(h/t nr for the graphic)

OK, let's have some fun. There's a new Harris poll that was just released and the results are pretty hysterical. It's not scientific, but based on who decided to take it online during the height of the health care debate, so take it for what it is:

On the heels of health care, a new Harris poll reveals Republican attitudes about Obama: Two-thirds think he's a socialist, 57 percent a Muslim—and 24 percent say "he may be the Antichrist."

To anyone who thinks the end of the health-care vote means a return to civility, wake up.

Obama Derangement Syndrome—pathological hatred of the president posing as patriotism—has infected the Republican Party. Here's new data to prove it:

67 percent of Republicans (and 40 percent of Americans overall) believe that Obama is a socialist. The belief that Obama is a “domestic enemy” is widely held—a sign of trouble yet to come.

57 percent of Republicans (32 percent overall) believe that Obama is a Muslim 45 percent of Republicans (25 percent overall) agree with the Birthers in their belief that Obama was "not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president" 38 percent of Republicans (20 percent overall) say that Obama is "doing many of the things that Hitler did" Scariest of all, 24 percent of Republicans (14 percent overall) say that Obama "may be the Antichrist." These numbers all come from a brand-new Harris poll, inspired in part by my new book Wingnuts. It demonstrates the cost of the campaign of fear and hate that has been pumped up in the service of hyper-partisanship over the past 15 months. We are playing with dynamite by demonizing our president and dividing the United States in the process. What might be good for ratings is bad for the country.

• Michelle Goldberg: What the Polls Really Show The poll, which surveyed 2,230 people right at the height of the health-care reform debate, also clearly shows that education is a barrier to extremism. Respondents without a college education are vastly more likely to believe such claims, while Americans with college degrees or better are less easily duped. It's a reminder of what the 19th-century educator Horace Mann once too-loftily said: "Ignorance breeds monsters to fill up the vacancies of the soul that are unoccupied by the verities of knowledge."

The poll was based on John Avlon's new book: Wingnuts. If nothing else it speaks to the people that are clicking through and then taking the poll. Clearly there is a derangement syndrome going on in America today. We know this by the behavior we see everyday and the actions...oh...like...cutting someone's gas line. Things like that.

Raw Story: 135,000 uninsured Americans will die before health reform takes effect, analysis finds. Some useless Dems will declare ‘victory’ but Dean says “kill it.”

Consortiumblog:: How banks fleece the unemployed

The Agonist: Hoyer: Bring back Glass-Steagall

Balloon Juice: Somebody hose off Vitter

Climate Progress: Gore derangement syndrome

James Wolcott is deadly...

I realize that there has to be a little more latitude given to op-eds than to straight news reporting, but it seems to me that there has to be a certain level of fact-checking for even editorials for the sake of the credibility of the paper. But then again, maybe WaPo is so deep into their Obama Derangement that they no longer are able to care about credibility.

People can, and undoubtedly will, argue for some time about whether President Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. Meanwhile, though, there's a simpler and more immediate question: Does the Constitution allow him to accept the award?

Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, the emolument clause, clearly stipulates: "And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State."

The award of the peace prize to a sitting president is not unprecedented. But Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson received the honor for their past actions: Roosevelt's efforts to end the Russo-Japanese War, and Wilson's work in establishing the League of Nations. Obama's award is different. It is intended to affect future action. As a member of the Nobel Committee explained, the prize should encourage Obama to meet his goal of nuclear disarmament. It raises important legal questions for the second time in less than 10 months -- questions not discussed, much less adequately addressed anywhere else.

Like how the authors gloss over that two other sitting Presidents have received the Nobel Peace Prize, pretty much obliterating their theory on the constitutionality of awarding such a prize? Boneheads, they blow their own argument out of the water. Their choice of laureate: Iranian election martyr Neda Agha-Soltan, which of course, violates the Oslo committee's rules on bestowing the award to a living person. But hey, if you're going to employ poor syllogism to explain why Obama doesn't deserve it, why worry about things like rules?

Adam Blickstein points out a problem with their thinking:

One problem: the hero of the first Gulf War, Gen. Normon Schwarzkopf, received an honorary Knighthood from Queen Elizabeth (which technically makes him a "Knight of the British Empire") in May of 1991 while still on active duty. According to Rotunda and Pham's argument, this violated all kinds of constitutional constraints, Emolument Clause notwithstanding. He retired at the end of August 1991, meaning the General was clearly a foreign agent for the British Empire for approximately 3 months, because how can you be a Knight and an American General at the same time? Where would his loyalty really be? Under this Op-Ed's logic, Schwarzkopf's retirement South should have sent him to the Naval Brig at Charleston, not the golf courses of Florida.

Another government luminary who should have fallen victim to the Emolument Clause as the authors of the Op-Ed envision it? Alan Greenspan, who received his Honorary British Knighthood in 2002 while still serving as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. How could President George Bush sit there idly as the Chairman overseeing America's treasury was more a servant of Britain's Queen Elizabeth than the Commander-in-Chief of the United States? I'm shocked that the entirety of America's money supply didn't end up alongside the Crown Jewels at the Tower of London. But apparently, there was concern in Conservative circles over the legality of Greenspan's ascension in the British Empire. According to Newsmax, the Federal Reserve's General Counsel cleared Greenspan under the Emolument Clause[..].

Even Conservatives acquiesced that a Knighthood was not in violation of the Emolument Clause. I assume the same logic applies to a Nobel Prize.

Is it possible for Conservatives to offer even one well-reasoned argument? Or is it too difficult because, as Colbert says, facts have a liberal bias? Shame on WaPo's editorial board for being so eager to feed their Obama haters. (h/t Ambinder)

Michael from The Reaction here. So much good stuff, let's get right to it:

Mustang Bobby at BBWW: Don't ignore the Malkins and Coulters of the world, make fun of them. (And, I would add, call them out on their bigotry and stupidity.)

Pam with the steamin' House Blend: Oh no! Sexual addition among female fundies! Internet porn! Masturbation! Good times.

Maha of Mahablog: Dalai Lama Derangement Syndrome.

Libby Spencer at The Impolitic (who also blogs at my place and at the very fine Newshoggers): Bush's new "Family Planning czar," yet another anti-sex wingnut. See also Thought Theater.

The Gun Toting Liberal: American Oligarchy -- Verizon, AT&T, and the corporatist police state.

Eric at Total Information Awareness: The insurgency in Somalia, and the brutality of America's allies in the region. (Yes, Bush is destroying America's image everywhere.)

Finally, L-girl at We Move to Canada reacts positively to the Doris Lessing Nobel win.

I'm sorry I can't link to everyone, but keep the e-mails coming: mjwstickings [at] yahoo [dot] ca