Media Matters points out how conservative commentators such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Michael Savage like to use rape metaphors when discussing progressives or progressive policies.

Right-wing media are very quick to claim progressives are "raping" Americans:

Beck: "People in New York, you're being raped by your government -- raped." On his November 19 radio show, Beck stated:

BECK: When the people lead, the leaders will follow. And we're building life boats, because, right now, you know it to be true -- and I'm hearing it in New York. People in New York, you're being raped by your government -- raped. California, how are you doing it, man? They just took an extra 10 percent withholdings from you, as a forced noninterest loan. Get the hell off my land. My gosh, how are you doing it?

Well, I'm seeing it in New York. People are just starting to see now what has been done to them in the last six months here in New York. And they're starting to look at it and say, "Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute. What the hell -- look at how all of this is adding up?" Well, that's what's going to happen as a collective in this country. I don't how long it's gonna take. It may take three months, six months, a year -- I can't imagine.

Beck: "We're the young girl saying 'No, no, help me,' and the government is Roman Polanski." Discussing health care reform on the November 16 edition of his Fox News program, Beck stated:

BECK: America has spoken clearly, consistently. We don't want this. And for the first time in history, we don't think it's the government's place to give it to us. ... We are -- excuse this analogy, but I feel like it's true -- we're the young girl saying "No, no, help me," and the government is Roman Polanski. In the end, I think we're all going to be cowering in France.

Beck: Health care reform is "good old socialism ... raping the pocketbooks of the rich to give to the poor." On his July 21 Fox News program, Beck stated:

BECK: President Obama has his massive $1.5 trillion health care plan. It's hogging up the news cycle. The Republicans and, you know, a lot of people are starting to say, "Isn't this socialist, here? I mea, this is pretty crazy." The answer to me on that one is really easy: Yep, it's good old socialism -- you know, pretty much raping the pocketbooks of the rich to give to the poor. I think that's socialism.

Limbaugh: Obama ordered his "pay czar" to "rape" bailed out executives. On his October 22 broadcast, talking about Kenneth Feinberg, who was appointed to oversee executive compensation at financial firms that were still holding funds authorized under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, Limbaugh stated:

LIMBAUGH: I think everything about this story, this "pay czar," is blockbuster. It is -- I mean, it's late-night comedy gold. Everything about the story is a lie. ... Every detail about this story has to be a lie. I refuse to believe that Obama didn't know what Feinberg was doing. In fact, the truth probably is Feinberg's following orders. Feinberg is following orders and I guaran-damn-tee you Obama said: "You get up there and you rape 'em. And you make 'em poor. And you make 'em pay. And you let 'em know. Just don't tell 'em that I knew anything about it."

Limbaugh: "Get ready to get gang-raped again, folks." Discussing health care reform on his June 29 broadcast, Limbaugh stated:

LIMBAUGH: Well, isn't this good? Get ready to get gang-raped again, folks. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she will not give the public a week to review the final text of a health care reform bill before it's voted on later this year. And Harry Reid has also declined to commit to giving the public a week to read and consider the final health care bill, despite Obama promising that all legislation would be up for five days on one of his stupid websites where everybody could read it.

I can just hear Rush Limbaugh now: "If they're so hungry, how did they get so fat?" And our side's not much better, because of course they're going to agree with the Republicans that the best way to handle the problem is with tax cuts and deficit reduction.

I think I need to bang my head against a wall now:

The nation's economic crisis has catapulted the number of Americans who lack enough food to the highest level since the government has been keeping track, according to a new federal report, which shows that nearly 50 million people -- including almost one child in four -- struggled last year to get enough to eat.

At a time when rising poverty, widespread unemployment and other effects of the recession have been well documented, the report released Monday by the U.S. Department of Agriculture provides the government's first detailed portrait of the toll that the faltering economy has taken on Americans' access to food.

The magnitude of the increase in food shortages -- and, in some cases, outright hunger -- identified in the report startled even the nation's leading anti-poverty advocates, who have grown accustomed to longer lines lately at food banks and soup kitchens. The findings also intensify pressure on the White House to fulfill a pledge to stamp out childhood hunger made by President Obama, who called the report "unsettling."

The data show that dependable access to adequate food has especially deteriorated among families with children. In 2008, nearly 17 million children, or 22.5 percent, lived in households in which food at times was scarce -- 4 million children more than the year before. And the number of youngsters who sometimes were outright hungry rose from nearly 700,000 to almost 1.1 million.

I thought this was the most important finding:

The report's main author at USDA, Mark Nord, noted that other recent research by the agency has found that most families in which food is scarce contain at least one adult with a full-time job, suggesting that the problem lies at least partly in wages, not entirely an absence of work.

Video courtesy of Media Matters

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Rush Limbaugh has some serious issues. I mean, we knew that already, but the anger he uses to mask his blatant fear is quite stunning, and not a little Freudian.

Going after an admiral and counter-terrorism specialist like Joe Sestak? Not so smart, Rushbo:

Following an appearance on Fox News Channel to discuss the federal prosecution of terror suspects, radio host Rush Limbaugh attacked former 3-star Navy Admiral and Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Congressman Joe Sestak as a "dangerous left wing radical ideologue."

"Rush Limbaugh's attacks on a Veteran for supporting our American values shows a lack of understanding and respect for the very people who serve our country to defend those values," the campaign said. "Instead of helping to bring about justice for the families who lost loved ones on 9/11, too many on the right seem interested in politicizing the issue of prosecuting terror suspects."

Joe Sestak voiced his support for the Administration as part of his continuing call to close the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Attorney General Holder announced that five high-value Al Qaeda suspects --including the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed-- will be tried in federal court, rather than be held indefinitely or tried via military commission. Current legal procedures are in place to ensure that sensitive information used to support our national security efforts are kept private.

"As an Admiral, I led this Nation's fighting men and women into harm's way in defense of the United States -- in defense not only of American citizens, but of the beliefs that we hold dear and that define us as a nation, Joe" said in his statement on Friday. "I have watched the legal black hole at Gitmo erode our moral standing in the world -- weakening our hand in diplomacy in all corners of the world and providing Al Qaeda and other extremists propaganda for a new generation of terror. The last thing we should do is allow these terrorists to cause us to abandon our American principles."

Sestak points out some statistics for the WATB Republicans: As of December 2008, there were still approximately 250 detainees in custody. Federal courts have convicted 195 terrorists since 2001 in contrast to just three convictions by military commissions. Here's Sestak on The O'Reilly Factor trying to explain why there is nothing to fear from these trials. My suggestion for next time, Congressman, is to use smaller words. That fancy book-learning elitism is as scary to them as dem Islamofascists.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1019)

PLAYS: (2797)

Lawrence O'Donnell reports on the expected right wing freak-out over Eric Holder’s announcement that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed among others will be tried in New York rather than military tribunals. Jonathan Turley weighs in and notes that this is a return to the rule of law after the disgrace that was the Bush administration.

Turley has more at his blog-- 9-11 Defendants to be Given Real Trials as Holder Stands on Principle — Sort Of:

Attorney General Eric Holder has ordered actual trials for five 9/11 suspects rather than military tribunals. The decision places the United States squarely back on the road of the rule of law in giving due process even to our most hated defendants. The five defendants include 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The other four are Waleed bin Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi and Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali. However, this courageous act was diminished by an inexplicable decision of Holder to order five other defendants — including USS Cole suspect Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri — be tried in a military tribunal. I will be discussing this decision tonight on MSNBC Countdown.

Texas GOP Sen. John Cornyn condemned the move as putting “political ideology ahead of the safety of the American people just to fulfill an ill-conceived campaign promise.” I am not sure what ideology means but I assume it is a reference to the Constitution. What makes us safer is to offer the world an alternative to these men; to show that we are not the hypocrites that we appeared during the Bush Administration.

The decision to send some detainees to military tribunals, however, is a baffling contradiction. Holder has denied the Administration the high ground in the debate by trying to appease both sides and deny due process to some of these accused individuals. It is a case of snatching hypocrisy out of the jaws of principle.

The right is going crazy over this of course since they don't want the Bush administration exposed for the treatment of these terrorism suspects. Limbaugh admits as much in the rant they play in the beginning of the segment whether he meant to or not.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1679)

PLAYS: (1705)

I was wondering how Newt Gingrich would react to the crazy teabaggers that attacked him for endorsing Scozzafava: Would he stand by his principles or would he bow down at the altar of Rush Limbaugh?

Here's what what said in his endorsement of Dede Scozzafava:

“The special election for the 23rd Congressional District is an important test leading up to the mid-term 2010 elections,” Gingrich said of Scozzafava's candidacy in a statement to supporters, as reported by the The Post-Standard. “Our best chance to put responsible and principled leaders in Washington starts here, with Dede Scozzafava.”
--
“The Republican Revolution in 1994 started very much like what we see today,” the former speaker said. “Like then, our country is reeling from misguided liberal policies, high taxes and out-of-control spending. This special election in New York’s 23rd Congressional District could be the first election of the new Republican Revolution, but we need the momentum to get it started.”

The NRCC said this:

But Gingrich, who served as Speaker of the House from 1995 to 1999, wants to unite the party. He sees Scozzafava and the Upstate special election – the only House race in the nation this fall -- as the best hope for Republicans to start a comeback and regain control of Congress.

Gingrich is apparently willing to overlook Scozzafava’s support for same-sex marriage and abortion rights.

The teabaggers, Palin, Limbaugh and Beck were all putting their energy behind a man who wasn't even from the district, Doug Hoffman, and in the end it cost the GOP a seat in a district that hasn't elected a Democratic politician to represent them in over 100 years.

Right before the election, right-wing bloggers attacked Newt for supporting Dede and said they would never support him for President because of it. After Hoffman lost, Rush Limbaugh blamed Newt and the GOP party machine for Hoffman's loss.

What would Newt Gingrich do? Would he stand up for his endorsement and tell the teabagger brigade that to win national elections, the party needs moderates to be included? After all, he's the Big Kahuna. Guess again. In his election night wrapup that he tweeted the day after the election, he repeated Rudy Giuliani's line that Scozzafavva was too liberal to have been the Republican nominee, which is a blatant lie.

In retrospect it is clear Dede Scozzafava should never have been nominated because she was far too liberal to be acceptable.

Republican leaders in New York must recognize that Mike Long and the Conservative Party in that state have to be consulted before decisions are made. The national conservative movement is a force that has to be recognized and respected.

I certainly heard from enough friends to know that my decision to support the unanimous vote of the 11 New York county chairs was very unpopular with conservative activists.

In New York, after two failed special elections, it is clear the state party has to fight to change the election law so there are primaries in special elections. The insider nominating process is simply unacceptable to grassroots populists and guarantees a sense of illegitimacy.

Then, on Sean Hannity's Fox News show last night, he explained in detail why he regretted having supported Scozzafava. It was pretty abject.

Gingrich: I think the nomination was a mistake. I wish that we had gotten involved earlier. And if we had, I would have done everything I could to make sure she had not been picked. And she clearly proved in the last few days that she was in no way a loyal Republican.

Gingrich isn't one to make a snap judgment without knowing the facts, and he knew Dede was moderate on social issues, but to say she's not conservative enough is ridiculous.

If Republicans try to laugh off the notion that Limbaugh is running their party, all the media have to do is look at Newt. He caved to Limbaugh big time.

Newt was the darling of the right just a few moments ago, it seemed, but now he's in a battle with the lunatic fringe of his own party.

Rush Limbaugh zeroed in on Newtie today and took out his rage against Gingrich and the "party bosses" because he supported a moderate conservative over the Palin-Beck-Limbaugh teabagger nominee named Doug Hoffman and Hoffman lost. Sarah Palin has as much egg on her face as the rest of them do. When a district like NY-23 comes up for election, a Republican always wins. Their purity test helped lose them a guaranteed seat. Pretty awesome.

LIMBAUGH: Here is -- these are my thoughts on New York-23. In the first place, I'll have to double check this, but I'm reasonably sure that this was the highest percentage of the vote ever won on the Conservative Party line by a House or Senate candidate. I think Hoffman had a higher percentage of the vote than even James Buckley, who won his U.S. Senate race on the -- against or against this Gooddell guy, Charles Gooddell, in the '70s. So, that's one thing.

But, the right message; we cannot forget how this whole thing happened in the first place. There was not a primary. The right message here would indict the way party bosses, Republican Party bosses and these big thinkers like Newt screwed the whole thing up from the get go.

For me, Rush Limbaugh being "interviewed" for 30 minutes on Fox News was arguably the greatest advance in jaybird-naked cross-promotion since Mork showed up on Happy Days.

Open Thread below...

UPDATE (John Amato): Yankees win the World Series! Matsui is the MVP. Mariano Rivera is the greatest reliever of all time.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1648)

PLAYS: (2866)

While Rush Limbaugh's constant race-baiting rhetoric recently was the focus of a national discussion -- thanks to his attempt to become an NFL team owner -- less has been said about the race-baiting of his would-be successor as the Big Man of the Conservative Movement: Glenn Beck.

Beck's race-baiting is admittedly more subtle. There are moments when it's glaring, as it was when he called President Obama a "racist" who "hates white people and white culture". But if you watch his show a lot, you know that there's racial undertone to much of what he does.

It comes prepackaged with built-in plausible deniability, of course. It's just a coincidence, we're sure, that so many of the targets of Beck's smear jobs -- Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett, Mark Lloyd -- happen to be African American. It's just a coincidence that those videos of ACORN, one of Beck's biggest targets, primarily are of African Americans. It's just happenstance that Beck finds scary black people under every rock -- even when they're just dance troupes.

Well, yesterday on his Fox News show, Beck's race-baiting went from "subtle" to "outright".

He ended one of his long rants about the evil effects of progressivism by featuring an audio snippet of a black woman being interviewed by a Detroit radio station:
UPDATE: C&L broke this "Obama money" audio on Oct. 10th. It was an out of context piece of audio that Limbaugh used for his own race baiting segment.

.Host: Why are you here?

Woman: To get some money.

Host: What kind of money?

Woman: Obama money.

Host: Where's it coming from?

Woman: Obama.

Host: And where did Obama get it?

Woman: I don't know. His stash? I don't know. I don't know where he got it from, but he's giving it to us to help us. We love him. That's why we voted for him. Obama! Obama!

Which inspired Beck to say this:

Beck: All right. These are the people who have been abused by the system. They've been taught they needed the government. They've been taught to be slaves, and their master is Washington! Both parties!

This goes beyond mere coded words and "coincidental" targeting -- this is just naked ol' racial stereotyping of the lowest kind.

It came, incidentally, at the end of an equally incendiary attack on the SEIU's Andy Stern -- the day before, Beck told his audience that Stern was "really running our country" -- which he wrapped up with a truly vicious attack on both the Obama White House and on progressives in general:

Beck: I told you yesterday, buckle up your seatbelt, America. Find the exit -- there's one here, here, and here. Find the exit closest to you and prepare for a crash landing. Because this plane is coming down, because the pilot is intentionally steering it into the trees!

Most likely, it'll happen sometime after Christmas. You're gonna see this economy come up -- we're already seeing it, and now it's gonna start coming back down again. And when you see the effects of what they're doing to the economy, remember these words: We will survive. No -- we'll do better than survive, we will thrive. As long as these people are not in control. They are taking you to a place to be slaughtered!

The fearmongering doesn't get much more naked than that. Combined with the race-baiting, that's quite a show Fox News has there.

I'm looking forward to revisiting this prediction, oh, about next summer. Of course, at the rate Glenn Beck is going, he will have been carted off in a straitjacket by then. Or will have formed his own televised Klan Klavern.

The Glenn Beck candidate wouldn't denounce Rush Limbaugh using a bestiality quote against Dede Scozzafava. That's not surprising for a phony teabagger like Hoffman.

Frank Rich had a great article about the NY-23 race on Sunday:

And Scozzafava is a mainstream conservative by New York standards; one statistical measure found her voting record slightly to the right of her fellow Republicans in the Assembly. But she has occasionally strayed from orthodoxy on social issues (abortion, same-sex marriage) and endorsed the Obama stimulus package. To the right’s Jacobins, that’s cause to send her to the guillotine.

Sure enough, bloggers trashed her as a radical leftist and ditched her for a third-party candidate they deem a “true” conservative, an accountant and businessman named Doug Hoffman. When Gingrich dared endorse Scozzafava anyway — as did other party potentates like John Boehner and Michael Steele — he too was slimed. Mocking Newt’s presumed 2012 presidential ambitions, Michelle Malkin imagined him appointing Al Sharpton as secretary of education and Al Gore as “global warming czar.” She’s quite the wit.

The wrecking crew of Kristol, Fred Thompson, Dick Armey, Michele Bachmann, The Wall Street Journal editorial page and the government-bashing Club for Growth all joined the Hoffman putsch. Then came the big enchilada: a Hoffman endorsement from Palin on her Facebook page. Such is Palin’s clout that Steve Forbes, Rick Santorum and Tim Pawlenty, the Minnesota governor (and presidential aspirant), promptly fell over one another in their Pavlovian rush to second her motion. They were joined by far-flung Republican congressmen from Kansas, Georgia, Oklahoma and California, not to mention a gaggle of state legislators from Colorado. On Fox News, Beck took up the charge, insinuating that Hoffman’s Republican opponent might be a fan of Karl Marx. Some $3 million has now been dumped into this race by outside groups.

Who exactly is the third-party maverick arousing such ardor? Hoffman doesn’t even live in the district. When he appeared before the editorial board of The Watertown Daily Times 10 days ago, he “showed no grasp” of local issues, as the subsequent editorial put it. Hoffman complained that he should have received the questions in advance — blissfully unaware that they had been asked by the paper in an editorial on the morning of his visit.

Last week it turned out that Hoffman’s prime attribute to the radical right — as a take-no-prisoners fiscal conservative — was bogus. In fact he’s on the finance committee of a hospital that happily helped itself to a $479,000 federal earmark. Then again, without the federal government largess that the tea party crowd so deplores, New York’s 23rd would be a Siberia of joblessness. The biggest local employer is the pork-dependent military base, Fort Drum.

The media is trying to frame today's election as some sort of referendum on President Obama, but NY-23 has voted Republican for decades and decades, so the real battle is between Republicans. If Owens wins, then I'd say conservatives have a real big problem. There will be a circular firing squad among Club for Growth, Limbaugh, Palin, Steele and Gingrich. Newt endorsed the moderate Republican after all, which is not the Fox flavor at the moment.

Last week, Gingrich became one of a small handful of conservatives who endorsed Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava (R) in her bid to fill Army Secretary John McHugh's now-vacant House seat. As a result, conservative bloggers said Gingrich had eliminated himself from contention for the GOP's presidential nomination in 2012.

And the wingnut bloggers attacked Gingrich over it too.

Right-wing bloggers have recently attacked Newt Gingrich for endorsing Republican Dede Scozzafava over Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in the special election to fill Army Secretary John McHugh's (R-NY) vacated congressional seat. On her blog, Michelle Malkin said "no thanks" to the possibility of a Gingrich 2012 presidential run, noting that he is the "most prominent GOP endorser of [the] radical leftist NY-23 congressional candidate," while at RedState.com, Erick Erickson reportedly wrote -- before removing the post -- that Gingrich "stands athwart history and pees on the legacy of 1994."

Hoffman doesn't even live or know anything about the district he's running in, but for teabaggers, that doesn't matter. Knowledge is a liability for the teabagger movement.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1643)

PLAYS: (1800)

Chris Wallace had a chance to prove to America that he actually has journalistic integrity and is not part of the Fox Sphere of phony reporting when he interviewed Rush Limbaugh on Fox News Sunday. What we got was FOX News #1, fair and balanced reporter acting like a bowl of jelly for Limbaugh's rants. During his post mortem of FNS, he topped his uninformative and ridiculous interview of Limbaugh thus way:

I just want to give you my reaction. First of all I had never met him. Very nice, very sweet and I've have to say vulnerable guy and if you watch the interview you'll see because he talks very candidly about drug rehab...

Wow, is Wallace this dimwitted? Rush is doing a major interview with FNS and he's shocked, shocked I tell you that he's such a sweet guy. Did Wallace want to date him or interview him? I couldn't tell, could you?

Chris Wallace has been a very vocal critic of the Obama administration and has even gone so far as to say that the White House is a big bunch of crybabies. Did you ever hear him ever say anything like that before of another administration?

When Anita Dunn called Fox News an arm of the Republican Party on CNN, that didn't make Wallace happy either.

On Bill O'Reilly's program he said that his show is a truly fair and balanced program:

WALLACE: ...That’s exactly my position: I think Fox News Sunday is a truly fair and balanced show.

O’REILLY: You’re not an ideological show at all.

WALLACE: No. And it’s like they refuse to take “yes” for an answer. There’s a kind of childishness or pettiness about them…

Really? Then where was Wallace's "balance" with Rush? If you're operating as a real interviewer, then Wallace would have had a handful of tough questions that would ask him some other than his opinions. Rush Limbaugh rarely goes on TV except for Fox, and would never do a political talk show where an anchor could actually have a week to prepare at least some moderately difficult questions for him.

So when Rush decided to go on Wallace's show, it was a chance for him to ask questions that would typically be skeptical of his positions. Instead, Wallace acted like a fashion reporter talking about a new line of footwear and stood there listening to typical Limbaugh rants without no fact checking or follow questions.

He could have at least made some sort of effort. After Limbaugh made the outrageous statement that President Obama didn't care about Afghanistan, the best Wallace could do was grin and say, you don't really believe that?

And when his question came up about Limbaugh being rejected by the NFL, couldn't Wallace have at least read some of Limbaugh's comments back to him and make him defend his racist comments about African Americans? All he did was give Rush a platform to whine about a "conspiracy" against him.

The news media that so quickly supported Fox News against the White House should now turn their sights on Chris Wallace and ask themselves if he isn't playing his part perfectly for Roger Ailes.

This interview was an embarrassment and Wallace should be held accountable by his media peers. If Jake Tapper of ABC or any other media entity wants to defend Fox, then they need to hold those who make a mockery out of the profession accountable.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1050)

PLAYS: (1712)

The nation's most "fair and balanced" network gave up over 20 minutes of its premiere Sunday "news" show to nation's loudest conservative voice. With little resistance, Fox News' Chris Wallace allowed Rush Limbaugh to continually attack President Barack Obama. Limbaugh called Obama "the man-child president," accused him of visiting the families of fallen troops for a photo op and said the president doesn't care about the war in Afghanistan.

"You suggest that he is taking all of this time to decide what to do in Afghanistan to keep his left wing base on board for health care reform," suggested Wallace.

"Well, it's partly that, but I also don't think he cares much about it," replied Limbaugh. "See, this is -- I know this is going to sound controversial, but i don't think he cares."

Limbaugh went on to call health care reform an "attack on liberty" and an "attack on freedom."

"We've never seen this kind of radical leader at such a high level of power in this county," said Limbaugh.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1125)

PLAYS: (2441)

Rush Limbaugh isn't endorsing Sarah Palin for president in 2012 but he says she's ready for the job now.

"One thing I do not do is follow conventional wisdom, and the conventional wisdom of Sarah Palin is "She's not smart enough. She needs to bone up on the issues. She's a little unsophisticated. Alaska, Where's that?, [She] doesn't have the pedigree,'" Limbaugh told Fox News' Chris Wallace. "She's the only thing that provided a spark for the Republican Party. This is not an endorsement, but i do have profound respect for Sarah Palin. There are not very many politicians who have been through what she's been put through and still able to smile and be ebullient and upbeat. This woman, I think, is tough," he said.

Droopy Dog -- The Chump Champ

I used to love these Saturday cartoons, but I gotta admit, Droopy Dog is forever ruined for me because of that traitor Joe Lieberman. And guess what, boys and girls? The most craven politico of them all, Joe "Screw my constituency, it's all about me" Lieberman will be on Face the Nation this week, disgustingly unrepentant about his complete 180 on health care reform. But perhaps in response, the White House is sending out a bunch of spokespeople to make sure that that needy, attention-whore sell-out isn't the only one setting the dialog, with Valerie Jarrett on This Week, David Axelrod on Face the Nation and David Plouffe on Meet the Press. But the ultimate cartoon, the completely shameless fact-free zone has to be awarded to Fox News Sunday, because their sole guest this week is none other than Rush Limbaugh. Excuse me while I lose my breakfast.

ABC's "This Week" - White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett.

CBS' "Face the Nation" - White House senior adviser David Axelrod; Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn.

NBC's "Meet the Press" - Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner; David Plouffe, former Obama presidential campaign manager; author Jon Krakauer.

NBC's "The Chris Matthews Show" - Panel: Katty Kay, Howard Fineman, Mark Whitaker, Mary Jordan. Topics: Afghanistan and Health Care and How They Will Determine Obama's Legacy. One Year Later: Why Isn't Obama's White House as Brilliant as His Campaign? Meter Questions: Will Afghanistan define President Obama's legacy more than health care? YES: 6 NO: 6; Is the Far Right more likely than the White House to have its hardball tactics backfire? YES: 7 No: 5.

CNN's "State of the Union" - House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio; Gov. Haley Barbour, R-Miss.

CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" - Matthew Hoh, the first U.S. official known to resign in protest over the Afghan war, gives Fareed one of his first interviews since resigning. Plus, we have a superb discussion on the economy with two great minds -- Martin Wolf of the Financial Times and Robert Schiller, the economist who accurately predicted the financial crisis and the stock market collapse of 2000.

CNN's "Amanpour" - Zalmay Khalilzad, former US Ambassador to Iraq, Afghanistan & UN; Tom Ricks, author of Fiasco, and Tahera Shairzay of Women for Afghan Women.

"Fox News Sunday" - Rush Limbaugh, conservative radio talk show host.

What's catching your eye this morning?

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1832)

PLAYS: (2450)

The male equivalent of Michele Bachmann rose up in righteous defense of the leader of Republican party, Rush Limbaugh, at his unfair treatment by the NFL in not allowing him join a group that is intent on buying the St. Louis Rams of the NFL.

And no, Steve King did not use the exact words in the title above but he might just as well have.

REP. STEVE KING (R-IOWA): However, as I listened to the members of this committee discuss this and we've covered a lot of the territory, I note that Sheila Jackson Lee said that she is concerned that owners need the right image, and her opposition to who might be buying the St. Louis Rams, her reason for that is owners that might not have the right image. Now, she wasn't any more specific than that, but we know who she's talking about, and that's Rush Limbaugh. But I would ask Commissioner Goodell this question. Your position on owners have the right image, and I would direct it to your statement on the 13th of October where you said, 'I think it's divisive comments, or they are not what the NFL is all about. I would not want to see those kinds of comments from people who are in responsible positions within the NFL, no, absolutely not.' Now, I take you as a man of your word. But I would point out that you have a couple of owners that have performed lyrics in songs that are far more offensive. In fact, I don't think anything that Rush Limbaugh said was offensive, but with Fergie and with J. Lo, they have, between the two of them, alleged that the CIA are terrorists and liars, they've promoted sexual abuse of women, they've used the N-word, verbal pornography, recreational drug use, et cetera, and they are owners of the Dolphins,

And it is also ironic that Fergie was approved as an owner on the very day that you made your statement against Rush Limbaugh. And I would point out for the committee, the statement that Rush Limbaugh made is this -- that seems to be the one that survives the criticism, and that is: "I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They're interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. McNabb got a lot of credit for the performance of the team that he really didn't deserve," close quote.

Now, I've scoured this quote to try to find something that can be implied as racism on the part of Rush Limbaugh, and I can't find it. There is an implication of racism on the part of the media. That's the only quote that seems to survive the scrutiny of chase-checking back original sources in at least nine quotes that were alleged to Rush Limbaugh. And, by the way, of those, eight are complete fabrications. They're not based on anything. They're not a misquote. They're not a distortion. They're complete fabrication. And the one that remains stands true and shines the light against the media, not against Rush Limbaugh. And so if you're concerned about this, Mr. Goodell, then I'd ask you, you know, are you prepared to level the same charges against Fergie and J. Lo, or are you prepared to apologize to Rush Limbaugh today?"

Rush Limbaugh, on his radio show yesterday, via Media Matters:

You -- In 2008, in our presidential election, we had a, a, a war veteran, Vietnam War veteran, John McCain, against an elitist, five-minute career senator of a hundred and fifty days. That senator was running as a Democrat, and had actively sought the defeat of the U.S. military in Iraq -- had actively sought to undermine General Petraeus, who was the author of the surge that led to a turnaround in Iraq and a victory. And now that same man is dithering in Afghanistan while American soldiers -- not Bush soldiers, not Obama soldiers, American soldiers -- are dying. At record numbers.

The threat that people in this country who want to be free face is now within our own borders. That's the stark reality. We'll be back.

Obama and the liberals are, in the land of the Limbaughst, the True Enemies of America.

If only Limbaugh really were "just an entertainer." Then we could dismiss him as a clown. But "entertainers" don't have audiences of "dittohead" acolytes who absorb their every word as gospel truth. "Entertainers" don't make condemnations of half the country as being the "enemy within" and actually stand -- and actually stand a chance of the other half nodding its head in agreement.

This, of course, is how you whip up violence: You scapegoat, you demonize, you dehumanize, and most of all, you paint a target on people's backs and say they're they Enemy. And you can't help but suspect Limbaugh is perfectly aware of this.

I devote a fair amount of space in The Eliminationists to Limbaugh. For a lot of reasons. Obviously, he's been doing this for awhile. But he's also stepping it up quite bit.

PROMOTIONAL NOTE: I'll be speaking tonight in Mount Vernon, Wash., at the Lincoln Theater at 7 pm. I'll be discussing my book as well as the recent visit to the city by Glenn Beck.