Let the Two Minutes of Hate Against Charles Krauthammer Begin.

This is a biggie. Krauthammer is a Very Serious version of El Rushbo to wingnuts.

But it begs the question. If she's clearly not qualified to be president, what does that say about John McCain's judgment -- and the people who voted to install her in the White House, like for instance, Charles Krauthammer?

Hehindeedy!

Yes.

This has been another...

My favorite parts of the Constitution are when it talks about Jesus and the free market.

Well, no.

OTOH, it does specifically mention levying taxes to provide for the "general welfare," banning "cruel and unusual punishment," making treaties "the law of the land" -- and other such liberal claptrap.

Your daily dose of IOKIYAR.

Shorter Jennifer Rubin: Wah! Recess appointments!!!!

Uh, Jennifer? Go Cheney yourself.

White conservative Christians, still the biggest victims around.

When anyone else has grievance, conservatives love to say "grow up" or "man up" or "that's life" -- yet they whine more incessantly and pathetically than any other group I know.

How to Become Depressed

Read anything from Ben Shapiro - like this agglomeration of one-sentence reviews of 2010 movies, which reads like a more poorly crafted, less interesting version of a 14 year old's Livejournal post - and remind yourself that he gets paid for this.

He makes a living. For writing this.

CPAC now insufficiently bigoted for various wingnuts.

Hilarious.

Two of the nation's premier moral issues organizations, the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America, are refusing to attend the Conservative Political Action Conference in February because a homosexual activist group, GOProud, has been invited.

"We've been very involved in CPAC for over a decade and have managed a couple of popular sessions. However, we will no longer be involved with CPAC because of the organization's financial mismanagement and movement away from conservative principles," said Tom McClusky, senior vice president for FRC Action.

"CWA has decided not to participate in part because of GOProud," CWA President Penny Nance told WND.

I mean, just who is CPAC gonna let in next -- atheists?

Big tent party!

Nice comeback

Maggie Gallagher's Nation for Marriage group has put together this bang-up video response to the "fckh8" campaign for equal rights.



My stars...introducing children - mere children! - to naughty words! I mean, they're old enough to handle concepts like demonizing the gays, but come on.

Already at 23,000 views and climbing, NOM's latest masterpiece is well on its way to matching the 2 million hits of the original video.

Let the Two Minutes of Hate Against John Feehery Begin.

Again.

Republican strategist John Feehery, a contributor to The Hill's Pundits blog, joined in the criticism [of the Quitter] on Monday.

"It was Abraham Lincoln who said that it is better to be silent and be thought a fool than it is to speak up and remove all doubt," he told The Hill. "Palin, the more she speaks out on topics like this, the more she is removing all doubt."

Uh, wasn't it Mark Twain?

Nate finds a nugget.

Yep:

One needs to be careful not to unintentionally damn Mr. Obama and the Democrats with faint praise; yes, they got a lot done, but all of the measures they passed were quite popular. Once the Republicans take over in the House, Mr. Obama will be engaged in some big showdowns with them over issues like the budget and his health care plan. Mr. Obama will be fighting from a defensive posture on health care, which remains unpopular with the public. How the public feels about the budget, where it has little faith in either party, is less clear.

Ultimately, however, Mr. Obama is more popular than the Republican Congress — an advantage that Bill Clinton did not have after 1994, nor Ronald Reagan after 1982. With the equally unpopular Democratic Congress largely being marginalized, that may work to his advantage. And — although I hesitate to endorse such a wishy-washy concept — the Democrats’ successes during the lame-duck session may provide him with some “momentum” headed into these battles, which will begin very early in the new Congress.

Glenn Reynolds "can't see a big difference" between Palin and Obama.

Of course he can't.

JUAN WILLIAMS says that Sarah Palin can’t stand on the same intellectual stage as Barack Obama. He offers no evidence, however, for the proposition that Obama is particularly bright, and I can’t say I see a big difference.

Let's say you had to guess the intelligence of two people you didn't know. One edited the Harvard Law Review and taught Constitutional law at the University of Chicago (ranked #5 by US News; Putzy's employer ranks 60th) for 12 years, and the other covered high school hockey for an Anchorage TV station.

Who would you bet on?

No snow in Austin.

Merry, dare I say -- Christmas.

Bye, Joe.

Another bitter defeat for The Quitter.

TEAPARTY!!!1!!!1!1!

Let the Two Minutes of Hate Against Mike Huckabee Begin

The Quitter's going to die a slow death by 1,000 cuts, it seems.

And the most hilarious defense of Haley Barbour goes to...

...the Putz of the North, Prof. William Jacobson.

Anyone Who Praises The Pre-1947 Yankees Is Racist

Because, as everyone knows, the goal of the pre-1947 Yankees was to keep blacks from registering to vote and attending public schools.

And, oh yeah -- one of the '46 Yankees assassinated Medgar Evers.

Obama gestures toward his own crotch, proclaiming...

..."I got your net neutrality right the fuck here."

Can't wait to hear the speech declaring victory.

Glenn Reynolds uses the "Haley's not a racist" defense.

Here we go.

Given Yglesias’ tendency to call mild-mannered bloggers Nazis without reason, I think I’m siding with Halberstam.

Of course, now that everybody who’s ever disagreed with Obama has been called racist, the accusation doesn’t mean much. Just another currency inflated to worthlessness by our political class. . . .

The issue, again, isn't whether Haley Barbour is a racist. We can't know that, unless Haley Barbour says, "I'm a racist."

The issue is whether it's appropriate for a governor of a state to say that Jim Crow Mississippi wasn't "that bad" while saying nice things about hate groups.

"So-and-so's not a racist" is a red herring which absolves the speaker of ignorant/offensive racist garbage any wrongdoing in spewing it.

Note also Putz ignores the substance and just attacks Yglesias.

This is why Republican Southerners deserve every bit of the shit they get. They're always the first to leap to the defense of every redneck who gets caught saying the n-word on tape.

He just says nice things about bigots, but he's not a racist.

I always love the "how dare you call me a racist for saying racist shit" retort.

No, we can't prove you're a racist. Yes, you should still be held responsible for saying offensive/ignorant racist shit.

Haley Barbour's "macaca" moment.

This isn't the first time Barbour's stepped in it, but it's the worst. Remember, he was already on dangerous ground a couple months ago.

Palin dominating RedState primary poll.

Hilarious.

Here's some advice, wingtards: you might consider backing someone Americans don't actively dislike.

O noes! Teh gays are taking over the Navy!

31 Republican bigots voted against, with zero Democrats opposing.

When are these people ever right about anything?

UPDATE

Heh.

UPDATE 2

Radio silence about the historic civil rights bill at RedState. Why is that?

Charles is doing some serious blow.

Shorter Charles Blow: the fact that liberals make up 40% of the Democratic Party is worrisome, though it's not a problem at all that the GOP is 80% wingnut.

The charts Blow points to indicate that the Democratic Party is 40% liberal, 40% moderate, and around 20% conservative. On the flip side, the GOP is 75% conservative, 20% moderate, and around 5% liberal.

So one party has mostly purged just about everyone but it's ideological root, and another party still is comprised of 40% self-identified moderates.

But Democrats have a liberal problem!

What an assclown.

"Best Linker."

He must be so proud.

Let the Two Minutes of Hate against Jonathan Tobin begin.

Uh-oh. The Quitter's even losing the Commentary wingnuts.

Dissing Krauthammer is just not allowed in right-wing circles -- she might as well diss El Rushbo. But she probably doesn't know who he is, as Tobin says.

Glibertarian pR0n.

Putz likey.

"As a fan of David Frum and of Mitt Romney..."

Says it all.

Glenn Reynolds goes full Pantload.

Congratulations, University of Tennessee! You have a professor on your payroll who would flunk a 6th grade history test.

The difference between Communists and Nazis is mostly PR, and the PR is better because more journalists and academics were communists than Nazis.

Nut.

I'll take false equivalencies for $50000, Alex.

Putz:

Communists are as bad as Nazis, and their defenders and apologists are as bad as Nazis’ defenders, but far more common. When you meet them, show them no respect. They’re evil, stupid, and dishonest. They should not enjoy the consequences of their behavior.

So -- I think John McCain helped normalize with relations with Vietnam, a country with which we now have trade agreements -- which pretty much makes him Neville Chamberlain, right?

UPDATE

Does this man look like he's being hosted by Nazis?


UPDATE 2

A weak defense of the mandate by Yglesias.

Nice try, Matt.

If you want to buy gasoline, you need to pay the federal gas tax. If you want to not buy health insurance, you need to pay a fine. Either way, the behavior-linked collection of money is designed to (a) raise revenue and (b) assist in the regulation of the national economy.

But you don't have to buy gasoline, because no one's forcing you to drive. There are -- wait for it -- public options that let you opt out of driving.

I'm all for the mandate if there's a way to opt out. Otherwise, I think it sucks.

UDPATE

I love how this post brings out the "But...but...it's the Senate's fault!" trolls. Defend the policy on the merits, please.

My position is this: forcing someone to buy a product of a for-profit company -- especially when that for-profit company is part of a pernicious cartel that makes billions of dollars by screwing people over -- is wrong, unless you give them an opt-out.

What's yours?

Obstructionism

Jim DeMint, John Thune, John Kyl, and various other bags of fluid in cheap suits are whining like kettles over the fact that Harry Reid wants them to work until December 24 (aka to work the same schedule as you).

"It is impossible to do all of the things that the majority leader laid out without doing - frankly, without disrespecting the institution and without disrespecting one of the two holiest of holidays for Christians and the families of all of the Senate, not just the senators themselves but all of the staff," Kyl said Tuesday.

Gee guys, I can't help but think that without those 90 Republican filibusters you might have been done weeks ago

The Balls on This Fucking Guy!

Eh.

VATICAN CITY -- Pope Benedict XVI singled out Christians as the religious group that suffers from the most persecution on Thursday, denouncing lack of freedom of worship as an "intolerable" threat to world security. ...

"At present, Christians are the religious group which suffers most from persecution on account of its faith," the pontiff asserted, and cited Christian communities suffering from violence and intolerance particularly in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and the Holy Land.

I know, Christians have so goddamn rough. In Mauritania, Sudan, and northern Nigeria, for example, being a Christian is actually a capital offense. Oh, except it's not!

My Christmas wish is for this closeted, blinged-out Nazi loser to just go the fuck away.

American Government 101

Jillian Bandes: "Nullification? We never covered that at Bob Jones University." Apparently the EPA is slow to approve new coal-mining permits in West Virginia, so...

For state representative Gary Howell, that’s unacceptable. “The EPA gets their authority from the Commerce Clause. Where no interstate commerce exists, their authority stops,” he said. That’s why he has introduced a bill that would exempt West Virginia coal from the EPA’s grip, allowing coal to be regulated only by a state agency.

The EPA can only regulate interstate commerce, Howell explains. If coal is produced in West Virginia and burned in West Virginia, it shouldn’t be under the EPA’s jurisdiction. This doesn’t mean that environmental standards won’t be adhered to. It simply means that state agencies can streamline and prioritize enforcement instead of it being handled by a centralized bureaucracy.

Wow, that sounds like a novel and well thought out argument. Is it by any stretch of the imagination constitutional?

“The answer is a firm maybe,” said Ilya Shapiro, a constitutional scholar at the Cato Institute. (snip) Nick Dranias, the director of the Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute, was optimistic.

Well there you have it. Unbiased expert opinion. Fuck you, Congress! Blow it out your ass, Executive branch! West Virginny is king of West Virginny!

Big Pimpin'

Does the NRO charge ad rates for this garbage, or are these marketing services provided semi-free in exchange for cat sitting and a shipping pallet of Girl Scout Cookies for K-Lo?

The American Patriot’s Almanac, written by bestselling author and former U.S. education secretary William J. Bennett and John T. E. Cribb, has just been re-released in time for Christmas. And it’s a gift in more ways than one. A fan of the book, I took the revised edition as an opportunity to talk to them about teaching children history, living history, the tea party, and, of course, Christmas.

Kathryn Jean Lopez: What’s your target audience for The American Patriot’s Almanac?

William J. Bennett: Anyone who loves this country, and anyone interested in raising a young person to be a patriot. One of our readers called this book a patriot’s daily devotional. That’s a pretty good description.

I'm not sure the lil' Patriot in your life will have time to read this and Liberal Claus, so unfortunately you may have to pick one.

2 legit 2 quit.

A great day for lefty bloggers: MC Steele ain't goin' quietly.

Clearly, what they need are some tax cuts.

The Quitter goes to Haiti.

Palin also focused on the long-term outlook for Haiti. “Haiti has been a country that has suffered in the past, that’s going to continue to suffer until some fundamental changes are being made here,” Palin said, according to Reuters, adding that the nation needed “job opportunities especially for the young people of Haiti.”

Fuck You, Cracker.

Robert S. McCain, who is not happy that Frank Rich had the temerity to call homophobic assholes, uh, homophobic assholes:

One of these days, perhaps in New York City or Washington, D.C., some young Muslim will succeed in doing what yesterday’s Stockholm bomber failed to do, and then maybe Frank Rich will expend 1,536 words warning against religious extremists far more dangerous than American Catholics who complain about art exhibits.

One of these days? How about Western Maryland next time?

Walking and chewing gum.

Willf, in a comment below, nails it.

The answer is that you can blame BOTH Obama and the Senate. You don't have to let Obama off the hook just because the Senators are owned outright by their campaign sponsors. And Obama has done horrible things all by his lonesome that the Senate came nowhere near. HAMP, anyone? Want another example? The Senate didn't force him to call for assassinations of American citizens without due process, did it? This idea that Obama would be the perfect progressive president if it weren't for that meddling senate is just silly It's not an either/or proposition.

Exactly.

The Senate didn't force Obama to appoint like Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, who got the stimulus wrong. It didn't force him to escalate in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Didn't force him to continue and amplify the Bush Wall Street bailouts -- without asking for anything in return. Didn't force him to negotiate the public option away with big hospital lobbyists. Didn't force him to open up offshore drilling. Didn't force him to sign a weak FinReg bill that papered over Too Big to Fail. He called the bill awesome!

It also didn't prevent him from adopting a confrontational stance with the banksters and it did not force him to negotiate with Mitch McConnell exclusively on the tax cuts for millionaires deal. And it didn't force him to pull bullshit, right-wing frame affirming stunts like freezing federal wages.

Of course Lieberputz and Ben Nelson are problems. But I never hear Obama blame them. When he complains about anyone, he complains about DFHs.

The Senate's fault!

Not good.

President Barack Obama's approval ratings have sunk to the lowest level of his presidency, so low that he'd lose the White House to Republican Mitt Romney if the election were held today, according to a new McClatchy-Marist poll.

The biggest reason for Obama's fall: a sharp drop in approval among Democrats and liberals, apparently unhappy with his moves toward the center since he led the party to landslide losses in November's midterm elections. At the same time, he's gained nothing among independents.

Dean Baker on the Obama-Clinton presser.

Heh:

President Obama Gets Leading Proponent of Social Security Privatization and Bubble Economy to Tout Budget Deal

Ah, the old "they spend a lot on housing and education, so they're not rich" wingnut meme.

From VDH.

Is annual income a good gauge of wealth? Who is richer — the architect in Monterey, Calif., who makes $250,000 a year and who paid $700,000 for a modest house while picking up the full tab of $50,000 a year for his daughter at a private liberal-arts college, or the engineer in Salt Lake City, Utah, making $100,000 a year who has a house twice as large at half the cost, and whose son is on a need-based scholarship at the university?

I always love this argument. The guy making $250K a year is in the top 1.5% of earners, and the guy making $100K is in the top 15%.

So they're both rich.

How not to look presidential.

WTF?

“I’ve never seen anything like that,” said MSNBC’s Cenk Uygur after cutting back following a press conference on the tax plan.

But then what's the answer?

For those who insist that a Democratic primary challenge to Obama won't have the intended results and is impractical -- that's perfectly fair.

But then let's hear your ideas.

Because I don't think "let's do nothing and let the Democrats own the bailouts, the corporatist health care bill, the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, increasing wealth inequality, high unemployment, the continued coddling of Wall Street, and a failed HAMP program while Obama cuts taxes for millionaires" is a particularly good solution.

And I think Obama's going to lose in 2012 unless he changes, but quick.

More than 50 percent of Americans say they are worse off now than they were two years ago when President Barack Obama took office, and two-thirds believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, a Bloomberg National Poll shows.

So how do you get him to change?

And please spare me the "it's the Senate's fault" bullshit.

Answering TS.

What's the argument for challenging a guy with 78% approval within his own party?

Seriously? 78% isn't very good. If Obama gets 78% of the Democratic vote in '12, he's a goner, toast, history.

And what's the game plan? It should be compelling as hell to convince millions of people that the opinions they hold are, in fact, ignorant.

I really don't understand what this means. Millions of people thought Sarah Palin should be vice president. Millions of people thought George W. Bush deserved a second term.

What's the plan in the event of a loss?

As I see it, there is no "loss." If Obama continues on the course he's on now and faces Mitt Romney, he's going to lose. A primary might force him to adopt more popular positions (like say, not cutting taxes for millionaires, just as an example).

If anyone has any other suggestions to get him to do so, I'd love to hear them.

But if the economy is shitty in 2012, and the wars are still going on by 2012, and people still can't afford health care in 2012, and Wall Street continues to use the middle class as its plaything and people are still losing their homes -- they will blame the Democratic Party.

Any suggestions about how to mitigate that would be helpful as well.

Shorter McTarded: Those Democrats are so unreasonable!

I think it's hilarious that McMegan's conveniently forgotten all about her endless rants about how awful and unfair it was that the health care bill was being passed without any Republican votes-- even though it was clear to everyone with a pulse that they were never going to agree to anything.

And yet -- it's the Democrats who are the ones who are meanie mean meanies!

Just Curious.

Aside from the logical follow-up -- By whom? -- I'd ask those 'yes' folks the following:

• What's the argument for challenging a guy with 78% approval within his own party? And what's the game plan? It should be compelling as hell to convince millions of people that the opinions they hold are, in fact, ignorant.
   
• What's the endgame? By which I mean, what sort of legislation do you expect to pass if you win? And how do you plan to pass it?
 

• What's the plan in the event of a loss?

Because our national debt is the greatest crisis any country has ever faced in the history of the universe.

Yeah, not so much. Apparently, wingnuts and Blue Dogs and glibertarians only worry about debt when it goes to pay teachers and firemen.

.....

From Calculated Risk:

Putz: "I saw a movie once."

Feast your eyes on Putzy's high-larious column-length analogy of President Obama as Nigel from Spinal Tap. With cutting edge cultural references like this, it's a miracle that he can't place his columns somewhere better than the Examiner.

Bonus: Dan Riehl thinks it's awesome, so you know it's good!

Someone Else, 2012!

As much as it disappointments me to say it, it is absolutely necessary to challenge Obama in the primary.

Let another Two Minutes of Hate Against Karl Rove begin.

Rover really hates him some Quitter.

Rove called Palin’s blue-blood remark “unnecessary” and suggested that going after the Bush family showed weakness: “Governor Palin ought be confident. She’s got a right to run.”

Glenn Reynolds or Matt Yglesias?

Take a guess.

Right now the labor market is the United States is the worst it’s been in decades, but even so most people are employed.

Would the economy be better under John McCain?

Putz seems to think so:

THEY TOLD ME IF I VOTED FOR JOHN MCCAIN, we’d have a rerun of the Great Depression, with poverty-stricken Americans standing in line for hours in the cold for a chance at relief. And they were right!

I guess to buy this argument you have to believe even more tax cuts were required in January 2009, and I don't think many sane people do.

TEAPARTY!!!1!!!

Hahaha, of course they did the big gubmint welfare queens.

Members of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus may tout their commitment to cutting government spending now, but they used the 111th Congress to request hundreds of earmarks that, taken cumulatively, added more than $1 billion to the federal budget.

According to a Hotline review of records compiled by Citizens Against Government Waste, the 52 members of the caucus, which pledges to cut spending and reduce the size of government, requested a total of 764 earmarks valued at $1,049,783,150 during Fiscal Year 2010, the last year for which records are available.

I doubt this will make Putz's links today. Or ever.

NRO or The Onion?

Which website ran the following statement?

The New York Times‘ Room for Debate blog ran an obligatory discussion about whether reducing the deficit will increase inequality between the rich and the poor. Of course, by increasing inequality the New York Times didn’t mean asking the rich to shoulder even more of the total burden than they do now. Still, the debate is well worth reading.

NRO or The Onion? It's a close call, isn't it?

Let the Two Minutes of Hate Against Ed Rollins begin.

I think they're going to be coming fast and furious after JoeScar unloaded on the Quitter.

When you've lost John Cole...

Been saying this for a while, John -- but welcome to the club.

At some point, the Obama administration is going to have to give his supporters some reason to, you know, support him.

Nervous in the Service.

Brass balls.

Time's blog of the year is at it again. Paul Mirengoff yesterday:

Also today, Defense Secretary Gates was on Capitol Hill urging Congress to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" before the end of the year in order to avoid having the courts repeal it first. Gates warned that judicial repeal would be "confusing and distracting" and "hazardous to military morale."

But the judicial battle is far from over. I hope Gates has more fortitude when it comes to fighting America's enemies than he does in taking on activitst [sic] federal district court judges.

Obama apologizes to the GOP for getting his head in the way of their boots.

I really don't get this guy anymore.

I just don't.