Further proof of the crazy that is our current right wing: Outrage -- OUTRAGE, I tell you -- because President Obama issued this executive order under the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act.

It declares the following:

There is established within the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council (Council).

Among other things, the purpose of said council is to:

(c) provide recommendations to the President and the Congress concerning the most pressing health issues confronting the United States and changes in Federal policy to achieve national wellness, health promotion, and public health goals, including the reduction of tobacco use, sedentary behavior, and poor nutrition;

Only in Right-Winger Land could this be a bad thing. On the one hand, they whine about our spending on health care and on the other, whine about any initiative which actually stands a chance of improving both spending and outcomes.

The Council is comprised of cabinet officers and policymakers, but that doesn't stop the wingers from jumping off into the Imagination Canyon where they opine about what "advisors" the President will appoint, naming Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers as prime examples of the evil about to descend upon our nation. Oh, and Dr. Kevorkian, so as to raise the specter of "death panels" one. more. time.

I could quote them, but then I'd have to link and it's really just too ridiculous to link. If you really want to read the insanity for yourself, try googling the term "lifestyle behavior modification" or "nanny state liberation front."

Of course, this is just a riff on the "big government is bad" set of conservative talking points. They really hate big government until they love it. They don't want to make lifestyle changes, but are outraged -- OUTRAGED -- that Big Government hasn't stopped the oil spilling into the Gulf, sent Superman to clean it up, and restarted drilling in deepwater worldwide.

Of course, if health insurers established such advisory councils (which they have) and altered their policies to encourage and reward healthy lifestyles (which they have), it would be totally okay, because the savings to those insurers would mean cheaper health insurance for the rest of us. Right? RIGHT?

Do these people ever suffer from outrage fatigue? Is there a little blue pill for that?

DOWNLOADS: (2337)

PLAYS: (5634)

Embed

Do ya think? Not only did Anita Dunn take a really strong stand for President Obama over the Roger Ailes run FOX Noise Propaganda Network, she also called out the conservative-teabagger movement in its entirety.

Dunn: A week ago many conservative commentators had been rejoicing in the fact, celebrating in the fact that the United States didn't get the Olympics, one week later they seem to be somewhat bitter at the fact that an American President was awarded the Nobel peace prize. So I think people will draw their own conclusions abut the reflexive negativity on the part of some commentators regardless of what happens...

Dunn held back no punches and stated fact. That's nice to see.

Howard Kurtz was pretty comical with his questions, but he was trying to provide some pushback, I guess.

KURTZ: You were quoted this week in Time Magazine as saying of Fox News, it's opinion journalism masquerading as news. What do you mean, "masquerading"?

See what I mean? But he did have to ask that.

DUNN: Well, you know, Howie, I think if we went back a year ago to the fall of 2008, to the campaign, that, you know, it was a time that this country was in two wars, that we'd had a financial collapse probably more significant than any financial collapse since the Great Depression. If you were a Fox News viewer in the fall election, what you would have seen would have been that the biggest story, the biggest threats facing America were a guy named Bill Ayers and something called Acorn, when the reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party.

Yep, that sums up FOX Noise. Then she delivered the knockout punch.

Think Progress writes:

Last month, President Obama appeared on five Sunday morning talk shows, including Univision’s Al Punto. He rejected Fox, however. Dunn revealed this morning that Obama did not appear on Fox because of its reflexive, partisan opposition to Obama. Obama will go on Fox in the future, Dunn said, but when he goes on, “he’s going on to debate the opposition.”

And then after Kurtz asked her if the president would go on FOX ever again, she said this too:

Dunn: That when he goes on FOX, he understands he's not going on, it really isn't a news network at this point, he's going to debate the opposition and that's fine.

The opposition, I loved that.

Howard asked someone from FOX to appear on Reliable Sources, but they refused and instead issued their usual statement. They'd rather have BillO speak to his audience than have anybody debate the facts -- especially, of course, on another network. FOX gives their usual argument that while they do have news, people really rely on their opinion programs. That's stunning really. MSNBC has their lefty hosts too, but during the day, you'll hear all the news and not MSNBC's opinion version of the news.

Kurtz did his best to find a few reporters that he thought weren't corrupted by Ailes so he mentioned Major Garrett. Do you think he's fair...Please say he's fair...Oh please oh please oh please. And Anita then calmly explained why they didn't go on Chris Wallace. Good for her.

And I told Major quite honestly that we had told Chris Wallace that having fact-checked an administration guest on his show -- something I've never seen a Sunday show do. And, Howie, you can show me examples of where Sunday shows have fact-checked previous weeks' guests, and I'd be happy to see those. We asked Chris, for an example, where he had done that to anybody besides somebody from the administration in the year 2009. And we're still waiting to hear from him.

She didn't stop there.

Dunn: Let's be realistic here, Howie. They are widely viewed as, you know, a part of the Republican Party. Take their talking points, put them on the air. Take their opposition research, put them on the air, and that’s fine. But let’s not pretend they’re a news network they way CNN is.

Kurtz did his best to try and get her to differentiate between the Beck's show and their little news nuggets, and she wouldn't back down. Where's the John Ensign coverage? she asks Howie. Hmmm, you won't see it much -- if at all -- on FOX. And that's only one example out of thousands.

In tonight's debate, John McCain seems set to "go there" on Ayers, goaded into it by Obama's plainly saying that McCain had until now been too chicken to say it to Obama's face.

It's quite possible Obama has a range of rebuttals ready. It's not as if he doesn't have plenty of examples of McCain's dodgy friendships to choose from. He's also probably hoping McCain loses that famous temper, messily, on live TV in front of millions - the obvious followup being ads of McCain snarling and the simple question "would you trust this man with America's nukes?"

But McCain also has another problem with "going there" - sheer hypocrisy from his campaign. As Bill Scher points out, Rick Davis penned a Boston Globe op-ed back in 2004 in which he urged Bush and Kerry to pressure their supporters not to engage in smear campaigns. He wrote as campaign manager for McCain's failed primary bid, which crashed after a Bush camp smear about McCain having fathered "an illegitimate child who was black. In the conservative, race-conscious South, that's not a minor charge."

It's not necessary, however, for a smear to be true to be effective. The most effective smears are based on a kernel of truth and applied in a way that exploits a candidate's political weakness.

...Campaigns have various ways of dealing with smears. They can refute the lies, or they can ignore them and run the risk of the smear spreading. But "if you're responding, you're losing." Rebutting tawdry attacks focuses public attention on them, and prevents the campaign from talking issues.

Back then, Davis described such smear campaigns, designed to keep voters from considering candidates stances on the issues, the "blackest of the dark arts". Don't you just love the smell of sheer hypocrisy in the morning? McCain's connection to his lobbyist chums are certainly far closer than Obama's to Ayers.

We got a preview of how tonight might play during the primary debates:

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Bill Ayers: Turns out the "unrepentant terrorist" that Sean Hannity, the hacks at ABC, and other GOP shills, are so obsessed with, has a blog.

The Curious Capitalist: So, uh, when did Charles Gibson turn into a supply-side nut job?

Fafblog! Another edition of BARACK OBAMA: THE FINAL THROES

Of Two Minds: Hilarious music graphs (h/t apostropher)

ANNALS OF JOURNALISM: Bill Moyers says that journalism's mission is to uncover the news that powerful people would prefer to keep hidden. Now somebody tell these guys and these guys...Tim Robbins' no-holds-barred keynote address to the National Association of Broadcasters...Proof of hackery is David Brooks' approval, and James Fallows contempt...The very annoying Washington Post...When the Wall Street Journal puts a "Nude Miss Subways" on page 6...Penetrating analysis...The stupid burns...Torture news strike

DOWNLOADS: (1808)

PLAYS: (5120)

Embed

Watching Sarah Palin being interviewed is always a little like watching an incoherent art-student film or something from a William S. Burroughs fantasy. It obviously comes from a completely different planet in a different quadrant of the universe.

For example, among the things you learned by watching Palin on Sean Hannity's Fox News show last night were the following nuggets:

-- Palin still is unhappy with the McCain campaign for not having smeared Barack Obama enough with phony association-game stuff about Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright -- you know, issues Americans really cared about.

-- She seems to have been watching a lot of Glenn Beck, though, because she practically repeats Beck's favorite talking points about Obama's supposedly nefarious associations.

-- Palin says "it wasn't negative campaigning and it wasn't off-base to call someone out on their associations." Hmmmm. Well, when Max Blumenthal and I did just that with Palin over her lengthy far-right associations, she completely freaked out.

-- Obama is "dithering" in Afghanistan. And evidently, if Palin were president, the only people she would listen to regarding the use of troops would be generals. Civilian advisers? Fuggedaboutit.

-- The reason she "blew" the question in the Katie Couric interview about what she read? She was irked by Couric's "arrogance." Apparently it's arrogant of media folk to ask national politicians softball questions that every other politico on the planet can readily answer.

-- What does she read? The first publication she cites is NewsMax. Yep, that NewsMax: The folks who, in the late 1990s, were peddling "Y2K apocalypse" theories and Clinton "New World Order" conspiracy theories. The same NewsMax that recently published a piece extolling the virtues of a military coup in order to remove Obama.

One thing that I think will become obvious in the coming weeks: Palin will not risk any more Katie Couric interviews. She will be completely ensconced only with friendly interviewers like Hannity. Oprah will have been her most risky interview.

DOWNLOADS: (211)

PLAYS: (3197)

Embed

Jodi Kantor is the author of The Obamas, a recently-released account of President and Mrs. Obama's adjustment to the White House. Many of you know I am not a fan of the book, not because it's particularly negative, but because there is a lot of projection about what motivates different people, particularly the Obamas, to do certain things. If I had to rate it on a scale from horrible to fantastic, it would get a "mostly meh" from me.

I wonder if Jodi Kantor really expected what Hannity did during this interview with her tonight. He didn't really want to talk about what was in the book at all. What he wanted to do, more than anything else, was to talk about what wasn't in the book, why it wasn't in the book, and whether she agreed with him that it should have been in the book. Specifically, he was rather put out that she hadn't written anything about the Grand Conspiracy between Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and Media Matters for America. You may be wondering to what Grand Conspiracy I am referring. If I knew the answer, I would surely tell you.

After dispensing with his expected concern trolling over Kantor being "attacked by another network," he moved in for the pounce, at about 1:35 or so:

Continue reading »