It's an amazing thing to see supposedly serious Republican pundits insist that the option of bombing Iran to stop its nuclear weapons program is not a partisan idea. No, it will only "help" President Obama's foreign policy platform of nonproliferation and multi-national engagement. That's what Eliott Abrams, former deputy national security advisor to GW Bush, would like us to believe, in this continuing series in The Atlantic on the dialogue that started with Jeffrey Goldberg's suggestion that Israel will bomb Iran, if the U.S. government doesn't get there first.

Jeffrey quotes Denis McDonough on the "serious threat to the global nonproliferation regime," but this is an understatement. If Iran acquires a nuclear weapon during his tenure, Obama would -- in his own eyes -- see the UN Security Council's resolutions made a mockery, the International Atomic Energy Agency transformed into a joke, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty come to an end. Multilateralism a la Obama would be finished, for Iran would have proved the "international community" to be toothless or non-existent. So if the president means what he has repeatedly said about world affairs, what is at stake is whether he leaves a legacy of disaster -- again, in his own eyes. In my eyes, he would be right in so concluding: the real issue in the Middle East today is whether we, the United States, will remain "top country" in the region or will allow Iran to claim some form of hegemony.

The political side of all this is equally plain. Obama will, by all accounts, suffer a tremendous setback in November and may well be defeated in 2012. Should Iran acquire the Bomb in the next two years -- the timetable Jeffrey suggests -- Republicans will have an even stronger case that Obama has weakened our national security. The Obama who had struck Iran and destroyed its nuclear program would be a far stronger candidate, and perhaps an unbeatable one. Now, from my perspective that is no reason to stop Iran's nuclear program, but I'm a Republican.

I want to quickly slide past the disingenuous "hey, Obama would be smart if he acted like a Republican" tone of the article - it's insultingly transparent, but hey, he's a Republican. The Atlantic already has a response to Abrams' idea that bombing Iran would boost Obama's re-election odds (not a hard argument to make). And certainly the QDR 2010 and the QDR independent panel's reports reflect the position that Dems also reinforce the US" super-cop" role. I want to comment on the amazing idea that, if Iran were to develop a nuclear bomb years from now, this reflects a failure of the non-proliferation regime and the United Nations, and would render the idea of multi-nationalism "toothless or non-existent." It perhaps goes to the Republican idea that international engagement is a waste of time, that if the United States does anything on the world stage, the rest of the world will follow.

Continue reading »

When last we saw Confederate Yankee, he was sneering derisively at people who didn't have jobs, saying that they should just get off their lazy butts and find some work. Now, however, Mr. Yankee has decided to stop attacking the unemployed and to go full-bore at the wicked elitists in the United States government.

(And yes, the fact that making fun of the jobless is about as elitist as you can get is lost on Mr. Yankee.)

At any rate rate, Mr. Yankee is now so a-miffed at them thar elitist in Warshinton that he's a-pushin' his followers to prepare for a full-blown armed insurrection:

We have moved "closer to midnight" not because of any singular act , but because of inertia of a political class that does not respect or enforce the laws, or this nation's sovereignty. We have diametrically opposed views of how our nation can and should be run, and it appears that there is very little room left for negotiation.

Propagandists for the elitists at Media Matters seem troubled by A Nation on the Edge of Revolt. They portray it as a threat when "Conservative media figures openly discuss armed revolution."

I hope they do feel threatened. Attempts at peaceable protests have been met at turns by feigned ignorance, then mockery, then attacks on the character and motives of those would not sit quietly by. Perhaps it will take a serious review of our capacity for violence to get them to realize we shall not surrender our individual liberties to their lust for power.

I love the calculus on display here: "We tried to do this peacefully, but you people laughed at us. Now we gots the right t' start the killin'!"

At the end of the post, ConfYank appears to cool his jets a bit, saying that armed revolution isn't per se his desired outcome:

I have not yet been swayed to the point of view that an armed conflict is inevitable, TN_NamVolunteer. But we are close enough that one would be wise to prepare for a possible conflict, just as one would prepare for any coming storm.

For Mr. Yankee, we imagine this preparation will consist of hording Mountain Dew and playing "Red Dead Redemption" over and over again. Heck, that thar game could teach Mr. Yankee not just t' shoot things but t' lasso the womenfolk too!

Bet them sissy public schools never taught ya t' lasso no fe-male like that 'un!

What is it with these "family values" guys that compels them to mock and belittle kids? First Glenn Beck does it, then apologizes. Sort of. Now Rush Limbaugh, fresh from his honeymoon with wife #4 decides it's ok?

Enough with the mean Malia impressions already. My kids are both older than she is and they ask me the same question. Contrary to Rush's bombastic nasty worldview, they actually care whether the Gulf drowns in a pool of oil.

This is tag team desensitization, in my opinion. Rush knows full well how audiences on both sides reacted to Beck's nasty mockery of Malia Obama after the President's press conference. By engaging in the same behavior, he slowly brings his already-receptive audience around to the idea that it's perfectly all right to mock and belittle a 12-year old girl.

I sure am glad the right wing cares about family values. Aren't you?

(h/t Media Matters)

DOWNLOADS: (1163)

PLAYS: (5069)

Embed

Glenn Beck evidently realized that he had set himself up for endless mockery and serious public disgust by attacking Malia Obama yesterday on his radio show, so he promptly issued an apology -- of sorts:

In discussing how President Obama uses children to shield himself from criticism, I broke my own rule about leaving kids out of political debates. The children of public figures should be left on the sidelines. It was a stupid mistake and I apologize--and as a dad I should have known better.

As Keith Olbermann observed, in naming Beck his Worst Person in the World:

Well, that obviously changes things, because Beck at least has shown that he realizes his own hypocrisy, and he deserves -- wait a minute! He did the very thing he was apologizing for, and he did it in the apology!

Olbermann points back to the opening line of the "apology":

In discussing how President Obama uses children to shield himself from criticism ...

Olbermann observes:

In apologizing for putting kids into political debates, he put the president's kids back into political debates! This guy is so feral, that even in his brief moment of semi-sanity, he's still completely nuts!

It's also worth remembering that Beck's "rule" doesn't just pertain to children -- it regards politicians' entire families:

Beck: There's a difference! Leave my family -- leave people's families alone! I don't think I've -- I mean, I don't think I have ever -- I mean, I made this when it was Bill Clinton -- you don't go after Chelsea Clinton! You don't talk about the Bush kids! Now, the minute they get into politics, that's a different story. You leave the families alone! We've never done anything but protect the families, and question why the White House would bring their children into political debate. Leave the families alone!

As Zachary Pleat at Media Matters observes, Beck's apology is thus incomplete, by multiple standards:

Beck involved Obama's children in another attack on the president earlier this week, comments Beck did not address in his apology today.

Further, Beck limited his apology to just "my own rule about leaving kids out of political debates." But he has repeatedly stated that entire families are off-limits -- and he has dragged President Obama's family into "political debates" several times over the past year. In a sexist attack on the president's wife just last week, Beck referred to an image on the Drudge Report of Michelle Obama at a White House state dinner for the Mexican president and his wife, stating:

I don't think I've ever seen the first lady with her -- excuse the expression -- but with her breasts all smooshed up.

Beck has also repeatedly brought up Obama's parents on his Fox News and radio shows -- specifically in the context of discussing Obama's politics -- and more than a year ago, he made fun of President Obama's aunt.

Glenn Beck's apology is incomplete until he apologizes for all the other instances in which he dragged the president's family into his political attacks.

Indeed, probably the scummiest show Beck has ever put on was devoted to tearing down President Obama's late mother. He certainly never came close to apologizing for that.

But I think Beck's apology is incomplete in a much more important sense, as Karoli pointed out in her update: He failed to apologize directly to Malia Obama for mocking her, and to her parents for attacking their child.

Any real man making a real apology would have done that. This was not a real apology. This was half-assed ass-covering, at best.

DOWNLOADS: (925)

PLAYS: (3225)

Embed

Steve Benen draws our attention to a speech given by Sarah Palin last Friday in Kentucky to an evangelical women's group called Women of Joy, one in which she appears to deny the existence of church-state separation:

I beg you, Women of Joy, to bring light and be involved, loving America and praying for her. Really, it is our solemn duty. Praying for true spiritual awakening to overcome deterioration. That is where God wants us to be. Lest anyone try to convince you that God should be separated from the state, our Founding Fathers, they were believers. And George Washington, he saw faith in God as basic to life.

As Greg Sargent observes, this is historical nonsense; many of the Founders were practicing Deists who ardently believed in separating religion from the conduct of secular politics:

There was a time when this sort of thing would provoke widespread media mockery and perhaps even be seen as a potential disqualifier for the presidency.

Ah, but we live in an age where a cable-TV network is doing the presidential qualifying for us.

What was perhaps most noteworthy -- and disturbing -- about Palin's speech, though, was how she publicly called out and thanked the "Prayer Warriors" who were out there on her side:

Palin: Given the chaos these days, just kind of standing up and speaking out for common sense has kind of become a full-time job. And it's keeping me pretty busy. And some days are kind of crazy. And my faith, my family -- they are what keep me grounded, keep me going.

Prayer Warriors all across the country -- and I know some of you are here tonight -- your prayer shield allows me and others to go forth. You give out strength, providing a prayer shield. That is the only way to put one foot in front of the other, and get through some of these days with joy.

I don't know how any politician could, or would want to do this, without knowing that there were prayer warriors out there, holding you up and seeking strength and wisdom for you. ... I am so appreciative of their efforts.

Thanks largely to the reportage of Max Blumenthal, we've known for some time that Palin was religiously affiliated with the "Prayer Warriors," but this is perhaps her first open public acknowledgment of it.

Who are the "Prayer Warriors"? Funny you should ask that: Bill Berkowitz explored that question for AlterNet:

Imagine a religious movement that makes geographic maps of where demons reside and claims among its adherents the Republican Party's most recent vice presidential nominee and whose leaders have presided over prayer sessions (one aimed at putting the kibosh on health-care reform) with a host of leading GOP figures.

It's a movement whose followers played a significant role in the battle over Proposition 8, California's anti-same-sex marriage initiative, and Uganda's infamous proposed Anti-Homosexuality Law, more commonly associated with the Family, a religious network of elites drawn from the ranks of business and government throughout the world. But the movement we're imagining encompasses the humble and the elite alike, supporting a network of "prayer warriors” in all 50 states, within the ranks of the U.S. military, and at the far reaches of the globe -- all guided by an entire genre of books, texts, videos and other media.

Imagine that, and you've just dreamed up the New Apostolic Reformation, the largest religious movement you've never heard of.

Continue reading »

When even Warren Buffett, who is no Boy Scout himself, is calling them out, you know it's bad:

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Warren Buffett, the world's most famous investor, launched an attack Saturday on big-bank executives, calling for penalties for those who led their companies to near-ruin.

In his latest letter to shareholders, the chairman of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. decried the fact that while shareholders suffered during the recent crash, the top people at the banks got off relatively lightly.

"It has not been shareholders who have botched the operations of some of our country's largest financial institutions," wrote Buffett. "Yet they have borne the burden, with 90% or more of the value of their holdings wiped out in most cases of failure. Collectively, they have lost more than $500 billion in just the four largest financial fiascos of the last two years. To say these owners have been 'bailed-out' is to make a mockery of the term.

"The CEOs and directors of the failed companies, however, have largely gone unscathed. Their fortunes may have been diminished by the disasters they oversaw, but they still live in grand style," added Buffett.

Have you wondered who started the whole euthanasia talking point going? Where did it originate and why was it put there? Of all the silly things.

It was Republican Johnny Isakson from Georgia who introduced the Soylent Green amendment in the Senate bill because he learned his lessons well from the Terri Schiavo incident. And he's shocked that conservatives have taken his amendment and made a mockery of it.

The most awesome Digby has the story:

Ezra found a semi-sane Republican on the "The Dingoes Want Moy Bayby" controversy. He's Johnny Isakson of Georgia, who turns out to be the guy who put the Soylent Green amendment in the Senate bill:

Is this bill going to euthanize my grandmother? What are we talking about here?

What we're talking about in the health care debate mark-up, one of the things I talked about was that the most money spent on anyone is spent usually in the last 60 days of life and that's because an individual is not in a capacity to make decisions for themselves. So rather than getting into a situation where the government makes those decisions, if everyone had an end-of-life directive or what we call in Georgia "durable power of attorney," you could instruct at a time of sound mind and body what you want to happen in an event where you were in difficult circumstances where you're unable to make those decisions.

This has been an issue for 35 years. All 50 states now have either durable powers of attorney or end-of-life directives and it's to protect children or a spouse from being put into a situation where they have to make a terrible decision as well as physicians from being put into a position where they have to practice defensive medicine because of the trial lawyers. It's just better for an individual to be able to clearly delineate what they want done in various sets of circumstances at the end of their life.

How did this become a question of euthanasia?

I have no idea. I understand -- and you have to check this out -- I just had a phone call where someone said Sarah Palin's web site had talked about the House bill having death panels on it where people would be euthanized. How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as that is nuts. You're putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don't know how that got so mixed up.

You're saying that this is not a question of government. It's for individuals.

It empowers you to be able to make decisions at a difficult time rather than having the government making them for you...read on

Keep reading the piece to find out Why is the state of Georgia trying to kill your grandmother? Where will it end?

Why haven't the media interviewed Johnny Isakson dozens of times so the truth can get out to America? Instead, we have crazy people yelling Beckerwocky and shouting down the town halls.

Good job, Ezra, for going to the source. Your pals at the WaPo can learn something.

DOWNLOADS: (1116)

PLAYS: (1318)

Embed

UPDATE: Nancy Pelosi is joining with me and just spoke out about the August recess:

Nancy Pelosi on staying through August:

Asked at a press conference whether she'd support keeping the House of Representatives in session into the August recess to complete work on health care reform, Speaker Nancy Pelosi was fairly adamant.

"I think 70 percent of the American people would want that," she said. "I want a bill. I have no doubt we have the votes on the floor of the House to pass this legislation," she said.

When I heard Joe Lieberman say on MSNBC that he wanted to wait until after the August recess and take the health care bill home with him during his vacation to read it I knew it was a ball of lies to destroy the legislation and it got me thinking. What if the gang of six and the rest of Congress had to forfeit their vacations in August so they could finish up a health care bill? Could it stop them from making a mockery out of this important legislation and actually get the bill done on time like it should be? That's one of the reasons why I asked President Obama if he would tell Congress to forego their August recess if they try and stall the health care legislation on the Blogger Conference call.

Andrea Mitchell picked up on it and asked Senator Wyden about needing more time. Wyden said he'd give up his vacation to get it done.

Mitchell: Senator, do you think these bills could be done by the August break or should there be more time?

Wyden: I want to stick to the president's time table. The president said, he wanted health coverage legislation passed this year. I think he's right to put his foot to the peddle, I support that. Now the letter that the moderate sent, we don't say anything about delaying the August recess, In fact I'm prepared to stay here all the way through the August recess. I told my wife and my spouse, nothing is more important in my view than fixing health care. You can't get the economy on track unless you fix health care. I'm prepared to put off the August recess.

Mitchell: What did your wife have to say about that?

She wasn't exactly cheering for it, but she said ever since you were co-director of Panthers I've heard you talk about this issue so you ought to stay with it.

Mitchell: OK, support from the home front...

I know Andrea Mitchell thought she was making a joke when she brought up his wife, but this isn't a jokey situation. It's real and it's a crisis and they better do their jobs. America is waiting. And if it means that they work like most of America then so be it.

The media is picking up this question now more and more and hopefully they will ask all the Blue Dogs and conservative Dems if they will forego the August recess and work to get us a bill.

By the way, Paul Krugman debunked the gang of six in his post: The six deadly hypocrites

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (2834)

PLAYS: (12600)

Embed

Bill O'Reilly must be feeling a bit sensitive these days about the ongoing mockery of his work over at Comedy Central in the form of Jon Stewart's Daily Show and Stephen Colbert's show, which is essentially a running parody of O'Reilly anyway.

Last night, he even deigned to respond -- first, to Stewart, with smug, self-serving BS, and then to Colbert by attempting comedy. Which, as you can see, might be funny to someone with long-term dementia, but otherwise ... well, Bill, don't quit your day job.

Actually, the self-serving crap was really quite funny:

O'Reilly: Like Mr. Stewart, we like to poke a little fun -- but we're not hateful. Unlike Jon, we give the entire story, because our audience wants that.

That gave me quite a chuckle.

DOWNLOADS: (2929)

PLAYS: (3674)

Embed

On this morning's Morning Joe, Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough were all over President Obama for having shaken Hugo Chavez's hand, and worse still, having sat through Daniel Ortega's anti-American tirade:

Buchanan: Barack Obama allowed himself to be disrespected. Now if that's the way he wants to do it personally, that's personal. But he's the President of the United States, and his country was savaged and smeared down there, and he grinned all the way through it.

Later, he continues in the same vein:

Buchanan: But I think he allowed himself to be disrespected. The perception was he was being made a mockery of down there. Chavez was up there putting that stupid anti-American book in his face. He gets lectured for fifty minutes, then he goes over to Morales and tells him how wonderful it is that he's an indigenous -- Morales is an enthno-nationalist. He believes the Spanish and the white people should be put down because they've run things --

Hmmm. I'm not so sure Pat Buchanan is the guy to be complaining about someone else being an ethno-nationalist.

Steve Benen is right: this is just another fake controversy like the DHS-bulletin flap, a hissy fit that lets Republicans avoid talking about actually fixing the nation's problems.

Obama apparently expected the excessive whining, and noted over the weekend the "great differences" he has with Chavez, including the Venezuelan president's "inflammatory" rhetoric and his unhelpful role in Latin America.

"It's unlikely that as a consequence of me shaking hands or having a polite conversation with Mr. Chavez that we are endangering the strategic interests of the United States," Obama told reporters. "I don't think anybody can find any evidence that that would do so. Even within this imaginative crowd, I think you would be hard-pressed to paint a scenario in which U.S. interests would be damaged as a consequence of us having a more constructive relationship with Venezuela."

That, of course, doesn't matter. Gingrich & Co. need a new meme, and they settled on this one over the weekend.

What I find odd, though, is the underlying message. Leading Republicans make it sound as if America's stature is so fragile, it is easily weakened by casual courtesies at an international forum. President Obama, in contrast, acts as if America's stature is strong, and can withstand a handshake with a foreign head of state. Since when does the GOP find it useful to promote the idea of American weakness?