Hypocrisy & Mendacity

My brother suggested that I stop reading all this crap, better for my health. He's right, but I can't look away.
Sully: The Barbarian Inside The Gate

"I was very struck also by Janet Napolitano’s comment, I hadn’t read it before to see her say that, that the number one priority is to bring [Hasan] to justice is such a knee-jerk comment and such a stupid comment. He’s going to be brought to justice. He is not going to be innocent of murder. There are a lot of eyewitnesses to that. They should just go ahead and convict him and put him to death," - William Kristol, appearing on Fox News.

Let us be clear: this is a fascist statement.

You begin to understand now why these goons instituted torture. They have total contempt for the Western system of justice, utter contempt for the rule of law. Kristol here is all but calling for a lynching. This is what "conservatism" has come to: the worship of violence and revenge. It makes the Cheney years more comprehensible, doesn't it?

South Park takes on Glenn Beck: (via Ezra Klein)


BarbinMD (DK): Rape Enablers Failed To Anticipate The Consequences

Last month, when 30 Republican senators signed on as corporate sponsors of rape, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) was handed an extremely potent line of attack to use during next year's elections.

And what's the response from the GOP on being called out for their disgusting actions?

Privately, GOP sources acknowledge that they failed to anticipate the political consequences of a “no” vote on the amendment.

Seriously? They voted against an amendment that was prompted by the brutal gang-rape of a young woman by her co-workers while she was working for a company under contract for the United States government, after which she was locked in a shipping container without food or water, threatened if she left to seek medical treatment, and was then prevented from bringing criminal charges against her assailants. And they failed to anticipate the political consequences?

Boy, are they stupid (among other, less flattering things).

And now they are kicking themselves for that stupidity -- no, not because they showed an utter lack of sensitivity, decency, humanity, or sense of justice -- but because they shouldn't have:

... agreed to a roll-call vote on the measure, rather than a simple voice vote that would have allowed the opposing senators to duck criticism.

Yes, that was the problem with their vote. It was public.

Think Progress: ‘Death Panels’ Hypocrisy: RNC Health Insurance Provider Promotes End-Of-Life Counseling

Over the summer, one of the GOP’s loudest complaints against health care legislation was a provision offering senior citizens Medicare reimbursement for end-of-life counseling. Republicans claimed it would create so-called “death panels” or urge seniors citizens to die. RNC Chairman Michael Steele “endorsed this type of rhetoric, and on July 28, the RNC put out research document claiming that the government would “dictate” Americans’ “end-of-life care.”

But ThinkProgress has noticed that Cigna, the RNC’s health insurance provider, also urges beneficiaries to think about end-of-life services. Cigna’s website has a page called “Care at the End of Life,” which covers topics such as how to talk with “loved ones” about “end-of-life choices” and whether to stop life-prolonging treatment:

It’s unclear whether the RNC’s insurance plan covers these end-of-life consultations, and neither Cigna nor the RNC replied to inquiries from ThinkProgress. But nevertheless, the RNC’s insurance provider has posted information on its website advising beneficiaries about the complicated questions that accompany decisions at the end of someone’s life.

There is nothing objectionable about this planning, which has been endorsed by Democrats, Republicans like Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA), and the AARP. But this type of advice is exactly what the GOP fear-mongered about this summer. As FactCheck.org explained:

What the bill actually provides for is voluntary Medicare-funded end-of-life counseling. In other words, if seniors choose to make advance decisions about the type of care and treatments they wish to receive at the end of their lives, Medicare will pay for them to sit down with their doctor and discuss their preferences. There is no requirement to attend regular sessions, and there is absolutely no provision encouraging euthanasia.

Recently, the RNC has been urging lawmakers to support the anti-choice Stupak amendment, which would not only ban women on the federal exchange from using federal funds for abortion, but could bar employer-sponsored plans from offering the coverage. However, Politico reported this week that the RNC health care plan under Cigna has coverage for elective abortion services. Upon hearing the news, the RNC quickly opted-out of the abortion coverage, although its money is still indirectly subsidizing other women’s abortions.

If end-of-life counseling is so scary, will the RNC also call up Cigna and object? Or will it admit that there’s nothing wrong with these services and all the protests this summer were nothing more than political posturing?

Getting to know Rep. John Shadegg Nov. 13: TMI: Kent Jones joins Rachel Maddow to take a closer look at Rep. John Shadegg, R-AZ.

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

Aravosis: So YouTube only shuts down liberals who post FOX News clips

Nice to know that YouTube has only decided to destroy any concept of Fair Use for liberals who post FOX News clips. But conservatives who post them, we now learn, still have their videos up on YouTube, no problem at all.

Then again, YouTube erroneously takes down C-Span clips too, thinking that C-Span has the rights to them when it most certainly does not - at least not in the Congress.

Think Progress: The Board Of The ‘Voice Of Business’ Is A Republican Money Machine

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which purports to be “the voice of business,” is run by a Republican money machine. As the nation’s largest lobbying shop, the Chamber is spending millions of dollars from its corporate members against President Obama’s progressive agenda of health care, energy, and financial reform. The Chamber claims that the “board’s membership is as diverse as the nation’s business community itself,” but this is false. A ThinkProgress analysis of federal election contribution data compiled by the LittleSis project has found that the Chamber’s 116-member board of directors has given more than six times as much money to Republican candidates and committees ($4,741,747) as it has to Democrats ($778,282), with $1,074,697 flowing to corporate political action committees:

Source: Center for American Progress Action Fund, from Federal Election Commission data compiled by the LittleSis project of the Public Accountability Initiative.

The top beneficiary of this outpouring of conservative cash is the Republican National Committee, which has received over ten times as much money from the Chamber’s board as the Democratic National Committee — $1,257,201 versus $102,950. Contributions went 4.5 to 1 for John McCain ($373,150) versus Barack Obama ($82,150).

Source: Center for American Progress Action Fund, from Federal Election Commission data compiled by the LittleSis project of the Public Accountability Initiative.

Of the board’s 116 members, 96 have made major political contributions. Sixty-eight directly contributed to the campaigns of George W. Bush or John McCain. In contrast, only 27 gave to the campaigns of Al Gore, John Kerry, or Barack Obama. Forty-seven board members, including Chamber of Commerce president Tom Donohue, have contributed more than 90 percent to Republicans, averaging $74,634 in GOP contributions. Only seven members have contributed more than 90 percent to Democrats, averaging $3,529 to Democrats.

The political giving is dominated by leading Republican billionaire George Argyros, the Bush pioneer who served a disastrous term as the U.S. ambassador to Spain. Argyros is also one of the top backers of Newt Gingrich’s right-wing American Solutions for Winning the Future. The following visualization of Chamber of Commerce board member contributions is a sea of red surrounding a few small islands of blue. The size of each box is proportional to amount of total contributions per person, with the shading indicating percentage of Republican versus Democratic contributions:

The Chamber’s Board: A Right-Wing Money Machine

Source: Center for American Progress Action Fund, from Federal Election Commission data compiled by the LittleSis project of the Public Accountability Initiative.

Cross-posted at the Wonk Room.

Wheeler (FDL): FAA and NORAD Changed Records to Accord with Cheney Lies

A senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission, John Farmer, has written a book exposing the degree to which our response to 9/11 was disorganized and and outdated–geared to respond to an attack from Russia rather than from terrorists. Most significantly, Farmer reveals that FAA and NORAD altered their chronologies of the day only after a briefing at the White House.

Perhaps nothing perturbs Farmer more than the contention that high-ranking officials responded quickly and effectively to the revelation that Qaeda attacks were taking place. Nothing, Farmer indicates, could be further from the truth: President George W. Bush and other officials were mostly irrelevant during the hijackings; instead, it was the ground-level commanders who made operational decisions in an ad hoc fashion.

[snip]

Yet both Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Vice President Dick Cheney, Farmer says, provided palpably false versions that touted the military’s readiness to shoot down United 93 before it could hit Washington. Planes were never in place to intercept it. By the time the Northeast Air Defense Sector had been informed of the hijacking, United 93 had already crashed. Farmer scrutinizes F.A.A. and Norad rec­ords to provide irrefragable evidence that a day after a Sept. 17 White House briefing, both agencies suddenly altered their chronologies to produce a coherent timeline and story that “fit together nicely with the account provided publicly by Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz and Vice President Cheney.”

We’ve know for a long time that the FAA records, in particular, were politicized. Given already documented proof that Cheney lied to hide the fact that he violated the chain of commend on 9/11 it’s not surprising that that politicization served Dick Cheney’s false narrative of leadership.

But we can add this book to the long list of proof that Cheney’s a big liar trying to hide his own incompetence.

• Atrios adds: It's still deeply depressing just how willing and eager our mainstream media people were to swallow and propagate the obvious lies told by the Bush administration about 9/11, and that years later they aren't filled with revulsion at these truly horrible people.

What digby & Dr. Warren said.

digby: Story Time

The Democrats seem to be having trouble telling the story of what's going on in the economy and the press is typically obtuse, helping the Republicans talk up "the deficit" like it's the most important issue facing the country and giving the completely incorrect impression that it's somehow the cause of the current economic stress.

But Dr Elizabeth Warren tells the story very well and it would behoove Democrats to listen to her narrative and get prepared to provide some answers to the people --- or somebody very hostile to everything they believe in will provide it for them:

A Musician's Revenge

I'm dying here. This is utterly perfect. As friend

BobK says: "AWESOME demo of power of new media! A musician named Dave Carroll recently had difficulty with United Airlines. United apparently damaged his treasured Taylor guitar ($3500) during a flight. Dave spent over 9 months trying to get United to pay for damages caused by baggage handlers to his custom Taylor guitar. During his final exchange with the United Customer Relations Manager, he stated that he was left with no choice other than to create a music video for Youtube exposing their lack of cooperation. The Manager responded : "Good luck with that one, pal".So he posted a retaliatory video on Youtube. The video has since received over 5.5 [now 6] million hits. United Airlines contacted the musician and attempted settlement in exchange for pulling the video. Naturally his response was: "Good luck with that one, pal"."

United Breaks Guitars


United Breaks Guitars Song 2 - be sure to watch till the very end.


United Breaks Guitars, Corporate Response Parody


Taylor Guitars Responds to "United Breaks Guitars"


Singer's Sweet Revenge CBS News
no embedding: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGNtQF3n6VY&feature=related

Hitler Finds Out United Breaks Guitars

Rogue or Rouge: We Report, You Decide.

Palin pens a payback Nov. 13: Rachel Maddow is joined by Air America national correspondent Ana Marie Cox to assess the veracity and plausibility of Sarah Palin's criticisms of former McCain staffers in her new book.

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

John Cole: Miracles Never Cease

So, while I was out eating nachos and watching the football game, Ann Althouse has figured out Sarah Palin is a moron (what are the odds on “libertarian” Glenn Reynolds linking that Althouse post?) and the AP has figured out she is a liar:

I’m tempted to go back out for another drink to give the rest of the media the opportunity to figure out the Republicans are nuts, but I don’t want to push my luck, so I’ll roll with this gambit tomorrow night.

Up next, Matt Welch discovers he’s pimping an unworkable political ideology.

Our Media

C&L: Halperin: 'It Paints Such a Different Picture' if Obama's Standing With Republicans When Announcing Afghan Policy

By Heather Friday Nov 13, 2009 10:00am

Oh isn't this lovely? More Villager group think from the cast of Morning Joe. After Scarborough doing his some water-carrying for Dick Cheney and ranting about Obama delaying his decision on troop levels in Afghanistan, Scarborough and Mark Halperin both agree on one thing. Obama just needs to kiss more Republican ass to be taken seriously—because we know in the world of the Scarborough’s and Halperin’s out there, only Republicans have any credibility on national security.

Halperin: Imagine two scenarios—he announces it standing there by himself, or with Democrats (gasp!) when he makes this decision, or imagine him standing there with John McCain, or other prominent Republicans on national security. It paints such a different picture if he’s with the Republicans.

Yeah, that’s just what he need Halperin. Obama and Mr. Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran standing hand in hand announcing his Afghanistan policy. News flash to Halperin—McCain lost the election. And Obama needs to be listening to his base, not McCain.

Benen: PRESIDENT GINGRICH ON 'MTP'...

So, I was perusing the guest lists for the Sunday morning shows, wondering which channel would feature John McCain. (For the record, he hasn't been booked for any of the shows -- yet.) The line-up for "Meet the Press" stood out.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be on, which certainly makes sense, given her recent traveling. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan will be on, which also makes sense, given new education proposals unveiled this week.

And then, there are the other two guests.

House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), and civil rights leader Rev. Al Sharpton have been touring the country -- visiting classrooms and talking with students -- to highlight education issues and rally support for their proposed education reforms. We'll join them on the road this week, then sit down with them Sunday morning for a live interview to discuss their plans to improve the quality of education in this country.

Seriously? Do the producers just not like us?

I have no idea why Gingrich and Sharpton -- the original odd couple -- are in a position to talk about education reform. The Secretary of Education? Sure. These two? Not so much.

This will, by the way, be Newt Gingrich's fourth appearance on "Meet the Press" this year. The guy was run out of Congress by members of his own party more than a decade ago; he's held no positions of influence or authority since; but he's been a featured guest on "Meet the Press" every other month this year since March.

Sigh.

digby: Low Point

I've been watching Chris Matthews talk about the Stupak Amendment all week while banging my head against the wall so it's been hard to document the atrociousness of his arguments. Jamison Foser soldiered on through the headache so I didn't have to:

If you want an illustration of how conservative framing dominates media coverage of politics and policy, you need only watch Chris Matthews talk about abortion each night on Hardball. Since early summer, the Hardball host has been hyping anti-abortion complaints about proposed health care reform, even though the proposals would have done nothing to expand abortion rights. In doing so, he has trafficked in falsehoods, embraced flawed and illogical conservative talking points, and portrayed pro-choice advocates who have already compromised as rigid, unyielding ideologues.

[...]

(Matthews' comments about abortion and health care reform have by no means been unique; I focus on him here because he has addressed the subject regularly over the past several months, and because it serves as yet another reminder that, despite conventional wisdom, neither Matthews nor MSNBC is really "liberal.")

That really can't be pointed out often enough. It's really worth reading the whole column for a full rundown 0f Matthews' frustrating misinformation and ill-informed opinions on this subject.

Whenever this subject has come up this week, I can't help but recall this post from last spring:
...
...

Conservatives?

Kos (the Great Orange Satan): Home of the brave

Dear Republicans,

Thanks for making clear that "home of the brave" refers only to US liberals, since we aren't pissing our pants at the thought of Gitmo inmates on US soil.

Hugs and kisses,

kos

Sully: Fox News: Enemy Of Conservatism

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Sean Hannity Apologizes to Jon
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Above is Jon Stewart's version of watching Sean Hannity. Yes, I've tried to as well. It's like listening to Hugh Hewitt. Or reading Pravda in the old Soviet Union. But somehow watching a human being so brainwashed and engaging in conscious brain-washing makes it worse. Hannity is a pathological level of propagandist, because his entire reality, his entire mindset is programmed for ideology and partisanship. There is no world for him but politics; and no perspective within politics except conflict and warfare. He greets views that do not comport with the opportunistic ideology of the moment as threats to be extinguished, not ideas to be engaged.

Whatever else this toxic, shallow and brutal perspective is, it is not now and never will be conservative - unless that word has now been so corrupted it has no meaning at all.

Here I am at a conference on two of the greatest conservative minds of the last century: Leo Strauss and Michael Oakeshott. Perhaps Strauss would have regarded this poisonous propaganda as a necessary evil to keep the demos in check (perhaps that's how cynics like Kristol can support and enable this sophomoric, near-fascist crap). Oakeshott would have never stopped throwing up, if, of course, he would even have stooped to watching.

At the core of real conservatism is a distinction between theory and practice, a deep resistance to ideology, a respect for free inquiry and the philosophic spirit, a respect for social stability and coherence, a moderation in governance and a deliberation in action.

It is really time to point out that what Hannity represents, what much of Fox News represents, is not a defense of conservatism but one of conservatism's deepest, most vicious and most pernicious enemies. I am sick and tired of having this political tradition coopted and vandalized in this manner.

Conservatism will not recover as a coherent governing philosophy until it takes this monstrous propaganda on. Conservatism will not somehow emerge through the wreckage of this current moment, until it finds the courage to note that what it has become is not some variant on its tradition rightly understood, but its conscious, active, pernicious nemesis.

And yes, this makes the actual, living breathing representative of political conservatism in our time the current president of the United States. And anyone with any passing concern for the legacy of conservative philosophy knows it.

Yglesias: Meet John Thune, Totally Uninteresting Conventional Conservative Republican

David Brooks’ columns sometimes strike liberals as not just wrong, but somehow insidious, tricky, an effort to put one over on the public. Aside from the evident sexual tension, today’s effort on John Thune strikes me as almost the reverse. Brooks’ project is to build up Senator Thune as some kind of Great Plains David Cameron who can construct a more reasonable version of the conservative project and bring the GOP back to power. I’m not, myself, a moderate conservative but I think this is a worthy project. And the Idea of John Thune seems like a good idea:

He doesn’t have radical plans to cut the federal leviathan. He just wants to restrain the growth of government to bring deficits down. He doesn’t have ambitions to restructure the tax code. He just wants to lift burdens on small business.

He says his prairie background has given him a preference for small companies and local government. When he criticizes the Democrats, it is for mixing big government with big business: the bailouts of Wall Street, the subsidies to the big auto and energy corporations. His populism is not angry. He doesn’t rail against the malefactors of wealth. But it’s there, a celebration of the small and local over the big and urban.

But there’s no evidence that any of this is real. As Brooks concedes, “His positions on the issues are unremarkable.” At the end of the day, as Brooks says, “He is down-the-line conservative on social, economic and foreign policy matters.”

Brooks may say that Thune “just wants to restrain the growth of government to bring deficits down” but orthodox conservative dogma involves tax policy that implies either gutting the federal government or else massive deficits. For example, Jim DeMint proposed an alternative to the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act that was focused on large permanent tax cuts. It would have added $3.1 trillion to the deficit over ten years—about triple the cost of ARRA—with no end in sight. And John Thune voted for it.

The weirdest thing here is the idea that Thune is praiseworthy for his opposition to “the bailouts of Wall Street.” For one thing, David Brooks thinks (and I agree) that voting yes on the TARP bill was the right thing to do. For another thing, John Thune voted for TARP along with the GOP party leadership. He’s done what the bulk of the GOP did, namely when everyone’s butt was on the line he voted for bailouts as a necessary evil, but then after Inauguration Day turned around and started hypocritically slamming them while going to war on behalf of financial services companies looking to avoid regulation.

digby: What If they Don't?

Everyone seems too be applauding the "Palinization" of the GOP. Lou Dobbs may run for president. Wingnut firebrand Marco Rubio may beat moderate Charlie Christ in Florida. Tom Tancredo just threw his hat into the ring for Colorado Governor. Liberals seem very excited about this prospect as if it's self-evident that just as NY 23 laughed off that dead doorknob Hoffman, the country will always think these people are fools.

But what if they don't?

In Palin's case I think it's probably true, not because she is a bigger fool but rather because she is a woman and a different kind of right wing celebrity. But I honestly wonder if it's a good idea to not take these people a little more seriously. There are some rather stark historical examples of people assuming that a right wing demagogic movement is so ridiculous that a majority could never back them --- and that assumption being proved catastrophically wrong.

And even if they are a bunch of fools who can't possibly ever be elected by a majority, is it wise to ignore the fact that as this movement moves farther and farther to the right it leaves a vacuum that the political establishment expects the Democrats to fill? Whenever the Republicans move right, the villagers expect the Democrats to do the same. Indeed, with the Republicans taking themselves completely out of legislation, the Democrats have pretty much assigned members of their own ranks to take their place in the negotiations. They have the ability to move the right without the country even realizing it's happening.

I'm not saying that we should panic. These people are politically weak in their own right. But when I see the liberal gasbags on TV blithely dismissing this as if it''s impossible that Americans could ever fall for such lunacy, I feel a little frisson of alarm. I've read too many accounts of people who, 80 or so years ago, complacently made the same assumption. And the whole world found out that under the right circumstances even the most civilized nations can throw in with the crazies.

Benen: THE STUPID, IT BURNS (LITERALLY)....

Over the summer, right-wing activists hung Democratic Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-Md.) in effigy outside his district office. It was a key signal of what's to come -- the far-right Tea Party crowd's tactics go a little further than the usual political protests we're accustomed to in contemporary American politics.

How much further? A report from southern Virginia highlights this weekend's planned activities in Danville. (via Blue Virginia)

In a move sure to spark controversy, the Danville TEA Party will close their "Fired Up for Freedom" rally by burning Rep. Tom Perriello and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in effigy in response to the passage of landmark healthcare legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The event is being held Saturday at 5:30 p.m. in Blairs, VA at the corner of U.S. 29 and E. Witt Rd. and is open to the public.

Danville TEA Party Chairman Nigel Coleman said, "We were outraged to find that Tom Perriello had voted in favor of this bill. I was with dozens of 5th District voters in his office two days before the vote and we pleaded with him to stand with us against the Pelosi plan.... At this point we feel we have no representation in Congress."

For the record, Periello has met with Teabaggers, and tried to explain his policy approaches to them. They didn't seem interested in good-faith dialog.

And now, these same conservatives are literally planning to set fire to representations of their congressman and the House Speaker.

There's something deeply wrong with these folks.

Update: Josh Marshall adds, "I'm so old I can remember when ritualized symbolic execution of public officials wasn't cool."

Wingnuts: pro-coathanger Edition

tristero: Rhetoric Watch

From Think Progress:

Stupak is an attempt by the pro-life movement to use health reform as a vessel to ration access to reproductive health services.

No.

Stupak is an attempt by the pro-coathanger movement to use health reform as a vessel to ration access to reproductive health services.

As long as we provide the foes of women's reproductive rights the opportunity to cast themselves as being "for life," and do so voluntarily, we will continue to lose ground on a fundamentally moral issue in which we, supporters of unrestricted health care for women, hold the high ground.

Do you think "pro-coathanger" is needlessly confrontational, even if true? Ok, Digby's formulation, "coerced birth," is a more than reasonable substitute. Or if you insist, "anti abortion rights" is fine.

But an important note about that last one: the issue is one of rights, not whether we think a specific set of procedures agrees with our abstract moral code. We can't leave the word "rights" out of the phrase without rhetorically handing the opposition - which is headed by people that genuinely hate women, especially poor women - a powerful concession.

Words matter. And the rightwing would never, ever, make the mistake of calling us anything milder than "pro-abortion," despite the fact that is not our position, nor what this is about. It is about rights, rights to healthcare without restrictions for about half the people in this country.

Think Progress does great work; I'm not raking them specifically over the coals. The rhetorical problem I'm pointing out is so commonplace as to be nearly invisible. My hope is that decent people will focus on how very important it is, always, to resist casting cultural debates in the loaded rhetoric of the right. "Pro-life" is one of their most egregious formulations. And one of the worst.

UPDATE: Short answer to commentators who claim that "pro-life" is just a morally neutral label for one side in a political controversy: You're kidding yourself. You may think the nuanced meanings of a specific phrase don't matter, but they do.

John Cole: Where Do They Find These People?

Via the comments, this jerk:

State Sen. David Schultheis said he didn’t intend for a Twitter post accusing President Barack Obama of “flying the U.S. plane right into the ground” and ending with “let’s roll” as a threat or a reference to United Flight 93, which crashed during the 2001 terrorist attacks.

“Let’s roll” reportedly were the last words of Todd Beamer before he and other passengers tried to gain control of their hijacked jet. The plane crashed into a Pennsylvania field short of its intended target.

The tweet stirred ire and some support for the Colorado Springs Republican, whose standard eschewal of political correctness has earned him criticism in the past.

Schultheis’ full tweet Tuesday was: “Don’t for a second think Obama wants what is best for U.S. He is flying the U.S. plane right into the ground at full speed. Let’s roll.”

***

Schultheis voted in February against a bill requiring pregnant women to be tested for AIDS to prevent spreading the disease to the children. He said then that infected children would set examples for women against sexual promiscuity.

Just another Colorado Springs evangelical, spreading God’s word.

Benen: RNC SUBSIDIZES ABORTIONS FOR 18 YEARS -- AND COUNTING....

The debate over financing of abortions -- the basis for the offensive Stupak amendment -- is all about money being fungible. Amy Sullivan explained the problem nicely recently: "The problem, they say, is that if any insurance plan that covers abortion is allowed to participate in a public exchange, then premiums paid to that plan in the form of taxpayer-funded subsidies help support that abortion coverage even if individual abortion procedures are paid for out of a separate pool of privately-paid premium dollars."

But applying this argument can prove problematic. Focus on the Family, for example, one of the nation's largest religious right organizations and a fierce opponent of abortion rights, has health insurance for its employees through a company that covers "abortion services." The far-right outfit, by its own standards, indirectly subsidizes abortions.

Apparently, the Republican National Committee has the same problem. Politico reported yesterday afternoon that the RNC -- whose platform calls abortion "a fundamental assault on innocent human life" -- gets insurance through Cigna with a plan that covers elective abortion. The Republicans' health care package has been in place since 1991 -- thanks, Lee Atwater -- meaning that, by the party's own argument, it has been indirectly subsidizing abortions for 18 years.

Complicating matters, Politico found that Cigna offers customers the opportunity to opt out of abortion coverage -- "and the RNC did not choose to opt out."

The Republican National Committee, not surprisingly, scrambled. By last night, it resolved the issue. Sort of.

The Republican National Committee will no longer offer employees an insurance plan that covers abortion after POLITICO reported Thursday that the anti-abortion RNC's policy has covered the procedure since 1991.

"Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose," Chairman Michael Steele said in a statement. "I don't know why this policy existed in the past, but it will not exist under my administration. Consider this issue settled."

Steele has told the committee's director of administration to opt out of coverage for elective abortion in the policy it uses from Cigna.

But does that actually "settle" the matter? The new RNC policy, apparently, is to have insurance through Cigna, opting out of abortion coverage. But let's not lose sight of the original fungibility problem -- the RNC is taking Republican money and giving it to an insurance company through premiums. That company will then use its pool of money to pay for abortion services, not for RNC employees, but for other customers.

In other words, the Republican National Committee will still indirectly subsidize abortions, every time it writes a check to Cigna.

And if the RNC disagrees with this reasoning, and believes the issue is "settled," then the party has rejected the reasoning of the Stupak amendment at a fundamental level.

Atrios: Don't Care What's True

Last night in comments to this post I said that I didn't care of Palin's charges were true. My point wasn't that I have no interest in truth, just that I have no genuine interest in the Palin freakshow except to the extent that it says something about our media and John McCain. If true, then the McCain campaign people were tremendous dicks, if not true it means Palin is (shocker!) less than honest but despite this the media is going to spend 3 months talking about her even though her actual political future (meaning elected office or any position with actual power) is probably less promising than my own.

The point is the whole thing's a freak show, and that's much more important than any of the "facts" of the freak show, none of which matter at all, true or not...

...as Boehlert says:

So I guess my question is, besides the larger and authentic one (who, besides journalists and GOP partisans, cares about Sarah Palin?) is, has the press ever treated an election loser the way it now treats Sarah Palin? Has the Beltway press ever turned an election loser like Palin into a political rising star, even though there's no evidence to suggest her stature has changed since last November's embarrassing thumping? (i.e. What "magic" is Stephanopoulos talking about?)

There's never a proper left-right analogy, but imagine if John Kerry had put Dennis Kucinich on the Veep ticket and then lost. Kucinich would have increased stature in the Democratic party, and probably be quite popular with "the base," but the press would mostly ignore him other than to occasionally sneer. I'm not equating Palin and Kucinich, just trying to imagine who might occupy a similar space on the left.

Benen: QUOTE OF THE DAY...

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) can be unintentionally amusing sometimes.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), an outspoken conservative and member of the House GOP leadership whip team, on Thursday refused to condemn the harsh rhetoric used by conservative "tea party" protesters amid the health care debate.

Asked whether she would pledge to no longer endorse the language of protesters who accuse President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats of being "socialist" and "evil" because of their health care reform plan, Blackburn paused before saying, "I'm happy to tell you the American people are very frustrated and what I can speak to is for me." [...]

Blackburn, a speaker at the Bloomberg Washington Summit, dodged several questions about whether her support for the rhetoric used by protesters helps or hurts her party.

She concluded, "Many of us would appreciate having a more civil tone here in Washington."

If she'd like a more civil tone, why would Blackburn fail to criticize the Teabaggers' right-wing vitriol? For that matter, wouldn't she turn down her own over-the-top rhetoric?

Krugman: Lou Dobbs

I used to go on Lou Dobbs fairly often in the early years of this decade — and I liked him. We didn’t agree on much, but the on-air discussions were always even-tempered and kind of fun. I would never have expected him to snap the way he did.

Greg Sargent asks whether progressive bloggers and web sites, Media Matters in particular, will get any credit for Dobbs’s fall, the way the ludicrous Powerline got lionized for bringing down Dan Rather. Probably not; Washington is still, as Josh Marshall likes to say, wired for Republicans.

But there is nonetheless some significance in what happened. Until now it really has seemed as if there was nothing, nothing at all, that someone on the right could say and do that would make them unacceptable in polite company. Now it at least seems that there is a line somewhere.

The Great Orange Satan himself writes a letter: Dear Tom Tancredo

Dear Tom,

With news of your possible gubernatorial bid, I'd like to offer a bit of advice:

Next time you cut and run from a TV interview, remember to unclip both your mic and your ear piece.

It makes for a smoother escape.

Hugs and kisses,

kos

Krugman: The agony of Fox Business

James Wolcott is made of sterner stuff than I am: he actually has the fortitude to watch Fox Business, where the talking heads manage to find nothing but clouds in the silver lining of a huge stock rally. To make their point they bring on such market experts as … John Bolton. As Wolcott writes, “It takes more than a market rally to pull the wool over Bolton’s mustache.” (Now that’s writing!)

But seriously, sort of, there’s a broader moral to be drawn from this.

Clearly, the Fox Business crew is having a very hard time. They bill themselves as being truly pro-business — not like those leftists at CNBC. But they aren’t really pro-business; they’re pro-Republican. They’d like you to believe that it’s the same thing; but there’s this awkward fact that markets have, you know, gone up under Obama.

And this isn’t just a phenomenon of the last few months. Look back at stock returns under recent presidents, which is easy using a clever gadget at Political Calculations. Taking real, dividend-inclusive annual returns on the S&P 500, I get:

Reagan: 10.08%
Bush I: 10.16%
Clinton: 14.35%
Bush II: minus 5.81%

Tax-hiking Democrats are supposed to be terrible for business; I mean, Norman Podhoretz whines that Jews should be conservatives because Republican policies are better for the economy. But the data just refuse to say that — and that’s even if we restrict ourselves to the stock market, never mind job creation, wages, poverty and all that.

So the whole idea of Fox Business is problematic. It’s Fox, which means that it’s basically an arm of the GOP; but that’s a terrible match for business coverage, because the economy just refuses to punish liberals and reward conservatives the way it’s supposed to.

I gather that Fox Biz has managed to push up its morning ratings by hiring that great financial guru Don Imus. But that sort of proves the point; Fox Business can get viewers, but only by turning itself into … Fox News.

John Cole: ZOMG! Terrorists On American Soil!

Hopefully being tried and then sent to prison for the rest of their lives, where they can rot to death next to the unabomber and Eric Rudolph:

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and four others accused in the attacks will be put on criminal trial in New York, Attorney General Eric Holder is expected to announce later Friday.

The decision, described by people familiar with the matter, is part of wider announcement planned on how to bring to justice detainees held at the Guantanamo Bay prison. It’s the first set of decisions before a Monday deadline on how to deal with the more than 200 prisoners remaining at the facility, which President Barack Obama has ordered closed.

The wingnut freakout over this will be predictable and amusing, because as we all know, real patriots have no faith in our judicial system and law enforcement officers.

*** Update ***

Literally, as I wrote this post, I got a Red State Action Alert:

Today Barack Obama is going to announce that the terrorist mastermind of September 11th, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, will be sent to New York City for a criminal trial in a civilian court.

In that trial, the terrorist will get all the rights afforded an American citizen in a criminal trial, including the right to a fair trial, the right to a taxpayer funded attorney, the right to review all the evidence against him, potentially including classified intelligence matters, the right to exclude evidence against him including, potentially, any confession obtained through enhanced interrogation techniques, etc.

At best, this will be a show trial fit not for the American Republic, but a third world kleptocratic totalitarian regime. At worse, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will gain access to classified material he can then leak to other terrorists while New York yet again becomes a target for terrorists. We have already had occasions in this country where terrorists’ sympathetic lawyers have conveyed information, orders, and plans to other terrorists.

You can find more details here.

Call your Congressman and Senator right now. Tell them they should use every tool at their disposal to block this. The number to call is 202-224-3121.

Sincerely yours,

Erick Erickson
Editor, RedState.com

I love that his range of possible outcomes includes a “show trial” as the best possible outcome. Authoritarians simply have no faith in our Democracy whatsoever.

Health Care?

digby: Spiritual Healing

Yesterday I wrote a satirical post calling for the exclusion of erectile dysfunction treatments in the health care plan because of my moral objections to men defying God's edict to stay flaccid. It created a good chuckle around the blogosphere, my favorite being General JC Christian's post "First they came for the boners" (and his hilarious comment section --- "They'll pry my boner from my cold dead hands.")

But as is so often true these days, satire is no longer operative with the right wing having retired the concept of hypocrisy. Howie sent me this post with a real life provision which I quite seriously object to having my tax dollars spent for:

A few days ago the L.A. Times reported on a provision slipped into the Senate bill that "would require insurers to consider covering Christian Science prayer treatments as medical expenses." Orrin Hatch is behind the provision, but he was aided by Kennedy and Kerry, the senators from Massachusetts, which is where Christian Science has its world headquarters.

The measure would put Christian Science prayer treatments -- which substitute for or supplement medical treatments -- on the same footing as clinical medicine. While not mentioning the church by name, it would prohibit discrimination against "religious and spiritual healthcare."... Phil Davis, a senior Christian Science Church official, said prayer treatment was an effective alternative to conventional healthcare.

"We are making the case for this, believing there is a connection between healthcare and spirituality," said Davis, who distributed 11,000 letters last week to Senate officials urging support for the measure.

"We think this is an important aspect of the solution, when you are talking about not only keeping the cost down, but finding effective healthcare," he said.

Let's not kid ourselves about this. It's a boondoggle. And if it passes, I'm done fighting all this. I'm going to start a "spiritual healing center" and become a millionaire. And I won't just be stealing your tax dollars to do it, I won't have to pay taxes myself. It's brilliant.

Stupak is as Stupak does Nov. 12: The Interview: Rachel Maddow is joined by Gov. Ed Rendell, D-PA, to talk about the political rift caused by the inclusion of the Stupak amendment in the House health reform bill.

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

Think Progress: RNC employee health insurance plan covers abortion.

Last week, 176 House Republicans joined with 64 Democrats in voting for the so-called Stupak amendment, which could “could effectively stop many employer-provided health insurance plans from covering abortions for tens of millions of Americans” and restrict any private plan in the insurance exchange from offering abortion coverage. However, Politico reports today that the RNC’s own employee health care plan covers elective abortion — “a procedure the party’s own platform calls ‘a fundamental assault on innocent human life’”:

Federal Election Commission Records show the RNC purchases its insurance from Cigna. Two sales agents for the company said that the RNC’s policy covers elective abortion.

Informed of the coverage, RNC spokeswoman Gail Gitcho told POLITICO that the policy pre-dates the tenure of current RNC Chairman Michael Steele.

“The current policy has been in effect since 1991, and we are taking steps to address the issue,” Gitcho said. [...]

According to several Cigna employees, the insurer offers its customers the opportunity to opt out of abortion coverage — and the RNC did not choose to opt out.

Recently it was also revealed that the health insurance plan used by the right-wing, anti-choice organization Focus on the Family also covered “abortion services.”

Update The RNC has announced that it will no longer offer employees an insurance plan that covers abortion. "Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose," Chairman Michael Steele said in a statement. "I don't know why this policy existed in the past, but it will not exist under my administration. Consider this issue settled."

Our Media

Benen: LOU DOBBS EXITS STAGE RIGHT....

It was an unsustainable relationship. On the one hand, CNN presents itself as the "most trusted name in news." It wants to be the neutral, straight-down-the-middle, bias-free cable news network. On the other hand, CNN has been paying considerable sums to a clownish, xenophobic demagogue to host a daily news program. Something had to give.

Yesterday, something did.

Months ago the president of CNN/U.S., Jonathan Klein, offered a choice to Lou Dobbs, the channel's most outspoken anchor. Mr. Dobbs could vent his opinions on radio and anchor an objective newscast on television, or he could leave CNN.

For a time, Mr. Dobbs did tone down his TV rhetoric, but on Wednesday he made a more drastic decision: He chose opinion.

Mr. Dobbs told viewers that he was resigning from his CNN job immediately. Sitting before an image of an American flag on his studio set, he said "some leaders in media, politics and business have been urging me to go beyond the role here at CNN and to engage in constructive problem solving as well as to contribute positively to the great understanding of the issues of our day."

He remained vague about how he would contribute "to the national conversation," saying that he was considering "a number of options and directions."

That sounds a bit like someone considering a run for public office (Dobbs/Palin '12?), though there are widespread rumors that Dobbs may make the jump to Fox Business, which has been spending freely to recruit higher-profile conservative names lately.

Details are sketchy about whether Dobbs took the leap or was shoved out the door, but the move would seem to help the network -- Dobbs was a near-constant source of embarrassment, and given his third-place finish in his timeslot, this isn't exactly a brutal blow for CNN. The network probably won't have any other on-air talent obsessing over the president's birth certificate, but that's not much of a loss.

Eric Burns, president of Media Matters, a persistent Dobbs critic, said in a statement, "For too long, CNN provided Lou Dobbs with its stamp of approval as he pursued a dangerous, one-sided and all too often false conspiracy tinged crusade against immigrants. This is a happy day for all those who care about this nation of immigrants and believe in the power of media to elevate the political discourse."

CNN may announce a replacement as early as this morning. Unless Pat Buchanan is in the running, the choice is bound to be an improvement.

Marshall: A Bad Moment Today at CNN

The vast majority of us understand that in our legal system everyone deserves a fair trial and the legal representation that makes that possible even if many of us, at a gut level, have a hard time understanding being the individual person who mounts a zealous defense of someone who is factually, if not yet legally, guilty of a horrific crime. But today I was surprised and almost nauseated to see Wolf Blitzer go in for the most stereotypical, craven and showboating knock-about of the retired JAG officer who's representing Nidal Hasan. (Hasan has a regular military defense counsel as well as a civilian attorney retained by his family.) It's not about ideology certainly or even theories of what's right or not about the law. But we know bullying and pompous showboating when we see it.

The retired JAG, Col. John Galligan, stood up to it very well. And actually got back in Blitzer's face in a way that's pretty hard to do and uncommon for a non-TV personality going up against a big shot host. If we want Hannity, we've got Fox for that. Right?

"between a banana and a hand grenade"

John Cole: Raise Your Glass High

Let’s have a big round of applause for Joe Klein:

Now that’s a panel discussion! A heated debate between Time magazine’s Joe Klein and the New Republic’s Jamie Kirchick spilled off the dais Tuesday into a hallway confrontation where Klein called the younger pundit a “dishonest [expletive]” and a “[expletiving] propagandist.”

Klein told us today he’s not sure he uttered the “propagandist” bit—heard by a few witnesses—but stands by the “dishonest [expletive]” part.

“Absolutely. He’s a [expletive],” Klein, 62, told us. “He’s 25 years old, and he’s one of those people who has opinions but no facts or experience.”

In other words, Kirchick is perfect in his role as Marty Peretz’s jockstrap.

I’m sure the Weekly Standard and Commentary magazine will spend the next week explaining how this makes Joe Klein a self-hating jew. Joe may not be perfect, but he is on the side of angels when it comes to these assholes.

And as a fellow heater, I understand Joe and appreciate it, even when I disagree with him.

John +5

*** Update ***

Wolcott:

Klein may have his flaws and vanities, a plethora of less than charming polemical traits, but Kirchick—Kirchick is the Eddie Haskell of neoconservatives, a calculating little suck-up whose obsequious pieties drip like melted plastic. (To wit: “Reached for comment, Kirchick said ‘McCain spent five years in a North Vietnamese torture camp. He doesn’t need lessons in the horrors of war from the likes of Joe Klein.’”) If Commentary made a lunch box, Kirchick is what you find packed inside, between a banana and a hand grenade.

Brilliant.

Hoekstra, dubious choice for Intelligence Committee Nov. 11: Rachel Re: Rachel Maddow provides an overview of intelligence leaks and misstatements by Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-MI, the Republicans' ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee.

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

John Cole: Punishment Enough

It just never stops with these clowns:

Texas GOP Gov. Rick Perry accused President Barack Obama on Wednesday of “punishing” Texas and being “hell-bent” on turning the United States into a socialist country.

Speaking at a luncheon for a Midland County Republican Women’s group, Perry said that “this is an administration hell-bent toward taking American towards a socialist country. And we all don’t need to be afraid to say that because that’s what it is.”

Perry praised the tea party movement to the Republican activists in attendance, crediting the grassroots groups with discouraging some Democrats in Washington from pushing for a public option in the health care bill.

No mention in the article about how exactly Obama is “punishing Texas, but then again, that would have required reporting with actual questions, and not just stenography.

You want to punish Texas and Rick Perry? Blockade it and stop the flow of everything, including hair products. I’m open to an airlift to Austin.

John Cole: I Told You Straight Up

Because I am ornery, I just need to see this again (and again and again and again):

That never gets old. I’m dying here.

Kleefeld (TPM): Family Research Council PAC: We Would Support A Primary Against Olympia Snowe

I just spoke to Connie Mackey, president of the Family Research Council Action PAC, and she told me that if a conservative candidate were to emerge to run against Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) in the 2012 Republican primary, FRC Action will back them.

"Well of course there is an audience that would love to see Olympia Snowe out of office, within the ranks of social conservatives, that's for certain," said Mackey.

A new survey from Public Policy Polling (D) found that a generic conservative challenger would lead the moderate Snowe in a Republican primary by a whopping 59%-31% margin.

"I think a couple years ago, we wouldn't have thought it was possible," said Mackey. "However, those numbers are interesting, and I think those numbers might just track the fact that a lot of Americans are waking up to the liberal policies, what they mean and how they're playing out. And it may be affecting her, with her votes for the stimulus, and breaking from her party. And we would like to see a conservative have a chance to remove her from office up there."

As luck would have it, Mackey is headed up to New Hampshire this weekend for a regional Family Research Council conference on family policy. And she expects that this subject will probably come up in her discussions with FRC members from Maine. Mackey reiterated that nobody would have expected to see numbers like this until now, "so now the process of discussion will begin."

I asked Mackey whether this could turn into another case like the recent NY-23 special election, in which FRC Action supported Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman against Republican Dede Scozzafava, only to end in a victory by Democratic candidate Bill Owens. Mackey said it had surprised a lot of people when the GOP nominated a candidate as liberal as Scozzafava, and that a key difference here is that Maine would have a primary.

"Well, I think that New York 23 actually had a shot. It wasn't automatic that the Democrat would win that one," Mackey explained. "I think a primary is a whole different situation completely. Would we support a conservative against Olympia Snowe in a primary? Yes."

Kleefeld (TPM): Porn Star Stormy Daniels: 'I Have Nothing To Hide'

Porn star Stormy Daniels, who is running for U.S. Senate in Louisiana against incumbent Republican David Vitter, said in an interview with Marie Claire that she would provide a contrast to the hypocrisy of the incumbent, a family-values politician who was implicated in a prostitution scandal.

Q: Why shoot for the Senate?

A: I was drafted by a group called Draft Stormy, a grassroots movement in Louisiana that wanted someone who was the polar opposite of current senator David Vitter. They figured I would be perfect because I am open and honest about my sexuality, unlike Vitter. I realized that this is my chance to make a difference, to do something unselfish, noble, and to help a lot of people.

Q: You're referring to Senator Vitter's link to a Washington, D.C. escort service . . .

A: I'm not one to judge someone's sexual activity, but what annoys me is that he's so hard-core "family values," and he puts his wife and kids out there, saying he's a Christian family man. Then he's caught up in a prostitution scandal. He's a hypocrite.

Daniels also said that her career won't be a problem. "It's actually starting to work in my favor," she said. "I have nothing to hide. A sex tape of me isn't going to pop up and shame me; there are 150 of them at the video store."

She answered some additional questions:

Q: Do you think you're more qualified than Senator Vitter?

A: Absolutely not. But in one movie, I did play a Secret Service agent marooned on an island controlled by North Korea. I butt heads with dictator Kim Jong-il and come out on top.

...

Q: What's your party affiliation?

A: As far as the two-party political system goes, I swing both ways. But I'm leaning toward the Libertarian Party.

Q: Sarah Palin or Hillary Clinton?

A: Hillary Clinton. She's a well-rounded woman, extremely knowledgeable on a wide range of subjects, and carries herself with dignity.

...

Q: If you're elected, will you quit porn?

A: Probably, but only because of HD...and gravity.

Inside Baseball

Hersh on Pakistan's nukes Nov. 11: Rachel Maddow talks to New Yorker writer Seymour Hersh about his new article about the security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

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

Coburn

sgw: Tom Coburn Is A Fucking Disgrace

If GOP leaders have any sense, have any balls, have any fucking sense of decency, they will make Tom Coburn's bitch ass stand down and let President Obama sign into law a bill that provides better health care for our Veterans.

If not then Democrats had damn well better tear his ass up day after fucking day over this shit. And I don't mean in a political sense either. This is beyond ridiculous and shows an indifference, nay a contempt for the very people we ask, hell in some respects demand, to put their lives on the line to protect our freedoms.

Let me stop before I REALLY get pissed off!

Coburn in the way of vets' health care Nov. 11: Rachel Maddow is joined by Rep. Joe Sestak, D-PA, to talk about the hold Sen. Tom Coburn, R-OK, has put on a bill that would improve health care access to wounded veterans.

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

The Paranoid Style

TPM Headline

O'Reilly: 'We Can't Kill All The Muslims' -- So We Want To Win Hearts And Minds Instead

Marshall: The Paranoid Style

There are many ways in which the political moment (hyper-polarizing) and the technological moment (Twitter, instant news cycles) creates a self-perpetuating arms race of hyperbole. On the other hand, some of these new publishing and communications systems do allow us to get a view into where the head of a big chunk of the country is at.

To that end, we've got the story of the Colorado state senator who represents the hyper-conservative Colorado Springs compared Obama to the al Qaeda terrorists who took over Flight 93 on 9/11 and real patriotic Republican Americans to the passengers who had to retake control of the plane.

On the one hand, this is textbook feverish, eliminationist incitement. On the other hand, I think back to how paranoid and in the thrall of their own victimization these folks were a few years when they ran the entire country. So I'm not sure we should be surprised that they go totally crazy when they're largely shut out of power in the country at the national level.

• atrios adds that this is No Surprise: I think this is an under-appreciated phenomenon of the past 8 years, that even when their team ran everything they still felt marginalized and were perpetually acting as victims. "Some Guy With A Sign Somewhere" was a great threat to their personal liberty, as was anyone who didn't pay appropriate respects to Just How 9/11 Made Them Feel.

John Cole: Fifteen Minutes of Shame

So looking at the GOP instant heroes of the last year, Joe the Plumber has exposed himself as a crazy and ignorant fool, Carrie Prejean is involved in amessy and very public litigation with the pageant and now has unpaid for breast implants and a sex tape, Doug Hoffman proved that you actually can lose NY-23 to Democrats, and Sarah Palin quit her job to suck up some of that wingnut welfare while paying someone to write stupid shit on her Facebook page, all while waging a public battle with the father of her daughter’s child, who is spilling all on every nightly gossip show and showing all on Playgirl. And I haven’t even gone into Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and many others.

You would think they would vet their instant celebs before making them the faces of conservatism.

All of this, of course, is excellent news for John McCain.

DougJ: Strange days

Does anyone else think it’s strange the most important figure in American media is an eccentric, right-wing Australian billionaire? And that one of the other most important (probably the second most important within wingnut media) figures is a Korean cult leader?

This is weird, right? It’s not just me being a Pat Buchanan nationalist, is it?

Benen: CENSURING GRAHAM....

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has one of the Senate's most conservative voting records. It's true in the 111th Congress, and the 110th, 109th, and 108th. Apparently, however, it's not quite conservative enough for some of his home-state allies.

Republican leaders in a South Carolina county have censured their own U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham for working with Democrats on a climate bill and other legislation.

The Republican has often worked with Democrats in Congress, but Charleston County Chairwoman Lin Bennett says his work on climate legislation is the last straw.

The vote in Charleston was reportedly unanimous. And the effort isn't over -- apparently, a similar censure resolution will be pushed at the state GOP convention next year.

In light of the apoplexy, it's probably worth remembering that Graham hasn't moved to the center. Let's once again take a look at the always-helpful VoteView analysis, which ranks lawmakers from the most liberal to the most conservative. In the current Congress, #1 is Dick Durbin (furthest to the left), #100 is Tom Coburn (furthest to the right). Graham is tied for #82, meaning only 17 senators are to his right. Graham is not only more conservative than most of the Senate, he's more conservative than most Republicans. This year, based solely on his voting record, Graham is to the right of notable conservatives like Sam Brownback and Mitch McConnell.

In South Carolina, that's worth a censure resolution?

One of the other angles I find interesting is that, for the better part of the year, the small and discredited Republican minority has insisted that they'd like to see "bipartisan" lawmaking. And yet, when Lindsey Graham tries to work with Dems on one issue, and gets much of what he wants in concessions, he's immediately slammed -- formally -- by Republicans in his own state.