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.

Reaganisms

Figured I would weigh in on St. Ronnie - since the modern American Right are all too eager to fellate his corpse live on Fox"News" - with some information that you are not going to hear from those that worship him as the second coming of Christ.

One thing that you will NEVER hear from the Right Wing in this country is that Reagan committed what has become the unpardonable sin of "cutting and running" after the terrorist attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon that killed nearly 300.

Why would he do such a thing?

To hear the Reagan sycophants of today, you would think that leaving such a grim deed going unpunished would place you firmly in the category of "un-American terrorist enabler". But that just isn't the case here. The reason being is that the Wingnuts of today can't let the slightest blemish be seen on the face of their precious Father.

While some will claim that it had to do with the collapse of President Amin Gemayel's government, one can't but see the shift in the Right Wing narrative towards a "let's roll" mentality that favors shooting first and asking questions never.

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.

Palin Is Like Reagan?

Well.......



You'll notice that McCain, immediately after comparing the two, isn't so eager to say "yes" but is more than willing to call her a "force". So "mavericky" of him, isn't it.

But look for more people in the modern conservative movement to equate the person who can't hardly finish a task her constituency has charged her to with the man who is essentially the conservative version of Jesus. Although, Reagan did offer amnesty to illegal immigrants, tuck tail and run from a terrorist attack on American troops, engage in "back room deals" with terrorists, fund both sides of the Iraq/Iran war, have less than honest dealings with releasing the Iran hostages, have almost literally nothing to do with the emerging AIDS crisis in America until it was literally too late, preside over a massive increase in poverty and homelessness, and see the national debt almost literally explode into massive purport ions.

Is that whom Sarah Palin wants to be equated with?

The Fill In Wins

Here's why I think that Cenk needs to have his own show on cable rather than Dylan Ratigan.



( h/t to Paddy for originally showcasing this )

It's about fucking time someone did some comparative analysis of Reagan and Obama - specifically on the whole amnesty issue that conservatives are screaming and crying about. But he doesn't stop there, as he even pointed out another aspect of Reagan's administration that I have talked about for years - leaving Lebanon after the Marine barracks was attacked and over 200 of our soldiers were killed.

This idea that Reagan was the second coming of Christ - and that's pretty much how conservatives have framed his presidency - is not only laughable, but seriously uninformed and a danger to socio-political discourse. I wouldn't go so far as to call Obama more conservative than Reagan, but I completely agree with Cenk that Obama isn't nearly as liberal as he could be or even should be.

One Sided

And we are to believe Kyl because......



Some conservatives are using this clip as a "smoking gun" of sorts in order to distort Obama's immigration reform plans.

The main reason that we should be skeptical of Kyl's claims is that he's set this up in a way where it can't be independently verified. If in fact there was even a one-on-one meeting with the President in the Oval Office, the only person that can refute Kyl's claim is Obama. And do you really expect any Republican to believe him if he says that Kyl isn't being truthful?

Every time a conservative complains about the possibility of amnesty for any illegal immigrants, stating that it is somehow dangerous to the country, I'm reminded of the fact that Conservative Jesus Ronald Reagan offered amnesty to upwards of 4 millions people with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. You don't hear them speak of that at all.

Another aspect of Obama's approach to boarder security as it relates to this specious claim that I think douses more cold water on Kyl is the fact that at least 1200 troops are going to be deployed to the boarder. Why would the President use that resource if he's not interested in protecting the boarder?

Fifty Bucks Worth Of Gipper

Talk about wasting time in Congress.

Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) last month proposed putting Ronald Reagan on the $50 bill instead of former president Ulysses S. Grant, arguing that the "last great president" of the 20th century deserved the honor.

But 79 percent of Americans oppose the idea, according to a Marist Poll released Thursday. Only 12 percent support McHenry's idea while 9 percent are unsure.

Perhaps most notably, 71 percent of Republicans oppose the idea, an interesting statistic considering the Gipper's GOP hero status. Among Democrats, 83 percent don't want Grant replaced and 79 percent of independents agree.

It's interesting to see that despite all the rhetorical hand-jobs and reach-arounds given to Conservative Jesus that a plurality of Republicans don't want anything to do with this. I wonder where Sean Hannity stands on this issue? I'm guessing he's angling more toward there being a book added to The Bible that details all of Reagan's wondrous miracles.

More to the point, doesn't this show conservatives complete lack of attention to what their country needs? Honestly, McHenry thought it more of a pressing issue to see Reagan's face on the fifty than take up issues like unemployment benefits, financial reform, or anything that would actually benefit his state.

Selective Editing

Here's a short one, but one that should be addressed considering conservatives love for "Republican Jesus".

Do these people not remember that Reagan offered amnesty to illegals?

Seems that conservatives need a history lesson.

Conservative Jesus

I'm guessing that this was funded by the same types of people that funded the "Miss Me Yet" billboard.



Reagan deification is nothing new within the conservative realm - they've been doing their level best to revise his well recorded history for years. But somehow, conservatives are claiming that we should miss Reagan more, that we should look to him as the true champion of hope and change.

Yeah, about his hope and change.....

We were simultaneously funding both sides of the Iran/Iraq war, selling weapons to terrorists, and when the Marine barracks was bombed in Beirut, Reagan didn't run in like his cowboy persona - he got the fuck out of there. He more than tripled the national debt and practically sat on his hands while AIDS was just starting to tear through America. And conservatives miss this?

Reagan Molested By Teabaggers

Of course, it was to be expected once Reagan passed on to that great conservative think tank in the sky that Republicans would revise, contort, adjust, tweek, twist, molest, bend, remix, edit, and change everything he said in order to justify their canted ideological perspective.

Liberal Viewer has a great perspective on this.



Are we surprised that Judson Phillips can't even get a Reagan quote correct? My answer ( as well as others ) would have to be a resounding "NO".

Not only that, but isn't it interesting that the fringe conservative movement is so willing to co-opt biblical language of the Ten Commandments in order to validate their own neo-religious perspective.

The Shrieking Masses

It's always good fun when Ron Reagan Jr. is on one of the cable networks to debate whatever reactionary conservative has been tapped to appear. This time, Reagan had to deal with one of the twitchiest, mouth-breathers of all time - Pam Gellar



I always find it amazing that conservatives insist that they know more about Reagan than anyone else - maybe even the man himself. But when you are attempting to tell his own son that he didn't know who his father was, then you are showing you're not only ignorant but severely out of touch. I think Geller jumped headlong into the deep end of fucking crazy.

The deification of Reagan continues.

Guess Who's Coming To School

Candidate Obama, from my perspective, has had a more unique and honest perspective on the future of America - moreso than any presidential candidate before him. And the reason behind that is due to the fact that he sees America the way it really is, flaws and triumphs side by sida, and knows that the only way that the country will benefit is by the children of this land to learn, to stay in school, to have passion for not just their country but the educational process.

This does not sit well with conservatives.

Not content with an unprecedented four primetime news conferences to date in his young administration, President Obama now needs to address the entire public school system. And not just for a Hey-Kids-Howya-Doin-I’m-Your-New-President-So-Be-Good-In-School-This-Year-Mmmkay? speech.

You know, like back when I was a kid and Jimmy Carter would come around and hand out balloon animals at parties. Or maybe those were clowns. I get confused. Anyway.

Nope, Obama can’t just say hey to the kiddies and encourage them to do their homework. He has to make this a — what does the Left call it? — a teachable moment. A speech-in, if you will. Teachers have even been given handy instructions on how best to integrate The One into the classroom.

Downplaying academic achievement in favor of left-wing radical activism in the public schools is rooted in old neighborhood pal and Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers’ pedagogical philosophy. It was the Chicago Annenberg Challenge way when the two served as board members of the educational foundation — and it is the Washington Obama way now.

And while the rabid, frothing, emo wing of the conservative movement cries and whines that Obama is attempting to indoctrinate our children, let's take a look at the reality of this.

The President is actively seeking the opinions and ideas of the children of our nation. He is not just encouraging them to stay in school, to study, but to make their voices heard. What other president has offered this type of honest connection with the future generation that is going to lead this nation?

And it's almost certain that many of these children will grow up to have different ideals than his. Many will grow up to be Republicans. In all likelihood, the next Rush Limbaugh just may be sitting in a classroom next week in Iowa and hears Obama speak and doesn't become this zombie, socialist, marxist, communist, deviant that every conservative pundit from Malkin, to Hannity, to Ingraham, to Savage, on down to the three stooges of morning TV ( Fox and Friends ) claim will happen.

But let's take a step back. Is this really such an odd thing for a president to do?



Yes, Gretchen, very interesting.

But it doesn't stop there.

On November 14, 1988, Reagan addressed and took questions from students from four area middle schools in the Old Executive Office Building. According to press secretary Marvin Fitzwater, the speech was broadcast live and rebroadcast by C-Span, and Instructional Television Network fed the program “t o schools nationwide on three different days.” Much of Reagan’s speech that day covered the American “vision of self-government” and the need “to keep faith with the unfinished vision of the greatness and wonder of America” but in the middle of the speech, the president went off on a tangent about the importance of low taxes...Do Sean Hannity and the folks at NewsBusters think President Reagan was engaging in Maoist indoctrination? Do Glenn Beck and WorldNetDaily think Reagan was pulling a Mussolini or attempting to assemble his own Hitler Youth? Or is it possible that the conservative media has decided that if Obama is for it – whether “it” means “universal health care” or “stay in school” – they’re against it?

Not only are we seeing another classic example of the rank and very loud hypocrisy from the Right, but there is another aspect of this that needs to be addressed. And that is, who are we to trust with the future of our nations children?

Do we trust them to those that teach the whole of American history, the good and the bad linked hand in hand in lessons learned and goals acheived? Or, do we leave the education of America's youth to those that wish to selectively edit American history, to revise widely known facts, that favor religious beliefs over scientific facts?

The Identity Politics Of Conservative's "Jesus"

With the continued and obnoxious diefication of Ronald Reagan comes a healthy dose of ignorance surrounding the man and his past actions.



Don't you just love Conservative hypocrisy.

Lacking A Sense Of History

More often than not, you're likely to hear a conservative Republican tell a person of liberal or progressive ideals that they lack a sense of their countries history. It is always within a sweeping and highly generalized sense that they say such things. Whether it be under the guise of constitutionality of marriage, how the founding fathers intended their words to be interpreted, or - in this case - about how torture has saved American lives.

The later is more prominently seen in what the conservative movement is passing off as a "national discussin". But, what they don't realize is that their arguments revolving around torture, specifically water-boarding, are so poorly constructed and contain little to no regard to time and widely recorded events. More than that, they seem to have erased from their memories and case in which their Presidential diety, Ronald Reagan, and his own Justice Department prosecuted Texas Sheriff James Parker and four of his deputies for water-boarding prisoners.

George W. Bush’s Justice Department said subjecting a person to the near-drowning of waterboarding was not a crime and didn’t even cause pain, but Ronald Reagan’s Justice Department thought otherwise, prosecuting a Texas sheriff and three deputies for using the practice to get confessions.

Federal prosecutors secured a 10-year sentence against the sheriff and four years in prison for the deputies. But that 1983 case – which would seem to be directly on point for a legal analysis on waterboarding two decades later – was never mentioned in the four Bush administration opinions released last week.

More from Jason Leopold @ The Public Record.

Also, Kossack MinistryOfTruth has a fantastic diary on this subject where they show cases of torture that were prosecuted. One, as recent as 2005.

This Pretty Much Sums Up The Conservative Movement

( h/t to The Sunshine Empire )

Think about it. The diefication of Ronald Reagan is one of the key pillars of conservative ideology. Completely disregarding the fact that under his "leadership" we sold arms to terrorist groups and financed both sides of the Iran/Iraq war and blatantly lied about any and everything that he could, the conservative Right holds this man up as a virtual God.

Hannity Breezes Past The Obvious And Fox Let's Us Know Something

Sean Hannity - and his producers, most likely - try and go the "hot chick-pundit" route as Sean seems to think he can pull one over on them both. He's wrong.

BarbinMD highlights a brunette-beatdown on Hannity's own Fox"News" program.



It seems that Sean , like man lunatic-fringe conservatives, are blatantly misusing the term "socialism" when it comes to Obama. But, most of you know that already.

When she talks about having "faith" in America, and that that same "faith" extends to the American pulic, Sean - in true reactionary fashion says:

Where has Socialism worked?

Our lovely pundit counters that the Obama administration isn't the first to spend or raise taxes. To which Hannity says "not on this level".

Kind of a flacid retort, taking into consideration what Obama is having to correct.

The money-shot is when she mentions Reagan raising taxes and Hannity counters with a pathetic:

...only slightly, as an adjustment

I'd love to see the actual numbers on Reagan's spending and taxing, just to see how Hannity's deity plays out against W and his father.

Also, there's this poll from Hannity's same home-court that seems to paint a slightly different picture of Obama that he is willing to admit.