DOWNLOADS: (1239)

PLAYS: (7225)

Embed

(h/t Heather)

Malkin once again proves that there's nothing so low that she won't do it. You may remember that she attacked 12-year-old Graeme Frost over the SCHIP vote and posted personal information about his family. Well, now she's lowering the bar and attacking an 11-year-old girl. (Malkin link here)

At least she's an equal-opportunity smear artist. I know this happened a few days ago, but I had to address it. Bob Cesca covered it with his post: Malkin and Fox News Are Stalking Children Again

It's a brand new conspiracy involving President Obama and an 11-year-old girl. The plot? To ask a question at a town hall meeting.

Scary. Run for your lives and all that.

Rewind to Tuesday afternoon when an 11-year-old girl asked President Obama a question about the "mean things" she observed on various protest signs outside. Malkin and other wingnuts swooped into action, investigating and exposing the girl's parents as -- shock, horror! -- supporters of the president. The girl's parents even donated some money and volunteered on the campaign.

Mind blowing, I know. It's like the Donald Sutherland scene in JFK.

But considering that there were literally millions of volunteers associated with the president's campaign, and considering that tickets for the event were available online where millions of supporters of the president typically hang out, it stands to reason that a few actual, you know, supporters would manage to acquire tickets.

Yet beyond this earth-shattering information uncovered by Malkin that Obama supporters attended an Obama event, there isn't any evidence whatsoever that the 11-year-old girl was coached or scripted by the White House. None. And, it goes without saying that Malkin and Fox News Channel are entirely ignorant of the fact that similar Bush events were revealed to be literally and entirely staged and scripted with attendees having to sign loyalty oaths.

Sean Hannity had Malkin on his Fox News show to try and justify her actions. I mean it's sickening. And yet networks like NBC put her on the TODAY show as if she's a credible person.

Malkin: The lie about the astroturfing is very important and I spent a lot of time today on my own blog talking about these Obamacare human stage props that OFA and HCAN have put forth. And yesterday in Portsmouth we saw it with that little girl who's mom happened to be a very invested and close ally of the Obama administration....

The lie is that she denies any astroturfing has been taking place at the town halls. I won't even post the information because it's been so heavily covered, but the words "truth and "lie" are interchangeable with Michelle so why bother giving her evidence when she clearly knows about it.

Eric Boehlert writes:

Wasn't Malkin's infamous, and creepy, 2007 Baltimore drive-by* bad enough? I guess not, because now Malkin's zeroing in on a young Massachusetts school girl. Why? Because she got to ask president Obama a question at a town hall forum. Bad idea! (She was an "in-the-tank questioner.") The girl may as well have painted a bull's eye on her back because Malkin and her online detective pals are takin' that kid down!!

Stay classy, Michelle.

Next up, Malkin steals a toddler's pacifier because his parents live in San Francisco and had an Obama bumper sticker. "It's just another cry baby socialist!"

The Tea Party/conservatives really are losing their minds.
Here's Terry Savage:

Last week, I was in a car with my brother and his fiancee, driving through their upscale neighborhood on a hot summer day. At the corner, we all noticed three little girls sitting at a homemade lemonade stand.

We follow the same rules in our family, and one of them is: Always stop to buy lemonade from kids who are entrepreneurial enough to open up a little business. My brother immediately pulled over to the side of the road and asked about the choices.

The three young girls -- under the watchful eye of a nanny, sitting on the grass with them -- explained that they had regular lemonade, raspberry lemonade, and small chocolate candy bars. Then my brother asked how much each item cost.

"Oh, no," they replied in unison, "they're all free!"

I sat in the back seat in shock. Free? My brother questioned them again: "But you have to charge something? What should I pay for a lemonade? I'm really thirsty!"

His fiancee smiled and commented, "Isn't that cute. They have the spirit of giving." That really set me off, as my regular readers can imagine.

"No!" I exclaimed from the back seat. "That's not the spirit of giving. You can only really give when you give something you own. They're giving away their parents' things -- the lemonade, cups, candy. It's not theirs to give."

I pushed the button to roll down the window and stuck my head out to set them straight.

"You must charge something for the lemonade," I explained. "That's the whole point of a lemonade stand. You figure out your costs -- how much the lemonade costs, and the cups -- and then you charge a little more than what it costs you, so you can make money. Then you can buy more stuff, and make more lemonade, and sell it and make more money."

I was confident I had explained it clearly. Until my brother, breaking the tension, ordered a raspberry lemonade. As they handed it to him, he again asked: "So how much is it?"

And the girls once again replied: "It's free!" And the nanny looked on contentedly.

No wonder America is getting it all wrong when it comes to government, and taxes, and policy. We all act as if the "lemonade" or benefits we're "giving away" is free.

And so the voters demand more -- more subsidies for mortgages, more bailouts, more loan modification and longer periods of unemployment benefits...read on

Savage Truth, or just sickness?

Not to get all Shock Doctrine-ish on you or anything, but this interview in the Washington Post got my attention. It represents the very worst that could possibly happen to us all...Republicans winning back the House of Representatives and naming John Boehner as Speaker of the House.

Take a stroll with me through Speaker Boehner's world.

If the GOP were to gain the upper hand, and Boehner were elected as speaker, the question is what he and his party would do with that power. Boehner listed three priorities. First, he said, was a renewed commitment to fiscal discipline -- a test his party badly flunked the last time it was in the majority.

Now, fiscal discipline means different things to different people, but to John Boehner it means something like this with regard to financial regulatory reform:

"This is killing an ant with a nuclear weapon. There are faults in our regulatory system, some in terms of transparency, most as a result of ineffective enforcement by the bureaucracy who have no idea what these financial products look like today.

In Speaker Boehner's world, everything that just took place in our financial markets is the fault of the regulators, not the abusive practices of the industry itself.

This is because Speaker Boehner is the handmaiden and poster child for corporate ownership of politicians. There's a list here of his 2009 Gold donors -- those giving the maximum to his PAC in addition to his campaign committee. Among them: KochPAC, CapitalOne Financial Corp PAC, Bank of America Corp PAC, etc. etc. The list goes on and on.

But let's move on to Speaker Boehner's next agenda item:

Second, he said, was to engage in "an adult conversation with the American people" about the need to rein in entitlement spending.

So...that would be spending for things like Social Security and Medicare? Because, well...it's good to starve seniors and let them die? Who was it who invented death panels again? Oh right...Republicans.

And the final agenda item for Speaker Boehner is a kinder, gentler kind of bipartisanship. Seriously.

And third, he wants to increase bipartisan cooperation in the House.

This is so laughable I'm speechless. Watch the video at the top of this post for an example of the Boehner flavor of bipartisan cooperation. It's a little bitter, and a whole lot hot.

But he does elaborate:

Boehner said there will be plenty of disagreements with the White House if Republicans are in charge of the House. But he added: "A lot of scar tissue's been built up, by both parties, over the last 10 years. It needs to be solved for the long-term good of the country."

Too late for that. The cat is out of the bag and it meows repeatedly: Speaker Boehner wants to cut open the old wound, pour some salt in it, roll it around and then administer poison to the dying patient.

Lest you feel I'm too harsh, I'm glad to report that Speaker Boehner has some kind thoughts for everyone who supported that public option and thinks the health care reform bill stinks without it:

He was explicit about health care. "We believe that the health-care bill needs to be repealed and replaced," he said. Beyond saying Republicans would scrub the budget for wasteful spending, a pledge regularly made and ignored by politicians of both parties, he offered no examples of what programs Republicans would actually cut.

That one needs a translation, too. "Repeal and Replace" really means "Repeal and Die."

And finally, Speaker Boehner wants to remind us all that the nasty rancorous tone of the debate is all Barack Obama's fault.

Boehner also said Obama bears considerable responsibility for the poisoned politics in Washington. "I remember all the conversations with the president about post-partisan politics. He's done nothing to solve that. I remember all the conversations with the president about working in the middle. None of that. It wasn't about the specifics about this, that or whatever. It's about the overall direction he's gone. He has not lived up to his promises."

Hmmm. So let's see now. This would be the same John Boehner who threw an hour-long hissy fit on the House floor, called President Obama a "leftist" (when you stop laughing so hard, remember that David Gregory didn't bother to challenge him on that either), promised to do everything within his power to make it difficult to pass health care reform, advocated layoffs of police and firefighters rather than compromise on the stimulus bill, and called President Obama a socialist before lying about calling him a socialist.

But it's the President who has killed bipartisanship. Beam me up, Scotty.

(If you're committed to denying cryin' John Boehner the Speaker position, Justin Coussoule can use your support. He's running a sharp campaign in Ohio against Mr. Tobacco Lobbyist Speaker wannabe.)

Checks and Balances and the "F-Word"

via SeeingtheForest

Is there enough going on to make you nervous yet? The Vice President of the United States was the keynote speaker at a conference where other speakers called for "a new McCarthyism" to bring "terror" to intellectuals, saying "let's oppress them [liberals]," and "the entire Harvard faculty" are "traitors." A Congressman said, "America's Operation Iraqi Freedom is still producing shock and awe, this time among the blame-America-first crowd," ? Then he said, "We continue to discover biological and chemical weapons and facilities to make them inside Iraq."

Meanwhile, right-wing commentators talk about killing American journalists, their premier blogs talk about former president Carter as being on the side of the enemy and leftists have "seamlessly taken up the cause of Islamic fascism". I have provided only afew examples.

When you hear threatening talk like this,in thecompany of the country's leadership, you know that whatever comesnext isn't going to be pleasant. Things do not appear to be heading in agood direction at all. If you have been following this in the blogs, youknow that more and more people are becomming concerned that the Right'srhetoric is growing ever more violent and totalitarian. Serious peoplehave started referring tothe"f-word." (See alsohere,here,here,here and manyother places.)

Oliver Williswrites,

You cannot deal with that sort of ideology in any sort ofaccomodationist manner. Liberals need to understand this, from Democraticsenators in Washington who still ? still ? refuse to vote theirconscience out of some sense of loyalty to a long-dead notion of civilityin Washington, to progressive pundits who actually believe that theirright-wing counterparts in the nation's media are actually there for agive-and-take rather than a chance to paint everyone to the left of JoeLieberman as a terrorist sympathizer. . I have provided only a few examples.

When you hear threatening talk like this, in the company of the country's leadership, you know that whatever comes next isn't going to be pleasant. Things do not appear to be heading in a good direction at all. If you have been following this in the blogs, you know that more and more people are becomming concerned that the Right's rhetoric is growing ever more violent and totalitarian. Serious people have started referring to the "f-word." (See also here, here, here, here and many other places.) read on

Via Paul Rosenberg at Open Left:

According to leading "education researchers" (sub required), the draft guidelines that the Obama administration has published for federal economic-stimulus money and Title I aid for schools "have no credible basis in research."

The researchers point to two regulatory priorities in particular that are lacking in research evidence: evaluating teachers based on students' standardized test scores and promoting the growth of charter schools.

"One theory of action seems to be that holding teachers more accountable for the gain in their students' test scores will induce them to become better teachers," writes Duke University's Helen Ladd. "At this point, I am not aware of any credible evidence in support of that proposition."

And research on the performance of charter schools has shown that their track record is "highly variable."

The article points out that the Bush administration was famous for insisting that schools adhere to policies and programs that were based on "scientific research" while it promoted an agenda that had nothing "scientific" about it.

Now, the Obama administration is insisting that schools make decisions based on "data that shows what works," while it pursues mandates that have no data to support them.

What's the difference?

The difference is, the investors who run these new charter schools will be donating to Democrats! Next question?

Paul comments:

Due to the Great Recession, state and local governments are suffering massive cut-backs, and since education spending is generally their largest single budget item, schools are getting hit especially hard. This need not have been the case if Obama had either (a) asked for a $1.3 trillion stimulus, the size that many economists said was needed back in early 2009, or (b) altered the mix of tax cuts vs. spending through the states. And the blow could certainly have been softened if he had opposed the Snowe/Collins/Nelson/Scrouge "compromise" that cut something like $50 billion in school funding from the stimulus, rather than hailing those piggy-bank robbers for their "leadership." Whether or not it was all planned from the beginning, what's eventually shaped up out of this is that there's a small package of stimulus funds available for states and schools that jump through the federal education reform hoops--the exact nature of which is still being determined, although states that lift restrictions on charter schools will go to the head of the line.

It's really hard to see this as anything other than a Shock Doctrine-style deal, since it's a way to force cash-starved states and schools to change education policy and practice, regardless of what they might normally and democratically choose to do. And not only that--because the funds are limited, they could make the changes, and still not get a dime for doing so.

Yes, but we're much more inspired now and that will change everything.

I was watching MSNBC the other day and I saw Chuck Todd looking a bit annoyed when he talked about this new poll that said Americans didn't believe the Beltway elite media after they repeatedly slammed the president for going on TV too much. So I looked for the poll and here it is. Sorry, I don't have the video of Todd.

There's a new NBC/WSJ poll out and it has some interesting information. For weeks now the Beltway gasbags have been singing in concert that President Obama is doing way too much media: he's overexposed, he's on TV too damn much, blah blah blah. Well, they are yet wrong again.

Here's the question:

When it comes to doing his job as president, do you feel that you see and hear President Obama too much, about the right amount, or too little?

Too much..........................................34

About the right amount .....................54

Too little ............................................9

Not sure ..........................................3

After all the hubbub made by the pundit class, Americans feel that the President is doing the right amount of media exposure. What a shock.

I do enjoy watching the overwrought Peggy Noonan say that Obama was just sooo boorish, darling.

Noonan: This is his way. Because everybody will say yes. I don't think it's about the media environment but I do think the media environment allows a modern leader to be something subtly damaging and that is boorish. They get their face in your face every day all the time. It's boorish and it makes people not lean towards you, but lean away from you, no matter what the merits of the issue and the merits of this issue are not such great merits.

She's proven wrong, like the huckster she is. Why Noonan is taken seriously is beyond me anyway. She was already caught off camera talking to Chuck Todd and Mike Murphy and just bashing Sarah Palin and the Republican Party, but she would never say that on TV, live that is. She exposed herself as a hypocrite and a liar. Why is she considered a trusted source of conservative opinion?

Howard Kurtz wrote a pretty good article on this:

I raised the question a few months back whether Obama was diluting his impact by constantly popping up on the tube. He'd already done ESPN, Leno, the network anchors, "60 Minutes" and a slew of other programs. Then there was NBC's day in the life, ABC's town hall forum, the four prime-time news conferences, the comedy bits for Conan and Colbert, and on and on.

--

"Is this a good idea? Should he just but a 24-hour webcam in the White House and be done with it?

"I kid, but I am on record as saying that those who knock the President for 'overexposure' miss an important fact about the media today. Overexposure is the point. The audience is fragmented. The way to get through is to reach this audience here and that one there, and that one there...read on

Kurtz believes Obama should have gone on FOX too, but I don't. Obama was wise not to reward foul and destructive behavior by the anti-Obama network and grant an appearance to Chris Wallace on FOX so that he coould ask Obama about FOX' phony breaking story about Death Panel books.

Anyway, every time you hear a pundit complain about Obama doing too much media, just tell them America isn't listening to them.

I know this broke the other day, but I needed to hit it. William the Bloody Kristol passed on his wisdom for the American people and tells his Republican allies to hurt American families.

With Obamacare on the ropes, there will be a temptation for opponents to let up on their criticism, and to try to appear constructive, or at least responsible. There will be a tendency to want to let the Democrats' plans sink of their own weight, to emphasize that the critics have been pushing sound reform ideas all along and suggest it's not too late for a bipartisan compromise over the next couple of weeks or months.

My advice, for what it's worth: Resist the temptation. This is no time to pull punches. Go for the kill...read on

What a shock. I've was wondering what took him so long.

Ezra Klein responds:

Yawn. This is like saying that Keith Richards still can't get no satisfaction, or that the much-missed Rodney Dangerfield would appreciate a bit more respect. It's useful to remember here that Kristol is less a pundit than an operative. His job isn't to give his opinion. It's to give this opinion.

--

Bill Kristol is right that defeating Obama's health-care plan is a first step for Republicans who want to pick off vulnerable Democrats in the 2010 midterms. But the converse is also true: Passing health-care reform is the first step for vulnerable Democrats who want to save their seats.

I always remember what our own Nicole Belle said on 12/11/08:

Bill Kristol is NEVER right. And even Foreign Policy Magazine agrees with me, as they list the worst predictions of 2008 and who else but our favorite war-mongering chickenhawk neocon, William "The Bloody" Kristol

Naomi Klein in Bil'in, June 26, 2009

I have a feeling that this will not be covered in the mainstream media at all.

The Faster Times:

(Naomi) Klein is the author of the highly acclaimed, best-selling books No Logo and The Shock Doctrine, both staples of many Western liberal/leftist book collections. She was invited to speak by the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions Campaign National Committee (BNC) because Klein is one of a growing number of high profile Western authors, artists and cultural figures who have signed on to a 2005 Palestinian civil society call to boycott, divest and sanction (BDS) Israel until it complies with international law.

Over three hundred people crammed the small venue which was followed by a lively question and answer session. Although technically in the region on a book tour for the Hebrew release of Shock Doctrine, Klein focused her remarks on critiques of boycotting Israel as a tactic, and the motivation of Western states to torpedo the recently held Durban Review Conference held in Geneva this past April. She ended by making an emotional appeal to those “who are on the fence [about the call for boycott] to please join,” acknowledging that her delayed endorsement of the boycott campaign in 2008, three years after the call was initially made, “was nothing but cowardice.”

It's not without controversy, but I do applaud Klein for speaking out. I don't think Klein is anti-Zionist or anti-Semitic at all--although if this gets covered in the US at all, it will be on Fox and that's exactly how they'll characterize her. However, in order for there to be any true negotiation for peace in the region, there MUST be a little more honesty and a little less knee-jerking on the subject. Klein explains where she's coming from:

I wanted to start by letting you in on a little secret. There is a debate among Jews. I used to say “the Jewish community” but then I got excommunicated. So there is a debate among Jews - I’m a Jew by the way - about whether the lesson of the Holocaust should be “never again to anyone”, or “never again to us.” That’s what it pretty much boils down to. And there are a lot of people who believe that the lessons of the Holocaust was “never again to us, never again to the Jews.” Because we suffered this tremendous crime against humanity, we have the right to do whatever it takes to keep ourselves safe. In fact we even think we get a kind of get one genocide free card out of this. [...]

There is another strain in the Jewish tradition that says that the lessons of the Holocaust is “never again to anyone”, and that it is precisely because of what we experienced as Jews that we must denounce racism, denounce systems of segregation wherever they crop up, even and especially when they crop up amongst our own. I am proud to put myself - and I thank my parents for this - in that second tradition. That’s why I’m proud to join in here tonight.

Incertus takes aim at "probably the dumbest thing you'll read all day."

Emptywheel: So sorry we tortured you. Oh, and about that truth commission…

Pharyngula: A review of Stephen Jay Gould and the Politics of Evolution.

Les Enragés: The Million Can March – respond to tea bag demonstrations with a food drive for Independence Day.

Corrente: The Shock Doctrine comes to California.

Guest post by Batocchio. Temporarily e-mail tips to Batocchio9 AT yahoo DOT com. Thanks!

Don't you love when a network bills an interview as an "exclusive" when the "exclusive" person has been interviewed about a gazillion times? Anyway, Sean Hannity has the exclusive and the super duper sized guest he nabbed is Sarah Palin in New York. Wow, what a catch. And guess what? She thinks America is headed towards "Socialism." I mean, I'm in shock! And yet she actually admits to using socialist practices by giving money to Alaskans from oil companies.

Hannity: Socialism?

Palin: Well, that is where we are headed. And we have to be blunt enough, candid enough with Americans to let them know that if we keep going down these roads, nationalizing many of these services....yes, that is where we will head....And Americans have to be paying attention and we have to have our voices heard and ultimately it has to be our will, the American people's will imposed on Washington instead of the other way around.

Sarah, I hate to break it to you, but we just had almost a two year election over this stuff and you and McCain LOST. You can't even get a GOP fundraising dinner together because Newt Gingrich was nervous if you showed up and you want to talk about financial policies?

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin appeared at a major Republican congressional fundraiser Monday night, ending a will-she-or-won't-she mystery that overshadowed the event and frustrated the GOP. Palin - the party's 2008 vice presidential nominee, who was initially scheduled to headline the annual Senate-House dinner - left organizers hanging as late as Monday afternoon after she was told she wouldn't have a speaking role at the event.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich urged the Republican party loyalists Monday evening to stand up for GOP principles but to be inclusive as the party tries to retake the majority.

Palin's appearance Monday night was the latest twist in an unusual public flap between a potential 2012 presidential candidate and the Republican congressional leaders who run the party's fundraising committees. In March, organizers replaced Palin as the keynote speaker with Gingrich after she wavered over accepting the invitation.

Republican officials involved in the discussions, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, said Palin was invited to sit at a head table but was told she would not be given a chance to speak for fear that she might overshadow Gingrich.

Palin balked at that arrangement but did not make clear whether she would refuse to attend, the officials said. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, made a personal appeal over the weekend for her to attend and invited her and her husband, Todd Palin, to sit at his table.

Meanwhile, it seems that Evita Palin is getting on some GOPers' nerves.