like their policy positions aren't recently recorded history.

It's the Stupid, Stupid

2010-09-08T03:51:00.001-04:00

From Bob Cesca

Via Kevin Drum, the new Washington Post poll shows across-the-board preference for the Democrats over the Republicans on everything from the economy to personal values. On the "deserve to be re-elected" question, Republicans are less deserving of re-election than Democrats.

But more people said they're going to vote for Republicans anyway.

As Drum notes, it's the economy. And I agree, but I would add that it's also stupidity. Many of the most determined voters right now are people who believe the Obama administration is somehow banning prayer and indoctrinating children. They don't realize that 30 percent of the first stimulus was tax cuts. They don't realize that less spending and deficit reduction will make things worse. Most of all, they're willing to let the Republicans have a stab at governing again, even though they believe the Republicans are less competent and less capable. Pure insanity.

They "Try and Thrawrt Attempts at Expanding the State, Period."

2010-09-04T08:06:00.004-04:00

Republican Chuck Hagel just does not understand his party's role in this whole democratic process.

Via Think Progress

Former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), the chairman of the Atlantic Council, recently sat down for an interview with the Washington Diplomat. In the interview, the former senator touched on a variety of topics, including what he feels is the need for the United States to “unwind” from the war in Afghanistan. Towards the end of the interview, Hagel says that while he has “no plans to renounce his membership in the party,” he finds that the Republican Party of which he is a part is not “presenting any new alternatives, any new options, or any new thinking“:
“I don’t see them presenting any alternatives, any new options or any new thinking,” Hagel said. “If the Republicans get back in power, what are they going to do? There is no articulation. It’s just a ‘no no no, I’m against Obama because he’s a socialist and he’s taking America in the wrong direction.’ That’s certainly an opinion, but what about you, Mr. Republican? What would you do?”

In fact, leading Republicans like Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, and Peter King have proudly embraced the “no, no, no” agenda. Hagel told the interviewer that he remains confident that his party will once again rebuild itself. “The Republican Party will find a new center of gravity,” he said. “I think they’ll let this nonsense play out. It’s like a bad storm — it just has to go through.”

"Nonsense" is a pretty strong word, Chuck. Careful or you will soon find yourself purged.

(h/t to "J" for the most excellent title)

Daniel Larison on Erik Kain and Conservatism

2010-09-04T01:54:00.003-04:00

Via The American Conservative

Daniel Larison writes:

As I have said before, I don’t think the GOP will win the House, but if that did happen it would primarily be bad news for the Republican Party and the conservative movement. If that seems a little too counter-intuitive for you, let me explain. Should the GOP somehow win the House, they will not have earned it and they will not deserve it, and they will proceed to destroy themselves in very short order. Arguably, there was nothing worse for the American right than to be given the free gift of winning the 2002 midterms, because this win encouraged them to pursue the policies that proved to be their undoing, and a similar win in 2010 would have the same effect of enabling Republicans’ most destructively self-indulgent impulses. As one horrified by the prospect of Republicans in power, Erik should look forward to this.

After all, even if the Republicans won the House there would not be much that they could do once in office, except waste their time as they did in the ’90s hauling executive branch officials before committees to testify on this or that outrage of the week. They would likely be stymied by the Democratic majority in the Senate on any major legislation, and Obama would veto just about anything they passed if it somehow got to his desk. At the same time, Obama would make them into a much more effective foil for his arguments once they had some hold on power, and out of frustration they would become increasingly obsessed with “getting” Obama and become even less interested in representing the interests of their constituents.

The Closing of the Conservative Mind

2010-09-02T17:09:00.006-04:00

Preach it, brother Frum

We are likely soon to have a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, maybe the U.S. Senate too. And what will that majority do? The answer seems to be: They have not a clue. Unlike the Republican House and Senate majorities of 1994, unlike the Republican Senate majority of 1980, these new majorities will arrive with only slogans for a policy agenda.
..
The loser is a conservative political movement waiting at the end of the intellectual conveyor belt for a product that increasingly arrives so shoddy and defective that it might as well not come at all.

(h/t @mattyglesias)

Just a Reminder for the Civil Rights Revisionists

2010-08-24T20:52:00.004-04:00

And a reminder for the new Glenn Beck "champions of racial tolerance"....

To support the claim that Republicans were actually the architects of civil rights, conservatives often point out that a “higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats supported the civil-rights bill.” But this ignores the “distinct split between Northern and Southern politicians” on the issue. When this is taken into account, the facts show that “in both the North and the South, Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act at a higher rate than the Republicans.”

(June 1, 1999) in the Washington Times, R.D. Davis, a member of the black leadership network Project 21 and a writer and radio talk show host in Huntsville, Ala., commented that, "History tends to unilaterally and falsely depict Republicans as racists when Southern Democrats truly deserved this title." In defense of his argument he cites the voting record of Democrats and Republicans on the 1964 Civil Rights Act. On this monumental piece of legislation, Republicans supported the bill 27-6 in the Senate (82%) and 138-34 in the House (80%) while Democrats supported the bill 46-21 in the Senate (69%) and 152-96 in the House (61%). On the surface it would indeed appear that the Republicans, and not the Democrats as commonly assumed, were the champions of civil rights in the 1960s.
However, a slightly more careful analysis of the Civil Rights Act voting record shows a distinct split between Northern and Southern politicians. Among the southern states (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia), Senate Democrats voted 1-21 against the bill (5%) while Republicans voted 0-1 (0%). In the House, southern Democrats voted 7-87 (7%) while southern Republicans voted 0-10 (0%). Among the remaining states, Democrats voted 145-9 in favor of the bill (94%) while Republicans voted 138-24 for the bill (85%).

In both the North and the South, Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act at a higher rate than the Republicans.

Election 2010 Map: Track House, Senate and Governor Races

2010-08-21T13:46:00.007-04:00

Via USA Today

Click through the interactive map above to see candidates in each House, Senate and governor race as well as USA TODAY's projections for which party will win those seats in November.

Use the ZIP code locator to find details on your district's House race and mouse over the current and projected balance bars at the top of each tab to see whether a political party is expected to keep or lose a particular seat.

The map will be updated regularly to reflect changes in race ratings, primary election results and filing deadlines.

New Favored Conservative Term: "Tanking"

2010-08-16T00:17:00.005-04:00

If a net drop of -6 is "tanking"... What is the term for GWB's drop at (-16)??
Or the drop for Conserva-Jesus, himself (-8)... Ronald Reagan?

Truth is, all Presidential ratings drop in the second year... and Obama's "tanking score" is the best since Eisenhower.

Republican Party Only Winning Key 2010 Poll In Southern States

2010-08-13T17:02:00.002-04:00

Via Elyse Siegel

Findings released in a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll suggest that the Republican Party is very much a Southern regional white party in terms of the demographics of its supporters.

MSNBC relays the numbers:

The GOP has a HUGE generic-ballot edge in the South (52%-31%), but it doesn't lead anywhere else. In the Northeast, Dems have a 55%-30% edge; in the Midwest, they lead 49%-38%; and in the West, it's 44%-43%.

MSNBC notes that many of the races in which Republicans stand to make electoral gains are taking place in the South "where you have whiter and older voters," or in congressional districts with Southern-like constituencies.

Earlier this year, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele raised eyebrows when he suggested the GOP for decades has pursued a "'Southern Strategy' that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South."

Speaking at DePaul University, Steele -- the first African-American to chair the RNC -- told a group of students that African-Americans "don't have a reason" to vote for Republican candidates.

*** Two other things to keep an eye on:
In our poll, Obama’s job-approval rating (47%) is higher than his personal rating (46%). Now it's just one point, but is it possible that as the president becomes more political on the campaign trail, his personal ratings take a hit? But with the GOP’s favorable score dropping (from 30% in June to 24% now), are those attacks working? Also, for the first in the survey, the Tea Party has a net-negative fav/unfav rating (30%-34%). Are the Democratic attacks working here, too?

Andrew Breitbart’s Video ‘Evidence’ Of Lying Congressmen Is Anything But

2010-08-07T14:32:00.002-04:00

Via Tommy Christopher

...its important to go over the other evidence that the incident did occur, at least as told by the corroborating testimony of three credible eyewitnesses. In a court of law, that’s called evidence.

Earlier this week, conservative media figure Andrew Breitbart seized upon a New York Times story correction as proof that Civil Rights hero John Lewis (D-Ga) and others were “lying” when they claimed that a crowd of protesters had hurled the “n-word” at them as they walked to the Capitol to vote on health care reform.

Breitbart supports his claim by submitting “conclusive” video “evidence” that nothing “racially charged” occurred on March 20, 2010. I took a closer look at the NY Times correction, and Breitbart’s video, and it doesn’t take much to poke some pretty big holes in Breitbart’s basic claim, which somehow presupposes that the failure to meet a burden of proof is, in and of itself, “conclusive evidence.”

Before we get to either Breitbart’s video, or the Times‘ correction, its important to go over the other evidence that the incident did occur, at least as told by the corroborating testimony of three credible eyewitnesses. In a court of law, that’s called evidence. Hell, their testimony was even good enough for John Boehner and Michael Steele. But let’s focus on the credibility of one particular witness, John Lewis.

By all accounts, John Lewis is a hero of the Civil Rights movement who suffered many beatings by white racists, including a skull fracture at the hands of Alabama State Police during the 1965 march on Selma. He also publicly forgave a former klansman who confessed to, and apologized for, participating in one of those beatings.

While the events of 50 years ago do not immediately give any individual an honesty pass for life, given John Lewis’ hard-earned credibility on this very issue, one would think that proving him a liar should be a heavy burden to meet. With two corroborating witnesses, respected members of Congress — each of whom had little motivation to lie (as Breitbart himself pointed out) — the optics were already pretty bad for the protesters. It would take one hell of a smoking gun to call them all liars.

Instead, Breitbart offered the thinnest refutation possible: there was no video of the incident. He was presumably able to do this perhaps due to the expectation that the mainstream media, cowed by their embarrassment at his hands over the ACORN controversy, to go along with it, or at least accept the premise that a lack of video evidence was somehow an equal counterbalance to the testimony of three members of Congress. Or that such evidence is somehow a prerequisite to reporting a story. By the way, that’s going to make a lot of print reporters very unhappy.

Sadly, this premise echoes the voice of every stereotypically racist sheriff in the 60’s who ever uttered “Nobody’s gonna believe you, boy!” Ironically, it also echoes the white grand jury who refused to indict the murderer of Shirley Sherrod’s father.

Breitbart now presents several crudely-shot, 5 to 7 second video clips of poor audio quality as proof positive that nothing happened that day. Although that idea is, at best thin on its face, even those cherry-picked snippets contain proof that Breitbart’s “proof” is in fact, false.

If Breitbart can’t tell me what those individuals were saying, he certainly can’t tell me what they didn’t say. All were within earshot of the Congressmen, and none were picked up on the various cameras’ crude microphones. Were they saying something racist? The only real truth is this: by watching this video we honestly have no idea what the protesters were saying.

As for the Times‘ correction, let’s look at what it actually says:

The Political Times column last Sunday, about a generational divide over racial attitudes, erroneously linked one example of a racially charged statement to the Tea Party movement. While Tea Party supporters have been connected to a number of such statements, there is no evidence that epithets reportedly directed in March at Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia, outside the Capitol, came from Tea Party members.

It doesn’t say the epithets never happened, or even that the Tea Party members didn’t say them. It simply says there’s no evidence they were Tea Party members. While that’s technically true, if a person heard someone yell “Red Sox suck!” at Yankee Stadium, a reasonable person could infer that it came from Yankees fans, without checking their fan club ID.

Breitbart is calling on the mainstream media to report on his video. As long as they do so with a critical eye, I absolutely agree with him.

Rep. Inglis Tells All: GOP using racism, demagoguery in response to Obama.

2010-08-03T14:09:00.005-04:00

Via Think Progress

In June, Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) became one of the first incumbent Republicans to be knocked off by an insurgent Tea Party candidate. Although he maintained a 93 percent lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union, primary voters deemed Inglis to be insufficiently conservative. In an interview with Mother Jones, Inglis said that one of the reasons for his defeat was because he refused to demagogue like other conservatives in the House. In one instance during the primary, Inglis was chastised simply for not calling President Obama a “socialist.” He also noted that many of the GOPs criticisms regarding Obama’s response to the economic crisis were motivated by racism:

Instead, he remarks, his party turned toward demagoguery. Inglis lists the examples: falsely claiming Obama’s health care overhaul included “death panels,” raising questions about Obama’s birthplace, calling the president a socialist, and maintaining that the Community Reinvestment Act was a major factor of the financial meltdown. “CRA,” Inglis says, “has been around for decades. How could it suddenly create this problem? You see how that has other things worked into it?” Racism? “Yes,” Inglis says.

Inglis also had particular criticism of House GOP leader John Boehner and GOP whip Eric Cantor, whom he accused of being unwilling to “summon the courage” to stand up to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Tea Partiers.

Documentary: 'Rise of the New Right' Premieres Wednesday, June 16

2010-06-08T21:50:00.002-04:00

Via HardBlogger

In msnbc's latest Hardball documentary, “Rise of the New Right,” Chris Matthews takes a hard look at the recent surge of anger on the political right, particularly the outpouring of support for the Tea Party, which helped secure Rand Paul’s victory in Kentucky. The special airs Wednesday, June 16 at 7 p.m. ET.

The growing fear among citizens of losing their rights and freedoms has created a political backlash toward the US government and manifested itself in violent rhetoric and anti-government groups who want to “take their country back.” Hardball host Chris Matthews asks the questions: Who are the people on the New Right? What do they want? And how do they intend to get it?

The documentary features interviews across the spectrum of the New Right – from Dick Armey, former House Majority Leader and a powerful figure in the Tea Party Movement to Orly Taitz, unofficial leader of the Birthers, to influential internet radio host Alex Jones. The documentary also gained access to the Michigan Militia’s survival training camp and hit the campaign trail with Rand Paul months before he showed up on the national radar.

TN GOP State Rep.: Some People Pay For Health Care With Vegetables

2010-04-22T16:53:00.002-04:00

Via TPM

It turns out that Senate candidate Sue Lowden (R-NV) is not the only politician out there who has promoted the idea of the barter system as part of health care. Yet another pro-barter Republican, state Rep. Mike Bell (R-TN), has been talking up the practices of Mennonites who pay doctors with vegetables.

Bell's made his comments last week, during discussion of a proposed state law that would attempt to nullify the federal health care insurance mandate in the state of Tennessee. Here is a transcript of a dialogue in committee between Bell and Democratic state Rep. Joe Towns, courtesy of the Nashville Scene, as Bell explained that many people get along without insurance:

Bell: They're some of the healthiest people you have ever seen. They pay cash when they go to the doctor. They work out arrangements with the hospitals if their children have to be hospitalized. This is an individual choice that we're talking about.

Towns: You're saying they pay cash? For organ transplants and cancer and heart cases, they pay cash?

Bell: I said they pay cash or work out other arrangements. I know for a fact. I know someone in the medical field who has been paid with vegetables from the Mennonite community.

Towns: That's an anomaly. That's not how the system works. I can't take a sack of vegetables down to the utility company and pay my utility bill on my house. Nobody's going to take vegetables for payment. We can't run the country on vegetables and horse trading.

The GOP has been struggling to find a coherent strategy for how to address the new health care law. The official slogan is "Repeal and Replace," but there is in fact division over whether to fully repeal the law, and just how far to go. And it appears that some people may want to go all the way back to the 18th and 19th centuries.

Why Are Republicans Mum On Financial Regulation?

2010-04-22T14:50:00.000-04:00

Via DailyDish

Chait has a theory:

It's difficult to work out a free market response. If you let Wall Street invest however it likes, it will eventually precipitate a financial crisis, with massive government intervention being the only option to save the economy. Or else you can break up the big banks, or limit their ability to take on systemic risk. Either way, government has to get involved at some step in the process. It almost seems like conservatives can't choose which form of government intervention to accept, so many of them just aren't choosing.

My view is that conservatism has become so reflexively anti-government that it has nothing to say on the pressing questions of the hour, most of which require some - smart and narrowly tailored - government action. Adam Smith would have no trouble re=regulating Wall Street. Why is the GOP so gun-shy?

The Big Admission?

2010-04-22T12:31:00.003-04:00

Via TPM

RNC Chairman Michael Steele: "For the last 40-plus years we had a 'Southern Strategy' that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South."

Greg Sargent has more:

A lot of people are pointing to a new set of remarks Michael Steele made about the Republican Party and race, in which Steele acknowledged that the GOP hasn’t given African Americans a reason to support the party.

But I think folks are missing the real news in what Steele said. The RNC chairman also appeared to acknowledge that the GOP has had a race-based “southern strategy” for four decades, which is decidedly not a historical interpretation many Republicans agree with.

Steele made his remarks at DePaul University on Tuesday night. He acknowledged that “we haven’t done a very good job” of giving African Americans a reason to vote Republican. That’s actually unremarkable. But here’s what he also said:

“We have lost sight of the historic, integral link between the party and African-Americans,” Steele said. “This party was co-founded by blacks, among them Frederick Douglass. The Republican Party had a hand in forming the NAACP, and yet we have mistreated that relationship. People don’t walk away from parties. Their parties walk away from them.
“For the last 40-plus years we had a ‘Southern Strategy’ that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South. Well, guess what happened in 1992, folks, ‘Bubba’ went back home to the Democratic Party and voted for Bill Clinton.”

I’m not sure this is an interpretation most Republicans would agree with. The standard line is that, yes, Nixon did employ a “southern strategy.” But most Republicans would strongly contest the idea that Reagan tried to use racial division for electoral gain, an idea advanced by liberals who point out that Reagan opened his 1980 presidential campaign in the town where Civil Rights workers were murdered.

Similarly, many Republicans would reject the claim that Republican candidates like George H.W. Bush engaged in a race-based strategy with the Willie Horton ads, or that Bush the Younger or John McCain engaged in subtle race-based appeals.

But here you have the chairman of the Republican National Committee saying, in effect, that liberals are right to have argued that Republicans have used race for political gain for the last four decades. Seems significant.

Tea Partiers In Tax Day Protests Try To Explain Why They're Against Obama

2010-04-22T02:22:00.003-04:00

Via Nicholas Graham

A correspondent for New Left Media ventured out among the tea partiers during their tax day protests in Washington D.C. to interview them about what it is that's fueling their fierce opposition to to the government in general and President Obama in particular.

Suffice to say, the answers involve lots of wild-eyed claims about tyranny and socialism. Highlights include a woman gravely warning "Obama is considering banning fishing in America," as well as another dressed in a ball and chain outfit to illustrate how our liberties are being constrained.

WATCH: (Via Buzzfeed)

Michele Bachmann Convinced Bill Clinton Wants Her Dead

2010-04-20T19:31:00.002-04:00

Via Pareene

Because Bill Clinton politely asked fringe conservatives to stop encouraging violence against the government on the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, Michele Bachmann has decided that he wants to "take her out." In a killing sense. Not romantically.

The Minnesota congresswoman is a lot smarter than Sarah Palin, and a bit crazier, placing her not far from Glenn Beck in the "crazy/stupid/dangerous matrix" we have constructed in our head. So it's not surprising that she's borrowing a page from Glenn Beck's "charismatic cult leader" handbook.

According to research done by James Carville's polling group, women who watch Glenn Beck's show share a "common fear" for his "personal safety" and they believe that he's literally putting his life in danger by revealing the inner secrets of liberals and Barack Obama. This is why Glenn's writing a political thriller.

So Michele's trying this out herself. It's a bizarre new addition to the ancient and boring conservative martyr fixation: liberals are not just trying to demean and insult and silence conservative heroes, they are now actually attempting to destroy or kill them.

In reality, Representative Bachmann called our democratically elected president and mostly representative congress a "gangster government," conjuring images of a violent coup. (It's part of the fringe Conservative obsession with "thugs" and "thuggish behavior" and Obama's "thugocracy"—nothing racially charged about that language!)

And that led to this fairly mild quote from former president Clinton:

"They are not gangsters," Mr. Clinton said. "They were elected. They are not doing anything they were not elected to do."

And here's Bachmann's response:

"I'm in my second term as a Congresswoman and the former president of the United States decides I'm important enough to take me out!"

See, Michele, no one said anything about "taking you out." That's paranoia. And narcissism! You should probably be "taken out" to a psychiatric hospital, but that is just this blogger's opinion, and not the opinion of Barack Obama's Thuggish Gangsterocracy.

Bring a Chicken!

2010-04-20T19:13:00.002-04:00

Via TPM

I'm not quite sure what to make of this. A couple weeks ago our Eric Kleefeld came up with video showing Nevada Senate candidate Sue Lowden suggesting that "bartering" for medical care would be a good way to rein in spiraling health care costs.

I mocked her with the headline: "I bid three chickens for that MRI!" But I sort of figured she'd rethink that plan after her advisors sat her down for a moment and explained the concept of a cash economy or maybe if she found out what 'barter' meant. But it turns out that she was serious. Not just serious. She was actually thinking about payment in chickens too.

Yesterday she told a local news program: "I'm telling you that this works. You know, before we all started having health care, in the olden days, our grandparents, they would bring a chicken to the doctor."

I'm always troubled by these moments when my sarcasm and snark is outpaced by the ugly reality. See the video here.

PS. If you want to hear something really funny. This woman's probably going to be the freshman senator from Nevada next January. Think she'll be for repeal? I wager five chickens!

Halperin Takes A Stand

2010-04-20T18:49:00.001-04:00

Via PlumLine

It isn’t every day that a consummate inside-game reporter/pundit type like Mark Halperin aggressively calls out one party for lying, but that’s exactly what Halperin did early this morning on MSNBC, talking about the GOP claim that the Dem financial reg reform bill will lead to a permanent bailout. Per the transcript:

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Just this once, defend the Republican position.
MARK HALPERIN: I cannot defend what they’re doing.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Oh, please.
SCARBOROUGH: Look at you! Look at you!
[CROSSTALK]
HALPERIN: They are willfully misreading the bill or they are engaged in a cynical attempt to keep the president from achieving something.

Note how appalled Scarborough is. Also, a bit later in the broadcast, White House economic adviser Austan Goolsbee added this about the GOP claim about permanent bailouts:

Everybody knows a consultant just handed them that line and they’re just reading it. It doesn’t matter what’s in the bill. It could be a bill about breakfast cereal and they’re going to say this is a bailout bill.

The point here is that Halperin is taking a stand, saying, in effect, that the GOP position is wrong and that the Goolsbee position is right. Video soon.

Update: Here’s the video. Don’t miss Scarborough’s manic arm-waving:

Memories of the Backwards B

2010-04-16T17:57:00.001-04:00

Via TPM

This story had been bubbling around the fever swamp for a few days before breaking into what's left of the mainstream media today and then self-destructing on the big stage. Briefly, as part of the festivities surrounding the Southern Republican Leadership Conference last weekend, a fundraiser for Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) and her boyfriend were involved in some sort of altercation outside of a French Quarter restaurant. And they both sustained real and serious injuries. (To be clear, it seems amply clear the two were beat up; the only question is, by who?)

Since then the story has been making the rounds of the right-wing interwebs. The claim was that the assailants were anti-Palin, anti-Jindal liberals attacking conservatives. A conservative blogger even published what purported to be a quote from the NOPD saying the attack appeared to be "of a political nature." And that quote was picked up by a few other news organizations.

Alas, then things started going down hill. The New Orleans police denied ever saying anything like that. And now the actual police report has come out which not only contains no evidence of any partisan political intent but actually says that the assailants yelled misogynistic and homophobic epithets at the victims while the attack was taking place.

There's no proof the assailants weren't anti-GOP protestors. There were protestors outside the GOP event the two had been attending, though most had apparently left by that point. And it's possible that some of them circled back to attack attendees. But this one looks like there's not much evidence if any that politics played a role in this one.

Lies Lies Lies

2010-04-16T17:36:00.001-04:00

Via PlumLine

Another bullshit tale pushed by the right about a Republican allegedly getting attacked for wearing a ‘Cuda pin is about to go belly-up.

Teabaggers Are Racist Against Orly Taitz

2010-04-15T13:32:00.003-04:00

Via Wonkette

Important news about old what’s-her-name, America’s Dentist: “Lawyer Orly Taitz has been told she won’t be allowed to speak at a Tea Party tax day rally in Pleasanton on Thursday because other candidates planning to be on the platform basically don’t want to be seen with her.” Why not? She’s great at old sex, which is the whole point of the tea party. (That and LYNCHING.)

Apparently some of the other “entertainers” — Republican candidates like Carly Fiorina and Chuck Devore, who have expressed interest in winning the offices they’re running for — also didn’t care to be seen in public with Taitz (who, when we last heard from her, was busy asking the UN to protect her from Obama’s army of Kenyan vandals). Orly’s already venting her wrath, it looks like: on her Livejournal she says she’s defriended Devore on the Facebooks and asked her two supporters not to vote for him. Harsh!

Dr. Taitz, MD also made bloggings about two other teabagger fuckfests she’s supposed to attend today, which will keep her from filing lawsuits in all of America’s courts, constantly, for at least a few hours. To help spread the word about her two appearances, she’s asked the John Birch Society street team to pass out flyers on her behalf. This will strengthen the Constitution. [OC Register]

With additional reporting by Lauri Apple, ha ha, because she wrote a post about this, too, and we just pasted in her second and third paragraphs, PULITZER for everybody.

Read more at Wonkette: http://wonkette.com/414838/414838#ixzz0lBurIFkn

The Tea Party Prank

2010-04-15T13:06:00.000-04:00

How I Got My Butt Kicked (Literally), Just a Few Feet Away From Sarah Palin [ZUG]

Meet the 'Patriots'

2010-04-15T12:21:00.003-04:00

Via SPLC

The 'Patriot' Movement Timeline

Sept. 11, 1990: President Bush, describing the post-Cold War world, outlines his vision of a "New World Order." Conspiracy-minded "Patriots" take this as a slip of the tongue revealing secret plans to create a one-world government.

February 1992: White supremacist theorist Louis Beam calls for "leaderless resistance," or cells of fighters who report to no one. In coming years, many in the Patriot movement will pick up the concept.

April 2, 1992: Terry Nichols, who will one day be convicted of conspiracy in the Oklahoma City bombing, renounces his U.S. citizenship, saying he "follow[s] the common law," indicating his early participation in the Patriot movement.

August 1992: James "Bo" Gritz, a Vietnam war hero admired by many Americans, calls for civilian militias during his "populist" campaign for the presidency.
Aug. 31, 1992: White supremacist Randy Weaver surrenders after an 11-day standoff at his cabin on Ruby Ridge, Idaho, that left his wife, son and a U.S. marshal dead. The incident galvanizes many on the radical right.
Oct. 23, 1992: Anti-Semitic Christian Identity pastor Pete Peters hosts the "Rocky Mountain Rendezvous" in Estes Park, Colo., where 160 extremists, reacting to Ruby Ridge, lay out strategies that will help shape the militia movement.
Feb. 28, 1993: Four federal agents and several cultists are killed in a gunfight when the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms raids the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. The 51-day standoff that follows rivets the nation.
April 19, 1993: The FBI tries to end the Waco standoff by injecting tear gas into a building that subsequently bursts into flames, leaving almost 80 Davidians dead. More than any other event, the debacle ignites the militia movement.
July 8, 1993: In a stinging rebuke to federal law enforcement, a jury acquits Randy Weaver and another man of murdering a U.S. marshal during the Ruby Ridge standoff. Evidence emerges that the FBI loosened its normal rules of engagement and covered up that fact later.
November 1993: The Brady Bill, imposing a waiting period for handgun purchasers, is signed into law, infuriating many gun enthusiasts. Anger at the bill, along with a 1994 ban on some assault weapons, helps fuel the militia movement.
Jan. 1, 1994: The first major modern militia, the Militia of Montana, is officially inaugurated. John Trochmann, a white supremacist supporter of Randy Weaver, heads it.
Jan. 30, 1994: A California official who angered Patriot "common-law" adherents by refusing to vacate an IRS lien is beaten, stabbed and sodomized with a gun. The attack reveals the growing violence of common-law adherents.
March 1994: More than 800 people gather in Kalispell, Mont., to hear Militia of Montana leader John Trochmann, reflecting the growing strength of the militia movement.
April 1994: The Michigan Militia, soon to grow into the nation's largest militia group with up to 6,000 members, is formed by gun shop owner Norm Olson and Ray Southwell.
May 1994: In a speech to the antigovernment U.S. Taxpayers Party, a militant abortion opponent calls on churches to form their own militias, reflecting the increasing convergence of Patriot and anti-abortion activists.
Aug. 4, 1994: Two members of the Minnesota Patriots Council are arrested for making the deadly toxin ricin and later are convicted of plotting to poison federal agents.
Sept. 19, 1994: Self-appointed militia "general" Linda Thompson calls for an armed march on Washington, D.C., prompting other Patriots to renounce her as foolhardy and suicidal. She ultimately rescinds her call.
Sept. 28, 1994: In one of the first acts of the Oklahoma conspiracy, Terry Nichols helps steal explosives from a Kansas quarry. He will help acquire many other materials before leaving co-conspirator Timothy McVeigh a letter urging him to "go for it."
October 1994: More than 1,500 people attend "Operation Freedom" in Lakeland, Fla., listening to speeches and collecting information about starting militias.
October 1994: Six months before the Oklahoma City bombing, Southern Poverty Law Center co-founder Morris Dees writes Attorney General Janet Reno to warn that the "mixture of armed groups and those who hate is a recipe for disaster."
Nov. 14, 1994: A militiaman threatens an Audubon Society official with a noose after the official testifies for an environmental measure. The incident is one of hundreds reflecting Patriot hatred of government regulation of the environment.
February 1995: Some 2,000 people gather in Meadville, Penn., to hear militia figure Mark "Mark from Michigan" Koernke discuss the steps Americans should take to defend themselves from the "New World Order."
April 19, 1995: A truck bomb brings down the Oklahoma City federal building, killing 168 people, including 19 children in a day-care center, in America's worst domestic terrorist attack. Timothy McVeigh, later convicted in the bombing, had ideological roots both in the Patriot world and among neo-Nazis like William Pierce, whose novel, The Turner Diaries, served as a blueprint for the attack.
Late April 1995: Echoing Patriot rhetoric, the National Rifle Association says "jack-booted government thugs" have "the government's go-ahead to … murder law abiding citizens." Former President George Bush quits the NRA in protest.
June 1995: The Southern Poverty Law Center releases its first-ever count of antigovernment militia and "Patriot" groups. The report finds that 224 Patriot groups, including 131 militias, were active in 1994.
June 3, 1995: A major gathering of common-law activists is held in the Wichita, Kansas, convention center on the anniversary of the 1984 death of Gordon Kahl, a militant tax protester killed four months after murdering two federal agents.
June 15, 1995: In the wake of the Oklahoma bombing, militia leaders and others testify before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. Many experts see the hearings as something of a militia victory because of the uncritical nature of the questioning.
June 21, 1995: President Clinton signs a directive outlining emergency arrangements in the event of terrorist attacks. It is the first of many actions, including a 1996 order to hire 500 new FBI agents, signifying a new law enforcement emphasis on domestic terrorism.
July 1995: Two militia groups and the neo-Nazi Aryan Nations launch simultaneous campaigns to gather information about and conduct covert surveillance on "opponents."
July 28, 1995: Antigovernment extremist Charles Ray Polk is arrested after trying to purchase a machine gun from an undercover police officer, and is later indicted by federal grand jury for plotting to blow up an Internal Revenue Service building in Austin, Texas.
September 1995: William Pierce, author of The Turner Diaries and leader of the neo-Nazi National Alliance, launches a "militia project," encouraging his members to develop contacts with militias in a bid to influence them.
Oct. 9, 1995: Saboteurs derail an Amtrak passenger train near Hyder, Ariz., killing one person and injuring about 70 others. Several antigovernment messages, signed by the "Sons of Gestapo," are left behind. The perpetrators remain at large.
Nov. 9, 1995: Oklahoma Constitutional Militia leader Willie Ray Lampley and two others are arrested as they prepare explosives to bomb numerous targets, including the Southern Poverty Law Center, gay bars and abortion clinics. Lampley, who wrote letters from prison urging others to violence, is freed in 2006.
Dec. 18, 1995: An IRS employee discovers a plastic drum packed with ammonium nitrate and fuel oil in a parking lot behind the IRS building in Reno, Nev. The device failed to explode a day earlier when a three-foot fuse went out prematurely. Ten days later, tax protester Joseph Martin Bailie is arrested for the crime.
March 25, 1996: A common-law group called the Montana Freemen begins an 81-day standoff in Montana after its leaders are arrested and charged with a multimillion-dollar fraud. The standoff ultimately ends peacefully.
April 5, 1996: Patriot activists mix with neo-Nazis and Klansmen at Jubilation '96, a Lake Tahoe, Nev., gathering of more than 500 people hosted by adherents of the racist and anti-Semitic Christian Identity religion.
April 26, 1996: Two leaders of the Republic of Georgia militia are charged with manufacturing shrapnel-packed pipe bombs. Another member is arrested later and accused of training a team to assassinate politicians.
July 1, 1996: Twelve members of the Arizona Viper Team are arrested on federal conspiracy, weapons and explosives charges after allegedly surveilling and videotaping government buildings as potential targets. All 12 plead guilty or are convicted of various charges, drawing sentences of up to nine years in prison.
Aug. 24, 1996: More than 500 supporters attend a major meeting of the separatist Republic of Texas' "Provisional Government General Council."
Aug. 31, 1996: At the largest Patriot gathering held to date in Washington, D.C., more than 300 people join a "Rally for the Bill of Rights."
Oct. 11, 1996: Seven members of the Mountaineer Militia are arrested in a plot to blow up the FBI's national fingerprint records center, where 1,000 people work, in West Virginia. Ringleader Floyd "Ray" Looker is sentenced to 18 years in prison. Three others are imprisoned for the plot, one for providing blueprints of the FBI facility to Looker.
Oct. 22, 1996: Michigan Militia leader Tom Wayne gives a presentation to over 500 students at a Michigan college, reflecting widespread and still-spreading interest in the movement.
April 18, 1997: A Patriot group files a notice with Maricopa County officials declaring a new "Country of Arizona" supposedly recognized by the United Nations as "Indigenous Nation No. 215."
April 27, 1997: After a cache of explosives blows up near Yuba City, Calif., Montana Freemen supporter William Robert Goehler is arrested. Investigators later arrest two Goehler associates, one of them a militia leader, after finding 500 pounds of explosives in a motor home parked outside their residence. Six others are arrested on related charges.
May 1997: A Southern Poverty Law Center count shows that the Patriot movement reached its peak in 1996 with 858 groups. Thereafter, the number of Patriot groups will decline steadily for a decade, hitting a low of 131 in 2007.
May 3, 1997: Antigovernment extremists, some formerly with the Sons of Liberty, set fire to the IRS office in Colorado Springs, Colo., causing $2.5 million in damage and injuring a firefighter. Federal agents later arrest five men in connection with the arson, an apparent protest against the tax system. That same day, a six-day standoff between police and Republic of Texas common-law separatists ends. One man is killed in a gun battle with the elite Texas Rangers.
June 2, 1997: Timothy McVeigh is convicted in the Oklahoma bombing and will later be sentenced to death. Co-conspirator Terry Nichols will be tried later in the year and sentenced to life in prison. Accomplice Michael Fortier will accept a plea bargain in which he is sentenced to 12 years in exchange for his testimony.
July 4, 1997: Militiaman Bradley Playford Glover and a co-conspirator are arrested before dawn near Fort Hood, Texas. They planned to invade the base and slaughter foreign troops they mistakenly believed were housed there. Eventually, five other people are arrested, all part of a splinter group from the Third Continental Congress, a kind of militia government-in-waiting.
December 1997: Nearly 100 New York City employees, including some corrections officials, are arrested for using common-law "untaxing" kits to evade taxes. The case underscores how far such ideology has spread.
March 8, 1998: A Texas man with reported separatist views similar to those of the Republic of Texas, claiming to be armed and carrying explosives, attempts to take over a Veterans Affairs office in Waco. He eventually surrenders.
June 1998: A study by the Southern Poverty Law Center shows that in the preceding three years, 19 states have passed new laws or strengthened existing ones to cope with bogus property liens and threats from "common-law" adherents. Another eight states are considering similar actions.
July 1, 1998: Three men are charged with conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction after threatening President Clinton and other federal officials with biological weapons. One of the men arrested, Johnnie Wise, had attended meetings of the separatist Republic of Texas.
July 17, 1998: Optimistically labeled a "patriotic Woodstock," the American Heritage Festival ‘98 in Carthage, Mo., draws as many as 3,000 people over two days.
Dec. 30, 1998: A county grand jury orchestrated by conspiracy-minded former Oklahoma State Rep. Charles Key finds that there is no evidence of a larger conspiracy in the Oklahoma City bombing. Key immediately denounces the findings.
June 11, 1999: Some 160 hard-line Patriots gather for advanced paramilitary training at the North Carolina property of former Special Forces member John Roberts, head of the Militia of East Tennessee.
Aug. 7, 1999: U.S. marshals seize the Tampa, Fla., headquarters of Greater Ministries International Church to preserve evidence. The seizure follows by seven months the indictment of church principals in a massive, Patriot-influenced scam.
Sept. 13, 1999: Tennessee common-law ideologue Peter Stern is charged with conspiring to defraud tax authorities with fake checks from the Montana Freemen. Around the nation, hundreds of common-law practitioners like Stern are going to jail.
Oct. 13, 1999: Members of the Southern Indiana Regional Militia meet with FBI agents as part of a government effort to defuse tensions between Patriots and officialdom.
November 1999: Nearly 10,000 people in Denver attend the last Preparedness Expo before the New Year to prepare for the "Y2K" collapse that many Patriots fear.
Nov. 5, 1999: FBI agents arrest James Kenneth Gluck in Tampa, Fla., after he wrote a 10-page letter to judges in Jefferson County, Colo., threatening to "wage biological warfare." Police find materials in his home to make ricin, a deadly poison.
Dec. 5, 1999: Two members of the California-based San Joaquin Militia are charged with conspiracy in connection with a plot to blow up two 12-million-gallon propane tanks, a television tower and an electrical substation in hopes of provoking an insurrection. The group's leader pleads guilty to plotting to kill a federal judge and blow up the propane tanks, and testifies against his former comrades.
Dec. 8, 1999: Donald Beauregard, head of the militia coalition Southeastern States Alliance, is charged in connection with a plot to bomb energy facilities in Florida and Georgia. Beauregard once claimed to have discovered a secret map detailing a planned UN takeover printed on a box of Trix cereal.
Jan. 1, 2000: Despite Patriot expectations that the millennial date change will bring martial law or massive social collapse, nothing untoward happens.
Mar. 9, 2000: Mark Wayne McCool, the one-time leader of the Texas Militia, is arrested as he allegedly makes plans to attack the Houston federal building, where he thought the UN had a weapons cache. McCool had bought C-4 plastic explosives and an automatic weapon from an undercover FBI agent.
May 2000: Texas Constitutional Militia member John Joe Gray holes up with heavily armed family members, refusing to face charges of assaulting two highway patrolmen. A decade later, Gray will remain in his home.
July 15, 2000: In a lawsuit brought by surviving Davidians, a judicial panel says the government was not responsible for starting the gun battle that began the Waco standoff. The next week, a special counsel will rule that U.S. officials committed "no bad acts" in Waco.
Feb. 13, 2001: Federal agents seize Indianapolis Baptist Temple, ending a low-key, 92-day standoff and 17 years of the church's refusal to pay withholding taxes. The church is part of the Patriot-influenced "unregistered churches" movement.
Feb. 28, 2001: Separatist Republic of Texas members join an anti-immigration group, Ranch Rescue, in trying to halt immigrants entering the country illegally.
June 11, 2001: Timothy McVeigh, convicted in connection with the murder of 168 people including 19 small children, is put to death.
Oct. 14, 2001: A North Carolina sheriff's deputy pulls over Kentucky Militia leader Steve Anderson, an adherent of racist Christian Identity theology. Anderson, who had issued violent threats against officials via his pirate radio station and whose home is later found to be filled with bombs, fires on the deputy's car and is on the run for the next 13 months.
Nov. 6, 2001: William Cooper, once in the Second Continental Army of the Republic, attacks officers serving him a warrant. Cooper, who believed President Kennedy was assassinated to prevent the disclosure of a secret pact with space aliens, shoots a sheriff's deputy twice in the head before being killed by police.
Feb. 8, 2002: David Burgert, leader of the militia-like Project 7, is arrested after an informant says the group is plotting to kill judges and police to start a revolution. Burgert is found with pipe bombs, 25,000 rounds of ammunition and "intel sheets" with personal information about law enforcement officers, their spouses and children.
Oct. 3, 2002: Larry Raugust, later named an unindicted co-conspirator in a plot with the Idaho Mountain Boys militia to murder a federal judge and a police officer, is arrested at a rest stop in Idaho and charged with possessing destructive devices, including pipe bombs.
Jan. 18, 2003: James D. Brailey, a convicted felon who was once named "governor" of Washington state by a Patriot group, is arrested after a raid on his home turns up a machine gun and other weapons. An informant alleges that Brailey was plotting to assassinate Gov. Gary Locke, partly because he is Chinese-American.
April 3, 2003: Federal agents arrest David Roland Hinkson and charge him with trying to hire an assassin to murder a federal judge, a prosecutor and an IRS agent involved in a tax case against him.
April 10, 2003: The FBI raids the Noonday, Texas, home of William Krar and his storage facilities, finding some 500,000 rounds of ammunition, pipe bombs and remote-control briefcase bombs, plus deadly sodium cyanide. Along with white supremacist and antigovernment material, there are components to convert the cyanide into a bomb capable of killing thousands. Krar refuses to cooperate and later dies in prison.
June 4, 2003: Federal agents in California announce that former accountant John Noster is under investigation for plotting a major terrorist attack. Officials find incendiary devices in his stolen camper and other bombs in his various storage units. In addition to prison time in that case, Noster draws another five years in 2009, after pleading guilty to weapons charges.
Oct. 10, 2003: Police arrest Norman Somerville, an antigovernment extremist enraged over the death of a Michigan Militia member, after finding a huge weapons cache on his property in northern Michigan. They also find vehicles Somerville calls "war wagons," where he planned to mount machine guns as part of a plan to stage an auto accident and then massacre arriving police.
May 24, 2004: During the attempted robbery of a Tulsa bank by father and son Wade and Christopher Lay, a security guard is shot to death. Evidence shows the men wanted money to pay for weapons to kill Texas officials they believed were responsible for the deadly 1993 Waco standoff.
March 19, 2006: David J. D'Addabbo is arrested in Utah for allegedly threatening IRS employees with "death by firing squad" if they tried to collect his taxes.
Jan. 11, 2007: FBI Director Robert Mueller tells the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that the "militia/sovereign citizen movement" is a "threat" to government officials. Mueller says members of these groups "intimidate and sometimes threaten judges, prosecutors, and other officers of the court."
April 26, 2007: Five members of the Alabama Free Militia are arrested in north Alabama in a raid that uncovers a cache of 130 homemade hand grenades, an improvised grenade launcher, and other weapons. Raymond Kirk Dillard, the founder and "commander" of the group, had complained about Mexicans taking over the country and reportedly told his troops to open fire on federal agents if ever confronted.
Early 2008: Due to a spike in threats from "sovereign citizens" and others against federal judges and prosecutors, the U.S. Marshals Service opens a clearinghouse near Washington, D.C., for assessing risks. In fiscal 2008, there will be 1,278 threats and harassing communications — more than double the number of six years earlier. Also in 2008, the Department of Justice launches a National Tax Defier Initiative to address the swelling number of cases involving antigovernment tax protesters.
June 8, 2008: Six people with militia ties are arrested in rural Pennsylvania after officials find stockpiles of weapons intended for terrorist attacks on U.S. officials. Bradley T. Kahle, of the Pennsylvania Citizens Militia, allegedly tells authorities that he intended to shoot black people from a rooftop in Pittsburgh and predicts civil war if a democrat becomes president. Kahle's colleague Perry Landis reportedly wanted to kill Gov. Ed Rendell.
August 2008: In the same month that Barack Obama officially becomes the Democratic Party presidential nominee, the National Rifle Association, which in the 1990s publicly attacked federal law enforcement agents as "jackbooted thugs," joins forces with firearms manufacturers to promote NRA membership in a national campaign ominously dubbed "Prepare for the Storm in 2008." In the coming months, authorities will report that guns and especially ammunition are selling far more quickly than usual.
Nov. 4, 2008: Obama is elected president, the first African American to hold that office. Starting just hours after the election is called with the hate-motivated burning of a church with a black congregation in Springfield, Mass., a major spate of hate crimes and racist incidents hit the nation over the next several months in an apparent racist backlash. At one point, young children on a school bus in Idaho are reported chanting "Assassinate Obama."
February 2009: The FBI launches a national operation targeting white supremacists and "militia/sovereign citizen extremist groups" after noting an upsurge in such organizations, with the aim of gathering intelligence about "this emerging threat."
March 2009: Authorities raid a Las Vegas printing firm where meetings of the "Sovereign People's Court for the United States" were conducted in a mock courtroom. The group's seminars reportedly taught how to use phony documents and other illegal means favored by Patriot groups to pay off creditors.
April 7, 2009: The Department of Homeland Security issues a report warning of an increase in right-wing extremism, mirroring independent findings from the Southern Poverty Law Center earlier in the year. Facing a firestorm of criticism from the far right that falsely claims the report tags all conservatives as potential terrorists, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano withdraws what turns out to be a prescient report.
April 15, 2009: One of the leaders of the anti-immigrant Campo Minutemen, Britt "Kingfish" Craig, appears on a Patriot radio program along with guest Lloyd Marcus, the songwriter responsible for the "Tea Party Anthem." Adding further evidence of the ideological cross-pollination of different kinds of right-wing groups, the Campo Minutemen adopt the "Tea Party Anthem" as their fight song.
Mid-April 2009: In an E-mail, Jeff Schwilk links the San Diego Minutemen's resistance to "the invasion from Mexico" with the greater cause of thwarting the "socialist takeover" of America. He also sets up the SoCal Patriots, which includes Minutemen, tax-protest groups, pro-gun rights groups and two anti-immigration outfits the Southern Poverty Law Center lists as hate groups.
April 19, 2009: The Oath Keepers, a "Patriot" group made up of active-duty members of law enforcement and the military, holds its first muster in Lexington, Mass., site of the opening shots of the Revolutionary War. Vowing to fulfill the oaths to the Constitution that they swore, Oath Keepers lists 10 orders its members won't obey, including two that reference U.S. concentration camps — a reflection of the group's conspiracist ideas about a supposedly imminent globalist takeover.
April 25, 2009: Joshua Cartwright, a Florida National Guardsman reportedly interested in joining a militia and angry over Barack Obama's election, shoots to death two Okaloosa County, Fla., sheriff's deputies at a gun range. After fleeing the scene, Cartwright is fatally shot during a gun battle.
May 21-22, 2009: Some 30 "freedom keepers" meet in Jekyll Island, Ga., in a gathering that helps launch an explosive resurgence of the antigovernment Patriot movement. Convened by IRS and Fed-hater Bob Schulz, the conclave warns of "increasing national instability" and a coming "New World Order."
Late May 2009: During a Minuteman rally in Cochise County, Ariz., hundreds of nativists sign a sovereign-citizen "criminal complaint petition" demanding that Obama be tried for treason before an "American Grand Jury." Joining a dozen Minuteman organizations are members of the Arizona Citizens Militia.
Aug. 15, 2009: The Southern Poverty Law Center issues a special report, "The Second Wave: Return of the Militias," which shows that almost a decade after largely disappearing from public view, the Patriot movement is back.
Aug. 17, 2009: Radio host Ernest Hancock, accompanied by a member of the Patriot group We the People who is carrying a semiautomatic rifle, stages a videotaped interview outside a venue where Obama is speaking in Phoenix. Hancock had supported Arizona's Viper Team, whose members stockpiled weapons and bombmaking equipment in the 1990s, arguing that they were unfairly convicted.
Sept. 29, 2009: The Patriots Coalition, a new Patriot group founded by the former vice president of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps and whose website is loaded with "birther" conspiracy theory materials and jokes about assassinating President Obama, carries out its first border vigilante operation targeting Latino immigrants. The group's founder says they are part of the Tea Party tax protest movement.
Nov. 11-22, 2009: More than 100 delegates from 48 states travel to St. Charles, Ill., to attend an 11-day "continental congress" hosted by Bob Schulz's We the People. Planned at the earlier Jekyll Island meeting, the event is named after the gathering that was the first step toward the American Revolution.
January 2010: Missouri police seize a huge arms cache from Lowell Aughenbaugh, an "extreme survivalist," and charge him with threatening to blow up Rolla's police department. Also in Missouri, Richard Cobley is arrested for making "improvised explosive devices" that he allegedly hid in a room in his basement. Cobley allegedly had booby traps ready to stop the government from coming after him.
Feb. 6, 2010: One-time GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin tells the first National Tea Party Convention in Nashville "America is ready for another revolution."
Feb. 18, 2010: Joseph Andrew Stack flies his airplane into an IRS office building in Austin, Texas, killing himself and one IRS worker. In a manifesto written shortly before his death, Stack rails at the IRS and the federal government.
Feb. 18-20, 2010: The Conservative Political Action Conference is co-sponsored by antigovernment "Patriot" groups including the John Birch Society, which believes President Eisenhower was a communist agent, and the Oath Keepers, a Patriot outfit that suggests in thinly veiled language that the government has secret plans to declare martial law and intern Americans in concentration camps.
March 2010: A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll finds that 56% of Americans believe the federal government is "so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens." In 1995, just days after the Oklahoma City bombing, a USA Today poll found that 39% of Americans then agreed with the same statement.
March 2, 2010: The Southern Poverty Law Center releases its "Rage on the Right: The Year in Hate and Extremism" report. The study reports that an astonishing 363 new Patriot groups appeared in 2009, with the totals going from 149 groups (including 42 militias) the year before to 512 (127 of them militias) — a 244% jump.
March 19, 2010: Mike Vanderboegh, a one-time 1990s Alabama militiaman and a leader of the recently formed Patriot group Three Percenters, calls on followers to protest health care reform by breaking the windows of local Democratic Party offices. In the following days, Democratic offices across the country report their windows smashed.
March 29, 2010: Nine members of the Hutaree Militia are indicted in an alleged plot to murder a law enforcement officer in Michigan and then attack hundreds of others expected to gather for the victim's funeral with bombs and missiles. The group allegedly expected to set off an insurrection.
April 6, 2010: Daniel Petersen, a former member of the Montana Freemen, becomes the first person to be sentenced under a 2008 federal law that makes it a felony to retaliate against a government official by filing unjustified property liens. The liens are a favorite tactic of Patriots and are often referred to as "paper terrorism."
April 7, 2010: Brody James Whitaker is arrested for allegedly shooting at two Florida state troopers. Whitaker declares during his arraignment, "I am a sovereign" and "I am not an American citizen."
April 19, 2010: Antigovernment Patriot groups, including the Oath Keepers, plan to play prominent roles at a Second Amendment March in Washington, D.C. The website promoting the march is topped by a picture of a colonial militiaman, and key supporters include Larry Pratt, a long-time militia enthusiast, and Richard Mack, a former sheriff and militia hero.

Teabagger Paladino Confronted on Racist Emails

2010-04-13T13:25:00.001-04:00

Via Cesca

Watch teabagger candidate for New York governor, Carl Paladino, squirm when confronted about the racist emails he forwarded, including a video that's popular among white supremacist websites.

What are all those media people doing, by the way? They should be out finding some racist liberals. You know, for balance.

Tea Party Hero and NY Gov Candidate Always Sending Racist/Porno Emails

2010-04-12T16:27:00.003-04:00

Via Wonkette

Republican teabagger hero Carl Paladino is running for governor of New York, because he’s the kind of asshole always forwarding vulgar racist emails to everybody. And like all of these assholes, now that he’s been called out for it, he’s “sorry if you were offended” because of course he is not a racist, it’s just funny to send racist emails about Barack Obama, because lol coloreds. If this story sounds familiar, that’s because approximately every 10 days another teabagger/Republican is publicly shamed for sending racist garbage to colleagues and subordinates, and then there’s the usual “oh sorry if YOU were offended by my latest forward of Obama with a bone through his nose eating watermelon or whatever.”

TPM reports:

An online news outlet in New York state has obtained dozens of emails, many of them racist and sexually graphic, which it reports were sent by Carl Paladino, the Tea-Party-backed Republican candidate for governor of New York, to a long list of political and business associates. One email shows a video of an African tribal dance, entitled “Obama Inauguration Rehearsal,” while another depicts hardcore bestiality.

… as opposed to the more romantic “couples bestiality” porn, where the guy *kisses* the horse before he schtups it.

Anyway, go Carl Paladino! [TPM/WNY Media]

Meet Gregory Giusti

2010-04-09T00:52:00.002-04:00

Via TPM

So what did Gregory Giusti have to do to get arrested for threatening Speaker Nancy Pelosi? A fair amount, it seems. At least 48 harassing phone calls over a seven week period. Many of them pretty not nice.

In one case, according to the criminal complaint released today, Giusti got Pelosi herself on the phone at her home and "used extremely vulgar and crude language and threatened her, stating 'when you go back to California you won't have a home to go back to'." Justin Elliott has all the new details released this afternoon.

Uh, Oh... Bad Language. Conservatives Will Be Upset

2010-04-06T15:51:00.003-04:00

I'm sure the wingnuts won't approve of this guy's foul mouth AT ALL...

USA vs Charles Alan Wilson

Flashback: Steele Said He Doesn’t Play “Race Game,” Claimed Dems Do

2010-04-05T23:29:00.000-04:00

Via Plum Line

As noted below, Michael Steele suggested today that he has less margin for error as RNC chair because of his race. Asked if this was a problem, Steele replied: “The honest answer is Yes.”

But here’s Steele, back in November:

When I ran for the United States Senate and I was called an Uncle Tom by leading Democrats in the country, when I was called a slave by Steny Hoyer who is now the majority leader in the House, no one came running to my defense, and no one seemed to think that that was racist at the time. I don’t play the race card, I don’t play the race game, the way some tend to want to do.

And here’s Steele, back in December:

I’m kinda sick and tired of the left and Democrats in this country when they get in trouble and don’t get their way and their backs are up against the wall on legislation or whatever it is their trying to do, they go to that card, they play that race card, that slavery card, that civil rights card.

All this aside, there’s another element to Steele’s claim today that’s worth considering. Who, precisely, does Steele think gives him less room for error because of his race? Seems like there are only two possibilities here: He’s either talking about the media, or about fellow Republicans.

So, either Steele believes media figures are covering the RNC’s travails more aggressively because of his race. Or he’s saying racial bias is partly motivating his Republican critics, whose real motive, obviously, is that they’re worried about the damage Steele is doing to their party.

Let Them Eat Fake

2010-04-03T01:00:00.004-04:00

Via Maddow

Rachel Maddow to GOP: "You have to stop threatening to shoot people and stop making stuff up!"

Via nyseer

The lead in was Acorn, who was driven out of business because of a dazzling hooker scandal. A scandal that turned out to have been faked, not that many will ever know it.

So Acorn is now gone. And it's an afterthought that the attack that killed them off was totally made up. Bogus. Bull pucky.

Climate Gate- Bunk

She barely needed to comment or give background. She knows we know the deal. She assumes a certain amount of intelligence on the part of the viewer, which is always flattering. But the crux is that a UK panel declared this week that the scandal was bullshit and added in the report "global warming is happening and is induced by human activity."

Loose transcript-

Outrage about recess appointments- Bull
Outrage over mandates- Bull
Outrage over Miranda rights for terrorists- Bull
Outrage about civilian trials for terrorists- Bull
Outrage over the stimulus package- Bull
Repealing health reform- Bull
Lawsuits against health reform- Bull
Death Panels- Bull
Birth Certificate- Bull
Fear of census- Bull
Threats to end second amendment- Bull
Thousands of armed IRS agents to enforce HCR mandates- Bull
Taking away the right to go fishing- Bull
Scott Brown saying Rachel is running against him- Bull

You know what's fun 2 read...?

2010-04-02T16:25:00.005-04:00

Just a thought... maybe you should hope he drops a bit lower... so when you talk shit... it will have greater impact or "gut punch factor" as I like to call it.

My goodness... the Republicans don't really seem to fair too well in an All-Time-Low table graphic... do they?

Job Approval Lows

President	Date(s)	Low approval rating
		%
Harry Truman	February 1952	22
Dwight Eisenhower	March 1958	48
John Kennedy	September 1963	56
Lyndon Johnson	August 1968	35
Richard Nixon	July 1974 and August 1974	24
Gerald Ford	January 1975 and March 1975	37
Jimmy Carter	June 1979	28
Ronald Reagan	January 1983	35
George H.W. Bush	July 1992	29
Bill Clinton	June 1993	37
George W. Bush	October 2008	25

While Andrew Breitbart Is Outraged Over Thrown Eggs...

2010-04-02T01:28:00.005-04:00

Going To Extremes:
The Obama Era's Top Ten Anti-Government Flare-Ups

Via TPM

The charges filed this week against nine members of the Hutaree Christian militia group have re-focused attention on the resurgence over the last year or so of the broader militia movement.

That resurgence has been driven in part, say experts, by the election of President Obama. But during the Obama era, threats of anti-government violence -- and even the real thing -- have become more widespread. In fact, with disaffected Americans from Massachusetts to California freaking out against the Feds en masse, it sometimes seems that going postal has become all the rage. Of course, in some cases, that anti-government animus long predates the election of our current president. But there seems to be something about the current climate that's contributing to the rash of incidents.

Here are our top ten flare-ups of anti-government violence -- or threats of violence -- in the Obama era.

1. The Hutaree: Nine members of the Christian militia group, which says it's preparing for the arrival of the Anti-Christ, were charged this week with plotting to kill law enforcement and "oppose by force the authority of the U.S. government." The Feds acted after one member posted online that the group was "ready for war."

2. Joe Stack: In February, the embittered software developer rammed a plane into the IRS building in Austin, Texas, killing himself and one IRS employee. Stack had recently posted online a lengthy anti-government screed, charging among other things that the government had "left me to rot and die while they bailed out their rich, incompetent cronies WITH MY MONEY!"

3. James Von Brunn: The 88-year old shot and killed an African-American guard at the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC last June. Von Brunn, who recently died in prison, had long moved in neo-Nazi circles, and in 1981 he tried to hold hostage an employee of the Federal Reserve at gunpoint. In recent writings he had expressed support for Birtherism, and had praised Sarah Palin.

4. Richard Poplawski: This Pittsburgh man allegedly shot and killed three police officers last April, after telling friends he feared that President Obama planned to confiscate weapons. He also had recently expressed alarm about a supposed plan by FEMA to herd people into concentration camps, which he had seen discussed by Glenn Beck on Fox News.

5. John Patrick Bedell: He traveled from California in February, to shoot two Pentagon police officers before being mortally wounded himself. In an online video manifesto posted in 2006, Bedell had railed against the government's ability to "confiscate the resources of their citizens to fund schemes that need only be justified by lies and deception."

6. Joshua Cartwright: This Florida man killed two sheriff's deputies at a gun range last April, before police officers shot him dead. His wife told police he was "severely disturbed" by Obama's election, and "believed that the US government was conspiring against him."

7. John Gimbel: This California man was charged in October after sending a racist, profanity-filled email that called for the death of President Obama and for the words "Fed shit" to be written on his chest. The email, which can be read here, called for the murders of Michelle Obama and the couple's two children "in front of" the president.

8. Steven Anderson: The Phoenix pastor told his congregation last summer to "pray for Barack Obama to die and go to hell." The next day, one of his congregants showed up at an Obama event with a handgun.

9. Greg Girard: The Massachusetts software consultant and sometime Tea Party activist was charged in February with stockpiling weapons, and possessing explosive devices including tear gas and pepper ball canisters. His wife told police that he feared Armageddon was imminent, and that martial law would soon be imposed. Girard had recently written online that Sarah Palin is on a "righteous mission from God."

10. Norman LeBoon: This Philadelphia man was charged Monday with threatening to kill Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) in a profanity-strewn Youtube video. LeBoon has also posted previous videos making threats against Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and other leaders.

Did Hannity Call His Audience "Tim McVeigh Wannabes"?

2010-04-01T21:19:00.003-04:00

Via News Hounds

If there's any doubt that Sean Hannity and his followers would stop at almost nothing to further their agenda, take a look at this video from his show on March 30, 2010. Near the end of the discussion, at about the 7:45 mark, Hannity brags, "I think we won the debate... When you think of the vast majorities that they have in Congress and they had to bribe, backroom deals, corruption. That's all because the Tea Party movement, the people, all these Tim McVeigh wannabes here." Even if it was a slip of the tongue, what kind of slip is that? Just as disturbing is the rousing audience applause in response and the silence from the two Republican Congressmen.

Cantor's "Backwards B" Moment.

2010-03-26T13:16:00.000-04:00

Via Jed Lewison

Eric Cantor brazenly lied to the national press corps when he claimed his office had been targeted by a gunman in the wake of the passage of health care reform.

No such thing ever happened.

And now he's been busted.

The bullet that hit U.S. Rep. Eric Cantor's campaign office in downtown Richmond early Tuesday was random, Richmond police spokesman Gene Lepley said this morning.

"It is a stray bullet as part of random gunfire," Lepley said. Police said they have no suspects.

Cantor's office declined comment.

This is Cantor's "backwards B" moment. It's Tuzla sniper fire, only worse, because Eric Cantor cried wolf about something that actually matters, all in a pathetic, dishonest attempt to smear Democrats.

The strange thing is that Cantor's story was never really plausible, and he had to know it. The so-called "campaign office" didn't have any visible signs linking it to Cantor. It wasn't even in his congressional district.

Oh, and the capper? Cantor's office wasn't even actually hit by the random bullet. It was a nearby office in the same building where he sometimes does fundraising work.

It might not seem fair or balanced to call Eric Cantor a shameless liar, but it is truthful and accurate. That's what he is. And other than Fox News, the press corps ought to hold him accountable for lying to their faces.

The GOP Response to the Intimidation Campaign Against Democrats

2010-03-26T00:09:00.003-04:00

Via TIME

In a press conference Thursday morning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi addressed the spate of threats Democrats have faced over the past few days. Pressed by reporters on whether Republican lawmakers had incited some of those threats, Pelosi offered a measured response. “Words have power. They weigh a ton,” she said. But she also cautioned that crackdowns against such behavior could not impede free speech, and stressed that she didn't want “to paint everyone who was part of the free expression that happened here with the same brush.”

It was a measured response to an intimidation campaign that has been nothing short of appalling. Death threats have poured in to the offices of Louise Slaughter and Bart Stupak. (You can hear what Stupak's dealing with here. It ain't pretty.) A propane line at the home of Virginia Democrat Tom Perriello's brother was slashed, and in a gesture with less-than-subtle symbolism, a coffin was placed on Democratic Rep. Russ Carnahan's lawn. More than 100 House Democrats met with representatives from the Capitol Police and FBI on Wednesday, and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said at least 10 Democrats have been given enhanced protection.

Tea Partyers are scrambling to dissociate themselves with the fanatical responses to Sunday's vote. The Tea Party Movement of Florida issued a press release Thursday that repudiated “any person using derogatory characterizations, threats of violence, or disparaging terms towards members of Congress or the President.” Leaders of the Virginia Tea Party group that posted Perriello's brother's address, meanwhile, stated that they did not endorse what had happened.

Republican leaders have taken a different approach. On Wednesday, House Minority Leader John Boehner issued a perfunctory denunciation of the threats: “I know many Americans are angry over this health care bill, and that Washington Democrats just aren't listening,” Boehner said. “But, as I've said, violence and threats are unacceptable.” The comment infuriated Perrello. “I thought it his statement was fairly outrageous,” he said. “Every right-thinking person knows this is over the line. These things have to be called out.”

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor also denounced the threats at a news conference on Thursday. "Let me be clear: I do not condone violence. There are no leaders in this building, no rank and file members in this building that condone violence -- period," Cantor said, noting that his own office had been shot at as well. But then he pivoted, excoriating DNC Chair Tim Kaine and Rep. Chris Van Hollen and arguing it was "reckless to use these incidents as media vehicles for political gain." The tactic, he said, was "reprehensible." And in an interview with MSNBC, Republican Sen. John Barrasso flashed the same sort of political pirouette: issuing a strenuous denunciation before lapsing into talking points. "There no cause for this. This is not something that's acceptable," Barrasso said, before launching into an explanation of how Democrats had betrayed Americans by ignoring the will of the majority.

To be fair, no Republican ever endorsed violence as a way to express opposition to health-care reform, and they undoubtedly regret what's happened. On the other hand, many stoked anger over the past few months by employing staggering hyperbole over a document they cast as tyrannical and totalitarian. Boehner, for example, called the vote on the bill “Armageddon,” and said Ohio Rep. Steve Driehaus could be a “dead man” in his largely red Cincinnati district. I can understand if he and other Republicans are upset about being grouped with the extremists chucking bricks through windows. But by condemning violence and blasting Democrats in the same breath, Republican leaders implicitly validate the anger spurring these incidents. Instead of defusing the situation, this sort of response escalates it.

NY Congressman Gets Threatening Letter

2010-03-25T18:27:00.002-04:00

(Reuters) - The office of Representative Anthony Weiner on Thursday received a threatening letter containing an unidentified white powder, his office said.

"Earlier today an envelope containing white powder and a threatening letter was delivered to my community office in Kew Gardens," the Democratic congressman said in a statement issued by his office.

"My first priority is the safety of my staff and neighbors, and the authorities are currently taking steps to investigate and resolve the situation," he said.

Weiner's office in Kew Gardens, part of the New York City borough of Queens, was closed for investigation.

Authorities were responding to the site, and no other details were immediately available, said FBI spokesman Richard Kolko.

The FBI and police are investigating attacks and threats against Democratic members of Congress who voted for healthcare reform, and a senior House of Representatives Democrat said on Wednesday his colleagues are at risk. Weiner voted in favor of the legislation.

Bricks were tossed through the windows of one member's office, another lawmaker was spat at by a protester on Capitol Hill and another was the target of a racial slur.

The House gave the healthcare measure -- President Barack Obama's top domestic priority -- final congressional approval on Sunday. Obama signed it into law on Tuesday.

Emotions ran high among opponents and supporters during the yearlong debate over the legislation.

Violence Map: A Guide To Recent Vandal Attacks On Democrats

2010-03-25T00:50:00.003-04:00

Via TPM

Smashed windows. Threats of violence. A slashed gas line. Reports of vandalism and threats against Democrats have been stacking up over the past few days.

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer today estimated that 10 members had been threatened over the health care vote.

So just how bad is it out there?

We decided to make a map of all the instances of vandalism and serious threats against Democrats. Check it out below -- and click the markers for details on each incident. (ed.note: Be sure to zoom in on Ohio.)

Below the map, we round up some other late developments on the threats against Dems.

View Vandalism Surrounding Passage of Health Reform in a larger map

Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-OH), who is on the map above, today said he confronted Minority Leader John Boehner over an interview in which Boehner said Driehaus would be a "dead man" if he voted for the bill. "I think it's really important for folks around here, especially leader Boehner, to understand that his words have consequences," Driehaus said.
Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), on the map for an attack on her district office, released a statement pointing the finger at the GOP leadership: "It's more disturbing to me that Republican leadership has not condemned these attacks and instead appears to be fanning the flames with coded rhetoric." Slaughter also said she got a voice mail "referencing snipers."
Sarah Palin posted on Facebook a map of her own -- showing cross-hair graphics over the districts of vulnerable Democrats who backed the health reform legislation. Earlier she tweeted "Commonsense Conservatives & lovers of America: 'Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!' Pls see my Facebook page."
Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), chair of the DCCC, called for "some adult supervision within the Republican party" in an interview on MSNBC Wednesday. "The Republican leadership, instead of saying to its supporters around the country, 'calm down' ... they are pouring more and more gasoline on flames. And that is irresponsible," he said.
On CNN last night, RNC chief Michael Steele said of Nancy Pelosi: "This November, they're gonna pay. So let's start getting Nancy ready for the firing line this November."

Go David Shuster!

2010-03-25T00:39:00.001-04:00

Via Cesca

This was pretty great.

An Open Letter To Conservatives

2010-03-24T12:07:00.002-04:00

Via TPM

Dear Conservative Americans,

The years have not been kind to you. I grew up in a profoundly Republican home, so I can remember when you wore a very different face than the one we see now. You've lost me and you've lost most of America. Because I believe having responsible choices is important to democracy, I'd like to give you some advice and an invitation.

First, the invitation: Come back to us.

Now the advice. You're going to have to come up with a platform that isn't built on a foundation of cowardice: fear of people with colors, religions, cultures and sex lives that differ from your own; fear of reform in banking, health care, energy; fantasy fears of America being transformed into an Islamic nation, into social/commun/fasc-ism, into a disarmed populace put in internment camps; and more. But you have work to do even before you take on that task.

Your party -- the GOP -- and the conservative end of the American political spectrum have become irresponsible and irrational. Worse, it's tolerating, promoting and celebrating prejudice and hatred. Let me provide some examples -- by no means an exhaustive list -- of where the Right as gotten itself stuck in a swamp of hypocrisy, hyperbole, historical inaccuracy and hatred.

If you're going to regain your stature as a party of rational, responsible people, you'll have to start by draining this swamp:

Hypocrisy

You can't flip out -- and threaten impeachment - when Dems use a parliamentary procedure (deem and pass) that you used repeatedly (more than 35 times in just one session and more than 100 times in all!), that's centuries old and which the courts have supported. Especially when your leaders admit it all.

You can't vote and scream against the stimulus package and then take credit for the good it's done in your own district (happily handing out enormous checks representing money that you voted against, is especially ugly) -- 114 of you (at last count) did just that -- and it's even worse when you secretly beg for more.

You can't fight against your own ideas just because the Dem president endorses your proposal.

You can't call for a pay-as-you-go policy, and then vote against your own ideas.

Are they "unlawful enemy combatants" or are they "prisoners of war" at Gitmo? You can't have it both ways.

You can't carry on about the evils of government spending when your family has accepted more than a quarter-million dollars in government handouts.

You can't refuse to go to a scheduled meeting, to which you were invited, and then blame the Dems because they didn't meet with you.

You can't rail against using teleprompters while using teleprompters. Repeatedly.

You can't rail against the bank bailouts when you supported them as they were happening.

You can't be for immigration reform, then against it .

You can't enjoy socialized medicine while condemning it.

You can't flip out when the black president puts his feet on the presidential desk when you were silent about white presidents doing the same. Bush. Ford.

You can't complain that the president hasn't closed Gitmo yet when you've campaigned to keep Gitmo open.

You can't flip out when the black president bows to foreign dignitaries, as appropriate for their culture, when you were silent when the white presidents did the same. Bush. Nixon. Ike. You didn't even make a peep when Bush held hands and kissed (on the mouth) leaders of countries that are not on "kissing terms" with the US.

You can't complain that the undies bomber was read his Miranda rights under Obama when the shoe bomber was read his Miranda rights under Bush and you remained silent. (And, no, Newt -- the shoe bomber was not a US citizen either, so there is no difference.)

You can't attack the Dem president for not personally* publicly condemning a terrorist event for 72 hours when you said nothing about the Rep president waiting 6 days in an eerily similar incident (and, even then, he didn't issue any condemnation). *Obama administration did the day of the event.

You can't throw a hissy fit, sound alarms and cry that Obama freed Gitmo prisoners who later helped plan the Christmas Day undie bombing, when -- in fact -- only one former Gitmo detainee, released by Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, helped to plan the failed attack.

You can't condemn blaming the Republican president for an attempted terror attack on his watch, then blame the Dem president for an attempted terror attack on his.

You can't mount a boycott against singers who say they're ashamed of the president for starting a war, but remain silent when another singer says he's ashamed of the president and falsely calls him a Maoist who makes him want to throw up and says he ought to be in jail.

You can't cry that the health care bill is too long, then cry that it's too short.

You can't support the individual mandate for health insurance, then call it unconstitutional when Dems propose it and campaign against your own ideas.

You can't demand television coverage, then whine about it when you get it. Repeatedly.

You can't praise criminal trials in US courts for terror suspects under a Rep president, then call it "treasonous" under a Dem president.

You can't propose ideas to create jobs, and then work against them when the Dems put your ideas in a bill.

You can't be both pro-choice and anti-choice.

You can't damn someone for failing to pay $900 in taxes when you've paid nearly $20,000 in IRS fines.

You can't condemn criticizing the president when US troops are in harms way, then attack the president when US troops are in harms way , the only difference being the president's party affiliation (and, by the way, armed conflict does NOT remove our right and our duty as Americans to speak up).

You can't be both for cap-and-trade policy and against it.

You can't vote to block debate on a bill, then bemoan the lack of 'open debate'.

If you push anti-gay legislation and make anti-gay speeches, you should probably take a pass on having gay sex, regardless of whether it's 2004 or 2010. This is true, too, if you're taking GOP money and giving anti-gay rants on CNN. Taking right-wing money and GOP favors to write anti-gay stories for news sites while working as a gay prostitute, doubles down on both the hypocrisy and the prostitution. This is especially true if you claim your anti-gay stand is God's stand, too.

When you chair the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, you can't send sexy emails to 16-year-old boys (illegal anyway, but you made it hypocritical as well).

You can't criticize Dems for not doing something you didn't do while you held power over the past 16 years, especially when the Dems have done more in one year than you did in 16.

You can't decry "name calling" when you've been the most consistent and outrageous at it. And the most vile.

You can't spend more than 40 years hating, cutting and trying to kill Medicare, and then pretend to be the defenders of Medicare

You can't praise the Congressional Budget Office when it's analysis produces numbers that fit your political agenda, then claim it's unreliable when it comes up with numbers that don't.

You can't vote for X under a Republican president, then vote against X under a Democratic president. Either you support X or you don't. And it makes it worse when you change your position merely for the sake obstructionism.

You can't call a reconciliation out of bounds when you used it repeatedly.

You can't spend taxpayer money on ads against spending taxpayer money.

You can't condemn individual health insurance mandates in a Dem bill, when the mandates were your idea.

You can't demand everyone listen to the generals when they say what fits your agenda, and then ignore them when they don't.

You can't whine that it's unfair when people accuse you of exploiting racism for political gain, when your party's former leader admits you've been doing it for decades.

You can't portray yourself as fighting terrorists when you openly and passionately support terrorists.

You can't complain about a lack of bipartisanship when you've routinely obstructed for the sake of political gain -- threatening to filibuster at least 100 pieces of legislation in one session, far more than any other since the procedural tactic was invented -- and admitted it. Some admissions are unintentional, others are made proudly. This is especially true when the bill is the result of decades of compromise between the two parties and is filled with your own ideas.

You can't question the loyalty of Department of Justice lawyers when you didn't object when your own Republican president appointed them.

You can't preach and try to legislate "Family Values" when you: take nude hot tub dips with teenagers (and pay them hush money); cheat on your wife with a secret lover and lie about it to the world; cheat with a staffer's wife (and pay them off with a new job); pay hookers for sex while wearing a diaper and cheating on your wife; or just enjoying an old fashioned non-kinky cheating on your wife; try to have gay sex in a public toilet; authorize the rape of children in Iraqi prisons to coerce their parents into providing information; seek, look at or have sex with children; replace a guy who cheats on his wife with a guy who cheats on his pregnant wife with his wife's mother;

Hyperbole

You really need to disassociate with those among you who:

assert that people making a quarter-million dollars a year can barely make ends meet or that $1 million "isn't a lot of money";
say that "Comrade" Obama is a "Bolshevik" who is "taking cues from Lenin";
ignore the many times your buddies use a term that offends you and complain only when a Dem says it;
liken political opponents to murderers, rapists, and "this Muslim guy" that "offed his wife's head" or call then "un-American";
say Obama "wants his plan to fail...so that he can make the case for bank nationalization and vindicate his dream of a socialist economy";
equate putting the good of the people ahead of your personal fortunes with terrorism;
smear an entire major religion with the actions of a few fanatics;
say that the president wants to "annihilate us";
compare health care reform with the bombing of Pearl Harbor, a Bolshevik plot the attack on 9/11,or reviving the ghosts of communist dictators (update: it's also not Armageddon);
equate our disease-fighting stem cell research with "what the Nazis did";
call a bill passed by the majority of both houses of Congress, by members of Congress each elected by a majority in their districts, an unconscionable abuse of power, a violation of the presidential oath or "the end of representative government";
shout "baby killer" at a member of Congress on the floor of the House, especially one who so fought against abortion rights that he nearly killed health care reform (in fact, a little decorum, a little respect for our national institutions and the people and the values they represent, would be refreshing -- cut out the shouting, the swearing and the obscenities);
prove your machismo by claiming your going to "crash a party" to which you're officially invited;
claim that Obama is pushing America's "submission to Shariah";
question the patriotism of people upholding cherished American values and the rule of law;
claim the president is making us less safe without a hint of evidence;
call a majority vote the "tyranny of the minority," even if you meant to call it tyranny of the majority -- it's democracy, not tyranny;
call the president's support of a criminal trial for a terror suspect "treasonous" (especially when you supported the same thing when the president shared your party);
call the Pope the anti-Christ;
assert that the constitutionally mandated census is an attempt to enslave us;
accuse opponents of being backed by Arab slave-drivers or of being drunk and suicidal;
equate family planning with eugenics or Nazism;
accuse the president of changing the missile defense program's logo to match his campaign logo and reflect what you say is his secret Muslim identity;
accuse political opponents of being totalitarians, socialists, communists, fascists, Marxists; terrorist sympathizers, McCarthy-like, Nazis or drug pushers; and
advocate a traitorous act like secession, violent revolution , military coup or civil war (just so we're clear: sedition is a bad thing).

History

If you're going to use words like socialism, communism and fascism, you must have at least a basic understanding of what those words mean (hint: they're NOT synonymous!)

You can't cut a leading Founding Father out the history books because you've decided you don't like his ideas.

You cant repeatedly assert that the president refuses to say the word "terrorism" or say we're at war with terror when we have an awful lot of videotape showing him repeatedly assailing terrorism and using those exact words.

If you're going to invoke the names of historical figures, it does not serve you well to whitewash them. Especially this one.

You can't just pretend historical events didn't happen in an effort to make a political opponent look dishonest or to make your side look better. Especially these events. (And, no, repeating it doesn't make it better.)

You can't say things that are simply and demonstrably false: health care reform will not push people out of their private insurance and into a government-run program ; health care reform (which contains a good many of your ideas and very few from the Left) is a long way from "socialist utopia"; health care reform is not "reparations"; nor does health care reform create "death panels".

Hatred

You have to condemn those among you who:

call members of Congress n*gger and f*ggot;
elected leaders who say "I'm a proud racist";
state that America has been built by white people;
say that poor people are poor because they're rotten people, call them "parasitic garbage" or say they shouldn't be allowed to vote;
call women bitches and prostitutes just because you don't like their politics ( re - pea -ted - ly );
assert that the women who are serving our nation in uniform are hookers;
mock and celebrate the death of a grandmother because you disagree with her son's politics;
declare that those who disagree with you are shown by that disagreement to be not just "Marxist radicals" but also monsters and a deadly disease killing the nation (this would fit in the hyperbole and history categories, too);
joke about blindness;
advocate euthanizing the wife of your political opponent;
taunt people with incurable, life-threatening diseases -- especially if you do it on a syndicated broadcast;
equate gay love with bestiality -- involving horses or dogs or turtles or ducks -- or polygamy, child molestation, pedophilia;
casually assume that only white males look "like a real American";
assert presidential power to authorize torture, torture a child by having his testicles crushed in front of his parents to get them to talk, order the massacre of a civilian village and launch a nuclear attack without the consent of Congress;
attack children whose mothers have died;
call people racists without producing a shred of evidence that they've said or done something that would even smell like racism -- same for invoking racially charged "dog whistle" words (repeatedly);
condemn the one thing that every major religion agrees on;
complain that we no longer employ the tactics we once used to disenfranchise millions of Americans because of their race;
blame the victims of natural disasters and terrorist attacks for their suffering and losses;
celebrate violence , joke about violence, prepare for violence or use violent imagery, "fun" political violence, hints of violence, threats of violence (this one is rather explicit), suggestions of violence or actual violence (and, really, suggesting anal rape with a hot piece of metal is beyond the pale); and
incite insurrection telling people to get their guns ready for a "bloody battle" with the president of the United States.

Oh, and I'm not alone: One of your most respected and decorated leaders agrees with me.

So, dear conservatives, get to work. Drain the swamp of the conspiracy nuts, the bold-faced liars undeterred by demonstrable facts, the overt hypocrisy and the hatred. Then offer us a calm, responsible, grownup agenda based on your values and your vision for America. We may or may not agree with your values and vision, but we'll certainly welcome you back to the American mainstream with open arms. We need you.

(Anticipating your initial response: No there is nothing that even comes close to this level of wingnuttery on the American Left.)

Written by Russell King

Emboldened Extremist Right Incites Violence

2010-03-23T23:41:00.000-04:00

Via Maddow

Right-Wing Terrorism

2010-03-23T23:24:00.002-04:00

Via Cesca

Wingnut blogger and teabagger Mike Vanderboegh has called for violence against Democratic offices across the nation. Tell me if this doesn't sound exactly like the justifications for various other terrorist attacks:

“We can break their windows,” he said. “Break them NOW. And if we do a proper job, if we break the windows of hundreds, thousands, of Democrat party headquarters across this country, we might just wake up enough of them to make defending ourselves at the muzzle of a rifle unnecessary.”

Right, and if there are enough suicide bombers -- if there are enough IEDs -- if there are enough hijackings...

Demand the GOP Stop Inciting and Supporting Hate

2010-03-23T23:08:00.003-04:00

Via C&L

The hateful acts that occurred at the tea party rally in Washington this weekend were not isolated incidents -- they are part of a growing pattern of violent rhetoric, racially charged imagery, and paranoid conspiracy theories emerging from the Republican party's grassroots supporters.

Republicans officials have contributed to this atmosphere with fear-mongering and coded racism, and they have actively courted this element of their party. It's time that Republican leadership is forced to address what it's helped to create.

Please join us in confronting Republican leaders and demanding that they take responsibility for tamping down the bigotry and hate among their supporters, and that they disavow the fear-mongering that leads to it. And please ask your friends and family to do the same -- unless we take a strong stand against this kind of hate, it will continue. We need as many people as possible -- of every race -- demanding that it stop.

Our members are calling on Michael Steele, John Boehner, and Mitch McConnell to do two things:

Unequivocally condemn bigotry and hate among your supporters, and make clear that those who embrace it have no place in your party and that you reject their support.

Make clear that you will not tolerate fear-mongering and coded appeals to racism from officials in the Republican party, at any level.

Here's the message we sent to our members today:

Dear ColorOfChange.org member,

It's time to hold the Republican Party accountable.

You've probably heard about Tea Party members shouting "Nigger!" at Black Congressmen during a protest in Washington, D.C. last weekend. One of the protesters spat on Congressman Emmanuel Cleaver, while another called openly gay Representative Barney Frank a "faggot" as the laughing crowd imitated his lisp.1

But Saturday was just the most recent example of the intolerance and hate coming from right-wing extremists this past year. At times it's been instigated by Republican leaders. When not, it's usually condoned and seen as part of a strategy to score politically. Either way, it's completely unacceptable and has to stop.

It's time to confront Republican leadership and force them to take responsibility for the atmosphere they've helped create. Join us in drawing a line in the sand, and ask your friends and family to do the same:

http://colorofchange.org/hate/

We're calling on RNC Chair Michael Steele, House Minority Leader John Boehner, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to publicly do two simple things:

Unequivocally condemn bigotry and hate among their supporters, and make clear that those who embrace it have no place in their party.
Make clear that they will not tolerate fear-mongering and coded appeals to racism from officials in the Republican party, at any level.

Republican leaders publicly denounced Saturday's ugly scene, but they failed to acknowledge that this is only the latest incident in a pattern of violent rhetoric, racially charged imagery, and paranoid conspiracy theories at Tea Party rallies.2 Many Tea Partiers aren't simply about dissent -- they use fear and hatred to assault the very legitimacy of our elected leaders. It's the worst America has to offer.

Despite this, Republican leaders court the Tea Party movement while methodically supporting, exacerbating and exploiting their fear and anger for cynical political ends.3 This is nothing less than a betrayal of American values, and it's up to us to force the Republicans to stop aiding and abetting this enterprise:

http://colorofchange.org/hate/

The Tea Party movement has been marked by racially inflammatory and violent outbursts since its inception a year ago. GOP leaders are trying to pass off this weekend's assaults on Congressmen Lewis, Cleaver, Clyburn and Frank as isolated incidents. But when so-called "isolated incidents" crop up again and again, a pattern starts to emerge. The examples are numerous.

At rallies held to protest tax day last year, Tea Partiers carried signs that announced "Obama's Plan: White Slavery," "The American Taxpayers are the Jews for Obama's Oven," and "Guns Tomorrow!"4 The Republican National Committee had endorsed the rallies, and RNC Chairman Michael Steele encouraged Tea Partiers to send a "virtual tea bag" to President Obama and Democratic Congressional leadership.5 After reports of the fear-mongering signs surfaced, Steele did nothing to distance his party from the lunatic fringe. He has even gone so far as to say that if he didn't have his current position, he'd be "out there with the tea partiers."6 Some Republican governors even planned a "Tea Party 2.0" for the following month in an effort to build on the rallies' momentum.7

The Tea Party's venomous rhetoric picked up steam over the summer, when angry mobs flooded town hall meetings legislators had organized as sites for rational, civil debate on health care reform. After one meeting in Atlanta, a swastika was painted on the office of Congressman David Scott (D-GA), who had also received a flier addressed to "nigga David Scott." 8 Some protesters showed up at town hall meetings carrying guns, including at least one man who was armed at an event where the President was speaking 9. Again, Republicans responded to these tactics with silence, doing nothing to denounce them.

Similarly, there was no public outcry from Republican leadership when Mark Williams, a leader of the Tea Party movement, was exposed for having described the President as "an Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug and a racist in chief" on his blog.10 Instead, members of the GOP continued to show up to and endorse Tea Party rallies. And as recently as Sunday -- the day that the historic health care bill passed the House -- Republican members of the House riled up the same Tea Party crowd that had earlier harassed their fellow members with hate and bigotry.

Our country deserves better than this. No matter what party one supports, we should all take strong action to support civil, honest, and respectful public debate. Can you take a moment to call on Michael Steele, John Boehner, and Mitch McConnell to denounce the racist rhetoric and fear-mongering that have been ongoing, significant characteristics of the Tea Party movement, and tell those who embrace these divisive and un-American beiefs that they have no place in their party, as members or leaders? And when you do, please ask your family and friends to do the same:

http://colorofchange.org/hate/

Thanks and Peace,

-- James, Gabriel, William, Dani, Milton and the rest of the ColorOfChange.org team

March 23rd, 2010

1. "Tea Party Protests: 'Ni**er,' 'Fa**ot' Shouted At Members Of Congress," Huffington Post, 3-20-2010

http://huff.to/atRmru

2. "10 Most Offensive Tea Party Signs And Extensive Photo Coverage From Tax Day Protests," Huffington Post, 4-16-09

http://huff.to/9Sgf3S

3. "Memo Reveals GOP Plan to Exploit Fear of Obama," AOL News, 3-4-2010

http://huff.to/c4ZOH4

4. See Reference 2

5. "Tax Day Tea Parties Officially Endorsed By Republican Party," Huffington Post, 5-15-2009

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/14/tax-day-tea-parties-offic_n_186788.html

6. "Steele: I'd join the tea parties," Politico, 1-15-10

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31177.html

7. "GOP govs plan Tea Party sequel," Politico, 5-12-2009

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22436.html

8. "Rep. David Scott's (D-Ga) office spray-painted with Swastika," Daily Kos, 8-11-2009

http://bit.ly/8YInIb

9. "Armed and Dangerous?" Talking Points Memo, 8-11-2009

http://bit.ly/LV1wb

10. "Tea party leader calls Obama a welfare thug," The Loop, 9-15-09

http://theloop21.com/news/teaparty-leaders-calls-obama-welfare-thug

GOP Getting Smaller in History's Rear View Mirror

2010-03-22T21:46:00.004-04:00

Via CountDown Special Comment

Republicans clinging to obsolete ideas and extremist rhetoric will only undermine the party's relevance and America will move on without them.

Rachel examines the vandalism, physical attacks, racial slurs, epithets, and thug tactics employed by Republicans and opponents of health care reform and highlights the courage of Nancy Pelosi and Congressional Democrats who stood up in the face these efforts of intimidation to do what the American people elected them to do.

On the Appeal of Repeal

2010-03-22T20:02:00.002-04:00

Via Nate Silver

This is the 160th article that we will have written on health care reform over the course of the past year. As nice as it might be to move on to another subject, the debate over health care reform isn't going away any time soon, as the bill the Democrats passed last night will undergo a variety of political and legal challenges before the bulk of its provisions go into effect in 2014.

The sexiest of these challenges is the threat of repeal, which is the subject of an editorial in seemingly every conservative news outlet today. But it's also one of the least likely to threaten the bill. Repeal is not impossible -- not by a long shot -- but it's unlikely.

For starters, although repeal may certainly be an important rhetorical force in campaign-trail debates later this year, the first point at which it will be a substantive threat to the Democrats is January 20, 2013, at which point they are no longer guaranteed to control the White House. Until that time, because of the President's veto pen, it's not just figuratively but literally impossible for Republicans to amass enough manpower in the Congress to override a veto from Obama.

But the Republicans will have a small window of opportunity in 2013. To have a chance, they'll need:

(i) A majority of the House. Even if a handful of Blue Dogs were willing to sign on to the effort, it's unlikely that such measures could be pushed to the floor so long as the Democrats controlled the chamber. So an outright majority is probably needed. But this is the relatively easy part -- the Republicans may very well already have taken over the House in 2011.

(ii) 60 senators. Remember that filibuster thing that the Democrats hate? Now it can be their friend! Of course, some narrow parts of the bill could be excised through reconciliation or budget bills, which require a simple majority. But the problems with trying to repeal the broad thrust of the legislation through reconciliation are parallel to the ones that would be realized in trying to pass the bulk of legislation through reconciliation. Changes to the things like the creation of the insurance exchanges, or the new regulations imposed on insurers, would violate the Byrd Rule. The Republicans' options would be further constrained because legislation passed under reconciliation is supposed to be deficit-reducing. Although the Republicans could certainly make some surgical strikes via reconciliation, we're still probably talking about a 60-vote majority in order to repeal its most impactful provisions.

But 60 seats is not totally impossible. The Republicans could conceivably get to about 50 Senators this year. And then 2012 presents them with more opportunities for gains, since it's the echo of the 2006 cycle in which Democrats won nearly all of the competitive seats. Say that Republicans get to exactly 50 Senate seats later this year; they'd have to win 2012 races in, say, Nebraska (Ben Nelson), Virginia (Jim Webb), Missouri (Claire McCaskill), Montana (Jon Tester), Florida (Bill Nelson), Ohio (Sherrod Brown), West Virginia (possible Robert Byrd retirement), Wisconsin (possible Herb Kohl retirement), California (possible Diane Feinstein retirement), and Washington (Maria Cantwell). Although the Republicans also have a couple of tough defenses (Scott Brown, John Ensign, perhaps Olympia Snowe), 60 is doable if the political climate remains fairly toxic for the Democrats in 2012.

(iii) A Republican president. Of course this is doable as well, although the Republicans are not the favorites and whatever problems Obama might be having now tell us very little about what his standing will be in two years. In addition, Intrade thinks that there's roughly a 50 percent chance that the Republican nominee will be either Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin, either of whom is problematic because Romney probably can't win on a message of repealing Obamacare when it's so similar to Romneycare, and Palin probably can't win, period.

Basically, the likelihood of these three things happening is concomitant with the chances of there being a Republican wave election in 2012 -- enough for them to win almost every competitive Senate seat and enough to drag what might be a fairly weak Presidential candidate across the finish line -- as well as winning enough Senate seats later this year to put them within striking distance. It's hard to know what the chances of that are -- 10 percent perhaps? Recall that the economy is liable to be at least somewhat better in 2012, and that some voter anger may be quashed by any gains that Republicans are able to make in 2010. Although Republicans would clearly need to win a lot of Senate seats in November to bring them within striking distance of 60 in 2012, I'm not actually sure it helps them in terms of 2012 to win control of the House later this year, since they'd lose some of the advantages of anti-incumbency and since Boehner, et. al. would have a difficult time getting much done in a divided government -- they'd either be spitting into the wind or would wind up compromising with Obama on a lot of issues, which might tend to entrench the status quo (Obama keeps the Presidency, Republicans keep the House.)

It's also important to recognize that the Republicans will not necessarily have public opinion on their side in the repeal debate -- even though Obamacare is unpopular. As Matt Yglesias reminds us, even those polls that show a solid majority opposed to Obamacare (and many polls don't) have some of that opposition coming from the liberal end of the spectrum. CNN's latest poll, for instance, has just 43 percent opposing Obamacare from the right -- another 13 percent oppose it from the left but they'll want improvements and almost certainly not repeal. This FOX News poll, if you're willing to excuse its major issues with question ordering, shows something similar: although 55 percent oppose Obamacare, only 45 percent favor a repeal, with some of the opposition breaking off to want an expansion of the bill instead.

The Republicans could hope to capture some of these voters with a message of reform rather than repeal, but that could quickly get muddled: are they admitting that some parts of Obamacare are good? Could they keep the popular parts and banish the unpopular parts in a way that was remotely fiscally responsible? (Answer: no, or the Democrats would have tried to do the same.)

Although it's difficult to predict whether Obamacare will become more popular or less so prior to its implementation, the safest assumption based on the way public opinion is formulated right now is that the repeal message will have a lot of appeal to the 40 percent of the country or so who oppose the health care bill from the right (almost all of whom do so strongly), but will fairly quickly encounter diminishing returns as it tries to struggle up to 50 percent. In a midterm cycle like 2010, where turnout can be lopsided, this could nevertheless be a net benefit to the Republicans. It's less likely to be so in 2012 when turnout will be more robust -- but 2012, not 2010, is the cycle upon which repeal actually depends.

If Republicans do want to maximize their chance of making good on their repeal window, then, they probably ought to (i) redirect 2010 resources from House races to Senate races and (ii) work behind the scenes to promote a non-Palin, non-Romney Presidental candidate, particularly someone like Paul Ryan who has some street cred as a fiscal conservative and a policy wonk and (iii) think carefully about how everything they do right now will reverberate not just later this year, but also in 2012.

Latest Capitol Hill Anti-HCR Rally Running Smoothly, Politely

2010-03-21T12:45:00.001-04:00

Via Wonkette

Today’s protesters had a nickname for Barney Frank! “Just after Frank rounded a corner to leave the building, an older protester yelled ‘Barney, you faggot.’ The surrounding crowd of protesters then erupted in laughter.”

What else? Ah, yes: famous black civil rights leader Rep. John Lewis is black. They had a nickname for him, too!

[TPM, The Hill]

Tyranny, From Tim McVeigh To Ginny Thomas

2010-03-20T00:17:00.003-04:00

Via Andrew Cohen

Among other items of evidence seized from Timothy McVeigh's car when he was arrested 15 years ago next month outside of Oklahoma City was a papered quote from Samuel Adams. "When the government fears the people, there is liberty," the quote read. "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

Lest anyone remain unsure about McVeigh's motivations for the cold-blooded murder of 168 innocents at the Alfred P. Murrah federal building on April 19, 1995, the self-styled "patriot" wore to the attack a t-shirt with the Latin inscription: "Sic Semper Tyrannis" and the Thomas Jefferson line: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

At the time, however, even in the shadow of the Branch Davidian siege near Waco or the fiasco at Ruby Ridge, this sort of "tyranny" talk was universally considered back then to be part of the right-wing fringe. It was the stuff of shadowy militia groups and bigoted paranoids but out-of-bounds for mainstream politicians and scorned by official Washington. In fact, McVeigh's cowardly attack marked a sharp pause in loose talk about tyrannical government; the faces and stories of the dead and wounded taken from the Murrah building silencing to shame the notion that federal employees (or their elected representatives) were anything but exactly the same as the rest of us.

That was then. This is now. Today, loose, dangerous talk about "government tyranny" is back in vogue (evidently its sinister design appears regularly during middling Democrat administrations but never during power-grabbing Republican ones) and on a political amptitude far beyond where it was during the Age of McVeigh a generation ago. Twenty-first century tyrants abound in the hearts of little old ladies at tea parties, in the minds of erstwhile government officials (who evidently aren't tyrants themselves) and on the lips of at least one outspoken spouse of at least one underspoken justice of the United States Supreme Court.

In other words, what the nation rejected as superheated lunacy and dangerous incitement out of McVeigh's mouth in 1995, tens of millions of Americans now praise as patriotism from popular figures. What the militia movement lost in support following McVeigh's attack it has gained a thousand times over by the current devolution in the language of dissent. Now, the nation's mainstream conservative forces routinely employ the overcharged language of "tyranny" and "tyrants," mongered as righteous fear and loathing by mainstream media outlets, in a way unthinkable back in the McVeigh's day.

The most disturbing recent example of the use of the "tyranny" saw was offered up by Virginia Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She told a conservative blogger last month that she wanted to get more involved in conservative politics because "we're headed for tyranny" in government. One month later we are still waiting to hear what she precisely meant by that remark, what specific sort of government "tyranny" currently in use or on the horizon worries the spouse of one of the most powerful people in government, whose salary and perks we all pay for.

Indeed, who exactly are the government tyrants against us? What is the bill of particulars against them? Do local bureaucrats morph into "tyrants" just because they want to change the contents of textbooks? Are officials in Washington leading us toward tyranny because of bank bailouts or health care? Really? But how can the federal government be at once tyrannical and inept? Aren't the two mutually exclusive? If Barack Obama were as malevolent as the Tyrannists claim he is, then why hasn't he been more successful? And where were these emergent tribunes of tyranny when Bush-era officials were grabbing for all the executive branch power of which they could conceive?

I can't answer those questions for the people who have lifted out of the gutter McVeigh's old tyranny talk. And they can't answer the questions either, truth be told, for in the honest answering of them their charade and hypocrisy is bared for all the world to see. No, the only real "tyrants" in America today are the ones telling you what to think and believe; the ones telling you to believe them and not your own eyes; the ones who see their defenses breached, their ideas in retreat, and their principles challenged.

Fifteen years ago, the face of that frustration was McVeigh. Today, the face looks very much different indeed, don't you think?

Daily Show's Stewart Reprises Beck Impersonation

2010-03-19T11:26:00.001-04:00

Via MMFA

Last night on Comedy Central's Daily Show, Jon Stewart reprised his November parody of Fox News' Glenn Beck.

Hilarity ensues.

Tea Partiers Once Again Attacking Congress With Crazy Signs

2010-03-16T19:08:00.002-04:00

Via Pareene

There was another independent, nonpartisan "Tea Party" on Capitol Hill today! Just a buncha regular folks with funny signs that aren't at all racist but are a little bit provided by the RNC. Then they met a mean congressman.

This congressman was so mean that when an actual angry mob showed up outside his office screaming "LIAR" at him, in unison, he shut his door, rather than trying to engage this angry mob in some sort of rational discussion of... whether or not he's a liar, I guess.

Then this angry mob sort of hung out outside his office for a while, being angry. If they had been Code Pink they would've been dragged out of there by armed guards.

Hooray for America. Once the House passes the health care bill someone's gotta get shot.

Health Care Debate Ends With Falsehood That House Will Pass Bill 'Without A Vote'

2010-03-16T17:53:00.002-04:00

Via Jason Linkins

Health Care Opponents Demonize 'Deem And Pass' As The Media Gets It Wrong

Another day in the health care reform debate brings with it another battle over parliamentary procedure, and another example of the media struggling to get some basic facts right. Today, the battle is joined over deeming resolutions, the process by which House Democrats may finally overcome hurdles and worries to get the process of passing reform moving forward.

The GOP has advanced the idea that the "deem and pass" process -- also known as "The Slaughter Rule" because the idea was suggested by Representative Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) -- is tantamount to passing health care reform without voting on it. The media has largely accepted, or at least lent credence to this premise.

But does that sound right to you, Marc Ambinder?

...that's wrong. House Democrats aren't doing that.

In fact, they ARE taking an up or down vote on the Senate health care bill. They're just doing it AT THE SAME TIME as they're passing the reconciliation language, which countermands several controversial provisions.

Here's what's going on. The House is stuck having to basically pass the Senate health care bill, because the bill cannot be reconciled in conference committee. Why? Because it will be filibustered. However, House members are averse to doing anything that looks like they approve of the various side-deals that were made in the Senate -- like the so-called "Cornhusker Kickback." The House intends to remove those unpopular features in budget reconciliation, but if they pursue budget reconciliation on a standard legislative timeline -- where they pass the Senate bill outright first and then go back to pass a reconciliation package of fixes -- they'd still appear to be endorsing the sketchy side deals, and then the GOP would jump up and down on their heads.

Enter "deem and pass." Under this process, the House will simply skip to approving the reconciliation fixes, and "deem" the Senate bill to be passed. By doing it this way, the Democrats get the Senate bill passed while simultaneously coming out against the unpopular features of the same.

YES. All of this is basically motivated by concerns over perceptions and other such cosmetic bullshit. This is all about the House Democrats being scared out of their minds that they'll have to spend even an hour explaining, "No, we do not approve of the Cornhusker Kickback." But that's America, circa 2010. It makes the Democrats look timid, but it doesn't make them wrong.

This is now the third round of opposition that's been put before the media ever since the "Slaughter Rule" was first proposed. The first round featured Republicans going nuts about it, on the grounds that it was some sort of unprecedented legislative maneuver. Just like they said about budget reconciliation! Sadly, that doesn't bear up under scrutiny. As Ryan Grim reports, however, deeming resolutions are pretty darned precedented:

The first time that the chamber used what's known as a "deeming resolution" -- the mechanism Democrats are leaning toward using to pass the Senate health care bill through the House -- was March 16, 1933.

Then, as now, it involved a bill that had little support in the chamber among individual Democrats, but all of them knew they had to pass it. Very few Democrats want to vote for the Senate version of health care reform, but most are okay with it as long as it's amended through reconciliation.

Less than two weeks into FDR's first 100 days, Congress needed to raise its debt ceiling, a ritual vote that hasn't gotten any easier for the majority party in the intervening 77 years -- and is still political fodder for partisan opponents.

Instead of voting on the underlying Senate bill to raise the debt ceiling in 1933, the House voted on Resolution 63, which stated that "immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the bill H.R. 2820, with Senate amendments thereto, be, and the same hereby is, taken from the Speaker's table to the end that all Senate amendments be, and the same are hereby, agreed to."

More recently, Grim notes that deeming resolutions were used by Republicans "36 times in 2005 and 2006," and by Democrats "49 times in 2007 and 2008."

The second salvo from health care opponents arrived in the form of complaints that Louise Slaughter once opposed the use of her own "Slaughter Rule" on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. As Ezra Klein explains, that's true:

So today's furor is that Nancy Pelosi and Louise Slaughter joined Public Citizen in a lawsuit arguing that a bill that George W. Bush signed was invalid because Deem and Pass is unconstitutional. But the court ruled against Public Citizen, Pelosi and Slaughter. Deem and Pass, well, passed. And now Democrats are using it, too.

Of course, the fact that Slaughter learned that deeming resolutions were entirely above board is probably what informed her decision to employ a deeming resolution!

I don't think anyone captured the baseline of this ongoing back-and-forth raging over parliamentary procedures better than Matt Yglesias, who writes, "Everyone knows that 100 percent of the people who like the underlying health care bill will approve of the use of the procedural mechanisms necessary to enact it, whereas 100 percent of the process-objectors will also be people who don't like the bill." It stands to reason that if all the majorities were flipped and the GOP was about to use "Deem And Pass" to get something passed, they'd pull the trigger on it and never look back.

There's no doubt at all that this legislative obscuranta is confusing. But it's not impossible to explain, you just have to want to explain it. Unfortunately, the media is doing a terrible job at this task. Per Byron Tau, over at The New Republic:

But the way that some journalists are describing it, you'd think the House Democrats were willing a bill into law by magic. "House may try to pass Senate health-care bill without voting on it," blared a Washington Post headline. The Post's only explanation of the tactic came from Nancy Pelosi, who said, "It's more insider and process-oriented than most people want to know."

The Wall Street Journal editorial board went even further, beginning their editorial with a cutesy fairy tale setup:

We're not sure American schools teach civics any more, but once upon a time they taught that under the U.S. Constitution a bill had to pass both the House and Senate to become law. Until this week, that is, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi is moving to merely "deem" that the House has passed the Senate health-care bill and then send it to President Obama to sign anyway.

None of this is new! Does one side want health care and the other side not want health care and nobody wants to compromise? Yay! SHINY HORSE RACE FOR THE MEDIA TO COVER. Who cares if the contention that Nancy Pelosi wants to pass health care reform without a vote is a lie? To the political press, a lie is just an "interesting point of view."

Update On Reconciliation

2010-03-12T10:53:00.003-05:00

Via @KagroX

Republicans have been lying about reconciliation being the "nuclear option" for weeks. So it should come as no surprise that CQ (subscription) now reports:

Republican aides, reporting the decision, interpreted it to mean the House would have to clear the Senate bill and President Obama would have to sign it before the reconciliation bill could be passed. House leaders had been hoping that the two bills could be passed almost simultaneously.

The parliamentarian, however, later reportedly clarified his position to Senate aides, saying that the reconciliation bill could be written in a way that would not require Obama to sign the Senate bill into law before the reconciliation bill is voted on.

Thank you, and have a pleasant day.

If you don't have a CQ subscription, for now you'll have to settle for Politico's story:

[A]ccording to reporting by POLITICO’s David Rogers, the accounts aren’t accurate and misconstrue what the Senate parliamentarians have said. That is that reconciliation must amend law but this could be done without the Senate bill being enacted first. “It is wholly possible to create law and qualify law before the law is on the books,” said one person familiar with situation.

For example, if the big bill itself amends some Social Security statute, reconciliation could be written to do the same --with changes sought by the House. Then if reconciliation is passed and signed by President Barack Obama after he signs the larger bill, the changes made in reconciliation would prevail.
This jives with what Pulse sources were saying soon after the first wave of stories hit – in essence, don’t take the reported parliamentarian’s declaration to the bank.

Fox News... YOU LIE!!

2010-03-02T01:16:00.002-05:00

Rachel Maddow whacks the Republicans and the good folks over at ClusterFox who are aiding and abetting them for trying to conflate reconciliation with the nuclear option.

After playing a clip of Lamar Alexander saying that using reconciliation would be a “political Kamikaze mission” and “the end of the United States Senate” if the Democrats used it to pass the health care bill, Rachel notes Alexander’s hypocrisy on the subject. He was more than happy to use it for the Jobs & Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, the Tax Increase Prevention & Reconciliation Act of 2005 and the College Cost Reduction & Access Act of 2007.

Rachel then calls out all too often guest on the Sunday shows Grandpa McCain for his hypocrisy as well. As Rachel notes, McCain wants to change the Senate rules so reconciliation can’t be used for anything involving entitlements and the John McCain of the past felt a bit differently. McCain voted for the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 with Dick Cheney as the tie breaking vote which slashed Medicaid. McCain voted for the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989 which overhauled the doctor payment system for Medicare.

She goes on to explain that the Republicans are now so desperate to win the debate on health care reform since they have already lost the votes in both houses of the Congress that their last resort is to try to conflate reconciling the two bills with the nuclear option, which would have eliminated the filibuster all together.

Conservatives Target Their Own Fringe

2010-02-28T05:34:00.003-05:00

Via Ken Vogel

After months of struggling to harness the energy of newly engaged tea party activists, the conservative establishment — with critical midterm congressional elections on the horizon — is taking aim for the first time at the movement’s extremist elements.

The move has been cast by some conservatives as a modern version of the marginalization of the far-right, anti-communist John Birch Society during the reorganization of the conservative movement spearheaded by William F. Buckley Jr. in the 1960s and 1970s.

“A similar effort will be required today of conservative political and intellectual leaders,” former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson wrote in his column in The Washington Post. “It will not be easy. Sometimes it takes courage to stand before a large crowd and proclaim that two plus two equals four.”

But for Gerson and other conservatives, this is not just an intellectual exercise. They have a very specific political goal: to deprive Democrats and their allies of a potentially potent weapon to use against the GOP in November.

“I don’t believe we should be giving [extremists] a platform or empowering them to do anything based off their conspiracy theories,” said Ned Ryun, president of American Majority, “because they give the left ammunition to try to define the tea party movement as crazy and fringy.”

The attempt “to clean up our own house,” as Erick Erickson, founder of the influential conservative blog RedState, puts it, is necessary “because traditional press outlets have decided to spotlight these fringe elements that get attracted to the movement, and focus on them as if they’re a large part of this tea party movement. And I don’t think they are.”

Until recently, organizers and activists mostly seemed content to ignore, or in some cases tolerate, extremists in their ranks, confident they’d be drowned out by the hundreds of thousands of activists who took to congressional town halls and marches around the country to protest big-spending initiatives pushed by President Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress.

But inflammatory rhetoric such as former congressman Tom Tancredo’s racially tinged speech at this month’s tea party convention, reports of the involvement of right-wing militia groups and the continued propagation of conspiracy theories about Obama have sometimes cast the movement in an unfavorable light.

Erickson has advised new tea party organizers on how to avoid affiliations with extremists and this month banned birthers — conservatives who believe that Obama was not born in the United States and is, therefore, ineligible to be president — from his blog. (He has long blacklisted truthers, those who believe that the U.S. government was complicit in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks — a conspiracy theory with devotees across the political spectrum.)

“At some point, you have to use the word ‘crazy,’” said Erickson.

Ryun’s American Majority, a group that trains tea party activists and others around the country, has done much the same thing. Its website has moved to close its sessions to activists who identify themselves with the birther, truther or militia movements or the John Birch Society.

Ryun conceded that extremists are involved in the tea party movement. But he said, “It’s just such a small percentage, and it should not be portrayed as representative of the broader movement.”

The fringe fighters’ methods range from censuring signs at rallies or banishing unruly participants completely to challenging the media’s focus on the fringe and highlighting the movement’s diversity and tolerance.

They have gone out of their way, for example, to promote activists and movement-backed candidates of color, including tea party stars Marco Rubio and Allen West, running for U.S. Senate and House, respectively, in Florida, and Texas Senate candidate Michael Williams — all Republicans.

Ryan has another strategy. He has commissioned a poll that he thinks will show that tea partiers share with independent voters a commitment to reducing taxation and government spending and prove that the tea party movement is “very much mainstream.”

But the tea party movement’s decentralized structure, vaguely defined goals and anti-establishment tone make it an attractive place to channel angry feelings. Mainstream media organizations such as The New York Times, which recently ran a 4,500 word story on the infiltration of the movement by a militia-linked group called Oath Keepers, have recently focused on these aspects of the movement.

Independent of their actual numbers, it’s in both political parties’ interests to inflate the influence of the other side’s fringe, said Tom De Luca, a Fordham University political science professor who studies political movements and wrote the 2005 book “Liars! Cheaters! Evildoers! Demonization and the End of Civil Debate in American Politics.”

“That creates this dynamic that seems to exaggerate the influence of the extremes,” De Luca said.

Much as conservatives have sought to link Democrats to environmental extremism or socialism, he said, it’s an obvious countermove for the left to try to link Republicans with the more extreme elements that have gained traction around — and sometimes within — the tea partiers.

So it was that liberals have demanded to know where Republicans stood on Obama’s citizenship, or that last week found left and right debating which side had more in common with Andrew Joseph Stack III, the software developer who crashed his plane into the IRS offices in Austin, Texas.

The left seized on a comment by hard-line conservative Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), reportedly expressing his empathy for the pilot’s anti-tax views. Rush Limbaugh retorted that Stack “sounds like he's blaming Bush and Reagan," asserting that he sounded “almost word for word [like] Nancy Pelosi. Almost word for word [like] Rahm Emanuel and Barack Obama.”

De Luca predicted that another “Bill Buckley moment” will occur only when the political damage done by extremists outweighs the boost the tea party movement has provided to conservatives generally and the Republican Party specifically.

“My guess is their basic stance will be to try to juggle as long as they can,” he said.

That approach — and its drawbacks — were on display at last week’s Conservative Political Action Conference, the annual gathering of Washington’s conservative establishment. It featured the John Birch Society as a co-sponsor. And while conference organizers nixed a panel on Obama’s citizenship, a birther contingent still made its presence felt, as did the Oath Keepers, who co-sponsored the conference.

After filming a brief segment at the conference, liberal MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, a leading tea party antagonist, concluded on her show that “the conservative movement right now is really not afraid to let its freak flag fly. … They‘re happy to show off the ‘we want another revolutionary war,’ ‘we think the black president is arrogant,’ ‘we think the apocalypse is nice’ side of themselves.”

Liberal commentators similarly highlighted the extremism on display at this month’s National Tea Party Convention in Nashville, Tenn., which included a speech by WorldNetDaily Editor Joseph Farah questioning Obama’s citizenship and one by Tancredo asserting Obama was elected because "we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country."

A blogger on the liberal site Daily Kos asserted Tancredo’s speech revealed the “REAL reason” tea partiers are upset: “A black man is President and their White Privelege [sic] is fading.”

Tancredo’s speech was not widely condemned by conservative intellectuals or media, but immediately after Farah delivered his, he was confronted in a hallway outside the convention hall by conservative media entrepreneur and fellow convention speaker Andrew Breitbart, who said it was a disservice to the tea party movement to infer its activists are “all obsessed with the birth certificate, when it’s not a winning issue.”

Others cited the jeering of an anti-gay activist at CPAC who condemned organizers for inviting gay Republican group GOProud to participate. Conservative author and TownHall columnist Ashley Herzog said it was proof that “CPAC, and the conservative movement in general, isn’t a haven for haters after all,” and urged the left to view a video of the incident, which she said is evidence of “a lack of bigotry [that] must be painfully puzzling to liberals.”

Conservatives similarly pushed back against a New York Times blog post that accused a CPAC speaker of ripping Obama “in racial tones," partly by affecting a "Chris Rock voice" to mock the president.

They noted that the speaker — like comedian Rock — is from Brooklyn and speaks with a regional accent, and demanded an apology.

And in a clever Web video that went viral this week, the Dallas Tea Party called out MSNBC host Keith Olbermann, who had mocked the mostly white makeup of the Nashville convention of what he called the "Tea Klux Klan," comparing its racially diverse leadership to MSNBC’s mostly white host lineup.

Judson Phillips, the Nashville tea party activist who organized this month’s convention, said it’s incumbent on local tea party leaders across the country “to control the message and to prevent the tea party movement from being hijacked.”

In the run-up to a July tea party convention he’s planning in Las Vegas, Phillips said, he’s planning to ask speakers “to stick to our message, which is unity headed into the fall.”

A Final Word on the Health Care Summit: President Obama Calmly Fucks the Republicans

2010-02-26T21:21:00.000-05:00

Via RudePundit

A few things up front here: The Senate health care reform bill, as it stands, is not a good bill. The House bill is significantly better in actually achieving, you know, reform of health care. Most Democrats know that. The Senate bill exists in its current form only because of the hope of appeasing conservative Democrats and compromising with Republicans. Everyone in Congress knows that. The Republicans just pretend like they don't. A truly progressive bill is far, far closer to the House than the Senate. Yet many progressives are willing to vote for the Senate version because something has to happen in health care. Are you gonna give up on banning pre-existing conditions? Or dropping coverage? Ask every old time Fuller Brush salesman: You have to get your foot in the door before you can make the final sale.

Also, everyone knew that, ultimately, yesterday's Health Care Summit o' the Good Ship "Bipartisan" was going to fail to do anything. That wasn't the point of the exercise. No, the reason why Democrats and Republicans sat down at the Blair House was so that, at the end of the day, Republicans could not say that they didn't make their case. And if they do (as in complaining about how much President Obama talked), well, there's a few hours of video that prove the opposite.

What Obama did yesterday will either go down as the naive last gasps of hope and change on health care reform or as a stroke of genius, providing cover for Democrats and resuscitating an effort that will progress from the degraded baseline of the current bill. With what seems to be honest-to-Christ momentum towards reconciliation, the Rude Pundit believes the latter. He thinks that Barack Obama calmly, gently, even, fucked the Republicans in the ass yesterday, his well-lubed thrusts just enough to make them comfortable until the very end.

You have heard or will hear from yer awesome CNNMSNBCFox talking heads spewing forth about about Republicans having done well or Democrats having fucked it up. On Morning Starbucks with Joe today, Mark Halperin helpfully offered that the nigger was being uppity when Obama referred to the members of Congress by their first names. Halperin fanned himself frantically and said that Obama was being "disrespectful" and almost "bullying" towards a group of politicians who at various times have accused him of being an evil socialist and trying to destroy the nation by killing old people. Halperin, though, generally has sand in his vagina. Who wants to be the first to show a meeting where Bush did the same thing with no complaints from Mark Halperin?

You may see again and again the clip where Obama and the increasingly creepy John McCain got into it. Or how Obama smacked the fuck out of John Boehner. Or how Obama shut down Eric Kantor. Or how strangely rational Tom Coburn sounded, as the Rude Pundit noted yesterday. But what actually happened yesterday was that Obama kept highlighting how obsessed the Republicans were with process, with whether or not something passes through reconciliation, with the repetition of "start over," although they never really said what starting over would look like. They talked procedure and price. Meanwhile, the Democrats kept bringing it all back to flesh and blood, to stories of people dicked over by insurance companies, people who have no insurance, on and on with endless tales of suffering wrought by the injustice of there being haves and have-nots in this country when it comes to getting dentures or having surgery on a baby. It wasn't showy. It was even really boring at times since both sides stuck to well-worn talking points.

No, it's not a good bill. But it's a bill that will help many, many people. That's the bottom line. It will make insurance companies richer. It will please lobbyists and donors. But it will also help millions of people. That's the fucking trade-off. And the subconsciously subversive part of it is that, in a few years, it will show how ridiculous it is to not have nationalized health care (which is one reason the Rude Pundit thinks that some Republicans oppose it).

Back to the summit: Republicans may not have noticed how well they were being fucked until the end. That's when Obama told them, more or less, "I'm fucking you right now" and thrust his dick in hard. After having offered them every opportunity to say they agree with him on something, Republicans remained recalcitrant. So Obama said, "I've put on the table now some things that I didn't come in here saying I supported, but that I was willing to work with potential Republican sponsors on. I'd like the Republicans to do a little soul searching and find out are there some things that you'd be willing to embrace that get to this core problem of 30 million people without health insurance and dealing seriously with the preexisting condition issue." Of course, Republicans "soul searching" presupposes quite a bit.

That was the tease around the sphincter. It continued, "And the truth of the matter is, is that, politically speaking, there may not be any reason for Republicans to want to do anything. I mean, we can debate what our various constituencies think. I know that -- I don't need a poll to know that most of Republican voters are opposed to this bill and might be opposed to the kind of compromise we could craft. So it would be very hard for you politically to do this." Yeah, it's like they thought they'd get away with just the head.

But then, Obama concluded, "So the question that I'm going to ask myself and I ask of all of you is, is there enough serious effort that in a month's time or a few weeks' time or six weeks' time, we could actually resolve something. And if we can't, then I think we've got to go ahead and make some decisions and then that's what elections are for. We have honest disagreements about the vision for the country and we'll go ahead and test those out over the next several months till November."

That was the final, full-shaft fucking. The President called out the Republicans on their greatest hope, that the failure of health care reform will end the Democratic majority in Congress. Obama told them to bring it. And, most frighteningly for them, he fucked them calmly, like he knows he's right.

Of course, nothing is done until Democrats in Congress actually prove they're not willing to be the bitches of the minority. But, at least for that moment, the President showed who could do the fucking, too.

Anthony Weiner: Hero of the Day

2010-02-25T15:25:00.001-05:00

Via Cesca

Badass. Just badass.

And the Republicans are a pack of pee-pants babies.

Wingnuts' Glenn Beck Backlash: Stop Being A ‘Clown’ Who’s Trying To Divide Conservatives

2010-02-24T05:38:00.002-05:00

Via Amanda Terkel

Over the weekend, Fox News host Glenn Beck delivered a spirited speech to the crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference, where he attacked not only his usual villains — Democrats, Van Jones, and the New Deal — but also the Republican Party, which is supposedly becoming too progressive.

Beck may have received a standing ovation at the convention, but many high-profile conservatives have been less enthusiastic about his GOP criticism. Right-wing pundit Bill Bennett wrote, “The first task of a serious political analyst is to see things as they are. … And there is a difference between the Republican and Democratic parties. To ignore these differences, or propagate the myth that they don’t exist, is not only discouraging, it is dangerous.” The Wall Street Journal’s John Fund said that several Republicans “complained that Mr. Beck is indirectly encouraging third-party candidates to challenge them this year, threatening to divide the conservative vote.”

One of the most prominent voices to jump into the fray is popular right-wing radio host and author Mark Levin, who went on Facebook yesterday and ripped Beck:

I have no idea what philosophy Glenn Beck is promoting. And neither does he. It’s incoherent. One day it’s populist, the next it’s libertarian bordering on anarchy, next it’s conservative but not really, etc. And to what end? I believe he has announced that he is no longer going to endorse candidates because our problems are bigger than politics. Well, of course, our problems are not easily dissected into categories, but to reject politics is to reject the manner in which we try to organize ourselves. [..]

Finally, Beck is fond of congratulating himself for being the only or the first host to criticize George Bush’s spending. This is demonstrably false. … And as someone who fought liberal Republicans in the trenches when campaigning for Reagan in 1976 and 1980, I don’t need lectures from Beck, who was nowhere to be found, about big-spending Republicans.

On his radio show yesterday, Levin added, “Decide what you are. A circus clown, self-identified. Or a thoughtful and wise person. It’s hard to be both. You can’t wear the clown nose and not wear the clown nose at the same time.” He also told Beck to “stop dividing” conservatives at a time when there is unprecedented “unity” in the movement. Listen here:

Levin has been worried about Beck’s ascendancy for some time. In September, Levin repeatedly spoke out when Beck said that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) would have been “worse for the country than Barack Obama” as president, saying, “If you’re not going to be politically sensible and have a strategy and have an end-game, you’ll keep winding up on weekly magazines, you’ll keep making a lot of money, but in the end you won’t make a difference.”

Update Limbaugh also criticized Beck, saying, "I don't know how you can say…that the Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats. It would never occur to me to say that. I don't know what the objective would be."

Republicans Abandon Principles to Pander Right

2010-02-23T07:36:00.003-05:00

Via C&L

Rachel Maddow calls out the Republicans for their rank hypocrisy from everything from the stimulus bill to cap and trade to pay-go to the deficit to the bank bailouts. Rep. Barney Frank weighs in and as usual doesn't pull any punches when calling the GOP out for their double talk.

As Frank notes, there's a difference between someone who votes against something and admits they didn't like it but still wants their district to get some money, and someone who tells you something doesn't work and then takes credit for it and asks for more money. When the Democrats are going to quit acting like the Republicans are honest brokers when it comes to running our government in any way shape or form is beyond me. They don't care about governing. They care about breaking the bank and proving government can't work so they can privatize everything no matter how much more it costs us.

Blago Blacker Than Obama?!

2010-02-21T02:53:00.001-05:00

Via AlphaCat

Judging the CPAC 2010 Conference By It's Swag

2010-02-19T05:42:00.001-05:00

Via Maddow

Road to Recovery

2010-02-18T22:09:00.006-05:00

Via OFA

This new video from Organizing for America and the DNC shows in graphic terms how the stimulus bill stopped the job losses of the Bush Recession and helped put our economy back on the road to recovery.

Obama

2010-02-18T06:17:00.001-05:00

Obama’s First Year Accomplishments in Review

Posted using ShareThis

Rachel Maddow Calls Out Glenn Beck For His Lies About Her: "Back Off"

2010-02-17T18:34:00.002-05:00

Via C&L Video Cafe

Rachel Maddow calls out Beck for editing her criticism of him on her show and making sure his viewers didn't see Rachel calling him out for his bullshit. I had said before that Dylan Ratigan was wasting his time engaging Beck. That's because Ratigan actually thought it would be a good idea to either bring Beck on his show or go on Beck's show. I do not think when Beck lies about one of them they should let it go unchallenged and am glad Rachel Maddow pointed out Beck's hypocrisy here and how he edited her segment. Engaging him is a complete waste of time. He's not going to come on MSNBC any time soon and he sure as hell isn't going to bring either Ratigan or Maddow on his show any time soon and if he did they'd be in some debate box where he could hit the mute button any time he wanted instead of live on his set.

It's useless to even pretend like that might happen in any fair manner, ever, as Ratigan proposed. Calling him out for his bullshit is not. Although I would love to see the idiot try to debate Rachel in person if he wasn't just allowed to yell over her, cut her mike or filibuster the entire time. I would imagine it would be much like Beck bringing a toy knife to an assault rifle fight if he actually had to debate Rachel Maddow on any subject and those were the rules of the game. I hope Rachel doesn't spend too much time on this pissing contest with Beck though because in the end, too much time spent on this serial liar is just a waste of energy. Fox doesn't care how much he lies and neither do his brain dead viewers. Well enough to point it out and move along.

Special Comment: Beware Fear's Racist Temptation

2010-02-15T21:44:00.003-05:00

Via CountDown

The Right Is Claiming Thiessen Won In That Heated MSNBC Exchange? Really?

2010-02-14T03:50:00.005-05:00

Via Anonymous Reader "J"

In other words, O'Donnell had no argument other than a silly ad hominem attack against Thiessen. O'Donnell is a disgrace; that MSNBC gives O'Donnell a platform to spout his venom is a disgrace. Something is wrong with both of them. And they both owe Thiessen (and the Cheney family) apologies.

******

Via The Moderate Voice

Yeah, like fun they do. Here is another view:

The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 changed American politics forever. But in spite of the warning signs raised by the U.S. intelligence community, the Bush administration seemed preoccupied with other issues, aloof to the alleged threat until the day both towers fell.Why then, MSNBC’s liberal host Keith Olbermann asked on Friday night, is it “taboo” to blame the Bush administration for allowing the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans on their watch?

His conclusion: For their lack of vigilance and because they “did not prioritize,” President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are to be faulted for the attacks.

Provoked by former Bush and Rumsfeld speechwriter Marc Thiessen’s allegation that President Obama is “inviting” another attack, Olbermann noted that when President Bush was warned by the CIA that terrorists were targeting the United States and may be planning to use airliners, Bush replied, “All right, you’ve covered your ass now” and proceeded to do nothing about it.

More details about the Olbermann segment, including his interview of O’Donnell (and yes, there was a lot more to it than the part about Thiessen’s personal background), are at Raw Story.

******

Via Raw Story

During an appearance Friday on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Thiessen began by telling host Joe Scarborough, "Barack Obama has eliminated the CIA's interrogation program, which is the single most successful and important intelligence program in the war on terror and possibly in the history of the CIA. ... You've got to think back to the period after 9/11. We didn't even know who hit us. ... This program is why we did not have another 9/11."
O'Donnell wasn't buying it, however. He told Thiessen, "You actually published a book that says that the president of the United States ... 'is inviting the next attack.' Isn't it true that the president you worked for invited the first attack by having no idea what was going on with al Qaeda?"
By this point, Scarborough had already begun attempting to cut O'Donnell off, repeatedly saying, "Lawrence, that's ridiculous," but O'Donnell continued inexorably.
"You just admitted that when you were hit on 9/11, you just said, 'We didn't know who hit us,'" O'Donnell stated. "You were told who was going to hit you before we were hit on 9/11, and your administration invited the first attack -- for which you should live in shame!"
As Thiessen attempted to respond by counting up the number of terrorist incidents under the Clinton administration and O'Donnell continued to talk over him, Scarborough finally jumped in to say, "We're going to break, right now ... and I'm going to be interviewing Marc by myself."

Related: APRIL 10, 2004--Under pressure from the September 11 commission, the White House today declassified and released an intelligence digest given to President George W. Bush weeks before the 2001 terrorist attacks. The confidential President's Daily Brief (PDB) for August 6, 2001 contained a two-page section entitled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US"

RELATED: O’Donnell shouts down ‘enhanced interrogation’ defender

Related: Marc Thiessen: Defending Human Torture With A Lie

Lawrence O'Donnell on Friday's Morning Joe

2010-02-13T04:47:00.001-05:00

Via Cesca

This was an unbelievable display. I'm not talking about O'Donnell, but former Rummy speechwriter Marc Thiessen playing the "Who us?" card regarding 9/11. The Republicans are pathological regarding those attacks. They're in utter denial. And as soon as Lawrence O'Donnell calls out their bullshit, Scarborough cuts him off and throws to commercial.

Thiessen, by the way, has been justifying torture for some time now. Most recently in an online back-and-forth with Matt Yglesias, Thiessen insisted that waterboarding isn't like the Spanish Inquisition's waterboarding because the Bushies didn't tie down their victims. Good people.

Nevertheless, I love it how Scarborough constantly plays the "civil discourse" card and the "I'm not a radical ideologue" card -- until the subject of terrorism and torture comes up. Then he's shouting people down (as he did with Krystia Freeland), and cutting people off, and calling them crazy (O'Donnell), and saying they're too stupid to be on television (Jesse Ventura).

Spare us the self-righteous lessons in civil debate, Joe.

One more thing. For the record, the Library Tower plot in Los Angeles was thwarted long before KSM was captured, so it's a lie to suggest that waterboarding KSM somehow prevented the attack.

Taking Palin Seriously

2010-02-11T09:28:00.002-05:00

Via CQPolitics

On the same day a poll shows the vast majority of Americans don't think Sarah Palin is qualified to be president, two old-line pundits say she must be taken seriously.

Joe Klein: "The Obama presidency certainly hasn't ushered in an era of comity and prosperity. In the end, though, Palin is offering the opposite of hope and change: despair and stasis. The despair is histrionic and purposefully distorted; the stasis proved disastrous during the Bush Administration. But is Sarah Palin the favorite to win the Republican presidential nomination and therefore someone to be taken absolutely seriously? You betcha."

David Broder: "Those who want to stop her will need more ammunition than deriding her habit of writing on her hand. The lady is good.

___

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds 71% of Americans do not feel that Sarah Palin is qualified to be President.

Interestingly, just 45% of Republicans think she is qualified as compared to 66% who thought she was during the presidential campaign.

Rick Klein: "The poll shows a big drop in her favorability rating since Palin's book launched in November -- the event that marked her reemergence into an active presence in public life."

Just Go Stand Over There Somewhere...

March 2010 "Awake The State" Rally

So... About Those Unemployment Figures

#Twittergate - Hilarious! But As Implicated... Not Me

GOP ‘Young Guns’ House Nominee Loves Playing Nazi Dress-Up

Donald Duck Discovers Glenn Beck in “Right Wing Radio Duck”

Answers For Glenn Greenwald; Yes, We Are At War

Crony Capitalism: Wall Street’s Favorite Politicians

Douchebag James O’Keefe Tries To Get CNN Reporter Onto His Dildo Lube Boat

A Political Blowjob

Jon Stewart Highlights the GOP's Groundbreaking Same Old Ideas

Republicans' "Pledge to America" Falls Short On Some of Its Facts.

Can We Please Learn From TeaBaggery Mistakes?

GOP to Tea Party: Your Votes Yes, Your Ideas No!

GOP 'Pledge For America' Author Lobbied For AIG, Exxon, Pfizer, Chamber

DE-Sen: O'Donnell, In Her Own Words

Kinda Makes Me Sad For Them... Almost

DE-Sen: Fight! Fight! Fight!

Teabagger Values: Racism, Pornography, Beastiality...

Why Do They All Keep Saying We're Racist?

David Bowie - Heroes @ Concert For New York City

Articulating The Message (or just typical straight up GOP lying)

It's the Stupid, Stupid

They "Try and Thrawrt Attempts at Expanding the State, Period."

Daniel Larison on Erik Kain and Conservatism

The Closing of the Conservative Mind

Just a Reminder for the Civil Rights Revisionists

Election 2010 Map: Track House, Senate and Governor Races

New Favored Conservative Term: "Tanking"

Republican Party Only Winning Key 2010 Poll In Southern States

Andrew Breitbart’s Video ‘Evidence’ Of Lying Congressmen Is Anything But

Rep. Inglis Tells All: GOP using racism, demagoguery in response to Obama.

Documentary: 'Rise of the New Right' Premieres Wednesday, June 16

TN GOP State Rep.: Some People Pay For Health Care With Vegetables

Why Are Republicans Mum On Financial Regulation?

The Big Admission?

Tea Partiers In Tax Day Protests Try To Explain Why They're Against Obama

Michele Bachmann Convinced Bill Clinton Wants Her Dead

Bring a Chicken!

Halperin Takes A Stand

Memories of the Backwards B

Lies Lies Lies

Teabaggers Are Racist Against Orly Taitz

The Tea Party Prank

Meet the 'Patriots'

Teabagger Paladino Confronted on Racist Emails

Tea Party Hero and NY Gov Candidate Always Sending Racist/Porno Emails

Meet Gregory Giusti

Uh, Oh... Bad Language. Conservatives Will Be Upset

Flashback: Steele Said He Doesn’t Play “Race Game,” Claimed Dems Do

Let Them Eat Fake

Rachel Maddow to GOP: "You have to stop threatening to shoot people and stop making stuff up!"

You know what's fun 2 read...?

While Andrew Breitbart Is Outraged Over Thrown Eggs...

Going To Extremes:The Obama Era's Top Ten Anti-Government Flare-Ups

Did Hannity Call His Audience "Tim McVeigh Wannabes"?

Cantor's "Backwards B" Moment.

The GOP Response to the Intimidation Campaign Against Democrats

NY Congressman Gets Threatening Letter

Violence Map: A Guide To Recent Vandal Attacks On Democrats

Go David Shuster!

An Open Letter To Conservatives

Emboldened Extremist Right Incites Violence

Right-Wing Terrorism

Demand the GOP Stop Inciting and Supporting Hate

GOP Getting Smaller in History's Rear View Mirror

On the Appeal of Repeal

Latest Capitol Hill Anti-HCR Rally Running Smoothly, Politely

Tyranny, From Tim McVeigh To Ginny Thomas

Daily Show's Stewart Reprises Beck Impersonation

Tea Partiers Once Again Attacking Congress With Crazy Signs

Health Care Debate Ends With Falsehood That House Will Pass Bill 'Without A Vote'

Update On Reconciliation

Fox News... YOU LIE!!

Conservatives Target Their Own Fringe

A Final Word on the Health Care Summit: President Obama Calmly Fucks the Republicans

Anthony Weiner: Hero of the Day

Wingnuts' Glenn Beck Backlash: Stop Being A ‘Clown’ Who’s Trying To Divide Conservatives

Republicans Abandon Principles to Pander Right

Blago Blacker Than Obama?!

Going To Extremes:
The Obama Era's Top Ten Anti-Government Flare-Ups