Happy Place Diversion ~ What if God was One of Us?

The new Pope Francis from Venezuela is considered a "man of the people" who said the other day he wants a "Poor Church to Feed the Poor." And he is trying harder than any Pope within living memory to prove that early in his Papacy.

Pope Francis ditches bullet-proof "pope mobile" for open Jeep and frequent stops to embrace Easter week crowds. @thenation @hardball

— John Nichols (@NicholsUprising) March 24, 2013

Pope Francis will celebrate Holy Thursday mass in a juvenile detention center rather than the Vatican. @thenation @hardball

— John Nichols (@NicholsUprising) March 24, 2013

From USA Today - the Pope on Palm Sunday

The square overflowed with some 250,000 pilgrims, tourists and Romans eager to join the new pope at the start of solemn Holy Week ceremonies, which lead up to Easter, Christianity's most important day.

. . . Francis even climbed down from the vehicle, kissed a woman in the crowd and chatted briefly with her, and another man in the crowd leaned over a barrier to squeeze the pontiff on a shoulder — an unheard of familiarity in the previous pontificate of the reserved Benedict XVI.

. . . Francis said Jesus "awakened so many hopes in the heart, above all among humble, simple, poor, forgotten people, those who don't matter in the eyes of the world."
Francis then told an off-the-cuff story from his childhood in Argentina. "My grandmother used to say, 'children, burial shrouds don't have' pockets'" the pope said, in a variation of "you can't take it with you."

So lately I've been thinking about Joan Osborne's hit "What if God was One of Us?" When the song came out many people thought it was somehow sacrilegious, but I never understood that criticism. She is asking age-old questions about faith and belief that all real Christians consider. She sings about Jesus being a human, which according to scripture he was, which is the whole point of the New Testament and all his sermons. Jesus experienced human life and let his disciples ask him questions. He was a man of the people and went out amongst the sinners. He didn't shun the poor, the unwell, or the prostitutes (which the GOP would call "sluts"). He led by example. He never said a single thing about hating gay people, or black people, or anyone with a different religion. Yes, the Church has unfortunately had leaders who felt that way over the centuries, but that is not the message of Jesus or a reason to hate all Christians.



Gandhi said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

Exactly. Many so-called Christians have forgotten the actual teachings of Christ, just as many denominations that consider themselves Protestant have drifted away from the simplicity of Martin Luther. Some churches have became more and more ostentatious and outrageous as they try to out-do the churches down the street instead of using their tithes to help the indigent and feed poor children. Jesus threw the moneychangers out of the Temple, and I think he would have the same reaction to all the politics in the church today. For instance, the Tea Partiers are so focused on what they think is "right" about abortion and the unborn that they want to sacrifice those who have been born, who are already existing and need our help: the elderly, the poor, the sick, and the downtrodden.

Many so-called Christians have spent the last ten years preparing for Armageddon, or the Rapture, or the Mayan Apocalypse. And because they consider themselves to be "The Chosen" because of which church they followed, they became so self-absorbed with either death or survival that they just didn't care about anyone else. That is not what the church teaches at all.


They even made fun of it on the Simpsons several times: once in "Bart's Comet", when Ned Flanders builds a Bunker just large enough to save his family and his neighbors, but then the whole town shows up; and in Thank God It's Doomsday in which Homer is scared by the Left Behind movies and believes the Rapture is coming soon, but discovers he isn't much of a Prophet after all. Unfortunately for modern Christianity, Homer-as-Everyman isn't far from reality. And throughout history the church has dealt with "false prophets." An aunt of mine who recently died said people would frighten children with the same stories back in the 1920s, and my Grandmother told me years ago that Haley's Comet caused the same fear at the turn of the century. Human nature just doesn't change very much.

But I still think it's much more sacrilegious to pretend to be a Catholic, Protestant, Jew - whatever - and ask "What would Ayn Rand do?" Or even worse, "What would Grover Norquist do?" Ugh. The GOP cynicism they spout while expecting us to believe they are devoutly religious has nothing to do with God or Jesus. They are NOT "one of us," nor do they care anything about the slobs on the bus. Christianity did not "create" the Congress we have right now, but I'm happy to say the elections last year when the "people" spoke are a good first step in getting the hypocrite Pharisees out of our government.

Romney Listening to All the Wrong People

source: gifsfln.tumblr

When all you have is a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail.

When the only advice you get from your party is to "be aggressive" and "attack Obama" and you desperately want them all to like you and to never be criticized for being wimpy, that is what you will do. You will attack Obama in every situation, even if it makes no rational sense, and even if it threatens international peace.

Just a few days ago, Romney was getting loads of armchair advice from frustrated Republicans who are livid because he is crashing and burning in every national poll. But their efforts to light even more of a fire under Romney seems to have lit the fuse to the bomb that is Romney's Libya response. For instance:

He (Romney) should be very aggressive and he should be adamant in his attacks . . . he needs to be severely aggressive.
~ Sarah Palin on Fox, via Last Word

Gotta use those buzzwords. Gotta say "socialist." You gotta do that to get people's attention.
Bill O'Reilly on Fox, via Last Word

The Romney campaign's going to have to make some changes. They're going to have to go ideological! They cannot continue on this 'Obama Mr. Nice Guy' bit. They just can't do it. It isn't going to work.
. . . I'm not saying go out and say Obama's a bad guy. But he's got to be tied to this economy. His policies, his ideas, his ideology. Liberalism is still a dirty word in this country - use it!
Rush Limbaugh on his radio show

Speak Up, Mitt!
. . . It’s not enough to float like a butterfly. You have to sting like a bee. No sting, no victory.
~ William Kristol on the Weekly Standard

I keep going back to the millions and millions of dollars paid to these political consultants.
Election after election, we hire people who have lost previous campaigns; who've run campaigns that have failed; who have message campaigns where the message fell flat, and they keep getting re-hired. I don't understand that. I don't know why those are the people you hire.
. . . you're in this, you have one shot, man. This is going to be the first line of your obituary: you won or you lost. It's all on the line for the country, and it's all on the line for you.
~ Conservative Laura Ingraham on her radio show 9-10-12

Ouch - no candidate wants to see the word "obituary" especially when he is sinking in the polls. That's scary talk.

And finally, this from Jennifer Rubin who wrote a scathing analysis of Romney's 9/11 speech on the same day that the campaign decided to push back on Libya. Rubin told them to "seize the moment" and not put things through the "mushy" "Boston Blender," which is a pointed slap at Romney's closest surrogates from his Massachusetts days, the guys Romney trusts to write his policies and speeches:

On Romney's 9/11 Speech to the National Guard Association
This was a wasted opportunity when he could have shown some mettle. His foreign policy message, not unlike his domestic policy message, is getting put through the Boston blender, it seems, coming out mush. That would be mush with no flavor.
. . . Now is not the time for sweet vignettes; it’s time for him to seize the moment. That requires Romney to sharpen and beef up his message.
~ Jennifer Rubin on Washington Post

"Beef it up" guys, or your foreign policy is "mush." I wonder what Jennifer Rubin will write about today, if she still has a job?

All this free advice is looking strategically WRONG on so many levels now, going against the best interest of the candidate and the party. But perhaps they did all the voters a huge favor by throwing the spotlight on Romney's foreign policy incompetance.

On Tuesday night, the Cairo Embassy issued a statement trying to cool things down surrounding a volatile situation involving an anti-Islamic film made by an Israeli, which said:

"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."

That's a rather standard representation of the U.S. position on freedom of religion, right? But because it wasn't anti-Islam in a Moslem country, the stupids came out of the woodwork to condemn it.

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus On Twitter:

Obama sympathizes with attackers in Egypt.Sad and pathetic.

— Reince Priebus (@Reince) September 12, 2012

Sarah Palin on Facebook:

Apparently President Obama can’t see Egypt and Libya from his house. On the anniversary of the worst terrorist attacks ever perpetrated on America, our embassy in Cairo and our consulate in Benghazi were attacked by violent Islamic mobs. In Cairo, they scaled the walls of our embassy, destroyed our flag, and replaced it with a black Islamic banner. In Benghazi, the armed gunmen set fire to our consulate and killed an American staff member. The Islamic radicals claim that these attacks are in protest to some film criticizing Islam. In response to this, the U.S. embassy in Cairo issued a statement that was so outrageous many of us thought it must be a satire. The embassy actually apologized to the violent mob attacking us, and it even went so far as to chastise those who use free speech to “hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.” (Funny, the current administration has no problem hurting the “religious feelings” of Catholics.)

But where is the president’s statement about this? These countries represent his much touted “Arab Spring.” How’s that Arab Spring working out for us now? Have we received an apology yet from our “friends” in the Muslim Brotherhood for the assault on our embassy?

It’s about time our president stood up for America and condemned these Islamic extremists. I realize there must be a lot on his mind these days – what with our economy’s abysmal jobless numbers and Moody’s new warning about yet another downgrade to our nation’s credit rating due to the current administration’s failure to come up with a credible deficit reduction plan. And, of course, he has a busy schedule – with all those rounds of golf, softball interviews with the “Pimp with the Limp,” and fundraising dinners with his corporate cronies. But our nation’s security should be of utmost importance to our Commander-in-chief. America can’t afford any more “leading from behind” in such a dangerous world. We already know that President Obama likes to “speak softly” to our enemies. If he doesn’t have a “big stick” to carry, maybe it’s time for him to grow one.

- Sarah Palin

Clearly, Priebus, the guy who compared women to caterpillars, and Ms. Palin Malaprop are two of the stupidest people EVER to reach a level of eminence in our society.

So why does the Romney Camp follow their lead? I guess we have to assume they are just a confederacy of dunces as well. Because look at Romney's statement from Tuesday night, which echoes Palin and Priebus:
via Washington Post

I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.

And from Romney's Press Conference on Wednesday - this sounds as if Palin wrote it!!!

I also believe the administration was wrong to stand by a statement sympathizing with those who had breached our embassy in Egypt, instead of condemning their actions. It’s never too early for the United States government to condemn attacks on Americans and to defend our values.

The White House distanced itself last night from the statement, saying it wasn’t cleared by Washington. That reflects the mixed signals they’re sending to the world.

The attacks in Libya and Egypt underscore that the world remains a dangerous place and that American leadership is still sorely needed. In the face of this violence, American cannot shrink from the responsibility to lead. American leadership is necessary to ensure that events in the region don’t spin out of control. We cannot hesitate to use our influence in the region to support those who share our values and our interests.

Today Republicans want answers about who is running the show:

From Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell

Who told Mr. Romney to issue a political broadside against the commander-in-chief the day after a U.S. ambassador was murdered?
~ Joe Scarborough of MSNBC

O'Donnell points to Richard Williamson, Romney foreign policy adviser, quoted in The Daily Beast:

When asked if the Romney campaign did the right thing by releasing a statement slamming Barack Obama for a failure of leadership in the wake of a series of brutal attacks on foreign embassies in Libya and Egypt, Richard Williamson paused for several seconds before saying just three words: “It was accurate.”
. . . Pressed further if it was right to issue a political statement before the dust had cleared and the death toll was known, a statement that condemned President Obama but didn’t mourn those lost, Williamson said simply, “Sure.”
“Ty Cobb was the greatest hitter of all time and he batted about .355. And he is still the greatest hitter,” Williamson explained later in the interview. “There isn’t something in my 63 years I couldn’t have done better except con my wife into marrying me.”

O'Donnell calls that "The craziest thing I've ever read from a campaign spokesman . . . it is absolutely nutty." And rightly so. Foreign politics, especially in the Middle East, is not a game, so spare us the lame sports analogies. However, with advice like that, it's easy to see why Romney went to Britain and insulted their Olympic Games.

O'Donnell goes on to presume that Williamson would be fired post haste, but I'm not so sure. Look at Eric Fehrnstrom, hapless "etch-a-sketch" guy who is still running Romney into the ground months later. For a man who "likes to fire people," Mitt is almost too loyal to his inner circle of clownish advisers.

That is also the opinion of Washington correspondent Sam Stein of The Huffington Post who said on the show:

"No, I think he'll stay on the payroll, unfortunately. Unfortunately, it's a bad analogy.

There's an issue here which is Mitt Romney could have conceivably waited twelve hours, woken up, seen the news, and said, 'Listen, we all mourn the loss of life here, but it's time to really look at President Obama's strategy, vis-a-vis the Arab Spring.' And that would have sparked a conversation that may have been more damaging to President Obama than what's transpired currently.

The problem I think Mitt Romney has is that there's about three different factions within the Republican Party with respect to foreign policy. There's the people who are unapologetically pro-international engagement, the Neocons who think you can use military might to shape the world in your image. There are people who want to do it more subtlely, they're more realistic. And then there are the people, the Rand Paul types who want to disengage from the international community. So whenever Mitt Romney wants to put out a statement on Libya, he has to contend with three separate factions within his own party about what that statement is. And I think they look at that and say 'It is a lot easier for us to just go after President Obama on character grounds, accuse him of sympathizing with the protestors,' than it is to craft something that might be a little bit confusing to members of their own party.

And that's where he gets in trouble. . . .

. . . What you had this morning was Mitt Romney's advisers literally tearing down a campaign rally to set up a more somber setting so that he could deliver this statement in a sort of drabby dark Jacksonville office. Whereas Obama, all he does is step out into the Rose Garden and by sheer fact that he's President, he looked Presidential. And you know sometimes we look too much at the optics and the setting, and I think in this case the optics and the settings are a huge part of the story.

. . . There was supposed to be a partisan detente yesterday for 9/11. They knew about the embassy being breached. They planned their statement and they actually lifted the embargo to get ahead of the news cycle. They were very much aware of what they were doing. The statement was signed off by Romney himself according to the New York Times report tonight. They knew what was happening and if it were a gaffe they would have backtracked today. Instead they went back and they said 'No, we stand by that statement in condemning what the Cairo Embassy put out.' So no, this planned from the beginning and they totally miscalculated what would happen once they decided to say that Obama was sympathizing with the protestors.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Sandra Fluke in Prime Time

Last night, women's advocate Sandra Fluke seemed to be missing in action at the Democratic National Convention. Turns out, the powers that be had made a wise decision and moved her speech to prime time.

As always, she was eloquent yet plainspoken about what's at stake for women in this election. And she drew a stark contrast between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.



Here's the Transcript:

Some of you may remember that earlier this year, Republicans shut me out of a hearing on contraception. In fact, on that panel, they didn't hear from a single woman, even though they were debating an issue that affects nearly every woman. Because it happened in Congress, people noticed. But it happens all the time. Many women are shut out and silenced. So while I'm honored to be standing at this podium, it easily could have been any one of you. I'm here because I spoke out, and this November, each of us must do the same.

During this campaign, we've heard about the two profoundly different futures that could await women—and how one of those futures looks like an offensive, obsolete relic of our past. Warnings of that future are not distractions. They're not imagined. That future could be real.



In that America, your new president could be a man who stands by when a public figure tries to silence a private citizen with hateful slurs. Who won't stand up to the slurs, or to any of the extreme, bigoted voices in his own party. It would be an America in which you have a new vice president who co-sponsored a bill that would allow pregnant women to die preventable deaths in our emergency rooms. An America in which states humiliate women by forcing us to endure invasive ultrasounds we don't want and our doctors say we don't need. An America in which access to birth control is controlled by people who will never use it; in which politicians redefine rape so survivors are victimized all over again; in which someone decides which domestic violence victims deserve help, and which don't. We know what this America would look like. In a few short months, it's the America we could be. But it's not the America we should be. It's not who we are.

We've also seen another future we could choose. First of all, we'd have the right to choose. It's an America in which no one can charge us more than men for the exact same health insurance; in which no one can deny us affordable access to the cancer screenings that could save our lives; in which we decide when to start our families. An America in which our president, when he hears a young woman has been verbally attacked, thinks of his daughters—not his delegates or donors—and stands with all women. And strangers come together, reach out and lift her up. And then, instead of trying to silence her, you invite me here—and give me a microphone—to amplify our voice. That's the difference.


Over the last six months, I've seen what these two futures look like. And six months from now, we'll all be living in one, or the other. But only one. A country where our president either has our back or turns his back; a country that honors our foremothers by moving us forward, or one that forces our generation to re-fight the battles they already won; a country where we mean it when we talk about personal freedom, or one where that freedom doesn't apply to our bodies and our voices.

We talk often about choice. Well, ladies and gentlemen, it's time to choose.

Romney Blows Dog Whistle for Rush and Trump

Here's Mitt Romney today doing his best dog whistle. Now that Romney has gone crazy-ass Birther, will the Republicans still rant about how "discourteous" Obama is to them?


Huffington Post

Speaking about his Michigan roots, he said, "No one's ever asked to see my birth certificate. They know that this is the place that we were born and raised."

The joke was received with hearty applause by the audience. . . .




. . . The Obama campaign quickly responded, with spokesman Ben LaBolt saying that Romney was embracing the most extreme elements in the conservative movement.

"Throughout this campaign, Governor Romney has embraced the most strident voices in his party instead of standing up to them," he said. "It's one thing to give the stage in Tampa to Donald Trump, Sheriff Arpaio, and Kris Kobach. But Governor Romney's decision to directly enlist himself in the birther movement should give pause to any rational voter across America."

Romney adviser Kevin Madden played down the joke, saying Romney was "only referencing that Michigan, where he is campaigning today, is the state where he himself was born and raised."

Rush Limbaugh was so happy he took a break from blaming Obama for Hurricane Isaac:

Media Matters

LIMBAUGH: Mitt Romney and Ryan, drawing a huge crowd in Michigan. And get this.

ROMNEY [audio clip]: I love being home in this place where Ann and I were raised, where both of us were born. No one's ever asked to see my birth certificate. They know that this is the place that we were born and raised.

LIMBAUGH: Right on, right on, right on.

The Extremist Love Affair With Paul Ryan

I'm not sure how the Romney campaign thinks they can appeal to independents and centrists with the Paul Ryan pick. He is a candidate that mainly appeals to extremists and oddballs of the Republican Party.

While Romney can flip-flop because he has held less conservative positions in the past, Ryan has been too far-right to etch-a-sketch himself. And to make that worse, he has inspired starry-eyed man-crushes from conservatives who are hate-mongers and near-sociopaths. So he can't erase their statements either. Why would they love him if he wasn't a radical extremist?

In May 2012, ex-VP and scary-guy Dick Cheney said:

"I worship the ground that Paul Ryan walks on. I think he's an enormously talented individual and he's trying to do the right thing, and he deserves all the support we can give him. And I hope he doesn’t run for president because that would ruin a good man who has a lot of work to do." (via Think Progress )

Ryan also has a long-standing mutual admiration society with Glenn Beck, wingnut guru of the bizarre. In 2010, we have the following on-air encounter, Transcript Via Media Matters:

BECK: I don't follow the people day-to-day in Washington, but I hear -- when I hear names over and over again, I look into them. Paul Ryan is a name I keep hearing, just, you know, "He's a god among conservatives."

. . . Hello, Congressman. How are you, sir?

RYAN: Hey, nice to meet you.

BECK: Nice to meet you, sir. Tell me -- tell me -- tell me your thoughts on progressivism.

RYAN: Right. What I have been trying to do, and if you read the entire Oklahoma speech or read my speech to Hillsdale College that they put in their Imprimis magazine -- you can get them on my Facebook page -- what I've been trying to do is indict the entire vision of progressivism. Because I see progressivism as the source, the intellectual source for the big-government problems that are plaguing us today. And so, to me, it's really important to flush progressives out into the field of open debate --

BECK: I love you.

RYAN: -- so people can actually see what this ideology means, and where it's going to lead us, and how it attacks the American idea. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Glenn Beck Program, 4/12/10]


Transcript Via Media Matters

Then they went on to agree that "Progressivism is a Cancer" on sociey (see below), and somehow anyone who has a progressive idea is "influenced by Austrian intellectuals" in the big bad city of Madison, WI, while the good folks in tiny Janesville, Ryan's hometown, were more influenced by the founding fathers and God Almighty.

BECK: OK. Hang on just a second. I -- did you see my speech at CPAC?

RYAN: Yeah, I've read it. I didn't see it. I've read a transcript of it.

BECK: OK. I think we're saying the same thing. I call it --

RYAN: We are saying the same thing.

BECK: it's a cancer.

RYAN: Exactly. Look, I come from -- I'm calling you from Janesville, Wisconsin --

BECK: Holy cow.

RYAN: -- where I'm born and raised, where we raised our family, 35 miles from Madison. I grew up hearing about this stuff. This stuff came from these German intellectuals to Madison, University of Wisconsin, and then sort of out from there at the beginning of the last century. So, this is something we are familiar with where I come from.

It never sat right with me, and as I grew up, I learned more about the Founders and reading the Austrians and others, that this is really a cancer. Because it basically takes the notion that our rights come from God and nature, and turns it on its head and says, "No, no, no, no. They come from government. And we here in government are here to give you your rights and therefore ration, redistribute, and regulate your rights." It's a complete affront of the whole idea of this country. And that is, to me, what we as conservatives -- or classical liberals, if you want to get technical --

BECK: Thank you.

RYAN: -- ought to be doing to flush this out. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Glenn Beck Program, 4/12/10]

Ryan sounds just like Sarah Palin from backwater Alaska, or like any number of Glenn Beck's anti-intellectual cuckoo followers who believe they own American history somehow, unlike we scary Democrats who simply can't understand their "pure" vision of what the United States is supposed to be. Like the Harvard-educated Rick Santorum, Ryan is just a hypocrite who makes it sound as if he has never left his small town, even though he was thoroughly educated at public Miami university in Ohio - *where more scary intellectuals dwell* - and he is also a seven-term congressman who has lived in Washington DC for years, not in tiny Janesville, WI. Dare I mention that he received "progressive" help in the form of Social Security benefits that helped pay for his public education? Dare I mention he is paid a salary by the big-bad-government right now, and would again if he ever becomes VP ~ which is looking less-likely every day, but still... voters should look at the way Ryan has lived as a public servant with "progressive" health care and benefits for his family. Actually, just like Santorum and Palin, "cognitive dissonance" is the right term for Ryan's opinions - the contradiction between the way Ryan has actually lived his life and what he says to ultra-conservatives like Beck. Constantly running for office while slamming big-government.

Finally, Rush Limbaugh loves the guy - need I say more?

Quotes via Politico:

“We now have somebody on the ticket who’s us,” Limbaugh said of the newly named Republican vice-presidential nomineee. “[Somebody] who can explain all of this, who believes all of this in his heart, in his soul, and he can do it with optimism and a smile on his face.”

. . . “The pick signals a decision was made somewhere that … we’re going to go head-first, going to take it straight to them and we’re going to win or we’re going to lose [but we are going to] articulate exactly what we believe,” Limbaugh said.
He added later, “The presence of Paul on stage with Romney has elevated Romney … Romney’s a new guy.”

As Ed Schultz put it last night:

Mitt Romney has picked the most radical Vice President in the history of the Republican Party.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Right Wing Heads Explode Over Romneycare Gaffe

Apoplexy is probably the correct scientific term for the reactions of the far right over yesterday's statements of Andrea Saul, Romney's spokesperson.

Saul committed the sin of telling the truth, which is that Mitt Romney is proud of his achievements as Governor of Massachusetts, including the dreaded "Romneycare" insurance plan. But we can't just blame Andrea Saul since Romney also talked about his "experience with insurance" on the same day.

Saul was attempting to give an official response to an ad from the Obama campaign, about a GST Steel worker who lost his job thanks to a forced Bain closedown of the mill. Later he lost his wife to cancer, and blames it on their lack of health care.

When Mitt Romney and Bain closed the plant, I lost my healthcare, and my family lost their healthcare. And a short time after that my wife became ill . . . and I took her up to the Jackson County Hospital and admitted her for pneumonia and that’s when they found the cancer and by then it was stage four/It was, there was nothing they could do for her. And she passed away in 22 days.
~ Joe Soptic, former employee of GST Steel

Romney Press Secretary Andrea Saul responded on Fox News

“To that point, if people had been in Massachusetts, under Governor Romney’s health care plan, they would have had health care."

Romney also mentioned his Massachusetts plan on the campaign trail in some kind of lame attempt to take it back from Obama, possibly the "etch-a-sketch" moment as he tries to move back to the center. Notice how the crowd claps tentatively, as if confused. I can understand that. The rightwing talking point is that "all health care is bad" even if you need it desperately and want it for your family. Major cognitive dissonance.

But basically Romney's constantly shifting views on Obamacare are the real problem, not anything that Andrea Saul said, since apparently she was just backing up the candidate. How can Romney be against Obamacare, but pro-Romneycare when they are basically one in the same?


Heads exploded with outrage:

OMG.This might just be the moment Mitt Romney lost the election.Wow. politico.com/news/stories/0…
— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) August 8, 2012

What conservatives are doing re Andrea Saul's comment is the same as how you housebreak your dog. Romney needs to know not to go there.
— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) August 8, 2012

This isn't about health care! They're out there saying that your guy killed this woman! And your answer is 'well, she'd a had healthcare if she lived in Massachusetts'?
. . . Andrea Saul’s appearance on Fox was a potential gold mine for Obama supporters. They can say, ‘Romneycare was the basis for our health care.'
~ Rush Limbaugh quoted by TPM

Spokeswoman Saul said these words that were followed by a thunderclap of hands smacking foreheads around the nation.
. . . Lord, lord, lord! The last thing conservatives want to talk about, even less than Romney's tax returns (because at least there, they have a common enemy in Sen. Harry Reid), is Romneycare's similarity to Obamacare. Saul's comment turns Romney into the conservative's worst nightmare! Their main complaint about Romney all the way back to the primary season was his implementation of Obamacare on a state level would make him an ineffective messenger on repealing the president's legislation.
~ Bill Schmalfeld on Digital.com

Bob Shrum explained it best on Hardball:

Today they endorsed in essence the central idea of the Affordable Care Act. They've done it because they're in a lot of trouble. . . . they've lost the Long Hot Summer, they've ended up in a situation where Romney's upside-down in his favorable/unfavorable. These Bain ads are really hurting him. And they come up with this answer. It seemed opportunistic, but it was stupid. . . . When you run as somebody you're not, it's hard to keep straight who you're supposed to be.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Next, Ann Coulter's head exploded while ranting to Sean Hannity of Faux News, and she called for Romney to fire Saul as spokesperson, which hasn't happened yet. Stay tuned for further developments.

“Her response was not that it was despicable, not that Bain… that Romney had left Bain five years earlier or the woman died five years after the plant closed and didn’t even get her insurance from her husband, her response was, ‘Well, if she had lived in Massachusetts with Mitt Romney’s health care plan, she would have had health insurance.’ Anyone who donates to Mitt Romney, and I mean the big donors, ought to say if Andrea Saul isn’t fired and off the campaign tomorrow, they are not giving another dime, because it is not worth fighting for this man if this is the kind of spokesman he has… There’s no point in you doing your show, there’s no point in going to the convention and pushing for this man if he’s employing morons like this. This ad is the turning point and she has nearly snatched victory from the jaws of defeat! She should be off the campaign.”

They had a good discussion of Coulter's hissy fit on MSNBC's Last Word, making the point that if Andrea Saul has to resign over this, why not Eric Ferhnstrom, who coined the infamous "Etch-A-Sketch" phrase earlier this year in a major gaffe? Isn't it possible that Saul's statement is part of Ferhnstrom's strategy to move to the center anyway?

And what about that guy named Gorka, who told reporters to "kiss his a$$" at a "holy site" in Poland. Or maybe Dan Senor, the so-called "foreign policy adviser" who gave Romney some really bad advice about his Israeli speech that ticked off the Palestinians.

If Romney fires one, he might have to fire the whole gang. And while he likes firing people who provided services to him, I don't think he can really overturn his entire campaign at this point. People on Twitter are even joking that Romney should just fire himself. LOL

 

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Limbaugh vs. Fluke ~ Guess Who is Winning?

Rush the big, fat pimp-brained wonder sounds jealous these days that Ms. Fluke is touring with a popular president, while he and his wayward followers are pushed to the side of the lunatic fringe.

That's the power of women, my friend. And Democrats.

How's that advertising thing going, Rush? Lost any radio stations lately? Yep:
Limbaugh Loses AM Station in Philadelphia

Limbaugh also wants to take credit for bringing "attention" to Fluke - yeah, right. Although it's a testament that she keeps her cool and keeps moving "forward" in spite of the bullying. When I listen to her, I think that Sandra Fluke might actually be President herself someday, while all Rush will be is a dusty footnote, an ugly big-headed statue pushed into the basement of the Missouri statehouse, and a symbol of hatred who drove the Republican Party straight into the ground.

Who wins? Ms. Fluke, of course.

Obama's out there today, he's at a fundraiser, and guess who is introducing him? Well-known contraception expert Sandra Fluke.
. . . When I say the name Sandra Fluke, what's the first thing that pops into your mind? The first thing that comes up is my name! ... I should be getting a finder's fee.
Rush Limbaugh 8-8-2012

I really think it's an interesting request to take credit for the voice of a woman you tried to silence. I don't think that's going to work out well.
. . . The women of America are speaking out about these policies not because of anything that Mr. Limbaugh has done but because they really care about access to the health care that they need, and they care about all of us having that health care.
~ Sandra Fluke on MSNBC's The Ed Show

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

News from the War on Women

Melinda Gates, wealthy philanthropist, is in London helping to host a summit on family planning in the developing world. And she spoke out against critics:

Gates, who is a practising Catholic, has been targeted by religious groups, which have described her mission as a "blatant attack on morality" and an elitist effort at population control.

In response Gates said the lack of family planning available to 210 million women was "a crime". She added: "We made birth control and contraceptives way too political in the US. I think if people understood that 200 million women want this around the world they would start to say, 'OK that makes sense.'"

. . . Anti-abortion campaigners in the US have seized on comments by a Harvard professor, Lant Pritchett, who attacked Gates for counting women who have not expressed a desire for contraception as needing it.
However, the experience of people on the ground is that, once women are offered education about contraception, it is welcomed. "There is a lot of ignorance," said Faustina Fynn-Nyame, country director of Marie Stopes International in Ghana. "Women think, for example, that an implant or coil will stab them. Once they see other women are fine, then they want to control their families. It empowers them to choose."

I'm happy to report something positive from the Republican front: George W. and Laura Bush were in Africa this week to promote the health of women and children, according to a nice photo-essay in The New York Daily News:

George W. Bush and Laura Bush wrapped up a week-long trip to Africa Friday, where they visited Zambia and Botswana promoting an initiative to fight cervical cancer and breast cancer in the countries.
As part of the charity initiative the Bushes helped open medical centers providing cancer screenings, visited sick children at an orphanage, and met with Peace Corps members, according to the George W. Bush Presidential Center.

But don't think that all conservatives would suddenly like to help women. Nope! They just don't seem to have anything good to say about half the human race. But like all bullies they also keep saying they are "just joking."

Rush Limbaugh on July 3rd

“When women got the right to vote is when it all went down hill,” Limbaugh said on his radio show Tuesday, “Because that’s when votes started being cast with emotion and maternal instincts that government ought to reflect.” The host tried almost immediately to recover from his blatant sexism, claiming that he had been joking.

Pat Buchanan on the McLaughlin Group:

When asked when America would be likely to elect its first female president Buchanan quipped, ”Let’s hope” it’s not before “2040 or 2050.”

Mclaughlin then asked, “That late?” to which Pat Buchanan responded “Let’s hope so.”
Newsweek’s Eleanor Clift quickly shot back, “How about 2016, Hillary Clinton?”
At which point McLaughlin asked, “Hillary has a duty to her gender to run for president?”
Clift didn’t go so far as to call it a duty but noted, “She doesn’t have a duty. but a lot of women, and some men, were disappointed that [she didn't win].”

Buchanan was quick to point out:
“But there’s no Republican vice president even now. They’re not even considering any woman for vice president on the Republican ticket.”

Chief Justice John Roberts Took a Brave Stand Knowing Conservatives Would Vilify Him

Whatever the political leanings of Chief Justice John Roberts, his choice to vote with the Liberal side of the Supreme Court in the ACA ruling was an honorable and brave thing to do. He rose above the fray and followed the rule of law, not the ramblings of some right-wing talking points. I don't agree with all his decisions - Citizens United is an abomination - but in this particular case, he did the right thing.

The fact is, John Roberts has a whole host of new fans and admirers because he helped save Obama's Health Care plan for America. And we won't forget.

My favorite tweet from yesterday, and possibly from all time, was this:

John Roberts is the Severus Snape of SCOTUS.

— Michael Foss (@Fossphate) June 28, 2012

I have no idea if the person who tweeted that was a liberal or a conservative, or whether he agreed with the verdict rendered. They might love Justice Roberts or hate his guts. In a literary sense it works either way because Professor Severus Snape was an ambiguous character up until the end of the Harry Potter series when we saw his true nature. Both sides saw Snape as a traitor, yet he was actually just walking a dangerous line and trying to do the morally right thing under tough circumstances. And at the end of the story, he was the "bravest man" Harry Potter ever knew.

Sometimes that happens in real life. For me, after this ruling, Chief Justice Roberts is a hero like that.
Am I being corny? Perhaps, but listen to Chris Matthews waxing poetic about Roberts yesterday:

Roberts Rules! Let's Play Hardball.
. . . Let me start with one of the great days in this country's history. Today the Supreme Court led by the Chief Justice himself decided that Barack Obama's Health Care Act squares with the American Constitution. All the drum-beating, all the horrors floated up by the right-wing fever swamps are, after today, simply the hate-vapors of the perennial rejectionists to progress, the "rear guard" funded by the Koch Brothers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Today's Hero ~ Chief Justice John Roberts, who walked to the forefront of history and said yes to progress and and no to the role prescribed for him by the Right. He would not be that man, he would not let the court named for him carry historic blame for denying health care to tens of millions of Americans. He would not be the ramrod for yet another right-leaning partison-appearing Supreme Court ruling that would have been the third strike over the plate following Bush v. Gore and Citizens United. So let's start tonight by looking at this bold, defiant, grand decision by Chief Justice Roberts . . .

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Earlier this week we read Justice Scalia's bizarre dissent on the Arizona Immigration case, in which he went into absolutely Pureblood Death Eater mode while comparing illegal Hispanics in Arizona to freed slaves before the Civil War and those with "contagious diseases." It's easy to see Roberts as the reverse - someone who decided to put the Law ahead of prejudices or his own personal opinions. And indeed, he ruled the opposite of Scalia in that case, as well as the ACA case.

Supreme Court expert and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, Linda Greenhouse, wrote about Roberts role in the Immigration decision for the New York Times:, implying that Roberts willingness to go along with the majority might have driven Scalia nuts, LOL:

The first thing that jumped out at me was the name of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. on Justice Kennedy’s opinion, along with the expected names of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor. The chief justice was, apparently, in complete agreement with the majority as evidenced by his silence – the dog that didn’t bark, you might say. He felt no need to write separately to express even a shade of difference from the majority or a hint of sympathy with the dissenting views of his usual allies. Beyond Justice Scalia’s transparent dislike for the president, perhaps it was the chief justice’s apostasy that drove him around the bend.

Yes, horrors that the Chief Justice wouldn't succumb to all the dog whistles in Justice Scalia's dissent. Maybe Roberts just isn't a racist?

About the Health Care Ruling, Greenhouse analyzed Roberts' role which is officially "Chief Justice of the United States."

. . . the title that he actually goes by, chief justice of the United States, seemed a good fit. He spoke for the country.
His decision to call the mandate a tax and to provide a clearly reluctant fifth vote for upholding it as within the Congressional taxing power was a deeply pragmatic call that saved the Affordable Care Act. Certainly by no coincidence, it also saved the Supreme Court from the stench of extreme partisanship that has hung over the health care litigation from the moment more than two years ago that Republican state officials raced one another to the federal courts to try to erase what they had been unable to block.
. . . But it is Chief Justice Roberts’s extraordinary role that is most intriguing. He has just completed his seventh term as chief justice, and at 57 could well serve another quarter-century or longer. Clearly he is playing a long game.
. . . John Roberts doesn’t like the Affordable Care Act. He went to great lengths in his opinion to show his total agreement with the plaintiffs’ core argument: that the requirement to buy health insurance was an unprecedented effort by Congress to force people into a market they had chosen not to enter, to create commerce where none existed. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissenting opinion pierced gaping holes in the chief justice’s analysis. But he stuck to his position, coming within an inch of invoking what Justice Ginsburg ironically labeled “the broccoli horrible” and warning that “under the government’s theory, Congress could address the diet problem by ordering everyone to buy vegetables.”
Since there were four justices who also saw the mandate that way, as Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Anthony M. Kennedy explained in an unusually structured opinion that all four signed as co-authors, the mandate might have died right there. But then the chief justice abruptly pivoted and declared that because the penalty for not buying insurance functioned as a tax, it could be upheld as a tax and the mandate was therefore constitutional.

Roberts' law professor, Laurence Tribe, whom you may recall had predicted that ACA would be upheld, praised him on Thursday in the Boston Globe:

“I think this term was the turning point in the legacy of John Roberts,” Harvard law professor Laurence H. Tribe said in an ­e-mail to the Globe. “He now has a chance to be a truly great chief justice. Of course, he ­dissented in some of the liberal-leaning decisions of the current largely conservative court, but when push came to shove he was where he needed to be.”
Tribe, who taught Roberts and President Obama at ­Harvard Law School, said ­Roberts’s decision to become the swing vote in a 5-4 decision “saved the day — and perhaps the court.”

In the same article, Joel B. Grossman of Johns Hopkins University said:

“It’s kind of an act of leadership rather than an act of ideology . . . I can’t imagine his sympathies were with expanding congressional power, but I think he recognized that there might even be a crisis if he cut this law off at the knees.”
. . . “He is going to be chief for a long time and one thing you don’t want is to lose control of the court,” he said. “This fits the model of wanting to keep the court together and perhaps even to approve something he personally found distasteful.”

Roberts must have known that the conservatives would see him as a sell-out, shun him socially, and immediately launch ad hominem attacks as bad or worse as those aimed at the President. And in fact, it started in less than 24 hours.

Ben Shapiro, Editor of Breitbart.com launched a series of damning tweets:

This is the greatest destruction of individual liberty since Dred Scott. This is the end of America as we know it. No exaggeration.

— benshapiro (@benshapiro) June 28, 2012

Chief Justice Roberts was the worst part of the Bush legacy.

— benshapiro (@benshapiro) June 28, 2012

It's not like I didn't call this back in 2005 re: Roberts. Flashback: President Bush's Roberts Pick Disappoints: breitbart.com/Big-Government…

— benshapiro (@benshapiro) June 28, 2012

I hate pansy Republicans who think that just because SCOTUS rules something, they're right. Try Roe v. Wade. Or Plessy. Or Dred Scott.

— benshapiro (@benshapiro) June 28, 2012

How dumb is the Roberts opinion? It actually quotes Franklin's "death and taxes" quip as evidence for a legal point.

— benshapiro (@benshapiro) June 28, 2012

For his next magic trick, John Roberts will turn Obamacare into a butterfly, so President Obama won't have to worry about tax questions.

— benshapiro (@benshapiro) June 28, 2012

Wow. Call a "wahhhhbulance" for him!

Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky took a different route, issuing a Press Release that dissed the entire decision as moot somehow, as if Justice Roberts had no authority to render a verdict. In fact, he carefully doesn't mention Roberts at all, which is telling, and refers to the majority opinion as "couple people" who "declare something." Yeah, the Supreme Court doesn't matter unless they rule your way.

Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional. While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right.

Which caused the Village Voice to retort:

Actually, Rand, that's exactly what makes it so.
. . . Paul may want to review the 1803 case of Marbury V. Madison, which formed the basis for judicial review. In other words, it's what gave the Court its teeth -- it clearly defined the Court's role in the separation of powers in the federal government, making it the "supreme expositor of the Constitution."
This means that what the Court says goes -- regardless of whether a freshman Senator from Kentucky disagrees with it.

Rand Paul had so much criticism over his silly remark that he was still trying to explain in an interview the next day:
Interview From Marketplace Health Care:

Hobson: Well thanks for being here. I want to start by asking you about some comments that you made yesterday that have gotten a lot of attention. You said: "Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be constitutional, does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional." Do you stand by that statement?
Paul: You know, I still agree with Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito that the Constitution doesn't justify the law.
Hobson: You're agreeing with the dissenters -- but that was not the ruling that the Supreme Court came down with.
Paul: Right, but that's all I'm saying, if if you ask Justice Scalia if he thinks the law is Constitutional, he'll still tell you "no." So I'm entitled to have my opinion as to what is constitutional and what is not. No one's talking about whether the ruling has validity or not, I'm just saying that I agree with the dissenters that don't believe the law is constitutional

Okey dokey.

Next . . . the apoplectic and hyperbolic (and repetitive) Rush Limbaugh slamming Roberts as some kind of Evil Taxman out to destroy the world:

What we have been told by the Chief Justice of the Court and four liberals on the court - Obamacare's just a massive tax increase.
. . . the Chief Justice was just hell-bound, hell-bent to find a way to make this law applicable, so you know what? As a tax increase it works because there's no limit on the federal government's ability to tax....
. . . John Roberts said (mocking voice) "It's not our job to forbid this, it's not our job to protect people from outcomes, it's not our job to determine what is right or wrong or any of it. We can't forbid this if it's what the elected representatives and the people want." . . . But what if we were deceived?
. . . What happened today was that we were bludgeoned with a tax that requires us to do what the government mandates. We must do what they say. . . . It is a 'stealth tax' and that's what it was all along. A massive behavior modification program.
. . . Chief Justice says (mocking voice) 'I can't forbid this. It's not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices. I gotta find a way - Congress wants this - I gotta find a way to make it happen. Okay - we'll call it a tax!'

The lowest blow so far has come from extremist radio host Michael Savage who implied that Robert's epilepsy gave him impaired judgment.

Let’s talk about Roberts. I’m going to tell you something that you’re not going to hear anywhere else, that you must pay attention to. It’s well known that Roberts, unfortunately for him, has suffered from epileptic seizures. Therefore he has been on medication. Therefore neurologists will tell you that medication used for seizure disorders, such as epilepsy, can introduce mental slowing, forgetfulness and other cognitive problems. And if you look at Roberts’ writings you can see the cognitive dissociation in what he is saying.

Oh Lord - "cognitive problems"? Really? Does this also explain Mitt Romney's lack of memory about everything he has ever said?

That statement is nasty two ways - not only is it egregious to bring up the private health matters of a Supreme Court Justice, it's insulting to anyone with epilepsy to imply that they can't make correct decisions. But isn't this just par for the course in Republican circles ~ bad health equals bad judgment equals "no insurance for you"? Don't the Republicans always imply that people with bad health or even children with pre-existing conditions from birth are somehow tainted and undeserving? Unless you're Ann Romney with high-functioning Multiple Sclerosis, or Dick Cheney with a defective heart, or Rick Santorum's poor little daughter, or Rush Limbaugh going blind from drug abuse. Oh yeah - that is irrelevant because they all have plenty of money for the best health care. It's only the poor and unemployed who don't deserve it.

All the more reason we need universal health care so people can get help without regard to their previous conditions or political affiliations. Death Eaters just aren't good at taking care of people. So thank you, Justice Roberts.

The War on Women - Keep Walkin' Boots

These boots are made for walkin', and that's just what they'll do.

One of these days these boots are gonna walk all over you.

~ Nancy Sinatra's 1966 #1 Hit

OMG - look at those mini-skirts! Even in 1966 women didn't have to hide much on TV.

And yet, in Michigan in 2012, two female congresswomen were silenced for saying the word "vagina" in a debate about . . . wait for it . . . an abortion bill!

From The Detroit Free Press  

State Reps. Lisa Brown, D-West Bloomfield, and Barb Byrum, D-Onondaga, were told today that they wouldn’t be recognized to publicly speak on any matters before the House because of comments they made Wednesday during an emotional debate on a bill that puts new restrictions on abortion providers.
Brown, who voted against the legislation, told supporters of the bill, “I’m flattered you’re all so concerned about my vagina. But no means no.”
And Byrum was gaveled out of order after she protested when she wasn’t allowed to speak on her amendment to the bill that would have required proof of a medical emergency or that a man’s life was in danger before a doctor could perform a vasectomy.

This week Rush Limbaugh said a group of nuns had "Gone Feminazi." Yes . . . Nuns. Wow - yeah, the Nuns are just on a rampage these days. And he thinks the Vatican is right to "tamp it down." Wow - I thought that American Nuns were able to vote or campaign for anyone they chose since they are citizens too.

RUSH: “By contrast, CBS played up the supporters of a group of left-leaning Catholic nuns during four on-air segments between May 30 and June 1, 2012. Correspondent Wyatt Andrews hyped how ‘hundreds of Catholics have rallied behind the sisters,’ and that ‘protests in support of the nuns have been held in almost 50 cities.’” Have you heard about any of this? One paragraph Snerdley said he saw on the 164 rallies across the country. The nun story. Do you know what the nun story is? Yep. Yeah, but what are the nuns doing? Do you know what the nuns are doing? The nuns have gone feminazi on everybody. This small group of nuns in the Catholic Church is going feminist, and the Vatican is obviously — well, a figure of speech, slapping them down. And the Vatican is trying to tamp it down and say, “No, no, no, that doesn’t happen. There’s no such thing as a feminist nun.”

And on Fox News, anchor Gretchen Carlson finally showed the right spirit and walked out as her doofus male cohosts were dissing women. She was so fed up she walked off the set. From Think Progress

Thursday morning, Steve Doocy interviewed members of the U.S. Navy Band about the band’s recent inclusion of women. Reacting to the segment, Brian Kilmeade remarked, “Women are everywhere. We’re letting them play golf and tennis now. It’s out of control.” Visibly upset, Gretchen Carlson, the only female host, walked off of the set. “You read the headlines. Since men are so great. Take them [women] away,” she said. Kilmeade responded, “All right. Finally.” Then, as she walked further off of the set, Kilmeade jeered, “Leaving an all male crew” and added “she needed a shower.” Watch it:

If I were her, I would have kept on walkin' and demanded more respect. But look where you are, honey - FOX! Keep walkin' boots . . . yeah!

Missouri Rush Bust Under 24-Hour Surveillance

Ugh, Rush Limbaugh's statue was unveiled this week in the Missouri State House. Dark Days there. Just keep in mind that if MO ever gets a more enlightened House Speaker, they can roll that big old bronze head right on out of there.

Via the Kansas City Star

Democrats were hopeful the bust would never be displayed alongside other inductees, such as Harry Truman, Mark Twain and Walt Disney. They argued that Limbaugh's history of controversial statements -- most recently when he called 30-year-old law student Sandra Fluke a "slut" and "prostitute" -- should have prevented him from being included in the hall . . .
The 2012 legislative session adjourned Friday. The bust was placed just outside the entrance to the Missouri House on the third floor of the Capitol on Monday. Inductees are selected solely by the House speaker.

But get this ~ The statue was installed in a "secret ceremony" and includes it's own Surveillance Camera! Do you think they are expecting that some visitors to the State Capitol might want to leave some type of offering to the Great Stone Head? Maybe a box of birth control pills? How about a picture of Sandra Fluke?

From ABC News:

“Instead of being open to the public, as is tradition, the ceremony was conducted in secret in a locked House chamber with only Republican officials and other select people allowed in,” Talboy said in the statement, according to KPLR-TV in St. Louis. “The secrecy and exclusion of the public demonstrates that even Republicans are embarrassed at honoring someone who recently called a female college student with whom he disagreed a ‘slut’ and a ‘prostitute.’”

The ceremony was closed to the public and Highway Patrol officers stood guard outside the House chamber, the Post-Dispatch reported. The event was announced to the media 26 minutes before the it began, KPLR reported.

A security camera, which was installed specifically for Limbaugh’s bust, will provide 24-hour surveillance of the statue, said Trevor Fox, the House’s director of communications. Limbaugh’s statue, which stands between those of 19th century painter George Bingham and former Missouri Gov. Warren Hearnes, is the only statue in the Missouri House’s Hall of Fame that has its own security camera.

Bigoted Is as Bigoted Does

I always warn people that I have strong opinions that many people may not want to hear. I'm as partisan as I can be, and unapologetic for that. And sometimes we just don't like public figures, and sometimes they say things that make us crazy.

But honestly, to me it matters not whether someone is from the left or the right - a bigot is a bigot, and an extremist is never going to win people over. Take a look at Rick Santorum if you don't believe me - oh wait, he's gone. Yes, he influenced an election and appealed to the 25% of extremists in this country, but most of us are not that person, no matter what party we are. Eventually he had to leave the stage. Paul Ryan was just attacked by the Catholic Church for being uncharitable and misinterpreting the Bible, and yet he believes he is the most devout and worthy member of that august institution.



On the Democratic side, we have our share of  religious opinions, and while Atheists want to be considered the  most opened-minded and enlightened people for rejecting organized religion, they can also be zealots. Try this - read the comments under any news story about religion and you will find a comment by some pompous jerk mocking people for belief in the "flying spaghetti monster" or the "imaginary being in the sky." Why is that enlightened? You are just attacking people for their beliefs, which is what some (not all) evangelical zealots do.



If you want people to listen to your point of view, just do something simple - be polite, think about your audience, think about the taste level. Just think. That's what President Obama does and he doesn't make many of these stupid mistakes. Don't use hate as a weapon all the time - it's doesn't work.

Please go read a List of Logical Fallacies and some of you might see what you've been wrong that gets you into trouble on the Internets.

Ad hominem (‘personal attack’; ‘poisoning the well’): L. "to the man;"
Def- attacking a person’s habits, personality, or reputation;
Ex- "His argument must be false because people say he’s a liar."

Bulverism: (named for C.S. Lewis’s imaginary character: Ezekiel Bulver) Def- attacking a person’s identity (race/gender/religion);
Ex- "You only think that because you’re a (man/woman; Black/White;
Catholic/Baptist; Democrat/Republican; Christian/Atheist; etc.)"

Straw Man (‘misrepresentation’):
Def- misrepresenting the opponent's argument; exaggerating or oversimplifying
Ex- "Einstein's theory must be false! It makes everything relative--even truth!"

3. Either/or (‘false dilemma’):
Def- limiting the possible answers to only two; oversimplification;
Ex- "If you think that, you must be either stupid or half-asleep."

We see all of those and more in political debate. The Mitt Romney Etch-A-Sketch joke is an ad hominem, but the twist is that Romney's own manager stated that erasing past statements was part of an election strategy. So the joke became a delicious irony that  tickled the humor of the public. However, when Ted Nugent and Rush Limbaugh attack President Obama or Sandra Fluke in vile language and spread lies about them, it's just not funny. Lies are not always jokes - sometimes they are just slurs, insults, and crazy-speech.

On many political forums, people make "sweeping generalities" - or what I call "throw out the baby with the bathwater" statements about other parts of the country they know little or nothing about. If Rick Perry in Texas makes some stupid remark about "wantin' to secede" because mean old Obama is forcing him to take medicaid funding (horrors) then some idiot will automatically write "Why do we need Texas anyway? Let them secede or merge with Mexico" as if every person in Texas is a Rick Perry clone. People don't realize how those statements bother Democrats who live in those states and fight for every vote. Rick Perry doesn't speak for the vast majority of Texans, and even the most right-leaning Texan would probably like to keep his United States Citizenship, don't you think? In most cases, the red states are split 50/50 so that conservatives win by very small margins, even in presidential races. Things are not cut and dried the way they seem on political forum or TV shows.



Let's recall it wasn't that long ago that the Dixie Chicks were lambasted and shunned for having the gall to say that not everyone from Texas was identical to George Bush. Obviously a false equivalency doesn't exist among "all the people down in Texas." Or in Tennessee where I live, or in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, or even South Carolina. The South has a diversity beyond a red-state status, just as the more liberal "blue states" actually have their share of card-carrying NRA members, evangelicals, tea partiers, and apocalypse-any-minute survivalists. There is no "one type" of person from any state, and to dismiss people based on geography is a rampant type of bigotry on the internet. Democrats are just as guilty of this as Republicans who think everyone in Massachusetts or New York is pro-abortion and loves President Obama.



Some people think that everyone south of the Mason Dixon line is automatically (a) a Christian or (b) a bigot. And the converse is true - there are those who say everyone north of Kentucky is automatically enlightened and immensely free of bigotry or prejudice of any kind. To anyone who believes that, I must ask if they've followed the careers of Michelle Bachman in Minnesota or Scott Walker in Wisconsin? 'Cause they are up there, you know - in a northerly direction. Sarah Palin was way up northerty-north in Alaska - where she saw Russia from her porch. Her husband belonged to a secessionist group, but that doesn't convince me that everyone in Alaska should be cut loose from the country due to Todd's extremism. Californians sometimes call themselves "Left Coasters" which is a cute tag-line, but that big blue state also gave us Ronald and Nancy Reagan, as well as Arnold Schwarzenegger. The United States is like that, even if we love to broad-brush the conversation.

Both sides of the political debate use Bulverism, Straw Man, and False dilemma every day because we are a divided society and people have become so extreme that real discourse is almost not possible. "You're either with me or agin' me, dadgummit!" And the internet makes it easy to throw down the gauntlet and "take a stand" as if your life depends on it, or as if our society will crumble if they don't. I think that's how the Civil War started, but never mind . . . That doesn't mean that either side is "right" in all cases. Many right-wingers will say that "all" Democrats are communists and baby killers, for instance, when most Democrats are actually just pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Many on the left will say that Christians are either Evangelicals or Tea Party members - ignoring the many Christians who work daily to re-elect President Obama.

It doesn't matter who is spewing this nonsense - it's not logical. Everyone starts to sound like Archie Bunker. A glance at any discussion about the Trayvon Martin case proves there is plenty of bigotry to go around on all sides. It's shocking.

I've always been both a Democrat and a Christian. That doesn't mean I believe that the Bible is correct about everything, but that also doesn't mean that Jesus was wrong about everything. I find the teachings of Jesus quite soothing after a day of reading insults to women, talk of cutting children out of food programs, and hate-filled screeds about shooting the President or anyone who gets in the way of gun rights. I don't think Jesus would have a chance of even getting on the radio in these days and times, and if he did the Left would say he was too "mild-mannered" and too bipartisan, while the Right would slam him for persecuting the money-lenders and saying that rich people aren't bound for glory.



Please go read some famous quotes from smart people in the past if you want your words to resonate:

"We must make a personal attack when there is no argumentative basis for our speech”
~ Marcus Tullius Cicero

"A bigot delights in public ridicule, for he begins to think he is a martyr." ~ Sydney Smith

Bigot: One who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that you do not entertain.”
~ Ambrose Bierce

And to those I would add the old proverb: "Two wrongs don't make a right."



To me it's just as bad for Monica Crowley on Fox to attack Sandra Fluke with some homophobic slur as it is for anti-bullying gay activist Dan Savage to attack Christian teenagers as "pansy-aZZes" for walking out on his captive-audience diatribe against the Bible. I recently wasted a couple of days gathering their statements and public reaction on my other blog, Snark Amendment because I think it's good to archive this stuff, which is ephemeral and tends to get erased when no one is looking.

And these are just great examples of two-sides to the same coin (to be proverbial again).



Monica Crowley Becomes a Bigoted Internet Meme

Irony Lost on Dan Savage as He Bullies Christians (Now with Nearly Non-Apology Apology

I love the irony and the jokes, and of course twas ever thus that freedom of speech also means freedom to make a fool of yourself by acting like a mean little girl as the bitter Crowley did, or stepping in your own bulls****, to quote the ever-eloquent Savage (who seems to know only one unimaginative noun).

A blogger writing in near obscurity -- like me -- who expects that few people will ever read this post, can have a fixed point of view and maybe only offend someone about once a month, but when you have a large audience hanging on your every word, then you have to engage brain much more before putting mouth in gear. And also remember that the internet is forever. That is something Mitt Romney keeps forgetting as he rewrites his old opinions on everything from Student Loans to Osama Bin Laden. We remember this stuff, we really do. And we will call you out on it!