Teabagging Subverted

Interviews in TeaBag land:



Well done, buddy.

Beck the Secessionist

Beck, in his own words:

You can’t convince me that the Founding Fathers wouldn’t allow you to secede.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact, and if a state says: ‘I don’t want to go there, because that’s suicide, they have a right to back out. They have a right — people have a right to not commit economic suicide...

...Texas says go to hell, Washington, which by the way has been said before. I believe it was Davey Crocket...it’s about time that somebody says that again."

I think that this issue might be considered settled after the little thing called the Civil War.

Gingrich Bites it on the Pirates

Gingrich jumped the gun on this one, hoping for Black Hawk Down:

I just got off the phone with a military expert and former Army Ranger who supports Republicans and Dems, and he hammered Gingrich and conservative media figures for criticizing Obama, saying that the Commander-in-chief deserved "respect" while a sensitive operation was unfolding.

"I would hope that they’re feeling a little silly today," said the expert, Andrew Exum, a fellow at the Center for National Security Studies. "It’s bad form. You don’t make this a partisan issue until an operation has been assessed. It’s fair game ex post facto. But during the emergency, I think that our elected leaders deserve our respect."

Gingrich whacked away at Obama’s handling of the standoff on Twitter over the weekend, saying it made us "look weak." The Wall Street Journal editorial page, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck also targeted Obama.

Exum, who advised Obama during the campaign but who also supports Republicans, hinted that the criticism bordered on unpatriotic. "If Glenn Beck loves his country as much as he alleges, he should hold his tongue when elected leaders on the ground are dealing with a very difficult situation."

What a tool.

Beck Loves Vampires and Militias... and McVeigh?

If you've been watching Glenn Beck, then you know he's obsessed with Vampires sucking the blood of the innocent, by which he means the horrible atrocity that is a Government financed by tax revenue.  It's violent commentary - literally blood soaked.  If you think he's just weird enough to make it all up on his own, you can be forgiven, but it turns out to have a more storied pedigree:

There you see Operation Vampire Killer, where this rhetoric got it start.  It's proudly displayed next to the Militiaman's Handbook at a militia convention.  See if this sounds familiar:

We in America, Officers and private citizens alike, are fortunate that at this moment in our history we can still LAWFULLY EXTERMINATE these parasitic Global Blood Suckers by placing numerous "STAKES" made of words, paper, pen, and hard work through their hardened hearts.

[…]

Very soon, if we do not stop these world government proponents, and install in places of leadership honorable men and women, all military, national guardsmen and officers of the law will be used as the "enforcement arm" to guarantee a full complement of "volunteers" for these imperialists' "peaceful" socialist global society.

Beck talks about driving stakes through the hearts of the government vampires all the time.

This dovetails nicely with the reading McVeigh did before committing his heinous act of terrorism:

Mr. McVeigh's reading, which he pressed on his sister, Jennifer, among others, also included Spotlight, the newsletter of the anti-semitic Liberty Lobby, Patriot Report, a far-right Christian identity newsletter that would later declare the Oklahoma bombing a plot by "the real hate groups," namely the F.B.I. and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, to crack down on armed paramilitary groups, and a strange document titled "Operation Vampire Killer 2000."

Written by Jack McLamb, a former Phoenix police sergeant, it seeks to enlist police and military personnel against "the ongoing, elitist covert operation which has been installed in the American system with great stealth and cunning." It continues, "They, the globalists, have stated that the date of termination of the American way of life is the year 2000."

When the nuts amongst their followers take this rhetoric to its unavoidable conclusion, people like Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh and O'Reilly will scream bloody murder at the merest hint that they have some blame in the matter.  But clearly, they have created the climate for this violence.  They must take some responsibility.

Obama Supports Bush Habeas Revokation?

The NYT is reporting today that Obama will continue the Bush Administration's legal position on the rights afforded to detainees at Bagram Airforce base in Afghanistan.

Listen, I've said this before.  We're in a strange time.  A time when the problems with our form of government have been laid bare by the lawlessness of the Bush Administration.  They hired yes-men lawyers who told them exactly what they wanted to hear, thereby giving the color of law to their flagrant criminality.  From Torture to Wiretapping to Habeas Corpus, the Bush Administration was able to claim (and have their minions loudly repeat) that what they were doing was legal.  Although it wasn't really new ground, 9/11 made it seem like it was, and that was enough to muddle the field.

As perverse as it sounds, Obama needs to continue these policies.  Obviously, the clear law of the land wasn't enough to dissuade a President who seeks to lacerate the Constitution, so how then can we ensure they don't happen again?  Rulings from the Supreme Court, that's how.

RightWing Thinks US Military is Omnipotent

That's right, nothing is too difficult for those amazing men and women from the United States Armed Services!  RedState had this crazy stuff to say about what Obama should have done with the pirates:

On Friday, April 10, as the standoff reached the end of its third day, I called on President Obama to take action to free the American hostage from his Somali captors. I outlined three possible operational tactics that could be used to do so; number 1 was the following:

http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redhot/#post-2394

(1) 2 helos, 2 snipers each: pop the [pirates] in their heads, then drop a rescue swimmer to escort the hostage up to one of the choppers. This works best if the hostage is aware of what is happening and can help without getting in the way — say, by hopping overboard as the gunships near, to divert attention and get out of the line of fire.

(This was written before the USS Bainbridge tethered the life raft to its stern, an action which eliminated the need for helicopters.)

Really?  Apparently, there's no concern that four separate snipers would be able to put a single round each into the heads of the pirates from a moving helicopter.  Apparently, they could accomplish this simultaneously and without the pirates knowing they're coming (easy when approaching by helo), maintaining surprise so as to protect the hostage.  All of this is not only possible, it's so likely to succeed that the President was some kind of spineless weakling for not jumping at the opportunity to give the order.

Interestingly, even in this expert-level marksmanship competition featuring shots from helo, they're still using fully automatic weapons and they're lucky to put the rounds within 5 feet of their target.  I'm sure hitting an 8inch target is just a walk in the park for our military.

Rightwing Lying Furiously about Pirate Rescue

Man, they really must feel like they bet the farm on America's failure to resolve the pirate situation.

After taking fire from the Somali kidnappers again Saturday night, the on-scene commander decided he’d had enough. Keeping his authority to act in the case of a clear and present danger to the hostage’s life, and having heard nothing from Washington since yet another request to mount a rescue operation had been denied the day before, the Navy officer — unnamed in all media reports to date — decided the AK-47 one captor had leveled at Philips’ back was a threat to the hostage’s life, and ordered the NSWC team to take their shots.

Please note that this version of events has no links documenting it. Maybe that's because every source one might reference for such a thing says the opposite - that Obama himself gave the goahead for lethal force.

The delay was due to us running through the full range of options, and making sure that the rescue went as planned should we reach that point. That involved a large number of small moves to engineer the situation - tethering the lifeboat to the USS Bainbridge, for instance.  Obama is the king of the small move, made well in advance that cements his position.  He plays the long game, Republicans.  That really needs to sink in, or you'll get nowhere against him.

RedState Thinks Armed Forces Command Themselves?

Obama gave the order for violent escalation last Friday, and today everything was in place for the operation to go forward.

A senior US official tells me that President Barack Obama approved a recommendation by Defense Secretary Bob Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen to dispatch special forces to the US scene on Friday.

These special forces were authorized to take action "in extremis" against the Somali pirates holding Maersk Captain Richard Phillips, 53, hostage on a motorized lifeboat off the coast of Somalia.

A senior official tells me that when the fourth Somali pirate was on the Bainbridge ship, Phillips moved to side of the lifeboat to relieve himself.

At that point, U.S. special forces saw their opportunity and took other three pirates out.

Captain Phillips is now safe aboard a U.S. vessel.

It's "going to make a great movie," a U.S. official adds.

RedState is having none of it:

In the end, Captain Phillips wasn’t saved by the President, but by his own courageous plunge and the deadly professionalism of our men with guns. The President, you see, was saved by the Captain.

They spin a story of the President paralyzed with fear, unable to contemplate that most horrible option of using force.  Then, when the deed is done all they can muster is "Obama doesn't deserve credit!"  

Once again, this is an utter failure of expectations management by the GOP.  They have to learn that Obama is playing long ball here, and that by trying to react with maximum indignation within every newscycle they end up looking like craven, waffling idiots, unable to craft any sort of coherent message and clearly uninterested in the task of governing.

Will this sort of frantic attack on every front eventually result in Obama's approval ratings falling, or will it serve to help keep the GOP isolated to the Talk Radio extremes?  We'll see.

Some Old Treaty....

... on whether or not America is a Christian Nation:

The Treaty of Tripoli:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

There you have it.  

American Exceptionalism

Sigh. Obama is the man.

This is the sane view of American Exceptionalism: that America holds a special place in history as the first great Democracy, and further for fighting for people's freedoms across the world.  Finally, as an American, I think it's particularly great.  This view is in stark contrast to Rush Limbaugh's definition, which I am not making up: that America is the exception!  That the rules that apply to other countries to not apply to us!  Anything less is blaming America first!

What astounding arrogance in these Talk-Radio Republicans.

Riposte to "Obama is a Radical"

I need to get on Boortz and try this out:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Baracknophobia - Obey
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

Well put, as always, Mr. Stewart. He is truly one of the indispensable men.

Republican Judges Love Gay Marriage

Via Andrew Sullivan we discover that all of the opinions legalizing gay marriage thus far have been authored by Republican-appointed justices. That's remarkable. Here's the list:

Massachusetts (Goodridge, 2003) Margaret Marshall, appointed by Chief Justice Gov. Weld (R) in 1996, elevated to Chief by Gov. Cellucci (R);

in 1999 California (In re Marriage Cases, 2008) Ronald George, Chief Justice appointed by Gov. Wilson (R) in 1991, elevated to Chief by Gov. Wilson (R);

in 1996 Connecticut (Kerrigan, 2008) Richard Palmer, Associate Justice appointed by Gov. Weicker (Ind.); in 1993 -- Note that Weicker was a Republican during his time in the House and Senate. He won the governorship as an independent.

And today, in Iowa (Varnum, 2009) Mark Cady, Associate Justice, appointed by Gov. Branstad (R) in 1998.

Those damned activist judges, eh?

Obama Love

Have you heard that Obama's teleprompter thinks for him?



I love this guy.

Obama's Successful Presidency

As a followup to the NASDAQ post, we now have the DOW above where Obama took office.  So therefore he's a successful President, and Wall Street approves of his policies.

I think that's what I've learned from Fox News and Talk Radio.

GOP Bad at Expectations Game

Steve Bennen write's up Obama at the G-20 so I don't have to.  In particular, note the phrases I bolded in the first paragraph:

The world leaders who assembled at the G20 reached an agreement to address the global economic crisis, but whether their plan has merit depends a bit on who you ask. On the one hand, the agreement "was more than what experts expected," and was arguably "remarkable given the discord that preceded Thursday's meeting." The LA Times said the end product "surprised many observers with its unusually substantive achievements." At the same time, the WSJ and NYTwere less impressed.

But how about President Obama's first turn on the global stage, just two months into his first term? He told reporters yesterday, "I think I did O.K." By some measures, Obama was selling himself short.

For example, there was a heated disagreement between France and China over tax havens and the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development. Obama personally intervened, took the opposing leaders aside, and brokered an agreement based on little more than a rhetorical shift. The process seemed a little silly, but it was the U.S. president's "first moment as a statesman."

TNR's John Judis said Obama's "performance at the G-20 has been flawless." TAP's Tim Fernholzadded, "After the G-20, we can say that President Barack Obama had a successful entrance onto the world stage." The WaPo's Steven Pearlstein concluded, "All in all, a pretty successful opening-night performance for President Obama on the international economic stage. He achieved most of what he wanted while allowing others to claim victory and allowing the United States to shed its Bush-era reputation for inflexibility and heavy-handedness. And by the standards of past summits, this one was full of accomplishment."

The Republicans suck at the expectations game.  It's like they've suddenly become bad at politics.

Can't Give the Queen what She Wants?

I just don't understand what gives the Fox/Talk Radio crowd the vapors these days.  They're hyperventilating now about the fact that the Obamas gave the Queen a video IPod, and the horrible breach of etiquette this represents.  It's funny, cuz I remember these same Republicans being appalled by this:

Wait, was it "appalled," or "never mentioned?" I can't remember.

Of course, this is made doubly ridiculous by the fact that the Queen requested the Video IPod. She had a previous generation IPod already, but she wanted the neat toy that could play video.  She should have gone for the Touch.

Update: DKos put together a video of the outrage, and a British spokesperson's succinct rebuttal.

Europe doesn't hate Obama?

I thought I had heard that Europe thinks Obama is taking America "to hell" with his stimulus plans and regulatory ideas?  Well, apparently not.  But I thought I heard that over and over again on talk radio and Fox News.  Do you think they didn't check their sources?  They wouldn't run with a story that wasn less than the truth just to make Obama look bad, would they?

Reporting from Los Angeles and London -- The G-20 leaders will pour at least $1 trillion into the global economy in an effort to stimulate recovery from a worldwide downturn and will push for greater regulation of the financial industry, officials said this morning.

In a televised news conference from London, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced the key elements of the plan, including an additional $500 billion for the International Monetary Fund, $250 billion in IMF Special Drawing Rights and $250 billion to boost trade.

The leaders of the major economies also pledged to work on such regulatory issues as pay and bonuses for executives and bringing financial instruments such as hedge funds into tighter government control. Many blame the new investment instruments, including derivatives and credit swaps, for the economic contraction around the world.

"This is the day that the world came together to fight back against the global recession," Brown told reporters.

"Our message today is clear and certain. We believe that in this new global age, our prosperity is indivisible,' he said. "We believe that growth, to be sustained, must be shared, and that trade must once again become an engine of growth. The old Washington consensus is over; today we have reached a new consensus."

"There are no quick fixes. But with the six pledges that we make today, we can shorten the recession and save jobs."

The six pledges may not have been everything Obama said he wanted, but it is excellent nonetheless.  And when you're dealing with someone like Obama, a cautious poker player, it's difficult to say that his "Ask" wasn't merely a strategic opening, leading to the outcome he originally desired.  A trillion dollars is no slouch, and the work to strengthen regulations is key to establishing a healthy period of real economic growth.

The Republicans really need to learn how to set expectations.  They've turned this trip from an impending disaster, where the EU rebukes Obama harshly, into a remarkable accomplishment, with Obama brokering deals and closing the breach between American and the rest of the world.

"Light Switch Tax" Lies

Unsurprisingly, the Republicans are lying about Cap and Trade when they say it will cost every family $3,128 per year.

It's a pattern they've followed before.  Simply take a study done by a Democratic policy advocate, misunderstand or willfully ignore the obvious preconditions for the study, then apply the study in a dishonest way to the current debate.  They did it first with the Stimulus Bill, claiming their package would create twice as many jobs for half the cost.  Of course, the study they referenced was regarding the efficacy of taxcuts in a time of economic expansion - the polar opposite of our current situation.  It goes beyond the normal political games of selective emphasis - it is dishonesty.

For Cap and Trade, they're citing researcher John Reilly's study.  Here's what he has to say about their take on his work:

"It's just wrong," said John Reilly, an energy, environmental and agricultural economist at M.I.T. and one of the authors of the report [cited by congressional Republicans]. "It's wrong in so many ways it's hard to begin." [...]

The tax might push the price of carbon-based fuels up a bit, but other results of a cap-and-trade program, such as increased conservation and more competition from other fuel sources, would put downward pressure on prices. Moreover, consumers would get some of the tax back from the government in some form.

The report did include an estimate of the net cost to individuals, called the "welfare" cost. It would be $30.89 per person in 2015, or $79 per family if you use the same average household size the Republicans used of 2.56 people.

The cost would grow over time as the program ramps up, but the average annual cost over time in today's dollars -- that is, the "average annual net present value cost" -- is still just $85 per person, Reilly said. That would be $215.05 per household.

A far cry from $3,128. And that isn't the only inaccuracy in the claim.

PolitiFact called it a Pants-on-Fire level of lying, a special honor.

Palin Replaced by Newt for Major GOP Dinner

Palin is trying to play it off as a scheduling conflict, but an anonymous GOP official trashed Palin to Fox News, of all places, insisting that the Governor's Office wasn't being truthful.

"She was a disaster," the source said. "We had confirmation."

Funny.  We all thought she was a disaster, too.

The GOP's Clown Budget

Perhaps you've seen this graph floating around.  It was produced by the House Republican Staff.  Interestingly, CBO budget projections only go out to 2019, which means the Republicans are "inferring" the data points after that.

Isn't it interesting how, shortly after they start inferring, the numbers for the Democrats start going crazy?  Convenient for those Republicans, that.

More hilariously, the GOP Budget is a GOP Budget, so it must include certain things.  First, there are the obligatory tax-cuts for the rich, hacking the top marginal rate from 35% to 25%.  Second, there is the across-the-board spending freeze, with Defense spending on a different board, of course.

Where it takes the fork to crazy town is that it makes the tax changes optional.  It would be up to individual taxpayers to decide if they wanted to use the Bush-era tax code, or the new GOP-Budget tax code with it's 10% lower rates.  This raises the question - which tax code should the GOP use to compute the revenue going forward?  The answer: use the Bush-era, higher marginal rates to calculate the tax revenue to the Feds!  Cuz obviously, it's the patriotic thing to pay more, right?  Isn't that the argument the Republicans made during the election?

But because we don't live in Bizzaro World, where Republicans just love paying taxes, we should get a sense of what the real world tax revenues would be with the 25% top marginal rate.  The answer: subtract $300 billion in federal revenue, resulting in structural deficits that never go below $800 billion a year by the Republicans' own numbers.  This is their fiscal discipline.

What clowns.  Is this any better than their "budget with no numbers" from last week?