TakeAction MN, a union-funded progressive group that showed its true hatin' with this email sent from communicatons director Greta Bergstrom::

The right is getting fired up -- teabagger protests and racist signs are cropping up around our state. But we're not interested in yelling and screaming, we are getting to work to make our policies and politicians succeed by being smarter and more strategic -- and that means preparing for the 2010 election today.

The right-wing is prepared to fight us at every step and the last thing they want is for you to join the brightest progressive minds in the state for Netroots Minnesota this weekend.

Not interested in yelling or screaming? TakeAction organized this quiet rally last month. Calling names makes you look smarter and more strategic? A new blog from Brian Falldin (another progressive political communications guy) seems to have shut down as fast as it was put up. Their contributor "The Snark" gave their own political side a taste of her liberal love. Via MN Democrats Exposed:

Oh Goobers, how I love to pick at thee.

Goober 1:Tricky-Tenza — Why Matt, how I love thee and your carefully sculpted hair and George W. Bush like features, if you just whisper “Hard Work” or “Clearin Brush” with a fake Texan accent, I’ll just melt into your arms, you big genetic metamorphosis of a man you!

Goober 2:  Fatty-Mak [Margaret A. Kelliher] — Anybody ever notice how MAK looks like Eric Cartmann from South Park?  Seriously!  Hey MAK team, try not to compete with Tom Bakk on worst photo for a web site okay?  I mean you are running for governor right?

Goober 3:  Reverse-Grecian-Thissen — Hi Paul, you are soo cute!  But honey you aren’t foolin anyone with your reverse-grecian, paint on the gray hair, formula for men formula.  Will you post your long form birth certificate so we can see that you are way too young for this sorta thing?

Goober 4:  Raunchy-Rukavina — Hey there hot stuff!  Love the pornstache!  I just know you got some piping hot fight in you Raunchy-Ranger Rukavina!  But seriously, this isn’t the 1970s.  Magnum PI is off the air, and (can I be blunt?) I knew Paul Wellstone, and Tom, you are no Paul Wellstone–unless you mean literally and you mean that your campaign is dead and buried…hrm…that was probably too soon — much love Wellstone and family, much love!

Goober 5:  Beefy-Bakk –  Just say “tax liabilities and unfunded forbearance with biennium readjustment shifts to a mean increase of one-tenth of one percent adjusted for inflation fee enhancements,” five times fast… you tax wonky hunk you…  but let’s try to shelve the wonk speak okay?  This is a campaign for governor not CPA.  Besides, I’d rather hear you tell me about how your big beefy hands sanded wood or some other carpenter story.

The next day, the post was pulled and an apology from Falldin was posted:

Although I do not speak for the writers here, I want to apologize for our recent columnist The Snark. She's resigned, effective immediately, and she regrets all the controversy her article caused.

Today, it seems the whole blog was pulled. Rightly so. I wonder if Bergstrom, Falldin or The Snark are presenting at Netroots Minnesota (the Netiquette session) - if only to serve as a warning for others attempting "pit bull" progressive blogging:

Update: Check MDE for the latest on the North Star Liberal fallout. One contributor, Eric Austin (Political Muse) has left blogging and DFL politics.

Has a nice ring to it don't you think? Serviceday, Saturday, Sunday. The SSS Weekend—clean, catchy, organized. Yeah, that's the ticket.

So while we've still got Friday, here's a couple of shorts from Andrew Klavan. This first one is a great offer for you atheists.

{youtube}2t1gv1zeMkY{/youtube}

And this one is fresh out of the cutting room. In which Andrew starts off with the enlightened bright tones of Vivaldi and looks into the liberal invective machine to find their arguments against the right wing punditry, well, simple projecting, if not paper thin. "Never Gonna Give You Up"... Just for you Eagle Eye.

{youtube}gqgYpfsrcJw&feature{/youtube}

Senators Klobuchar and Franken,

I have the audacity to hope that you will reconsider your vote on this 2000 page healthcare bill. As a physician, I know that every patient and every disease course is different and that one bloated, bureacratic government system will only impede access to medical care. In Econ 101 we are taught that when demand goes up, with all other things being equal, price goes up. When you add 30 million people to a government system without "adding one dime" the only alternative is rationing or decreased quality of care. Are you comfortable with the idea of a bureacrat who doesn't know your medical situation making that decision for you instead of your doctor? Oh that's right, the Senators and Congressmen have exempted themselves from this boondoggle--it's only for us working stiffs. I'm sure your intentions are honorable but the proposed bill does not address any of the real problems with our healthcare system. If you think, as Nancy Pelosi does, that the public option increases competition, I can only believe that you've never taken a course in economics or run a business. It's not possible to compete against the government since they have the ability to regulate you and tax you and don't have to worry about making a profit (e.g. the USPS). With something this important to our country, involving 1/6 of our economy, we truly need a bipartisan consensus. President Obama assured us that this would be a transparent process with all parties coming to the table to have their voices heard. Yet the House passed their bill by a handful of votes in the middle of the night over the weekend and the Senate is going to try to do the same. If this is truly such an important vote that will benefit everyone, why do we have to rush it through and start paying for it years before it takes effect (conveniently in 2013 after the next election)?

Another issue is whether the government has any Constitutional authority to enact these changes, including mandating individual insurance. Never before has there been a time when a citizen was living an unlawful existence if he didn't buy insurance. Please don't compare this to car insurance since you are not required to drive a car (unlike the requirement of breathing), you can purchase car insurance across state lines (unlike health insurance), you can purchase liability only (unlike this one size-fits-all government plan) and you don't buy insurance for oil changes (unlike buying health insurance for routine checkups). We've seen the government tell businesses how to run their companies and what to pay their executives after they've given the companies bail-out money. Why would we assume you would not do this to your citizens? If health care is now a government mandate rather than an individual's personal decision, why would we not expect the government to tell us what we can eat, how much we should properly weigh, whether we can smoke or engage in risky behaviors/extreme sports. Where does it end?

Real solutions would include disentangling health insurance from our current employment-based system (another byproduct of government overregulation) and make private insurance tax-deductible as well. This would make insurance more portable so that an individual would not have to stay in a job he hates or have to worry about losing his job or having to leave due to illness (when he needs insurance most!). We should remove all mandated barriers to health insurance so that we could purchase cheaper policies across state lines and purchase only the coverage that is necessary. We should enact tort reform (not mentioned in this 2000 page bill!), either by placing caps on damages or preferably by having a "loser-pay" system. The system we have is like a lottery with massive payouts (to the lawyers!) with no downside to bringing a weak case. The doctor has to defend himself either before being sued, by practicing defensive (expensive) medicine or defend himself in a court of law, having to pay attorney's fees whether he wins or loses.

I have yet to talk to any of my colleagues who believe that more government involvement with increased mandates, regulations and taxes, would do anything but accelerate national health care spending and decrease quality of service. Logic and experience confirm this. I pray that you reconsider your vote since this literally is a life and death decision.

Hit the phones tomorrow hard:

Amy Klobuchar - 202-224-3244

Al Franken - 202-224-5641

{youtube}sG7lm8Sfbo4&feature{/youtube}

As Lassie noted below, today is the Anniversary of the Gettysburg address. Seems a good time to  mention that the great book by John J. Miller still has not been made into either a movie or an HBO/Showime style short series. This really is a story that warrants a film version, and Miller himself is pitching the idea.

Now I just need for someone to turn The First Assassin into a movie. The film rights are available. Does anybody know if Tom Selleck is looking for a project?

You caught WWII in HD yet?

I caught one of them last night. Excellent documentary and all that grainy film with scratches and burns in glorious HD. Seriously though, it's great. The genre of documentary continues to get better and blur the distinction of info and tainment into one very enjoyable medium. If you have not seen it yet. Set the DVR, and even then don't worry. History will have this series back every Memorial day and Veteran's day week for a long time to come.

Speaking of WWII, DC's Sr; Rock that was a mainstay comic book hero for boys in the 60s, 70s and 80s is in the process of coming to the big screen. I am not holding my breath, considering how poorly American blood and guts war heroes have been portrayed in the modern era. But if they stayed true ot the character and basic theme of the Sarge and Easy Company. Thie would be a huge crowd pleaser with the conservative audience.

Sgt. Frank Rock was the leader of his infantry unit, Easy Company. He first appeared in a 1959 issue of “Our Army at War.” In 1977, the comic was renamed “Sgt. Rock” and ran until 1988.

Until now, “Rock” has retained its World War II setting, with Silver and the studio trying to make a big-budget action adventure movie that was a throwback to flicks like “The Dirty Dozen,” which feature acts of American derring-do.

But a big budget always was an obstacle and, “Inglourious Basterds” notwithstanding, period war movies have not been in vogue in Hollywood for years, unless it was a more serious contemplation of the subject like “Saving Private Ryan.” Also, American jingoism went out of style after 9/11; even this summer’s G.I. Joe movie dropped the toy’s “A Real American Hero” tagline and made the action team internationally focused.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did

In the area of foreign and national security policy, however, Obama can operate largely unchecked. And a weak, guilt-ridden policy toward our foreign adversaries is almost certain to produce grave consequences.

To some extent, we have seen this act before. The damage of just four years of Jimmy Carter's America-effacing presidency included Soviet expansion, communist inroads in Latin America, the replacement of a friendly government with a virulently anti-American theocracy in Iran, and a prolonged hostage crisis that came to symbolize the new American impotence.

But although Carter was ambivalent about America, his efforts to promote democracy abroad showed that he thought we had something to offer t[he] world. Obama will not grant America even that.

Emulating Carter the ex-president, rather than President Carter, Obama has shown essentially no interest in human rights or democracy promotion. His belated support of the Iranian protesters following this summer's election could hardly have been more lukewarm.

It seems that, in Obama's view, all we have to offer the world is our non-interference in its affairs, except perhaps when it comes to bullying our allies.

This led one of my liberal acquaintances to retort:

Sorry, but the "facts" in the article simply do not lead to the conclusion that constitutes the assertion in the title.

So, Does Barack Hussein Obama really hate America? Consider the following:

In his formative years, young Barry Soetoro hung out with the likes of Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers, who loved America so much they decided to bomb the living crap out of it.

The guy sat in a church for 20 years listening to a guy screaming "G-d Dmn America!"

Barack Hussein Obama, himself, in his own words, said the Constitution was a flawed document because it did nothing to 'spread the wealth.'

Obama never misses an opportunity to apologize for what he feels to be American 'arrogance.' (yet he himself, is the paragon of arrogance).

Rather than speaking of American greatness, Obama speaks only of its perceived flaws. Rather than build on the principles that made America great, he seems to feel that it is his job to single-handedly correct what he believes to be over two centuries of wrong-minded policies, and to turn America and its founding principles on its head as a means to weaken and humble our nation in the process.

Barack Hussein Obama never speaks of a strong America; he never speaks of America being a leader for freedom; but instead he speaks of America as a nation in need of neutering, one to be relegated to be on equal footing (or lower) with even the most rogue of nations. Rather than the Monroe, Truman, JFK, Reagan, and Bush doctrines, which each recognized the greatness of America and sought to protect and champion the cause of freedom and liberty around the globe, Obama's is the new doctrine of "American moral relativism;" rather than being clothed in Old Glory, we are now bathed in sackcloths and ashes, being beaten down and forced to atone for what in Obama's mind are past and unforgivable wrongs. Rather than stand up to tyrants, dictators, and monarchs, he bows before them in supplication. Rather than representing America in strength, he cowers in his own fecklessness.

In an effort to hasten his remaking of America, Obama has even cheapened the very structure, fidelity and integrity of governance, appointing a wide variety of tax | scofflaws, avowed communists, and innumerable unelected, unaccountable 'czars' to carry out his policies.

I would therefore submit that, taking into account how he chose to spend his developing years and as is certainly evident in the intent of and in the way he conducts policy, it most veritably can be inferred that Barack Obama isn't necessarily a fan of that for which America has traditionally stood.

In fact, to make the inference that Barack Hussein Obama loves America and all for which it has traditionally stood is certainly more of a stretch of inference than is its corollary.

“But it seems these days that the American dream is fading. And without responsible, accountable, and informed leadership in Washington, this dream is in serious jeopardy for future generations. I am running for congress to restore these qualities to leadership, to raise up the middle class, and to make sure our children and grandchildren have even better opportunities than we had.”

Sounds like Erik would have a strong challenger... IF she was a Republican in a primary against him. As a conservative, I’m all for this sort of campaign rhetoric, but it simply does not pass the reality test. The party she’s running for is not Libertarian or Republican, it’s the DFL.

By her own words, “American dream is fading”, she wants ”responsible, accountable, and informed leadership in Washington”. And that the “dream is in serious jeopardy for future generations”. She gets no argument from me here, and If she has a problem with Washington leadership, she’s singin’ my tune. But the disconnect here should be obvious.

If she has a problem with the party in charge of the House of Representatives, it’s her own, and has been since Nancy Pelosi picked up the gavel. Ditto for the Senate and the President. Cap and trade, government-run Health Care, the non-stimulus, raising taxes, government take over of businesses and banks. How does any of this lead to reversing the trend of the “dream is in serious jeopardy for future generations“?

She can’t run a radical campaign and make it in CD3, but the current House agenda she will have to embrace is in total opposition to her mission statement. Good luck with that albatross.

I can understand why 53% of the people voted for him.  They were fooled, or bought into the slick packaging and slicker promises.  But now there is no excuse, is there?  We've opened the slick package and found nothing inside, and all the promises have been not only broken but shattered, while the henchmen of his own party continue to invent new torments for us, even over the clear objections of the majority of us.  One would like to think that neither ignorance nor apathy can account for more than a few percentage points of positive approval for the economic disaster and extraordinary incompetence on display in Washington these days.  So who are these people answering these poll questions, and what is it going to take to wise them up?