I have no idea what Fox News thinks the are accomplishing anymore.

Fox News, back when it was new and relatively unknown, was really passing itself off as just another 24 hour cable news station.  In that guise, they could sort of be the "stealth Republican mouthpiece", because casual watchers might not really understand that they were getting a big spin on their news.

Now, however, it is all very, very clear about what Fox News is.   They will spin any sort of news they can to make President Obama and the Democrats look bad, even to the point of fabricating stories or taking individual sentences out of context.  They will puff up all sorts of stories that support their cause, like the Tea Party rallies, but totally downplay anything they deem to be "on the other side", such as the Occupy movement.  They will support Mitt Romney in the face of the unsupportable, e.g., his outrageous attack on President Obama DURING the attacks on the Libyan embassy and the consulate in Egypt and his ridiculous statements last week captured on a hidden camera video regarding the 47% lazy bums who will never vote for Romney and never take responsibility for themselves.

So, we all now know what Fox is doing and why.  But who are they talking to?  Their base really doesn't need any more fuel to keep their anger burning brightly.  They are already angry.  I seriously doubt that many undecided voters would be going to Fox to get their news to help them make up their minds.  If someone is going to Fox, I believe that their minds are already made up.  So, is it just money?  Is it just totally ideology driven, such that they don't really care that much about undecided voters or making money off advertising?  Is Roger Ailes so driven by hatred of Democrats, progressives and liberals, not to mention gays and lesbians, blacks, Latinos, etc., that that becomes his primary motivation?  Pure, unadulterated spite?

I know this is an overgeneralization.  There are probably a number of "reasons" why Fox News does what it does.  Maybe not really good reasons, but at least they might be rational ones when examined from their point of view.  But when they start having to rely on taking Obama quotes out of context that are 14 years old, what do they really think they are accomplishing?

I am not a psychologist.  I can only try to explain what I think are nonsensical human actions by my own point of view and hopefully, logic based thought process.  But I think that many people in today's society, and that does include some on the left as well, become so locked in to their own positions that they don't even care that they make sense anymore.  No logic is necessary, rationalization of their position is all that matters.  If they can come up with something, ANYTHING, that they can say to make their position seem to be the right one, then that is all that is required.

And when that happens to a society, it becomes vapor locked.  That is why we have Republican senators and congressmen who will never, ever vote for a bill sponsored by a Democrat.  It doesn't make any difference if they helped write it or if the bill represents a position that the Republican mainstream held during the Bush administration.  It doesn't matter.  All they know is that Obama and Democrats are evil and they can never agree with them.  On anything.  Ever.

So, where does that leave us as a country?  I have no idea, but wherever it is, it isn't good.

If trying to promote outrage by taking President Obama’s quotes out of context is Mitt’s main weapon in this campaign, then he has got absolutely nothing.

I find this utterly preposterous and very frightening at the same time.  It is beyond my comprehension to think that Mitt and his team truly believe that continually taking President Obama out of context and making political commercials using those out of context clips is a winning strategy.  But what frightens me is that this tactic might actually be working.  Mitt is counting on never being asked to explain this, that Fox News will always have his back, and that if some reporter does find a way to ask about this ridiculous approach, Mitt will just ignore the question or else pretend that this is a perfectly valid tactic.  “What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, my friend.”  As if that explains anything.

I was going to write a post about this subject today, but of course, someone much higher in the food chain who writes much more thorough and succinct posts that I beat me to the punch.  From Crooks and Liars:

As we discussed last week, at this point in the race, Republicans aren't just occasionally taking Obama quotes out of context; they're actually building their entire 2012 campaign strategy around sentiments the president didn't actually say. I've honestly never seen anything like it.Let's start a running count:

1. The Romney campaign took Obama out of context in its very first television ad of the race. 

2. When the president told business leaders that U.S. policymakers have been "a little bit lazy" when it comes to attracting businesses to American soil, Republicans took that out of context and launched a series of attacks.

3. When Obama said private-sector job growth is "fine" relative to the public sector, Republicans took that out of context, 

4. Obama said public institutions help businesses succeed, and Republicans continue to take that out of context.

And 5. Obama said Clinton's tax policies were better than Bush's, which the RNC is taking out of context.

Remember, in theory, none of this should be necessary. If the president were the radical leftist his attackers make him out to be, Republicans wouldn't have to resort to cheap garbage like this. They'd be able to use real Obama quotes and real Obama policies.Instead, we're left with ridiculous tactics that treat voters like idiots.

It’s a great read.  Go look at the entire thing, including clicking through the links.

Again, in normal times, I should think that a major campaign tactic like this would be laughed out of the court of public opinion and ridiculed in every major news outlet in the country.  Just think if John Kerry or Al Gore had tried something like this. 

But these are not normal times.  Nope, they are not. 

First of all, a vast majority of the voting population has already made up their minds about how to vote.  On the right, we have people who are willing to believe anything at all about President Obama, Democrats, and liberals in general as long as it reinforces their preconceived notions that are already carved out of bedrock.   Obama is a Muslim socialist who hates America and is just itching to take people’s guns away.  Democrats are evil and want to give MY hard earned tax money to blah people.  They will absolutely love this kind of attack.  They will just lap it up.  “Look!  This validates everything I believe about Obama!”  This is the same bunch of people who believe that a top advisor to Secretary Hillary Clinton is a covert agent of the Muslim Brotherhood.  It seems as if no one in the right mind would believe something like that, but it is treated like gold by 30% of this country.

I just do not understand how this can happen.  How could we, as a nation, be that stupid, so unwilling to see the actual truth behind some terribly, terribly obvious lies? 

And what’s doubly amazing about this is that Romney apparently lies every time he opens his mouth, or else he goes and insults most of England the day before the opening of their Olympic Games for which they have been preparing for seven years.

What has happened to logic and reason in this country?  Or even fair play?  I understand that politics is a bloody knuckle kind of affair, but isn’t continually taking your opponent out of context every week, especially when it is completely obvious what President Obama was saying when you look at the entire clip, pretty much out of bounds if for no other reason than respect for basic dignity (including your own)?  This has moved way past normal propaganda and fear mongering (e.g., the Daisy ad from the Lyndon Johnson campaign) into uncharted waters. 

I want to know when conservatives will move on from taking complete sentences out of context and just splicing together words that would make Obama sound completely unhinged. 

But what is absolutely the killer for me here is that George Romney provides ample ammunition for attack ads against him almost on a daily basis, without any need for deceptive editing whatsoever.  The man is a walking gaff machine.  Oh, he certainly comes off as more sophisticated and polished than someone like Dan Quayle (p-o-t-a-t-o-e), but what comes out of his mouth is just about as nonsensical. 

And all of this is going on before the political conventions.  The next four months are going to be hell.  I am not sure how a rational, thinking human being is going to make it out of this unscathed.  

What does and does not upset Conservatives in America today.

Here’s what Conservatives find outrageous these days.

So at an Obama fundraiser headlined by the First Lady, Robert DeNiro tossed out a moderately funny joke:

“Callista Gingrich. Karen Santorum. Ann Romney. Now do you really think our country is ready for a white first lady?” De Niro asked to cheers from the crowd. “Too soon, right?”

Yes, it was a joke, you see, because in 2008, a lot of people asked if America was ready for a black president. We’ve had 43 white presidents, and 42 white first ladies, you see, and we don’t tend to think of them as belonging to any race. It’s a reminder of selective race-consciousness. I’m typing this v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y because some people don’t seem to get it.

Among the non-getters is Newt Gingrich, who has gone nuclear over the joke, and even tried to compare it to Rush Limbaugh’s sliming of Sandra Fluke:

“I do want to say one thing, both on behalf of my wife and on behalf of Karen Santorum and on behalf of Ann Romney — I think that Robert DeNiro’s wrong,” Gingrich said. “I think the country is ready for a new first lady, and he doesn’t have to describe it in racial terms.”

Gingrich went on to demand that President Obama apologize for the comments.

“What DeNiro said last night was inexcusable, and the president should apologize for him,” Gingrich said. “It was at an Obama fundraiser, it is exactly wrong, it divides the country. If people on the left want to talk about talk show hosts, then everybody in the country should hold the president accountable when someone at his event says something that is as utterly and terribly unacceptable as what Robert DeNiro said.”

Inexcusable.... Yep, that certainly is Inexcusable. But Gingrich wants an apology anyway, from the President, who had nothing to do with the joke in the first place.

And here is something that apparently doesn’t bother Conservatives at all.

Just moments before Trayvon Martin was shot and killed, he was on his cellphone talking with a 16-year-old girl. For the first time, the girl is speaking out about the last, horrifying moments of Martin's life.

"He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man," the girl told ABC News. "I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run but he said he was not going to run."

According to accounts gleaned from 911 audio recordings made the night of the killing and the teenage girl's statements, Martin eventually did run. But Zimmerman wasn't far behind, and soon the two would be face to face. Zimmerman, the self-appointed captain of the neighborhood watch, was armed with a 9mm pistol. Trayvon had little more than a bag of candy in his pocket.

"Trayvon said, 'What are you following me for?' and the man said, 'What are you doing here?' Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the headset just fell. I called him again and he didn't answer the phone."

The line went dead, according to the girl's account.

"He knew he was being followed and tried to get away from the guy, and the guy still caught up with him," Tracey Martin, Trayvon's father, told ABC. "And that's the most disturbing part: He thought he had got away from the guy, and the guy back-tracked for him."

It’s apparently fine for a white guy with a gun and a history of calling the police every time he saw a “scary black person”, essentially stalk, initiate a confrontation, and then shoot a black 17 year old kid who was armed with nothing more than a box of skittles, and then claim “self-defense” and the laws of the state of Florida are perfectly fine with this. But lord, have some liberal make a joke that has some racial component, and everyone has a grand mal seizure. But killing an unarmed kid who was walking home from the local 7-11? That’s apparently fine and dandy.

I am so sick of these fucking assholes. And I feel so sorry for the family of Trayvon Martin….

I just don’t know how these racist cretins can live with themselves.

UPDATE: Read this, from BlackSnob, for an up close and personal perspective on this outright murder of a black kid. And much as this angers me, I could never really understand it from a black person's perspective. This will give you one. Highly recommended read.

Seatle Times and Seattle P-I have a much different take on Occupy Seattle.

This is how the lead story on the web version of the Times presents the story.

Occupy protest waning; just ask hot-dog vendor

Hum. If you are hoping that the "Occupy" movement really starts to coalesce and influence the political direction in this country, "waning" is not a word you really want to hear. Synonyms for that word include, "diminishing" and "shrinking." Not really good.

And this is how the lead story on the web version (which is, unfortunately, the only version of the P-I anymore) plays the same story.

Occupy Seattle Heats Up.

Wow. The movement is really heating up. Getting hotter, bigger. That’s quite a radical difference, isn’t it, about how two news organizations play the same story.?

Personally, I would go with the Times version, because, you know, who would have their fingers on the pulse of a grass roots movement that is going global than a seller of pork products who operates from a corner stand? If the view of a political movement by a hot dog seller isn't worthy of a front page story, I certainly don't know what is.

I suppose the P-I version might be talking about how one goes about heating up your hot dogs, but I rather doubt it.

Every once in a while, the Times runs a story that just tells you what their world view is.

This is an e-mail I wrote this morning to my local TV station about the FAA shutdown.

Why can't you say it's the Republicans who have partially shut down the FAA?

I saw your lead story on the 5:00 news last night (Aug. 3). All I gathered from it was that "Congress" couldn't come to an agreement on the FAA and that the lady you interviewed was upset with "Congress" for not doing its job. None of the Washington state politicians could tell you why this happened? Come on. A 30 second Google search would tell you exactly what is going on, and that it the House of Representative, under Republican control, inserted language into the FAA funding bill that would make it much more difficult for airline and railroad workers to unionize. That is not a secret! Plus, John MIca (R, Fl) admitted that he added language about defunding the rural airport program, mostly in Democratic states, just to "get people's attention." It was the Republicans who decided to use the FAA as a hostage to get what they want, after agitation by the CEO of Delta Airlines. The Democrats asked for a clean reauthorization bill, one that would fund the FAA without strings attached and Republicans refused. This is not a secret!

Are you afraid to say that it is the Republicans yet again who are throwing a wrench into government and are putting 10's of thousands of people out of work during a time of high unemployment? Why did you just incorrectly identify "Congress" as the bad guys here? That is so wrong, and I can't believe you can't get this right. This is one of the first times I have seen your news program lead off with a real hard news story, rather than the normal stuff involving sex or car crashes or house fires. You guys are really good at floods and snow. But come on. If you are going to try to cover a major news story like the FAA shutting down (for which I work, so I have a big stake in this), try to inform your viewing audience about what is REALLY behind it all. Otherwise, you are doing a great disservice to everyone and it looks like you are frightened of the truth. Even Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Republican Senator from Texas, said that the action by John Beohner's House was "not honorable", to send to the Senate a bill with riders like that that were not negotiated and that had such a drastic consequence. And then, it was the Republicans who decided to take their August break. Not Democrats. Not "Congress." Republicans.

I really, really expected better from you. Tell the truth, why don't you?

I wish I had said more, or in stronger terms, but I thought that this might be the maximum I could get away with and actually have someone read this. It won't help, of course. I would have thought that in a liberal place like Seattle, the TV and newspapers wouldn't be so unwilling to actually identify the culprits here. KOMO 4 TV, owned by Fisher Broadcasting. Anyone in the Puget Sound area, drop them a line if you don't like this hiding of the truth.

One thing I really wish I would have said is this. Republicans have voluntarily CHOSEN to govern by threats, intimidation, coercion and hostage taking. This is their new way of operating, and they are proud of it! John McConnell said as much after the debt deal was signed. This was so successful for them that they plan on doing it the next time! He admitted it, and was proud of it. So, if that is true, then why can't the press actually REPORT this? Why hide the fact, if Republicans themselves are patting themselves on the back?

I swear, I may never vote in another political election in my life.

Yeah, yeah, I know. Giving in to defeatism. Letting the bad guys wins. Go down swinging, and all that other rot. Not that I don't believe that there is a large amount of truth in each of those statements, or that I would encourage anyone I talk with to do the same. It's just me, on a personal level. I pretty much have lost faith in a democratic government where one half apparently is insane and their overall driving force is to destroy the other half. I can live with differences of opinion on how government should operate and differing points of view on policy issues. But I can't deal with a government that is being driven more and more to the right by a MINORITY of people who don't seem to have a clue about what governing actually means. And unlimited money coming in from undisclosed corporations, many probably foreign, just has so poisoned this form of government that very little will happen that will truly be for the good of the everyday citizen. It's all about how the rich and powerful get more rich and powerful. It's a rigged game, so why bother? That is the emotional state I am in right now.

Like many other Americans, I had just great hopes when Barack Obama was elected president. That was incredible feeling. I truly believed him when he was saying "Yes, we can." But that has turned out to be yet one more hollow campaign slogan, and President Obama has turned out to be a major disappointment. Whether this is because he truly believes in all the actions he is taking or whether he is just turning into a center-right politician because he so strongly desires to be seen as the "adult in the room," I don't know. He just never seems to catch on that negotiating with lunatics who really WANT to kill the hostage and get everything they want as well, which includes making Obama look bad on every single occasion, no matter how large or how insignificant it might be, DOES NOT WORK. All we ever seem to get is "political creep," where the country seems to start in one place and then is slowly dragged and coerced to the right, and we don't even seem to realize it's happening. Eight months ago, who would have thought we would have been looking at major changes to our social safety net to try to satisfy lunatics who think that the country defaulting on its financial obligations is a good thing? Yet, we all seem to have accepted that premise now, because the only thing that seems to matter at this point is to raise the debt ceiling, so worse things don't happen. And this is just what the extreme right wing of the Republican Party planned all the time. And we went for it.

Whatever Obama's driving motivations, we are now going to end up with a disastrous bill that will make major changes to Social Security and Medicare, neither of which add to the deficit, as well as make huge cuts in spending during a huge recession when we are getting close to 10% unemployment, and the Democrats are getting almost zero in return. There will be nothing in this final agreement, whatever it ends up looking like, that one could point to and say, "Look, that is a very progressive piece of legislation." No, it will all be big steaming piles of attempts at appeasing the radical right that really, really doesn't want to negotiate, even if negotiation were to give them 100% of what they want. The fact that they negotiated in the first place would be a major defeat for them, which is insane. That cannot continue if this country is to survive.

I don't know where this is all going to end and where the country will be when the Tea Party, a full 30% of the voting population of this country, gets its way. But I do know I probably won't recognize this country. At an emotional level, all I feel I can do at this point is to position myself as best I can, which luckily isn't that bad. I have a pretty good government job that will be there when I need it, unless the Tea Party decides that the FAA should be killed entirely, along with the EPA and all other government agencies that provide oversight and regulation of industry. I am not going to be rich in retirement, but it's beginning to appear that I'll do OK.

But actively trying to fight against this insanity that's gripped this country? And that's what it is, insanity.... I don't feel I can cope. My state votes exclusively by mail, so it's pretty easy for me to actually vote, so I might just throw it out there anyway. But really, enthusiasm about re-electing President Obama? Nope, my heart's not in it.

What do you want to bet....?

If the U.S. government defaults on its payments and, as a result, Social Security checks do not get mailed out, the Republicans will try to blame Obama?

OK, that's not much of a wager. That is pretty much a given.

Incredibly, both David Brooks and Richard Cohen come to the conclusion that the Republican Party has lost its mind.

I am paraphrasing, of course. If you want to see the gist of what they both said, here is a summary from Washington Monthly.

First, Cohen:

Someone ought to study the Republican Party. I am not referring to yet another political scientist but to a mental health professional, preferably a specialist in the power of fixations, obsessions and the like. The GOP needs an intervention. It has become a cult. […]

The hallmark of a cult is to replace reason with feverish belief…. This intellectual rigidity has produced a GOP presidential field that’s a virtual political Jonestown. The Grand Old Party, so named when it really did evoke America, has so narrowed its base that it has become a political cult. It is a redoubt of certainty over reason and in itself significantly responsible for the government deficit that matters most: leadership.

Then Brooks:

If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred million dollars of revenue increases.

A normal Republican Party would seize the opportunity to put a long-term limit on the growth of government. It would seize the opportunity to put the country on a sound fiscal footing. It would seize the opportunity to do these things without putting any real crimp in economic growth.

The party is not being asked to raise marginal tax rates in a way that might pervert incentives. On the contrary, Republicans are merely being asked to close loopholes and eliminate tax expenditures that are themselves distortionary.
This, as I say, is the mother of all no-brainers.

But we can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity. That’s because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.

The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch in order to cut government by a foot, they will say no. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they will still say no.

The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities. A thousand impartial experts may tell them that a default on the debt would have calamitous effects, far worse than raising tax revenues a bit. But the members of this movement refuse to believe it.

The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency. A nation makes a sacred pledge to pay the money back when it borrows money. But the members of this movement talk blandly of default and are willing to stain their nation’s honor.

The members of this movement have no economic theory worthy of the name. Economists have identified many factors that contribute to economic growth, ranging from the productivity of the work force to the share of private savings that is available for private investment. Tax levels matter, but they are far from the only or even the most important factor.

I usually don’t read either of these columnists. Brooks sometimes makes some great points and comes across as a thinking, rational conservative. And then he spoils the moment by saying something completely insane. Cohen, well, I have no understanding about why he is thought of as a “center-left” journalist. I can’t think of much that he has written that I agreed with. I think he represents about the worst of the “beltway thinking.” But to have these two people put out columns on the same week that essentially say the same thing, that the Republican Party has lost it’s mind (yes, paraphrasing, but “Jonestown” and “cult” are pretty damning), that’s saying something.

Maybe the tide is finally turning. Maybe our press is finally going to find the backbone to stand up to the Republican Party and report on what is really going on in American politics these days.

Maybe.

Until then, I remain with a deep sense of despondency over the state of American politics. It’s like riding in a car going 90 mph with a madman at the wheel who really doesn’t care if he crashes the car or not, because he doesn’t believe in traveling by cars and if he does crash, well, that sort of “proves” his point, doesn’t it?

Update: Harsh words for Brooks from Driftglass, via Balloon Juice.

Aw, shucks. Donald Trump isn't running for president after all.

I mean, who could have seen THAT coming?

About 90% of me is very happy, as happy as I can muster for something involving politics in the United States these days. This guy is a fatuous gas bag with absolutely no sense of what a clown he has become. I hope his ratings for his "reality show" go in the tank as well. Good riddance. He was such as distraction, the media would amplify every single idiocy the guy uttered. We have better things to talk about. I used to be totally indifferent to the man but now, I detest looking at him. He owes President Obama, and the rest of the country, a big apology.

That remaining 10% of me is kind of sorry to see him leave. I would have loved to see him destroyed in an actual debate. Even some of the current Republicans running for office would have destroyed him. I always love seeing over-inflated egos punctured.

Rick Perry, like most conservatives, hates consistency if it gives him a chance to bash President Obama and the federal government.

So, you remember Rick Perry, who is the governor of Texas and not (supposedly) some nut job tea party type who firmly believes whatever gets handed to him by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh? You remember the time when he was making noises about Texas possibly seceding from the United States because he didn’t like how the federal government was getting too big or wouldn’t leave the states alone or some damn thing?

Texas Gov. Rick Perry fired up an anti-tax "tea party" Wednesday with his stance against the federal government and for states' rights as some in his U.S. flag-waving audience shouted, "Secede!"

An animated Perry told the crowd at Austin City Hall -- one of three tea parties he was attending across the state -- that officials in Washington have abandoned the country's founding principles of limited government.... Perry called his supporters patriots. Later, answering news reporters' questions, Perry suggested Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to secede from the union, though he said he sees no reason why Texas should do that.

"There's a lot of different scenarios," Perry said. "We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot."

That certainly sounds unequivocal, doesn’t it? No doubt about what he is saying there, is there? He just hates the federal government and wants it to leave the states totally alone.

Except when he doesn’t, of course. More from Washington Monthly (with an embedded link to Daily Kos.)

Now, however, Perry is whining that the "oppressive hand" isn't intervening in Texas enough.

As wildfires continue to do significant damage to the Lone Star State -- last weekend's state-sanctioned prayer days didn't do anything -- Perry wants increased federal assistance.

And when President Obama visited tornado-struck Alabama yesterday, this apparently made poor Rick Perry jealous.
"You have to ask, 'Why are you taking care of Alabama and other states?'" said Perry.

Texas officials asked the White House to make the declaration, which would have allocated federal funds to help the state deal with the crisis.

"I know our letter didn't get lost in the mail," Perry added.

Daily Kos' Jed Lewison sets the record straight.

So hundreds die in storms throughout the South and Rick Perry's response is to question why those states are getting federal aid instead of Texas? Funny how he doesn't mention that Texas has already gotten at least $39 million in firefighting aid from FEMA over the past two fire seasons and has already received 22 grants in this fire season alone.

I'm not even sure what Perry is insinuating when it comes to politics. Does the governor expect us to think Obama favors Alabama over Texas for some kind of political reason? The last time I checked, they're both very reliable "red" states.

But what makes the governor's complaints especially noteworthy is the larger context -- it's a reminder of how offensive Perry's anti-government rhetoric was in the first place. He hates federal intrusion, except when Democrats in Washington are helping him balance his budget. He wants to keep federal officials out of his state, except when he's facing a natural disaster.

For this guy's feelings to be hurt when the president visits another state hard hit by a devastating natural disaster is bizarre.

Ha. You know, I think that these morons don’t even try to keep track of what they say on a day to day basis. They just react to whatever is happening then and there, and they come up with whatever comes into their minds so they can try to bash President Obama and the Democrats. It really doesn’t matter to them that they are being ridiculous, really inconsistent and very, very hypocritical. It just doesn’t matter, so long as they can say something bad about their enemies.

Just why this is true is beyond me. If I were to be caught in some of the whoppers these characters have, I would slink away and not show my face in national media ever again. But then, I guess I have some sense of self-awareness. These buffoons don’t. What we really need in this country is an electorate and a national media who would punish people like this. They would get excoriated in the press, and they wouldn’t get votes during the next election cycle.

But getting back to Perry’s statement above, I find that amazing, even in the context of getting to bash President Obama. He is actually saying that he doesn’t like President Obama going to visit one of the states hit by the biggest natural disaster since Hurricane Katrina. He want’s Obama to come and visit TEXAS, because, as we all know, Texas is more important that any other state. If Obama doesn’t acknowledge that “fact”, well, there is obviously some problem here that needs to be addressed.

Republicans are apparently genetically incapable of not being assholes.

So, back in the days when George Bush was president, what were the rallying cries of Republicans back then, which apparently rebutted every single thing that Democrats ever said or did?

“Support Our Troops!”

“Remember 9/11!”

Ah, the good old days. Well… Those days have certainly passed, once a Democratic congress (now just Senate) and a Democratic president were elected. Republicans are under some sort of blood pact that says they must oppose every single thing that Democrats do, not matter if it is in direct opposition to the stances they took when the Republicans were in power. Every single thing. They are absolutely incapable of letting President Obama or Democrats in general being seen as having “won” something or other.

Case in point, 9/11 first responders. First, Republicans blocked providing healthcare coverage for those brave people who were the first into the scene, risking the same death that took so many of their fellow citizens. No, we can’t provide healthcare for them! That would be socialism! (Remember that little episode? It was called the Zadroga bill. The only reason it ended up passing was that Jon Stewart, on the Daily Show, went after Republicans for being such hypocrites. )

Now, some dumb cluck Republican representative stuck on some provision that requires these brave people, the ones that Republicans were so good as using as props when bashing Democrats, to undergo a security check to make sure they aren’t terrorists before they can get their benefits.

From TPM.

Medical providers will soon inform 9/11 first responders about a provision in the James Zadroga 9/11 Health And Compensation law that requires them to be run through the FBI's terrorism watch list before they can receive health care benefits.

According to a letter obtained by Michael McAuliff of the Huffington Post, Dr. John Howard, director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, is instructing health care providers to tell their patients about the provision before they can begin to receive benefits in July.

The provision was tacked on by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) during the contentious fight over the bill in December, which was blocked by Republicans at the time. Stearns' amendment adds a paragraph stipulating the "disqualification of individuals on the terrorist watch list," and requiring each potential beneficiary to be run through the list.

McAuliff reports participants "will soon be told that their names, places of birth, addresses, government ID numbers and other personal data will be provided to the FBI to ensure they are not terrorists."

This is an example of why I hold absolutely no hope of American society ever recovering from the Bush years. Republicans, along with their corporate leash-holders and their attack dog media, cannot bring themselves to do the right thing if it means being on the same side of the fence, or even somewhere near the same fence, as Democrats. Democrats, by definition, are evil and want to destroy this country, so they must be opposed at every turn. No surrender, no retreat, no hint of contrition, even when it comes to something like this. What person in their right mind is going to think that these first responders are terrorists? What sort of warped logic is that?

I was about to call this guy a toad, but that would be insulting to not just toads, but all amphibians. What a small, small person. "Vindictive" doesn't even begin to put a label on this guy. "Spiteful" and "malicious", perhaps. I have to wonder how these Republicans live with themselves. But for some reason, I have to suspect this idiot actually feels GOOD about doing this. "He! He! I really stuck it to those Democrats with that one!"

As I think I said in a previous post, the only silver lining I can see out of all of this is that Republicans may be in the process of alienating every single person in the country that isn't white, over 50 and either belongs to a country club or is very ignorant of current events and believes every single thing that Fox News and Rush Limbaugh tells them. The next election is going to be very interesting, indeed.

Update: More Republican asshole-ishness, from Michigan Messenger, via Crooks and Liars.

Funny thing, I don’t see any sign of a story about the protests in Olympia in the Sunday Seattle Times.

What’s on the front page? Oh, there’s some story about our really ugly Rock and Roll Museum. We are very proud of Jimi Hendrix and Nirvana, you know. And there’s a worthwhile story about elderly citizens hovering on the edge of poverty and homelessness, and being targeted by inhuman scammers as well.

But is there a story about this? I don’t see one.

OLYMPIA, Wash. - Thousands of union members from all over Washington poured into the state Capitol Friday, calling on lawmakers to "put people first" by ending corporate tax breaks and painful cuts to public programs.

The protest was by far the largest of four days of boisterous demonstrations in Olympia over spending cuts legislators are considering in order to help close a looming $5 billion budget deficit for the next two-year cycle.

Buses began arriving at the Capitol hours before the noon rally, carrying musicians, iron workers, firefighters and others concerned about the scarcity of jobs, the rising cost of college and the security of their pensions. The Washington State Patrol estimated 7,000 people gathered outside the main legislative building, while labor group leaders put the figure closer to 12,000.

Protesters said they hoped the demonstration would serve as a powerful reminder to lawmakers of who their decisions are affecting as they work to craft the state's next two-year budget. The House plans to vote Friday or Saturday on a budget plan that includes $4.4 billion in cuts, while the Senate will introduce its own proposal next week.

"We need to remind them that we need changes right now, not later," said Tim Haslett, an electrical worker and father of five from Seattle who has been unemployed for most of the past two years. "I'm trying to do everything I can to pay for my youngest daughter to go to college next year, but I don't know how I'm going to be able to do that if there are no jobs."

"We do not have a budget deficit," Jeff Johnson, president of the Washington State Labor Council, one of the rally's main organizers, told the crowd. "We have a social services deficit, we have a jobs deficit, we have a revenue deficit, and we have a deficit of leadership."

It’s like it’s not happening at all. Great job, Seattle Times. I really, really miss the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

Conservatives certainly have an odd view of Democracy.

When I was growing up and taking “Civics” in grade school, I seem to remember bits about freedom of speech and the right of assembly. It seems as if a Deputy Attorney General for the state of Indiana thinks that our Democracy should be run sort of like Gahafi’s Libya.

From Washington Monthly.

On Saturday night, when Mother Jones staffers tweeted a report that riot police might soon sweep demonstrators out of the Wisconsin capitol building--something that didn't end up happening--one Twitter user sent out a chilling public response: "Use live ammunition."

From my own Twitter account, I confronted the user, JCCentCom. He tweeted back that the demonstrators were "political enemies" and "thugs" who were "physically threatening legally elected officials." In response to such behavior, he said, "You're damned right I advocate deadly force." He later called me a "typical leftist," adding, "liberals hate police."

Only later did we realize that JCCentCom was a deputy attorney general for the state of Indiana.

I see. Demonstrators are “enemies” and “thugs” who should be shot.

And that’s different than Libya how, exactly? Maybe we should just have the U.S. Air Force come in and drop bombs on the demonstrators. That would show ‘em.

UPDATE: Susan of Texas has exactly the same impression. We did not compare notes. It was just a conclusion that was just WAITING to be plucked like some low-hanging fruit. It wasn't difficult to come to this conclusion, at all.

UPDATE 2: Looks like this genus got himself fired over this tweet. Amazing.

Apparently, a lot of insiders are predicting Republicans will shut down the government on March 4th.

Check this story out in the Washington Monthly.

I'm of a firm belief the government will shut down after March 4th because the House and Senate won't be able to come to a conclusion on a CR [continuing resolution]. So it isn't a question of "if" in my mind, it is a question of "how long."

It's becoming clearer and clearer everyday that Republicans in the House have no connection to reality and are willing to burn it all down. Staff have sat dumbfounded over the last few days watching the floor, which no media is reporting on, to see how disconnected Republicans are from basic math. Their CR would do practically nothing to address the debt, but it will stunt any economic recovery (which they will blame on Obama).

What I don't hear people talking about is that so many members of the House are millionaires and don't seem to care how this will affect people. I don't know how they can look their staffs in the eye, who will be royally screwed by this.

The wild card is President Obama. As we discussed last year, he has yet to prove he has a spine. I fear he will cave and give in on most if not all of the Republican demands. In that case our last defense would be a small set of Dem Senators who have yet to lose their minds. But we will see.

As that post states, the current crop of Republicans are so divorced from reality that they don't even stop to consider whether they should stop and consider whether this is actually a good thing to do. All they know is that they have power and, by God, they are going to use it. Besides, the Democrats don't want this to happen, so it MUST be a good thing, right?

I just wonder how long it will be before our news media really starts reporting about how insane these people really are.

I would certainly be affected by this. I am an employee of the federal government. I have already had my salary frozen for the next couple of years because of these yahoos. As I said before, I actually don't mind making a sacrifice if it is the common good. But all I feel is that I am subsidizing tax cut extensions for millionaires and billionaires. But for this latest bit of insanity, a government shutdown would result in a forced furlough for me. However, don't feel bad on my account! It would just amount to a paid vacation, on top of my other paid leave days I get. I couldn't do any work, even from home. I wouldn't get paid during that time. However, once the government gets back up and running again, guess what? I would get back pay for all that time I would have been forced to take! Paid vacation, courtesy of John Boehner!

However, I think my case is the exception. Vendors who work with the government wouldn't get paid. Contractors who essentially work for the government but aren't direct employees wouldn't get paid. The last time this happened, back in the Newt Gingrich days, many of those people were forced to go out and find temp jobs to pay the bills. And that isn't to mention all the people who receive social security checks from the government. I am wondering what is going to happen to all those nice TSA people at the airports who pat you down or take x-ray pictures of you through your clothes. Are there enough private firms to jump in there and take up the slack? Would that even be allowed? How about things like Air Traffic Control? Would our military personnel, many of them stationed overseas with their families living paycheck to paycheck, get paid? Would the VA Hospital have to stop taking new patients or scheduling surgeries? I have no clue.

The thing is, neither do these nutcases who now are in the majority in the House of Representatives. They have many elder statesmen in their own party telling that this isn't a wise move in the least, and they don't care! They have the power and they are going to use it! I am Tea Party! Hear me roar!!

It occurs to me that this is pretty extraordinary.

But somehow, I bet it won’t be covered much in the MSM.

From Think Progress.

Former President George W. Bush canceled a February 12 visit to a Jewish charity gala in Switzerland, reportedly out of fears that legal action would be taken against him for his role in authorizing torture. Human rights groups, including Human Rights Watch, the International Federation of Human Rights, and Center for Constitutional Rights, said they had intended to submit a 2,500-page case against Bush in Geneva “on behalf of two of men, Majid Khan, who remains at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and Sami al-Hajj, a former Al Jazeera cameraman who was released in May 2008.”

The Jewish charity group, United Israel Appeal, said it was canceling Bush’s invitation on security grounds, not due to legal action. “The calls to demonstrate were sliding into dangerous terrain,” Robert Equey, a lawyer for the organization, said. Protesters urged attendees of the rally to bring a shoe, recalling the moment when an Iraqi journalist threw one at Bush.
The human rights groups had a different interpretation. “Whatever Bush or his hosts say, we have no doubt he canceled his trip to avoid our case,” the Center for Constitutional Rights and others said in a statement. “He’s avoiding the handcuffs,” Reed Brody, counsel for Human Rights Watch, told Reuters.

Oh, sure. There is a bunch of chaff throwing and excuses being made to make it just possible that this isn’t the reason that George W. Bush, who admitted to war crimes, isn’t making this trip. But I wouldn’t put much money on it.

How extraordinary is this? Very, I would say. This would put George Bush in the same category as, say, Augusto Pinochet or Jean Bertrand Aristide.

I am of the opinion that it will take a very long time for the country as a whole to come to grips just what was done in the eight years that George Bush was president. If we aren’t rewriting history or pretending unpleasant things didn’t really occur that undermined who we are as a nation, then we seem to be trying to convince ourselves these things really were for the “protection of the country.”

Self-reflection isn’t a strong suit for us right now.

Thoughts on Jon Stewart’s “Rally to Restore Sanity.”

It was a great cause, even though Stewart couldn’t define the reason everyone showed up. It was just an attempt at an antidote at all the ridiculous BS that has been out there, but I really do think that Stewart did take Glenn Beck’s rally as a bit of the last straw.

The comedy was mostly tame or not all that funny. I found the “benediction” by Father Guido Sarducci pretty amusing, where he was asking God for a sign when, during a bit of a “roll call” of religions, he happened upon the right one. The music wasn’t much to my taste, I guess, but that was to be expected. At 55 years old, my tastes are not quite mainstream these days. I didn’t much care for the interruption of Yousef’s/Cat Steven’s song, Peace Train, by a Colbert running joke and bringing in Ozzie Osbourne. I mean, the concept was funny, but I would have rather heard the song. Colbert’s poem, read by Sam Waterston, was pretty damn funny.

But all of that isn’t what I was going to comment on. Stewart, when he was getting to the point of the rally, to “restore sanity” used video clips of people saying some pretty extreme things on both sides of the political spectrum, with a generous helping of mainstream media stupidity (e.g., CNN) to illustrate how out of whack our national discourse has become. I agree with all that. I am not pleased when someone on the left goes and says something that I actually might agree with, but they do it in a way that is bound to be incendiary. Joy Behar really had no reason to say that Christine O’Donnell was going to Hell. Jeez. Walking off the set of The View is fine when you are protesting something that Bill O’Reilly said, but then don’t go on and stay something incredibly stupid yourself! That’s just dumb. Keith Olbermann, even though I agree with most of what he talks about, can be just as bad. If you don’t want to look as bad as the people you are criticizing, don’t say inflammatory things. You can phrase things in a different way and make the same point. When you take the flamethrower approach, all you are going to do is make the other side accuse you of the same tactics that you are accusing them of.

So, I get Stewart’s point. Everyone needs to take it down several notches. Only Hitler was Hitler. No matter how much you disagree with the other guy on specifics, they are not “actively trying to destroy the United States.” So, fine. I got that point, and mostly agree.

But when conservatives and Republicans have constantly been accusing liberals and Democrats of everything from supporting terrorism to socialism to treason, with a huge dose of personal insult as they can dreg up, then after about 25 years, it gets to be too much to take. When conservatives have an entire “news” organization including a 24 hour, 7 day a week television channel devoted exclusively to tearing down anyone that doesn’t totally agree with them, then human nature starts to take over. As I have said at this blog before, eventually Ralphie fights back against the bully that has been terrorizing him all these years. (That’s a Christmas Story reference, if you didn’t get it.)

I thought some of the clips from MSNBC that Stewart used yesterday were taken a bit out of context and were not on the same level as the ones that he used from Fox News. I am really glad he didn’t use any clips from Rachael Maddow, as I see her as a genuine sane voice in the wilderness. Yes, MSNBC’s, The Ed Show is very much over the top and should be toned down. But for everyone of those examples you find on the left of the political spectrum, you can probably find 10 to 20 examples on the right.

So, sure. Let’s tone it down, people. Take a deep breath before you say something you know can be used as ammunition against you. But disarmament takes participation by both sides. If one side isn’t going to put down their weapons (not talking about real guns, just following along with the disarmament analogy), then you really can’t expect the other side to say, O.K., keep hitting us with your best shot. We are going to continue to sit here and take it. That’s a very unreasonable expectation.

So, thanks, Jon Stewart. That was a very good effort and may ultimately have some effect. But truly, I doubt it. The country is too far gone. The only thing that I believe will restore some sanity to our political discourse is if something very big happens to cause that correction. We can’t expect people to just agree to be more reasonable on their own. Humans don’t work like that and there is too much money and political force being exerted behind the scenes to allow that to happen.

I think some sort of blow up is going to happen. Or maybe, blow out is a more appropriate comparison. The worn out old tire has been pumped up with too much air pressure and there are danger signs all over. A blow out, at this point, may be inevitable. Hopefully, it is a small one that relieves the pressure. At that point, perhaps we can repair the blow out and then pump things carefully up back to the point of good, sustainable pressure without going overboard.

That’s about my only hope at this point. But Jon, if I may call you by your first name, I certainly applaud you and all the people who were on the National Mall yesterday for trying. Great job.

Photos from Huffington Post. I'm sure they won't mind.

“Crazy” [krey-zee], adj.- Insisting you never said something that there is a You Tube of you saying.

Via Digby:

A new video today catches Rand Paul repeatedly supporting a $2,000 Medicare deductible on Kentucky seniors – despite his claims just last week that such a statement was a “lie.”

Jesus.

One trait that our current crop of politicians seem to share (and this is almost always conservatives, but I have seen where liberals fall into the same trap) is that they just say the first thing that comes into their head that they believe the “here and now” audience wants to hear or that they blurt whatever comes out of their mouths that they will think will get them off the hook. It’s amazing how many instances we have in recent months about politicians flatly contradicting themselves! They have been caught in an obvious, flat-out lie, and they don’t seem to care. And it never seems to bother their hardcore supporters, either.

I find this amazing about our society. Being caught in a lie doesn’t matter anymore. Digby is right. In a sane world, this would have immediately ended Paul’s run for office. But it won’t. The hardcore right, which is mostly made of up of older, scared white people, it seems, but they apparently haven't noticed that Rand Paul is talking about them! He is talking about making their Medicare deductible into an amount that most people on retirement pensions cannot afford. Maybe they think that they won’t be around when this kicks in, so if Paul gets his way, so it doesn’t matter to them. It will be someone else’s problem. Pretty heartless, if that is what they are doing. But I suspect it is something else. They just aren’t thinking, period. Rand Paul hates big government, is against liberals, and therefore, he is “one of them.” End of story.

Picture from Very Demotivational.

There’s nothing like hyping a totally imaginary threat to get people worked up right before an election.

This approach has been the staple of the Republican Party for quite a while now. But it seems to me that, for such an approach to really work well, your “threat” that you are pumping, the one that only Republicans can save the country from, should at least have a hint of plausibility to it. Otherwise, it would seem that people would either ignore you or laugh at you.

This one from Newt Gingrich (from Washington Monthly) really takes the cake, it is so jaw droppingly stupid.

[P]erhaps the former House Speaker's loudest applause [at the Values Voter Summit] came when he weighed in on the controversial Islamic center and Mosque proposed to be built near Ground Zero, declaring, "We as Americans don't have to tolerate people who are supportive of violence against us, building something at the site of the violence."

"This is not about religious liberty, if they want to build that mosque in the South Bronx, frankly they need the jobs," he continued. "But I am totally opposed to any effort to impose Sharia on the United States, and we should have a federal law that says under no circumstance, in any jurisdiction in the United States, will Sharia be used in any court to apply to any judgment made about American law."

I won’t even go into the extreme effort being made by the wingnuts of this country to equate Islam with the crazy people who carried out the attacks on the World Trade Centers. That’s ridiculous. I could just as easily equate Christianity with Timothy McVie’s attack on the government building in Oklahoma City. Same thing, right?

But that’s not the point here. Gingrich, after setting up the table with a totally false equivalency, then makes an even more ridiculous jump to building a “mosque” (which it isn’t) to trying to impose Sharia Law on the United States. This is such a threat, in Gingrich’s mind, that he thinks we should have a federal law to prevent such an imposition of law based in religion.

My first response was, what the hell is he talking about? Is this a threat? Is anyone saying this at all? But then, don’t all our laws already have something like that as their basis? We have the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Federal Code of Regulations, we have more laws than we can shake a stick at. They are all written down and cannot be just brushed aside, no matter what anyone would like to try to replace them with. They must be amended, each in their own particular way. Does Newt actually believe that some federal judge or something is, all of a sudden, going to just make a ruling and impose a system of law based on the Islamic religion on the United States? Does he really think it is that easy? He must, because he apparently thinks we need a new federal law to make sure that doesn’t happen.

I can’t believe this person was actually the Speaker of the House. Either he has absolutely no idea how the federal government actually works (which, I suppose, may be possible) or else he has decided that he is going to cynically try to hype up a non-existent threat to try to get the right wing base voters so scared of Muslims they are almost ready to crap in their pants. I just find this so pathetic and immoral. Gingrich knows that this isn't even a remote possibility, and yet, there he is, in the national press, saying this kind of disgusting crap.

Why is this man still considered a credible politician? A national press with any sort of self-respect would have called bullshit on this guy long ago. Yet, he continues to show up on television and hold press conferences where his insane ramblings are duly copied down by a willing press.

But I think the thing I am most disappointed in is that many of the people in this country actually believe this disgusting crap. A very large percentage of this country are perfectly willing to let themselves get manipulated and stampeded by very cynical and crass politicians. This country has willingly given up our ability to work in the realm of facts and logic. The United States is becoming the ultimate Skinner Box. Push a button, watch the freakout.

(Sorry for the light posting of late. I have been on a couple of business trips, back to back, and it took me some time to get prepared for them. I'll try to do better in the future.)

I am pretty much to the point.....

I think that we should just go ahead and give these stupid, hateful assholes the keys to the government and get it over with. Then, one of two things would happen. The first would be that the rest of the country would realize how crazy these hateful assholes really are and the adults would grab the reins of power back and never again let any of them anywhere a job of power, not even dogcatcher.

The other possibility would be that the United States of America would turn into a third world theocratic police state (with a huge military and nuclear weapons) where only white, rich people matter. Yeah, that isn't a very nice future, but crap, that's where a lot of the country wants us to go, so let's just get it over with. Then the rest of the world can ignore us or maybe even invade us when we start indiscriminately dropping bombs on countries we don't like. Mexicans would quite coming here looking for work, because there wouldn't be any. Our entire media would resemble Fox News and the rest of television would be "reality" shows where white assholes try to stab other white assholes in the back while trying to win lots of money by showing anyone watching what assholes they really are. Maybe the rest of us would then really pick up and move to Canada, Australia, Ireland or whatever country would put up with someone who hails from a country run by rich, white assholes with nuclear bombs.

I think we should elect Newt Gingrich president and get it all over with. He would probably have a job for Sarah Palin, maybe Minister of Propaganda. Everyone that hasn't left the country or is in jail or camps could have all sorts of fun tweeting each other about how patriotic they all are.

Bitter? Cynical? Me? Pffftt....

Whatever happened to.....?

I am introducing a new featurette here at Barking Rabbits, which may or may not go past this first entry. It's called "Whatever happened to...?" and you might be able to guess from the lead-in what it might be about.

Whatever happened to the time when public figures were caught, by indisputable evidence, contradicting themselves in public, and then that figure at least felt guilty enough or embarrassed enough to try to apologize, or explain, or maybe just go away for a while? Now, all that happens is that the contradiction is ignored by most everyone and it is quickly forgotten. If the guilty discusses it at all, it seems to always be in the form of blaming someone else for not understanding or being too sensitive.