kos:
Those Virginia Republican women sure are funny!New Ice Cream Favor
In Honor of the 44th President of the United States, Baskin-Robbins Ice Cream has issued a new flavor, ” Barocky Road.” Barocky Road is a blend of half Vanilla, half Chocolate, and surrounded by Nuts and Flakes. The Vanilla portion of the mix is not openly advertised and usually denied as an ingredient. The Nuts and Flakes are all very bitter and hard to swallow. The Cost is $100.00 per scoop.
When purchased, it will be presented to you in a large beautiful cone, but then the Ice Cream is taken away and given to the person in line behind you. Thus you are left with an empty Wallet, no change, holding an empty cone, with no hope of getting any Ice Cream.
In the time I was writing this, that page was scrubbed. No worries, though. I took a screenshot.
This repuglican secession thing is just stunning.
Kos: Less than two-thirds of southerners and Republicans pledge allegiance to the USA
Can I just say what a bunch of whining little wimps these Republicans all are? They love to present themselves as stoic, manly warriors, loving heir country above all else, willing to lay down their lives for it.
Until something happens they don't like and then they want to blow the thing up.
We've been polling the question. In Texas, 48 percent of Republicans (and 35 percent overall) would prefer Texas to be an Independent nation. In Georgia, 43 percent of Republicans (and 27 percent overall) want independence.
We decided to ask that question in our national weekly poll last week.
Do you think the state that you live in would be better off as an independentnation or as part of the United States of America?
US Independent
All 79 5
Northeast 90 2
South 61 9
Midwest 86 4
West 84 4Would you approve or disapprove of the state that you live in leaving the United States?
Approve Disapprove Unsure
All 4 82 14
Northeast 1 94 5
South 8 63 29
Midwest 3 89 8
West 3 87 10In most of the country, the 9 out of 10 people love America. But in the South, less than two-thirds would disapprove of their state leaving the US. And sure, while the "approve" contingent in the South is just 8 percent, 29 percent aren't sure.
Aren't sure? There's a debate as to whether leaving the US is good or bad? Is their love of America so shallow, so skin deep, that leaving the country is even an option? And check this out:
Would you approve or disapprove of the state that you live in leaving the United States?
Approve Disapprove Unsure
All 4 82 14
Dem 2 95 3
Rep 9 63 28
Ind 3 83 14
This is objective evidence that Democrats love America more than anyone else. 95 percent of them want their states to remain as part of the union, while only 63 percent -- less than two-thirds -- of Republicans similarly love their country.
Hence we'll continue to see wingnutty "sovereignty" resolutions and proclamations made in the South, and you'll continue getting wingnuts like Pittsburgh cop killer Richard Poplawski motivated to defy the authorities. As his friend said, "We recently discovered that 30 states had declared sovereignty. One of his concerns was, Why were these major events in America not being reported to the public?”
There's a lot of crazy out there, and it's mostly percolating among Republicans. Those bumper stickers that say "these colors don't run"? Well, they're running it. America, love it or leave it? Well, they clearly don't love it as they yearn to leave it. And those flag lapel pins? They attacked liberals who wore them when in reality, it was THEM who needed to be pledging allegiance to a flag they'd apparently rather tear up and burn.
- Steve Benen adds:
It's funny what three months of a Democratic president will do to one's sense of patriotism.
But I was even more intrigued by the regional differences. I even made a chart, using the poll results.
...The poll comes just as the Oklahoma legislature is set to vote on a resolution affirming its sovereignty. Gov. Brad Henry (D) vetoed the measure, but lawmakers are poised to override.
Blogger Mark Frauenfelder shared this little illustration with his readers:C&L: Is Sean Hannity urging Americans to armed revolt?
It's very nicely done, I think. It's true that the artist is probably a liberal having a little bit of fun (although it could be a Republican too, at this point) but it certainly doesn't seem like something that would terribly upset anyone. And considering the current state of the GOP, it's quite uncontroversial.
Alas, some conservatives were mighty peeved evidently. Liberals are awful depraved human beings for creating such a disrespectful image. So, being a fair and balanced guy, this prompted Frauenfelder to feature the kind of harmless political illustrations conservatives favor:
This is just straight talk too:
Here's some good clean fun:
This one's real laugh riot:
Yes, liberals putting clown make-up on Republican politicians is beyond the pale. They should be ashamed of themselves.
David Neiwert Wednesday May 06, 2009 1:00pmWe've been wondering for awhile about the unhinged rhetoric that's been coming steadily from the mainstream right since Obama's election, and the kinds of effects it will have on its audiences, especially over time.
Glenn Beck has become the most notable purveyor of this rhetoric in recent months, but its past master, Sean Hannity, is clearly intent on keeping his spot as the lead foam-flecked dog -- which was what last night's Fox News show was all about. It left Ellen at Newshounds wondering if Hannity was calling for armed revolt:
Hannity suspended his usual “Hannity Headline” to bring a “special first segment of the show” that was straight out of Glenn Beck's playbook. Is Hannity getting nervous as Beck gains on him in the ratings?
As patriotic music played in the background, Hannity, who just a few weeks ago vehemently supported Governor Rick Perry's threat of secession, quickly suggested that an uprising against the government might be in order. “In 1765, Parliament passed The Stamp Act, provoking outrage among the American colonists,” Hannity began. “Now, the leaders of the tax uprising were the sons of liberty.”
Citing the names of Paul Revere, Patrick Henry, John Hancock and John Adams, Hannity explained that they met under a tree to “air their grievances against the tyrannical King George. The sons of liberty would become an early voice for the rights of an oppressed citizenry.”
With awe in his voice, Hannity said that the colonists hung two tax collectors in effigy from a tree “and from that day forward, it became known as the 'Liberty Tree.'”
In case anyone didn't quite snap to what he was getting at, Hannity added that under the last liberty tree, which stood at St. John's College in Maryland, colonists “held a tea party and listened to the words of founding father Samuel Chase.”
..Hannity concluded by saying, “This administration has plucked the tree of liberty bare. It took more than 200 years but it now looks like we are headed back to where we started.” Meaning revolution? Hannity never said one way or the other.
When mainstream talk show hosts, addressing an audience that is politically stymied and increasingly angry and frustrated, start talking about "revolution," they have to be aware that some of the more unstable elements in that audience -- particularly the paranoia-prone folks who have just been told repeatedly by the Hannitys and other Fox pundits that the DHS considers them a terrorist threat -- are going to be acting that rhetoric out in violent ways.
[Y]ou can't tell me there's no relationship between this kind of rhetoric and the even crazier talk coming from the radical right. Because unlike the armchair right-wing pundits who indulge this stuff because it's a useful way to bestir the troops but couldn't act to save their asses, some of these other people, the radicals who hear this talk and then pump the irrationality even farther, to its illogical extreme, are perfectly capable of acting upon it.
Of course, when it happens, Sean Hannity will find a way to blame liberals for it.
sgw: They Got Nothing
Aravosis: GOP pollster slams Republican rebranding effortWhen even Joe Scarborough is calling the GOP out for not having any alternatives you know they have hit rock bottom.
From Greg Sargent:A high-profile and well-respected GOP pollster is strongly criticizing the new effort by the GOP Congressional leadership to revive the party’s national security attacks on Obama, saying the strategy risks making the party look “out of touch and irrelevant.”Same leadership. Same cards.
“What are we, in a time machine?” the pollster, Tony Fabrizio, asked scornfully in an interview with me moments ago. “We just got clobbered in two successive elections and lost majorities in both Houses, and the leadership appears to keep on playing the same cards.”
George Will joins the wingnuts. He has well and truly lost it.
Benen: GEORGE WILL KEEPS DIGGING....
Given George Will's errors on the environment lately, it's tempting to think he'd avoid the subject altogether. No such luck.Benen: * Rush Limbaugh wants to see Colin Powell leave the Republican Party.Over the weekend, ABC's "This Week" briefly covered the president's latest White House press conference. The show featured a clip from Obama in which he said, "I know that if the Japanese can design an affordable, well-designed hybrid, then doggone it, the American people should be able to do the same. So my job is to ask the auto industry, 'Why is it you guys can't do this?'"
George Will was unimpressed.
"I assume the president is talking about the Prius. It's affordable because Toyota sells it at a loss, and it can afford to sell it at a loss because it is selling twice as many gas-guzzling pickup trucks of the sort our president detests. So as an auto executive, he's off to a rocky start."
Actually, the only thing "rocky" here is the quality of Will's analysis.
In reality, Toyota used to sell hybrids at a loss -- in 1997. The industry and consumer trends have changed considerably over the last 12 years, and Toyota started making a profit on each Prius sold way back in 2001.
Indeed, reader R.H. directed me to this item, which noted, "[T]he Nikkei newspaper in Japan estimated just last week that both Honda and Toyota make over $3,000 of profit on each hybrid sold."
Will isn't having a good year.
Sully: The View From His Recession
Limbaugh helps the GOP out some more:
But during all this growth I haven’t lost any audience. I’ve never had financially a down year. There’s supposedly a recession, but we’ve got - what is this May? Back in February we already had 102% of 2008 overbooked for 2009. [applause] So I always believed that if we’re going to have a recession, just don’t participate. [laughter]
- Think Progress: Cantor Caves: Republicans Will Be ‘Listening’ To Rush Limbaugh, Not The American Public
Last week, Republicans kicked off their National Council for a New America, an attempt to revive the image of the GOP. One of the leading participants, former governor Jeb Bush, said that it was time for Republicans to “listen first, to learn a little bit, to upgrade our message a little bit.” Similarly, on Sunday, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) told CNN that Republicans should be “listening to the people“:
CANTOR: Listen, John, I think there is a lot of blame to go around. And what we’re trying to do here today is kick off a series of town hall forums so that we can get back to listening to the people. [...]
So we’ve got to go out and, again, reconnect and make sure that our policy prescriptions are relevant to the challenges that people in the Northeast are facing, to the challenges that educated, affluent families are facing, as well as those much more challenged in the inner cities and rural areas of our country.
There is a common theme in this country and that is opportunity. That’s what these forums are going to be about, about listening to how we tap into the real challenges and how we allow opportunity to flourish again.
Listening to all this talk about listening, Rush Limbaugh became incensed. He said that instead of taking cues from the American public, Republicans should fan out and spread their dogma through a “teaching tour.” This morning on MSNBC, Cantor backtracked and said that he agreed with Limbaugh:
SCARBOROUGH: So, let’s start with Rush Limbaugh, who seems to be mocking the idea of a listening tour. What do you say to Rush?
CANTOR: You know, Joe, really, this — this is not a listening tour. You know, think about what we saw a couple weeks ago on the TEA parties.
Cantor added that the National Council was actually an opportunity “to go out across this country to talk about our conservative principles and to appeal to as many elements in our society as we can.” Watch it:
Yesterday, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) had a similar retraction, saying that the GOP’s objective was to help “educate the American people,” even though a week before he had said that “we’re going to listen, we’re going to learn.”
- C&L: The Kiss of Rush: Limbaugh signals that Sarah Palin's the One
David Neiwert Wednesday May 06, 2009 9:30am
While the GOP struggles to find someone -- anyone -- to be the leader who'll get them out of the political wilderness, their current leader, and the man who did more to lead them into that wilderness, is starting to make it clear he's chosen the figurehead to replace George W. Bush:
Sarah Palin.
On Monday's Rush broadcast, he dissed the GOP's current "reconnect" efforts, and said they were all missing the boat -- because Palin wasn't there:
If Jeb wants to run around and say that they've got something and we don't have anything -- I mean, the Democrats got something. We have to admit it. If we don't have something, it's the fault of the people that Jeb is meeting with in Arlington, Virginia, not conservatives and not conservatism and not the grass roots!
Ah, the -- what's -- I have to laugh. Specter and all these people talk about how far right the party's moving? It's the exact opposite. This party has muddled its identity to the point that they have to do this tour to come up with a new brand, that they're rebrand the Republican -- why? Because in many places, you can't distinguish it from the Democratic Party.
Something else you have to understand. These people hate Palin, too. They despise Sarah Palin. They fear Sarah Palin. They don't like her, either. She's -- according to them, she's embarrassing. A lot of this is aimed at Sarah Palin. When you -- when you -- when you strip all the talk that the Reagan era is over and we got to stop all this nostalgia and stuff, clearly, in last year's campaign, the most prominent, articulate voice for standard run-of-the-mill good old-fashioned American conservatism was Sarah Palin.
Now, everybody on this "speak to America" tour has presidential perspirations. Mitt Romney's out there. He wants to be president again. Jeb may some day. Eric Cantor, some of the others, McCain -- I don't think he does, but you never know. So this is -- this is -- this is an early campaign event, 2012 presidential campaign, primary campaign, with everybody there but Sarah Palin.
And then, yesterday, he was even more explicit:
You know what's more confusing to me is why the people that don't like her don't like her. That's what gets me scratching my head. The people on our side, not the left. I understand -- the left is scared to death of her. The left is still out there trying to destroy Sarah Palin. She's up in Alaska, they're filing ethics complaints against her every week, forcing her to have to have a legal-defense fund. They're trying to break her! They're trying to make her go broke so she won't be able to have a political future. They're scared to death of her. If they weren't, they'd leave her alone, they'd let her go moose hunting! And that would be it!
Why -- you see how easy the conventional wisdom is? The conventional wisdom is that Palin is a dork, that Palin is an idiot, that Palin's unsophisticated, or Palin's this or that, she doesn't know the lingo or she has a bad wardrobe, all this irrelevant stuff! To try to destroy her, to destroy her credibility with people, to impugn her. I just listened to what she said, I liked what she said, and I liked the way she said it. It's no more complicated than that.
And so we start to see the pieces fall into place. It's clear that Palin is one of the conservative movement's leading right-wing populists -- and with the GOP's open embrace of its tea-bagging right-wing populist wing, along with the increasing influence of Ron Paul (the party's other major populist figure), it makes sense that Sarah
PeronPalin would become their next Great White Hope.Of course, if I were Republican -- and boy am I glad I'm not -- I'm not sure I'd be getting my advice for future direction from the very people who guided me into this mess in the first place. But hey, maybe that's why I'm not a Republican.
On Meet the Press last weekend, David Gregory asked what "inducements" Arlen Specter had been given to switch parties. "None," replied Specter. "None?" asked, incredulously. "None," Specter replied. Gregory still didn't believe him. "You won't retain your seniority, as you move over, on, on key committees?"Oh.
"That's an entitlement," said Specter. "I've earned the seniority. I was elected in 1980. And I think that's, that's not a bribe or a gift or something extraordinary. I will be treated by the Democrats as if I'd been elected as a Democrat." That was the original deal, anyway. Reid promised him seniority. That would have made him the seventh most senior Democrat in the chamber.
But Specter wasn't elected as a Democrat. Nor has he been acting like one. And so his colleagues appear to have decided to stop treating him like one. In a voice vote last night, Senate Democrats stripped Specter of seniority. That makes Specter the most junior Democrat on four of his committees, and the second-to-most junior on the fifth. It keeps Specter from running for reelection based on his seniority: He's no more powerful in the chamber now than Joe Sestak would be. It significantly reduces his standing and capability in the chamber. And, frankly, it's humiliating. Specter is now loathed by the Republicans and unwanted by the Democrats. He's not, like Joe Lieberman was, just a man without a party. He's a man without friends.
Indeed, The Washington Post reports that "Reid himself read the resolution on the Senate floor, underscoring the reversal." The establishment, it seems, is backing off its support for Specter. And as if to render the judgment more clearly, unnamed Democrats told The Post that "they will consider revisiting Specter's seniority claim at the committee level only after next year's midterm elections." That's if Specter survives, and if he behaves.
Sessions rewind May 5: With the help of the Senate Library, Rachel Maddow uncovers some compelling testimony that helped defeat top Republican of the Senate Judiciary Committee Jeff Sessions' nomination to be a federal judge 23 years ago.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Yglesias: The Confederate Legacy
Ed Kilgore has a very interesting post on a new trend sweeping conservative politics in Dixie—“sovereignty resolutions” that appear to assert states’ rights to unilaterally invalidate federal action, a doctrine last seen in the hands of John C. Calhoun, the great antebellum theorist of white supremacy.
At any rate, while looking at Wikipedia for a Calhoun image, I saw this list of places named after John Calhoun. It’s a long list! And while I suppose I would hesitate to specifically place the blame for any current problems in American society on the fact that there are all these towns and counties and streets named after the guy, it is always striking for a historically informed northerner to see how thoroughly un-disavowed the legacy of white supremacy is in southern official culture. Get on 395 in DC and take the bridge across the Potomac, exiting onto Route 1, and you’ll find yourself on Jefferson Davis Highway. Yes. A highway named after the political leader of a rebellion against the duly constituted government of the United States of America, founded on the principle that democracy was less important than the right of white people to own black people. Right there on signs and everything.
It puts the fact that a guy like Jeff Sessions can be ranking member on an important committee in perspective.
Benen: BLINDING PENCE WITH SCIENCE....
On one side, we have President Obama, who seems to care so much about scientific integrity that some have begun calling him "almost strident" on the issue. On the other, we have leading congressional Republicans such as Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), the third highest-ranking GOP lawmaker in the House.MSNBC's Chris Matthews spoke with Pence yesterday, and started with a straightforward question: "Do you believe in evolution, sir?" Pence replied, "Uh, I, do I believe in evolution? Ah, I, I, uh, I embrace the, uh, the, uh, the view, ah, that God created the heavens and the earth, the seas and all that's in them."
I'll put him down for a "maybe."
Pence went on to repeat already discredited talking points on cap-and-trade policy; falsely argued that "the science is very mixed on the subject of global warming"; and said public school science classes should cover "all these controversial areas" regarding the origins of life on Earth.
Matthews, incredulous, asked, "Did you take biology in school? If your party wants to be credible on science, you gotta accept science.... I don't think your party is passionately committed to science, or fighting global warming, or dealing with the scientific facts we live with."
This is plainly true, and one of the core reasons why policy discussions with congressional Republicans go so poorly. For lawmakers like Pence, facts, evidence, and reason are obstacles to be avoided. It makes debate in good faith next to impossible.
In the broader context, I'm also reminded of something Matt Yglesias wrote earlier this year: "The larger issue ... is that Mike Pence is a moron, and any movement that would hold the guy up as a hero is bankrupt.... I would refer you to this post from September about the earth-shattering ignorance and stupidity of Mike Pence.... I can only gather from the fact that his colleagues have elevated him to a leadership post, that a large faction of them are actually so much stupider than Pence that they don't realize how dumb he is. But it's really staggering. In my admittedly brief experience talking to him, his inability to grasp the basic contours of policy question was obvious and overwhelming."
The Republican war on science did not end when Bush left office.
- Wonk Room : Pence Repeats $3000 Lie About Green Economy, Accuses MIT Economist Of Playing Politics
Today, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) not only lied twice on national television about the cost of a green economy, but also accused the MIT economist who has challenged Pence’s distortion of his work of playing politics. Since March, the GOP has repeated a $3000 lie about about cap-and-trade clean energy legislation, claiming that the analysis came from an MIT study. Even though economist John Reilly, a co-author of the study, has sent multiple letters to the GOP telling them their distortion is “just wrong” and asking them to stop misrepresenting his work, they ignored his requests. This afternoon, the Wonk Room interviewed Pence about Reilly’s attempts to correct the false portrayals of his own study. When asked if Reilly was wrong, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) accused the economist of “making a public policy or political conclusion”:
I respect the work that he did. We took the number that he used [for the value of the cap-and-trade market] and divided it by the number of the households. What he’s doing, he’s not making a mathematical conclusion, he’s making a public policy or political conclusion. He believes the other side’s analysis that there’ll going to be a rebate of these revenues and job growth.
Watch it:
This morning, after MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough asked him about the GOP plan for a green economy, Pence instead repeated the $3000 lie. Pence then led a Republican mock hearing on energy policy to attack the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act, where the Wonk Room interview took place. Pence then appeared on MSNBC an hour later and repeated the lie in an interview with Andrea Mitchell. Neither Scarborough nor Mitchell challenged Pence for quoting the repeatedly debunked statistic.Yet again, Pence is “just wrong.” In fact, Reilly, a widely respected energy economist, was “making a mathematical conclusion” when he told the House Republicans their $3000 figure was a fabrication. Asserting that the value of the market is equivalent to the economic cost of the policy — which one has to do to claim that the cost of cap and trade is $3100 per household — requires the assumption that value of the market magically disappears somewhere. Pence is not correct when he makes the argument that the lack of economic detail in the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act permits this distortion. Reilly attempted to explain this to the Weekly Standard:
It is not really a matter of returning it or not, no matter what happens this revenue gets recycled into the economy some way.
Furthermore, Reilly has explained that the MIT study shouldn’t be used to analyze Waxman-Markey at all. Even “apart from the misrepresentation of the costs” by the GOP, Reilly told Climate Progress last week, “it is inappropriate to draw conclusions on the costs of Waxman-Markey” from a study published two years ago that doesn’t model key cost-containment provisions, such as the use of offsets.
Think Progress: Rove Says Obama Can’t ‘Have A Vetting Mistake’ With SCOTUS Nominee…Even Though Bush Had One With Miers
Yesterday on The O’Reilly Factor, Karl Rove gave his “insights” into the Supreme Court nomination process. Rove talked about how prepared Bush administration officials were when they nominated their two justices and counseled the Obama administration to follow their example. He warned that “they cannot afford to have a vetting mistake after having five cabinet nominations or five administration nominations with tax problems”:
ROVE: I was part of a five party committee that spent years at the White House under President Bush preparing for the moment of the Supreme Court vacancy. We had thick notebooks on all prospects. We had everything from all of their writings and opinions to college transcripts to tax returns to, you know, charity dinner speeches, you name it. We had it. We studied those. It was why it was possible three months after a vacancy occurred to have Chief Justice John Roberts confirm to the Supreme Court. [...]
So I thought it was smart when President Obama said, you know, this is going to take at least six months. Because they do — they cannot afford to have a vetting mistake after having five cabinet nominations or five administration nominations with tax problems. They can’t offer up somebody they’ve not fully and completely vetted. And that takes time.
Watch it:
Rove leaves out one inconvenient detail: Harriet Miers. Justice Samuel Alito wasn’t Bush’s first choice to fill the vacancy left by Sandra Day O’Connor. Bush chose Miers, saying that her “talent, experience and judicial philosophy make her a superb choice to safeguard the constitutional liberties and equality of all Americans.”
However, Miers’s thin resume beyond being Bush’s loyal friend (she was head of the Texas lottery and a member of the Dallas City Council) generated opposition not only from liberals, but also from conservatives who were embarrassed by the pick. Less than a month after she was nominated, Miers was forced to withdraw her name from consideration.
Heckuva job, Rove.
No comments:
Post a Comment