Multi Medium

Palintology

What more appropriate publication to write about Sarah Palin than Vanity Fair?  Michael Joseph Gross has a long but amazing profile of Herself in the latest issue.  Adjectives that come to mind include: thin-skinned, vindictive, secretive, manipulative, callous, angry, selfish, greedy, and phony.  There’s also some interesting nuggets about her nasty sockpuppety supporters and use of suspiciously ephemeral shell PACs to launder her speaking fees.

And then there’s this:

There’s a general consensus in town that, at least since the start of the 2008 campaign, Todd has been shouldering the bulk of the parenting and that Sarah’s relationship with her children has grown more distant. The children did not, as Sarah has claimed, have a chance to weigh in on her decision to run for vice president. She did not even deliver the news to them personally; as has been reported, she asked McCain’s campaign manager, Steve Schmidt, to do it for her. Todd reportedly told Sarah that, if the children spent too much time on the campaign trail, they would pay a price: grades would tumble and discipline would fall apart. When she agreed to serve as McCain’s running mate, one of her children was already failing in school, according to campaign aides. But Sarah, these aides say, seemed comforted by having the children around, and she seemed lonely when they were gone. An aide overheard conversations between Sarah and Todd in which Sarah tried to make a self-serving argument sound selfless, holding that the campaign was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, one that she could not deny the children. “I don’t care what it costs,” she said. “I want them here.” Although the couple hired a nanny to help the children with their homework, little homework got done.

On the road, aides say, Sarah spared the rod. When one child refused to sign autographs unless she was provided with pink or purple Sharpies that had been custom-printed with her name, the staff tried to argue that black Sharpies—the only kind they had—would do just fine. But Sarah ordered them to do what the child said, and personalized pink and purple markers were produced. Another time, when one daughter wanted to have her hair and makeup done by Palin’s campaign stylists (the children’s grooming was not part of their job), Palin’s initial response seemed like an old-fashioned lesson in manners. According to an aide, Palin told the daughter that, since she was seeking a favor from the stylists, she should ask them nicely herself and see what they said. When the stylists apologetically told the girl they didn’t have time that day, Palin, incensed, sent the child back to give them a message: “Tell them they don’t have a choice. They have to do it.” And so they did.  Despite railing at the press for invading her family’s privacy, Palin showed little ambivalence during the campaign about making some aspects of the childrens’ private lives public to serve her interests. Soon after her nomination, she brought up with McCain aides the subject of Bristol’s out-of-wedlock pregnancy by Levi Johnston: “Would it be good for the campaign if they got married before the election?” she asked, and went on to wonder whether one weekend or another would be more advantageous for media coverage.

Enjoy!

Add comment September 1st, 2010 at 07:45am Posted by Eli

Washington Post Calls 85% Of America “Denialists”

Well isn’t this special…

The current focus of the Social Security denialists’ ire is President Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, which they view as a stalking horse for gutting Social Security. A new group, the Strengthen Social Security Coalition, which includes the AFL-CIO, the NAACP and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, asserts that the president’s two choices to chair the panel, Democrat Erskine Bowles and Republican Alan Simpson, “sent a clear message. Social Security is on the chopping block.” The groups’ list of what changes are unacceptable is longer than what it would consider: no increase in retirement age; no reduction in benefits; no “means testing.” Rather, they say, the adjustments should come from the revenue side. Though the possibilities are not specified, they include raising the payroll tax rate, raising the ceiling for income on which benefits are paid or finding a new revenue source, such as the estate tax or a new financial transactions tax.

We would prefer a more balanced solution, one that relies on a combination of revenue increases and benefit adjustments. On the revenue side, it’s essential that the funding source come from within the Social Security system itself. The coalition is correct that Social Security should not be used to deal with deficit problems outside the program, but the converse is also true: Getting Social Security on a sustainable footing should not add to the deficit. Raising the payroll tax ceiling to cover the same share of wages that it did in 1983 would make sense, but that would only solve about one-third of the long-term problem. Some adjustments on the benefits side, particularly making benefits less generous for the highest-income recipients, would also make sense.

…Or the payroll tax ceiling could simply be removed, which as I understand it would fix 100% of the problem.  Funny how “benefit adjustments” seems like a perfectly acceptable idea but removing the cap doesn’t.

But if the WaPo wants to call us denialists, we’re in good company:

Social Security turns 75 this week and remains an intensely popular program with voters of all ages, who strongly oppose cutting it to reduce the deficit, according to a new survey paid for by AARP and conducted by GfK Roper.

The poll, which was provided exclusively to HuffPost, finds that 85 percent of adults oppose cutting Social Security to reduce the deficit; 72 percent “strongly oppose” doing so.

Too bad there just doesn’t seem to be any political will for doing what a mere 85% of the country wants.

2 comments August 12th, 2010 at 11:39am Posted by Eli

Won’t Someone Think Of The Oil Companies?

Shorter Jonah Goldberg: The offshore drilling ban is the real tragedy of the Gulf.

No, really.  Because he has cheerfully embraced Michael Grunwald’s happy propaganda story about how the oil is all dissolving and everything’s going to be fine and the environmental impact isn’t really a big deal at all (um, right).  He also appears to embrace Grunwald’s assumption that any dead animal carcasses that are not obviously covered with oil must therefore have died of natural causes.  Either that or he’s incredibly dishonest, but surely that can’t be true, right?

Some birds were oiled and died, always a sad sight. But according to Time magazine, the number of birds killed is — so far — less than 1 percent of the avian casualties of the Exxon Valdez. And to date, only three oiled mammal carcasses have been recovered. Three.

Wow, three sure is a small number, isn’t it?  Maybe there isn’t anything to worry about after all!

But if you look at the actual report (PDF) from the Deepwater Horizon Response site (which probably has best-case numbers, and of course doesn’t count dead animals that weren’t recovered), you see that while there were only three oiled mammal carcasses, there were 64 overall. Still not a huge number, but bigger than Jonah’s carefully-parsed figure by a factor of 21.  And mammals are the smallest of the categories encompassed by the report.  There are 504 dead sea turtles, and 3455 dead birds (but that’s nowhere near the number of birds killed by the Exxon Valdez spill, so that’s okay).  But no count of the number of dead fish, or shrimp, or oysters, much less damage to coral reefs and other deep-sea habitats, or even the number of Gulf residents and cleanup workers sickened by dispersants or oil fumes or tainted seafood.

But hey, we only found three dead mammals with oil on them, so that proves that this is just those crazy tree-hugging liberals getting hysterical again and trying to take away everyone’s jobs!  I’m surprised Jonah didn’t cite the lack of seal, otter and walrus casualties as proof that BP’s environmental response plan is working perfectly.

Add comment August 3rd, 2010 at 08:18pm Posted by Eli

Someone Hasn’t Been Paying Attention…

CNBC’s Diana Olick on the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America (NACA)’s decision to protest Obama’s disastrous Making Homes Affordable plan and demand real help for homeowners:

What’s so interesting about this event is that I’m guessing the bulk of the protestors are overall Obama supporters. The majority of NACA employees and volunteers are minorities and largely Democrats. Bruce Marks says he voted for Obama and supported him. This will be the first large-scale, organized protest of the Administration’s housing bailout, and given who is protesting, it will be hard for the President to ignore.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!  Because if there’s one thing Obama’s been completely unable to ignore, it’s progressive organizations that advocate for people who aren’t millionaires.

Worst. Community. Organizer. Ever.

1 comment July 30th, 2010 at 07:14am Posted by Eli

Great Moments In Journalism

The New Republic hires a right-wing liar as their new fact-checker, apparently out of fear that their stories may contain too many facts.

You guys do know that no matter how much you try to distance yourselves from reality, conservatives will still accuse you of liberal bias, right?

Add comment July 10th, 2010 at 06:09pm Posted by Eli

Trendspotter Of The Day

Prince has spoken:

In an interview with London’s Daily Mirror, the notoriously provocative rock star, 52, dismissed using the Web to release his upcoming record, “20Ten.”

“The Internet’s completely over,” Prince told the Mirror. “[It's] like MTV. At one time MTV was hip and suddenly it became outdated.”

The ”Purple Rain” rocker is putting his money where his mouth is. Rather than use contemporary outlets like iTunes to release his new material, Prince is going an unconventional route: “20Ten” will be released abroad as a free giveaway in certain newspapers around Europe.

(…)

The singer has also blasted the intellectual value of the ‘Net.

“All these computers and digital gadgets are no good,” said the singer, who also shut down his official website. “They just fill your head with numbers and that can’t be good for you.”

That’s right, the internet is sooo 2009 – newspapers are the hip new hotness.  Also, all the ones and zeroes inside your iPod can leak into your brain and contaminate it with math (says the man who titled his latest album “20Ten”).

I know who I’m not going to be asking for stock tips…

Add comment July 7th, 2010 at 11:32am Posted by Eli

Wanker Of The Day

Shorter Bobo Brooks: Stimulus bad, austerity good.  Demand-side economists smart, but stupid.

I will give him credit for advocating for extending unemployment insurance and giving the states help, but overall he sounds a lot like a global warming denier the day after a blizzard.

Dean Baker takes him apart here.

Add comment July 6th, 2010 at 11:34am Posted by Eli

Conservative Hypocrisy? No One Could Have Anticipated…

This is great.  Nitpicker collects a whole bunch of National Review quotes full of outrage against MoveOn for comparing Bush to Hitler (and by MoveOn, of course we mean a couple of anonymous make-your-own-campaign-ad contestants whose entries were taken down as soon as MoveOn became aware of them).  My personal favorite is by the guy who wrote that book about how liberals are just like Hitler:

…in polite and supposedly sophisticated circles in America today it is acceptable to say George Bush is akin to a Nazi and that America is becoming Nazi-like. Indeed, in certain corners of the globe to disagree with this assertion is the more outlandish position than to agree with it.

[...]

I don’t say this because I feel a passionate need to defend George Bush. I would make the exact same points if Al Gore were president. I would make the exact same points if anybody running for the Democratic nomination were president. This has nothing to do with partisanship. It has to do with the fact that such comparisons are slanderous to the United States and historical truth and amount to Holocaust denial. When you say that anything George Bush has done is akin to what Hitler did, you make the Holocaust into nothing more than an example of partisan excess.

That’s awesome.  As Nitpicker points out not only has Jonah not “[made] the exact same points” now that his fellow conservatives are comparing Obama to Hitler, but he wrote an entire book that does exactly what he claims to find so nonpartisanly despicable.  I can’t wait to see Jonah’s incoherent and snotty rationalization of his epic hypocrisy, but I probably never will.

2 comments June 24th, 2010 at 11:33am Posted by Eli

Won’t-Do America

Bob Herbert has a great column in yesterday’s NYT about how the U.S. has let greatness slip away, mishandling crisis after crisis and allowing their opportunities go to waste.  But I think his perspective is a little skewed:

As a nation, we are becoming more and more accustomed to a sense of helplessness. We no longer rise to the great challenges before us. It’s not just that we can’t plug the oil leak, which is the perfect metaphor for what we’ve become. We can’t seem to do much of anything.

(…)

We are submitting to this debacle with the same pathetic lack of creativity and helpless mind-set that now seems to be the default position of Americans in the 21st century. We have become a nation that is good at destroying things — with wars overseas and mind-bogglingly self-destructive policies here at home — but that has lost sight of how to build and maintain a flourishing society. We’re dismantling our public school system and, incredibly, attacking our spectacularly successful system of higher education, which is the finest in the world.

How is it possible that we would let this happen?

We’ve got all kinds of sorry explanations for why we can’t do any of the things we need to do. The Democrats can’t get 60 votes in the Senate. Our budget deficits are too high. Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck might object.

Meanwhile, the greatness of the United States, which so many have taken for granted for so long, is steadily slipping away.

It’s not that we can’t fix anything, that we’ve become too collectively stupid to figure out solutions to problems, it’s that we won’t fix anything.  Our political system has become so corrupt that concern for protecting the well-being of corporations and the wealthy now trumps all other considerations.  Remove that constraint, and a whole realm of possibilities and solutions opens up.  But as long as we’re stuck with it, we will continue to muddle through with half-assed band-aids that don’t work because they were designed by the very industries whose recklessness and criminality made them necessary.

Add comment June 23rd, 2010 at 07:25am Posted by Eli

Great Moments In Up-Is-Downism

Chris Matthews compares Blanche Lincoln to Norma Rae:

What gave me hope last night was that we saw voters don’t like to be pushed around any more than I do. A lot of labor money went into the Arkansas Senate primary. It produced a lot of drama – stand-alone, who’s-side-are-you-on drama – and a real hero. Women celebrated in the pro-labor film “Norma Rae;” the irony is that the heroine, the Norma Rae, last night in Little Rock was the Democratic senator who labor tried to beat. Norma Rae’s name in this picture is Blanche Lincoln.

That’s right: Blanche Lincoln is a scrappy populist pro-worker underdog who took on Bill Halter’s mighty union-hating labor juggernaut, with no one at her side but Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, the Chamber Of Commerce, and the entire Democratic establishment.  Truly this is an upset for the ages.

Add comment June 10th, 2010 at 08:16am Posted by Eli

Wanker Of The Day

This is truly ridiculous dreck, even for Jonah Goldberg:

“Joe Biden”: With the exception of “broken teleprompter” these are the scariest two words in the White House communications shop.

A teleprompter joke?  Seriously?  This is still what passes for wit in the George W. Bush/Sarah Palin Articulous Speakitude And Hand Writing Party?

It would be one thing if all Biden did was offer the occasional Washington gaffe (i.e., accidentally telling the truth), or if he merely talked as if he learned history from Monty Python skits (as when he claimed that FDR went on TV to reassure Americans after the 1929 stock market crash. FDR wasn’t President. No one had TV). But that’s not how he rolls.

Last month, Biden spoke to the European Parliament in Brussels. “As you probably know, some American politicians and American journalists refer to Washington, D.C., as the ‘capital of the free world.’ But it seems to me that this great city, which boasts 1,000 years of history and which serves as the capital of Belgium, the home of the European Union and the headquarters for NATO, this city has its own legitimate claim to that title.”

Okay, so at this point I’m assuming that Jonah’s going to explain how Brussels is not 1,000 years old, is not the capital of Belgium, is not the home of the EU, and not NATO HQ,especially with this lead-in:

Still, I’d give him a pass, too, if this was crazy Joe talking. We’d all just roll our eyes if he came in there reciting Irish limericks in Klingon and claiming that we can switch from fossil fuels to Grape Nuts cereal.

Hahaha!  It’s funny ‘cuz that is totally stuff Joe Biden would say!

And now here is Jonah’s actual expert “dismantling” of Biden’s Horrible Ridiculous Gaffe:

Let’s look at Biden’s case for Brussels as Freedom Command Alpha. It’s 1,000 years old! OK. But for most (all) of that time Brussels was hardly synonymous with “freedom.” Beijing is twice as old as Brussels, Cairo older still. Does that burnish their liberty-loving street cred?

Aha, but Biden adds that Brussels is the capital of Belgium! While I’m sure that’s a huge matter of pride in high school ping-pong competitions against Antwerp, does anyone else care?

It’s true that Brussels is the headquarters for NATO, but NATO takes its orders from a different capital — Washington, D.C.

Then there’s the fact that the EU has set up shop in Brussels. Surely this was really Biden’s only point. He was telling the unaccountable Lilliputians of the EUrocracy that Gulliver sees them as equals now.

In other words, his rebuttal is not that anything Biden says was untrue, but rather that he, Jonah, simply doesn’t care.  Really, is that seriously the best he can do?  He couldn’t write something about how gargantuan oil spills are good for our health, or how the Gaza flotilla was actually a deadly invasion fleet come to wipe Israel off the map in a firestorm of nuclear death?  Very, very disappointing, even for Jonah.

Add comment June 1st, 2010 at 04:01pm Posted by Eli

Great Moments In Irony

I really can’t add anything to this…

Glenn Beck, of all people, is attacking poor people who are losing their homes for having the gall to protest against the bankers.

Remember, Beck is the same guy who has been cheering the tea partiers on, urging anti-Obama forces to protest vehemently and loudly every single chance they get. But when people who are losing their homes after getting mistreated by Bank of America dare to protest, he gets all squeamish. Suddenly, they become dangerous “mobs” threatening children.

Beck and his banker buddies sure do have glass jaws. There was no violence at this protest, no threats of violence, no hint of it: just a bunch of folks protesting bankers who have destroyed millions of jobs and cost millions of people their homes by their recklessness.

Obnoxious, racist, gun-packing teabaggers protesting against Obama = Concerned Patriots.

Foreclosure victims protesting against the banks taking away their homes = Dangerous Mobs.

Add comment May 22nd, 2010 at 02:00pm Posted by Eli

Equality Minute With Rand Paul

Wow, I sure have learned many fascinating things about Rand Paul, racism and the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the past 24 hours.  Let’s start with his post-primary victory lap, which is apparently the perfect time to start disparaging one of the most important bills of the 20th century:

SIEGEL: You’ve said that business should have the right to refuse service to anyone, and that the Americans with Disabilities Act, the ADA, was an overreach by the federal government. Would you say the same by extension of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Dr. PAUL: What I’ve always said is that I’m opposed to institutional racism, and I would’ve, had I’ve been alive at the time, I think, had the courage to march with Martin Luther King to overturn institutional racism, and I see no place in our society for institutional racism.

(…)

SIEGEL: But it’s been one of the major developments in American history in the course of your life. I mean, do you think the ‘64 Civil Rights Act or the ADA for that matter were just overreaches and that business shouldn’t be bothered by people with the basis in law to sue them for redress?

Dr. PAUL: Right. I think a lot of things could be handled locally. For example, I think that we should try to do everything we can to allow for people with disabilities and handicaps. You know, we do it in our office with wheelchair ramps and things like that. I think if you have a two-story office and you hire someone who’s handicapped, it might be reasonable to let him have an office on the first floor rather than the government saying you have to have a $100,000 elevator. And I think when you get to the solutions like that, the more local the better, and the more common sense the decisions are, rather than having a federal government make those decisions.

In other words, Rand Paul believes that institutional (but only institutional?) racism is a Terrible Horrible Very Bad Thing… that should be legal.  And the Civil Rights Act and the ADA are government overreach because racism and ableism can be solved with a little locally applied common sense.

But wait, there’s more!

Rand Paul lashed out at the “loony left” for pressing him on his view of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in an interview with Laura Ingraham this morning.

“I’ve never really favored any change in the Civil Rights Act,” he said. “They seem to have unleashed some of the loony left on me.”

Paul called the Civil Rights Act “settled” but suggested he does view federal regulation of private business on matters of racial discrimination as fundamentally unconstitutional.

So Rand Paul thinks the Civil Rights Act is fundamentally unconstitutional but is willing to let it slide because it’s settled law, and anyone who thinks this is disturbing must be part of the “loony left”?  Perhaps an official statement would help clear this up…

“I believe we should work to end all racism in American society and staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person.  I have clearly stated in prior interviews that I abhor racial discrimination and would have worked to end segregation… I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

“Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws.”

“As I have said in previous statements, sections of the Civil Rights Act were debated on Constitutional grounds when the legislation was passed. Those issues have been settled by federal courts in the intervening years.”

(…)

“This much is clear:  The federal government has far overreached in its power grabs. Just look at the recent national healthcare schemes, which my opponent supports.   The federal government, for the first time ever, is mandating that individuals purchase a product.   The federal government is out of control, and those who love liberty and value individual and state’s rights must stand up to it.”

Okay, so:  Rand Paul won’t support repeal of the Civil Rights Act, which is not the same as saying he would have actually voted for it.  His support for it is limited to “stop[ping] discrimination in the public sphere,” so he still thinks it’s wrong to tell private businesses they can’t discriminate.  He points out that there was debate over whether the Act was even constitutional.  And then he finishes up by invoking the specter of overreachy government “power grabs.”

On the other hand, Paul does insist that he wants to work to end racism… just so long as the government doesn’t have anything to do with it.  Of course, his anti-racist fervor would probably be a lot more believable if he hadn’t hired a full-blown, balls-out racist asshole to be his campaign spokesman.  Paul fired him immediately after he was outed, but I’m kind of amazed that a guy that racist could have kept it under wraps so successfully that his boss never noticed until he got his nose rubbed in it.

Add comment May 20th, 2010 at 08:28pm Posted by Eli

Profiles In Courage

Glennzilla points out the most disturbing aspect of Politico’s Waaah-Obama’s-mean-to-us story:

Many of the grievances are petty, though some are serious and substantive (involving lack of transparency and media manipulation), but the passage that I found most revealing is this one:

Much of the criticism is off the record, both out of fear of retaliation and from worry about appearing whiny. But those views were voiced by a cross section of the television, newspaper and magazine journalists who cover the White House.

Just think about that for a minute.  National political reporters are furious over various White House practices involving transparency and information control, but are unwilling  to say so for attribution due to fear of “retaliation,” instead insisting on hiding behind a wall of anonymity (which Politico, needless to say, happily provides).  Isn’t that a rather serious problem:  that the White House press corps is afraid to criticize the President and the White House for fear of losing access and suffering other forms of retribution?  What does that say about their “journalism”?  It’s the flip side of those White House reporters who need the good graces of Obama aides for their behind-the-scenes books and thus desperately do their bidding:  what kind of reporter covering the White House would possibly admit that they’re afraid to say anything with their names attached that might anger the President and his aides?  How could you possibly be a minimally credible White House reporter if you have that fear?  Doesn’t that unwillingness rather obviously render their reporting worthless?

Gee, it almost calls into question the quality of the reporting about the Bush administration too.

I also found it quite remarkable that a story about vindictive “aides” blistering reporters with profanity-laced tirades doesn’t mention Rahm Emanuel by name, and only alludes to him once, when it claims that Obama’s chief of staff is easier to reach than his press secretary (which, quite frankly, doesn’t seem all that surprising).

Add comment April 30th, 2010 at 11:38am Posted by Eli

Goldman Analogy Fail

Fareed Zakaria doesn’t see what the big deal is about Goldman’s derivatives deal with John Paulson:

Imagine that you want to make a bet against a sports team, say the New York Yankees. The Yankees have had a strong run, but, poring over the data, you have come to the conclusion that they’re going to start losing. So you go to a bookmaker (in a district where bookmaking is legal, of course) to place a bet. The bookmaker now looks for someone to take the other side of this bet. Once the other party is found, the deal is made. That, in essence, is the transaction that took place in 2007 regarding the future direction of the American residential-housing market, in which Goldman Sachs acted as the bookie, and which the Securities and Exchange Commission now charges was “fraud.”

Sure, absolutely.  It was exactly like two guys placing a bet on Yankees… where the guy betting against them got to hand-pick their roster and fill it with stiffs.  Nothing dodgy about that, nosiree!

Add comment April 27th, 2010 at 07:22am Posted by Eli

NOOOO THEY BE TAKING MY UNICORNS

The right-wing hysteria over Obama coming to take their guns away reminds me an awful lot of their hysteria over Obama reviving the Fairness Doctrine to take their Rush Limbaughs away.  Not only has Obama not taken any action in that direction, he hasn’t even talked about taking any action in that direction.

Surely the right can find enough to criticize in what Obama has actually done or talked about doing?

1 comment April 21st, 2010 at 07:10am Posted by Eli

Antiwar Crusader Glenn Beck

If I had to guess at the turning point at which Glenn Beck began to have serious doubts about war and out-of-control military spending, I would bet that it was the inauguration of Barack Obama.  And as soon as we get a Republican warmonger back in the White House, I expect he will suddenly be okay with it again.

3 comments April 20th, 2010 at 11:22am Posted by Eli

Great Moments In Journalism

Why on earth would anyone outside the wingnut welfare state hire a disgraced right-wing asshat like Ben Domenech?

The White House ripped CBS News on Thursday for publishing an online column by a blogger who made assertions about the sexual orientation of Solicitor General Elena Kagan, widely viewed as a leading candidate for the Supreme Court.

Ben Domenech, a former Bush administration aide and Republican Senate staffer, wrote that President Obama would “please” much of his base by picking the “first openly gay justice.” An administration official, who asked not to be identified discussing personal matters, said Kagan is not a lesbian.

CBS initially refused to pull the posting, prompting Anita Dunn, a former White House communications director who is working with the administration on the high court vacancy, to say: “The fact that they’ve chosen to become enablers of people posting lies on their site tells us where the journalistic standards of CBS are in 2010.” She said the network was giving a platform to a blogger “with a history of plagiarism” who was “applying old stereotypes to single women with successful careers.”

The network deleted the posting Thursday night after Domenech said he was merely repeating a rumor.

So…  Kagan is rumored to be openly gay?

Um.

3 comments April 16th, 2010 at 11:37am Posted by Eli

The Populitists

Man, that whole Tea Party narrative is just looking more and more threadbare.  The “spontaneous outpouring of patriotic concern by ordinary citizens who are totally not funded by corporations or GOP operatives in any way, nope” myth got blown up almost immediately, and now it looks like the “working-class heartland Americans who are worried about their finances and sick of the government always choosing corporations and rich people over the little guy” story is on pretty shaky ground too:

Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, and are no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

(…)

Tea Party supporters’ fierce animosity toward Washington, and the president in particular, is rooted in deep pessimism about the direction of the country and the conviction that the policies of the Obama administration are disproportionately directed at helping the poor rather than the middle class or the rich.

The overwhelming majority of supporters say Mr. Obama does not share the values most Americans live by and that he does not understand the problems of people like themselves. More than half say the policies of the administration favor the poor, and 25 percent think that the administration favors blacks over whites — compared with 11 percent of the general public.

They are more likely than the general public, and Republicans, to say that too much has been made of the problems facing black people.

So instead of being blue collar just-folks frightened by unemployment and uncertainty, and outraged by the inequity of the government bailing out fatcats while the poor struggle, it turns out that the teabaggers are moderately-stocky cats who are outraged by the government’s feeble and inadequate attempts to help the poor out.  Especially when the poor are those people.

Those of us on the left (myself included) who thought there was some slim chance of making common cause with them against a shared corporate enemy, well, we were completely wrong.  The teabaggers are just the latest media-darling flavor-of-the-month iteration of the archetypal I-got-mine-fuck-you conservative.  They’re populist only if your idea of populist is a bunch of upper-middle-class people who want to cut off the poor, and the only common ground we have with them is our dislike of Harry Reid and Blanche Lincoln.

We were right about them being mostly racist old white guys, though.

Add comment April 15th, 2010 at 07:48pm Posted by Eli

Oh Yeah, This’ll Help.

Finally, some fact-checking!

ABC’s Sunday morning public affairs program, “This Week,” is adding an online feature that its political guests may not appreciate: fact checking.

The program is promoting an arrangement with the Web site PolitiFact.com whereby its editors apply its “Truth-O-Meter” — true, half true, false, “pants on fire!” — to the administration officials and lawmakers who are interviewed.

The fact checking, which started Sunday, stands in stark contrast to the he-said, she-said nature of most television chatfests, even though PolitiFact’s work takes place well after the facts and possible falsehoods are first uttered on TV. Both the Web site and ABC said that the checking is just an experiment, but it is already drawing attention online as a small measure of accountability for politicians and television interviewers.

I like the concept, really I do, but I’m pretty sure that the number of visitors to the PolitiFact website is just a tiny fraction of the people watching This Week.  Until they can figure out a way to have the Truth-O-Meter show up live onscreen, I don’t think this is going to make a whole lot of difference.

Also, David Gregory is a Master Of Comedy:

David Gregory, the moderator of “Meet the Press” on NBC, said that accountability is “in the DNA” of his program. He said he had considered Mr. Rosen’s idea but concluded that people can fact check the program on their own online.

Hahahahaha!  Then again, they’re only slightly less likely to do that then they are to click on a third-party webpage hours after the show is over.

Add comment April 14th, 2010 at 07:12am Posted by Eli

No One Could Have Anticipated…

…That Fox News inspired some nut to make death threats against Nancy Pelosi for passing healthcare reform.

Of course, I’m looking forward to the inevitable debate over whether Giusti is a right-wing nut or a left-wing nut, because some of us progressives hate the healthcare reform bill too.

Add comment April 8th, 2010 at 11:24am Posted by Eli

The Future’s So Bright, Bobo’s Gotta Wear Shades

Fun facts I learned from yesterday’s David Brooks column:

o America is in great shape because we will have 100 million more people in 2050.

o “[T]he real action will be out in the compact, self-sufficient suburban villages.”

o The 12% decline in people making $35,000-70,000 a year is due to a 14% increase in those making more than $105,000. Because apparently there are just as many people making over $105,000 as there are making $35-70,000.

o 60% of Americans made over $100,000 in at least one of the last ten years. And 40% made that for at least three.

o “[M]oral materialism… creates meaning-rich products.” NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THIS MEANS.

Obviously I’m living in the wrong universe. I need to move to Earth-Two where Bobo lives, because it sounds awesome. Plus I’m pretty sure I’m due for my $100,000 any time now.

Add comment April 7th, 2010 at 11:38am Posted by Eli

Now They Tell Us…

As much as I would like to join Teddy in making fun of the conservative movement for relentlessly cheerleading the Bush administration when it was in power and now complaining that it wasn’t truly conservative, I can’t help but see parallels in all the progressives who are rationalizing and cheerleading Obama’s Republican healthcare bill, energy policies, and pretty much everything else.  Which is especially embarrassing because Obama is far more conservative than Bush was ever progressive.

I wonder, when they’re surveying the wreckage of the Obama administration 3-7 years from now, will his progressive apologists choose that moment to finally tell us that he failed because wasn’t really much of a progressive after all?

Add comment April 5th, 2010 at 07:16am Posted by Eli

Bro(der)ken Record

Look, if we agree to stipulate that the death of centrist bipartisanship is a horrible, terrible tragedy, will David Broder agree to go away and leave us alone?  Or at least find a new topic to write about?

Okay, yeah, partisanship is bad, we get it already.  How many times are you going to write the same column?

Add comment April 2nd, 2010 at 07:01am Posted by Eli

No, No. Anything But That.

Quote Of The Day:

All this is good news for Republicans; defeating the Senate’s top Democrat and a key architect of Obamacare would be a huge victory for the GOP.

Oh no.  Please don’t take away our Harry Reids.  The Democrats would simply fall apart without his powerful and savvy leadership.  Please, have mercy, spare us from this terrible fate.  O woe, whatever shall we do.

Add comment March 30th, 2010 at 11:22am Posted by Eli

Did I Miss Something?

Kathleen Parker wrings her hands over Bart Stupak’s terrible, horrible betrayal of the pro-life movement (and I’m pretty sure she’s not the only one):

Poor Bart Stupak. The man tried to be a hero for the unborn, and then, when all the power of the moment was in his frail human hands, he dropped the baby. He genuflected when he should have dug in his heels and gave it up for a meaningless executive order.

Now, in the wake of his decision to vote for a health-care bill that expands public funding for abortion, he is vilified and will forever be remembered as the guy who Stupaked health-care reform and the pro-life movement.

(…)

Alas, Stupak couldn’t hold.

Ultimately, he was weak and overwhelmed by raw political power. History is no stranger to such moments, but this one needs to be understood for what it was. A deception.

You would think from all this moaning and lamenting that the healthcare reform bill means free abortions for everybody, not the eventual end of insurance coverage for them.

It’s a strange world we live in.  The anti-choice people won big and act like they lost; the public-option people lost big and act like they won.

1 comment March 24th, 2010 at 07:43pm Posted by Eli

Dumbass Of The Day

Shorter Rielle Hunter: Does this lack of pants make my ass look pantsless?

I particularly like the GQ video accompanying the interview and photo shoot, in which the photographer is showing Hunter the pantsless photos he’s taking, and she seems quite happy with them.  Although I suppose maybe they never showed her the ones they ended up using…

3 comments March 16th, 2010 at 11:26am Posted by Eli

Remarkable.

That Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen could write so many words about how healthcare reform is doomed and everybody hates it because they hate Big Government without ever once mentioning the public option and how overwhelmingly popular it is.

I’m sure it’s just an oversight; so many people seem to have forgotten all about the public option lately.

Add comment March 12th, 2010 at 11:32am Posted by Eli

Were You Aware Of It?

Apparently all Protestants are rich white guys.

Who knew?

Add comment March 11th, 2010 at 09:54pm Posted by Eli

What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

Messrs. Barry Friedman and Andrew Martin have A Cunning Plan to overcome the Republican filibuster:

[T]he Democrats need to take three steps: First, they should announce the order in which they will take up their legislative agenda. Next, they should declare that they will no longer be using dual tracking, so that the Senate will hear just one issue at a time. Finally, Democrats should require those who want to filibuster legislation or appointments to actually do so, by holding the floor, talking the issue to death and bringing everything to a halt.

The new-school filibuster would preserve minority rights in the Senate, while imposing significant costs on obstructionist members, changing the calculus that causes today’s logjam. Stuck on the Senate floor, filibustering senators couldn’t meet with lobbyists or attend campaign fund-raising events; they couldn’t do much of anything, really, until their filibuster ended.

Getting rid of dual-tracking would require the minority to make careful choices about what to obstruct, and when to obstruct it. As Senator Bunning’s unsuccessful solo stand against jobless benefits showed, even Republicans have limited tolerance when it comes to stalling legislation for reasons that lack popular support.

After all, filibusters historically broke when public opinion went against the Senate minority. If the Democratic leadership eliminated the dual-track system, serial, single-issue filibusters would give us an opportunity to see where the country actually stands on issues like health care reform and financial regulation — and where the Senate should stand.

First of all, my understanding was that the rules change that lowered the filibuster threshold from 67 to 60 votes also eliminated the requirement for the minority party to actually perform the full-blown cots-and-phonebooks Mr. Smith-style filibuster.  But even if it hadn’t, this strategy sounds a lot like handing your kidnapper a gun and hoping he shoots himself with it.

The Republicans have absolutely no compunction about obstructing everything, the media has no particular interest in accurately reporting what’s going on, and consequently the public backlash Friedman and Martin are counting on would simply never happen.  Either that or the Republican spin (Healthcare reform is a socialist government takeover!  Financial reform/tax increases/environmental regulation will take away your jobs!) will triumph and make their obstructionism look like a heroic effort to Save America.

I would much rather find ways to neutralize the Republicans, not further empower them in hopes that they will commit suicide by overreach.  It took six years for that to work the last time, and the damage was incalculable.  Why would we want to do it again?

Add comment March 10th, 2010 at 07:46pm Posted by Eli