Those Wacky Wingnuts: A Friday Evening Primer

QOTD, John Cole concluded, "And you know what? As stupid as that piece is, you can guarantee some wingnut will repeat it. Why? Because it has numbers in it, so it must be true. That is a veritable dissertation compared to the movement that brought us Liberal Fascism."

sgw says: I told you so Remember when a while back when I told you that Michele Bachmann and Glenn Beck flogging the "one world currency" meme was a dog whistle for the religious right implying that President Obama was the anti-Christ? Well here is confirmation.


I've decided there is no functional distinction between non elected wingnuts and Repuglican elected officials, so from here on out PRIVCORR will consider the words "wingnut" and "repuglican" to be interchangeable. For example, here's ...

AmericaBlog's Joe Sudbay (DC)

Today is the last day of the recess so Congress goes back in session next week. No doubt, the Republicans are going to be all charged up after their teabagging sessions. Teabagging is the only idea the GOP has had in years.

And, can you believe that the word "secession" is even being used? It just shows how extreme the GOP is. Seriously. Secession? It's beyond shocking -- and so 1861.

Yesterday, Obama was talking about high speed rail to insure the U.S. is a leader in the 21st century. Top Republicans are trying to figure out how to bring the U.S. back to the mid-1800s....

Ezra Klein: A QUARTER OF TEXANS DON'T WANT TO BE AMERICANS.

Gotta give it to them: Rasmussen knows how to chase those links. They've already finished a poll asking Texans whether they want to secede from the union. "If the matter was put to a vote, it wouldn’t even be close," says Rasmussen. "Three-fourths (75%) of Lone Star State voters would opt to remain in the United States. Only 18% would vote to secede, and seven percent (7%) are not sure what they'd choose."

I'd sort of figured all the secession talk yesterday was good fun. But so much as Rasmussen is impressed by the overwhelming majority opposing secession, I'm struck by the sizable minority supporting it. A full 18 percent of Texans want to leave the union? And seven percent more aren't sure? That means that one out of four Texans either doesn't want to be part of the United States of America or isn't sure. And yet it's we Californians who are always being accused of hating America...

Related: What would happen if Texas seceded?

• Atrios about SUPERTRAINS: The Great Orange Satan writes: That Georgia network might be nice, but they want to secede, so send the money (and jobs and economic development) elsewhere.

Benen SECESSION ON THE TABLE -- BUT ON HOLD....

It seems to me there was some talk a few years back about Hollywood celebrities who flirted the idea of leaving the United States if Bush/Cheney won. As I recall, this was widely ridiculed, and was seen as evidence that the entertainment industry was out of touch with American culture.

The argument, in a nutshell, was that any Americans who'd want to leave the country and stop being Americans must not love their country much. It's a pretty basic test of patriotism.

It's odd, then, to hear elected Republican officials casually throw around references to secession.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), who's been talking up the idea all week, tried to add some caveats yesterday to his secession talk:

"This is interesting that this has really kind of bubbled up, to uh... I refer people back to my statement, and I gotta a charge out of it. I was kinda thinking that, maybe the same people who hadn't been reading the Constitution right were reading that article and they got the wrong impression about what I said.

"Clearly, I stated that we have a great union. And Texas is part of a great union. I see no reason for that to change. I think that may not be the exact quote, but that is, in essence what I said."

Well, "essence" aside, what Perry actually said was that he saw "no reason" to "dissolve" the "union." He added, "But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, who knows what may come of that."

Forget "wrong impressions." What the elected chief executive of one of the nation's largest states is supposed to say is secession is ridiculous. That Perry has left it on the table only helps reinforce how completely batty some Republican officials have become. If the GOP wants to rejoin the American mainstream, the party needs to reject these absurdities out of hand. It's radical, fringe politics.

State Democratic lawmakers in Texas were not at all amused by Perry's nonsense, and hosted a press conference yesterday to denounce the governor's flirtation with madness. "Talk of secession is an attack on our country," one state representative said. "It can be nothing else. It is the ultimate anti-American statement."

Making matters slightly more ludicrous, Brian Beutler reported late yesterday that members of the Georgia Senate, the South Dakota House, and both chambers of the Oklahoma legislature have also unveiled non-binding resolutions on the nullification of the U.S. Constitution.

Remember, we're not talking about right-wing bloggers or radio talk-show hosts, but actual elected officials, and in Perry's case, a sitting governor.

All from the party that believes it has the moral high ground on patriotism and love of country.

Post Script: Just in case Texas decides to be its own country, Chuck Norris is interested in being its president. Seriously.

If at first you don't secede. April 16: Governor Rick Perry, R-TX, raised the idea of his state seceding from the union. Why is the Governor talking about this now? Rachel Maddow is joined by Wall Street Journal columnist Thomas Frank.

... in which there is much laughter.

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

Yglesias: Attacks on Rosa Brooks

Former LA Times columnist Rosa Brooks is going to work for Michele Flournoy in the defense department and now is being subject to attacks via some kind of right-wing email campaign being hyped up by The Weekly Standard. Taken out of the oppo writeup form, the basic case against Brooks seems to be that:

ONE: She thinks the Vietnam War was a mistake with tragic consequences for civilians across Southeast Asia.

TWO: She thinks the Bush administration’s pre-war statements about Iraq intelligence were misleading.

THREE: She thought the “surge” would not produce an enduring solution to Iraq’s political problems.

FOUR: She favors prosecuting terrorists in normal courts rather than kangaroo courts.

FIVE: She thinks George W. Bush was a generally crappy president.

With the exception of point four, I honestly don’t understand how anyone could even begin to disagree with any of this. On point four, the complaint amounts to something like “she supports the policy of the Obama administration, rather than the policy of the Republican Party.” But of course she does! To be honest, given that she was a pretty regular newspaper columnist and occasional blogger, I find it a bit shocking that they don’t have anything better on her. It’s hard to write on current affairs without occasionally saying something that’s totally wrong or incredibly dumb. But the right’s oppo team has come up with . . . nothing . . . other than that she’s not a conservative. Which is what happens when the conservative candidate loses an election and the new team comes in.

Beyond pettiness and sour grapes, one thing that comes through here is the extent to which the conservative movement just can’t quit George W. Bush. Nominally, the right’s new view is that Bush really was a bad president, but he was bad because he wasn’t conservative enough or something. But show a conservative a liberal who’s subjected Bush to the strongly-worded criticism he so richly deserves, and it’s like waving a cape in the face of a bull. Out comes the whole message operation, the smear machine, the whole deal to defend the sterling record of Bush, Bush’s policies, and the view that anyone who criticized them is borderline treasonous.

Benen: DON'T POINT DUE NORTH....

It's only fair to give Republicans credit for one of the party's strongest skills: manufacturing a controversy out of nothing. Turning molehills into mountains is an art, the GOP leaders -- in conjunction with their various allies -- are genuine masters.

This week's flap over a DHS report on potentially dangerous right-wing extremists is the best example of this, at least since the manufactured controversy over President Obama "apologizing" for American "arrogance." Which was the best manufactured controversy since the administration's plan to "cut" military spending. Which was the best since Obama "bowed." Which was the best since the "outrage" over the president using a teleprompter. Which was the best since conservatives bristled after seeing the president chuckle during a "60 Minutes" interview.

Consider this take from Oliver North, chatting with Sean Hannity about the DHS report last night:

"[H]ere's what's really disturbing about [the DHS report]. One is the intrusion into political thought in America that vilifies those of us who have subscribed to any of those, or guys like you and me that subscribe to all of them.

"Second of all, it's a twisted idea. They're saying that right-wing extremism is the number one threat to American safety and security. That means that if you're a Hamas organizer or a Hezbollah recruiter or a Somali terrorist trying to recruit suicide terrorists, you're lower on the totem pole in terms of scrutiny than a regular American citizen concerned about these things, to include, outrageously enough, American veterans who they think are a target for being radicalized."

This is so obviously ridiculous, it's a challenge counting all the errors. The DHS report doesn't "vilify" conservatives, unless North is prepared to argue that he and Hannity have embraced a extremist, borderline-violent ideology. The department isn't singling out people like North and Hannity; it prepared a similar report about left-wing radicals (curious that no one seems worked about that one).

When North complains about what "they're saying," he's referring to the Obama administration, which is also wrong, since the report in question was initiated and prepared by Bush administration officials. No one in any position of authority has ever said, in any context, that "right-wing extremism is the number one threat to American safety and security." And the only reason officials believe veterans might be "a target for being radicalized" because veterans are often a target for being radicalized.

Here's the thing: I suspect North and Hannity know their rhetoric is nonsense. Sure, they're pretty far gone, but they're not illiterate. No one is dumb enough to believe these arguments, not even these two.

Which is why I'm almost impressed with their act. I mean, really, how many days have these clowns kept this non-story alive?

The statue bit is interesting, but then Rachel corrects the record on Senator Burr, whose office has taken exception to her reporting - and that is priceless. The phrase - "does not suffer fools lightly" - comes to mind.

Make room for the 'Gipper' April 16: Ms. Information: Rachel Maddow reports on some stories that didn't make the front page, including how a bronze statue of former President Ronald Reagan is heading to the U.S. Capitol's Statuary Hall.

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

Benen: THE KIND OF THING OFFICIALS SHOULDN'T JOKE ABOUT....

Rep. Mark Kirk, an Illinois Republican, told the Chicago Tribune on Wednesday that Gov. Pat Quinn's (D) plan to raise taxes would be unacceptable. "I think the people of Illinois are ready to shoot anyone who is going to raise taxes by that degree," Kirk said.

Now, I don't imagine Kirk was being literal. It's a figure of speech, not a sincere call for political violence. But given the recent gun tragedies, and the over-the-top nature of conservative Republican rhetoric of late, elected leaders probably shouldn't make jokes about shooting governors over policy disputes.

I assumed reporters would ask Kirk about this and he'd walk it back, chalking it up to a macabre sense of humor. I assumed wrong.

Congressman Mark Kirk is standing by his earlier comments that Illinois residents "are ready to shoot anyone who is going to raise taxes" as much as Gov. Pat Quinn is proposing.

Kirk says the many people facing unemployment don't need a tax increase. Quinn has proposed a graduated income tax increase to help fill an $11.5 billion deficit.

Remember, political reporters generally refer to Kirk, who has acknowledged his interest in running for governor, as a "moderate."

As was the case with the Richard Poplawski shootings, disturbed people sometimes do horrible things, and it's not fair to blame politics for their crimes. That said, political leaders in positions of influence and authority shouldn't encourage them.

Mark Kirk didn't call for violence, but he's egging on those who might be thinking about it. And when given a chance to walk it back, Kirk refused.

Responsible leaders don't behave this way. Decent leaders don't behave this way

This isn't a "watch what you say" moment; it's simply a plea to turn down the temperature. These guys continue to push the envelope a little too much.

Yglesias: Ralph Peters Says Monitoring Right-Wing Extremism Is “Racist”

As I’ve been saying, you never see a conservative feeling that any kind of racism against non-white people is a problem. But they’re hyper-sensitive to the made-up problem of anti-white racism. Thus, this unhinged rant from Ralph Peters on Fox News who feels that the Department of Homeland Security’s memo recommending vigilance against violent right-wing extremists is a “racist” attack on “white Christians”:

Meanwhile, conservative members of congress are calling for bloodshed as tea parties warn of Obama’s plan to enslave the white race.

C&L's Neiwert: Pat Robertson urges his callers to crash Homeland Security hotline

Apr 17, 2009 6:45am

Pat Robertson, on The 700 Club yesterday, got in on the collective right-wing teeth-gnashing over that Department of Homeland Security bulletin on the threat posed by right-wing extremists in America.

You know, the controversy that's been demonstrated to be a lot of hot air -- not to mention a terribly revealing one about how mainstream right-wingers see themselves.

Not that such mere trifles would ever deter Pat Robertson. His attack on the DHS yesterday, alongside his coanchor Terry Meeuwsen, featured an unending stream of flatly false information and mischaracterizations. Plus, of course, the requisite gay-bashing and liberal bashing, all wrapped up in a neat little ball:

Robertson: If that had been a Republican, there would be outrage and screams for Janet Napolitano to resign immediately. That -- Terry, you're somebody who favors life, wants to keep little babies alive. Somebody who has been a veteran and served our country as a proud member of the military. Somebody who is opposed to the left-wing policies of the administration and who wants to express his or her views as they are entitled to under our Constitution, these people are now being stigmatized as terrorists! This is an outrage!

Ladies and gentlemen, I want you to do something about it. If that doesn't get you excited, I don't know what would. And I want you to call a number. This is the Department of Homeland Security.

[Reads number]

... And just say you protest. This is an outrage!

And Janet Napolitano has got a lot of explaining to do. And that lame excuse she was giving -- 'Oh, I'm sorry they characterized all veterans that way' -- I mean, come off it!

Meeuwsen: The report was the report. I mean, it is astonishing that it was allowed to leave under that --

Robertson: It -- it shows somebody down in the bowels of that organization is either a convinced left-winger or somebody whose sexual orientation is somewhat in question.

But it's that kind of thing, somebody who doesn't think that we should have abortion on demand, is labeled a terrorist! It's outrageous!

Then, after a news segment that ended with a story about Somali pirates, Robertson gets back to his rant:

Robertson: These people [pirates] are terrorists. Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization. The extreme Muslims are terrorists and they are being trained to destroy America.

So what does our Homeland Security Department come out with? They say, well, the real terrorists are people who are conservative, who are former veterans of the United States military, who believe in the sanctity of human life, and who don't like the policies of the current administration. These are the major threat to America.

Now, that in my opinion, is an outrage. And I think if you don't speak out against it, it's going to be allowed to stand. So I want to give you that number again. Ring those phones up there in Washington, let them know people care.

[Reads number]

That you protest this -- ah, stigmatism of law-abiding Americans as being right-wing threats to America.

[Repeats number]

And if you jam up their lines, good for you!

While I could think of a few organizations whose lines it might be a good idea to jam, Homeland Security would not be one of them.

Hell, if Janet Napolitano and Obama were half the tyrants Pat Robertson makes them out to be, wouldn't they be charging him with an act of terrorism?

I'll have a lot more about the DHS bulletin and the wingnut furor around it later today.

Benen: THEY'VE ALREADY GONE GALT....

The argument has always been a little tough to follow, but the "going Galt" crowd has argued that raising taxes on the elite wealth-producers may compel them to give up their industries trades to spite society for "punishing" them.

Except, according to a report from Pajamas Media, the elite have already "gone Galt."

It's quite a creative piece, which argues that the global recession began in 2008 as a result of the "Pelosi-Obama-Reid economy," which began failing about seven months before Obama took office. The Democratic economic agenda hadn't been presented yet -- Obama hadn't even accepted the nomination yet -- but the leadership's "intent" sent "businesses, investors, and entrepreneurs" fleeing.

Then there's this evidence:

March is supposed to be a big month for tax receipts from regular corporations whose years end in December. In March 2008 (go to Table 3 on page 2 at the link), $32.6 billion poured in. This year? I'm not kidding: $3.4 billion. For the fiscal year thus far, corporate income tax collections are down almost 57%. [...]

It's clear that quite a few ordinarily industrious people "went Galt" months before the tea party movement even came into existence.... Pelosi, Obama, Reid, and their party created the conditions that led to this and are primarily responsible for how bad things are.

I see. Tax receipts aren't down because of the deep global recession; they're down because "quite a few ordinarily industrious people 'went Galt.'" These Galt folks didn't even wait for tax increases -- they went on strike to spite society based on proposals that haven't even passed. They went Galt, in other words, out of a sense that they'll eventually feel persecuted.

I'll give Pajamas Media this much: it's hard to argue with logic like this.

John Cole concluded, "And you know what? As stupid as that piece is, you can guarantee some wingnut will repeat it. Why? Because it has numbers in it, so it must be true. That is a veritable dissertation compared to the movement that brought us Liberal Fascism."

Sargent: Top Senate Republican Admits That Torture Helps Al Qaeda Recruitment

This is a good one. In the course of attacking Obama’s decision to release the torture memos, GOP Senator Kit Bond appears to have admitted that the image of the U.S. torturing terror suspects actually helps terror recruitment and hurts our national security — one of the principle arguments of torture opponents.

Check out this nugget buried in an interview Bond, the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, gave to ABC’s George Stephanopoulos:

Bond believes the administration “released far too much information,” adding that he thinks Al Qaeda will use this information to train their followers to resist interrogation and that it will provide “propaganda for Al Qaeda’s media machine.”

Bottom line: Bond believes this release will “make us less safe and “heighten anger” in parts of the world “where we’re trying to make friends.”

Now that Obama has released the torture memos, Bond is arguing that the image of America torturing would provide “propaganda” for terrorists and leave us less safe. But the claim that the image of America torturing would have this effect has been made by opponents of torture for years — and it’s an argument that has long been dismissed as irrelevant by “harsh interrogation” proponents.

Bond, to be sure, is arguing that torture should be kept secret for these very reasons. But in the process, he’s inadvertently acknowledged that one of the key arguments long made against torture is correct. Either you believe the image of America torturing makes us less safe, or you don’t — and a top Senate Republican has now revealed that he does believe this.

sgw finds Conservatives Tone Deaf On Torture