Having had enough of Limbaugh’s criticism of Colin Powell, Tom Ridge laid down the gauntlet on Rush Limbaugh, evicting him from the Republican Party. The event took place after the interview on CSPAN’s Washington Journal where Ridge took a strong stance, supporting Colin Powell and blaming Limbaugh and Dick Cheney for having “a mindset,” that doesn’t foster unity
If you go to the story link, you will read the following blog post:
Tom Ridge Throws Down Gauntlet On Rush Limbaugh
Washington—Having had enough of Limbaugh’s criticism of Colin Powell, Tom Ridge laid down the gauntlet on Rush Limbaugh, evicting him from the Republican Party. The event took place after the interview on CSPAN’s Washington Journal where Ridge took a strong stance, supporting Colin Powell and blaming Limbaugh and Dick Cheney for having “a mindset,” that doesn’t foster unity.
Rush Limbaugh responded in like kind, saying, “I must have missed something, because I remember that Colin Powell endorsed the Democrat, Barack Obama, at a strategic point in the campaign in 2008. And then he went out later and said, ‘Americans want more spending, bigger government, and higher taxes,’ before California threw that one in the trash.”
So this morning, Ridge went back on Washington Journal, responding to Limbaugh’s rhetoric. “I’m so sick of Rush Limbaugh. He’s the reason we lose elections. He needs to get the hell out of the Republican Party. As far as I’m concerned, he isn’t a Republican anymore. The man’s running. The man’s hiding. He’s too scared to face me!”
Ridge continued his rant, threatening Limbaugh. “Meanwhile, he sits there in his ‘Southern Command Post,’ and destroys the Republican Party! I’d like to just have three rounds in a boxing ring with that guy so I could shut him up! I’m caling you out, Limbaugh. Let’s see if you have a big enough set of marbles to back up your crap!”
What's this all about? Did Ridge really say those things?
No. The post is classified under Satire, but apparently nobody noticed. BTW, the blog appears to be a genuine right-wing site.
Where are folders? Screw this "conversation" nonsense. I cannot find some emails since they are hidden in a collapsed conversation thread - grouped together because of the subject line! I guess we all retype subject lines for every single email and never, ever inherit an older email and reply without modifying the existing subject line.
And who has the time to fiddle with labels? A fast click and move is much easier.
When accessing things on the internet, I prefer to use the mouse and as little of the keyboard as possible. Gmail thinks it's a gas to type in labels and search criteria. I don't.
In case anybody's wondering, I type fast and accurately, but what I don't like to do is switch modes from keyboard to mouse and back again. When reading (and sorting) email, the mouse should be sufficient, but isn't with gmail.
ALSO: I might as well be an equal-opportunity UI basher. Microsoft's most recent Office suite (a couple of years old) got rid of the File menu entry. Instead, there's something unlabeled called the Office Button that brings out the same options (save, save as, etc). And the Help menu entry is replaced by a small blue circle with a question mark inside.
I cannot resist quoting from this Microsoft page about the Office Button: (emp add)
When you click the Microsoft Office Button Button image, you see the same basic commands available on the File menu in earlier releases of Microsoft Office to open, save, and print your file.
[me: try and reconcile the following two statements]
The Options command that was on the Tools menu has been moved to be under the Microsoft Office Button.
The new location for the Options command is in the lower-right corner under Word Options, Excel Options, PowerPoint Options, or Access Options.
Why does the Office Button blink?
The Microsoft Office Button Button image should only blink when you have not clicked the button to view the commands. The blinking is a "look at me/click here" feature, because many people think that the button looks like a decorative logo, rather than a button to click to see commands. If you click the Microsoft Office Button Button image one time, it should stop blinking.
Kudos to the MS development team for making it harder to use their application. Bravo!
Are you ready? Are you sitting down? Take a deep breath, 'cause here it comes ...
Health care, Obama's latest and biggest fight, will provide another test of his leadership, with indications in several polls that Republicans and Democrats are taking opposing stands, despite the president's calls for a bipartisan bill.
Wow! "Republicans and Democrats are taking opposing stands" - who could believe that such a thing would ever happen?
Kudos to Broder for cluing us in on that vital political fact. David, you've certainly earned your paycheck this week!
If you go over to TheFoxNation.com you will find the standard assortment of anti-Obama, anti-Democrat, anti-Europe, anti-liberal stories. Some are distortions of news reports. Others are indignant reactions to this-or-that mundane event.
What's interesting are the comments that appear on the website. In the thread about how outrageous it is that Obama said Fox News has been critical of his administration, you find this: (emp add)
This website is designed to root out all the socialist/fascist/godless evil that is this new regime. Its only taken a few short months to overturn everything that has made the last 8 years the greatest in American history. We are only doing our patriotic duty by fighting EVERY single thing this new "facialist" "president" is doing, no matter how rational he is.
NOTE: The comments are moderated so it's something of a challenge to get the right absurdist remark into the system.
Obama should do something about the Iranian elections.
Let's start with bombing Tehran. That'll send the mullahs a message that can't be ignored and will no doubt lead to a satisfactory resolution of the issue.
[McCain's] twitterview today with Jake Tapper is full of examples as he talks about Iran not so much as an actual country full of actual people doing actual things in a difficult situation, but instead as a kind of phantasmagoric canvass onto which we should paint a tableau of American hubris and militarism.
But nothing sums it up better than this Tweet:
@jaketapper no prediction, but if we are steadfast eventually the Iranian people will prevail. But this regime has tight control.
That’s right. Whether or not the Iranian people prevail depends on how steadfast we are. How steadfast we are in what? In wishing them well?
Matt asks "How steadfast we are in what?"
The answer is clear: We must be steadfast in demonstrating our resolve.
Which is a point this blog has made from the start about the former vice-president. But more importantly, this statement by Panetta should be an incentive for Liz Cheney to show up on the cable news networks yet again. She's already done a lot in the first half of June (123), and Panetta's Cheney-bait should insure that Liz has a boffo month, appearances-wise.
To hell with analyzing critical hot issues of the day, like health care, foreign relations, energy policy, the Supreme Court, and civil rights. Instead, let's waste time opining about gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey that won't take place for almost half a year.
Why? Because it's the only place where I can rhapsodize about non-insane Republicans, who, if they win, will allow me to continue to fantasize about bipartisanship at the national level. Even though none of the politicians I write about will have anything to to with governance in Washington D.C.
That's because I, David "The Dean" Broder, will search high and low, East and West, North and South, into the past or at a hypothetical future, anywhere, to find my beloved bipartisanship.
Okay, that wasn't very short. But it's still valid.
As part of a long-winded screed against lots of things, George Will writes: (emp add)
The nation now is 17 months into the demographic deluge that began in January 2008 when the leading edge of the wave of 78 million baby boomers began exercising the preposterous entitlement to collect Social Security at age 62, as most Social Security recipients do. In 1935, when Social Security was enacted, no one envisioned it supporting most retirees for a third of their adult lives.
Doesn't matter what George Will thinks. Doesn't matter what people were thinking in 1935. The fact is that the program changed to support early retirement and was funded through increased payroll taxes to make it happen (at least until 2041).
Is Will also upset at pension plans that offer early retirement at age 55? Perhaps he'd better get on the phone with IBM, HP, Citigroup, et al.
Social Security is an independent large-scale disability and retirement program. There's nothing Will can do about that unless he wants the government to default on bonds purchased by the Social Security Trust Fund.
In the last Congress, [Republican Bob] Bennett, a staunch conservative, delighted the more liberal [Democrat Ron] Wyden by volunteering to become the lead co-sponsor of Wyden's Healthy Americans Act.
Together, they rounded up the largest bipartisan sponsorship of any major health-care bill -- eight Democrats and six Republicans, among them three members of the GOP Senate leadership.
Their bill -- in the simplest terms -- would have guaranteed portable, affordable health insurance to every American. It would have required individuals to purchase private health-care policies, with subsidies as needed from employers and government.
Wow! Eight Democrats and six Republicans, for a total of 14 out of 100 Senators.
That's super-duper-bipartisanship! It's another Gang of 14.
Remember, the previous Gang of 14 essentially did the Republicans bidding. This bunch probably are cut from the same cloth.
RELATED: Nicholas Kristof has an op-ed in the NYTimes that extols the Canadian system and also dings fraudster Rick Scott of Conservatives for Patients’ Rights.
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee warned Republicans Wednesday against moving to the "mushy middle," arguing that only clearly stated conservative policies can bring the party back to power. ...
"I hear people who give advice that the Republicans need to moderate. They need to be a little more to the left," Huckabee said in an interview with The Associated Press. "It sounds like advice that Democrats would give to us so that we'd never win another election ever."
Some argue that Republicans have lost Congress and the White House because they've turned the party over to social and religious conservatives, driving away moderates and independents. Huckabee made precisely the opposite argument.
"It's when they move to the mushy middle and get squishy that they get beat," he said.
Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister, argued that the U.S. is a conservative country receptive to Republican ideals.
Let's hope that the Republican leadership - whoever that is - follows Huckabee's sage advice.
But seriously, are there any Republicans (besides the apostate Colin Powell) that are advocating moderation?
Terry McAuliffe lost the Virginia gubernatorial primary. What a shame. McAuliffe was such an appealing figure: great integrity, brilliant political strategist, humble, kept his distance from the moneyed class, nothing phony about the man.
How did he lose? There must have been some ballot box tampering. Only way to explain it.
There has been some commentary (e.g. Hilzoy, Drum) about Ross Douthat's op-ed on abortion. On first glance, it appears that there's a complex decision tree involving viability, circumstances of the pregnancy, and the judicial/democratic process to argue over. But that's a waste of time because the core belief of anti-abortion types is what Douthat wrote:
Either a fetus has a claim to life or it doesn’t.
That's an absolutist position that does not allow for any gradations throughout pregnancy. Gradations can be used in the political realm, which Douthat pretends to care about. And he throws a lot of sand in your face with talk about instances of rape or incest or the mother's mental health and how much better things would be if the courts stepped aside. But it's all a ruse to shrink the time frame by first making third trimester abortions verboten, leaving Douthat et al to argue against second trimester abortions (and subsequently first trimester, which means no abortions at all).
From reading Douthat, it's obvious that his position is deeply influenced by his religious beliefs. So why skirt around the issue arguing by about viability or even Douthat's "claim to life"? Get to the core issue, that of the fetus' soul. When does that happen? Because surely Douthat can't care if an unensouled fetus dies. Let's see how potent Douthat can be when he makes the argument on religious grounds.
CODA: Drum, writing about part of Douthat's argument, remarks:
I'm really not seeing the logic here.
Douthat isn't a good writer. His op-ed had three main threads (late term abortion, special exceptions like rape, the democratic process) that didn't mesh. None of what Douthat wrote about Tiller had any relevance to his argument at the end of his essay.
There was a 1995 Supreme Court case, McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission. It involved a plaintiff (McIntyre) that was fined $100 for distributing political fliers that were anonymously written. The court ruled 7-2 in favor of McIntyre. In that ruling, Stevens, writing for the majority said:
Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. ... It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation--and their ideas from suppression--at the hand of an intolerant society. The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.
Two justices dissented, Rehnquist and Scalia.
In the late 1980's Ed Whelan was a clerk for Scalia. This weekend he outed a pseudonymous blogger. How about that?
... Ed Whelan, is an American lawyer and a prominent conservative legal analyst. He currently serves as President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative think tank ...
From the About page at the Ethics and Public Policy Center:
... the Ethics and Public Policy Center is Washington, D.C.'s premier institute dedicated to applying the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy.
Did you know it's in the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to out pseudonymous bloggers?
Well, it is.
And they also assert:
... EPPC and its scholars have consistently sought to defend the great Western ethical imperatives -- respect for the inherent dignity of the human person ...
You probably have read by now that legal-intellectual-powerhouse Ed Whelan has outed Publius.
I don't like outing anybody for any reason whatsoever. I disapprove the outing of gay Republicans who publicly denounce homosexuality or push for laws that diminish their rights, which puts me at odds with some liberal blogs (cf. AMERICAblog).
If privacy is to have any value whatsoever, it includes the option to hide from view certain activities: Going to the racetrack to bet on the ponies. Purchasing Hustler magazine. Attending a church of a marginal religion. Etc.
Outing is part of a Puritan mindset that insists that everything be done on the public stage. Everything. So that the crowd can weigh in on this-or-that personal quirk or unpopular viewpoint that the subject exhibits. It's actually a primitive (and juvenile) social phenomenon that we can do without.
UPDATE: Rick Moran of Right Wing Nut House: (emp add)
Someday, someone is going to make a million by writing a book on what so far is largely unwritten; the rules and etiquette of blogging.
When that happens, we won’t have internet ignorant philistines like Ed Whelan running around destroying the anonymity of bloggers who choose to remain unknown. Or maybe we will, if they prove as unable to control their anger as Mr. Whelan has demonstrated. ...
Responding point by point to Publius’s piquing of Whelan’s demonstrably thin skin, the President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center couldn’t leave it at that. Instead, he decided to act rather unethically and dig unto Publius’s personal life in order to discover who this mosquito nibbling on his backside might be. ...
Whelan obviously doesn’t get out much. Or read the news. He is certainly an ignoramus about blogging if he hasn’t read about the dozens of cases of people who have lost jobs, been stalked and threatened, or forced to give up writing by employers all due to their passion for blogging. ...
... there are a lot of good reasons for bloggers to remain anonymous and Ed Whalen has no right to decide differently just because he got steamed about someone’s response to his analysis. Did Publius commit a crime? Was he slandering Whalen? If not, Whalen’s fit of personal pique looks low, tawdry, childish, and vengeful. ...
So, through Whelan’s towering ignorance, he has outed someone for no good reason save his own sense of payback with still unknown consequences to a man he doesn’t know, who never did him any personal harm, and couldn’t affect his reputation one way or another even if that was his intent.
Yeah - way to go Ed. ...
I would recommend that Mr. Whelan familiarize himself with blogs and the nature of the beast before going off half cocked and making himself appear a vengeful, spiteful, small minded man. I lost far more respect for Whelan through his outing of Hilzoy than anything the blogger has written about him.
Two leading voices of the Republican Party's evangelical wing visited Rock Church on Friday for a forum aimed at recapturing some of the movement's political momentum.
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee urged Christians to get involved in politics to preserve the presence of religion in American life.
"I think this is one of the most critical moments in American history," Gingrich said. "We are living in a period where we are surrounded by paganism."
They and other speakers warned about the continuing availability of abortion, the spread of gay rights, and attempts to remove religion from American public life and school history books.
Newt is now a leading voice of the Republican Party's evangelical wing?
The Tennessee House of Representatives has voted to override Gov. Phil Bredesen's veto on the controversial "guns in restaurants" bill. The State Senate is expected to follow suit. ...
Last week, Bredesen – flanked by more than 50 law enforcement officials from across the state – vetoed the legislation, calling it "reckless" and saying it "defied common sense." ...
Prior to today's vote, former Speaker of the House Jimmy Naifeh gave a brief but impassioned speech against the bill, citing law enforcement officials' objections and the concerns of the Tennessee Restaurant Association. ...
State Rep. Glen Casada (R-Franklin) rose to rebut Naifeh and said that "an armed citizen is a safe citizen." He added that the "bad guys" are already bringing guns into bars and restaurants and people who have gone through the mandatory eight hours of training to have a carry permit can now protect him and his family. ...
Bredesen spokeswoman Lydia Lenker issued this reaction to the veto override:
"Governor Bredesen said last week when he vetoed this bill that he expected an override. He's disappointed with this action but that doesn't change his belief that we can exercise our second amendment rights and common sense at the same time. He believes guns and bars simply don't mix, and this legislation doesn't provide the proper safeguards to ensure public safety. Governor Bredesen stands by his decision to veto the bill."
Re "an armed citizen is a safe citizen": A drunk armed citizen is not a safe citizen.
Most Republican reforms involve shifting away from employer-based health insurance -- replacing the massive tax breaks for companies with subsidies to individuals and families to purchase coverage on their own.
In other words,
Healthcare will cost less when you disband pooling of risk and bargaining power and instead have people deal with large insurance companies on an individual basis.
That is the Republican fantasy which posits that markets are perfect. That all markets operate as if there are many suppliers and many buyers of a standard product. And that such "ideal pricing" must be borne by the individual even if it is unaffordable for certain (random) health conditions.
Roeder apparently kept track of the state prosecution against Tiller through a senior member of Operation Rescue, the anti-abortion organization.
At the time of Roeder’s arrest Sunday afternoon along Interstate 35 in Johnson County, a television station captured the vehicle on video. There on the dashboard was a note that read “Cheryl” and “Op Rescue” with a phone number.
Cheryl Sullenger, senior policy adviser for Operation Rescue out of Wichita, said Tuesday that she has spoken to Roeder in the past, but she said he would initiate the contact. She said she hasn’t had any recent contact with him.
Sullenger served about two years in prison after pleading guilty to conspiring to bomb an abortion clinic in California in 1988. She has since renounced violent action.
The House Republican leadership upped the ante Thursday in the ongoing debate over the size and scope of the federal budget, unveiling a proposal to cut spending by $375 billion over the next five years.
Then comments:
It turns out, however, that there’s no real proposal here. Instead, “The bulk of the GOP’s proposed savings would come from capping non-defense discretionary spending at the level of inflation.”
A blanket cap in spending is not a good idea. For one thing, it’s incredibly indiscriminate. For another thing, it’s oddly un-inclusive. If we’re just going to reduce outlays in an arbitrary, across-the-board way, why should defense and Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid be left off the table?
Why is Social Security part of any discussion about the federal budget? It has it's own revenue stream, it's own savings (special treasury bonds), and it's own payment trajectory - at least until 2041 or so.
A Kentucky pastor is inviting his flock to bring guns to church to celebrate the Fourth of July and the Second Amendment.
New Bethel Church is welcoming "responsible handgun owners" to wear their firearms inside the church June 27, a Saturday. An ad says there will be a handgun raffle, patriotic music and information on gun safety.
"We're just going to celebrate the upcoming theme of the birth of our nation," said pastor Ken Pagano. "And we're not ashamed to say that there was a strong belief in God and firearms — without that this country wouldn't be here."
The guns must be unloaded and private security will check visitors at the door, Pagano said.
How lame. The only way to really celebrate is to bring in loaded guns.
Having just read Obama’s Cairo speech, my reaction is: Not bad.
Power Line's Paul Mirengoff:
I've read the version of President Obama's Cairo speech released by the White House. I don't have time for a detailed commentary right now, nor have I done more than a first read. But it seems to me, on first read at least, that it's a rather good speech.
Of course, "real Republicans" like Limbaugh, everybody at Fox, and the Weekly Standard don't like the speech. Obama will have to try a little harder to get those folks to agree with him.
A mother talks to Anderson Cooper about her decision to give birth to her daughter even after the baby was diagnosed with Trisomy 18 during the fifth month of her pregnancy.
Infants born with Edwards syndrome may have some or all of the following characteristics: kidney malformations, structural heart defects at birth (i.e., ventricular septal defect, atrial septal defect, patent ductus arteriosus), intestines protruding outside the body (omphalocele), esophageal atresia, mental retardation, developmental delays, growth deficiency, feeding difficulties, breathing difficulties, and arthrogryposis (a muscle disorder that causes multiple joint contractures at birth).
Some physical malformations associated with Edwards syndrome include: a small head (microcephaly) accompanied by a prominent back portion of the head (occiput), low-set, malformed ears, abnormally small jaw (micrognathia), cleft lip/cleft palate, upturned nose, narrow eyelid folds (palpebral fissures), widely-spaced eyes (ocular hypertelorism), drooping of the upper eyelids (ptosis), a short breast bone, clenched hands, underdeveloped thumbs and or nails, absent radius, webbing of the second and third toes, clubfoot or Rocker bottom feet, and undescended testicles in males.
Yesterday Rush Limbaugh was on Sean Hannity's Fox television show. That's a little unusual since they are competitors, but ever since about one year ago conservative commentators (Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, Hugh Hewitt, Sean Hannity, Dennis Prager) have been on each other's shows to a degree that I've not seen in years past. And it's not just Fox-heads fluffing each other.
Is this some sort of cross-promotion because of shrinking audiences? Is it a kind of morale-boosting effort for themselves and their audiences? Is it because they can't book decent guests?
[Republican operative] Manuel Miranda [said] that Mitch McConnell should “consider resigning” as Senate minority leader if he can’t take a harder line on President Barack Obama’s first Supreme Court nominee.
Miranda accused McConnell of being “limp-wristed” and “a little bit tone deaf” when it comes to judicial nominees.
Miranda is implying that McConnell is pathetic. Or does he really mean pathic?
What's next?
Will Miranda go after Senator Lindsay "light in the loafers" Graham, Representative David "three dollar bill" Dreier, and Charlie "I look better with a beard" Crist?
What did Miranda learn during the years when the RNC was chaired by a man "who enjoys his privacy", Ken Melhman?
Will he issue flamboyant charges through the Internet megaphone held by Matt "cruising" Drudge?
In any event, such euphemisms have no place in decent society and will not be tolerated on this blog.
Conan O'Brien made TV history Monday night when he took over The Tonight Show, and Rockford [Illinois, place of origin of the band Cheap Trick] was part of the moment, practically from the start.
The show opened with Conan preparing to host his first Tonight Show, and then realizing he never moved to L.A. So he runs from New York to California. The whole time he's running, Cheap Trick's "Surrender" is his soundtrack. Cheap Trick guitarist, Rick Nielsen, says he knew Conan wanted to use one of the band's songs, but he wasn't sure what, if anything, Conan would do on the show.
Conan called Rick the next day.
"'Rick I wanted it to be a surprise for you,'" Nielsen remembers. "He says, 'This was just the greatest song. I tried to think of what would be the best song for doing this thing...going across country. Surrender.'
"Surrender" is a single by Cheap Trick released in June 1978 from the album Heaven Tonight. It was the first Cheap Trick single to enter the Billboard Hot 100 chart, peaking at number 62. It is a late 1970s teen anthem, describing the relations between the baby boomer narrator and his G.I. generation parents. The narrator describes how his parents are weirder and hipper than many children would believe. For example, the narrator describes how he discovers his parents "rolling on the couch" and listening to his Kiss records late at night. It is ranked #465 on the Rolling Stone magazine's list of "the 500 Greatest Songs of All Time".
It's my firm belief that starting in the (late?) 1980's with rap and later grunge, pop music suffered a significant decline. Much fewer melodies and harmony. Thankfully, that now appears to be changing.
