Music Break: Awesome GAL

GAL COSTA, one of the eternal DIVAS of Brazilian Music in a sweet and magical unrehearsed duet with the great singer-songwriter Jorge Ben:

As I was listening to Ron Paul ramble on about arcane monetary policy to the whoops and hollers of his true believers, he cast a pall on 1971 as the end of good life on this earth. That was the year the U.S. dropped the Gold Standard. But not so to Gal in this 1971 rocker, when she bellowed, "Don't be scared people, when I say that life is good!" And they were living under a brutal military dictatorship, too, but still making great music. Her message: "I am love from head to feet." This is as SIZZLING a basic rock guitar, drums and bass intro as you'll ever hear. The guitarist was Lanny, and man, did he have the licks:

The Odd Couple? Not So Much ...

IS MITTENS playing Ron Paul supporters for fools? And is Ron Paul betraying his libertarian supporters by forming a "strategic" alliance with Wall Street's golden boy, Mr. 1% himself, who is anathema to those who would eliminate the Fed and slash defense spending half as much as Mittens would increase it? Uh ... It would appear so. According to this WaPo piece:

"The Romney-Paul alliance is more than a curious connection. It is a strategic partnership: for Paul, an opportunity to gain a seat at the table if his long-shot bid for the presidency fails; for Romney, a chance to gain support from one of the most vibrant subgroups within the Republican Party.

Romney’s aides are “quietly in touch with Ron Paul,” according to a Republican adviser who is in contact with the Romney campaign and spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss its internal thinking. The two campaigns have coordinated on minor things, the adviser said — even small details, such as staggering the timing of each candidate’s appearance on television the night of the New Hampshire primary for maximum effect."

ROMNEY: "HUG? ... HUGGIE? ... HUGGLES?" PAUL: "WA'ALL ... OK, I GUESS ..."

Frankly, I think it's a hard sell. Depending on how one views the paleolibertarian chameleon Ron Paul, it might as well be the political equivalent of the Munich Agreement between Chamberlain and Hitler (what could Mittens possibly say about Paul when he accuses President Obama of appeasement?), or if you like, the Soviet-Nazi non-aggression pact.

So what gives? As the story implies, the Romney campaign wants to bring Paul and his followers quietly into "the fold." It may be the price for avoiding an insurrection by Paul delegates and supporters inside and outside the GOP convention. My guess is Ron Paul has been assured a speaking role at the convention (ignore what Lawrence says; think the opposite) as part of getting "a seat at the table." Have the two campaigns discussed cabinet posts? Too early, but Romney might have dangled that fruit in front of Paul, as his trump card.

Paul's supporters, the thoughtful ones at least, I'm sorry to say are being played for fools by their racist champion. Things are not as they seem. The WaPo story points to Ron Paul not as the free agent libertarian hero, "raging against the machine," but as the cynical subordinate (given the behind-the-scenes coordination between the two camps) to the Romney campaign, a stalking horse for Mittens that "helps keep the GOP electorate fractured." For Romney, "accommodating [Paul] and his supporters could help unify Republican voters in the general election against President Obama." Actually, their greatest concern is not bringing Paul's constituency "into the fold" but keeping Ron Paul from running as a third party candidate. And Donald Trump, too. Which explains the puzzling (to the clueless Idiot Punditocracy) Trump endorsement.

They needn't worry. The Beltway Media has so atrociously misread the Paul-Romney-Trump ménage à trois that its speculation of a Paul third party candidacy is as realistic as the Cubs winning the World Series in 2012. Ron Paul isn't going anywhere. Neither is Donald Trump. But the panicky Romney campaign, victims of an excess of caution, just couldn't take any chances.

The same can't be said for Ron Paul's passionate supporters, whose libertarian ideology will be sorely tested by their hero's alignment with the ultimate GOP Establishment candidate, the insider's insider, Mr. 1%. Maybe when they figure things out, they might decide not to go along.

Ron Paul Ties to Neo-Nazi Group Exposed

Curiously, this story has been studiously avoided by the mainstream/Beltway Media. Even the Huffington Post, while featuring an excellent two-part report on "Anonymous," by far the most comprehensive look at the group, has participated in the blackout of the Ron Paul story. Not surprisingly, the Steve Capus networks haven't reported it either. If they're concerned about proper sourcing, why not have Michael Isikoff look into it and verify the story? The answer is not to pretend it doesn't exist. Besides, "Anonymous" has some serious cred, and is not to be taken lightly or dismissed.

While the Beltway Media seems to be giving the Ron Paul ties to neo-Nazis a wide berth, the story got out (it always does, eventually, see below) and was also reported on British media, where one must necessarily navigate to find out what's going on in the United States.

The group of hackers known as “Anonymous” has shut down several neo-Nazi websites owned by Jamie Kelso, a former John Birch Society member, assistant to David Duke and moderator for the white supremacist website, Stormfront.

“Anonymous” claims to have recovered emails from Kelso that prove that Ron Paul has regularly met with members of Jamie Kelso’s neo-Nazi political party American Third Position and even was on several conference calls with their board of directors. Here is a statement from “Anonymous” from one of the neo-Nazi websites they shut down.

"In addition to finding the usual racist rants and interactions with other white power groups, we also found a disturbingly high amount of members who are also involved in campaigning for Ron Paul. According to these messages, Ron Paul has regularly met with many A3P members, even engaging in conference calls with their board of directors. Ron Paul’s racist politics and affiliations are already well known, being viciously anti-immigrant, anti-abortion and against gay marriage — not to mention having authored the racist “Ron Paul Papers” and receiving financial support from other white power groups (pictured with Don Black from stormfront.org). Hard to believe Ron Paul draws some support from the left and the occupation movements, especially now that it is confirmed Ron Paul hangs out with straight up racist hate groups. We put extra effort in ruining the life of A3P webmaster Jamie Kelso. On top of being on the board of directors of A3P, former $cientologist, and high ranking Ron Paul organizer, he also is the account owner of german nazi forums and store nsl-forum.org, rhs-versand.com."

VICTORY! KOMEN CAVES TO PEOPLE POWER!

ALL HAIL the Twitterverse and the power of 140 characters to break down attempts to politicize and defund women's health. Bobby Kennedy LIVES — He was the FIRST to describe the power of this as yet unborn social media:

Each time a person stands up for an ideal,
or acts to improve the lot of others...
(S)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 that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.

Robert F. Kennedy (1925 - 1968)

Let's be clear; the right wing and the Karen Handels of this world wanted to make this about abortion, but it isn't. Komen was funding women's breast health which is but one aspect of the 97% of women's health services provided by Planned Parenthood that are not abortion services. No one, on any side of the issue, is in favor of abortion. But those of us who support a woman's right to make her reproductive choices oppose male politicians, or anyone, who would turn a woman's legal reproductive choice into a political and ideological issue.

What are the odds Karen Handel survives? I'll say 97 to 1.

KOMEN BACKLASH: The Women of America Emerge From Their Stupor

WHAT DID THEY EXPECT!? Many now expressing shock over Komen's defunding of Planned Parenthood probably voted the Republican extremists into office, both in the House and statehouses, who then immediately turned their sharp knives against Planned Parenthood in a relentless, widescale attack designed to destroy the nation's primary women's health organization. Those who voted "Republican" and remained on the sidelines as the attacks against Planned Parenthood gathered steam are complicit and can't very well bitch and moan with a clear conscience about what their votes have wrought.

Internally Komen appears to be in turmoil, as the resignations mount in response to its ideologically driven decision. It's nice that people have woken up, at long last, but it's frustrating all the same, as the rest of us beat our heads against the wall while they passively sat on the sidelines. Andrea Mitchell's interview with Komen's CEO (see below) was impressive for its non-Andrea advocacy and hurt — she's been close to tears about this given her personal history, likening it to a "death in the family."

I find the sense of betrayal, on anyone's part, especially those who supposedly have their finger on the pulse, just a tad baffling. It seems like one more indication of the obtuse nature of the Beltway Media. Indeed, only days ago, Andrea's softball interview with Michigan Governor Rick Snyder, painted a false picture of bipartisan "team effort" — minimal at best, despite Snyder's ludicrous claim of "relentless positive action" — glossed over his unconstitutional "emergency powers" grab of municipalities where most of the state's African American Democratic voting populations reside including Detroit, its largest city, and didn't even mention Snyder's 37% approval rating.

In reality, the divisive governor slashed the state's budget on the backs of teachers, union workers, seniors, and the poor, in order to implement his corporate tax cuts. Now Snyder is trying to take credit for the major driver of Michigan's economic recovery — President Obama's reviled bailout of the auto industry, Michigan's primary economic engine. Not surprisingly, the President received no credit whatsoever as the true architect of Michigan's "turnaround," outpacing all other states.

To watch Andrea Mitchell Reports is akin to watching a well produced Beltway Media infomercial, with the obligatory participation of POLITICO, called by Rachel (I love this) the "belt buckle" of the Beltway Media. Now that the Komen story hits Andrea close to home, suddenly she is channeling her inner journalist. I was more surprised than impressed. It shouldn't have to be this way:

Hey Wingnuts, You Can't Erase Your Ideological Bias

The Susan G.Komen Foundation, the nation's largest breast cancer charity, known for "Race for a Cure" and those ubiquitous pink ribbons, provoked a firestorm of outrage when it announced a politically motivated decision to stop its grants to Planned Parenthood. The excuse given is that the embattled Planned Parenthood was "under investigation" by a Republican Congressman to ensure that none of its federal funding was used on abortion-related services. The fact is, Planned Parenthood has been under assault by the pro-life Republican House. This bogus investigation into what constitutes only 3% of the organization's women's health services is just a pretext to shut it down and deny it its vital federal funding.

The other aspect of this story is that the Komen Foundation's senior vice president of public policy, Karen Handel, who is “staunchly and unequivocally pro-life,” was hired last April after she ran as a Republican for governor of Georgia in 2010 on a pro-life plank. She hasn't commented on her Facebook page about the decision to defund Planned Parenthood, but has been basking in congratulatory messages such as this one:

“I was so happy to read about the defunding of Planned Parenthood by Komen. Thank you for any part that you had in this!! I am a breast cancer survivor and I always participated in the Race for a Cure, but I was not going to this year – after hearing about the funding. Now I am very happy to be able to participate with a clear conscience, knowing that the money I collect will not be going to Planned Parenthood! Thank you again!”

Tellingly, Ms Handel retweeted this zinger from a pro-life ally putting the lie to Komen Foundation assertions that its decision was not politically or ideologically motivated: “Just like a pro-abortion group to turn a cancer orgs decision into a political bomb to throw. Cry me a freaking river.” Nice try deleting your retweet Ms Handel, but you should know that finger-speed is no match for net-speed. As Lisa McIntire tweeted, “This is why we take screen shots.” I love 'em myself, knowing how much those of Karen Handel's ilk lie, and how important it is to keep a record. Stay classy, Ms Handel:

PS — SHAME, SHAME on the PBS Newshour and Judy Woodruff for reporting a version of this story that was misleading and incomplete, in an awkward exchange with an LA Times reporter. The political ties involving Ms Handel were never even broached. It seems PBS and its parent company, The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, are just as cowed by the right wing pressure from extremist pro-life House Republicans, who have targeted both PBS and Planned Parenthood for termination and defunding. It's a despicable turn of affairs when an extremist right wing minority can control women's health and public discourse.

PPS — White Knight New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg contributed $250,000 to Planned Parenthood to be matched dollar-for-dollar for the funding lost to Komen. This, along with an outpouring of contributions will make up for the lost grants. Said Mayor Bloomberg, “Politics have no place in health care. Breast cancer screening saves lives and hundreds of thousands of women rely on Planned Parenthood for access to care. We should be helping women access that care, not placing barriers in their way.”

Thumbs up to Mayor Bloomberg, a billionaire politician with a social conscience. What are the odds Mittens will contribute some of his personal fortune to replenish programs for the poor he intends to slash, hmm ... ?

HUGE, HUGE: THE DONALD ENDORSES MITTENS ...

THE GOP CIRCUS MAIN EVENT — DANCE OF THE BILLIONAIRES JUST WENT VEGAS!!!

'FIX' WHAT, MR. 1%? A TALE OF TWO RICH GUYS

MR. 1% said by way of justifying, rationalizing his PLUTOCRAT's PERSPECTIVE that the poor have a "safety net" — as if, Joan Walsh noted, it's a "hammock" they're lying comfortably in "while the rest of us work" — and "if it needs repair, I'll fix it." Really?

Romney was saying that, as president, he wouldn’t make the very poor a top priority, because they are doing well enough, at least relative to the middle class.

But where on earth did Romney get that idea? The statistics tell a rather different story. Last year, for example, more than half of all children in poor households experienced a major hardship such as hunger or living in overcrowded living conditions, according to an analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. And if statistics like that are too abstract for Romney, perhaps he should spend some time in a clinic for the uninsured or a soup kitchen. If he did, he'd discover that life for the very poor is still very hard. They struggle just to pay for food and heat, let alone rent. Most of these people get by – people almost always find a way to get by – but it’s not a life that Romney or anybody else would want for themselves or their loved ones.

Romney is correct that a safety net exists for these people: Food stamps, and housing vouchers, and public health insurance save countless Americans from even worse hardship and, in the best of cases, help lift them into the middle class, where they stay. But the programs are not generous enough, or expansive enough, to do the job adequately. In most states, for example, only mothers and children are eligible for basic health insurance under Medicaid. Housing vouchers and subsidized child care, frequently essential for mothers who want to work, typically have long waiting lists. The value and reach of cash assistance (welfare) has actually declined in relative terms.

The catalyst for Bobby Kennedy's presidential campaign, a transformative event in his life, was his visit to some of the most impoverished parts of this country, Appalachia and the Mississippi Delta, where he cradled a black child whose stomach was distended by hunger, and wept.

As a senator from New York, Kennedy was the impetus for a successful redevelopment project in poverty-stricken Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn in New York City. He proudly carried the title bestowed on him by the press corps, of "tribune of the underclass." He was loved by African Americans, Native Americans, Latinos and immigrant labor groups, connecting with them in ways no politician had, before or since. He carried the banner for the poor, those he called the "disaffected" and "the excluded." He aligned himself with the civil rights movement and became a beacon and a lightning rod for social justice, at great personal risk. He fought for a more aggressive posture in the Democratic Party to eliminate poverty and discrimination. He said, “I believe as long as there is plenty, poverty is evil.”

Robert Kennedy's oldest child, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, recalls her father's reaction upon his return from the Mississippi Delta:

She says she distinctly remembers her father coming home "very much stunned and shocked" from hunger hearings he held as a senator in the Mississippi Delta. "Do you know how lucky you are?" he asked her. "Do something for your country."

Townsend says RFK often quoted Luke 12:48 to his children — "to whom much is given, much is expected." He made sure they visited an Indian reservation before taking a wonderful river trip out West, she said, and drove through Harlem on the way to their nice apartment near the United Nations in New York.

"He always wanted us to see a part of life that most people in our situation wouldn't see."

Robert Kennedy was a rich guy too, just like Mitt Romney. But unlike Romney, he chose a life of genuine public service, one that gave back to the community and inspired rather than plundered and destroyed people's lives, which was Romney's career at Bain. Robert Kennedy instilled those values of public service — "to whom much is given, much is expected" — on his children. What, if anything, have Romney's $100 million children contributed to their community and country? To what end has Mitt Romney chosen his "public service" hobby — to enact the Ryan Plan, effectively trampling on the poor and middle class and further enrich the 1%?

Mitt Romney is the poster manchild for the wanton privilege of the SuperPac Oligarchs and the Plutocrat Class, and for the yawning income inequality of the last 30 years which has culminated in what President Obama accurately described as the "make or break year for the middle class." These are the stakes. What this rich guy, Romney, fails to grasp in his 1% fantasyworld is that as the poor go, so goes the middle class, so go us all.

As Robert Kennedy said, "but we can perhaps remember, if only for a time, that those who live with us are our brothers, that they share with us the same short moment of life; that they seek, as do we, nothing but the chance to live out their lives in purpose and in happiness, winning what satisfaction and fulfillment they can."

Robert Kennedy was a rich guy too, just like Mitt Romney. But that's where the similarity ends. Bobby was "a good and decent man," as his brother Edward said, with a burning idealism and passionate integrity for making this a better world for succeeding generations of Americans, building a more just and prosperous society for all. We know what he stood for, and we loved him his courage.

That is the legacy he left us, one that Romney blithely seeks to swat away as it isn't central to his life. Mitt Romney, the rich guy with the molten core, couldn't hold a candle to Bobby. Mitt Romney doesn't deserve the high honor and privilege of being our president.

This is still Robert Kennedy country.

Fake 'Progressive' Channel Watch: RESOLVED — Mitt Romney Doesn't Care About The Poor

Memo To Alex Wagner: Where's your progressive mojo gone? Mark Halperin is a REPUBLICAN spokesman/propagandist, okay. He's no journalist; he's a charlatan, a plagiarist, and a political smut-peddler, soon to be an HBO film. For you to call his partner "a man of letters" is like comparing Kitty Kelley to Hunter S. Thompson. By the way, the wingnut blogs are echoing Halperin. He gets a free mic on MSNBC to spout his GOP talking points, and has the audacity to criticize Alex (the media) for Mittens' foot-in-mouth disease. Stop being such a suck-up, Alex!

MSNBC Election Coverage Production Values: YIKES!

Are Chuckles and Tamron Hall trying to give iPads a bad rep? Compared to CNN and John King's sticky fingers, MSNBC's visuals are still sucky and static. How come Toddy can't highlight a certain county on the map, enhance it, and pull up the relevant stats with a couple of finger or stylus taps? And who got the bright idea that, after showing us that Romney 47% - Gingrich 32% graphic ALL NIGHT, and the interesting part FINALLY comes up with candidate speeches, some controlling Einstein ASSHOLE producer decides we'd REALLY LIKE TO SEE that graphic AGAIN with the candidate in a POSTAGE STAMP BOX instead of WIDESCREEN all the time, in which we get to see not only the candidate, but reactions of those around him? Good thing there's CNN, that doesn't do moronic production shit, and I got to catch a little bit of David Gergen's comments, too.

You’re A Leading Beltway Media Luminary, IF …

1. You continue to push the silly sports analogy of the “40-yard line” and midfield as the ideal place to score political points despite the uneven, right-tilting playing field.

2. You watch Bill O’Reilly and come away convinced there is a “hard left” which is the polar opposite of the “hard right” — yet a Newt way to insult liberals and progressives.

3. you cannot define “hard left,” i.e., if “hard right” is the Tea Party then “hard left” is … the Progressive Caucus (?); or, as Bill-O The Clown argued, if MSNBC’s “litmus test” is to “fire extremists” like Pat Buchanan, then, “MSNBC would have nobody on. Nobody on.” Really? Not even Chuckles and Chris?

4. You actually believe Michael Steele will vote for President Obama. (Not.) Either that, or you’re palling around with a devious Republican (recently mocked by Jay Carney) at the audience’s expense, which is worse.

5. Your idea of a great Hardball segment on the economic comeback of the Rust Belt and the auto industry resurgence, thanks to the bailout, is to turn it into a clown skit featuring Michael Steele.

6. You love to insult your progressive audience by allowing proxy Steele to sabotage a great Democratic success story — GM is back as the world’s #1 auto manufacturer — with ludicrous voodoo economics spin, while pretending to be dense about it.

7. You read Republican Establishment luminary Kathleen Parker religiously, and just as religiously fail to correct her outrageous crapaganda in real time. Tell me something I don't know because, uh ... it's untrue!

8. You insist Romney cannot identify with the “yearnings” of the American people, but insist you can? Discuss amongst yourselves: Michael, Chris and Chuckles.

9. You claim to be “center-left” (right) or “left” (center, with a sugar cone) but yearn to be a Charlie Crist Republican (soft right, with sprinkles), which is almost hard right, with a double scoop, yearning to go hard left, that's the Michael Moore triple scoop, with the works.

10. The Reverend Al Sharpton's deadpan Republicans-are-crooks humor keeps you in stitches, so maybe there’s still pie-in-your-face hope.

Clueless Idiot Punditocracy Elites Huff And Puff At Newt Speech ... OH, MY!

It was one of the weirdest — and best! — "concession" speeches I have ever seen. Nasty Newt once again rose to the occasion with the quirky brilliance that had earned him this blog's Republican "endorsement." It was hilarious to witness the reaction of the Idiot Punditocracy. Clearly, Newt got under their skin, lobbing the "elites" mortar, which landed a little too close for comfort. Ha, I loved it!

Despite Rachel's somewhat faint praise, most astute political observers (and let's be clear, they're few and far between) would come away with the impression that Mr. 1% was launching forgettable spitballs at President Obama. If this kind of strained, hollow, rich man's version of political character is their standard-bearer, the Republican Party/Establishment is in deep trouble. There's something about Mr. Molten Core that really, really rubs people the wrong way. He lacks not only a core but even that fake conviction. And the harder he tries the worse he sounds. This guy still hasn't cracked 50% of the Republican primary vote, in a state that was supposed to favor him, with literally unlimited funds to carpet-bomb Newt. Yet Mittens' geographic appeal was limited mostly to the urban/suburban rich carpetbagging Florida counties. Newt cleaned up the Tea Party vote and the "southern" panhandle.

What were they talking about? Newt's speech blew Mittens away. And didn't you love it how he never acknowledged his rivals, never conceded? Of the Punditocracy, David Gergen of CNN, a truly respected éminence grise of political pundits, got it right when he said that had this Newt shown up at the debate, we "might have had a different result." The self-congratulatory Lawrence and Chris were basically clueless about Newt's appeal to the Republican base, although Chris came close citing "all the buttons he pushed" then lost it with some murky "kaleidoscope" reference — not at all my impression of a "stream of consciousness," far from it — followed by a typical condescending Beltway notion that Newt was talking over the audience's heads by citing the repeal of Sarbanes-Oxley.

Those of us who have read up on the Tea Party, and I'm a little surprised the pundits didn't catch on, know that these people, like Ron Paul's followers obsessing over "the Fed" for instance, really get into the weeds of legislation which, for whatever reason, they regard as particularly evil. Newt pushed other hot Tea Party buttons, like the "people power" reference, the grandiose Gettysburg Address "of, by, and for the people" with its exaggerated emphasis, and lastly, what no one seems to have connected, the ending line, in which the Times live bloggers noted, Newt had "appropriated" the last line of the Declaration of Independence: "I promise if I become your president, I pledge to you my life, my fortune and my sacred honor."

Yes, but one of the earliest NYT profiles of rank-and-file Tea Partiers mentions that they customarily end every meeting with those very words, which one member described in near-spiritual terms. Newt didn't use this passage by accident or simply to be grandiose. He was making a very effective pitch for the hearts and minds of the Tea Party legions, the Pitchfork brigades. (Let's not forget Newt's promise to sign an executive order removing the Obama administration's so-called "czars," a cause célèbre among the most conspiratorial Teabaggers.) And judging by some pundit reactions, Newt connected. The usually reserved Steve Schmidt was never more agitated, expressing the alarm of the Republican Party Establishment at the prospect of "total war." Similarly, the usually unflappable Reverend Al lost it when Newt made race baiting references to the President as the "entertainer-in-chief." He and Rachel rightly tore into Newt's representative over the racist references.

I was impressed by Newt's Machiavellian specificity. There was nothing delusional about his focused, snarling prescriptions. He wasn't speaking off the top of his head — no lunar references tonight — but made carefully calibrated remarks for maximum appeal to the Tea Party, including patriotic American history allusions that are a part of the Tea Party gospel. As mentioned in our endorsement of Newt, "we believe his rise will lead to the ultimate destruction of the Republican Party as currently constituted ... Newt Gingrich is the perfect vehicle for the Republican Party's destruction. The "flawed vessel" of our dreams."

I do not agree with Jonathan Alter that Newt prolonging this campaign will help Romney by virtue of contrast with Mittens as the "Massachusetts liberal." Inevitably, Romney's faults will expose a rift in the Republican Party with the base — more Republicans, 6 in 10, still want someone else! — that may be beyond healing. Even more important, the negative firepower needed to pulverize Newt will very likely splatter Romney and further depress his soft, unenthusiastic support. What goes around, comes around, and Mittens will sustain a lot of damage from Newt.

When the semifinal takes too much out of a team, it will stumble flat and bedraggled into the final, against a formidable opponent that coasted. And it will lose. Only those teams with uncommon character actually gain strength from a bruising contest before the Big Show. Sorry Republicanos clubistas, but Mr. 1% lacks that uncommon character.

TEA PARTY Remedial Ed: It's Official ... Social Conservatives Are Dumb

We don't need a scientific study for this; just watch FOX for five minutes, or count the misspelled racist signs at Teabagger demonstrations; or read the Daily Caller or a Ron Paul newsletter, for that matter ... But here 'tis:

There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.

The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.

No wonder these people are anti-science — it's like a primitive defense mechanism that rejects any complexity that rocks their simple world; like evolution and global warming:

[T]here is reason to believe that strict right-wing ideology might appeal to those who have trouble grasping the complexity of the world.

"Socially conservative ideologies tend to offer structure and order," Hodson said, explaining why these beliefs might draw those with low intelligence. "Unfortunately, many of these features can also contribute to prejudice."

Okay, I understand these people need help, but why do we allow them to run the show and set policy? Because they're armed and dangerous?

Down But Not Out: The Ice Bucket Man Cometh

Newt Gingrich, the House ice bucket slayer, the moon talker doing the candidate moon walk as Mittens prances away in his starched jeans and tasseled loafers like a prissy Captain (Jack) Sparrow, came out swinging and tossing buckets of red meat at his blood-lusty crowds while declaring, without irony, "when you're desperate you will say anything." The polls say he's far behind the mulligan multi-millionaire with the oily phrasing — "have you checked your own investments-ah" — but how can Tea Partying teabaggers, genuine or wanna-be's, possibly reject this swamp thing, this laughing gator and orange demon of the Everglades candidate in their midst? How can any Florida voter with a keen sense of history and appreciation for this political theater of the absurd say no to Newt Gingrich?

Newt Gingrich is the best Republican thing (not counting George W. Bush, El Supremo Putsch, And The Tale of The Well-Hung Chads) to have happened to GOP Floridians since these guy (see below) alighted on the Miami Beach Convention Center trailing a fearsome entourage of loathsome, sadistic German drillmasters to claim their short-lived Republican nomination for President and Vice President. Tragically for the nation, W. went the distance despite his impeachable criminal war record, thanks to the Dark Lord without heart or pulse:

Memories make me want to go back there, back there, All the memories make me want to go back there, back there
All the memories, how can we make it back there, back there, I want to be there again...

Nationally, Republican voters lust for the fake "Reagan conservative" who behaves like the Nixon Loathario of their dreams. The latest Gallup poll had Nasty Newt leading Mittens 31% to 27% with some cave dwellers still undecided. But slick packaging and Establishment peer pressure may yet sway Republican voters to back Mittens the Molten Core. C'mon, peeps. Where's your hatred for "Obama"? Nasty speaks your lingo. When have you ever heard him say, "President Obama"? Exactly. Where's your sense of adventure and possibility? ¡Vamos Cubanos Republicanos de la Derecha! ¡Un voto para Newt és un voto por la invasión de la Isla Bonita!

Break out of your lemming ways, grand ole partying Floridians! A vote for Newt the Nasty is a vote for independence from the tyranny of the Country Club Establishment. Aren't you tired of white one percenters with British colonial accents sitting in New York City telling you what to think and how to vote? Cast a vote for Newt and free yourselves forever of the shackles of dependency on the dependable candidate of the smoke-filled links and corporate boardrooms. Send a chill and a shiver up Ann Coulter's back, a thrill up Roger Ailes's leg! A vote for Nasty Newt is a vote for your heart in rebellion against small minds and even smaller ideas. VOTE for your Manichean self just itching to break through!

Just do it. There's still time. Reject the statist Establishment. The Ice Bucket Man Cometh but once in your lives. Carpe diem. You won't regret it. Trust me. Vote your hopes and dreams.

Ron Paul Postcript: Can The Paulies & Paulines Say ... D'OH!

According to this WaPo article, "people close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day... “It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman’s."

There's more from TPM. Gee, this comes as a COMPLETE surprise! (And haven't I said this before?)

Quotable: Dylan Ratigan Quotes A Racist

"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

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

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!!

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