TPM: So much for the Florida GOP

Honestly, is this really what you want? Is this really what the state of even non-political discourse should be?

I stand by what I said, and what Dan Savage said. There are Conservatives in this country fostering a level of discourse designed to result in the assassination of the President. When the head of the Florida GOP is encouraging parents to shield their children...from this:

The President will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning. He will also call for a shared responsibility and commitment on the part of students, parents and educators to ensure that every child in every school receives the best education possible so they can compete in the global economy for good jobs and live rewarding and productive lives as American citizens.

Yeah. Terrifying stuff, that.

So what does Katie Gordon, Press Secretary for the Florida Republican Party have to say in response?

Well, I know that a lot of the President's ideas don't reflect my values and don't reflect the values that I would be teaching my children. And to be quite honest, there are a lot of the President's ideas that I wouldn't want my children discussing in a public school. It's not appropriate, the place for that is in the home.

The Florida GOP is convinced that the President's speech is nothing more than an indoctrination program for our youth.

This is from the press release by Florida GOP Chair Jim Greer.

As the father of four children, I am absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama's socialist ideology. The idea that school children across our nation will be forced to watch the President justify his plans for government-run health care, banks, and automobile companies, increasing taxes on those who create jobs, and racking up more debt than any other President, is not only infuriating, but goes against beliefs of the majority of Americans, while bypassing American parents through an invasive abuse of power.

And...

While I support educating our children to respect both the office of the American President and the value of community service, I do not support using our children as tools to spread liberal propaganda. The address scheduled for September 8, 2009, does not allow for healthy debate on the President's agenda, but rather obligates the youngest children in our public school system to agree with our President's initiatives or be ostracized by their teachers and classmates.

If this is where we're at...

Miami Herald: They're resorting to assault...

From the Miami Herald:

A 65-year-old man rallying in favor of healthcare reform was knocked to the ground by a man who disagreed with the call for a government-run health plan outside of a Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce meeting headlined by Sen. Bill Nelson.

Luis Perrero of Coral Gables was standing among about 40 Democratic activists and union workers when a man in a Ford pick-up truck pulled up to the rally at Jungle Island and began arguing with the crowd. The man, who only gave his first name as Raul, said Perrero called him a Spanish curse word. He punched Perrero in the face. Perrero fell to the ground and lay motionless for a few minutes.

And so it begins...

People have been wondering when the President's going on the attack, re: Health Care.

Well, September 9th, the President will address a joint Session of Congress.

How's that?

Even the Wall Street Journal...

Even the Wall Street Journal, whose news reporters are top notch, while their Editorial Page writers give tea-baggers a bad name:

SEPTEMBER 2, 2009

U.S. Economy Gets Lift From Stimulus

By DEBORAH SOLOMON


Government efforts to funnel hundreds of billions of dollars into the U.S. economy appear to be helping the U.S. climb out of the worst recession in decades.

But there's little agreement about which programs are having the biggest impact. Some economists argue that efforts such as the Federal Reserve's aggressive buying of Treasury debt and mortgage-backed securities, as well as government efforts to shore up banks, are providing a bigger boost than the administration's $787 billion stimulus package.

The U.S. economy is beginning to show signs of improvement, with many economists asserting the worst is past and data pointing to stronger-than-expected growth. On Tuesday, data showed manufacturing grew in August for the first time in more than a year. "There's a method to the madness. We're getting out of this," said Brian Bethune, chief U.S. financial economist at IHS Global Insight.

Much of the stimulus spending is just beginning to trickle through the economy, with spending expected to peak sometime later this year or in early 2010. The government has funneled about $60 billion of the $288 billion in promised tax cuts to U.S. households, while about $84 billion of the $499 billion in spending has been paid. About $200 billion has been promised to certain projects, such as infrastructure and energy projects.

Economists say the money out the door -- combined with the expectation of additional funds flowing soon -- is fueling growth above where it would have been without any government action.

Many forecasters say stimulus spending is adding two to three percentage points to economic growth in the second and third quarters, when measured at an annual rate. The impact in the second quarter, calculated by analyzing how the extra funds flowing into the economy boost consumption, investment and spending, helped slow the rate of decline and will lay the groundwork for positive growth in the third quarter -- something that seemed almost implausible just a few months ago. Some economists say the 1% contraction in the second quarter would have been far worse, possibly as much as 3.2%, if not for the stimulus.

Right wingers...do you stand behind this??

Below, you'll find a compilation audio, courtesy of Crooks and Liars, of Pastor Steven Anderson rambling on about a variety of subjects, but the key for this website is the part where he directly advocates and prays for the death of Barack Obama.

Yeah, God appointed him to destroy this country for the wickedness of the United States of America. God appointed him because that's what our country has turned into. That's who we deserve as a president.

But let me tell you something: I don't love Barack Obama. I don't respect Barack Obama. I don't obey Barack Obama. And I'd like Barack Obama to melt like a snail tonight. Because he needs to recompense, he needs to reap what he's sown.

You see, any Christian will tell you that someone who commits murder should get the death penalty. Because that's what it says in Genesis Chapter 9, that's what it says in the Mosaic Law, that's what it teaches us throughout the Bible. 'Who so sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed.' 'From the image of God created he Man.'

And when Barack Obama is gonna push his partial birth abortion, his salty saline solution abortion, hey, he deserves to be punished for what he's done. I'm not going to pray for God to bless Barack Obama. This is my prayer tonight to Barack Obama.

...Now, look, if somebody wants me, it somebody twisted my arm and tells me to pray for Barack Obama, this is what I'm going to pray, because this is the only prayer that applies to him: 'Break his teeth, O God, in his mouth. You know, as a snail which melteth, let him pass away. Like the untimely birth of a woman, that he thinks -- he calls it a woman's right to choose, you know, he thinks it's so wonderful. He ought to be aborted. It ought to be, 'Abort Obama.'

He continues:

Let me tell you something: Barack Obama has wrought lewdness in America. America has become lewd. What does lewd mean? L-E-W-D? [Pause] Obscene. Right? Dirty. Filthy. Homosexuality. Promiscuity. All of the -- everything that's on the billboard, the TV. Sensuality. Lewdness! We don't even know what lewdness means anymore! We're just surrounded by it, inundated with it!

... And yet you're going to tell me that I'm supposed to pray for the socialist devil, murderer, infanticide, who wants to see young children and he wants to see babies killed through abortion and partial-birth abortion and all these different things -- you're gonna tell me I'm supposed to pray for God to give him a good lunch tomorrow while he's in Phoenix, Arizona.

Nope. I'm not gonna pray for his good. I'm going to pray that he dies and goes to hell. When I go to bed tonight, that's what I'm going to pray. And you say, 'Are you just saying that?' No. When I go to bed tonight, Steven L. Anderson is going to pray for Barack Obama to die and go to hell.

You say, 'Why would you do that?' That our country could be saved.

It's a fair question to ask at this point, if you are of a Conservative Persuasion, if you are a Republican, if you just don't like the President, do you stand behind this kind of rhetoric??

Okay fine. Odds are, you don't. Then why are you silent??

Going back eight years, I'll admit, I loathed President Bush. I hated his freakin' guts...but at no time did I pray or advocate for his death, or any sort of harm to come to his family.

Never.

I wanted to kick his ass at the ballot box.

I put up what stories I can find showing Republicans standing up this kind of stuff because frankly, I want to encourage more of it. But I got to tell you, it's kinda rare. It's disturbingly rare.

It's time to start calling this for what it is. It's time to face to facts. There are a number of Religious leaders, a number of Politicians, and certainly a number of Television Hosts (Glenn Beck comes immediately to mind), that are frankly trying to get the President killed.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I'd like to thank Dan Savage, who appeared on last night's Countdown with Keith Olbermann and became the first white person I know of to say this publicly, on national TV. He says so at the 7:13 mark.

Dan is good people, and really fine journalist. He's was also the first journalist (much less, a Gay American) to come out an say that African-Americans were not to blame for the passage of California Prop. 8.

The Root: Obama's Right Mistake...

Finally, a breath of fresh air, courtesy of Dr. Lawrence Bobo at The Root.com.

Obama's Right Mistake
If everybody is mad at the president he must be doing all the right wrong things.

By: Lawrence Bobo
Posted: September 2, 2009 at 6:56 AM


President Barack Obama is being pilloried from all sides. The far left doesn’t understand why corporate America and Wall Street bankers have not yet been rendered penniless by the government. What remains of the so-called Clinton left can’t understand why anyone would have a civil conversation with a Republican. The independents and a dwindling number of thinking Republicans hear the continuous roar of criticism and are beginning to assume that, heck, there sure is a lot of smoke; therefore, there must be a fire. And the far right, of course, is locked in a blood-chilling howl of undying outrage at the fact that the president of the United States is not just a Democrat, but he’s an African American, too.

Through it all, Obama has persisted in the effort to be reasoned, to be bipartisan, and to do the work of the American people in a manner worthy of respect. If commentators like David Brooks are to be believed, Obama’s mistake is tilting too far to the left and losing the middle. If commentators like Paul Krugman are to be believed, Obama’s mistake is trying to do business with Republicans in the first place, and thus poorly serving his broad core constituency.

I don’t think either position is quite right. If Obama has made a mistake it has been, to borrow the title of writer Walter Mosley’s recent book, “the right mistake.” In general, Obama’s first months sought to fashion public policies the value of which all the American people can see and understand. Specifically with regard to the recent massive health care reform effort, he tried to keep Republicans in the tent to fashion a plan that Americans across the political spectrum can embrace. If this effort is failing, it is not because it was misguided or improper to make the attempt.

The deeper charge is that political naiveté and weakness are the real dilemmas now confronting Obama’s health care reform effort. Without attempting to parse every aspect of the evolving legislation, let me say that the real problem here is much simpler. It involves a noxious combination of a failed media, political extremists on the right and a seemingly natural inclination for vicious internal fighting on the left. The end result is stagnation at a moment when we as a nation can least afford it.

Of the three problems, the failures of the media irk me the most. Journalists do have an obligation to report “the news.” They must also strive to do so in a manner that is as free as possible of bias. This stricture, however, does not relieve the media of an equal obligation to show good judgment. The absurd and alarmist claims made by critics of the Obama health care reform plans were too long treated as serious charges. Moreover, the readiness to transmit to the world the image of Obama with Hitler’s mustache and to seriously treat claims that he is a “socialist,” or now, according to the bigot Rush Limbaugh, a “fascist,” border on the criminally reckless.

More important for me, Obama is the quintessential cosmopolite. He is the community organizer; the small ‘d’ democrat, the natural born bridge-builder, the true avatar of tolerance, civility and affirmation of common humanity. That American news media have played a largely passive role as extremists depict him as a Hitlerian proto-fascist is a shame that will not soon be undone. A truly pathetic performance all around by our major media outlets.

This brings me to the right-wing extremists. These people lost a free and fair election. Obama is right to sense that their hold on American politics will continue to diminish. Part of the “right mistake” here is for Obama to continue to hold out the hope and possibility of bipartisanship in order to reveal just how irrational, counterproductive, extreme and arguably dangerous many of the forces now driving the Republican Party have become. The moment reminds me less of the Clinton era’s failed health care reform effort and more of Newt Gingrich’s undoing as he sought to shut down the federal government. Clinton wisely let Gingrich’s destructive strategy play out. And it did so, thankfully, to Gingrich’s eventual undoing.

We all just spent several days extolling the career and accomplishments of the late Massachusetts senator, Ted Kennedy. He was the keeper of the liberal flame in American politics and yet managed regularly to work with Republicans on legislation that advanced his political commitments. There is much concern that the coming battle for successful health care reform will be much harder without his presence and the type of leadership he long provided.

And yet we don’t hear from the left that Kennedy failed his principles or core constituencies by having been such an effective bipartisan legislator. It puzzles and disappoints me that Obama faces such charges for attempting the same thing.

To be sure, the president has taken some unsure steps and committed some real errors in the handling of this issue. I share the view from some critics that Obama must now step out more strongly and clearly (and one hopes persuasively) with his message on health care reform. The moment for letting others carry the message is behind us. The president must take ownership of this issue and of the direction in which he wants this discussion to head.

As for Obama’s critics on the left, it may well be the case that the Republican Party is so thoroughly in the grip of extremists that “deal making” is impossible. I’m not convinced we’re quite at that point yet. For now, those on the left would do well to recognize the need to support Obama in this moment and in this particular fight rather than add to the embarrassing cacophony of self-indulgent critics.

Indeed, let me go a step farther and offer the modest proposal that those on the left recognize Obama as their best and finest hope, the keeper of the flame in our time, as Ted Kennedy did with his endorsement during the 2008 campaign. The effort at bipartisanship on health care reform may be nearing its end. But the fealty Obama has shown to creating such an ideological- and political party-spanning reach for a major policy change is in every respect the right mistake.


Lawrence Bobo is the W.E.B. Du Bois Professor of the Social Sciences at Harvard University.

WaPo: Noam Schreiber on Obama trying to be moderate and de-centralized...and how it doesn't matter

Courtesy Erza Klein (is it becoming obvious I read in clumps?), who posts a little ditty from Noam Schreiber (Editor of the New Republic).

David Brooks (on the "Obama Slide") apparently was wondering why Obama doesn't try to find a less "centralized" approach to his proposals.

Noam responded:

Do Obama's policies — both enacted and proposed — centralize power in Washington? Of course. No one who's fired up a television or Internet connection these last eight months could disagree. But the question is: relative to what? In almost every case I can think of, the administration has opted for a less-centralized approach to pursuing its goals than some obvious alternatives. Solving the bank crisis? Obama endorsed a convoluted asset-purchase plan rather than nationalization. Health care? True, the White House supports an exchange to cover people who don't get health care through their employers, and it prefers to see a public insurance option. But it wants to keep the employer-based system intact and shuns a single-payer plan, much less anything resembling a British-style government-run system. The environment? Obama supports cap-and-trade, which allows companies to distribute the burden of limiting carbon emissions amongst themselves according to which ones can do it most efficiently. The centralized alternative would have been a one-size-fits-all mandate from Washington.

All of these things do increase the role of government in the economy. But once you concede that the problems need to be addressed, there isn't much of an alternative. And Obama's approaches are pretty scrupulous about not increasing that role more than necessary, which seems to be the whole conceit. Sure, you could do these things in marginally less centralized ways. But, as Brooks concedes, that probably won't matter PR-wise, since, "Voters often have only a fuzzy sense of what each individual proposal actually does." So the idea that there's some less-centralized way of achieving Obama's goals that would be much more popular politically — which Brooks suggests — seems pretty unlikely to me.

Top ten reasons to support Health Insurance Reform...

I got this from Erza Klein's site on the Washington Post. The organization that cooked it up is called Families USA, a (surprise surprise) pro Health Insurance Reform Organization. They're responsbile for the following ad, which I've seen here and there on California Basic Cable, and elsewhere:



One of the reasons I put this up, instead of just linking to it, is that it's a PDF.

Mr. Klein notes that the Public Option, isn't number one this list. (It's way down there at number five).

1) A major expansion of Medicaid coverage—fully federally funded—for millions of low-income working families who currently fall through the cracks.

2) A regulated marketplace that clamps down on insurance company abuses so people can no longer be denied coverage.

3) Requirements that insurance companies spend more of the premium dollars they collect on patient care.

4) Sliding-scale subsidies so middle-class, working families can afford the coverage they need to keep their families healthy.

5) A strong public plan option that will provide choice, stability, and an honest yardstick to keep costs down.

6) Limits on out-of-pocket spending, giving Americans real health security and peace of mind.

7) Much-needed relief for small businesses so they can afford to offer coverage to their employees.

8) Improvements to Medicare that will help seniors and people with disabilities afford their drugs and their cost-sharing.

9) Better access to coverage for uninsured children so they can get the care they need

10) Long overdue steps to modernize the system, improve the quality of care provided, and curb unnecessary spending so our American health care system delivers the best possible care.

HuffPo: Actual sanity...from the right??

Yeah, I couldn't believe it either. But there it is.

Still...from a guy named Jon Henke, working at a site called The Next Right:

In the 1960's, William F. Buckley denounced the John Birch Society leadership for being "so far removed from common sense" and later said "We cannot allow the emblem of irresponsibility to attach to the conservative banner."

The Birthers are the Birchers of our time, and WorldNetDaily is their pamphlet. The Right has mostly ignored these embarrassing people and organizations, but some people and organizations inexplicably choose to support WND through advertising and email list rental or other collaboration. For instance, I have been told that F.I.R.E (The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) - an otherwise respectable group that does important work - uses the WND email list. They should stop.

HuffPo: Maria Bartiromo is a stone cold idiot.

Oh...my...God. Not only is she morally bankrupt, she's an idiot as well.

Earlier today, MSNBC's Carlos Watson hosted Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and CNBC anchor Maria Bartiromo for a discussion on health care.

At one point, Bartiromo was critical of the government-managed health care system in the United Kingdom. "How do I know the quality [of health care in the United States] is not going to suffer" with a public option? she asked.

Rep. Weiner reminded her that there already is government-managed health care in the United States -- namely, Medicare, the system created for Americans 65 years and older -- and that patients with Medicare report very high satisfaction rates.

Bartiromo's response to this argument was a true head-scratcher. In a mocking tone, she pressed the congressman: "How come you don't use it [Medicare]? You don't have it. How come you don't have it?"

Rep. Weiner, who turns 45 this week, tried to walk Bartiromo through it. "Because I'm not 65." But she was insistent. "Yeah... c'mon!" she exclaimed, laughing incredulously.

Huffington Post, of course, has the Video, which has to be seen to be believed.

They let her on the Air? Seriously?

Hell, they let her use kitchen utensils??

UPDATE: 2:57pm Pacific. Here's the video from Think Progress

TPM: The Perils of Reconcilliation...

Oy.

As Senate leaders begin work on a Democrat-only health care bill, they're finding themselves confronted with an unexpected irony: Though the caucus has reached an uneasy consensus around a public option that's modeled in many ways after a private insurer, it may be necessary to make the public option more liberal, and thus, more politically radioactive, if it's to overcome a number of unique procedural hurdles.

This is the needle Democrats may have to thread if they want a public option, and at the same time, want to bypass a Republican filibuster. And the key for them will be keeping conservative Democrats on board.

"A very robust public option that scores significant savings would presumably be easy to justify doing through reconciliation," says a Senate Democratic aide. "But it is still being studied whether other, more moderate versions of a public option could pass parliamentary muster."

According to Martin Paone, a legislative expert who's helping Democrats map out legislative strategy, a more robust public option--one that sets low prices, and provides cheap, subsidized insurance to low- and middle-class consumers--would have an easier time surviving the procedural demands of the so-called reconciliation process. However, he cautions that the cost of subsidies "will have to be offset and if [the health care plan] loses money beyond 2014...it will have to be sunsetted."

And there the irony continues: Some experts, including on Capitol Hill, believe that a more robust public option will generate crucial savings needed to keep health care reform in the black--and thus prevent it from expiring. But though that may solve the procedural problems, conservative Democrats have balked at the idea creating such a momentous government program, and if they defected in great numbers, they could imperil the entire reform package

It's a very technical conundrum with huge policy ramifications. So it's not surprising that Republicans are on to it, and preparing for war.

The story continues at Talking Points Memo.

Glenn Greenwald's defense of himself...

This is Glenn Greenwald's defense of yesterday's actions.

I'm sorry, but I'm not buying. Legally, he may be correct, but ethically??

However reprehensible Joe Klein's thoughts and statements were and are (they're certainly not polite), he still has a right to them. He still has a right to keep them private, if he so chooses. He still has a right to even a basic understanding of privacy. Is Glenn Greenwald really going to act as sole artiber, sole judge and jury to determine what should and shouldn't be held private? Apparently he is.

And in the end, no matter what Greenwald says Joe Klein wasn't discussing or setting Policy, which we as a collective group of citizenry have a right to know. One Journalists personal opinions about another? Is there really a "public interest" in knowing this? Especially when the Journalist being insulted is the apparently has sole determination of what the "public interest" apparently is?

This is no different that me and a bunch of friends getting together, and Glenn Greenwald or someone else reaching into the middle of that conversation with a tape recorder (secretly) and collecting our private thoughts and insights, then publishing them because he thought they were in the public interest. Sorry, this is the act of a scumbag. This is why I don't trust Greenwald, I don't trust his acolytes online, and look with building suspicion with those who solicit his opinions. I'm talking about you, Bill Moyers.

Klein's complaint that "twice in the past month, [his] private communications have been splashed about the internet" is revealing. The first incident was when he went to a beach party, spat a slew of insults (I'm not only a "civil liberties absolutist" but also "evil") in front of a group of people, all while speaking with an individual he didn't know but who happened to be a prolific and excellent blog commenter, sometimes blogger and I.F. Stone's granddaughter. She then wrote about what he said in a very widely-linked post. That's who Klein, in yesterday's post, bizarrely called a "rather pathetic woman acolyte of Greenwald's."

The second incident happened yesterday. Klein belongs to "Journolist," a secret online club where several hundred liberal journalists, pundits, bloggers, editors, policy experts and the like gather to discuss various matters, all organized by The Washington Post's Ezra Klein. It includes some of the most influential people in the profession. I'm not a member and never have been. Yesterday morning, one of the participants (whose identity I don't know) emailed me to advise me that Joe Klein was sending out extremely insulting and derogatory emails to the entire group about me, and forwarded that email discussion to me, telling me he thought it was wrong that I was being repeatedly attacked by Klein in front of hundreds of people -- including many people who are my colleagues and peers -- without my knowledge and without being able to defend myself. He told me I could do whatever I thought was best with what he sent. I then posted some of those emails on a site I use to post documents, and briefly mentioned it on Twitter. That -- a political rant in front of strangers on a beach and an insult fest sent to hundreds of journalists -- are the ostensibly "private communications" to which Klein is referring.

I don't think there's anything wrong at all with journalists emailing one other to discuss various political issues as they do on Journolist. Journalists, like everyone else, are entitled to have private conversations, and privacy can facilitate more candid discussions. But when hundreds of highly influential opinion-makers gather to talk about politics, that is a matter of public interest. If participants in that discussion agree to keep the discussions confidential, they should abide by that. But the rest of the world isn't bound to honor that secrecy. That's what journalism and leaks are about: disclosing and publishing other people's secrets that are a matter of public interest. That's what journalists do all the time, or at least should do: inform the public what powerful people are saying and doing in "private." Unless you're Tim Russert, you don't need "permission" or "authorization" to publish what you learn. Beyond that, the very idea that someone has the right to attack and insult someone who isn't present in front of hundreds of people -- and then demand that the entire world, including the target of the attacks, honor that discussion as secret and private, that the target has no right to publicize it or respond -- is ludicrous beyond words.

"It is liberating, however, to finally shed the dead weight of Grassley's know-nothingism and cowardice." (VIDEO)

From Joe Klein:

Looks like the charade of including Chuck Grassley and Mike Enzi in the health care negotiations is over. It is not impossible that other Republicans who are not Senators from Maine can be located to support health care reform. But it's also entirely possible that the Republicans will continue their kamikaze ways and oppose a reform that is likely to prove very popular with the American public when it's enacted (which is why, in truth, the GOP nihilists oppose it).

There are still some real problems the legislation is facing, especially if the rougher edges of the House bill--insufficient attention to cost controls, the public option--aren't sanded down. More than a few Democratic Senators and Representatives are going to have to summon a bit of courage to vote for any form of health reform, especially those from moderate to conservative states (like Arkansas where 55% prefer Rush Limbaugh's vision of America to Barack Obama's, according to a recent poll). But it should be possible to find a more plausible funding source now, like the President's wise proposal that tax deductions for the wealthy be limited to the same rate as paid by the middle class. My guess is that the final bill will enable the Democratic caucus to be fairly united on this, and that a few Republicans will join in--and that we will have health care reform this year. It is liberating, however, to finally shed the dead weight of Grassley's know-nothingism and cowardice.

From the White House, today:



Erza Klein of the Washington Post:

The question of whether Grassley wants to compromise on health care is increasingly being overtaken by the reality that Grassley is not leaving himself political room to compromise on health care. He is creating a campaign premised on his role in stopping Obama's health-care reform effort. It is not clear how he could pivot to save it, even if he wanted to do so. And given the unique role Grassley occupies as the senior partner in Max Baucus's bipartisan process, the bare-knuckled partisanship of Grassley's letter does not suggest that his political team is readying itself to sell a compromise.

For once, insanity that's not coming from Texas...

Courtesy of the University of Toledo:

UT College Republicans are compiling a list of liberal professors who they claimed have a bias against conservative students.

The list will include professors who students say have let their political views interfere with the way they interact with students in the classroom.

UT College Republicans President Matt Rubin, a junior majoring in political science and public administration, said the list is not an attempt to bash professors who have liberal ideas, but instead, it is an attempt to speak out for students who may have been victims of the bias, which was then reflected in their grade.

Time: Joe Klein vs. Glenn Greenwald.

Listen, I acknowledge that I'm a bit of an anomaly, I'm a Liberal who can't stand Glenn Greenwald. Sorry. I think he's an impratical a-hole, an armchair leftist, if you will.

Well imagine my surprise when I see this blogposting from the Kos at his midday open thread. I'll summarize, while quoting it exactly:

Joe Klein, Asshole.

Ooookay, I says to myself. What'd Joe do now?

I click on the link (where it says asshole), and prepared to open up whatever Time Magazine column to see what the deal is.

Only I'm not opening up Time Magazine's webpage, I'm opening up something called UT Documents. (And I have no idea what UT stands for.)

Now, clearly UT Documents a blogger.com site (it's even using the same template as good ol' Fort McHenry here). I think it's run by Glenn Greenwald. I say that because is his name and bio is up top.

And what follows that is a running email exchange between Joe Klein and Glenn Greenwald.

Okay.

Now, Glenn holds himself to the highest Journalistic standards. Well, acutally, he spends a lot of time demanding others hold to these high Journalistic standards. So my first question is, did he let Joe Klein know he was going to publish this email exchange?

A disclosure of this nature isn't subject to flexible journalistic standards, which Glenn is apparently now displaying. Either he told Joe or he didn't. If he didn't, not cool. Not cool at all.

I just checked Salon.com, and Glenn's last posting was August 30th, 2009. Yesterday. And as I've posted before...that posting about D.C. Nepotism was bang on target.

So, as I said...not cool at all.

Joe Klein (not surprisingly) concurs:

Twice in the past month, my private communications have been splashed about the internet. That such a thing would happen is unfortunate, and dishonorable, but sadly inevitable, I suppose. I ignored the first case, in which a rather pathetic woman acolyte of Greenwald's published a hyperbolic account of a conversation I had with her at a beach picnic on Cape Cod. Now, Greenwald himself has published private emails of mine that were part of a conversation taking place on a list-serve. In one of those emails, I say that Greenwald "cares not a whit for America's national security."

Oh my God, Glenn. You've put me in the position of having to defend über-insider Joe Klein. Think about that.

For the past several years, Greenwald has conducted a persistent, malicious campaign to distort who I am and where I stand. He is a mean-spirited, graceless bully. During that time, I have never seen him write a positive sentence about the US military, which has transformed itself dramatically for the better since Rumsfeld's departure (indeed, he ridiculed me when I reported that the situation in Anbar Province was turning around in 2007). I have never seen him acknowledge that the work of the clandestine service—performed disgracefully by the CIA during the early Bush years—is an absolute necessity in a world where terrorists have the capability to attack us at any time, in almost any place. Nor have I seen [him] acknowledge that such a threat exists, nor make a single positive suggestion about how to confront that threat in ways that might conform to his views. Therefore, I have seen no evidence that he cares one whit about the national security of the United States. It is not hyperbole, it is a fact.

In the end Joe does summarize his feelings about Glenn Greenwald. Oddly, they reflect my own (for the most part):

I am not a religious reader of Greenwald--he does go on, and on--and it's possible that I missed extensive posts in which he praises the Armed Forces or makes positive suggestions about how to track possible communications between terrorists abroad and their confederates here. But I sort of doubt that. What I have seen from him, ad nauseum, are intemperate attacks in which he questions the character of--no, it's worse than that: he slimes--anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him.

I agree with Greenwald on some things, and appreciate his insights on others. But he is a thoroughly dishonorable person--as he proved by releasing my private emails--and, when it comes to his oft-trumpeted belief in the right to privacy, a stone hypocrite as well.

I'm sorry if this offends people who are fans of Glenn Greenwald. But my problem isn't really what he complains about...it's how he complains. It's how he draws lines in the sand, its how...as Joe put it...he attacks anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him. He doesn't try to probe, understand, negotiate or...reason; all does is attack. This is a pattern with him.

And in this case, like Joe said, he seems to have added hypocrisy to the list.

Nate Silver: And since we're on the subject...

Nate from the same article as before:

The thing is, though, that Obama's approval rating haven fallen to 50 percent is not particularly newsworthy. There's no reason that a drop from 51 percent to 50 percent, or from 50 percent to 49 percent, means anything particularly more than a drop from 58 percent to 57 percent, or from 37 percent to 36 percent.

First of all, although I'm on record as being quite pessimistic about what's liable to happen to the Democrats in 2010, odds are that Obama's approval will have to be somewhat worse than 50 percent for the Democrats to lose the House. The relationship between Presidential approval and his party's fate at the midterm elections is quite linear. An approval rating of 50 percent would typically be associated with a loss of about 26 seats:

The Democrats, however, currently have a 78-seat advantage in the House, meaning that it would take a 39-seat loss for them to lose control of the chamber. The over-under for how unpopular Obama would have to be in order to be more likely than not to cost his party those seats is not 50 percent -- it's probably more like 42 percent. Now, certainly, there's some margin for uncertainty there: Dwight Eisenhower's Republicans, in '58, lost nearly 50 seats even though his approval was in the high 50's. But the point is, there's nothing particularly magical about Obama being above or below 50.

Likewise, Obama can probably afford an approval rating below 50 percent and still be a favorite to win re-election in 2012. George W. Bush won in 2004 with an approval rating of 48 percent, and Harry Truman won in what was considered a huge upset in 1948 with an approval number that had last been tested at 39 percent, although that poll was several months old at the time of the election.

Nate Silver: Fox Hell...

Nate Silver on his experience with Fox and Friends this morning:

As for that interview, incidentally, it was one of the more aggravating experiences that I've had in my brief "career" in politics. The host misread his teleprompter (that's the generous interpretation), introducing me as someone who had correctly predicted "29 out of 50" states last November, and then recited a series of pre-spun questions, seeming flummoxed afterward that I hadn't agreed verbatim with his talking points and complaining aloud that the very smart conservative who was supposed to have been on the panel with me (a last-minute cancellation) hadn't been there (to "balance" me, I suppose). Then as I was leaving the studio past a huge trailer serving Johnsonville Brats, they launched into a segment about Britney Spears and Alzhemier's. There was just no pretense of trying to do anything even vaguely resembling the news. I'm not reflexively anti-FOX; in fact, I'd had a couple of good experiences last year on Shepherd Smith and on their business channel. But as for their morning program: Wow. I've never met people more terrified of what might happen if they actually tried to engage in a rational discussion.

Salon: D.C. Nepotism

I'm not a Glenn Greenwald fan, but this was funny.

They should convene a panel for the next Meet the Press with Jenna Bush Hager, Luke Russert, Liz Cheney, Megan McCain and Jonah Goldberg, and they should have Chris Wallace moderate it. They can all bash affirmative action and talk about how vitally important it is that the U.S. remain a Great Meritocracy because it's really unfair for anything other than merit to determine position and employment. They can interview Lisa Murkowski, Evan Bayh, Jeb Bush, Bob Casey, Mark Pryor, Jay Rockefeller, Dan Lipinksi, and Harold Ford, Jr. about personal responsibility and the virtues of self-sufficiency. Bill Kristol, Tucker Carlson and John Podhoretz can provide moving commentary on how America is so special because all that matters is merit, not who you know or where you come from.

Media Matters: Excuse me?!?!?

Racist Glenn Beck, today:

They think they -- and they -- they -- you know what? At this point, gang, I'm not sure, they may be able to because they are so far ahead of us. They know what they're dealing against; most of America does not yet. Most of America doesn't have a clue as to what's going on. There is a coup going on. There is a stealing of America, and the way it is done, it has been done through the -- the guise of an election, but they lied to us the entire time.

Let's be honest. Rather than let a black man be elected President, we are being subjected to rhetoric like this.

Tenthers...

New term...Tenthers.

We've had Birthers (those who don't believe the President was born in the United States, or worse yet, those who don't believe Hawaii is a state). We've had Deathers (those who believe in the so-called Death Panels, i.e. Sarah Palin). And now we have...Tenthers.

What are Tenthers, exactly?

If you believe that the Tenth Amendment forbids ALL spending programs and ALL regulations on the part of the Federal Government, then you sir and/or ma'am...are a Tenther.

Indeed, while "birther" conspiracy theorists dominate the airwaves with tales of a mystical Kenyan baby smuggled into Hawaii just days after his birth, these "tenther" constitutionalists offer a theory that is no less radical but infinitely more dangerous.

Tentherism, in a nutshell, proclaims that New Deal-era reformers led an unlawful coup against the "True Constitution," exploiting Depression-born desperation to expand the federal government's powers beyond recognition. Under the tenther constitution, Barack Obama's health-care reform is forbidden, as is Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. The federal minimum wage is a crime against state sovereignty; the federal ban on workplace discrimination and whites-only lunch counters is an unlawful encroachment on local businesses.

Tenthers divine all this from the brief language of the 10th Amendment, which provides that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In layman's terms, this simply means that the Constitution contains an itemized list of federal powers -- such as the power to regulate interstate commerce or establish post offices or make war on foreign nations -- and anything not contained in that list is beyond Congress' authority.

The tenther constitution, however, reads each of these powers very narrowly -- too narrowly, it turns out, to permit much of the progress of the last century. As the nation emerges from the worst economic downturn in three generations, the tenthers would strip away the very reforms and economic regulations that beat back the Great Depression, and they would hamstring any attempt to enact new progressive legislation.

TPM: Oh, Secret Service...

Chris Broughton, the Chris B. from previous stories, the African-American right wing Terrorist who brought an AR-15 rifle and a handgun to an Arizona Obama rally earlier this month, says he "concurs" with his fundamentalist pastor's prayer for President Obama "to die and go to hell."

Just as a tip to the Secret Service, there's more work for you to do.

HuffPo: Jawdropper of an Ad (VIDEO)

Republican goes after a Republican in support of the Public Option:

In going after one of the key Republican negotiators in the Senate their goal is twofold: To exert a political price for opposing President Obama's agenda and to persuade Democrats that Grassley is not negotiating in good faith.

To deliver the message, PCCC and DFA have an ideal narrator. Kevin Shilling of Greenfield, Iowa, starts the ad by noting that he "voted for Reagan, Nixon, George W. Bush and Senator Chuck Grassley too."

"I served my country for over 24 years in the army," he says. "I've talked to friends and neighbors around Iowa and one thing is clear. No matter what the politicians in Washington D.C. say, Democrats and Republicans back home want the public insurance option."

"I voted for Senator Grassley in the past," Shilling adds. "But when Grassley takes over $2 million from the big health and insurance industries that oppose reform and then says he won't give Iowans the choice of a public option, I have to ask: Senator, whose side are you on?"

Not too far from where I am (VIDEO)

Time Lapse Test: Station Fire from Eric Spiegelman on Vimeo.

The Funeral ... Part 3: President Barack Obama (VIDEO)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Ted Kennedy was the father who looked after not only his own three children, but John's and Bobby's as well. He took them camping and taught them to sail. He laughed and danced with them at birthdays and weddings; cried and mourned with them through hardship and tragedy; and passed on that same sense of service and selflessness that his parents had instilled in him. Shortly after Ted walked Caroline down the aisle and gave her away at the altar, he received a note from Jackie that read, "On you the carefree youngest brother fell a burden a hero would have begged to be spared. We are all going to make it because you were always there with your love."

The Funeral ... Part 2: Patrick Kennedy (VIDEO)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The Funeral ... Part 1: Edward M. Kennedy Jr. (VIDEO)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The Fireside chat for August 29, 2009

ThinkProgress: Thumbs up to the...Idaho GOP??

I can't believe it myself, yet:

Despite coming under widespread criticism for his “joke” about hunting President Obama, Idaho Republican gubernatorial candidate Rex Rammell wrote a tweet this morning doubling down on his own tasteless humor:

• Obama hunting tags was just a joke! Everyone knows Idaho has no jurisdiction to issue tags in Washington D.C.

Rammell is facing fire from allies in his own state. Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID) issued this statement:

• Rex Rammell’s comments are in very poor taste and should not have been said. … Remarks like these should not even be made jokingly. We are engaged in a critical national debate over many major issues facing our country today. Remarks like these are not only unhelpful in that debate, but they undermine it. He should apologize for those remarks and for the perception they may have created.

Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID) added, “It is absolutely irresponsible to say such inflammatory things, especially for someone who seeks to be a leader in Idaho.” Even the Idaho Republican Party said it “does not condone Rex Rammell’s comments, whether in jest or not.” Nevertheless, Rammell refuses to apologize.

TPM/CNN: Knock...Knock... (VIDEO)

Ahem:

CNN has picked up our story from yesterday on Steven Anderson, the Arizona pastor who prayed for Barack Obama's death the day before one of his parishioners, who attended the sermon, brought an AR-15 rifle to an Obama event.

And they've advanced the story a bit: CNN analyst Mike Brooks reports that the Secret Service has interviewed Anderson, who told TPMmuckraker yesterday: "To be honest with you, I have prayed for Obama to die. I'm not the only one, I'm just the only one with the spine to say it."

Not only did the Bank bailout work...

...but we're making money from it. Worst case scenario...we break even.

It's entirely possible that Barack Obama's political downfall has nothing to do with Health Insurance Reform, Afghanistan, Iraq, or the Bailouts, or the Economy, but our collective inability to understand what he did and how helped fix it.

Yes, we may be too stoopid to understand how the Obama Administration saved the country.

Slate and Newsweek's Daniel Gross:

The initial effort that Paulson began, and that his successors in the Obama administration continued, had the characteristics of an investment fund. Under the Capital Purchase Program, the government would borrow from the public at low rates—1 percent or so per year—and lend the money to banks at 5 percent, through the purchase of preferred shares. As investors in troubled companies do, the government demanded something extra: warrants, which are the right to buy a stock at a set price. It's kind of like lending money to someone to buy a house but getting ownership of the basement as part of the deal.

While there are still perils and pitfalls to come (for example, the strongest Banks are of course returning their money first, while the weaker ones can be expected to hang on a little longer, thus lessening the chance of getting that money back), the worst we can expect, at this point, is to break even:

Given the returns thus far, Herb Allison, the former CEO of TIAA-CREF who was tapped by Timothy Geithner to run the TARP, notes that "it's quite possible we'll have a positive return on the CPP program as a whole." That's possible.

The Bonddad (for waaay more technical reading of this):

There are a few basic points that seem to get lost in the TARP debate. The first is these are actually preferred shares that pay interest.

TPM: Man Arrested For Counter-Protesting A Tea Party Without A Permit (VIDEO)

So Tea Partiers can bring assault weapons to the President's events...but when a guy (a black guy, might I add) protests the Tea Partiers...he gets arrested, and threatened with taser.

They accused him of not having a permit to demonstrate.

I'm sorry, but he can't speak out as an individual and call out these bastards? An individual, without plan or scheme, cannot get into the face of someone and shout them down? It may be ugly, but it's within his rights.

But of course, this is Georgia we're talking about, which is returning to its exhalted status as the racist backwater we've always known it to be. Mississippi, only spelled differently.

All Men equal under Law. Keep telling yourself that tale .

HuffPo: Race-Based Protests Directed At Obama Continue To Rise

From Sam Stein. I keep posting these because the climate is worsening. I appreciate and respect any and all political dissent, even when its directed at the guy I support. But keep it real. Don't make it personal. And sure as hell don't make it racial.

But alas...

Race-based attacks and criticism of President Obama have been on the rise during the dog days of August. And they're not just happening at health care town hall protests.

A reader sent over a picture of a group of protesters camped outside Rep. Susan Davis's (D-Calif.). "Neighborhood Day" event this past week, brandishing signs calling the president a Black Supremacist and suggesting he's a Nazi disciple.

"Black National Socialism Is Not Utopia," reads one poster.

Another has a picture of Obama's former preacher, Jeremiah Wright, juxtaposed with a picture of Adolph Hitler and one of picture of Obama and Wright together. "Obama's Church: Black Supremacist," it reads.

The protesters, the reader writes, were small in number. But their presence outside the event indicates that four weeks into August, the highly personal and often racially tinged vitriol directed at the president shows no sign of abating.

Earlier this week, Idaho Republican gubernatorial hopeful, Rex Rammell, said he'd buy a license to hunt Obama. Meanwhile, Rep. Lynn Jenkins, (R-Kans.) expressed her wish that the Republican Party would find a "great white hope" to take on the president in the next election.

Asked about Jenkins' comment on Thursday, White House Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton gave the freshman congresswoman a pass for the eyebrow-raising remark.

"I saw that report," said Burton. "I also saw that her spokesperson backpedaled and said that that was a poor choice of words. We obviously give Congresswoman Jenkins the benefit of the doubt."

TPM: Who Are the 13 Senate Democrats Holding Out On the Public Option?

TPM's Brian Beutler breaks down who's really holding things up.

HuffPo: Idaho GOP Hopeful was only kidding when he joked about hunting Obama...

Rex? Do yourself a favor. Apologize.

An Idaho Republican gubernatorial hopeful insists he was only joking when he said he'd buy a license to hunt President Barack Obama.

Rex Rammell, a former elk rancher slated to run against incumbent C.L. "Butch" Otter in the May 2010 GOP primary, made the comment at a Republican rally Tuesday in Twin Falls where talk turned to the state's planned wolf hunt, for which hunters must purchase an $11.50 wolf tag.

When an audience member shouted a question about "Obama tags," Rammell responded, "The Obama tags? We'd buy some of those."

Rammell told The Associated Press Thursday he was just being sarcastic and sees no reason to apologize for the comment.

Bipartisanship at last...

Senator Jim Inhofe (D-OK) and Rep. Jim Marshall (D-GA) both haven't read the Health Care Bill, and both aren't voting for it.

The Lion... (VIDEO)

From near the beginning:



...and from near the end.

"He was ready to go..." (VIDEO)

TPM: An update to the "Reverse B" attack in Denver.

Oy.

Following up on an earlier post. We now have this from TPM.

Late Update: OK, the plot thickens...Gawker asserts that Ariel Attack is actually the same person as Maurice, noting the facts that only one person has been arrested, and that the anarchist posting says Ariel "is listed in the jail records and media under her birth name." It seems like that's probably right.

Assuming that's true, there's a broader implication for the story. It seemed to us in writing this post earlier that the goal of the attack was to discredit conservatives, by getting them blamed for it. That was because the one person who had been reliably reported to have been arrested had a background working for a group supportive of Democrats. But now, given that the person arrested has anarchist ties and is on the record as a vocal left-wing opponent of Obama, it looks like that interpretation was wrong. It now seems more likely that the goal was more straight-forward: to express anger at Obama and the Democrats.

Apologies for the evolving take on this story. We'll keep working to get a handle on it as things progress.

The New Republic: Down With the Senate

I never thought I'd say this, but thank God for the New Republic.

The sense most people have of the health care debate is that it's great drama in which President Obama is the central player. All the big news has centered around hints and whispers about what the White House wants. They're abandoning the public plan! They're standing by the public plan! They're giving up on bipartisanship! The press has covered the story as if Obama is Moses and we're waiting for him to come down from the mountaintop.

This is totally wrong. The Senate is what controls the process. That's the chokepoint for any health care bill. The question isn't how badly Obama wants a public plan, or how much he cares about bipartisanship. It's whether moderate to conservative Democrats in the Senate will filibuster a bill that has a public plan or lacks GOP support. Everything else is details.

This great misapprehension is at the heart of the great liberal health care revolt. The base is furious at President Obama and his willingness to compromise. They're right to be furious. But their anger is completely misdirected. The Huffington Post's Dan Froomkin, for instance, has written that there are two possibilities in the health care debate. Either Obama "will come out with a strong bill," he writes, or else "will come out of it having given away the store." Froomkin thinks this question hinges upon how badly Obama wants health care reform: "Is the real Obama being serially co-opted by his aides in there? Or is the real Obama at heart a conflict-averse facilitator, rather than a leader?"

Glenn Greenwald, meanwhile, complains in The New York Times that "for whatever reasons, [Obama] has failed to take a stand for (if not actively renounced) its central planks." Look: Obama has not renounced the public plan. He wants a public plan. To whatever degree the final health bill falls short of liberal expectations, it will be because moderate Democrats in the Senate, not Obama, wanted it that way. Obama will sign the most left-wing health care bill he can possibly get through the Senate. There is an alternative political world in which Obama would balk at provisions favored by liberal Democrats--say, a world in which Bernie Sanders was the sixtieth vote--but that scenario does not resemble the world in which we reside.

Why are liberals so confused? Well, the news coverage has been pretty poor at explaining the institutional dynamics. Yet some blame also has to rest with the poor design of our political systems. Americans have come to think of presidential elections as the be-all, end-all of political change in America. Not only is the Senate a malapportioned, counter-majoritarian institution with arcane procedures, it's practically designed to prevent accountability. Obama supporters who want the agenda they voted for to be enacted into law need to be exerting pressure on figures like Max Baucus and Kent Conrad. Yet these characters are accountable only to tiny, unrepresentative slices of the population. So they get angry at Obama instead, which only makes him less popular and which makes the Baucuses and Conrads even less likely to support him.

I still think there's a pretty good chance at passing significant health care reform. But if health care reform fails, liberals need to understand who to blame and how to fix it. They need to start knocking off Democrats like Conrad and Joe Lieberman, who seem to be trying to kill health care reform, even if this temporarily costs the Democrats some seats. They need to commit the party to reconstituting the rules of the Senate along majoritarian lines--yes, even if this helps Republicans pass their agenda when they're in charge. If health care reform can't pass now, then a filibuster-proof Democratic majority isn't worth having. At that point you have to consider blowing up the party and waiting a decade or two to rebuild a new one that's able to address the country's actual needs.

More commentary at the Daily Kos, on the same article.

Yes, they were booing the Rabbi...

Rep. James Moran's (D-VA) Town Hall appearance with Governor Howard Dean, and there's even an appearance by Randall Terry...right before he's shown the door.

And yes, that sound you heard during the opening prayer was some in the crowd attempting to shout down the Rabbi leading the prayer. It wasn't overwhelming. It was just there.

I was waiting for them to boo the two Boy Scouts of Troop 1018 who were leading the Pledge, but that didn't happen, just an obnoxious overemphasis on certain words in the Pledge.

And, as always, since this is C-SPAN, there is no embeddedable video.

UPDATE 3:03pm Pacific. A short clip from the chaos, highlighting Randall Terry's removal from the hall, but by no means the whole thing.

TPM: Remember the Reverse "B" attack?

Like I said, there's what you know, and what you think you know...

Do you remember the Pittsburgh Sociopath that carved reverse B into her face, claiming she'd be attacked by Obama Supporters?

Looks like there's a possibility, that just maybe that yesterday's attack on Democratic Party HQ in Denver may be (could be) something similar:

Remember the disturbed young John McCain volunteer, who, in the closing days of last year's presidential campaign, carved a B into her face and pretended she'd been attacked by an African-American Obama supporter? Well it looks like we may have a similar case on our hands -- only in reverse.

To explain:

Two men were arrested yesterday after an attack on the Colorado Democratic Party headquarters in Denver, in which 11 windows, displaying posters supporting health-care reform, were smashed.

It looked like a case of conservative rage boiling over. State party chair Pat Waak thought so, declaring, in comments eagerly picked up by Think Progress: "Clearly there's been an effort on the other side to stir up hate. I think this is the consequence of it."

But wait. Police soon announced that they had arrested 24-year old Maurice Schwenkler, who allegedly wore a shirt over his face and latex gloves during the attack, then fled on a bicycle before quickly being caught. And Schwenkler doesn't exactly fight the profile of a right-winger.

According to campaign finance records looked at by the Denver Post, a person by that name last November was paid $500 by a group called Colorado Citizens Coalition. That group supported numerous Democratic campaigns last cycle, and the woman registered as its treasurer, Julie Wells, has been active with several liberal causes. Wells did not respond to TPMmuckraker's request for comment.

Schwenkler was also reportedly arrested for unlawful assembly at the 2008 GOP convention in Minneapolis.

And according to WestWord, the Denver alternative weekly, Schwenkler's address is the former location of the Derailer Bicycle Collective, a "radical, free bike fix-it shop". The current owner of the house is a well-known progressive activist who was once the U.S. coordinator for "Potters For Peace"

What about the other attacker? Details are sketchy, but an anarchist news site, for what its worth, is reporting that a person named Ariel Attack, a "Denver-based anarchist," has been arrested in connection with the incident. A supporter writes: "At this moment, we do not know Ariel's status within the jail, especially regarding her gender classification."

Posts by a writer using the name Ariel Attack have appeared at a site called Queers Against Obama, whose tagline declares that "Obamamania is nothing more than yet another manufactured nationalist frenzy." One post is titled "Obama's War On Queer and Trans Youth."

So there you have it. Recently, we've gotten a few glimpses into the fetid cesspool of hate and violence that characterizes the far-right fringe. Smashing windows is, of course, a far cry from murder. But are we now being reminded that the right doesn't have a monopoly on political violence?

Still, it's hard to know what's really going on here. If Marcus Schwenkler and Ariel Attack are indeed the perpetrators, was this a deliberate bait-and-switch, similar to the one perpetrated by the McCain volunteer, with the goal being to discredit conservative opponents of health-care reform? Or, was it more straightforward: far-left nihilists using violence to express their contempt for Obama and the Democratic party? Or some twisted combination of both?

Who knows? But we'll keep you posted as the facts get clearer.

Home.

It's a good story. Makes all the right people look terrible... (VIDEO)

Of all things, that's a quote from a Daredevil comic book.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

One starfish at a time...

What do I mean by that? Just this, from the President's speech on April 21st of this year:

When Ted Kennedy makes this point [about Public Service), he also tells a story as elegantly simple as it is profound. An old man walking along a beach at dawn saw a young man pick up a starfish and throwing them out to sea. “Why are you doing that?” the old man inquired.

The young man explained that the starfish had been stranded on the beach by a receding tide, and would soon die in the daytime sun. “But the beach goes on for miles,” the old man said. “And there are so many. How can your effort make any difference?” The young man looked at the starfish in his hand, and without hesitating, threw it to safety in the sea. He looked up at the old man, smiled, and said: “It will make a difference to that one.”

There's what you know, and what you think you know... (VIDEO)

The thing I'm starting to discover about Government is that there's what something is, and there's what you think it is.

A lot of times, the people are way ahead of their Government. But sometimes they're not.

The screechy (pre-teabag) caller at the beginning of this video has a notion of how to Stimulate the Economy.

...and it would have worked, too...if there was...you know...an Economic System left standing after she was done.

Here's a hint: there wouldn't have been.

That's why...as unpleasant as it all is...the banks had to be bailed out.

Think Progress: More vandalism...

Democratic Party Headquarters in Denver, Colorado, vandalized today. I immediately though about what happened in both Indiana, and Arkansas.

More extensive coverage of the incident can be found at the Denver Post.

A 24-year-old arrested this morning on suspicion of smashing 11 windows at Colorado Democratic Party headquarters tried to conceal his identity while allegedly committing the crime, according to police descriptions.

Maurice Schwenkler wore a shirt over his face, a hooded sweatshirt and latex gloves before he and another man fled the scene on bicycles. Police arrested Schwenkler after a short chase. The other suspect remains at-large.

State Democratic Party Chairwoman Pat Waak blamed the vandalism on animosity surrounding the health care debate, though Denver Police declined to comment on possible motives.

The shattered windows were emblazoned with posters touting President Barack Obama and the Democratic position on Health Care Reform.