The Thinker--or Just Sitting Around?

Quotable: Dylan Ratigan Quotes A Racist

2012-01-27T18:28:00.001-06:00

"As Ron Paul once told me, 'politicians simply go whichever way the wind blows, and it is our job to change the direction of the wind.'"

~ Dylan Ratigan, of MSNBC, closing yesterday's ~~vacation report~~ show.

Really. How forcefully has Dylan tried to change the direction of the evil wind of racism and anti-Semitism in Ron Paul's newsletters? It makes little difference when they were written, as long as Congressman Ron Paul was an adult at the time, having reached the age of reason, consent, and personal responsibility. The capacity for blind rationalization by Ron Paul sympathizers is amazing. It isn't just the meek acceptance of absurd excuses, namely that he did not write the newsletters and was unaware of their content. It's the unquestioning acceptance of Paul's evolving contradictions, that his statements were taken "out of context" or happened too long ago to be relevant today.

That's patently ridiculous, but apparently true believers like Dylan Ratigan continue drinking the Kool-Aid. Even Rachel, who should know better, samples the devil's brew. They choose to believe the excuses. The rest is hidden in a penumbra which cannot be perceived without special truth spectacles as supporters continue writing tortuous justifications for immorality. (Question for Rachel: how many straight non-homophobes that you know refer to gays as "queers"?)

Here's the thing. Some people want so hard to believe Paul's mild-mannered demeanor cannot possibly conceal the ugly bigotry of an authentic paleolibertarian (which is just a fancy word for bigot) that they have totally overlooked the fact Paul has already damned himself with his own words. Ron Paul's protestations, (a) that he was unaware of his newsletter racist eruptions, and (b) he didn't read them, i.e., he only knew of the topics, writ large, are lies. In the May 22, 1996 issue of the Dallas Morning News, Paul, "who is running in Texas' 14th Congressional District, defended his writings in an interview ... He said they were being taken out of context." Really? What "context" is needed for this (emphasis mine):

Dr. Ron Paul, a Republican congressional candidate from Texas, wrote in his political newsletter in 1992 that 95 percent of the black men in Washington, D.C., are "semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

He also wrote that black teenagers can be "unbelievably fleet of foot." [...]

According to a Dallas Morning News review of documents circulating among Texas Democrats, Dr. Paul wrote in a 1992 issue of the Ron Paul Political Report: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be."

In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

"If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said.

He also said the comment about black men in the nation's capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia.

Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: "Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"These aren't my figures," Dr. Paul said Tuesday. "That is the assumption you can gather from" the report.

In subsequent news reports, Paul spokesman Michael Sullivan deflected the racism charges with more rationalizations, also providing the six degrees of separation and "plausible deniability" that have become the crutch of Ron Paul's excuses for his racism today. Here is a typical series of Sullivan rationalizations:

"Dr. Paul is being quoted out of context," [Paul spokesman Michael] Sullivan said. "It's like picking up War and Peace and reading the fourth paragraph on Page 481 and thinking you can understand what's going on." [...]

Also in 1992, Paul wrote, "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions."

Sullivan said Paul does not consider people who disagree with him to be sensible. And most blacks, Sullivan said, do not share Paul's views. The issue is political philosophy, not race, Sullivan said.

"Polls show that only about 5 percent of people with dark-colored skin support the free market, a laissez faire economy, an end to welfare and to affirmative action," Sullivan said. [...]

"You have to understand what he is writing. Democrats in Texas are trying to stir things up by using half-quotes to impugn his character," Sullivan said. "His writings are intellectual. He assumes people will do their own research, get their own statistics, think for themselves and make informed judgments."

This passage concisely sums up why Paul supporters earnestly split hairs making specious distinctions between racism and the "political philosophy" in Ron Paul's "intellectual" writings. Since "polls show that only about 5 percent of people with dark-colored skin support the free market, a laissez faire economy, an end to welfare and to affirmative action," and "Paul does not consider people who disagree with him to be sensible," therefore, according to Ron Paul, "only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions."

This is typical of Ron Paul's sophistry, his circular logic and arrogant false syllogism whose reasoning depends entirely on the infallibility of Paul's political libertarian philosophy. No wonder Paul's cult of supporters are so, well, characteristically fanatical and cult-ish. Even worse is the inherent racism of such spurious claims.

On the one hand, Paul denies being a racist, suggesting his paleolibertarianism does not distinguish or discriminate by groups or classes of people; yet on the other hand he does precisely that, with generalizations based on polls or studies. It's a convenient way of dismissing 400 years of slavery and racism, a bloody civil war that claimed 600,000 lives, Jim Crow, and the resulting civil rights and voting rights legislation. As long as we follow those constitutional provisions we like and do others no harm, there is no need for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits racism and discrimination based on sex or ethnicity. Ron Paul would have voted against it. How quaint.

Ron Paul's political philosophy isn't centered on reality. The reality is that Ron Paul cannot point to a single solitary historical example of a government that was based on his political philosophical abstractions. His isn't a prescription for "liberty"; it's a roadmap to anarchy and authoritarianism, to exploitation of the weak, the poor, and the elderly — our most vulnerable citizens.

Dylan Ratigan might overlook Ron Paul's hideous and unresolved racist past with a fortune cookie message from this rather pathetic oracle of the misguided and the ignorant. But we should not. (Youth and inexperience are no longer credible excuses for Mr. flip-flops Ratigan ... or is he barefoot?) Quite the contrary. As an MSNBC host with a big megaphone, Ratigan has a responsibility to report the truth and to condemn racism in all its forms.

Meanwhile, back at Dylan's Magical Mystery Jobs Tour, the cocktails with the cherries and little umbrellas (to better protect them from the economy's ill winds) are just off-camera ... How about that for an envy-causing, midriff-growing gig; Dylan, you bon vivant rascal:

Unofficial "Official" Drudge Poll Gives Romney Double-Digit Win

2012-01-26T23:56:00.000-06:00

This Drudge Report internet poll with a large voting sample finds Mitt Romney the winner of tonight's debate by some 11 points, double digits. Bad news for Newt, and inexcusable for the President of the Moon. Keep in mind, the Drudge Report is the unofficial "official" page of the GOP Establishment. Hey, I did my part; I voted for Newt, though I know Mittens won. (Ron Paul is the control; he didn't win, not on the merits; and he needs to get a proper fitting suit.) Count me among the +/- sampling error. Just too many wingnuts, too few of us to skew the results.

Newt Raises White Flag, Will Lose Florida to Romney

2012-01-26T21:31:00.001-06:00

Newt Gingrich's lack of combativeness after taking a few hits from Mittens was demonstrated by his wimping out and calling for "a truce" while whining about attacks on him from Romney proxies and distortions of his record by Romney's air attacks. Meanwhile, Romney has outspent his rivals by a mile, and this was Newt's crucial opportunity to level the playing field. He failed.

Gingrich, the celebrated attack dog, folded almost completely, effectively conceding Florida and the race. It was Rick Santorum that attacked Romney's healthcare vulnerability, while Ron Paul made the 99% v. the 1% transfer of wealth argument. Newt Gingrich, by contrast, was flat and never followed up on any of this. He seemed shellshocked by the Romney Machine blitzkrieg. He never raised the tax issue and refused to talk about the Swiss bank and Cayman Islands accounts when given the chance, which was baffling. Instead, Gingrich fell back on his standard tactic of attacking the questioner, Wolf Blitzer. Only this time it was a strained and feeble attack.

The question is why? Either Gingrich got bad tactical advice to pull his punches in the one forum, the debates, in which he has excelled, and where he can achieve parity with Romney and his unlimited funds. Or, as is more likely, Gingrich was told by the Republican Establishment mafia, in no uncertain terms, to back off otherwise he will be treated by them as a total pariah. That's pretty heavy stuff. The trade-off? Romney's sweetener, saying he would consider Newt as a Veep candidate, or for a cabinet position. Unfortunately, it seems Newt was neutered by Romney's Establishment juggernaut. After the debate a cocky Mittens said, "when I'm attacked I'll return fire. I'm no shrinking violet." This last sentence, a line from Romney 'unofficial' adviser and MSNBC Republican Establishment mole, Michael Steele. (Visions of Steele and Capus high-fiving.)

Party's over.

Battle of Jacksonville: Preview of Tonight's GOP SLUGFEST!!

2012-01-26T18:49:00.001-06:00

In political campaign buttons ... and cartoon: Mr. 1% versus "Still Crazy After All These Years" ... The Ghost of Republican Presidential Wipeouts Past ... President Obama Pummels 32 Years of Trickle-Down Reaganomics ...

HAD ENOUGH?!

MITT & NEWT PUTTIN' ON THE RITZ ...

Amazing Grace: Gabby Giffords

2012-01-26T10:35:00.000-06:00

Apple of Mitch Daniels’ Eye

2012-01-26T09:45:00.001-06:00

Just like everyone else in the known universe — including socialist ascetic Lawrence O’Donnell interrupted by a planted on-camera call to boast he was still trying to figure out how to turn off “my new iPhone” — I use Apple products. But when I saw Scott ‘41’ Brown hawk an iPad at a Senate hearing, Chuckles Toddy balance one on his hand like a Georgetown waiter, and Beltway Media pals Jonathan 'GQ' Capehart et al line up their iPads like iconic status symbols on ‘Now’ with Alex Wagner, there was an uneasy sense Apple had crossed the unhip Rubicon into the Dark Side. Now, if we can only capture Gramps McCain using one, the Apple mystique will be permanently shattered. In the meantime, this dark story of outsourcing and globalization will have to do. Here’s why Apple arouses the Republican Erogenous Zone.

Mitch Daniels, DARKMAN of The Apocalypse

2012-01-26T09:26:00.000-06:00

In which Rachel perfectly captures Mitch Daniels' Doom-and-Gloom End of Days VITUPERATIONS while Mr. 'Adee-Tude' says, "I'm still LOVIN' it!"

DISRESPECTFUL WITCH!

2012-01-25T21:05:00.002-06:00

The Wicked Witch of The West, Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona, seen here wagging a bony finger at the President of the United States. "Welcoming" the President at the airport tarmac in Phoenix, Arizona. The President took issue with something she'd written in her book about their meeting that he was "condescending" and had "lectured" her. A condition known to Brewer as being President while black. Whereupon she mounted her broom and flew back to her Witch's Lair.

PARTY OF LIARS: You Wouldn't Know It Listening To Mr. 'Adee-Tude'

2012-01-25T17:46:00.004-06:00

Granted, instant punditry and "analysis" is an oxymoron, but Chris Matthews' deluded Americana fantasy, as usual, takes the cake. (I'm keeping a list of major myths Matthews mouths, including: "Only in America ..." Get back to me when you've elected a true working class hero president who went on to become the world's most popular elected leader ever, succeeded by a woman president, which by the way has happened in countless other democracies on three continents except the United States. Just for starters; we'll revisit other myths, but I digress.)

Fortunately, Rachel tossed cold water on Chris's gushing praise for Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels' Republican response to the SOTU. "I could not disagree more," she told an irritated Mr. 'Adee-Tude' who had just asserted Daniels' speech was "midwestern conservatism at its best", "honest values fiscal conservatism" that said the "rich can't plunder the poor anymore." I'm still searching for this passage.

Indeed, Rachel reminded us that Daniels "was George W. Bush's Budget Director," in a gem of understatement, "which does cast a bit of a penumbra on his own comments about fiscal responsibility." In short, the man who was the principal architect of Bush's failed, castastrophic economic policies was cast, in a classic role of doubling down on the failed Republican ideology of Reaganomics, as if nothing has happened in the intervening 12 years, let alone the past 32 years, to bring us to this place.

Daniels even resorted to the time-tested propaganda technique of doubling down on the GOP's most glaring ideological weakness and owning it with the "Big Lie": "The President's grand experiment in trickle-down government has held back rather than sped economic recovery." It's an obvious lie, but the notable phrase is "trickle-down government" which attempts to wipe clean 32 disastrous years of "trickle-down Reaganomics" that gutted our economy and the middle class but was a boon for vulture crony capitalists.

Perhaps Rachel was rightly offended by the benign characterization of one of the villains of our economic distress who is now visiting on Indiana the same toxic and disastrous policies he championed under George W. Bush. If he can reinvent himself and pull the wool so completely over Matthews' eyes, which must have surprised Rachel (but not me), her reaction was to push back hard. Her instinct was right. Few people know better what's going on in those red state laboratories of right wing radicalism than Rachel, reporting nightly on the Republican wave of terror sweeping aside Chris's (and Romney's) amber waves of grain.

Chris's assertion that Daniels is a "responsible" Republican, like the fantasy-lie that Mitt Romney has not called President Obama a "European socialist," is another attempt to fit the political debate to his rose-tinted worldview, unable to confront the reality of right wing extremism at all levels of the Republican Party. If "responsible" and inclusive government is presiding over a Democratic Party in rebellion which refuses to be a rubber-stamp quorum for union-busting "right-to-work" legislation in Indiana, backed by the hardest-hitting union in the world, the NFL Players Union some 10 days before the Super Bowl in Indiana (which is so cool), how far can Michigan-style "emergency rule", voter disenfranchisement, and a militarized police crackdown on popular protest and revolt be?

What fictional "midwestern conservatism" is Chris Matthews channeling from Mitch Daniels, faced with the triple-dose reality of radical right wing extremism from Daniels' comrades, Rick Snyder in Michigan, and Scott Walker in Wisconsin? What Chris heard in Daniels' Republican response to the SOTU was a different speech from the one Rachel and I heard. Here are some of Mitch Daniels' cascading lies from the Party of Liars:

"[President Obama] cannot claim that the last three years have made things anything but worse." Really. Unemployment is still too high, but is down around 8.5%. Jobs were hemorrhaging by the hundreds of thousands after the President took over from Bush, with an economy in freefall. Mr. Obama has presided over a steady and consistent positive jobs growth in the private sector — 22 consecutive months. Furthermore, the economic outlook would have been far better had Daniels' partisans done their patriotic duty and cooperated on several jobs and infrastructure bills with the President, instead of obstructing government.

Even Mitt Romney had to acknowledge the economy is improving. Oops.

As Rachel noted, the rhetorical fig leaves and bromides are a thinly-veiled disguise for the same old Republican fear-mongering — "be afraid, be very afraid." In stark contrast to the President's optimistic message, Daniels said, darkly: "In our economic stagnation and indebtedness, we are only a short distance behind Greece, Spain, and other European countries now facing economic catastrophe." Not even close. Perhaps if he'd mentioned Britain, France, and Germany, countries that are on much more solid economic footing, we wouldn't need to call him a demagogue.

Daniels has outlined the problem of unemployment but offered no solutions: "Those punished most by the wrong turns of the last three years are those unemployed or underemployed tonight, and those so discouraged that they have abandoned the search for work altogether". But he was silent on his party's cruel, mean-spirited, and misguided approach to the unemployed, eagerly slashing benefits and throwing them out on the street to fend for themselves. His own privatization nightmare and benefits-slashing in Indiana belies the empty rhetoric and cruel GOP propaganda that says one thing and does another. Meaningless words. Propaganda so skillful that it even fools Chris Matthews.

This lie is particularly offensive, given its brazenness, bred, I believe, from Republicans' instinctual contempt for working class and middle class people, and the poor: "Contrary to the President's constant disparagement of people in business, it's one of the noblest of human pursuits. The late Steve Jobs — what a fitting name he had — created more of them than all those stimulus dollars the President borrowed and blew." Steve Jobs was admirable in many ways; but creating vast numbers of jobs in America was not one of them. In fact, when asked directly by President Obama why those Apple production jobs in China, Asia, and Europe cannot be made in America, Jobs replied bluntly: "Those jobs are gone forever." Here is Steve Jobs' checkered job-creation history vis-a-vis the United States:

Apple employs 43,000 people in the United States and 20,000 overseas ... Many more people work for Apple’s contractors: an additional 700,000 people engineer, build and assemble iPads, iPhones and Apple’s other products. But almost none of them work in the United States. Instead, they work for foreign companies in Asia, Europe and elsewhere, at factories that almost all electronics designers rely upon to build their wares.

“Apple’s an example of why it’s so hard to create middle-class jobs in the U.S. now,” said Jared Bernstein, who until last year was an economic adviser to the White House.

“If it’s the pinnacle of capitalism, we should be worried.”

Even more disturbing is Apple's child labor problem, which is a big Republican talking point. Newt Gingrich claims it builds character, not exploitation. Former House Republican whip Tom "The Hammer" DeLay proclaimed the sweatshop child labor horrors of the U.S. Mariana Islands territories while on a visit there to be "the future of capitalism".

And, of course, no Republican "response" would be complete without the obligatory LIE that the stimulus bill did not work or create any jobs:

The Facts: A more accurate jobs count may come from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which estimates the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, also known as the stimulus bill, "increased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million" in the second quarter of 2010 alone. The budget office also states that well over half a million jobs were funded in each of the other three quarters of 2010.

Even factoring in the 700,000 jobs Apple created in China, Asia, and Europe, which to Republicans, the kings of outsourcing American jobs, are all part of the mix so long as the foreign jobs are provided by an American company, the Steve Jobs overall job-creation record isn't even close to the millions of jobs created by the stimulus bill. Indeed, Mitch Daniels, that "honest" midwestern conservative is quite a devotée of the "Big Lie" and fuzzy math. Here he is, once again lying about the Keystone pipeline:

"The extremism that stifles the development of homegrown energy, or cancels a perfectly safe pipeline that would employ tens of thousands, or jacks up consumer utility bills for no improvement in either human health or world temperature, is a pro-poverty policy."

Please. The President answered the energy issue quite completely in the SOTU. It's a winning argument for him in this re-election campaign. The purpose of the EPA is to balance environmental concerns and public health issues against our energy needs. Were it up to these wholly-owned Republican puppets of the Oil and Gas industry, we'd be drilling the Grand Canyon and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The alarming rise in fracking, a little known and poorly regulated danger to our environment and health is already generating man-made earthquakes and polluting underground fresh water reservoirs. This new breed of Republican is eons removed from true environmentalists like Teddy Roosevelt and even Richard Nixon. Nixon created the EPA after our rivers began catching fire. It's those rivers of fire to which Republicans aim to return, so long as they're not in their backyards.

As for the inflated jobs figures, well they're LIES, of course. Here are the facts about the Keystone pipeline and jobs:

Transcanada (TRP), the energy giant bidding to build the pipeline, projects the undertaking would create 20,000 jobs in the U.S., including 13,000 positions in construction and 7,000 in manufacturing.

That figure, based on a report by a consulting firm hired by Transcanada to assess the project's economic impact, has been widely cited by Keystone backers on Capitol Hill. Other estimates advanced by supporters of the pipeline have been even more optimistic, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce claiming it could create 250,000 permanent U.S. jobs.

But subsequent analysis suggests that Keystone's job-creating potential is more modest. The U.S. State Department calculated last year that the underground pipeline would add 5,000 to 6,000 U.S. jobs. One independent review of Keystone puts that number even lower, with the Cornell University Global Labor Institute finding that the pipeline would add only 500 to 1,400 temporary construction jobs. The authors of the September report also said that much of the new employment stemming from Keystone would be outside the U.S.

Transcanada itself cast doubt on its employment forecast when a vice president for the company told CNN last fall that the 20,000 jobs Keystone would create were temporary and that the project would likely yield only "hundreds" of permanent positions.

I think we've had just about enough LIES, don't you Chris? Hello? Imagine this: Chuckles Toddy saying to Mitch Daniels: "Would it be fair to say, that you've told one LIE after another in your response to the SOTU? Here are the facts" — (see above.) That'll Be The Day. Rachel is right. There was no "shining city on a hill." At least not on this planet. Maybe Krypton; and we know what happened there.

SOTU Speech Coverage — ABYSMAL CAMERA WORK

2012-01-24T21:31:00.003-06:00

Memo To The White House Press Office: DO NOT, repeat, do not distribute advance copies of the President's SOTU speech to the networks. Otherwise, IMBECILE producers will cut away from the high points, marked on the text, to some EXPRESSIONLESS LOG in the audience: Israel — Chuck Schumer; Tax Policy — Warren Buffett's secretary; Foreign Policy — Hillary; Education — Arne Duncan; The Osama mission — JCS. Etc., etc.

Fine, show the LOGS; but THREE SECONDS IS ENOUGH! NO LOG IS MORE COMPELLING THAN THE PRESIDENT HITTING A HIGH NOTE. YOU MISSED 7 OF 10 HIGH NOTES TRAINING YOUR STUPID, MORONIC, LAZY CAMERAS ON THE AUDIENCE LOGS. So, Jay Carney. Please. No more advance copies and special briefings for the Beltway Media; YOU VASTLY OVERESTIMATE THE COMPETENCE OF THESE CLOWNS!

A Tale of Two Elitists: Swiss Cheese And K Street

2012-01-24T12:36:00.005-06:00

This is what it's like when a ~~one-percenter~~ 0.006 percenter runs for president. Depending on the calculus, who'd a thunk Newt and President Obama are 99 percenters by comparison? Mitt Romney paid virtually no payroll taxes because, unlike most working Americans, he earned virtually no income. He didn't have a regular job, he paid a far lower taxable rate on his sizable investments — unearned income.

Mittens parked his investments in British overseas colonial territories Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, as well as in a Swiss bank account (Luxembourg too), where transnational millionaires and billionaires conceal their ill-gotten — or maybe not — gains, no questions asked.

Not exactly the politics of envy. The politics of privilege, yes. And considering Mittens' riff against those terrible European social welfare states, he certainly took advantage of one European social welfare benefit for mega-rich transnational tax evaders, crony capitalists, and money launderers that is out of reach for most regular folks in the 99 percent.

Interestingly, considering Mittens' Mexico family ties, it's quite possible his Swiss bank account gave Mittens one other thing in common with Mexico. Drug lords. Mittens closed his Swiss bank account in 2010 because it might be "politically embarrassing." Oops. The proverbial closing the barn door Swiss bank account after the war horse ran off.

Quite the company he keeps.

It's not about envy. No one begrudges Romney for being rich and successful. But it is about how he made his millions, as a crony vulture capitalist, and about basic fairness, paying his fair share. Mittens had a tax rate of 14%, give or take some chump change in the hundreds of thousands. Newt paid his taxes at 31% and President Obama at 26%. Like the vast majority of Americans. It's about the fairness of the tax code that taxes earned income from workers who get a paycheck at twice the rate of those in the top 1-to-5 percent whose unearned income is from investments.

Newt the "historian" earned his $25,000 monthly historian's salary from Freddie Mac. With a fat paycheck. He leased K Street offices without being "a lobbyist." Rather, he was a venerable "influence peddler" which is a kinder way of saying consultant, trading his Washington insider's experience for dollars. That makes Newt a "populist" by today's Republican electorate standards, railing against the Washington and media "elites."

So, the choice comes down to a sleazy, pompous, grandiose, opportunistic, influence-peddling politician versus a rarefied one-percent multi-millionaire elitist. Strangely enough, that gives Newt the inside track on being the genuine article, in the grand tradition of corrupt American politics.

We don't elect kings, do we? That's what the American Revolution was all about.

58 SECOND FLAT POST-GOP DEBATE ANALYSIS: Bumpy Ride; Newt On Cruise Control.

2012-01-23T23:02:00.001-06:00

BRIAN WILLIAMS: PLEASE DO NOT LET RICK SANTORUM SLIDE TONIGHT

2012-01-23T17:47:00.001-06:00

This is the kind of ignorant bigotry in the Republican Party that should no longer be tolerated; don't be intimidated by Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich attacking the media with false charges of a "gotcha" question. Seconding what Bob Schrum said: The question and clarification from Mr. Santorum NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED TONIGHT.

An ignorant, racist woman at a Santorum event falsely charged President Obama with being a Muslim (nothing wrong if he were, other than her bigotry) and OUTRAGEOUSLY charged him with not being legally and constitutionally our President. Even more OUTRAGEOUS, unlike John McCain's honorable rebuttal to similar bigotry four years ago, Rick Santorum said NOTHING to correct these falsehoods. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich should be reminded, as Catholics, of their Church calling on them "to reject the politics of racial division":

An Open Letter to Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum

As Catholic leaders who recognize that the moral scandals of racism and poverty remain a blemish on the American soul, we challenge our fellow Catholics Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum to stop perpetuating ugly racial stereotypes on the campaign trail. Mr. Gingrich has frequently attacked President Obama as a “food stamp president” and claimed that African Americans are content to collect welfare benefits rather than pursue employment. Campaigning in Iowa, Mr. Santorum remarked: “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money.” Labeling our nation’s first African-American president with a title that evokes the past myth of “welfare queens” and inflaming other racist caricatures is irresponsible, immoral and unworthy of political leaders.

Some presidential candidates now courting “values voters” seem to have forgotten that defending human life and dignity does not stop with protecting the unborn. We remind Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Santorum that Catholic bishops describe racism as an “intrinsic evil” and consistently defend vital government programs such as food stamps and unemployment benefits that help struggling Americans. At a time when nearly 1 in 6 Americans live in poverty, charities and the free market alone can’t address the urgent needs of our most vulnerable neighbors. And while jobseekers outnumber job openings 4-to-1, suggesting that the unemployed would rather collect benefits than work is misleading and insulting.

As the South Carolina primary approaches, we urge Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Santorum and all presidential candidates to reject the politics of racial division, refrain from offensive rhetoric and unite behind an agenda that promotes racial and economic justice.

Francis X. Doyle
Associate General Secretary
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (retired)

Sisters of Mercy of the Americas Institute Leadership Team:
Sisters Patricia McDermott, RSM (President) Eileen Campbell, RSM Anne Curtis, RSM Mary Pat Gavin, RSM Deborah Troillett, RSM

Mittens Are Off! Preview of Tonight's GOP Debate ...

2012-01-23T12:25:00.002-06:00

"Goodbye, Mr. [ ? ]. That is the sound of INEVITABILITY; the sound of your death."

SUPE'S ON, GIANTS v. PATS IN THE SUPER BOWL — BIG EDDIE CRIES AGAIN!

2012-01-22T22:07:00.001-06:00

NOT REALLY ... I'm sure he's not so upset. But now Big Eddie's tears are a Giants lucky charm, so we gotta keep doing what works:

Chuck Todd Skeert Stephen Colbert Will "Marginalize" The Republican Party

2012-01-22T15:56:00.001-06:00

As MSNBC consumers we must endure Chuck Todd, their "political director" (a meaningless title, truly) and his trusted iPad taking incoming direct hits from CNN's John King. By ideological disposition Chuck should be working for FOX rather than crunching political numbers (OK) at MSNBC while carrying water for the Republican Party (not OK) every chance he gets. But the Republican Establishment may not be so monolithic after all. Evidently, Chuck missed his pick-up hoops game with Republican strategist John Feehery, hence he didn't get the memo, so to speak.

In a rare outside "the office" moment, Todd let his guard down giving us a rare glimpse inside the peculiar and bizarre mind of the Idiot Punditocracy. Commenting on Stephen Colbert's SuperPac shenanigans in South Carolina, whose "schtick" as Chuck puts it is training a spotlight on the madness of unlimited anonymous money in politics, Chuck allowed as it was a "noble" effort, then followed up with this jaw-dropping assertion:

"He is making a mockery of the system ... it feels as if he's trying to influence it with his own agenda, that may be anti-Republican ... it's almost as if he's also doing his best to marginalize the Republican candidates in a way in which we're spinning that marginalization ... We in the "mainstream media" need to be careful and wonder what is he up to, what is his main agenda? Is it to educate the public about the dangers of money in politics and what's going on, or is it simply to marginalize the Republican Party? And so I think if I were a Republican candidate I’d be concerned about that."

Excuse me? First of all, Chuck, the obvious question comes to mind: We know it's a farce, but whatever happened to your professional "objectivity" with its customary obsequious fawning to the criminal element (mostly Republican) you cover: "Is it fair to say" this, that or the other? Secondly, what's this revolting obsession of yours with defending the honor of that "shrinking violet" as Michael Steele might put it, ironically of course, known as the Republican Party? Your pal, John Feehery, isn't scared of Stephen Colbert's comedy and neither is Reince Priebus, RNC Chairman. It may be spin, but at the end of the night Colbert had no impact whatsoever on the South Carolina result. Third, this notion that a comedian has the power to "marginalize" the Republican Party is not only absurd; it's insane. And it's quite a typical manifestation of how the Beltway bubble distorts perspectives and worldviews of those who, like Todd, have spent literally their entire careers in that insular, incestuous, elitist media environment.

It's fascinating to me — and I use the word mockingly given its prominent station in the Beltway Media's Narcissists Dictionary — that Chuck should be such a worry wart regarding the "marginalization" of the Republican Party but not once pause to consider the facts on the ground: namely, where (1) money is the mother's milk of politics; and (2) the sweeping Republican wins of 2010, orgasmically reported by Todd, were in no small measure bankrolled by Citizen's United which rendered the Democratic Party significantly less competitive against the likes of the Koch brothers and anonymous billionaire donors — consequently (3) the radical assault by Republican governors on voting rights, unions (the major source of financing for Democrats) coupled with collective bargaining, gerrymandering, and ballot restrictions, has threatened not only to "marginalize" the Democratic Party but outright destroy it as a viable political institution.

And for someone who "idolizes" our government institutions, where's the love not only for this nation's but the world's oldest existing political party, the Democratic Party? Where is Chuck's vaunted idolatry for tradition, now? Somehow, I don't think Chuck has ever corrected his Republican pals when they referred to the Democratic Party as the "democrat party." Indeed, it's fascinating to me how worried the Idiot Punditocracy is about process and preserving the integrity of a "system" that is rotten to the core, while being so blissfully unaware of the historical perspective.

It might surprise Chuck to know that American history is replete with examples of comedians satirizing the political process by running as fake candidates for political office, notably for president. Will Rogers ran a fake presidential campaign in 1928 with the pledge that if elected, he would resign. Gracie Allen ran for president in 1940 on the Surprise Party ticket. Pat Paulsen, a Smothers Brothers (60s cousin to Stewart and Colbert) Comedy Hour regular was a perennial presidential candidate in 1968, 1972, 1980, 1988, 1992 and 1996, actually getting votes. Comedian Dick Gregory ran for president in 1968 as a write-in candidate for the Freedom and Peace Party, receiving 47,097 votes including one from Hunter S. Thompson. Howard Stern entered the New York gubernatorial race as a Libertarian candidate in a stunt that shook up the race and parallels the Colbert run. He dropped out when a financial disclosure issue came up, ironically enough, without ever disclosing whether or not his was a legitimate run.

So relax already, Chuckles; your fears are unfounded. Here's Toddy committing hilarious self-parody:

"I enjoy the parody, I enjoy the satire, but I have to admit I’m uncomfortable when it’s, like, actually merging into the real world. If that makes sense. It’s sort of like I don’t know, as William Hurt said in Broadcast News,“you tell me we’re crossing the line; they keep moving the sucker!”..."

Chuckles goes into this whole hand-wringing schtick about parody and satire "actually merging into the real world" ... then quotes a Hollywood actor in a movie drama about the media business to illustrate his discomfort with parody and satire actually merging into the real world!

Here's Chuckles being defensive and totally condescending toward Stewart and Colbert:

"Both Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have this ability to want to mock us in the media, all the time, claiming we don’t do our jobs, and then when you call them out they say we’re just comedians. Actually no, you’re not anymore! YOU are mocking what we’re doing and you want a place in this, then you’re gonna also be held accountable for how you cover and how you do your jobs!"

Aww ... Chuckles is so offended that a couple of comedians have the unmitigated GALL to mock such an important member of the Fourth Estate, trivializing the vital work he does on behalf of the public. (Wagging finger like Rachel) "YOU are mocking what we’re doing and you want a place in this, then you’re gonna also be held accountable for how you cover and how you do your jobs!" Wow, and here I thought this was all about our sublime, commanding, magnificent, arresting, institutions of government. Instead, we learn that Chuckles is actually, really, like upset that a couple of comedians managed to finagle their way into his exclusive little club through the back door. Right back at ya, Toddy. You can't see this, so just imagine it — we're flippin' the bird at you.

Funny thing is, I came close to agreeing with Chuckles on one issue had he not so strenuously reverted to whiny Beltwayspeak. Chuckles said, "I was very offended when (Colbert) testified on Capitol Hill in character. I was more offended that members of Congress allowed him to do that. He is making a mockery of the system." What bothered me is that Stephen Colbert submitted a straightforward written testimony then departed from the script to turn his testimony on the plight of migrant farm workers into a comedy sketch. He disrespected Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a good person, who had invited him to testify before the subcommittee she chaired. It's exceedingly rude when you're someone's guest to embarrass them in that way.

So yeah, I'm not a big Stephen Colbert fan. But rest easy, Chuckles. He is no liberal much less a Democrat. Stephen Colbert is a libertarian court jester who will stick it to both parties. I actually think he did more harm to the Democratic Party then, with statements like, "I'm not a fan of the government doing anything. But I've got to ask, why isn't the government doing anything? ... Like most members of Congress, I haven't read the bill." Then using his celebrity to endorse Republicans as the midterms approached, with "I endorse all Republican policies without question."

Indeed, Toddy's worries that Colbert is "doing his best to marginalize the Republican candidates in a way in which we're spinning that marginalization" are misplaced. But our suspicions that Chuckles is totally in the tank for his precious Republican Party are not. By the way, "parodyzing" is not a word; parodying is. And here perhaps you might want to say exacerbate — "I think this is going to exasperate the process" — Freudian slip.

We're not tourists, Chuck. We're citizens. We're not here to take a virtual tour of Washington's institutions, to gaze upon marble statues, heroic frescoes on the Capitol Rotunda, and words carved in stone with Chuck Toddy as our idolatrous tour guide. Sure, it's nice, and the thing to do if you've never been to D.C. But our institutions of government aren't museums to be fiercely defended by gatekeepers like Chuckles, who get to decide who is worthy of access and who, like Stephen Colbert, is not. These institutions Chuck idolizes are not just monuments of stone and marble. They belong to We, The People. They are us.

You need to get out more, Bubble-Boy. Seriously.

If the present Congress errs in too much talking, how can it be otherwise in a body to which the people send one hundred and fifty lawyers, whose trade it is to question everything, yield nothing, and talk by the hour?

Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.

~ Thomas Jefferson

Quotable: Spin, Romney, Spin Spin Spin!

2012-01-22T09:32:00.001-06:00

“We like the way the race looks going forward,” Stuart Stevens, a top strategist to Mr. Romney, said Saturday evening. “A lot of politics is about patience and picking your opponent.”

Right. It's Romney math: Mittens blasted into South Carolina 2-for-2 and limped out 1-for-3.

PS — The Chris Matthews show; how embarrassing. It was obviously recorded before Newt crushed Mittens in South Carolina. Typical Beltway Media myopia with the usual Establishment suspects — Andrea Mitchell, Kathleen Parker, Major Garrett, and a journalist from the Boston Globe to give us the "psycho babble" on Mittens, the South Carolina victor. Oops.

Oh, so yesterday. Or as Newt might say, another example of the "media elites" FAIL in not covering the REAL story — HIM.

Quotable: Michael Steele Invokes The Beach Boys ...

2012-01-21T22:12:00.001-06:00

"I know one thing: BRIAN WILSON won’t make the John King mistake on any subject with Newt; he's not going to be the shrinking violet there."

~ Michael Steele, former RNC Chairman reveals his admiration for Beach Boys leading light, Brian Wilson.

But When WE Endorse, IT COUNTS!

2012-01-21T19:42:00.000-06:00

Chuck Todd, tribune of the Idiot Punditocracy and defender of the Establishment Republican Party's virgin honor, made the panicked assertion that Newt Gingrich has no "mainstream media" endorsements. OH, MY. And absolutely true. To which I say, so what?

Newt has the most important endorsement of all: The Thinker's.

We don't give out endorsements lightly, and we're a perfect two-for-two. In 2008 we gave Hillary her due before endorsing Barack Obama. Of course, he won. And now, in the Republican South Carolina contest, Newt took the win following our Thursday endorsement. We were always intrigued by Newt's irresistible EVIL, which is a perfect match for an evil party. The only question yet unanswered until this week was of his political viability and seriousness of purpose.

Yes, Newt's racism is evil and despicable. But unlike Chris, who is terrified and unsettled by Newt's ascent, we believe his rise will lead to the ultimate destruction of the Republican Party as currently constituted. It is a racist, white elitist party that is out of touch with the people's economic and existential pain. And it is an evil, pernicious cancer on the body politic that must be excised so that the body politic may heal and the two-party "system" survive.

Newt Gingrich is the perfect vehicle for the Republican Party's destruction. The "flawed vessel" of our dreams. And so, with more faith in the better angels of the American people's nature than the Beltway Media cabal, We reaffirm our endorsement of Mr. Gingrich to be the nominee of the Republican Party.

As C. J. Cherryh no-so-famously (sorry, no Winston) said: "Deal with the Devil if the Devil has a constituency — and don't complain about the heat."

Oh Chris, The Catholic Church Has Something to Tell You (Steve Capus, Really)

2012-01-21T18:14:00.001-06:00

Unlike MSNBC, the Catholic Church doesn't flip the "dog whistle" when it comes to calling out the racists and race-baiters. I, for one, love them for it and am very proud of my Catholic heritage, despite its issues. My experience with the Church, as that of millions of Catholics, was positive and life-changing. I'm sure our friend, Chris Matthews, feels the same way. Take this as a gentle reminder, Chris. Hopefully you'll keep the Church's admonition in mind, when covering the 2012 elections. Racism should never, ever, be brushed aside as Republican "politics as usual;" it should be front and center, whenever and wherever it rears its ugly head. I don't want to hear Michael Steele's rationalizations. You shouldn't need to be reminded of what's unacceptable under any circumstances; of what is immoral.

An Open Letter to Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum

As Catholic leaders who recognize that the moral scandals of racism and poverty remain a blemish on the American soul, we challenge our fellow Catholics Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum to stop perpetuating ugly racial stereotypes on the campaign trail. Mr. Gingrich has frequently attacked President Obama as a “food stamp president” and claimed that African Americans are content to collect welfare benefits rather than pursue employment. Campaigning in Iowa, Mr. Santorum remarked: “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money.” Labeling our nation’s first African-American president with a title that evokes the past myth of “welfare queens” and inflaming other racist caricatures is irresponsible, immoral and unworthy of political leaders.

Some presidential candidates now courting “values voters” seem to have forgotten that defending human life and dignity does not stop with protecting the unborn. We remind Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Santorum that Catholic bishops describe racism as an “intrinsic evil” and consistently defend vital government programs such as food stamps and unemployment benefits that help struggling Americans. At a time when nearly 1 in 6 Americans live in poverty, charities and the free market alone can’t address the urgent needs of our most vulnerable neighbors. And while jobseekers outnumber job openings 4-to-1, suggesting that the unemployed would rather collect benefits than work is misleading and insulting.

As the South Carolina primary approaches, we urge Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Santorum and all presidential candidates to reject the politics of racial division, refrain from offensive rhetoric and unite behind an agenda that promotes racial and economic justice.

Francis X. Doyle
Associate General Secretary
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (retired)

Sisters of Mercy of the Americas Institute Leadership Team:
Sisters Patricia McDermott, RSM (President) Eileen Campbell, RSM Anne Curtis, RSM Mary Pat Gavin, RSM Deborah Troillett, RSM

Romney Collapse: Precipitous Drop In The Polls A Prelude To Disaster

2012-01-20T19:43:00.005-06:00

This passage in last night's debate illustrates Mitt Romney's collapse, I think, as well as any poll. The candidate is adrift, scared not just of his shadow — Newt Gingrich — but of his own words. When Romney opens a line of attack against Gingrich — the Reagan diary — he does so fearfully:

"Let's — let's — let me — let me say — let me say one — one of the things I find amusing is listening — is listening to how — how much credit is taken in Washington for what goes on on Main Street. I — I mean, Mr. Speaker, it was — it was — you talk about all the things you did with Ronald Reagan and — and — and the Reagan revolution and the jobs created during the Reagan years and so forth. I mean, I looked at the Reagan diary. You're mentioned once in Ronald Reagan's diary. And it's — and in the diary, he says you had an idea in a meeting of — of young congressmen, and it wasn't a very good idea, and he dismissed it. That — that's the entire mention. And — I mean, he mentions George Bush a hundred times. He even mentions my dad once. So I — I — I — there's a sense that Washington is pulling the strings in America."

Mittens paused 19 times in this brief soliloquy — 12 times before mentioning the diary. That's one scared candidate; scared of Newt Gingrich. It was Romney who used the kitchen heat metaphor. Now, it seems, he can't handle the heat from refusing to release his taxes — something he should have prepared for years before this. He does all right when scripted but is incapable of improvising against a vicious attack dog like Gingrich.

There is one other unspoken issue in a state as racist and xenophobic as South Carolina: Romney's father was born in Mexico. The media, including CNN's John King, who mentioned this, assumes the average voter knows this. I believe it came as an unpleasant surprise to many in that auditorium. Romney was clearly ill at ease. And suddenly one other dimension is added to his Mormon 'issue'. Mitt Romney, as a result, is in freefall, having dropped from 20, then 10 points ahead, to falling six points behind Newt Gingrich today. The media talked of Rick Perry's endorsement of Gingrich, overlooking the much more important Sarah Palin endorsement which locked in much of the Tea Party vote behind Newt. Nationally, Gallup's polling director said of Romney's numbers: "Clearly things are collapsing."

As for Newt Gingrich, his time-tested tactic of attacking the so-called "liberal media" to deflect attention from himself is on steroids: Consider that Newt began by attacking Chris Wallace (FOX); then he lay into Maria Bartiromo (CNBC); next he put Juan Williams (FOX) in "his place"; and last night summoned up his open-marriage righteous indignation to lash out venomously at John King of CNN. Yikes. Members of the media who sign up to question the candidates at the Republican debates should be getting combat pay.

Bottom line: If Newt wins tomorrow, which seems almost — almost — a foregone conclusion, the Republican Party will be in a world of hurt. And the Democrats will be in an Apollo celebratory mood:

As I Was Saying ...

2012-01-20T11:33:00.002-06:00

Remember how I've been noting that lately the GOP candidates, two in particular, have been riffing off my material? You might reasonably think it's just so much hubris on my part, or maybe it's the reverse and I'm writing off their script. I don't think so. Honestly, the only reason I mention this is that whenever something like this comes up in the debates my initial reaction is, 'hey wait a minute, that sounds familiar', followed by: 'I wrote that!'

Now, it's possible that Mittens or Newt may have intoned something that got buried deep in my subconscious while I was sleeping, but I don't watch their campaign rallies or speeches as a cure for insomnia, or anything else, and I'm not about to do a Lexis-Nexis search. Mostly, my thinking was the rational dismissal, 'ah, it's that old Zeitgeist rearing its head again.' But it kept happening. So, what the hell, I decided to document it and let the reader decide.

If anything, it's become fodder for the Idiot Punditocracy. Here's CNN's Soledad O'Brien having a panic attack over a phrase that Newt stole from ME and used in the debate on Monday, January 16:

Soledad O'Brien scrutinized Gingrich's choice of words "unilateral disarmament" to describe a campaign free from negative ads. Gingrich had defended his attack ads on Mitt Romney noting that when faced with attack ads from his opponents, "if you unilaterally disarm, you might as well drop out of the race."

"When you hear a candidate talking about his fellow candidates and using the words unilateral disarmament, that's almost scary. I mean, how worried are you about the damage that Newt Gingrich could do to the front-runner?"

Gosh Soledad, I'm so sorry to have scared you or stirred such consternation within the Idiot Punditocracy (you too, Ron Brownstein — when you lie with idiots you risk catching Teh Stoopid)... Would you feel any better if you knew the source, Soledad?

This is ME: Written on Friday the 13th as gratuitous advice to Dylan Ratigan:

Name names and point the finger at the real villains; what do you expect, I ask again — for Democrats to unilaterally disarm? Not gonna happen, and thank your oracle for it.

Okay, whatever. You might say Zeitgeist. I can dig it. But here's the thing: It happened before and it happened again! Moreover, Mittens follows a different pattern from Newt. In Mittens' case, he (or his 'people') likes to flip a phrase of mine to give it the exact opposite Republican meaning. There was this from Mittens' 1/10 victory speech in New Hampshire:

"The middle class has been crushed..." Blah-blah-blah. As if this guy has any earthly idea of what constitutes the middle class.

ME, from a 1/5 post, on the devastation wrought by actual Big Government Republicans:

"[T]he actual Big Government Republicans waged two wars off the books, enriched beyond measure their crony capitalist pals, and crushed the middle class and unions."

In last night's debate, Romney said this about 'Obamacare':

"[W]here Barack Obama believes that he knows better for the American people what's best for them. He's wrong. We're right."

ME, from a 1/17 post, on how Progressives were right about the futility of President Obama seeking to compromise with Republicans while Chris Matthews and his "centrist" pals were wrong:

"We warned the President, it's not gonna happen, time's a-wastin' Mr. President, strike while the iron's hot. Guess what, we Progressives were right, you and Chris were wrong."

Same words. Opposite meaning. Zeitgeist? Random Coincidence? I don't think so. Here's my theory: Whoever writes Mittens' and Newt's material is probably under pressure to come up with catchy sound bites daily, and certainly for major events such as debates and victory speeches. So they cheat. They know they can't poach from popular internet media sources that absorb tens of thousands to millions of hits daily. So they steal from ME, one who Lawrence might have accurately described as a "smart" but "obscure" blogger. We're small but we get around.

Given Mittens' penchant for quite deliberately, it seems, flipping the meaning of my catchy sound bites, I'm thinking we might have gotten under their skin with our unflattering comic graphics of Mittens in drag, hiding from Newt behind his "SUPAPAC" mommy's skirts, as a vulture in top hat distributing pink slips, or with his hair standing on end as Newt prepares to go on the attack.

How pathetic is it that Mittens lacks the imagination to use his own words? Rick Santorum and Ron Paul have always spoken for themselves. Paul even regretted not being able to communicate clearly. But at least it's his words. Ironic that the truly genuine candidates stand to finish 3-4 in the South Carolina Primary. But ultimately, the joke's on the top two. So come on back. Phony gets you only so far, as Mittens is discovering. Even for "someone who has lived — (applause) — in the real streets of America."

REALLY!?

Rachel Had That Glow Today ...

2012-01-19T23:57:00.002-06:00

Can I say this, with respect, but Rachel is an attractive woman, downright HOT, she glowed on "the best day in politics, ever!" Here's hoping there will be more days like these. Funny thing, though: Was it just my set or did anyone notice the audio go out when Rachel was off-camera reporting on the most controversial stories, during the quotation graphics parts. Strange, sounded like crackling interference, and for us conspiracists, kinda sinister ...

Rachel's material — Best New Thing In The World Today: Iconic Still Images From the Campaign Trail.

FORT SUMTER, SC THE SEQUEL: ADIOS, MO-FO?! REALLY?

2012-01-19T23:05:00.005-06:00

TEXAS GOVERNOR PERRY FIRES FIRST SALVO — Declaring Texas and South Carolina "ARE AT WAR WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!", to WILD applause from South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley as the bloodthirsty audience whooped out spontaneous Rebel yells, Governor Perry dropped out of the presidential race two days later, throwing his support to Georgian Newt Gingrich. Remember — Fort Sumter, South Carolina is where it all began.

Why Is This Crazy Woman Applauding "WAR WITH THE FEDERAL GOVT."?

This immediately fueled speculation of a schism in the CGOP ("C" for "Confederate") between the weak pro-Union faction (Romney and drop-out Huntsman) and the Secessionists led by Perry, and many believe, the secretive Ron Paul, a Texan whose mild demeanor belies his support from "The New Confederacy" and "Stormfront" among other Secessionist, White Supremacist, and militia groups. Newt Gingrich and Pennsylvanian Rick Santorum, one the quintessential political opportunist and the other a social conservative populist, take a middle weak Union-strong States Rights path. The schism and incendiary language unsettled pundit historians who saw parallels between this New Confederate Republican Party and that of the 1860 Democratic Party, mere months before the Civil War broke out.

Before heading back to Texas, presumably to organize regional militias for the imminent "WAR" with the Federal Government, principal plotter and war instigator Rick Perry posed for this group photo with fellow Party conspirators, who had gathered at a heavily armed, "secret undisclosed location" to play war games. That's a lifesize cutout of Robert E. Lee (Perry to Lee's left), otherwise we're in real trouble:

Please, Martin — DON'T BRING HER BACK!

2012-01-19T16:13:00.002-06:00

Meghan McCain, that is. What is it about these Republican Gen-X women and their HIDEOUS valley girl accents? Meghan is right out of central casting; the way she bobbled her head and rolled her eyes as the segment ended on an anti-Republican note was classic. Why do the suits think this is compelling political commentary? Is Martin forced by NBC News President Steve Capus to book these Republicans, deliberately turning off his core audience? Okay, I understand, her dad went through it, but she was a kid and doesn't remember a thing. Oops.

Does Capus really believe we don't know MSNBC's dirty little secret: That all of its high profile Republican hires for this election cycle — Michael Steele, Steve Schmidt, Meghan McCain — are Romney Republicans? So much so that in a slip of the tongue "team player" Chris Matthews asked two of them to remove their partisan Romney hats and put on their "analyst" hats. Not exactly Howard Fineman and Gene Robinson territory. This, quite apart from Moron Joe and Willie The Wingnut, et al, S.E. Cupp (she's cute, sexy frames, proper diction, we'll take her), Ron Christie, some asshole named Boris, Republican Establishment faux jounalist Mark (Obama's 'a dick') Halperin, Susan Page, who doesn't even try to mask her pro-Romney bias, the POLITICO gaggle of idiot pundits, GQ man about town Jonathan 'el Bloomberg centrista' Capehart, and we might as well call MSNBC the "Romney Establishment Republican channel."

Keep in mind, the infinitely annoying crazy libertarian Dylan Ratigan was excluded; only because I believe he's well intentioned and possibly redeemable, as are some others like Jonathan and his basketball buddies. Also, Dylan's borderline insane, which makes him interesting, in spurts. Martin seems to like Dylan and seems to exert a positive influence on him. Then there's the 1,000 pound elephant in the room, Steve Capus, who intervened disgracefully to tamp down reports of Romney's clumsy 'code language dog whistle' racist line in Iowa ~~New Hampshire~~, used with exceeding skill by Gingrich in the debates — 'here's how it's done, Mitt,' he seemed to be saying — as President Carter noted, "the subtlety of racism" in Newt's language to a racist audience. It was clear and unambiguous, unlike MSNBC's clumsy reporting of racism in the Republican Party with a plethora of strange and insulting euphemisms by on-camera commentators to describe 'racism' and 'racist'.

Which begs the question, are there now seven words PLUS one that cannot be uttered in certain broadcast networks? Or, regarding Capus, as Donald Trump would famously say ... ? Too bad we can't recall Steve Capus. Martin, happy birthday! You're one of the good guys and, from this perspective, one of the accidental treasures at MSNBC. I hope they'll find a role for Martin Bashir in the special election coverages coming up, if a producer with brains and influence can be made to see the obvious.

NEWSFLASH: SANTORUM WINS IOWA! THINKER ENDORSES GINGRICH!?

2012-01-19T12:47:00.004-06:00

OOPS ... Up by 34 votes. So instead of the mainstream/Beltway Media/Idiot Punditocracy frothing orgasmically that Romney is 2-for-2 heading for an early coronation in South Carolina, better rethink your idiot analyses, imbeciles of the Idiot Punditocracy (I'm doubling down). Here's what this really, actually means:

Rather than being the indispensable Republican juggernaut all Republican lemmings are dutifully instructed to fall in line behind, Romney is a DEEPLY FLAWED candidate who has yet to connect with Republican voters, let alone the electorate at large. He lost in the open contest, Iowa, despite committing millions to wounding but not destroying Newt Gingrich. He won well, but not convincingly, in New Hampshire, his backyard, where he owns a home for chrissakes! People are just not that into Mittens. He's being skewered nightly by the comedian class, challenged seriously from Comedy Central by Stephen Colbert who's running his SuperPac ads in South Carolina and telling voters that a vote for Herman Cain is a vote for Colbert, which has made Romney a running joke. And once you become a late night joke, you're finished; there's no amount of Sununu/Christie salvos that can rescue Mr. 15 percent. As a result, Mittens' negatives are rising as his poll numbers drop, and Newt Gingrich has found a new purpose with his attacks, gaining on Willard with each passing hour.

Republican South Carolina "true conservative" voters (whatever that means) have a decision to make: Split their votes between one dog pony Rick Santorum whose Iowa victory came at the expense of the withering $3 million fire Newt was taking from Romney's SuperPac, or Newt Gingrich, the most effective and realistic Stop-Romney candidate in the race.

Newt Gingrich has earned this blog's endorsement. We love how he's riffing off our rants. For instance, he said in the debate he would not "unilaterally disarm" with respect to SuperPacs, a phrase FIRST written here with respect to Democratic fund-raising. And calling his opponent "stupid" is one of our favorite, much-used adjectives. Don't you just love all this Zeitgeist that magically makes its way from our blog to Republican candidates' mouths? But our endorsement comes in appreciation of Newt Gingrich's ruthlessness, his "subtlety of racism" which has exposed the cowardice of the fake progressive channel, and all that he's doing to advance the Progressive cause and increase Democrats' chances of victory in November. Newt says he doesn't just want to "bloody" Mittens; he wants to "knock him down." Go get 'im, Mr. Speaker!

Memo To MSNBC suits: Seriously consider bringing Chris Hayes out of the COLD, so your fleeing viewers may enjoy his superior Progressive intellect, no matter how EXTRA stupid that makes Moron Joe and copycats Halperin-Heilemann look. Chris is so much smarter than his colleagues that he runs absolutely no risk of being CNN-ized and Capusized into 'how fascinating is your WINGNUT perspective', as Alex Wagner has become. Why else would Rachel's "I'm so jealous, it's the best-political-show-in-the-world!" come to us at the ungodly 6 a.m. Central time hour, hmm? Not that they would listen to Rachel anyway, except when endorsing (recommending?) Michael Steele's disastrous beginning-of-the-end for progressive programming hire.

Oh Chris, Your Former Boss Has Something To Tell You ...

2012-01-18T16:21:00.003-06:00

Former President Jimmy Carter spared no verbal gymnastics when it came to calling a spade a spade: Where his former employee Chris Matthews uses words like "desultory" and "dog whistle" President Carter, interviewed by Piers Morgan, was clear and direct about what Newt Gingrich had said at the Republican debate:

“I think (Gingrich) has that subtlety of racism that I know quite well, that Gingrich knows quite well, that appeals to some people in Georgia. I’m not saying he’s racist, but he knows the subtle words to use to appeal to a racist group.”

OH, MY. Tell us, Chris, would you have to run this text by suit-sayer Steve Capus's prior censorship department before going on air with it? Steve to Chris: "Just say 'desultory' or 'dog whistle' or whatever; as long as you don't say the 'R' word, got it?!" "Sure, boss."

Por Ejemplo: When Chris says "a certain type of unpleasant voter" President Carter says this means "a racist group". WOW, who'd a thunk President Carter might actually need to be censored at MSNBC?

Quotable: RACIST South Carolina Woman, Possibly Reptilian, To Newt

2012-01-18T14:51:00.000-06:00

I'd like to thank you, Mr. S-S-Speaker, for putting Mr. JUAN williams in HIS-s-s PLACE; his ques-s-s-stion was-s-s TOTALLY LUDI-CROUS-S-S-S-s-s- ...

~ No kidding, one can literally hear this strange being HISSING. Could it be that RACISTS are part of an alien reptilian breed?! They don't seem to be very human. Yikes!

MR. REACTIONARY 'ADEE-TUDE' DOES IT AGAIN

2012-01-17T18:51:00.001-06:00

WORD TO PROGRESSIVES: Never, ever trust the Beltway Media; they have a pronounced right-leaning, Establishment bias. Now that the campaign is underway, Chris Matthews is tilting far Establishment Right in choice of guests and words, leaning so far backward he's falling flat on his ass. Chris Matthews is already in CNN territory heading toward FOX.

Chris Matthews, the center-right (if you think the 20-yard line is the "center") Goldwater Republican of his youth, waxes sublime toward Andrew Sullivan on a favorite topic of Chris's, our "pragmatic center-right president" postulated by Sullivan's Newsweek piece. It hits President Obama's critics, and all of Chris's political erogenous zones from left and right: "Okay, you're a genius," gushes Chris to a blushing Andrew. Huh?

It should be noted that the simpatico Andrew is an eccentric gay "conservative," a Brit expatriate-cum-citizen, naturellement, like his late, great compadre Chris Hitchens, who idolized Ronald Reagan and now sees President Obama as today's Reagan. In my experience, people who change horses in midstream like Matthews and Sullivan may be entertaining ideological Yo-Yos, but seldom are they grounded in reality. And the Brit righties are notorious for being in a class of their own, a type of Tea Party carpetbagger. Maybe it has something to do with their natural, cultural affinity for tea. Here's a synopsis of Andrew's triangulating article:

"Andrew Sullivan has written a cover story for Newsweek Why Obama's Critics are Dumb. The right calls him a socialist, the left says he sucks up to Wall Street, and independents think he's a wimp. Andrew Sullivan on how the president may just end up outsmarting them all."

Matthews, of course, believes the Left's critique is "impractical." He calls Progressives "the flagellant class" dedicating his final minutes with boyfriend Andrew to dissing us. We're neither monolithic nor ideologues, which makes their little ditty surrounding ponytails, motorcycle gangs, and age groups stupid and irrelevant. If you've ever felt embarrassed for people making fools of themselves, you'll know what I mean.

Chris's colleague, Lawrence O'Donnell, thinks we're stupid and naïve, which is rich considering his fanciful, fictitious political analyses. One word, Larry-O: T-Paw. Here's Lawrence riffing off his condescending 'adee-tude' toward the Left: "And are you one of the disappointed Obama voter, who sits there and says, hey, wait a minute, how comes he has to get Congress' approval for these things he wants to do?"

That's really cute, Larry. No, you nitwit, we're the rightfully 'disappointed' Obama voters who urged him, time and again, to stop trying to compromise with these Republican ratbastards in hopes of peeling off one or two 'Maine' senators to make his health care look bipartisan. We warned the President, I warned him in an extended e-mail to the White House, posted here, it's not gonna happen, time's a-wastin' Mr. President, strike while the iron's hot. Guess what Lawrence, we Progressives were right, you and Chris were wrong. So STFU already. It's amazing, this capacity of yours for self-delusion inside your Beltway Media bubble.

Chris keeps flogging the same "public option" carcass (speaking of "flagellant class") without, still, understanding our practical, strategic concerns. At the end of the day, Chris, how many Republican votes were there for "Obamacare" and did it pass with the filibuster-proof 60 votes? Yeah, we know: *CRICKETS*. This pushback critique of Sullivan's piece, in my view, is spot-on target:

"The same kind of cronyism that poisoned his health-reform also invaded his handling of the financial crisis. This led not just to bailouts but the increasing concentration of financial power in the big six banks, setting up the system for another round of bailouts in the future.

At some point, the top players in lots of sectors in the American economy, in education, finance, military-industry, or health-care are operating less and less in a free market, and more and more in government licensed cartels.

In one sense there is a reason why critics of Obama on the right and left seem to contradict each other. At times we really do seem to be getting the worst of both worlds. The middle and working classes get the heartless layoff notices of capitalism, while the richest see their losses "socialized" away.

It's a problem Obama did not invent, but one he has intensified. And it isn't "dumb" to say so."

Questions for Chris: What exactly is "dog whistle" and what is it intended to signify? Are you forbidden from saying "racism" anymore when referring to the Republican Party? Even your commentary intimated it by mentioning "race" but never attributed racism to the racists. What are you afraid of? And why bring on Ron Christie, a lying Republican Uncle Tom to speak of this, instead of Gene Robinson, who was actually at the debate? Did you miss how loathsome and vile that Republican crowd was last night, on Martin Luther King Jr. Day? Repeat after me, Chris: "This is racism." Can you say it? Or have you turned into a coward in your old age. As Martin Luther King Jr. said: “There comes a time when silence is betrayal.”

Shame on you, Chris Matthews.

PS - E tu, Joy-Ann Reid and Michael Eric Dyson? How many adjectives for "racism" do you have to come up with? I heard 'tribal', 'dog whistle' of course, 'vitriol', 'low-down', 'this kind of [insert word 'racist' here] language', finally from Michael: 'racist Republican reactionary agenda.' All right. Finally.

Memo To MSNBC Suits: Stop insulting our intelligence. I'm thinking the on-camera commentators got the 'proverbial memo' from upstairs. Tell me I'm wrong. Al Gore was right about MSNBC.

SCOTT WALKER RECALL, YEAH: WE'RE GONNA GETCHA, GIVE YA THE PINK SLIP!

2012-01-17T14:24:00.004-06:00

Twice as many signatures, more than one million, as the required 25% of votes cast in the last governor's election were collected in Wisconsin to recall its radical, union-busting governor Scott Walker. This is the beginning of the end for Scott Walker — he may have the Koch brothers millions, but the people have the VOTES — as Big Eddie, live from Wisconsin tonight, sheds tears of joy ... well, in spirit for sure:

Can We Establish Ron Paul Is A Bigot, i.e., Racist, Anti-Semite, Homophobe, And Conspiracy Nut?

2012-01-17T13:45:00.000-06:00

"A brand new batch of Ron Paul newsletters raises questions for the libertarian Republican — as well as a host of embarrassing fresh passages to go along with such classics as “the coming race war” and “the federal-homosexual cover up on AIDS” from earlier reports.

Ron Paul claims “probably ten sentences out of 10,000 pages” were objectionable in his long-published newsletter series, even as he denies having ever written the content in question (or even having seen most of it). But, as TPM has reported and a new collection of Ron Paul newsletters posted by The New Republic confirms, racism, homophobia, and fringe conspiracy theories seem more like the newsletters’ raison d’etre than a rare aberration. In fact, even short promotional letters for the publication name-checked many of the most toxic passages."

Well, isn't that special! Gee, this comes as a COMPLETE surprise.

58 SECOND FLAT POST-GOP DEBATE ANALYSIS: RACISM ON MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. DAY

2012-01-17T00:47:00.002-06:00

Halfway through TRMS I kept saying to myself, 'this better be good'. It wasn't. On Martin Luther King Jr. Day, no less. Rachel, what were you thinking?

SIDEBAR: Watching a recent episode of Hardball in New Hampshire I was astonished, frankly, by how Chris Matthews and two no-name pundits were so matter-of-factly, so clinically discussing the ebb and flow of racism in the Republican primaries, one noting that it reaches its peak round about the South Carolina Primary and then wanes after Florida. I was stunned.

The mainstreaming of racism in Republican politics. There was no discussion of the immorality of racism and the despicable cancer it has become within the Republican Party. Rather, it was just so much political punditry. The banality of evil. And then the audience tonight, on Martin Luther King Jr. Day brought it home. They were odious, and racist, beyond comprehension. As a somber Gene Robinson expressed his disbelief, he said they reminded him of a crowd from 40 or 50 years ago, of another time in South Carolina, not today, not on this day.

What Martin Luther King Teaches Us About TODAY

2012-01-16T14:22:00.001-06:00

On war and peace

“Wars are poor chisels for carving out peaceful tomorrows.”

To Fox consumers

“Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”

The selfishness and timidity of “friends”

“In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”

who look the other way

“Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well-being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way.”

On being a progressive

“If you can't fly then run, if you can't run then walk, if you can't walk then crawl, but whatever you do you have to keep moving forward.”

And to those who lack moral courage

“There comes a time when silence is betrayal.”

On the Roberts Court

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

And states codifying injustice

“Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.”

Greed, income inequality, and Republican values from Steele to Romney to Paul

“We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.”

To those who would repeal even modest efforts to expand health care for all citizens

“Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.”

To President Obama, and us — quoting HIM

“We are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there "is" such a thing as being too late. This is no time for apathy or complacency. This is a time for vigorous and positive action.”

is not enough.

“There is no gain without struggle.”

― Martin Luther King Jr.

Schooling Big Eddie On The Giants Win

2012-01-16T13:49:00.001-06:00

I know, Big Eddie's trash talkin' but I'll bite:

"The Giants' LUCKY win ..."

Really. Considering the Giants played at Lambeau, absorbed all the BAD calls from pro-Pack officials — (1) The clear fumble that wasn't called by the NFL Institute for blind officials; and (2) The bogus 'roughing the passer' call that kept the Pack drive alive, leading to a touchdown.

"The Pack didn't play defense ..." Right. When DID THEY play defense during the season, eh Big Eddie? The offense carried them all year. Only this time, the Giants came up big in all three phases, Offense, defense, and special teams, recovering the onside kick.

Luck was the Hail Mary pass. But you know what, Eddie; that was payback for the bad calls. Great teams make their own luck. They took the bad calls without complaint and kept on truckin'. The Giants WON this game the old-fashioned way; they EARNED it. And if you think otherwise, Big Eddie, have I got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you!

Yo, Big Eddie: DENIAL AIN'T JUST A RIVER IN EGYPT. Here's a hankie.

PS - Good one: The Head booth referee making the bad calls was Scott Walker!

Idiot Punditocracy Candidate (Mark Halperin's) Drops Out ... YAWN — The Stephen Colbert Effect

2012-01-16T12:18:00.003-06:00

Jon Huntsman, darling of the Beltway Media, hawked by idiots like Mark Halperin and Moron Joe, quit his presidential race after an almost forgettable effort. Huntsman's low-key, low energy country banker persona simply failed to inspire voters. Nothing wrong with that, but he was less than memorable. Boring. Can anyone, even political junkies, name three things you recall about Jon Huntsman? Okay, the debate comeback, the motorcycle ad, and his Letterman performance of "Johnny B. Goode" on the piano. Speaking Mandarin, which few understood. That's four. Specific policy? Give me a minute. Or two.

Jon Huntsman was a retiring, pleasant fellow off to the side in the debates who preferred not to engage in the rough-and-tumble of presidential politics. That is commendable, and everyone agrees he's a swell guy. But president? When he did counterpunch, it established he could fight back, and little else. At the end of the day, Huntsman lacked the killer instinct to push through his opening and knock Romney down. Huntsman looked even more ridiculous than Romney wearing jeans and flannel shirts, given his slight build. (Voters sort of brush it off, but they can instantly spot a sartorial phony politician who's trying hard to look like he's prepared to get out there and chop wood.)

Mitt Romney, by contrast, embraced his phoniness while pretending to be a man of the people figuring, correctly, he'll get props for being a phony who tries hard. Openly ambitious. Huntsman felt uncomfortable playing the game. And knowing how to speak Mandarin was hardly an asset with the Republican electorate. Props to him and 4% in the South Carolina polls. But it was the realization that comedian Stephen Colbert coud finish ahead of him in the South Carolina Republican primary* that almost certainly influenced Huntsman's decision to drop out now.

The failure to overtake a comedian who is serious enough to form his own PAC and run political reality-satire ads in South Carolina would forever doom Jon Huntsman as a serious presidential aspirant. And he knows it. Such is the presidential race of 2012, defined by Super PACs and the Stephen Colbert effect.

*Stephen Colbert is not on the ballot, but his capacity to embarass Huntsman, whom he leads in the polls, with some comedic-reality stunt or another, is real.

GIANTS WIN! CRUSH THE PACK. BIG EDDIE CRIES ...

2012-01-15T20:36:00.000-06:00

Sniff, sniff. Pass Big Eddie the hankies, Homey. Was the boss in a pregame celebratory mood because Aaron's 'team of destiny' were confidently looking past that hoity-toity "Eastern team" to the League championship? Oops ... It seems no one bothered to check that this Giants team OWNED the Pack at Lambeau Field in 2008, led by Eli Manning. It's New York by the Green Bay, a touch of 'frozen tundra' heaven. Cheer up, Big Eddie. Better luck next year.

Santorum’s Gay, Abortion, Communist, Uh ... Christian Right Problem

2012-01-15T20:13:00.001-06:00

The Christian Right has a Santorum problem. One could even say, a Google Santorum problem. At their Texas confab in a fortified end-of-times bunker, euphemistically named “a Texas ranch,” the gathering of haters rejected their lovable Gomer Pyle favorite son governor for rabid dog prestidigitatin’ Big Eddie hypnotist Rick Santorum. The results were announced by Psycho star Tony Perkins, president of the ‘Family Research Council’.

But the thing about these religious fascists is, they’re not very good at vetting their candidates. Even considering the closed culture thing, the let’s-forgive-sex-sinners thing, the kill-the-gays and abortion thing … still. They should have known how WEIRD Rick Santorum really is — even by their forgiveness-is-divine standards. There’s the Santorums’ strange behavior regarding their still-born child, no matter how insensitive Alan Colmes was about it. There’s his wife’s life-saving procedure that resulted in the death of her fetus. Was it an abortion? Unclear, but it highlights Santorum’s extreme hypocrisy as he piously affirms his opposition to any medically induced abortion, even to save the life of the mother. Honestly, such hypocrisy is mind-boggling. But it’s par for the course for anti-abortion Republican extremists. Then, there’s the skeleton in wife’s closet: She lived in a non-married relationship with an abortion doctor who is 40 years her senior and also delivered her at birth. At the time, the 1970s, both Rick and his wife Karen were pro-choice. Weird.

Wait, there’s more! Quite apart from all the unsavory legal aspects of SuperPACS, there’s Santorum’s typically fake Republican “charity” PAC to line his own pockets. Finally, the coup de gras, as they say in, well, the Republicans' favorite European piñata: SHOCKER! The Santorum Clan in Italy of which he spoke so lovingly “were red communists to the core.”

“But on the other side of the ocean, it’s like his family here doesn’t exist. Instead he draws crowds as the head of the ultraconservative faction of the Republican party, against divorce, gay marriage, abortion, and immigration.

Those politics don’t play well in Riva del Garda, a community of ultraliberals. On the campaign trail, Santorum often touts his grandfather’s flight from Italy “to escape fascism,” but he has neglected to publicly mention their close ties with the Italian Communist Party,” according to Oggi Magazine journalist Guiseppe Fumagalli.

OH, MY. OH.MY.GAWD.

RELIGION AND SPORTS DO.NOT.MIX

2012-01-15T12:32:00.008-06:00

If rapturous Broncos fans and Jesus freaks were looking for another miracle from 'Touchdown Jesus' Tim Tebow yesterday, it didn't happen. New England's AWESOME quarterback Tom Brady SCHOOLED Tebow, throwing for a record-breaking FIVE touchdowns in the FIRST HALF. Game on; Game OVER.

Lesson for Timmy. Don't anger the stadium gods, because, in the end, they rule the day. In their league, you've got to earn your stripes the hard way — WINNING, not with a whole lot of Jesus hype and religious hocus-pocus. That was multiple Super Bowl winner Brady's not-so-subtle lesson #1 to upstart Tebow. Lesson #2: Don't piss Brady off! Tom Brady had the best day of his career, with a playoff record-tying six touchdowns, a playoff record 363 yards, and a 45-10 drubbing of Tebow's Broncos. Brady could've easily broken the record; but he was Christ-like in his mercy.

Tom Brady's Mephistophelean coach Bill Belichick is notorious for taking every underhanded, borderline fair play advantage he can to CRUSH his opposition, i.e., WIN. Yesterday he came out in his usual EE-VIL drab gray castaway look — with a twist. For no apparent reason he was slinking beneath his sinister HOODIE rather than a more benign woolen cap. Belichick looked a bit like the creepy Opus Dei albino killer warrior-monk in Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. It worked. Timmy ran out of miracles and crashed back to earth, totally nonplussed, it seems, by Evil Bill, completing few pass attempts.

But the biggest, most disturbing turn-off, by far, was CBS airing a political ad with the Bible's Matthew 3:16 recited by children including a controversial anti-abortion message. Using children to actually verbalize the word "life" as a subtle anti-abortion message, is in my view highly inappropriate if not unethical. Whatever one's position, abortion is LEGAL in the U.S. From its inception, there has been a well-established separation of church and state in this country. But most important, the airing of one religion's anti-abortion message over another's in a sporting event broadcast to people of every religion, or none, to people who take both sides of the abortion issue, using children instead of adults in the messaging is shirking the broadcaster's responsibility for vetting its advertising content. Even FOX rejected airing similar ads, indicating it "does not accept advertising from religious organizations for the purpose of advancing particular beliefs or practices."

It was the classic battle of [Good(?)] versus EVIL. EVIL won, for being more genuine. By the way, it was the other game, Forty-Niners v. Saints, that was "one for the ages." Rock of Ages, man, and beware of false prophets, like 'Focus on The Family', that is.

T-Bowie Steak ... Buh-Bye, Timmy.

The Paleolithic Party

2012-01-15T10:43:00.010-06:00

This is hilarious. Mittens is reviled as a "Massacusetts moderate" (not true, unfortunately — there are NO moderates in the Republican Party) who signed into law basic, affordable health insurance ("Romneycare") that covers abortions and is universally popular with its citizens. Is endangered Massachusetts Republican Senator Scott Brown running for re-election on a promise to support repeal of Romneycare? This is the health care Massachusetts citizens are required to carry, unlike the states of the uninsured whose "choice" is NONE or prohibitively expensive health insurance:

"What benefits will I get?

Commonwealth Care members get health services by enrolling in health plans. There are several plans to choose from. Each health plan offers the same medical benefits, plus some extras. Some plans are only available in certain parts of Massachusetts. Some plans cost more than other plans.
All Commonwealth Care health plans include:
• outpatient medical care (doctor's visits, surgery, radiology and lab, abortion, community health center visits)
• inpatient medical care (hospitalization)
• mental health and substance abuse services (outpatient and inpatient)
• prescription drugs (pharmacy and mail service)
• rehabilitation services (cardiac rehabilitation, home health aide, therapies, inpatient services up to 100 days per year)
• vision care (exam and glasses every 24 months)
• dental care* (*this benefit is only for people with incomes at or below 100% FPG)
• emergency care including ambulance and out-of-state coverage
The health plan you choose may also offer extra services."

OH THE HUMANITY! Newt Gingrich and his paleolithic party think UNIVERSAL health care for Massachusetts citizens is a terrible thing; incidentally the World Health Organization ranks France #1 in health care while the U.S. places no higher than #36 — OH NO, Paleo-Repugnants, won't you PLEASE make it go higher?!:

Meanwhile, the Stephen Colbert SuperPAC run by his colleague Jon Stewart launched this 'Mitt The Ripper' ad (narration, John Lithgow) in South Carolina; no joke — Colbert is polling AHEAD of Jon Huntsman in the state, at 5% v. 4%:

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

MEMO to Alex Witt, fake progressive channel host: Tell your resident paleo-Republican CLOWN Michael Steele to enunciate CORRECTLY: "It's 'DEMOCRATIC' not 'DEMOCRAT' policies. The RNC under Steele's chairmanship ( Don't you just LOVE MSNBC's oxymoronic 'standards and practices' — how many years before they finally suspended Pat Buchanan, the apple of Moron Joe's eye and one of Alex's 'boys', thanks to Color of Change?):

A SONG FOR MITT

2012-01-13T14:52:00.003-06:00

ATTENTION, SOUTH CAROLINIAN REPUBLICAN VOTERS:
MITTENS UNDERSTANDS THESE LYRICS!

A Song For Europe — Roxy Music

Tous ces moments
Perdus dans l’enchantement
Qui ne reviendront
Jamais,
Pas d’aujourd’hui pour nous
Pours nous il n’y a rien
A partager
Sauf le passé

Tous ces moments
Perdus dans l’enchantement
Qui ne reviendront
Jamais, jamais
Jamais!

OH, MY. OH.MY.GAWD.

How Annoying Is Dylan Ratigan ...?!

2012-01-13T13:16:00.002-06:00

More and more Dylan Ratigan reminds me of the Howard Beale (Peter Finch) character on Network. The man can't STFU, filibusters like a politician, and insists on his sophistic everybody-does-it "behavior" analysis. No Dylan, not everybody behaves that way, and until you start naming names and pointing fingers you're nowhere with progressives. Finger the villains, Dylan, the REPUBLICANS and the RIGHT WING, then we'll get somewhere.

To badmouth Dodd-Frank because it isn't perfect is ridiculous sophistry which plays into the Republicans' hands having vowed, repeatedly, to repeal it. As Alex Wagner asked, 'if it's so bad, why are the Republicans trying so hard to get rid of it'? *CRICKETS*. And badmouthing the President (you hate him, Dylan, admit it, you can't be objective about the President) on jobs, or as Alex manages to get a word in edgewise, "you've got to start somewhere" — *CRICKETS* — and, in fact, more jobs were created in Obama's first term than George W. Bush's entire eight years.

Ratigan's fondness for the racist Ron Paul and his reactionary brother Tom Coburn is delusional. Handing control of the Big Three — Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid — to these wingnuts would be tantamount to killing these bedrock Democratic programs. Ratigan is a "conservative" ideological basket case that no amount of Deepak Chopra-isms can cure. Here's some advice, Dylan, for what it's worth:

1. QUIT THE SMOKES, MAN; THEY'LL KILL YOU FAST.

2. STFU already, and stop playing us for fools. Name names and point the finger at the real villains; what do you expect, I ask again — for Democrats to unilaterally disarm? Not gonna happen, and thank your oracle for it. The only one-party state that can solve this problem is filibuster-proof DEMOCRATIC control of all three branches of government, public financing of elections, and a progressive SCOTUS majority, appointed by a DEMOCRATIC president that will overturn Citizens United. Everything else IS BULLSHIT.

3. Bring back the lovelies ... where's Karen Finney?

4. Go on that diet, though the Magical Mystery Jobs Tour will probably add more to your girth. The oversized ties give you a disturbing Donald Trump look; and

5. Listen to your buddy, Martin Bashir. I think he wants to help, if you'll let him.

Bang that gong, Alex.

Mitt Romney's Chicken Hawk Past — And Present

2012-01-13T11:47:00.002-06:00

Mitt Romney is only the latest, whose turn has come, of hawkish right wing Republicans to evade the Vietnam draft. Before him in this cowardly lineup of infamous deferments came Dick Cheney, Rudy Giuliani, Donald Trump, and lest we forget, dishonorable mention to the actual leader of the Republican Party Rush Limbaugh who avoided service with an ass cyst that may actually have been his brain. George W. Bush enlisted daddy's help to get him into the "Champagne National Guard" where privileged kids were parked stateside to avoid going to Nam, in case the Viet Cong invaded Texas through Mexico. These are only the 2012 highlights. The cowardice of Republicans is legion, and quite possibly pathological.

Enter Mitt Romney. In this Boston Globe article Romney claims with his now infamous "pious baloney" that he "longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there and in some ways it was frustrating not to feel like I was there as part of the troops that were fighting in Vietnam."

Yeah, right. As a privileged, protected Mormon whose daddy was Michigan governor, Romney "received a deferment from the draft as a Mormon 'minister of religion' for the duration of his missionary work in France, which lasted two and a half years. Before and after his missionary deferment, Romney also received nearly three years of deferments for his academic studies." But, he insists, "I really don’t recall thinking about political positions when I was knocking at the door in France."

His 'missionary work' in France wasn't quite like ministering to impoverished third-world populations as in the work done by Peace Corps volunteers in Africa and South America. Romney lived in France like a Mormon Maharajah "in a Mormon palace with chef and houseboy." Strangely, the Mitt Romney who doesn't "recall thinking about political positions" felt comfortable enough in his draft-protected skin to pick up a sign and demonstrate in favor of his university releasing draft information of others, not-so-fortunate-sons and joining snarky counter-demonstrations to an anti-war sit-in. If he wasn't "thinking about political positions" he was certainly taking them as a creature of the establishment elites, even then. Here are heartwarming photos of Mitt's reactionary Vietnam War political demonstrations, courtesy of the Mail Online:

Willard Mitt Romney is only the latest in the line of Republican draft dodging Chicken Hawks who never served in Vietnam to eargerly propose a do-over of the Bush-Cheney endless wars horror show, with chest-thumping bellicosity toward Iran, steep increases in our bloated military budget, and a wholesale rejection of the last honest and true Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower: "Beware of the military-industrial complex."

The Bain of Mitt's Existence: Vulture Capitalism Graphic

2012-01-13T09:31:00.000-06:00

Here's a stark graphical depiction of Mitt Romney's capitalist slash-and-burn chop shop depravities as head of Bain Capital, courtesy of romneygekko.com. Bain has yet to confirm the 100,000 jobs Romney claims to have created. And we'd also like to see Mittens' tax returns as well as Bain's to determine just how much these vulture capitalists contributed to the federal treasury; if anything.

Big Eddie's Bedtime HORROR Story

2012-01-13T09:11:00.000-06:00

Guaranteed to keep the Repug Kiddies awake ...

Future Ambassador Newt's FOR THE DOGS Ad

2012-01-13T08:40:00.003-06:00

Mittens' dog issue has come back to bite him. Rachel, a dog owner, led off last's night's show with TMI graphic gross-out detail, for which she later apologized to us viewers, with a mischievous smirk. The reproach by FOX personality Chris Wallace in 2008 and The Hill in 2012, to name a few, shows how much this issue cuts through tribal media barriers.

For some inexplicable reason, Salon's Steve Kornacki drew the short straw to do the "brown liquid" color commentary, dropping a bit of misinformation along the way (he didn't know), about a photo presumably depicting Mittens getting a shoeshine at an airport tarmac when, unfortunately, he was only getting wanded. Thank you Rachel for the lightning-fast correction. Here's the question, though: How many normal travelers get to sit in a chair on the airport tarmac to be wanded by a TSA employee whose union Mittens has vowed to destroy? So the photo, with explanatory text, is still worth posting. The only missing element to complete Mittens' regal traveler's treatment is a red carpet:

A smug wanding ...

Back to Mittens' dog problem, here's The Hill blogger Lanny Davis's outraged (excerpted) report; it says something larger about how a vulture capitalist who made his millions decimating companies, firing its employees, and shuttering communities built around those companies, behaves with "emotion-free crisis management;" kind of like Jeremy Irons in Margin Call:

"In brief, as the Boston Globe first reported in 2007, in 1983, Mitt Romney, then 36 years old, drove his station wagon packed with five sons and his wife on a 12-hour trip from Boston to Ontario, where his parents had a cottage on Lake Huron.

He took a dog carrier and attached it to the station wagon’s roof rack, built a special windshield, and put his dog Seamus into the carrier, where the dog remained for the 12-hour trip.

Was the dog distressed? Was it illegal under Massachusetts law as cruelty? There is some evidence that both are true.

During the trip, the Boston Globe reported, Romney’s oldest son, Tagg, looked around through the rear window and yelled, “Dad — gross!” A brown liquid was dripping down the back window — diarrhea from an animal that just might have been caused by the stress of being inside a cage for 12 hours on top of a car going 60 mph.

And what did Romney do, even after knowing of the dog's diarrhea? Did he realize that perhaps Seamus should be shown some mercy, cleaned up and allowed in the car, to sleep on someone’s lap?

No.

Here’s how the Globe described what Romney then did:

“As the rest of the boys joined in the howls of disgust, Romney coolly pulled off the highway and into a service station. There he borrowed a hose, washed down Seamus and the car, then hopped back onto the highway. It was a tiny preview of a trait he would grow famous for in business: emotion-free crisis management.”

Emotion-free crisis management??!"

South Carolina's SC Forward Progress — whose purpose is "to expose the gaining influence of right-wing extremism in South Carolina politics, how such extremism relates to and affects the Republican presidential nominating process" — has staged "Dogs Against Mitt Romney" demonstrations at Romney rallies:

Newt Gingrich, the Democrats' walking, rage against the Mittens talking point, puts it all in context, earning praise from United Steel Workers International President Leo Gerard, and idle speculation from E. J. Dionne that Newt is possibly vying for an Ambassadorial appointment from President Obama. Possibly to France, where Callista will have the run of Chanel and French haute couture? Because he's surely not landing a prime speaking role at the GOP convention much less a spot on the Mittens "dream ticket" or cabinet.

TEA PARTY {HEART} MITTENS: LET YOUR LOVE FLOW ...

2012-01-12T11:14:00.003-06:00

“I don’t know a single Tea Party person,” she said, slowly drawing out her words, “who does not despise Mitt Romney to the very core of their being.” ~ Karen Martin, lead organizer for the Spartanburg, South Carolina Tea Party. (From the New York Times Magazine article, "The Tea Party's Not-So-Civil War.)" Oops.

Mittens: Here Comes DA VULTURE CAPITALIST!

2012-01-11T23:22:00.000-06:00

Is there anything Willard Mitt Romney says that actually originates in his head? The patently ridiculous slogan, "the politics of envy," was plagiarized from an essay with said title, authored by conservative sociologist Paul Hollander in 2002.

The topic is "Anti-Americanism" defined as "a hostile predisposition that may range from distaste and aversion to intense hostility, rooted in conditions and circumstances that are often largely unrelated to the actual qualities or attributes of American society, institutions, values, or foreign policy" that "may culminate in political violence ... the scapegoating impulse followed by envy and ambivalence." Hollander delivers a broadside against the usual suspects on the Left, a way of branding critics of America as unpatriotic, or of "apologizing" for America, itself a treacherous charge leveled at President Obama by Romney, one which has no foundation whatsoever. Interestingly, Hollander argues,

"From the sociological and historical points of view, anti-Americanism may best be understood as a diffuse, ongoing protest against modernity — its major components and unintended consequences. These include secularization, industrialization, urbanization, bureaucratization, mobility (both social and spatial), and the decline of community and social-cultural cohesion."

And yet Hollander is become the intellectual inspiration for the most anti-science, anti-modernity party in more than 100 years? A party that, as noted by Katrina vanden Heuvel of the Nation Magazine, would take us back to the "Gilded Age" of robber barons, unregulated industry, child labor, no social safety net, and extreme income inequality.

Rachel made an astute observation regarding Romney's rabid and somewhat puzzling anti-European rhetoric. He took his military deferment by traveling abroad to do 'missionary work' in France, speaks French fluently, and by all accounts enjoyed his time abroad. But Mitt Romney is no Thomas Jefferson. Where Jefferson soaked in French culture and celebrated it to the end of his days as one of the great experiences of his life, Mitt Romney is seemingly ashamed of his passage through France and seems hell-bent on concealing any positive experience abroad with growing anti-Europe hostility. Such is the concession he has made to be the standard-bearer of a xenophobic isolationist party whose mainstream fringe still believes our President is a foreigner.

Katrina lifted the "vulture capitalist" scab off Mitt Romney in her column, excerpted below:

"But it is on economic policy where Romney’s extremism is most apparent — the extremism of the 1 percent, reflecting the zealotry of a former corporate raider at Bain Capital who made his fortune preying on U.S. companies.

Romney calls for returning to the same conservative policies — deregulation, financialization, corporate trade — that generated Gilded Age inequality and a declining middle class even before driving the economy over a cliff. He supports repealing Dodd-Frank, the Wall Street reform act. He favored the Republican effort to cripple the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the National Labor Relations Board by blocking Obama’s nominations to those agencies. He wants a weaker Environmental Protection Agency, calling regulation “the invisible boot of the state.” Not surprisingly, he agrees with Rick Perry that anti-union “right-to-work legislation makes a lot of sense for New Hampshire and for the nation.”"

And Rachel mocked Mitt's strained appropriated metaphor:

Here Ya Go, Mittens ... For Yer Lil' BOOTIES:

Portrait of a Ron Paul Supporter

2012-01-11T12:37:00.003-06:00

Ron Paul, the energetic septuagenarian who first ran for president in 1988, smirked at one of his favorite lines to describe how he views the media bias toward him — "they think we're dangerous," adding "that's one thing they are telling the truth ... because we're a danger to the status quo!" Mr. Paul may be a victim of the paranoid delusions that fuel his candidacy and his fanatical supporters if he broad-brushes the media in this way; most of their antagonistic coverage is justified by Paul's self-inflicted wounds and his controversial history of racist and anti-Semitic newsletter writings as well as his continuing embrace of conspiracies involving the UN, one-world government, FEMA, the Council on Foreign Relations, and "the coming race war." (This is only a partial list of conspiracy theorists' preferred boogiemen.)

But, as the saying goes, "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you." One of the unexpected benefits of Paul's candidacy vis-a-vis the media is that it outed longtime Republican embed posing as a CNN reporter, Dana Bash. Watch this blatant example of manifest media bias toward Ron Paul:

If anything, the media has given Ron Paul less complete coverage and scrutiny than it has the other candidates. Most of the media has written Paul off as a fringe candidate with a ceiling around 20%-25% of the Republican primary electorate, who by his own account isn't serious about winning the nomination. When asked whether he could see himself as president, Paul shrugged and replied, "not really." Perhaps that explains the delusional shouts of his supporters — "President Paul! President Paul!"— at the second-place speech last night following his customary 23% of the vote, good enough for second in New Hampshire.

It's unclear how "dangerous" Ron Paul and his supporters are, and to whom, beyond those right wing opponents to his left who harbor waning hopes of becoming the "conservative alternative" to Mitt Romney. Democrats hope Ron Paul will prolong the Republican primary process, though so far he has been a stalking horse for Mitt Romney. They have a tenuous non-aggression pact, which helps Mittens. How long it lasts will depend on which as yet nebulous strategy Paul elects to pursue. According to this WaPo profile of a Ron Paul supporter in New Hampshire:

"It is a dark if oddly energizing vision that has especially resonated with a young, male demographic. According to exit polling, 40 percent of Paul’s Iowa backers were men younger than 45, and 46 percent earned $50,000 a year or less. Roughly nine in 10 Paul supporters are white, similar to the racial makeup of Republicans overall, according to Washington Post-ABC News polls. Anecdotally, Paul’s backers tend mostly to be disillusioned Republicans, although his crowds these days routinely have a smattering of disillusioned Democrats, too, a group that now includes Christopher Way."

A young demographic of roughly nine in 10 white males hardly constitutes a movement or growth beyond its narrow appeal, despite Ron Paul's exaggerated claims stated as hope: "It's no longer that irate tireless minority that is stirring up the troops. Now that irate minority is growing by leaps and bounds, it's going to continue growing by leaps and bounds." Their electoral strength is steady-state and predictable, having yet to crack 25% of the Republican primary vote. Only a financial calamity of Great Depression proportions could grow Paul's base of support. So, in this sense, Ron Paul is a broken clock harbinger of doom and gloom whose success depends on total economic collapse.

It's fascinating to consider how much Ron Paul's supporters have in common with the 'Tea Party'. While Tea Partiers are older and more affluent, both groups are drawn to the conspiracies peddled by fringe carnival barkers like Alex Jones who has hosted Ron Paul on his radio show on numerous occasions, and to the same 'literature'. I recall a New York Times article from two years ago profiling Tea Partiers whose stories and twisted path to 'enlightenment' began from being largely uninvolved in politics to, like the profiled Paul supporter —“Once you see the truth, it can’t be unseen anymore”— becoming "steeped in the details of monetary policy, economic bubbles and national security issues, all of which for him add up to an increasingly bleak picture of America." Glenn Beck is their pied piper. Alex Jones is a common link.

A similar disaffection among young people struggling to find jobs and pay off their crushing college loans gave rise to the Occupy Wall Street movement. Do they have intersecting concerns? Some. But only superficially. OWS, it is fair to say, sprang from the Left as a reaction to the economic war waged on 99 percent of the American population by the Wall Street tycoons who brought our economy to its knees and were bailed out by the taxpayers. OWS is not wedded to any party or candidate, and more importantly, is grounded in diversity and reality, not paranoia, fundamentally rejecting bigotry and racism.

Mittens Borrows My Riff For His Victory Speech

2012-01-11T03:29:00.001-06:00

Here we go again. Phrases launched from this blog have been known to regurgitate from the mouths of Republican politicians. You'd think those speechwriters for Mr. Roboto would be only just, barely competent enough to write their own material. Alas — Republicans are not that into imagination and original thought.

This is what I wrote on January 5, a reference to Ron Paul's followers: "They are the product of the Orwellian dystopian fantasy created by the actual Big Government Republicans who waged two wars off the books, enriched beyond measure their crony capitalist pals, and crushed the middle class and unions." [Emphasis mine.]

Here's what Mr. Mittens Roboto said last night, reading his speech on the teleprompter: "The middle class has been crushed. Nearly 24 million of our fellow Americans are still out of work, struggling to find work, or have just stopped looking. The median income has dropped 10 percent in four years." [Emphasis mine.]

Gee, the congruence of these two passages, the original (mine), and the phony one (Romney's) is so precise, even though the copy is making the opposite, demagogic argument, that they could flow together as if one piece with just a minor edit. Observe:

"They are the product of the Orwellian dystopian fantasy created by the actual Big Government Republicans who waged two wars off the books, enriched beyond measure their crony capitalist pals, and crushed the middle class and unions. ~~The middle class has been crushed.~~ Nearly 24 million of our fellow Americans are still out of work, struggling to find work, or have just stopped looking. The median income has dropped 10 percent in four years."

I know I'm awesome, but ... any way you slice it, this appropriation is pretty pathetic for the multi-millionaire Republican with pretensions of becoming president of the United States. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Use you own material, Republican asswipes.

New Hampshire Primary Day: Can Anyone Slow The Mittens?

2012-01-10T12:14:00.002-06:00

Hunkered down in heavily armed bunkers throughout the land, wingnuts sweat bullets as they ponder the question. It's a simple proposition: To keep New Hampshire from being a springboard to the nomination, Mittens must be held to single digits. Steady-state Paulie the nutball is doing his "thing" hovering around 20%. Is there a Hunts-mentum in the horizon? Rachel thinks so, but we know all about her flights of fancy. On the other hand, THE moment of Sunday's debate was Huntsman's comebacker at Mittens, with Newt's "stop with the pious baloney" a close second.

The problem with Huntsman is he's as unexciting as Santorum is a crazy "Big Government conservative" — Newt, the Democrats' walking talking point nailed him hoping to vault to a third-place finish. They came, they saw, they barfed over Santorum. The prediction here is 'Googles' Santorum places no higher than fourth. Bunkerville wingnuts are no doubt heartened that one of their own became Newt's SuperPac $5 million Sugar Daddy. Isn't it ironic that Newt can rightly claim his solo contributor is not concealed?

Meanwhile Mittens 'the vulture capitalist' colors our 1902 Republican robber baron world:

... Gives Democrats another sound bite Ouch! ad:

And Democratic volunteers distribute "PINK SLIP Termination of Candidacy" at Romney events:

TOUCHDOWN JEEEE-SUS! Playoff Musings ...

2012-01-09T21:23:00.005-06:00

John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” Yeah, Tebow threw for 316 yards. Maybe we should switch to the metric system.

"Tim Tebow wrote the Bible verse John 3:16 on his eye black at the 2009 BCS title game. Here’s video of him talking about it after beat Oklahoma for the title."

Is it just me, or can you see the family resemblance, too? At least, more than Jesus on a cornflake? Kidding, kidding ... us crazy Catholics make irreverent Jesus jokes all the time. It's in a good cause if it gives Pat Robertson religious conniption fits.

Memo To Big Eddie and Homey: "Eastern" football team?! As opposed to a bunch of silly-looking cheeseheads? We'll take Homey's weird, flyover country ritualistic hatred of the Packers, though can't begin to understand it; but at least he'll be a New York Giants fan for a day, and that's one extra day of sports enlightenment than Big Eddie will have.

The Giants are definite underdogs. I can see Aaron Rodgers picking their secondary apart if the Giants' formidable pass rush doesn't give that arrogant rooster a mud & turf facial. Funny, but that hoity-toity "Eastern" team has the most unassuming 'aw shucks' quarterback in the NFL, Eli Manning, with a pretty good guardian angel, despite the guy upstairs who plays for the Bethlehem Broncos, and in stark contrast to arrogant Aaron, who's a nice guy, says all the right things, but still is so full of himself.

Finally, he may not be the world's greatest coach, but I've got a soft spot for Tom Coughlin. He's got the best WTF expression of all (I hate coaches who prance the sidelines like they're George S. Patton), he's a bit of a square, tough but plays no favorites, and totally authentic. What you see is what you get. Two things I really like about coach. If one of his guys messes up, commits a stupid penalty, Coughlin gets in his face, you can see him mouth the words, "what were you thinking!" He knows he's in coach's doghouse and goes off by himself. Teammates tend not to commiserate. When the team scores, coach shakes hands with his guys as they leave the field. It's old-fashioned, no slappin' the helmet or butt, no fist pumps; yet it's the simplest gesture of mutual respect, admiration, and affection known to man.

There's a third thing. The players love coach Coughlin and play hard for him. Respect begets respect. I hope Tom and Eli come out on the winning side. Touchdown Jesus — HEAVENS, he don't need OUR help.

Quotable: Dylan Ratigan on Romney, Predatory Capitalist At Bain

2012-01-09T14:46:00.002-06:00

"At least if you're going to buy a company to destroy it, USE YOUR OWN MONEY, MAN!"

~ Dylan Ratigan, popping a vein or two on the Martin Bashir show, for once not bad-mouthing Martin but one of his "Greedy Bastards." This time Martin had the last word: "You look magnificent!" ... Recalling Billy Crystal's Fernando; here's the intro to Dylan's show ... "So nice to see you!"... to his harem of lovelies:

The "eponymous" Dylan Ratigan as (not quite ...) Teddy Roosevelt:

Hookers For Paulie: That's The RATIONAL Endorsement

2012-01-08T19:10:00.001-06:00

You know that jingle, "sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't"...?

Gotta hand it to Ron Paul. He can sound perfectly reasonable at the debates, but not before reverting to his inner paranoid psycho nutball when the media's looking the other way. As Rachel said, "gotta know your audience," something the fake Manchurian candidate breaking into Chinese before a terrified Republican audience has yet to learn from the real Manchurian candidate. Away from the media glare, Paulie sneaked into a small Iowa town and, as reported by our intrepid progressive media keeping close tabs on the paleo-psycho-libertine, proceeded to try scaring the bejeezus outta them:

"Ron Paul stood before a crowded public library conference room here and warned the packed house that the United Nations is coming to take their land and that America is this close to riots in the streets against a government that is becoming more and more like a dictatorship.

Though he was well-received, these two classic Paulisms fell somewhat flat.

This was vintage Paul, the kind of fear of the one-world government and terror over the Amero (North American currency conspiracy) that has been a fixture of Paul’s persona on the national stage."

Meanwhile, Paulie's scrubbed the gay-bashing pastor's endorsement from his website but isn't celebrating that other one he's received lately? Note to political items collectors: keep an eye out for "Hookers For Paul" buttons; I guarantee it'll be a hot item of increasing value.

Sunday, Bloody Sunday ...

2012-01-08T13:46:00.005-06:00

Better. Never thought I'd say this, but David Gregory made Georgie Boy and Nixon's stenographer look like Romney Olympian amateurs. David did a great job, asked almost every question I had posted as unasked except the one on abortion and Romneycare, with excellent follow-ups. So David gets an A rather than A+. But at least, here he's EARNED the grade.

HUNTSMAN STRIKES BACK — Nothing like a 10-hour simmer, probably with little sleep to bring out the fangs in the slighted candidate. The counterattack put Romney on his heels but the delayed response didn't help Utah's still doomed former governor:

JON HUNTSMAN: "I was criticized last night by Governor Romney for putting my country first. He criticized me while he was out raising money. I want to be very clear. I will always put my country first." ROMNEY, snarkily: "I just think it's most likely that the person who should represent our party against President Obama is not someone who called him a remarkable leader." HUNTSMAN's takedown, described as his "most quotable moment" of the entire campaign: "This country is divided because of statements like that."

SQUISHY ROMNEY, LYING about those terrible European socialist states: One of Mittens' favorite lines of attack against the President is to call him a socialist who wants to turn America into a social welfare state. He gets away with it because no one will contest his lies about European economies. Well, somebody's got to stick up for European (versus American, Medicare/Social Security) socialism. In the Saturday debate Mittens made the misleading assertion that the average American worker has a higher standard of living than the average European. Right ... Did you hear the one about, Bill Gates walks into a bar:

"The claim that Americans have a higher standard of living is based on the U.S. having a higher ‘average income’ than most European countries. But average income doesn’t convey much about income distribution; if Bill Gates walked into a bar the ‘average income’ of everyone in the bar would increase by about a billion dollars!

Besides, Europeans invest their wealth into other important things besides income that benefit everyone equally, such as quality health care, child care, more vacations, more generous retirement pensions, paid parental leave after childbirth, free or nearly free college education, affordable housing, supportive senior care, better parks and more. In today’s economically insecure age, quality of life is not only about income levels but also about adequate support institutions for families and individuals. If the average American has more income than a European, how come Europeans have a much higher savings rate than Americans?"

How about the news that Germany posted its lowest unemployment rate, 6.8%, in 22 years last month? That's right. See, in Germany they do things a little differently. The labor unions have a seat in the corporate boardroom and even have input in selecting their CEOs. Workers have an ownership share in their companies, resulting in collaborative labor-management relations. Their manufacturing base kicked our ass, and last year Germany made twice as many cars as the U.S. They have largely free healthcare, education including college, better unemployment and retirement benefits. Since 1985, hourly worker pay in Germany rose 30% compared with 6% for the U.S. And as a percentage of all income, millionaires did very well in Germany, only they didn't post the indecent transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the one percenters of this country the last 40 years.

In 1970, in percentage of all income, the top one percent in Germany owned 11% percent compared with 9% for the U.S. (WOW; that was when we were growing the middle class and had the world's leading manufacturing base). After 30 years of the Reagan Right's destruction of America, that number is still 11% in Germany, but a whopping 20% in America. ONE PERCENT OF THE RICHEST AMERICANS OWN 20% OF OUR WEALTH. The income inequality in America is staggering, equaling the numbers on the cusp of the Great Depression, when a robber baron culture ruled the land.

A friend of mine, longtime GOP voter turned Democrat, once told me his German emigré neighbor never gave up German citizenship though he's been here for decades, because every year he travels to Germany and gets a full physical and all of his health care needs taken care of, essentially for free, as an entitlement of citizenship. By contrast, I went to the local supermarket and walked in on a Depression era bread-line of people queuing up to pay $59 for basic medical screenings, care of a traveling health clinic with a short-term outreach program. Similarly, there was the spectacle recently, in rural Tennessee, of people driving hours to get at the front of the line in pre-dawn darkness for emergency dental and medical care at a free clinic that was only there for two days. They could not handle the overflow crowds. And the infuriating tragedy of it is, these people continuously vote against their own best interests, for Republicans who will cut their Social Security to transfer more of our money to the top 1%.

Ask an ideologue like Ron Paul and his foolish followers, selfish young people with a narrow nihilistic youth-centric Darwinist perspective, of the real life consequences to real live people of their extremist policy abstractions. How much "freedom" does someone who cannot move for fear of losing his children's life-sustaining health care really have? Or, as happens in countless tragedies throughout this country, what's the "freedom" for people whose lives are cut short because they have no health care to treat their cancer? Mr. Paul says we have a "right to life" but not to health care. What he really means is, we have a right, or the "freedom" to die. Quickly. The sooner the better. So those lucky enough to have health care can get a bigger piece of the pie.

FACT: In the United States nearly 14% of Americans live in poverty — about 40 million people — compared to 6% in France, 8% in Britain, and 5% or less in Germany, Sweden and Belgium. Twenty percent of American children live below the poverty line, as do nearly 23% of the elderly, the highest figure by far in the west with the exceptions of Russia and Mexico. The U.S. is ranked 29th in infant mortality, tied with Poland and Slovakia (in 1960 the U.S. was ranked twelfth) and 37th in health care (France is ranked first). The wealthiest 10 percent of Americans now owns 70 percent of the wealth but in Germany the top 10 percent owns 44 percent.

I say, let's hear it for Germany, and not-so-terrible socialism. Let's hear it for Germany, that socialist capitalist state, for producing twice as many cars as we did last year, having an unemployment rate 1.7% lower than ours at the height of its Euro American-style banking and investment crisis, and for all those quality of life stats listed above.

NEWT FINALLY GOES ON THE ATTACK, refuses to disavow calling Mittens a LIAR — see two posts back, accurate if ahead of its time ... for a day.

58 Second Flat Post-GOP Debate Analysis: Showdown Fizzled And Postponed ... Till Sunday?

2012-01-07T23:47:00.005-06:00

Newt Gingrich, inexplicably, pulled his punches literally getting his swipes at Romney stuck in his craw. Georgie Boy launched into an obsessively annoying line grilling Romney, killing a lot of time, on the question of whether Romney was in favor of states outlawing contraception. Asked and answered, in Romney's weasely way; no, sort of, it's a non-issue. But Georgie, inexplicably, kept insisting until the audience hissed (which may be what his script called for), never asking Santorum, who had openly stated his preference for criminalizing birth control, the question. Inexcusable and inexplicable, absent a conspiracy of interests. Or maybe Georgie really is that stupid.

These were the two biggest stories of tonight's debate: Romney escaped unscathed, and Georgie et al behaved like confused pundits asking scattershot, unfocused questions and utterly betraying their responsibility to report, though they may be mere media personalities and news readers. There was little consequential follow-up, none in the foreign policy segment, especially on Romney's recklessly irresponsible saber-rattling against Iran, along with Perry and Santorum, all chomping at the bit to start a war with a nation of 70 million people that is a formidable regional military power.

Ron Paul, the "constitutionalist," was by far the most reasonable of the bunch, not a particularly high bar, but still, clearly appealing to Democrats and independents. He viciously attacked Gingrich for being a "chicken hawk" who wants to send young people off to war but took several deferments when his turn came up — Paul connected — and Santorum for being a "big government conservative" who voted for multiple spending bills then "did very well" as a lobbyist — connecting again. But Paul never attacked Romney. Clearly, Ron Paul served notice he was conceding Romney's first place finish in New Hampshire and going all-out for that strong second-place finish, ahead of Santorum and Gingrich. The others, by comparison, were timid and paralyzed in the face of the great Romney juggernaut, and more than a bit scared of Paul, too.

Newt Gingrich totally wimped out on directly attacking Romney, citing New York Times and Wall Street Journal articles critical of Romney instead; an utterly defeatist tactic — ridiculous considering he was talking to Republicans — akin to throwing in the towel. For their part, Georgie Boy and his media cabal seemed to deliberately act out a pre-planned establishment 'protect Romney' play, letting him off the hook on the most controversial issues. There were no questions of Mitt's carpet bombing SuperPac attacks on Newt in Iowa, nor a request for an answer to Newt having called Mitt "a liar", or any question about Romneycare funding of abortions, potentially the most damaging line of attack raised against him by Newt. Instead, Georgie Boy spent an inordinate amount of time on the faux diversionary issue of whether states should outlaw contraception — again, it was Santorum's issue, and he was never asked to explain it. But Georgie Boy gave the impression he was pressing Romney — which was his intent? What a despicable worm.

It seemed scripted, as if there was an agreement before the debate between Romney's people and ABC that certain questions would not be raised by the panel. If other candidates did, well, then so be it ... Interestingly, Newt was effectively muzzled; Perry was mum; Huntsman ineffective — the weird moment when he spoke Chinese made him sound like the Manchurian candidate of the Paul ad — and Romney landed the hardest counter-punch pointedly noting Huntsman served the President as Ambassador to China; Santorum was timid toward Romney and defensive against Ron Paul ... who seemed to be the only candidate onstage that was unscripted and not in on any prior non-aggression pact.

Ron Paul won. Romney won. Santorum, tied. Newt, Huntsman and Perry lost. Oh, and the voters lost as well.

SHOWDOWN AT THE MANCHESTER CORRAL!

2012-01-07T14:31:00.000-06:00

JONATHAN CAPEHART, Accidental Beltway Media Savant

2012-01-06T11:58:00.001-06:00

On Alex Wagner's NOW show, after she'd done interviewing the clown who won't go away, Herman Cain and his new Traveling Circus act. Jonathan Capehart, a man after my own heart, commented on Cain's cageyness regarding Cain's "adjective, unconventional" upcoming endorsement of a presidential candidate: "I wouldn't be surprised if Cain endorsed HIMSELF and jumped back in the race."

Jonathan, my thoughts exactly, given the man's boundless ego. It's too bad Alex didn't pick up on this vibe and ask Cain the question on Jonathan's mind and mine, point black. Alex, you should listen more to what your interviewees are saying, and be ready to improvise. And why throw nothing but softballs at this charlatan and snake oil salesman, who revived his thoroughly debunked 9-9-9 scheme without even a 'wait a minute' from Alex.

Memo To Alex Wagner: Letting the wingnuts play you in exchange for access is too steep a concession. Careful not to develop bad habits or allow the corporate culture to corrupt you. Just saying.

Michael Steeles’s Racist Party

2012-01-06T10:47:00.006-06:00

“Kansas House Speaker Mike O'Neal (R-Hutchinson) apologized Thursday for forwarding an email referring to First Lady Michelle Obama as “Mrs. YoMama” and comparing her to the Grinch.”

Mrs. YoMama?

He said Thursday he was sorry to those he offended, adding that he missed the text in the body of the email. He said, however, that the picture "made me laugh." Earlier his communications director defended him, saying that political cartoons are a "part of American culture."

Don’t you just love it, how these racist ratbastards don’t even have the decency to issue an honest apology? How many times have we seen Michael’s racist colleagues qualify their “apology” with a “sorry to THOSE … offended”? Amazing how these cro-magnum REPUBLICAN RACISTS just don’t GET IT, STILL. To them, the “apology” is a chore, a required burdensome bow to political correctness, rather than something they approach with the clear knowledge that what they did was wrong and compels them to issue an unambiguous apology.

This is the 21^st century. It’s GROTESQUELY OUTRAGEOUS that this paleo-racist’s “communications director” (?) should defend the Kansas Speaker’s e-mail saying that political cartoons are a “part of American culture.” RIGHT. That’s exactly correct. Ugly racism in political cartoons has long been an infamous “part of American culture,” from Abraham Lincoln to Barack Obama:

Lincoln Pictured as a Monkey Holding The Emancipation Proclamation to Rupert Murdoch's Despicable NY Post Cartoon.

This is JAW-DROPPING IGNORANCE. This is evidence of how deeply ingrained racism is part of American culture, of today’s Republican Party and its xenophobic, homophobic, racist constituencies. Every single day, we see despicable racist and homophobic eruptions on the campaign trail, from Romney to Santorum to Gingrich. I don’t understand. I DON’T UNDERSTAND how anyone with a conscience and a brain can belong to, or support a party such as this.

Here’s your song, Michael Steele:

Quotable: Newt Gingrich Invokes SNL On Romney

2012-01-06T09:33:00.001-06:00

"He's not a conservative. It's a joke for him to call himself a conservative. It's a Saturday Night Live skit."

~ Newt Gingrich, enlisting SNL to help his campaign with an "SNL skit" just in time for David Gregory's Sunday debate. He's counting on, lobbying NBC's Gregory to play the "skit" if SNL bites. Machiavellian Newt. SNL really, REALLY needs Newt to guest host before this campaign is over.

Rachel's Ron Paul Blind Spot

2012-01-05T19:02:00.003-06:00

Rachel's fascination with Ron Paul and his cultish, steady-state fanatical support is obdurate and frankly reason-defying. This latest foray into Paulieland could be the most fantastical yet for the normally well-grounded Rachel. Perhaps it was Michael Steele's studio presence trailing his high octane partisan bullshit and misinformation vibe that fueled Rachel's baffling flight of fancy. Her Cliff Notes outline of Ron Paul’s purported policy differences with Rick Santorum, the right wing's latest anti-Romney alternative, is at best superficial if not conveniently misleading. The stubborn Ms Maddow keeps trying to fit a Ron Paul square peg into a round hole. Or banging her head against a wall. Maybe she'll stop when the headache begins.

Being against abortion is “the one and only thing that these two Mitt Romney alternatives agree on,” Rachel argues. “But on every other policy issue of substance Rick Santorum and Ron Paul are total opposites.” Really? Let’s take DADT. Rachel frantically clings to the Ron Paul fig leaf that he would not “work to overthrow” it. But as Paul explains it, “rights don't come in groups. We shouldn't have gay rights. Rights come as individuals. If we have this major debate going on, it would be behavior that would count, not the person who belongs to which group.”

For “Dr. Paul” as Rachel obsequiously refers to him in her best incantation of a star-struck Pauline who left her intellect in a jar by the door — sorry to break this to you, Rachel, but “Dr.” Paul has been a practicing politician for decades — this means something quite different from the Cliff Notes headline version served up to make Rachel’s “opposites” thesis work. Ron Paul 2012 is not the phantom obstetrician of Rachel’s dreams but the homophobic, racist politician who yelped “queer, queer” in his 2008 “Bruno” role and failed to provide a rational explanation for the virulent racism of his 1990s newsletters. While the other candidates sought the media spotlight in the last day’s campaign, Paul avoided it, hopping a small plane to his final Iowa campaign stops. What’s he got to hide?

Rachel can only square Paul with her benign counter-intuitive argument that the two fringe candidates of an increasingly right wing party are radically different by cherry-picking their records and policy positions. Rick Santorum's extremist and weird anti-gay views are well-known. How different are they from Paul's 2003 opposition to the SCOTUS decision striking down the Texas anti-sodomy laws in its Lawrence v. Texas ruling? Paul wrote:

The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.

In Lawrence v. Texas, the Court struck down sodomy laws not just in Texas but in 13 other states, thereby decriminalizing same-sex conduct. While Paul scoffed at the the 14th amendment's “right to privacy,” it was in effect the right of a class of citizens to not have their constitutionally protected due process under the law violated by repressive state laws. We fought a civil war to resolve the parameters of states' rights under the 14th Amendment passed as one of three post-war Reconstruction amendments, in 1883, initially to protect the citizenship rights of newly freed slaves. Southerners like Mr. Paul pretend the Civil War never happened and 600,000 Americans didn't die. Further, while the man who yelled "queer!" may say sodomy laws are "ridiculous" he would never question the states' rights to legislate it. Or slavery. Or polygamy, for that matter.

Rachel may choose to dismiss Ron Paul's anti-abortion stance as a nod to “orthodoxy” and “a given” in the Republican Party as understandable or self-explanatory; some sort of litmus test to be a viable Republican candidate. But to call it “the one real exception to Ron Paul’s ideological purism” is inaccurate and flies in the face of the homophobic, racist man of principle in Rachel’s distortive proposition — like, he just had to embrace the party “orthodoxy” of so-called “social conservatives” and “evangelicals” in the right wing fringe of the Republican Party because, well, it’s an article of faith with them. That's the excuse Paul uses to explain away his extremist affiliations and it's just not credible. Funny, but I thought “orthodoxy” was the very definition of “ideological purism.”

Rachel, face the facts and get over your infatuation with Paul. If you want to understand the Paul appeal to a certain age group, consider the political history of the last 30 years, in their lifetimes, and that Paul supporters may not know or care to study any other. They are the product of the Orwellian dystopian fantasy created by the actual Big Government Republicans who waged two wars off the books, enriched beyond measure their crony capitalist pals, and crushed the middle class and unions. Ron Paul cast a vote against the Iraq war. So did Ted Kennedy. Barack Obama spoke out against it and brought our troops home from Iraq inside of three and a half years.

What do the Paul supporters want, a return to the gold standard? What do they want “freedom” from: Access to decent medical care; guns without regulation; the social safety net that kept their grandparents from falling into poverty; wars without a draft that compels them to fight; black and latino welfare recipients, but not white; affordable government-backed student loans; the GI Bill; repeal of the 14^th Amendment; xenophobia, by limiting legal immigration and militarizing our borders; what?

There’s plenty of overlap in the extremist positions of Paul and Santorum. Ron Paul is a freedom-loving “small government” ideologue in the Pat Buchanan nativist mold — notice how Pat’s racist screeds picked up where Paul’s newsletters left off — a neo-fascist who promotes freedom for white people at the expense of everyone else. It’s the shrinking pie argument that assigns blame to the poor, the elderly, people of color, those least able to defend themselves from the marginalization of their social status. It’s a variation on an ugly theme and undercurrent of 19^th and 20^th century American and European history.

As for Michael Steele's political bloviations, they’re literally indistinguishable one from the other. One day after Ron Paul finished third instead of first or second in Iowa, Steele went from revising his forecast a day earlier with Chris Matthews of understated Paul numbers to telling Rachel he's not a serious factor in Republican electoral politics. Steele tailors his GOP establishment propaganda message as he goes along, and according to conditions on the ground. If one were to do a word map of Steele’s gaseous cloud, the biggest word would be “politics” and biggest phrase variant, “the Democrats do the same thing.” One is meant to dismiss the moral bankruptcy of his party, and the other to postulate, without facts or sourcing, the false equivalency lie.

My question remains: Why the fuck do we have to put up with such obnoxious political hackery, unadulterated spin, GOP talking points?! Michael Steele's most revelatory moment was justifying his embrace of the racist Republican Party with anecdotal bellyaching on the Reverend Al show about what terrible things LBJ’s “Great Society” did to his community. No facts, no evidence; NADA. This guy doesn’t work from facts, and of course, they just let him skate at MSNBC. Well, here’s a factoid for you Michael. Joe Califano, a distinguished Democrat who served under LBJ and Carter said: “From 1963 when Lyndon Johnson took office until 1970 as the impact of his Great Society programs were felt, the portion of Americans living below the poverty line dropped from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent, the most dramatic decline over such a brief period in this century." The percentage of African Americans below the poverty line dropped from 55 percent in 1960 to 27 percent in 1968.

IT WORKED. The demise of the middle class coincides with the rise of the Republican Right and Ronald Reagan, rolling back the gains made in the 60s and 70s to end poverty and expand the middle class. Now Steele makes the MSNBC rounds to bemoan his party for not pushing some wingnut prescription of his about economic “empowerment” of the urban poor. As if his white racist pals have any interest in eliminating the underclass they created and run against. Michael and Rachel, denial’s not just a river in Egypt.

Reminder for Rachel: Gene Robinson is a journalist and a Pulitzer Prize winner. Michael Steele is neither. Trotting him out to trash a major presidential speech while not disclosing that outside his role as purported "political analyst" he's been advising Republicans on how best to defeat the President is like, well, trotting out a multi-millionaire lobbyist to offer "color commentary" on the party in opposition's plans to defeat his client's project. In a word, it's unethical. I thought you knew that.

Quotable: The Reverend AL

2012-01-04T13:54:00.000-06:00

"Seventy-five percent of Republicans voted AGAINST Willard (Mitt Romney)."

Speaking of News Coverage, MSNBC Remains The Last Network Standing

2012-01-04T10:25:00.001-06:00

CNN which has always teetered with its lineup of jackasses and faux balance has finally gone over to the dark side, full bore, with this wingnut alert: Sightings of E.D. Hill, formerly of FOX 'News', the wingnut notorious for making the "terrorist fist pump" remark of President and Mrs. Obama and spreading the rumor President Obama was a Muslim. After FOX canceled her show and did not renew her contract, Hill popped back up at CNN to continue spreading misinformation anchoring CNN's political coverage. She was described as a "conservative analyst" perhaps to distinguish her from the conservative "political analysts" at rival MSNBC. Slippery slope.

Meanwhile, the place to be for politics was MSNBC, with Rachel doing a sterling job anchoring the Iowa caucuses "coverages" (come to think of it, not a slip of the tongue) making Steve Schmidt (a good guy, for a Republican and sharp political strategist) field uncomfortable verities about his party, and firing tough questions along with the panel at Republican guests like Romney's lawyer (weaseling on the SuperPac issue) and Iowa's Sec. of State (on the hypocrisy of eschewing his voting and registration restrictions for the GOP caucuses). Chris Matthews did the same with Michael Steele, keeping the partisan bullshit and talking points to a minimum. The tension came from a sense that Big Eddie might take a swing at Lawrence were Rachel not sitting between them. She smoothed things over by giving the big guy the well-deserved "game ball" for picking Santorum, who ended up finishing second by eight votes — was the fix in not to embarass Romney too much? — but in the primary political game of expectations it was a HUGE WIN for Santorum nonetheless.

Chris Matthews added to the mirth and merriment with his priceless commentary comparing Romney's SuperPac ad war campaign against Newt Gingrich to the bombing of Dresden in WWII, then saved by a fortuitous 'producer-screaming-in-Rachel's-ear' break from developing his meme that Gingrich was an "assassin" (metaphorically, of course) on Romney's trail — can't wait for the upcoming Saturday and Sunday debates, with Chris's commentary unleashed. Howard Fineman did a good job as Chris's wingman who seemed ready to conduct an intervention when Chris was saved by the break.

All in all, really good coverage, including late-night, with Sweet Melissa (who's a lot of fun in her non-analyst's mode), Rachel who had to be pried away from the desk (bad move, suits, you should've let her stay), and the effervescently bright Chris Hayes, anchoring a team of sharpies with unusually prescient political analysis; far and away superior to the ho-hum canned garbage of the other channels. Next time, suits, keep Rachel put; her interaction with Chris and Melissa was much too short-lived intellectual powerhouse fireworks.

Quotable: Sweet Melissa On Sex And Reproduction

2012-01-04T00:45:00.000-06:00

"There's only one kind of sexual contact that almost never leads to reproduction, and that is same-sex contact." ~ Melissa Harris Perry's strange sex musings inspired by Rick Santorum's radical stand against birth control. (She and Rachel, and Chris Hayes too, seemed to be having altogether too much fun!) WHOA ... Methinks poli-sci college professor Sweet Melissa SERIOUSLY needs to take those make-up biology/sex ed courses she skipped in high school ...?

Geez ... I love watching political coverage ... the things you learn!

CHAOS IN IOWA! HERE'S THE CHAOTIC REPUBLICAN CAUCUS PICTURE:

2012-01-03T20:26:00.001-06:00

Quotable: Andrea Mitchell on Iowa

2012-01-03T14:31:00.001-06:00

MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell caused a furor among wingnuts when she said: "The rap on Iowa: Too HICK."* Andrea, Andrea ... Please. What you really meant to say is, "The rap on REPUBLICAN Iowa ..." I mean c'mon, Andrea, the state's gone blue five of the last six presidential elections; you're really insulting those normal folks — Democrats — who hang out at places like Java Joe's and are going to caucus for President Obama. No wonder Iowans are upset at being lumped together with the fringe crazies of their state. Those that the media politely, euphemistically call "evangelicals" and "libertarians" and "conservatives."

Some polling group really ought to determine what subset of these are Klan or militia members. Or white supremacists. And who are these "evangelicals" — where's the overlap? How do they diverge in fundamentalist beliefs with traditional Christian denominations? Are they home schoolers; do they reject the state's right to tax or govern them? They're fringe, yes. But they exert a national political influence from their state Republican caucus that belies their small numbers and is unrepresentative of their state and the nation. And no one reports this accurately — well, Andrea tried but was slapped down by the wingnuts — consequently this skewed perspective worms its way into Beltway Mediaspeak.

*Andrea was being polite when she said Iowa doesn't represent the rest of the country because it's "too white, too evangelical, too rural" ... too HICK. Iowa Republican caucusgoers, Andrea. Please. You shouldn't lump Democrats and non-Paul independents in with the CRAZIES. Their numbers, less than 30 percent I'm guessing, are the same in most advanced, sophisticated (blue or "swing") states. Wingnuts want us to believe their numbers are actually larger than they are. It fits with their Big Lie and makes it easier for them to shift the national political conversation to the far right of where the electorate is. Can't you see?

Quotable: Chris Matthews Puts Michael Steele Down

2012-01-02T18:06:00.002-06:00

Chris Matthews hosting Hardball on the road at Java Joe's in Des Moines, Iowa, today with tag-along pundits Michael Steele ("I'm just the suit"), Howard Fineman (detector of malevolent political patterns), and ('nuff said, Pulitzer Prize winner) Gene Robinson, referred to Steele as the "ersatz Republican leader." Ouch. Merriam-Webster defines ersatz as "being a usually artificial and inferior substitute or imitation", and Wikipedia, "being an imitation or a substitute, usually an inferior one; artificial." Is Chris trying to drum up audience sympathy for Steele? It may be working. Michael must read this blog, which agrees with his assessment that Ron Paul's poll numbers understate his support pretty substantially. An interesting observation; we'll see if it pans out.

American Götterdämmerung

Howard Fineman stole the show with his nimble political analyst's brain, detecting the pattern that all of Romney's candidate comparison takedowns have been notorious women: Lucy the clown in the chocolate factory, for Gingrich; Marie Antoinette the naïve spoiled elitist, for President Obama; and again President Obama compared to Kim Kardashian: "I think the gap between his promises and his performance is the largest I've seen, well, since the Kardashian wedding and the promise of til death do we part," referring to her 72-day marriage. Nice line, but not only is it untrue, Gene observed that Mittens couldn't tell the three Kardashian sisters apart if they lined up in front of him. It's a really, transparently, lame attempt to come across as a hip pop culture maven. As phony as the candidate who recites "America The Beautiful" while savaging Newt Gingrich with his SuperPac ads which he refused to acknowledge, as if, broken clock Newt observed, "people aren't that stupid."

Mitt Romney was projecting Marie Antoinette, to be sure. As Howard noted, he has a problem with women, and is pursuing a line of attack in which he seems to think marginalizing women and feminizing his opponents is the surest path to electoral victory. Mittens is an arrogant elitist neanderthal, accustomed to getting his way by throwing his wealth around to subvert the people's exercise of democracy, their vote, their choice. Newt the Ironic might end up being right, after all the votes are cast: The voters aren't that stupid. We shall see.

Primer For Clueless MSNBCers To Rebut GOP Lies About Keystone Pipeline Jobs Claims

2012-01-02T14:21:00.001-06:00

Especially for Grover Norquist cheerleaders like Richard Lui. From today's New York Times editorial urging President Obama to "push back hard" on Republican lies, accusations that he would be depriving the nation of jobs by rejecting approval of the Keystone pipeline:

"The payroll tax cut bill, which Mr. Obama signed last month, gave him 60 days to decide on the Keystone XL pipeline. That is not enough time to complete the required environmental review of a project that, in its present design, crosses ecologically sensitive territory and risks polluting an aquifer critical to Midwestern water supplies.

The Republicans’ claim that the pipeline will create tens of thousands of new jobs — 20,000 according to House Speaker John Boehner and 100,000 according to Jon Huntsman — are wildly inflated. A more accurate forecast from the federal government, one with which TransCanada, the pipeline company, agrees, says the project would create 6,000 to 6,500 temporary construction jobs at best, for two years."

Hmm. Let's see now: 6,500 temporary construction jobs for two years versus the utter devastation of our fragile ecosystem, north to south, and the despoiling of our endangered fresh water aquifers, forever. Close call. Incidentally, Richard Lui and MSNBC, you must really be proud of yourselves.

EE-VIL MOGUL WATCH: Rupie Joins Twitter!

2012-01-02T11:42:00.003-06:00

THIS IS RICH! Rupert Murdoch has joined Twitter. And the foreign-born Birther pusher has already proved to be highly informative and entertaining; much more so than his propaganda empire — they dare not cross the old man — and his robotic cast of crazies and air-head blondes. So far, Rupie has:

Enthusiastically boosted New York mayor Mike Bloomberg — "Great to see Mike Bloomberg getting some rewards for being New York's best mayor in memory!" — though it's unclear what those "rewards" are; this certainly paves the way for FOX support of a Bloomberg third-party run for president.

Had kind words for Rick Santorum — "Good to see santorum surging in Iowa. Regardless of policies, all debates showed principles, consistency and humility like no other."

And plug for WSJ Op-Ed on Ron Paul — "Great oped inWSJ today on Ron Paul. Huge appeal of libertarian message." Um, Rupert ... not so huge, 38 percent; is this FOX appeal to "racist rednecks" explained, as libertarians' boardroom strategy?

But thundering silence on Mitt Romney. Does this signal Rupie's distaste for current Republican front-runner Mitten's "inevitability" and desire to see a prolonged nomination fight?

Possibly doomed Hollywood Democratic activist George Clooney's Oscar chances with this — "Saw Fox film Descendants. Thank God, one to be proud of. Star Geo Clooney deserves Oscar, maybe film too."

Equally fascinating is the short list — Rupie's annointed FOUR tweeters he has chosen to follow:

Jack Dorsey, Executive Chairman of Twitter, CEO of Square, a founder of both; when Rupie joins your team, he intends to keep tabs on the head honcho, subtle intimidation. (See Lord Sugar daddy, below.)

Lord Sugar, Chairman of Amshold Group which is owner of Viglen, Amscreen and Amsprop, old Rupie pal: "I wonder is my old pal @rupertmurdoch is eying up Twitter to buy or invest in it. He missed out on Facebook and My Space... not a great deal."

Google founder Larry Page; intimations of future business deals and/or clashes? And

Mark Pincus, Zynga founder and CEO, a man after Rupie's own heart! An unnamed former employee in "a brutal profile at SF Weekly" said "Zynga is one of the most evil places I've run into" where Pincus told his idealistic employees at a meeting: 'I don't fucking want innovation. You're not smarter than your competitor. Just copy what they do and do it until you get their numbers.'"

Rupie has the last word: "Maybe (stop?) soon, but I'm getting killed for fooling around here and friends frightened what I may really say!" Keep tweeting, Rupie!

Like, D'OH! ... MSNBC, Romney Ties Revealed ... OH.MY.GAWD.

2012-01-02T06:17:00.000-06:00

You read it here first, folks. You'll read this refrain a lot. It means we're doing our job. That's what makes this one of the best political blogs around. We tell the truth, however irreverently delivered it may be at times. We like to have fun, and don't take ourselves too seriously, lest we lose perspective. But we take our facts and reality checks very seriously. Sometimes we don't get it right, but don't count on it; getting our facts right is the single most time-consuming element of posting political news and commentary on this blog. You read it here first, folks:

[You read it here, first.] Repeatedly. Especially after NBC News President Steve Capus's tongue lashing of MSNBC news reporters and anchors for accurately reporting Mitt Romney's use in a speech and campaign ad of a KKK slogan in the state with the nation's highest per capita number of KKK groups.

Will Romney's heavy late spending in Iowa propel him to the top? Not likely. Even with his nod to racist KKK voters (Iowa is first in the nation per capita in KKK groups) recanted, sort of, when he was caught working an old KKK slogan into his campaign speeches. Once MSNBC caved disgracefully from its report, it only showed that Romney can pull strings with the Beltway Media, not that he really means what he says.

Here's the context, from the bandwagon:

"MSNBC anchors like Ed Schultz and Andrea Mitchell have started to disclose parent company NBC Universal's ties to Bain Capital, the private investment firm co-founded by GOP candidate Mitt Romney.

Bain Capital and NBC Universal are both part owners of The Weather Channel. Along with Blackstone Group, the two companies purchased the network in 2008.

Romney left Bain in 1999, but the New York Times reported last week that the candidate candidate forged a retirement deal with the investment firm when he left. According to the Times, Romney continues to receive a share of Bain profits, and takes in millions of dollars each year."

Hmm. Have I mentioned yet how multi-millionaire Keystone pipeline lobbyist Grover Norquist got exclusive dibs on the MSNBC "mic" to do "color commentary" of competing House Republican-Democratic pressers on the impasse over extending the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance, a key stumbling block of which was the pipeline's approval? And how Grover's conflict of interest was never disclosed by MSNBC anchor Richard Lui — was it just an oversight?

Ah, the tangled webs we weave in the high-stakes, high-finance corporate world of connected politicos, bought government (Republican), and the corporate Beltway Media that jump when their masters call to complain about a story. Keep tuned to this blog for the ugly, inconvenient truth.

Funnin' Rachel Maddow: Could It Be ...?!

2012-01-01T13:58:00.000-06:00

What better way to start off the New Year than to post a photo of our Muse, Rachel, joining "Occupy The Iowa Caucus" protests at Michele Bachmann headquarters; well, maybe not, as long as "Rachel Maddow" has an ironclad alibi.

"RACHEL" STORMS THE BARRICADES!

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

2011-12-31T21:50:00.000-06:00

COURTESY OF: Garth Hudson's ORGAN-IC keystrokes, with the BAND. As the story goes, Robbie Robertson said they had planned on playing Auld Lang Syne at the stroke of midnight, but with five minutes to kill, Garth Hudson launched into an ethereal, awesome improvisation on the Organ. Enjoy!

S'Long Newt Gingrich, You MEAN S.O.B.

2011-12-31T21:18:00.001-06:00

War Is Hell; For Hundreds of Thousands of Our Iraq Veterans It's Far From Over

2011-12-31T20:26:00.000-06:00

It was suggested by Rachel in one of her last 2011 shows, as a matter to "discuss" amongst ourselves, that we should have a ticker-tape parade in the "Canyon of Heroes" in New York City to welcome home and honor our returning Iraq War veterans, celebrating the official "end" of the war with the last of our troops' pullout. People, veterans, are divided over this. As they should be.

Here's my two cents: I think it's an ill-conceived, if not terrible, idea. A New York City ticker-tape parade is traditionally an upbeat celebration to honor some remarkable event, or person(s) who did heroic service to the nation, or, as in this case, the end to a war. That's key. The war in Iraq may be over, but the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan is not. Borders are porous. American troops have lost their lives on both sides of the so-called "Af-Pak" line, a metaphor for a border where lines on a map are largely meaningless. Americans are fighting a shooting war in that perilous region as we prepare to celebrate the New Year. Every day, it seems, there are reports of more dead and wounded in this shooting war.

As long as any part of our military are in harm's way in a hot, unresolved war in the "Af-Pak" theater of operations, it's unseemly, in my view, to celebrate the safe return from Iraq of their brothers and sisters in arms with a ticker-tape parade. Yes, we should and must honor our returning Iraq troops, but with more sober and dignified ceremonies that acknowledge the simple fact our troops still face peril in a war whose end is not in sight. Iraq and Afghanistan are inextricably linked. Celebrating the end of one war while the other rages on just doesn't seem right. When the last of our troops leave Afghanistan for their final trip home, alive and whole or not, then maybe we can consider having a New York City ticker-tape parade.

In the meantime, our veterans need all of our support, and then some. Two sobering news items I read today only begin to show just how sheltered we, non-combatants, are from the immensity of the horrors suffered by the troops fighting for us. Dan Froomkin of the Huffington Post writes that the official number of wounded, 32,226, "wildly understates the number of American servicemembers who have come back from Iraq less than whole":

"The true number of military personnel injured over the course of our nine-year-long fiasco in Iraq is in the hundreds of thousands — maybe even more than half a million — if you take into account all the men and women who returned from their deployments with traumatic brain injuries, post-traumatic stress, depression, hearing loss, breathing disorders, diseases, and other long-term health problems."

In a related story, is this disturbing item the Pentagon and U.S. military do not like to publicize: "For the second year in row, more US soldiers killed themselves than were killed in combat. In 2010, 468 soldiers took their own lives, compared to 462 killed in fighting." According to reports, "an average of 18 veterans per day commit suicide and many more attempt it. Last year, 20 per cent of America’s 30,000 suicides was a soldier or veteran."

These are the hidden costs of war, on the human scale. They will be with us long after the last U.S. soldier leaves Afghanistan. And there's not enough ticker-tape that can ever paper over such tragedy.

Occupy Holiday Message For Wall Street

2011-12-31T19:06:00.002-06:00

In 2012, prepare to be occupied by the 99 percent. Meanwhile, Occupy protesters from around the country descend on the Iowa caucuses.
The movement keeps evolving; I wonder how the Idiot Punkditocracy will cover this?

IDIOT PUNDITOCRACY "Wisdom": PROGRESSIVES Rock Your World

2011-12-30T19:55:00.003-06:00

With polls flying fast and furious all over the airwaves, has anyone noticed how so under-reported this Pew Research Poll is:

"A new poll from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press out yesterday shows that “progressive” is the most positively viewed political label in America, with 67 percent holding a positive view compared to just 22 percent who view the term negatively:"

The reason this poll was suppressed at MSNBC is simple, really. This isn't just Michael Moore or Rachel or Big Eddie talking; it cannot simply or easily be dismissed with a throwaway "amusing" line. Hell, Chuckles Toddy could be called on to interpret it, and he might not survive the ordeal. This is, as Chris Matthews, Dean of the sorry-assed Idiot Punkditocracy likes to say, "polls, what we live (and die for, metaphorically, unless someone has a cardiac reading this poll) here at MSNBC."

Then he'll trot out their "Political Director" Chuckles Toddy to tell us peons what to think of the poll's findings. Where is it, dudes? C'mon, out with it! Get over your hives and dry heaves, take two aspirin and lie down if you must, then do your fucking jobs. There's plenty of time to hit the basketball court later, Chuckles. Jonathan and Chris C., if GQ helps, go for it. You can't ever look any worse than POLITICO's Jonathan Martin after an all-night bender as he struggles to stay awake on the Andrea Mitchell show.

Center-right, homogenized, censorious corporatist "news" from the non-FOX/hate radio propaganda axis is a BIG part of the reason we have such a misinformed electorate; not an ignorant electorate as the Pew poll shows; just misinformed in "appalling" ways. You have no NO IDEA what's going on outside the Beltway. NOT A FUCKING CLUE. And that's the real tragedy. Isn't this "fascinating!"

There's lots to digest in the "internals" as Chuckle's colleagues like to say. Illustrative of the rampaging demonizing of the word "liberal" by Republican right wing propaganda over the past 40 years, "liberal" is still viewed positively by 50 percent of the American people. As Robert Kennedy Jr. said, "60 percent of Republicans are just misinformed Democrats." Indeed, 55 percent of Republicans have a positive view of the term "progressive." That's roughly the same number of self-identified Republicans who favor a tax on millionaires and oppose any cuts to Medicare and Social Security.

As progressives have been saying from the start, notably Michael Moore, to the guffaws of the Beltway Media, this right wing Tea/Republican Party has lurched so far right of the American people that it is no longer representative of where the country stands politically, which is center-left. Another amazing finding is that the 18-29 year demographic have a 49-43 POSITIVE view of socialism compared with a 46-47 NEGATIVE view of capitalism. This is a manifestation, a snapshot of the political ground-shifting effect on our body politic of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Not surprisingly, this is the demographic that is least attuned to corporate news, that gets its information through the internet, social media, and a fresh, ongoing college education which still, it seems, encourages young people to question establishment corporatist precepts and homilies — tax cuts at any cost for the "job creators" — and to think critically. Sadly, the pressure to conform and the money offered (not everyone is like Cenk) is too seductive for most of the young punks working the Beltway Media axis of misinformation to resist. The OWS movement lifted that scab to expose their sellout. And it's not a pretty sight. So expect continued reactionary reporting and misinformation. The country be damned.

The Mother Card — Final Nail In The Iowa Newt Coffin

2011-12-30T14:17:00.003-06:00

The Idiot Punditocracy is falsely comparing Newt's teary recollection of his late mother with Hillary's tears on the eve of the 2008 New Hampshire primary, credited with her victory there. Here's the AP report (emphasis mine):

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Newt Gingrich choked up and wiped away tears while recalling his late mother's struggle with depression and mental illness.

Speaking at an event with mothers in Des Moines, Iowa, on Friday, the former House speaker said his focus on brain science issues stems directly from "dealing with the real problems of real people in my family."

After showing his emotions, Gingrich allowed that he does "policy much easier than I do personal."

The moment was reminiscent of Hillary Rodham Clinton's teary-eyed response to a question just before the 2008 Democratic primary in New Hampshire. The moment was credited with humanizing her in the eyes of voters.

Gingrich has fallen in recent Iowa polls, with the state's caucuses just several days away.

In New Hampshire, Hillary confessed the "personal" moment was not about personal ambition but what the future held for her children and loved ones. She was crying for her country. It was as eloquent and genuine moment as I've ever seen in response to the question every presidential candidate faces: "why are you running for president; why put yourself through this?" Here's the Hillary moment:

The cynics will say they were crocodile tears, but for those who watched it, it was an unscripted moment, a defining character moment. It's no accident that Hillary Clinton is perennially at the top of most admired women. She has that rare quality in a politician, that what you see is what you get. Not so with Newt. Those who believe the old cliché about politicians, that he would literally use his mother's memory if it could gain him political advantage are probably correct, as Newt teared up recalling her bipolar disorder. Consider that Newt cried at an event hosted by leading GOP message guru Frank Luntz "at a downtown Des Moines coffeehouse ... styled as a focus group of moms," notes astute Atlantic staff writer Molly Ball, so Luntz asked Newt about his mother, "and tearjerking is his MO." Ball explains:

At a Thanksgiving forum in Des Moines in November, also moderated by Luntz, Gingrich was one of several candidates who broke down in tears. That time, the trigger was thinking about a friend's baby who was born with a heart defect. Also shedding tears at that event were Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and Herman Cain; Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul managed not to crack.

"I feel like Dr. Phil!" Luntz joked at that earlier event, and it's clear his manipulative lines of questioning -- probing the candidates for the emotional pressure-points of family and faith -- were responsible for the orgy of tears.

Gail Sheehy has written the closest piece to a "psychological" profile of Newt, in which his behavior, according to Dr. Frederick Goodwin, director of the Center on Neuroscience, Behavior, and Society at the George Washington University Medical Center and a national authority on bipolar disorder, "is "consistent with studies of first-degree relatives of manic-depressives."

"While stating that he was not making a diagnosis, he noted that in leaders, hypomanic behavior is “often intolerant and impulsive.” Studies characterize the thinking of a person in a hypomanic state as “flighty. He jumps by bypaths from one subject to another, and cannot adhere to anything.”

Gingrich repeatedly stunned his House colleagues in the Republican leadership when he was involved in lengthy negotiations over a major policy proposal and agreed to every detail, only to go public and pull the rug out from under them. Where some see this as evidence of his “flightiness,” others see a man willing to say whatever comes into his head as long as it will capture the next news cycle."

One doesn't have to be a clinical psychologist to conclude Newt Gingrich is temperamentally unfit to be president. The man's public behavior as a venal, backstabbing, grandiose politician is enough. The Republican House had to pass a rule to keep this from public view. Sound familiar? This is CNN from Nov. 16, 1995:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The debate over balancing the budget temporarily degenerated into name-calling and low comedy on the House floor Thursday. Democrats trooped to the floor to ridicule the Speaker Newt Gingrich for allowing his personal anger over a perceived snub by President Clinton to influence his attitude during budget negotiations.

Lawmakers paraded around with blowups of the New York Daily News' front page, which featured a caricature of Gingrich as a wailing baby in diapers with the headline "Cry-Baby."

Republicans voted 231-173 to stop Democrats from bringing the blowups into the chamber. They said it was against House rules to call the speaker a "cry-baby," and said Democrats were just trying to divert attention from Clinton's inability to balance the budget.

Rep. Patricia Schroeder, D-Colorado, held up a mock Oscar, and said she awarded it to Gingrich for best child actor. "There's only one problem," she said. "This speaker is not a child."

Fake 'Progressive' Channel Watch: Got Game For 2012?

2011-12-29T12:02:00.001-06:00

Not one cable show in the top ten. Posting #14-16, #19, and #21 is pretty dismal. In fact the inability to deliver top ten FACTUAL news is a national security disaster. Isn't it curious that MSNBC's decline/flatline coincides with the corporate desire to be more milquetoasty like CNN sans the overseas crisis visuals — that so incredibly successful political news and commentary model? How's Michael Steele et al working for ya, suits? Here's a hint that even President Obama has come to understand: The more progressive your message, the better your numbers will be. By the way, Steve Capus, what have you done for us lately? Oh yeah, the quisling apologia to Romney ...

Gingrich FAMILY VALUES Ad Allays Voters' Unease

2011-12-29T10:37:00.000-06:00

Marco Rubio Has Inside Track On Republican Veep Spot

2011-12-29T10:18:00.001-06:00

Regardless of who the nominee (Mitt Romney) is. Why? Just check out the latest Pew poll confirming the President's strong position with Latino voters: He leads Mitt Romney by 68% to 23% among Hispanics. Still, a Marco Rubio on the GOP ticket doesn't necessarily mean a significant Latino vote switch. First of all, this guy's a Teabagger's wetback dream, and Latinos despise Teabaggers primarily for their anti-immigration bigotry.

Another inside baseball factor is that Cuban-Americans, like Marco Rubio, are a privileged class among all immigrants given the idiotic 50-year plus anti-Castro U.S. standoff with Cuba. Cuban-Americans, as a class, are wealthier and far more conservative than Latinos from other countries, who tend to be more liberal politically, and Democratic voters. Younger Cuban-Americans are less beholden to the Republican Party than their elders, and a Rubio Veep nominee would have his hands full just delivering them, much less the state of Florida which elected him Senator in a three-way race with Tea Party support.

Marco Rubio is a bundle of untested political expectations on the national stage. And of course, he fibbed on his parents' fake Escape From Cuba saga. But he's the best Republicans can hope for to reverse the pro-Democratic Latino vote trend. Marco Rubio, El Justiciero:

Ron Paul Dress Code

2011-12-29T09:39:00.000-06:00

A fringe campaign shows it is truly serious about winning when it instructs its followers to, basically look like normal folks. Those bearded skinhead types wearing olive cammo T-shirts flanking Ron Paul onstage just won't do. The New York Times reports:

"And they say they are under strict orders: To look, dress, shave, sound and behave in a way that will not jeopardize Mr. Paul's chances. Even before flying here on their own nickel, some students said they had been instructed to cover up tattoos and told that their faces should be fresh-shaved or beards neatly trimmed, wearing only nice clothes that one described as "business casual."

As for the fresh shave, the raunchy MSNBC anchor Chris Jansing added: "I guess that means men ..." Hmm. Any word on whether Ron Paul female volunteers were instructed to get "Brazilians"?

Ron Paul Lured To Bruno's Hotel Room ... Priceless Video

2011-12-29T07:55:00.002-06:00

Lawrence unearthed this 2008 Sacha Baron Cohen video clip of Ron Paul in a potential compromising position with Cohen posing as the flamboyant Austrian fashion reporter character of his film, Bruno. Said Paul at the time: "I was expecting an interview on Austrian economics. So, that didn't turn out that way. But, by the time he started pulling his pants down, I, what is going on here? I ran out of the room. This interview has ended."

There's the Ali G character with Newt, who thought the dude was legit, but in this bit of Lawrence mischief-making, the Bruno-Ron Paul clip takes the cake (full video here), as Richard Wolffe shows his professionalism by providing serious commentary. Unfortunately, Bruno's ass-wagging dance is edited in this piece. It's hilarious; watch:

MSNBC Fashion Plate of The Day: Jonathan Capehart, With a View

2011-12-28T18:06:00.000-06:00

JONATHAN CAPEHART's impeccable threads and touch of holiday elegance gotta have MSNBC women (viewers) swooning ... PLUS, thoughtful commentary to rescue the network. Wow. That's enough to make Chris Cillizza doubly jealous, and Jonathan didn't even break a bow tie:

Ron Paul Gets Important Endorsement: The New York Times

2011-12-28T14:50:00.001-06:00

The New York Times, viewed in Paul-friendly racist white supremacist, anti-Semitic and homophobic circles as the 'Great Satan' of the American press, has fiercely repudiated Ron Paul's candidacy, calling on him to "immediately" give "a full and detailed accounting of who wrote the newsletters and what his role was in overseeing their publication." Right. Nice try, Times editorial writers. Paul supporters are celebrating your anti-endorsement.

You read it here, first. Repeatedly. Especially after NBC News President Steve Capus's tongue lashing of MSNBC news reporters and anchors for accurately reporting Mitt Romney's use in a speech and campaign ad of a KKK slogan in the state with the nation's highest per capita number of KKK groups. This Sunday the 'newspaper of record' finally got on this blog's bandwagon, reporting that "dozens of members of the white nationalist Web site Stormfront are volunteering for the Paul campaign, along with far-right militias, survivalists and anti-Zionist groups. Don Black, the Stormfront director, said his members were drawn to Mr. Paul by the newsletters and his positions against immigration and the Fed (run by Jews, Mr. Black said), even if Mr. Paul were not himself a white nationalist."

Can y'all fake progressive channel's fake 'political analysts' say 'racist vote'... anyone? It should be noted that our friend Chris Matthews deserves honorable mention, cited in the Times article, for extracting from Paul the admission he would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act. More often than not, Chris breaks out in journalism before taking a step back for playing Steve Capus bagman. Two lean forwards, one lean back.

Presumably, if a white supremacist group is sufficiently energized to volunteer jack boots on the ground, they'll be taking dozens upon dozens more like-minded Paul voters to the caucuses. Will they be making a fashion statement by wearing brown shirts, too? The Times concludes with an ominous, but rather foolish 'as if' warning. (Don't you know this train's left the station, Times editorial writers?):

"Mr. Paul, saying he still hopes to “convert” these supporters to his views, has refused to disavow them or to chase them out of his campaign. If he does not do so, he will leave a lasting stain on his candidacy, on the libertarian movement and, very possibly, on the Iowa caucuses."

The so-called 'paleoconservatives' and 'paleolibertarians' supporting Ron Paul are theoretically an insult to legitimate conservatives and non-Randian libertarians. The fact remains, though, that these fringe elements have never been categorically disowned by conservative movement elites. How many years was it before Bill Buckley publicly repudiated the John Birch Society?

Yet these extremist far-right fringe elements keep coming back to populate the activist and policy wings of the Republican Party. Has it ever occurred to the Beltway Media that there's less than six degrees of separation between these so-called 'paleo'-FREAKS and conservative movement elites; that the schism may be more a class thing than politics or policy? Seriously, can anyone see Stormfront director Don Black rubbing shoulders with Bill Kristol at a Georgetown cocktail party? Really.

Newt Gingrich Would Have This Judge Arrested

2011-12-27T13:57:00.001-06:00

Think about it. As Republican politicians in federal and state government across the nation "overreach" — the tea parlor Beltway euphemism for authoritarian rule — a federal judge in Arizona has blocked a new law meant to exclude charitable donations to organizations that provide abortion services or provide referrals to abortion providers.

In issuing her temporary injunction, Judge Roslyn Silver said the law scheduled to go into effect January 1 violates free speech:

“Arizona could not punish an organization with a fine if it were to engage in certain types of abortion-related speech. Excluding an organization from the program solely because of the type of abortion-related speech which the organization engages in is an attempt to impose a similar financial harm.”

In a Gingrich presidency, Judge Silver would be in shackles for having the temerity to issue such a ruling. In a Gingrich administration, she would definitely be deemed "anti-American", an "activist", and subject to arrest by federal marshals for knocking down an anti-abortion state law on First Amendment grounds. So much for constitutional rule and separation of powers. But would her ruling be vacated were the judge to be arrested? Hmm ...

Chaos In Iowa?

2011-12-27T12:05:00.000-06:00

The Idiot Punditocracy is experiencing pre-orgasmic political convulsions as it tries to stay abreast of the final sprint to the Iowa caucuses, predicting winners and losers. In horse racing terms, the field has bunched up at the top of the stretch, and it's "anyone's race." Perhaps.

The post-Herman Cain joke favorite, Newt Gingrich, is fading fast, victim of repeated challenges from Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, with devastating negative ads that have gone unanswered by the low funds/no organization Newt. And the Beltway Republican establishment, with an assist from honorary members like Chris Matthews, has lashed out en masse at Gingrich with a ferocity that would make the 11th Commandment non-Christian Mormon revisionism, and Ronald Reagan blush.

Meh ... NOPE.

Will there be a pro-Newt backlash? Not likely. He really does look like a car bomber and the earthly manifestation of Mephistopheles whenever he cracks that cold cheshire cat grin. Will Romney's heavy late spending in Iowa propel him to the top? Not likely. Even with his nod to racist KKK voters (Iowa is first in the nation per capita in KKK groups) recanted, sort of, when he was caught working an old KKK slogan into his campaign speeches. Once MSNBC caved disgracefully from its report, it only showed that Romney can pull strings with the Beltway Media, not that he really means what he says. Typical Romney flip-flop and none too convincing to the racist vote.

No, the real racist candidate, at least with the most unambiguous bona fides is Ron Paul. After the GOP establishment-driven Paulie racist past exposé was dusted off for another presidential go-round by the conservative establishment publication Weekly Standard, the Beltway Media seized upon it with a vengeance. The anticipated result (is Steve Capus happy, or what?) of course, is to help the establishment candidate Mitt Romney by depressing Paul's numbers.

But will it work? It's not a good idea to spread your piñatas around. The more you have, the more diffuse the whack-the-piñata energy becomes. Newt has become the piñata of this GOP field, a testament to how universally reviled he is, not only by the establishment but by those in the know and who have experienced Newt close up. Chris Matthews reacts to Newt as if he's responsible for stealing Chris's childhood. Everyone in these circles, it seems, wants to see Newt's final humiliation at the polls, as voters run the other way. I don't. Mixed feelings. He'd be excellent for Democrats up and down the ballot nationally, and the most entertaining major party candidate since Richard Nixon. Of course, Nixon won, which may explain Chris's panic. But Newt? He's the second coming of Barry Goldwater without the intellect and integrity. His loss to President Obama would be a landslide of Goldwater proportions. Ah, well.

If anything, the media attacks on Paul's racism have only energized the racist vote — white supremacists have come out in his defense — and not budged Paul's followers one inch. By the way, calling them "Paulistas" is an affront to the residents of Brazil's most populous state, São Paulo, the "major industrial and economic powerhouse of the Brazilian economy." With a population plus 41 million "Paulistas", São Paulo easily has more people than have, or will ever vote for Ron Paul. On the other hand, São Paulo is also home to the "Confederados", the last confederate southern outpost to flee this country and take up roots in São Paulo rather than surrender to the Yankees. But you'd have to know your history, and Paul supporters are historically illiterate, among other things.

And so my prediction that Paul wins the Iowa caucuses with a 31 percent share of the vote, stands. Little has been said about his organization and ground game, but it's the best, even his opponents will concede. The question then becomes, who finishes 2, 3 and 4? There's something about Romney that doesn't sit well with voters, including Iowa voters. We all know what it is. In a word, the man is a phony. He has no political core — familial, sure, a Mormon Ozzie and Harriet? — and voters have smoked him out.

Romney doesn't expect to win Iowa. If he does, it'll be the surprise lump in his gravy. Second place is well within reach, and a "win" for Romney heading into New Hampshire and beyond. Finishing third or below is problematic and a boost for Gingrich, provided he survives in the top four. Iowa has been a general campaign strategy laboratory for the Romney campaign, testing the effectiveness of his three-pronged attack: retail politics staying positive with official campaign ads, while blanketing the state with (wink-wink) unlinked Romney SuperPAC negative ads targeting his main perceived rival, Newt Gingrich. They've left Paul alone; they need that racist vote, as well as Paul's libertinos, which won't happen in numbers. Ron Paul is Mitt Romney's stalking horse to destroy Newt Gingrich in Iowa, and they're OK with that, even if Paul comes out the winner. Notice that the Beltway Media's preemptive narrative is that if Paul wins Iowa, Iowa doesn't matter. Not true. Can you feel the tug of strings Idiot Punditocrat puppets?

My predicted order of finish in Iowa is: (1) Ron Paul; (2) Rick Santorum; (3) Mitt Romney; (4) Newt Gingrich. Rick Santorum is heavily courting the evangelical vote, and has an important endorsement to show for it. Iowa voters like to be wooed, and the fact Santorum has visited every Iowa county will earn him a strong finish reward from the voters. As Paul heads south, literally not figuratively, his racist props strengthened and validated by the Yankee media, he may well emerge as a strong STOP-Mitt candidate.

But I may be wrong. We shall see.

JESUS CRISTO

2011-12-25T00:24:00.000-06:00

From south of the Rio Grande this beautiful tribute and celebration of Jesus Christ
by the other "King of Pop" with the props to earn it:

The Latest Political VERB of The 2012 Campaign

2011-12-24T15:56:00.000-06:00

Q: What is the verb for a political candidate who is leading by five points or more in a state's polls but fails to qualify to be on its ballot for lack of organization?

A: 'To Newt', 'to Newter', 'to Newterize' or 'to pull a Newt'.

Sweet Melissa, Supersub!

2011-12-24T10:22:00.001-06:00

Melissa, I LOVED this segment. Just one thing, though: That's a pretty rad "do" you have for 1940 ... Your British counterpart, on the other hand, was perfectly done with his hair for the period. They're good at it. But Americans ... all that blow-dried hair and fast food girth kind of put a crimp on "The Blue And The Gray" and its portrait of the starving Army of Northern Virginia.

Thumbs up, professor. Totally riveting.

Here's a fascinating look at trailblazing women correspondents in World War II:

A Lump Of Coal To FOX and THEIR Friends

2011-12-24T09:07:00.002-06:00

Did anyone see the 20/20 Barbara Walters interview with the Obamas last night? Not only does the White House look beautiful with all its Christmas decorations and 37 Xmas trees all over the place, but the theme of this year's Christmas is military families with military family volunteers decorating the trees with their own personal touches.

To most of us normal folks, President Obama is decent and likable. His wife, Michelle, even more. Rarely do we get a chance to see how sweet and nice they are together. The contrast between this typical American family and the gutter attacks on them about a fictitious "war on Christmas" and all the vile lies that are thrown at them daily, with the pretend religiosity of the FOX guttersnipes compounding the cruelty, is stark. There is, I believe, a special place in HELL reserved for those who are not decent souls. The evangelicals know all about it, and they know (you know who you are) where they're headed; it's not the UP escalator. For the mostly non-believers, starting with that foreigner Rupert Murdoch and his henchman Roger Ailes, it's called Bad Karma. It'll be coming around for them, for each and every cruel lie the've uttered in their miserable lives against innocent people.

While the wingnuts seized upon the President's "laziness" comment out of context to bash him once again, his most revealing moment I felt was what he said next: "The thing that I most dislike is cruelty in people." These are human beings. If FOX and its family of liars don't think the ugly things they say about the President and his family don't sting, think again. FOX and "Friends" — you've got your passports stamped to HELL. And your Bad Karma is so trenchant that even your families won't be spared that lump of coal in your stockings. Merry Christmas.

video platform video management video solutions video player

Fake 'Progressive' Channel Watch: Guess What A Little Bird Said ...

2011-12-24T00:32:00.001-06:00

I was floored. I did not know this. And I'm reasonably informed of inside Beltway politics, of conflicts of interest and their incestuous nature. This was of FOX-like proportions, and surprising, still, because it's MSNBC. Somehow I thought despite my criticism of corporate cable news, innocently, I'm loathe to admit, that there is a standards and integrity baseline at MSNBC that is higher than Murdoch's. I've often tempered my worst critiques by noting that MSNBC was not FOX; that it was still a news organization. I'm not so sure anymore.

Regarding that atrociously unbalanced MSNBC segment between anchor Richard Lui and his best buddy Grover Norquist, sole guest doing color commentary of competing House Republican/Democratic pressers on the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance extensions — It's hard to imagine that it could get any worse; but it did. According to an inside Beltway source, Grover Norquist, the multi-millionaire right wing activist, best known to the public as promoter of the so-called "Taxpayer (Millionaires and Corporations) Protection Pledge (Racket)" signed by 95% of House Republicans, never to raise taxes, is also chief Washington lobbyist for the controversial Keystone Pipeline project from Canada through the American heartland to Texas. The project was the principal Republican poison pill opposed by Democrats and President Obama in the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance extension fight.

The Senate compromise includes a provision for the President to fast-track its approval within two months. That is not enough time for environmental impact assessment to be done by the State Department, and President Obama is expected to deny approval based on that criteria. But nothing is certain. At the very least, Republicans will turn it into a 2012 campaign issue. As for Grover Norquist, each and every time he makes an appearance on MSNBC or any news oulet under the guise of commenting on this issue, he will in effect be acting as a lobbyist for the Keystone Pipeline project. (Very likely, a paid lobbyist — I wonder what Grover's billable rate is for his love fest with Richard Lui?) And the viewing public will never be the wiser for it.

MEMO To NBC News President Steve Capus: What are MSNBC's standards and practices on this? From where I'm sitting, trotting out a high-priced lobbyist to do "color commentary" on an issue in which he has a clear conflict of interest is unethical. It's dishonest and it's misleading. It's just plain wrong. Where are your standards? Do you have any? It's rather pathetic that such disclosure is seemingly done on an ad hoc basis, such that a guest may preface his or her remarks by saying, "in the interest of full disclosure, I work or lobby for company X or Y." But "full disclosure" is a misnomer. Disclosure of any kind is not a requirement absent a conflict of interest. And if one exists, it shouldn't be optional; it should be compulsory.

Postcript: Ron Paul's RECENT Racist Past

2011-12-23T03:30:00.002-06:00

When I wrote in an earlier post that Ron Paul's "recent racist past" wasn't mentioned, this was not in error. I did not specify here Paul's racist newsletter writings of some 22 years ago, but rather, was referencing his 2008 keynote address at the ultra-right wing racist and anti-Semitic (also kooky conspiracist) John Birch Society, on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. (Not surprisingly, Paul has close ties to the Koch brothers.) Moreover, in 2007 Ron Paul refused to return a campaign donation from white supremacist Don Black, or prevent Black's neo-Nazi group, "Stormfront," to link to his donations page.This pattern of racism by Ron Paul has continued well into his last campaign, long after the newsletters' racist speech controversies of the 80s and 90s. Regarding Black, the Paul campaign had this response:

"If a small number individuals who hold racist beliefs want to waste their money by giving to Dr. Paul, a man who stands firmly against their small minded ideologies, then the campaign will simply use those funds to protect freedom, peace and civil liberties across our Nation."

The arrogance of this statement denotes a HUGE political tone-deafness that seems to be a cornerstone of the Paul campaign's defiant reaction to his racism and bigotry "problem" ever since it emerged as a perennial issue of his presidential campaigns. Ron Paul supporters who condone this attitude don't see it as something that is wrong or morally reprehensible. As Josh Harkinson wrote in Mother Jones, "frankly, I find the glibness of this response appalling, and I could not disagree more with its reasoning. Accepting Black's dirty money creates an implied obligation to these nut jobs and their priorities, which, even if rejected by Paul, is hard to deny."

When it comes to his racism and bigotry, it appears Ron Paul has never had a "teaching moment" and probably never will.

WINGNUT WATCH: DUDES, WHO'S WRITING YOUR HEADLINES?!

2011-12-22T23:33:00.001-06:00

This is how our favorite wingnut rag, The Daily Caller, headlined today's mother of all cave-ins by John Boehner and the House Republicans, most particularly those extremist Teabaggers. Seriously:

ABATES?!? ABATES?! DUDES, WTF is this supposed to mean? Here's the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of "ABATE":

Definition of ABATE
transitive verb
1 a : to put an end to <abate a nuisance>
b : nullify 1 <abate a writ>
2 a : to reduce in degree or intensity : moderate <may abate their rancor to win peace>
b : to reduce in value or amount : make less especially by way of relief <abate a tax>
3 : deduct, omit <abate part of the price>
4 a : to beat down or cut away so as to leave a figure in relief
b obsolete : blunt
5 : deprive 2
intransitive verb
1 : to decrease in force or intensity
2 a : to become defeated or become null or void
b : to decrease in amount or value

OK, let's take these one at a time:
transitive verb:
1a:GOP [~~Abates~~ Puts An End To (Itself?)] In Payroll Tax Debate
bb:GOP [~~Abates~~ Nullifies (Itself?)] In Payroll Tax Debate
2a:GOP [~~Abates~~ Moderates (?! The Teabaggers would be furious!)] In Payroll Tax Debate
bb:GOP [~~Abates~~ Relieves (Itself? — I like this accurate piss-in-their-pants descriptor)] In Payroll Tax Debate
3: GOP [~~Abates~~ Deducts/Omits (Itself? — I like this low self-esteem/we're irrelevant, too)] In Payroll Tax Debate
4a:GOP [~~Abates~~ Beats Down/Cuts Itself Away (good self-flagellation one; a favorite of the wingnut media)] In Payroll Tax Debate
bb:GOP [~~Abates~~ Blunts Itself To Obsolescence (Oh, Yeah! Subtle, sophisticated)] In Payroll Tax Debate
5: GOP [~~Abates~~ Deprives Itself (Of Mass suicide? — Ouch.)] In Payroll Tax Debate
Intransitive verb:
1: GOP [~~Abates~~ Decreases In Force/Intensity (Buh-bye re-election ...)] In Payroll Tax Debate
2a:GOP [~~Abates~~ Becomes Defeated And Null And Void (Ouch. Accurate!)] In Payroll Tax Debate
bb:GOP [~~Abates~~ Decreases In Amount/Value Of Supporters (Ouch. Doubly accurate!)] In Payroll Tax Debate.

Sounds pretty bad, eh. See, the more you try to mask your monumental Republican cave-in, the more ridiculous you look. Dudes, wingnuts, trust me: "ABATES" is a COMPLETE FAIL. Here's the thing; I'm only trying to help; seriously — it gets much worse when you look up "ABATE" in the Urban Dictionary:

So, better to cut your losses, take your bitter medicine, and accept defeat with the last vestige of grace and dignity you can muster by using the most appropriate word to define the occasion: "CAVES". And be glad of it, and grateful to me, for the Urban Dictionary defines "CAVE" (see above) more beningly than all of those awful "ABATE" definitions: "CAVE v. To give up all opposition, usually in an argument." Here's your headline, wingnuts — (you're WELCOME!):

One last thing, before I forget. Know that henceforth, House Republicans (wingnuts and Republicans in general, too) — PRESIDENT OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS OWN YOU.

Viciously Attacked By FOX and Sister Sarah, BO, White House Pooch, Fires Back

2011-12-22T13:14:00.001-06:00

As seasonably predictable as accusing the Obamas of waging a “war on Christmas,” this holiday season FOX “News” and its top bitch, Sarah Palin, set upon adorable First Pooch Bo like a pack of ravenous vampires. Mama Grizzly attacked lovable BO (official photo below), featured in this year’s White House Christmas card peacefully snoozing by the White House fireplace, characterizing the card as "odd":

"It's odd," she said, wondering why the president's Christmas card highlights his dog instead of traditions like 'family, faith and freedom.'"

Palin said a majority of Americans prefer "American foundational values illustrated and displayed on Christmas cards and on a Christmas tree." With regard to the card, she added, "It's just a different way of thinking coming out of the White House."

White House First Pooch, BO: Official Portrait, left, and featured on this year's White House Christmas card.

Hmm … Like this 1981 Ronald Reagan White House Christmas card? In the Reagans’ printed card greeting is written, “With Special holiday wishes. The President and Mrs. Reagan.” OH MY. Were you ever aware of this ATROCIOUS assault on "American foundational values illustrated and displayed on Christmas cards," FOX and Sarah? NO … really?!

BO would not take this lying down. Through his press office, the White House First Pooch sent this pair of musical messages to House Republicans, courtesy of John Lennon:

Meanwhile, after shopping with BO for his presents and treats, President Obama sharpened his reply to these outrageous attacks by seeking inspiration from one of his predecessors: “The Republicans have not been content on attacks on me and on my wife. They now include my little dog, BO. Well, of course, I don’t resent attacks, and my family don’t resent attacks, but BO does resent attacks. As soon as he learned that the Republican fiction writers, in Congress and out, had concocted a story that I’d left him behind, his Portuguese soul was furious. He has not been the same dog since.”

To My Family, Friends and ALL, especially my extended family readers of this little blog that could, Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas, Feliz Navidad, Feliz Natal, and a Prosperous New Year. Peace, Everybody.

Fake 'Progressive' Channel Watch: LUI, LUI ... Oh Now, GOTTA GO

2011-12-22T10:34:00.001-06:00

Whenever a scheduled event such as a presser draws me in I'm immediately reminded why I do not watch daytime cable "news" such as it is. My BP took another spike as I happened to tune into the fake progressive channel's coverage of competing House Republican/Democratic pressers on extending the payroll tax cut and saw, to my dismay, that the guest lineup of ONE for the fake progressive channel was none other than the snake oil multi-millionaire puppeteer of House Republicans Grover Norquist who got them to sign his no-new-taxes pledge, with no competing color commentary voices of reason. It's not as if they didn't have enough time to provide some balance, since John Boehner's presser had been announced the day before. Once again, the anchor was ex-CNN GOP stooge Richard Lui who greeted Norquist effusively: "Hey Grover, how ya doin!" Even CNN, whose anchor reverted to the GOP smear of using the adjectival "Democrat" for "Democratic," had a balanced panel.

Ron Paul Unleashed, Circa 1988

2011-12-21T16:16:00.001-06:00

What's hilariously illuminating about Ron Paul's appearance more than 22 years ago on the Morton Downey Show — Downey literally smoked himself to death after removing one diseased lung — is that (1) Paul was having a screaming argument with a bunch of wingnuts like Lisa Sliwa of the "Guardian Angels," (2) his manic, smoldering libertarian passions show why establishment Republicans are terrified of him, and (3) he was running for president in 1988! This guy's been running for president practically his entire adult life. It's also amazing to see, and more than a little disheartening, how little such lowbrow TV screamfests have "evolved" over the decades. This one's totally worthy of Jerry Springer. But where were the fisticuffs? I'll bet Ron Paul has a pretty good right hook. Ah well ...

House Republicans Follow Boehner's Trail of Tears ...

2011-12-21T08:52:00.001-06:00

REACT hysterically to President Obama's refusal to play "marriage counselor" (good one! Jay Carney) between them and Senate Republicans ...

Oops, wrong video. Please Stand by.

WINGNUT WATCH: Daily Caller "Truthtelling"

2011-12-21T06:51:00.000-06:00

Isn't it GREAT when one of those zany Daily Caller bloggers accidentally stumbles on the truth?! Now Treach is still my favorite, but Matt Lewis has his moments of accidental irony. Here he comments on a video tease of President Clinton's appearance with Bill-O The Clown: "This is a preview of what to expect when Clinton goes on “The O’Reilly Factor” Tuesday night. (Gotta give him credit for telling the truth here.)" I'll say. And Bill-O The Clown too, Matt, for excluding the leading cable "news" channel in ratings and audience, FOX "News" from "the American press." Perhaps Bill-O The Clown thinks Rupert Murdoch's American media empire is foreign like, say, British or Australian because, well, Rupie's birth certificate says so?

Thanks to Bill-O The Clown for properly excluding, too, from "the American press" the vast right wing propaganda machine, including (forgive me, wingnuts, if I've left anyone out; this is admittedly an incomplete list): The Daily Caller, The New York Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, The Chicago Tribune, The NH Union Leader, Daily Oklahoman, The National Review, The Weekly Standard, The American Spectator, Commentary, Drudge Report, NewsMax, TownHall, Free Republic, Red State, Big Government, Christian Broadcasting Network and radio, Rush Limbaugh Inc. and imitators on hate radio, Instapundit, MediaIte, Clear Channel, Radio America, PowerLine, American Conservative, News Busters, Right Wing News, World Net Daily ... etc., etc. — etc.

Now, some in this list may hold a more tenuous grasp on being considered "American press" than others; but once you start kissing Rupert's ass, you're ALL in the FOX spin zone. Thanks to Bill-O The Clown and Matt 'the whiner' Lewis, our intrepid accidental truthtellers:

BIG EDDIE Sets The Record Straight: Can You Hear Me Now, Suits?

2011-12-20T23:23:00.000-06:00

Hopefully this report by Big Eddie on racism in the Republican Party will give MSNBC's news division the necessary backbone to report racism on the stump no matter how "connected" the candidate(s) may be, and to call them out on it. Thomas Roberts did the right thing and, if anything, news anchors and reporters need to be more diligent, not less, about reporting racism and bigotry, whether it's a racial slur, or gender or religious discrimination. Molly-coddling Republican bigotry for the sake of access or future considerations may be popular in the corporate boardroom, but it isn't news. Truth is the only news standard that matters. Thumbs up, Big Eddie!

Awww ...

2011-12-20T17:23:00.000-06:00

The Beltway Media's Appalling Lack of Clarity In Reporting Intrasigence of Republican Zealots

2011-12-20T15:03:00.005-06:00

Is it just me, or is the network coverage of the latest House Republican-bred crisis to gum up the works on a payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits extension for one year just adding to the viewer’s confusion with its circular cop-out non-explanation that “both sides” are playing the “blame game?” Please. That may be good enough for sophists like Dylan Ratigan and his generic ‘they’re-all-the-same-politicians from Tea Partiers to Progressives’, but a news division has the overarching responsibility to report THE NEWS.

So why is it that, moments after President Obama comes out and reiterates that both sides reached agreement on the payroll tax cut and unemployment extensions, but the Republicans have added riders which have nothing to do with extending the payroll tax cut, this fact isn’t reported clearly and specifically, and the blame placed squarely on the Republicans, where it belongs? Tamron Hall was inexplicably looping the same confusing garbage with her Republican interviewees, instead of asking them why they haven’t set aside these poison pill riders and agreed to pass a clean bill without them:

Blocks Environmental Review of Keystone Pipeline — The bill would prevent the State Department from finishing its review of the Canada-to-Texas Keystone pipeline, and mandate its construction before environmental concerns are fully addressed.
Requires Mandatory Drug Testing — The Republican plan would let states bar people from collecting unemployment benefits unless they submit to drug testing, although there has been no concrete evidence linking unemployment with increased drug abuse.
Requires GED/Training Programs for Unemployed — The bill would require the unemployed to be enrolled in GED or training programs.
Deregulates Incinerators and Boilers — The bill would strip the EPA of authority to regulate incinerators and boilers, with the EPA warns could lead to an estimated 20,000 premature deaths.
Strips Preventive Health Care Fund — The plan stops the federal government from encouraging preventive health care, stripping $8 billion from the Affordable Care Act's prevention and public health fund.
Closes The 'Strip Club Loophole — The plan assumes that people are using food stamps for liquor, gambling and strip clubs, and therefore closes the "strip club loophole" that supposedly lets welfare recipients use their electronic benefits cards in such establishments.
Slashes Unemployment Benefits — The hardest hit states would lose 40 weeks of unemployment under the proposed bill. All other states would lose between 14 and 34 weeks.
Requires Children's Social Security Numbers — Requires undocumented immigrants and others to submit their children's Social Security numbers before they could receive refunds under the children's tax credit.

The bipartisan Senate compromise, which passed with an unheard-of 89 votes compelled Democrats to drop their surtax on millionaires to pay for it as well as concessions to Republicans on relaxing environmental regulations that would endanger people’s health, notably fast-tracking the Keystone pipeline approval (or disapproval process), and locking down cuts previously agreed to. So, there’s no question but that the majority Democrats in the Senate gave up more than they received, and certainly showed a spirit of serious compromise, to their detriment as usual — so much so that two conservative Republican scions of the Senate, Leader Mitch McConnell and Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming, were pictured high-fiving each other following their agreement with Democrats.

So why isn’t this dynamic within the Republican Party in Congress properly and objectively portrayed by the cable networks and Beltway Media, instead of this constant “pox-on-both-their-houses" by Tamron Hall, et al? This lack of basic preparation and understanding of the issues, of the legislative maneuvers of Republicans against Democrats from the President on down, who have repeatedly sought real compromise, is what is “appalling” about MSNBC’s coverage of Congress. It doesn’t help when the sole Congressional “correspondent” spends most of his time making outrageous excuses for the Republicans, which simply further clouds the issues.