Pile On

When your top public health and medical advisory board officials resign over your decision, that tells me there is more to this Komen story than a bunch of dirty hippies getting pissed they lost a few bucks to screen women for breast cancer.

It tells me some conversations were had internally that led people to believe that they cannot have their name associated with Komen any more.

Funny that this internal struggle inside Komen that led to this short-sighted, politically-based decision coincided with the hiring of a former conservative Georgia gubernatorial candidate who has nasty things to say about Planned Parenthood.

Finally, this article discusses the short-sightedness of this particular decision.  It ends with a particularly interesting quote:

In a ghastly coincidence, the same day Komen pulled the money from Planned Parenthood because Stearns thought they were spending federal funds on abortions, the Journal of the America Medical Association published a damning study that almost half of women receiving second surgeries after lumpectomies didn't need the procedure. Painful, disfiguring, unnecessary surgery. At least three of the four sites studied in the JAMA report -- the University of Vermont, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, and the Marshfield Clinic -- has a relationship with the Komen Foundation. Kaiser Permanente is a "corporate campaign partner," the University of Vermont received a research grant, the Central Wisconsin Komen affiliate sponsors programs at the Marshfield Clinic. Maybe Komen should concentrate their granting criteria on whether the recipients are actually helping cancer patients.

***UPDATE***
Well well well.  Look who came to their senses.

Read more...

Republican War Policy Explained...

...If its profitable, its a good war.

Read more...

Tinker Belle for President

While I only digested the low lights of the Republican Presidential debate held last week, it got me thinking about their belief systems. What can we say about people who support, believe and worship the following concepts?

• Supply-side economics
• Creationism
• Tax cuts as government revenue generators
• Being gay is a choice
• Cutting spending as economic stimulus

It seems that every one of the Republican Presidential candidates has based their campaigns on various forms of fantasy.

Surely they are appealing to primary voters, so I must ask these voters: How can one go through life when everything you believe in has been shown through math, economics and science to be pure fiction? Is there comfort in blissful stupidity?

While all the above points to the GOP teahadists/diehards/candidates as being loony, it also demonstrates an electoral strength not held by the Democrats. When your supporters back you due to some sort of “faith” (economic or otherwise) it’s pretty hard for your opponents to shake their dedication at the polls.

Why do I try to understand these people?

Read more...

A Bookface "friend" posted Wayne Allyn Root's wildly hysterical and generally insane ramble entitled Rules for Radicals: Obama's New Plan to Destroy America. Being in a silly mood, I followed the link.

I returned to Facebook, and stated simply that his link was "possibly the most vapid, under-researched, unfathomably misinformed and purposefully misdirectional piece of drooling slander I have ever wasted my time with, period. This article pretends to debate policy when all it really does it evoke Beck-esque conspiracy theorizing, which is especially hilarious when, on his own website, Root says "I am not a fan of conspiracy theories. I actually think that wild conspiracy theories detract and discredit any serious attempt to ask legitimate questions about the background of our President.""

I notice that I have been unfriended. This was probably for the best.

One of my favorite gems:

Why would Obama launch this all-out assault on capitalism, you ask? The answer is simple. He's an ideologue who hates America and believes the capitalistic system is destructive and exploitive (as do most of my Columbia classmates). Like Mao and Lenin, Obama sees himself as the "people's savior."

That's pretty standard fare for, um, some ideologues who aren't fans of the President. But it's nothing new; hates America, blah blah, Stalin, blah blah, commie. Yawn.

The piece really hits its stride here:

Obama's new plan is brilliant. Act like you've learned a lesson. Compromise. Move to the center. Talk like a moderate conservative. Support tax cuts. Become a friend to business. Act supportive of repealing parts of your own Obamacare plan. Make nice to the Chamber of Commerce. Appoint business leaders to your management team. Talk about tort reform. Talk about the dangers of debt. Become "the jobs" President. Allow Bill O'Reilly to interview you and claim your new goal is to get spending under control. Spend your entire State of the Union praising America. You are now a patriot bleeding red, white and blue.

This, in and of itself, is brilliant in its deviousness. And by brilliant, I mean massively, blazingly dim. And by deviousness, I mean purposeful misdirection.

Let's break it down:

Root just took everything that the President has done in the past month and a half, and listed it out as if it's a by-the-book "this is how you create plans to destroy countries" step by step process. Step 1, capitulate. Step 2, change your speech. Step 3, etc etc etc. No, Wayne. All you did was list 6 weeks worth of activity. It's how he writes that passage that makes it so bad. That everything the President has done is premeditated all the way back to Mao, as if Mao wrote somewhere that if you do these things, in this order, BAM! Despot 1; Nation 0.

That, folks, is fucking funny.

Ah, but we get some more fun:

Why would he commit this act of fraud and deception? One over-riding goal: Get re-elected in 2012.

Wait, you mean getting re-elected is Obama's over-riding goal?? Noooooooo!!!! Wait. WAIT!! That was Bush's goal too?? And Clinton's??? AND VAN BUREN'S????

But why? WHY would Obama want to get re-elected?

Why is getting re-elected so important? Because then Obama has nothing standing in his way of completing the job he set out to do -- DESTROY AMERICA.

Wait. What's...standing in his way...now? Does he need 4 years? Because if you ask Red State or O'Reilly, he's kinda already done it. So...what gives?

Two more years of patience and the keys to the kingdom...and the economy...and the Fed...and the United States Military...and the nuclear arsenal...all belong to Obama.

Wait. Wait. Doesn't...doesn't he have the keys to all that stuff right now? And who might he nuke? Us?

Idiot feed for the idiots. Typical shock-jock radio nonsense geared towards the people who would actually believe it.

Read more...

What is a Leader?

What is a leader?

I think most would agree that a leader is someone who tries to guide or produce some sort of action out of others. 

A leader may organize and motivate employees to make a business succeed.  A leader may seek to convince you to vote for them or another candidate.  A leader may work to galvanize people around a cause, such as giving blood at the Red Cross, donating food to the local food bank, or encouraging you to swing a hammer for Habitat for Humanity.

No matter what cause a leader wants you to support, a leader uses words to try to drive others to action.  A moral leader motivates their followers through responsible, inspirational speech.  

While the average person might be motivated to vote or take up protest after hearing a metaphor promoting violent action, there are those who will take these calls-to-arms literally.  There are those who will be inspired to take violent action against communists, socialists, Grannie-killing bureaucrats, or the illegitimate holder of the oval office.

Yes, words matter.  Yes, words can get people killed.  

Read more...

Whitewashing the Bush Years

Do you need some ammo to win debates with your conservative "friends" over who caused the current state of our economy? 

Memorize this Krugman column.

Read more...

Last Night's Recap

I won't write a recap of last night's elections results, because Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com always does a better job.

He agrees with the assessment of Mr. Furious that "all politics are local."

Of course the MSM will enter into horserace mode and have to interpret the results for all us simpletons, while the right wing intelligentsia will continue full force in their 48 hour circle-jerk.

Special thanks to Sarah Palin and Fred Thompson for blowing it for the Republicans in NY-23.

Read more...

Third Party Rising?

ATK regulars have debated the impact of the ultra conservative, "TEA Party" movement in several posts. In his post on October 12th, ATK contributor Steve suggested that the teabaggers might branch off into their own party. I discounted this suggestion at the time, because I surmised that the teabaggers don't need to do so when they really have complete control over the existing Republican Party. I thought that it was more likely that moderate Republicans would need their own party.

Judging by what is going on in one New York State Congressional race, Steve may have been right.

From what I have read, New York’s district #23 is usually a shoe-in for Republicans, but not so this year. It seems that New York Republicans aren’t conservative enough for the national party base, so Republicans like Fred Thomspon, Dick Armey and Sarah Palin have endorsed Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman.

Up until today it looked like the foolish teabaggers, and the outsiders like Thompson, might be about to throw a solid Republican seat to the Democrats. Today, a Daily KOS poll (Yes, Kos.) showed that the race is a dead heat between Democrat Bill Owens at 33% and Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman at 32%. The Republican, Dede Scozzafava is way behind at 21%. Other polls by conservatives have shown similar numbers.

As a Democrat I see this situation as a win, no matter what the outcome on Tuesday. If the Democrat pulls it out, that is fine with me. Add one more to the Democratic majority in Congress. If the teabaggers claim victory and strengthen a third-party base, I am OK with that too.

If the Conservative Party becomes a more permanent, growing force in politics, I see the Republican Party even more fractured that it is. The ability of Republicans to deliver statewide or national elections will be endangered, perhaps setting up a long era of Democratic governance not seen since the beginning of the New Deal era.

What’s your take?

Read more...

With Friends Like These…

Lieberman to vote against the public option and support a filibuster.

Would you ass-hats in Connecticut get rid of this scumbag?

Read at Politico and then rant.

UPDATE: If you are a consitutent of Jerk-off Joe, you can reach him here.

UPDATE 2: Joe is a "complete fucking asshole."

Read more...

Don't laugh at Al.

Laugh all you want people, but Al Franken is no slouch of a Senator. Recently, he sponsored an amendment to insert boilerplate into a defense appropriations bill that will hold defense contractors more accountable for the way they treat their employees. Specifically preventing employees from signing away their right to go to court when they experience a sexual assault at work.

The amazing thing is 30 male, Republican Senators voted against the amendment.

What were they thinking? This is getting too easy.


Source: Think Progress via Balloon-Juice.

Read more...

The Decline of Conservative Intellectualism

Steven Hayward had a good op-ed in the Washington Post, Is Conservatism Brain-Dead? This is certainly not the only article to address this issue and I could probably find many who would say that it has always been brain dead. Partisanship aside, I have been troubled by what is happening within the Conservative movement. It has been harder for me to defend it and I wondered if it was because my beliefs were shifting or was their something else at work. While my beliefs have changed, sometimes radically, I still think that there are many good conservative positions on a variety of issues.

So, what is wrong? According to Hayward, the balance between populism and intellectualism amond conservatives is skewed towards populism:

Today, however, the conservative movement has been thrown off balance, with the populists dominating and the intellectuals retreating and struggling to come up with new ideas. The leading conservative figures of our time are now drawn from mass media, from talk radio and cable news. We've traded in Buckley for Beck, Kristol for Coulter, and conservatism has been reduced to sound bites.

I agree that this isn't a good thing. I am not a complete snob and enjoy some level of populism, but the voices from the Right are overwhlemingly populist.

Yet it was not enough just to expose liberalism's weakness; it was also necessary to offer robust alternatives for both foreign and domestic policy, ideas that came to fruition in the Reagan years. Today, it is not clear that conservative thinkers have compelling alternatives to Obama's economic or foreign policy. At best, the right is badly divided over how to fix the economy and handle Iran and Afghanistan. So for the time being, the populists alone have the spotlight.

This can be seen in the health care debate, too. It is not enough to just sit there and yell about Big Government. You need to offer some constructive alternatives. I am certainly not going to argue that Conservative priciples are the ones we should follow (I don't even agree with all of them), but I would argue that a vigorous debate, that is characterized with reason and logic, is something that benefits us all. We are not getting enough of that from the Right.

As a kind of post script, I don't want to give the impression that the Left hasn't made the same mistake in the past, but they are far more balanced right now.

Read more...

What's their motivation?

Liberals, and likely many normal conservatives, don’t understand the freak show that showed up at the Hundred Hypocrite Huddle in D.C. last week. The so-called “TEA” movement never made an appearance when the Bush administration, passed TARP, created the Medicare pharma benefit and otherwise spent money like a rock star, yet all of a sudden our country is in peril when Obama shows up? Heck, we aren’t even spending under an Obama budget yet and the main thing he has spent money on was a simulus bill, 42% of which was tax cuts. The teabagger hypocrisy cannot be explained by most normal folk, so I ask:

What motivates them?

In the everyday American’s mind it leaves a few options:

• They are driven my pure partisanship. (Possible)
• They are a coalition of single issue voters who together call themselves a movement. (Possible)
• They are driven by religious opposition to Obama’s religion or his social polices. (Possible)
• They are freaked out that Obama is a black guy now that he is in charge. (Possible)
• All of the above. (Possible)

While I am not yet convinced that Jimmy Carter did anyone a favor by calling these people racist, I am not convinced that race isn’t part of what drives part of this group.

What do you think?

Read more...

More Smart Conservatism

Following the article I posted below by Bruce Bartlett, it seems there has been a series of back and forth between Bartlett and Washington Monthly's Steve Benen regarding the media and it's poor handling of the wackos at the health care town hall meetings.

In his first post, Barlett makes the case that the media should have laughed these nut balls off the air.

“One reason this isn't happening is because the media don't treat Republicans as if they are discredited. On the contrary, they often seem to be treated as if they have more credibility than the administration. Just look at the silly issue of death panels. The media should have laughed it out the window, ridiculed it or at least ignored it once it was determined that there was no basis to the charge. Instead, those making the most outlandish charges are treated with deference and respect, while those that actually have credibility on the subject are treated as equals at best and often with deep skepticism, as if they are the ones with an ax to grind.”

As ATK readers know from the debates over the last week or so, I don't buy into the argument that Fox is a counter to an otherwise lefty media. Bartlett does a good job summing up my opinion as well as his in the following post.

He states:

"The Fox News channel is a pure conservative/Republican network that does not pretend to be anything else. Personally, I have no problem with that. The problem is that the rest of the media is no longer liberal. It has moved to the center across the board. This has created an imbalance that requires a Fox-like network that is as liberal as Fox is conservative. MSNBC seems to be trying to fill this role, but very half-heartedly for reasons I am unclear about."

I know of Barlett, but not well. I am guessing I would not agree with many of his economic policies. That is OK, because as much as I might not agree, I can respect him for being introspective and forthright. When I talk to people like this, it makes me more likely to examine my own beliefs and opinions.

Read more...

Reading Assignment

Mr. Furious pointed me to a good article in the Daily Beast, written by Bruce Bartlett, who is described as one of the original supply-siders, and a leading Republican economist.

In The GOP’s Misplaced Rage, Bartlett lays the blame of the current economic woes, including the recession and deficit right where it belongs. He goes on to say that the wacko, 22-percenters screaming at the health care town halls, have no one to blame, but the guy they love the most: George W. Bush. He even goes on to say that - gasp! - tax increases won't damage the economy.

Take a gander.

Read more...

We Are ND...

So I'm watching Glenn Beck the other day (HA!), and what do I see? My Torts professor, suggesting that the Obama Administration is basically coercing people into aborting disabled babies...

(I can't embed it, but you can see the Youtube clip here.)

Orlando Carter Snead is a former member of the Bush administration, and is a current Associate Professor at Notre Dame Law School. As the former General Counsel of George W. Bush's Counsil on Bio-ethics. He was last seen agreeing with Glenn Beck's assertion that the Obama administration was promoting eugenics. Who's got two thumbs, a shaved head, and helped supress stem cell research for years? This guy.

Also in the faculty here at ND is William Kelley, the former Deputy white House Counsel who was veeeeeeeery involved in the U.S. Attorney Firing scandal (and who was part of the Ken Starr investigations of President Clinton). So is Professor Charles Rice, who compared Obama to Adolf Hitler and stands with the "birthers" in claiming that "pending lawsuits... raise serious questions as to Obama's eligibility for the office."

I'm beginning to wonder what the hell is going on around here. But one thing's for sure; the next time someone complains about the liberal nature of higher education, I have a simple response: Go Irish.

Read more...

Giving the Republicans a Whole Lot of Rope...

As a State of Michigan employee, I was keeping an eye on the possibility that Governor Jennifer Granholm would get the Supreme Court nod, so I was somewhat blinded by the significance of the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Sotomayor was on Obama’s short list from the beginning. Her outstanding credentials have always been obvious, but what crept up on me was how brilliantly Obama put Republicans into a box.

Judge Sotomayor’s ethnicity, was clearly an asset for Obama, but he doesn’t merely get to check off the Latina box on the list of historic moments, he has made a political calculation that is relevant for this moment in Republican history. This is one more make it or break it time for the already ailing minority party.

What are the R’s to do with Sotomayor? She has been appointed by two previous Presidents, one Democrat and one Republican and has already been confirmed in a bipartisan fashion. She is the first appointee by Obama, so the Republicans will want to draw a little blood and not be seen as weak. She is seen by many as very liberal and her comments on appeals judges creating policy surely infuriates the right of the Republican base.

I always thought that if the 2008 election didn’t go to the Democrats, demographic changes in this country would surely kill of the Republican Party as we know it today. The Republican base is shrinking as groups they have routinely alienated have grown, including black’s and Hispanics. Gays, another constant target of the party base, has gained greater sympathy in the public’s mind. People support science in stem cell research and the teaching of evolution. Religious participation is dropping.

According a friend of mine who has been involved in Hispanic civil rights since the 1960’s, this appointment has gone over huge, HUGE in Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican and all other Hispanic communities. According to her, rarely do these groups come together as one voice as they have in this instance. This is a watershed moment.

This leads us back to the Republican conundrum. The far right forces are itching for a fight, folks like Randall Terry, Founder, of “Operation Rescue” the anti-abortion group want a filibuster. The Repubs are clearly test-marketing labels, Such as “Che Guevara in robes.” Some have already questioned her intellect, just as opponents of Justices Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas did, and just as people through out the ages have questioned the intellect of minorities. Some are attempting to label her a racist.

They have a choice. They can attack and discredit a clearly intelligent woman, and permanently lose the support of the Hispanic community or they can roll over and alienate the only part of the Republican Party not in taters: the religious far–right. Unless they find some lurid photos and can force Obama to retract her nomination, they should take the smart route, roll over and live to fight another day for the middle ground of voters.

I am betting they are not that smart.

------------------------------------

UPDATE, May 29th:

It has been brought to my attention that I may have pulled a Dowd and plagiarized a friendly fellow blogger.

In his May 26th post, Mr. Furious states:

“I barely mentioned the whole "empathetic judge" thing, but it appears to be a perfect example of Obama handing the Republicans just enough rope.”

While I had missed his blog post, I am taking this opportunity to give Mr. Furious due credit.

Read more...

“You Give Me a Water Board, Dick Cheney and One Hour, and I'll Have Him Confess to the Sharon Tate Murders”

Never thought I would quote Jesse Ventura, but what the hell.

Jesse Ventura, former Navy SEAL, former Governor of Minnesota on CNN's Lary King Live:

“You Give Me a Water Board, Dick Cheney and One Hour, and I'll Have Him Confess to the Sharon Tate Murders”

Funny stuff as linked from LLPN: video here.

Read more...

Wicked Witch of Wayne County?

Have you guys caught wind of Shirley Nagel, dubbed by one blogger as the "Wicked Witch of Wayne County"? I'll bet you have, but since I just heard about it, I'll assume there must be other who have not heard.

One Shirley Nagel, of Grosse Point Farms, refused to give candy to children on Halloween if their parents were supporters of Obama! What kind of a crock of shit is that?! She apparently even had a sign out front that read "No handouts for Obama supporters, liars, tricksters or kids of supporters." OMFG?!?! It's one thing for a couple of adults to hash out their political views in some less than savory ways... BUT LEAVE THE KIDS OUT OF IT!



One commenter on Buzzfeed said "And that's how many children learned to hate republicans. Not the brightest campaign idea."

Freep.com article

Read more...

Another conservative for Obama

While not as big as Powell, Michael Smerconish is still fairly well known.  Powell doesn't seem to want to say much, but Smerconish isn't holding back:

"The candidates disagree as to where to prosecute the war against Islamic fundamentalists. Barack Obama is correct in saying the front line in that battle is not Iraq, it's the Afghan-Pakistan border. Osama bin Laden crossed that border from Tora Bora in December 2001, and we stopped pursuit. The Bush administration outsourced the hunt for bin Laden and instead invaded Iraq.

No one in Iraq caused the death of 3,000 Americans on 9/11. Our invasion was based on a false predicate, so we have no business being there, regardless of whether the surge is working. Our focus must be the tribal-ruled FATA region in Pakistan. Only recently has our military engaged al-Qaeda there in operations that mirror those Obama was ridiculed for recommending in August 2007.

Last spring, Obama told me: "It's not that I was opposed to war [in Iraq]. It's that I felt we had a war that we had not finished." Even Sen. Joe Lieberman conceded to me last Friday that "the headquarters of our opposition, our enemies today" is the FATA."

He raises some other good points, but this is the one that, IMO, puts Obama way ahead of McCain and is his most appealing position.  I still have a fair amount of problems with Obama on some of his policies and past acquaintances, but in some areas, he really stands out.  

Read more...