Wingnuts and Journamalists

This is soooo very exciting. I just got my first ever incoherent wingnut hate comment at the bottom of the ... and that's a good thing for Republicans ... . post! I'm all a twitter. Since it fits with the theme of this post, here it is:

Blame professulas whose posh pensions graze on stumbent loan interest from vacuous degrees in basket weaving commie nutty organizing. Turn grant grubbing blatherers into fuel, especially perverts like mayor crotch who gas for obsama zbin biden. Your islamosympathic gutterswabbing clothing and pierced privates spread diesease. If you weren't such baby killing, vermin snuggling perverts you wouldn't be driving up our health costs, then collecting disability for your commie nutty organizing dementia. Your passive aggressive labor unions grab our guns, cars (congestion pricing), balls (SONDA), wallets, and homes but we will grab your throats and dang you from trailer bone tolls. Apply Sarbanes Oxley to non-profits! Repeal the seventeenth amendment before any VAT. All the homeless are drugged out hippies. Second Amendment is the ONLY Homeland Security. Wait until we waste all your stumbent subprimes, so you need to sell your affectation glutton art and work instead of diverting tuition and Y2K scams to soviet freezeniks! Deport for multiple visits to same country. If you controlled your own pension neither your boss nor the government could abuse it. Lynch soviet wealth fund abetting aghadhimmic peakies when oil plummets! Parasites complain about salaries but pig out with benefits. Global warming is a grant grubbing extortion racket. Urban sprawl annoys terrorists. Hazards and pollution stem mostly from mandates. Aqua volte! This land wasn't build by bullocraps.

How cool is that!


QOTD, Tim F.: Rush has a third of the Republican base in his pocket. The country doesn’t hold that many hyper-motivated, single-minded angry people with time on their hands, say a couple million at the most, but about half of them will clog a congressperson’s switchboard at the drop of a name on the Limbaugh show. That, and the disproportionate amount of money that dittohead types donate, makes them a serious concern for any Republican politico.

• Matthew Yglesias: One thing to note about the latest spat between Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh is that I’ll bet you Newt doesn’t apologize. His conservative credentials aren’t really in doubt, and I think he’s shrewd enough to see how absurd the apologies other conservative politicians have offered make them look. Consequently, Newt—whose ideas are every bit as stupid as Rush’s—will come out of this possessing an entirely undeserved veneer of reasonableness.

atrios on Teabaggers: According to a Senate source, the teabaggers are sending in lots of bags of tea to the Senate, requiring the "US Capitol Police Threats Assessment Section to x-ray, open and test the tea bags and envelopes," costing much time and money. (More on the wingnut Tea parties.)


John Cole discovers Pharmaceutical grade wingnut in the Conservapedia entry on Barak Obama.

I was reading this Jesse Taylor post, and came across his description of the Conservapedia entry on President Obama, in which he claimed it had the “wingnuttiest introduction possible.” As a connoisseur of the wingnut genre and recovering wingnut myself, I had to dive in for a taste:

"..." [ed: you have to go to the Conservapedia Barack Hussein Obama II link - really, one should never excerpt such brilliance]

That is 100% pure wingnut, alright. Pharmaceutical grade.

Seriously, that has to be spoof.

• I used to amuse myself by visiting the Conservapedia statistics page to see what crazy things conservatives obsess over. It used to focus on various aspects of homosexuality as imagined in their fevered brains. Since the election, all has changed:

Most viewed pages

Atheism (4,717,565)

Main Page (4,476,982)

Homosexuality (3,275,068)

Barack Hussein Obama (1,024,689)

Wikipedia (687,030)

Adolf Hitler (567,905)

John McCain (565,828)

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (528,675)

United States Presidential Election, 2008 (524,642)

Liberal (523,945)

• 
  

I'm dying here. TPMs Kurtz says Stop Whining! These have got to be the two whiniest grown men on television. Jim Cramer and Joe Scarborough wimpering over John Stewart beating them up and taking their lunch money:



Oh, and Stewart took Cramer apart again last night.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

In Cramer We Trust

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Economic Crisis

Yglesias: I’ve made this analogy before, but CNBC and much of the rest of the financial media is just what you would have gotten if television existed back when entrail-reading was a popular method of forecasting the future. It’s a national embarrassment that these people are taken seriously.


QOTD2, Howard Dean: In an interview with the Washington Times, Howard Dean warned Republicans that serious political backlash will await if they block President Obama's health care plan: "They called Medicare socialized medicine. If they want to filibuster this to death, be my guest and let's see how they do in 2010." He also had this to say about the Rush Limbaugh controversies: "You expect people to have fun, and it was fun, but enough is enough. The reason it's fun is because it's true."

You really don't see this every day. A Faux "News" interviewer getting snippy, angry, and aggressive as hell spouting RW talking points about "the cricket earmark" and Senator Roberts (R) firing back hard and forcing some key truths about earmarks, and this earmark, through through the filter. This is terrific. If this piece doesn't become a classic I'll be surprised. (h/t Think Progress)


Ezra Klein on ZOMBIE LIES THAT WILL NOT DIE.

We're not even going to talk about the tendentious Matrix analogy laced into this column Amity Shlaes wrote for Bloomberg. Not. Even. Going. To. Talk. About. It. I already read the thing for you. I refuse to relive it. But someone should ask Bloomberg why it keeps letting columnists lie about the same fact in its pages:

The administration seems almost to relish the sinister aspect of government-run health care. Otherwise it wouldn’t have created a position called “National Coordinator of Health Information Technology.” That’s a title worthy of Rhineheart, Neo’s boss, who tells him, “This company is one of the top software companies in the world because every single employee understands that they are part of a whole.”

Forget the Rhineheart quote. Remember, we're not even going to talk about that. This idea that the stimulus bill "created a position" called "National Coordinator of Health Information Technology" got its start in another Bloomberg column written by Betsy McCaughey. She called the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology a "new bureaucracy."

But this just isn't true. It's not sort of true or arguably true or caught in arguments about the nature of truth. George W. Bush created the position of National Coordinator of Health Information Technology in 2004. Five years ago. The current director of the office is a Bush appointee by the name of Robert Kolodner. He has served there since 2006. He exists. If you prick him, he will bleed. If you touch him, he will recoil, because he is subject to our laws of space and time and as such was not somehow created by President Obama back when George W. Bush occupied the Oval Office.

Ivy_B at Swampland found this nugget:

OT, but was shocked at this report from Will Bunch. Chuck Norris wants to start a revolution?
***
The call by some right wing leaders for rebellion and for the military to refuse the commander in chief's orders is joined by Chuck Norris who claims that thousands of right wing cell groups have organized and are ready for a second American Revolution. During an appearance on the Glen Beck radio show he promised that if things get any worse from his point of view he may “run for president of Texas.” The martial artist/actor/activist claims that Texas was never formally a part of the United States in the first place and that if rebellion is to come through secession Texas would lead the way.
.
Norris really comes close to crossing a line with this:
.
Norris claims that; “Thousands of cell groups will be united around the country in solidarity over the concerns for our nation.” The right wing cells will meet during a live telecast, "We Surround Them," on Friday March 13 at 5 p.m.
.
He closes with the words of Sam Houston followed by a plug for his next martial arts event.
.
“We view ourselves on the eve of battle."
***
Can they really say anything at all??
.
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/What_the_Huck_Chuck_Norris_.html

sgw awards Michael Scherer: Wanker Supreme

Daily KOS has been sharing some of their wingnut mail:

You Clowns

You are a bunch of clowns you have never held a real job in you lives except for writing for your campus newspapers. If we took your view of the world we would be living in the old Russia. You are a bunch of left wing losers who were picked while in school and slinging the BS that you do somehow makes you feel better because your never had parents that supported you.

The latest O'Reilly attack brought out an avalanche of five emails! It really, really sucks being a Republican right now.

Comrade, we will rise up and squash you and those like you. Enjoy you moment in the sun. we will not much longer stand by and watch while you and you're ilk destroy what is our birth right.

I'll give this guy credit, he didn't use the "n" word referring to Obama, as most of the latest batch of hate mail does.

Speaking of Daily KOS, DemfromCT finds There's nothing like he said-she said journalism,

... where for reasons that only a newspaper editor would understand, reporters feel obligated to treat a one-sided discussion as if each party has equal standing. If 99% of scientists say Intelligent Design is crackpot territory, there's always someone working for some right wing funded "institute" that can be counted on to supply a counter-point. And goodness knows, the reporter will find them, but all too often won't add some fact-checking to the mix.

Today we get to read Sheryl Gay Stolberg's nonsense in the NY Times about how Obama's science policy isn't really about shielding science from politics, it's just substituting one set of politics for another.

How do we know this? Because, on the one hand we have Harold Varmus, a distinguished scientist and academician:

"Scientists should have no illusions about whether they make policy — they don’t," said Harold Varmus, president of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and co-chairman of a panel that advises Mr. Obama on science matters.

The directive, Dr. Varmus said, was simply intended "to provide the best available scientific information" to those who make policy decision.

as well as this from Alan I. Lesher:

"We’re not dumb — we know that policy is made on the basis of facts and values," said Alan I. Lesher, chief executive of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and a former director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse under President Bill Clinton and, briefly, Mr. Bush.

But by asserting "the centrality of science to every issue of modern life," Dr. Lesher said, Mr. Obama is suggesting that science rather than ideology will be the foundation for his decision making. "What you are seeing now is both a response to the last eight years, and a genuine reaction to President Obama’s enthusiasm for science," he said.

Of course, to counter those common sense arguments, Stolberg was able to find a noted and distinguished science expert and academician, one with a long record of published achievement in the field, a sterling curriculum vitae that includes teaching as well as research, and someone with the respect of his scientific peers, Karl (THE Math) Rove, Court Magician:

But Mr. Bush’s defenders see Mr. Obama as just imposing an ideology of his own. They say Mr. Bush did not ignore scientific facts; rather, he took the counsel of scientists and used it to make a policy determination that reflected his values, just as Mr. Obama is doing in lifting Mr. Bush’s restrictions on stem cell research.

"Those who suggest that the Bush administration did not rigorously apply science are themselves ignoring the facts," said Karl Rove, the former president’s political strategist.

This isn't an even playing field, and the interviewees don't have equal standing. Harold Varmus and Alan Lesher are merely distinguished scientists with a long track record of achievement in the field (what could they possibly know about the topic?), whereas Karl Rove has something they don't have: he is a known Republican. Varmus and Lesher are clearly at an unfair disadvantage here.

KOS' BarbinMD: John Boehner: Out Of Touch And Out Of His Mind

How out of touch are Republicans?

The top Republican in the US House of Representatives urged President Barack Obama to "reevaluate" his decision to lift limits on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

"The president has rolled back important protections for innocent life, further dividing our nation at a time when we need greater unity to tackle the challenges before us," charged Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner.

Dividing our nation?

There is a type of medical research that involves using special cells, called embryonic stem cells, that might be used in the future to treat or cure many diseases, such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, and spinal cord injury. It involves using human embryos discarded from fertility clinics that no longer need them. Some people say that using human embryos for research is wrong. Do you favor or oppose using discarded embryos to conduct stem cell research to try to find cures for the diseases I mentioned?"

Favor 73
Oppose 19
Unsure 9

Sorry, John, but the Bush years are over ....

Benen says it is NOT EVEN CLOSE....

The LA Times' Andrew Malcolm played a little fast and loose yesterday, commenting on President Obama's directive on Bush's signing statements. (thanks to reader J.R. for the heads-up)

Bill Clinton actually used signing documents way more than George W. Bush. But No. 42 is a Democrat and his wife currently works for Obama. So No. 44 is on a big tear right now to distance himself instead from No. 43, the Republican, who's back in Texas and doesn't care but just hearing his name trashed makes Democrats feel good. [...]

Obama doesn't say he won't ever use signing documents. He just says he'll work with Congress about them. Which means he will, of course, sign some, but right now he wants today's news coverage to be on more change to sort-of believe in.

No, this wasn't written by the Republican National Committee to be read on-air by Fox News personalities; it just seems like it.

Did Clinton use signing statements "way more than George W. Bush"? It's a highly misleading claim, based on a count of the individual documents, instead of the number of provisions to which the signing statements have been applied. In reality, Bush "broke all records" while abusing this presidential tool, "using signing statements to challenge about 1,200 sections of bills over his eight years in office, about twice the number challenged by all previous presidents combined."

To hear Malcolm tell it, President Obama is just playing a silly partisan game, "trashing" Bush when Clinton was worse, just to make Democrats "feel good." This is lazy, partisan, and disingenuous analysis.

What's more, Obama didn't rule out the use of signing statements, which Malcolm concludes makes yesterday's announcement "change to sort-of believe in." This, again, is misleading. Obama's decision is entirely in line with historic presidential authority. The problem isn't with the signing statements themselves -- the practice has been around for nearly 200 years -- but with Bush's unprecedented abuse of the presidential tool. The 43rd president took the practice to new heights (or depths, as the case may be), using signing statements to ignore parts of laws he didn't like.

That Obama might, at some point, use signing statements is not controversial, and certainly doesn't point to more of the same. Why Andrew Malcolm is arguing otherwise is a mystery.

Benen on VILLAGER THINKING GONE HORRIBLY AWRY....

Time's Mark Halperin does a short video every morning, highlighting "three things to watch for in politics today." If you want to know what media establishment figures will be "buzzing" about on any given day, Halperin's short clips -- they usually run about a minute -- offer a big hint.

Yesterday's edition was especially illustrative of how political analysis often goes horribly awry.

Halperin was joined by MSNBC's Louis Burgdorf, and they agreed about the "big story." As Halperin explained, "All this dialog, this debate, about whether Obama's trying to do too much." Burgdorf added some advice about what the president can and should do:

"If Obama comes out and says, 'Listen, I'm going to move all these other things aside, shift my focus mainly to the economy,' and take all these other things, put them aside -- not forget about them -- just really use all his efforts there, I think it'll make a big difference. Instill some confidence in the consumer and people investing."

When Halperin suggested that the president might want to "cancel the stem-cell event" at the White House, in order to demonstrate his focus on the economy, Burgdorf responded, "No, I think that's important." Immediately after saying Obama should "put aside" everything unrelated to the economy, Burgdorf said opening up stem-cell research is a good move, in part because his step-mother has multiple sclerosis.

Matt Cooper noted, "The whole conversation seemed slightly ridiculous."

Presidents obviously do more than one thing at a time. No one asked Reagan to ignore the Cold War and focus on the recession.

... You can disagree with Obama's policies but to talk about distraction seems like a misunderstanding of what presidents do.

Quite right. The meme is steadily becoming a favorite of the media establishment -- conservatives have been pushing the "distraction" line pretty aggressively, and reporters have been picking up on it -- but it's based on odd and flawed assumptions.

This notion that the president is "trying to do too much" also misses the policy point of the administration's agenda. Obama would no doubt love to take these crises one at a time. If these different moving parts -- economic growth, health care, energy, education, infrastructure -- weren't interconnected, I'm sure the president would gladly go slower.

...