I See Crazy People

DougJ: A new narrative

That’s one way of describing it (Dave Weigel at his new Kaplan gig):

What followed was a discussion about spittle between me and President George H.W. Bush’s first chief of staff. Sununu argued that Cleaver had walked back his statement, and I pointed out that this wasn’t true—there’s a much-forwarded blog post that frames a punchy no-comment from Cleaver as proof that he was lying. I brought up this video of Cleaver walking up Capitol steps, reacting to something hitting him, and walking back down to confront someone in the crowd. That, said Sununu, wasn’t definitive—perhaps Cleaver was hit by something accidentally.

The segment ended there, but it’s the clearest example I’ve seen of Republicans doing something that Andrew Breitbart has been doing for weeks, attempting to disprove the “slurs” story and create a new narrative of Democrats smearing and slurring tea partiers. Has it worked? Getting the entire movement onboard with the push-back is a pretty good start.

It’s easy to fall back into the old habit of thinking that reality matters. But we’re living through the Pale Fire era of American politics and we all need to get used to that.

Marshall: Progressive Education (or, the Anti-Shaggy DA)

Last month Juneau County (WI) District Attorney Scott Southworth sent out 24 letters to top officials in the county 5 school districts telling them to suspend sex education classes in their schools or face possible charges of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. "Forcing our schools to instruct children on how to utilize contraceptives encourages our children to engage in sexual behavior, whether as a victim or an offender," Southworth wrote. (Someone apparently has a pretty healthy attitude toward sex.)

Right wing threats of violence intensify

Maddow: April 6: Zachary Roth of Talking Points Memo remarks on the threats of death and violence against U.S. lawmakers and other Americans by anti-abortion fanatics and other elements of the right wing fringe.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

John Cole: Who’ll Draw The Short Straw

I see that another wingnut associated with the tea party lunatics has been arrested for making death threats- this time Patty Murray is the target. You all know what that means, don’t you?

We can expect another 4,000 word piece at Reason magazine telling us that not all tea partiers are dangerous and the informing us about the myth of right wing violence. The only questions that remain are who will draw the short straw (Moynihan and Walker had to do the last ones) and whether or not the Animal Liberation Front will make a guest appearance.

Marshall (TPM): Reclaiming the Militia Brand

Ever since that unfortunate turn of events with the Hutaree Christian militia up in Michigan, the folks the feds had to round up for plotting to kill a police officer and then ambush his funeral procession with Iraq-style IEDs, the good militia brand has taken a bit of a beating.

So this Saturday the folks who I guess we're supposed to think of as coming from the 'mainstream' militia movement, the so-called 'Michigan militia', are hosting a family-oriented "Open Carry Family Picnic & Tea Party" to show the true face of the lifestyle and help "take the stigma out of the word 'militia.'"

Slajda (TPM): Census Paranoia: What Are Right-Wingers Afraid Of?

When Rush Limbaugh suggested last week that the census was deliberately skipping Republican neighborhoods in order to under-represent the right, he added yet another theory to the growing library of census paranoia stories emanating from right-wing blogs, and Republican congressmen.

Conservatives have kicked up such a fuss about the census -- suggesting, for example, that it will help legalize gay marriage or lead to WWII-style internment camps -- that Republicans have become worried that their supporters will be under-represented. The Census Bureau even pushed back, getting Karl Rove to cut an ad lauding the constitutionality of the head count.

TPM brings you some of the best tales of horror and intrigue surrounding the census:

Last week, Limbaugh wondered aloud about whether the bureau was deliberately skipping Republican neighborhoods.

"I told you I've never received a census form. I remember as a little kid the census people coming into the house. I haven't seen a census form since I left home in 1970," Limbaugh said. "I wonder how widespread this is, that areas thought to be Republican are either not getting forms or not being visited by the census workers. Nothing would surprise me."

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) last year reminded us via Fox News that the Census Bureau once handed over data to the government in order to round up Japanese-Americans during World War II. She also announced that her family wouldn't fill out the Census entirely but would only put down the number of people in their home. Bachmann has since retreated from such statements.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), perhaps the House's most staunch Libertarian, warned in a column last month that census data has been abused in the past. He used both the internment example and said the IRS has used census data in order to catch alleged tax evaders.

"From a constitutional perspective, of course, the answer to each of these questions is: 'None of your business,'" Paul wrote. "But why is the government so intent on compiling this information in the first place?" Paul was the only congressman to vote against a resolution encouraging people to participate in the census.

The far-far-right web site World Net Daily suggests the government could use data to round up and deport illegal immigrants.

CNSnews.com has a few theories of its own: The census is pushing the country toward "redefining marriage" by allowing gay couples to fill out their forms as a married couple, regardless of whether their state recognizes gay marriage. It's working with community organizers to count illegal immigrants. It's sending some people two forms, risking double-counting.

WND has also taken part in the more widespread fear of the American Community Survey, a yearly sample of the population that asks 48 questions, compared to the Census' 10. A sample headline: "Big Brother asks: 'Do you have a flush toilet?'"

The ACS overall has been the subject of much more fervent paranoia. RedState.com editor and new CNN contributor Erick Erickson said on his radio show recently that, while he believed in the Census, he'd take out his wife's shotgun if anyone working for ACS showed up at his house.

"I'm not filling out this form. I dare them to try and come throw me in jail. I dare them to. Pull out my wife's shotgun and see how that little ACS twerp likes being scared at the door. They're not going on my property," he said.

Erickson said in a later blog post that he was referring to a Weekly Standard story that ACS workers had harassed Daniel Freedman, a foreign policy analyst who worked on Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign. Erickson said he would only take out a gun if someone working for the ACS tried to arrest him.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs responded to Erickson's comments today, called the comments "the remarkably crazy remarks of somebody that would threaten somebody simply trying to ensure that they're adequately represented in this country."

Aravosis: GOP Sen. Coburn defends Pelosi as 'nice woman,' says FOX News is 'biased'

From Capitol News Connection:

When discussing the short-term unemployment benefit extension that he is stalling, to the chagrin of Democrats, Coburn said he is "180 degrees in opposition" to Pelosi but that "she is a nice lady."

That comment drew boos and jeers from the crowd, but Coburn asked the crowd for calm and spoke about civility.

“Come on now. She is nice – how many of you all have met her? She’s a nice person,” Coburn said. "Let me give you a little lesson here. I hope you will listen to me. Just because somebody disagrees with you don’t [sic] mean they’re not a good person. And i want to tell you, I've been in the senate for five years and I’ve taken a lot of that, because I’ve been on the small side –- both in the Republican Party and the Democrat Party."

The Oklahoma senator is seen by many as a divisive figure.

“What we have to have is make sure we have a debate in this country so that you can see what’s going on and make a determination yourself,” Coburn added and then again warned the crowd against the myths perpetrated on FOX News.

“So don’t catch yourself being biased by FOX News that somebody is no good. The people in Washington are good. They just don’t know what they don’t know,” Coburn said.

Coburn is not a nice guy. For him to be talking like this means that he's concerned - the GOP is concerned - that their crazies have gone too far, too crazy. And that's great. And it's all the more reason for Democrats to push the issue even further, that the GOP has been taking over by Teabagging extremists.

BarbinMD (Dkos): Tom Coburn to play politics with the lives of a "relatively small amount of people"

The entire concept of the Party of No has been a dream come true for Tom "Dr. No" Coburn (R-OK). Long known for holding up spending bills in the senate, Coburn is now vowing to:

... block all future spending bills in the Senate that aren’t fully “paid for” with cuts to other spending programs.

That spending includes the extension of jobless benefits ... a political decision that means 200,000 people are losing their benefits this week. Coburn's response?

Coburn cast doubt on any political backlash against the GOP over the issue, noting that when an unemployment extension is passed, it will include retroactive benefits for those who apply.

He argued voters will support the GOP given concerns about the deficit.

“The easiest thing in the world is to pass this bill unpaid for, but consider the millions of Americans whose financial futures would be damaged, versus the relatively small amount of people who will be affected by this delay. Now you tell me which vote takes the most courage.”

After all, it's only 200,000 people and their families who will be unable to pay the rent or put food on on the table. What a courageous, self-described Christian.

TPM:

Heritage Foundation: U.S. Economy No Longer 'Free'

The Heritage Foundation's latest world ranking of economic freedoms shows the U.S. falling farther than any other large economy in the world. The foundation says the TARP Program, the auto industry bailout and the stimulus package, among other factors, have caused the country's economy to go from 'free' to 'mostly free.'

Benen: 'MOSTLY FREE'

The Heritage Foundation, one of the right's leading think tanks, has downgraded the United States on its "Index of Economic Freedom," which ranks the planet's 179 countries. Americans were "free," Heritage found, but now we're only "mostly free."

The Heritage Foundation's latest world ranking of economic freedoms shows the U.S. falling farther than any other large economy in the world. The foundation says the TARP Program, the auto industry bailout and the stimulus package, among other factors, have caused in the country's economy to go from "free" to "mostly free." [...]

Factors like business regulation, the labor market, monetary stability, property rights and corruption are used to determine the rankings.

Terry Miller, director of the Center of International Trade And Economics at the Heritage Foundation, says the U.S. ranking may continue to fall.

"Certainly looking at the government policies that have been followed over the last year, since our last data cut off, I'm very concerned," Miller told TPM, adding that health care reform was likely to further hurt our economic freedom.

So, who are the shining beacons of liberty -- i.e., countries that meet the Heritage threshold for being actually economically free? The United States is eighth, behind Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Switzerland, and Canada, in that order.

Yes, the Heritage Foundation would be more satisfied if our economic freedoms were more in line with countries that have socialized medicine, impose higher tax rates, and in Ireland's case, is in need of a massive bailout to prevent a catastrophe.

Benen: A RHETORICAL SHIFT ON TERRORISM

If recent history is any indication, there will be a fair amount of conservative complaining today about this development.

President Barack Obama's advisers plan to remove terms such as "Islamic radicalism" from a document outlining national security strategy and will use the new version to emphasize that the U.S. does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terrorism, counterterrorism officials say. [...]

[National Security Council staffer Pradeep Ramamurthy] runs the administration's Global Engagement Directorate, a four-person National Security Council team that Obama launched last May with little fanfare and a vague mission to use diplomacy and outreach "in pursuit of a host of national security objectives." Since then, the division has not only helped change the vocabulary of fighting terrorism, but also has shaped the way the country invests in Muslim businesses, studies global warming, supports scientific research and combats polio.

We can probably guess what'll happen next -- the Cheneys, Giuliani, and assorted media personalities will no doubt tell us the administration can't be taken seriously on counter-terrorism unless it uses the word "Islamic" all the time.

There's probably no point in taking this on as part of a substantive debate, but it's nevertheless worth noting that just two years ago this month, the Bush/Cheney administration launched a new effort to change the way U.S. officials communicated on this issue. In fact, Bush/Cheney issued guidelines, entitled "Words that Work and Words that Don't: A Guide for Counterterrorism Communication," urging officials to stop describing extremists as "jihadists" or "mujahedeen," and to drop "Islamo-fascism" altogether. "It's not what you say but what they hear," the memo said in bold italic lettering.

The memo was distributed widely by federal agencies, including the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the National Counter Terrorism Center, explaining to U.S. officials at every level that the rhetoric preferred by far-right activists actually undermines our foreign policy and national security interests.

Even Karen Hughes recently conceded, "We ought to avoid the language of religion. Whenever they hear 'Islamic extremism, Islamic jihad, Islamic fundamentalism,' they perceive it as a sort of an attack on their faith. That's the world view Osama bin Laden wants them to have."

So, when Republicans and their allies throw a fit today, be sure to check to see if they had a similar reaction when Bush/Cheney took similar steps two years ago.

Sully: Reagan vs Today's GOP II

“A nuclear-free world has been a 60-year dream of the Left, just like socialized health-care,” - Rudy Giuliani, NRO, 2010.

“A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. And no matter how great the obstacles may seem, we must never stop our efforts to reduce the weapons of war. We must never stop at all until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of this Earth.” - Ronald Reagan, 1984, in China.

Raw ACORN tapes tell very different story

April 6: Rachel Maddow shows how the unedited tapes of James O'Keefe's visits to ACORN offices tell a very different story from what was portrayed on Fox News and ultimately became conventional understanding of the story.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Benen: ANOTHER SETBACK FOR GOP MINORITY OUTREACH

Shortly after the 2008 presidential election, Sophia Nelson, a former congressional staffer and a black Republican, had an op-ed piece lamenting the fact that her party seems wholly disinterested in minority outreach.

I thought about Nelson's piece after seeing the latest moves from Virginia's new Republican leadership. (via TS)

Gov. Robert F. McDonnell, reviving a controversy that had been dormant for eight years, has declared that April will be Confederate History Month in Virginia, a move that angered civil rights leaders Tuesday but that political observers said would strengthen his position with his conservative base. [...]

The seven-paragraph declaration calls for Virginians to "understand the sacrifices of the Confederate leaders, soldiers and citizens during the period of the Civil War."

McDonnell had quietly made the proclamation Friday by placing it on his Web site, but it did not attract attention in the state capital until Tuesday.

McDonnell apparently went out of his way to make his declaration as insulting as possible. Virginia's last two governors -- Democrats Mark Warner and Tim Kaine -- scrapped the practice of annual Confederate resolutions altogether, while Virginia's last Republican governor, Jim Gilmore, included anti-slavery language in his resolution. McDonnell turned back the clock, honoring those who fought against the United States, and neglecting entirely to mention slavery.

Adam Serwer noted, "[N]ot only does McDonnell venerate those who took up arms against their own country, he does so without acknowledging that the institution for which they fought was the right to preserve the right to own human beings as slaves. He then papers over the horrors of reconstruction, lynching, and Jim Crow that followed."

Del. Kenneth Cooper Alexander (D), chairman of Virginia's Legislative Black Caucus, added, "Governor McDonnell's proclamation was offensive and offered a disturbing revision of the Civil War and the brutal era that followed. Virginia has worked hard to move beyond the very things for which Governor McDonnell seems nostalgic."

James McPherson, dean of Civil War scholars, described McDonnell's proclamation as "obnoxious."

I'd just add McDonnell, a graduate of radical TV preacher Pat Robertson's college, was only too pleased to present himself to voters last year as a relative moderate. Indeed, the governor capitalized on friendly support (though not an official endorsement) from former Virginia Gov. Doug Wilder (D), the first African-American governor in the nation since Reconstruction.

But the facade didn't last after McDonnell's inauguration. It's the funny thing about conservative Republicans who downplay their ideology to get elected -- they invariably stop pretending just as soon as they're in positions of authority.

Think Progress: McDonnell: Slavery Wasn’t ‘Significant’ Enough To Be Included In My Proclamation Honoring The Confederacy

Last week, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) issued a proclamation quietly declaring April 2010 Confederate History Month, saying it was important for Virginians to “understand the sacrifices of the Confederate leaders, soldiers and citizens during the period of the Civil War, and to recognize how our history has led to our present.”

Notably absent from McDonnell’s proclamation was any mention of slavery. Yesterday, McDonnell explained that it wasn’t “significant” enough to merit a mention:

McDonnell said Tuesday that the move was designed to promote tourism in the state, which next year will mark the 150th anniversary of the start of the war. McDonnell said he did not include a reference to slavery because “there were any number of aspects to that conflict between the states. Obviously, it involved slavery. It involved other issues. But I focused on the ones I thought were most significant for Virginia.“

The New Black

Benen: 'I NEVER CONSIDERED MYSELF A MAVERICK'

To say that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) built his most recent persona -- the latest in a series -- around the notion of being a "maverick" would be a dramatic understatement. The "m" word was practically a verbal tick for McCain -- he'd use it constantly, whether it made sense or not, similar to the way Rudy Giuliani would mutter "9/11" at random moments throughout his day.

In 2008, McCain's television ads described him as "the original maverick." When McCain and Sarah Palin would routinely take different positions during their national campaign, aides insisted this was to be expected from "a couple of mavericks." A quick search of McCain's Senate website turns up several dozen references to the senator being a "maverick" -- in some cases, press releases, instead of quoting McCain by name, would simply note, "The Maverick said..." McCain's website for his Senate campaign does the same thing, using "McCain" and "Maverick" interchangeably, as if they were practically the same word.

The point, of course, was to create a McCain brand, of sorts, characterizing the conservative senator as the kind of politician who doesn't mind bucking his unpopular party from time to time.

That persona, however, no longer suits McCain's purposes. So, it's been scrapped.

Many of the GOP's most faithful, the kind who vote in primaries despite 115-degree heat, tired long ago of McCain the Maverick, the man who had crossed the aisle to work with Democrats on issues like immigration reform, global warming, and restricting campaign contributions. "Maverick" is a mantle McCain no longer claims; in fact, he now denies he ever was one. "I never considered myself a maverick," he told me.

I knew McCain was shameless. I knew he had few, if any, core beliefs. I knew he'd abandon any of his so-called principles at a moment's notice, and flip-flop on every imaginable area of public policy.

But I never thought I'd actually see McCain say, "I never considered myself a maverick."

It's as pathetic a political display as anything we've seen in quite a while. All of those political reporters who worshiped McCain circa 1999 should probably pause right about now, and appreciate the extent to which they fell for a con.

from the comments:

Maybe he'll get booked on a Sunday morning show so he can explain further.

Posted by: Stuck with "Big John" Cornyn on April 5, 2010 at 1:13 PM

Yglesias: Jindal Blackmails Louisiana AG Into Joining Lawsuit to Overturn the Affordable Care Act

A set of far-right academics, think tank types, and media figures have long promoted the idea that judges ought to throw out existing constitutional law and instead insist on using judicial review to essentially mandate libertarianism at the federal level. This has never been something that practical conservative politicians or actual conservative judges have been very interested in. But during the debate over the Affordable Care Act, the notion that the individual mandate was unconstitutional took hold in the conservative echo chamber. And right-wing media has become such a closed loop, that it’s now difficult for conservative politicians to do anything other than pretend to believe that this argument has some merit.

Thus far, however, the actual lawsuits leveled by state attorneys-general have all been by Republicans, giving the whole thing a partisan air. But my colleague Amanda Terkel points out that former rising star Bobby Jindal has devised a solution to the problem—blackmail:

In a subsequent address to employees of his office, the Attorney General said the decision was made more out of the necessity of saving jobs in his agency than any real hope—or desire—of overturning the health care law.

One employee said Caldwell, in a candid admission, claimed that a deal was made with Jindal. Under terms of that agreement, the governor would not make additional cuts in the attorney general’s budget if Caldwell joined in the litigation. Caldwell agreed to be the “token Democrat,” he said, so that he might save additional job cuts by an administration whose state goal is to reduce the number of state employees by as much as 5,000 per year over three years.

And now right-wing media will inform the right-wing audience that the lawsuit it bipartisan, making it even-more-difficult for right-wing politicians to avoid hopping on the bandwagon. This elite signaling will further convince people that the ACA is unconstitutional. It’ll be interesting to see what happens when this intellectual bubble is burst by contact with actual legal practice.

Marshall: Fly Like an Eagle

This article from Politico about the RNC's 'Young Eagle' program, the one that got them in trouble with the faux-lesbian bondage club, is truly hilarious and a must-read.

The upshot seems to be that a lot of young guys -- and yes, pretty much just guys, it seems -- with lots of money managed to do a lot of partying on the RNC's dime without sharing that many dimes with the RNC. Basically you could pay a relatively small sum in contributions -- a few thousand dollars or maybe less -- and then be okayed in to all the Young Eagles events, many of which cost a lot to put on. Obviously the way this is supposed to work is that you give these richies a lot of free stuff and they end up giving you back a whole lot more in political contributions. But apparently no one was watching the inflows and outflows very closely. Even funnier are the descriptions of just why the program is necessary and the pained laments of young rightwingers trying to make their way in a world as conservatives when all the cool stars they want to chill with are Democrats.

"Everything that's cool from a pop culture perspective is Democratic -- whether it's Kanye West or Bruce Springsteen -- and with younger conservatives, a good event is often a big way to help sell," said the former Young Eagle, who left the program in 2008. Traditional fundraising events such as golf and tennis outings don't quite cut it with young donors, he said. "How many times can you go to the U.S. Open?"

The Young Eagles are "a fun group," the former member said. "If you've got a little insecurity complex, but you've got money -- what a cool group to hang out with."

Reading this piece I found it hard to tell whether this was just a good way to blow a lot of money on events for rich kids who didn't actually give much money or some sort of nerd empowerment program gone terribly wrong.

DougJ: Tea is the new black

This rings true:

In a recent interview, Wolf said of the Tea Partiers, “They were stepping up to the plate, when my own liberal privileged fellow demographic habituates were lying around whining.” Liberals, she says, in words that sound like they belong on Sarah Palin’s Facebook page, have “a cultural problem with self-righteousness and elitism … We look down on people we don’t agree with. It doesn’t serve us well.”

Part of it is “authenticity, ” an idea with a weird appeal in recent American politics, especially for liberals. Many admired and trusted John McCain in 2000 and later, not because they agreed with him but because he seemed real, and his fits of ill temper made him even more appealing, until suddenly one day he just seemed like a tired Republican hack. Jesse Ventura, Arnold Schwarzenegger and briefly even Mike Huckabee had a similar appeal, while Mitt Romney suffers as their opposite. And there’s no doubt about the Tea Party movement on this point—they do say what’s on their minds. The appeal is also probably related to the inevitable let-down after the high energy of the 2008 presidential campaign. As we settle into the dreary compromised reality of actual governance, we need a hit of the intensity and passion of 2008—there’s only one place to find it, even if that place is a wholly owned subsidiary of a Republican lobbying operation.

And finally, it may be that, now that even the New York Times has recognized that “identity politics” is not a liberal vice, but today involves the special claims of white American identity against the complex and diverse actual country (a point this magazine made two years ago), finding allies among Tea Partiers is the equivalent of what finding a black friend was to liberals in the 1960s. It’s a way to get in touch with the real America, to feel a little superior, a little less elitist or isolated, less wimpy, less conformist.

I am so fucking sick of the authenticity thing. What exactly makes a welfare-supported retiree with a misspelled sign about “exremism” more authentic than a union worker calling his Congressmen to support health care reform?

But you already know the answer: being well-informed and reasonable is a sign that you are out of touch, regardless of your income, educational level, age, gender, or race.

• from the comments:
  

  Phoebe
  

  What exactly makes a welfare-supported retiree with a misspelled sign about “exremism” more authentic than a union worker calling his Congressmen to support health care reform?

  Self awareness. They are Adam and Eve before they ate from the tree and realized they were naked. You shall know them by their misspelled signs! “This authenticity thing” is old hat to me. My generation of hipster has always been somewhat in thrall to the authentic, which is why we love old diners, but not fake old diners, dive bars, but not fake dive bars. The beauty part? Authentic people don’t see the difference between the old diners and the fake old diners, but probably like the latter better because all the stuff is newer.

  And the hipsters of my generation also hate going into the authentic places and seeing nothing but other hipsters. At that point it’s “ruined”. Also.

Benen: 'WE ARE IN THE ERA OF CRAZINESS'

Life-long Republican Chris Currey has a thoughtful piece over at David Frum's place, explaining his belief that his party has lost its mind. Currey doesn't exactly break new ground -- his fears and concerns will no doubt seem familiar to most who keep up with current events -- but his piece is worth reading anyway.

I am an old Republican. I am religious, yet not a fanatic. I am a free-marketer; yet, I believe in the role of the government as a fair evenhanded referee. I am socially conservative; yet, I believe that my lesbian niece and my gay grandchild should have the full protection of the law and live as free Americans enjoying every aspect of our society with no prejudices and/or restrictions. Nowadays, my political and socio-economic profile would make me a Marxist, not a Republican.

I grew up in an era where William F. Buckley fought the John Birch society and kicked them out of the Republican Party. I grew up with -- in fact voted for the first time for -- Eisenhower. In 1956, he ran a campaign of dignity. A campaign that acknowledged that there are certain projects better suited to be handled by the government. See, business thinks in the short term, as he said. That's the imperative of the marketplace. I invest and I expect that in a few quarters, I garner the fruits of my investment. Government, on the other hand, has the luxury to wait a few years, maybe decades, for a return on a given investment. As a former businessman, I know that first hand. Am I a Marxist for thinking that?

Probably, at least as far as today's Republican base is concerned.

Currey, like Northern Republicans from a half-century ago, applauded the passage of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act. He opposed Medicare at the time, but has since come to recognize its importance to society. He voted for Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush, and doesn't feel as if his values or priorities have changed.

Then something happened in the 1990s. The leaders of the GOP grew belligerent. They became too religious, almost zealots. They became intolerant. They began searching for purity in Republican thought and doctrine. Ideology blinded them. I continued to vote Republican, but with a certain unease. Deep down I knew that a schism happened between the modern Republican Party and the one I grew up with. During the fight over the impeachment of President Clinton, the ugly face of the Republican Party was brought to the surface. Empty rhetoric, ideological intolerance, vengeance, and religious zealotry became the common currency. [...]

Recently, since the election of Barack Obama, common sense has left the Republican Party completely. We are in the era of craziness.... We shrank [the party] when we sanctified Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck, and canonized Sarah Palin. These are the leaders of my party nowadays. How did we go from William F. Buckley to Glenn Beck? How did we go from Eisenhower and Nixon to Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann? I do not know.... I do not recognize myself in the Republican Party anymore.

I, not surprisingly, find all of this quite compelling. But it also reinforces my biggest concern about the midterm elections.

When a party becomes as radical and irresponsible as the Republican Party of 2010 has become, the only way to bring it to its senses is for it to suffer electoral humiliation. The GOP went sharply to the right after the 2004 elections, and it lost in 2006. Republicans then went even further to the right, and lost in 2008. In response, they went even further still to the right.

If 2010 is an electoral bonanza for the GOP, the party will assume that the way a party wins elections is to have its members become stark raving mad. If 2010 is another humiliating failure for the GOP, the party may be more inclined to identify their most ridiculous and dangerous habits, and consider where they went wrong.

Republicans appear to have lost Chris Currey, and with good reason. But unless Currey has a lot of like-minded friends voting in November, the party won't bother to try and get him back.

Aravosis: Reid mocks Palin

Well that's not going to win him any friends among the teabaggers :-)

"I was going to give a few remarks on the people who were over here a week ago Saturday," Reid said in a video posted by Fox News anchor Greta Van Susteren, "but I couldn't find it written all over my hands.

"You betcha," Reid added to supporters' laughter, mimicking one of Palin's trademark slogans.

Drum: Coffee Conservatives

A few days ago I heard the term "coffee conservative" for the first time. I didn't get it until it was explained to me. And now, here's the Raleigh News & Observer to explain it for the rest of us:

To join the Coffee Party in Raleigh, you can't be a screamer, a name-caller, a loud-mouthed zealot or somebody whose idea of politics translates to jabbing a sign in the air, red in the face. All you need are some manners, a good listening ear and a caffeine jones.

Inside a month, this politeness-first political movement has jumped from one meeting at the Hillsborough Street Cup A Joe to five coffee chats scattered across the Triangle. Nationwide, the Coffee Party USA has drawn nearly 200,000 supporters, sipping java and talking turkey in 47 states.

A coffee conservative, then, is a conservative who's not a tea partier. Someone who remains interested in actual policy and doesn't feel the urge to rant tirelessly about decline of the west and the imminent tyranny that Barack Obama is bringing down on us. It's your phrase of the day.

GOP enacts pre-emptive outrage on SCOTUS

April 5: Senator Amy Klobuchar, wise Slovenian, talks with Rachel Maddow about early speculation about an opening on the Supreme Court and the Republican threat of a filibuster before any candidate has even been mentioned.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Beutler: Bunning Blames GOP Blockage Of Unemployment Benefits Extension On Democrats

Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) is the trendsetter in the GOP for blocking temporary extensions of unemployment benefits. Early in March, he blocked Democrats' efforts to temporarily extend unemployment insurance benefits and COBRA subsidies for several days, before finally relenting. Then, before the Senate adjourned for Easter recess just over a week ago, he backed a similar effort spearheaded by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK). That effort has caused benefits to dry up, with unemployment still over 9 percent.

Now, Bunning says the whole thing is Democrats' fault.

"Before the Senate adjourned for the Easter Recess, Senate Republicans and Senate Democrats had agreed to pass a one-week extension of unemployment benefits that was fully paid for," reads an official statement from Bunning.

Unfortunately, the House Democrat leadership said no, and then Congress left town knowing the benefits would expire. Earlier, Senate Democrats voted to kill a one-month extension that was fully offset and did not add to the deficit.

We could have stayed in Washington to resolve the issue and see that these benefits are extended and paid for, but it seems the Democrats thought it was more important to catch their planes. I am disappointed that the Democrats continue to play political games to avoid paying for these benefits that are so important to the many struggling families across our nation who rely on them to make ends meet while they search for work. Clearly, the Democrats don't want to help the unemployed unless they can increase the deficit while they're doing it.

Bunning is correct to say that, citing the ongoing recession, Democrats rejected the GOP's proposal to pay for a temporary extension with stimulus funds. But the Republicans using the Senate rules to hold up the extension are doing so despite the fact that a large majority in the Senate favors extending these benefits, regardless of whether they're paid for. The first time around GOPers objected to an emergency extension 11 times. This last time, they objected five times.

In response, Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid whacks Bunning by name. "Another classic release from Senator Bunning," Manley tells me. "Families across the country are struggling to make ends meet yet he continues to demand that an emergency extension of unemployment benefits be paid for. What in the world does he have against the working men and women of this country. His actions are inexcusable and irresponsible."

My Hero

Rachel calls bull-pucky

April 2: Rachel Re: From the ACORN scandal to climate-gate, Rachel Maddow calls bull-pucky on fake Republican outrage. "Let's have the great debate about the role of government. only you can't threaten to shoot people. And you have to stop making stuff up."

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

RW CalvinBall

QOTD, Bernard Gilroy:

All I know is this: the very -instant- Sen. Ensign is indicted, Fox will report it as "Sen. John Ensign (D)".

Atrios: The Big Gavel Drives Them Crazy

Some jokes are just too obvious...

Media Matters: Right-wing media complain that Pelosi incited tea partiers with her "big gavel"

Right-wing media figures have criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for carrying a gavel while walking to the Capitol to vote on health care reform, claiming she sought to incite Tea Party members protesting the legislation. Glenn Beck said Pelosi was "inciting" the tea partiers and "slapping them across the face," and Rush Limbaugh said Pelosi tried to "provoke" tea partiers by "carrying that big gavel" with an "excrement-eating grin on her face."
go to the link for actual quotes.

Benen: THE PROSPECT OF A HIGH COURT FILIBUSTER

There are no vacancies on the Supreme Court as of now, but Justice John Paul Stevens has signaled his intention to step down sometime in the not-too-distant future. With this in mind, there was some discussion over the weekend about the kind of confirmation battle we can expect to see.

Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, the Senate's #2 Republican, told "Fox News Sunday" that a GOP filibuster remains a distinct possibility.

"It would -- it will all depend on what kind of a person it is.... I think the president will nominate a qualified person. I hope, however, he does not nominate an overly ideological person. That will be the test."

This isn't too surprising. Let's not forget that Kyl, literally just a few days after the 2008 presidential election, started talking about blocking Supreme Court nominees he expected not to like.

Nevertheless, Kyl's remarks are interesting for a couple of reasons. First, his understated threat is a sign of the times -- a Republican Senate leader is speculating on national television about filibustering a nominee who hasn't been named, in response to a Supreme Court vacancy that doesn't exist.

Second, as Amanda Terkel noted, Kyl used to reject the very idea of filibustering judicial nominees -- back when there was a Republican president. "It has never been the rule that a candidate for judgeship that had majority support was denied the ability to be confirmed once before the Senate," Kyl insisted on "Meet the Press" five years ago this month.

Indeed, Kyl was one of the conservative Republicans who supported the "nuclear option" in 2005.

That, however, was then.

Think Progress: As Republicans Block Unemployment Insurance, Kyl Calls For Extending The Benefits

Today on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) called for extending unemployment insurance — which is set to run out tomorrow for many Americans — to help the millions of Americans who are out of work:

CHRIS WALLACE: Senator Kyl, will Republicans support more economic stimulus such as more aid to states, extending unemployment benefits, more tax incentives for small business?

KYL: There are really two questions inherent in that, Chris. We will have to do things like extending unemployment benefits because unemployment is so high, 9.7 percent, 15 million Americans unemployed. But that’s not a job stimulator. So we will do those things to take care of the families that are suffering right now.

Watch it:

The reason that so many Americans will lose their benefits tomorrow is because of GOP obstruction. Late last month, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) announced that he was blocking unanimous consent to move forward on a measure in the Senate to extend unemployment benefits — similar to what Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) did weeks prior. However, this time, other Senate Republicans, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), are backing Coburn’s obstruction.

Additionally, last month, Kyl said that unemployment benefits dissuade people from job-hunting “because people are being paid even though they’re not working.” “[C]ontinuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work,” Kyl said.

Senators are on recess until April 12, meaning people losing their benefits tomorrow will have to go without relief for at least a week. “I understand that Republicans are upset they didn’t get their way on health care,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said, chiding the GOP’s obstruction. And on Friday Reid called on the GOP to stop blocking the benefits. “[T]heir obstruction endangers the economic certainty of millions of families,” he said.

Benen: ORLANDO-AREA PHYSICIAN SNUBS OBAMA VOTERS

First, do no harm, check their voter registration.

A doctor who considers the national health-care overhaul to be bad medicine for the country posted a sign on his office door telling patients who voted for President Barack Obama to seek care "elsewhere."

"I'm not turning anybody away -- that would be unethical," Dr. Jack Cassell, 56, a Mount Dora urologist and a registered Republican opposed to the health plan, told the Orlando Sentinel on Thursday. "But if they read the sign and turn the other way, so be it."

The sign reads: "If you voted for Obama…seek urologic care elsewhere. Changes to your healthcare begin right now, not in four years."

I'm not expert in medical ethics, but a practicing physician encouraging patients in need of care to go elsewhere based on their voting practices seems like anti-Obama hysteria gone horribly awry. Cassell has professional obligations that are supposed to supersede his bizarre Republican ideology.

Cassell claims he doesn't specifically press patients on their voting behavior, but in addition to the sign on the door, he prints out Republican talking points, and makes them available in his waiting room. He also refers to U.S. leaders as "morons" and urges patients to vote against policymakers Cassell disapproves of. He won't deny care to patients, but Cassell explicitly tells the public that he doesn't want to treat patients who support the president.

William Allen, professor of bioethics, law and medical professionalism at the University of Florida's College of Medicine, said Cassell is "pushing the limit" on what's ethically permitted by a practicing physician.

Benen: THE LIMITS OF AN EXTREME IDEOLOGY, CONT'D

Republicans in D.C. and Tennessee were "giddy" about recruiting Stephen Fincher to run against Rep. John Tanner (D-Tenn.) in the midterms. Fincher, a 37-year-old farmer, never went to college, but he's a blue-eyed charmer with a knack for raising lots of money.

He's also been the recipient of generous sums of money from the federal government.

But for one important detail, Stephen Fincher could be a perfect "tea party" candidate: a gospel-singing cotton farmer from this tiny hamlet in western Tennessee, seeking to right the listing ship of Washington with a commitment to lower taxes and smaller government.

The detail? Fincher accepts roughly $200,000 in farm subsidies each year.

While some right-wing activists see this as problematic, many Tea Party activists have pledged their support for Fincher's campaign. David Nance, the founder of the Gibson County Patriots, said, "I don't see the agricultural subsidy thing as an issue at all."

No, of course not. Why would it be problematic for a right-wing candidate who rails against government spending and welfare to receive $200,000 in checks from the federal government in the form of agriculture subsidies?

For the right-wing crowd, subsidies for 32 million Americans with no health insurance is outrageous, but subsidies for conservative farmers is not an issue "at all."

It seems as if stories like these are surprisingly common. Tom Grimes is active with Tea Party politics because he wants the government to spend less and get rid of public programs, but he loves Social Security, and when he lost his job, one of his first steps was contacting his congressman about available programs that might give him access to government health care

Diana Reimer, considered a "star" right-wing activist in her efforts against government programs, hates the Affordable Care Act, but she loves the socialized medicine that comes with Medicare.

Mike Vanderboegh considers himself a hard-line libertarian, but his main income is taxpayer-financed disability checks sent to him every month by the federal government.

And in Tennessee, Tea Party activists want leaders who'll take a stand against federal government spending, and are rallying behind a congressional candidate who gets $200,000 in checks from the federal government.

Greg Sargent: Tea Party Movement Is Politically Mainstream? Not So Much.

In recent days there’s been a big push underway on the right to define the Tea Party momement as politically “mainstream” and “bipartisan.” But new Gallup polling out this morning should demolish this claim once and for all. It should, but of course it won’t.

Folks pushing the idea that the Tea Party is mainstream and bipartisan are seizing on this headline from The Hill over the weekend:

Survey: Four in 10 Tea Party members are Dems or independents

Turns out, though, that this story is about a poll released last week by a Republican-leaning firm that found 57% of Tea Partiers are self-identified Republicans, 28% are independent and 13% are Dems. So yeah, 41% are either indy or Dem, with Dems making up a small majority of that group.

But a total of 85% are either Republican or independent. Given that experts say the ranks of independents are swollen these days with defectors from the GOP, these numbers suggest the Tea Party crowd tilts overwhelmingly to the right.

The new Gallup poll illustrates this even more starkly. The 28% of Americans who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters break down this way:

* Forty-nine percent of Tea Party supporters are Republicans, 43% are independents, and only eight percent are Dems. That means a huge majority — 92% — are Republicans or indys, and again, many of those indys could be former Republicans or lean GOP anyway.

* Seventy percent of Tea Party supporters say they’re conservative, and only 22% say they’re moderate. And who knows what they even mean by that word to begin with.

* A whopping 79% of Tea Party supporters are non-hispanic whites. Only 65% of Americans were non-hispanic whites as of 2008.

* Fifty-five percent of Tea Party supporters make over $50,000 a year.

It’s true that Gallup does conclude that the Tea Party movement is mainstream — in terms of some demographics. That’s already led to some crowing on the right. But in political terms, the simple facts are unescapable: The Tea Party movement is relatively well off, tilts Republican, and is overwhelmingly white and conservative.

**************************************

Update: One other quick point: This doesn’t even take into account the possibility that some of these independents supporting the Tea Party movement do so because they view the GOP as too far to the left.

digby: Who You Gonna Call?

Will Bunch reports:

A political climate that's already more overheated than any time in a generation. Plans for a large-scale rally of firearms enthusiasts in the nation's capital. A fast-growing group of (mostly ex-) military and cops that pledges to disobey "unconstitutional orders" from the president, and an "urgent" call from the group's leader to flood Washington to "shout your oaths in the tyrant’s face" -- on the 15th anniversary of the worst home-grown terror incident in U.S. history, the Oklahoma City bombing.

What could possibly go wrong?

The world will find out on April 19, now that the leader of the Oath Keepers -- the alliance of mostly veterans and ex-cops that didn't exist at the start of the Obama administration but now claims nearly 15,000 members -- has issued that urgent call to all members to attend two politically charged events in or around Washington on that Monday, which organizers stress as the 235th anniversary of the first shots of the American Revolution.

Stewart Rhodes, the Yale law school grad and ex-paratrooper who founded the Oath Keepers after working on Rep. Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign, sent out an email blast to members over the weekend urging them to attend either a Second Amendment March on the Capitol that's slated to take place on Washington that day, or an open-carry rally in which many attendees will be bringing their firearms, to be held just across the Potomic River at Fort Hunt National Park.

There won't be any trouble because it's highly unlikely anyone would dream of standing around screaming and spitting on radical wingnuts who are armed to the teeth and trigger happy. But hey nobody's saying you can't protest these yahoos. It's just that everybody knows that your right to protest is somewhat, shall we say ---curtailed ---by the possibility that one of them might shoot you in the head on the spot if you look at them sideways. I suspect most sane people get that loud an clear so dissent isn't going to be a problem. Everyone will be very, very careful not to upset any of these fine patriots. Message sent and received.

God bless America and all the liberty and freedom it provides (as long as some nutbag with a loaded gun doesn't get agitated and open fire in a crowd.)

You have to love this, though:

In an irony that event organizers don't seem to be playing up, open-carry of weapons used to be banned at national parks before February of this year, when a longstanding ban was overturned in legislation signed by the man Rhodes alluded to as "a tyrant," President Barack Obama.

Give 'em an inch and they'll shoot you in the face.

Think Progress: GOP Congressmen Say That ‘Everyone’ In Congress ‘Would Agree That Iraq Was A Mistake’

Yesterday, the libertarian Cato Institute hosted a panel discussion on conservatism and the war in Afghanistan with Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA), Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr. (R-TN). When the conversation shifted to the war in Iraq, Rohrabacher said that “once President Bush decided to go into Iraq, I thought it was a mistake because we hadn’t finished the job in Afghanistan,” but that once Bush “decided to go in,” he “felt compelled” to “back him up.” He then added that “the decision to go in, in retrospect, almost all of us think that was a horrible mistake.”

Moderator Grover Norquist then asked Rohrabacher to provide a “guesstimate percentage of Republicans in Congress who would share that view — not that they opposed the President at the time, but today looking back.” Rohrabacher replied that “everybody I know thinks it was a mistake to go in now”:

ROHRABACHER: Well, now that we know that it cost a trillion dollars and all of these years and all of these lives and all of this blood, uh, I don’t know many…

NORQUIST: Looking for a number. Two-thirds? One-third?

ROHRABACHER: I, I can’t. All I can say is the people, everybody I know thinks it was a mistake to go in now.

NORQUIST: That’s 100 percent.

Norquist then turned to McClintock, asking “what percentage”:

NORQUIST: Of Republicans in Congress, who would agree with the general analysis here that it was a mistake and/or we should go in.

MCCLINTOCK: I think everyone would agree Iraq was a mistake.

NORQUIST: Two hundred percents. Ok, we’re going to average these.

MCCLINTOCK: And, you know, again, I think virtually everyone would agree going into Afghanistan the way we did was a mistake. How many share my, my cynicism over this idea of a resolution of force, which I can’t find anywhere in the Constitution. And how many believe that in those rare cases where we go in, we put all of our resources behind our soldiers, I would say certainly more than half of the Republican caucus probably believe that.

Asked for a number by Norquist, Duncan refused to say, but shared an anecdote of how unpopular the war is politically in his conservative military district. Watch it:

McClintock wasn’t in Congress when the Iraq war was authorized. Duncan voted against the authorization of military force while Rohrabacher voted for it.

Yglesias: Palin Rep Slams East Coast

As a lifelong resident of the northeastern United States and specifically the Boston-Washington corridor it’s always bugged me that residents of other regions are allowed to roam the media landscape slamming my home turf as inauthentic even while claiming that we’re somehow oppressing them. What’s more, Sarah Palin is terrible:

With its tales of uplift and pluck, “Real American Stories” trades in the kind of easy sentimentality that provokes eye rolls among those of us who work in media while quickening the pulse and patriotic ardor of almost everyone else. At the beginning of the show, Ms. Palin promised that it would “reaffirm our pioneering spirit and unmatched generosity, here and around the world.” [...]

“It’s not the kind of thing that’s going to excite you guys on the East Coast, but everyone else is dying to hear stories like these,” said one of her representatives who was not authorized to speak on the record but was authorized to slam the East Coast.

Look. The East Coast contains six of the country’s ten largest metro areas and is the region that created the damn country in the first place. And now we’re supposed to sit here and get sneered at by people from Alaska?

Meanwhile, thanks to some kind of east coast self-loathing, folks like David Carr feel the need to insist that somehow Palin is really right about this, arguing that he show succeeds at “quickening the pulse and patriotic ardor of almost everyone else.” In reality:

Sarah Palin’s much-hyped LL Cool J-less Fox News special last night didn’t bring in the huge ratings some (ok, we) predicted. Greta Van Susteren’s On The Record which normally airs at 10pmET beat the program the previous three nights in the A25-54 demographic and two out of three nights in total viewers. The show also lost viewers from the first quarter hour to the final quarter hour by double digits.

So there. All signs point to a slow news week, so I intend to air my cultural grievances.

Benen: WHAT HAPPENS IF ENSIGN IS INDICTED?

We haven't seen a sitting senator indicted in a while. As Jon Ralston reported yesterday, that may soon change.

In the federal penal code, it is known as "structuring." And it is a word Sen. John Ensign should remember because it is very likely to be on any indictment with his name on it.

That's what I am told by a reliable source familiar with the deliberations occurring inside the Justice Department as federal authorities in Washington try to do with Ensign what they could not do with former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens: Get their man. [...]

Structuring is a broad term that refers to the crime of creating financial transactions to evade reporting requirements -- for example, a $96,000 payment to your mistress laundered through a trust controlled by your parents and calling it a "gift" instead of what it obviously was: a severance payment that had to be reported.

Ensign's controversy, for quite a while, looked like a simple sex scandal -- the "family-values" conservative was sleeping with one of his aides who happened to be married to another one of his aides. But as we've seen the matter unfold in recent months, there's now ample reason to believe the Republican senator may also include ethics violations, hush money, and official corruption. An ongoing FBI investigation appears to be heating up, and by some accounts, expanding.

The likelihood of a criminal indictment is no longer far-fetched. And if the indictment comes, Ensign's scandal at least has the potential to shake up the political landscape a bit.

If Ensign gets indicted, he will become a national and state nightmare for the GOP. National Democrats will brandish him as a symbol of corruption (they may anyhow) and local Democrats will wrap the junior senator around the GOP Senate nominee's neck, especially because Sue Lowden and Danny Tarkanian foolishly have said they would welcome his support.

Something to keep an eye on.

• from the comments:
  

  -- If Ensign is indicted, there will be a plethora of stories detailing the Democrats that have been indicted too. The media will bend over backwards to ensure that everyone understands this happens in both parties.

  Posted by: Ladyhawke on April 5, 2010 at 10:50 AM | PERMALINK

  -- Get a parking ticket FIXED? For the false equivalency test, just having the parking ticket ought to be enough...

  Posted by: artsmith on April 5, 2010 at 10:50 AM | PERMALINK

  --I'm waiting for a hint of MSM reporting on this. (Crickets).

  Posted by: MattF on April 5, 2010 at 10:57 AM

  They'll confuse John Ensign with John Edwards and schedule all the Sunday talk shows about Rielle.

  Posted by: Marko on April 5, 2010 at 11:00 AM

  --The mainstream media has been curiously silent about Ensign. This is especially true of the Washington Post. If Ensign is actually indicted, will the Post put the story on the front page?

  Posted by: daveb99 on April 5, 2010 at 11:01 AM

  --All I know is this: the very -instant- Sen. Ensign is indicted, Fox will report it as "Sen. John Ensign (D)".

  Posted by: Bernard Gilroy on April 5, 2010 at 11:05 AM |

there is no incentive not to lie ...

Greg Sargent:

* And here’s today’s installment in the Michele Bachmann chronicles, in which she accuses Dems of inciting Tea Partiers to racism, then promptly denies they ever said anything racist.

* Conservative media keep pushing nutty, self-aggrandizing BS meme that Dems hatched an elaborate plot to incite Tea Partiers to racism and violence. The sum total of evidence cited, quite literally, is that Dem leaders walked through the crowd to get into the Capitol.

* Time to form a new support group for all those Tea Partiers who are addicted to government handouts.

Benen: CREATING AN INCENTIVE TO LIE

We talked the other day about one of the right's new favorite talking points about health care reform: the notion that the government will hire thousands of IRS agents to check up on Americans who may not want to buy coverage. It is, of course, a "wildly inaccurate claim," the latest in a series of demonstrable lies.

But it's proven to be popular with the fact-challenged crowd. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) has repeated it, as has Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) insists it's true, and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) suggested the threat of all of these new IRS agents "is a little scary."

And that's the key word: scary. The RNC conceded recently that the party will rely on little more than "fear" to win, even if that means deliberately deceiving as many voters as possible. All the network needs is a way to get the lie from Republican imaginations to voters who don't know better.

Enter Fox News, which just loves the bogus IRS claim. Reader B.G. sent me this email the other day, which I'm republishing with permission:

It often amazes me how these things get absorbed into polite society. At our Seder dinner on Tuesday night I had to convince my father that the IRS was not hiring tens of thousands of agents to enforce the law. He doesn't read blogs. He reads the Newark Star-Ledger, hardly a right-wing rag. The only place he could have gotten this "information" was via Fox News. He views television news, even Fox News, through a Walter Cronkite-like prism -- if the "news" is reporting it, it must have a basis in truth. Otherwise, how can they get away with broadcasting false information? This is the power of Fox News.

This may seem like an obvious point, but I think it's often overlooked. For many Americans, especially those over a certain age, there are certain assumptions about broadcast media. People who are accustomed to believing what they hear from television news aren't nearly skeptical enough about Fox News propaganda, because it's hard for them to appreciate the notion that an entire "news" network, right there on their cable dial, has no qualms about deliberately misleading its audience to further a partisan agenda.

Folks like B.G.'s father hear the nice man on the television making a ridiculous claim, and the claim seems easy enough to believe. There's little reason for skepticism. After all, why would the nice man on the television lie? Aren't there rules against something like that?

Fox News no doubt realizes this dynamic exists, and exploits it for all it's worth.

• from the comments:

  We don't need no stinking fairness doctrine!

  The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission's view) honest, equitable and balanced.

  In 1969, the United States Supreme Court upheld the Commission's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine...

  In 1987, the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine.

  Thanks to the Patron Saint of Reich Wing causes, Sir Ronald of The Raygun, we know that there is absolutely no justification for requiring broadcast license holders to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner that is honest, equitable and balanced.

  Don't need it. Fox Noise will tell us what is fair and balanced.

  Posted by: SadOldVet on April 3, 2010 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

• For those who have to deal with family Fox viewers, use the Beck method. Simply tell them FOX is code for Satan.

  F=6th letter of the alphabet and 6 is 6
  O=15th letter of the alphabet and 1+5=6
  X=24th letter of the alphabet and 2+4=6

  There you have it folks, 666.

  Posted by: flyonthewall on April 3, 2010 at 11:40 AM | PERMALINK

Benen: CASSELL'S CRASS CONFUSION

Dr. Jack Cassell, an Orlando-area urologist and part-time Republican crank, probably couldn't have imagined what he was getting himself into.

This week, Cassell's medical office posted a sign for patients and their families: "If you voted for Obama...seek urologic care elsewhere. Changes to your healthcare begin right now, not in four years."

The ethically-challenged physician told the Orlando Sentinel he wouldn't deny care to patients who support the president, but Casell wants those patients to feel unwelcome and seek medical treatment from doctors who don't care how they voted.

Since the Sentinel's piece was published on Friday morning, news of the doctor who puts his partisanship ahead of his patients spread very quickly. Over the last 48 hours, I've seen reports on Cassell's bizarre antics on CNN, Fox News, the New York Times, the LA Times, and elsewhere. Even in hyper-partisan times, medical professionals aren't supposed to cross lines of professionalism like this, and the story seems to have struck a chord.

But perhaps the most important coverage was an interview between Cassell and Alan Colmes on the radio Friday night. The host tried to get a better sense of why, exactly, Cassell hates the Affordable Care Act so much. The urologist specifically argued that officials, in light of the new law, are "cutting all supportive care, like nursing homes, ambulance services."

Colmes: What do you mean they're cutting nursing homes?

Cassell: They're cutting nursing home reimbursements.

Colmes: Isn't what they're cutting under the Medicare plan what was really double dipping; they were getting credits and they were getting to deduct them at the same time.

Cassell: Well you know, I can't tell you exactly what the deal is. [emphasis added]

Colmes: If you can't tell us exactly what the deal is, why are you opposing it and fighting against it?

What a good question. Cassell struggled to explain himself, saying he'd seen some things "online," and adding that the information he needs to understand the law "should be available to me."

Of course, the information is available to him, and has been for months. Cassell chose not to do his homework before driving patients away -- patients who, it turns out, may know a lot more than he does about the law he claims to hate.

This is painfully common -- some of the loudest, angriest critics of the Affordable Care Act are also some of the least informed, most confused, embarrassingly ignorant observers anywhere. In this case, Cassell has become a national joke because he's repulsed by a health care reform plan that he fully admits he doesn't understand.

It'd be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

Post Script: For the record, Cassell's rhetoric about "cutting nursing homes" notwithstanding, the National Association of Home Care and Hospice praised the Democratic plan.

Some rare pushback against lies, on Fox of all places ...

Think Progress: Fox Business’ Stuart Varney Shoots Down Former Bush Labor Secretary Elaine Chao’s Negative Jobs Report Spin

Earlier today, the Labor Department released its employment report for March 2010, which found that “employment in the U.S. increased in March by the most in three years.” In the report, the Bureau of Labor Statistics also revised its January total from
-26,000 to +14,000, and February’s from -36,000 to -14,000. President Obama called the report “encouraging” while his economic adviser Christina Romer said it “shows continued signs of gradual labor market healing.” Paul Krugman described the job numbers as meaning that “the patient is in stable condition.”

As ThinkProgress noted earlier today, conservatives have sought to rain on Obama’s parade, falsely claiming that the numbers are a “disappointment” because they were “mostly” due to hiring Census workers. On Fox Business today, former Bush labor secretary Elaine Chao attempted to spin the numbers negatively. But host Stuart Varney, who has been cynical about the administration’s economic policies, wouldn’t buy her spin, telling her that “this is not a blip up on a one month basis, there is a trend”:

VARNEY: I’m sure you’ve heard what I’ve just been saying, that we have indeed reached a turn, this is my judgment, a turn from job destruction towards very limited job creation. Would you agree with that?

CHAO: Unfortunately, I don’t. I think this is still a very mixed report and this is only one month. So, we need to see a trend, not just, you know, an uptick perhaps in one month. The unemployment rate stayed steady even though there were jobs created primarily because the labor participation rate is still very low. And…

VARNEY: You know, Ms. Chao, I’ve got to interupt for just a second, I’m sorry, I hate to interrupt.

CHAO: Sure.

VARNEY: But look, we did create jobs in November of last year. And we’ve just had a revision in the January and February numbers for this year, showing a net job gain in those months and we’ve also gained jobs in March. This is not a blip up on a one month basis, there is a trend. Four of the last five months we have seen job creation. Now, I know it’s very slow and it’s not enough. We got that.

CHAO: Yes.

VARNEY: But it is an uptrend. It is a job creation trend.

Chao did not argue with Varney’s pushback. Watch it:

Earlier today, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi released a chart demonstrating Varney’s point that the economy is moving from job destruction towards job creation:

Dartmouth economic professor Andrew Samwick wrote today that March’s employment report shows “what the labor market looks like when it starts to bottom out and slowly recover — overall job growth turns small and positive, cyclically sensitive sectors like temporary help services grow more rapidly than most, and it is tough to make progress against the unemployment rate because the number of job seekers may go up in tandem with total employment.”

Benen: THEY'LL REJECT OUR HISTORY AND REPLACE IT WITH THEIR OWN

Sometimes, a headline can tell us quite a bit: "Not satisfied with U.S. history, some conservatives rewrite it."

The most ballyhooed effort is under way in Texas, where conservatives have pushed the state school board to rewrite guidelines, downplaying Thomas Jefferson in one high school course, playing up such conservatives as Phyllis Schlafly and the Heritage Foundation and challenging the idea that the Founding Fathers wanted to separate church and state.

The effort reaches far beyond one state, however.

In articles and speeches, on radio and TV, conservatives are working to redefine major turning points and influential figures in American history, often to slam liberals, promote Republicans and reinforce their positions in today's politics.

The Jamestown settlers? Socialists. Founding Father Alexander Hamilton? Ill-informed professors made up all that bunk about him advocating a strong central government.

Theodore Roosevelt? Another socialist. Franklin D. Roosevelt? Not only did he not end the Great Depression, he also created it.

Joe McCarthy? Liberals lied about him. He was a hero.

It's not especially surprising, of course. Reading this, it's hard not to think of the Ron Suskind classic when a senior adviser to then-President George W. Bush dismissed those who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.... That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality."

If today's conservative Republicans reject reality, it stands to reason that they'll reject history, too.

But it's nevertheless a reminder of why conversations with those immersed in a right-wing ideology tend to be rather frustrating, if not futile, experiences. In order for political discourse to have any meaning or value, there have to be certain agreed upon facts that serve as a foundation for the dialogue. But as the McClatchy piece notes, that foundation is no longer stable -- conservatives frequently choose to believe versions of events that aren't real, because the make-believe version makes them feel better.

The result is an American history in which every era can be distorted to satisfy the far-right ego. Indeed, it continues to apply to more contemporary events -- tell the typical Republican that Ronald Reagan raised taxes in six of his eight years in the White House, and he/she will probably look at you as if you've lost your mind. That is, in fact, what happened, but the right chooses to reject this history, because they don't like it. (Tell these same Republicans that Barack Obama's health care plan is in line with what moderate Republicans have supported for years -- and that the individual mandate was actually a GOP idea -- and you'll get the same reaction, even though it's true.)

For all the talk about getting reasonable people with different ideologies into a room to find common ground on a host of complex issues, it's worth remembering that for many political actors in 2010, there isn't even agreement on the basics. When dealing with a large group of influential conservatives who believe FDR created the Great Depression, Theodore Roosevelt was a socialist, and Joe McCarthy was a hero, what's there to talk about?