The debate rages on, and thanks to media spin and constant false equivalencies, at least one poll has 57% of its respondents rejecting any possibility of inflammatory speech having any influence over Jared Lee Loughner's actions on Saturday morning. Welcome to the confluence of media echoes and denial.

It was predictable, this la-la-la response. Kneejerk, even. No one wants to believe that words can influence, because that would require individuals to own their own words. God forbid.

This is true in every context but politics, it seems. I believe there are some things one doesn't say to their spouse unless they really mean it. Words like "I want a divorce", "I hate you", "I want to be with someone else" are not things one says unless they're prepared to follow through with the appropriate actions. This is because once that barrier is broken, it cannot be rebuilt. The foundations of that marriage are forever weakened and possibly broken. Matt Taibbi takes that one step further.

Which makes sense. If we're being honest with ourselves, we in the media understand that our job descriptions do not entirely overlap with the requirements of good citizenship. If you're in a marriage, or are a parent or living with parents, or have brothers or sisters or close friends, when you argue over a difficult issue, you don't just take out all the weaponry in your arsenal and blast away. In the interests of preserving the relationship, and because you respect and love the other person as a human being, you argue as politely and respectfully as possible. And your goal in arguing is always to fix the actual problem -- there's no other, ulterior motive.

That's just not the case in either journalism (and I should know-- more on that momentarily) or politics. In politics, you don't need to treat everyone with decency and humanity, just 51% of the crowd. Actually, given that half or less than half of all people don't vote, the percentage of people who require basic decency and indulgence is probably even lower than that, maybe 20-25% of the population. There's plenty of power and money to be won by skillfully stimulating public anger against some or all of the rest, and there are few rewards for restraint.

Continue reading »

I just don't get it. Conventional political wisdom is that you must move to the center during a general election season. I don't agree with that--in fact, I think that is exactly the wrong thing to do right now when the vast majority of the nation by and large does not approve of how things are being done in Washington (9% Approval rating? Think that has anything to do with your capitulations again and again, Pelosi and Reid?), but it's hard to pierce that Beltway bubble to let through anything but the politics-as-usual stylings. However, it's a far cry from playing to the center and grabbing yourself some right wing frames and running with them. That makes no sense to me...is Obama thinking that he'll be able to get the 'Donald Wildmon vote contingent' this way?

Obama's desire to win these voters may be why, in a recent interview with Relevant magazine, ("Covering God, Life, and Progressive Culture") Obama seemed to be moving rightward on the issue -- rhetorically, at least -- saying:

"I have repeatedly said that I think it's entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don't think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions."

The language Obama used in that response seemed to remove "mental distress" as an allowable exception justifying a post-22 week abortion. [..]

Obama continued: "I don't think that is how it has been interpreted. My only point is that in an area like partial-birth abortion having a mental, having a health exception can be defined rigorously. It can be defined through physical health, It can be defined by serious clinical mental-health diseases. It is not just a matter of feeling blue. I don't think that's how pro-choice folks have interpreted it. I don't think that's how the courts have interpreted it and I think that's important to emphasize and understand."

But if Obama is saying that "mental distress" is already not a legal exception for abortion bans, then what was the point of what he told Relevant? He maintains he wasn't discussing any view that runs contrary to current abortion law, so it would seem he was just discussing a personal view -- that a woman, 8 1/2 months pregnant, shouldn't be able to get an abortion just because she's feeling blue.

Okay, I hate to break it to you, but the concept of the woman "feeling blue" and deciding on a whim after 6-7 months of normal, healthy pregnancy that she wants to end it is as much a fantastical creature created by the right as the Welfare Queen living large on government aid. It's insulting to women and their ability to understand what's happening to them.

And this is where I get really angry. Anyone who has paid attention to the relative non-issue of late-term abortions--the stuff that the right wing lives to distract and horrify the electorate with--knows that this framing of women deciding after more than 6 months that she's just not interested in being pregnant was designed as a slippery slope platform to hurt women from getting abortions, at any time. Jesse at GroupNews has more...

God, I love being a San Franciscan... I can't think of a more appropriate dedication for this administration.

Some presidents get carved into Mt Rushmore; others have airports, motorways, and even entire cities named in their honour. But when George Bush leaves office, his most visible memorial may be a mouldering patch of human effluent.

In November, alongside casting their ballot for the next president, the people of San Francisco will also vote on a measure to rename one of the city's largest sewage works the George W Bush Sewage Plant, to provide a "fitting monument" to the outgoing commander-in-chief's achievements.

Activists from the Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco, a mischievously-named group behind the move, will ask supporters to participate in a "synchroni(z)ed flush".

It may sound like a student prank, but the proposal is almost certain to be passed. Democrats usually secure between 70 and 80 per cent of the vote in San Francisco - and in 2006 passed a proposition to impeach Mr Bush and his Vice-President Dick Cheney by a majority of almost two to one.

"In 50 years from now, we want people to see George Bush's name on that plant, and ask each other what went wrong," said Brian McConnell, the Memorial Commission's organi(z)er. "We want them to be reminded of the Iraq war, and his other dramatic mistakes, and this is the perfect way to do it."

At a recent appearance in San Francisco, Air America host Randi Rhodes went after Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton, calling them "whores" to a generally mixed reception by the audience.

"Hillary is a big f**king whore, too. You know why she's a big f**king whore? Because her deal is always, 'Read the fine print, a**hole!'"

Huffington Post:

Rhodes has been now been suspended from the network. Air America released the following statement:

Air America has suspended on-air host Randi Rhodes for making inappropriate statements about prominent figures, including Senator Hillary Clinton, at a recent public appearance on behalf of Air America in San Francisco which was sponsored by an Air America affiliate station.
"Air America encourages strong opinions about public affairs but does not condone such abusive, ad hominem language by our Hosts," said chair Charlie Kireker.

I'm a fan of Randi, but this is completely unacceptable. Unfortunately, this is the kind of thing that happens in the heat of a long, drawn out primary season.

I’ll admit it; I have a special fondness for news about Fox News’ declining ratings. There’s just something about the drop in numbers that helps restore my faith in the American political system.

Eric Boehlert has the latest, in a great piece on why the Republican network is poised to have a very rough year.

The point is that Fox News years ago made an obvious decision to appeal almost exclusively to Republican viewers. The good news then for Fox News was that it succeeded. The bad news now for Fox News is that it succeeded.

Meaning, when the GOP catches a cold, everybody at Fox News gets sick. As blogger Logan Murphy put it at Crooks and Liars, “Watching FOXNews getting their comeuppance has been fun to watch. They made their bed, now they’re having to lie in it and it’s not too comfortable.”

The most obvious signs of Fox News’ downturn have been the cable ratings for the big primary and caucus votes this year, as well as the high-profile debates. With this election season generating unprecedented voter and viewer interest, Fox News’ rating bumps to date have remained underwhelming, to say the least.

In 2004, on the night of the New Hampshire primary, for example, Fox News beat CNN by 200,000 viewers, despite the fact that there was no Republican contest at the time. Four years later, CNN beat Fox News by 250,000 viewers, despite very competitive contests in both parties. (On Saturday night, when results of the Dems’ South Carolina primary were dominating the news, Fox News came in third, behind both CNN and MSNBC.)

CNN President Jonathan Klein, following its New Hampshire ratings win, said, “There’s a freshness and exuberance to our coverage that the others just aren’t matching…. Fox almost seems downright despondent in their coverage.”

It couldn’t have happened to a more appropriate network.

The General at Second Life GOP headquarters (not making that up):

At first I said that I didn't think the Nine Inch Nails song, "I Want to F**k You Like an Animal" was appropriate for a Republican meeting.... I always like to begin my visits to SL GOP HQ, by stopping by the Reagan Monument and using the GOP's animated prayer balls (seriously, I am not making that up) to ask God to give my enemies a disease:

Read more... Open Thread below....

We got an email from The California Nurses Association:

The California Nurses Associaton are working with the family of Nataline Sarkisyan, a 17 year old from Northridge, California, who is lying in the intensive care unit at UCLA Medical Center hoping that CIGNA will approve the liver transplant she desperately needs.

You heard that right, folks. A seventeen-year-old needs a LIVER TRANSPLANT and the insurance company is making up their mind whether to pay for it. And certain presidential candidates think we should all be required to buy "affordable coverage" from these people. Bless their hearts.

At a minimum, can you go read and comment on nyceve's dkos diary on this situation to help build a tsunami of public anger and embarass Cigna into approving this medically-necessary treatment?

Cigna? I got yer embarrassment right here. Please recommend and comment at the Kos Diary and digg this story. And thanks.

UPDATE: (Nicole) FANTASTIC news! Apparently, Cigna's offices were flooded with phone calls and all the work that CNA/NNOC coordinated to support Nataline paid off as Cigna decided late this afternoon to reverse its previous denial.

...(I)t is deplorable and appalling that CIGNA needed to have hundreds of people pounding on their doors and besieging them with calls to take the humanitarian step they should have done long before today," said Geri Jenkins, RN, a member of the CNA/NNOC Council of Presidents, who spoke at the Glendale rally.

Nataline's mother, Hilda Sarkisyan, expressed her profound thanks to CNA/NNOC. "We couldn't have done this without you helping us to stand up against this insurance company and forcing them to finally do the right thing. It is not right in this country for it to take a rally, a protest, and a major press conference to get an insurance company to listen."

"Every politician who thinks the answer to our healthcare crisis is more insurance should stop and think about Nataline Sarkysian," said (CNA/NNOC Executive Director Rose Ann) DeMoro. "Insurance is not care. Paying for insurance coverage is not the same as assuring you will receive appropriate care, even when recommended by a physician as it was for Nataline. Insurance corporations profit by denying care to the sick, and that is no way to run a humane healthcare system."

UPDATE #2: A heartbreaking end to the story. Literally as Cigna was reversing their position, Nataline took a turn for the worst. Her family opted to remove her from life support and she passed away this evening. Our hearts and prayers go to her family.

Just to prove that irony is not dead. The site Digg has banned Brave New Films for "Inappropriate Content" for this video on Fox Porn.

(Not safe for work)

YouTube requires an age check to access this video...but all of it was aired on FOX News.

Apparently, after discussion with the Digg editors, Brave New Films was reinstated after promising not to post inappropriate content from FOX News again. (There's just too many jokes to make there) And in a circular bit of logic, a Digg posting by Brave New Films on the banning is now getting Diggs.

But here's where you have to tighten that tin foil just a bit: in a convenient bit of timing, Digg has recently entered into a partnership with FOX parent company News Corp to offer WSJ content. And News Corp has been wooing Digg for the last year to outright acquire the site. Coincidence?

("Leaked Military" waterboarding instructions, may be inappropriate for work)

To highlight just how depraved some conservatives have become, consider the latest piece from Deroy Murdock, a contributing editor to the National Review. While some on the right have defended waterboarding as a necessary evil in a ticking-time-bomb scenario, Murdock went much further, arguing, “Waterboarding is something of which every American should be proud.”

Though clearly uncomfortable, waterboarding loosens lips without causing permanent physical injuries (and unlikely even temporary ones). If terrorists suffer long-term nightmares about waterboarding, better that than more Americans crying themselves to sleep after their loved ones have been shredded by bombs or baked in skyscrapers.

In short, there is nothing “repugnant” about waterboarding.

Remember, this isn’t some random crazy person ranting on a street corner; this is a published column in one of the nation’s biggest conservative political magazines.

For what it’s worth, Media Matters did some fact-checking, and found that Murdock — surprise, surprise — doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

But stepping back and considering the big picture, one question emerges: what is wrong with these people?

For the last several decades, as nearly all political observers know, the two broad coalitions that make up the Republican Party are business interests (tax cuts, minimal regulation, free trade) and social/religious conservatives (anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-church-state separation, pro-gun). The two didn’t necessarily have much in common, but they were under the same GOP tent, and they tried not to step on each other’s toes.

A front-page WSJ piece explained that half of that coalition is dejected and looking elsewhere.

The Republican Party, known since the late 19th century as the party of business, is losing its lock on that title.

New evidence suggests a potentially historic shift in the Republican Party’s identity — what strategists call its “brand.” The votes of many disgruntled fiscal conservatives and other lapsed Republicans are now up for grabs, which could alter U.S. politics in the 2008 elections and beyond.

Some business leaders are drifting away from the party because of the war in Iraq, the growing federal debt and a conservative social agenda they don’t share. In manufacturing sectors such as the auto industry, some Republicans want direct government help with soaring health-care costs, which Republicans in Washington have been reluctant to provide. And some business people want more government action on global warming, arguing that a bolder plan is not only inevitable, but could spur new industries.

It couldn’t have happened to a more appropriate group of people.