Thank you to Andrew from the Dish for this:  This would be amazingly appalling, if it weren’t from the maniacally duplicitous conscious of the conservative movement.  It tells you everything you need to know about the man Limbaugh is.

Read what Limbaugh says during a recent show before a commercial break about the unemployed:

The unemployed are being treated as virtuous.  They are being treated to further payments while not working, now up to three years.  You’re seeing more and more Democrats come out and actually wage war on the rich; wage war on working people; wage war on creative people; wage war on the people that provide jobs; wage war on the productive people of this country.  You see it now.  It’s been a little bit more abstract, but now these guys lost the election, and the mask is off and you are seeing the genuine Marxists that they are, you’re seeing it, and you’re seeing the venom that’s attached to ‘em.  I mean they look at what happened to Charlie Rangel as fair.  You know, there’s an all-out war against productive self-reliant people in this country by the Democrat Party.  That’s what you notice.

Now read what he says just after the break:

Ladies and gentlemen, if we were on the ball and if the Republicans were on the ball, the question being asked would be: Why are the Democrats trying to take away unemployment extensions here at Christmas?  That’s how this ought to be framed.  If we were on offense, that would be the question: Why are the Democrats trying to take away unemployment benefits here at Christmastime?  That would put them on defense.  That’s the question we should be asking.

(Emphasis is mine) What?  Only the depraved vapid individual that is Limbaugh, could have concocted such contrived doublespeak.  Bravo to the De Facto head of the conservative movement.  If I were a conservative, I’d want my money back.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Image via Wikipedia

Why are we having this debate about expiring tax cuts?  If conservatives initially wanted to keep taxes low, why would they proffer legislation–when they held the majority in congress and held the presidency–that was set to expire?  Would it not be in their best interests to permanently keep tax rates low, rather than take a political risk of butting heads with democrats about their expiration?

Did they plant a political tax time bomb, set to explode and back fire on democrats?  Bush economic policies have proved to be disastrous, resulting in the most devastating economic depression since the 1930′s.  Is it coincidence we’re having this tax fight in the midst of a recession?  Was this outcome predestined, determined by an economic council of Bush underlings, to divide and demoralize democrats and split the country?

A few things to ponder here:  I cannot believe the Bush economic team had the brain power– let alone the calculated foresight for such an endeavor.  Second, who could have predicted the ascension of Barack Obama to the presidency?  Did conservatives envision a democrat in the white house after Bush–and before authoring the tax laws in 2003?  Highly doubtful.

But what if they did spring the trap?  What if the conservative game plan began to change in the early 2000′s, where the name of the game became brokerism and not governance?  Perhaps they realized it was far better to splinter, than to lead with actual policy and programs.  Think about conservative platforms and policy now.  How much is about actual governance, and how much is about obstructionism, deflection, and ideological purity? Media Matters notes:

When the tax cuts were enacted, with an expiration date, Republicans and Bush officials understood the political advantages of the “fiscal time bomb” they were setting. As Kurtz puts it: “At some point in the way distant future, Democrats could be accused of raising taxes if they tried to undo the Bush breaks and return to Clinton-era levels of taxation.” Democrats understood this, too: Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) told the Washington Post at the time that “[Bush is] going to be out of office when the roof falls in.”

Maybe Bush was more clever than we all imagined.  His failed tax policies looks likely to be extended, and conservatives– in all likelihood– will have scored a major policy victory.  Democrats will be seen as wanting to raise taxes, and conservatives will be credited with preventing that scenario.

Another classic example of the republican tail wagging the  democratic dog.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Take a look at this list– compiled by conservative blogger John Hawkins– of the 25 worst figures in American history:

Conservatives have the right to say dumb things; It's the American way.

• 23) Saul Alinsky
• 23) Bill Clinton
• 23) Hillary Clinton
• 19) Michael Moore
• 19) George Soros (8)
• 19) Alger Hiss (8)
• 19) Al Sharpton (8)
• 13) Al Gore (9)
• 13) Noam Chomsky (9)
• 13) Richard Nixon (9)
• 13) Jane Fonda (9)
• 13) Harry Reid (9)
• 13) Nancy Pelosi (9)
• 11) John Wilkes Booth (10)
• 11) Margaret Sanger (10)
• 9) Aldrich Ames (11)
• 9) Timothy McVeigh (11)
• 7) Ted Kennedy (14)
• 7) Lyndon Johnson (14)
• 5) Benedict Arnold (17)
• 5) Woodrow Wilson (17)
• 4) The Rosenbergs (19)
• 3) Franklin Delano Roosevelt (21)
• 2) Barack Obama (23)
• 1) Jimmy Carter (25)

What type of psychosis is today’s conservative party suffering from? Putting FDR on this list with the Rosenbergs is an absolute disgrace–and utterly devoid of any grasp of American political realities.  Today’s conservatives seem to suffer from paralysis by unsubstantiated analysis– an amazing lack of understanding of how American events shaped the leaders who guided us through them.

FDR–no matter how you felt about his policies–steered us through one of the darkest chapters in American history.  Indisputable.  The Rosenbergs were spies.  Comparison fail.  Letting your hatred of anything left of center clouds rational thought.

Bill Clinton and Tim McVeigh?  A president who presided over a prosperous era, and who signed welfare reform–a conservative pet project– and a vile mass murderer?  Why Barack Obama and no Jim Jones?  Jim Jones, the notorious cult leader and mass murderer didn’t make this list huh?  Wow.

I don’t have issues with conservatives making lists–even lists I might disagree with on substantive grounds.  But to mix political ideologies that you don’t like with some of the most deviant Americans, who committed some of the most heinous atrocities imaginable, borders on lunacy.   It doesn’t serve your aims particularly well, and it short-circuits your argument on cogent discourse.  In short, you look like a fucking moron who’s never read a book nor looked at anything through an objective lens.  Your opinion matters not.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

From Jon Cohn via Bob Cesca:

To be clear, sometimes ass-kicking is good. Call Kent Conrad a hypocrite on the deficit. Blast Joe Lieberman for carrying water on behalf of the insurance industry. Hold Obama accountable for the bureaucratic neglect that enabled the Gulf disaster. Liberals won’t get anywhere by meekly accepting every compromise that comes down the pike or looking the other way when Democrats screw up. Politics goes is a two-way street and liberals need their leaders to lead sometimes.But if the left is going to demand action, it has to do more than sigh when action–even modest action–actually happens. The left has to show some enthusiasm, if not locally then at least nationally. [...] Otherwise office-holders, even ones from relatively liberal districts, won’t have much incentive to vote liberal next time around.

Precisely.  Given the scope and enormity of the administration’s agenda–and the fact that most of it has been implemented in an 18 month span–you would think progressives would be enthusiastic about the possibilities in the next 30 months.  Progressives are doing themselves an injustice by showing very little enthusiasm for what this congress and this administration has done.  Is there any wonder why the conservative base enjoys a huge enthusiasm imbalance with their liberal counterparts?

Liberals have to awaken to the political realities surrounding this administration.  If President Obama seems to govern from the center- left– its because the realities of this bitter partisan environment call for it– and it is a necessity in order to achieve the policy successes every liberal was so ecstatic about during his campaign.  To rebel against that approach does nothing for progressive solidarity.  As Cesca points out, this type of disconnect just might cost liberals terribly this fall.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Credit: South Carolina Democratic Party

Tuesday’s biggest primary night of the year saw relatively few surprises.  Women–especially GOP women–stood tall, with the likes of Blanche Lincoln, Nikki Haley, Sharron Angle, Carly Fiorina, and Meg Whitman all prevailing in their primary challenges.  One of the most shocking developments taking place Tuesday happened in South Carolina (surprise).  The winner of the Democratic primary for the senate was a man named Alvin Greene.

In the year of voter angst and incumbent backlash, Alvin Greene–a 32 year old unemployed veteran– managed to do the impossible.  Mr Greene defied the party apparatus by never appearing at any Democratic function.  He did not campaign.  He has no college degree.  He has no name recognition, and no political support.  And to make matters worse, Mr. Greene has a felony obscenity charge.  Yet voters still saw fit to choose this man as Senator Jim Demint’s challenger in November.  How does this happen?

Putting everything you know about politics, and the political structure aside,  look at Mr. Greene through the eyes of the new disaffected American voter.  On its face, the curious case of Alvin Greene is Rocky Balboa–the American underdog who challenges conventional wisdom, and rises above obstacles to achieve success.  What could be more appealing to the Tea Party crowd, than an unemployed man turning the status quo on its head?  Greene did not accept a penny from lobbyists, and did not shill for companies desperate for a foothold in the political process.

Taking an even closer look at this race reveals a more astonishing fact:  According to the Center For Responsive Politics, the spending in congressional  elections will cost 4 billion dollars in the 2010 cycle.  That is an astronomical sum, almost unfathomable to the average civic-minded citizen.  Alvin Greene seemingly infiltrated the rich folks club, completely re-wiring the circuits of big-time elections.  So who is Alvin Greene?

If one were to think skeptically, given the previously mentioned obstacles in his way, you might surmise that Mr. Greene is a plant.  You may think he’s an empty vassal, propped up and supported by Republicans in an effort to severely hamper Democratic chances in the general election.  It’s an outrageous claim, but not out of the realm of possibility.  How did Greene afford the $10,400 filing fee to get on the ballot?  That’s a ton of money for your average working man, and he’s not even working!

But it’s almost too easy to paint this as Republican shenanigans.  It’s also too easy to trace the money of such a straw man conspiracy– and if nothing else– the Republican party is too smart to engage in such a scam in today’s political climate.

So who is Alvin Greene?  Maybe he’s the personification of voter outrage with the status quo.  Maybe this is the strongest indication yet of average American citizens disgusted by the taint of money, and the strain of gridlock in politics.  Meet  Alvin Greene, the face of voter disgust.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Voters in Alabama repudiated former Democratic- turned- Republican congressman Parker Griffith in the Republican primary held Tuesday– becoming the second party-switcher in as many weeks to go down hard in a primary battle.  Senator Arlen Specter lost in his bid to garner the Democratic nomination after changing his political affiliation from Republican to Democrat:

Griffith has conceded the race. With 99% of precincts reporting, Brooks has 51% of the vote — just above the 50% needed to win without a runoff — with Griffith at 33% and businessman Les Phillip with 16%. Griffith was elected to a Democratic-held open seat in 2008, winning a 51%-49% race in a district that John McCain carried 61%-38%. He switched parties in 2009, citing the health care bill and Democratic spending as major reasons for his decision, after having already voted against such big-ticket Democratic items as the stimulus, cap-and-trade and health care.

Ultimately, Griffith’s problem may have hinged on his trustworthiness.  The central problem with party switching–especially in the cases of Griffith and Specter–is the timing.  Was it a real, dyed in the wool change of philosophy?  Or was it political expedience at its worst?  Voters in Pennsylvania and Alabama banked on the latter, seemingly swayed by this ad run by primary winner Mo Brooks:

That pretty much sums it up.  If you’re going to go down Mr. Griffith,  be as authentic as possible.  Voters will always see through the transparency.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Here are the results of primary night in America:

• Rep. Joe Sestak wins the Senate Democratic primary in Pennsylvania against Republican-turned-Democrat incumbent Senator Arlen Specter.
• Democrats Sen. Blanche Lincoln (44%) & Lt. Gov. Bill Halter (43%) will go to primary runoff.
• Democrat Mark Critz wins race against Republican Tim Burns in a special election in Pennsylvania to fill the seat of the late Rep. John Murtha.
• Tea Party Candidate Rand Paul defeats Republican establishment opponent Secretary of State Trey Grayson (Mitch McConnell’s candidate) in Kentucky GOP Senate primary.

So, what do we know?  We know that activists may just have some clout to affect change in the fall, as tea party candidate Rand Paul charged to victory against Trey Grayson.  Similarly, Grayson–who was the darling favorite of minority leader Mitch McConnell and former vice president Dick Cheney–illustrates the relative fragility the republican establishment is under.

For democrats, Arlen Spector’s defeat may foreshadow the trouble some candidates may have touting the support of President Obama.  Not only did it not change the political compass of the electorate in Pennsylvania– it may have caused an unintentional backlash from those strongly rejecting some of his policies.  As a result, his more than 30 years of public service came to an end.

The most telling election last night was neither Spector’s loss or Paul’s victory–as both were practically forecast for weeks.  It was the special election in Pennsylvania for the late John Murtha’s congressional seat.  Republicans had hoped to use this seat as the barometer of the national mood–effectively dealing a blow to democrats in a district where Barack Obama’s approval rating is 35%.  This was the only contest last night that was head to head– democrat versus republican. 

The democrat prevailed comfortably, dealing a blow to republican hopes of a new republican revolution.  That wave of republican dominance narrative thrust down all of our throats for months, may not be as significant as first imagined.

Last night’s results are indicative of the anti-incumbent mania gripping the country.  No longer are incumbents safe hiding under their prodigious trappings of power.  Beware of the anti-establishment vote.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Think about this one folks. Ron Brownstein:

PUNDIT PREP — Ron Brownstein, in the new National Journal: “If the economy produces jobs over the next eight months at the same pace as it did over the past four months, the nation will have created more jobs in 2010 alone than it did over the entire eight years of George W. Bush’s presidency. … From February 2001, Bush’s first full month in office, through January 2009, his last, total U.S. nonfarm employment grew from 132.5 million to 133.5 million … That’s an increase, obviously, of just 1 million. From January through April of this year, the economy created 573,000 jobs. Over a full year, that projects to 1.72 million jobs. … Now the principal footnote: To compare job growth in 2010 with Bush’s record ignores the nearly 4 million jobs lost in Obama’s first year, during the freefall that began in Bush’s final months. That’s like ignoring a meteor strike. … Still, if the economy this year produces more than 1 million jobs — or, conceivably, more than 2 million — that will give Democrats more ammunition to argue that their agenda has started to turn the tide.”

I suppose if you’re a republican, it is not in your best interests to create jobs now.  That would mean the economy has turned, and the Obama administration’s policies are working.  That would also mean your thoughts of reclaiming congress are virtually nil.  Is it any wonder that obstructionism has become the clarion call for the GOP?

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The Tea Party movement’s influence and rabid energy is being felt throughout the corridors of the capitol in Washington, D.C. as well as the hot pavement and dusty plains of America.  The group, who believe in less government, is the driving force behind the republican party’s efforts to retake congress in this year’s midterm elections.  But what do we really know about the movement– besides it’s disdain for big government?

Tea Party members tend to be white males, over 40, and wealthier and more educated than the general populace.  This tends to fly in the face of those who’ve conjured images of Tea Partiers who live in rural communities, and have less education than other supporters of the republican party.  Here’s a quick snapshot from the New York Times of what Tea Party supporters generally feel:

Their responses are like the general public’s in many ways. Most describe the amount they paid in taxes this year as “fair.” Most send their children to public schools. A plurality do not think Sarah Palin is qualified to be president, and, despite their push for smaller government, they think that Social Security and Medicare are worth the cost to taxpayers. They actually are just as likely as Americans as a whole to have returned their census forms, despite some conservative leaders urging a boycott.

Tea Party supporters’ fierce animosity toward Washington, and the president in particular, is rooted in deep pessimism about the direction of the country and the conviction that the policies of the Obama administration are disproportionately directed at helping the poor rather than the middle class or the rich.

Let’s examine this more closely.  Anger toward Washington may have nothing to do with high taxes, high deficits, or even Washington incumbency.  The apparatus responsible  for the formulation and growth of the Tea Party is a contempt and ambivalence toward the poor.  Tea Party anger may not be aimed at health care reform directly, but for whom the actual reform is meant to help. Here’s more from the Times:

The overwhelming majority of supporters say Mr. Obama does not share the values most Americans live by and that he does not understand the problems of people like themselves. More than half say the policies of the administration favor the poor, and 25 percent think that the administration favors blacks over whites — compared with 11 percent of the general public.

If the majority of Tea Party supporters believe that President Obama does not share their values, and his policies are intended to help minorities, then what’s gestating beneath the surface isn’t just antipathy toward politics as usual.  In what manner is this White House’s policies benefiting black Americans, or minorities in general?  Black unemployment is nearly twice as high as the American average.  In fact, there is a strong cross-section of black leadership–including members of congress– who believe the exact opposite. 

They’ve called on the president to create a Black Agenda in order to properly address the needs of black Americans.  President Obama has rejected that notion, instead choosing to enact policies that benefit all Americans–particularly middle-class Americans.  So this perception on the part of Tea Partiers is at best skewed, and at worst bigoted.  So why would the Tea Party movement have this perception in the first place?

It stands to reason that they believe only the privileged few– those whose quantifiable worthiness is measured by their ability to project their “Americanness”– can reap the benefits of government benevolence.  The idea of a new Contract With America, reinforces the notion the some whites in the movement refuse to relinquish their grip on the structures of power.  This new Contract from America offers this basic tenet:

“The purpose of our government is to exercise only those limited powers that have been relinquished to it by the people, chief among these being the protection of our liberties by administering justice and ensuring our safety from threats arising inside or outside our country’s sovereign borders.”

In short; they believe in a limited government that restricts aid to minorities and the poor–those undeserving dregs of American society.  It is the re-creation of a brand of white nationalism, meant to reawaken the spirit of the Founding Fathers.  The Founding Fathers– who at one time displayed their antipathy toward blacks and native Americans– by railing against full citizenship status for them–and instituting political structures to prevent it from occurring.

Could this be a coincidence?  There have always been forms of white nationalism rooted into the framework of the American socio-political landscape.  Tea Party members have become the progenitors of a slice of radical, racially charged American ideology, determined to jettison those deemed unworthy of America’s promise.  Clearly a provocative statement, but given some of these quotes, is it really that far off?

“I just feel he’s getting away from what America is,” said Kathy Mayhugh, 67, a retired medical transcriber in Jacksonville. “He’s a socialist. And to tell you the truth, I think he’s a Muslim and trying to head us in that direction, I don’t care what he says. He’s been in office over a year and can’t find a church to go to. That doesn’t say much for him.”

Let me make three points here.  One:  Ms. Mayhugh is receiving medicare benefits– and as an American it is her right to do so– but she is participating in a program with many socialistic values.  She, like many conservatives, refuse to engage in debate about scaling back the program to limit its size and scope.  Here’s a quote from another Tea Partier about this very idea:

“That’s a conundrum, isn’t it?” asked Jodine White, 62, of Rocklin, Calif. “I don’t know what to say. Maybe I don’t want smaller government. I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security.” She added, “I didn’t look at it from the perspective of losing things I need. I think I’ve changed my mind.”

Of course she didn’t.  She only wants other, less deserving people to lose things they might need.  How is it be possible to reconcile your disdain for big government, while being complicit in its continued pattern of growth and waste?

Point two:  Sarah Palin– the GOP superstar who headlines most of these tea party rallies– is a vocal critic of the president and his socialist agenda.  Yet it was Palin who raised taxes on oil companies as governor of Alaska, then distributed the money to the state’s citizens.  I don’t have an issue with her raising taxes–especially for the purpose of righting a corrupt tax loophole– I do have an issue with the hypocritical stance she’s taken, and the her lack of acknowledging her own socialistic past. 

My point is simply this:  Elements of this society–from medicare, to social security, to pell grants for college, to unemployment benefits are socialist in nature.  There may be some who are critical of this point, but even they at some point will partake in one of this government programs.  And they will be drinking from the same socialist fountain.

Point three:  When I listen to the speakers, and the rhetoric, I hear words or terms such as patriot and American values.  The movement seems to be using code words to denote the underlying theme in a lot of their protest.  A good portion of these protesters don’t believe the president shares their values–and some believe he isn’t even a citizen of this country.  Just read Ms. Mayhugh’s quote.  She believes he’s a Muslim, even in the face of evidence to the contrary. 

His ascendance to Pennsylvania Avenue embodies every literal fear some white nationalists have about their nation.  A black man, as alien and unrelatable to them as possible, gains power and begins to distribute it to his black and brown minions–amassing an army of militant minority militiamen, primed for the ultimate insurgency– to reshape their America into some unholy image.  Take back our country indeed.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The consequences of failure.  Utter failure:

According to Peter Clarke, a Navy shipmate, Massa was notorious for making unwanted advances toward subordinates. He tells the story of his friend Stuart Borsch, with whom Massa shared a hotel room while on leave during the first Gulf War. “Stuart’s at the edge of the bed,” Clarke says Borsch told him at the time, “and [Massa] starts massaging him. Massa said, ‘You’ll have to get one of my special massages.’ He called them ‘Massa Massages.’” Ron Moss, a Navy shipmate and Borsch’s roommate, confirmed that Borsch told him this story at the time.From Josh Green:

Borsch, now a history professor at Assumption College in Worcester, Massachusetts, didn’t addresss that specific incident, but did confirm to me in an email that he was groped by Massa: “In 1990, aboard the U.S.S. Jouett, I was awakened when a senior officer, Lt. Commander Massa, seemed to be groping me. (I was a lieutenant at the time.) I believe he may have been drinking. I shouted at him and he left. I mentioned the incident to several other officers. I did not officially report it.”

Whatever his pathologies are, it’s a safe bet that Massa has totally fracked himself.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.