...the journalisitic equilalent of Jackson Pollock.

At Swampland, commenter sacredh takes on Jackson Diehl's astonishingly stupid column comparing Bush and Obama: Jackson Diehl must think he's the journalisitic equilalent of Jackson Pollock. Just throw something up on the canvas and call it art. Diehl's just throwing words up there and trying to convince us that it means something. The assertion that Obama's pursuit of healthcare reform can be compared to Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq lacks any credibility at all. Each, he suggests, is a "war of choice". That's like saying a motivational speaker is the same as a hooker that specializes in oral sex because "they both use their mouths to make money". He's delusional.

• UPDATE. Friend BobK objects: You are confusing Jackson Pollock with pachydermal diarrhea... And speaking as a former Deputy Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, there IS a difference!

I won't try to excerpt this piece on Canadian health care. You should click on the link, read it all, and be prepared to answer questions in a future post. Yes, there will be a test!
Sara Robinson on 10 Myths About Canadian Health Care, Busted

More from Karen Tumulty: Health Care: The Policy Choices--And Where To Look For Help

Glenn Greenwald: Slate's Dahlia Lithwick reviews, and dismantles, each of the justifications being offered by the Obama administration for keeping Bush crimes concealed and shielding them from investigations and prosecutions (h/t Bystander). It's quite concise and well worth reading in its entirety (as is Digby's discussion of that article).

Glenn Greenwald: UPDATE II: In comments, Cocktailhag writes:

It is something of an upside down world wherein journalists, as a class, comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted, and see nothing odd about this.

At times I've wondered whether Watergate would have even been discovered by the mindless media we have today, but even worse, whether they all would have just explained it away.

It's difficult to select what one thinks is the single most illustrative symbol of how our country now functions, but if I were forced to do so, I would choose the fact that it is America's journalists -- who claim to be devoted to serving as a check on Government and exposing its secrets -- who are, instead, leading the way in demanding that the Government's actions of the last eight years be concealed; in trying to quash efforts to investigate and expose those actions; and in demanding immunity for government lawbreakers. What kind of country does one expect to have where (with some noble exceptions) it is journalists, of all people, who take the lead in concealing, protecting and justifying government wrongdoing, and whose overriding purpose is to serve, rather than check, political power? "Upside down world," indeed.

John Cole on the Fair And Balanced Meet the Press:

David Gregory has Mortimer Zuckerman, Newt Gingrich, Erin Burnett, and some historian on discussing the economic crisis. Newt went on a diatribe, blaming the economic woes on the Obama “war on those making over 250,000,” Claire McCaskill, and compared letting the Bush tax cuts expire to Smoot-Hawley.

No one on the panel so much as flinched.

There were no Democrats or anyone there to rebut Mr. Gingrich.

Liberal media.

*** Update ***

Gingrich has, for all intents and purposes, been given this entire show just to peddle talking points. It amazes me how he is able to do it all with a straight face. Not once does he break down, even when giving the “no one had time to read the stimulus bill” nonsense. I couldn’t do it. I would get halfway through, start laughing, and have to admit “I am so full of shit. I have no idea why any of you are even listening to me.”

• This relates back to the Benen "Assumptions" piece yesterday: Respectable figures are reluctant to say, out loud, "My God, what this man is saying is blisteringly stupid." Indeed, leading Republican officials -- Mitch McConnell, Jon Kyl, Mike Pence -- say all kinds of things that should be dismissed as transparent nonsense, but aren't. There must be something coherent about their ideas, the conventional thinking goes, by virtue of their offices. Their recommendations warrant responses -- and even deserve consideration at the negotiating table -- because they maintain positions of influence in government.
• John Cole: Sometimes I think the media and the Republicans are just making shit up. On a serious note, the last few years have been really eye opening for me. I was never one of the Republicans who thought the media was liberally biased. I always felt they were just lazy and superficial (and MoDo is a fine example) and on issues outside their safety zone (faith and religion, for example), they just were not equipped to discuss them, but it becomes more and more clear that the media is not biased towards liberal or conservatives, but rather, it is simply in the business of defending the status quo for the wealthier members of society. The reason social conservatives and progressives both hate the media is because they really don’t care about either group or their issues. This is about protecting the amassed wealth of the few. The past couple of weeks we have faced nothing but story after story about how the market (translation, the folks who created this mess) are nervous about the Obama plans, with no critical analysis but merely a platform for people kvetching about reverting to the tax rates that were in place just a few years ago. It really is breathtaking.

From Politico, this is worth clicking through to read in its entirety (noting the bolded paragraph below, I am trying to remember King persistently questioning any Bush initiative): W.H. to GOP: 'There they go again'

Peter R. Orszag, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, signaled Sunday that the administration plans to stand up fiercely to critics of its economic policies despite a deepening recession.

Taking the administration's hardest line yet, Orszag in two appearances on the Sunday shows went after Republicans for their budget proposals, repeatedly asking them to put up or shut up.

“I would urge you to invite the Republicans on this show and ask for their specifics, and then compare them head-to-head,” Orszag told John King, anchor of CNN’s “State of the Union.”

“Because we are proposing a change in course in which we are not only fiscally responsible, but we are investing in education, we are investing in energy, and we're investing in health care.”

Orszag also declared: “We've been down a path that has not been working. We're proposing a change in course. And with regard to the criticisms, it's almost like, as Ronald Reagan said, 'there they go again.'”

Returning to health care in a later appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Orszag also predicted boldly: “I think there’s a lot of momentum behind health care. We’re gonna get it done this year.”

The budget director responded to a question about the persistent stock market decline under President Obama by pointedly noting that the economy had begun to falter under the Bush administration.

“Job losses began in January of 2008, the stock market started declining in October of 2007,” he said to host Bob Schieffer “This has been, you know, eight years in the making and, again, it’s going to take some time to work our way out of it.”

House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio, appearing after Orszag " stoopid RW talking points...."

On CNN, House Republican Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia said: "stoopid RW talking points....."

...

Orszag reiterated that Obama does not plan to postpone a rewrite of the nation’s health-care financing system despite depression-like economic conditions.

“We have to get health-care reform done this year,” Orszag told King. “What we have said is health reform has to happen this year, and it has to be deficit neutral. So we will work with the Congress to make sure that those two things happen.”

...

Talking to King, Orszag fought back against the specific critique that the proposed change in the charitable contribution deduction for wealthy Americans that is designed to pay for health care would discourage giving.

“All we’re proposing is to return the tax break for charitable contributions to the level that existed at the end of the Reagan administration,” Orszag said. “Only 1.2 percent of taxpayers would even be affected – very small effects – and it would provide revenue to fund a health effort.”

Under persistent questioning from King, Orszag again and again defended the pork and earmarks in the budget now before Congress, which was largely written last year.

“We’re stepping in to the ninth inning,” Orszag told the Red Sox fan. “You can’t change the rules of the game. … We’ve been in office less than eight weeks. … We need to get this out of the way and move on to serious business that will include next year, when we are in charge – when you can hold us responsible in [a] much different ballgame.”

Asked about the possibility of a second stimulus bill, Orszag deflected: “Look, we just got the recovery act into law. The money is starting to flow. Let's give it some time to work.”

Joe Klein on The Assault on Chas Freeman

I've been loathe to join the argument about whether the veteran diplomat Chas Freeman should be hired to lead the National Intelligence Council. I don't know the man, am only vaguely aware of his reputation--very smart but unothodox, a bit too close to the Saudis, a root canal 'realist' whose cold analysis of the Tiananmen uprising suggested that the Chinese government would have been better served to nip the student uprising 'in the bud.' At the same time, there was the rabid opposition of the professional Jewish community--some of them moderates like Jeff Goldberg, others full-fledged members of the Israel lobby, like former AIPAC honcho Steven Cohen, others from the neo-hysterical Commentary crowd...perpetrators of the OMG nutsiness about Obama on a range of issues, in this case: OH MY GOD, he's selling out Israel!

In recent days, however, two very reliable sources--at least, I find them so--have made strong arguments in Freeman's defense. ...
...

So, in sum, a guarded vote for Chas Freeman--not that any votes will be necessary for this appointive position. It's time we had some candor and intellectual noncomformity, some abrasiveness in the too-smooth collegiality of the intelligence bunker. It is also time to resume the relative balance that existed before George W. Bush gavee veto power to Israel's neoconservative supporters have over US government policy and appointees in the region.

• from the Swampland comments, pietr96 Says:

  I went to prep school with Chas Freeman and have watched his career with awe.

  When I met him he spoke no foreign language. He started spanish at Milton and within 12 months scored an 800 SAT. He studied chinese at Yale and within a decade was Nixon's main translator on the trip to China.

  The young Chas was brilliant, kind, and reasonable. I suspect his unwillingness to play the Washington game prevented him from being a secretary of state. I have no reason to believe that he would ever compromise his positions to achieve financial or career gains.

via Sully, Matthew Kramer on atheism His background:

I became an atheist at the age of eight. After one of my Hebrew-school teachers devoted a 90-minute class to recounting her experiences in a Nazi concentration camp during the Second World War, I went home and read a lengthy encyclopedia article on Nazi Germany. Within four hours of reading that article, I had irretrievably lost my belief in God. Over the years, my disbelief in God has become even more robust than my disbelief in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.

However, unlike some atheists and most agnostics, I am hardly uninterested in God and religion. For one thing, my attitude toward God is not one of indifference; rather, it is one of revulsion. That attitude stems partly from my systematic study of the Bible for the past 26 years. Although my main areas of scholarly expertise are political and legal and moral philosophy - rather than theology or the philosophy of religion - my principal avocation since the early 1980s has been the writing of a commentary on the Bible. Why would an atheist engage in such an endeavour? ...

Perhaps this says something about the intelligence of African-Americans who choose to be Repuglicans?
Steve Benen: Hmm. Steele wanted to be a priest, but that didn't work out. He wanted to be a successful lawyer, but that didn't work out. He wanted to run a consulting firm, but that didn't work out. Steele parlayed this "success" into a role as Maryland's lieutenant governor, but that didn't work out, either -- he was booted out after one term, and didn't follow through on his own hand-picked projects. He then wanted to be a U.S. senator, but that didn't work out. Remind me, why did the Republican National Committee pick Steele as its chairman?

DougJ notes that Brooks and Dowd debate Michelle’s biceps I wish I could tell you I was kidding about this one: "..." When will our national nightmare of a sleeveless First Lady end?

• Joe Sudbay (DC)

  David Brooks comes across as a catty bitch in Maureen Dowd's column today. She, on the other hand, captures the essence of our First Lady. People in DC love her (not the smarty-pants pundit types, the real people -- and yes, there are real people in DC):

  ...
  
  During the campaign, there was talk in the Obama ranks that Michelle should stop wearing sleeveless dresses, because her muscles, combined with her potent personality, made her daunting.
  
  She ignored that talk, thank heavens. I love the designer-to-J. Crew glamour. Combined with her workaday visits to soup kitchens, inner-city schools and meetings with military families, Michelle’s flare is our depression’s answer to Ginger Rogers gliding around in feathers and lamé.
  
  Her arms, and her complete confidence in her skin, are a reminder that Americans can do anything if they put their minds to it. Unlike Hillary, who chafed at the loathed job of first lady, and Laura, who for long stretches disappeared into the helpmeet role, Michelle has soared every day, expanding the job to show us what can be accomplished by a generous spirit, a confident nature and a well-disciplined body.
  
  I also have no doubt she can talk cap-and-trade with ease and panache.

  And, you know Michelle has better biceps than David Brooks and most of the other cranky conservatives. Rush probably doesn't even have biceps.

David Frum on Why Rush is Wrong The party of Buckley and Reagan is now bereft and dominated by the politics of Limbaugh. A conservative's lament.

...

In the days since I stumbled into this controversy, I've received a great deal of e-mail. (Most of it on days when Levin or Hannity or Hugh Hewitt or Limbaugh himself has had something especially disobliging to say about me.) Most of these e-mails say some version of the same thing: if you don't agree with Rush, quit calling yourself a conservative and get out of the Republican Party. There's the perfect culmination of the outlook Rush Limbaugh has taught his fans and followers: we want to transform the party of Lincoln, Eisenhower and Reagan into a party of unanimous dittoheads—and we don't care how much the party has to shrink to do it. That's not the language of politics. It's the language of a cult.

I'm a pretty conservative guy. On most issues, I doubt Limbaugh and I even disagree very much. But the issues on which we do disagree are maybe the most important to the future of the conservative movement and the Republican Party: Should conservatives be trying to provoke or persuade? To narrow our coalition or enlarge it? To enflame or govern? And finally (and above all): to profit—or to serve?

• John Cole, who knows whereof he speaks, notes: The problem is he thinks he can deprogram this cult. Good luck with that.

Boehlert asks Have Rush Limbaugh's ratings really "doubled," as the WashPost claims?

Here's what Howard Kurtz writes today:

By one measure, Rush Limbaugh is a clear winner this week: His ratings have nearly doubled since his feud with the White House burst into the media limelight.

Wow, Limbaugh's ratings are up almost 100 percent since January; since Limbaugh first announced he hoped Obama failed.

I don't buy it.

And please note that the Post provides no facts to back up the assertion; no ratings numbers. No nothing to substantiate the claim. How does the Post know Limbaugh's nationwide ratings have "doubled" in the last month? Readers have no idea.

I'm especially curious how the Post knows so much about Limbaugh's ratings success because even people in the world of syndicated radio don't know since they don't have comprehensive rating numbers for February yet. ...

...

Seems to me if Kurtz at the Post is going to stroke Limbaugh in print and make the sweeping claim that Limbaugh's ratings have "doubled" nationwide, the newspaper ought to back that claim up with independently verifiable information.

UPDATE: It appears that not even Limbaugh knows if his ratings have doubled. Today, Byron York at the Washington Examiner asked the turbo talker about his ratings. " ... "

Limbaugh himself hasn't even seen ratings more recent than January. Yet the Post claims Limbaugh's ratings have nearly doubled since January. What does the Post know that Rush does not?