First Signs of Autumn wallpaper – How Dare America Question Romney’s Version of Reality

First Signs of Autumn wallpaper

Conservatives are very upset today. They upset because Candy Crowley had the unmitigated gall to fact check during the debate and not let Mitt Romney get away with with his latest favorite lie. Transcript Truthers: Conservatives Deny Obama Called Libya Attack An “Act Of Terror”

During tonight’s presidential debate, moderator Candy Crowley corrected Mitt Romney’s false claim that President Obama did not refer to the September 11 attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya as an act of terrorism the day after the attack.

Crowley was right, and Romney was wrong: In his September 12 remarks, the president said: “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.” Despite this, conservatives in the media are insisting that Obama never said that.

(Twitter captures at link)

Both Malkin and Hoft linked to a September 30 Commentary blog post by Alana Goodman arguing that “at no point” in Obama’s remarks responding to the Benghazi attack “was it clear that he was using that term to describe the attack in Benghazi.” Instead, argued Goodman, the line might have been “just a generic, reassuring line he’d added into a speech which did take place, after all, the day after the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.” Even though Obama mentioned the four Americans killed in Benghazi in the very next line.

That makes little sense and is a reed far to thin to stand on. But it’s good enough for Fox News and the conservative blogosphere.


Predictably, Fox News is echoing the misleading defense of Romney. During an interview with Romney surrogate John Sununu, Sean Hannity falsely claimed that when Obama referenced “acts of terror,” he was “talking about September 11, 2001. He doesn’t talk about Benghazi being an act of terror.” Hannity then immediately aired video contradicting his supposed “fact check” of Obama:

Fox News host Bret Baier also tried to discredit the fact that Obama referred to the Benghazi attack as an act of terror. During Fox’s coverage of the debate, Baier claimed that Obama wasn’t “specifically speaking about Benghazi” when he referred to the attack as an act of terror — that he was speaking “generically.”

Baier also faulted Obama for repeatedly referring to an anti-Islam video as a possible catalyst for the attack and for stressing that an investigation was ongoing.

UPDATE 2: Obama also referred to the Benghazi attack as an “act of terror” while campaigning in Colorado on September 13:

Let me say at the outset that obviously our hearts are heavy this week — we had a tough day a couple of days ago, for four Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Libya.  Yesterday I had a chance to go over to the State Department to talk to friends and colleagues of those who were killed.  And these were Americans who, like so many others, both in uniform and civilians, who serve in difficult and dangerous places all around the world to advance the interests and the values that we hold dear as Americans.

And a lot of times their work goes unheralded, doesn’t get a lot of attention, but it is vitally important.  We enjoy our security and our liberty because of the sacrifices that they make.  And they do an outstanding job every single day without a lot of fanfare.  (Applause.)

So what I want all of you to know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice.  (Applause.)  I want people around the world to hear me:  To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values that we proudly present to the rest of the world.  No act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America.  (Applause.)

We’ll dealing with conservative reading and listening comprehension disease. Sufferers also tend to have the dreaded exploitation of death for the cause of conservatism at the expense of American ideals, like honor and integrity. If one of these poor creatures should began a illiterate zealot seizure in your presence call you local mental health hot line. It’s odd how conservatives consign blame. On first look it might seem that there is nothing logical or systematic about their thought processes, but there is a method to the idiocy. Bush was not to blame for 9-11. Conservatives are not to blame for losing Bin laden at Tora Bora. Conservatives are not to blame for sending Americans off to die in a ridiculous and immoral war in Iraq. Conservatives are not to blame for the record number of terrorist attacks that occurred under Bush. President Obama is somehow directly responsible for one terrorist attack. President Obama does not deserve any of the credit for killing Bin laden, toppling  Moammar Gaddafi or the dozens of other terrorists during his presidency. The Conservative Accountability and hate Candy Crowley Club should be thank full Crowley did not bring up the video at this link, Romney Warned Against Pointing Fingers At Bush Administration After 9/11 Attacks

During a 2004 National Press Club luncheon, Romney was asked to address the 9/11 Commission’s finding of serious intelligence failures on the part of the US government in the run-up to the attacks. He responded that it is easy, but ultimately not particularly helpful, to blame different parts of the government for the attack:

It’s very easy, it is extraordinarily easy to point fingers and say, ‘Why, this part of government knew this and it didn’t tell that part.’ And, ‘These people here haven’t learned that.’ Well, the reason those barriers exist is for legitimate purpose in a world that was pre-September 11th. And judging our intelligence by post- September 11th conditions is something we have to do carefully. We do that to help us get better, and to the extent we find criticism in the kind of work that I’ve had to do and others are doing, it should be focused on how we can make ourselves more effective in the post-9/11 world. But trying to judge what happened pre-9/11 by post-9/11 knowledge is probably not terribly fruitful.

Watch it:

Romney’s approach was consistent with then-President Bush’s, who when asked whether he should apologize for his administration’s failure to prevent 9/11, said simply “The person responsible for the attacks was Osama bin Laden.” Former National Security Adviser and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice told the 9/11 Commission something similar, saying “I know that there was no single thing that might have prevented that attack…I believe that the absence of light, so to speak, on what was going on inside the country, the inability to connect the dots, was really structural.”

In the case of Bush and Rice we know that they were warned of an imminent attack in the infamous PDB. They also knew that they were shoving a pack of lies down America’s throat when it knew that Iraq had no WMD, no connection to 9-11 and no connections to Bin Laden. Let’s say the conservative movement ran on the honor system of an old 18th century boys boarding school. A few million conservatives should be flogging themselves right now. In order to be the party of values one has to have some foundation of accountability and fidelity to the truth.

And another jaw dropping trait of conservatism: they like to have everything both ways. President Obama cannot act fast enough to kill terrorists, but if he does he will be doing so for purely partisan political reasons, Fox & Friends Pushes Theory That Obama May Order Strike In Libya To Gain Advantage In Upcoming Debate . If Obama does not take action according to the conservative stop watch, he loses. If Obama takes action, he loses. Reason 76 not to be a conservative: think of the headaches trying to keep track of the inherent contradictions of everything you stand for.

I’ve called the world of conservatism Bizarro World. The lies, the creation of a reality that bares no resemblance to the real world, the nonexistent lines conservatives draw ( 9-11 happened because of the women’s rights movements, 9-11 happened because America lost its faith in God). The unrelenting fabrication of causes and effects in the economy. The never ending their blame shifting ( somehow Fannie May caused the recession, not Wall Street) and the proto-facist eliminationism, all are facets of BizarroWorld. Mitt Romney is certainly no exception. Romney Told 31 Myths In 41 Minutes. Much like conservative hate pundits on AM radio, Fox News, The Washington Free Beacon, multiple websites, politicians like Chris Christie(R-NJ) and Paul Ryan(R-WI); the propaganda is propelled, as it was in last night’s debate with supreme arrogance. Their attitude, which is part of the reaction to Crowley’s fact check, is how dare anyone questions our fun house mirror version of reality. They make up what is real and what is not dammit and they will truck no dissent from the reality they are supremely entitled to invent. I’m Mitt Dammit Romney, when I claim something is true, that makes it true.

Mitt Romney’s binders full of women just don’t stack up

In the second presidential debate, women’s issues finally came up. And Mitt Romney had an opportunity to show female voters he cared. But from his bullying of moderator Candy Crowley to his dismissive description of his hiring practices, he fumbled the chance. “Binders full of women,” his badly chosen phrase became the meme of the night and will likely haunt him past Halloween. Here’s a deconstruction of what he had to say about women.

An important topic, and one which I learned a great deal about, particularly as I was serving as governor of my state, because I had the chance to pull together a cabinet and all the applicants seemed to be men.

Seemed to be? Implausible from the start, they either were or they weren’t.

And I – and I went to my staff, and I said, “How come all the people for these jobs are – are all men.” They said: “Well, these are the people that have the qualifications.”

This is hard to believe. Romney was talking about 2003 – not 1893. Plenty of women would have been properly qualified.

And I said: “Well, gosh, can’t we – can’t we find some – some women that are also qualified?”


And – and so we – we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet. I went to a number of women’s groups and said: “Can you help us find folks,” and they brought us whole binders full of women.

ZING! There was the shot through his foot. “Binders full of women” became #bindersfullofwomen on Twitter, a Tumblr page and a Facebook page which within half an hour had over 20,000 likes. By the end of the debate that had risen to almost 70,000. Why did the phrase resonate? Because it was tone deaf, condescending and out of touch with the actual economic issues that women are so bothered about. The phrase objectified and dehumanized women. It played right into the perception that so many women have feared about a Romney administration – that a president Romney would be sexist and set women back

That Tumblr page is funny. Someone on Twitter said it went up within hours of the debate. They did a terrific job.

President Obama Closing Statement


Antique Map of Portugal – Why is Paul Ryan’s(R) Fanaticism Considered Reasonable

A Current and Precise Description of Portugal, Which Was Once Lusitania, by Fernando Alvarez Seco

A Current and Precise Description of Portugal, Which Was Once Lusitania, by Fernando Alvarez Seco.

Seco was a Portuguese mathematician and cartographer. It was known to be first published in Rome in 1561. The very detailed engraving for its day was done by Sebastiano del Re. It was considered such a good map that Abraham Ortelius (1527-98) included it in his Theatrum Orbis Terrarum (Theater of the world). The Theatrum Orbis Terrarum was the first true world atlas and considered indispensable to world leaders and their navies.

For those who try to keep up with Paul Ryan (R-WI), the actual policies and he prescribes and his influence on the conservative movement it might be tempting to dismiss him as a clown. His plan to gut Medicare is not just radical because of the obvious effects it would have on seniors, the disabled and children, but because it accomplished two evils at once. It leaves millions of Americans either without adequate health care or in financial crisis trying to pay for health care. That many people already know. The Ryan plan also cripples Social Security. When  medical vouchers run out, what income are people going to use pay the short fall. Their Social Security. A few might squeak by using their savings or pension plan funds. This has been called social-Darwinism because the Ryan/Conservative movement plan would cause both tremendous financial hardship, but unlike the ACA myths, this plan would actually kill grandma. Since registered Republicans remain about 30 plus percent of the population you have to take this clown seriously. I’ll highlight a few things from Jonathan Chait’s long read The Legendary Paul Ryan, but it contains so much that it is best for everyone to read the whole piece for themselves. Maybe my perception is wrong, but I don’t think of Chait as a typical Beltway insider – he rarely channels David Broder Hack Centrism Disease. Yet Chait writes a perfect example of same,

The Paul Ryan that has been introduced to America is a figure of cinematic rectitude—a Jimmy Stewart character, but brainier. “Through a combination of hard work, good timing, and possibly suicidal guts,” wrote Time last December, “the Wisconsin Republican managed to harness his party to a dramatic plan for dealing with America’s rapidly rising public debt.” He is America’s neighborhood accountant, a man devoted to the task of restoring our fiscal health, whatever slings and arrows may come his way. Last year, a consortium of nonpartisan anti-deficit groups created a “Fiscy Award” (for “promoting fiscal responsibility and government accountability”) and bestowed one upon Ryan—a laying of hands sanctifying his good standing by the good-government, let’s-all-stop-fighting-and-fix-this crowd.

Just because the usual suspects have fixated on the newest conservative wunderkin in order to write the same old garbage about small government – when what they mean is gutting the safety net for millions of the most vulnerable Americans, does not mean anyone should bring out buckets of anointment oil.

I’ve lost count of the number of articles on Ryan that mention how personable he is. We all like ‘nice’ people, that does not automatically translate into good person. A pleasant persona is actually typical of some of histories worse ideologues. Learning this not so secret secret is part of seeing the world through the yes of an adult. Ryan has been successful at convincing a lot of people that deficit reduction in the middle of the worse recession since 1929 is the position of the Serious People. These would be the same people who look at how Japan handled its 1990s crisis and say that wasn’t so bad. They look at how awful the Serious Austerity People in Europe are paving the road for the never ending recession and swearing things are going swimmingly. Democrats have not been especially helpful by offering us austerity lite. Ryan and his strange appendage, otherwise known as Grover Norquist, along with the usual conservative echo have convinced a large part of the country and the Beltway media that we have a deficit problem instead of the real problem, lack of revenue and spending. Ryan’s adherence to long debunked economic dogma is akin to the worse kind of ideological fanaticism. He and the conservative movement are absolutely blind to the cruel consequences of their plans. Which is one reason that Democratic austerity, being the only other choice, doesn’t look that bad right now. Yet regardless of what kind of math one uses, conservatism’s new demi-god’s budgets increase the deficit. If conservatives actually stood for anything, anything resembling the common good, ideological consistency or fidelity to American ideals about fairness and morality, their heads should explode. Yet Ryan is their new king without clothes – Bush with a better haircut. Well OK, that might be, but Ryan is not going to be the conservative nominee for president. Romney likes Ryan’s plans. We will assume – goodness knows why – that Romney has looked at Ryan’s proposals, done the math and likes what he sees. Thus Romney likes the idea of killing the grandparents, having disabled children suffer, larger deficits and spiraling health care costs. All of which is fine with conservatives as long as the goals of their dogma are realized – gutting the safety net. Further on in the piece Chait does call Ryan’s plan what it is,

Whether Ryan’s plan even is a “deficit-reduction plan” is highly debatable. Ryan promises to eliminate trillions of dollars’ worth of tax deductions, but won’t identify which ones. He proposes to sharply reduce government spending that isn’t defense, Medicare (for the next decade, anyway), or Social Security, but much of that reduction is unspecified, and when Obama named some possible casualties, Ryan complained that those hypotheticals weren’t necessarily in his plan. Ryan is specific about two policies: massive cuts to income-tax rates, and very large cuts to government programs that aid the poor and medically vulnerable. You could call all this a “deficit-reduction plan,” but it would be more accurate to call it “a plan to cut tax rates and spending on the poor and sick.” Aside from a handful of exasperated commentators, like Paul Krugman, nobody does.

The persistent belief in the existence of an authentic, deficit hawk Ryan not only sweeps aside the ugly particulars of his agenda, it also ignores, well, pretty much everything he has done in his entire career, and pretty much everything he has said until about two years ago.

In 2005, Ryan spoke at a gathering of Ayn Rand enthusiasts, where he declared, “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand.”( Krugman linked added)

Just this past week Ryan said he did not adhere to Rand’s philosophy. Could that sudden convenient twist of doublespeak be because Romney will be running on the Ryan budget framework and he can’t be seem running on the platform of a crazy atheist who preached the gospel of greed and selfishness, yet ended up living her final years on Social Security and Medicare.

Conservatives are always trying to pick out and portray a Democrat as a fanatic. They almost always end up distorting what they say or putting words in their mouths. This is from a movement which has no leaders, no pundits who are not fanatics. Their fanaticism so deeply embedded in the conservative psyche that the rank and file, not to mention most of the media, sees it as mainstream. Romney teaming up with a fanatic, big yawn – Mitt Romney’s Nutty Professor. Meet W. Cleon Skousen: conspiracy theorist, slavery apologist, tea party icon. Mitt Romney says you should read him.

In an interview with an Iowa radio station five years ago, the former Massachusetts governor acknowledged the influence of a controversial figure from his own schoolboy past—W. Cleon Skousen, the late Mormon historian and tea party hero [1] who taught Romney at Brigham Young University. A former FBI agent, Salt Lake City police chief, and professional conspiracy theorist, Skousen fashioned a narrative of American history [2] that held a unique appeal to religious conservatives—all based on the notion that the Founding Fathers were members of a lost tribe of Israel.

[ ]…But Romney did recommend a Skousen book later in the discussion, when the subject turned to Mormon eschatology. “Cleon Skousen has a book called The Thousand Years,” Romney told Mickelson.

Romney gets the name of the book wrong, but that reference does mean that he read Skousen and recommends him. It was actually a series of books – The Five Thousand Year Leap, The First Thousand Years etc. Someone recently mentioned to me a phenomenon that seemed obvious yet I had not considered. We’re playing by two sets of rules when it comes to President Obama’s religion and Romneys’. It is mainstream, perfectly acceptable to claim that Obama is a secret Muslim or is not a real Christian. On the other hand – even among most liberal commentators; Romney’s religion is off the table. Any critical inquiry into what Romney believes is off limits.

Skousen has also been a big influence on Glenn Beck – Meet the man who changed Glenn Beck’s life

Some good news; It is  “International Jazz Day”

Why International Jazz Day?

Jazz breaks down barriers and creates opportunities for mutual understanding and tolerance;
Jazz is a vector of freedom of expression;
Jazz is a symbol of unity and peace;
Jazz reduces tensions between individuals, groups, and communities;
Jazz fosters gender equality;
Jazz reinforces the role youth play for social change;
Jazz encourages artistic innovation, improvisation, new forms of expression, and inclusion of traditional music forms into new ones;
Jazz stimulates intercultural dialogue and empowers young people from marginalized societies.


Miles Davis –  All Blues

Grand Canyon Winter Snow wallpaper – Where Are They, The Principled Stands and Context of Conservatism

winter, American landscape, snow

Grand Canyon Winter Snow wallpaper


Commander Flip-flop Mitt Romney Has a Principled Position on Iraq, Choose The One You Like,

Mitt Romney, speaking on Wednesday to NBC News’ Chuck Todd, seemed to shift positions on the Iraq War.

As highlighted by New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait, Romney explained to Todd, “If we knew at the time of our entry into Iraq that there were no weapons of mass destruction, if somehow we had been given that information, obviously we would not have gone in.”

The former Massachusetts governor then gave a more detailed response:

Todd: “You don’t think we would have gone in?”

Romney: “Well of course not. The president went in based upon intelligence that they had weapons of mass destruction. Had he known that was not the case, the U.N. would not have put forward resolutions authorizing this type of action. The president would not have been pursuing that course. But we did not know that. Based upon what we knew at the time, we were very much under the impression as a nation, our president was under the impression, that they had weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam Hussein was intent on potentially using those weapons, and so he took action based upon what he knew. But to go back and say, well knowing what we know now would we have gone in. Well, knowing what we know now, they did not have weapons of mass destruction, there would have been no effort on the part of our president or others to take military action.”

Chait points out that Romney previously took a much different position on the conflict. Per The New York Times, moderator Tim Russert asked Romney during a 2008 presidential debate if the Iraq War was “a good idea worth the cost in blood and treasure we have spent.” Romney answered, “It was the right decision to go into Iraq. I supported it at the time; I support it now.” As Chait explains, Romney’s debate answer came at a time when it was already clear that Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction.

I didn’t keep the link, but a very serious conservative recently claimed that Mitt’s reputation as a fountain of flip-flops was undeserved. If political leaders should have new information, they should be justified in shifting course. We can all agree with that as a general principle. In the case of Iraq Mitt had no new information, except perhaps polls showing that running as a kind of anti-war I’m not a Bush Conservative, polled better than thinking invading Iraq was the best thing since whipped cream on a sundae. If Mitt supported the invasion of Iraq that means he supported Bush kicking out weapons inspectors who had searched hundreds of sites and found nothing. It also means that if it was informed on the subject that the administration knew from day one Iraq did not have an active WMD program.

Commander Flip-flop also thought Senator Barack Obama’s idea to chase terrorists into Pakistan was poor judgement. The consequences of course would be that Osama Bin Laden might still be alive. Wait, did the wind direction change? Did Flip-flop Mitt learn something new that made called for a principled reverse – Mitt Romney, Then and Now

Mitt Romney, Then and Now
“I do not concur in the words of Barack Obama in a plan to enter an ally of ours… I don’t think those kinds of comments help in this effort to draw more friends to our effort.”

— Mitt Romney, quoted by Reuters in 2008, on the United States entering Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden.

I think other presidents and other candidates like myself would do exactly the same thing.”

— Romney, in an interview on MSNBC earlier today, downplaying credit for Obama for ordering the raid in Pakistan that finally killed Osama bin Laden.

Did Romney see one of those political movies about a sleazy unprincipled candidate for office and say to himself, Oh yea I’m going to use him as a role model. Such are the affectations that us peasants must allow American royalty. Though a lowly duke now, Mitt might some day be king if only the other dukes and princesses are allowed to fill his coffers with as much gold as they like – Romney Wants His Billionaire Wall Street Donors To Be Able To Give Him Unlimited Sums Of Money

More importantly, however, Romney’s proposal to allow wealthy donors to give candidates whatever they’d “like to a campaign” is simply an invitation to corruption. Under Romney’s proposed rule, there is nothing preventing a single billionaire from bankrolling a candidate’s entire campaign — and then expecting that candidate to do whatever the wealthy donor wants once the candidate is elected to office. Romney’s unlimited donations proposal would be a bonanza for Romney himself and the army of Wall Street bankers and billionaire donors who support him, but it is very difficult to distinguish it from legalized bribery.

As Romney himself said in 1994, when you allow special interest groups to buy and sell candidates, “that kind of relationship has an influence on the way that [those candidates are] going to vote.” Now that Romney’s running for president on the Wall Street ticket, however, he’s suddenly unconcerned with whether or not his big money donors exert a corrupting influence.

This is a concept which has conservatives rolling on the floor in convulsions, publicly financed and limited campaigns. You get so much money, each gets equal debate time, buys about the same amount of adverting. No mysterious PACs. Campaigns would be forced to rely on the quality of the message rather than being overwhelmed with ads – a campaign season of whose ideas are best. Not to worry, we’ll never see that happen because it would be much closer to the truly democratic republicanism or egalitarian ideals of our founding framework. No one wants that, least of all Mitt and friends.

I’ve never heard of this site before, Humble Libertarian. It is natural for one to defend their side. Though conservatives and many libertarians (The Mises Institute, Lew Rockwell) disagree, I tend to think it is best to keep to the facts. HL writes, Liberal Media Racist Smear Against Ron Paul Rears Its Ugly Head Again (Video)

Ron Paul supporters should brace themselves for a lot more of this (m). Ron Paul is obviously not a racist and doesn’t condone racism and would not implement racist policies as president… so the entire racist newsletter affair is simply a smear and a distraction from the substantive issues that matter to the American people and that Ron Paul has been on the right side of for his entire career, leading to his steady growth and success this election cycle. That said, Ron Paul handled this very well until the end when he got frustrated and walked out on the CNN interview….(emphasis mine)


Smeared? A smear is a lie, a distortion or exaggeration used to bash someone. Ron Paul’s own defense of what he has said is either he was taken out of context or in the case of CNN, to storm off. Many liberals and progressives find some of Paul’s stances appealing. Taken in convenient isolation he is solid on some foreign policy and civil libertarian positions ( stances that libertarians took from the liberal playbook around the turn of the 20th century). In real life, sound bites that play well can only be seriously considered within the context of a candidates entire platform. While every voter has to make compromises since no one candidate ever represents the pinnacle of every individual voter’s policy positions, there is only so much give in that compromise. As Michael Brendan Dougherty asks at The Atlantic, in what context could these remarks be explained away as acceptable – The Story Behind Ron Paul’s Racist Newsletters

Some choice quotes:

“Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

“We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.”

After the Los Angeles riots, one article in a newsletter claimed, “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.”

One referred to Martin Luther King Jr. as “the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours” and who “seduced underage girls and boys.”

Another referred to Barbara Jordan, a civil rights activist and congresswoman as “Barbara Morondon,” the “archetypical half-educated victimologist.”

Other newsletters had strange conspiracy theories about homosexuals, the CIA, and AIDS.

[  ]…When the newsletter controversy came up again during the 2008 campaign, Paul explained that he didn’t actually write the newsletters but because they carried his name he was morally responsible for their content. Further, he didn’t know exactly who wrote the offensive things and they didn’t represent his views.

But it is still a serious issue. Jamie Kirchick reported in The New Republic that Paul made nearly one million dollars in just one year from publishing the newsletters. Could Paul really not understand the working of such a profitable operation? Reporters at the libertarian-leaning Reason magazine wrote that the author was likely longtime Paul-friend and combative polemicist Lew Rockwell.


Dougherty a little about the history of libertarians such as Rockwell and Murray Rothbard. They have a history of floating around – using various conspiracy theories that sound like they are from the far right and as political winds blow ( like the movement against the Vietnam war) to the left . Paul’s baggage is coming into the spotlight because he might win the Iowa caucus. It is only fair that Paul receive the same kind of scrutiny that Rick Perry and Gingrich have received. That is not a smear. That’s reporting.

But the questions remain. If Ron Paul is so libertarian that he won’t even police people who use his name, if his movement is filled with incompetents and opportunists, then what kind of a president would he make? Would he even check in to see if his ideas are being implemented? Who would he appoint to Cabinet positions?


If anyone is in the mood for some anti-Paul polemics just read this attack from the conservative right by wing-nut Dorothy Rabinowitz at the WSJ – What Ron Paul Thinks of America

It seemed improbable that the best-known American propagandist for our enemies could be near the top of the pack in the Iowa contest, but there it is.

[  ]…One who is the best-known of our homegrown propagandists for our chief enemies in the world. One who has made himself a leading spokesman for, and recycler of, the long and familiar litany of charges that point to the United States as a leading agent of evil and injustice, the militarist victimizer of millions who want only to live in peace.

[  ]…The world may not be ready for another American president traversing half the globe to apologize for the misdeeds of the nation he had just been elected to lead. Still, it would be hard to find any public figure in America whose views more closely echo those of President Obama on that tour. ( This is a continuation of a right-wing myth that Obama has been on some world tour apologizing for America. never happened, but when has that ever stopped the Right from repeating something).


This is what could be considered a smear, against both Paul and the current super moderate Democrat resident of the White House – the one who has killed so many of those terrorist Rabinowitz battles with blistered fingers on her .38 magnum keyboard. To say that Iraq was a mistake is not an attack on America, it is an attack on neocon foreign policy. Rabinowitz has the typical delusional and grandiose conservative ego, feeling that conservative clusterfu*ks are the same thing as America the country.

Sensenbrenner will apologize to First Lady for ‘large posterior’ remark.

FishbowlDC reports that an aide to Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) has stated that the Congressman will be contacting the office of First Lady Michelle Obama to apologize for a remark he made regarding what he alleged was Obama’s “large posterior.”

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI)

This is just another mini-outrage of the day. It is just another in a long Republican tradition of going for cheap insults based on looks – When Chelsea Clinton was still a child Rush Limbaugh made a revolting joke about her. I don’t understand the whys of conservatives even going there – do conservatives have mirrors? Do they understand that attractiveness does not equal virtue. Trim and fit alone – for which the First Lady would seem to qualify – would disqualify Jimbo and Rush. Credit to Jimbo for apologizing.

Instead of “Working Through The Holidays,” GOP Shuts Down The House, Turns Off The Cameras.

But technically, the House did not adjourn just yet. And this morning, Democrats went to the floor planning to propose a solution: allow the full House to directly vote on the Senate compromise, something which the House Republican leadership has not allowed for fear it would pass.

How did the House leadership respond?

By literally ignoring the Democratic request as it was being shouted on the House floor, slamming down the gavel, adjourning the House for two days, walking off the floor without a word, and pulling the plug on the C-Span cameras.

The blatant disrespect House Republicans have for the working Americans who pay their salaries could not be more stark.

They are not “working through the holidays.”

They are recklessly snubbing the work that other legislators put in to avoid making the middle class take an unnecessary hit while the jobs crisis continues.

One could mark up Republican actions to some clever parliamentary tactics under normal circumstances ( I don’t think this is the first time House leadership has suddenly closed down debate). These are not regular circumstances. Even Senate Republicans and Karl Rove think House Republicans are blowing it over a relatively small thing – a two month extension of unemployment benefits, the Medicare doc fix and a tax cut. Kind of a historic day, Republicans acting like petulant brats over cutting taxes and grandma seeing her doctor.