DOWNLOADS: (235)

PLAYS: (3229)

Embed

Civility is dead. It was diagnosed as terminal on January 20, 2009, and by July 14, 2009 -- the day the House of Representatives reported out the first version of the Affordable Care Act -- it was dead, cold, and buried fifty feet under in a concrete box lined with lead to counter the radioactivity of the atmosphere above.

The killers weren't liberals or progressives, though it's true that they laughed and ridiculed pretty strongly on the Tea Party's birthday on April 15, 2009. The killers were the talkers like Rush and Beck and their many clones on the AM radio dial who had no problem saying the most outrageous things. The more outrageous they were, the better it was for the hate talkers.

Which is why it makes me laugh in a cynical, annoyed sort of way when I see the right wing go all whiny about how mean President Obama is to them. To which I say, more meanness please. Bipartisanship is dead. Civility is dead. Meanness is what's called for.

Paul Krugman:

Which brings me to those calls for a bipartisan solution. Sorry to be cynical, but right now “bipartisan” is usually code for assembling some conservative Democrats and ultraconservative Republicans — all of them with close ties to the wealthy, and many who are wealthy themselves — and having them proclaim that low taxes on high incomes and drastic cuts in social insurance are the only possible solution.

This would be a corrupt, undemocratic way to make decisions about the shape of our society even if those involved really were wise men with a deep grasp of the issues. It’s much worse when many of those at the table are the sort of people who solicit and believe the kind of policy analyses that the Heritage Foundation supplies.

So let’s not be civil. Instead, let’s have a frank discussion of our differences. In particular, if Democrats believe that Republicans are talking cruel nonsense, they should say so — and take their case to the voters.

Exactly. I'm not calling for us to start photoshopping Allen West into overtly racist pictures here, but enough with the pretense of civil discourse. When Andrew Breitbart tells liberals to STFU in public with 5,000 of them just on the other side of a barrier, civility just isn't a worthwhile goal. Conservatives' vision for this country is dark, dystopian, and deeply pessimistic. It's also hypocritical and serves only the goals of their Fortune 500 masters. It does not have to be this way.

The president's microphone wasn't "accidentally" left on last week. That's what people do when they want to say it without it being "official". That message was intentional and conservatives can't deny the truth of what he said, no matter how hard they try.

Unless we let them. David Brooks can wish on every shooting star in the sky, but there isn't going to be a beer summit and congenial lunch with Paul Ryan and the president anytime soon. Those days are past. The Party of Loons and Pessimists wants to put Mom in the hands of insurance companies, corporate providers and ration her health care while cutting her Social Security benefits to shreds. This does not call for civility. It calls for open, loud, hostile calls for attention.

Now that they've been drummed out of their party by the purity police tea partiers, moderate Republicans are creating their own party, the "No Labels" party, hoping to bring some independents and disaffected Democrats with them. Good luck with that.

Have you heard about the new national political organization called No Labels? It’s a ragtag collection of journalists, pundits, and politicians who claim they support civility in campaigning and bipartisanship in government. That sounds great, though it’s mostly an exercise in vanity – nowadays the biggest pat on the back you can give yourself is publicly announcing: “I am a centrist independent, above the ugly fray of politics.”

So far, No Labels does not endorse specific solutions to big problems. Instead, it will hover on the sidelines like a surly Catholic school nun, rapping the knuckles of any candidate or elected official it deems to be extreme. Since it’s not taking a stand for anything besides a vague idea of “common sense,” how does it decide what’s beyond the pale? Most people already know that Tea Party activists who compare Obama to Hitler are idiots. But the radical anti-Obama crowd likely won’t be joining No Labels, so the “Can’t we all just get along?” mantra will go unheeded by the extremists. That means liberals must move even further to the right to appear conciliatory.

And that is exactly the problem I have with these "No Labels" joiners (and a quick glance at the founding leaders show such Republican stalwarts as David Frum and Mark McKinnon, with no similar big names from the left) and it makes me think this is essentially another Republican front group with added bonus of immediately labeling anyone not part of their group as an unreasonable partisan. It is simply not a viable third party option and the only potential candidate it had was Mike Bloomberg, who emphatically denied any ambition to run for the presidency in 2012.

So instead, we have commenters on the side, without skin in the game of governing, able to remark and undermine principled politicos actually fighting to move legislation and do so with the veil of civility and being above it all.

Anyone seeing this as a constructive thing in the divisive political atmosphere we have?

Watching the whole Ground zero racist uprising is just an extension of the tea party mentality. The nativist outlook has been with America for a long time, but FOX News expanded their makeup ten fold.

The Times report, however, descends into a kind of "liberal" media known-nothingism when it comes to how this became a controversy, suggesting that " a combination of arguable naïveté, public-relations missteps and a national political climate in which perhaps no preparation could have headed off controversy." This is a remarkable formula that manages to place the blame everywhere except where it belongs -- on a right-wing smear machine that went into overdrive in an effort to portray Rauf and Khan as terrorist sympathizers, an experience no one outside of contemporary partisan politics could have possibly been prepared for. The conservative media lied about the location of the project, they lied about Rauf's background, they lied about the project's funding, they lied about when the project would be built, and they lied about Rauf's political beliefs. And it would have been one thing if it had just been a small group of people lying, but they had an entire cable news station to lie for them, and politicians who were willing to amplify their smears. This controversy isn't about the "political climate." It's the fruit of a conscious, deliberate, and sustained effort.

is it too much to expect that a NY Times writer would actually investigate all the lies being told by the far right?

I don't know why, but I'm still shocked at how outwardly they show their racist beliefs though, but hey---with a media that is vastly underfunded and afraid to make waves and catering to this xenophobic hate group, it's going to happen more and more.

I'm sure that the intensity of emotion shared by some of the projects' opponents are sincere. But where they hold Muslims collectively responsible for the actions of a few extremists, they are mistaken, and where their feelings are the result of falsehoods spread by the conservative media, they are misguided, and where they believe the First Amendment does not extend to American Muslims, they are simply wrong.

The reason this became a national controversy is because Republicans see a political advantage in harnessing anti-Muslim sentiment, particularly if that forces Democrats to defend an unpopular minority group. Rauf and Khan are merely collateral damage in a larger political battle in which the rights of Muslims are forfeit as long as Republicans see some political interest in curtailing them or forcing their opponents to defend them. But just as no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people, no Republican ever went broke underestimating the political cowardice of the Democratic Party.

So what we're left with is a largely uncontested notion that any observant Muslim is a potential national-security threat, a view that was once confined to the conspiratorial right-wing fringe but is now, thanks to Republican demagoguery, Democratic cowardice, and mainstream media know-nothingism, an entirely respectable, mainstream view. This isn't just a setback for religious tolerance and individual freedom; it's a setback for the fight against terrorism, which demands that the United States marginalize violent extremists, not embrace their narrative and worldview.

Until Republicans gain control of the White House once again, they will act our like racist pigs over and over again and will be helped along by the right wing smear machine and FOX News. Violence is on the way, people.

We've outlined a lot of this in our book "Over The Cliff," so grab a copy if you haven't so far.

Digby writes:

Normally I would think we could ride out this latest wave of nativism and racism, but there are two factors that make it more dangerous than usual. The first, of course, is the economy which looks like it's not going to recover smartly thus giving this impulse more oxygen than it might otherwise have. The second is that the right wing demagogues have an entire industry now devoted to creating and nurturing these wedge issues for political and financial gain. The culture warriors have just shifted their strategy away from "family values" to their other stand-by, "stop the boogeyman." It's all part of the same throwback tapestry, but different times require difference emphasis. We're officially in the "the foreigners and blacks are ruining everything" portion of the show.

The foreigners and Blacks are ruining everything portion of the show started the day Obama took office. It's been a long and drawn out ugly play. Hatred of the non-whites will only rise in the polls. Yes, America is digressing at a fast rate. Hey, it's making money for the Glenn Beck's and bagging huge ratings for FOX.

Courtesy of my friend Tracey, who enjoys the fine Canadian health system and wonders about all the lies told to Americans:

Democrats: "We need health care reform"

Republicans: "Liberal fascists! Give us a majority and we'll do it better"

Democrats: "Done, you have majority of both houses"

12 years later, health care is irrefutably worse in every respect for every single person in the United States

Democrats: "We need health care reform"

Republicans: "Liberal fascists! Americans are tired of partisan politics!"

Democrats: "OK, let's compromise"

Republicans: "OK, get rid of half your ideas"

Democrats: "Done"

Republicans: "Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas"

Democrats: "Done"

Republicans: "Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas"

Democrats: "Done"

Republicans: "Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas"

Democrats: "Done"

Republicans: "Too liberal, get rid of half your ideas"

Democrats: "Done. Time to end debate"

Republicans: "Too liberal, we need more debate, we will filibuster to prevent you from voting"

Democrats: "OK, we'll vote--sorry guys, debate is ended. It's time to vote on the bill"

Republicans: "Too liberal, we vote no"

Democrats: "OK, it passed anyway--sorry guys."

One month later

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (652)

PLAYS: (1761)

Embed

As much as Michael Steele is trying to suck up to the teabaggers, they aren't being seduced by his witless charm. IL Tea Party co-founder Steve McQueen is no fan of the RNC's Michael Steele and said as much to FNC's Neil Cavuto the other day.

Steele: There really was this big push on tea parties and if I weren't doing this job I'd be out there with the tea parties.

{}

CAVUTO: Retired Army Sergeant First Class and tea party activist Steve McQueen saying, “Not so fast Mr. Steele.” He joins me right now. Steve, you would say “not quite,” right?

MCQUEEN: Not quite, Neil. Actually the Tea Party is, I liken that to an army of Davids which I am only one. I do confer with Tea Party organizations all over the country so I feel confident that I understand what the movement’s about and as I understand it right now, the GOP is currently on probation with the American people and obviously you can’t be on probation and probably be a member of the Tea Parties at the same time.

--

MCQUEEN: I'm saying that the last possibly a year specifically has been a time where I believe that the American, the conservative side of the American constituency has lost trust in all partisan politics and until we get that back on track. Until all candidates, all elected officials in our country are finding themselves in a place where they are representing the outrage the trampling of our constitution and until they are out there representing people in the actual views of American citizens they are going to be on indefinite probation with the American people.

There are great misconceptions about the tea partiers. The reason they are attacking the GOP is because they aren't as far right as they would like them to be. It's not out of anger about politicians being in the pockets of Corporations, but that they haven't bowed down enough to them.

McQueen says teabaggers are upset just by the GOP's behavior during the last year. Seriously? That's why they are mad. They should be praising these GOPers. Not a word about how Bush expanded the government or how he took the deficit to new heights or that Bush led us into two disgusting wars. Nope. As long as conservatives are in charge, Fox News would never have helped create them. It's that they aren't conservative enough. McQueen and his fellow teabaggers want fringe conservative values being represented to the max. And remember, we can't have brown people running around needing health care, we can't have regulations making sure Wall Street and others have rules to follow to protect Americans from their unfettered power and we can't have New Deal programs like Social Security messing with their lives.

In the end, the Tea Party people want to rule the GOP, as they've said before.

DOWNLOADS: (1692)

PLAYS: (1955)

Embed

Holy FSM. Is George Stephanopoulos auditioning for a spot on the Fox News Channel line up? It's the only thing I can account for this ridiculous and intelligence-insulting framing:

STEPHANOPOULOS: One year later, the president's economic plan has passed, but with no Republican votes in the House, only three in the Senate. It sure looks like right now no Republican support, the health care bills, as they are going forward in the Congress.

And our polling shows that this partisan divide persists on issue after issue after issue. Why has that core promise of the president's campaign, healing the divide, gone unfulfilled?

JARRETT: Well, you should ask that question to the Republican Party. I mean, frankly, just listening to the president's words again, it brought back terrific memories, and I think his message was a profound one. And he has stayed true to that message. He has reached out. He has listened. He has reached across the aisle.

Just recently meeting with both the Democrats -- the Republicans and the Democrats in both the House and in the Senate. His effort has been sustained throughout the year. And the fact...

STEPHANOPOULOS: So the president bears no responsibility for the failure to get Republican votes?

JARRETT: Well, I think -- I think what we look to the president to do is to lead by example. He has reached out. He has listened. He has included very helpful advice from the Republicans when it has been forthcoming. But the fact...

STEPHANOPOULOS: But not their ideas in the legislation..

JARRETT: Well, actually, that's not true. There have been examples of where he has included their ideas. And ultimately whether they vote for a piece of legislation or not, doesn't mean that it hasn't been an open and fruitful process.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So the president doesn't feel he needs to change the way he does business at all, to reach out more to Republicans, to get more Republicans buy-in?

JARRETT: Oh, George, listen. He is constantly reaching out to Republicans. Both he and his team. And he will continue to do that. But ultimately it's up to the Republicans to decide if they want to be a constructive force and come to the table and work with us in a positive way.

We want to hear good ideas. The president is known for listening most closely to those with whom he disagrees. So the door is always open.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Does that mean, for example, that Speaker Pelosi should give the Republicans a vote on an alternative in health care?

JARRETT: I'm not going to in any way comment on what the speaker should do. She is an extraordinary leader and she is going to continue to do that. And she is going to reach out in a way that she deems appropriate. But your question is what is the president's leadership about it, and hearkening back to the message from last year, and I think he has been consistent not just here, domestically, but also around the world in the way he has reached out.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, to follow through, shouldn't he ask the speaker then to give Republicans a vote?

JARRETT: To give them a vote and give them a voice. It gives them an opportunity to contribute constructively. That doesn't mean that you actually have to change what you think is in the best interests of the American people simply to get a Republican vote. What you do is you reach out, you listen, you collaborate, but ultimately, the president is accountable to the Republican people -- to the American people, sorry.

Head. Bangs. Desk. Normally, I criticize these bobbleheads for not asking follow up questions, but Jeebus, FIVE questions in a row framing the lack of bipartisanship on Obama from Stephanopoulos???? WTF is that?

George, is there something they give you in the Kool-aid you've so obviously been chugging that wipes out your memory? Most Democrats are frustrated by Obama's constant calls for bi-partisanship.

Because as Obama keeps extending his hand to the Republicans, let's look at what the Republicans give back:

Obama gave the WATB Republicans the tax breaks they insisted upon in the stimulus package (even though economists said they would hurt-not help-the stimulus). How many Republicans voted for the stimulus bill? Bupkis.

Obama has also had to deal with Republicans giving us Tea Parties, Obama = Nazi, Marxist, Communist, Stalinist, Socialist, Racist and/or a Totalitarian.

He has been accused of declaring War on the Rich, the Health Care industry, Banking industry, Mortgage industry, and the Auto Manufacturing industry.

He has been accused of being a liar, of having a Kenyan Birth Certificate, of wanting death panels and internment camps.

The Republicans have also put holds on the Surgeon General nominee in the face of the H1N1 pandemic, as well as blocking 19 of 22 appointees to the courts, as well as complaining about Obama not being a sufficient enough cheerleader for American exceptionalism abroad, not moving fast enough on Afghanistan, too fast on health care reform, and most pathetically, the number of pages in the health care reform bill.

So tell me again, George, who exactly is being divisive? Who exactly is smacking down the hand of bipartisanship? Who exactly is responsible for the culture of divisiveness in DC?

I've been sickened by ABC's bizarre attempts at equivalencies before, but this is ridiculous. Stephanopoulos owes Valerie Jarrett and the American people an apology for this series of questions.

Mahablog: Life as a preexisting condition, and why the private health care industry will never, ever, not in a million years, come even close to solving the health care crisis.

No Comment: Partisan politics and accountability for torture. (But horrors, how could anyone question Cheney's virtue?)

Mock, Paper, Scissors: Because nothing is as funny as keeping innocent people in Gitmo.

The Hunting of the Snark: Dear Heaven, they've hired another one.

Zaius Nation: Doctor Zaius highlights some cool blog artists.

Guest post by Batocchio. Temporarily e-mail tips to batocchio9 AT yahoo DOT com.

David Sirota at OpenLeft:

In light of Arlen Specter's party switch, Rachel Maddow had former Rhode Island GOP Sen. Lincoln Chafee on her show last night to discuss political moderation and contested primaries. During the interview, Chafee (perhaps inadvertently) articulated a very crass sense of entitlement that courses through our political Establishment:

"...the tremendously successful fundraising juggernaut that pours the money into these primary races against moderate Republicans in particular. I saw it happen to me in 2006, largely responsible for my loss in the general election...this is America, anybody can run for office. It's the money that pours in that really makes these primaries destructive...Primaries run-up your negatives and they cost you money."

While I'm not defending the ideology of the right-wing Club for Growth that helps raise money for conservative primary challengers, I am saying that Chafee's comments are gross. He's pretty clearly saying that incumbent lawmakers and other cornoated frontrunners shouldn't have to face primaries - and if they do have to face them, those primary challengers are doing something wrong for having the nerve to be well-financed.

Remember, Chafee is not only a guy who had his senate seat handed to him by his father,* he is actually complaining about his supposedly Big Money primary challenge in 2006, despite his having outspent that primary challenger by more than 2-to-1. So what he's really saying is that he believes what makes primaries "really destructive" is money "pouring in" specifically to challenger candidates, but supposedly, it's not "really destructive" or bad if an incumbent like him "pours in" enough D.C. cash to grossly outspend and crush all primary challengers.

That is the definition of entitlement.

Sirota has it absolutely right. The politicos talk a big game about the "evils" of entitlements and how they inexorably push a closer and closer to a *gasp* "Socialist Nation" ('cuz, you know, the Danes are just miserable about their Socialist Democracy)--Damn those Welfare Queens and Freeloading Seniors! They're dragging the country down....aren't they?

Continue reading »

I meant to get this up earlier. Are we to believe that the American people need to be educated suddenly about the Iraq conflict? For months, Bush has been screeching that Iraq is the central front of the war on terror. Have we suddenly missed that? What can he possibly educate us about? He's supposed to explain why he wants to implement the McCain Doctrine against the wishes of the American people. It's insulting and Norah should know better. Froomkin tells us it's a change in tactics only and I agree.

C&Ler "Get Real" says it all in an email:

Tonight the president will go on the air and talk directly to the American people about his way forward in Iraq. According to one report, his tone will be EDUCATIONAL, and then he and his minions will take to the road to further EDUCATE Americans about the situation and why his new plan, same as the old plan, will work.

He will educate us like he did on Weapons of Mass Destruction, he will educate us like he did on the imminent threat that Saddam poses, the connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, the minimal costs of the war, remember 1-point 7 billion? Oh, and now I remember the war will only last "days, weeks, I doubt months", thank you for the lesson Mr. Rumsfeld.

The classes and lessons go on and on:
Mission accomplished! Again yesterday, we were taught by Tony Snow that Mr. Bush said just the opposite, even though we have video tape, audio tape, and the white house transcription ... all apparently wrong in the new teachings.

Continue reading »

Sacraments Wholesale: Banking on poverty...loan sharking is big bidness in South Carolina

Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting: Down the memory hole...

Norbizness: Multiple choice of perfidies, courtesy of 'The Left'

Spittle & Ink: A comic strip about bloggers? Checkitowt...

Bloggers Against Torture: Will be blogging non-stop for 24 hours to raise money for Amnesty International USA and to protest against Coalition torture and prisoner abuse.

OFF THE BEATEN PATH: Preemptive Karma...SYRUPDATE...Blog Reload...
A Lie a Day...Night Bird's Fountain...Left to Right Partisan Politics Headlines