Your Lunchtime Wingnuts

NPR had John Bolton on my radio last night talking about what Obama's foreign policy should be. Why was Bolton on my radio? Why is he treated as a serious expert by NPR? Perhaps this explains it ...

Sully: The Voice Of Conservatism?

E.D. Kain vents:

Fox News is simply not conservative. The fact of the matter is, I find NPR and even News Hour more conservative than Fox - but in a different sense, I suppose, than the standard boiler plate conservatism that has so infested American politics. What I mean to say is that the conservatism of Fox News tends to be wrapped up in loud, divisive, trashy television that is cheap and ugly and reactionary and essentially all things distasteful that conservatives should look at with scorn and antipathy. The measured, reserved, thoughtful and culturally sensible tone of NPR is far more conservative. I’d rather my kids listen to it than watch Glenn Beck.

Joyner adds his own two cents.

Benen: DELAYED OUTRAGE....

This seems to happen with increasing frequency lately. Something rather mundane relating to President Obama will occur late in the week; the weekend will go by with minimal excitement; and the president's Republican opponents erupt on Monday with rage and disgust.

This flap over the president shaking hands with the president of Venezuela at the Summit of the Americas follows the pattern. The picture of the two heads of state was taken and distributed on Friday. On Saturday, some newspapers ran it, but it didn't generate much in the way of excitement. On Sunday, it drew some limited discussion on the Sunday shows, but it hardly qualified as a legitimate political "controversy."

But today, it's all the rage. If the handshake was such a damaging development, one that undermines U.S. prestige and interests, why did it take a few days for Republicans to get so upset?

The same thing happened a couple of weeks ago. President Obama spoke early on a Friday in Strasbourg about the United States "renewing our partnership" with Europe. Obama's remarks, which acknowledged errors on both sides of the Atlantic, were aired live to a national television audience on a Friday morning, and weren't considered controversial.

Seventy two hours later, on Monday morning, Republicans were outraged that the president "apologized" to France for American "arrogance." Fox News could talk about little else.

If Obama's comments were so insulting, why did it take nearly four days for the GOP to notice?

This probably isn't any great mystery -- Republicans are likely just delaying their manufactured outrage because they know weekends are a slow news period -- but it seems like a new twist on an old game.

In the Bush years, the ol' gang perfected the art of holding bad news until late on a Friday afternoon to generate as little attention as possible. In the Obama years, the same gang is perfecting the art of holding tantrums until early on a Monday morning to generate as much attention as possible.

These guys can't govern, but they sure know how to work a calendar.

• Maddow: Talk to the hand April 20: President Obama shook Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's hand over the weekend. According to Obama's critics, this gesture is a diplomatic disaster. Is it really such a big deal? Rachel Maddow is joined by The Nation's Chris Hayes. The tone in this is just right - lots of laughter.

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

  • Benen: GINGRICH KEEPS INVITING TROUBLE....

    Newt Gingrich's aggressive criticism yesterday of President Obama's handshake with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was so ridiculous, it's tempting to think Tulane may ask for its PhD back. The more the former House Speaker popped off, the more his attacks drew scrutiny, and the more Gingrich's comments were exposed as absurd.

    This may seem hard to believe, but Gingrich is on even weaker ground discussing issues related to families.

    Somehow or other the conservative movement has gotten so intellectually bankrupt that the lunatics running the asylum think that Newt Gingrich is an intelligent and canny man. Consequently, he's snagged himself a situation where he's in the news constantly offering apercus like "The Democratic Party has been the active instrument of breaking down traditional marriage."

    Ah, yes, Newt Gingrich and the breakdown of traditional marriage. It's an issue he knows very well.

    [T]he most notorious of them all is undoubtedly Gingrich, who ran for Congress in 1978 on the slogan, "Let Our Family Represent Your Family." (He was reportedly cheating on his first wife at the time). In 1995, an alleged mistress from that period, Anne Manning, told Vanity Fair's Gail Sheehy: "We had oral sex. He prefers that modus operandi because then he can say, 'I never slept with her.'" Gingrich obtained his first divorce in 1981, after forcing his wife, who had helped put him through graduate school, to haggle over the terms while in the hospital, as she recovered from uterine cancer surgery. In 1999, he was disgraced again, having been caught in an affair with a 33-year-old congressional aide while spearheading the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton.

    Please, Newt, tell us again about how important it is for Republican leaders like you to protect traditional marriage.

    Expertise like this is so hard to find.

Think Progress: Rep. Tiahrt Backtracks, Bows Down: Limbaugh 'Is A Great Leader Of The Conservative Movement'

Last week in an interview with the Kansas City Star editorial board, Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS) risked alienating thousands of ditto-heads by giving his honest opinion of whether Rush Limbaugh was the "de facto leader of the GOP." "No, no, he's just an entertainer," Tiahrt said.

According to the Wichita Eagle (via Kansas Jackass), Tiahrt's office is now also rushing to apologize:

Asked about the episode and resulting Web buzz, Tiahrt spokesman Sam Sackett said Tiahrt was not speaking negatively about Limbaugh but was trying to defend him against the suggestion that Limbaugh could be blamed for the GOP’s woes. "The congressman believes Rush is a great leader of the conservative movement in America -- not a party leader responsible for election losses," Sackett told The Eagle editorial board. "Nothing the congressman said diminished the role Rush has played and continues to play in the conservative movement."

As ThinkProgress has noted, other Republicans have made similar courageous statements, only to eventually back down in the face of Limbaugh's great power.

RNC Chairman Michael Steele: On March 1, Michael Steele went on CNN and said, "Rush Limbaugh, his whole thing is entertainment. Yes, it's incendiary. Yes, it's ugly." The next day, he backtracked and told Politico, "My intent was not to go after Rush -- I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh." On Jan. 27, Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) noted that Limbaugh and other conservative talkers are able to "stand back and throw bricks" instead of offering "real leadership" in the middle of high-profile public policy battles. The very next day, he went on Limbaugh's show and offered his "sincere regret" for his comments.

Republicans should be careful -- looks like that "foot-in-mouth disease" is contagious.

Benen: CHENEY CAN'T HELP HIMSELF....

Remember about a month ago, when several prominent Republican officials acknowledged publicly that they'd like to see Dick Cheney quietly go away? The former vice president really doesn't care what they think.

Cheney repeated the tired litany of recent attacks on President Obama, starting with his "concerns" about the president's recent speech outlining the ways in which the United States can "renew our partnership" with Europe. From there, it went to the new Republican smear of the week.

Just days after Obama shook hands and received a gift from Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, Cheney called the images of the encounter "not helpful." "I think it sets the wrong standard," Cheney added.

"The president's got to provide leadership and I don't want to be in a position where you don't interact with your adversaries. I think you do need to do that but I think it's got to be done properly. It's got to be done under the right conditions."

Hmm, there was a hemispheric gathering of heads of state. One elected president shook hands with another elected president. In what universe is this "interaction" taking place under the "wrong conditions"?

Cheney added that there's ample evidence that the war crimes he supported were effective, and he's "formally asked" intelligence agencies to declassify reports about torture being "enormously valuable." Of course, since Cheney is a civilian, his "formal" request doesn't really amount to much.

He concluded by telling Hannity that he believes it's "important not to personally attack the new president." They both managed to keep a straight face. I'm not sure how.

But arguably more important than Cheney's cringe-worthy mendacity is the larger political dynamic. Chris Cillizza noted this morning that the former vice president has apparently made the "decision to serve as the self-appointed defender of the Bush presidency," which in turn "presents a real challenge for a party hoping to put forward new faces and fresh ideas." Cillizza quoted a Republican consultant saying, "He is a face of the past. A face of conflict and too polarizing. So, not a good face of the party."

This is precisely why Democrats are thrilled Dick Cheney hasn't found a more productive way to spend his retirement. The majority party would love nothing more than a political fight that boils down to Obama's approach vs. the Bush/Cheney/Rove approach. The former VP keeps making this easier.

Cheney thinks he's helping by becoming the GOP hatchet-man. He's actually doing Democrats a favor.

• digby: Vice For Life

  Uh oh, Daddy's freaking out again:
  

  "I haven't talked about it, but I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw, that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country," Cheney said. "I've now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos so we can lay them out there and the American people have a chance to see what we obtained and what we learned and how good the intelligence was."

  Did someone forget to tell Dick that he has no authority anymore to formally or informally ask the CIA to do jack?
  

  I don't ever remember a former president, much less a former vice president, behaving like this after he's out of office. Can't he find some GOP hacks to do this for him? It's embarrassing.

• Think Progress: Cheney: 'It's Important Not To Personally Attack The New President. I've Never Done That'

  Since leaving office, Vice President Cheney has launched unrelenting and baseless attacks on President Obama -- a stark contrast from his former boss, President Bush. Last month, he told CNN that Obama is "making some choices that...raise the risk to the American people of another attack," referring to the President's decisions to close Guantanamo and end torture. He then suggested Obama was deceiving the American public:

  Q: Is the president of the United States trying to brazenly deceive the American people?

  CHENEY: Well, I think they’ve taken liberties, if you will, with the arguments.

  In an interview with Fox News's Sean Hannity last night, Cheney continued his diatribe against the President. Echoing a frequent right-wing talking point, Cheney said Obama was "so busy apologizing for past U.S. behavior" abroad in recent weeks, and he criticized Obama's conversations with Hugo Chavez. Some highlights from the interview:

  -- "But what I find disturbing is the extent to which he has gone to Europe, for example, and seemed to apologize profusely in Europe, and then to Mexico, and apologize there, and so forth."

  -- "We've seen a lot of decisions made, especially in this administration with respect to the war on terror, which is no longer a war on terror, it's an overseas contingency operation."

  -- "You have millions of people all across South America who are watching how we respond. And if they see an American president sort of cozying up to somebody like Daniel Ortega or Chavez, I think it's not helpful. I think it sort of sets the wrong standard."

  But Cheney then offering a particularly puzzling assessment of his recent media appearances. "I think there is -- it's important not to personally attack the new president. I've never done that," he claimed. Watch a compilation of Cheney's attacks on Obama:

  In an interview with Politico shortly after Obama's inauguration, Cheney suggested that Obama officials were "turning the other cheek" against terrorism and were unwisely following “campaign rhetoric” on detainee policy. Cheney claimed that administration officials were "more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States."

  But apparently, none of this is "personal" in Cheney's eyes.

  UpdateCheney defended the Bush administration’s record, claiming, “I don’t think we’ve got much to apologize for.”

C&L: Gov. Rick Perry and the Secessionists

John Amato Monday Apr 20, 2009 4:00pm

We blew the lid off of Texas Gov. Rick Perry's outrageous and treasonous statements regarding the secession of Texas from the union.

All the insane talk coming from the Limbaugh National Convention is spreading into the fabric of the entire GOP. Listen to Texas Gov. Rick Perry say:

Perry: Texas is a unique place. When we came into the Union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that.

We got a great Union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it, but if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what may come out of that.

Media Matters recently released some very disturbing information about Perry:

Media Matters Action Network released a memo outlining Texas Governor Rick Perry's ties to a Texas secessionist group whose former leaders are responsible for numerous acts of domestic terrorism. "From bomb threats, to kidnapping, to planning attacks using biological weapons, the Texas Nationalist Movement has a long violent history that cannot be ignored," Media Matters Action Network Managing Director Ari Rabin-Havt said. "Governor Perry should be ashamed of his association with these domestic terrorists."..read on
Very disturbing indeed.

John Sharp is running in Texas against Perry and although I don't know much about him, he's not taking Perry's secessionist comments lightly.

During WWII my father was shot in defense of the greatest country on earth and I proudly wore the uniform of a United States Army Reserve officer. So I'm offended when it become acceptable for anybody to talk about Texas leaving the Union.

Benen: EMULATING THE TALIBAN....

Fox News' new website is a font of odd and mistaken information, but this one seemed more annoying than most.

An April 17 headline posted on TheFoxNation.com -- Fox News' new and allegedly bias-free website -- claimed that the "Taliban Copies Democrat Playbook." The headline linked to an April 16 New York Times article headlined, "Taliban Exploit Class Rifts in Pakistan." In fact, the Times article -- which described insurgency tactics such as roadside bombs -- made no mention of the Democratic Party.

This, apparently, is "Fox Nation's" idea of being clever. You see, the Taliban is exploiting class rifts in Pakistan, so the Taliban is necessarily emulating the "Democrat [sic] Playbook." How droll.

But the reason this was of particular interest is because there was one recent instance in which a leading American politician really did want to see a major U.S. political party share a playbook with the Taliban. It wasn't, however, a Democrat -- it was National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas), who said GOP lawmakers should emulate the Taliban because "they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes."

Funny, I don't remember seeing Fox News make the connection at the time between the GOP and the Taliban. Probably just an oversight.

Benen: TELLING THEM WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR....

From time to time, I've suggested that congressional Republicans act as if they don't believe in reading books. I stand corrected.

There aren't any sex scenes or vampires, and it won't help you lose weight. But House Republicans are tearing through the pages of Amity Shlaes' "The Forgotten Man" like soccer moms before book club night.

Shlaes' 2007 take on the Great Depression questions the success of the New Deal and takes issue with the value of government intervention in a major economic crisis -- red meat for a party hungry for empirical evidence that the Democrats' spending plans won't end the current recession.

"There aren't many books that take a negative look at the New Deal," explained Republican policy aide Mike Ference, whose boss, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia, invited Shlaes to join a group of 20 or so other House Republicans for lunch earlier this year in his Capitol suite.

Well, no, there aren't many books that take a negative look at the New Deal, probably because the New Deal worked and helped pull the nation out of the Great Depression. When a leader addresses a crisis, and his or her strategy works, historians tend to write complimentary texts on the subject. They're funny that way.

But the fact that House Republicans would seek out books critical of the New Deal tells us a little something about their approach to problem-solving. For these GOP officials, one starts with the answer -- FDR bad, spending bad, government bad, Hoover good -- and works backwards, seeking out those who'll bolster their answers before the questions are even asked. To those ends, Shlaes fills an important Republican niche.

Of course, that doesn't make her book with legitimate scholarship. On the contrary, it's nakedly partisan propaganda, retelling history in a way that makes Republicans feel better about themselves.

"The Forgotten Man" isn't history; it's fan-fiction.

Paul Krugman explained in November that there's "a whole intellectual industry, mainly operating out of right-wing think tanks, devoted to propagating the idea that F.D.R. actually made the Depression worse." Shlaes is, alas, at the top of this enterprise.

Jon Chait wrote the definitive takedown of Shlaes' book for TNR about a month ago. If you haven't read it, Chait's piece is worth a look.