Red Meat

President Obama speaks to supporters at a DNC fundraiser in San Francisco.  As Steve Benen said:

"For all of President Obama's high-minded rhetoric, policy remarks, and bipartisan appeals, it's nice for Dems to occasionally hear the president put on his partisan hat once in a while. And his remarks last night in San Francisco at a DNC fundraising reception suggested Obama is hardly blind to the larger political context of his presidency."

What John Cole said . . .

John Cole used to be in this bubble.  He understands it.
John Cole:Inside the Cocoon 

Interesting analysis by Democracy Corps about what motivates the conservative fringe which included this paragraph:

A central part of the collective identity built by conservative Republicans in the current political environment is their belief that they possess knowledge and insight that the majority of Americans – whether too lazy or too misguided to find it for themselves – do not possess. A combination of conservative media outlets are the means by which they have gained this knowledge, led by FOX News (“the truth tellers“), and to a lesser degree conservative talk radio. Their antipathy and distrust toward the mainstream media could not be stronger, and they fiercely defend FOX as the only truly objective news outlet.

This goes along with what DougJ has been talking about for months- that these folks really are speaking their own language, and have a complete different language, reality, and collective understanding. It really is to the point that the echo chamber is reverberating so loudly that when you hear these guys speak, it almost seems like they are from a different planet.
Only they know the real truth. The rest of us are just sheeples.

Our Failed Media

The more I think about the Faux News/AM talk radio issue, the more concerned I become.  A considerable number of people in our country, a country that depends on informed citizens, get pure propaganda and they don't know it.  The extent of this is really quite new, and there is no reason to believe that it will go away. How can our country function this way?  Here's a comment from a friend about his father:

The other night my dad told me I should start watching Fox News for their “unbiased point of view”

Loud guffaw from me

He got right pissed…

Some people.

Benen: THERE THEY GO AGAIN....

The lead overnight story on Mark Halperin's "The Page" features a photo of President Obama alongside U.S. currency. The text reads, "Red Ink Nation: Obama presides over $1.4 trillion deficit."
The front page of the Washington Post tells readers, "Record-High Deficit May Dash Big Plans; $1.4 Trillion in Red Ink Means Less to Spend On Obama's Ambitious Jobs, Stimulus Policies." The New York Times' front page says, "$1.4 Trillion Deficit Complicates Stimulus Plans."

Let's set the record straight here. The Treasury Department officially announced that the federal budget deficit for fiscal year 2009 was $1.4 trillion. While that's hardly good news, it's worth remembering that the Office of Management and Budget had projected a deficit for FY09 of $1.8 trillion. As Dean Baker explained, "Given the new information about the deficit, a more reasonable headline would have been, 'Lower Than Expected Deficit Leaves Room for Stimulus,' since the government can now spend $200-$400 billion and still have a lower debt than what was projected just two months ago."
Second, while a $1.4 trillion deficit is unprecedented in size, as Paul Krugman explained in August, "it's not horrific either by historical or international standards." This chart, published by the WaPo today, shows the debt as a percentage of GDP, and adds some helpful perspective.
Third, let's give credit where credit is due. Halperin's report makes it seem as if the Obama administration deserves blame for the huge budget shortfall. That's demonstrable nonsense. The Center for American Progress' Michael Ettlinger and Michael Linden recently explained, "The policies of the Bush administration, which included tax cuts during a time of war and a floundering economy, are clearly the primary source of the current deficits. The Obama administration policies that are beginning to give the economy a needed jumpstart -- the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in particular -- place a distant third in contributing to the 2009 and 2010 deficit numbers."
Specifically, 40% of the fiscal deterioration we're seeing -- the single largest contributing factor -- can be attributed to Bush policies. Another 12% comes from Bush's financial rescues, while 20% are the result of the economic crisis. What's President Obama's share? Just 16% of the total, most of which is the result of new spending that was necessary to prevent a depression. Indeed, blaming Obama is backwards: "[P]roperly accounted for, the deficit actually goes down when you compare Obama's budget proposals to current policy, not up."
And finally, let's also not forget that it only makes sense to run large deficits given the circumstances. We're dealing with an economic collapse and two wars, following eight years in which we were led by "the most fiscally irresponsible president in the history of the republic."
Bush inherited the largest budget surplus in American history and turned it into the largest deficit in American history. Obama, in contrast, found a fiscal fiasco waiting on his desk on his first day on the job. Before anyone blasts the president for the mess, perhaps they ought to grab a mop.

sgw: How You Handle A Loud, Know Nothing, Jack Ass Interviewer 

Dylan Ratigan has to be one of the most transparently ignorant cable news hosts not on FoxNews. Barney Frank does a masterful job of exposing him and putting him in his place.

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

Posted by sgwhiteinfla

What Steve and Greg said . . .

Steve Benen: WHAT IS AL FROM TALKING ABOUT?....

Al From, the founder of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today, urging Democratic policymakers to give up on the public option now, to help ensure passage of the rest of the health care reform bill. As one might have guessed, it's an unpersuasive pitch.
In a nutshell, From argues that by pursuing a public plan, Democrats would make it easier for Republican obstructionists "to cloud the prospects for reform," by diverting attention from the rest of the debate and focusing on a public option that "Americans disagree on."
It's hard to know where to start with something like this. Dems should drop the popular idea that would save money and help consumers because Republicans, who can't block reform by themselves anyway, are putting insurance company's interests at the top of their priority list?
Of particular interest, though, was From's specific advice to President Obama. From recommends, among other things:

[M]ake one more effort to bring moderate Republicans along. Transformational reforms, such as civil rights legislation and Medicare in the 1960s, have always been passed with bipartisan majorities. Health-care reform should be no exception. The president promised a post-partisan politics. What better place to forge it than on his most important initiative?

No, no, no. For one thing, the president never "promised a post-partisan politics." Obama assured voters he'd reach out to Republican lawmakers in good faith, and he has. But "post-partisan politics" is a media creation/buzzword. For another, the White House has gone out of its way to try and secure GOP support for reform, but the president's hand has been consistently slapped away.
But it's especially frustrating to see From talk about the "bipartisan majorities" on major bills from bygone eras. It's a popular observation among conservatives, and it's foolish.
Scott Lemieux recently explained, "Of course Medicare and Social Security had lots of Republican support: There were lots of northern liberal Republicans in Congress, whose support was often needed to counterbalance the reactionary segregationists in the Democratic caucus. In the current context, conversely, the liberal northern Republican is virtually extinct, and the few remaining ones are 1) subject to much stronger party discipline than was the case in 1937 or 1965, and 2) are more heterodox on social than fiscal matters. So thinking that the same kind of legislative coalition was viable would be silly."
When Congress took up "civil rights legislation and Medicare in the 1960s," moderate and center-left Republicans were still fairly common. Democratic leaders had trouble finding sensible GOP lawmakers who were anxious to work on progressive policy goals. President Obama, however, is stuck trying to find common ground with a right-wing reactionary party that not only opposes common-sense reform measures, but is running a scorched-earth campaign to destroy his presidency.
Nicholas Beaudrot put it this way: "[I]t's simply not meaningful to compare the present circumstances to those faced by Lyndon Johnson or Franklin Roosevelt when it comes to bipartisanship.... Barack Obama faces partisan polarization not seen since Woodrow Wilson was President."
Is From not aware of this?

Greg Sargent: Castellanos’ Firm Also Has Contract With U.S. Chamber Of Commerce 

We’ve spent some time here looking at the web of contracts and clients that pay GOP consultant Alex Castellanos’ firms, even as he also goes on CNN regularly to discuss the main issues of the day as an onstensibly independent-minded, if right-leaning commentator.
One of Castellanos’ firms, as you know, was the ad buyer behind a major insurance industry TV campaign against health care reform. His firm also has raked in nearly $500,000 from the Republican National Committee, which enlisted him to craft anti-reform talking points.
Here’s one more interesting data point: Another one of his firms, Purple Strategies, also has a contract with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, one of the most determined and well-funded foes of Obama’s governing agenda.
J.P. Fielder, the Chamber’s spokesperson, confirms that Castellanos’ firm is doing the advertising on the Chamber’s ongoing multi-million-dollar campaign hailing the virtues of the free-market system — which has the specific goals of derailing Obama’s climate change and health care reform initiatives.
To be clear, there’s nothing necessarily amiss here, and I wanted to take this occasion to clarify something. The reason we’re digging into Castellanos is not because of Castellanos per se, but because his case tells a larger story about how Washington works. You hear a lot about the revolving door between government and lobbying. But there’s another, less-remarked-on revolving door: One between consulting and commentary.
Castellanos is by no means the only figure who cycles back and forth between the two, and there are plenty of high-profile Democrats who do the same thing. It’s an accepted fact of life in D.C. that commentators — Republicans and Democrats alike — offering ostensibly independent-minded commentary also take in big bucks consulting for businesses with specific legislative goals.
There’s nothing necessarily wrong with that in and of itself, but it does create journalistic challenges for the networks, who have to grapple with how to identify these commentators. Witness how CNN is struggling to deal with Castellanos’ case. More broadly, the commentary/consulting revolving door is a story we’re hoping to dig into more and more on this blog. Castellanos is just one example. We’re hoping to document much more of it here going forward.

Steve Benen: THE OPPOSITION PARTY DECIDES TO OPPOSE...

The New York Times has a piece today on the Republican Party's deliberate decision on the Hill to reject pretty much everything on the Democratic agenda thus far. As the congressional minority sees it, the strategy will pay electoral dividends.

Congressional Republicans ... are certain that the politics are on their side. Dismissing Democrats' attacks on them as "the party of no," they point to polls and other signs indicating that high unemployment and deficits have created vast unease with Mr. Obama's agenda as the 2010 midterm elections approach. [...]
"I just don't think that there's a downside to voting no -- I really don't," said Vin Weber, a former Republican congressman from Minnesota. "That's quite aside from whether you should or shouldn't, or whether the country needs it or doesn't need it. The basic rule is you rarely pay a price at the polls for being against something."
Republican incumbents "have far more to lose," he said, "by having the Republican base conclude that they're just throwing in the towel and compromising on a big-government agenda."

This makes plenty of strategic sense. Republicans want to motivate their base, and their base doesn't want to see the GOP cooperate with Dems. There's also a basic calculus at play -- if President Obama and his congressional allies succeed, voters are likely to reward Democrats anyway. Better to oppose and obstruct, and then hope for the best (or, in this case, hope for those in power to fail).
The NYT's Jackie Calmes added that the Republican strategy on this exposes the party "to criticism that they have become political obstructionists with no policy agenda of their own. And that could keep them from extending their appeal to the centrist voters who are essential to rebuilding the party's strength nationally."
Perhaps, but the GOP seems willing to take the risk. The hope is that frustrated voters will just oppose the majority, regardless of whether Republicans have been intellectually-stunted obstructionists with no ideas of their own. For all I know, that may very well work.
But here's the point that the article overlooks: the more Republicans adopt an attitude of "whatever it is, we're against it," the less reasonable it is to expect the White House to forge bipartisan majorities. The minority is the opposition party, which is, as its name implies, supposed to oppose what the majority wants. What's wrong with that? Nothing.
But there's something very wrong with the idea that the president and/or his allies are somehow failing in their responsibilities if they come up short on convincing those who don't want to be convinced, and prefer a scorched-earth strategy to constructive cooperation.

Steve Benen:  RED-BAITING GONE HORRIBLY AWRY...

Glenn Beck picks the strangest things to get hysterical about. Yesterday, for example, he nearly had a breakdown discussing a speech interim White House Communications Director Anita Dunn delivered earlier this year. Dunn noted comments from "two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse-Tung and Mother Theresa." She jokes, "Not often coupled with each other!"

In the video of a speech to high school graduates earlier this year, Dunn cited Mao's response to skeptics who pointed out that their party was facing steep disadvantages while fighting the Nationalist Chinese: "You fight your war, and I'll fight mine." After asking the audience to "think about that for a second," she said, "You know, you don't have to accept the definition of how to do things, and you don't have to follow other people's choices and paths, OK? It is about your choices and your path."
Likewise, Dunn cited Mother Teresa's response to a young person who wanted to work at her orphanage in Calcutta: "Go find your own Calcutta." Dunn then reiterated: "Go find your own Calcutta. Fight your own path. Go find the thing that is unique to you, the challenge that is actually yours, not somebody else's challenge."

It doesn't sound especially shocking. That is, unless you're Beck, who insisted on the air yesterday that Dunn "worships" "her hero" Mao Zedong. At one point, referencing Dunn, he gets up and attaches a communist hammer and sickle to a blackboard, right around the time he tries to connect Dunn to the deaths of 70 million Chinese: "This is her hero's work! 70 million dead!"
In reality, Mao references aren't especially unusual in American politics. In last year's presidential campaign, for example, John McCain quoted Mao on the campaign stump, and Beck didn't seem to mind. A few years ago, George W. Bush encouraged Karl Rove to read a Mao biography. Media Matters found prominent conservatives like Barry Goldwater's "alter ego" Stephen C. Shadegg, Cato Institute president Edward H. Crane, and GOP strategist Ralph Reed all referencing lessons from Mao Tse-Tung.
Now, I suppose it's possible that McCain, Bush, Reed and others are secret conservative admirers of Mao's reign, and should hereafter be featured with hammers and sickles, but it's probably saner to assume that they, like Dunn, have simply used Mao as a historical reference.
There is a larger context here. Dunn recently trashed Fox News, describing the Republican network as "opinion journalism masquerading as news." She followed up over the weekend, accurately describing Fox News as "a wing of the Republican Party."
Yesterday's hour-long tantrum was, in all likelihood, Beck's form of payback.

Your Friday Wingnuts

Think Progress:

At a town hall event in New Orleans yesterday, 9-year old Tyren Scott asked President Obama, “Why do people hate you? They supposed to love you. God is love.” Obama responded, “If you were watching TV lately, it seems like everybody’s just getting mad all the time. And you know, I think that you’ve got to take it with a grain of salt. Some of it is just what’s called politics.” Watch the video here.

John Cole: Better Than Expected

I have to admit, the freak-out over Rush not being wanted as an investor in the Rams bid is better than I expected. Scott at LGM points out a couple good reactions, but my personal favorite is Allahpundit:

Needless to say, the next vocal liberal who tries to buy a sports franchise is going to have a hell of a time.

OOOOOHHHH! Tough guy, you think you’re like the Shaq!
Yeah, I suppose the next liberal who compares half the players to crips and bloods and has a long history of racially offensive statements probably will have a hell of a time.
*** Update ***
OH. MY. GAWD.:

Earlier this evening, as most of you now know, one of our own, Rush Hudson Limbaugh, while taking withering fire, crashed and burned. Tonight, Rush is no longer ‘just’ a radio personality.
Tonight, Rush is no longer ‘just’ a NFL owner denied
Tonight, Rush is us. And we are him.

It ends with the obligatory Niemöller quote.
I’m seriously dying over here. I am honest to goodness crying I’m laughing so hard.
Maybe the Red State Strike Farce can do another one of their crack operations and mail oxycontin to Checketts to show their outrage.

DougJ: Activist judges

There’s a lot of winger law professors on the intertubes, so I’m looking forward to a protracted discussion of this (presumably bogus) issue:

Pro-football fans and political pundits alike have been talking about Rush Limbaugh’s proposed bid to buy the St. Louis Rams football franchise, but many in the NFL are not too happy with the prospect of Mr. Limbaugh owning a team. In fact, the bid “ran into opposition within the NFL on Tuesday as [Indianapolis] Colts owner Jim Irsay vowed to vote against him, and commissioner Roger Goodell said . . . [his] ‘divisive’ comments would not be tolerated from any NFL insider.” This got me thinking preemptively of the antitrust problems the NFL may run into if an effort to stall Mr. Limbaugh’s bid is successful. (For details on the basic antitrust principles I omit for brevity, click here).

In other words, activist judges need to force the NFL to let Rush have a team.
It’s a shame that this hasn’t happening while Republicans control Congress. It would make for some interesting hearings.
Update. And, finally, we get an Instapundit-approved boycott of the NFL. What the hell took so long?

 digby Kicked In The Teeth

Oh my Goodness, somebody has his tight whiteys twisted in a great big knot:

"I'm supported by people all over the health care system," Hatch said, "including doctors, including hospitals, including insurers, including liberal people, conservative people and moderate people. Everybody knows how much money you have to raise to run for the Senate."
Then Hatch turned his fury to MoveOn and George Soros.
"MoveOn.org is a scurrilous organization," he said. "It's funded by George Soros. He's about as left wing as you can find in this country. And they're up to just one thing, and that is to smear good people. And frankly, they're not gonna smear me without getting kicked in the teeth by me."

What did Move-On have the nerve to do? They protested outside his office in Salt Lake City with signs that said he was in the pockets of the insurance companies. He doesn't like that.

Of course, he didn't say too much about this:

The crowd repeatedly booed Utah's senators, Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett, for being part of the problem and chastised Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. for not sending back $1.6 billion of stimulus money the state is expected to receive.

Hatch said in a statement that he shares the protesters' outrage. Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, who is considering challenging Bennett for his Senate seat, said Utahns don't need government "wiping our noses and putting Band-Aids on our boo-boos."

And he didn't complain about these guys picketing his office or the fact that the Tea Parties are an astroturf movement funded by wealthy Republicans. Neither does he have a problem with the teabaggers smearing Obama as a socialist Hitler.

It seems that what really bothers Orrin Hatch is the fact that Move-On protesters brought up the fact that he is a bought and sold corporate lackey. Boo hoo.

•  Ben Frumin (TPM) 
  
  
  
  
  

  We'll have video for you shortly.
  Late Update: An inside source points out what appears to be blatant inaccuracies in Hatch's claims about MoveOn.org and George Soros. The source says: "MoveOn is a PAC funded by small donors - including it's almost 23,000 members in Utah. It is not funded by Soros. It is a completely false right-wing talking point. Soros gave a one time contribution in 2004. MoveOn does not accept any donations over $5,000, and the average donation to MoveOn.org Political Action is under $100."
  And here's that video.
  

  
  

  Late Late Update: I've received the following statement from Justin Ruben, MoveOn.org's executive director.
  

  Local Utah MoveOn members went to Orrin Hatch's office to question whether his opposition to health care reform is tied to the $900,000 he took from insurance interests, and what did he do? Go on national TV and threaten to kick them in the teeth. Apparently, this was easier than defending his ties to the insurance companies who have a stranglehold on our healthcare system. The people of Utah, including 23,000 Utah MoveOn members, deserve better. Hopefully, whoever Sen. Hatch kicks in the teeth is independently wealthy, in case their claim is denied by one of the insurance companies who've been funding his campaigns.
  

  • John Aravosis noting that Orrin Hatch says MoveOn is "scurrilous" and he's going to kick them in the teeth, adds: "With what, his wingtips? It's like watching Elmer Fudd, or Howdy Doody, get angry. Kiw da wabbit. Whatever."
  
  
  
  

John Cole: The Party of No

This really sums it up, doesn’t it:

A key House committee on Thursday passed legislation reining in the multitrillion-dollar market for financial derivatives. The House Financial Services Committee passed the bill on a 43-26 vote, with only one Republican, Rep. Walter Jones (N.C.), siding with all Democrats.
The bill is the first in a series of measures the Obama administration and congressional allies are pushing to remake the financial system. House leaders are eyeing votes in November, while it may take more time for the Senate to consider legislation.

Exactly what would have to happen before Republicans would agree to regulation of a sector of the economy that could bring down the house? The financial crash of 2008 was not enough?
I’m struggling to figure out how these guys think. And Walter Jones doesn’t really count as a Republican vote, really, since he has spoken out against the Iraq war. That basically means he is a pinko commie like Michael Moore.

It would help if repuglican legislators were not as insane as their base...

Islamo-phobia strikes Congressional GOP Oct. 15: MSNBC political analyst Eugene Robinson joins Rachel Maddow to discuss the four Congressional Republicans who, with the backing of World Net Daily, are accusing a Muslim advocacy group of planting intern "spies" in Congress.

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

Robert Farley: I Want to Play C.O.R.N.Y.!

Via B&P, if the new Red Dawn doesn't have a plot substantially similar to this, I'm going to cry:

Americans, thoroughly disgusted with the socialistic programs that have been thrust upon them over the last few years, vote out seventeen of the nineteen Democrats in the Senate and 178 in Congress that were up for reelection. When asked for his opinion on this monumental power shift in favor of liberty-minded Republicans during the November elections, President Obama is quoted as saying the elections were "ultimately inconsequential;" he allowed the cryptic statement to stand alone and said nothing more on the subject until January's swearing-in ceremony.
In January 2011, two days prior to the swearing-in of the new Senators and Congressmen, President Obama holds an emergency conference that interrupts the regular broadcasting of every station in the United States, and is replayed on major news networks throughout the day. The news is horrifying, and the ramifications of what the president has said have a numbing effect on the public.

The swearing-in ceremonies are suspended indefinitely, and the current Congress is to remain in place until this "historic transition" is completed. The United States is a creation of "racists and warmongers," Obama says to a stunned America, and is to be replaced by the North American Union. In the course of this very broadcast, Obama, with two simple pen strokes, signs the "treaties" into law. One dissolves the United States and its Constitution, and the other disarms what is left of the gun-owning United States citizenry, as part and parcel of a United Nations Treaty to ban all firearms, which had already been signed into law by over 40 nations...

Chaos ensues throughout the nation! The Second American Revolution is in full swing by February of 2011, with lists posted by patriots, county by county, naming dozens of government employees and the bounties that can be fetched by their capture. After 7 weeks of fighting in every state, and with the refusal of most United States military branches to obey orders to fire upon American citizens, Obama's forces are slowly whittled away. The remnants of the Obama loyalists retreat to Virginia. After tens of thousands of their troops are killed, The International Service Union Empire (I.S.U.E.) has just 40,000 left, but still controls three full counties in the name of former President Barack Hussein Obama... Or so they think. The Congress of Rejected and Neglected Youth (C.O.R.N.Y.) controls three counties near Washington D.C., with reports of having at least 60,000 loyalists for Obama.

She's back!

Democratic power rests on unity

Oct. 15: Rachel Maddow is joined by Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-MN, to talk about the ability of Democrats to make sure a public option is part of the ultimate health reform bill.

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

Health Care

QOTD, Thers:

The things that are news to Senators. Oy.

As a class, Senators are fucking morons. I mean, good for Susie, but Christ, a sitting Senator having to be told that our stupid healthcare system is bad for entrepreneurs... gah.

Aravosis: Is there anything the administration can't live with? 

As the NYT reports this morning, two senior administration officials say the White House likes Olympia Snowe's "trigger" plan that will basically kill the public option, and ensure that we don't have real competition in health care in this country. Big surprise there. The White House isn't willing to fight for a better bill, isn't willing to fight for the President's own promises. Isn't willing to use the President's power - which he most certainly has - to cajole all 60 members of the Democratic caucus into voting the right way. So, President Obama caves, as he so often does when faced with the prospect of having to fight for his beliefs.

If President Obama isn't willing to fight for what he reportedly considers the most important piece of legislation of his entire presidency, then what will he fight for? It's never going to change, folks. This is what the next three years are going to be like - always settling for less, when he could have had more, in order to avoid a fight. Democrats need to start demanding that this White House give Democrats just as much say in legislation as it always seems to give Republicans.

And keep something in mind. The last few weeks we finally had momentum on our side. The "opt-out" proposal took everyone by surprise, and even critics of the public option said they were intrigued. But, rather than use that momentum to get the kind of bill the President promised us during the campaign - to get something better - President Obama settled for a Republican proposal that was being discussed weeks ago, long before we had the momentum on our side. The White House never intended to try to get a better bill, regardless of whether we provided them with the political landscape to do just that. The last month of hard work by health care advocates was meaningless.
At some point, perhaps someone can inform President Obama that he won the election.

Sudbay: “I think the administration has put [Olympia Snowe] in the driver’s seat; it’s very disconcerting.” 

It is very disconcerting. Very.

Last night, John wrote a post explaining how President Obama could and should use his power to pass a strong health insurance reform bill out of the Senate. That require presidential leadership. Yet, for some reason, the White House brain trust has chosen to give its power to Olympia Snowe:

One day after the Senate Finance Committee approved a measure without a “public option,” the question on Capitol Hill was how President Obama could reconcile the deep divisions within his party on the issue. All eyes were on Senator Olympia J. Snowe, the Maine Republican whose call for a “trigger” that would establish a government plan as a fallback is one of the leading compromise ideas.

Two senior administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the White House looked favorably on the Snowe plan. But liberal Democrats were maneuvering against it Wednesday, arguing that Ms. Snowe, the lone Republican to vote in favor of the Finance Committee’s bill, was gaining undue influence over the talks.

Who are these "senior administration officials"? And, why are they so eager to cede power to one GOP Senator? Is that what last year's election was about?

Rep. Grijalva, who co-chairs the House Progressive Caucus, said on-the-record what most of us are thinking:

“It’s one vote, she won’t make the commitment on the final product, and she says she’s got to have the trigger,” said Representative Raúl M. Grijalva, Democrat of Arizona, who is leading an effort in the House to round up votes for a government plan akin to Medicare. “I think the administration has put her in the driver’s seat; it’s very disconcerting.”

Very disconcerting.

What's next? Changing OFA from Obama for America to Olympia for America?

Ezra Klein: Olympia Snowe Vs. Ben Nelson 

A lot of people are concerned that Sen. Olympia Snowe is going to have an outsized role on health-care reform. It's a fair concern. Indeed, it's a virtual certainty. But it's worth comparing Snowe's outsized role to the alternative: Ben Nelson, the 60th least-liberal Democrat, being in the driver's seat on health-care reform.
Snowe represents Maine, which gave 58 percent of its vote to Barack Obama. Nelson represents Nebraska, which gave 57 percent of its vote to John McCain. Polls out of Maine show heavy support for health-care reform in general, and the public option in particular. Polls out of Nebraska show heavy opposition to health-care reform in general, and the public option in particular.
In other words, you'd much rather have the crucial moderate hailing from Maine than from Nebraska.
Now, representational concerns are often less important than partisan concerns: Tom Harkin wants a liberal health-care bill while Chuck Grassley wants a conservative health-care bill, even though both of them represent Iowa. In that case, party and ideology is clearly stronger than constituency. But Snowe has already proven her willingness to break with her party on health-care reform, so it's fairly clear that her personal politics, and those of her state, are more determinative than her party's desires.

If that's indeed the case, then Snowe's state is much more liberal than Nelson's state, and Snowe, by most accounts, is more liberal than Nelson, at least on health care. The compromise she's likely to detail will probably be substantially to the left of the compromise Nelson is likely to detail. In addition to that, she's already got her fingerprints on the Senate Finance Committee's bill, and won't feel like she has to move that document to the right to demonstrate the fruits of her involvement. Nelson hasn't been involved in any of the bills, and would probably attempt to broker a whole new compromise if he were the decisive vote.

Benen: LANDRIEU ON HEALTH CARE AND 'FREE LUNCHES'....

Among Senate Democrats, few have been as conservative on health care reform as Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. Yesterday, she elaborated a bit on her perspective in an interesting appearance on MSNBC.

"I believe in the private sector," Landrieu said, in reference to giving Americans consumers a choice of a public option. "I don't believe in government running every program for everybody," she added, doing her best impression of a Republican.
Asked specifically about polling data showing the public option with strong national support, the conservative Democrat added, "I think that when people hear 'public option,' they hear 'free health care.' Everybody wants free health care. Everybody wants health care they don't have to pay for. The problem is that we as government and business have to pick up the tab, and as individuals. So I'm not at all surprised that the public option has been sold as free health care. But there is no free lunch."
This is pretty foolish. For one thing, Mary Landrieu, as a senator, takes advantage of a very generous health care plan that lawmakers give themselves. "Everybody wants health care they don't have to pay for"? I suppose that's true, but it's odd to hear the comments coming from someone whose coverage is subsidized by taxpayers.
For another, I haven't the foggiest idea why Landrieu thinks Americans perceive the public option as "free health care." What is that based on? I'll gladly concede that there may be some public confusion about the details surrounding the plan, but there's no evidence at all to suggest the public option enjoys broad support because consumers think they'll get something for nothing.
Of course, forgive me to re-emphasizing this all the time, but when push comes to shove, it doesn't really matter whether Landrieu is too far to the right on health care policy or shilling for insurance companies. If she wants to vote against the health care reform bill, she should. What matters is whether Landrieu would partner with Senate Republicans to deny reform a vote on the Senate floor. And on that point, we don't yet know what she might do.

Think Progress: Insurance company executive refers to high-cost patients as ‘dogs.’

In the state of New York, insurers are legally prohibited from discriminating against individuals who submit large claims. So when Guardian, a major insurance company, was faced with the high-cost claims of 37 year-old muscular dystrophy patient Ian Pearl, it decided to cancel its entire line of coverage in the state of New York rather than pay for Pearl’s claims. In an e-mail obtained by The Washington Times, it was revealed that one executive at the company refers to patients like Pearl as “dogs” that the company can simply “get rid of”:

Legally barred from discriminating against individuals who submit large claims, the New York-based insurer simply canceled lines of coverage altogether in entire states to avoid paying high-cost claims like Mr. Pearl’s. In an e-mail, one Guardian Life Insurance Co. executive called high-cost patients such as Mr. Pearl “dogs” that the company could “get rid of.”
A federal court quickly ruled that the company’s actions were legal, so on Dec. 1, barring an order by the federal Department of Health and Human Services, Mr. Pearl will lose his benefits.

The cost of Pearl’s annual treatment is approximately $1 million a year. The Pearl family is unable to receive the quality health care that Ian needs. “One-on-one skilled nursing is essential,” Mrs. Pearl said.

 Health insurance industry's power fade  Oct. 14: Senate Democrats are now calling for the repeal of a 1945 law allowing health insurers to have federal anti-trust exemption. Guest host Alison Stewart is joined by insurance industry whistleblower Wendell Potter.

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

Benen: BLUE DOG SUGGESTS OPENING UP MEDICARE ELIGIBILITY...

When we last heard from Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), the Blue Dog caucus' point-man on health care policy, he was moving sharply to the right. He announced last month that he would oppose any legislation with a public option -- despite already having voted in support of a public option in committee, and having defended the idea two weeks prior.
Today, The Hill reports that Ross has taken another unexpected turn.

Blue Dog Rep. Mike Ross, who made headlines by rejecting a compromise he'd negotiated on a public health insurance option, has suggested to Democratic leaders that the government-run Medicare program be opened to all Americans.
Ross (D-Ark.) has made the suggestion in meetings with House Democratic leaders and brought the idea to the closed-door House Democratic Caucus meeting Thursday.
"I -- speaking only on behalf of myself -- suggested one possible idea could be that instead of creating an entirely new government bureaucracy to administer a public option, Medicare could be offered as a choice to compete alongside private insurers for those Americans eligible to enter the national health insurance exchange, but at a reimbursement rate much greater than current Medicare rates," Ross said in a statement to The Hill.

If the quote hadn't come in a statement, I would have assumed that The Hill had made a mistake. Because, really, this doesn't make sense for Ross.
He's a conservative Dem. He's firmly opposed to letting a public plan compete against private insurers. Just five weeks ago, Ross said, "[I]f House leadership presents a final bill that contains a government-run public option, I will oppose it."
And yet, now Mike Ross open to letting Medicare compete against private plans? He's against existing Democratic proposals, because he perceives them as too liberal, but Ross is publicly suggesting letting everyone have access to a national socialized medicine program?
He added that he hadn't specifically endorsed this as a policy proposal, but then again, if Ross were dead-set against the idea, he wouldn't have suggested it to congressional leaders in the first place.
The only thing I can think of is this is Ross' way of killing health care reform -- tell Democratic leaders to give up on everything they've worked all year on, and start working on something they'll like even more (universal Medicare eligibility). Then, when that starts working its way through Congress, Ross and Blue Dogs would decide it's too liberal and rally against it, thus ensuring that the status quo is protected.
If that's not what's going on here, I'm at a loss. The same Blue Dog opposes a public option and then suggest opening up Medicare to all. Huh?

Wingnuts: The Bush Recovery Edition

Josh Marshall's Deep Thought 

People should stop pretending Obama's the Messiah and get back to bedrock Americanism like praising Ronaldus Magnus. 

DougJ :The Obama recession is over, the Bush recovery has begun
So says Neil Cavuto:

I guess the next logical question is whether or not the ombudsman at the New York Times will explore the issue of why the paper’s reporters aren’t covering the Bush recovery that all the conservatives are talking about.
Sorry, Neil, you should have dressed as a pimp for that segment.

• from the comments: 
  
  
  

  shecky
  
  Bush recovery, my ass. This is the Reagan recovery.
  

  
  
  

 Benen: WHOSE RECOVERY?....

When the Dow Jones closed about 10,000 yesterday, it stood to reason that Republicans would try to prevent President Obama from getting any credit for improved economic conditions. It was perhaps not quite as predictable to have Fox News personalities start crediting George W. Bush for the more favorable economic landscape.

And yet, there was Neil Cavuto yesterday talking up the notion of a "Bush recovery" on the air yesterday. The on-screen chyron read, "Is this now the 'Bush Recovery'?" The analysis seemed to answer the question in the affirmative.
This reminds me a bit of Dana Perino's Fox News analysis in March, when the major Wall Street indexes started recovering. As she saw it, at least some credit for the turnaround should go to the administration that left office two months prior. "Can all the credit go specifically to President Obama? Well, I would say no," Perino said. "We are just going to have to take a while to let all of this settle down and let the policies that our administration and the new administration are trying to put in place have a chance to work."
Just so we're clear, here's a helpful guide to the rules of Wall Street watching, as they relate to partisan politics:
When the markets went down on Bush's watch before the 2008 elections, this was Bill Clinton's fault.
When the markets went down on Bush's watch between November 2008 and January 2009, this was Barack Obama's fault.
When the markets went down during Obama's first seven weeks in office, this was definitely Barack Obama's fault.
And when the markets rally throughout Obama's first year in office, George W. Bush deserves at least some of the credit.
It's good to know -- positive developments are evidence of Republican wisdom, and negative developments are evidence of Democratic failure.
Remember when you were a kid and someone told you, "I'll flip a coin -- heads I win, tails you lose"? It's kind of like that.

Speaking of Reagan . . . 
Benen: HERO WORSHIP GONE HORRIBLY AWRY....

One of the more common complaints in conservative circles about President Obama is that his supporters like him too much. The right mocks the president's support with snide admonishments like "Messiah" and "The One." It's not at all unusual for Fox News personalities to compare admiration for Obama to authoritarian regimes like North Korea or Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
And every time I hear the right whining about Democrats holding Obama in high regard, I ask myself the same question: aren't you the guys who embrace cult-like worship of Ronald Reagan?
Reagan devotion is so hopelessly ridiculous in some circles that the Republican National Committee, without a hint of humor or irony, has come up with a new name for the former president.

The new Republican National Committee Web site has been derided for its "GOP Heroes" section -- which teaches us that almost all of the great Republicans lived in the 1800's, and about half of them were black -- but there's another illustrious name on the list: Ronaldus Magnus.
The site's page on Ronald Reagan includes this citation of the party's great hero, giving him a stylized name we might see on a Roman emperor.

This isn't a joke, and the RNC's site wasn't hacked to make the party appear foolish. The Republican National Committee literally referred to the 40th president as "Ronaldus Magnus." The published name was used almost in passing, as if it were routine to describe the former president, in Latin, as Ronald the Great. And for all I know, at RNC headquarters, this is routine.
This really isn't healthy. I realize that Reagan is the only modern Republican president that the party is still proud of, but when the Republican National Committee seriously starts using phrases like "Ronaldus Magnus," it suggests the cult has started drinking the Kool Aid by the gallon.
Conservative hero worship of Reagan has been a little too creepy for a while now, with that misguided "Legacy Project" putting the former president's name everywhere. But with "Ronaldus Magnus," Republicans are just humiliating themselves. Even Kim Jung Il followers don't do stuff like this.
Fortunately, after TPM inquired about the Roman renaming of the former president, the Republican National Committee edited the site and started using Reagan's actual name. That's a good move.
But I wonder what the reaction might be if the Democratic National Committee casually referred to President Obama as Barackus Magnus. I have a hunch we'd never hear the end of it.

Josh Marshall: Grand Unified Theory of #GopComFail 

In addition to the weird and now deleted reference to Ronald Reagan as "Ronaldus Magnus", you may have noticed that the site is filled with a lot of what might generously be called non-standard history -- like the idea that the Republican party is made up mainly of people from the 19th century, about half of whom are black. Well we did a little digging and it turns out Steele turned over a lot of the job to a fringe-ish amateur historian named Michael Zak. Meet him here.

 DougJ: Obama should share the prize with Jesus and Reagan Ronaldus Magnus

As much of a tool as Brian Williams is, he was an upgrade from Tom Brokaw.
Why is our discourse dominated by men of diminished mental faculties who are past any normal retirement age?

John Cole: As Usual, DougJ is Right

No, we will not have a serious discussion about the death penalty. In fact, if you want to be exceptionally horrified, check out this Kay Bailey Hutchison statement referencing Rick Perry’s actions:

“As hard as Rick Perry’s office and his campaign may try to divert from the issue, this is not about one man or one case. The issue is Rick Perry’s heavy-handed politicization of a process and Commission established by the legislature to provide critical oversight. First, Rick Perry delayed the formation of the Texas Forensic Science Commission, then he tried to ensure it didn’t have funding and when all else failed, he fired everyone he could. The only thing Rick Perry’s actions have accomplished is giving liberals an argument to discredit the death penalty. Kay Bailey Hutchison is a steadfast supporter of the death penalty, voted to reinstate it when she served in the Texas House and believes we should never do anything to create a cloud of controversy over it with actions that look like a cover-up.”

She’s not concerned that an innocent man might have been killed by the state. She’s concerned that evil liberals might get in the way of killing more people.
And she is the “moderate.” These people are fucking sociopaths.
I’m reminded of the time a couple of weeks ago when Matt Welch finally, for a brief moment, mused that gun nuts attending Presidential events might not be a good thing, but only because Justin Raimondo pointed out that if someone did pop a cap in someone, it would be bad for… libertarianism. Again, you can’t make this shit up.
*** Update ***
Sorry, Publius. Kay is running to the RIGHT of Perry on this one. The real problem is not the possible execution of an innocent man or Perry’s apparent perversion of the investigation. The problem is the hash you goddamned liberals will make of the death penalty.
It isn’t a few bad apples with the GOP. The whole damned barrel is rotten to the core.

•  publius: Perry and the Politics of Capital Punishment 
  
  

  Rick Perry has apparently decided to double down on Willingham.  After multiple articles came out documenting inappropriate political pressure on the investigation, Perry came out firing yesterday.  Here's the Houston Chronicle:
  

  Gov. Rick Perry on Wednesday defended his actions in the execution of Cameron Todd Willingham, calling him a “monster” and a “bad man” who murdered his children.
  

  Fortunately, though, the story seems to be getting national legs -- which probably explains why Perry felt the need to further shame himself today.
  Here's a question, though, that I've been thinking about lately:   Why exactly is Texas so terrible on capital punishment?  It's an urban, diverse state -- conservative to be sure, but not more so than many other states.  Why exactly, then, does Texas execute so enthusiastically?  Are there structural explanations?
  I don't know what the actual origins of Texas's lust for execution are.  But I have an idea of why it continues -- basically, I think it's a function of intra-GOP politics. 
  Interestingly, Texas has two "Supreme Courts."  The Texas Supreme Court is the highest appellate court for civil matters, while the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is the highest court for criminal cases.  Both courts are 100% Republican.  Also, the judges are all elected -- and each one of them runs state-wide.  Thus, even though Texas is only majority Republican, the election structure produces courts that are 100% Republican.
  My own pet theory, then, is that capital punishment has become an ideological issue on which aspiring GOP politicians must show party loyalty to get elected and to ascend the intra-party hierarchy.  If, however, they show the slightest hesitancy on executing the inadequately represented, their future in politics is over.
  In short, ostentatious support for capital punishment-on-demand is all benefit and no cost for ambitious GOP judges and officials.
  What's interesting about the Perry controversy, then, is that it has the potential to change this calculus.  For the first time, an elected official may actually pay a political price for knee-jerk support for capital punishment.  If he does, that would obviously be good in and of itself because Perry is an immoral man.  But it would also open political space for skeptical GOP officials, including judges.
  I refuse to believe that every single Texas GOP judge and elected official feels just fine about the Texas criminal justice system.  But, neither can I realistically expect them to ignore political incentives.  If, however, Perry took a big political hit, then maybe that calculus would suddenly change.
  That's why I wish Hutchison would go all in on this issue.  Texas has open primaries, meaning I could go vote for her if I wanted to.  And if she got serious about this issue, I think I might.  The Republican primary is going to decide the election anyway.  So it would be nice to have a Republican who got there because of Democratic cross-over votes. 
  Certainly better than the alternative.
  

  
  

sgw: The Congressional Asshat Caucus

Several members of the GOP Congressional Anti Terrorism Anti Muslim Caucus decided to hold a big news conference yesterday and accuse the group CAIR with a conspiracy to "infiltrate" the government with Muslims. Their evidence? A book written by wingnut World Net Daily author Dave Gaubatz who made this statement last year.

“a vote for Hussein Obama is a vote for Sharia Law.”

Please for the love God keep giving these people microphones so the rest of the nation can see what the Republican Party has become.

 DougJ: Intern Spy vs. Intern Spy

I was initially outraged when I saw that four Republican members of Congress today had asked the House sergeant-at-arms to investigate whether Muslim interns on key national security committee are really infiltrators sent to spy on behalf of Islamic terrorists. But the more we looked into it, the more comically ridiculous the whole thing appears to be.
The members (including Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ), who should really know better) base their allegations on a book published by the always reliable WorldNetDaily, titled Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America. The book was based in part on having a co-author's son pretend to be a Muslim (growing the requisite beard for effect) and infiltrate a mainstream Muslim advocacy group, the Council on American Islamic Relations. So the dastardly plot to plant Muslim interns as spies on the Hill was uncovered by an intern acting as a spy.
Justin Elliott lays out the details.

 Speaking of Shadegg . . . 
Yglesias: Rep. Shadegg Warns of “Soviet-Style Gulag Health Care”

Not content with out of control Hitler analogies, Rep John Shadegg (R-AZ) took to the floor yesterday to demonstrate that he’s a fool. Lee Fang has the quotes:

SHADEGG: You know, it occurs to me, and I’ll go through these other scandals very quickly, but what we’re really getting here is we’re not just getting single-payer care. We’re getting full on Russian gulag, Soviet-style gulag health care [...] It appeared in last Friday’s Wall Street Journal. You can Google it. You can pick up the phone and call Kim Strassel. You can ask her about Soviet-style gulag health care in America, where powerful politicians protect their constituents.

Lee reminds us that “The Soviet gulags were a network of prisons and forced labor camps that held as many as 20 million people during Stalin’s reign of terror.” To compare a set of insurance regulations you happen not to favor to Stalin’s mass imprisonment and slaughter is ridiculous, and absurdly insensitive to the real victims.
Massive human rights violations aside, I would also note that health care was among the strong points of the Soviet economy, along with primary and secondary education, armaments, and mass transit.

Our Media

Waldman (DK): CNN severely compromises itself, but is really, really sorry and stuff

Greg Sargent at The Plum Line (thanks to the work of Media Matters) has the goods:

The CNN contributor, a well-known GOP consultant named Alex Castellanos, is best known for producing the racially-charged "Hands" ad, has repeatedly appeared on the network attacking the Dem health care plans and the public option, which is strongly opposed by the insurance industry.
Castellanos’s consulting firm, National Media, also happens to be the ad buyer that placed over href=" million of TV advertising for AHIP, according to ad buy info obtained by Media Matters. AHIP’s most recent href=" million ad buy attacks the health care plan as a threat to Medicare.

So the guy is taking a fat commission on millions of dollars worth of ad buys from AHIP, but there he sits on CNN's "Situation Room" just about daily, giving us all his cool, dispassionate analysis of... the health care bill, from inside his regulation, Very Serious^TM pundit's suit, with nary a word about this severe and glaring conflict of interest.
And while I have your attention, let me reemphasize something Sargent pointed out:

The CNN contributor, a well-known GOP consultant named Alex Castellanos, is best known for producing the racially-charged "Hands" ad....

Here's Castellanos in his paid position on CNN, trying to play Mr. Cool-and-Reasonable with Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL-08):

Now, here's what Mr. Cool-and-Reasonable does in real life, when the cameras aren't on him:

Now CNN pays him to play Mr. Cool-and-Reasonable on health insurance reform, even as he pockets piles of money from industry attack ads against it.
But The Most Trusted Name in News is, like, totally sorry and stuff, and will most definitely tell you about it next time.
Meanwhile, good luck and happy voting! Let's all be friends!

Your Morning Wingnuts

DougJ: Gotta love Larison

I’ve been reading a bit of this panel discussion thing about conservatism’s future. It’s mostly an epic wankfest and it’s remarkable how much Larison stands out. I liked this especially:

Conservatism rebels against the concentration of power and wealth, temperamental conservatism teaches that power corrupts, while the movement concentrates in acquiring political gain particularly on national security.

Reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from Moby Dick:

The urbane activity with which a man receives money is really marvelous, considering that we so earnestly believe money to be the root of all earthly ills, and that on no account can a monied man enter heaven. Ah! How cheerfully we consign ourselves to perdition!

I’m sure there are also all kinds of paradoxes in liberalism or progressivism or whatever it is that people like me are supposed to have as a philosophy. And this is why I think it’s a mistake to think that pondering Burke and Hume or their liberal equivalents, whoever that would be, will lead to any kind of clarity.

Benen:

* The National Jewish Democratic Council believes conservative use of Nazi rhetoric to criticize Democratic policies has reached "epidemic proportions."

Think Progress: Teabaggers Try To ‘Flush’ Graham Out Of GOP; Graham Responds: ‘If You Don’t Like’ Moderates, ‘You Can Leave’

In April, former Republican Sen. Arlen Specter (PA) switched his party affiliation to caucus with the Democrats after being targeted by right-wing activists and others within the GOP. Shortly before his departure, an anti-Obama tea party rally focused its attention at Specter, hate radio host Rush Limbaugh demanded that Specter be “flushed” out of the party. A campaign with the theme “Benedict Arnold” subsequently harassed Specter for voting for the stimulus.
Now, after voting to confirm Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court and expressing a willingness to build a compromise approach to clean energy legislation, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) appears to be the new target of tea party activists. At a Graham town hall in Greenville yesterday, activist Harry Kimball of “RINO HUNT” protested by constructing a display that depicted Graham, as well as moderates like Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), being flushed down a toilet:

KIMBALL: This is for every RINO who has failed to represent us. [...] [the toilet represents] flushing them, flushing them.

One attendee of the event asked the senator, “when are you going to announce that you are switching parties?” The question drew loud applause from the crowd. Graham defended himself, and denounced the influence of Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) on the Republican party:

GRAHAM: I’m going to grow this party, I’m not going to let it get [inaudible], I’m not going to let it be hijacked by Ron Paul. [...] I’m going to find people in Maine, Delaware, Illinois, other places–
AUDIENCE: Move there!
GRAHAM: That can win as Republicans, and I’m going to go up, and we’re going to move this party, and this country forward, and if you don’t like it, you can leave.

Watch it:

Angry attendees in the crowd interrupted Graham with cries of, “You’re a country club Republican,” “Sotomayor!,” and “You lie.” Outside the event, right-wing activist Julliet Kozak picketed the town hall with a sign decrying all “Unconstitutional Anti-Christ Socialist Federal Deficit Spending Programs.” She explained that she opposes what Graham is “doing in our Congress, what he’s doing to our country.”
Graham’s fellow South Carolina senator Jim DeMint (R) was an outspoken proponent of ejecting Specter from the Republican Party. DeMint told a conservative blogger Specter “cut our knees from under us.” He added that conservatives in the Senate need to aggressively “go after” Specter and other GOP moderates.

Update According to the newspaper The State, Graham repeatedly responded to those who accused him of being a "traitor" to "chill out." One man told Graham he had "betrayed" conservatism and made a "pact with the devil" by working with Democrats. "We're not going to be the party of angry white guys," Graham said to even more shouts. Some people walked out during Graham's speech after he told them, "if you don't like it, you can leave."

Update Brad Johnson rounds up the conservative blogosphere’s reaction to Graham.

 attaturk: Birth of a Vacaton

Hey Teabagger, are you even more delusional, just out of rehab, looking for a place where you and 100 fellow wingers can hang out with the 1,400 collective voices in your 104.5 heads?
Well, look no further than the BIRTHER CRUISE, where you can sail the Caribbean looking for those Somali Pirates holding Obama’s Kenyan Birth Certificate hostage.

Passports optional, birth certificates mandatory. Offer not valid in Mexico, Canada, Vermont or other socialist countries
And don’t forget they’ll be speakers — including somethin’ special for “the ladieeeeeeees”, as charismatic as any random George and/or Rosemary Clooney.

So start working out, and get yourself ready for some cruising.

 Drum: Taxing and Spending

Conservative apostate Bruce Bartlett explains why he became an apostate:

During the George W. Bush years [supply side economics] became distorted into something that is, frankly, nuts — the ideas that there is no economic problem that cannot be cured with more and bigger tax cuts, that all tax cuts are equally beneficial, and that all tax cuts raise revenue....As a consequence, we now have a tax code riddled with tax credits and other tax schemes of dubious merit, expiring provisions that never expire, and an income tax that fully exempts almost on half of tax filers from paying even a penny to support the general operations of the federal government.
Indeed, by destroying the balanced budget constraint, starve-the-beast theory actually opened the flood gates of spending. As I explained in a recent column, a key reason why deficits restrained spending in the past is because they led to politically unpopular tax increases. But if, as Republicans now maintain, taxes must never be increased at any time for any reason then there is never any political cost to raising spending and cutting taxes at the same time, as the Bush 43 administration and a Republican Congress did year after year.
The supply-siders are to a large extent responsible for this mess, myself included. We opened Pandora's Box when we got the Republican Party to abandon the balanced budget as its signature economic policy and adopt tax cuts as its raison d'être. In particular, the idea that tax cuts will "starve the beast" and automatically shrink the size of government is extremely pernicious.

In most countries, there's sort of a natural cycle to politics.  For a while, voters elect liberals who promise lots of goodies but also raise taxes.  People like the goodies, but eventually get tired of the taxes, and throw the bums out.  Conservatives then take office promising to cut taxes and restrain spending growth.  People like the low taxes, but eventually they get itchy for more goodies so they throw the bums out.  Rinse and repeat.
Whether deliberately or not, Reagan and the supply siders killed this cycle.  They decided they could stay in office forever by cutting taxes and increasing spending, thus pleasing everyone.  It even worked for a while.  In the ensuing 28 years Republicans held the presidency most of the time and controlled Congress for much of the rest.
But eventually the piper has to be paid.  We still haven't quite come to grips with that, but we can't avoid it too much longer.  Either we (a) slash government spending in ways that the public quite plainly isn't willing to do, (b) raise taxes in ways that the public isn't yet willing to do, or (c) allow the rest of the world to do it for us.  I used to be more optimistic about the possibility of avoiding (c), but lately I've begun to wonder.  I've read more than a few pronouncements over the past couple of years about the death of the tax revolt — I think I've even written a few myself — but I have to admit that it's not really looking all that dead these days.  Not here in California, anyway.
On the other hand, Italy hasn't collapsed yet, and we're still several years away from being as bad off as they are, so we've got time.  Maybe we'll come to our senses sometime in Obama's second term.  Maybe.

Keystone Kops

John Cole: Rock Salt, Paper, Morons (alternate title: We Will, We Will, Rock Salt You!)

The moment I heard Snowe was going to vote for the bill, I began furiously refreshing Red State for the reaction. Finally, they deliver:

That is right, folks. To show unhappy they are, they are going to ask you to buy rock salt through their amazon store and mail it to Olympia Snowe. They don’t call them the Red State Strike Farce for nothing.
Seriously, how do I make a joke about this?

 Benen: RNC, 2.D'OH....

Just how embarrassing has the launch been for the Republican National Committee's new website? This afternoon, RNC Chairman Michael Steele told Fox News it isn't even a website.

"It's not even really a web site," Steele said. "It's a new platform for us."
To those that have been mocking the site by saying just that, he said it's "a beta site."
"So we're working out a lot of the kinks and the bugs. So the Democrats can have some fun," he said.

Oh, they're not the only ones. Marc Ambinder put together a very compelling top-10 list with the reasons why the RNC's relaunch "is fizzlin'."

10. In a section devoted to "future leaders," there were none.
9. In the subsequent rush to get up a "future leaders" page, they choose "you."
8. The last GOP accomplishment cited on the accomplishment page was from 2004.
7. The what's up page -- hip! starts with this sentence: "the internet has been around for a while now"
6. Administrator passwords were accidentally posted.
5. When the RNC hosted a kick-off conference call, the website was down.
4. The website cites Jackie Robinson as a GOP hero. Robinson wasn't a GOPer, and he criticized the GOP on race.
3. The first question on the conference call was from an Hispanic Republican who asked why the GOP site didn't have a Spanish-language page and noted that the White House had one.
2. Bragging about web redesigns is so 2004.
1. It's not timed with the start of any major advocacy campaign -- or political campaign. And it portrays itself as something it's not: diverse and ready to embrace new ideas. That may be what the party leadership aspires to, but, at least when it comes to diversity, a few pictures of Hispanics and African Americans doesn't make up for ... well, the history of the party.

That #6 from the list was of particular interest. The New York Daily News reported today:

In their haste to get their new Web site up and running, the Republican Party has posted online a slew of things you wouldn't normally expect.
Such as instructions on how to operate the Web site.

Seriously.
By the afternoon, the site had crashed altogether. Blue State Digital's Joe Rospars said, "You know your web program is in trouble when your site can't even handle the traffic bump from people making fun of your web program."
Is this what Steele meant when he said the RNC would go "beyond cutting edge"?

• kurtz (TPM): Unintended GOP Humor Alert  The RNC relaunched its website this morning. But initially if you clicked on the new site's "Future GOP leaders" page, you got "404 Error: This page could not be found." It appears to be fixed now.

 kos: FL-08: Keystone GOP Kops flounder in search of Grayson opponent

Hilarious.

And now comes U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson, who dynamited that model, calling Republicans knuckle-dragging obstructionists who want the sick to "die quickly."
If this fits the definition of unstable and unhinged, it certainly seems to have served a very lucid purpose.
The Republicans are cowering in knock-kneed terror.
Potential challengers are dropping out with comical regularity.
The last credible challenger standing is former state Sen. Dan Webster, who is so conflicted he can't say yes and he can't say no.

Dan Webster is no longer standing.

Former state Sen. Dan Webster -- to no one's surprise -- has issued a statement saying he's not running against freshman U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Orlando.

But Webster is just the latest in a long string of GOP recruitment failures in the district, as Orlando Sentinel columnist Mike Thomas so entertainingly catalogs:

The Republicans look like a bunch of Chihuahuas yapping at the Rottweiler behind the fence. But this Rottweiler not only is snarling and frothing at the mouth, it also went to Harvard.
It is a crazy and smart Rottweiler.
So there is lots of yapping, but nobody is about to open the gate and take him on.
Consider state Rep. Steve Precourt.
Last week he boldly announced that Grayson was an "egomaniacal, socialist, loose cannon."
Then he announced someone else would have to do something about it because he wasn't running.
Yap. Yap. Yap.
Orange Mayor Rich Crotty once was considered the Republicans' best hope. In June, Grayson released a seven-page letter explaining in detail how he would gut Crotty over Crotty's leadership of the expressway authority.
In early July, Crotty said he had made a decision and would announce it shortly.
Days turned to weeks, weeks turned to months — until finally, the mayor gave us his verdict.
He could beat Grayson "handily." But he wasn't going to run.
Pretty slick. He declared victory and bowed out of the race.
The Republicans also tried and failed to recruit Florida House Speaker Larry Cretul of Ocala.
At one point, CNL Financial Group President Tim Seneff seemed like a perfect choice. He had no political record to attack, and he had deep pockets to offset what is expected to be a lackluster fundraising cycle.
Seneff didn't dawdle like the politicians. A couple days after his name surfaced, he opted out.

The GOP is down to what, their sixth or seventh choice? After years of DLC/Third Way-style Democrats, they're not used to facing the fighting kind. They are completely lost, without a clue what to do.

 digby: Hate Speech

They just can't help themselves, apparently:

Hitler hearts Pelosi?
That seems to be a view the National Republican Congressional Committee [which brought you the put-Pelosi-in-her-place statement last week] seems to be endorsing, judging from what the committee posts on their Twitter account.
On Tuesday morning, as the Senate Finance Committee prepared to vote on the Baucus bill, someone at the NRCC posted a bizarre Tweet linking to an altered three-minute section of the 2004 Hitler biopic "Der Untergang" from the conservative site Moonbattery -- with a voice-over of the The Fuhrer ranting about how only Nancy Pelosi shares his vision of health care reform.
The Tweet: "Funny Video: Moonbattery: Hitler Reacts to ObamaCare Maneuvers"
Hitler, played by Swiss actor Bruno Ganz, is trapped in his bunker with his generals, and rants [in the phony subtitles] about President Obama's revisions to his socialized medicine plan -- and how only he and Nancy Pelosi are still fighting the good fight.
"What the hell are the Democrats doing?" Hitler screams. "At least I have Pelosi on my side. What's wrong with them?... I socialized medicine overnight and everything's going great... Like Pelosi, I don't give a s**t about the American people."

There was a time when something exactly like this would cause a hissy fit of epic proportions, as Greenwald laboriously documented here. (Well, not exactly. That earlier controversy involved an outside group, not the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.)

The Jewish groups simply have to weigh in on this one. They certainly wasted little time going after Alan Grayson for using the word holocaust in a completely reasonable context. They were completely beside themselves on the Move On flap and have been very slow off the mark about these "Democrats are Hitler" comments, which have become so common we are starting to get used to them.

I'm not one to be delicate about language, so I'm not going to be too shocked if everyone wants to start allowing Hitler comparisons. But this double standard is out of hand. I've heard gasbags in just the last month characterize Move-On as a hate group based on this flap. If that's so, then at this point the Republican party is too.

Update: Good God:

BECK: When they're done with Fox, and you decide to speak out on something. The old, "first they came for the Jews, and I wasn't Jewish." When you have a question, and you believe that something should be asked, they're a -- totally fine with you right now; they have no problem with you.
When they're done with Fox and talk radio, do you really think they're going to leave you alone if you want to ask a tough question? Do you really think that a man who has never had to stand against tough questions and has as much power as he does -- do you really believe after he takes out the number one news network, do you really think that this man is then not going to turn on you? That you and your little organization is going to cause him any hesitation at all not to take you out?
If you believe that, you should open up a history book, because you've missed the point of many brutal dictators. You missed the point on how they always start.