On health care reform

I've been back blogging for a few days now, post-hiatus, so I figure I'm probably overdue for a good old-fashioned Blast Off! rant. And since the Sotomayor nomination went off with nary a hitch (despite the bleatings of Jeff Sessions, et al.), Al Franken finally is seated in the Senate where he's deserved to be since January, the tea party "movement" (I use that term loosely, in the sense of "bowel") increasingly is marginalized on the far-right fringes where it belongs, and Sarah Palin seems to be consigned to well-deserved semi-obscurity (for now at least), perhaps the most rantworthy topic at present would be the suddenly volatile issue of health care reform.

Now, I admit I'm no expert on the subject, and I don't necessarily even understand the nuances of the president's plan (other than the disappointing reluctance by the White House and congressional Democrats to support a single-payer plan that the country so desperately needs). But the shit-slinging we're seeing from Republicans in Congress and the hate-filled rhetoric and violent (or, for now, near-violent) behavior from wingnuts systematically invading and disrupting congressional town hall meetings (like that of Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) last week) just reinforce the point that Republicans have nothing but anger instead of answers.

The health care debate also has bolstered my thesis that conservatism is a fundamentally selfish ideology. As with the tea party fiasco (morphing into a Glenn Beck-led "9/12" movement in a flailing-yet-ultimately-futile effort to find something -- anything -- that makes their position seem plausible to sentient Americans), these right-wing extremist douchebags are shrieking about taxes and invoking the spectre of socialism as supposed justification for their "I've got mine, screw you" mentality. These nutjobs, at least those not primarily motivated by disgust at having an N-word president, remarkably broadcast their haughty indignation without the slightest hint of irony, even though many of them are retired military who have spent their entire adult lives suckling at the government teat, or they are the wealthiest Americans who stand to see the greatest increase in their tax burdens under the Obama administration (so you won't be able to afford satellite navigation for your yacht if you have to pay for poor people's health care? Well, boo-fucking-hoo, assholes), or they are the unintelligent bigots and fundies who consistently vote GOP against their own economic interests just to try to legalize their prejudice and/or Christianist craziness.

You know what I'd just love? I'd love to hear one of these anti-Obama, anti-government, anti-health care bozos just once get up and say, "I'm uninsured, I don't have health care, and I still don't want health care for me and my family for free from the government." Why don't we hear that? Because all the protestors have health care: it's all about "I've got mine, screw you."

I confess that I do not understand how anyone who doesn't have health care can oppose the government on this. Anyone who has ever gone without health care for themselves and their family who nevertheless supports the insurance moguls and opposes health care as a right for all Americans might as well be speaking a foreign language to me, because I don't get it. How is that even possible? Seriously -- I want to know. Is it just that they don't place a high value on health care? I really don't understand ....

I've also heard that there are doctors and patients in countries with socialized medicine who hate it. Well, that's the old "some say" argument -- hell, I can find you someone who will say or believe just about anything. For example, there are people who believe the Holocaust never happened, but that doesn't prove the Holocaust didn't happen, any more than merely finding "some" doctors in Great Britain or Canada who dislike their system "proves" that it's a bad idea for the U.S. To that end, a commentator on BuzzFlash yesterday pretty much makes my point for me, but far more skillfully and (as usual) concisely:

Questions Should You Find Yourself at a microphone at a 'Town Meeting':

1. If Canada's single-payer system is so god-awful, why have repeated Conservative governments at the provincial and national level in Canada never touched it? Canada is a democracy. If Canadians don't like their health care system, why haven't they gotten rid of it in 35 years? Since the system there is run by the separate provinces, many of which are very politically conservative, why has not one province ever tried to get rid of single-payer?

2. Why is rationing by income, as we do it here, better than rationing by need, as they do it in Canada?

3. Wouldn't single-payer mean that companies could no longer threaten working people with the loss of their health insurance? Why is this a bad idea?

4. The bigger the insurance pool, the better. So doesn't having a national pool, as with single-payer, make the most sense?

5. Why should we be allowing politicians who are taking money from the medical industry to write the new health care legislation?

6. How can the Congress be developing a health system reform scheme and not even invite experts from Canada down to explain their successful system?

7. If Medicare--a single-payer system here in America--is so popular with the elderly, how come it's no good for the rest of us?

8. Isn't it true that Medicare currently finances the most costly patient group--the elderly and infirm--so that extending it to the rest of the population--most of whom are young and healthy--would be much cheaper, per person?

9. The AMA, the Pharmaceutical Industry, and the Insurance Industry all bitterly opposed Medicare in 1964-5 when it was being debated in Congress and passed into law, with the right, led by Ronald Reagan, calling it creeping socialism. It became a life-saver for the elderly and didn't turn the US into a soviet republic. Why should we give a tinker's damn what those same three industry groups and the Republican right think of expanding single-payer now?

10. The executives of Canadian subsidiaries of US companies all support Canada's single-payer system, and even lobby collectively to have it expanded and better funded. Why does Congress listen to the executives of the parent companies here at home, and not invite those Canadian execs down to explain why they like single-payer?

Anyway, the point I set out to make is that these protests, like the tea parties, are being astroturfed, blown way out of proportion, and completely lacking in any factual basis. And as the violence steps up thanks to the bloviating encouragement of mainstream corporate media fucktards like Limbaugh and Hannity and Beck, it's all going to be on their hands. Pity that their lack of compassion and human feeling means they won't feel a shred of remorse, though.

Bracketology: I won my pool!

No, I don't mean the NCAA men's (or women's) basketball tournament. I'm referring to Credo Mobile's "Bracket of Evil," pitting 16 of the most evil people and entities in America against each other to see who will win the Evil Championship.

The competition (really a series of Internet polls) placed four "teams" in each of four "regions:" Government, Media, Corporate, and Maverick. Last week, the Evil Four were announced: Karl Rove from Government, Rush Limbaugh from Media, Blackwater from Corporate, and Sarah Palin from Maverick. And as I'd predicted weeks ago, the ultimate Evil Champion -- kind of the Tar Heels of the Far Right -- is ... Karl Rove.

Congratulations, you heartless, disgusting bastard! (Also, nice tiara ...)

click image for larger version

Toto, I've a feeling we're not in south Florida anymore! (part 2 of an irregular series)

I don't mean to suggest that the condition of being batshit crazy in any way is confined merely to northwest Florida. But I must admit: there's a distressing preponderance of it here.

Take, for example, this letter to the editor from today's Pensacola News Journal. The stupid, it well and truly burns.

Rush Limbaugh did not say he wanted the president to fail ("Politics of destruction," Letters Feb. 5). Quite the contrary, he stated that he didn't want the president to fail, he wanted his socialistic policies to fail.

All Americans who care about their country should want this. If you don't, I suggest you read some history of countries such as Russia and China. Rush speaks the truth.

President Obama said change was coming. We see it in his cabinet nominees. If this is the best, I can't wait. At this rate, his nominees can pay off the National Debt.

The situation our economy is in is a direct result of President Carter and President Clinton, Barney Frank and company. Their policies have bankrupted this country. All attempts by Republicans to stop the waste and fraud were stopped by the Democrats and not allowed to even get out of committee for a vote. The Democrats are responsible for this mess. Man up and own up.

If Obama's socialistic policies are successful, our country as we know it is doomed and you can depend on it.

Edwin Leach
Pensacola

First of all, Rush Limbaugh, the infamous bloated drug addict of Palm Beach County, did say he hopes President Obama fails. Or did you conveniently forget the quote, Mr. Leach? Here's a reminder: "I hope he fails." Not "I hope his policies fail" or "I hope his administration fails." Nope, Rushbo clearly said "I hope he fails." Remedial reading, Mr. Leach -- you might look into it.

But that's not the truly stupid part, the part that really makes Edwin Leach too stupid to breathe. Like most of the deluded wingnuts (sorry ... I know that's redundant) hereabouts, Mr. Leach manages to blame Democrats, dating back more than three decades, for the nation's present-day economic woes. Perhaps Mr. Leach was so busy reading (or, more likely, coloring) history books about Russia and China that he completely neglected history books about his own country. That would explain why he doesn't remember the historic spending spree of Ronald Reagan, whose contribution to the national debt still plagues us.

Nor does he recall more recent history, like how Drunky McStagger turned a large budget surplus left to him by his predecessor, that nefarious rascal Bill Clinton, into a record budget deficit. He didn't do that by exercising fiscal restraint, Mr. Leach. This isn't merely partisan rhetoric, Mr. Leach -- it's documented, verifiable fact. But, naturally, wingnuts are congenitally immune to facts ... except for the fact that Clinton got a blow job in the Oval Office. Horrors!!

I would like to invite Mr. Leach to, as he so succinctly put it, "man up and own up" to his own shortcomings and recognize that his "argument," such as it is, lacks even the most basic connection to truth. Then again, if you think Rush Limbaugh "speaks the truth," well, you're probably too far gone to realize your delusions.

Smacking down Rush Limbaugh

This column by Leonard Pitts, Jr. appeared in the Miami Herald last Sunday so, naturally, it's taken me almost a week to post it. But if you missed it, it's worth the wait -- trust me.

Here's the first part of it:

"I hope he fails." -- Limbaugh

It is, of course, a calculated outrage.

Meaning, it was spewed by a clown in the media circus to kick a familiar sequence into motion: angry denunciation by bloggers, pundits and supporters of President Barack Obama (the "he" whose failure is hoped), followed by Rush Limbaugh refusing to retract a word, a courageous truth teller who will not be moved. And, trailing behind, like the folks with brooms trail the elephants in the circus parade, Limbaugh's devotees, complaining that their hero has been misquoted, misunderstood or otherwise mistreated. "What Rush meant was . . . yadda yadda yadda."

A calculated outrage.

And knowing this, knowing how frequently and adroitly media are manipulated by self-promoting media clowns who defame conservatism by calling themselves conservative, one is tempted to let the statement pass, to make its way unimpeded to the dustbin like so many other manufactured controversies. But occasionally, it's necessary to intercept one of them and hold it up to the light.

This is one of those times. Not because what Limbaugh said on his radio program a few days before the inauguration was an outrage -- outrage is the point, remember? -- but rather, because of what the thing he said says about him and his fellow clowns.

"I hope he fails."

Do you ever say that about your president if you are an American who loves your country? Would you say it about George W. Bush, who was disastrous; about Bill Clinton, who was slimy; about Jimmy Carter, who was inept; about Richard Nixon, who was crooked? You may think he's going to fail, yes. You may warn he's going to fail, yes.

But do you ever hope he fails? Knowing his failure is the country's failure? Isn't that, well . . . disloyal?

Yep ... Rush, the clown, the fat, addled drug addict, said that he hopes President Obama fails. In my heart of hearts, I hope he's just saying that to get attention. But, no, I think for folks like him and the odious Ann Coulter, it's more than attention-seeking -- no, these people truly despise anyone and anything not in line with their twisted, totalitarian worldview.

Thankfully, there are still reality-based people like Pitts to give assholes like Rush a well-deserved fuck you. You may hate America, Limbaugh, but more and more every day, America hates you. Your days of relevance are dwindling, pal ... get over it.

It's your recession, Republicans: own it!

Despite the best efforts of right-wing blowhards like Palm Beach County's own Rush Limbaugh, who has taken to referring to the current economic woes as the "Obama Recession," the fact is that it's Drunky McStagger's baby all the way. Indeed, I would encourage Republicans everywhere to embrace the recession, since you're not only responsible for it, you've let it go on for a full year now:

The National Bureau of Economic Research said Monday that the U.S. has been in a recession since December 2007, making official what most Americans have already believed about the state of the economy .

The NBER is a private group of leading economists charged with dating the start and end of economic downturns. It typically takes a long time after the start of a recession to declare its start because of the need to look at final readings of various economic measures.

The NBER said that the deterioration in the labor market throughout 2008 was one key reason why it decided to state that the recession began last year.

But wait, Republicans -- there's more! You really should take pride in your recession because it's one of the longest in decades!

The current recession is one of the longest downturns since the Great Depression of the 1930's.

The last two recessions (1990-1991 and 2001) lasted eight months each, and only two of the 10 previous post-Depression downturns lasted as long as a full year, according to the NBER.

Yep, all this good news -- including the Dow Jones dropping by almost 680 points, or 7.7%, today -- is thanks to you, Republicans, for putting the utterly incompetent and quite likely destructive Bush crime syndicate in charge of things for the last eight years! (Yes, I'm being sarcastic here ...) Oh, by the way, who was in charge during the last two recessions (1990-91 and 2001)? The Republicans, you say? Shocking ...

But, you know, keep up that oh-so-successful supply-side and trickle-down economics and tax breaks for the wealthy, GOP. Meanwhile, it'll be nice to have the grown-ups in charge beginning in January.

Psychotic wingnut voting score: Limbaugh 1, Coulter 0

As I've mentioned here before, I have the misfortune of residing in the same county as those notorious wingnut morons, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. For all the political pontificating and prevaricating they do, surely they both took great pains to make sure they cast their votes earlier this month, right?

Well, not exactly.

I’m told by elections officials that Limbaugh, who’s looking at four years of killer ratings going after the soon-to-be prez Barack Obama, cast his ballot at St. Edward’s Catholic Church.

Ironically, the place once was the Kennedy family’s favored church.

Coulter?

For someone who makes millions from the political process, she may want to rethink this: She didn’t perform her civic duty.

As a matter of fact, I’m told she’s off the voter rolls in Palm Beach, where she has declared her residency.

You may recall that the Coultergeist managed to get into a bit of hot water in 2006 when she cast her ballot in the wrong precinct. Now I guess she's trying to avoid similar problems by, well, just not voting at all.

Therefore, any criticism she might make of any elected official, or any appointments made thereby, for the duration of his or her term is null and void. Kind of like her integrity ...

Rush is just a "regular guy"

It always makes me laugh when I hear about my neighbor, Rush Limbaugh, and his attempts to cast himself as a "regular guy" on his radio show. You know, the kind of guy you'd want to have a beer with, who knows what it's like to be down and out and living paycheck to paycheck.

Never mind that he grew up as a scion of one of Missouri's most noted legal families, counting prominent attorneys, judges, and at least one state Supreme Court justice among his relatives. And now, seeing his bloated countenance gallivanting around Palm Beach with his girlfriend (right), well, let's just say "regular guy" isn't exactly an apt description.

Radio talker Rush Limbaugh's not the kind of guy anyone would expect in a Mexican restaurant. The man, after all, is a harsh critic of Mexico and illegal Mexican immigrants in this country. Yet, here he was, with galpal Kathryn Rogers and another couple that Page Two's spies couldn't ID, sampling the fares at Rosa Mexicana in Palm Beach Gardens on Friday night. I'm told Rogers dragged the conservative radioman to the high-class joint as she is in the middle of a campaign to get the steakhouse aficionado to try new things. Limbaugh liked it well enough. He left a $1,000 tip on a $205 check ...

Eating Mexican food and leaving a thousand-dollar tip? Regular guy. Definitely.

How about "regular douchebag?" That seems to fit better ...

Mister Sinfonian's Neighborhood

I've mentioned before that Palm Beach County attracts some real winners -- I share my home county with Ann Coulter, Mark Foley, and Rush Limbaugh, for example -- but I didn't realize until yesterday that it also is the center of a talk radio battleground of sorts. Not only does Limbaugh live here, but so does Randi Rhodes, formerly of Air America Radio.

For example, Rhodes, who calls Lake Worth home and worked for WJNO locally for 10 years before she signed with Air America in 2004, just brought her newly syndicated show to satellite broadcaster XM Radio this week.

[...]

Consider that other nationally syndicated talk host who lives in our back yard: conservative pundit and Palm Beach resident Rush Limbaugh (heard midday locally on WJNO). He not only commands a weekly audience of 14 million-plus, largest in the industry, but he also is widely credited with helping to bring the conservative cause to the fore in the post-Ronald Reagan era.

Limbaugh's latest effort: "Operation Chaos," a plan to encourage Republicans to vote for Hillary Clinton in states and territories where they are eligible to participate in Democratic primaries. The goal is to keep the Democrats divided for as long as possible, thereby boosting Republicans' chances in the fall.

If Limbaugh represents the old guard of talk radio, there's a sizable new guard, and many of them are branching out beyond radio.

Take Glenn Beck, a conservative who's heard weekday mornings on WJNO. He hosts a show on CNN's Headline News. He has written two books, including the recent best-seller An Inconvenient Book.

[...]

But talk radio has remained strong. In many ways, the format can credit its existence to the 1987 repeal of the FCC "fairness doctrine," which meant opinions could now run wild without a need for a response.

In an instant, the big-mouth era was born.

Beck, who started as a music DJ, says the most successful talkers understand that the format is driven by the need to entertain, not necessarily to inform. "It's got to be bigger than politics," he says.

Rhodes agrees that talk radio is more about provocation than promoting a cause.

"People listen to me even if they disagree with me. ... It has to do with the question of can you evoke emotion?" says the controversial host, who came under fire from New York-based Air America for referring to Hillary Clinton as a "(expletive) whore."

(Rhodes resigned after being suspended, but she insists her problems with the network were related more to contract discussions.)

The best two reasons for reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine? Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

Any questions?

Today's Daily Schadenfreude: Rush Limbaugh

This could only be bad news for my neighbor, Rush Limbaugh:

In response to the epidemic of opiate addiction, Purdue [Pharma] LP, the maker of Oxycontin, has developed a new version of the powerful painkiller that's "harder to abuse." According to an AP article, the government will soon be examining this new incarnation of the drug and evaluating the manufacturer's lofty claims. How could this drug be made "abuse-resistant?" Details, inside...

Oxycontin, essentially a synthetic opiate, was developed in 1996 and hailed as a breakthrough in painkillers. It was designed to be swallowed and digested over a period of 12 hours in order to keep a steady flow of medication available to pain sufferers. It wasn't long before abusers discovered they could achieve a heroin-like high if the pills were crushed and snorted or prepared into an injectable solution.

The DEA found that the deaths from this class of drugs quintupled by 2001. Amidst the growing number of lawsuits and pressure by the FDA, Purdue Pharma developed an abuse-resistant version of the drug. The company has developed a plastic-like coating that is fused to the tablet making it difficult to crush. The coating is also designed to transform the pill into a "gelatinous mess" if the user tries to prepare it for injection. Purdue Pharma says the new pill dissolves just as effectively as the current pill when used properly.

Oh, dear. What's a stupid, self-aggrandizing right-wing blowhard drug addict to do?

Perhaps the Dominican pool boy will be replaced. Don't worry, though, Rush. I hear Colombia is lovely this time of year ...

Here comes Huggy Bear, here comes Huggy Bear, right down Huggy Bear Lane

... and right into Palm Beach County. Yep, Huggy Bear's coming to America's Glans™ tomorrow for a very specific purpose: capturing votes and money from the area's wealthy Jewish population.

The fund-raiser for McCain at the Ocean Ridge home of Lothar and Carlyn Mayer was put together as a way of "thanking and acknowledging Sen. McCain's longtime relationship with and support for Israel," said one of the event's hosts, Jeffrey Feingold, a Delray Beach periodontist active in state and national Jewish outreach for the GOP.

Republican strategists, and even some local Democratic activists, say McCain has the potential to attract more Jewish votes than President Bush won in 2004. Polls suggest Bush got between 22 percent and 25 percent of the Jewish vote.

Optimistic Republicans point to McCain's long pro-Israel record in the U.S. Senate, as well as his support from figures such as Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2000.

From my vantage point as a Dirty Fucking Gentile (DFG), it seems that many Jewish voters in south Florida are making their decisions, or at least being encouraged to make their decisions, pretty much on a single issue: Israel. And that's just too bad -- especially when their champion is a douchebag like Lieberman.

Another concern by many is that Jewish support in Florida is far stronger for Hillary Clinton than for Barack Obama -- I say "concern" because to me it still seems probable that Obama will be the nominee. Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Delray Beach) is doing his best to overcome that, though.

Sheila Rothman, a Democratic precinct captain who lives in a largely Jewish area west of Boynton Beach, said Obama would "definitely have a problem" in her precinct because many of her neighbors are uneasy about his longtime pastor and spiritual mentor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Wright, who recently retired as head of Trinity United Church of Christ that Obama attends in Chicago, made anti-Israel pronouncements from the pulpit and last year in the church bulletin reprinted an essay by a leader of Hamas, the Palestinian militant group that advocates Israel's destruction.

Obama, a 20-year member of the church, has condemned Wright's views on Israel and called printing the Hamas essay "outrageously wrong."

U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Delray Beach, an early and ardent Obama endorser who is Jewish, said voters should look beyond Wright.

"I'm voting for Barack Obama. I'm not voting for Rev. Wright," Wexler said. "Most Americans are well beyond attributing to an individual the ideology of a particular church."

In Wexler's heavily Jewish congressional district, 70 percent of Democrats voted for Clinton in the Jan. 29 primary. Only 19 percent chose Obama.

Wexler says many Florida voters simply don't know enough about Obama, who along with other Democrats refused to campaign in Florida because its primary was held too early, violating party rules.

"I'm quite confident that, when the Jewish community in Florida gets to know Barack Obama, when they see him in South Florida, when he talks about his steadfast support for Israel ... Barack Obama will be a very attractive candidate to Jewish people in Florida," Wexler said.

The outcome of the election in this area likely will depend on how well Obama and his supporters can reinforce the fact that Rev. Wright is not the candidate, nor do his views represent those of Obama.

But in the meantime, we've got to deal with tomorrow's visit from the Dessicated, Goiter-Ridden Near-Corpse. As if it weren't bad enough to live in the same county as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter ...

Meeting of the mindless

No, I'm not talking about the Pope's visit with Drunky McStagger ... but if you noticed a foul stench coming from Palm Beach last weekend, here's why:

Busy weekend as well at the Rush Limbaugh beachside compound on the north side of Palm Beach. The conservative radio talker had an eclectic crew of buds, 15 of them, visiting. According to an insider, they included Fox News Channel President Roger Ailes; former Monday Night Football and Olympics broadcast producer Don Ohlmeyer; conservative pundit Mary Matalin (sans liberal hubby James Carville); sportscaster Al Michaels; and 24 producers Joel Surnow, Howard Gordon, Manny Coto and Jeff Benson. What did they do? Golf, tennis and late nights around the pool to discuss how to save the world ...

How to save the world? I might suggest they could start by removing themselves from it ... but that would be uncharacteristically uncivil of me ...

Drunky McStagger to fuck up local traffic

Leave it to Drunky McStagger. He plans to come down to America's Glans™ -- in fact, not all that far from Chez Sinf O'Nian -- tomorrow. Naturally, he'll arrive at precisely the wrong time:

Air Force One is expected to land at PBIA in the late afternoon so the president can raise money for the Republican National Committee at an undisclosed home in Palm Beach. No public appearances are scheduled. Bush is expected to depart in the early evening.

Such visits usually bring "rolling roadblocks" that shut down traffic along the presidential motorcade route, Palm Beach County sheriff's spokesman Paul Miller said. Miller said he could not discuss specifics of Tuesday's visit, however.

The Federal Aviation Administration is also putting temporary restrictions on private flights within a 10-mile radius of PBIA on Tuesday afternoon and evening. ... Commercial carriers are not affected.

Oh, for fuck's sake. So he'll fly in, inconveniencing many thousands of people who hate him, and pick up another few million bucks from the horribly deluded and out-of-touch wealthy and senile denizens of Palm Beach. And that includes Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.

How nice. I wonder if Publix has any rotten eggs they need to unload ...

Today's Daily Schadenfreude: Republicans

What a day. Republicans across America awoke to discover that their worst nightmare had come true: Huggy Bear had won the presidential nomination. Granted, there must be some Republicans who like the guy, or else he wouldn't have won the nomination in the first place. But who are they? Who are the big fans of Huggy?

Fundie Christianists? Nope. Their guy, Mike Huckabee, hung on as long as he could, and Huggy has done his best to align himself with that wing of the party. But they can't stand him for being too "liberal" (hardly) and for not vowing to bring the Constitution more in line with God's will, or something like that.

Social Conservatives? Not a chance. They hung their collective hats (and, presumably, landed their 737s) on Mitt Romney, but there was no there there, to coin a phrase.

Fiscal Conservatives? Maybe, but their vision of the GOP died with Barry Goldwater. The Republican Party of Reagan and the Bushes has been anything but fiscally conservative, as Reagan and Drunky McStagger each gave us historic budget deficits and spent money like Rush Limbaugh on an oxy bender in the Dominican.

Bigots and racists? They think Huggy is too weak on immigration and on compartmentalizing brown people, so no go here, either.

Warmongers? This really seems to be the only source of support for Huggy Bear, and even that support is tepid at best. He's been burnishing his creds with them for the whole campaign, turning his former opposition to Drunky's management of the war into rousing support for another century of killing the dirty, dirty Muslims who presumably occupy his every waking moment and haunt his dreams with threats of horrible things they'd do to him if, you know, they cared. These really are the 19-percenters, the poor saps who still love Drunky no matter what, the ones who, well, would give him a hug if they had a chance.

So, really, there's plenty of schadenfreude to go around.

To Rush Limbaugh, who encouraged his listeners in Ohio to cross party lines and vote for Hillary Clinton: be careful what you wish for, pal -- you've got a resurgent, energized Clinton who still will beat McCain (whom you can't stand anyway) in the general, and you've managed to get Obama focused on winning the nomination himself, which can only be good news for honing the Democratic message.

To Mike Huckabee, who finally withdrew from the race when Huggy clinched the nomination, you and your crazed Christianist supporters have to pick up the pieces and figure out how you lost control of the Republican Party in the first place. Hey, I thought you still had it, too, so don't ask me. But here's a hint: quit telling people what to do and how to act. That might be a good start.

To Ron Paul, who seems to have hung on to his House seat despite a solid challenge, maybe you and your crazed ... well, just crazed supporters can crawl back into the holes whence you came and fade back into obscurity. Please, leave government and political philosophy for the grown-ups, okay? Or, if you prefer, run a futile third-party campaign for president. That actually wouldn't suck as far as I'm concerned. Just quit telling me how your racist, archaic philosophy somehow stands for "freedom," 'cause it doesn't.

And to Republicans everywhere, you've got to get behind a guy who thinks the last seven years have been just peachy. Another Bush term of office? Figure out a way to spin that, because you're about to be hoist on your own petard.

In the meantime, congratulations, you ridiculous lunatics of the GOP -- today's Blast Off! Daily Schadenfreude is for you!

Obama eliminated from contention

... for my endorsement and support, that is.

I've never been much for Barack Obama anyway, feeling that (1) he's too inexperienced in politics to run an effective campaign, let alone serve as president, and (2) he has too much of the "let's all just get along" mentality, as evidenced by his reaching out pandering to Christianists and his utter inability to come out forcefully and decisively against the war in Iraq. (It would help if he could find his way to D.C. to actually cast votes that matter -- if Chris Dodd can do it, Barack Obama can, too.)

But Sen. Obama (D-Ill.) settled the matter for me today, with his asinine statement that not only would he consider placing Republicans on his cabinet if elected, one of those Republicans might be California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Obama regularly says he would look to Republicans to fill out his cabinet if he was elected, but at a town hall event in Manchester, N.H., he was pushed to name names.

“It’s premature for me to start announcing my cabinet. I mean, I’m pretty confident. but I’m not all that confident. We still got a long way to go,” Obama said.

But then the GOP names started to flow.

Among those names: Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Kan.), and Schwarzenegger.

Serious question here: how many Republicans would countenance a Democrat on their cabinet if they became president? I'll tell you how many: zero. And Drunky McStagger naming nominal Democrat Norm Mineta (D-Calif.) Secretary of Transportation doesn't count. Besides, that was seven years ago.

This is no longer a country where the Democrats can play the appeasement game and expect to accomplish anything at all. Yes, I hate the divisiveness and rancor, but unless and until the Republicans revert* to something resembling decency and humanity, the only way to win is to fight fire with fire. So far, the Democrats in Washington are showing precious little fire ... and Obama's declaration goes in precisely the wrong direction. And that is unacceptable.

I'm frequently reminded of a Rush Limbaugh broadcast I heard shortly after the election debacle of 2000 (back when I could stand to listen to that drug-addled blowhard). As we all know, Drunky McStagger earned a minority of the popular vote and electoral vote that year, yet still became president. Naturally, based on my own knowledge of political history (my college major and teaching subject), I presumed that Drunky would have to govern very much in the center, trying to win coalitions of supporters and reaching across the aisle to accomplish his legislative objectives. Rush, however, basically advocated political thermonuclear war, saying that Drunky (okay, he didn't call him that) should govern like he won a landslide -- an overwhelming mandate (I specifically remember Rush using that word) -- and run roughshod over the Democrats. "Nonsense," thought I. "No one in his right mind would behave that way as president."

Well, of course, you know the rest of the story. Rush and I were both right, as it turned out. Drunky governed like he won a landslide victory, and he's clearly not in his right mind.

The point I'm obliquely trying to make is that whoever wins the presidency in 2008 (and it most certainly will be the Democratic candidate -- I'll make that call right now) shouldn't give an inch to the Republicans. Especially with a stronger congressional majority, it's well past time to appease and be friends and reach out. We need to accomplish a progressive legislative agenda and begin the process of recovering from eight destructive years under the Bush crime syndicate. Putting Republicans in positions of leadership in an effort to be "bipartisan" is a horrible idea -- if they didn't do that for us, why should we give them the satisfaction of yet another victory?

So, Sen. Obama, I'm happy that you're running and thrilled that our country has progressed to the point where a person of color can be taken seriously as a candidate for the presidential nomination of a major party. But, I'm sorry, I won't be able to support you. In my opinion, there is just too much at stake to give the Republicans even an inch. Because if you do, experience shows that they won't just take a mile. They'll take a fucking light-year.

---

* "Revert," of course, suggests that Republicans at one time actually had the characteristics of decency and humanity. Reasonable minds may differ on this, but I do believe that, prior to the era of Nixon and, later, Reagan, they were -- with some notable exceptions -- generally decent and honorable. And if you don't agree, at least assume that for the sake of my argument, okay? Thanks in advance.

Rush looks forward; fat ass follows few minutes later

Okay, sure, that was a low blow ... but some of the stuff Rush Limbaugh says in his "rare interview" with the Palm Beach Post's Jose Lambiet in this morning's paper borders on the absurd. Rush clearly has no concept of reality, as he "endures" probation while earning $2-3 million a month, according to his probation paperwork (PDF).

"All's well that ends well," he said, contemplating the Oct. 31 finish of his 18-month probation, barring unforeseen trouble. "But I tell myself sometimes: 'I can't believe I did this s—-.' "

In a rare interview, Limbaugh - who just this week created a firestorm by calling antiwar service members "phony soldiers," prompting Iowa Democrat Harkin's comment from the floor of the U.S. Senate - says he isn't bitter. Never mind that the justice system forced him to fill out monthly reports on his whereabouts, get tested and attend therapy.

"The system is what it is," Limbaugh, 56, said from his oceanfront compound in Palm Beach. "I became addicted to drugs because of a medical condition" - a bad back - "and I'm convinced now that most addicts come to a point where they do drugs just to stave off withdrawal.

"The only thing I regret is that, because of legal and business reasons, I haven't been able to tell my story. But I'll ponder how I could start sharing because I've often wanted to."

Well, see, Rush is really doing super! -- thanks for asking.

But wait -- there's more:

"I have had no desire" for narcotics, he said. "But I plan on continuing therapy even after the probation. It's been extremely important and valuable to me."

Actually, according to his Florida Department of Corrections file, Limbaugh is feeling so secure he beat his demons that he has been drinking booze. He's allowed to drink, but not in excess.

A corrections spokesman this week confirmed Limbaugh has been a good boy and that the drug tests his doctor has conducted have been negative.

Only half-jokingly, meanwhile, Limbaugh said he considered lying on the monthly reports he sent to WPB-based state probation officer Louis Kurtz.

Filling out the forms, Limbaugh said, was at times "surreal."

The paperwork asks for the make and license plate of a probationer's set of wheels. In Limbaugh's case, it's a 2007 Maybach 57, with an MSRP of $335,500.

Under "Your Total Money Earned Monthly," Limbaugh wrote $2.1 million on a bad month and $3 million on a better one.

"I'd be filling out these forms and thinking: 'I wonder what Louis is going to say?' I'd be thinking about cheating a little and reducing the amount, but then you've got to be honest on the forms, otherwise they could claim it's an irregularity."

You know, for a guy who's staked his career on lies and deceit, he's certainly worried about the truth when it's his fat ass in a sling.

But, really, being a right-wing nutjob gasbag is hard work! Just ask Rush!

"When the Senate majority leader denounces me, that could have an impact on my business," Limbaugh said. "But I no longer care about other people's opinions. I learned to handle criticism and take blows. When 30 percent of the country hates your guts, it takes a psychological toll.

"Frankly, I love myself a whole lot more."

Rush, is that really you?

Could this possibly be the same guy whose radio words spark accusations of racism, sexism or any other "ism" in between?

"Don't forget that the radio show is just a performance," he said.

And then Limbaugh laughed when asked why his monthly probation reports don't list anyone visiting his sprawling property. Isn't it lonely at the mansion?

"I successfully cultivated the image of a recluse," he said. "But I wished I were more alone. I've got 65 family members coming for Thanksgiving. I'm putting 20 here and the others at The Breakers. I've got the producers of 24 coming down.

"I'm really a middle-America person from Missouri. I try to live as normally as possible. But I'm sort of like Las Vegas: What happens here stays here!"

How could he be lonely with the producers of 24 and his faithful anal cyst to keep him company? Besides, if 30% of America hates him, then it follows that 70% love him, right? Who taught him math -- Karl Rove?

My neighbor Limbaugh is a menace. And his narcissism knows no bounds.

My neighbor, Rush Limbaugh, hates America's Wang™

Hoo boy, my drug-addled neighbor Rush gets the smackdown but good in today's Palm Beach Post, courtesy of columnist Frank Cerabino:

"They are deranged," [Limbaugh] said on his radio show this week, claiming that an alarming number of Palm Beach County residents are "devoid of any rationality or reason."

Apparently, this is because we're high on something.

"They've drunk the Kool-Aid down here, folks, and they drink it every day," Limbaugh told his audience.

I know what you're thinking: Wasn't Limbaugh the guy who got busted for the drugs?

Hate to quibble, but it's not like we're the ones who had to cop a plea on a drug charge and whiz into a cup for 18 months.

Ouch. That's gonna leave a mark.

You know, Frank's absolutely right. You know what they say: people who live in glass rehab clinics shouldn't throw stones.

Even so, we're apparently so horrible that it has made Limbaugh a virtual prisoner in his oceanfront Palm Beach home.

"It's one of the reasons I don't cross the bridge here much," Limbaugh told his radio audience, "except ... to like go to the airport and get out."

You see? Limbaugh wants to get out.

It might not be such a bad idea.

Sometimes, when you go into a place where you don't belong and encounter a hostile population that doesn't share your world view, the best thing to do is get out.

You know what, Rush? I heartily encourage you to take your filth and your decadence and your OxyContin and your lying ass elsewhere, and leave us normal, reality-based people alone.

And you can take your pal Ann Coulter with you.

Random thought

I'm still angry at Rush Limbaugh for ruining the Pretenders' song, "My City Was Gone."

Today's Daily Schadenfreude: Fox News

The noble historically unfunny Fox News experiment to capitalize on the success of Comedy Central's The Daily Show is over.

In a memo to senior producers [Tuesday] afternoon, FNC's SVP of programming, Bill Shine announced the network "will not continue the Half Hour News Hour beyond its current 15 episode run." Shine did leave the door open, however: "we are considering ways to retool the show for future scheduling needs."

I never watched the HHNH, but I have covered it here before:

November 20, 2006:

The whole thing about TDSWJS is that it works on Comedy Central. The demographics are right, the snark is dead on, and the preznit is a laughingstock.

How can Faux News counter? I'm betting on a level of "humor" previously reserved for, say, Beavis and Butthead. Or the current incarnation of SNL.

As someone once said, "Bring it on."

February 21, 2007:

As we well know, there's nothing subtle about Rush or Ann, or really anything neo-con-related. The only humor they know is sick and twisted and morally bankrupt, whether it's on Fox News or KSFO or any other outlet for wingnut lunatics (I know, that's redundant) to jerk off to something other than Michelle Malkin in fatigues.

It must be hard to put a satirical news show on a network that is a satire itself. But, then again, maybe FNC deserves the benefit of the doubt. I mean, choosing the two biggest douchebags in punditry today to launch a show that jumped the shark before it even aired, well, that's real comedy.

Isn't it?

That February post has an embedded video, if you want proof that it's horribly not funny. Of course, from now on, the video will be the only thing left to prove the HHNH even existed.

Nice try, Fox News. But, trust me, you're much funnier when you aren't trying.

And so we say goodbye to the much-lamented (while it was around, anyway) Half-Hour News Hour. We hardly knew ye. But we can offer one final congratulations to you and your deranged progenitor, Fox News, for today's Blast Off! Daily Schadenfreude is for you!

The Manifesto of the Thirty Percenters

As the Bush crime syndicate does more and more grievous damage to our country and the world, as the war spirals ever farther into chaos, and as the GOP scandals mount, I continue to be baffled by the fact that even 30% of Americans (give or take a few, depending on the survey) still support Drunky McStagger and his minions.

Then this morning, I happened upon this from old Daily Kos denizen Jerome a Paris, writing at European Tribune. Well, actually, Jerome didn't really write most of it, but he communicated what I take to be a statement of beliefs from the delusional, Fox News, reality-free crowd.

It's too long to reprint here in its entirety, but click over for the full tirade, and in the meantime try to digest these excerpts:

I was never someone you could label and certainly never one to hold to a party line if I felt the party was wrong. Always a registered Democrat I vote based on conscience and not always Democrat. But I did vote for Bill Clinton twice and never regretted those votes - at least not until September 11. That day changed me irreversibly and had a profound impact on how I view politics.

September 11 was a beautiful sunny day right after our end-of-summer Labor Day holiday. I had a neighborhood reunion 2 weeks prior which we have every five years. I renewed old ties with people including [childhood friend] who remembered that I taught him to swim the butterfly stroke. My office was on 57th Street and Third Avenue and across the hall from a major public relation firm. My son had just started his senior year at Duke University in economics and was looking forward to the litany of investment banking firm interviews in the Fall. Just before the holiday weekend I had to cancel a west coast trip because of a sudden meeting I had in New York that was more important. I was supposed to be on the American Airlines 9:00 AM flight out of JFK to Los Angeles.

Note the classic concern troll tactic, addressing the supposed purity of having voted for Clinton (twice, even!!!!1!), but how that felt wrong on 9/11/2001 ... after Clinton had been out of office for almost eight months.

As I was rushing downtown to meet my two friends who I had hoped got out of the World Trade Center I kept muttering (referring to Bill Clinton), "You SOB, you really did it now" over and over again. I was also thankful that my son was not a year older, because he could have been working for one of the investment banking firms in the WTC and would have been incinerated with others.

Again with the Clenis™. Of course, if you're wondering how Clinton "really did it," well, you won't find it in this guy's twisted narrative.

In law school I learned that unsupported assertions can be discarded by the fact-finder (the jury or the judge). That is, you have to back up what you say with legitimate facts, or the assertions fail. So, as I've heard said many times, this dog won't hunt.

My initial reaction ended up being right as I learned more and more information over time. The key learning came about a year ago as we were coming to the five year anniversary of 9/11 and I was on the Editorial Board of an old public policy magazine. We agreed to cover 9/11 differently and look to see if we are winning or losing which required having in-depth understanding of the development of these radical Islam groups, their intentions, and whether they are or are not achieving them.

Wars are fought for political and ideological power and superiority. Wars are also defined by a series of battles that you would hope you lose some but win most as long as you achieve your desired objective.

We have been engaged in a war with a fascist form of Islam for decades. The "we" includes all forms of civilization other than this radical fundamentalist form of Islam. So it includes the USA, Europe (East and West), as well as all of Asia and the Pacific.

The enemy are all groups that have branched off the old Muslim Brotherhood from the 1920's which includes Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah. Some are Shia based and others are Sunni based. While they may hate each other, what they have in common is hatred for a common enemy which is us. Other than Iran, none are nation states and operate cross boundaries outside the bounds of conventional warfare and treaties. They use terror as their primary tactic to breakdown the will of the people and therefore the governments.

If you saw the movie Syriana it was a glimpse into the recruiting and indoctrination methods these groups have used for decades within the educational systems they created in all the Arab countries with the help of their host governments in exchange for the promise of allowing the host governments to continue their power.

Their goals are absolute rule in all Muslim countries and then the elimination of all modern western society. They are far more focused and committed to their cause than communists ever were. They are very smart, very resourceful, very well financed, and very, very patient. But they do believe their time is now.

It is a mistake for any political leader not to believe in what they write and preach. We have already learned that lesson.

[...]

What should not been in doubt since 9/11 are that there is a war between all radical Muslim groups and us. It has been called a clash of cultures, but that dismisses the political aspects of this. As did the various fascists groups in the 1930's these Islamic fascist groups also want ultimate power and are fanatical enough to stop at nothing to achieve their goals. As with Hitler, they cannot be negotiated with or appeased. They actually view appeasement as a sign of weakness and will use it against their enemies. And as in the lead up to World War II the blame for everything centered in Jews.

Get ready, now, kids, because we're about to conflate all Muslims in order to justify attacking Iraq in "retaliation" for 9/11. And we'll throw in a Hitler comparison just for kicks.

I'm no Islamic scholar by any stretch, but it doesn't take a scholar to see this argument coming. Even if you assume by some unbelievable stretch of so-called logic that all of Islam is gunning for the U.S. (apologies for the word choice), with no evidence of WMDs in Iraq, no evidence tying Iraq to 9/11, and no reason to select Iraq as a target for American aggression over any other Muslim state other than Drunky McStagger's personal dick-swinging vendetta, there's still no justification for the war in any way.

When it comes to this War, President Bush's moves and adjustments were necessary, proper, and lawful. The U.S. had (and may still have) Al Qaeda and Hezbollah sleeper cells within our boundaries. They were cells that were still being financed through international means. And there were countries and leaders that harboring them, training them, and supporting them. Bush was dealing with a dismantled CIA and FBI as well as a greatly reduced military because we thought the war (Cold War) was over and were in a false sense of security.

The Patriot Act was necessary in order to infiltrate all of the Muslims groups in this country and determine who were threats. In spite of all the protests there is not a single shred of evidence of someone's civil right being violated with the Patriot Act. The NSA program of listening in on overseas telephone conversations from known terror suspects was also necessary. Again, in spite of charges being made there is not a single shred of evidence that this program was abused and violated anyone's civil rights. The Swift program was necessary to track down the money trail leading to these terror groups. And again, in spite of charges of invading people's bank records there is not a shred of evidence that anyone's rights were violated. The net result was the U.S. was able to rapidly round up terror suspects in the U.S. (and hopefully those bastards that were dancing in celebration in Paterson [New Jersey]) and ship them down to Gitmo. There has also been successful worldwide coordination of intelligence to break other potential attacks, particularly after Madrid and London.

Jeebus, the sweeping generalizations here boggle the mind. Moreover, in neither paragraph did I see a mention of Iraq -- somehow the war against Iraq is "necessary, proper, and lawful" based on the alleged existence of al Qaeda and Hezbollah in the U.S.? I thought we were fighting them there so we didn't have to fight them here? Assuming they are "there" at all, I mean.

And while we're at it, let's go ahead and shit all on the rights of all Muslims, including American citizens, and let's make them prove a negative by alleging there's not a single civil right that's been violated. (You might want to ask that question to U.S. citizen José Padilla and see what kind of response you get.)

Smarter wingnuts, please! The writer still hasn't shown that invading Iraq was anything other than a tragic, stupid mistake.

Was it a mistake to invade Iraq? As I said the Middle East was the nest for this fascist Islam and its propagation. It was a self-feeding system that had to be broken. I agreed, as did nearly everyone in this country, that the invasion to take out Hussein was correct. But the war was fought on a shoe-string and accomplished nothing more than deposing Hussein. There should have been forces to immediately close off the borders to Syria and Iran and through saber rattling threatened to go further if they interfered. That was not done. In addition, they disbanded Hussein's military and police rather than give them the chance to switch sides and thereby secure the country immediately. Those were two enormous mistakes that have cost thousands of American lives.

For those that criticize the Bush administration for usurping the Constitution and our laws with their efforts to secure this country I would say, "Prove it" because other than hyperbole and insinuations there has been no credible evidence of so-called "lying."

Okay, first of all, "usurping the Constitution" is illegal per se. You can't sugarcoat it and you can't justify it -- for anything. That's why we have a Constitution in the first place, you moron!

I'm reminded of a convention I once attended where a delegate stood up and moved to "suspend the Constitution" of the organization. The parliamentarian was so disgusted, she walked out. Point being: you just can't subvert the Constitution! Not legally anyway ...

As for evidence of lying, well, there's enough of that -- Gonzales, Libby, Snow, Drunky himself -- that the assertion doesn't deserve a response. (Let me know if you need links. I can give you plenty.)

For those, like Hillary Clinton, that have conveniently switched sides on the Iraq issue by revealing, "If I knew then what I know now," they should understand that a President does not get do-overs. A President must have the clarity to make a decision, the conviction of that decision, and the courage to see that decision through. That disqualifies Hillary Clinton as a qualified candidate for President.

Edwards idiot pronouncement that "the war on terror is just a bumper sticker slogan" is further proof of his superficial used-car sales mentality when it comes to politics. Obama is just not qualified enough yet.

When you listen to the Republican debates your heard a number of their candidates clearly define this war against radical Islam, while not a single Democrat could (or would) define it.

Frankly the only qualified candidate the Democrats have is not running and that would be former Senator Bob Kerrey who is a highly decorated former Navy Seal and was on the 9/11 Commission.

Bob freaking Kerrey? This writer is delusional, seriously. As in he needs medical attention.

Kerrey is nothing more than a Lieberman apologist whose absence from the Senate is well deserved and his label as a Democrat hardly justifiable. Hell, my drug-addled neighbor Rush Limbaugh says Kerrey is "right on Iraq," which is a sure indication that the writer of this "manifesto" isn't a Democrat at all, despite his protestations to the contrary.

And a president "does not get do-overs?" Dude, a president shouldn't make the mistakes in the first place. And if he or she does, I respect far more a person who will say "I made a mistake" (which, contrary to your assertion, Sen. Clinton has not done; Sen. Edwards has, however) than a person like Drunky who sticks his fingers in his ears and shouts "La, la, la!" and refuses to even listen to opposing viewpoints, let alone (perish the thought) actually change his mind.

The writer concludes:

When the founding fathers finally created the form of federal government we have now, they envisioned the primarily role of the President as the commander-in-chief to lead the army against outside enemies. In that role Bill Clinton was a failure and G.W. Bush has done his job. And that is why whenever the American people choose a President during a time of war they never elect an anti-war candidate.

September 11 was a wake-up call. While some Americans have fallen back to sleep into some sort of state of denial, fortunately most Americans do understand that we are in danger and at war beyond Iraq.

There you have it, folks: a perspective completely divorced from reality, ignoring clear facts and selectively reporting history in a distorted manner to prop up a failed president and a dying ideology.

September 11 changed a lot of things, that's true. But it didn't change the Constitution, pal. It didn't "change everything." The radical right-wing was the catalyst for change. And the time is long overdue to change back ... to take America back.

Pot, meet kettle

My drug-addled neighbor, Rush Limbaugh, shouldn't throw stones from his glass house.

He's rhetorically battling the Broward County Commission because they dared to suggest discontinuing their partnership with a local radio station, WIOD, that airs his bloviations as well as those of other mouth-breathing conservative "pundits."

The funny part, though, is the reasoning behind his rant:

Limbaugh responded to the commissioners Wednesday on his radio show, saying the qualms about WIOD were a sign of out-of-control partisanship in the nation.

Just let that sink in for a moment. Rush Limbaugh, of all people, is complaining about "out-of-control partisanship."

Let the spit-takes commence.