It's Called Being Lazy

The Tea Baggers were all in a collective lather over Republicans none-too-modest gains in the Lower Chamber of Congress and said that they have delivered a "mandate" of sorts. I'm wondering if they are going to excuse Mitch McConnell's and the GOP's unblushing laziness.

They've already started:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) offered his strongest criticism yet of President Barack Obama’s leadership in the ongoing talks.

“I have little question that as long as this President is in the Oval Office, a real solution is unattainable,” he said on the Senate floor Tuesday. Adding, “This was not an easy decision for me.”

Obama, he said, “has presented us with three choices: smoke and mirrors, tax hikes or default. Republicans choose none of the above.”

McConnell added the Democratic budget plan would provide only “a couple of billion dollars in cuts up front with empty promises of more to follow.”

‘”I had hoped to do good, but I refuse to do harm,” he said.

What McConnell is doing is akin to a spoiled child upset that they don't get everything they want at a moments notice. Moreover, McConnell is attempting to excuse the abject laziness of the Modern American Right by claiming that everything they campaigned on that they don't accomplish is actually Obama's fault.

I can recall that the Clinton White House was able to accomplish quite a bit with a Republican majority in the House, so what is McConnell's excuse now? He is clearly favoring pure partisan rhetoric and pandering to the most extreme notions of the Modern American Right, consequences be damned.

Pouring Out The Hubris Of The Right

Not long ago I was flipping through a magazine at work and happened to stop on an article critical of Obama's handling of the so called "War On Terror". A woman next to me looked at the picture of Barack at the head of the article and proclaimed in a rather casual manner - as if she felt she was within a circle of like-minded friends - that "there's mister arrogant".

I will defer from speaking about the "dog-whistle racism" in modern socio-political conversation here in Western Kentucky in favor of pointing out that what Sarah Palin has done has run contrary to what the Modern American Right alleged stand for.

As Tina Korbe highlights over at HotAir, such arrogant to self-aggrandizement posturing is more than welcome within the Modern American Right:

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin hasn’t yet revealed whether she plans to run for the GOP presidential nomination, but she’s confident she could win if she really wanted.

In-so-much that she hasn't announced she as an "exploritory committee", anyone with even the most limited bone-marrow intelligence knows that she is going to run. And those of us that have listened to and followed Palin's base instincts know that she will draw her announcement out as long as possible.

Tina Korbe knows this, but prefers to play coy in order to deal her "I'm so shocked" card at a later date.

And as much as Korbe knows this, this next piece from Palin should show her how Palin's own arrogant nature that has been fostered and encouraged:

“I believe that I can win a national election,” Palin said recently in a conversation with Newsweek’s Peter J. Boyer. “I’m not so egotistical as to believe that it has to be me, or it can only be me, to turn things around. But I do believe that I can win.”

But then, Korbe starts to muddy her initial claim.

Perhaps her popularity among Republicans and conservatives warrants that pretty impressive confidence (after all, a countless many continue to clamor for her entrance into the presidential race), but, for whatever the polls are worth, Palin hasn’t yet bested President Barack Obama in a hypothetical presidential match-up (at least that I’ve seen). But, then, of the present GOP candidates, only former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has fared favorably against the incumbent, anyway, so maybe Palin has a point. If anything, the utter lack of cockiness among the current Republican contenders (with, again, the possible exception of Romney, who was cool and confident recently to suggest the firing of an Obama economic adviser) might be just what has caused so many to describe this year’s field as “dullsville.” Maybe the Palin presumption is what this race needs. Maybe, with Palin competing for the nomination, the other Republicans would kick it into even higher gear.

"Utter lack of cockiness"?

Where the fuck as Tina been living since 2009?

Considering the randomness of the initial GOP Presidential field of hopefuls, I would say that Palin either doesn't understand what's going on within the Modern American Right or is more concerned with her own visibility and financial gains.

I don't think I would be out of line by saying the later and the former have both evaded her and have more of a baring on what will happen in 2012 than she is willing to admit.

But lets continue with Korbe's meandering post:

Fortunately for Palin (as she herself recognizes) and probably for the GOP, it’s still very early and the field is far from set.

“Thank goodness the field is not yet set,” Palin said in the interview with Newsweek. “I think that there does need to be more vigorous debate. There needs to be a larger field. And there’s still time. There’s still months ahead, where more folks can jump in and start articulating their positions.”

Of course the GOP isn't set, and it won't be this year, as the Modern American Right are so concerned with removed Barack Obama from office that they are more than willing to ignore their own alleged "beliefs" in favor of casting him and his family in the roll of "extremists".

However, the Modern American Right is attempting to set the field already with the players at hand. And at best, they are all trying to use the same fear-mongering talking points. Have they worked? Well, considering that Palin hasn't officially announced and that perhaps those that once ( and perhaps still ) saw her as a religious figure are beginning to realize that she is either ineffective as a true leader or that she works better as a talking-point machine are tilting to polling.

Fortunately for Palin (as she herself recognizes) and probably for the GOP, it’s still very early and the field is far from set.

“Thank goodness the field is not yet set,” Palin said in the interview with Newsweek. “I think that there does need to be more vigorous debate. There needs to be a larger field. And there’s still time. There’s still months ahead, where more folks can jump in and start articulating their positions.”

But, if she’s going to get in, I wish she’d get in now, so folks would stop evaluating her non-campaign-campaign tactics and start talking again about her policy positions (which, at least as she laid them out in the Newsweek article, are as solid as ever).

I'm not entirely sure how large the field needs to be before Palin finally admits that she's running, as it's already so unofficially large that it's starting to get obscene, but she is running.

So what is Korbe wanting to hear once Palin makes an official announcement? Is she expecting people to conform to her own framing? I would wager so. What she is upset about is that people have been questioning her positions since John McCain tapped her as the ultimate VP gimmick of the 21st Century.

So why is Palin so sure that she could win?

Well, it's because she's been told that she can. Moreover, she's convinced herself that she is so much of a celebrity within the Modern American Right that she almost feels entitled to it.

And while most sane people won't go all-in for someone like Palin - based on what she has said and done - we are in a time where marketing trumps reality. This is one of the primary factors that separates the Modern American Right from true Liberals/Progressives.

Is Palin going to run?

Of course.

Will she win?

Perhaps the GOP nomination, but that is it.............

Reclaiming Their Obvious Title?

It seemed like literally moments after Barack Obama took the Oath Of Office that Conservative Republicans renounced the (R) on their voter registration cards and took up the mantle of the "Independent" - something the Tea Baggers championed on literally a daily basis.

But as Obama's first term entered the later portion, the Tea Baggers seemed to become less relevant and the so-called "Independent" began to disappear from media coverage and those that championed them started to wonder where all the Republicans were.

One such person is Hot Air's own Ed Morrissey.

In another of his meandering poll evaluations, he concludes with this statement:

Finally, let’s look at the sample. The D/R/I in the April poll sample was a ridiculous 32/22/41. This sample has a slightly better split, although still skewed at 31/25/39, which still undersamples Republicans. In a sample more reflective of reality, Obama’s job approval would be lower than the 47% shown here, and he’d be in deeper trouble against Republican challengers than this shows.

Where did the love of the Independent go?

And this isn't the first time Morrissey pulled the victim card when a particular poll didn't suit his particular need or reflect his desire to make people believe that a majority of Americans believe exactly as he does. If he were as honest as she should be - given Hot Air's love for the Tea Baggers - he would be able to at least tacitly admit that just because you claim to be "Independent" doesn't mean that you always agree with and vote along Democratic Party lines.

I've noted here many time, polls are interesting snapshots into a particular moment in time but in no way dictate how people will vote come election day. But there is an obvious caveat that I should offer here.

The embrace of Scott Rasmussen by the Modern American Right seems, to me at least, that many of them look to polling and focus groups as voting indicators. This is quite troubling when you begin to take a deeper look into it, as this completely contradicts the Right Wing notion that they act based off their own desires and not the desires of any outside force. But that's another story for another day.

Yes, He Did: Pt. IV - What Will Make Them Happy

When I watched clip last night over at the Right Wing "hate-site" Fox"Nation", it finally became clear to me that it's not Obama that's making the successful killing of Bin Laden about him, it's the Modern American Right that's making it all about Obama:



I'll get back to how this "breaking news" is more about Fox's/The Right's own agenda than about what actually happened that day in New York.

Moreover, I seriously question the validity of Debra Burlingame's version of her encounter with Obama, considering her personal disdain with our President.

And while some will say that it's not right to question a woman that lost so much on Sept. 11th 2001, I feel that it's only intellectually honest to do so based on her preconceived notions of who Obama is and what he has done. After all, he gave the "go-ahead" order that lead to the death of the man that was responsible for the death of her husband.

But more on that portion of the story later.

While the Modern American Right remains to be unmoved by the implications of what has happened over the course of the last two weeks - that Obama has proven has was born in America and has brought down the most wanted terrorist in the world - I have to ask what else he has to do that will make them understand that his presidency is more of a success than the Bush Administration.

Considering the metric by which the Modern American Right operate, the bar is set so high that no one - not even someone they have deified - would be able to claim such a title.

Not Palin, not Trump, not Bachmann, no anyone.

Why is that?

The truth, despite what the Modern American Right will insist upon reads as such:

Obama must be impeached or defeated in the General Election.

And while I am given pause to relate the third and final prerequisite for Right Wing happiness, it shouldn't be ignored that some within their ranks openly and unflinchingly pray for his own death.

Anyone remember the Death Prayer movement?

Again, what does this man have to do?

Walk on water?

Cure the sick with a touch of his hand?

Make NASCAR a more interesting event?

The metric for acceptability lies purely within the hand of the Modern American Right. And no matter what happens, it seems they won't have any of it until he accepts George W. Bush into his heart as his "personal savior".

Sad.

Yes, He Did: Pt 2 - It's All About George

This was a natural path for the Modern American Right to take - credit George W. Bush for the success of the Obama administration. But do they remember this:



So why give credit to a person that admittedly wasn't concerned with Bin Laden - even after the whole "Dead or Alive" meme became such a chant with those that were the unflinching supplicants of the Bush administration. Additionally, since "waterboarding" ended in 2005, and if the Modern American Right are really wanting to maintain that it was the singular technique that helped find Bin Laden, why did the Bush administration not act on this intel they allegedly had?

The reason that people should be asking that is due to the latest meme that has sprung up within the Modern American Right - that Obama took 16 hours to decide how to approach this situation.

Take just a moment to consider the implications of reactionary decision making. While many within the Left wanted the Bush Administration to be more aggressive in going after Bin Laden just days after the attacks on September 11th, we knew that reactionary foreign policy wouldn't work, but this latest and laughable assault on the Obama administration stinks of so much hypocrisy that I shouldn't even have to tell you about it.

But there is an element within this event that I think we all need to understand - that Bush had, at least, a small roll in finding Bin Laden. Obama understood this, accepted this, and wanted him to be a part of the celebration of his death and what should be the singular action that ends our occupation of Afghanistan. The only problem is that Bush wanted no part of it.

Naturally, the Modern American Right are going to frame this as Bush "knowing" that Obama is just using this as a campaign tool. But didn't Bush use Bin Laden as a campaign tool for years? The hypocrisy continues.

Did the Bush Administration have any roll in finding Bin Laden? I'm certain they did, but I'm not so blind to know that "waterboarding" was the singular technique that found him.

Is Bush taking advantage of this to make Obama look bad? you bet he is:

A spokesman for George W. Bush says the former president has declined an invitation from President Barack Obama to attend an observance at New York's ground zero.

Obama plans to visit the site of the destroyed World Trade Center towers Thursday in the aftermath of a Navy SEALs raid that killed Osama bin Laden. The al-Qaida attack, which killed about 3,000 people, occurred in the early months of Bush's presidency in 2001.

The spokesman, David Sherzer, says the former president appreciated the offer to attend but has chosen to remain out of the spotlight during his post-presidency.

I'm almost certain that the Modern American Right are going to use this as yet another tool to claim that Bush is more of a leader than Obama is.

Yes, He Did: Reflections On The Aftermath Of Bin Laden's Death: PT 1

I had fallen asleep early Saturday evening, so I missed the good news. But, upon awaking Sunday morning, I was bombarded with Tweets and Facebook updates that revealed not just that we had finally killed the preeminent terrorist of a generation, but that that very action had further divided the nation it was intended to bring together.

In the interest of full disclosure and honesty, I had - for some years, come to believe that Bin Laden had been killed and no one was really reporting this fact because his communications - primarily audio only heard by a select few - were unusually timed with specific Bush Era political moves. Not to go all "Alex Jones" on you, but the fact that Benazir Bhutto claimed to have actionable intel regarding Bin Laden's assassination, I was inclined to more than moderately embrace that theory.

But back to the point at hand.

The first thing that immediately jumped out at me was the fact that the Modern American Right, with unblushing intensity, refused to acknowledge that the Obama administration should be recognized for this victory. And that, to me, tells me that now more than ever, they can't define what the word "victory" means in regards to military action overseas.

What they did do was something I thought quite peculiar, considering their metric for praise prior to Obama's election - they claimed that Bush was responsible for Bin Laden being killed by military action. But this wasn't just about Bush, it was about "waterboarding". It wasn't about techniques proven to provide intel that could immediately acted upon, it was about something that Liberals/Progressives knew was untrustworthy. If "waterboarding" was such a glorious tool for gleaning intel from terrorist detainees, why couldn't the Bush administration accomplish this task in as timely a fashion as the Obama administration did?

Unfortunately, for the Right, this poorly conceived rationalization is false. Donald Rumsfeld has even denied that "waterboarding" was a factor in all of this. But don't tell that to Jim Hoft ( aka: GatewayPundit - someone who is consistently sourced for the "Fair And Balanced" hate-site that is known as Fox"Nation" ). He's also pushing for a new conspiracy - that Obama knew that it was Bin Laden living in that compound since last Fall. The only problem with this is that they were only aware of a compound and not who lived there.

The scrambling and twitching efforts of the Modern American Right to denounce the actions of the Obama administration show not only their desperation, but their own knowledge that the Bush administration failed for nearly 10 years where the Obama administration succeeded in less than 3.

More to come tomorrow.............

Sending The Message

In light of the uprising in Egypt, the modern American Right have been taking after the Obama administration as one that was "unprepared" and "continually surprised by surprises". Their narrative was one that Obama was and is unable to respond to crisis around the world.

So what happens when the Obama administration begins to utilize modern social-networking to show support for change in the Arabic world? The modern American Right eats what they are spoon fed

Hoping to widen the audience for its mini-pronouncements of U.S. policy amid growing unrest in the Middle East, the State Department has begun sending Twitter messages in Arabic.

The department’s first entry into Arabic language micro-blogging appeared on Twitter early Wednesday. It’s a post saying that Washington recognizes the “historic role” of social media in the Arab world. “We want to be in your conversation,” it said.

The next posts reiterated President Barack Obama’s stance that only Egyptians can decide their future and summarized Vice President Joe Biden’s Tuesday call to Egyptian Vice President Omar Suleiman.

The Twitter account is “USA bilAraby,” which means “USA in Arabic.” It had 40 followers within hours of appearing.

Naturally, this story was met by the fine, patriotic, folks at Fox"Nation" as just another in a long line of stories designed to do one thing and one thing only: to show that Obama is a Muslim and favors a Muslim takeover of America.

But what if it's a story about how Obama wants to communicate their intentions with the American people - another complaint leveled by the modern American Right, as they claim he isn't including us in the "national conversation" regarding issues like the unrest in Egypt?

Just ask Fox"Nation" darling and serial misinformer Jim Hoft:

Just like Hugo Chavez, Barack Obama wants to ram his way onto your television sets.

Maybe when he starts interrupting “Glee” and “American Idol” more people will wake up to this man’s intrusion on our lives.

Castro does this in Cuba too, doesn’t he?

Funny that the movement that demands instant gratification regarding a whole host of issues would be against the Obama administration showing a sense of immediacy, especially considering that's what they ask for on a daily basis.

Political Porn

If you're a member of the modern American Right, the past few days have been somewhat akin to a fever-dream. To put it in more blunt terminology, it's been like watching a Sarah Palin/Ronald Reagan sex tape.

And while you take time to reconcile that mental image, let's take a second to think about who both Reagan and Palin are.

I'll start off with some audio from Mike Stark and Rush Limbaugh, as that will provide some much needed context in a moment.



Two points before I get to Palin being touted as "She-Reagan":

First - Rush is clearly caught off guard. By claiming that Mike Stark wouldn't understand it if Rush were to explain the rationale behind the deification of Reagan, he's revealing his own ( and the entire modern American Right's ) inability to articulate specifics in favor of hyperbole.

Secondly - to claim that the Obama administration is aligning itself politically with Reagan is to twist the fabric of reality. What Rush is referencing is a poorly conceived narrative form a minority in the media who place Reagan and Obama side by side purely to draw a reaction from people like Limbaugh. It's less to do with actual policy comparisons or rationales than it is a catalyst to draw out a specific news cycle.

As for Palin - clearly "not letting a crisis go to waste" - she is less like Reagan than anyone within the modern American Right. Certainly, she has her crib notes memorized, but she - more than just about any aspiring Right Wing politico - lacks any and all ability to articulate in specifics what she would do/wants to do. After all, she is going to be running for President, let's not be naive about that.

What these two giants of Right Wing iconography have to offer is the ultimate in set-dressing for the upcoming 2012 election cycle. Reagan's clearly recorded legacy is being distorted ( more like completely ignored ) by the likes of Palin in order to attack the Obama administration purely because they have no alternative. Conversely, the Obama administration aren't exactly working from the positions they initially claimed they would. In that regard, I have to agree with Stark's statement to Limbaugh. If the Right in America would attempt to quell their continual hyperventilation, they would understand that Obama isn't the "tyrannical Socialist dictator" they claim he is.

The broader point of this is this - should the Right really be spending so much time molesting the corpse of Ronald Reagan, or should they be focused on what they told us they were focused on?

It all goes back to what it means to be a member of the modern American Right. In order to function and be recognized within their socio-political sphere, you have to live in a fantasy land and completely ignore the realities of your own country. If people like Palin, Limbaugh, and all of the other Regan worshipers would take time to see their country for what it is, then they would be more apt to formulate ideals that their opponents could at least consider.

I'm reminded of the claims that the Left in America were/are holding up Obama as some Solar Messiah, when the realities of his tenure has been marked with a majority within the American Left questioning his leadership decisions with marked intensity. From Guantanamo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Healthcare Reform, Financial Regulation, on down to the unfounded claims of his Kenyan birth, Obama could have taken the approach that many of us expected him to. But, he insisted on trying to meet as close to the middle as possible. The modern American Right's projection in this matter is unmasked in full.

It Wasn't A Boxing Match

That, however, doesn't stop Fox"News" from claiming that there should be a "winner" to talk about.

Really?




.....but it wasn't much of an interview either.



Granted, this was the first part of a multi-part interview in which O'Reilly was more concerned with ratings rather than conducing any type of hard-hitting Q&A session.

And right on schedule, the fine, patriotic, folks at Fox"Nation" are framing the interview in their predictable way - and allowing unblushing racism and calls for assassination to go unchallenged.

But what else would one expect from Fox and their audience.

Faith Based Attacks

In which the Obama is a scary, black, Muslim meme continues:

Is there anything this man won’t do to pander for votes?
Barack Obama today lied at the National Prayer Breakfast and covered up his father’s Muslim faith.
CNN posted the transcript:

This may come as a surprise, for as some of you know, I did not come from a particularly religious family. My father, who I barely knew – I only met once for a month in my entire life – was said to be a non-believer throughout his life.

Of course, this is not true.
Obama’s father Barack Obama, Sr. was a Muslim and it even lists him as a Muslim on his Wikepedia page.

And while the Wikipedia entry references Obama Sr.'s father as a Muslim, it clearly states that Barack Obama's father was an "atheist". A man who was born into a mixed Christian/Muslim family, mind you.

But the dishonest nature of the reactionary Right doesn't end their, as it seems that simply because you are born into a family that practices a particular religion that you are somehow magically imbued with those same set of beliefs.

Having grown up in a Christian family ( Methodist/Southern Baptist ) I never fully agreed with those Biblical teachings - as they are rarely, if ever, put into practice - and to this day do not consider myself a Christian. Acceptance of a particular theology is a "choice", not something that is thrust upon you at birth.

The full transcript of Obama's address to the Prayer Breakfast can be found here.

The modern American Right seem to be tilting more and more towards a desire for Theocratic Rule rather than a Democracy that accepts all religious beliefs and does not deny anyone the free practice thereof. And regardless of when and where Obama goes to church, where and what and why he prays, the reactionary Right in America are going to find a way to claim their own religious superiority to him. I find a rather delicious irony in all of this actually, considering how those that allegedly practice the teaching of Holy text are more than willing to "judge" another person.

A Question Of Leadership

While conservatives "aren't letting a crisis go to waste" in regards to the socio-political unrest in Egypt, Chris Matthews posed a question to his panel yesterday that many within the modern American Right are calling a disaster for the Obama administration.



While the question is a legitimate one, I hardly see how Matthews asking this is any way detrimental to Obama.

Let's look at the data in reference to Bush's response to Sept. 11th 2001.

Rather than send a sufficient force into Afghanistan to capture/kill Bin Laden, he sent in fewer military than there are police officers in Manhattan. Also, his focus - and ultimately that of the entire Right Wing in this country - was shifted to Iraq where he sent precious lives on a fools errand in some vain attempt to finish the job he thought his father wanted him to complete.

The larger point is this - does the modern American Right think we should invade Egypt now? That does seem to be their answer for everything in the Middle East.

The SCOTUS And The SOTU

With word having already been spread since last Fall that Justice Samuel Alito will opt out of attending tonight's State Of The Union, considering his clear violation of protocol and decorum expected from a sitting Supreme Court Justice as well as his childish actions in clear response to Obama's election, it's no surprise that the Right are once again going to bat for Alito as well as making a none to convincing case that a sitting President shouldn't question/warn of the far reaching implications of the "highest court in the land", especially in light of Scalia's own, and more recent, ethical infractions.

In the best of all possible worlds, the Supreme Court would decide as a group whether to attend or not and then unanimously follow through on that decision. Obviously, we don’t see a lot of unanimous decisions on the law from the court, but this question deserves some thought not just for this presidency but as a tradition. Roberts is right that the State of the Union has long since become a political pep rally, something that started long before Obama, and as the one ostensibly non-political and non-partisan branch of government, the captive presence of the Supreme Court among the partisan cheers is quite unseemly.

Here's the problem with this sort of logic - thinking that the Supreme Court is "non-partisan" and "non-political".

I'm not so naive to think that there are at least 3 liberal-leaning members on the SCOTUS, and the modern American Right would be wise to admit that the "activism" they so often decry has been more present in the SCOTUS over recent years, most widely recognized by the disastrous Citizen's United decision - which the above mentioned author tried none-to convincingly to minimize:

Last year, President Obama publicly upbraided the Supreme Court during his State of the Union speech for its Citizens United decision, claiming — incorrectly — that it reversed “a century of law.” In fact, it reversed the McCain-Feingold law that barred corporations from spending money on political advertising within a certain period of time before an election, not the “century of law” that barred corporations from donating to political candidates, which is still very much in place. Justice Samuel Alito knew the difference, which is why he shook his head and mouthed the words “not true,” which so offended Obama that the White House continued its ignorant attack on the Supreme Court for another few days rather than picking up the decision and reading it.

True, corporations have always been allowed to donate a "maximum" amount to political campaigns within a pre-determined time-frame, but that also disappeared with McCain/Feingold. Obama was right to question the decision - which fell clearly across partisan lines - but that only provided ammunition to further the specious and poorly structured claims of the Right that "The Fairness Doctrine" would be reinstated or that the Obama Administration intends on censoring "conservative speech". The only thing that Obama, the Left, and more than a handful of "centrist" and "independents" called for was "disclosure" - the ultimate victim of the Citizen's United case.

If Roberts can’t get unanimity, though, the members of the court who are in town at the appointed time of the SOTU should make an appearance. Having just the liberal judges show for Obama and then presumably just the conservative justices show for a Republican President would be even more unseemly. Having been the target of the White House political team after last year’s SOTU, Alito can certainly be excused. And perhaps the members of the court can at least agree that an explicit attack on one of their decisions by a President in a State of the Union speech in the future will result in the entire court walking out on the rest of the speech, in what would be the only rebuke that the court’s members can deliver in that setting.

And here's where the continuation of the "Right Wing as perpetual victim" meme comes full circle. The only problem is that Alito was not called out by name, as Obama warned against what were the systemic risks of such a decision to allow undisclosed donors and unchecked amounts to be donated to ANY political figure - it was a clearly non-partisan statement that should have given the Right as much pause at it did the Left. And while there were the equivalency arguments put forth by members of the Right - that labor unions ( read: evil, far-left, mafia types ) were granted unlimited donation status because of this decision - the money and power is clearly more tilted to corporations with an unhinged Right Wing directive.

The question is ultimately if the SCOTUS should be present during a State of the Union speech. Naturally, and what should be clear to anyone within the modern American Right, is that it has always been about presenting the prime directives, initiatives, and successes of the administration in power, so having what should be a "non-partisan"/"non-political" judicial body present makes no sense at all, regardless of who occupies the White House. To me, it has always seemed like a contest of who can be the most stone-faced during the speech. Alito failed in that venture last year and was the sole person responsible for injecting himself into the debate over Citizen's United - NOT Barack Obama.

A New Form Of "Truther" Is Born

Just when I thought Jim Hoft couldn't be even more preposterous and mind-numbingly stupid, there's this:

We already knew that with this administration everything is staged…
…But, someone please tell me the Obama regime is not this manipulative:

Barack Obama’s mood hair in pictures.

....Reader Dennis O. noticed that Obama was obviously more youthful looking in his Saturday Weekly Address before the Tucson pep rally.

Surely there’s a reasonable explanation for all of this?… Surely there is.

Not only does Hoft not understand how Closed Captioning works, but he doesn't seem to understand that people look different under varying styles of lighting. But hey, that's surely going to be the excuse given, that the "lighting Czar" is there to make Obama look older or younger based on the situation.

An Injection Of Race And Reagan

Call me insensitive, but I could care less that it's close to the 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan. I'm sure that there will be more than enough Zombie Reagan deification on Fox"News" and their sister hate-site Fox"Nation" to satiate even the most ardent of Gipper-lovers. But this piece by Reagan's adopted child Micheal is a classic representation of the memes of the modern American Right - make Reagan look on par with Jesus and frame stories about Obama within the context of race.

the past two years have made one thing clear: Ronald Reagan was a far better friend to black Americans than Barack Obama has been. Just compare the Reagan and Obama records. Under Obama, black unemployment rose from 12.6 percent in January 2009 to 16.0 percent today. This means that black unemployment has increased by more than one-fourth since Obama took office.

And the Reagan record? African-American columnist Joseph Perkins has studied the effects of Reaganomics on black America. He found that, after the Reagan tax cuts gained traction, African-American unemployment fell from 19.5 percent in 1983 to 11.4 percent in 1989. Black-owned businesses saw income rise from $12.4 billion in 1982 to $18.1 billion in 1987-an annual average growth rate of 7.9 percent. The black middle class expanded by one-third during the Reagan years, from 3.6 million to 4.8 million.

Before he was elected, in speech after speech, my father said that his economic plan would improve the lives of African-Americans. In a February 1977 CPAC address, he said, "The time has come for Republicans to say to black voters: 'We offer principles that black Americans can and do support. We believe in jobs, real jobs; we believe in education that is really education; we believe in treating all Americans as individuals and not as stereotypes or voting blocs.'"

The first thing any reasonable reader will notice is the Michael is comparing almost the entire Reagan Era to one year of Obama's Presidency. The phrase "gaining traction" also leads one to understand that economic policies aren't ones that give instant gratification.

Aside from that, Michael's claims are grounded in ham-fisted representations of the realities of the 80s, relying on his citation of a "African-American" columnist to burnish his claims not on value, but on the fact that he is referencing a black man.

But moreover, this piece shows the bizarre set of standards that the modern American Right has when speaking of race, the American economy, and Presidents. Any mention of black and Obama - in regards to policy, proclamations, or initiatives - immediately results in people like Fox"News" and their talk radio allies shouting "Reparations", "Favoritism", or "White Slavery". And this piece also echoes Erik Rush's claim that Obama's "blackness" should be called into question.

At the end of the day, this is one of three things that the modern American Right only has in their rebuttal arsenal: Fear, Race, and Ignorance. While the first can work across all platforms and the later ultimately has a cure, the incessant prattling about Race from the Right will either be denied or amplified depending upon whether or not they can get any non-whites to agree with them.

For The Intellectually Impaired

While killing some time this weekend, I decided to do a little research on the ridiculous narratives that conservatives are pushing since the Tuscon memorial service.

This one is not only ridiculous, but hilarious.

On Thursday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that they were surprised by the applause at the memorial pep rally on Wednesday for the victims of the Tucson shootings.

I will say that I read the speech several times and thought that there wouldn’t be a lot of applause if any. I think many of us thought that. But I think there was a celebration, again, of the lives of those who had been impacted. Not just at that grocery store but throughout the country. And I think that, if that is part of the healing process, then that’s a good thing.

Oh really?
Then why was it printed on the Jumbotron?

Seems that Jim Hoft and several other wingnuts - including the Purse Lipped Princess, Michelle Malkin - were so eager to frame this entire memorial as a "staged event" that insisted that the Closed Captioning on the jumbotron were "directions".

Sadly, yet predictably, lots of conservatives swallowed exactly what they were fed - a heaping helping of bullshit. And not even well thought out bullshit at that.

No Narrative Too Ridiculous

Really?

Scooting around Hawaii last week, President Obama broke one more historic barrier by setting a new benchmark for the limits of presidential casual wear.

He was wearing flip-flops.

Historians agreed it was the first time they could remember seeing the leader of the free world snapped in a public setting, wearing nothing more than a flimsy strip of rubber on his feet.

While Ronald Reagan was famously snapped strutting on his way to Camp David in his cowboy boots and John F. Kennedy was no stranger to sailing in his deck shoes, the picture of Obama tooling around an ice-cream shop with his toes on full display seems be a first for the presidency.

Holy Shit!!! You can actually see a black man's toes!!!!

Now while I will freely admit that there have been some pointless jabs at modern conservative politicos like Sarah Palin, but doesn't it tell you something about the state of widely circulated conservative media ( and the upper tier reactionary bloggers that repeat it ) that think this is "newsworthy"?

This does, however, continue the easily debunked and laughably ignorant claims that all Obama does is go on "vacation". While Bush spent the majority of his time in actually "recreational" settings prior to this country being confronted with the worst domestic attack since Pearl Harbor, conservatives have gone full tilt in doing any and everything they could - including bending the very rules of reality - to insist that Obama has spent little to no time acting as President.

Their laughably sophomoric antics have, in recent months, been no better than this.

Thoughts On The GOP Gameplan : As Of Today

So here's a list of what the incoming GOP majority in the Lower Chamber is planning.

1 - Read the Constitution aloud in order to pretend like they understand, accept, and have lived by it's very word, even though they only really became interested in it within the last two years.

2 - Investigations. Darrell Issa seems to be hell-bent on investigating as much of Obama's actions, legislative accomplishments, and his entire administration as possible. This was easily a predictable position for the modern conservative movement, as they have a far greater desire to smear Obama than to ensure our country continues to move forward.

3 - Repeal. Everything. Not content with looking at the far reaching ramification of repeal of the Affordable Care Act, conservatives are going to go full tilt in trying to repeal all of the accomplishments of the Obama administration, regardless of how they will affect the national debt, the deficit, or the future of our country. And if you think they have alternate ideas, you're fooling yourself.

4 - And speaking of the financial stability of our country, conservatives are none too concerned with default as they are in pushing the narrative that the Obama is responsible for the entire $14 trillion dollars in debt - or at least pretending that they ( Republicans like Reagan and both Bush's ) had absolutely nothing to do with it.

5 - Here's one that's really just starting to simmer - the "forever war" in Iraq and ultimately more of the Middle East. With a ramped-up "Christian Genocide" meme that has been threading its way through conservative media outlets, the "We Won In Iraq" storyline has all but disappeared. At this point, it appears that the war-hawks are getting that taste for blood again.

Gaming Failure?

I had this theory hit me some time ago when conservatives started shouting about how Sarah Palin should run for president.

At that point, I told myself that there wouldn't be nearly enough Republicans ignorant enough to give her the nomination - but then the voices on the Right got louder. Were they really ready to slit their own throats and bleed out just to prove a point? Had the modern conservative movement become the new "Jones Cult", with Sarah as the one telling them when to take the first sip?

It seemed so.

But then some of them started to turn on her when it appeared too much of the constituency was ready to ask for a second cup.

Now, there's a host of Republicans hinting at a run in 2012.

Mitch Daniels

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) told the AP that he will look at other potential 2012 presidential candidates' stance on the federal before deciding whether or not to run himself.

Said Daniels: "We don't know who the field is. We don't know exactly what they'll emphasize and what their depth of conviction and specificity of prescription will be about the problems that are bothering me, specifically the debt iceberg the nation's heading for."

He previously said he will wait until the legislative session is over in April before deciding and told the Indianapolis Star that he's already turning down debate invitations.

Charles Krauthammer tries to play presidential oracle with Bill O'Reilly.

Chris Christie also has a special place in the hearts of the modern conservative movement when it comes to a Presidential run.

Huckabee could fall prey to his own hubris.

Then there's Newt......

.....and the list goes on.

So here's the question - are conservatives diluting the Republican field so much that they are all but assuring that Obama will get a second term?

Considering the fact that they are investing so much time in trying to convince their audience that he is the worst president ever, it appears that they aren't taking into consideration that those they are lauding as better candidates are the ones they should be more concerned about.

Notes From A Family Christmas Gathering

Went to visit some family in Tennessee on Christmas Eve and the conversation quickly turned to complaints regarding Democrats in Congress and Barack Obama.

To put it bluntly, I have more than a handful of people in my family that know just enough about the political process to be dangerous in a conversation. By that, I mean that they are more than willing to be spoon fed talking points from Fox"News" and take here say as fact.

My father-in-law instigated the bitch-fest by proclaiming that I was "an Obama fan" and then proceeded to launch into some odd anecdote about the Black Eyed Peas having a video on their website that made Obama out to be Jesus, or something. He's a rather peculiar individual - who happens to be a "birther" - but when it comes to the family, his heart is generally in the right place.

From there, it was like the spirit of Glenn Beck descended on the living room, as my brother-in-law began lobbing specious generalities about how there was "this guy" that proclaimed Obama was God and that his taxes had been raised to pay for all Obama's "stuff".

I sat quietly on the couch and attempted to entertain the children while their parents and grandparents ignored them in favor of doing the "good work" that Boss Limbaugh would have them do. But all the while, I was paying close attention to what they were claiming.

Here's some of the highlights:

- There will be no Child Tax Credit available when you file next year
- Congress ( read: Democrats ) voted themselves a pay increase for 2011
- Obama gets a pay raise
- You won't be able to deduct interest payments on your mortgage

Needless to say, all of these are patently false.

What was stunning was the ease with which the specious, the vague, and the general lack of context or fact threaded itself through the roughly 30 minute tirade. These 5 adults had absolutely no problem with giving in completely and unblushingly to propaganda and apparently felt more educated as they made their way to the dinner table. It was a "focus group" moment that Frank Luntz would have creamed his pants over.

I wasn't chastised, to my face anyway, for my socio-political ideology but also didn't feel like wading into the ever murky swamp of a modern conservative complaint session. Honestly, I've done my best to not discuss politics this Christmas season in favor of making sure that everyone in the family had a good time with one another. There is a small part of me that wonders how those 5 that were so eagerly lapping up falsehoods, misstatements, and hyperbolic rhetoric would have reacted had I simply asked for "proof" of their claims. I think I already know the answer though.

Taxation Without Representative Debate

Over the past week, I've been doing some serious thinking about the current tax "deal" that isn't having such a successful time moving through Congress. On the one hand, there is the perception that it's a true compromise with Republicans - as it extends unemployment benefits 13 weeks and amends the payroll tax - but the larger picture is that this "deal" would continue to give breaks to "the producers" in this country that can't seem to "produce" much the last 10 years as well as will add no less than $1 trillion to the deficit over the planned extension.

Here's a few questions I have regarding this:

- Why are the alleged deficit hawks in the GOP - particularly the modern conservatives unblushed by this deal, as it completely goes against some of their key tenets: deficit reduction and protecting the middle class in America. Well, even though those are what they allege are pillars of their movement, we really haven't seen anything of the sort from them.

- Why is Obama so willing to let the GOP frame the narrative around this "deal"? They have been quite forceful with the economic lies they have been distributing to the American people. The foundation for this had already been in place, considering Republicans have not once admitted that legislation they had passed or spending they signed off on increase our debt. It's an all too common talking-point from conservatives that tax cuts don't add to the deficit. This, for lack of a more apropos term, is a complete and steaming pile of horse shit.

- Is Obama attempting a calculated chess move with this or has he been suckered in to play checkers with Boehner and McConnell? I'm guessing it's a fair amount of the later while attempting to create the perception of the former. And bringing in Clinton for a presser really isn't going to get him any friends from the GOP, precisely because his administration was - and still remains in many regards - the catalyst for much of the hyperbole coming from the modern conservative movement.

- Has Obama just assured that he will be primaried in the next presidential election? This is the question that many pundits and bloggers are simmering over at this point. Without question, the GOP are using this tax "deal" to show that it's the Democrats that are tearing each other apart. To an extent, they are right, in as much as many of us within the liberal/progressive wings of the party feel that our voices are being drowned out by this failed idea of "bi-partisanship". Many of us are willing to find some form of common ground, but not if it means continuing a program that has clearly failed.