Comments from Left Field

NY-23’s Mission Accomplished Moment: Thanks For Coming Out, Kids

matttbastard — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 05:27:53 PST

Ban-happy GOP purity gatekeeper Eric Erickson struggles with maintaining his already tenuous hold on reality as he gamely attempts to squeeze broken eggshells into lemonade (or something):

The race has now been called for Democrat Bill Owens.

This is a huge win for conservatives.

“Whaaaa. . . ?” you say.

There are two big victories at work in New York’s 23rd Congressional District.

First, the GOP now must recognize it will either lose without conservatives or will win with conservatives. In 2008, many conservatives sat home instead of voting for John McCain. Now, in NY-23, conservatives rallied and destroyed the Republican candidate the establishment chose.

I have said all along that the goal of activists must be to defeat Scozzafava. Doug Hoffman winning would just be gravy. A Hoffman win is not in the cards, but we did exactly what we set out to do — crush the establishment backed GOP candidate.

And make no mistake, despite the Beltway spin, we know for certain based on statements from the local Republican parties, that they chose Scozzafava based on advice from the Washington crowd.

So we have demonstrated to the GOP that it must not take conservatives for granted. The GOP spent $900,000.00 on a Republican who dropped out and endorsed the Democrat. Were we to combine Scozzafava and Hoffman’s votes, Hoffman would have won.

Yes, and if only Bill Owens had been kidnapped by bug-eyed extraterrestrials from Ganymede, Scozzafava and Hoffman’s votes could have combined to form a giant robot that would crush godless liberalism once and for all!

If only.

TBogg tickles the 800lb gorilla in a navy power suit/red tie combo:

And Erick and Sarah Palin and Fred Thompson and Rush Limbaugh and Tim Pawlenty and George Pataki and the New York Post all endorsed Doug Hoffman and now the Republican Party (that Erick wants purged of nonbelievers) should listen to him because the teabaggers favorite son just lost a seat that Republicans have held for 140 years.

Right. This makes sense.

Pssh. Wevs. Pay no attention to the greaser in waterskis sporting a Palin 2012 button:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Share and Enjoy:

Who are we fighting and what are we fighting for?

tas — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 07:23:31 PST

Matthew Hoh, a Marine veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan, was rising quickly through our Foreign Service ranks, serving as a Senior Civilian Representative for America in Zabul Province, Afghanistan. Hoh had a bright government career ahead of him until he quit because the Afghan war is bullshit.

The Washington Post has posted Hoh’s resignation letter — which has earned the attention of the Oval Office. Generally, resignation letters from members of the foreign service don’t reach eyeballs in the executive branch because, feh, who cares about such low officials? But Hoh’s letter is a clear, concise, and cogent summary of the situation America presently faces in Afghanistan. You should read the whole thing (especially since I can’t quote from it because, just now, I found out Adobe Reader is missing the text selection tool; and I haven’t the time to troubleshoot it).

Having led men into battle before, Hoh’s concern is whether or not the injuries and loss of lives suffered by soldiers is for a cause that’s worth it. In Hoh’s estimation, Afghanistan is no longer a battle worth a soldier’s life. He implies that if the history of Afghanistan was a play, then America’s part would be merely a supporting role — not of importance. Right now, America isn’t fighting terrorism in Afghanistan — rather, we’re involved in Afghanistan’s 35 year old civil war. In fact, our very presence gives militias a reason to assemble as Afghans in some Pashtun provinces will fight against all invaders, be they domestic or otherwise, since anyone not from the province is perceived to be part of a “continued and sustained assault, going back centuries, on Pashtun land, culture, traditions, and religion.” We’re not fighting al-Qa’ida in Afghanistan. Instead, we’re fighting “the Pashtun insurgency, which is composed of multiple, seemingly infinite, local groups.”

Furthermore, Hoh argues, if the government attempts to justify our war in Afghanistan by claiming we’re fighting terrorists, then why aren’t we invading other countries like Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen? Hell, Hoh also points out that terrorists have done some planning in Western Europe — why not invade those countries?

Who are we fighting? What kind of war are we fighting? And why?

These are basic questions. If the government and the military cannot answer athem is clearly as Hoh has stated the fundamental problems with the Afghanistan war, then the war becomes a money hole that could sink the American economy. Worse, soldiers are dying for no good reason.

In short, if these basic questions cannot be answered, then President Obama needs to deny General McChrystal’s request for more troops and bring all the other troops home.

Would that be embarrassing? Yes, but what’s worse is not admitting when a mistake has been made. Yes, some will complain — rightly — that we’ve abandoned Afghanistan for a second time. Yes, this is cruel. Yes, we made a mistake by going back there. But just because we made a mistake doesn’t mean we should perpetuate it.

Share and Enjoy:

Another Judge Dismisses Birther Case; Slams Orly Taitz Hard

Kathy — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:45:29 PDT

David Weigel has the story:

Central District of California Judge David O. Carter has dismissed Barnett et al v. Obama et al, Orly Taitz’s most successful lawsuit — that is, the one that got the furthest through the legal system — demanding proof of the president’s citizenship.The entire decision is here, and it’s devastating to Taitz. Here’s an excerpt of the disposition, with emphasis in the original:

Interpreting the Constitution is a serious and crucial task with which the federal courts of this nation have been entrusted under Article III. However, that very same Constitution puts limits on the reach of the federal courts. One of those limits is that the Constitution defines processes through which the President can be removed from office. The Constitution does not include a role for the Court in that process. Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore these mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits on its power put in place by the Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by We the People‚ sixty-nine million of the people. Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

Judge Carter was not through with Taitz, though:

[T]he ruling is limned with criticism of Taitz for the screwball, media-grabbing tactics she used to promote her doomed, frivolous lawsuit. Here, Carter confirms that he got complaints from Taitz witnesses like Larry Sinclair, claiming that Taitz wanted them to lie on the stand.

[T]he Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court. While the Court seeks to ensure that all interested parties have had the opportunity to be heard, the Court cannot condone the conduct of Plaintiffs’ counsel in her efforts to influence this Court.

How crazy is Orly Taitz and her birther friends? So crazy that Bill O’Reilly thinks they’re crazy:

O’Reilly commented on Tuesday that he thinks the “birther” lawsuits are “crazy.”

The off-the-cuff comment didn’t go by unnoticed by Taitz’s followers, and now they are planning a protest outside Fox news headquarters in New York on Veterans’ Day.

On her Web site, Taitz wrote, “Keep in mind, what OReilly did, is more dangerous, more harmful then what some idiots like Rachel Maddow or Keith [Olbermann] did, since people believe O’Reilly to be fair and balanced.”

Taitz told the news blog Conservative Monster that O’Reilly is “not a legitimate journalist” because he had not contacted her about the story he planned to air. Taitz “stated that if Fox gave her a 30-minute show for her to display her evidence, Obama would have to resign from office within 48 hours,” the Web site reported.

Share and Enjoy:

Peace and Nationalism in the Middle East

Kathy — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:47:36 PDT

Matthew Yglesias has some interesting thoughts on conflicting values for progressives in the Israel-Palestinian conflict:

I was debating with Jon Chait at a J Street panel this morning on the subject of “what does it mean to be pro-Israel?” As expected, we disagreed on a number of points, most of which I was right on and he was wrong on. But one thing he said in his opening remarks that I really disagreed with was that there was an ambiguity running through the J Street constituency as to whether the group was or should be pro-Israel at all.

That just struck me as kind of nuts. My J Street button said “Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace.” It’s not a subtle aspect of the messaging. But when we moved to the Q&A time it became clear that a number of people in the audience really were quite uncomfortable self-defining as “pro-Israel” in any sense and that others are uncomfortable with the basic Zionist concept of a Jewish national state. I was, of course, aware that those views existed but it had seemed to me that it was clear that that wasn’t what J Street is there to advocate for. Apparently, though, it wasn’t clear to everyone.

… Readers will know that I’m not a big fan of nationalism and I am a big fan of trans-national projects like the European Union and the United Nations. And it’s even true that I really kind of hope that hundreds of years from now there won’t be national states at all, instead we’ll all be lumped in with the Vulcans and the Andorians in a United Federation of Planets and off we’ll go. But there’s clearly no prospects for the abolition of the nation-state in the short-term. And the Jewish people’s claim to a nation-state is just as strong as the Finnish or Dutch or Thai claim. Or, for that matter, as the Palestinian claim. By far the best way to secure a just resolution of those conflicting claims is through a two-state solution—an independent Palestine, and a democratic Jewish Israel.

Spencer Ackerman is also taken aback at some J Streeters’ reluctance to identify themselves as pro-Israel, but wonders how much that matters if the policies being supported are, in fact, pro-Israel:

But OK; so a bunch of (largely) Jewish (largely) professional peaceniks don’t want to call themselves pro-Israel. Should we cease thinking of them as such?

I don’t really have any interest in affixing a label to people that they don’t embrace themselves. But I think the answer is that it would be shortsighted to view them outside the “pro-Israel” community. If Israel doesn’t get out of the West Bank soon, demographic realities will force Israel to make the most painful existential choice of its life: whether to abandon Jewish democracy or whether to abandon Jewish statehood in favor of a binational homeland. Both of these options, in fundamental ways, represent the end of Israel. Not from an Iranian nuclear weapon. Not from a super-empowered Palestinian intifada. But from political failure and international diplomatic failure, the end of Israel can, actually, be achieved.

This is not a hypothetical fear. Unless a settlement is reached before there are more Arabs between the Jordan and the Mediterranean — which is, I don’t know, ten years away? — it will be the case. Even before then, the Palestinian national movement would have very good incentives to stop pursuing the cause of an independent state, because they’d feel themselves to be the majority in a binational state. If they can force Israel to choose between its Jewishness and its democracy — a choice that risks overwhelming and perhaps untenable diplomatic isolation.

So any group or individual that pushes Israel and the U.S. to take steps to avoid that overwhelming and horrific existential choice? I think he/she/they ought to count, objectively speaking as pro-Israel. I am not going to say that someone who doesn’t is anti-Israel, even though that may be the implication of my argument. And that’s because Israel is already so awfully isolated and needs all the friends it can get. We ought to confront people of bad faith. But maybe terminology isn’t actually the way to do it. It’s a big tent, and it covers the Shtetl.

Share and Enjoy:

The Surge a Success? Ask an Iraqi.

Kathy — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:57:25 PDT

Chris Floyd links to an opinion piece by Sami Ramadani, an Iraqi exile who opposed the U.S. invasion. Ramadani writes about post-surge Iraq in the context of Sunday’s suicide bombing, which at most recent count has killed over 150 people — including an unknown number of children — and injured at least 500:

t is tragic that Iraq hits the headlines only if there is a major explosion with hundreds killed and injured. Yesterday’s carnage in Baghdad is the second of its kind in two months, and yet another horrific reminder that the Iraqi people are still paying with their blood for the US-led invasion and occupation of their country.

Though inevitable, there is something morally questionable in the way Afghanistan has replaced Iraq in the news headlines. As the number of casualties suffered by US forces went down in Iraq and as the equivalent numbers of US and British casualties in Afghanistan started to climb, the latter has gradually displaced Iraq in the news schedules. This has given the impression that the situation in Iraq has improved markedly and that the country is making progress on all fronts. Back in June, amid much fanfare, the US forces were “withdrawn” from the Iraqi cities to various US bases around the country.

There is no doubt that the situation has improved for US forces, while British troops were airlifted from the fires of Iraq to be thrown into the flames of Afghanistan. The US plan for Iraq has so far succeeded in reducing its own casualties by pushing more of the Iraqi forces into the battle against the “insurgency” – better known in Iraq as the “honourable patriotic resistance” to distinguish it from the hated al-Qaida-style terrorists attacks.

But try to tell Iraqis who are not part of the ruling circles that their situation has improved since the occupation and they will remind you not only of the countless dead and injured but also of the million-plus orphans and widows, the 2 million who fled the country, and the 2 million internal refugees, most of whom live in dreadful squalor.

They will tell you about the sewage covering the streets of many towns and cities, the lack of clean water, fuel and electricity, and the ever deteriorating health and education services. They will tell you about the more than 50% unemployment, the kidnapping of children, the fear of women to move freely, and the rapid rise in drug abuse and prostitution. They will describe the horrific methods of torture inflicted on the tens of thousands of prisoners in Iraqi and American jails. They will remind you that if a “world-famous patriot” such as Muntadhar al-Zaidi, who threw his shoes at President Bush, was tortured by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s own guards and forces, what chance ordinary citizens?

Share and Enjoy:

White House Is Discouraging Senate Dems From Pursuing Opt-Out Public Option

Kathy — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 16:02:11 PDT

This really is bizarre. I don’t know what to make of it:

President Barack Obama is actively discouraging Senate Democrats in their effort to include a public insurance option with a state opt-out clause as part of health care reform. In its place, say multiple Democratic sources, Obama has indicated a preference for an alternative policy, favored by the insurance industry, which would see a public plan “triggered” into effect in the future by a failure of the industry to meet certain benchmarks.

The administration retreat runs counter to the letter and the spirit of Obama’s presidential campaign. The man who ran on the “Audacity of Hope” has now taken a more conservative stand than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), leaving progressives with a mix of confusion and outrage. Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill have battled conservatives in their own party in an effort to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. Now tantalizingly close, they are calling for Obama to step up.

“The leadership understands that pushing for a public option is a somewhat risky strategy, but we may be within striking distance. A signal from the president could be enough to put us over the top,” said one Senate Democratic leadership aide. Such pleading is exceedingly rare on Capitol Hill and comes only after Senate leaders exhausted every effort to encourage Obama to engage.

Two senators who are strong supporters of a public option pushed back today:

A second high-profile Senator has slammed the “trigger” idea favored by Sen. Olympia Snowe and, according to published reports, the White House, saying that a bill without a real public option would have a hard time picking up his support. Appearing on Face The Nation, Sen. Russ Feingold joined Sen. Jay Rockefeller in opposing the trigger idea, calling it “an invitation to the insurance industry” to keep themselves in line for a couple years, only to find new ways to abuse the system thereafter. Feingold praised Sen. Harry Reid for moving toward putting a public option in the bill that would come to the Senate floor, and dismissed the suggestion by host Bob Schieffer that it would move the bill too far to the left, saying that liberals favor a single-payer solution and this represents a compromise.

Via Steve Benen, Jacob Hacker reminds us why the trigger option is such a bad idea.

The White House right now is its own worst enemy:

It’s incredibly frustrating. Although Reid is close to getting 60 votes on cloture, Obama and Rahm (who, for all his bluster, is politically timid) are pushing for the “trigger,” which is the same as nothing.

The question, then, is why?
[...]
My view … is that they’re being too timid here. The politics have shifted since the summer — both in terms of the bill itself and the public option. The NYT today, for instance, noted how small businesses are suffering from skyrocketing premiums (thus strengthening the policy argument for a public option).

Frankly, the lack of Republican support is a greater political threat to Republicans than to Democrats. But it’s hard to get some Democrats to see that.

Progressives are fighting back:

In an unprecedented move, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee will air a new TV ad, and is gathering signatures on an emergency petition, warning the administration not to support a health care compromise, favored by Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), that could kill the public option.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The spot will air at least 100 times in Maine, augmented by an online fundraising drive. The group’s recent ad targeting Snowe helped them raise over $100,000.

Share and Enjoy:

Peggy Noonan: Obama “Own’s” Bush’s Failure

Kathy — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:36:22 PDT

Steve’s right — the tangled web of Peggy Noonan’s neural pathways are particularly difficult to navigate this week (italic is Steve’s, quoting Noonan):

At a certain point, a president must own a presidency. For George W. Bush that point came eight months in, when 9/11 happened. From that point on, the presidency — all his decisions, all the credit and blame for them — was his. The American people didn’t hold him responsible for what led up to 9/11, but they held him responsible for everything after it. This is part of the reason the image of him standing on the rubble of the twin towers, bullhorn in hand, on Sept.14, 2001, became an iconic one. It said: I’m owning it.

“I’m owning it.” Noonan’s partly right about that: after running scared on 9/11 and ducking the situation for a couple of days, Bush began on that Friday to act as if having presided over the worst act of terrorism ever on U.S. soil was a mark of virtue. In retrospect, it’s as if he was pleased about it — proud of it. Eight years later, I can’t help thinking he really was pleased: now he’d be consequential, rather than the no-account black sheep of his family.

It’s true that he wasn’t held responsible for what led up to 9/11 — his administration and its propagandists took great pains to shift the blame to his predecessor — but it’s odd how Noonan puts that. She mentions responsibility for what went before (presumably so her right-wing base can think about how it’s all Clinton’s fault) and responsibility for what came after (it’s OK now, if you’re a Republican, to say bad things about Bush), but it’s as if she still can’t face the fact that what we need to talk about is responsibility for what happened on 9/11. Yes, I’m playing with words a bit — but it’s as if Noonan doesn’t want to address the point that something unspeakably horrible happened that day — and on whose watch? It’s as if she can accept the build-up (all the fault of the Democrats) and the aftermath (so much failed Republican promise), but looking at the actual event is unthinkable. Which it wouldn’t be if it had happened in a Democrat’s administration; then failure to obsess over the awful day would be unthinkable.

Basically, 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch, and the economic crisis happened on Bush’s watch — but for Bush, the clock started ticking on 9/12, whereas for Obama it started ticking on 1/20.

Moreover, says M.J. Rosenberg, although it’s not exactly a point of pride that there’s been no accountability for how vulnerable some of the nation’s most important structures were that day, still, it would have been, and is, all but impossible to point to any one person or persons whose decisions were responsible for what happened.

The same cannot be said about the catastrophic economic situation that Obama walked into when he took office. There is no uncertainty about who is responsible for that disaster:

[Obama's] predecessor came into office after Bill Clinton produced the biggest surplus in our history and then chose to convert it into the biggest deficit in history by handing the Clinton surplus over to the wealthiest Americans in the form of tax cuts. Nor is there any question that Bush-Cheney chose to go to war in Iraq only because Bush and his team felt like it and planned on it from the earliest days of the Bush presidency. That decision not only produced the Iraq horrors which Obama has to fix but also allowed the war in Afghanistan to become the debacle it is today.

In the cases of the wars and the massive debt, Obama’s plight is the result ofchoices Bush and the Republicans made. Choices.

Time, whether nine months or nine years, will not change the fact that the Republicans chose to do these things to America. Even Noonan admits that, writing that the the American people rightly held Bush responsible for everything after 9/11 through the end of Bush’s term. So is there some statute of limitations on that? Is Bush no longer responsible for the damage he did because he is no longer in office? Is that how it works now? If so, it’s something new.

Share and Enjoy:

Helping a blogger in need

tas — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 07:53:15 PDT

Barbara, the blogger at Mahablog, is getting jerked around by her landlords so badly that she could lose her apartment before Christmas. I hope this isn’t a growing trend, but at CFLF, this is the second time this year we’ve published a post asking you to donate some money to a blogger who’s in the verge of losing their home (the first time we helped one of our own). So if you’re of means, please help Barbara out.

Share and Enjoy:

A Wicked Man Continues to Spout His Wickedness

Kathy — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:18:16 PDT

Emptywheel (aka Marcy Wheeler) examines Dick Cheney’s latest rantings — on missile defense, on Iraq and Afghanistan, on America’s success in keeping its moral bearings while torturing confessions out of prisoners, on how his administration’s policies kept us safe (except for 9/11 itself, of course, and except for the London bombings, and the Madrid bombings, and the murder of UN ambassador Sergio Vieria de Mello in Iraq….. oh, never mind).

The best part of the speech as far as I am concerned, though, was Cheney’s devastating pushback against Rahm Emanuel’s critical comments about having to start a review of Afghanistan policy from scratch:

In a wide-ranging speech, the former vice president pilloried the Obama administration on a host of issues from President Obama’s engagement with Iran to his decision to shut down the military prison at Guantanamo and his abandonment of the Bush administration’s missile defense plans in Eastern Europe.

But what appeared to vex Mr. Cheney the most was recent remarks by Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, that part of the reason why the Afghanistan review was taking so long was because the White House was asking questions which had never been asked before.

Not true, Mr. Cheney told an audience while accepting the Center for Security Policy’s “Keeper of the Flame” award. The Bush administration did its own review last year, he said, and offered the finding to the Obama transition team.

“In the fall of 2008, fully aware of the need to meet new challenges being posed by the Taliban, we dug into every aspect of Afghanistan policy, assembling a team that repeatedly went into the country, reviewing options and recommendations, and briefing President-elect Obama’s team,” Mr. Cheney said. “They asked us not to announce our findings publicly, and we agreed, giving them the benefit of our work and the benefit of the doubt.”

The fall of 2008?

Marcy had the same reaction:

Hahahaha!! Cheney believes that developing an Afghan strategy in an attempt to force Obama’s hand can make up for the seven years during which he oversaw the complete neglect of the war against the people who actually hit us on 9/11.

Share and Enjoy:

A Guide for the Perplexed

Kathy — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:09:18 PDT

Or at least for Jake Tapper. Here, Jake: here is what makes Fox so different from any other news organization:

In response to the WashPost’s Ruth Marcus who on Tuesday obediently typed up what virtually every Beltway journalist has said about the White House and Fox News (i.e. it’s the White House that’s way out of bounds; Fox News is fine), I offered up some examples of how Fox News isn’t quite like the others. My hunch was that Marcus doesn’t really watch Fox News, even though she pretended to be an expert in the dispute involving the White House.

So for the benefit of Tapper I’ll reproduce the cheat sheet, and yes, many of the examples below involve the supposedly serious “news” side at Fox.

For instance, here’s an example of how the Fox News family isn’t quite like ABC. Here’s [...] another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another, and another.

My guess is if ABC News (inadvertently) broadcast just three or four of those kinds of obvious falsehood during an entire calender year, executives would be quite embarrassed. At Fox News though, they flow like a runny faucet and nobody there takes responsibility for the falsehoods, or even pretends there’s anything wrong with them.

But Tapper is stumped. He can’t figure out how Fox News is different from ABC News. (Psst Jake, I wouldn’t say that too loudly around David Westin.)

Share and Enjoy:

Democrats Want Obama to Get Tough on Public Option

Kathy — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:58:15 PDT

Sam Stein at The Huffington Post:

There is a growing sense on Capitol Hill that the White House’s refusal to weigh in more forcefully in the health care debate could come at the cost of a public option for insurance coverage.

Democratic aides said that a “handful” of senators who are skeptical of a public plan likely could be persuaded if not to support it then at least to oppose a Republican filibuster, if the administration were to apply a bit more pressure — or even guidance.

“There is a clear sense that it would be helpful,” said one senior Democratic aide. “Throughout this entire debate the White House line has been ‘We will weigh in when it is necessary’…. Well now we need 60 votes. So if it’s not necessary now, then when will it be?”

“I think folks in general in Congress were looking to the president to clearly define his feeling on the issue,” another aide said. “And I don’t think he has done that on the public option from the get-go… With a lot of senators nervous because of elections or other political dynamics, it would be helpful for the president to send a strong signal that this is what he wants in the final bill.”

Share and Enjoy:

Links for 2009-10-18 [Digg]

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 00:00:00 PDT

H1N1: Yes, You Should Vaccinate Your Kids
There are times when I wonder whether we’re really living in the 21st century. I’ve been having that feeling a lot recently, observing other parents (both online and off) discuss whether or not getting the H1N1 “Swine Flu” vaccine for their kids is a good idea.

Hilarious Quote of the Day

Kathy — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:08:40 PDT

When do you fight for something? When you think it’s the worst possible option?

Obama ”will obviously weigh in when it’s important to weigh in” on the possibility of a public option, chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said. Added Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett: ”He’s not demanding that it’s in there. He think it’s the best possible choice.”

Lookin’ good, guys; keep it up:

I just don’t think these folks get how, hmmm, how can I put this, how nonsensical it sounds to say, Obama really thinks the public option is “the best possible choice,” but he won’t fight for it. Maybe they think that messaging works. It doesn’t. Sounds weak. If he’s not going to fight for the “best possible choice,” what will he fight for?

Share and Enjoy:

Join Us on Facebook

Michael Tedesco — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:00:33 PDT

By becoming a fan of Comments from left Field on Facebook.

H/T to TPM.

Share and Enjoy:

“We Are All Batshit Insane”

Kathy — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:53:35 PDT

I know that batshit insane has become the default setting in certain quarters of the right, but the response at RedState to Rush Limbaugh’s failed attempt to buy the St. Louis Rams is so far gonethat I seriously considered the possibility it was meant as satire. Unfortunately, I don’t think it is:

Earlier this evening, as most of you now know, one of our own, Rush Hudson Limbaugh, while taking withering fire, crashed and burned.

Tonight, Rush is no longer ‘just’ a radio personality.

Tonight, Rush is no longer ‘just’ a NFL owner denied

Tonight, Rush is us. And we are him.

Tonight Rush became the metaphor for all of us… every man woman and child in this great nation of ours.

The enemy of this great nation, the enemy of you and me, Rush’s enemy… those on the left, inside and outside of this nation abhor success… and when faced with it will destroy it… by any and all means possible.

We all have our dreams in life… such as they might be. Rush dreamed of being an owner in the NFL.

Tonight the left proved that they will stop at nothing to end our dreams. Our dreams of success and happiness devastate their need to dominate and control you and me… and well everything and everyone.

Chrysler bondholders

GM dealers

Bankers and stockbrokers

Small business owners

Medical Doctors

Oppressed people wanting freedom around the world

The left can not and will not allow anyone to realize their dreams

Tonight a light went out… a dream died… it died from political correctness

Tonight we are under withering fire, we on the right those in the middle,

Tonight our values are under withering fire, those thoughts ideas and dreams that made this great nation are under withering fire

Will your light of your dreams be next?

Will my dreams be next?

Then he quotes Martin Niemöller — “because,” writes Charles Johnson, “as we all know, dropping a super-rich race-baiting far right radio host from a team of investors is exactly like the Holocaust.”

The craziness continues at National Review Online — which Adam Serwer calls “the center of grief and mourning” for Limbaugh:

Andy McCarthy, in a dispatch from what I have to assume is another planet, said that Limbaugh treats people “in the Martin Luther King aspiration that the content of one’s character is what matters, not the color of one’s skin.” Kathryn Jean Lopez saidLimbaugh being rejected was “an outrage,” adding that Limbaugh was taken off the deal “because of his politics.”

Andy McCarthy regularly vies with John Hinderaker for the most likely to report space aliens in the front yard — this time, I think Hinderaker is about a pace behind, but he’s closing in (emphasis is mine):

It’s official: Rush Limbaugh has withdrawn as a minority participant in a group that is trying to buy the St. Louis Rams. This follows opposition to Rush’s participation from Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and, shamefully, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. Such opposition, in turn, was fueled by false claims that Limbaugh has made various racist statements in the past.

The most ridiculous of the statements falsely attributed to Rush was this one:

Slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.

Anyone who has ever listened to Limbaugh would immediately recognize this as a hoax; in fact, it was made up out of whole cloth by a little-known left-wing blogger. [Cites, John? You're a lawyer, right? Do you know what cites are? Supporting an argument?] But it was reported as fact by news outlets that didn’t bother to verify their facts. …

The irony runs deep: Keith Olbermann, who unlike Limbaugh is actually a hatemonger, is employed as an NFL commentator.

There are many more conservatives than liberals in the United States, but liberals nevertheless continue to make progress in their effort to delegitimize conservatism. [Get this man a copy of Tom Franks' The Wrecking Crew. Not that it would help a man who thinks Limbaugh never made racist remarks, and Keith Olbermann is a hatemonger.] The successful slander and demonization of Rush Limbaugh is a misfortune; not primarily for him, but for all of us.
[...]
It’s no coincidence that Democratic Party outlets like CNN had to dredge up fake quotes to make their case. Nothing Rush actually said would do the trick, even though he’s been on the radio three hours a day, five days a week, for more than twenty years.

It would be nice if Hinderaker had the intellectual rigor to cite sources. It would also be nice if he had sufficient intellectual honesty to point out that if one quote is fabricated, that doesn’t mean they all are. Rush Limbaugh never made the statement about slavery that has been attributed to him. The quote comes originally from a book published in 2006 titled 101 People Who Are Really Screwing America. The book’s author attributes the quote to Rush Limbaugh, but he provides no cite or source for it (much like Hinderaker himself). Limbaugh has denied making the statement, so until and unless a source can be found, it has to be assumed he didn’t say it.

Here’s the thing, though: The same Internet site that debunks the provenance of the slavery quote (Snopes.com, which is widely considered a reliable urban legend-buster) also lists several other racist remarks Limbaugh has made, and links to documentation that proves he did say those things. Hinderaker does not link to or mention this (although of course he doesn’t even link to or mention Snopes.com as a source backing up his own true assertion about the slavery quote). Nevertheless, he does not hesitate to claim, as though it were a fact, that Limbaugh has never made any racially offensive statements in the 20 years he has been broadcasting — a claim that is patently false.

Obviously, Hinderaker is far from being the only conservative to deny any racist ideation on Limbaugh’s part — any quotes that cannot be proved fraudulent can simply be (and are) declared not racist at all.

It’s a shame that Hinderaker, like so many conservatives, has so little stomach for those values of personal responsibility and the sanctity of corporate profit that he and his compadres never tire of preaching to us poor benighted liberals.

As others have pointed out, this is not about politics or marginalizing conservatives. It’s about that racism that Hinderaker, McCarthy, and their fellow dingbats insist that Limbaugh doesn’t display all the time on his radio show:

It’s worth emphasizing that Limbaugh drew fire, not because he’s a Republican — there are plenty of GOP owners in professional football — but because of his history of ugly and blatant racism. Adam Serwer noted Limbaugh’s “record of racist commentary, which includes not only a habit of comparing black athletes to gang members but a general hostility toward black people. Limbaugh only recentlysuggested that having a black president encouraged black children to beat up white children — he’s also compared President Obama’s agenda to ’slavery reparations,’ used epithets to reference his biracial background, and compared Democratsresponding to the concerns of black voters to rape.”

It’s also about the free market — remember, that thing the right supposedly worships?:

On the business side I would make two quick points. First, the NFL is extremely image conscious and Rush makes a living going out of his way to say things that make somewhere between 30%-60% of the population mad on a daily basis (depending on what he is talking about). As such, it is hardly a shock that some NFL owners are a bit skittish about welcoming him into their ranks.

The second business point I would make is that this is a case of pure capitalism at work: private owners making decisions concerning with whom they are willing to do business. Conservatives really have no ideological grounds to object if the NFL owners have found Limbaugh too controversial for their business tastes. Heck, if Major League Baseball thinks Mark Cuban is too controversial, it is hardly a shock that there was pushback on Limbaugh from the NFL.
[...]
By the way, my guess is that the majority (maybe even a super-majority) of NFL owners probably find Limbaugh’s basic political views thoroughly acceptable (or, certainly, tolerable). However, they were always going to make a business decision on this topic. As such, forget the media, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, or even Roger Goodell, this was pretty much DOA from the word go. Limbaugh is controversial and businesses tend to not like controversy (especially when they can get what they want without it).

Oh, and also: It’s about individual responsibility. Also known as personal responsibility. You know, accepting the consequences that logically flow from your freely chosen actions? Say! Isn’t that a conservative mantra, too?

Conservatives are all about taking responsibility for one’s personal actions, or at least they used to be. Rush Limbaugh is facing the consequences of the buffoonish, offensive cartoon persona that’s made him a gazillionaire: The controversy-averse brotherhood of NFL owners harrumphed disapproval of Limbaugh’s role in a bid to buy the St. Louis Rams, and within a few days the group Limbaugh was part of dropped the radio bully from its bid.
[...]
But the funniest aspect of the collapse of Limbaugh’s bid is the reaction on the right. At “Big Hollywood,” John Ziegler was inconsolable. “Even in these times when the once unthinkable is becoming increasingly unremarkable, the current controversy over whether Rush Limbaugh is potentially worthy to be an NFL owner crosses over from the simply outrageous to the utterly infuriating. I strongly believe that it also represents a seminal moment in our cultural history as well as the sad state of free speech in this country.” Whoa! Like a lot of challenged thinkers, Ziegler seems to think Rush’s right to free speech also guarantees he’ll face no consequences for that speech. “I’m getting a lot of ‘boycott the NFL’ emails,” huffed the National Review’s Kathryn Lopez on Twitter this a.m. I’m sure the NFL is atwitter about that right now.

Share and Enjoy:

The Cheney Family Business

Kathy — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:37:56 PDT

Maureen Dowd gets only one detail wrong in her lacerating take-down of the newest Cheney Family venture — the probable name:

It’s hard to believe that the Bush dynasty, which limped away in disgrace after smashing our economy and the globe, has spawned another political dynasty.

But Jason Horowitz reported in The Washington Post that Mary Cheney, the younger daughter of the former vice president, is starting a consulting firm modeled on Kissinger Associates.

Since it involves the Cheneys, it’s shrouded in unnecessary secrecy. But Mary’s friends say her plan is to make it Cheney cubed, bringing in her dad and big sister, Liz, when those two finish cleaning out the Augean stables of Dick Cheney’s legacy for his memoir.

Horowitz wrote that Mary, who is expecting her second child with her partner, Heather Poe, next month, may be hanging the shingle for the “gruff clan who speak in dour unison when bashing the current president, second-guessing the previous commander in chief and chiding wayward G.O.P. leaders.”

The influence-peddling firm will be wildly successful, no doubt, because if anyone has shown a golden touch, it’s Dick Cheney. And there are bound to be oodles of clients who want coaching on how to make things look totally the opposite of what they are.

Saudis, right-wing dictators and Bernie Madoff calling for image makeovers? Scooter Libby calling to see how to get his career back after taking the fall for his scheming boss? Rush Limbaugh calling to strategize about how to buy an N.F.L. team with black players as he says offensive things about blacks? Rupert Murdoch seeking tips on how to merge Fox and NBC into Brian O’Hannity?

You can hear a receptionist chirping: “Cheney, Cheney & Cheney. Who would you like to target today?”

Never. Never, never, never. No Cheney worthy of the name would ever leave their fingerprints all over their handiwork that way. No, Liz and Mary are much likelier to pick a name like “Solutions for a Safe America” or something like that.

Share and Enjoy:

Links for 2009-09-12 [Digg]

Sun, 13 Sep 2009 00:00:00 PDT

Charles Darwin film too controversial for religious America.
A British film about Charles Darwin has failed to find a US distributor because his theory of evolution is too controversial for American audiences, according to its producer.