I haven't written about Hugh Hewitt's hackery for a long time, especially since he's become Mr. Irrelevant in the conservative and Tea Party movement these days, but I have to highlight this exchange that our pals at Instaputz caught.

It says it all:

Michael Isikoff and Hugh Hewitt had an interesting discussion on Faisal Shahzad, the American citizen apparently behind the Times Square bombing plot. Halfway through, Hewitt inadvertently gives what amounts to the conservative capsule view of due process:

MI: And he waived, and he waived his Miranda rights. Look, there probably will be a discussion of this. But all I’m saying is we are still a country of laws. You can’t just make it up as you go along.

HH: But that’s cliché.

MI: And you know, maybe…

HH: That’s just cliché. We’re a country of laws. I know that. I teach it.

Yes, a cliché authored by John Adams. Funny how the conservative reverence for the country's founding fathers so often stops just short of defending the principles these men stood for.

We're a country of laws only when it suits the Right. Just as the religious right is against all things of Teh Gay rights (except when they pay Rentboys to go on trips with them).

Digby has more:

As Instaputz points out: this is a cliché authored by John Adams. But what did he know?

BTW: Did you know they're calling Lieberman's new citizen strip bill the TEA act? Those Tea Party protectors of the constitution must be so proud.

But they also should worry just a little bit about this, don't you think? After an evil socialist usurper is in the White House and a communist succubus is running the State Department, which will be given the power to decide who should and shouldn't be stripped of citizenship and sent off to FEMA camps Gitmo. Can they really be trusted not to go after the nice law abiding tea partiers?

Our 'liberal media' ignores domestic terrorism, while trumpeting faux controversies, defending rank assholery, and winking at plain insanity. Meanwhile, ABC, CNN, FOX and the rest are all safe havens for belligerent bigots and pathological liars. I am heartily sick of the utter uselessness of the grotesquely dubbed Mainstream Media.

Pandagon: With another example of the slipshod sh*t that these poseurs print. Steve's reaction indicated he was also a bit annoyed

The Daily Background: "We're not going to outsource the business of handling the war in Iraq."

skippy the bush kangaroo: Press '1' if you'd like to punch someone in the face

Daily Darfur: Friend Blue Gal told me about this valuable site.

HOLY CRAP: Surprise!...fags are damned...Newest Religious Right tactic--sue to get Civil Servant dough and block gay rights...Interview with Jonathan Hutson, the man who exposed the sub-Christian nature of the Left Behind" Eternal Forces video game...and a look at the average anti-gay bigot

Lawyers, Guns and Money

Shakespeare's Sister reacts with a limited degree of optimism about the news that Roberts worked hard for his clients' interests in the landmark gay rights case Romer v. Evans. One thing to emphasize, though, is that this will be touted as a sign of moderation by many of the same people who claim that Roberts' anti-Roe and Griswold briefs don't mean anything. Obviously, this combination of claims can't stand; either you can draw inferences based on what a lawyer writes for a client or you can't, but you certainly can't do it selectively. My own view, as I've said before, is that I don't think much of anything can be inferred from either. Or, at least, anything particularly new or substative. The right of privacy briefs tell us that Roberts was the kind of lawyer who would be hired by an administration that wanted to overturn Griswold v. CT, and the actions Shakes' Sis mentions provide evidence that he's a comptent lawyer and not so hostile to gay people that he refuses to even work on a case that advances their interests. But as to how he would vote in upcoming cases about reproductive freedom or gay rights? I don't think either set of actions tells us anything about this, beyond which could be simply be inferred from the fact that George Bush nominated him.

...icoaste has more.

Romer v. Evans. One thing to emphasize, though, is that this will be touted as a sign of moderation by many of the same people who claim that Roberts' anti-Roe and Griswold briefs don't mean anything. Obviously, this combination of claims can't stand; either you can draw inferences based on what a lawyer writes for a client or you can't, but you certainly can't do it selectively. My own view, as I've said before, is that I don't think much of anything can be inferred from either. Or, at least, anything particularly new or substative. The right of privacy briefs tell us that Roberts was the kind of lawyer who would be hired by an administration that wanted to overturn Griswold v. CT, and the actions Shakes' Sis mentions provide evidence that he's a comptent lawyer and not so hostile to gay people that he refuses to even work on a case that advances their interests. But as to how he would vote in upcoming cases about reproductive freedom or gay rights? I don't think either set of actions tells us anything about this, beyond which could be simply be inferred from the fact that George Bush nominated him.

...icoaste has more.

via Booman: A Kansas preacher and gay rights foe whose congregation is protesting military funerals around the country said he's coming to Idaho tomorrow to picket the memorial for an Idaho National Guard soldier killed in Iraq.

A flier on the Web site of Pastor Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church claims God killed Cpl. Carrie French with an improvised explosive device in retaliation against the United States for a bombing at Phelps' church six years ago. "We're coming," Phelps said yesterday...read on

This is beyond sick. Don't let anyone say anything different. He represents what the extreme religious right is all about. They might put on a friendly face on 24/7, smile and giggle and seem harmless. Its all a ruse. I'll be posting video of the wingnut Roy Moore soon and you'll see what I mean.

“They must really think I’m gullible, these guys” Sherri says. “Less fat makes you healthier. Yeah. I suppose they have a bridge to sell me, too. These guys are unbelievable.”

Dan smelled something fishy right away as well. He sits on his couch with food spread out. In his hands, cheese puffs. At his side, soda. In front of him, more of him. “It just doesn’t ring true. It sounds like something else is going on. Something political. I mean, how can dieting prevent cancer? I’ve tried those fad diets. What’s this one called? Low-fat? Yeah, whatever. They’re all a scam. If you don’t do the exercise they recommend, it doesn’t even work. It’s ridiculous. One pepperoni pizza and it’s ‘ruined’ or something. Continue reading...

Fetish America   marble composition

What do all of these people have in common?

• U.S. Senator equates gay rights to "man on dog" sex.
• U.S. Senator equates gay rights to unions of men and box turtles.
• Prominent talk show host says gay rights will lead to unions with goats.
• Continue reading...

Mike Huckabee isn't happy about the talk that the GOP should be more open to the American people to expand their party by diminishing the views of social conservatives:

In an interview with the California newspaper The Visalia Times-Delta, Huckabee said the GOP would only further decline in influence should it alienate social conservatives — largely considered the most energetic and loyal faction of the party.

"Throw the social conservatives the pro-life, pro-family people overboard and the Republican party will be as irrelevant as the Whigs," he said in reference to the American political party that largely disbanded in the mid 1800s. "They'll basically be a party of gray-haired old men sitting around the country club puffing cigars, sipping brandy and wondering whatever happened to the country. That will be the end of the party," he said in the interview published Thursday

What he's saying is a big problem for Republicans. To be a more inclusive party they would have to try and entice Latino voters over, but since the extremists want to round up Latinos and are so opposed to anything that will handle our immigration problems, that's a "no go."

If they want to appear more moderate in the gay rights arena, then they will alienate the religious-right bloc that has been a significant part of their base for year now, and has enjoyed enormous influence within the GOP ever since Bush took office (and Rove used them to win in 2004), so that's a "no go.".

The Washington Monthly has more:

But Huckabee's point isn't wrong. If the religious-right crowd no longer feels welcome or valued in the Republican Party, and the GOP is left with a country-club base, it's not likely to do well in national elections. It might as well be "the end of the party."

On the other hand, if the Republican Party takes the culture warriors seriously, and signals to the rest of the country that the GOP is dominated by far-right activists who are principally concerned with gays, abortion, Terri Schiavo, and state-sponsored religion, the party will remain stuck where it is now. And that's not a good place to be.

It's quite a conundrum. Good luck to the whole gang.

I wouldn't write off the Republican Party, folks, because that's a very dangerous proposition. They play word games and handle the media better than most, so if they are given an inch they will take a mile. Here's the Luntz memo on health care:

GOP wordsmith Frank Luntz has authored a new messaging memo defining the Republican rhetoric on health care reform (READ FULL MEMO HERE). The memo is titled “The Language of Health Care 2009″ and it lays out the argument for “stopping the Washington takeover” of health care.” But if fully implemented it may very well stop health care reform:

Continue reading »