George Stephanopoulos continues to suck up to the right - apparently a feeble attempt to cleanse himself for the "sin" of having worked for President Clinton.
In this weekend's debate, George appropriately asked Romney about his views on contraception. When Romney replied that it was "silly thing" to raise such questions, since "no state wants to" ban contraception and there is no candidate "that wants to do so", Steph gave him a free pass." This is in spite of the fact that Mississippi had a referendum in November of 2011 that did try to ban some forms of contraception. Perhaps Romney missed that states are in fact discussing banning contraception, but surely he could not miss the presence on the stage with him of Rick Santorum - he who has said that contraception is "wrong" and that it is "dangerous" to our country.
The desire of Republicans to dance around the issue notwithstanding, both Romney and Santorum have loudly denounced both Title IX and Planned Parenthood - the two ways that a vast number of Americans get contraceptives.
Stephanopoulos asked a legitimate question. He should never have let Romney off the hook. If he thinks that failing to fulfill his obligation as debate moderator will make the Republicans more forgiving - he is sadly mistaken.
(h/t memeorandum)
While it is undeniably interesting that Rick Perry lacks both the grammar and the knowledge to discuss the Supreme Court, I find it incredible that no one has asked him about the violent death of a woman and her two young children in a Texas 'Food Stamp' office.
Whether or not Perry is able to remember who sits on the Supreme Court, although demonstrative of his profound ignorance and disinterest, is nothing compared to his inability to comment on, or relate to, a mother (we presume he had one himself) who killed herself and her son (he undoubtedly was once one of those as well) as her appication for food stamps was rejected - once again.
To mention the violent death of a mother and her two children might call into question the way Texas handles food stamps, as well as their delivery of social services and their "gun control" regulations. The state did find it inappropriate for her to be raising and home-schooling her kids in a makeshift tent on a South Texas beach. So, she was pushed off the beach, but her "right" to own guns was not to be abridged.
At least Rachelle Grimmer's fight for food stamps is finally resolved. She, and her two kids, are dead now.
And Rick Perry's State of Texas has again reduced its welfare rolls.
So what do we think are the odds of any of the Republican candidates, especially Rick Perry, being questioned at any of the "debates" this weekend, about the death of Timothy Grimmer, or of his sister Ramie.
Their mother shot them, killing them, after once again having her application for food stamps rejected by the State of Texas. She then shot herself.
"In 2010 the department received a possible neglect report after Rachelle Grimmer and her two children were found living in a tent on a South Texas beach. Investigators found no evidence of neglect and closed the case, spokesman Patrick Crimmins said."
R.I.P. Rachelle, Ramie & Timothy Grimmer.
Rot In Hell Rick Perry, and the entire Republican Party.
(memo)
As an infrequent blogger who chooses to remain anonymous, I love the Right's splenetic condemnation of the outrageous cowardice displayed by Paul Krugman in choosing to disallow comments on his post of today! Many thanks to memeorandum for leading me to these brave right-wing bloggers.
Ms. (nameless) "lonelyconservative" says Krugman's "also a coward." Miss (or is it Mrs?) "ZIP" writes of "his cowardice in closing his comments section."
Mr "Scared Monkey", demonstrates his personal bravery in writing:
What is the sign of a true coward like Krugman? the liberal POS writes a hateful opinion piece and then does not allow any comments.
And MataHarley comes out with the ever popular condemnation: he's "as cowardly as the terrorist (sic) themselves."
I mean how can you argue with a lady like Mata? I certainly consider the terrorists of 9/11 loathsome - but since when is being willing to give ones life for a cause in which one believes an act of cowardice?
Since G.W. Bush, Rudy Giuliani, and Jailbird Kerik became the definition of bravery that's when. Since faceless, nameless bloggers call Paul Krugman (and yes, that is his real name) a coward. His photograph and place of employment are right there - out in the open - unlike the brave Mata's, Scared Monkey's, Lonesome's and ZIP's of the world.
So Geraldine Ferraro died. Sad, as she was a courageous woman. Sadder still that so many rightwingers think that Sarah Palin is her next incarnation. Understandably, they are surprised that Ms. Palin was gracious enough to express her condolences on Facebook. Any gracious move by Palin is surprising. But, contrary to some of the commenters on the post, it does not make her Presidential material.
Especially when Palin wrote:
"When I had the honor of working alongside Geraldine on election night last year, we both discussed the role of women in politics and our excited expectation …"
That's correct, they "both" discussed the topic, as they were working alongside each other. The two of them, they both, had a discussion.
Shoot me.
(h/T memeorandum )
To Mr. Matt Bai:
"You're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem."
I am notsaying that Bai's reporting is as big an incentive to violence as the words of many right wingers. I am saying that his lazy, despicable, dishonest piece for the N.Y. Times does make him a part of the problem.
In his attempt to equate the vitriol of the right with the anger of the left, he compares the thinly disguised exhortations to violence by so many "conservatives" to a posting on the Daily Kos in which the writer directed the phrase 'she is dead to me' to Congresswoman Giffords.
As Matt Bai undoubtedly knows there is no absolutely no threat implied by that phrase. None.
When Henry Blodget wrote of his disappointment in what he considered the golfer's poor sportsmanship, he said "But now Tiger Woods is dead to me." Somehow I don't think Tiger hired extra bodyguards.
When Ben Goldacre (M.D.) wanted to write on his blog about bad science he used the phrase, "If you don't link to primary sources, you are dead to me, I do not trust you."
And when Stephen Colbert wanted to clarify his dim view of the Raptor hockey team's mascot, he added the team to his list of those who are "Dead to Me." (The list also included Men with Beards and Bow Tie Pasta.) Yet, they received no extra security.
The phrase is defined as "an Old English saying that was used to announce that the person in question was disowned, or would never be 'seen or heard' again."
This is not an error on the part of Matt Bai. It is dishonesty.
Describing the violent rhetoric of today, he also wrote:
"None of this began last year, or even with Mr. Obama or with the Tea Party; there were constant intimations during George W. Bush’s presidency that he was a modern Hitler or the devious designer of an attack on the World Trade Center, a man whose very existence threatened the most cherished American ideals."
But Bai does not, because he cannot, name the prominent Democratic candidate or public servant who said these things. He notes that Sarah Palin likes to describe the Obama administration as "tyranny." Somehow he fails to find any quotes by Joe Biden comparing Bush to Hitler. There are none.
Giffords' Republican opponent in her last campaign was Jesse Kelly. Here's what he was about:
"Kelly's campaign event website has a stern-looking photo of the former Marine in military garb holding his weapon. It includes the headline: "Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly.'"
Matt, show me a similar campaign website from Ms Giffords, or get out of the way. We need solutions.
Note to Mr Bai: When your reporting is based on the same "evidence" as that garnered by the likes of Michelle Malkin and Pamela Geller, you're not a journalist. You're a problem.
(h/t memeorandum)
His op-ed in today's N.Y. Times reveals the accuracy of the tea-baggers' accusation that David Brooks is a Democrat in disguise. At least they got one thing right. But Brooks is still Republican enough to be totally hypocritical about it. He argues that the future of the United States is still rosy because it's "well situated to be the crossroads nation." The future according to Brooks belongs to that country which is the most powerful nexus of networks. He continues: "Building that America means doing everything possible to thicken connections: finance research to attract scientists, improve infrastructure to ease travel, fix immigration to funnel talent..."
All worthy goals. All supported by most Democrats. Each an anathema to the new Republican Controlled Congress.
Condemning evolution as 'just another theory;' denying climate change, opposing increased spending on infrastructure, and with no interest in 'fixing' immigration - the Republicans, including Brooks, seem to want to do all within their power to diminish the United States. Give him two points for knowing it, deduct three for not being honest about it.
It's not that the bustard has been lax in posting; it's just that the Nation has been so slow to catch up. She calls it Hypocrisy. I called it Horseshit in my post back in June of 2007. I too referred to Missy Clark and Vicky Moon as well as to the 300 acre estate. Come on, you have to be a little faster out of the gate.
h/t memeorandum
This is a tricky post to write, because the point I want to make is that what I want to write about already has been written about far, far too much. (Clear Enough?)
Yesterday Ms. O"Donnell supposedly won an astounding victory, a clear harbinger for future elections.
Boehner, (The Hill)
"The voters of Delaware have spoken, and you're going to continue to hear the American people speak — not just last night, but you're going to hear them speak come November,"
The problem of course is that barely anyone spoke. Everyone talks of the difference in terms of percentage: 53% vs 47% does sound pretty impressive. But the actual difference is about 3,500 votes. This is less than 1% of the people that voted in Delaware in the 2008 election. The total number of votes she received yesterday, a whopping 30,561 votes, is about 1,000th of 1% of the population of America.
The same thing happened with last Saturday's rally against the mosque in downtown Manhattan, led by Pamela Geller. I was there. I'm being generous if I agree with the consensus that 1,500 people were in those two blocks of West Broadway which were cordoned off. At least a third of them were either Pro-Mosque, 9/11 Truthers, or curious people who wanted to bring their cameras and see what all the fuss was about. (like the Bustard) But even granting her the 1,500, we're talking about nothing, bupkas, nada. This is far less than march in the annual Hare Krishna parade. The Metropolitan Museum of Art has had a show of Picasso's work for the last few months - 6,700 people visit it every day. That's right: more than four times as many people attend a single art show daily than attended the Geller hate fest. According to Wikipedia, the Mermaid Parade in Coney Island attracts hundreds of thousands of people. Ever heard of it? Yet on Sunday afternoon at 5:30 P.M, even the excellent TPM had three center column, photograph articles about this non-event.
Somehow we have to ensure that these stories, covering absolute liars and grifters whose only skill is media manipulation, receive the attention that they deserve. None. The coverage they do receive only proves how dysfunctional our democracy and our media are.
(h/t memeorandum)
The dueling demonstrations in lower Manhattan on Sunday gave me little choice but to find a way to donate to the Cordoba Initiative. Clearly a better understanding of the Muslim faith is needed. Urgently. The fact that its location is spotlighting this need is an added bonus. As other anti-muslim demonstrations around the country prove, siting it near Ground Zero is hardly the cause for such irrational anger.
The first paragraphs of Hitchens' piece in Salon were great in destroying some of the lies spouted by Gingrich and his ilk. In fact there is a lot of Nazi signage, not just near the Holocaust museum, but in it. And your humble bustard has pointed out that the convent at Auschwitz that was supposed so laudably relocated by the Pope, was only moved from Auschwitz proper to a site directly across the road, with clear views of the concentration camp.
But then Hitchens' goes all wobbly. He seems to forget that freedom of religion is in our constitution. It is not based on a popularity contest. It's not a game in which Hitchens awards building permits based on his personal evaluation of their tolerance.
He doesn't like the fact that the Imam has supported the government in Iran. (Did we stop Jews from building temples because of Israel's support for the apartheid regime in South Africa? Did we stop building by Anglicans because of England's behavior in Ireland?) He doesn't like the fact that the Imam's stationery describes him "Visionary and Founder." If we banned all religious structures that were built in the name of visionaries, there would be a hell of a lot fewer tax-exempt buildings in Utah. (Hitchens should recall that a Baptist Minister also had 'visions' - Martin Luther King, Jr. whose "vision" will be slimed and insulted on August 28th in Washington D.C. by many of the same folk who oppose the mosque.)
He criticizes Islam because "It's easy enough to find Mosque Web Sites and DVD's that peddle the most disgusting attacks on Jews, Hindus, Christina,, unbelievers and other Muslims - to say nothing of insane diatribes about women and homosexuals." Has Mr Hitchens ever visited the website of the Westboro Baptist Church - of Fred Phelps fame? Most Evangelical Christians seem to think that the Bible has a lot of very nasty things to say about homosexuality.
Hitchens continues by insinuating that when Muslims get a little power, they try to insert their religious beliefs into the body politic. Aside from sounding disgustingly like that phrase "give a Jew a hand, and he'll take your whole arm", Hitchens seems unaware that we are constantly fighting about teaching evolution in our schools, about having the Ten Commandments posted in our court rooms, about the legality of stem cell research - the argument over religion's place in the public square is as American as apple pie.
The notion that some sort of a tolerance test must be passed before a building permit is issued is the central point of Hitchens' article. But does he really want to ban temples where men and women are forced to sit separately? And what about religious institutions that permanently mutilate the human body, like for example, circumcision.
No, only one religion has to prove its tolerance according to Hitchens - Islam. Similarly, many are insisting that only one religion must open their books and reveal their funding. Demagogues like Rick Lazio and Peter King demand to know who is paying for the building. (For obvious reasons they do not ask the same question of the Vatican) So let them investigate who has donated to the building - and let it be you whom they question.
P.S. The bustard is not affiliated with the Cordoba Initiative in any way. They are completely unaware that I have written this post. The views expressed are my personal views.
(h/t memeorandum)