... and that's a good thing for Republicans ... .

... because everything is a good thing for repuglicans.

Ending the ban on stem cell research:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Just like Hannibal Lecter, "there is no word for what Beck is."
sgw asks Why Does Glenn Beck Hate Nancy Reagan?

Contrast the Nancy Reagan's statement on President Obama overturning the ban on embryonic stem cell research funding with Glenn Becks'.

Nancy Reagan:

“I'm very grateful that President Obama has lifted the restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. These new rules will now make it possible for scientists to move forward. I urge researchers to make use of the opportunities that are available to them, and to do all they can to fulfill the promise that stem cell research offers. ... As I've said before, time is short, and life is precious.

Glenn Beck:

So here you have Barack Obama going in and spending the money on embryonic stem cell research, and then some, fundamentally changing – remember, those great progressive doctors are the ones who brought us Eugenics. It was the progressive movement and it science. Let’s put science truly in her place. If evolution is right, why don’t we just help out evolution? That was the idea. And sane people agreed with it!

And it was from America. Progressive movement in America. Eugenics. In case you don’t know what Eugenics led us to: the Final Solution. A master race! A perfect person. …. The stuff that we are facing is absolutely frightening. So I guess I have to put my name on yes, I hope Barack Obama fails. But I just want his policies to fail; I want America to wake up.

Just for the hell of it I will include some prominent Republican reactions also.
... ...

Benen says Obama is BLINDING US WITH SCIENCE....:

As expected, President Obama today reversed Bush-era restrictions on stem-cell research, but that's not all he did today. While hosting a White House ceremony to announce the change, the president also explained a new memorandum addressing scientific integrity itself.

"Promoting science isn't just about providing resources, it is also about protecting free and open inquiry," Obama said. "It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."

He said his memorandum is meant to restore "scientific integrity to government decision-making." He called it the beginning of a process of ensuring his administration bases its decision on sound science; appoints scientific advisers based on their credentials, not their politics; and is honest about the science behind its decisions.

Alex Koppelman noted that this carried with it an "unsubtle ... repudiation of the Bush administration and its attitude towards science."

Good. The previous administration's efforts to subvert science were unprecedented, ridiculous, and kind of dangerous.
...

Think Progress: Obama instructs his administration not to rely on Bush’s signing statements.

The New York Times’ Charlie Savage writes that President Obama has instructed his administration not to rely on any of Bush’s signing statements, calling into question their legitimacy:

In his directive, Mr. Obama said that any signing statement issued before his presidency should be viewed with doubt, placing an asterisk beside all of those issued by Mr. Bush and other former presidents.

“To ensure that all signing statements previously issue are followed only when consistent with these principles, executive branch departments and agencies are directed to seek the advice of the Attorney General before relying on signing statements issued prior to the date of this memorandum as the basis for disregarding, or otherwise refusing to comply with, and provision of a statute,” he wrote.

Obama said he will employ the use of signing statements sparingly, doing so when “Congress sends him legislation that has provisions he decides are unconstitutional.” Savage notes that Obama’s new directive is “consistent with what he said during the 2008 presidential campaign.”

The gulf between the actions of President Obama and the Repuglicans and their msm enablers simply could not be greater.


QOTD, Matt Yglesias: People usually attribute the badness of The Washington Post’s editorial page content to Fred Hiatt, since he’s the man in charge, but judging by this column, Hiatt’s number two man probably lacks the intelligence required to dress himself in the morning so it must be hard out there for the boss. Diehl’s theme is that Obama is just like Bush. And his evidence is that if you, like Diehl, don’t have a functioning central nervous system or any understanding of public policy issues, then things that normal people recognize as different are actually the same. ...

More journamalism, from tristero: Junk Journalism, NY Times Division

Jeebus, the mainstream media is atrocious. Forget the obvious examples of bias and propaganda, like this, where a half-page in the print edition pimps a conference by global warming deniers and paints them as reasonable folks who disagree amongst themselves. Moderates, like one speaker, a spokesman for the insane Senator Inhofe. But ignore this, at least for now. This kind of junk journalism is too obviously propagandistic to be effective for many people. It's just a waste of space.

But get a load of this. Here's the lede:

While lifting the Bush administration’s restrictions on federally financed human embryonic stem cell research, President Obama intends to avoid the thorniest question in the debate: whether taxpayer dollars should be used to experiment on embryos themselves, two senior administration officials said Sunday.

That compromising coward Obama! What a wimp.

And that is as much as many busy people will trouble themselves with: Obama's ducking the issue. But let's read on. The issue at stake is lifting a Congressional ban, called the "Dickey-Wicker amendment," on the creation of human embryos for stem-cell research. And you have to read halfway through an incredibly tedious piece for the punchline:

Mr. Obama has no power to overturn the Dickey-Wicker ban. Only Congress, which attaches the ban to appropriations bills, can overturn it.

That's right, folks. According to the NY Times, Obama is avoiding doing something he has no power to do. The article continues:
...

atrios sees Alchemists Behold the power of our Washington press to transmute horseshit into "truth."


D-Kos' BarbinMD: Note To Lindsey Graham: He Lost

Lindsey Graham, from his appearance yesterday on Meet The Press, discussing earmark reform:

I think it would be good for the country if the president and Senator McCain could meet, soon, sooner rather than later, and come up with a package.

Pssst, Lindsey ... he lost. John McCain is not the co-president, nor is he some kind of Senator-Plus. Stop pretending he's owed some sort of role in the Obama administration.

Ezra Kelin: GEITHNER COMES THROUGH. Note: includes a Nigerian Prince.



via Think Progress, in a column for the Daily Beast today, Meghan McCain, Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) daughter:

... certain individuals continue to perpetuate negative stereotypes about Republicans. Especially Republican women. Who do I feel is the biggest culprit? Ann Coulter. I straight up don’t understand this woman or her popularity. I find her offensive, radical, insulting, and confusing all at the same time. […]

More so than my ideological differences with Ann Coulter, I don’t like her demeanor. I have never been a person who was attracted to hate or negativity. … Everything about her is extreme: her voice, her interview tactics, and especially the public statements she makes about liberals. Maybe her popularity stems from the fact that watching her is sometimes like watching a train wreck.

QOTD2, John Cole: They Know the Title of the Book, But They Haven’t Read It.

Dow 36,000 author and former McCain advisor calls Obama the Manchurian Candidate, and accuses him of assaulting the economy. Nate Silver has the details, but this reminded me of the McCain campaign’s Manchurian Candidate nonsense from last fall (stuff that had bubbled up from the crazies periodically, I might note). Quick question- what is up with former McCain advisors chucking out the “Manchurian Candidate” stuff? Have they no clue about the plot of the book? " ... " American military officer captured and held as a prisoner in an Asian land for years, returned to the United States and hailed as a hero, and later on in life he starts to act erratically. I know the first person I think of from the last election is President Obama. How about you? Seriously. Of course John McCain is not a Manchurian Candidate (an accusation which I think is a pretty nasty and ugly smear) and in fact I believe he is a genuine American hero for his service, but talk about missing the plot. Jeebus.

Steve Benen, in regards to David S. Addington still looking for work: Write a few memos defending torture, unlimited executive power, White House law breaking, and the notion that the Vice President isn't part of the executive branch and the next thing you know, law firms are reluctant to take you seriously. Imagine that.


Interesting discussion at Swampland regarding Sherer's The Economy's Psychic Threshold post. jayackroyd:

It's not just a psychological problem when everyone you know is getting laid off or hours cut.
.
That's the psychological part of it. Everyone you know isn't getting laid off or their hours cut. In fact, most of the people you know are in the same situation they were in before they couldn't keep the Ponzi scheme going any longer. Even during the depths of the Depression a large majority of people had jobs. The fear that you may be affected at any time causes your behavior to change.
.
This is why Republican fearmongering and obstruction is so despicable. They are not merely rooting for a long, deep recession, they are doing all they can to make that happen. Just making people afraid that nothing can be done is itself an act of, if not treason, at least a lack of patriotism.
...
So the GOP are scared that history will repeat itself. Clearly, they will tank this country before they submit to liberal rule for the next forty years.
.
Indeed. But they are making matters worse by doing this. This may be the end of the party.

Americans United For Change has a new ad. Catchy! (h/t TPM)

Commenter IvyB at Swampland: I saw part of that CNBC interview at the gym this morning. In spite of how they worked to get Buffet to say something bad about Obama, he said we should all be working together. He put a lot of blame on Congress and the Republicans. Sorry for the long post - prefer transcripts, sometimes. Link at end. . My favorite interchange -- People--when you have a Pearl Harbor, you have to know the nation is going to be united on December 8th to take care of whatever comes up. And we have little squabbles, otherwise we put them aside and everybody goes to work on defense plans, we start building planes, we start building ships, even though they're not going to be ready tomorrow, people join. The Army doesn't blame the Navy because there were too many ships in Pearl Harbor, and it shouldn't have happened. The Army doesn't say, `Well, it was your fault, so we're not going to send our troops.' None of that sort of thing. We got united, and we really need that now.


C&L's Neiwert: Right-wing pundits agree: Being leaderless is good for Republicans

A consensus opinion floated to the surface -- like another Baby Ruth at the swimming pool -- of the right-wing pundit class: Republicans have no real leadership, and that's a good thing for Republicans.

That was certainly the popular talking point on Fox yesterday. Brit Hume kicked it off:

Hume: The GOP is leaderless, as parties tend to be after an election in which they lost everything. And the truth is, they don't need to be led right now.

... The Republican Party doesn't have a leader right now, and the truth of the matter is, it doesn't need one. If anybody is leading the party, it's Barack Obama, and they are reacting to him.

Bill Kristol chimes in:

Kristol: Republicans understand that they don't need to have one leader. They shouldn't have one leader. It is very good that the Republican Party is leaderless. Let a lot of people emerge from the grass roots, let a lot of ideas compete ...

Yeah, it should be real fun watching the "grass roots" around Sarah Palin "compete" in the arena of Republican ideas.
...

Benen notes that Obama is WALKING AND CHEWING GUM AT THE SAME TIME....

President Obama will deliver on another campaign promise today, lifting Bush-era restrictions on stem-cell research. The change is a no-brainer -- the research offers the promise of life-saving medical breakthroughs, enjoys bipartisan support on the Hill, and has the strong support of the electorate.

So, what has the right come up with to criticize today's announcement? Apparently, the president's move is a "distraction."

President Obama's impending reversal of the restrictions on embryonic stem cell research is meant to distract from the economy, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) suggested Sunday. ...

It's not just Cantor.

Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), a former Speaker of the House, told the Fix late Sunday that Obama's move on stem cells was an "ideological sideshow" that took focus away from the continued decline of the economy. "It is dangerous for the Obama administration to pick a wide series of fights," said Gingrich. "Each of these fights simply drains energy away and increases the coalition which decides it has a collective interest in stopping everything."

This doesn't make any sense. And not just in the usual way -- the arguments against stem-cell research have never been coherent -- but also in these specific concerns.

First, expanding stem-cell research is not a "distraction." It doesn't take that long for the president to sign an executive order. His focus on the economy will remain unaffected.

Second, the White House isn't "picking a fight," it's ending one. Obama promised voters he'd do this, they voted for him, so he's following through. ...

Third, Cantor emphasized the notion of an elaborate scheme, ...

And finally, is it so outrageous to think expanding medical research opportunities might be ... wait for it ... good for the economy? The Wall Street Journal noted this morning, "Lifting federal funding restrictions on embryonic-stem-cell studies will re-energize U.S. researchers and likely bring tens of millions of dollars to university labs."

Scientific advancements and U.S. competitiveness on breakthrough medical treatments does have a positive effect on economic growth. We fell behind under Republican rule, and Obama will help get us back on track today.

If the right is going to complain about this, they're going to need better talking points.

Benen on GRAHAM'S DEFENSE....

On "Meet the Press" yesterday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) did what he was expected to do: he railed against earmarks. "We do need earmark reform. I wish [the president] would veto the bill," Graham said, before bragging about having voted to remove all earmarks from the omnibus budget.

David Gregory reminded Graham of the 37 earmarks he had personally added to the bill, including $950,000 in federal funds for "a convention center in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina." Graham spend his spending proposals had merit, and were therefore worthwhile: "I think I should have the ability as a United States senator to direct money back to my state as long as it's transparent and it makes sense."

Oddly enough, I think he's right. Graham should have that ability. His earmarks probably are defensible. But all of this just reinforces are unpersuasive the complaints from Graham and his cohorts really are. For one thing, they're decrying earmarks while pursuing earmarks. For another, they're willing to tolerate justifiable earmarks without realizing that even the earmarks that sound wasteful turn out to be entirely reasonable.

...

Any chance Graham, McCain, et al, might consider this reality before engaging in ? No, I don't think so, either.

• Benen on TAKING AWAY MCCAIN'S 'FUN'....

  John McCain sure is enjoying himself.

  "I think more and more Americans are against it," Mr. McCain said of the earmarks in the spending bill, which he strongly opposed. "I Twitter the top 10 pork barrel projects," he added, a reference to the messaging service. "We have gotten incredible response from it, now from local media people in the area where these earmarks take place. It's really been a lot of fun."

  Yes, "fun." It might be less "fun," though, if McCain paid any attention to the scrutiny the "pork" has received of late. Many of the items of his top-10 list have turned out to be entirely worthwhile projects, and the list keeps growing. ...
  

Matt Yglesias: Do Lawyers Work Harder Than Movers?

I’m just now getting to read Lisa Schiffren’s contribution on the Corner to the growing overclass revolt taking the American right by storm:

The doctors, lawyers, engineers, executives, serious small-business owners, top salespeople, and other professionals and entrepreneurs who make this country run work considerably harder than pretty much anyone else (including most of the chattering class, and all politicians). They are not robber barons, or trust-fund babies, or plutocrats, or even celebrities. They are mostly the meritocrats who worked hard in high school and got into the better colleges and grad schools, where they studied while others partied. They pushed through grueling hours and unpleasant “up or out” policies in their twenties and thirties at top law firms, banks, hospitals, and businesses to earn salaries in the solid six figures (or low seven) today — in their peak earning years. Their work ethic is prodigious, and, as Tigerhawk points out, in their spare time they sit on the boards of most of the complex charities and arts institutions that provide aid and pay for culture in America. No group of people contribute more to their community. And now the president, who followed a path sort of like that, and who claims that his wife’s former six-figure income was a result of precisely such qualifications and efforts, is demonizing them. More problematically, he is penalizing their success and giving them very clear incentives to ratchet back on productivity.

First off, as Schiffren notes Barack and Michelle Obama are both high-achieving meritocrats in their own right. Indeed, his entire administration is staffed with such people. She should, perhaps, consider the hypothesis that nobody is being “demonized.” Rather, a judgment is being made that a return to Clinton-era income tax policies in order to finance comprehensive health care reform would serve the national interest.

But beyond that, there’s the obscene implication that if people are poor, it’s because they don’t work hard and certainly not as hard as those long-toiling business executive. ... ... Indeed, one of the main advantages that professional career offer is precisely that, money aside, they don’t involve the sort of taxing physical labor associated with many low-skill jobs. Guys who move furniture are, of course, working extremely hard. And even your basic retail employee needs to be on her feet for hours and hours at a time while “executives” comfy chairs.

Sully - Yes, They're That Dogmatic In Brazil, a nine-year-old victim of abuse and rape by her step-father got pregnant with twins. Her mother arranged an abortion for her. The Vatican has upheld the excommunication of the mother imposed by a Brazilian bishop. No word on the stepfather. Priorities ...

• Sudbay: Catholic hypocrisy on display: Republican Judges who order death are never challenged; Democrats who are pro-choice are attacked.

  Meet Texas Judge Sharon Keller:

  Judge Keller, 55, has always kept her own counsel; her colleagues at the court have given her the nickname Mother Superior because of her reserved and diligent demeanor and her devout Roman Catholic faith.

  So, how does a devout Roman Catholic judge in Texas operate:

  In 1998, Judge Keller wrote the opinion rejecting a new trial for Roy Criner, a mentally retarded man convicted of rape and murder, even though DNA tests after his trial showed that it was not his semen in the victim.
  
  “We can’t give new trials to everyone who establishes, after conviction, that they might be innocent,” she later told the television news program “Frontline.” “We would have no finality in the criminal justice system, and finality is important.”

  Now, that's very Catholic. I don't purport to be a religious scholar, but I have a hard time thinking Jesus would share that view. Judge Keller is currently on trial for judicial misconduct:

  Seventeen months ago, lawyers for a man facing execution sought extra time to file a last-minute appeal. Judge Keller refused to delay the closing of her clerk’s office past 5 p.m., even though late filings are common on the day of a scheduled execution. The man, Michael Richard, was put to death by lethal injection a few hours later.

  So, here's the question? Where's the outrage from the Catholic hierarchy? Has Judge Keller been denied communion? Has the Catholic version of Rush Limbaugh, the racist, homophobic Bill Donohue, been bloviating about Keller? Of course not. The hypocrisy in the church is rampant. Can't criticize Keller. She's a Republican.
  
  Instead, the Catholics have been aiming their fire at Kathleen Sebelius, who will be the next Secretary of Health and Human Services. ...
  
  If the church isn't going to attack Keller, it shouldn't attack Sebelius. But, consistency and intellectual honesty aren't hallmarks of the Catholic hierarchy. ...
  
  

Benen finds House repuglican leaders DANGEROUSLY CONFUSED....

The House Republican leaders' pre-recession mindset is so overwhelming, their ignorance isn't just embarrassing, it's frightening.

House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio, appearing after Orszag on "Face the Nation," replied: "American families are tightening their belt, but they don't see government tightening its belt. And I think we can get through this year and lead by example, and show the American people that the government can go on a diet as well." [...]

On CNN, House Republican Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia said: "Director Orszag and others say, look, we've inherited these trillions dollars of deficits. Well, if you've got a situation like that, how in the world should you be going and make it worse? Families are not doing that."

I know there are people who take these guys seriously. I just don't know why. When it comes to economic policy, two of the top Republican policymakers in the federal government are not only in flat-earth territory, they can't imagine why anyone would have the audacity to think the planet is round.

In case there's any lingering confusion here, publius recently explained: "The micro-considerations of an individual family or business has nothing much to do with what governments need to do to get the larger economy moving again. Even worse, it's often affirmatively harmful to adopt microeconomic solutions to macroeconomic problems."

It's only fair to describe Boehner's and Cantor's policy prescription, to borrow David Brooks' word, as insane. It's my sincere hope that the House Minority Leader and Minority Whip know full well what they're saying is ridiculous, because given a choice, I'd much prefer shameless dishonesty to abject stupidity.

...