Rush Limbaugh is a Moron Too

The King of Conservatives, the Overlord of Oxycontin, the Viscount of Illegal Viagra, Rush Limbaugh was caught off guard and completely stumped when a caller challenged him and asked why former President Ronald Reagan, who was pro-amnesty, raised taxes eleven times, "cut and ran" from Lebanon and negotiated with terrorists, is considered a Conservative hero.

Limbaugh was dumbfounded - he stuttered, he stammered, he froze - and the only thing he could come up with was to question the "silly notion" that Reagan raised taxes, the most obvious and provable of the caller's accusations.



Well, I suppose to keep one's ample ass in comfort, one has to keep pulling the wool over the rubes' eyes.

Sean Hannity is a Moron

But we knew that already.

Rand Paul Plays on the Third Rail

Paul defended his call to end to all foreign aid -- including the $3 billion the U.S. gives to Israel every year.

"I'm not singling out Israel. I support Israel. I want to be known as a friend of Israel," Paul said, "but not with money you don't have. We can't just borrow from our kids' future and give it to countries even if they are our friends."

..."I think they're an important ally, but I also think that their per capita income is greater than probably three-fourths of the rest of the world," Paul said. "Should we be giving free money or welfare to a wealthy nation? I don't think so."

Welfare? *Sigh.*

While I'm willing to praise Rand Paul for his bluntness on Israel (seems like more politicians should be worried bout the well being of the US before Israel - I'm looking at you, Joe Lieberman) he's going after them for the wrong reasons. It isn't purely a financial issue - although it probably is for Paul, who also wants to cut the Department of Education by 83%.

GOP Backs Off "Forcible Rape"

HuffPo: House Republicans announced Thursday that they are taking a step back from a particularly controversial passage of a piece of anti-abortion legislation that many had criticized as a dangerous redefinition of the acts that constituted "rape."

"The word 'forcible' will be replaced with the original language from the Hyde Amendment," a spokesman for Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), one of the sponsors of H.R. 3. The "No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act," told Politico.

Well I guess that's good. But here's an interesting quote (emphasis mine):

The bill’s authors, including Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.), say it’s not their intent to change the way the exemption is applied.

“The language of H.R. 3 was not intended to change existing law regarding taxpayer funding for abortion in cases of rape, nor is it expected that it would do so,” Lipinski told Talking Points Memo in a statement.

Two things: If they never intended to change the exemption, why did they use a questionable phrase? And if there's already "existing law regarding taxpayer funded abortion," which they didn't intend to change, please enlighten me on what this law actually does except reiterate what's already in the books and perhaps cons the rubes into thinking that Republicans actually achieved something with this redundant bill?

John Bolton's Bomb Iran Du Jour

Raw Story: Former US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said the ouster of embattled Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak would speed the timetable for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

... "I don't think there’s much time to act. And I think the fall of a Egyptian government committed to the peace agreement will almost certainly speed that timetable up."

Bolton chided the protests in Egypt last week, saying that "the real alternative is not Jefferson democracy versus the Mubarak regime, but that it’s the Muslim Brotherhood versus the Mubarak regime, and that has enormous implications for the US, for Israel, and our other friends in the region."

Ah, yes. They all love spreading democracy... until they realize they might not like the outcome.

And so goes Bolton's latest excuse for bombing Iran. Unrest in Gaza? Bomb Iran. George W. Bush leaving office? Bomb Iran. Protests in Egypt? Bomb Iran.

I wouldn't be surprised if Bolton also said that the consistency of his poached eggs at tomorrow morning's breakfast would speed the timetable for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. "If they're not runny enough, there'll be hell to pay,"said Bolton as he picked the crumbs of toast out of his mustache.

Cartoon of the Day

Holy Crap!

NOAA:

Bachmann's Second Chance on SNL

Republican Priorities

For a year leading up to the 2010 elections, Republicans campaigning for public office raised holy hell against the Obama administration for spending so much time on health care reform while the country languished in a prolonged recession and unemployment hovered close to 10%. Their cry was all about jobs, jobs, jobs. It was all about doing the people's work once they regained control of the House.

So how has the first session of the 112th Congress, specifically the new Republican led House of Representatives, tackled the unemployment issue? So far, they haven't.

After one month of the new Congress, they've spent a little over their first week, reading the Constitution, while conveniently skipping the three-fifths clause, apparently to the detriment of Michele Bachmann, had a symbolic vote to repeal the "job killing" health care reform passed by the previous Congress, took a week off due to the tragic event in Tucson, and are now pushing a bill called the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act." They are so clever with their bill titles, those Republicans, aren't they?

While there is already precedence for prohibition of federal funding of abortion with the Hyde Amendment, this is a dubious effort to constrict the legal right of abortion because the wording in the bill is attempting to redefine rape.

Since the 1976 Hyde Amendment, federal law has prohibited federal funds to pay for abortions except in the cases of rape, incest, and when the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother, but now...

"...Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to "forcible rape." This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion.

...Given that the bill also would forbid the use of tax benefits to pay for abortions, that 13-year-old's parents wouldn't be allowed to use money from a tax-exempt health savings account (HSA) to pay for the procedure. They also wouldn't be able to deduct the cost of the abortion or the cost of any insurance that paid for it as a medical expense."

This doesn't pass the smell test because there is no legal definition of "forcible rape." What about date rape? Or victims being drugged? And how can you pass a law with such vague definitions subject to malleable interpretation? How many bruises does a rape victim have to have before the sex is considered "forcible?"

So just to reiterate, after 18 months of GOP whining that Democrats spent too much time focusing on health care and not enough on jobs, the Republican led House has spent its first month focusing on repealing health care benefits already in place for millions of people and the further restriction of legal medical procedures. The people's work indeed.

The Brainiacs at Fox Nation and The Imbeciles Who Read It

Mediaite: "...Fox Nation editors were apparently so enamored with an Onion piece from today entitled “Frustrated Obama Sends Nation Rambling 75,000-Word E-Mail” that they reposted the first two paragraphs in their culture section with nary a sign as to its fictional nature. The only clue that this wasn’t real (besides a quick peek at your inbox to confirm that Barack Obama hasn’t been emailing you) was a link at the bottom instructing readers to go to TheOnion.com for the real story. This tiny link was, unfortunately, not enough for the vast majority of FN readers. At least, that’s the way it seems from the comments section."

Some of the comments left by the MENSA members reading Fox Nation, which can be seen in Mediaite's screenshot, ramble on from the President being incompetent and calling his mental health into question, to suggesting he smoked marijuana and calling his presidency an affront to American exceptionalism. So exceptional was that commenter that he couldn't discern between truth and satire.

Finally someone chimed in with some realism:

professorbrown: WOW! I can't believe how many readers think this is REAL! I can't believe FoxNews is touting this as REAL news! This link will be removed within an hour.  That is if anyone with a brain is working at FoxNews today...
It's "The Onion" for God's sake!! We as a country are hurting when the right [can't] tell the difference...

Well, "professorbrown" nailed it. Here's what you get when you click the Fox Nation link now:




If you ask me, the only ones "lost at sea" are the Fox Nation editors and their readers.

ADDING... This wouldn't be such a big deal except for the fact that some right wing ideologies have become so full of rage and rabid hate for all things Obama, they'll eat anything up and trust it as fact without the slightest hesitation or fact checking.  It's also the reason right wing humor is not funny. There's no way you can be humorous when you don't understand satire and your idea of a funny joke is a parody song called, "Barack, the Magic Negro." Seriously, when was the last time you laughd at anything Dennis Miller said since he crapped his pants after 9/11?

Must Reads

Bill Carter & Brian Stelter: Olbermann Split Came After Years of Tension

Matt Osborne: SOTU Response Fiasco

Mark Frauenfelder: Ayn Rand took government assistance while decrying others who did the same

Dick Cavett: The Wrath of Grapes

Michael Winship: The Bush Legacy Strikes Out American Justice

President Obama's Weekly Address - January 29, 2011

Out-Innovating, Out-Educating & Out-Building Our Competitors

Ten Years Too Late

Sam Stein: In an interview set to air this Sunday, former President George W. Bush said he was done with politics and that he is uninterested in campaigning or raising money for political candidates.

Stewart Rebuts O'Reilly Rebuttal to Use of Nazi Terminology

Shorter Bill O'Reilly: But when we call someone a Nazi, we have a good reason.

25 Years Ago Today

The Challenger Tragedy



I remember watching this in my living room with my girlfriend at the time. It was a sunny day, a day or two after a blizzard in New York City. We just sat and watched in silence.

She's So Presidential

Former Alaska GOP Gov. Sarah Palin said Wednesday night that President Barack Obama’s call for “winning the future” during his State of the Union address is best framed by the acronym it shares with a much different phrase — “wtf.”

“That was a tough speech to sit through and try to stomach,” Palin said during an interview with Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren. 

“His theme last night was wtf, winning the future,” she continued. “I thought, okay, that acronym - spot on. There were a lot of wtf moments throughout that speech.”

You can watch the video here. I was only able to watch about four minutes of it before my eye started to twitch, but if you're feeling brave, knock yourself out.

You know, I'd actually give her points for wit if I thought for a second she came up with the WTF thing all by herself.

Hardball Classic

When Chris Matthews knows he's right, he's like a pit bull with a bone in its mouth. The bone in this instance is Tea Party Express co-founder Sal Russo who plays dumber than the imbecile he's trying to cover for, Michele Bachmann and her ridiculous slavery comment. Instant classic.

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

Hey, What's the Terror Alert?

Don't know? It doesn't matter.

Tomorrow Homeland Secretary Janet Napolitano will announce that the much maligned color-code threat level, formally called the Homeland Security Advisory System, will be replaced with a more specific public alert system according to officials briefed on the issue.

...The system has not been raised or lowered since 2006 and officials say they have been better able to tailor security procedures without making changes to the color code system.

We've been stuck on Yellow since 2006. New York City has perpetually been on Orange.

President Obama's State of the Union Address

January 25th, 2011

Sitting Together at the State of the Union

Tonight, President Obama will deliver his State of the Union Address to the nation standing in front of Congress and the Supreme Court Justices (we think). As a symbolic sign of decreased rhetoric and bipartisanship after the Tucson shooting tragedy, some members of opposing parties of Congress have decided to break tradition and sit together.

I have one word for this gesture: bullshit.

This isn't something that transpired organically. What a story it would be if when walking into the chamber today, unbeknownst to anyone, members of Congress truly searched for what they claim are "friends on the other side of the aisle" and decided then and there to sit together. But that's not what's happening. This was something that was petitioned and members signed on to.

"I believe that members of both parties can symbolize our common citizenship and common interests by sitting together to hear the president's remarks, rather than divided across the aisle by party," [Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer] said in a statement Thursday.

One wonders whether their symbolism will continue during the address, when Democrats will undoubtedly stand and applaud during sections of the speech. Will the Republicans they're sitting next to do the same?

Will Congressman Paul Ryan's Republican rebuttal to the State of the Union be toned down in rhetoric and criticism? We'll find out tonight, but my guess is that Congresswoman Michele Bachmann's Tea Party address will lack such civility.

On a side note, while I praised Senator John McCain a few days back for his views on President Obama's address at Tucson, he couldn't even be bothered to truly find someone at odds with him to sit with, as his "date" tonight is reported to be Senator Joe Lieberman. Nothing like showing bipartisanship by choosing to sit with the senator who describes himself as an "Independent Democrat" and endorsed you in your failed 2008 presidential bid, Maverick.

ADDING... I prematurely published my post before making another point. The reason I'm not really thrilled with this symbolic seating gesture and frankly don't think it matters is because while we usually think of a "it's not what they say it's what they do" mantra when it comes to politicians, the reverse is true in this case.  It's not what they do, such as mixing up the seating arrangement to not appear so divided, but it's what they say, and what they will say and how they say it after the address that's important. Conservatives sitting next to liberals, Democrats sitting next to Republicans means absolutely nothing without taking that symbolism and applying it toward their everyday experiences while working in Congress. I just don't see that happening anytime soon because of who you sit next to for an hour out of the year at the State of the Union. I hope I'm wrong.

What's Prayer Got to Do With It?

POSTED BY JHW22

For decades, we have been told that the removal of God from schools has caused all of our problems.

For starters, God wasn’t removed from schools and neither was prayer. Any teacher can pray any day, any time, anywhere in a public school. So can students. The only change made since the good ol’ days is that prayer cannot be school-sanctioned or led: we can no longer have a prayer led by school staff. But we have a moment of silence that is specifically for anyone who wants to pray to have time to do so and for anyone who doesn’t want to pray to think about something else. Sometimes I wonder if Christian parents are afraid that their kids aren’t praying during that time thus all the hubbub. Are they really bothered because they think their children aren’t praying when they aren’t there to make them do it? Just a curiosity, but seems plausible.

In addition to America sucking because God isn’t going to school anymore (us sucking is according to the very people who don't like it when Democrats take responsibility for our nation's mistakes), we have been told that natural disasters are the result of gay people being gay. Never mind that straight people die in those disasters and some are probably prayerful homophobes.

Now, if we’re a "Christian Nation," I often wonder why all the Christians haven’t been able to prevent all this crap they blame on the lack of school prayer. I mean they ARE the majority and they pray at home and church and at restaurants and in the car and on Facebook and in email chains, etc. So why do we still have so many problems if prayer is the answer and they all pray so much? Is the lack of prayer led by teachers THE reason? Are gay people really to blame? Seems like I, as a non-prayer, am being blamed for bad things I don't do. I am being blamed for crime and vile sex acts and other sins simply because I don't support proselytizing in public schools.

So then Reagan's line (that Palin just had to cite) about only the criminal being to blame, yadda, yadda, doesn't apply when prayer is on the line? So, if we don't pray as a class, we're all to blame for a classmate going crazy and killing someone?

If Christian kids are raised right, they should be taking advantage of prayer all the time and privately. So it can’t be MY fault -- as an atheist who doesn’t want to hear or have to use part of my time participating in something irrelevant to me – when Christian kids don't pray whenever and wherever. It’s not because of my lack of belief if a child doesn’t pray enough. Don’t pretend that public prayer is more consequential than silent prayer. And don’t blame the lack of required public prayer for our ills while avoiding responsibility for not praying enough or well enough or for the right things on your own time.

Finally, if all of this is true, why is the absence of something they think is good so impactful, yet violent rhetoric isn’t?

When someone from the “prayer should be in schools to prevent horrors” side of the debate uses language to divide and imply violence is a solution, don’t then say words don’t matter and that only the criminal is accountable. Or if you want to say that only the criminal is accountable, then don’t blame the lack of school prayer for someone's crimes.

I leave you with this poll that is quite relevant and helped me formulate my thoughts even though it's not specifically what I wrote about.

Just an observation

POSTED BY JHW22

Some people who are choosing to root against the Steelers because of Ben Roethlisberger who had two sexual assault claims made against him are supportive of Julian Assange who had two sexual assault claims made against him.

So a few thoughts/questions:

Why do we accept the word of some women when they make the claim but not others?
Will some women lie about assault?
Will some men be assholes but still not go THAT far?
Why will we believe famous men over unknown women?
Why can some men's actions be overlooked while other men's can't?
Why is a team of 53 somehow accountable for one player?
Why is there an assumption that the other teams don't have any secret offenders?
Why is it OK to bail a person out of jail because you agree with the stuff they weren't charged with but you don't agree with what they were charged with?

Must Reads

Digby: Another Isolated Incident

Dave Weigel: Nothing Is Repealed - Republicans fulfill a Tea Party promise, and get their first taste of irrelevance.

Angry Black Lady: Firedoglake: With All Due Civility, Go F**k Yourself

Gail Collins: Goodbye to a Guy Named Joe

Jonathan Chait: Charles Krauthammer Laughs At Arithmetic

JHW22 recommends...

Josh Marshall: The Deal with Palin

Rick Ungar: Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798

President Obama's Weekly Address - January 22, 2011

"We Can Out-Compete Any Other Nation"

Olbermann Signs Off!

With no pomp and circumstance, Keith Olbermann revealed that Friday's Countdown telecast would be the last.

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

After eight years, Countdown is done. TPM's Josh Marshall was a guest on the show and was shocked to discover that he was on the final broadcast - the professionalism of the staff and crew didn't give it away.

According to the New York Times...

MSNBC announced that “The Last Word” with Lawrence O’Donnell would replace “Countdown” at 8 p.m., with “The Ed Show” with Ed Schultz taking Mr. O’Donnell’s slot at 10 p.m. Mr. Olbermann did not discuss any future plans, but NBC executives said one term of his settlement will keep him from moving to another network for an extended period of time.

And thus begins Comcast's demise of the liberal media.

ADDING... After letting it sink in for a few minutes, this was definitely personal. Lawrence O'Donnell can be just as bombastic as KO was. And Ed Schultz and his beady, red eyes can come across as a loon sometimes. Maybe even a firebagger. This was definitely a personal matter - there was always friction between Olbermann and his bosses.

April Fools' Day in January, maybe?

POSTED BY JHW22

So, this was Keith Olbermann's final Countdown. No warning. Wow. Speculation is all a Twitter.

"The Base"

POSTED BY JHW22

Jane Hamsher and Adam Green are NOT "The Base". Nor are they "The Far Left".

No, when Obama does something and some people in the Democratic party get mad, "THE Base" is not mad at him. No, when Obama does something and some people in the Democratic party get mad, "THE Far Left" is not mad at him.

As Desert Crone (a regular reader here at Broadway Carl's) and I have discussed many times, Jane Hamsher and Adam Green are NOT the base. Let me say it one more time because I really mean it: they are NOT the base.

How do I know they are not the base? Because they fall in the 15 to 20% of Democrats that consistently find something to be mad about. That is not a base. If it were, we'd be an inverted pyramid and we'd topple over in a hiccup. A base is a large number of supporters who consistently see the policies and leadership as progressive -- meaning forward-moving -- and accept that sometimes a seemingly weak play is necessary in order to get a larger accomplishment secured. A real base pays more attention to the overall and long-term needs rather than the microcosm of creating anger and fear. In fact, the numbers in the Jane Hamsher/Adam Green faction of the Democratic party are even smaller than the number of people who think Sarah Palin didn't go FUBAR in her Tucson video. Also, they are in the same 15% of Democrats who are NOT enthusiastic about voting in 2012 (h/t Desert Crone) -- so tell me how THEY are "THE Base"...

I feel the need to state this bluntly because Lawrence O'Donnell seems to think that these two characters somehow represent "The Base" [note: I am not going to provide any links to back this up for two reasons. One is there are too many. Two, I think my head would explode if I had to listen to or even look at either JH or AG. But you can find any damn episode of The Last Word and probably see one or both of them presented as "The Base"] although I think Lawrence knows better. Lawrence also knows a great deal about creating great television.

I also feel the need to declare this fact about them NOT being "The Far Left" because Chris Matthews referred to the 15% of Democrats who think Obama is "too quick to give in" as "the FAR left". No, Chris. I am the far left. There isn't a political ideology test I could take that wouldn't consider me far left and I am not in that 15% that thinks he is too quick to give in.

So to Lawrence I say, you DO know how to make good television and you also know how to present the truth in a better way than by having those two on your show as much as you do. They represent the 15-percenters yet you give them 50 or 75% of the space in their segments. That's a gross misrepresentation of their role, affect and relevance in the Democratic party. Sure, you need opposition, but dole it out in proportion, will ya? And PLEASE don't associate the word "base" with them when they are on your show.

And Chris, for someone who takes umbrage with people saying the "Democrat party" and pronouncing Cheney incorrectly (yes, we all know you say it the right way but because you keep telling us that, I stubbornly refuse to do it) then you should understand that a label, an identifier, matters. Get it straight: 15% is NOT the far left. They are the "angry left". They are the "whiny left". They are the "never-get-an-orgasm-and-by-god-they're-gonna-take-out-their-blue-balls-out-on-the-world left".

Hell, I'd even add Arianna Huffington to the list of "not the base".

I am far left. I am the base. I am not Jane Hamsher or Adam Green.

Oh, yeah, our President knows stuff

POSTED BY JHW22

I do not need to be reminded how smart President Obama is. I am one of those bots who thinks he can do no wrong (well, sometimes I have serious doubts until I hear his rationale and there are a few things he and I will never agree on like belief in God and the death penalty) but essentially I am always 100% aware of how smart he is. But even then I realize he's even smarter than I give him credit for.

Remember that it was Hillary Clinton who wanted the mandatory purchase of insurance for ALL Americans (something the firebagging PUMAs forget when they call Obama a corporate sell-out on this point) during the campaign. Obama just wanted the mandatory for kids. As I watched him compromise during the health reform debates, I always wondered if there was something more to the individual mandate aside from the cost savings that made Obama decide to change his position from just kids to all. Something about it never seemed fully fleshed out.

Well today I read this article and it proves that the Founding Fathers would support a mandate for insurance -- because they did in 1798.

The law was not only the first time the United States created a socialized medical program (The Marine Hospital Service) but was also the first to mandate that privately employed citizens be legally required to make payments to pay for health care services.

Now, I am not saying Obama was made aware of this law and changed his mind. But something tells me that he made his switch on something more than just the cost issue. The fact that he understands the history of our country better than many who ACT as if they do, I truly suspect he knew this law existed and chose to move forward knowing that precedence was on his side. And, in fairness to Hillary, she is smart enough and knowledgeable enough to have been aware of this historic law as well.

Oh, yeah, this is also reinforcement that the Republican party is ignorant of history and not really as in love with the Founding Fathers as they'd have us believe. Not that I am surprised. And I am sure you're not either.

Pedestrian Deaths? Michelle Obama's Fault!

No, really. Some idiot is trying to link an uptick in pedestrian deaths to Michelle Obama's "Get Moving" program.

Governors Highway Safety Administration spokesman Jonathan Adkins told 630 WMAL that Michelle Obama is "trying to get us to walk to work and exercise a little bit more. While that's good, it also increases our exposure to risk."

After four straight years of steady declines, pedestrian deaths were up during the first six months of 2010, the latest figures available to be studied.

The article goes on to mention that other factors include distracted pedestrians, distracted drivers, "aggressive pedestrians," and alcohol. But hey, why take a look at real causes like walking/driving while texting when you can just blame the uppity black woman in the White House?

Very Serious Pundit

Here's Rush Limbaugh doing his best stereotypical Chinese language in reference to Chinese President Hu Jintao.



Very serious Republican leader, that Rush Limbaugh.

White House White Boards are so cool

POSTED BY JHW22

Stewart & Colbert Weigh In On Palin

Golden Globe Vapors

Can people please stop feigning outrage over the Ricky Gervais performance as host of this year's Golden Globes? Have these people not seen Gervais' act? Are these the same people that booked Stephen Colbert for the White House Correspondents Dinner a few years back?

"Ricky will not be invited back to host the show next year, for sure," the HFPA member said. "For sure any movie he makes he can forget about getting nominated. He humiliated the organization last night and went too far with several celebrities whose representatives have already called to complain."

That's very courageous of you to say, anonymous Hollywood Foreign Press Agent member.  Good going in sabotaging your award by your pettiness in pre-emptively judging future Gervais projects that don't exist. If you're such an amazing judge of talent, what the hell were you expecting from Gervais? You had him host last year as well and HE WARNED YOU that this year he would go over the top, even harsher than last time. Did you not believe him?

And guess what? People love that shit. The love Gervais and his deprecating humor. They eat it up. So think about your ratings next year when you decide to have Jay Leno or some other hack host your event.

Sarah Still Clueless

Sarah Palin's in trouble. And when she gets into trouble there's always an "exclusive" interview with Sean Hannity to lob the softballs (or just outright make excuses for her) and bail her out. But this latest interview showed that Sarah still didn't get it. She's still talking about being attacked in the "lamestream media" while using said media to try and wriggle off a hook of her own making, and still misconstruing the First Amendment while she's at it.

First she tries to backtrack on her use of the phrase "blood libel" even though she admits she knew what it meant historically.

"Blood libel obviously means being falsely accused, or having blood on your hands. And in this case that's exactly what was going on. And yes, the historical knowledge that people have of the term blood libel, it goes back to the Jews who were falsely accused back in medieval European times of using the blood of children. And you know, the criticism of even the timing of this statement is being used as another diversion, because I believe that there are many on the left, many critics, who don't want, for instance, Congress, to buckle down, get back to work."

No, Sarah, maybe the criticism was that either A) you really didn't know what the term implied historically or B) if you did know, it was just an insensitive statement that you should have apologized for, which still hasn't happened yet. Because Sarah's never wrong so why should she apologize for anything? And what does any of the criticism leveled at your idiocy have to do with Congress going back to work? Maybe you'd like to think that the people's business has something to do with you, but it doesn't. I think Congress will get along fine even with criticisms being leveled against you.

But what really shows her to be the thin-skinned, feeble minded person she is, is once again deciding that criticism against Sarah Palin is somehow akin to censorship.

“I will continue to speak out,” she said. “They are not going to shut me up, they are not going to shut you up, or Rush or Mark Levin or the Tea Party Patriots or those who respectfully and patriotically petition their government for change. They can’t make us sit down and shut up, and if thy were ever to succeed in doing that, then our republic would be destroyed.”

Who said anything about shutting her up? As has been explained over and over again, Sarah Palin is free to spout whatever ridiculously stupid thing she wants. That doesn't mean she's immune to criticism. Just as she's free to speak her mind, everyone else is free to respond to her moronic diatribes. And if we're at the point that our "republic would be destroyed" if we didn't hear the o, so glorious words of Palin, Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin, then we're already to late to save it.

Jets Back in AFC Championship Game

In a game few expected them to win, in the same stadium where the Patriots humiliated them by 42 points last month, the Jets bullied New England, battered Tom Brady and advanced to the A.F.C. championship game with a 28-21 triumph.

...With a second-year coach in Ryan and a second-year quarterback in Mark Sanchez, the Jets advanced to their second straight conference title game. They travel to Pittsburgh to face the Steelers next Sunday, on the same field where they narrowly beat the Steelers last month.

Being a lifelong Jets fan but only three years old when they last made a Super Bowl appearance, this was one of the sweetest victories I can remember.

Cartoon of the Day

Must Reads

Alex Pareene: Watering the Tree of Liberty

Steve Benen: False Equivalency Watch

Paul Krugman: Climate of Hate

David Frum: What Palin Needed to Say After Giffords’ Shooting

Marty Kaplan: The "Lock and Load" Rhetoric of American Politics Isn't Just a Metaphor

John Dickerson: Palin Fails the Test - Sarah Palin's response to the Tucson shooting is defensive, illogical, distracting—and late.

William Saletan: Sarah Palin, Blood-Libel Hypocrite

Nicholas D. Kristof: Why Not Regulate Guns as Seriously as Toys?

E.J. Dionne: Violent Talk Blocks Sane Gun Laws

The Rude Pundit: Palin, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly Are Angry; Pie Still Yummy

JHW22 recommends...

David Badash: The End Of A Sarah Palin Presidency

Rrrruhh?!

Republican Arizona Sen. John McCain issued high praise for President Obama's Wednesday address that honored victims of the Arizona shootings.

..."Our political discourse should be more civil than it currently is, and we all, myself included, bear some responsibility for it not being so," McCain writes. "It probably asks too much of human nature to expect any of us to be restrained at all times by persistent modesty and empathy from committing rhetorical excesses that exaggerate our differences and ignore our similarities."

In all seriousness, I am glad that someone in a leadership position* in the Republican party actually came out to praise President Obama's address in Tucson. After hearing some positive response from the right regarding memorial service speech, most of them immediately went into their usual tones, completely missing the message.

While that was expected, it's good to see not only a prominent Republican, but the one man who has seemed the most bitter and contrarian after his 2008 presidential defeat, be the one to openly join the President in his message of civility.

(* When I say leadership position, I mean someone of seniority and stature, not an official position. Especially after seeing the newly elected Speaker of the House reject the notion that he can tell Birthers within his party occupying House seats to knock off the nonsense.)

President Obama's Weekly Address - January 15, 2011

Before We are Democrats or Republicans, We are Americans

Where's The Most Liberal County In America?

According to former Republican House Leader and current convicted money launderer Tom Delay, it's in Texas. TEXAS! I know! It was a shock to me too!

"I was tried in the most liberal county in the state of Texas; indeed, in the United States," DeLay said on NBC's "Today" Show. "This is a political campaign."

Yes, it's witch hunt!

President Obama's Arizona Memorial Speech

In case you missed it.

“Together We Thrive: Tucson and America.”

S#*! Sarah Palin Says ("Blood Libel" Edition)

Soon after the tragedy at Tucson, Sarah Palin took to her Facebook page to express her condolences to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the victims of the Safeway shooting, while her commenters raged about the shooter, who thought to blame Nancy Pelosi, the "negro abortion" problem, and someone who assumed it was an illegal alien and wanted more border security long before we ever heard the name Jared Loughner. Conservative David Frum was less than impressed at Palin's statement.

"Palin’s post-shooting message was about Palin, not about Giffords. It was defensive, not inspiring. And it was petty at a moment when Palin had been handed perhaps her last clear chance to show herself presidentially magnanimous."

And just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, after five days of silence, Palin decides to release a pre-recorded 7½ minute speech, also released on Facebook and with the help of a teleprompter, in which she is the victim on the designated day for a Tucson victims memorial.  She had five days, and neither she nor her speech writer could figure out that the term "blood libel" is probably not the best turn of phrase.

But ultimately, how did Palin respond to the criticism leveled at her vitriolic political rhetoric which some partly blame for the senseless shooting that occurred? She quoted Ronald Reagan (that's becoming a staple for her), invoked 9/11 and doubled down on the rhetoric.

"No one should be deterred from speaking up and speaking out in peaceful dissent, and we certainly must not be deterred by those who embrace evil and call it good."

Who is embracing evil and calling it good, Sarah? Care to be more specific? And her fans/commenters were overjoyed. Funny how there never seems to be any negative comments on Sarah's Facebook page.

Richard Clark: Sarah, you must be doing something right, the Liberal Media hates you. Keep up the good work, you're awesome 

Yes, the liberal media hates Palin. All three of them.

Lena Kins: If Jared had been MUSLIN, Obama would see that the MEDIA was "somewhat quiet as possible" not much of a big deal about this tragic massacre of innocent people. Sarah we need LEADERS like you in the White House.

"Muslin"? Seriously?

Al Holloway: Thank God, Dipshit Obama finally stopped talking, it makes me sick how he always says that we need to start speaking to one another in a way that brings us together. As if all of the violent & hateful rhetoric is not coming from Democrats.

All the violent rhetoric is coming from Democrats. Got it.

That last quote was written after President Obama spoke at the Tucson Memorial service. I guess he misunderstood the message.  And Sarah showed she didn't get it either in her feeble attempt to preempt the President's speech in Tucson. Andrew Sullivan put it best in his latest post:

"Palin does not possess the self-awareness, responsibility or composure to respond to crises like this with grace. This message - even at a time of national crisis - was a base-rousing rallying cry, perpetuating her own victimhood and alleged bloodthirstiness of her opponents.

...to moderate that tone, to acknowledge that one can make an error, to defend oneself from unfair accusations while acknowledging the need for a calmer discourse in future - this is beyond her."

My son is four

POSTED BY JHW22

I just told my son, after I watched Obama's Tucson Memorial speech, that I love his President. My son said, "He's not my President. He's everyone's President because everyone likes him in the whole world. The world is like a ball."

Why Does Anyone Take This Man Seriously Anymore?

Rush Limbaugh: "What Mr. Loughner knows is that he has the full support of a major political party in this country. He's sitting there in jail. He knows what's going on, he knows that...the Democrat party is attempting to find anybody but him to blame. He knows if he plays his cards right, he's just a victim. He's the latest in a never-ending parade of victims brought about by the unfairness of America...this guy clearly understands he's getting all the attention and he understands he's got a political party doing everything it can, plus a local sheriff doing everything that they can to make sure he's not convicted of murder - but something lesser."

False Equivalency Equals Faulty Equation

POSTED BY JHW22

Equivalency means two things being almost equal if not exact. Therefore, if I say an apple is fruit and a banana is fruit, I am making a correct equivalency. However, if I say a Red Delicious apple is the same as a banana some could argue a false equivalency because a Red Delicious apple is red, whereas a banana is yellow. Someone else may say, yes, but they are still fruit. Then someone else could say some apples are yellow and bananas are yellow and they are both fruit so they are the same. Then someone else could say, yes but bananas are only yellow when they aren’t green or brown.

See, when it comes to fruit, you can’t have a discussion without someone having an alternate version that isn’t false but which is different from the opponent’s position.

If I say that trees are green someone can say, not all are green and not all green trees are green all the time.

If I say boys are more active than girls someone will provide examples of hyper-active girls and sedate boys.

If I say clouds are all the same someone will point out the various types.

So when I say that some people on the left have used vitriolic language, I should not be accused of making a false equivalency because it’s a far more nuanced issue than fruit. Hell, even that statement could be argued as a false equivalency.

Now, if I point out 3 instances of when the left has used questionable hyperbole while I also point out 30 cases where the right has done it, I should not be accused of making a false equivalency. I have not said 3 = 30. I have said they each share a digit, they are each numbers. There are many similarities between 3 and 30 but they are not equal and pointing out the similarities is not a statement that they are equal.

I have been a part of and have witnessed two conversations since the tragedy in Tucson. I am going to paraphrase both conversations and show why I think the “false equivalency” argument is a waste of real opportunity to get everyone, regardless of their party’s eagerness or opposition to use vitriol in the debate, to stop using it – period.

Conversation A:

Republican: “Sarah Palin did not incite hate. If you think she did, what do you have to say about the time Obama said, ‘Don’t take a knife to a gunfight’, huh?”

Democrat: “Looking back, I’d have to say I wish he hadn’t used that line. Even though it’s an old cliché, I wish we weren’t using any language that implies aggression or violence. I pledge not to use that language and to reject it if anyone in my party uses it. Now, do YOU reject that language used in your party?”

Republican: “Yes, I reject that language in my party.”

Conversation B:

Republican: “Sarah Palin did not incite hate. If you think she did, what do you have to say about the time Obama said, ‘Don’t take a knife to a gunfight’, huh?”

Democrat: “There is no comparison between the left and the right here. The right has had far more vitriol and has created this atmosphere since a black man became President. So, no, there is nothing vitriolic about his statement. No one in MY party has called for shootings or ‘second amendment remedies’ or for people to ‘reload’ or be ‘armed and dangerous’. So no, MY party isn’t part of the problem.”

Republican: “Oh, I see. MY party is racist and violent because we’re white and want to protect our rights and hate the way the government is destroying our country. Your party can say whatever it wants and use whatever words and images it wants because you when you use it it doesn’t mean anything. But when MY party uses it, we’re telling crazy people to kill people. Only crazy people are on the right, is that what you’re saying?”

Democrat: “No, there are crazy people on the left but our crazies don’t take guns to speeches and don’t kill people.”

Republican: “Well this guy was a liberal. Look at the books he read.”

Democrat: “What he read doesn’t mean he was a liberal. He shot a Democrat who Sarah Palin put a target on in campaign rhetoric.”

Republican: “Two of the victims who died were Republicans.”

Democrat: “The shooter couldn’t have known that.”

Republican: “And Sarah Palin couldn’t have known some crazy would misconstrue what she meant.”

Democrat: “We warned of this. She could have known because we raised this point over and over.”

Republican: “See, you wanted this to happen just so you could say, ‘I told you so’.”

In Conversation A, the Democrat acknowledged the FRACTION of poor choices by the Democratic party and the conversation moved forward.

In Conversation B, the Democrat decided that acknowledging a fraction was conceding a false equivalency. That conversation is still spiraling into an abyss of nothing.

EDIT: Here is the transcript from Obama's Tucson Memorial speech. All he said is what I meant to say.

Well, duh!

POSTED BY JHW22

So the current response to the "tone down the rhetoric" common sense is "but, but, but... the guy was crazy" Well, no shit! That's who we have said WOULD be the wrong person to hear the violent rhetoric. I don't recall anyone saying, over the last two years, that we need to be careful what we say because some SANE person might decide to react with violence. Um, DUH!

(BTW, I am avoiding using the name of the shooter/terrorist/assassin so as not to give him one more search result.)

Quote of the Day

"...I’m not blaming Sarah Palin for 20 people being shot – six of them dying from their injuries. I’m blaming Sarah Palin for taking down her “take down” map sans comment. I’m not blaming her for throwing bombs. I am blaming her for not uttering remorse when they explode.

Palin wants her followers to “stand up?”

Her first."

~ Tina Dupuy

Who's Politicizing the Arizona Shooting?

There seems to be a lot of umbrage at Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik and his opinion that the heightened political rhetoric is partly to blame for the Safeway shooting that targeted Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed six others. That somehow he was polticizing the event.

Well, who's politicizing now?

In the wake of Saturday's tragic shooting in Arizona, Gateway Pundit and Breitbart blogger Jim Hoft has been on a one man mission to prove that the deranged shooter was a "typical leftist nut." This morning, Hoft posted what he seems to think is bulletproof evidence supporting this thesis, but, as is usually the case with him, it is merely evidence that someone as hackishly irresponsible as Hoft should have no role in our national political discourse.

...That Hoft would reprint the outrageous assertion that Loughner idolized Obama - based on a random commenter on a fringe message board that provided no evidence for his assertion - says a lot about his complete lack of journalistic integrity.

Reloading, Surveyor's Symbols and Gun Rights

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was one of the House members targeted in Sarah Palin's infamous "Take Back the 20" SarahPAC map. I'm not going to blame Palin for the shooting, but I will blame her for the lack of foresight in not understanding what the affect can be in the incendiary rhetoric she's been peddling since she came on the scene.

And she's not the only one who has gone a little too far with the metaphors. With phrases like "pallin' around with terrorists," "don't retreat, reload," Sharron Angle's "Second Amendment remedies" and Michele Bachmann's "armed and dangerous," it was only a matter of time before someone mentally unstable person took the matter into their own hands. There have been other violent attacks. The Richard Poplawski incident in Pittsburgh immediately comes to mind. But this is the first time there has been an attack on a political official. And I can't believe that the angry Republican anti-government rhetoric has nothing to do with it.

While a definitive motive hasn't been established for Jared Loughner's attack on the ironically named Safeway, anti-government sentiment has been an issue in his online writings. Is he disturbed and unstable? Looks that way, which is why prominent politicians and pundits have to realize that their message doesn't just go out to rational people who understand that bullseyes, targets and vitriol isn't literal.

And while we are all familiar with her lack of foresight, Ms. Mama Grizzly Reality TV Caribou Hunter isn't doing herself any favors by surrounding herself with people who aren't the sharpest tools in the shed either, the latest example being a radio interview by a Palin spokesperson trying to explain away the crosshairs in the SarahPac map.

...this exchange between Palin aide Rebecca Mansour and Palin-supporting radio host Tammy Bruce is completely absurd. Bruce begins by describing the map of SarahPAC's 20 midterm election targets -- members of Congress in districts that went for McCain/Palin in 2008 who voted for health care reform -- and referring to the targets on the map as "surveyor's symbols." Mansour points out that "targeted districts" are part of political parlance -- obviously true -- and says this. (It starts at around 11:40 in the clip.)

MANSOUR: I just want to clarify again, and maybe it wasn't done on the record enough by us when this came out, the graphic, is just, it's basically -- we never, ever, ever intended it to be gunsights. It was simply crosshairs like you see on maps.

BRUCE: Well, it's a surveyor's symbol. It's a surveyor's symbol.

MANSOUR: It's a surveyor's symbol. I just want to say this, Tammy, if I can. This graphic was done, not even done in house -- we had a political graphics professional who did this for us.

Right wingers are now pointing to an old Daily Kos diary by Markos Moulitsas in an attempt to equate and diffuse in which Moulitsas uses the terms, "target" and "bullseye." But their attempt at their tried and true revisionist history falls short this time. While some can justifiably point to vitriol on both sides that needs to be toned down, in my opinion this comparison is apples and oranges, if only for the visual aids of targets on the districts the SarahPAC map wanted to "take back." That coupled with Palin's usual rhetoric, gun metaphors and especially the audience that she's trying to reach, in my opinion makes all the difference.  No one said a word about the Kos article when it came out. But there was a definite reaction to Palin's map with crosshairs, one of those being Gifford's. For Palin supporters to go back two years to search for something remotely similar on the liberal side is disingenuous.

My final point in all of the chaos of this past weekend was my realization of the lack of dialogue regarding guns and gun rights. I don't personally own a gun. But I don't begrudge anyone else owning one. You have a right to own one. But does that right preclude stricter gun laws for the sake of safety? Is there any legitimate reason to be against gun control? I say again, any legitimate reason. I have no problem with someone wanting to purchase a gun, but shouldn't there be certain procedures in place to prevent mentally unstable people from gun ownership?  It has come to light that Loughner attempted to join the military and was rejected. If the reason was due to mental instability, shouldn't there be information pipelines in place so that the FBI (whose background check Loughner supposedly passed before his gun purchase) received that info? Yet, I haven't heard a word from the mainstream media in regards to this issue. No one has even broached the subject. Maybe politicians will think twice about gun control laws now that it's hit so close to home, but I'm not holding my breath.

ADDING... I hope we as a collective group take more seriously the next instance of someone bringing a gun or an assault rifle to a political rally in which the President is present, or more closely scrutinize a gun toter looking to "water the tree of liberty."