Multi Medium

Selective Lone-Nuttery

Stanley Fish had a nice column in yesterday’s NYT pointing out the cynical inconsistency of right-wing reaction to terrorist attacks, depending on the perpetrator:

In the brief period between the bombing and the emergence of McVeigh, speculation had centered on Arab terrorists and the culture of violence that was said to be woven into the fabric of the religion of Islam.

But when it turned out that a white guy (with the help of a few of his friends) had done it, talk of “culture” suddenly ceased and was replaced by the vocabulary and mantras of individualism: each of us is a single, free agent; blaming something called “culture” was just a way of off-loading responsibility for the deeds we commit; in America, individuals, not groups, act; and individuals, not groups, should be held accountable. McVeigh may have looked like a whole lot of other guys who dressed up in camouflage and carried guns and marched in the woods, but, we were told by the same people who had been mouthing off about Islam earlier, he was just a lone nut, a kook, and generalizations about some “militia” culture alive and flourishing in the heartland were entirely unwarranted.

(…)

It is wrong, we hear, to regard the proposed mosque or community center as an ordinary exercise of free enterprise and freedom of religion by the private owners of a piece of property. It is, rather, a thumb in the eye or a slap in the face of the 9/11 victims and their families, a potential clearinghouse for international terrorist activities, a “victory mosque” memorializing a great triumph of jihad and a monument to the religion in whose name and by whose adherents the dreadful deed was done.

But according to the same folks who oppose the mosque because of what it stands for, Michael Enright’s act doesn’t stand for anything and is certainly not the product of what Time magazine calls a growing “American strain of Islamophobia.” Instead, The New York Post declares, the stabbing is “the act of a disturbed individual who is now in custody,” and across the fold of the page columnist Jonah Goldberg says that “one assault doesn’t a national trend make” and insists that “we shouldn’t let anyone suggest that this criminal reflects anybody but himself.”

The formula is simple and foolproof (although those who deploy it so facilely seem to think we are all fools): If the bad act is committed by a member of a group you wish to demonize, attribute it to a community or a religion and not to the individual. But if the bad act is committed by someone whose profile, interests and agendas are uncomfortably close to your own, detach the malefactor from everything that is going on or is in the air (he came from nowhere) and characterize him as a one-off, non-generalizable, sui generis phenomenon.

How many violent homicidal right-wing crazies do we have to see before we see some conservatives start to admit that maybe, just maybe, that DHS report was right about the dangers of right-wing extremism, not to mention all the provocative teabagger rhetoric about 2nd Amendment remedies and watering the tree of liberty?  Or are murder and incitement okay as long as you pretend that they’re motivated by patriotism?

Add comment August 31st, 2010 at 07:48am Posted by Eli

I Want My Country Back

From the insane racist conservatives who insist that Obama is the one who’s stirring up race hatred.  Against white people, that is.

I have a lot of problems with Obama – I think he’s been a huge disappointment with outright disdain for the progressive movement, but here’s a news flash: Not being enthusiastically on board with white racism does not actually make someone an anti-white racist.

Add comment July 13th, 2010 at 11:28am Posted by Eli

Great Moments In Spin

Florida Republicans want to pass their own version of Arizona’s show-me-your-papers law… for the immigrants’ own good:

[Rep. William] Snyder, a former police officer, said the proposed legislation is needed to protect undocumented immigrants, who are vulnerable to abusive employers and violent criminals.

“This is a human right issue,” he said. “They don’t enjoy the same rights and privileges that you and I do. The solution is to enforce the laws that currently exist and to discourage people from coming here to ‘find a better life’ when in fact they just come here and are victimized.”

Aww, what a sweet compassionate man.  He only wants to harass Hispanics to protect them.  Needless to say, Florida’s immigrant and Hispanic communities don’t see it quite the same way…

“The reaction is, ‘What? This is ridiculous,’ ” said Neelofer Syed, a Tampa immigration lawyer who hails from Pakistan. “It is supposed to be that you are legal until you are proven guilty. This law is like, ‘we think you are guilty unless you establish that you are innocent.’ ”

Rep. J.C. Planas, a Republican from Miami, called it an election year stunt.

“I don’t understand how anyone can think the Arizona law is good for Florida,” said Planas, chairman of the Florida Hispanic Legislative Caucus. “It is a huge waste of police resources to start doing these things.”

I’m wondering what the Cuban community thinks of this.  I’m no expert on Florida politics, but I got the pretty strong impression that they have an awful lot of political clout, and antagonizing them seems like a really bad idea.  I’m not sure they necessarily see things the same way as the Hispanic population in general, but they would certainly be subject to being harassed for their papers, so I can’t see them being big fans.

Add comment June 29th, 2010 at 11:34am Posted by Eli

Liberty For White Guys!

Yes, it is kinda ironic that the teabaggers are suddenly so up in arms about government infringing on personal freedom, yet don’t seem at all bothered by Arizona’s show-me-your-papers law.  I’m pretty sure their passion for freedom only applies to white people – after all, it’s not like the teabaggers were up in arms about Bush/Cheney’s warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detentions, or torture of Teh Scary Muslims.

Add comment May 27th, 2010 at 11:24am 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

The Wages Of Bigotry Is Boycotts

Apparently Arizona’s government are such huge racist bastards that it never even occurred to them that many people in other states are not:

Acknowledging that Arizona has developed a serious image problem because of its tough new immigration law, Gov. Jan Brewer and tourism-industry leaders said Thursday that they will launch a new effort to stanch the flow of lost trade and convention business in the state.

The legislation and firestorm of negative publicity that followed brought calls for boycotts, moved groups to back out of local conventions and led several cities to cut business ties with Arizona companies.

(…)

“It’s up to us to get the truth out there. This is impacting Arizona’s face to the nation,” said Brewer, who blamed the controversy on misconceptions about the law.

(…)

Officials were just starting to see signs of life when the backlash over the new immigration law began, said Debbie Johnson, CEO of the Arizona Tourism Alliance and the Arizona Hotel and Lodging Association.

To date, dozens of cities and groups have announced boycotts. Arizona has lost at least 30 to 40 meetings and conventions, she said.

“We were surprised by (the boycotts),” Johnson said. “We didn’t think it was going to be a tourism issue. This is a political issue.”

Of course, no one could have anticipated.  They couldn’t even imagine that anyone might find the show-me-your-papers law offensive.  But I think this is my favorite part right here:

“The end goal is to reassert that we are a safe, inviting, diverse and culturally aware community,” said Steve Moore, president and CEO of the Greater Phoenix Convention and Visitors Bureau.

Really?  A diverse and culturally aware community that harasses Latinos and demands to see their papers?  That has banned ethnic studies and won’t even allow anyone with an accent to teach English?  I can’t think of any other state whose government has actively embraced racism and xenophobia like Arizona’s has.  They’re like that creepy uncle who uses the N-word all the time and can’t understand why no one invites him to dinner any more.

(h/t Karin for the accent thing)

Add comment May 17th, 2010 at 07:17am Posted by Eli

Wanker Of The Day

Shorter Bud Selig: MLB’s record on minority hiring is so awesome that there’s no reason for us to boycott Arizona.

Um… what?

Also, I assume he’s including minority ballplayers in his hiring percentages…

1 comment May 13th, 2010 at 08:02pm Posted by Eli

What’s The Most Horrible State In The Union?

I think I would pretty much have to go with Arizona right now.  I can’t think of any other state which is institutionalizing racism and xenophobia quite so gleefully.  First the show-me-your-papers law, and now this:

The governor, Jan Brewer, has signed into law a bill that was passed because the state superintendent of public instruction, Tom Horne, who happens to be running for attorney general, dislikes a Mexican-American studies program in Tucson Unified School District that allows students to learn in history and literature courses about how particular ethnic groups influenced history, the Associated Press reported.

The bill, about which I wrote last week, prohibits any classes that:

* Promote the overthrow of the United States government.
* Promote resentment toward a race or class of people.
* Are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group.
* Advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.

The first two points are ringers, of course, for Horne’s real problem: According to the Associated Press, Horne has wanted to limit the program since he learned several years ago that Hispanic civil right activist Dolores Herta told Tucson high school students that “Republicans hate Latinos.”

The governor signed the bill just after six United Nations human rights experts released a statement saying they had concerns about the measure and noted that all people have a right to learn about their own cultural and linguistic heritage.

Yes, I know there are good people in Arizona, but the ones who are calling the shots there are mean, bigoted monsters.

7 comments May 13th, 2010 at 11:23am Posted by Eli

GOP Latino Outreach Continues

More and more Republicans are jumping on the show-me-your-papers bandwagon – God forbid they should let Arizona out-xenophobe them:

At a Tea Party rally in Ramona, Calif., on Saturday, Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter told the conservative crowd that he supports the deportation of children of illegal immigrants – even if they were born in the United States.

“Between $10 [billion] and $20 billion in this state that we spend on immigration – that’s health services, that’s education and jails. We just can’t afford it anymore,” he told the crowd, according to the Los Angeles Times. “We’re not being mean. We’re just saying it takes more than just walking across the border to become an American citizen.

“It’s what’s in our souls.”

Conservative lawmakers in Oklahoma, buoyed by the passage of SB 1070, say they will introduce a similar bill in their state. In fact, Republican state Rep. Randy Terrill told The Associated Press that Oklahoma may even take Arizona’s example further and include assets seizure provisions and harsher penalties for illegal immigrants.

I especially love that Duncan Hunter quote about how it’s what’s in our souls that makes us Americans.  I guess that means Latinos just aren’t racist and hateful enough to be real Americans.  What a shame.

1 comment May 1st, 2010 at 03:02pm Posted by Eli

Strategery!

Man, the Republicans really want to make sure that no Latino ever votes for them again until the end of time, don’t they?  They pass the racial-profiling/show-me-your-papers law in Arizona, and they’re trying to pass it in Texas and Missouri, so it’s not like the GOP can claim that AZ is just one bad apple.  And then you’ve got this winner who wants all driving tests to be in English only, and Lindsey Graham throwing a tantrum and threatening to sabotage a bill with his own name on it if the Senate considers immigration reform.

Considering how large and fast-growing segment of the population Latinos are, this seems like a recipe for electoral suicide, unless the GOP has a plan to keep Latinos from voting.  Oh.  Right. Nevermind.

Add comment April 30th, 2010 at 07:16am Posted by Eli

Good News From Teapartyland

Raise your hands if you knew about this:

[Tea Partier] Paul Butterfield, 48, an engineer from Ontario, N.Y., said: “We’ve achieved equal rights for blacks, equal rights for women, equal rights for gays. But creating a welfare state is a step backward.”

We have?  That’s so awesome!

Minorities and women may have perhaps attained something close to equal rights… but only on paper, not in the real world.  And gays haven’t even come close to paper equality yet, much less the real thing.

Add comment April 19th, 2010 at 06:33pm Posted by Eli

In Defense Of Michael Steele

You know, as incompetent and ridiculous as Michael Steele is, I really don’t think it’s his fault that the GOP is still failing miserably at appealing to minority voters.  Installing a black guy at the head of your party’s political arm just isn’t enough to overcome openly racist teabaggers, implacable hostility to immigrants, and a continuing embrace of the Confederacy and the Southern Strategy.

It’s not the chairman of the GOP that’s the problem – it’s the GOP itself.

Add comment April 15th, 2010 at 07:17am Posted by Eli

In My Vatican There Is Problem…

Well, this certainly explains a lot:

Last week, retired Bishop Giacomo Babini of the Italian town of Grosseto told the Catholic Pontifex website that the Catholic pedophile scandal is being orchestrated by the “eternal enemies of Catholicism, namely the freemasons and the Jews, whose mutual entanglements are not always easy to see through… I think that it is primarily a Zionist attack, in view of its power and refinement. They do not want the church, they are its natural enemies. Deep down, historically speaking, the Jews are God-killers.”

You might think that the 81-year-old Babini had already said more than enough for one day, but once some people “pop,” they just can’t stop. “The Holocaust was a shame for all of humanity,” the good bishop told the world, “but now we have to look at it without rhetoric and with open eyes. Don’t believe that Hitler was merely crazy. The truth is that the Nazis’ criminal fury was provoked by the Jews’ economic embezzlement, by which they choked the German economy.” He concluded that the Jews’ “guilt is graver than what Christ predicted would happen to them, saying ‘do not cry for me, but for your own children.’”

(…)

This latest scapegoating attempt came out not only in the days around Holocaust Remembrance Day but also on the heels of the latest alarmist report by Tel Aviv University announcing a drastic increase in anti-Semitic activity around the globe, and with historian Robert Wistrich saying that “We are in an era once again where the Jews are facing genocidal threats as a people.”

Ah yes, of course.  Obviously the Jews used the same mind-control rays that we used to take over Hollywood and the world banking system to force those poor Catholic priests to molest children against their will, and then force their bishops and cardinals to cover it up!  It’s all so obvious now!

For a religion that emphasizes confession, the Catholic Church sure is doing an awful lot of finger-pointing.

(h/t WT)

Add comment April 13th, 2010 at 11:41am Posted by Eli

Details, Details…

Ah yes, a very minor teensy-weensy oversight, but really, how many people associate the Confederacy with slavery?

An African-American Virginia lawmaker said Wednesday that he is not yet ready to accept an apology from Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, suggesting McDonnell’s misstep regarding Virginia’s confederate history is part of a pattern which calls the governor’s sincerity into question.

The Republican governor apologized earlier Wednesday after coming under criticism for issuing a proclamation that declared April to be Confederate History Month in the state but which made no mention of slavery.

“The failure to include any reference to slavery was a mistake, and for that I apologize to any fellow Virginian who has been offended or disappointed,” McDonnell said in a statement. The governor also announced that his proclamation would be amended to mention slavery and call it “an evil and inhumane practice.”

So the Confederacy fought a civil war to protect its right to “an evil and inhumane practice,” but it was still awesome enough to deserve its own “History Month”.  Kinda like how the Third Reich was awesome except for that whole Holocaust thing which we almost completely forgot about, but hey, let’s not dwell on negatives.

Add comment April 9th, 2010 at 07:19am Posted by Eli

Who Needs April Fools?

…When Republicans and Blanche Lincoln (but I repeat myself) are taking credit for healthcare reform?

…When the teabagger holding the (misspelled) N-word sign complains that teabaggers are being unfairly accused of racism?

…When anti-government militia members ask the government to provide them with defense counsel?

…When drug companies are investigating the FDA?

…When Tim Geithner laments how “deeply unfair” it is that all of the bailout’s benefits have gone to Wall Street?

…When a Democratic president embraces “Drill, Baby, Drill”?

April First is just another day now.

Add comment April 1st, 2010 at 11:34am Posted by Eli

GOP Smash!!!

So this is apparently the GOP’s Brilliant Messaging Strategy:

Outside, the [anti-health care reform] demonstrators… arranged themselves on the lawn to spell the word “NO.”

By the time Minority Leader John Boehner took the floor at about 10 pm, the mood on the floor was barely distinguishable from the mood on the lawn outside. “Shame on each and every one of you,” the Republican leader yelled at the Democrats, as the GOP lawmakers gave him a standing ovation. Boehner said the Democrats were a “disgrace” to Jeffersonian values.

“Hell, no, you can’t!” Boehner shouted at the Democrats.

“No, you can’t! No, you can’t!” echoed the protesters outside.

“No, you can’t!”  Very catchy, very positive and uplifting, much like “I hope he fails.” How can the American people not vote for that kind of exciting vision for the future?  It truly evokes the nihilism at the core of the Republican Party: When they’re the opposition party, they obstruct everything and everyone, and when they’re the ruling party they dedicate themselves to destroying the Constitution and the government’s capacity to do good (i.e., regulation, oversight, infrastructure, social programs, etc.).

The vandals smashing up Democratic offices and the bigoted teabaggers screaming slurs at Democratic representatives are merely a physical manifestation of the Republican approach to government: Destroy, negate, threaten, fearmonger, and destroy some more.

1 comment March 24th, 2010 at 11:40am Posted by Eli

Question

Why is it that Republicans and conservadems seem perfectly okay with American jobs going overseas, but completely freak out over the idea of foreigners showing up here to collect them in person?

Add comment March 18th, 2010 at 07:33pm 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

Harry Reid Puts The GOP In A Difficult Position

On the one hand, his newly revealed comments about Obama being able to speak “with no Negro dialect” give them a golden opportunity to score points with their cherished “Democrats are the real racists!” narrative.

On the other hand, Reid is such an ineffectual craven boob of a Majority Leader that if he actually did step down, they might find it a lot harder to run rings around his replacement and force him to make horrible compromises with “moderate” Republicans or conservative Democrats.

Harry Reid as Majority Leader is a bigger asset to the Republicans than Joe Lieberman or Ben Nelson, and here they are calling for his head.

As for me, I have no interest at all in making excuses for Reid; this is just the latest and most appalling entry in an already long list of reasons why I desperately want to see him gone.  And since I doubt that he’ll be man enough to do the right thing and resign from either the Senate or his Majority Leader position, I can only hope that this is enough to completely destroy his re-election chances this year.

2 comments January 10th, 2010 at 02:39pm Posted by Eli

Lou Dobbs Deported From CNN

Woohoo!!!

Lou Dobbs, the longtime CNN anchor whose anti-immigration views have made him a TV lightning rod, plans to announce Wednesday that he is leaving the network, two network employees said.

A CNN executive confirmed that Mr. Dobbs will announce his resignation plans on his 7 p.m. program. His resignation is effective immediately; tonight’s program will be his last on CNN. His contract was not set to expire until the end of 2011.

Good riddance.  I’m gonna go with four months as the over/under for when he gets his own show at Fox News.

4 comments November 11th, 2009 at 06:57pm Posted by Eli

Wait… What?

Okay, so I can understand how Republicans and Blue Dogs might think a House resolution honoring Confucius (or anyone else) is perhaps not the best use of their time these days, what the healthcare reform and the recession and all, but then why show up to vote No in the first place?  Is a Nay somehow less time-consuming than a Yea?

And are votes to welcome the Archbishop of Constantinople and congratulate Northwestern’s women’s lacrosse team less time-consuming or frivolous than the one for Confucius?  Because none of them had any problem with those.  Yes, I’m sure that must have been it – honoring Catholics and Americans is just so much quicker than honoring Asians.

Add comment October 29th, 2009 at 08:13pm Posted by Eli

Great Moments In Headline Writing

With a headline like “Some Football Owners Are on Limbaugh’s Side in Game of Politics,” you’d expect a story about right-wing football owners defending their pal Rush from the terrible anti-conservative witch hunt which got him kicked out of Dave Checketts’ bid for ownership of the St. Louis Rams, right?

You’d be wrong. Aside from a general recap of what happened, the story’s principal revelation is that NFL owners are very very rich, some of them contribute to Democrats, some of them contribute to Republicans, and some of them contribute to both. Big deal, I could’ve told you that.

That’s pretty much it. Any support for Rush is solely implied by the headline, which fudges the distinction between being on the same side of the ideological divide with overt support. The NFL owners may be on the same team as Limbaugh, but that doesn’t mean they’re on Team Limbaugh. Or if they are, they know enough not to admit it.

Add comment October 21st, 2009 at 11:43am Posted by Eli

Wanker Of The Day

Define “all”.

Who are the best guests on television’s political chat shows?

(…)

[Mika] Brzezinski jumps at the chance to name Pat Buchanan “because he says what we are all thinking.”

Wow, that is one scary quote right there.

Add comment October 17th, 2009 at 02:47pm Posted by Eli

Does This Conservatism Make My Ass Look Racist?

I think it’s hilarious that Rush and his conservative fan club are claiming that A) He’s being politically persecuted because of his politics (despite the fact that the NFL is a largely Republican organization), and B) That conservatives are unfairly stereotyped as racist, sexist, homophobic bigots.

But the reality here is very simple: The NFL did not reject Rush Limbaugh because he’s a conservative, they rejected him because he is a racist, sexist, homophobic bigot who has repeatedly made disparaging racist comments about black NFL players.  Who happen to be roughly two-thirds of all NFL players.

In other words, Rush, it’s not your conservatism that makes your ass look racist, it’s your racist ass that makes your ass look racist.

Add comment October 15th, 2009 at 07:39pm Posted by Eli

Republican Heroes & Accomplishments

So the new GOP.com website has a section on Republican heroes, and another section on Republican accomplishments.  Which is all well and good, except their choices of heroes and accomplishments are very strange.  Let’s go to the numbers:

Out of the 18 GOP heroes presented, 12 of them are either civil rights icons or “the first” black/hispanic/female something.  And the civil rights achievements of another three are heavily emphasized.  Additionally, 12 out of the 18 are from the 19th century, and only three had careers that extended past 1970.

The story on the accomplishments side is very similar.  Of the 37 achievements listed, 23 are civil rights related (although judging by the photo accompanying the school vouchers item, it kinda looks like they want a civil rights credit for that one too), and and another four are public works projects or other big-government enterprises like the Land-Grant College Act and the establishment of the national parks system.

In fact, their first 31 accomplishments, up through Nixon going to China in 1972 are both undeniably positive and completely out of character for today’s GOP. (Redundant, I know.)

It is very interesting that the Republicans are trying so hard to portray themselves as some kind of progressive, pro-civil-rights party, when over the last 45 years they’ve been the exact opposite.  Yes, the pre-Southern Strategy GOP did a lot of great and important things, especially in the area of civil rights, but today’s GOP would have stubbornly opposed every single one of them.

Add comment October 14th, 2009 at 07:28am Posted by Eli

Great Moments In American History

It’s a shame, but these things happen.

(From Married To The Sea)

Add comment October 8th, 2009 at 11:16am Posted by Eli

Quote Of The Day

Mr. Pierce speaks for me:

Now that the national Republican party is solely the province of meathead politicians and radio maniacs, there are “sensible” conservatives who are alarmed by what they see. It should be agreed upon in our politics that these people drift into the wilderness for a while and muse upon where their movement has led them. But the first thing they all should do is apologize to the nation for choosing to take a course 45 years ago in opposition to the transcendant moral issue of America. They prospered through bigotry, and then through a deft ability to package it, and they made the ensuing four decades immeasurably crueler as a result. There’s not enough sackcloth in the world for these clowns.

Perfect.

Add comment September 25th, 2009 at 07:48pm Posted by Eli

Only 64%?

Apparently that’s how many Republicans are completely batshit insane:

The survey by Public Policy Polling finds that 42 percent of Republicans believe Barack Obama was born outside of the United States while 22 percent said they were unsure.

But of course, the primary focus of the story has to be the much smaller percentage of wacky Democrats who believe that Dubya intentionally allowed 9/11 to happen.  As opposed to merely believing that he was so  spectacularly, criminally unconcerned about the possibility of a catastrophic attack that he couldn’t be bothered to lift one single finger to try to stop it.  Yeah, those Democrats are cuh-razy.

So, it’s going to be Palin/Bachmann on the Republican ticket in 2012, isn’t it.  If not Palin/Beck.

(h/t Julia)

Add comment September 24th, 2009 at 09:39am Posted by Eli

Right-Wing Crazy Of The Day

ORLY Taitz apparently believes that the courts aren’t taking her Obama-has-no-legitimate-authority-because-he-was-born-in-Kenya arguments seriously because they’re under Obama’s control.

Of course, the beauty of it is that after the judiciary tells her to get stuffed and/or imposes sanctions, she can tout that as proof that she was right, and package herself as the latest Heroic Martyr For The Conservative Cause, like Kenny Gladney.

1 comment September 22nd, 2009 at 09:48am Posted by Eli

Wankers Of The Day

Shorter Teabaggers: Sure, maybe it’s a little racist, but that just shows you how much Obama has provoked us!

Even Shorter Teabaggers: Teabaggers will be Teabaggers.

Add comment September 18th, 2009 at 02:40pm Posted by Eli