(Reality flow chart) (GOP propaganda chart)

As Media Matters points out, today's GOP is trying the same old tricks of yesteryear, when they set out to destroy the Clinton health care plan in 1994. They've released a confusing and misleading flow chart (pictured above, right) to show how awful a public option would be -- and it's already being picked up by the right wing media.

On July 15, the Drudge Report, Fox News, and CNBC's The Kudlow Report provided a forum for a chart released by congressional Republicans that day -- a day after House Democrats introduced their health care reform bill -- that purported to show "the complex health care reform proposal by Democratic congressional leaders." The release from Rep. Kevin Brady (TX) about the chart, titled "BAFFLING FLOW CHART; Public Gets Peek at Complicated Bureaucracy in Democratic Health Care Plan," stated that the chart "depicts how the health care system would be organized at the national level if the Democrats' plan became law. These new levels of bureaucracy, agencies, organization and programs will all be put directly between the patient and their health care."

In response, TNR's Jonathan Cohn has come up with his own flow chart (pictured above, left) that describes the incredibly confusing private system most Americans are currently trying to understand and forced to endure:

But these charts--and, more important, the Republicans who use them as propoganda--tend to ignore one inconvenient fact: American health care is already complex. Ridiculously complex. Thanks to decades of haphazard, disorganized growth, it's evolved into a mind-numbing web of institutions, agencies, businesses, and individual actors. And while that may be self-evident to anybody who's ever had to deal with, say, a billing dispute between an insurer and hospital, it's easy to lose sight of that when the discussion is all about what reform might do--rather than what health care would be like without it.

David Broder in the Washington (Republican Propaganda) Post:

The saga of South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford and his Argentine romance has been such ripe fodder for the gossip mills that the essential governmental question has almost been forgotten.

Whether Sanford can resolve the mess he has made of his personal life is of little concern to anyone but the people involved.

But when he disappeared for five days, telling no one in his administration or even his security detail where he had gone, he did something totally irresponsible. Had any kind of emergency occurred, South Carolina would have been leaderless.

At the moment Sanford abandoned his duties in secret pursuit of private pleasure, he in effect tendered his resignation.

The Legislature should insist he follow through on it.

Now while I agree with the sentiment that Sanford abandoned his job to follow his little brain, er...heart to Argentina, I'm struck by the difference in Broder's tone from his coverage of Bill Clinton's infidelities:

One of the most revealing statements Broder -- or, perhaps, any political journalist -- has ever made came in 1998. In November 1998, after nearly a year of public opinion polls showing, basically, that people liked Bill Clinton and wanted the Lewinsky investigation to just go away, and of the Washington journalist/pundit crowd vehemently disagreeing, the Post published an article by Sally Quinn attempting to explain the disconnect (which lives on to this day).

Quinn famously quoted Broder explaining why the "Washington Establishment" -- which under anybody's definition includes both Broder and Quinn -- was so angry at Clinton: "He came in here and he trashed the place ... and it's not his place."

Broder's implication -- that Washington was his place, not the president's -- is arrogant enough. But Broder's other comment speaks volumes: "The judgment is harsher in Washington. We don't like being lied to."

What a difference ten years can make. Of course, it has nothing to do with Sanford being a Republican, does it, Dean Broder?

California Democrat Francine Busby lost a heated 2006 race against Republican Brian Bilbray that was plagued by voting irregularities and a hasty swearing in of Bilbray by then Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert.

Fast forward to last Friday night, and a Busby fundraiser for her 2010 run that ended in what appears to be a gross miscarriage of justice and innocent people being assaulted with pepper spray and physically abused -- all based on a bogus complaint from a bigot in the neighborhood:

ENCINITAS — Francine Busby says she will demand an explanation from the Sheriff's Department about deputies breaking up a fundraising party held for her in Cardiff and arresting the host.

The party was Friday night in the 1300 block of Rubenstein Avenue, the home of Shari Barman, a Busby supporter.

It ended with Barman, 60, being arrested and jailed on suspicion of battery on a peace officer, and resisting, delaying and obstructing a peace officer.

Pam Morgan, 62, a Rancho Santa Fe resident and one of the guests, also was arrested and taken to the Encinitas Sheriff's Station, where she was cited for resisting, delaying and obstructing a peace officer.

Here's where things get interesting. Apparently, the hosts of the fundraiser are a lesbian couple and they just happen to have one nasty, homophobic neighbor:

During Busby's speech, Barman said in a statement yesterday, a man on the property behind her house shouted “disparaging remarks” about Busby and gay people. Barman lives in the house with her partner, Jane Stratton, 55.

“It was a quiet home reception, disrupted by a vulgar person shouting obscenities from behind the bushes,” Busby said. Read on...

This situation was clearly mishandled by the officers involved and I hope Francine and her friends get a formal and very public apology and that all charges in the matter are dropped. C&L helped raise money for her in 2006, how about we do it again for 2010? Please visit Francine Busby's website and show her some love and support!

I think it's just automatic now. When a high-profile Republican gets into trouble, Fox News steps in to mislead their sheep viewers by labeling them as Democrats.

Here's a short list of Fox's chyron hackery:

John McCain - Democrat
Joe Lieberman - Democrat
Arlen Spector - Democrat (when he was still a Republican!)
Mark Foley - Democrat

Media Matters also caught Fox listing a Democratic strategist as Bush's head of FEMA -- because his name happened to be Michael Brown. Oh, and we can't forget the time they announced Rep. William Jefferson's indictment using footage of Congressman John Conyers. They apologized to their audience, but never to Conyers personally.

I'm sure it was just an oversight, just like all the rest...riiiight. Have I missed any?

Dave N:

It's almost a clockwork thing.

Whenever Fox News wants you to forget that someone is actually a Republican, they, ah, accidentally label them a Democrat on their chryon and let it go. So they did that today, as you can see, while Mark Sanford was explaining that he had been in Argentina to screw around on his wife. (They corrected it in later chryons.)

Hardly the first time this has happened.

There was the time they ID'ed Mark Foley, in the midst of another sex scandal, as a Democrat too.

At other times with sex scandals, as with Sen. Larry Craig, they simply have forgotten to identify them as Republicans.

They've also done it when someone's Republican status is inconvenient:

When Arlen Specter was attacking conservative shibboleths, he got labeled a D too.

And then there was the time John McCain was labeled a Democrat too. At the time that just seemed weird, but now, with Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and a host of other conservatives promoting the notion that McCain was just a fake Republican anyway, it makes a certain kind of sense.

Fox sense, that is.

Senator Mary Landrieu (DLC, LA) is under "attack" in a radio ad from MoveOn.org. I can't figure out where the "attack" is: the very short radio ad told people factual information about how much soft money the healthcare industry gave to Landrieu and also asked listeners to CALL LANDRIEU and express their opinions about healthcare.

CNN's John King was aghast! {emphasis mine}

...before there's even a bill to vote on, she's being attacked on the radio. Should the president of the United States, the leaders of the Democratic Party tell moveon.org to save its money and get off the radio?

So what exactly about that ad is 'attacking' Senator Landrieu, Mr. King? Publicizing the amount of money she's received from corporate for-profit healthcare lobbyists? Or perhaps, horror of horrors, suggesting that her actual constituents give her a...wait for it...telephone call?

At least Senator Casey from Pennsylvania points out that New York Times survey showing 72 percent of the American people favoring a public option. "I know that's not the universal opinion in Washington," he says. I happen to think the silver lining in this health care "debate" is that finally that 72% is waking up to whose interests their congress people actually serve. Follow the money.

I guess polite Washingtonians find it distasteful to mention who owns their vote, bought and paid for, and are deeply troubled when citizens without 1.6 million dollars in donations call the office expecting to be, you know, heard or something. Move On emailed me recently, asking me to contact "my" representative, John "CO2 is plant food" Shimkus, who is owned by the coal lobby. I told MoveOn I couldn't help them. since I don't have the same soft money donations as the coal industry, therefore my lawn guy (the one planting the grass that eats Shimkus's CO2) is a better representative of my interests than my congressman.

And it's just sick when television media plays along with this charade, indicating that publicizing soft money and promoting citizen involvement somehow "attacks" a United States Senator? Honestly, John King, being a media lapdog to the Georgetown Senatorial Cocktail Party Set is no way to go through life, son.

Full transcript below the fold... (h/t Heather)

Continue reading »

Forbes is a magazine so bad, I once canceled a free subscription. So I guess I shouldn't be surprised that they've published articles attacking what they call "ObamaCare."

I especially like this one, "ObamaCare Can Punish You for Being Healthy." Now, you would think of the audience that reads Forbes, they would agree - but the comments are overwhelmingly critical of the author's outright hackery. (Which makes me wonder: if readers of a magazine like Forbes are so critical of the health care system, where are the calls opposing reform coming from? Hmm.)

Anyway, here's a sample:

This has got to be one of the worst articles I have seen on Forbes. I am a registered Republican and no left winger but what a crock. The assumption is that the HMO system motivates people to live a more healthy life. God has anybody looked at Americans in the last 40 years! We have a country full of Obese, Unhealthy, entitlement mentality citizens. On the other hand looking at countries like Japan which have partially subsidized health care similar (but not the same) to what the Obama administration is offering has allowed Japan to become one of the healthies countries in the world. They live longer than anywhere else. It is because you can get regular check ups that Doctors are able to influence people with bad habits more regularly to adjust or face the consequences. I know this problem and the laws are MUCH MORE complex than just this, but the logic behind parts of this article are pretty sad.

Or this one:

Will you stop publishing biased articles? First, a piece about the 10 best blue collar jobs -- but you fail to mention that these jobs are all held by men. Then, this slick article about how the healthy will be punished by the prospect of decent health insurance coverage for all. I'll have you know that I have had allergies to dust and mites all of my life. That is considered a "pre-existing" condition. Yep -- something minor treated with allegra is in the same category as a serious condition such as diabetes, heart disease or cancer. My untreated assault as LAUSD while substitute-teaching a PE class with 53 students is also considered a pre-existing condition. But the District's insurance has been stalling treatment for more than a year and when they finally approved it, they approved it for one day two weeks ago. That is absolutely ridiculous. You should be ashamed for misleading the public and writing complete falsehoods.

Or this:

I have no idea where you can get health insurance that tailors your premium to your fitness. My employer (300,000 employees) certainly doesn't offer it and I doubt if most other employers do either. Since I'm tied to my employers' offered plans, it doesn't matter if "someone" out there offers it, I have limited choices. If I could get it, it would probably be like my life insurance- my doctor says I'm extremely healthy but because I have a condition that "can" be a problem, I pay outrageous rates for life insurance. I don't need that for health insurance, too.

Get the picture? Even relatively well-off Americans are unhappy with their very expensive, unreliable health care coverage and see it as inherently unfair - because it is.

(Post updated with video.)

Barney Frank wants the names of the people that received the bonuses from AIG. Liddy tried to make it a confidential list and Frank refused even after Liddy read off a few death threats from a piece of paper.
Where did Liddy get the two death threats that he read to Barney Frank? Rep. Frank wants those names, period so Liddy played the fear card and said he was worried about their safety and then read two "death threats."

Barney said he understood the hostility out there, but would subpoena him for them anyway. Where did Liddy get those threats? Were they letters, were they emails, comments on blogs or message boards?

Welcome to our world. I've received many death threats just for writing my blog and if he thinks a few unhinged comments will put the brakes on those names, he's sadly mistaken.

The hearing continues...Open thread on his testimony.

Is there a more mediocre mind -- let alone writer -- posing as a daring intellectual provocateur than Camille Paglia?

Just wondering.

I especially had to gag upon reading this:

And I'm sick of people impugning Rush's wealth and lifestyle, which is no different from that of another virtuoso broadcaster who hit it big -- Oprah Winfrey.

Yeah, because Oprah also used her Latino housecleaner to help run drugs to support her Oxycontin habit. And Oprah is in the habit of flying to the Dominican Republic with valises full of Viagra. No different lifestyle at all.

(photo found here)

As more secret memos from the Bush Administration are revealed we find that it took only two weeks for the former president and his lawyers to plot the subversion of the Constitution and the rule of law:

The Justice Department released nine legal opinions showing that, following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush administration determined that certain constitutional rights would not apply during the coming fight. Within two weeks, government lawyers were already discussing ways to wiretap U.S. conversations without warrants.

The legal memos written by the Bush administration's Office of Legal Counsel show a government grappling with how to wage war on terrorism in a fast-changing world. The conclusion, reiterated in page after page of documents, was that the president had broad authority to set aside constitutional rights.

The memos reflected a belief within the Bush administration that the president had broad powers that could not be checked by Congress or the courts. That stance, in one form or another, became the foundation for many policies: holding detainees at Guantanamo Bay, eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without warrants, using tough new CIA interrogation tactics and locking U.S. citizens in military brigs without charges. Read on...

We've known about the secret memos for years, but it still sent a shiver down my spine to actually read them. I applaud President Obama for making these memos public so that the citizens of the U.S. and the world can begin to understand what happened during those dark years in our history and to insure that never again will any president of any political party abuse their powers this way again.

To read all of the secret memos in their entirety click here.

David Sirota on yesterday's hearing about Bernie Madoff:

At a contentious Financial Services Committee hearing today about the failure of the Securities and Exchange Commission to prevent the Bernie Madoff scandal, the SEC's General Counsel cited executive privilege as reason that he and the SEC's enforcement branch were refusing to answer congressional inquiries. You can watch the video here - the executive privilege issue comes at about 5 minutes and 15 seconds into the clip.

As you'll see, SEC officials refuse to answer the committee's basic questions about the Madoff scandal, and the agency's acting general counsel, Andy Vollmer (a Bush holdover and maxed-out donor to John McCain's presidential campaign) explicitly cites executive privilege as his legal rationale for refusing to provide basic information to federal lawmakers.

Congress has a constitutional obligation to engage in basic fact finding, both in order to legislate reforms at the SEC and to publicly expose how our economy was destroyed by sharks like Madoff. Now, Bush holdovers at the SEC are using executive powers - powers that are now President Obama's - to prevent Democratic lawmakers from doing their job.

Politico's Mike Allen has some quotes from the private Alfalfa dinner last night, including a knee-slapper Joe Lieberman told about Dick Cheney and torture.

Politico:

More from Senator Lieberman: 'We had hoped Vice President Cheney would be here tonight. I hope it's not his back injury that's keeping him away. Apparently, he hurt it moving some things out of his office. Personally, I had no idea that waterboards were so heavy. ... I was so close [to being McCain's vice president]: As close as Alaska is to Russia. ... I hear that President Obama will soon be visiting the Washington offices of the New York Times as part of his search for a new house of Worship ... On the other hand, I appreciated your humility when you chose not to arrive at your Inaugural ceremony by walking across the reflecting pool..'

Classy, Joe. Click through to the article because there are actually a few funny lines, including these great ones from President Obama to Sarah Palin:

I never expected you to be PALLING AROUND with THIS crowd. I want to congratulate you on your Golden Globe for '30 Rock.'

[media=7096 showimage] (H/t David E) The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, when finally released after months of the Bush administration trying to get it changed without success, said that "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program." Since then every major Western media outlet and political leader, especially including Barack Obama, has done their level best to ignore that finding - well, after the wingnuts got over crowing about how it proved Bush's invasion of Iraq was a good thing, at least - yet there's not a shred of real evidence for doing so.

Much of the narrative which allows the consensus view of the entire US intelligence community to be ignorable centers around the infamous "laptop of death" and around statements last year at a private briefing by the IAEA's Oli Heinonen. However, the documents contained upon the laptop are of questionable provenance, probably at least in part forged by their provider - the MeK terrorist group - and in any case refer to programs from before 2003. Heinonen’s briefing likewise referred to programs from before 2003 - as it would, since it was based on those laptop documents, given to the IAEA by George Schulte so that Hoinonen would brief members and Schulte could then leak his notes of that briefing to the media establishing a stage of plausiblity between him and the information. However, the information given at that briefing was public knowledge even in 2005, something not even mentioned by David "Judy in Drag" Sanger at the NYT when he recycled his 2005 report on the laptop's information for his widely cited 2008 report on the briefing. By this weekend, Sanger had entirely dismissed the NIE and was willing to bend the IAEA's findings and briefings all out of shape in service of the narrative. David Sanger may be the finest stenographer for his "unofficially official" sources at the White House in the history of journalism.

The IAEA's assessment to date is in full agreement with the NIE: that there "is no evidence that the weapons program continued after 2004" but you'd be forgiven if you hadn't realized that, as much reporting on the subject has deliberately played games with tense. Given that's there's no evidence that Iran has a current nuclear weapons program, warmongers have been reduced to arguing that there's no proof positive that it doesn't. The inability to prove a negative, to prove "evidence of absence" was what got us into Iraq too, so they hope it serves again.

Unfortunately, Obama's recent statements would indicate that it will serve again. On Sunday he told George Stephanoupolis that "they are pursuing a nuclear weapon that could potentially trigger a nuclear arms race".

Continue reading »

Sean Hannity.  Not making that up, and really, does anyone wonder if Hannity will question Ms. Palin's readiness to be Commander-in-Chief, the way he regularly does with Obama?    And one wonders if the rest of her fall schedule is booked with O'Reilly, Brit Hume, and the gang from Fox and Friends.  (h/t Oliver Willis) 

      Over at Blackfive, Uncle Jimbo is hyping Sarah Palin's position as Commander in Chief of the Alaskan National Guard to give her pretensions of national security experience befitting a Vice President.

He says that because of an Alaskan National Guard unit operating a missile defense base in Alaska she has a "unique role in our national security and homeland defense" and approvingly cites an email from one of his readers to that effect. He goes on to claim in comments that "she's privy to military and intelligence secrets no other governor is. She has to be. There's no way she could function as governor if she weren't." It's a story approvingly accepted by the likes of Jonah Goldberg and Kim Priestap.

There's a bit of a problem with his narrative though.

Maj. Gen. Craig Campbell, adjutant general of the Alaska National Guard, considers Palin "extremely responsive and smart" and says she is in charge when it comes to in-state services, such as emergencies and natural disasters where the National Guard is the first responder.

But, in an interview with The Associated Press on Sunday, he said he and Palin play no role in national defense activities, even when they involve the Alaska National Guard. The entire operation is under federal control, and the governor is not briefed on situations.

A couple of Jimbo's commenters pointed this out to him and he his readers  (EDIT: corrected attribution) went apoplectic, going so far as to denigrate the officer in charge of the ANG.

He's the commissioner of the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs. The fact that he has no role in national defense activities is a given. All you have to do is read his title.

And to claim that just because the Alaska National Guard's Strategic Plan for 2008-12 was written "in line with Governor Palin's priorities", Palin herself drew up the criteria for that plan  - even though that phrase is the only time Palin is mentioned in the whole document.

What a rotten milblogger Jimbo is - or simply dishonestly defending his thesis by focusing on only one of the Adjutant General's duties. Perhaps Jimbo should have corrected his readers, but he didn't. Here's the relevant part of Gen, Campbell's bio:

Major General Craig E. Campbell is the adjutant general for the State of Alaska, commander of the Alaska National Guard and the commissioner of the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs. He is responsible to provide Army and Air National Guard military forces, a State Defense Force, and a Navy Militia that are fully prepared to protect Alaska from any threat, disaster, or emergency. He is also responsible to ensure that Alaska’s National Guard forces are ready to deploy worldwide and accomplish military missions in support of the national defense strategy. As adjutant general and commissioner for the State of Alaska, he is responsible for emergency services, homeland security, veteran affairs, a Counter-Drug Support Team, a Civil Support Team, and a Youth Challenge Program.

What a great way to support the military...by boosting your wingnut Veep candidate at the expense of a general with 34 years in uniform. Classy.

Crossposted from Newshoggers.

(Note: Jimbo emailed to note that I'd wrongly attributed words from his commenter "Tom W" to Jimbo himself. As of this writing, Jimbo hasn't corrected his commenter, but he has my apology for the wrongful attribution anyway. The post has been edited accordingly.)

We learned last month that the Associated Press' DC bureau Chief Ron Fournier (pictured above, right, enjoying donuts with John McCain) is a huge fan of Karl Rove and the Bush administration and considered taking a job with the McCain campaign so when he stepped up to the plate for the GOP candidate this morning, it came as little surprise. The headline of his article says it all:

Analysis: Biden pick shows lack of confidence

DENVER - The candidate of change went with the status quo.  

In picking Sen. Joe Biden to be his running mate, Barack Obama sought to shore up his weakness - inexperience in office and on foreign policy - rather than underscore his strength as a new-generation candidate defying political conventions.

He picked a 35-year veteran of the Senate - the ultimate insider - rather than a candidate from outside Washington, such as Govs. Tim Kaine of Virginia or Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas; or from outside his party, such as Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska; or from outside the mostly white male club of vice presidential candidates. Hillary Rodham Clinton didn't even make his short list. Read on...

As if it were written by Rove himself and it begs the question - with the cloud of suspicion over Fournier's head, why did AP run with him? The Associated Press has a real problem on their hands. They can no longer be seen as an objective news outlet and Fournier is slipping easily into the role of poster child for media corruption and failure. He may not have taken an official job with the McCain campaign, but he sure doesn't mind donating his time and international platform to him.  Contact the AP and let them know what you think about the article -- remember, be nice. 

UPDATE (Nicole) I've been given a new contact for AP:  Contact the Associated Press ... Kathleen Carroll (Fournier's boss) at kcarroll@ap.org or (212) 621-1500. Be POLITE, but be FIRM. Let them know that you don't want to see them serve as stenographers and amplifiers for pure spin by the McCain campaign.

UPDATE #2 (Nicole)  FireDogLake has employed their LTE widget to make it even easier to complain about AP and Fournier's bias.

UPDATE #3 (Nicole) Majikthise asks if Fournier's extracurricular paid speaking engagements violate AP's rules for outside appearances of their journalist pool.