Khaddafi's CREEPY Obsession ...

This was the best version of the story, if only to hear our endearingly geeky Chris Hayes recite Khaddafi's lovelorn teen prose: "Leeza, Leeza, Leeza, I love her very much" ... Aargh.

\

Was Khadaffi a "30 Rock" fan, too? Eat your heart out, Moammar, wherever you may be in this cruel, cruel world:

Quotable: Gail McGovern, Red Cross CEO, On Hurricane Irene

"It's going to be huge. From a time perspective this can take weeks, maybe even months, to respond to."

Is it just me, or is this statement totally unacceptable? Understand, I'm not blaming Ms McGovern — she is simply providing solid information based on the realistic assessment of, apparently, our limited capacity to respond to Hurricane Irene.

My question is this: To what extent is Ms McGovern's unacceptable assessment governed by the ignorant Tea Party luddites wagging the dog and Republican House Leader Eric Cantor, who shamelessly sucks up to them, insisting that any emergency response spending will have to be offset by corresponding budget cuts elsewhere? Private NGOs like the American Red Cross, for all their good works, do not by definition have the capacity and resources of the federal government. Haven't we learned anything from Katrina? It's for responding to catastrophes of this scale that government exists.

When will this Teabagger madness end?

This is the richest, most powerful nation in history. That we cannot respond to a potential natural catastrophe more timely than the response time to the Haiti earthquake, or the Japanese earthquake/tsunami, is to concede that the crazies holding our government hostage have succeeded in turning the United States into a helpless, poverty-stricken banana republic.

America And Genocide: The Good, THE BAD, And The Ugly

Back to the nasty, aka, government, politics, and fascism ... by any other name, it's still the same. In the checkered, dastardly history of U.S. support for genocidal dictators, none is more craven than U.S. involvement in the destruction of Chilean democracy culminating in the 1973 military coup that toppled socialist president Salvador Allende and installed in his place the fascist monster, General Augusto Pinochet. New revelations have surfaced: A tape of Nixon and Kissinger openly discussing political assassination, a reference to Chile's senior military commander, General Rene Schneider, who was loyal to President Allende in that he was a constitutionalist and a patriot who believed in civilian rule. General Schneider was murdered in a botched CIA-backed kidnapping. Here's an excerpt from the tape:

Kissinger: CIA’s too incompetent to do it. You remember—
Nixon: Sure, but that’s the best thing. [Unclear].
Kissinger: —when they did try to assassinate somebody, it took three attempts—
Nixon: Yeah.
Kissinger: —and he lived for three weeks afterwards.

 Kissinger effectively is a prisoner within his own country; small consolation for those of us who believe he should be charged and tried for crimes against humanity — but should he travel to any country that is a signatory to extradition treaties, he will risk immediate arrest and indictment for war crimes and may well end up a defendant in a Spanish Court (whose citizens were murdered by Pinochet) or the War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague.

Now we learn there was a bit of a counting error concerning the extent and enormity of Pinochet's crimes. This is from the BBC:

A Chilean commission investigating human rights abuses under the former military leader Gen. Augusto Pinochet says there are many more victims than previously documented.

Commission director Maria Luisa Sepulveda said they had identified another 9,800 people who had been held as political prisoners and tortured [between 11 September 1973 and 10 March 1990, when Gen Pinochet was in power].

The new figures bring the total of recognised victims to 40,018.

The survivors will get lifetime pensions of about $260 (£157) a month.

An earlier report by the commission recognised 27,153 people who suffered human rights violations under military rule.

The official number of those killed or forcibly disappeared now stands at 3,065.

Chile has placed a price for the torture inflicted on its citizens by Pinochet: $260 monthly. That's $260 more than the U.S. compensates innocent victims of waterboarding, as both the Bush and Obama administrations have declined to own up to the international crime of torture committed in our name. It would explain why Kissinger, Cheney, and Bush are protected from criminal investigation and litigation.

Consider these sobering statistics: The number of Chileans murdered by Pinochet stands at a conservative 3,065. The number of people killed in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks is 2,753. On the day democracy died in Chile, September 11, 1973, a date which will live in infamy in Chilean history, Chile's population was barely larger than New York City's, fewer than 10 million people.

Sports Magic: Brazil's Amazing Golden Boys

This past weekend Brazil captured the FIFA Under-20 World Cup beating Portugal 3-2 in overtime, in a thrilling final. Brazil wasn't even at full strength because its precocious 19-year old phenom, Neymar, has already cracked the top national team. No matter, this team was deep with talented kids. Watch No. 20 Negueba flip the ball over the man marking him, in a play of uncommon panache that is called a "hat" or a "sheet" — as in floating a sheet over a bed when making it. It's rarely seen because it's considered showing up the other team. But kids will be kids.

Watch the goals of the campaign below (excusing the video quality, but I couldn't find better). A festival of great goals, crisp passing and teamwork, showcasing the best football in the world. All the kids were great, but No. 11 Oscar in particular impressed me the most. Oscar scored a "hat trick" against Portugal, notching all three of Brazil's goals. He was a joy to watch, gliding effortlessly over the pitch, hitting his passing targets with pinpoint precision. I thought, 'this kid is really good!'

Then he scored his third goal, which clinched the championship. There's an imaginary window, about the size of the strike zone in baseball, that floats just outside the goalkeeper's reach and below the far corner goalpost. That was Oscar's target. He had the ball on the right wing and noticed Portugal's keeper was only slightly off his line, anticipating a cross. Oscar launched the ball, then fell back still in his follow-through motion, arms swinging freely, as he looked up to admire his masterpiece-in-progress. He laid it in perfectly, past the goalkeeper's desperate outstretched arm. Oscar is seen admiring his shot from afar, then the ball comes into the frame. Nothing but net. The deadly arc of the ball reminded me of a Michael Jordan fadeaway three-point shot at the buzzer.

Man, what a beautiful game.

Living PROOF That Corporations ARE PEOPLE!

This astonishing video FINALLY validates the Supreme Court's assertion that corporations are PEOPLE just like you and me. Watch and listen closely as Mr. BANK OF AMERICA approaches Willard "Thurston" Mitt Romney Rick "The Professor" Perry, author of Fucked Up!, introduces himself, and promises his support:

The Great D.C. Quake REDUX: Tweet Of The Day

HAT TIP to @emptywheel ...

America And Genocide: The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly

FIRST, THE GOOD: The people of Libya stand poised to secure their freedom from the dictator who held his country in chains for forty years. As one jubilant Libyan man on the streets of Tripoli said: “My life begins today. FREEDOM.”

When this uprising began and Colonel Khaddafi threatened a blood bath against his people as the world stood idly by, I posted these words on March 17:

Meanwhile, In Libya …

A genocide looms as Khaddafi's forces rally and President Obama dithers.

The very next day, President Obama, who had rallied NATO — principally Britain and France — to this cause, announced America’s humanitarian intervention. I posted this:

The Obama Doctrine

President Obama established today what is possibly the only legitimate use of UN-sanctioned military force: Intervening in an internecine conflict to avert a humanitarian catastrophe in which largely defenseless civilians are slaughtered by a dictatorial or rogue state authority. The international community, as represented by the UN and led by the United States, has a MORAL RESPONSIBILITY to use all necessary power to prevent atrocities against civilians. PERIOD.

This is the 21st century, and we, as civilized people, should not tolerate a horrific repeat of the atrocities that happened in Bosnia, Rwanda, and northern Kurdish Iraq. Military intervention on humanitarian grounds rests on a solid legal and moral foundation of international law dating back to the Nuremberg Trials.

I think I made a pretty good call. Most importantly, President Obama made the absolute right call, in every respect. There was a lot of hand-wringing and a split among progressives about this military intervention. Some of my progressive friends blew a gasket, arguing we were now engaged in three wars simultaneously, while the right wing suddenly discovered long neglected constitutional prerogatives and thundered that the President should have sought Congress’s approval before acting.

Unlike Bush’s adventurism in Iraq, time was of the essence. President Obama had to act swiftly to avert an imminent slaughter of civilians in Libya. Some of the rationalizations offered by my friends on the left were, frankly, stunning in their insensate absurdity. Conversely, we should recognize it’s always essential to question military intervention. Understood. We simply had a difference of opinion. President Obama acted correctly. And those of us who supported him were right.

The President’s decision-making was flawless. His diagnosis of the Libyan uprising and its dynamics in the larger context of the Arab Spring was less tortured than that of his critics, probably because it hinged on saving lives. It was a no-brainer. Mr. Obama went with his gut, overruling Bob Gates and the Pentagon’s misgivings (which, ironically, paralleled progressive concerns) of a quagmire and mission creep. Justice and freedom broke out in Libya as a result.

President Obama did what presidents do best in such situations, which was to consult with his allies and decide on a plan of action: The U.S. would carry out the initial sorties (no ground troops were committed) and then hand over major military responsibilities to our European allies, Britain and France, acting under NATO’s operational umbrella. The Pentagon and certain progressives were skeptical; Dennis Kucinich made silly noises about impeaching President Obama … but it worked. It was a sound plan. Most significantly, it established a number of important precedents for future military interventions:

• First, President Obama successfully established the framework for a UN-sanctioned doctrine of military intervention in humanitarian crises, which he should proudly own as the Obama Doctrine. Credit where credit is due. Never again will the international community stand idly by, helplessly, in the face of genocide as occurred in Rwanda, Bosnia, or Kurdish Iraq.

• Second, by encouraging our NATO allies to take a more proactive role in military interventions that occur in their backyard so to speak, especially of a humanitarian character, President Obama laid the groundwork for our departure from the solo cowboy interventionism of the Bush years. We’ll never get a handle on reducing the Pentagon budget unless we encourage our allies to take the point in certain situations and build up their own military capabilities.

The notion that our European allies aren’t fully capable militarily is nonsense; it’s a red herring intended to perpetuate a false dependency and keep our domestic war machine — Eisenhower’s military-industrial complex — at full capacity. The truth is, we cannot bankroll foreign wars with borrowed Chinese money and leave the Pentagon’s budget inviolate as Republicans aim to destroy Medicare and Social Security. Something’s got to give, and it should be our bloated Pentagon budget.

• Finally, by keeping our “footprint” in the Libyan uprising small, the President avoided the negative blowback of possible U.S. casualties and the inevitable blame game for so-called “collateral damage” — innocent civilian casualties of the fog of war. He demonstrated confidence in the French and the British — derided by Republican politicians — and was fully rewarded by our allies for taking the political heat. Not to belabor the point, given post-colonialist sensitivities, but the French and Brits can do military interventions as well as anyone. They've got a couple centuries of history on us.

In the last analysis, President Obama realized this Libyan conflict was one that should be owned by the Libyan people. NATO and the U.S. would offer logistical support and air cover to level the playing field and avoid atrocities by Khaddafi’s military. But ultimately, it was important that this conflict, and victory over the dictator, be the Libyan people’s win. This is a very significant foreign policy win for President Obama, as well. It's one for the history books as a lasting positive legacy of his presidency.

Breaking News: EARTHQUAKE Strikes East Coast

I hope there were no injuries. Preliminary reports are, thankfully, there were none and structural damage to buildings was minimal.

Now for the fun part: The epicenter was on or about Washington D.C. — perhaps even inside the Beltway ... Could the Almighty be expressing his upset over the goings-on in our nation's capital? Stay tuned for color commentary from Pat Robertson.

This is the Huffington Post's front page. See that red star in the center? It's the seat of our government and home to the Beltway Media. Oh my. On a serious and hopeful note, it appears our civil defense response is going pretty smoothly.

P.S. - Oh, and the President was playing golf on Martha's Vineyard when the earthquake struck. As the Church Lady would say ... "Isn't that special!"

Postcript To What's The Matter With Obama

It's not just me. But it should be instructive to readers of this blog that my policy-centered fulminations on President Obama's "kowtowing" to his opposition, particularly the Tea Party, whose candidates totalled far fewer than half the votes we gave the President — if anyone wants to talk "mandate" or what "the American people" want — independent of prominent progressive voices of criticism are in sync with a growing consensus among liberals and progressives.

Moreover, I've been no starry-eyed lib who "needs to grow up" and awaken from "recurring liberal fantasy that if only the president of the United States would give a stirring speech, he would sweep the country along with the sheer power of his poetry and enact his agenda." This is a variation on the Melissa Harris-Perry theme that President Obama is not "Superman." But I am in complete agreement with Stephen Kaus, who writes in the Huffington Post:

Liberals understand that Obama is not going to enact an economic policy by fiat; that something has to actually pass. But all this kowtowing to the need for a long term deficit fix at the cost of ignoring the spending necessary for jobs, indeed not even advancing the cause of a second stimulus, has made the President not only look like he has pre-settled, but that he has been pre-rolled.

The time for compromise is OVER. The time for fighting for a DEMOCRATIC, AMERICAN POLICY AGENDA is NOW. That is, if the President and his clueless advisers harbor any hopes for his re-election. Ultimately, it's about President Obama using his mothballed bully pulpit to redirect the terms of the debate to the American people's turf. Odds, anyone? I have my doubts the President's up to it. Partisan political combat doesn't seem to be in his character.

Word is, President Obama is consulting with Warren Buffett before his big jobs speech. A millionaire talks to a billionaire regarding us other 99.9 percent of the American population. No offense to Mr. Buffett. I'm a fan. But if this isn't an appropriate metaphor for the Obama presidency and the times we live in, I don't know what is.

P.S. Could we please have more of the informed and insightful Ms. Guthrie on MTP and less of Mr. Gregory? He could do the third hour of the Today Show.

Forget it, Stephen. Haven't you heard? The untouchable David Gregory is the High Priest of the Idiot Punditocracy. As I've written here before and reiterate, Gregory is a disgrace to his profession. But it's nice to know that liberals outside the Beltway are noticing. Thom Hartmann (who is immunized from the Idiot Punditocracy) said listening to Gregory makes him walk out of the room; the guy's too upsetting. It's a typical reaction for progressives.

Drew Wensten's Devastating Critique Of Obama's Presidency

The rising voices of criticism of President Obama from his supporters, among liberals, progressives, and prominent African Americans are growing too loud and too urgent to be ignored, even by the President's staunchest supporters. I counted myself in that camp, in those initial days of promise, and still do, frustratingly so, for reasons that are obvious to any thinking supporter of this President. On the balance sheet of pros and cons, the most important considerations being Supreme Court appointments and holding on to the few gains we have made — health care reform such as it is, preserving the rights of gays to marriage and open military service, of women to family planning services — those critically important policy agenda items outweigh all else and demand the President's re-election.

Which is infuriating to progressives who feel we must oppose the President as vigorously as we defend him from his adversaries on the right who would destroy his presidency. When the Tea Party prevented John Boehner from taking the so-called "Grand Bargain" President Obama had offered them, progressives from Senator Bernie Sanders on down the line exhaled an audible sigh of relief. The Beltway Media that, let us be clear, is an arm of the corporate ruling class and counts itself among the top two or three percent highest wage earners in the nation praised this raw deal to the heavens. Only the other day, President Obama was back at it in a network interview, lamenting that the Tea Party had rejected his total capitulation "Grand Bargain," which in his mind was a "fair and balanced" deal. All the same, John Boehner said he got 98 percent of what he wanted. He wasn't too far off the mark.

The fire sale could still come from the President's unconstitutional "supercommittee." Progressives are counting on Senator Patty Murray to stand strong — not so much John Kerry, who is salivating over being the next Secretary of State, a plum which the President is dangling in front of him, and least of all Max Baucus, who is the President's ideological twin in the Senate. So the President can count on two votes to sell the American people down the river on deep spending and "entitlement" cuts. Which pits Senator Murray behind the eight ball since all the President needs is for one Democrat to flip to make significant elements of his Grand Sellout come to pass. Which didn't stop the Republican extremists from viciously attacking Murray's appointment. Just on general "principle" because they have so thoroughly neutered this President.

Still, the President can count on a large pool of uncritical support among African Americans, who have been hardest hit by this deep economic recession, and his friends in the media who have chosen to push back against the formidable right wing forces arrayed against him. Even so, if not for Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz reporting from the front lines in Republican-controlled states, ordinary people whom Mr. Obama has effectively abandoned to the wolves, would not have anyone to carry their voices nationally. The President has been MIA on this just cause. Oh, he'll utter a few bromides about how terrible the people's plight is and then crawl right back into his defensive crouch.

The extent to which the pro-Obama media has held him largely unaccountable is unsurprising but disappointing nonetheless. On one level, I can understand it: When you break bread with the President, hang out with his closest advisers, have cocktails with Valerie Jarrett, it's difficult then to turn around and criticize this President. At some point — soon — they've got to step it up and do their jobs. This country is in trouble and they have a responsibility to come to grips with this presidency in a more realistic way. Just saying.

To be fair, some of the President's biggest early supporters in the media are taking a more critical approach. Jonathan Alter is one; Frank Rich, who said Mr. Obama was too "passive" is another. But for each one of these criticisms, there is a Melissa Harris-Perry (whose insights I very much enjoy) to make the obvious but wrong-headed assertion that Mr. Obama is not "Superman."

With all due respect, Melissa, this Nixonian notion that the President (for our narrow purposes) is a "pitiful, helpless giant" is relatively new in our political discourse, perhaps generational, and completely off the mark. It plays right into the hands of the right in this country whose aim is to cripple the power and effectiveness of this President, in particular. Read your history, Melissa, okay? You don't even have to look too far back, just to the LBJ presidency to take note of how LBJ generally got his way with Congress or anyone else who opposed him, and thoroughly enjoyed the hand-to-hand combat.

Speaking of Superman, we actually did have one as President. His name was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Ironic isn't it, because FDR was a paraplegic. Every president brings some particular "baggage" to the White House. Each has particular challenges which they must overcome. The great ones use these challenges as incentives to take that bull by the horns, and tame it. Those who do not tend to focus on the limitations of the office until it becomes a paralyzing self-fulfilling prophecy and sinks their presidency.

Progressives who are infuriated by this President conceding to the other side the terms and conditions of the debate and narrative which got him elected without spelling out the competing narrative (nice try Rachel, but it's mealy-mouthed nonpartisan bullshit) are beginning to realize that we've got to take this fight to the right ourselves — this President is missing-in-action and is likely to remain so for the duration. Come what may, we must hold the line against the unprecedented assault of the oligarchy and its right wing storm troopers to destroy the New Deal, from Social Security to Medicare and Medicaid, even attacking a citizen's right to vote, striking down labor laws and the rights of unions to organize and bargain collectively — with President Obama's apparent collaboration. Unions, he said, must "sacrifice."

Which brings me to this MUST READ essay by Drew Westen, appropriately titled "What Happened to Obama?" Mr. Westen is professor of psychology at Emory University and the author of “The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation.” He brilliantly lays out the frustration felt by many Obama supporters with his presidency. We thought we were voting for a transformational president; what we got instead was a transactional leader whose conciliatory and conservative approach to the office is not what these times demand. The injustice in this nation is growing by the day, Mr. President. Bobby Kennedy said it beautifully:

Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.” ~Robert F. Kennedy, Day of Affirmation Address, University of Capetown, South Africa, June 6, 1966.

A Funny Thing Happened On The Way Out Of The 'Bunch Of Grapes' Bookstore

It's in idyllic Martha's Vineyard where President Obama happens to be vacationing. He was spotted in the bookstore carrying a stack of books, one of which happened to be the Aldous Huxley dystopian classic, Brave New World.

Oh my.

News of Mr. Obama's purchase touched off something of a viral eruption on the internets, across the ideological spectrum. The snarky right wing blogosphere which smears first and asks questions later, was quick to feed its commercial paranoid delusions of the President as a scary black Kenyan socialist out to re-engineer our liberties away. Here's a typical offering from the libertarian right that equates universal healthcare with sacrificing one's liberty — to die of terminal cancer in the gutter. (What's the difference between the Tea Party and libertarians? Libertarians are college-educated Teabaggers who want to get laid and hang out with Dylan Ratigan and his harem of lovelies.)

Interesting that the president would chose [sic - it's "choose"]  for relaxing vacation reading, Brave New World, Aldous Huxley‘s famous 1932 novel. Maybe he has never read it, or maybe he wanted a refresher read.

In either case he may find some similarities between Huxley’s seemingly ideal but actually twisted dystopia and the destination to which his own stultifying governing policies would lead.

[...]

I do hope the president gets Huxley’s basic message: that the unacceptable price of government-controlled universal happiness will be the absolute sacrifice of our liberty — in exchange for an insipid “happiness” that is anything but.

You’re feeling a bit nervous?

Here – take a soma.

Obamacare anyone?

Have a nice day!

But others should know better; like the Gray Lady's frivolous "flame-head flamethrower" Maureen Dowd, who found her column's hook when President Obama chanced upon a town called Alpha, Illinois (seriously) then was fortuitously seen purchasing Brave New World at the 'Bunch Of Grapes' bookstore. (MEMO to President Obama: Next time order the book through a proxy — Valerie Jarrett? — and make sure it arrives in plain brown paper wrapping.)

As our libertarian pal explains:

Embryos are mass produced conditioned to belong to one of five official castes: Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, or Epsilon. ... The Alpha embryos are destined to become the leaders and thinkers of the World State and view only MSNBC-TV.

Gee, now that's a cheap shot; everyone knows the future "leaders and thinkers of the World State" watch Fox and the caste system predicted in Brave New World is already a reality. Just ask Warren Buffett. He said all this "class warfare" talk is old news to keep the Tea Party zombies riled up. They've already had a class war and, Buffett noted wryly, "my class won."

Here's Maureen Dowd on President Obama:

There were no pictures allowed of him at the Vineyard Golf Club, only shots of the president shopping for books with his daughters. He was seen in the Bunch of Grapes bookstore on Friday holding “Brave New World.” Maybe he was brushing up on dystopias and alphas.

There's only one problem with all this kerfuffle over the President's Brave New World purchase. It wasn't for him. The LA Times reports that "[i]t was unclear which books Obama ultimately purchased at Bunch of Grapes, but “Brave New World” was most likely for his 13-year-old daughter, Malia. The book is required reading for eighth-grade students at Sidwell Friends School, where she attends.

Oops. To which I can only say:

BIG BROTHER DOES NOT APPROVE of Malia's school assignment. So here's a little assignment for those myopic (read that, lazy) commenters who jumped the shark on the President's book purchase — no excuses for Maureen Dowd who should have (?) some of the best researchers and fact checkers in the business just down the hall ... refresh your observational skills by figuring this out:

Rick Perry, Porn Peddler — GASP!

This is not a joke, Teabaggers and Perry aficionados.

The wannabe president with the foul mouth and a smaller-than-Bush brain owns stock in Movie Gallery, a video rental company that distributes such multiple-volume (apparently encyclopedic) porn titles as Teens with Tits Vol. 1, Teen Power Vol. 4, Teens Never Say No, Big Tit Brotha Lovers 6, Bisexual Barebacking Vol. 1. The American Family Association boycotted Movie Gallery, but had no problem partnering with Perry in the "Jesuspalooza" extravaganza FAIL rally held by Perry in Houston before tossing his hat in the ring.

When questioned on August 17, 2011 about AFA’s awareness of Perry’s stock in Movie Gallery, one Cindy Roberts in the AFA press office gasped, "Why, I had no idea!"

Oh Ricky ... Pick up the phone, why dont'cha. You got some 'splainin' to do, HOMBRE TESUDO.

Entertaining Fluff ... Piers v. O'Donnell

Christine O'Donnell is one of Bill Maher's more Machiavellian comic creations. It would have been perfect if Christine had the right-back-at-ya "audacity" to ask "charming" Piers, "What did you KNOW about the Murdoch-News of The World hacking scandal, and WHEN DID YOU KNOW IT, you big ol' RUDE BULLY BRIT!?"

TEA PARTY Remedial Ed: BUSTED!

As we were saying all along about the Tea Party ... I guess it took a study to make it official. Although the McGovern parallel is overstated — the progressive movement was motivated by an idealistic impulse that ended our involvement in Vietnam, fought for rights that are taken for granted today,  expanded our consciousness toward stewardship of the environment, and stood for peace and economic justice. If you're gonna go down fighting, you might as well do it for purposeful things.

Progressives stand for saving the planet, and our country, leading a rising tide of justice and prosperity. The Tea Party are the very antithesis of the progressive movement. They would destroy rather than build up this country; retrench into bigotry and theocratic rule rather than open the door of opportunity and religious tolerance; deny the science of global warming; defend polluting, job-destroying corporations as "people" against the Jeffersonian rights of the common man and woman.

No, there is nothing to compare the Tea Party to the progressive movement that backed George McGovern for president in 1972. But if one were to suggest the death of the Tea Party as McGovern's Revenge ... we'll take it. For, long after the schlerotic Teabaggers are consigned to the dungheap of history, succeeding generations of progressives will yet be around to carry the flag ever forward.

Our analysis casts doubt on the Tea Party’s “origin story.” Early on, Tea Partiers were often described as nonpartisan political neophytes. Actually, the Tea Party’s supporters today were highly partisan Republicans long before the Tea Party was born, and were more likely than others to have contacted government officials. In fact, past Republican affiliation is the single strongest predictor of Tea Party support today.

What’s more, contrary to some accounts, the Tea Party is not a creature of the Great Recession. Many Americans have suffered in the last four years, but they are no more likely than anyone else to support the Tea Party. And while the public image of the Tea Party focuses on a desire to shrink government, concern over big government is hardly the only or even the most important predictor of Tea Party support among voters.

So what do Tea Partiers have in common? They are overwhelmingly white, but even compared to other white Republicans, they had a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barack Obama was president, and they still do.

More important, they were disproportionately social conservatives in 2006 — opposing abortion, for example — and still are today. Next to being a Republican, the strongest predictor of being a Tea Party supporter today was a desire, back in 2006, to see religion play a prominent role in politics. And Tea Partiers continue to hold these views: they seek “deeply religious” elected officials, approve of religious leaders’ engaging in politics and want religion brought into political debates. The Tea Party’s generals may say their overriding concern is a smaller government, but not their rank and file, who are more concerned about putting God in government.

This inclination among the Tea Party faithful to mix religion and politics explains their support for Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Gov. Rick Perry of Texas. Their appeal to Tea Partiers lies less in what they say about the budget or taxes, and more in their overt use of religious language and imagery, including Mrs. Bachmann’s lengthy prayers at campaign stops and Mr. Perry’s prayer rally in Houston.

Yet it is precisely this infusion of religion into politics that most Americans increasingly oppose. While over the last five years Americans have become slightly more conservative economically, they have swung even further in opposition to mingling religion and politics. It thus makes sense that the Tea Party ranks alongside the Christian Right in unpopularity.

On everything but the size of government, Tea Party supporters are increasingly out of step with most Americans, even many Republicans. Indeed, at the opposite end of the ideological spectrum, today’s Tea Party parallels the anti-Vietnam War movement which rallied behind George S. McGovern in 1972. The McGovernite activists brought energy, but also stridency, to the Democratic Party — repelling moderate voters and damaging the Democratic brand for a generation. By embracing the Tea Party, Republicans risk repeating history.

MEMO TO RACHEL: Lest you "treat" us with more dead airtime by trotting out MSNBC train wreck reclamation project Michael Steele to feed us more specious GOP political hack talking points, try looping the best-yet Steele interview on MSNBC, with the Reverend Al: STEELE — "You guys ... (SIGH) ... SI-I-I-I-GH ... (DEEP SIGH.)" Say your brilliant piece, Rachel, then loop Michael Steele sighing DEEPLY into the microphone when it's his turn to speak the talking points.

Re: WWHD ...

Nice try with the straw woman argument, Rebecca. Um ... Bill Maher is a comedian and political satirist — that's what he keeps insisting whenever someone pops out of the woodwork to smear him with that lower form of life nametag that says "political analyst." Besides, I'm sure Hillary hasn't been a wilting flower in the Obama administration ... that was part of the deal. So we still get "two for the price of one" with different outcomes. The real question isn't "what would Hillary do?"— It's how can a Democratic president tack to the right of Bill Clinton and still be a Democrat? How convenient to stand up for His Barackness by telling his critics to STFU already.

What Would Ted Kennedy Say, And Do?

Don't you miss the LION OF THE SENATE? I do.

He was the only voice that the President of the United States would find much too difficult to ignore. What would Ted say of positions President Obama has taken that run counter to everything genuine Democrats stand for?

Here are just two examples: (1) We've already mentioned Mr. Obama's statement about unions having to "sacrifice." Where was President Obama during the concerted radical Republican assault on labor unions — savaging the salt of the earth ... teachers, firefighters, nurses, public employees — throughout the country? Not only have unions been forced to make major concessions on everything from pensions and health care to salaries, but then they were hit with a two-by-four by these scumbag Republican governors from Walker to Kasich to Scott and Christie, who have denied unions even a seat at the table.

In Wisconsin, the Democrats ousted two Republican state senators in recall elections coming to within one vote of a majority. And they have an ally in a Republican moderate senator who opposes Walker. In Ohio, after ramming Senate Bill 5 down the people's throats, that little ratbastard, scumsucking fink John Kasich is running scared. NOW he wants to "talk" to the unions about "grievances" to reach a "compromise." Ah, how so very Obama-esque.

You know what: Fuck you, Kasich. The people of Ohio are going to take this up at the ballot box and RAM IT RIGHT BACK DOWN YOUR THROAT WHEN THEY REPEAL SB5. The time for talk and compromise IS OVER. Are you listening, President Obama? Hardly. Who knows, maybe Kasich can get the President to visit Ohio in an effort to convince the unions of the error of their ways. Maybe he'll get in a round or two of golf with the Prez and his mega-rich entourage at Nantucket Island.

And (2) here's another bookend example from the same "listening tour" of presidential anti-Democratic (big "D") talk. If you haven't heard much about it, it's because at MSNBC they cover for Mr. Obama quite a bit, from Chris to the Rev Al to Lawrence. So here's the deal: President Obama is on board with COLA increases in Social Security and raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67. Considering the very real likelihood that millions of seniors will NOT have a bridge health care coverage for those two critical years, HOW MANY THOUSANDS OF THEM WILL DIE as result of this hurtful policy at precisely the time in their lives when Medicare coverage is most critical?

Shame on you, Mr. President and on each and every "Democrat" — Senator Max Baucus, mark my words, he's the President's bag man on that "super committee"— who slashes these core Democratic programs. The President made false assurances about so-called "modest" adjustments to Social Security and Medicare: "Most folks won't notice 'em." Yeah, right. Except those who are dead or too ill to make much of a fuss even if they do. Read all about it here.

"Most folks won't notice 'em."

Look who noticed ...

Proposed cuts led 33 disability groups to urge the president and Congress not to cut Social Security benefits.

Groups signing the statement included the American Association of People with Disabilities, the American Council of the Blind, the Association of Assistive Technology Act Programs, Easter Seals, the Epilepsy Foundation, Paralyzed Veterans of America, United Cerebral Palsy, and a number of others.

With all due respect, Mr. President: If you've lost Easter Seals, you've lost America.

I'll say. Which begs the question: Does this President GET IT at all? With a palace guard of Valerie Jarrett, Bill Daley, and David Plouffe (with new, severe Gordon Gekko look) I think the answer is clear. Jarrett and Daley are old corporatist Chicago pols in a one-party town. Ironic considering they've advised the President to take THE TOTALLY WRONG TACK and go the "nonpartisan" route.

Bill Daley? C'mon. This dude was/is a ConservaDem wheeler-dealer in a town ruled for a good century by the Democratic Party. Daley could afford to be magnanimous and play the "nonpartisan" game in Chicago. Washington is a wholly different kettle of fish. One gets the sense they've been rolled so often by the Republicans they're suffering from a form of chronic political dizziness. The polls bear that out.

Look, however much Jonathan Kohn, Chris Matthews, and others would wish President Obama to channel "his inner Harry Truman" (noted here first and subject exhausted) it's not going to happen. Mr. Obama lacks a certain Trumanesque FIERCE bluntness. Somehow, lamenting his generic version of a "do-nothing" Congress (no sir! The Democrats poll MUCH HIGHER in the public's approval, and last I checked you were a Democrat), bemoaning the "frustration" of those no-name obstructionists (they're called REPUBLICANS and TEABAGGERS, sir — okay, say "Tea Party" but you really don't have to mind your words so much), won't quite make the Truman grade. Here's David Cohn, wrestling with the Obama-as-Truman thing. It seems the President's palace guard keeps getting in the way:

"... A reported piece in the Sunday Times, described a split among White House advisers. That article suggested that Obama’s economic counselors, led by National Economic Council chairman Gene Sperling, are squarely behind the jobs agenda, while Obama’s political advisers, including strategist David Plouffe and Chief of Staff William Daley, prefer Obama concentrate more on deficit reduction and further burnish his image as a post-partisan leader. Among the article’s more alarming passages: A suggestion that Plouffe and Daley were making policy arguments, even though their position, as reported, would be at odds with most experts. Keep in mind that Plouffe and Daley, between them, have as much formal economics training as I do: None. ...

Still, the tension between conflict and compromise, between partisanship and post-partisanship, is obviously real. It was even evident at the Michigan and at Minnesota appearances, which for all of their spirited excoriations of Congress conspicuously avoided one word: “Republican.” (He uttered the term twice at the first event and once at the second, in each case to note that proposals he supported had in the past garnered Republican support.)

That’s an intentional decision and, perhaps, a politically logical one. I imagine that criticizing "some in Congress" tests better with focus groups than criticizing Republicans by name. But will that mentality prevent Obama from drawing the lines he needs to draw? Will it limit policy ambitions or constrain his legislative tactics in the coming months? Those are the critical, if complicated, questions. Truman gave more than two speeches, after all. "

Yes, and when all entreaties to the President to be someone he clearly isn't are exhausted, we can always keep hope alive, right Jonathan? Because the alternative is too hideous to contemplate. Word has it there are more presidential theatrics on jobs to come in September ... after Nantucket. Here's your template, Mr. President. Anything less isn't worth the bother.

Best Rejection Letter EVER! Rumored To Be From The Late, GREAT Hunter S. Thompson

I'd like to think this is how Mr. Thompson would have reacted to Mark Halperin's and John Heileman's Game Change, especially after a chapter title that begins with "Fear And Loathing ..." and what I strongly suspect is a fake composite men's room scene, which is liberally borrowed from the incomparable, original Gonzo masterpiece, Fear And Loathing On The Campaign Trail. There's homage, there's borrowing, and there's "appropriation." In the end, it all depends on the ethics of those doing the plagiarizing. It helps when the gun-toting genius is dead. What are the odds he'll get a single line of acknowledgment when the movie comes out?

Here's the story, and here's the rejection letter believed to have been penned by Hunter S. Thompson:

Brother, Can You Spare A Million?

The world's sixth richest man wants the feds and the Republicans and the Tea Party to STOP "CODDLING" him and his rich friends: "My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice." Gee, what a concept; asking the super-rich to contribute their fair share in taxes and "shared sacrifice."

Stop Coddling the Super-Rich

By WARREN E. BUFFETT

Omaha

OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.

To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.

The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.) [READ MORE HERE ...]

Warren E. Buffett is the chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway.

President Obama's Despicable Statement About Unions

Big Eddie, seemingly the only one, I hate have to say it, on the MSN-BARACK-CHANNEL who has THE BALLS to challenge President Obama on his mind-blowing ANTI-UNION statement which is not only FACTUALLY INCORRECT but an egregious and CRUEL thing for a "DEMOCRATIC" President to make. Let us not forget that this is the FIRST "DEMOCRATIC" President to put Social Security and Medicare on the chopping block, and to treat REPUBLICAN proposals to CUT THESE PROGRAMS THEY HATE as the kind of "compromise" we all want and need from Washington.

When are the delusional fantasists on MSNBC going to stop coddling the President and start parsing his statements objectively and critically? Not once, NOT ONCE did the President stand up for working people and public employee unions against radical Republican governors in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, New Jersey, Florida, Indiana. Instead, when given the opportunity to make a pro-union statement on his so-called "listening tour," Mr. Obama sided with the BRUTISH REPUBLICAN BULLIES, the radical governors — Walker, Christie, Kasich, Scott — against the working people, telling the unions to, in effect, take their bitter medicine and stop complaining, stop demonstrating, and most of all stop raining on HIS re-election parade.

Well, excuse me, Mr. President, but you can't squeeze water from a stone. The unions have given and given and given already, making one concession after another. When is ENOUGH, ENOUGH? When will this Clintonian triangulation END? When will President Obama remember the "(D)" in front of his name and start TAKING NAMES AND POINTING THE FINGER OF BLAME WHERE IT BELONGS — at the Republican Party, the limitless corporate money in Republican politics, AND NOT AT THE UNIONS AND THE MIDDLE CLASS?

And when will Big Eddie's colleagues STOP papering over the President's REACTIONARY statements? He is no liberal. He is no progressive. Red states and blue states, all together now. Remember the speech that launched Mr. Obama into the national spotlight? It wasn't just soaring rhetoric. President Obama REALLY BELIEVES that pablum.

Dear Mr. President: You're not in Kansas anymore.

ALIENS (FROM OUTER SPACE?) ARE AMONG US!

It's hard to quibble with Rachel's outstanding segment about a "fake alien invasion" being the catalyst for transformational change that would end our political and economic troubles in a flash. But Rachel, Ronald Reagan never considered his hypothesis of an alien threat from some other planet "cartoony" much less a fantasy. In fact, Reagan pushed back against removal of the alien passage from his speech by insisting that it be reinserted. How interesting that he wrote "fantasy" within quotation marks, as if to emphasize he didn't consider it a cartoonish flight of fancy at all. This is Reagan's handwritten note to his speechwriter, to that effect:

“And toward the end perhaps I still would like my "fantasy" — how quickly our differences world wide would vanish if creatures from another planet should threaten this world.    RR”

Reagan clearly indicated in his handwritten comment he was well aware of the implications of his words and disagreed with anyone who may have called it a "fantasy". Rachel's video clip omits Reagan's most controversial part of the speech, one seized upon by UFOlogists to argue he knew more about the "fake alien invasion" than he was letting on. Of course, they omit the last sentence, which places the second — the clincher about "aliens among us"— in a different, less cosmic, if not more benign context:

“I occasionally think, how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world. And yet, I ask, is not an alien force ALREADY among us? What could be more alien to the universal aspirations of our peoples than war and the threat of war?”

It's too bad the burro-DEMO-cratic, techno-DEMO-cratic Ed Rendell was selected as the guest to close out this magnificent segment on somewhat of a down note — we all love Ed, but Rachel, couldn't you have chosen a guest, a creative thinker, on a par with this awesome segment instead of boring old Ed ... Paul Krugman, perhaps, to expand on his headline-making comment? Anyway, why quibble with perfection when you come pretty darn close to it. Thumbs up!