How Limbaugh and Beck's propaganda works

I am just completing some interior renovations and about to start some exterior work and so was talking to a couple of contractors. The first told me a conspiracy theory a friend of a friend had told him from the Rush Limbaugh show, whereby the government was alleged to be requiring spy cameras in every HD TV set. I have not been able to track down what Limbaugh might have said to have triggered this claim, but the 'Chinese whispers' effect is instrumental in the workings of this type of propaganda. The speaker makes a claim that is hedged with qualifications and caveats knowing that their words will be repeated without them.

The second conspiracy theory involved a story on Glenn Beck's site about a government 'plan' to ban PVC pipe. The headline has a question mark but it is clear that the reader is intended to believe this is a real proposal.

Banning PVC pipe in home building probably isn't much of a concern to most people but it would certainly worry the people in the building trade most of whom are the blue collar males who are the target audience for Beck and Limbaugh.

The propaganda follows a pattern that will be familiar to anyone who has watched Beck's show. First there is an incredibly detailed introduction that is designed to prove to the reader that the writer is an authority on the subject by stating a long list of essentially irrelevant facts that could be found on wikipedia. Next there comes a sequence of paragraphs that juxtapose facts in a way that is essentially irrelevant to the point but intended to create an association in the reader's mind. The big lie must be preceded by an advance guard of spurious but hard to check claims designed to distract attention from the blatant misrepresentation to follow:

First off, LEED certification is not cheap. Design and construction review of a new building can cost up to $27,500. In fact, in 2009, the USGBC made over $74 million from accreditation, membership dues, and certification fees. The non-profit organization reported $53 million in net assets at the end of that year.

It $27K for LEED certification expensive or cheap? It all depends on the cost of the building and the planning considerations. $27K would be rather expensive for a single residential building and a rounding error for a developer building an office block or a 100 unit residential community.

Next comes a completely irrelevant statistic:

The extent to which the federal government subsidizes the USGBC is made clear when you realize the amount of LEED-certified building space in Washington, DC, which has more LEED-certified space on a per-capita basis than in any of the 50 states. Over 18.9 million square feet, or 31.5 square feet per resident, is LEED certified in the Washington, DC; the closest state is Colorado, with 2.7 square feet per person.

Does it really make sense to compare a city to a state? Isn't it rather likely that Manhattan, Chicago and Boston have more LEED certified office space per capita than any of the 50 states as well?

Finally, after the preamble has prepared the reader and exhausted their fact checking efforts we get to the money shot, a statement that is clearly designed to get the reader whose livelihood depends on building houses worried:

And this brings us all the way back to PVC. As first mentioned, the GSA is considering new USGBC regulations that include the ?avoidance? of the popular material.

As the proposal states: The intent is to ?decrease the concentrations of chemical contaminants that can damage air quality, human health, productivity, and the environment.? And to this end, LEED will certify whoever uses products or materials ?that do not contain intentionally added substances present in the end product.? This includes Polyvinyl chloride.

OK so assuming that the government is not intending to shut down the construction industry by banning PVC pipe, what is really going on?

What is really happening is that the LEED program has a 'pilot program' that developers can use to secure 'extra credit'. Participating a pilot is optional and many pilots list many different ways to score the credit. The pilot at issue here is Pilot Credit 54 "Avoidance of Chemicals of Concern". The criteria are hardly very exacting:

Use a minimum of 20%, by cost, of at least 3 building product and material types
meeting one of the options below

The option then lists a series of highly toxic materials; lead, mercury cadmium and so on. PVC isn't even in the list. So these are requirements that only apply to 20% of the building materials costs. A PVC building floating on a lake of mercury could qualify for the pilot credit provided at least 20% of the cost was other materials. I don't know how much my plumber spent on PVC pipe but I doubt it added up to more than a few hundred bucks. It certainly didn't amount to 80%.

PVC only appears in 'Option 2' which is an alternative option within the pilot and the wording is rather obscure:

Meet the requirements of Option 1.AND Use third party certified building products and materials that do not contain intentionally added substances present in the end product over the reporting thresholds
below. Calculate compliant building products and materials at twice the cost.

What this appears to say is that if your materials don't contain PVC or the other substances in concentrations higher than those allowed they count double. So you only need to source 10% of your components from these sources.

I can't see how a developer would have a problem meeting the requirements. My biggest building material expenses were concrete, framing lumber and plywood. The real challenge would be documenting that the requirements were met.

Remember that LEED is an optional program designed to illustrate best of breed, it is not regulation. This proposal isn't even a proposal for a LEED requirement. If the pilot requirements are unmeetable, nobody is going to meet them. If nobody meets them, the pilot proposals are unlikely to even become a LEED requirement.

This position is reinforced by a series of statements by what are cited as 'experts' but are really spokespersons for the PVC industry:

Allen Blakey, vice president of Industry and Government Affairs for the Vinyl Institute, says his organization is ?astonished to see PVC added to the USGBC?s list of chemicals to avoid,? the report adds. According to Blakey, PVC is a material that?s been studied for some time by the USGBC itself.

And finally the writer heads off into crazy loopsville:

So why is LEED trying to blacklist the material?

Well, maybe it?s important to understand a little bit more about LEED?s ?founding founder? Robert Watson, a man who infamously said ?Buildings are far and away the worst thing humans do to the environment.?

This are not the ravings of a lunatic, they are the work of a deliberate, cynical propagandist. Deconstructing the propaganda is really not hard but it does require some critical thinking skills. The type of skills that Republicans would rather not see taught in schools.

First the reader needs to be able to identify the small set of factual statements that are actually relevant. Next the reader has to fact check the key claims by examining the original sources. In this case the key source is a document that appears to be written by lawyers for lawyers but even a quick glance demonstrates that it is being misrepresented. Finally the reader has to do a bit of work with Google to find the original source for the out of context quote. This is what I found:

Lest we forget. "Buildings are far and away the worst thing humans do to the environment," Rob Watson of the Natural Resources Defense Council tells Grist magazine (November 25). "All of the buildings in the U.S. consume more than twice as much energy as all of the cars in the country." Chicago has a building that does much better--the Chicago Center for Green Technology, at 445 N. Sacramento, is the third building in the country to receive a "platinum" rating from the U.S. Green Building Council.

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Americablog/~3/59Kv9Fzzu84/how-limbaugh-and-becks-
propaganda-works.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Starbucks' CEO makes such a standup case for its
corporate governance, I may have to start spending more money in their stores

Here's a transcript of the major portion of Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz's reply -- at the Seattle-based coffee company's annual shareholders' meeting yesterday -- to the second of the two questioners in the clip who wanted to know if the company's decision to stand up for the rights of what he called "a small percentage of our employees" unwisely risks offending consumers "in other parts of the country" and "in other countries."

I think what we tried to do in responding to the issue is look at the history of the company, what we stand for, and what we believe in. And the company is not a political organization, but clearly Starbucks has become part of a culture in a number of cities and now countries.

I think the lens in which we tried to respond and answer this question, candidly, was that there's 200,000 people who work for Starbucks. Starbucks in so many ways -- the equity of the brand has been defined by the relationship we have with them, and the relationship they have with our customers. And I think the success that we've enjoyed, which is linked to shareholder value, has a great deal to do with whether or not our people are proud of the company they work for, and feel as if they are part of something larger than themselves.

And in responding to the issue, we made a decision that we believe is right for our company. We believe it's defensible. But we're not reaching that decision to in any way offend you or anyone else, and I would say candidly, since we made that decision, there has not been any dilution whatsoever in our business, and as you can see, shareholder value has increased significantly, in large part because management has made the right kind of decisions that is in the best interest of the entire company.

We have multiple constituencies. The three most important ones are our people and our customers, and we've linked shareholder value to the communities we serve and our people, and I think performance in many ways should be one of the metrics to decide whether or not this decision in any way has been dilutive, and it hasn't been. Thank you.

by Ken

For the record, the two shareholder-questioners in the clip do everything in their power to present themselves as non-sociopathic, non-frothing-rabid-dog hate-mongers, but to pose their questions as if they're merely Starbucks shareholders concerned for the financial well-being of Starbucks. Let's pick up the second questioner -- who prompts the response from CEO Howard Schultz of which I've transcribed the portion above:

What concerns me is possible economic boycotts, shareholder resolutions, things that might affect the sales of our company, the earnings, the stock value, things that affect everybody in this room, and other shareholders outside of this room. My question is this: Is it prudent to risk the economic interests of all the shareholders for something that might affect the private lives of a very small percentage of our employees?

What these two eminently respectable-looking gentlemen don't mention is that in all likelihood they're the very people who will be doffing their guise of noncraziness and leading the shrieking for boycotts and shareholder resolutions.

In case you're just coming to the story of the trolls at NOM trying to put the fear of, well, themselves into Starbucks, here's my colleague Lisa Derrick's La Figa post:

Oh Puhleeze, As If! NOM Sez ?Boycott Starbucks!? for Supporting Marriage Equality

Lisa Derrick Wednesday March 21, 2012 8:16 pm
Hot on the heels of their loss in New Hampshire, those dregs of America, the National Organization for Marriage, are steaming like frothy Santorum and calling for a nationwide boycott of Starbucks because:

Starbucks corporation issued a memorandum to all ?US Partners? declaring that same-sex marriage ?is aligned with Starbucks business practices? and ?is core to who we are and what we value as a company.?

In addition to declaring its corporate-wide position in support of gay marriage, Starbucks also used its resources to participate in a legal case seeking to overturn a federal law declaring marriage as the union of one man and one woman?.

This is why we must urge all consumers to ?dump Starbucks,? as well as Seattle?s Best Coffee and Evolution Fresh juices, which are owned by Starbucks.

"DUMP STARBUCKS," EH? REMEMBER WHEN THE RIGHT-WING
KOOKS WENT AFTER ELLEN DeGENERES? (YES, ELLEN!)

You know, when the pack of loony tunes calling itself One Million Moms, which I guess they thought sounded better than the more factual "Tiny Band of Shrieking Loonies," set out to bring down JC Penney for daring to hire Ellen as a spokesperson? I wrote about that, along with the spectacularly ill-judged descent of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure's descent into bare-knuckled hard-right politics with its assault on Planned Parenthood, in a February post I called "Scary as the right-wing propaganda masters can be, periodically they remind us that they're trapped inside their own delusional echo chamber."

I'm kind of relieved to find that the opening paragraph of that post holds up pretty well:

The Right-Wing Noise Machine has shown itself so effective at hoodwinking and hornswoggling large swaths of a gullible American populace that I have considerable respect for the shrewdness of its well-funded chief manipulators. Even so, every now and then we get striking reminders of the extent to which these people are trapped inside their own echo chamber, deluding themselves into thinking that the crackpot ravings they foment actually represent the "thinking" of anyone outside their sphere of influence.

Clearly the Susan G. Komen people, being pressed hard by its frothing right-wing base both inside and outside the organization, was unprepared for the firestorm that resulted from its announced intention to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood for joint breast-cancer screenings. The foundation wasn't helped by the muck that surfaced, concerning such matters as its history of corporately coercive fund-raising and its extremely poor percentage of pass-along of funds raised for the actual purpose of the charity. It was interesting to see just today a Washington Post article, "Komen foundation continues to see fallout from Planned Parenthood controversy," reporting considerable financial unease -- though the exodus of high-level Komen people seems to be concentrated now among those who objected to the political hatchetry. You'd think in any case that the organization could afford all kinds of belt-tightening without affecting the small amount it actually spends on fighting breast cancer, but that's probably not the way all those people feeding at the charity trough see it.

As for the Tiny Band of Shriekers' commitment to putting the fear of themselves in Ellen DeGeneres and JC Penney, really now! Going after Ellen, of all people? People love Ellen. And we have to give credit to JCPenney for not flinching. Let's recall this bit of Reuters' report at the time:

A spokeswoman for the retailer declined further comment on the issue but did say in an e-mail to Reuters, "jcpenney stands behind its partnership with Ellen DeGeneres" and added that its announcement of the agreement last week sums up the company's view of the popular TV personality.

In that statement on January 25, company president Michael Francis called DeGeneres "one of the most fun and vibrant people in entertainment today, with great warmth and a down-to-earth attitude."

GOOD FOR PENNEY'S, AND BETTER STILL FOR STARBUCKS,
BASED ON HOWARD SCHULTZ'S PERFORMANCE YESTERDAY

I got permission from my friend Bob Witeck, of Witeck Communications, one of the wisest people I know, to share some "notes" that he shared earlier today with a list of colleagues about the Starbucks corporate response. Bob deals on a regular basis with corporate America, and offers what I think is a fascinating and dead-on perspective: that not only is this the right way to run a company from a human and ethical standpoint, it's also good for business! As the Starbucks CEO keeps pointing out, the company is doing very well with its present philosophy of corporate governance.

A previous listserv poster had expressed admiration for the respectful yet unequivocal stand seen in the clip from the corporate spokesperson, without realizing who exactly the spokesperson was. Bob wrote:

The spokesperson matters especially since it is the Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz. In shareholder settings like this one, his presentation is particularly strong ? no lectern, no barrier between him and his audience, and not a hint of defensiveness in his tone.

This is the measure of a company?s influence and voice, when its leaders take a principled stand, and defend their decisions intelligently and respectfully. His statement cannot and won?t persuade critics and adversaries, but it goes a long way towards building more allies, empowering his employees, and reminding the market that the corporation stands for something.

A memorable and teachable moment for many if not all business leaders too.

I hope everything that Schultz said about the company's regard for its employees, and for its customers, is true, because what he was describing seems to me exactly the kind of relationships one would dream of seeing in a major corporation, at least one in a service business like Starbucks.

By the way, you might profitably follow one of the NOM links, which it thinks answers the question "Why dump Starbucks?" The link is to the memo referred to sent to "U.S. partners" by Kalen Holmes, Starbucks' "executive vice president, partner resources," with the subject line "A Message from Kalen Holmes: Starbucks Supports Marriage Equality." Oh, what the heck, here's the memo. It's such a forceful expression of inclusiveness and of concern for the company's people that I know I'd be thrilled to receive one like it from my company.

Dear partners,

Starbucks is proud to join other leading Northwest employers in support of Washington State legislation recognizing marriage equality for same-sex couples. Starbucks strives to create a company culture that puts our partners first, and our company has a lengthy history of leading and supporting policies that promote equality and inclusion.

This important legislation is aligned with Starbucks business practices and upholds our belief in the equal treatment of partners. It is core to who we are and what we value as a company. We are proud of our Pride Alliance Partner Network group, which is one of the largest Employer Resource Groups for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) employees in the U.S., helping to raise awareness about issues in the communities where we live and work.

For the last 20 years, our benefits program has offered domestic partner benefits in the U.S. These benefits include medical, dental, vision, prescription drugs and alternative health care coverage. All partners (part-time and full-time) in all work locations, whether in a store, a roasting plant or a corporate office, adhere to the same eligibility requirements for health coverage and have access to the same comprehensive health plans.

We are deeply dedicated to embracing diversity and treating one another with respect and dignity, and remain committed to providing an inclusive, supportive and safe work environment for all of our partners.

We look forward to seeing this legislation enacted into law.

Regards,

Kalen Holmes
Executive Vice President, Partner Resources

SO DOES THIS MEAN I HAVE TO START
SPENDING MORE $$$ AT STARBUCKS?

In her La Figa post last night, Lisa Derrick went on to say:

we need to keep standing up to the narrow-minded, uptight, bigots who seek to control our minds and our bodies by telling us who and how we should love. And that means letting your local Starbucks manager and the corporate leadership know that you appreciate their stance by crossing their corporate threshold, ordering a cuppa and thanking the Starbuck?s baristas for their company?s all-American, open-minded stance. The same goes for any company that speaks up for marriage equality.

In many communities, Starbucks is the go-to coffee spot providing WiFi, snacks, a place to socialize, read and write, and the ever-important caffeine. And seriously, does NOM actually think that its own members will give up skinny frappuccinos or double caramel lattes? Those NOM moms will be sneaking the Starby?s guiltily, making the mochas even more delicious for their sinfulness.

Make mine a double.

The sentiment seems to me beyond argument. My only problem is this: I really, really don't like Starbucks' coffee. They overroast those poor innocent beans so badly (I'm not saying that they necessarily start with crappy beans, but considering what they do to the suckers, they might as well) that it's no wonder their customers are willing to pay those big bucks to have them dump all that glop in it, just to make it drinkable -- "coffee" for people who don't like coffee, it's always seemed to me. Still, after taking in Howard Schultz's standup presentation here, and the decency of his commitment to both his "people" and his customers, I really feel that I ought to be upping my patronage. I have enjoyed such of their munchies as I've tried, but the last thing I need is to be upping my consumption of those. Still, as a matter of principle --

A WORD ABOUT THE STARBUCKS MEETING YOUTUBE CLIP

The clip was posted, incredibly enough, by the NOM loons, who don't seem to understand how badly their side is shown up. Maybe they're just incapable of recognizing someone speaking with the calm dignity that Howard Schultz maintained? This raises the possibility that some of the smarter loons may come to their senses and de-post the clip. In fact, a colleague in the U.K. reported today that no matter what he tried -- and he's been doing this for a while -- he was unable to get sound from the clip.

#

Read The Full Article:
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2011/03/starbucks-ceo-makes-such-standup-case
.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

James O'Keefe's Former Accomplice Spills Some
More on Antics

enlargeCredit: Gawker

One of the things that I've found curious about the pearl-clutching over the revelation that dramatist/monologuist Mike Daisey embellished his experiences at Foxconn is that these self-same media types have no problem breathlessly reporting the next "gotcha" journalism prank of punk James O'Keefe and other Breitbart minions, no matter how ridiculous or epic fail it might be. You'd think "fool me once..." would apply when it comes to a convicted criminal like James O'Keefe, but sadly, it hasn't.

However, there's at least one person who sees O'Keefe clearly for what he is and she's sharing what she knows. Of course, it shouldn't surprise you to hear that she's been subjected to some of the most ugly attacks on Twitter for daring to expose what a puerile, ugly and downright pathological jerk he is.

Last week, we reported that Nadia Naffe, self-described ?accomplice? to conservative activist James O?Keefe , had begun publishing a multi-part tell-all series of posts to her blog. Thursday morning, Naffe published the second part, which details her version of the events that led her to file a criminal harassment complaint against O?Keefe in November, and which includes documents related to a sexual harassment settlement between O?Keefe and ?CNN Sex Boat Caper? whistleblower Izzy Santa. O?Keefe filed suit against Naffe on Wednesday to obtain an injunction against publication of those documents, and of emails that O?Keefe claims she stole from his computer.

Since publishing the first part of her tell-all, Nadia Naffe has been the subject of relentless attacks on Twitter, and has responded defiantly, promising to publish 7 years worth of O?Keefe?s emails and documents (which she says she obtained when the conservative provocateur borrowed her Android phone and linked his Gmail account with hers), and to give a full accounting of the events that led her to file a criminal harassment complaint against him in November.

Naffe's account is really seedy, suggesting that O'Keefe may have drugged her beer, leaving her disoriented and unable to get herself back to the train station and away from O'Keefe. But that's not even the seedy part:

When you observed me lying in bed, talking on the phone with a male friend, you became noticeably upset. You picked up your penny loafers and stormed out of the room like a 10-year old boy having a tantrum. You called me on the phone moments later demanding to know why I was talking on the phone with someone else in your presence. You were furious.

Emphasis mine throughout. Nadia writes that she "turned my back to James? as he stopped in the kitchen, where my beer was sitting, on his way out the door." Then:

I tried to escape from the barn as quickly as I could. I tried to run away, but I didn't know where I was. I felt disoriented after drinking the alcohol you purchased. It was pitch black outside and there were no lights. It was freezing cold inside the barn, there was no heat inside and I couldn't see the steps leading downstairs. I called and texted you dozens of times that night, insisting that you return me to the train station or provide me with transportation out of the remote location which you brought me to. When I told you I felt sick, you didn't seem surprised. You advised me to lye down in bed and that everything would be better in the morning.

My last resort was to threaten to call the police. It was only then, did you agree to take me to the train station in New York. I had hoped this would be a smooth process, but with you James, there is no nuance>.

Not sure what sort of "nuance" is involved when threatening to call the cops, but let's return to the letter:

When you returned to the barn, you brought an older white male with you to intimidate me. You never advised me of his presence. He stood in the dark, hiding downstairs behind the staircase. I heard his footsteps and began screaming and shouting at the both of you. I thought you brought him there to assault me. But even as I screamed and yelled at you and that man, you and he persisted in trying to convince me to spend the night in the barn.

James, I am not a fool. The barn is the same place where you taped intimate moments with Emma, without her knowledge. You are looking for a reason to blame me for what happened that night, so that you can become the victim. Perhaps, you believe by denigrating my personal character and using the same sexually suggestive tactics that are currently being used against Herman Cain, that my reputation will be ruined and so that yours can be spared. But James, the only place your version of the facts has any merit is in your paranoid head.

Wait....wait...wait. Rape barns? Sex tapes? Intimidation by hidden older male friends? WTH? Isn't this guy on probation still? Shouldn't he be getting visits from the authorities?

James, this is not junior high. You need to grow up and be a man. Do not continue to make a fool of yourself by calling to offer me money, as you did on Oct. 24th. I was never with you for the money. I'm not looking for a payoff. Be a man and return my panties and scarf that were in the trunk of your car. Do not keep my undergarments as a trophy or souvenir to show off to your friends.

Seriously, this story makes me want a shower. Ew. Obviously, I have absolutely no way to no if Nadia Naffe is telling the truth or not, but it would be the height of irony if O'Keefe's own tactics have been used against him as he has done to his targets.

Read The Full Article:
http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/james-okeefes-former-accomplice-spill

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

QOTD

By @KYYellowDog

The Rude Pundit, on guns, Trayvon Martin and the NRA:

Seriously, if the ACLU were as deranged in defending the First Amendment as the NRA is in defending its distorted version of the Second, you'd be able to walk up to a crucifixion statue in the middle of St. Boyrape's Cathedral, shit on Christ's face, and claim "freedom of expression," and the laws would back you up and how dare anyone be such a pussy as to claim that shitting on Christ's face isn't free speech.

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheyGaveUsARepublic-FrontPage/~3/zdsZhXdXnBU/qotd-
by-Yellow-Dog

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Obama Administrations Tenuous Commitment to Human
Rights

The Obama Administration recently announced that it would begin an "interagency process" to implement commitments made on human rights before the UN Human Rights Council just over a year ago. Coinciding with the announcement, the American Civil Liberties[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/firedoglake/fdl/~3/fjS0eoR_Z4s/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Galveston Seawall Parking Fees Should Be For
Seawall ImprovementsJust As Voters Thought They Had Approved

When Galveston voters approved parking fees long the Seawall last year, they did so with the expectation that they were voting for Seawall enhancements. All you need to do is look at the picture above to see what I am saying. I took that picture last year during the campaign for parking fees on the [...]

Read The Full Article:
http://texasliberal.wordpress.com/2012/03/23/galveston-seawall-parking-fees-shoul
d-be-for-seawall-improvements-just-as-voters-thought-they-had-approved/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Official RNC Delegate Count and Santorum Delegate
Count

I would note that the Illinois delegates are technically unbound. While DCW is reporting the Illinois delegates in our main delegate count, you could argue that the RNC should not.

 

 

Also, check out the Santorum super-PAC delegate analysis. They basically assume every technically unbound and unpledged delegate us up for grabs. Their count:

Santorum: 193
Romney: 344
Gingrich: 160
Paul: 33
Unbound: 411

Read The Full Article:
http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com/diary/5248/official-rnc-delegate-count

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition Endorses
I-502 in Washington

The group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, an organization comprised of police officers, prosecutors, judges and other criminal justice professionals, endorsed Initiative 502 in Washington State. The initiative, if approved by voters, would legalize[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/firedoglake/fdl/~3/BGTDsXNjFw8/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Karl Rove’s Sour Grapes that Obama Got OBL

As for the killing of Osama bin Laden, Mr. Obama did what virtually any commander in chief would have done in the same situation. Even President Bill Clinton says in the film “I hope that’s the call I would have made.” For this to be portrayed as the epic achievement of the first term tells you how bare the White House cupboards are. – Wall Street Journal

Only a Republican could get away with a statement like this one.

Karl Rove obviously didn’t read The New Yorker‘s account of “Getting Bin Laden,” by Nicholas Schmidle.

Mr. Rove’s entire op-ed is a petty belch, but the real insult is Rove’s flippant assertion that the mission to kill Osama bin Laden inside Pakistan wasn’t an “epic achievement” by SEAL Team Six, as well as one hell of a gamble by Pres. Obama.

What gives Rove the nerve to be so disrespectful?

It’s that he knows Democrats won’t mount an argument and make what he wrote in his Wall Street Journal op-ed an issue.

It’s because he doesn’t know the risk or the cost of such a mission. He’s a man who never served a day or faced an armed enemy, but who did have the gall to expose a C.I.A. NOC, Valerie Plame, causing sources to be burned, all for political reasons.

Karl Rove, a creature of Lee Atwater, is someone who began our walk into scorched earth partisanship, which he shows today by making the killing of Osama bin Laden a partisan event.

For this to be portrayed as the epic achievement of the first term tells you how bare the White House cupboards are. – Karl Rove

Can you imagine the spectacle Republicans would have made about a Democrat equal to Rove’s standing saying the killing of the mastermind of 9/11 wasn’t an “epic achievement”? Limbaugh and Hannity’s heads would have exploded, with Fox News running clips of the slur all day long.

Rove also forgets that one other commander in chief didn’t exactly think bin Laden on the loose mattered.

“I just don’t spend that much time on him, to be honest with you.” – Pres. George W. Bush (see video above)

The Democrats should have taken Karl Rove to the woodshed on this one.

Pres. Obama did what George W. Bush didn’t do and couldn’t get accomplished. He did it by ordering a very risky mission inside of Pakistan that was significantly dangerous. By all accounts it was harrowing, with the booty recovered inside Osama bin Laden’s lair reportedly impressive, making it worth the risk, according to experts.

There is no hope for us unless we can all agree on certain very simple facts and the appreciation of a job well done for this country.

One of those is the order by Pres. Obama and the subsequent carrying out of the mission to kill Osama bin Laden by SEAL Team Six.

Michael Moore and others have argued bin Laden should have been tried, but that’s another subject. There should be no disagreement, disrespect or dissembling of the magnitude of what Pres. Obama ordered done.

That Karl Rove would reveal his sour grapes openly and without a hint of self-awareness on the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal is an unprecedented act of gracelessness.

Read The Full Article:
http://taylormarsh.com/blog/2012/03/karl-roves-sour-grapes-that-obama-got-obl/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Kay Bailey Hutchison Claims Republicans Don't
Want to Restrict Access to Contraception After Voting for Blunt Amendment

Click here to view this media

If you're a Republican and you would like to come on the air and repeat one talking point after another virtually unchallenged, this Thursday, Chuck Todd once again showed us he's happy to oblige you. Todd allowed Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison to get away with a series of lies right off the bat, like pretending increasing domestic oil drilling will have any major impact in lowering the price of gasline (it won't), or that Republicans have some sort of "principled" stance on energy production, unless you consider always doing the bidding of the oil companies "principled."

Todd then asked Hutchison about the Republicans "war on women" and he allows her to get away with claiming that Republicans don't want to restrict women's access to contraception after she just voted for the Blunt amendment. Heaven forbid he might have reminded her of that during the interview.

She finished up with giving a half hearted defense of Planned Parenthood, saying she disagreed with Gov. Rick Perry's decision to turn down the state's Medicaid funding. It would have been nice if she'd bothered to say something when the House Republicans were seeking to defund it last year.

Think Progress has more on Hutchison's defense of Planned Parenthood which I don't think was particularly brave given that it was mainly prodded on by Chuck Todd.

Kay Bailey Hutchison Defends Planned Parenthood, Says Organization Provides Critical Preventive Care:

During an interview on MSNBC this morning, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) voiced rare support for Planned Parenthood, noting that the organization provides much-needed preventive care to low-income women. The outgoing Texas senator also condemned a recently-enacted Texas law that prohibits Planned Parenthood from participating in the Medicaid program and providing health care services to some 130,000 women. The controversial measure has led the federal government to officially stop funding the Texas Women?s Health Program, but Gov. Rick Perry (R) insists that the state will fill the funding gap using state funds.

Hutchison criticized Perry?s decision to turn his back on the federal dollars, which she argued, provide critical care to lower-income women.

Read The Full Article:
http://crooksandliars.com/heather/kay-bailey-hutchison-claims-republicans-do

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!