DOWNLOADS: (878)

PLAYS: (1559)

Embed

Harry Reid has to be delighted with the outcome of the Republican primary in Nevada. After all, the onetime frontrunner, Sue Lowden, finally drowned in a sea of chicken feathers and psychotic denials.

In her stead, the winner was Tea Party favorite Sharron Angle. And as TPM's Justin Elliott and Evan McMorris-Santoro reported this morning, Angle is also a fan of the Oath Keepers:

Back in April, Angle told TPMDC she was a member of the Oath Keepers at a press gaggle in Washington. On Monday, we decided to call Angle's campaign to confirm her relationship to the group. Angle's husband, Ted, picked up the phone.

"We support what the organization stands for," he told us. "Sharron does."

Members of Oath Keepers -- whose motto is "Not on our watch!" -- subscribe to a 10-item declaration affirming that they will not, for example, force citizens into detention camps or invade a state "that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union."

.... Angle's relationship with Oath Keepers hasn't been on the media radar, but she made a little-noticed attempt to woo the group's members at a speaking event last fall, Rhodes told TPMDC Monday.

Rhodes said the event with Angle was organized after she reached out to the Southern Nevada chapter of Oath Keepers. It was held in a clubhouse in Las Vegas. She spoke and "we asked her some pretty tough questions" -- about Hurricane Katrina, gun laws, and the Iraq War, says Rhodes.

"She's got a pretty good track record of being a pretty sincere Constitutionalist," Rhodes tells TPMDC, adding that Oath Keepers does not endorse candidates.

As Elliott and McMorris-Santoro point out, among the things the Oath Keepers believe is that high-ranking officials are secretly plotting to round up conservatives and place them in concentration camps.

But that's not all. C&L was one of the first news entities of any kind to report on the Oath Keepers, and we have a rundown on the things that they believe -- and by extension, beliefs that Angle apparently endorses:

Rhodes and Whittle are eager to portray the core of the Oath Keepers' creeds -- the "ten orders" they "will not obey" -- as involving merely ordinary rights that everyone naturally would stand up for, and in a way, that's true. But only deeply paranoid people would believe there is any reason to be concerned that these rights violations might be looming.

Here they are:

• 1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.
• 2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people.
• 3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.
• 4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.
• 5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
• 6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
• 7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
• 8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."
• 9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
• 10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

You may also recall Justine Sharrock's superb in-depth report on the Oath Keepers for Mother Jones:

Oath Keepers is officially nonpartisan, in part to make it easier for active-duty soldiers to participate, but its rightward bent is undeniable, and liberals are viewed with suspicion. At lunch, when I questioned my tablemates about the Obama-Hitler comparisons I'd heard at the conference, I got a step-by-step tutorial on how the president's socialized medicine agenda would beget a Nazi-style regime.

I learned that bringing guns to Tea Party protests was a reminder of our constitutional rights, was introduced to the notion that the founding fathers modeled their governing documents on the Bible, and debated whether being Muslim meant an inability to believe in and abide by—and thus be protected by—the Constitution. I was schooled on the treachery of the Federal Reserve and why America needs a gold standard, and at dinner one night, Nighta Davis, national organizer for the National 912 Project, explained how abortion-rights advocates are part of a eugenics program targeting Christians.

Even more potentially problematic for a would-be United States Senator is the Oath Keepers' view of the role of federal authorities -- which, it seems is taken straight from the Posse Comitatus, a white-supremacist anti-federal movement that dominated the extremist right in the 1980s:

The Oath Keepers are similar to the tea party crowd in that they often disagree what their movement represents. While bred from the libertarian spirit that courses through the West, the Oath Keepers don't have a formal structure beyond the vague principles outlined in the 10 orders.

They say the sheriff is at the top primarily because he is the highest elected law enforcement agent in the land, directly responsible to the voters, and argue the Tenth Amendment gives the voters all power not expressly given the federal government under the Constitution.

The movement has gained traction, including in dozen or more sheriff's races around the West from Orange County, Calif., to the northern border.

"It is time for the sworn protectors of liberty, the Sheriffs of these United States of America, to walk tall and stand up for our Constitution and Bill of Rights," proclaimed Larimer County, Colo., candidate Carl Bruning in his campaign literature.

Someone will have to ask Sharron Angle if she believes that her local sheriff has more real authority under the Constitution than a United States Senator.

Among other things.

AND now for one more example of ultra-conservative oppression creeping into modern life:

Druggists refuse to give out pill
For a year, Julee Lacey stopped in a CVS pharmacy near her home in a Fort Worth suburb to get refills of her birth-control pills. Then one day last March, the pharmacist refused to fill Lacey's prescription because she did not believe in birth control.

"I was shocked," says Lacey, 33, who was not able to get her prescription until the next day and missed taking one of her pills. "Their job is not to regulate what people take or do. It's just to fill the prescription that was ordered by my physician."

Some pharmacists, however, disagree and refuse on moral grounds to fill prescriptions for contraceptives. And states from Rhode Island to Washington have proposed laws that would protect such decisions.

Mississippi enacted a sweeping statute that went into effect in July that allows health care providers, including pharmacists, to not participate in procedures that go against their conscience. South Dakota and Arkansas already had laws that protect a pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense medicines. Ten other states considered similar bills this year.

The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient can still get the pills. Yet some pharmacists have refused to hand the prescription to another druggist to fill.

In Madison, Wis., a pharmacist faces possible disciplinary action by the state pharmacy board for refusing to transfer a woman's prescription for birth-control pills to another druggist or to give the slip back to her. He would not refill it because of his religious views.Some advocates for women's reproductive rights are worried that such actions by pharmacists and legislatures are gaining momentum.

Religion and the voters!

For those in the media and elsewhere that are trying to downplay the religious vote, I have a little story.

I called a customer service rep. for a problem I had with my DirectTV, and the person who helped me was in Idaho. The poll results in Idaho was Bush 68% or 408,254 votes to Kerry 30% or 180,920 votes.

I asked the person the main reason why Idaho voted for Bush, and he said it was completely an issue with religion! Nothing else mattered to all the people that he talked to and knew. He lived there all of his life. "Bush is pro-religion bottom line," he said. I asked if presidential performance, health care, jobs, terrorism, or the war in Iraq had any influence on the voters that he knew and he said a flat-out "no!"

Opposite sides of the editorial room in The NY Times

But the same insularity that caused many liberals to lose touch with the rest of the country now causes them to simplify, misunderstand and condescend to the people who voted for Bush. If you want to understand why Democrats keep losing elections, just listen to some coastal and university town liberals talk about how conformist and intolerant people in Red America are. It makes you wonder: why is it that people who are completely closed-minded talk endlessly about how open-minded they are?

DAVID BROOKS

"W.'s presidency rushes backward, stifling possibilities, stirring intolerance, confusing church with state, blowing off the world, replacing science with religion, and facts with faith. We're entering another dark age, more creationist than cutting edge, more premodern than postmodern. Instead of leading America to an exciting new reality, the Bushies cocoon in a scary, paranoid, regressive reality. Their new health care plan will probably be a return to leeches."

Maureen Dowd

DOWNLOADS: (855)

PLAYS: (2474)

Embed

I'm always impressed by the sheer brass of Republicans who will go on TV and flatly lie about things that are easily substantiated. Like when Sarah Palin went before the cameras and asserted the Troopergate report had exonerated her when in fact it had done just the opposite. Or Lou Dobbs pretending he hadn't defended his leprosy coverage.

That takes a special level of psychopathy. Very impressive.

Then there's Sue Lowden, she of chickens for health care fame. As Greg Sargent reports, she recently went on another Nevada TV show and tried to claim she didn't actually phrase her thoughts on chicken-bartering for health care as the host had quoted her saying -- even though it was something the tapes clearly show her saying:

Lowden got into a testy exchange over chickens-for-checkups with Nevada journalist Jon Ralston at yesterday's GOP Senate primary debate ...

Lowden rebukes her host, insisting that he go out and see for themselves that people are bartering for health care. But the best part comes towards the end.

Ralston directly confronts Lowden with her own words, and she denies ever saying them.

Ralston points out that Lowden talked about how people used to barter chickens for checkups in the old days, and he quotes her saying: "I'm not backing down from that system."

"No, I never said `from that system,'" Lowden shot back. "I never said, `from that system.'"

Well, just so you can see for yourselves, we've included the original video from her April 19 TV appearance. As you can see, this is precisely what she said:

I’m telling you that this works. You know, before we all started having health care, in the olden days our grandparents, they would bring a chicken to the doctor, they would say I’ll paint your house. I mean, that’s the old days of what people would do to get health care with your doctors. Doctors are very sympathetic people. I’m not backing down from that system.

I also rather enjoyed Lowden suggesting to Ralston: "Where have you been? You need to get in my RV or some other means of transportation and visit the folks here."

Oh, does she mean the RV she obtained through an illegal donation?

Here it is:

I dunno about you, but having once been a rural working-class stiff myself, I can tell you what kind of message a big luxury bus like this sends. And it isn't "I'm one of you folks."

Sure hope Lowden wins that GOP primary, don't you?

DOWNLOADS: (705)

PLAYS: (2962)

Embed

A little fun at the expense of Sue Lowden. From ProgressNowNevada.

DOWNLOADS: (1150)

PLAYS: (1069)

Embed

The new talking point by Fox News and conservatives who are attacking health care reform is to complain about the size of the bill. Last night on Greta Van Susteren's show, for instance, Sen. Orrin Hatch tried to tell us that the very size of the bill ensured that it would be a bad thing. Of course, most appropriations bills are bigger than this thing, and Hatch has not only voted for but sponsored his share of those. Maybe he'd find it acceptable if it were printed on golden tablets or something.

How desperate are they? Very f*&king desperate. The Democrats made a smart move by comparing it to Sarah Palin's book:

There are a lot of analogies floating around about how the Senate health care bill compares in size to other notable writings. Republicans have been hyping them all day.

Here's a new one from the Democratic arsenal: Sarah Palin's book, which runs 413 pages.

"This bill if you put in regular type style is about the same size as Sarah Palin's book," said Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska). "So it is not that big. There is a lot of show and tell and razzmatazz."

Which would be a better read?

"Depends if you want substance or not," he said.

Looks like the Palin line is a Democratic talking point. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) told a gaggle of reporters the same thing Wednesday night.

Conservatives were running around trying to wrap the entire bill around DC or something during the House debate.

Fox News jumped in with their usual conservative spin.

Today, Fox News' Live Desk continued the House Republican caucus and Politico's silly obsession with the length and size of the House health care reform bill. During a span of less than 45 minutes, co-host Trace Gallagher repeatedly told viewers the health care reform bill is so long, it makes the Russian novel War and Peace "look like a short story."

This is the time of the day where Rupert Murdoch says Fox News is in its actual "news cycle." If that's true, then why are they actively attacking the length of health care bill? Why does the page count matter to a news organization? Would they rather have a three-page bill handed over to them the way Paulsen did when he asked for $700 billion for Bush?

And Sen. Tom Coburn won't read the health care bill on the floor Saturday.

Republican Senator Tom Coburn is backing off his threat to require that the Senate read the 2,074-page health care bill because some GOP colleagues aren't supporting the effort.

The Oklahoma lawmaker said there's uncertainty about whether reading the bill during Thanksgiving week would be productive. He also said that if the Republicans do decide to tie up the Senate for the dozens of hours it would take, six GOP colleagues have committed to pitching in on reading duty.

Journalists are often surprised when they see themselves criticized because they think that they are above it all, but when you see something like this come up in print it makes you just shake your head. Howard Kurtz' newest column portrays Paul Krugman as an Obama cheerleader now being lost over his handling of the health care debate.

A president is going to be smacked around from the moment he takes office and the uplifting rhetoric of campaign rallies meets the gritty reality of governing.

But the criticism of Barack Obama has turned strikingly personal as some of his liberal media allies have gone wobbly on him. After playing a cheer-leading role during the campaign, some are bluntly questioning whether he's up to the job.

If Obama is losing Paul Krugman, can the rest of the left be far behind?

Really, this is who he picks as a cheerleader? Paul Krugman has been analyzing President Obama's choices ever since the primaries began and he was often critical of the then Senator all the way through to his winning the election. Krugman took a lot of heat when he criticized Obama's initial health care plan and he's been outspoken ever since on all issues economic including writing that he thought the stimulus wasn't big enough, but Howard makes it seem like Krugman was an Obama cheerleader right from the start.

Dean Baker caught this earlier today.

Those of you who remember Paul Krugman's often harsh criticisms of Obama during the election campaign might be surprised to read Howard Kurtz's media column which puts him first among the disappointed former Obama cheerleaders. Krugman has certainly been critical of Obama's performance in office, but this is only news for Kurtz, not people familiar with Krugman's writings.

All Villagers aren't wrong in everything they write obviously, certainly not Kurtz, but this latest error is laughable. I can understand if it was a matter of interpretation, but come on Howard, this one wasn't even close to being on the mark. (h/t Atrios)

DOWNLOADS: (1438)

PLAYS: (2947)

Embed

Hold back the jello. Jay Rockefeller was on this morning with Andrea Mitchell and complained about the Kent Conrad "co-op" plan which he said was basically unworkable. He then went on The Ed show and hit it even harder. Jay is a supporter of the public option and was pissed that the co-op proposal was inserted in the Baucus bill since it was never even talked about during the general election. Isn't it nice that Baucus has killed the public option just to work with Republicans? Conservatives don't even have to win elections to get what they want. That's some deal they have.

Ed: It's not going to work. There's really no successful model out there to support the basis of signing on to a co-op. Would you sign on to a co-op or is that unacceptable?

Rockefeller: That's unacceptable and I can almost prove it. We've been in touch with all the folks that oversee, represent all the co-ops in the country on all subjects and they point out that there are probably less than twenty health co-ops in the country. There are only two that really work that well. One in Puget Sound, one in Minnesota, except for those two, they are all unlicensed. All present health co-ops are all unlicensed, they're unregulated. Nobody knows anything about them, nobody has any control over them and nobody has ever said, which is stunning to me, no government organization or private organization has ever done a study to what effect they might have in terms of bringing down the insurance prices.

They are untested, they are unlicensed, they are unregulated, they are unstudied. Why would we even think about putting them in as a control on this massive insurance industry instead of the public option?

There aren't any co-ops throughout much of the country, but to appease the conservative Dems we're supposed to throw six billion dollars around and hope that the states will try to make them workable. Is this insane? Watch the whole clip, but you get the idea from this one statement. Kent Conrad's big proposal is a complete sham, but President Baucus is trying to cram that down the throats of the country, which will render all health-care reform useless. All hail bipartisanship!

Jack & Jill Politics: Stop dismissing birthers as crazy. Start pushing back on what’s really blatant, thinly veiled racism.

MN Progressive Project: Steele County GOP Party Co-Chair, Dave Thul & dirty tricks

TPMMuckraker: More Obama Secrecy: Won't release info on vists from Health-Care execs

Respectful Insolence: Jenny McCarthy and Oprah Winfrey: Cartoonists are starting to notice

The Progressive Puppy: Pope Benedict: Therapuetic abortion is worse than Child Rape...more Religilous insanity below...

HOLY CRAP: Christianist wingnuts want god to hover over Capitol Visitors Center...Dear C Street Gang...Human Sacrifice: A lousy idea...Fundies foment Islamic radicalism...On Offendedness...Full court pander...The silliest smear...Billboard wars!..."The religion of Jesus was very different from what many of us think of as the Christian religion"...Christian conference to welcome an Old South slavery defender...Good or Evil?...Christianist extremism apparent contributor to infidelity and dishonesty...Palin church's Samurai Sword ceremony...The Interfaith Alliance pays tribute its honorary Chairman of the Board, Walter Cronkite...