DOWNLOADS: (4799)

PLAYS: (14329)

Embed

[Note: I'll be appearing on David Sirota's radio show Tuesday at 8:35 am PST to discuss Beck and his attacks on progressives.]

It's been pretty interesting watching Glenn Beck ratchet up the eliminationist rhetoric in his attacks on progressives in the past couple of months.

The storyline, as you may have gathered, is that the "progressive movement" is the root of all evil in American politics, a "cancer" and a "virus" and a "parasite" that has "infected" both parties. Beck has been doing a lot of fake "history" reporting when it comes to these attacks -- indeed, it tells you everything you need to know that he considers Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson as the presidential wellsprings of this Great Evil.

Well, as we observed some time back, there's a great deal of real history that Beck has to omit from his narrative in order to make these claims stick -- particularly the reality that progressive politics created the great American middle class consumer society that he and other right-wingers take for granted now, not to mention the conditions for average Americans before the arrival of progressive politics.

But one of the most interesting omissions from Beck's parade of progressive evils is one of the real achievements of progressive politics in the past half-century -- namely, the advancement of civil rights for minorities, beginning with the civil-rights movements of the 1950s and 1960s. These movements ended Jim Crow and made life better for millions of nonwhites, and created a more just and civil society along the way.

And you know, civil rights was a progressive cause. It still is. The opposition? It has always -- ALWAYS -- been conservatives.

Yet all the time Beck has been bashing progressives, he has simultaneously been hosting shows with audiences of black conservatives wherein they sit around and complain about how mean liberals are to them for being conservative and Beck gets to ask dumb white-guy questions like: "Why not identify yourself as Americans?"

Even more to the point, in both of these shows, Beck has glowingly quoted Martin Luther King -- who was, you know, a leader in the progressive movement.

DOWNLOADS: (939)

PLAYS: (2533)

Embed

So here's our question for Glenn Beck: If the progressive movement, as you claim, has been so relentlessly evil and has consistently taken America down the wrong path, what about civil rights?

Was Martin Luther King secretly evil too?

Should we return to pre-progressive policies -- you know, the "separate but equal" status quo of Jim Crow and segregation?

Indeed, your hatred of the "progressive movement" and its effects on American life raise a whole host of similar questions about your views on civil rights.

And we're just wondering.

DOWNLOADS: (336)

PLAYS: (246)

Embed

March 01, 2010 FOX News

This whole thing is depressing as hell. Wall Street's Masters of the Universe devastate the entire world economy, and all the House of Lords (aka the Senate) can think about is not making the bankers mad at them. Imagine how bad it is that their attempts at reform are only making the problem worse. Krugman spells it all out:

So here’s the situation. We’ve been through the second-worst financial crisis in the history of the world, and we’ve barely begun to recover: 29 million Americans either can’t find jobs or can’t find full-time work. Yet all momentum for serious banking reform has been lost. The question now seems to be whether we’ll get a watered-down bill or no bill at all. And I hate to say this, but the second option is starting to look preferable.

[...] There’s no question that consumers need much better protection. The late Edward Gramlich — a Federal Reserve official who tried in vain to get Alan Greenspan to act against predatory lending — summarized the case perfectly back in 2007: “Why are the most risky loan products sold to the least sophisticated borrowers? The question answers itself — the least sophisticated borrowers are probably duped into taking these products.”

Is it important that this protection be provided by an independent agency? It must be, or lobbyists wouldn’t be campaigning so hard to prevent that agency’s creation.

And it’s not hard to see why. Some have argued that the job of protecting consumers can and should be done either by the Fed or — as in one compromise that at this point seems unlikely — by a unit within the Treasury Department. But remember, not that long ago Mr. Greenspan was Fed chairman and John Snow was Treasury secretary. Case closed. The only way consumers will be protected under future antiregulation administrations — and believe me, given the power of the financial lobby, there will be such administrations — is if there’s an agency whose whole reason for being is to police bank abuses.

In summary, then, it’s time to draw a line in the sand. No reform, coupled with a campaign to name and shame the people responsible, is better than a cosmetic reform that just covers up failure to act.

Heather posted on George Will's mumbo jumbo hackery with Paul Krugman on ABC's THIS WEEK already, and after Brad DeLong watched the horror unfold he asks the question that we've all been asking for way too long.

Why Oh Why Can't We Have a Better Press Corps?

I think what it comes down to is that there just aren't any conservative pundits out there who can argue in the reality-based world. So we get either George Will's hackery or Peggy Noonan's overwrought gobbledygook-soap star-punditry method. Which is not to be confused with Lee Strasberg's 'Method acting'. And Cokie at times is the worst offender of them all.

(h/t ThinkProgress)

The Dalai Lama once said

When we feel love and kindness toward others, it not only makes others feel loved and cared for, but it helps us also to develop inner happiness and peace.

I wrote that on a little card that stays on my desk as a reminder when I start stressing too much over the bobbleheads and politicos who forget that their games affect real people. I admit I'm not always successful in finding love and kindness in my heart. Especially for someone like Glenn Beck, who seems to want to instigate violence. Van Jones has even more reason to not find love or kindness towards Beck. After all, it was Beck who led the charge to get Jones out of the White House. But if you think that Van Jones is going to give Beck the satisfaction of being nasty, you got another think coming:

Despite the best efforts of Glenn Beck to ruin Van Jones, Jones is back, standing tall, a righteous man vindicated.

While receiving a prestigious award Friday night from the NAACP, Jones refused to lower himself to Beck’s level. Rather than giving Beck the tongue lashing he so richly deserved; Jones rose above the ugly, divisive, mean spirited little man that is Glenn Beck.

Rather than scorn, Jones instead offered Beck a message of love, and the country a message of hope and unity:

Last thing I want to say is this: To my fellow countryman, Mr. Glenn Beck. I see you, and I love you, brother. I love you, and you cannot do anything about it. I love you, and you cannot do anything about it. Let’s be one country! Let’s be one country! Let’s get the job done!

With that short, brief, powerful message of love and redemption, hope and promise, Jones destroyed Beck. The contrast could not be stronger: Beck is a petty and vicious snake in the grass, a vile serpent, a vessel of rumor, innuendo, and evil; while Jones is a hero, maligned but resolute, rising above Beck and the filth of the right wing smear machine.

Some times, the best revenge is turning the other cheek.

Disgusting. Remind me the next time I commit a crime to make sure at least one of my co-conspirators is the son of a U.S. Attorney:

The U.S. attorney's office in New Orleans has another month to decide what, if any, charges to bring against the four men arrested at the end of January in Sen. Mary Landrieu's New Orleans office, including conservative activist James O'Keefe.

Louis Moore, the magistrate judge for the federal district court in New Orleans, agreed Wednesday to motions on behalf of the four to extend the time by which the U.S. attorney's office for the Eastern District must seek a felony indictment, press misdemeanor charges or drop the case.

Moore said the extension, which was unopposed by prosecutors, would offer the parties "additional time to conduct informal discussions and discovery and avoid or lessen additional proceedings," suggesting the possibility of a plea deal that would likely spare the four from facing felony charges.

At the time of their arrest Jan. 25, O'Keefe, 25, Joseph Basel, 24, Stan Dai, 24, and Robert Flanagan, 24, were charged with entering federal property under false pretenses for the purposes of committing a felony, a crime that carries a maximum term of 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000.

Isn't that special. How nice that the judicial system is always willing to give another chance to conservative white boys!

DOWNLOADS: (404)

PLAYS: (1076)

Embed

On Fox News Sunday, Liz Cheney thinks if the Democrats use the reconciliation process to pass the health care bill it's going to be a vote to "destroy their career" and "dangerous as an exercise in democracy". I would guess she didn't feel the same way about the Republicans using the process for Bush's tax cuts for the rich.

WALLACE: Liz, maybe I've been out of touch for the last six weeks. But I -- the way I thought that the last six weeks had played out was they had the huge victory of Scott Brown in Massachusetts. All the polls indicated that people were growing in their opposition to this bill.

The Democrats and the president were -- let's focus on job one, which is jobs and the economy. And we weren't going to go down this road. And now we're back, for the next month, because they're saying they're going to get it done between now and the end of March, for the Democrats again talking about comprehensive reform through reconciliation. What happened?

CHENEY: You know, I think it's really supreme arrogance, frankly. I mean, I think you've got a situation here where it's absolutely clear the American people don't support the bill. It's absolutely clear that they don't support ramming it through using reconciliation.

The Republicans, I agree with Juan, showed up at the summit and laid out very clearly the concerns about the cost of the bill and the substance of what's in the bill. And yet still, the White House is saying, "We're going to push this thing through."

Speaker Pelosi this morning is out there saying that -- "You know, go ahead and vote for this, even if it's going to destroy your career," which it will, because the American people do not support it. So it's fascinating as a political exercise, but it's dangerous as an exercise in democracy.

Transcript via Nexis Lexis.

The Bobblespeak Translations: Hey, David Gregory, don't be offering McCain pudding if you ain't got any.

YouAreDumb: Why we've got to regulate.

BlondeSense: The insanity of red light cameras.

Echidne of the Snakes: Don't discount the religious Left.

And for more great links, check out this month's Carnival of the Liberals at Stump Lane.

Mike has the day off. Send tips to finnsagain AT aol DOT com.

DOWNLOADS: (106)

PLAYS: (212)

Embed

I'm no expert on this but I think Politico is misreading this one. Conrad: Reconciliation can't be used for comprehensive reform:

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) threw cold water on the idea of using the reconciliation process Sunday during an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation."

"Reconciliation cannot be used to pass comprehensive health care reform," said Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. "The major package would not be done through reconciliation."

Asked by CBS host Bob Schieffer to elaborate, given that the White House suggested earlier Sunday that they could pass the main bill with a simple majority of 51 votes, Conrad said that reconciliation was not, in fact, an option.

"I am the chairman of the committee in the Senate, and I think I understand how reconciliation works and can't work," he said, arguing that the so-called Byrd Rule would prevent the use of reconciliation for the main health care bill. "The only possible role I can see for reconciliation would be to make modest changes in the major package."

Conrad said only "side car" issues could be affected through the reconciliation process.

Well, yeah. What part of what's been going on already does the staff at The Politico not understand? As Conrad tries to explain here, no, the health care bill cannot be passed with reconciliation. It already passed the Senate. The House would have to pass the Senate bill and then there can be some fixes done with reconciliation. Now whether they have the votes or not in the House with the Stupak bunch mucking up the works is another matter.

I'm no fan of Conrad but it looks to me that all he was trying to do here was beat back the Republican talking points that the health care bill is going to be as they keep calling it "jammed down the throats" of the American public with a reconciliation budget vote. Since when is getting sixty votes for something that they already passed after months of debate and hearings "jamming something through"? That's just utterly ridiculous. A lot of us including myself might not like what they passed, but they did pass the Senate bill with 60 votes. I think Conrad was just stating the obvious here. I also think The Politico is trying to twist this into something it's not but coming from that Drudge gossip rag, I'm not surprised.

Transcript via Nexis Lexis below the fold.

Continue reading »