Tom Coburn's Chief-of-Staff Pat Swartz at the Value Voters Summit just before the attendees go back to their hotels and buy adult pay-per-view:
SCHWARTZ: And one of the things that he said to me, that I think is an astonishingly insightful remark. He said, “all pornography is homosexual pornography because all pornography turns your sexual drive inwards. Now think about that. And if you, if you tell an 11-year-old boy about that, do you think he’s going to want to go out and get a copy of Playboy? I’m pretty sure he’ll lose interest.
Oh yes, the secret is out to our nation's 11-year old boys, Playboy will make you the gay.
Yeah, and that's just what'll happen.
It's hilarious that these attendees are slavishly loyal to FoxNews, whose owner Ruper Murdoch is the inventor of the Page3 girl and owns DirectTV, probably the nation's No. 1 provider of porn.
You think Rupert is going to stop peddling porn, when it's the greatest cash-cow in his shaky empire? You think Right-wingers are going to push him? Hell no, they love pushing that stuff as much as the next person -- the freakier the better. They don't call it "the money shot" for nothing.
In fact, southern conservatives are also the biggest buyers of porn in America.
I'd tell Lee Greenwood to suck on that, but his most frequent patrons are already more than willing to do that for $14.95 on their accounts.
Think Progress: Coburn’s Chief Of Staff On Keeping Kids Away From Porn: ‘All Pornography Is Homosexual Pornography’
At the Family Research Council’s Values Voters Summit today, FRC Senior Fellow Pat Fagan, Heritage Foundation scholar Matthew Spalding and Michael Schwartz, the chief of staff for Sen. Tom Coburn, held a discussion on “The New Masculinity.” Schwartz, who was the final speaker, said that Fagan wanted him to discuss “how men, who already are good husbands and fathers,” can “change the culture.”
A few minutes into his speech, Schwartz moved to the topic of pornography, calling it a “blight” and a “disease” that parents’ “sons” would encounter. Noting that he was about to get “politically incorrect,” Schwartz said that it is his “observation that boys at that age have less tolerance for homosexuality than just about any other class of people”:
SCHWARTZ: But it is my observation that boys at that age have less tolerance for homosexuality than just about any other class of people. They speak badly about homosexuality. And that’s because they don’t want to be that way. They don’t want to fall into it. And that’s a good instinct. After all, homosexuality, we know, studies have been done by the National Institute of Health to try to prove that its genetic and all those studies have proved its not genetic. Homosexuality is inflicted on people.
Schwartz then recalled “a very good friend” of his “who was in the homosexual lifestyle for a long time,” saying that he “had good conversations about, about the malady that he suffered.” He then relayed “an astonishingly insightful remark” his friend had made about the relationship between pornography and being gay:
SCHWARTZ: And one of the things that he said to me, that I think is an astonishingly insightful remark. He said, “all pornography is homosexual pornography because all pornography turns your sexual drive inwards. Now think about that. And if you, if you tell an 11-year-old boy about that, do you think he’s going to want to go out and get a copy of Playboy? I’m pretty sure he’ll lose interest. That’s the last thing he wants.” You know, that’s a, that’s a good comment. It’s a good point and it’s a good thing to teach young people.
Schwartz then added a slight caveat, saying, “if it doesn’t turn you homosexual, it at least renders you less capable of loving your wife. And it’s something you need to be healed of.” Watch it:

Schwartz is no stranger to extreme rhetoric about the gay community. In 2005, he denounced the Supreme Court for giving Americans “the right to commit buggery.” Later, he told Max Blumenthal, “”I’m a radical! I’m a real extremist. I don’t want to impeach judges. I want to impale them!” In 1987, Schwartz co-wrote Gays, AIDS, and You, which according to Blumenthal, alleged that the gay community was “using the AIDS crisis to pursue [their] political agenda.”

It's hardly a secret that New York Gov. David Paterson (D) does not look like a strong candidate for re-election. Just this week, a poll showed 70% of New Yorkers hope that Paterson, who took office after Eliot Spitzer's (D) resignation, does not seek another term.
With that in mind, it's hardly a surprise that the White House hopes that Paterson decides not to run next year. What is a surprise is that Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele apparently wants voters to think President Obama doesn't like black people.
Michael Steele said it was "curious" on why the White House would ask New York Gov. David Paterson (D) not to run for reelection in 2010.
"I found that to be stunning, that the White House would send word to one of only two black governors in the country not to run for reelection," Steele, the chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), said on CBS's Face The Nation.
Steele added, "It raises a curious point for me. I think Gov. Paterson's numbers are about the same as [New Jersey] Gov. [Jon] Corzine's. The president is with Gov. Corzine."
A few thoughts here. First, Corzine and Paterson are not exactly in the same boat, and the comparison is silly. Corzine is running this year; polls show him trailing but closing the gap; and there wasn't a stronger candidate last year, waiting in the wings. Paterson is up next year; polls show him with almost comically low approval ratings; and state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo (D) is strongly favored by voters, both among Democrats and among voters in general.
Second, for Steele, who spends a fair amount of time complaining about others playing the "race card," to suggest on national television that President Obama is somehow racist against an African-American governor might be one of the all-time dumbest things the RNC chairman has ever said. And with his track record, that's no small feat.
It is, to borrow Steele's word, "stunning."

It's understandable that Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) would want to argue that his economic policies have been effective -- he's seeking re-election next year, and he's facing a very difficult primary challenge.

But he hasn't thought his strategy through. This week, Perry told the Houston Chamber of Commerce that Texas, under his leadership, is "recession-proof." He noted an unidentified report claiming that Texas would be the first to come out of the recession. Perry said he responded to the report by asking, "We're in one?"
So, in the midst of a brutal recession, Perry not only isn't concerned, he thinks Texas' economy is just fine. Texas Monthly's Paul Burka noted the potential political consequences of such a remark: "This gaffe is going to stick.... You cannot be callous and cavalier when people are losing their jobs and their homes. I don't care how ideological the Republican base is. Unemployment in Texas just reached the 8% mark. Everybody knows someone who is suffering in these times. Everybody has lost part of their life savings. It could cost him the race."
Politics aside, if Perry sincerely doesn't even recognize the economic downturn, he must be living in an impenetrable bubble. Texas has been very hard hit by the recession, and the state's most vulnerable families have struggled to keep their heads above water. Texas is the worst state in the country for residents without health care coverage, and is among the worst for poverty rates.
What's more, Lee Fang reminds us, "Texas would have a much higher unemployment rate if it were not for President Obama's stimulus program, which has provided billions in investments and over 70,000 jobs so far. Nonetheless, Perry not only considered rejecting the stimulus, but has called it a 'burden.'"
If there's any justice, this will be a tough one for Perry to live down.
Rep. Sue Myrick (R) from North Carolina delivered the weekly Republican address this morning, and while these addresses are largely meaningless, I was struck by how many falsehoods she was able to fit into a 369-word speech.
" Nine years ago, I was diagnosed with breast cancer. I knew something was wrong with my body -- but it took six doctors, three mammograms and one ultrasound before they finally they found my cancer. This process took only a few weeks.
"Under the government-run healthcare system they have in Canada and the United Kingdom, I wouldn't have had the opportunity to get those tests so quickly.... When it comes to life-threatening diseases like cancer, delay could mean death."
In our reality, no one is proposing a Canadian or British-style system. Myrick, a member of Congress engaged in the debate, should probably be trying to keep up on these pesky details before delivering an address on health care policy on behalf of her party.
More importantly, Myrick's argument is absurd to the point of insult. Her emphasis on breast cancer is admirable, but her regard for the facts is not -- in our current system, millions of women without coverage are less likely to even receive mammograms. Those with breast cancer and no insurance receive late diagnoses, require more extensive treatment, and die sooner. There are lengthy delays for women without coverage, which, to borrow the congresswoman's words, often means death.
As Harold Pollack recently explained, "Women in other industrial democracies do not go bankrupt because they have breast cancer. That's an everyday occurrence across America -- among both insured and uninsured citizens. Democratic health reform bills will not create 'nationalized healthcare' or a single-payer system. The current bills are surely imperfect. They would provide every woman the opportunity to buy affordable and decent insurance that covers diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer."
Myrick added:
"Replacing your current healthcare with a government-run system is not the answer.
"These so-called healthcare reform bills have different names: a public option, a co-op, a trigger. Make no mistake, these are all gateways to government-run healthcare."
She keeps using the phrase "government-run," but it doesn't mean what she thinks it means. Until Myrick is prepared to denounce Medicare and the VA, this is just rhetorical nonsense. As for a public option and co-ops being the same thing, it's good to be reminded that under no circumstances does the GOP want any competition for private insurers at all.
Myrick went on to say:
"For small business owners, these proposals mean higher taxes at a time when unemployment is nearing 10% and analysts are predicting that any kind of recovery will be a jobless one.
As a former small-business owner, I can tell you from experience, that this is the worst possible time to be imposing new, job-killing taxes."
None of this makes any factual sense. Health care reform wouldn't punish small businesses, and no one is talking about raising taxes during the recession. It's as if Myrick has no idea what's going on in this debate.
"And for seniors, expect massive cuts to Medicare; which is unacceptable under any circumstances."
Really, "any circumstances"? Because Myrick was in Congress in 1995 and 1996, and she supported the proposed Gingrich cuts to Medicare. I guess she's changed her mind.
"All of this comes at a price tag of roughly $1 trillion in the midst of a year in which the government continues to set new records for red ink."
"In the midst of a year" makes it sound as if we'd spend $1 trillion in 2010. In reality, the costs would likely be less than $1 trillion, they'd be spread out over a decade, they wouldn't start for quite a while, and they wouldn't add to the deficit.
Sue Myrick, in other words, in a very brief weekly address, included several claims, all of which are completely wrong. Not kinda sorta wrong, but demonstrably false. They're the kind of things someone who doesn't know anything about health care reform might say.
It is, I'm afraid, the most frustrating aspect of the debate -- one side keeps lying. We can't get to a meaningful discussion of provisions and consequences, because we're stuck arguing about manufactured nonsense.