Holy Jeebus

Sometimes others just hit the nail on the head ... so what's the point in trying to improve on what Harold Myerson has written in the Washington Post. Here is his opinion piece titled Hard Liners for Jesus (I have italicized some parts I especially agree with).

by Harold Myerson
December 19, 2007


As Christians across the world prepare to celebrate the birth of Jesus, it's a fitting moment to contemplate the mountain of moral, and mortal, hypocrisy that is our Christianized Republican Party.

There's nothing new, of course, about the Christianization of the GOP. Seven years ago, when debating Al Gore, then-candidate George W. Bush was asked to identify his favorite philosopher and answered "Jesus." This year, however, the Christianization of the party reached new heights with Mitt Romney's declaration that he believed in Jesus as his savior, in an effort to stanch the flow of "values voters" to Mike Huckabee.

My concern isn't the rift that has opened between Republican political practice and the vision of the nation's Founders, who made very clear in the Constitution that there would be no religious test for officeholders in their enlightened new republic. Rather, it's the gap between the teachings of the Gospels and the preachings of the Gospel's Own Party that has widened past the point of absurdity, even as the ostensible Christianization of the party proceeds apace.

The policies of the president, for instance, can be defended in greater or (more frequently) lesser degree within a framework of worldly standards. But if Bush can conform his advocacy of preemptive war with Jesus's Sermon on the Mount admonition to turn the other cheek, he's a more creative theologian than we have given him credit for. Likewise his support of torture, which he highlighted again this month when he threatened to veto House-passed legislation that would explicitly ban waterboarding.

It's not just Bush whose catechism is a merry mix of torture and piety. Virtually the entire Republican House delegation opposed the ban on waterboarding. Among the Republican presidential candidates, only Huckabee and the not-very-religious John McCain have come out against torture, while only libertarian Ron Paul has questioned the doctrine of preemptive war.

But it's on their policies concerning immigrants where Republicans -- candidates and voters alike -- really run afoul of biblical writ. Not on immigration as such but on the treatment of immigrants who are already here. Consider: Christmas, after all, celebrates not just Jesus's birth but his family's flight from Herod's wrath into Egypt, a journey obviously undertaken without benefit of legal documentation. The Bible isn't big on immigrant documentation. "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger nor oppress him," Exodus says the Lord told Moses on Mount Sinai, "for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt."

Yet the distinctive cry coming from the Republican base this year isn't simply to control the flow of immigrants across our borders but to punish the undocumented immigrants already here, children and parents alike.

So Romney attacks Huckabee for holding immigrant children blameless when their parents brought them here without papers, and Huckabee defends himself by parading the endorsement of the Minuteman Project's Jim Gilchrist, whose group harasses day laborers far from the border. The demand for a more regulated immigration policy comes from virtually all points on our political spectrum, but the push to persecute the immigrants already among us comes distinctly, though by no means entirely, from the same Republican right that protests its Christian faith at every turn.

We've seen this kind of Christianity before in America. It's more tribal than religious, and it surges at those times when our country is growing more diverse and economic opportunity is not abounding. At its height in the 1920s, the Ku Klux Klan was chiefly the political expression of nativist Protestants upset by the growing ranks of Catholics in their midst.

It's difficult today to imagine KKKers thinking of their mission as Christian, but millions of them did.

Today's Republican values voters don't really conflate their rage with their faith. Lou Dobbs is a purely secular figure. But nativist bigotry is strongest in the Old Time Religion precincts of the Republican Party, and woe betide the Republican candidate who doesn't embrace it, as John McCain, to his credit and his political misfortune, can attest.

The most depressing thing about the Republican presidential race is that the party's rank and file require their candidates to grow meaner with each passing week. And now, inconveniently, inconsiderately, comes Christmas, a holiday that couldn't be better calibrated to expose the Republicans' rank, fetid hypocrisy.

Another Offering from that King of Comedic Writing, John

Our friend John, the right-wing commenter strikes again with more humor, grammatical errors and unrelenting rant over at Rick Esenberg's Shark and Shepherd.

Rick and our very own hero, the unpatriotic, LIBERAL, lose at all costs villain, Jay Bullock (folkbum's rambles and rants) are engaged in a fine discussion on waterboarding (is it torture or a fun summer activity) and whether or not waterboarding (the tortuous kind) was really effective in getting Abu Zubadayh to confess to vicious plots against American citizens, or to the location of his favorite hot dog stands on the east coast.

John decided to take matters into his own hands and he came up with this gem ... nay, masterpiece (note the exquisite use of the sticky caps lock key).

Rick, whether waterboarding has been effective "enough", is specious and unrelated to the question of whether it is TORTURE or not.

To wit, Jay et al, will NEVER acknowledge a rough technique as being "effective", as long as Jay, et al, are "invested" in discrediting President Bush, and as such are "invested" in our countries "discredit or failure" in terms of political discourse.

It's far beyond obvious. Jay Bullock, will NEVER, accept any victories by our Country, so long as HIS, party/friends, are not responsible for said victories.

That is pretty much the emblematic definition of being a traitor,(yes I am questioning Jay's patiotism or lack thereof).

Rick, I'm confident that you agree, but as usual, I recognize that you are above most of this rancor.I'll end with this.

Jay Bullock sais the following:

((No one has been able to demonstrate that a single life has been saved or a single attack prevented through the use of the technique}}

Rick, if you do not recognize how far Jay Bullock and his like, will go to deny what is obvious, then you too are nuts.

John's confidence that Rick will agree with him may or may not be founded in fact. I'd bet the house John's confidence is misplaced, however, it does beg another question. Most of us would agree that a large percentage of conservative writers are well-meaning and thoughtful (stop laughing back there, it's the season for generosity). Truly though, most do not stoop to John's level. The question being begged is when does Rick, and even Jessica McBride (whose blog John frequents) who has famously decried anonymous commenters though John has no blog and anyone could set up with the name John to make comments, say something about this clown?

I see all the time where liberal voices will disagree with each other and even call out someone for something said. Heck, in one of my more sleepy moments I once wrote something untrue about James Wigderson as a comment at Jay's blog. James caught it and wrote a gracious denial, even suspecting that I had to have been tired. Jay jumped on it and told me quite frankly it wasn't true.

I offered my apologies to James, which he accepted. We all make mistakes, but Jay stood up for a - gasp – conservative. Frankly, other than James who is always fair (and perhaps Dean Mundy, though I read his blog less often, to my shame) I have never seen another do the same.

It's really not that big of a deal. John's comments do provide comic relief and fodder for more Whallah posts, but it would be nice to see it happen just occasionally.

Leveraging the Vote

In today's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is an article highlighting the career of Paul Weyrich, the Gregor Strasser of the American right-wing conservative movement. Unfortunately, the relatively friendly piece (ah, that ol' liberal bias thing) fails to mention Weyrich's role in efforts to suppress the vote in the United States. With a new round of elections slated for 2008, including the all-important presidential election, it's best to remember this quote from Weyrich, given at an 1980 training seminar for conservative right-wing preachers:

"I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."

People for the American Way has documented the career of this anti-American visionary. Here is the introduction to a report on voting suppression efforts by the conservatiove right-wing over the years. Any of it sound familiar? Remember this the next time some glowing piece is written.

There are two ways to win an election. One is to get a majority of voters to support you. The other is to prevent voters who oppose you from casting their votes.

In the 27 years since Paul Weyrich's astonishingly candid admission, the radical right wing in America has developed an array of subtle and overt methods to suppress voter registration and turnout. The methods are targeted to constituencies most likely to oppose right-wing causes and candidates: low-income families, minorities, senior citizens and citizens for whom English is a second language.

Occasionally, attempts at voter suppression are illegal dirty tricks, such as the phone-jamming scheme carried out by Republican operatives against a Democratic phone bank in New Hampshire in 2004.

Some voter suppression is unintentional, the result of applying or misapplying changes in voting laws. However, voter suppression today is overwhelmingly achieved through regulatory, legislative and administrative means, resulting in modern-day equivalents of poll taxes and literacy tests that kept Black voters from the ballot box in the Jim Crow era.

Couched in feel-good phrases such as "voter security" and "anti-voter fraud," these measures limit voter registration, turn voters away from polling places, and cast doubt on the validity of ballots. For example, stringent voter ID rules that require photo ID at the polls sound reasonable, until the estimated up to 12 percent of eligible voters who do not have a driver’s license are figured in. And while "anti-fraud" measures sound good, in truth there is little evidence of organized voter fraud anywhere in the nation, while voter suppression tactics are varied and widespread:

- In Ohio, Secretary of State Ken Blackwell has implemented rules to carry out a new state elections law. Blackwell’s rules make it extremely difficult for small churches and other nonprofit organizations to hire and train voter registration workers—and they expose voter registration workers to felony charges for making mistakes.

- In Texas, Congressman John Carter has suggested implementing literacy tests and English-only ballots, despite the existence of a federal law requiring minority language ballots at the polls.

- In Florida in 2004, Governor Jeb Bush was forced to deactivate a list of purported felons who were to be blocked from voting when the news media discovered that the list included Black, but not Hispanic, voters and that many people on the list were actually eligible voters.

- In California this year, nonsensical requirements for matching new voter names to existing state databases (e.g., a "Michael R. Neuman" would not match a "Mike R. Neuman" at the same address) resulted in numerous voter registrations being rejected. Between January and June, 26,824 voter registration forms received by Los Angeles County alone were rejected because of these new restrictions.

- In New Mexico, the number of "provisional ballots," which are mandated under new federal voting rules, that went uncounted exceeded the margin of victory in the presidential race in 2004.

- In Indiana, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona, since the 2002 passage of the federal Help America Vote Act, state legislatures have passed new voter identification rules that would disenfranchise thousands of elderly and poor voters who do not have drivers' licenses or passports. Some of these measures have been blocked, but others are now in effect.

- In Ohio in 2004, precincts in predominantly low-income and minority neighborhoods were chronically understaffed and had fewer voting machines than higher-income precincts, resulting in long lines and uncounted numbers of voters leaving the polls before they had a chance to cast a vote.

The Radical Right strategy of turning out base supporters while suppressing the votes of its opponents has often been successful. Legislatures controlled by far-right conservatives now determine the voting laws and how redistricting is conducted in many states. Governors, secretaries of state, and other election officials, supported by the Radical Right, now administer many states’ elections. This report, by no means comprehensive, provides a brief overview of various suppression techniques so that citizens, community activists and the news media can recognize similar attempts as patterns of voter suppression emerge across the country.

Laugh of the Day – Sexual Enticement “Tangential” Issue

From the Green Bay Press-Gazette and h/t to Uppity Wisconsin

MADISON — The Republican Party of Brown County will be reorganized after recent vacancies in key offices created a constitutional technicality, the chairman of the state party said today.

Reince Priebus, state chairman of the Republican Party of Wisconsin, said the Brown County group has been decertified by the state, but not because of the recent legal troubles of its former chairman, Donald Fleischman of Allouez. Fleischman resigned in September after charges of child enticement were brought against him in Brown County Circuit Court; they have since been dropped.

Priebus called the reorganization “tangential” to Fleischman’s predicament.Fleischman’s resignation created two vacancies in the party’s officer corps. Holly Arnold, the first vice-chair, did not want the top spot, and the second vice-chair position already was vacant, Priebus said.That meant the party didn’t have enough officers to call a caucus to elect new officers, Priebus said. At Arnold’s request, the state GOP decertified the county party on Nov. 13.

As goofticket surmised, is it really any surprise that no one wanted “... to volunteer for a party that harbored a sex offender for 8 months? Answer questions about that, and why they did nothing about it? ...and then ask for money?”

As Freddy the Clown might say, "Oh, the hypocrisy."

Just Shocked

Shocked, I tell you. I was shocked to discover that Republican party strategists are turning to wealthy individuals to mount candidacies for congressional races, because Republican fund-raising is lagging behind Democratic Party efforts. According to an article in the NY Times:

... Democrats, who have been closely monitoring the Republican millionaires, assert that the recruiting underscores the Republicans’ financial weakness since they lost control of Congress in 2006.

The most recent figures show that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has raised $56.6 million and has $29.2 million at its disposal. By contrast, the National Republican Congressional Committee has raised $40.7 million with a cash balance of $2.5 million.

That is a striking turnabout for the Republicans, who have outraised the Democrats by considerable margins for years. As recently as 2006, the Republican Congressional campaign committee raised $40 million more than its Democratic counterpart, $179.5 million to $139.9 million.

“National Republicans are in disarray, forcing them to recruit inexperienced and unprepared self-funders,” said Doug Thornell, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

I think the message is becoming clearer that the fractious principles and convenient morals of the Republican Party, and conservatism generally, are not those held by the majority of Americans. The citizenry is rediscovering that the Republicans were always about two things: protecting the interests of the wealthy, and providing a home for those elements that think calling people "chihuahuas" because they may be "Mexican" is somehow appropriate. The same elements that think slandering a religion because of the violent actions of a small minority is somehow serious discourse.



















The fact that fundraising is lagging is a clear sign that Americans are tiring of this type of message.

h/t Brew City Brawler

A Sad Day for Baseball

I am not going to waste time heaping vituperation on Barry Bonds. The lesser lights on the right will do that for me. However, I will say this: What a sad day for baseball.

Here are two links to articles at ESPN, one by Gene Wojciechowski, who manages to express his disdain for Bonds without the use of vulgar language or coded racial epitaphs. The other is an investigative report that goes far in illuminating the evidence that Bonds did perjure himself.

I Object (continued)

The continuing saga of Peter DiGuadio and the chattering chihuahuas. Capper at Whallah and the Brew City Brawler have taken up the slack and kept up the heat on some very objectionable blogging. Below are links to four additional posts.

Very interesting, indeed.

Blogger who called Mexicans "chihuahuas" stands by his words

Why does the Journal Sentinel's McIlheran link to a blogger who calls Mexicans "chihuahuas" part two

Why does the Journal Sentinel's McIlheran link to a blogger who calls Mexicans "chihuahuas"

Time For Some More Satire

Mountains Out of Molehills

Regarding yawning, have you ever noticed that yawning seems to be contagious. Researchers have found that 40-60% of people who see a picture of someone yawning will yawn themselves. Even reading the word YAWN can make people yawn.

Apparently the same holds true for faux conservative outrage. Regarding Fred Dooley's (Real Debate Wisconsin blog author) taunt to Jay Bullock (folkbum's rambles and rants bog author) and his thought that a 1,000 word post is in the offing.

YAWN.

Be assured that 40-60% of conservative bloggers will follow suit.

Update: Mike Mathias and Nick Schweitzer chime in about the misplaced outrage.

And now Jay does add-on ... though with considerably less than 1,000 words.

Don Imus Returns and Give It a Rest

NEW YORK (AP) -- A little more than six months ago, Don Imus' career seemed doomed. The shock jock had been fired over a racist and sexist remark that ignited an uproar over the limits of taste and tolerance.

But the cantankerous Imus has clambered back from the professional brink before, and the Rasputin of radio is poised to do it again.

Citadel Broadcasting Corp. announced Thursday that Imus would return to radio Dec. 3., confirming long-rumored reports that he was coming back to morning drive time on WABC-AM, based in New York - the same city where he was banished from the airwaves last spring.

Good. I have no problem with Imus returning to the airwaves. He was punished for his remarks and deserves forgiveness and a second chance ... something James Wigderson and others on the right would do well to consider the next time they decide to make insipid remarks about Senator Ted Kennedy.

Regardless of what tabloids James and the other righties read, the Kopechne family has moved on, with no indication they have not forgiven Kennedy for his role in their daughter's death. No one knows and it's borderline crazy to keep surmising otherwise.

Or just plain shallow.

Nothing Surprises Me Anymore

The New York Times is reporting that immunity was offered to Blackwater USA security guards. Well, of course it was. To not have offered immunity would have gone against everything this administration stands for. See below ....


WASHINGTON, Oct. 29 — State Department investigators offered Blackwater USA security guards immunity during an inquiry into last month’s deadly shooting of 17 Iraqis in Baghdad — a potentially serious investigative misstep that could complicate efforts to prosecute the company’s employees involved in the episode, government officials said Monday.

The State Department investigators from the agency’s investigative arm, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, offered the immunity grants even though they did not have the authority to do so, the officials said. Prosecutors at the Justice Department, who do have such authority, had no advance knowledge of the arrangement, they added.

Click here for more.

Edmund Burke - 18th Century Blogger Fan

In this article by Jonathan Schwarz in Mother Jones about Edmund Burke, Schwarz makes the argument that Burke was being prescient in his writings concerning blogs, the new journalists. It's interesting, though I'm not sure that I agree with his point that Burke would have been in step with MoveOn versus today's conservatives (Though, I'm also not sure one can compare conservatism in the 21st century to that practiced in the time of King George II, regardless what George Will may think). Nonetheless, I too think Burke would have made an excellent advocate for bloggers.


What did the famous British parliamentarian and political philosopher Edmund Burke (1729-1797) have to say about the internet and our current political circumstances? Quite a bit, it turns out.

Burke is beloved by conservative intellectuals. George Will, for instance, mentions him all the time. Quoting Burke gives their pronouncements a nice glossy sheen.

Yet their Burke-worship is genuinely bizarre. Few people understand this, since few people (including conservative intellectuals) bother to read what Burke wrote. Anyone who does, though, will immediately understand how strongly Burke would have opposed today's conservative movement, since he strongly opposed their 18th century equivalents.

This is particularly clear in Burke's 1770 pamphlet, "Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents." It's not merely that Burke was writing during a time of uprisings in overseas colonies, and in opposition to a monarch named George who was trying to expand executive power and neuter the legislative branch. Almost every sentence Burke wrote applies precisely to today.

For instance, in one passage Burke sounds like he's describing current efforts by MoveOn and blogs to prevent Congress from granting telecom companies immunity for violating FISA:

Whilst men are linked together, they easily and speedily communicate the alarm of any evil design. They are enabled to fathom it with common counsel, and to oppose it with united strength. Whereas, when they lie dispersed, without concert, order, or discipline, communication is uncertain, counsel difficult, and resistance impracticable. Where men are not acquainted with each other’s principles, nor experienced in each other’s talents, nor at all practised in their mutual habitudes and dispositions by joint efforts in business; no personal confidence, no friendship, no common interest, subsisting among them; it is evidently impossible that they can act a public part with uniformity, perseverance, or efficacy. In a connection, the most inconsiderable man, by adding to the weight of the whole, has his value, and his use; out of it, the greatest talents are wholly unserviceable to the public. No man, who is not inflamed by vain-glory into enthusiasm, can flatter himself that his single, unsupported, desultory, unsystematic endeavours, are of power to defeat the subtle designs and united cabals of ambitious citizens. When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.

Burke also covers George's insistence on appointing incompetent hacks to positions of power, to habituate Parliament to impotence; the way the King's cabal is mired in the "deepest and dirtiest pits of corruption" yet purports to be motivated by the "most astonishing prudery, both moral and political"; and the "futility, the weakness, the rashness, the perpetual contradiction, in the management of our affairs" in colonies across the sea. Then there's his description of a corrupted, weak legislature, which could have been written yesterday:

A vigilant and jealous eye over executory and judicial magistracy; an anxious care of public money, an openness, approaching towards facility, to public complaint: these seem to be the true characteristics of an House of Commons. But an addressing House of Commons, and a petitioning nation; an House of Commons full of confidence, when the nation is plunged in despair; in the utmost harmony with Ministers, whom the people regard with the utmost abhorrence; who vote thanks, when the public opinion calls upon them for impeachments; who are eager to grant, when the general voice demands account; who, in all disputes between the people and Administration, presume against the people; who punish their disorders, but refuse even to inquire into the provocations to them; this is an unnatural, a monstrous state of things in this constitution.

Parliament cannot with any great propriety punish others, for things in which they themselves have been accomplices. Thus the controul of Parliament upon the executory power is lost; because Parliament is made to partake in every considerable act of Government. Impeachment, that great guardian of the purity of the Constitution, is in danger of being lost, even to the idea of it. [Italics in original]

So if we truly want to remember the past, rather than repeat it, Burke's pamphlet is a good place to start. As another old dead guy, Thomas Jefferson, said:

...experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny...the most effectual means of preventing this would be, to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts, which history exhibiteth, that, possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes.

Say What?

Another stupid conservative comments.

"Our society is such that minorities don't become elderly the way white people do; they die first."

-- John Tanner, top voting rights official at the Justice Department, explaining why photo ID requirements do not disproportionately disenfranchise minority voters.

We Will Persevere

James Wigderson of Wigderson Library & Pub, doesn't get it.

I like James. He has a wonderful wife, cute kids, a beautiful mother and an always interesting father who keeps sending me the weirdest stuff imaginable via e-mail (keep it up, Bill ... I do look at every one of them). James' politics are diametrically opposed to mine, but we can talk. Sometimes it gets a little hot. Most often, though, humor defuses the tense situations and we come to an understanding.

However, in this instance, his defense of Jessica McBride, while expected and applauded (he is, after all, a friend of hers), is wrong on many levels.

The key point he misses in his lengthy and rambling defense is this: McBride should not have asked the question in the first place.

One would have thought a journalism lecturer (you know, a professional) would have known better than to write such an ill-advised and questionably bigoted statement. One would have thought she would have waited for more facts rather than making flippant remarks. If after the fact it had been determined that the people murdered were indeed gangsta rappers, then perhaps a story about the dangers inherent in that musical profession, with links to the Tupac shooting and other incidents might have been relevant.

But McBride didn't do that. That's the shame of McBride and the reason her exploits are exposed. The right would rather that their words were ignored, while they are allowed to attack with reckless abandon. Why do you think they are so against the Fairness Doctrine and so obsessed with "liberal" bias?

It's because they can't win the argument. And now that liberals have caught on to conservative tactics and are again winning the public opinion war, conservatives are fretting.

Fret away and never fear, the McBride, Fred Dooley, Peter DiGaudio and right-wing watch will continue unabated.

More Proof the GOP Is Retreating In the Tax Wars

by David Sirota
Working for Change

A while back I wrote a post about how the conservative movement is in shambles in the Rocky Mountain West. Then, a few weeks ago, I wrote a newspaper column on how the long lines at the chronically underfunded/understaffed Division of Motor Vehicles lays waste to the whole right-wing mantra that cutting government is good for the economy. I recounted my own personal struggles at the DMV - struggles that most Coloradans go through. Now, the Rocky Mountain News reports that Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter (D) is looking at ways to fix the DMV problems, suggesting perhaps a refund of license fees if customers are forced to wait longer than a set period of time.

The move by Ritter to address these issues in the context of his government efficiency plans is terrific. But what is just as newsworthy is this little nugget buried in the story:

"Republican House Minority Leader Mike May, of Parker, said he doubts a money-back guarantee or discount would work because there simply aren't enough employees. He said the state would be better off hiring more workers and opening license bureaus at night and on weekends."

May actually has a good point - the underlying problem is underfunding and understaffing. But what he doesn't mention is that the Colorado Republicans used their former legislative majorities to pass budgets that slashed budgets for state agencies like the DMV. Colorado Republicans also have championed the so-called Taxpayer Bill of Rights which creates the rationale for such budget cuts. Now, incredibly, the Colorado Republican leadership is berating the very cuts they championed.

Hypocrisy, as usual, knows no bounds - and it is precisely this kind of hypocrisy that voters tend to see right through come election time.

The Right Wing Bloggers Game

Name the local right wing blogger whose rhetoric and lack of common sense would fit best into this latest masterpiece from Tom Tomorrow.

Free for All

I find myself appalled at the U.S. Senate's condemnation of MoveOn's “General Betrayus” ad. I am equally appalled at the idea of a resolution by Democratic senators condemning Rush Limbaugh for his “phony soldiers” remarks. Both actions taken are distasteful.

It is completely inappropriate and chilling that any government body be leading such undemocratic actions. Of course, you'll find few if any conservative bloggers who agree.

Apparently, free speech is only free when they're the ones doing the talking.


UPDATE: Well, except for elliot and Dean.

Irony is Dead (or they shot themselves in the foot again)

From The Mahablog:

Keith Olbermann pointed this out on Countdown last night. This is from yesterday’s White House press briefing by Dana Perino. She was commenting on the situation in Burma.

Q: And the protests, themselves, seem to have been stilled. What do you make of that?

MS. PERINO: Well, unfortunately, intimidation and force can chill peaceful demonstrations. And reports about very innocent people being thrown into detention, where they could be held for years without any representation or charges, is distressing; and we understand that some of the monasteries have been sealed. Now, obviously, this has, again, a chilling effect on protestors, but we would ask that everyone show restraint and allow those who want to express themselves to be able to do so in Burma.

Yes, very distressing.

For My New Friend

An oldie but a goodie. Conservatives debating the merits of global warming over a few beers.

The Demise of the GOP

I've been saying the same thing myself. There are many honorable conservatives/Republicans. Unfortunately for them (I'm not terribly unhappy) their party has been hijacked by the wackjobs like Limbaugh, Coulter, Dobson and a seemingly vast number of rude, uncouth and vulgar conservative commenters that you can read regularly on local blogs. This in its entirety from the Anonymous Liberal.

In his column in the New York Times today, David Brooks explains the collapse of the Republican brand this way:

To put it bluntly, over the past several years, the G.O.P. has made ideological choices that offend conservatism’s Burkean roots. This may seem like an airy-fairy thing that does nothing more than provoke a few dissenting columns from William F. Buckley, George F. Will and Andrew Sullivan. But suburban, Midwestern and many business voters are dispositional conservatives more than creedal conservatives. They care about order, prudence and balanced budgets more than transformational leadership and perpetual tax cuts. It is among these groups that G.O.P. support is collapsing.

John Cole, a Republican-voter as recently as 2004, strongly dissents and offers a different explanation:

Like me. It had nothing to do with Burke, and everything to do with what the party had become. A bunch of bedwetting, loudmouth, corrupt, hypocritical, and incompetent boobs with a mean streak a mile long and no sense of fair play or proportion. . . .

Screw them. I got out. They can have their party. I will vote for Democrats and little L libertarians and isolationists until the crazy people aren’t running the GOP. The threat of higher taxes in the short term isn’t enough to keep me from voting out crazy people and voting for sane people with whom I merely disagree regarding policy. Hillarycare doesn’t scare me as much as Frank Gaffney having a line to the person with the nuclear football or Dobson and company crafting domestic policy.

I think Cole is much closer to the truth here than Brooks. I think the reason the Republican brand has suffered so much of late is because many people have become embarrassed by and no longer want to be associated with the party's public representatives; its most visible television personalities, radio hosts, writers, bloggers, and activists, are by in large, obnoxious, crazy, and embarrassing. It's a clown show. Intelligent conservatives cringe when they see people like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh on television spouting their toxic nonsense, but this toxic gasbag contingent has come to dominate the GOP. And while this stuff might be red meat to much of the Republican base, it's scaring away the more educated members of the party.

I know this because I know a number of people who, not so long ago, were very proud Republicans and were not at all embarrassed about saying so. And now they're all very disillusioned and quick to tell you that they're not that kind of Republican. The problem for the GOP is that it has allowed a bunch of rabid loons to take control of its messaging and they are tarnishing the brand with their relentless idiocy. As long as this continues, there will continue to be an exodus from the party of people like John Cole, who may not agree with the Democrats on everything, but are just sick and tired of the GOP clown show.

Ode to the Last Good Conservative

Apologies to Tony Orlando and Dawn, authors of "Knock Three Times."

Hey boy what ya doin' next to me
Sittin' alone in your stall while I sit here beside you
I can hear your bladder contracting
I think of your sphincter compacting
One stall beside me you don't even know me
I love you

(Refrain)
Oh, my darling, tap three times on my shoe top if you want me
Twice on the pipe if the answer is no, oh, my sweetness
(Tap, Tap, Tap!) Means you'll meet me by the urinal
Mmm, twice on the pipe (clink, clink) means you ain't gonna show

If you look out your window tonight
Pull in the string with the note that says gays are a no no
Read how many times I said it
How people believed I really meant it
Only in my dreams did I know I was living a lie

(Refrain)
Oh, my darling, tap three times on my shoe top if you want me
Twice on the pipe if the answer is no, oh, my sweetness
(Tap, Tap, Tap!) Means you'll meet me by the urinal
Mmm, twice on the pipe (clink, clink) means you ain't gonna show

I can hear your body voiding
I can feel there is no avoiding
That one stall beside me you don't even know me
I love you

(Refrain)
Oh, my darling, tap three times on my shoe top if you want me
Twice on the pipe if the answer is no, oh, my sweetness
(Tap, Tap, Tap!) Means you'll meet me by the urinal
Mmm, twice on the pipe (clink, clink) means you ain't gonna show


For Fred (Anytime, Anywhere ... mmm) Dooley