Gregarius » Crooks and Liars » November 21, 2008

Crooks and Liars (15 unread)

Open Thread

Posted: November 21st, 2008, 11:30pm EST by bluegal

Enclosure: [download]

The classic trailer from "What Would Jesus Buy?" (2007). Buy Nothing Day this year is November 28. Open Thread below....
Late Night Music Club with Marc Bolan, aka T.Rex: 20th Century Boy

Posted: November 21st, 2008, 11:00pm EST by David Neiwert

I'm pretty sure this was either lip-synced or dubbed, because the soundtrack is pretty obviously the studio recording. But still a great song by the first great Glam star. This was apparently broadcast on French TV in 1971.
Saxby Chambliss gets into the thuggery business

Posted: November 21st, 2008, 10:00pm EST by David Neiwert

Enclosure: [download]

Via Blue Texan.

Apparently the Republican Senator from Georgia doesn't like it when asked normal questions by a reporter about refusing to honor a subpoena in the lawsuit against a sugar company that sought his help to insulate them from culpability in the wake of an explosion at one of its plants that killed 14 people.

As he makes the cameraman say hello to Mr. Hand, he mutters:

"You can take it away now."

So evidently, not only is Chambliss above the law, he's above any kind of accountability to the public. Sounds like a classic Republican to me.

Go Jim Martin!
Daily Show: Stewart slams Lieberman and Stevens

Posted: November 21st, 2008, 8:30pm EST by SilentPatriot

Jon debuted a new segment last night called "Does That Get Me Fired?", in which he asks the seemingly reasonable question: What exactly does one have to do in order to get reprimanded by the United States Senate? If trashing your own party's nominee for President and disgracing your party with seven felony convictions doesn't do it, what will?

"A great career down, let's say, a series of tubes."
Verdict is in: Zogby poll supposedly demonstrating Obama voters' 'ignorance' was a joke

Posted: November 21st, 2008, 7:00pm EST by David Neiwert

That poll created by wingnut John Ziegler purporting to demonstrate that Obama voters were misinformed by the mainstream media about Barack Obama and Joe Biden (and defended so scatalogically by Ziegler) has been examined by objective polling experts beyond Nate Silver now, and the verdict is unanimous:

Wall Street Journal:

"..Interpreted the numbers from the survey in a misleading fashion."

Pollster.com:

The Zogby summary quotes Ziegler claiming that "the poll really proves beyond any doubt the stunning level of malpractice on the part of the media in not educating the Obama portion of the voting populace."

The problem, as Silver points out, is that the survey does no such thing. It proves only that Obama voters surveyed were less likely to attribute to Obama or Biden a half dozen statements that were "at best debatable, yet apparently represented as factual to the respondent" ...

... Describing his biased, leading questions as a legitimate test of knowledge is hugely misleading, at best.

Even John Zogby himself is running from this survey, claiming it was put together while he was on vacation. While paying lip service to its ostensible validity, he adds:

“I also believe it was not our finest hour. This slipped through the cracks. It came out critical only of Obama voters.”

Worth noting, however: Everyone seems in agreement that this was not a "push poll" in the strict sense of the term, but rather was in a similar vein of being a misleading survey deployed for partisan political purposes.

Ziegler himself has posted a rambling, incoherent defense that attempted to answer the chief issue -- the factual invalidity/dubiousness of many of his questions -- thus:

These questions were carefully chosen to try and identify which news stories broke through the clutter and reached the average Obama voter. Ironically, one of the main reasons that the questions enrage the left is that many of the questions were based on news stories that the left-wing media ignored. In other words, because the left-wing ignored the negative aspects of Obama's past, they weren't reported and therefore weren't significant (or didn't really happen)and so any mention of them is evidence of a right-wing agenda lacking in credibility. Holy circular argument Batman!!

Many left-wing blogs (and many of the thousands of e-mail I have recieved from their readers) are absolutely obsessed with trying to prove that the wording of certian questions was not 100% accurate, as if that would have made any difference at all except in the case of the question about Russia.

Actually, as we already pointed out, the questions were far from 100 percent accurate, and in many cases were nearly 100 percent inaccurate:

-- Joe Biden's plagiarism: While it's true that the media swirl around the "plagiarism" story probably drove him from the 1987 primary campaign, Biden was in fact cleared of those charges.

-- Obama kicked opponents off the ballot: Also false.

-- Obama wants to bankrupt the coal industry? Complete bullshit.

-- Obama and Ayers: The claim he began his political career in Ayers' living room is false: "Ayers was one of many who sponsored coffees for Obama in 1995 when he declared for the Illinois Senate. The official campaign launch occurred at the Hyde Park Ramada. Their relationship barely goes beyond serving together on an education foundation board in Chicago."

So what the wingnuts are complaining about is the fact that the news media, for some strange, unknown reason, failed to pick up these falsehoods and loudly broadcast them as factual.

There is a reason, for instance, why the Biden plagiarism story didn't get a lot of play: While it is true that the story hurt Biden enough in the primaries he was eventually forced out, the fact that he was cleared afterward of the charges makes the story largely irrelevant -- except as a cautionary tale about promoting groundless smears in mainstream news reports.

Meanwhile, Nate has some deeper thoughts on the meaning of all this.
You And What 44 Other Armies?

Posted: November 21st, 2008, 5:30pm EST by Cernig

The United States is projected to spend more on defense in FY 2009 than the next 45 highest spending countries combined, yet a push by conservatives and the military, backed by arms companies, is trying to lock the defense budget at 4% of GDP.

The unholy triumvirate of Pentagon deskwarriors, arms manufacturers and conservative fans of defense pork are ramping up a pressure campaign right now designed to inflate the military's budget requirements and thus provide a cushion for what they believe will be an Obama administration's pullback from record defense spending levels under Bush. By January, that campaign will be in high gear, with lobbyists and pundits enlisted to push for money to fund everything from missile defense plans against non-existant threats to stealth jets as counter-terrorism platforms against small groups of men with improvised bombs.

The centerpiece of their pressure plan is “Four Percent for Freedom” - a notion that defense spending should be pegged at a baseline of four percent of national GDP, forever amen. It's a dishonest and misleading slogan invented by the neoconservative Heritage Foundation but pushed by Dubya, John McCain, Republican lawmakers, CJCS Admiral Mullen and SecDef Bob Gates - one which if turned into policy will hamstring Obama's budget options, perpetuate a massive world of pork and undermine civilian control of the military. In this quarter's Parameters, the journal of the Army War College, Travis Sharp of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation lays out the reasons why Obama and the nation should say "No" to the triumvirate's lobbying.

The campaign is dishonest from the get-go. It's based on a claim that even Bush's profligate defense spending amounts to only 3.43% of GDP - but it neglects to account for $26 billion in non-DOD spending and $170 billion in supplementary spending on the misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. Taken all together, those amount to 4.73% of GDP and a staggering $711 billion dollars - a bailout a year or almost 50% of the governments budget. It's a vastly higher sum, in real terms, than the U.S. has ever spent on defense before and it outstrips, by a wide margin, spending by the rest of the world.

This means the United States will spend significantly more, in inflation-adjusted dollars, for defense in FY 2009 than it did during the peak years of the Korean War (1953; $545 billion), the Vietnam War (1968; $550 billion), or the 1980s Reagan-era buildup (1989; $522 billion).War (1953; $545 billion), the Vietnam War (1968; $550 billion), or the 1980s Reagan-era buildup (1989; $522 billion). The United States is also projected to spend more on defense in FY 2009 than the next 45 highest spending countries combined, including 5.8 times more than China (second highest), 10.2 times more than Russia (third highest), and 98.6 times more than Iran (22d highest). Indeed, the United States is expected to account for 48 percent of the world’s total military spending in FY 2009.

Travis points out that the only way the Bush administration could perpetuate this kind of overspend was through a massive increase in the deficit. If there is to be fiscal responsibility (as conservatives continually preach but don't practise) then that's not an option. Either taxes must rise or spending must be cut. As Travis writes: "Money spent on defense is money not spent on education, deficit reduction, infrastructure, housing assistance, or other important domestic spending priorities." Hamstringing Obama's budgetary options, then blaming him for the fallout, is a prospect sufficient to get many Republicans on board with this 4% conjob. But why should your retirement, your child's education or the future financial soundness of the nation suffer so that Republican's have a stick to beat Obama with, or furnish some dinosaur generals with shiny new toys which are overkill against any range of possible state enemies and don't have any application to today's non-state threats?

Our current armed forces have more than sufficient budget and manpower to deal with the current threat and [fourth-generation warfare] threats. However, they must be reorganized to fight the enemy as he is rather than remaining organized to fight the enemy of the past. The United States could take some current funding away from expensive high-tech weaponry, which may be useless in future Iraq-style conflicts, and redirect it toward enhanced intelligence, diplomacy, counterinsurgency training, language competency, humanitarian assistance, and nuclear nonproliferation programs.

A final argument against any 4% baseline is that it takes the power of the purse away from Congress, and the power of executive decision away from the Commander in Chief, in a very meaningful way. With no ability to set overall budgetary limits, civilian control of the military would be weakened and the current wasteful and pork-laden system would be set in stone beyond the powers of lawmakers.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported in March 2008 that current programs are delivered 21 months late on average, five months later than the average in FY 2000. In FY 2000, the total acquisition cost of 75 programs increased from the initial estimate by six percent; by FY 2007, the cost growth percentage had more than quadrupled to 26 percent.30 “In most cases, programs also failed to deliver capabilities when promised—often forcing warfighters to spend additional funds on maintaining legacy systems,” GAO concluded.

This is what the unholy triumvirate want to keep -- a system that keeps the generals politically powerful, each in their own feudal holding, by virtue of the massive budgets they command. One that the arms manufacturers make out like bandits from. One that the political troughers and think-tank lobbists benefit from greatly. If they can make political hay from it too -- all the while neglecting to mention that it's your retirement, your child's education, you family's health, your taxes which will pay for their pork, then all well and good to their eyes.

Keep an eye on the Four percenters, they're going to be vocal and pervasive. The time to start countering their narrative and framing is now.

Crossposted from Newshoggers
Hillary Clinton and Patty Murray introduce legislation to block HHS Rule

Posted: November 21st, 2008, 4:00pm EST by John Amato

This new legislation is so disgusting that I'm surprised Bush didn't try to get this passed at the beginning of his second term. It's no shock that the right-wing freaks always target women with their extreme anti-choice agenda. Now they are trying to set back the medical world 200 years.

A last-minute Bush administration plan to grant sweeping new protections to health care providers who oppose abortion and other procedures on religious or moral grounds has provoked a torrent of objections, including a strenuous protest from the government agency that enforces job discrimination laws.

The proposed rule would prohibit recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and other health care workers who refuse to perform or to assist in the performance of abortions or sterilization procedures because of their “religious beliefs or moral convictions.” It would also prevent hospitals, clinics, doctors’ offices and drugstores from requiring employees with religious or moral objections to “assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity” financed by the Department of Health and Human Services. The counsel, Reed L. Russell, and two Democratic members of the commission, Stuart J. Ishimaru and Christine M. Griffin, also said that the rule was unnecessary for the protection of employees and potentially confusing to employers. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 already prohibits employment discrimination based on religion, Mr. Russell said, and the courts have defined “religion” broadly to include “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong, which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.”

Medicine should be religion free in America. Have you ever wondered why they don't ever target legislation that puts restrictions on men?

From a press release:

In light of reports that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is preparing to enact a rule that would undermine critical health care services for women and families, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Patty Murray (D-WA) today introduced legislation that would prevent the HHS rule from going into effect. The proposed HHS rule would require any health care entity that receives federal financing to certify in writing that none of its employees are required to assist in any way with medical services they find objectionable. The proposed bill would keep HHS from moving forward with this rule.

"In the final days of his administration, the President is again putting ideology first and attempting to roll back health care protections for women and families. The fact that the EEOC was never consulted in the drafting of this rule further illustrates that this is purely a political ploy. This HHS rule will threaten patients' rights, stand in the way of health care professionals, and restrict access to critical health care services for those who need them most.

The House is also introducing legislation to fight this too.

DeGette and Slaughter Introduce Legislation to Stop HHS Rule
Measuring the Bush Recession

Posted: November 21st, 2008, 3:00pm EST by Jon Perr

As the American economy plunges deeper into crisis, the conservative chattering classes are hoping for a replay of their 2001 blame game. Having successfully perpetuated the myth that President Bush "inherited a recession" from Bill Clinton, right-wing mouthpieces from Rush Limbaugh to Fred Barnes began blaming Barack Obama for the Bush recession literally within hours of his election. But as a quick glance at the data shows, across virtually economic indicator from GDP, unemployment and consumer confidence to home prices, foreclosures and manufacturing output, ownership for this mushrooming economic calamity squarely belongs to George W. Bush.

Gross Domestic Product. U.S. GDP shrank by 0.3% in the third quarter (July through September), a decline which followed the downward revision of the Q2 number from 3.3% to 2.8%. But while "recession" is traditionally defined as two consecutive quarters of GDP contraction (which is almost certain to occur), the quarterly Survey of Professional Forecasters by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia concluded that the United States entered a recession in April.

Recession at the State and Local Level. While there is debate as to whether or not the United States has technically slipped into a recession, at the state and local level there is no doubt at all. According to Moody's Economy, by the end of September 30 states were in recession, up from just five in March. 19 more states were deemed "at risk." (Only Sarah Palin's petro-state of Alaska was forecast to experience economic growth.) 276 of 380 metropolitan areas measured by Moody's had also sunk into recession. Combined with the downward spiral of home prices, these regional economic contractions are having a devastating impact on state and local tax revenue - and government services.

Unemployment. In October, the American economy shed 240,000 jobs, catapulting the losses for the year to 1.2 million. At 6.5%, the unemployment rate hit a 14-year high. The percentage of the adult population now working dropped to 61.8%, its lowest level in 15 years. The Philadelphia Fed survey forecast 222,000 more lost jobs per month through the end of the year. With some analysts now predicting unemployment will hit 8% by the middle of 2009, President Bush's reversal on extending jobless benefits could not come a moment too soon.

Jobless Claims. Of course, the corollary to skyrocketing unemployment is an explosion of new jobless claims. The Labor Department today released figures showing new unemployment claims jumped to 542,000 last week, a 16-year high. First-time jobless claims have now remained above the 400,000 for 17 straight weeks.

Consumer Confidence. Given those dismal numbers, it's no surprise that consumer confidence nose-dived in October to its lowest level on record. Even with steep declines in gas prices, consumer confidence dropped 23 points to 38.0, its worst performance since the Conference Board began the survey in 1967.

Consumer Spending. Consumer spending, long the engine of American economic growth, is also in a tailspin. It dropped 0.3% in September and at annual rate of 3.1% for the third quarter, its worst performance since 1980. And outlays for big-ticket items such as cars plunged by 2.9%. With disposable income growing only by a tenth of one percent, Americans for the second month plowed more money into savings.

Home Prices. The news from the collapsing housing market, the sector that triggered the economic crisis, remains dark. Earlier this week, the National Association of Realtors calculated that median home prices in the third quarter plunged by 7.7% compared to the same time frame in 2007. Almost 80% of the metro areas (120 out of 152) measured experienced declines. New numbers from the Commerce Department reflected that weakness; new housing starts and permits fell to the lowest annual rates since 1960 and 1959, respectively.

Home Foreclosures. While Congress and the Treasury Department debate whether and how to help American homeowners on the brink of foreclosure, the crisis only deepens. In the third quarter, 766,000 homeowners received a foreclosure notice, a staggering 71% increase from the same period in 2007. Overall, nearly a fifth of American homeowners - 7.5 million of them - may now be "under water" on their mortgages, with levels in Nevada (47.8%), Michigan (38.6%), Arizona (29.2%), Florida (29.2%) and California (27.4%) all topping 25%

Manufacturing. While the woes of the auto industry dominate the headlines this week, the American manufacturing sector overall is in deep trouble. As the Washington Post reported, in October "the Institute for Supply Management's index of conditions in the manufacturing sector is at its lowest level since the nation was in a recession in September 1982." Ian Shepherdson, chief U.S. economist for High Frequency Economics, called the figures "hideous" and noted "when you see a number like this, it's very alarming."

Stock Market. Of course, the highest profile economic failure of George W. Bush, America's first MBA President, has been on Wall Street. This week, the Dow dropped below 8,000, its lowest level in six years and nowhere near the 10,588 when Bush took office. In all, over $6 trillion was erased from U.S. equities just this year. Alas, history has proven once again that Wall Street and the economy overall simply do better under Democratic presidents.

Consumer Prices. In the current crisis, even seeming good news is bad news. Led by dismal home prices and plummeting oil and gas costs (which may dip below $2 a gallon), the Consumer Price Index dropped 1.0% in October. That decline this week sparked fears among some economists and on Wall Street that the United States could face the prospect of deflation. While still seen as unlikely, a chronic drop in prices at a time of low interest rates could limit the ability of the federal government to spur economic activity.

Health Care. The downward spiral of the Bush economy is also producing dire consequences for Americans' health care. Patients and providers alike are feeling the pinch. A survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that one in three Americans had had trouble paying medical bills in the past year. Half had someone in their family skip bills or forego medical care. For the first time in a decade, orders for prescription medications are down (albeit by 1%). Hospitals, too, are suffering. New data this week from the American Hospital Association showed decreases in both admissions and elective procedures as well as a spike in the number of patients who can't pay for care.

Hunger. With the decline of the American economy has come another, quietly growing crisis: hunger. Even before the steep downturn in September, the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated that the number of children who went hungry in 2007 - almost 700,000 - jumped by 50% over the previous year. Overall, 12.2 of Americans - 36.2 million people - don't "have the money or assistance to get enough food to maintain active, healthy lives."

Leading Economic Indicators. The grim data for jobless claims, manufacturing and personal income combined to produce a steeper than expected drop-off in the Conference Board's index of Leading Economic Indicators. Designed to predict economic activity six to nine months out, the LEI fell 0.8% in October, its third decline in the past four months.

President-elect Barack Obama is almost certainly right in describing the economy he will inherit from George W. Bush as facing "an unprecedented crisis, or at least something that we have not seen since the Great Depression." Bank of America CEO Kenneth Lewis expects no turnaround until at the least the middle of 2009. The Philadelphia Fed's survey estimated the recession would last 14 months. But whatever the duration of the American economic downturn, there can be no question as to its paternity.

This is George W. Bush's recession.

(This piece is crossposted at Perrspectives.)
Conservatives just can't handle the truth about their repudiation

Posted: November 21st, 2008, 2:00pm EST by David Neiwert

Enclosure: [download]
Download | Play Download | Play

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council was out repeating the nonsensical yet much-repeated "America is a center-right country" meme for CNN's Lou Dobbs program Wednesday, and he added something of a new twist:

I think there is a strategy that's going to be going forward for the conservative movement. I think many in the conservative movement, if you will, believe that the Republican Party took over the conservative movement and kind of ran it off the road. And, uh, conservatives are ready to take back control of the conservative movement, and if the Republican Party wants to be a governing party, as it has been in the past, then it's going to have to return to those conservative principles.

I think most people -- Republicans like Kathleen Parker included -- see it the other way around: the Republican Party was taken over by the conservative movement. One upon a time, the GOP actually was home to genuine moderates like Lowell Weicker and John Chafee; but ever since Ronald Reagan's ascension in the late 1970s, it gradually become a wholly owned subsidiary of the conservative movement.

Certainly, nearly every step taken by George W. Bush during his tenure had the movement's ardent support -- until, that is, it became self-evident to everyone but the 20-percenter kool-aid drinkers that his presidency was an unmitigated disaster for the nation. Now they want to blame that disaster on everyone but the misbegotten philosophy that caused it.

As Digby put it some time ago:

George W. Bush will not achieve a place in the Republican pantheon. Conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed. (And a conservative can only fail because he is too liberal.)

Now, part of what makes movement conservatives the lovable wingnuts they are is that they are nothing if not spectacularly un-self-aware. They're like people who wear their underwear on their heads and then are puzzled when everyone points and laughs.

So Tony Perkins goes on, while repeating the right's favorite meme, and even admits that Republican governance has been a fiasco:

Look, America is a center-right nation. Barack Obama and the policies he reflects are not reflective of the nation. I think he offered, you know, what he called change, and Americans were ready for change. You know, Republicans have not governed well, and America was looking for a new path, and Barack Obama offered that. Now, his success is going to depend on whether or not he can govern as a moderate, as he campaigned, or whether he is going to be a liberal, as his record would indicate.

In fact, as we've said, nearly every facet of the main causes of the public's repudiation of Bush had to do with his adherence to the principles of movement conservatism, both in its governance:
- Foreign-policy debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan.
- A government that invades nations under false pretenses.
- A nation less secure and at greater risk of terrorist attacks than ever.
- A sinking economy.
- An expanding gap between rich and poor.
- Utter inaction on global warming.
- $5-a-gallon gasoline.
- An unresolved immigration problem.
- An incapacity to deal with natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina.
- A debacle in public-school education testing and funding.
- Declining food and consumer-product safety standards.
- A government that spies on its own citizens.
- A government that tortures prisoners held in their detention facilities.
And in its politics:
- The absurd impeachment of Bill Clinton in spite of the public's broad disapproval.
- The caricaturization of a future Nobel Peace Prize winner, Al Gore, in the course of foisting a Bush presidency upon an unsuspecting public.
- The relentless campaign to portray anyone dissenting from Bush's post-9/11 war plans as insufficiently patriotic and "soft on terrorism."
- The tireless recourse to a string of "Friedman units" in excusing the interminable extension of the Iraq war.
- The swift-boating of John Kerry.
- The Terri Schiavo fiasco.
- The Graham Frost fiasco.
- The ritual and ongoing demonization of Latinos as criminals, welfare bums, America-hating, job-stealing foreigners.
- The crude dog-whistle campaign run against Obama, depicting him as a terrorist-loving, America-hating, secret Muslim brown man.
- The deeply disturbing way that conservatives acted on this rhetoric: spewing hate, racism, and threatening violence.
In nearly every single one of these instances, movement conservatives pronounced their avid support because they reflected "conservative values" -- and indeed, in a number of them (such as the opposition to gay rights, or inaction on global warming, or the Schiavo matter) they were directly at the behest of movement conservatives, particularly the religious right. You know, Tony Perkins' people.

Mind you, not only does it not do any good to point this out to ideologues like Perkins (and nearly every other Republican in sight), at some point it only makes sense to let them wander off into the political wilderness for a few years. They have it coming.

That's clearly where they're headed, too. Mike Madden has a piece in Salon describing how deeply the party is now embracing movement conservatives' "move to the right" message:

But now [Minority Leader John Boehner] will have to prove his bona fides to a caucus that's clearly hungry to take noble stands on conservative principle. The GOP thinks those are the positions the public wants, anyway; many of the members left in the House Republican caucus are from districts where the more right-wing you are, the bigger your victory margin will be in the next election.

... The party will move even further to the right, and a larger Democratic majority might not need GOP votes on as many issues as they did the last two years. If conservatives are right about what the country really wants -- limited government, lower taxes, and continued deregulation -- their new philosophy could be the path back to Republican power. If not, they might have to get used to being in the minority for a long time.

A Gallup poll yesterday underscored the dilemma. See, for instance, these figures:

As the story notes:

With Bush no longer around to symbolize the Republican Party, the GOP will soon have an opportunity to redefine itself. The initial guidance from rank-and-file Republicans is to tack to the right -- returning to core Republican principles, as many Republican thought leaders are currently advocating. However, with only about a third of independents wanting the party to be more conservative, it is unclear how much that approach might help to expand the Republican base.

This is the problem conservatives face: Their principles -- particularly in their approach to governance and oversight -- were thoroughly repudiated by the voters because of the manifest failures of those principles put into action. So the legitimacy of their movement hinges on denying that. Yet they'll never solve their dilemma until they recognize that reality and come to terms with the whys. Maybe someday they'll figure out that being conservative doesn't require authoritarianism or xenophobia or apocalytpic religious fanaticism.

Meantime, they can blame the horse they rode in on all they like. But it can't change the fact that they were the rider.
Jonah Goldberg on Obama: 'The media have turned into head past the sphincter suck up to the guy'

Posted: November 21st, 2008, 1:00pm EST by John Amato

Enclosure: [download]

Download | Play Download | Play

The Obama Derangement Syndrome officialy has begun. We know the right wing smear machine went into over drive during the general election, but I wanted to kick it off with one of the finest Conservative yes men there is, Jonah Goldberg. He once famously wondered why liberals didn't like Dick Cheney very much.

Anyway, here he is on Hannity and Colmes getting very frothy over Obama's pick of Eric Holder as AG and even the mention of President Lincoln...

Goldberg: I agree I think we should give Obama a chance to spread his wings. We should also give him a chance before we start comparing him to Lincoln. The guy's not even president yet.

Colmes: He's not comparing himself to Lincoln, he's reading the Doris Kearns Goodwin book...

Goldberg: Actually he is. Actually he is. He compares himself to Lincoln quite often in his speeches... (No, he's really not.) Alan, you keep saying that he doesn't, but he does.

Colmes: Newt Gingrich says he's impressed with how Obama is using Lincoln, do you disagree with Newt Gingrich?

Goldberg: I'm impressed with how he's gotten away with it. Yeah, I'm impressed how so many people in the media have completely turned into head past the sphincter suck up to the guy. That's impressive.

Colmes: Newt's impressed with how Obama is utilizing Abraham Lincoln as a role model.

Goldberg: Yeah. I'm impressed with how he's getting away with doing it. I disagree with Newt, uh, that he's actually using him very much as a role model. He's NOT EVEN President yet. And I find this so fascinating, the way the press wants this guy to be Lincoln. Everyone hopes he'll be like Lincoln. You know, Lincoln had to be Lincoln because we were on the verge of a civil war that racked up 600,000 American dead. Seems to me that I don't want to have a Lincoln. I don't need to need to have a Lincoln.

Wow, where to go in this rant. So is he saying that Newt is part of his sphincter club? I think we do need an exceptional president right about now, don't you? Or maybe an FDR. I'll be happy with a good effort by Obama, though. Everyone -- everyone except rabid ideologues like Jonah Goldberg -- wants Obama to succeed because we are in two wars where hundreds of thousands of people have been killed and maimed, our complete economic system is in a perilous state with people losing their jobs like crazy since Bush. And Goldberg is foaming at the mouth because Obama reads about Lincoln.

This is what Conservatives will be doing to Obama all through his presidency. And I say, go for it. They are just looking like children crying that Billy took their Tonka truck away in the sandbox. Americans want real answers, not Insane Clown Posse behavior directed at the man they just elected.

See the Tucker/Goldberg video here from Jun 26, 2007:

Tucker: ....you're apt to see hyperventilation. People hate Cheney on this visceral level. What is so hate-able about Dick Cheney?

Goldberg: I have no, I really ... I truly have no idea. I like Dick Cheney. Love to have a beer with the guy -- I think one of the things that bothers them is that he doesn't care! The opposite of love isn't hate -- it's indifference.

The Doughboy should know that America hates Cheney. That's not me saying it, that's every poll known to man.
Nouriel Robini supports massive government stimulus package.

Posted: November 21st, 2008, 12:00pm EST by John Amato

Enclosure: [download]

The Man who predicted the economic meltdown believes we need a massive goverment stimulus package because all the macro news coming out has been much worse than expected.

He writes:

The good news is that America has just elected a president with leadership, vision and great intelligence.

However, Obama will inherit and economic and financial mess worse than anything the U.S. has faced in decades: the most severe recession in 50 years; the worst financial and banking crisis since the Great Depression; a ballooning fiscal deficit that may be as high as a trillion dollar in 2009 and 2010; a huge current account deficit; a financial system that is in a severe crisis and where deleveraging is still occurring at a very rapid pace, thus causing a worsening of the credit crunch; a household sector where millions of households are insolvent, into negative equity territory and on the verge of losing their homes; a serious risk of deflation as the slack in goods, labor and commodity markets becomes deeper; the risk that we will end in a deflationary liquidity trap as the Fed is fast approaching the zero-bound constraint for the Fed Funds rate; the risk of a severe debt deflation as the real value of nominal liabilities will rise given price deflation while the value of financial assets is still plunging. This is the bitter gift that the Bush administration has bequeathed to Obama and the Democrats.
Mike's Blog Roundup

Posted: November 21st, 2008, 11:00am EST by Mike Finnigan

Majikthise: CIA program murdered suspected drug smugglers

No More Mister Nice Blog: The dealers are getting hooked on their own product

Democracy in America: A judge has ruled that five of six Gitmo detainees exercising their restored habeas corpus rights were detained without merit. He ordered the men freed "forthwith".

Economist's View: The outlook for the economy is deteriorating, yet economic policy "seems to have gone on vacation"

The Satirical Political Report: The only way to sell the GOP on rescuing Detroit

Mad Kane’s Political Madness: What would the press do without Clinton rumors?
Countdown: Sarah Palin's Turkey Pardoning Fiasco

Posted: November 21st, 2008, 9:45am EST by Heather

Enclosure: [download]

Download | Play Download | Play

From Countdown Nov. 20, 2008, David Shuster brings us Sarah Palin's extremely creepy turkey pardoning and post-pardoning interview from Wasilla, Alaska. The whole thing plays like something out of the Twilight Zone or the latter stages of Fargo. As a couple of my fellow C&L'ers pointed out after watching this, if Sarah Palin is a "friend to all creatures great and small" someone needs to let the wolves and polar bears know about that change of heart...lol. Images of Palin and "creatures" are more likely to be those of high powered rifles and helicopters than any sort of compassion in my book. And she does seem to use those family members selectively for what's politically convenient at the time doesn't she?
How does a $0.00 electric bill sound?

Posted: November 21st, 2008, 8:30am EST by SilentPatriot

Enclosure: [download]

Download | Play Download | Play

How nice would it be to open your electric bill every month and read that you own exactly ZERO dollars? Well, that's a reality for this Delaware resident who took it upon herself to install solar panels on the roof of her home. In a delicious bit of irony, across the river from her house is the Salem, NJ, nuclear power plant. As the MSNBC anchor says, it's a perfect illustration of old school power vs. new school power. If solar panels and $0.00 energy bills are the future, that's something this blogger is really looking forward to.
Attorney General Michael Mukasey collapses during speech

Posted: November 21st, 2008, 12:45am EST by scarce

Enclosure: [download]

Download | Play Download | Play

From the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON (AP) ― Attorney General Michael Mukasey collapsed during a speech Thursday night and lost consciousness, a Justice Department official said.

The 67-year-old Mukasey was rushed to George Washington University Hospital, where his condition was not immediately known.

Mukasey was delivering a speech to the Federalist Society at a Washington hotel when "he just started shaking and he collapsed," said Associate Attorney General Kevin O'Connor. "They're very concerned."

Mukasey was 15 to 20 minutes into his speech about the Bush administration's successes in combatting terrorism when he began slurring his words. He collapsed and lost consciousness, said O'Connor, the department's No. 3 official.

Mukasey's was noticeably shaking during his speech before he collapsed shortly before 10:20 p.m. EST. His security detail called 911. Mukasey was on the stage for 10 minutes being attended to by his FBI detail before medics arrived, according to a Justice Department official who was there.

UPDATE: The Justice Department released a statement tonight:

The Attorney General is conscious, conversant and alert. His vital statistics are strong and he is in good spirits. He is receiving excellent care and appreciates all of the good wishes and prayers he has received. The doctors will keep him overnight for further observations.

Mukasey was still breathing at the time, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because she was not authorized to talk to the media.

An FBI official said Mukasey got stuck on a word during his speech to the conservative legal group, repeated it several times and then "went down hard."

A senior law-enforcement said Mukasey appeared to be talking when he was taken away. That official also spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the situation.

He was conscious during part of the ambulance ride to hospital, the official said.

White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said President George W. Bush was informed about Mukasey's collapse.

"The president has him in his thoughts and will be kept apprised and hopes that he will be back up and at 'em again soon."