I've been pointing out that conservatives, with their Ever-ready-powered Villager media stenographers in tow, are together reaching critical mass in their oppostion to Obama and the Democrats' attempts to reform health care in America.

Because the facts fly in the face of their complaints about health care reform, conservatives, reflexively, have turned to the only card they know how to play…..distraction. In fact, over the last 6 months, distraction is all conservatives, and their obedient corporate media partners, have worked hard on. I could have said that conservatives and their media partners have had a hard-on over distraction, but I chose not to.

I'm sure some have noticed the distraction being amplified over the Professor Gates arrest issue in the last few days. Besides trying to paint Obama as an angry black man, as they tried with the Reverend Wright issue, the distractors are using the Gates story to replace any serious reporting on, or consideration of, the genuine issue of health reform.

I'll be addressing the Gates story in another blog post…..but for now….the "birther" issue is the main distraction. (Note that the AB Journal gave valuable page A-2 space to this distraction Thursday.)

CNN, (often included in the conservative assertion that the media is oh-so-liberal), has their own distractor-in-chief in the person of Lou Dobbs.

Let's join Lou in progress…

DOBBS: President Obama promised transparency and openness in his administration. Yet, he's chosen not to release his original birth certificate or a copy of it.

DOBBS: I think the president of the United States is a citizen. But what I don't understand is why he hasn't just produced it to get this –this noise (Rev: which Dobbs helps to make) out of the way.

I believe Barack Obama is a citizen of the United States, folks. Don't you? But I do have a couple of little questions, like you. Why not just provide a copy of the birth certificate? That's entirely within the president's power.

Can you even believe the smarmy-f*ckerness of ole' Lou? To the immigrant-bashing Lou Dobbs, who "think(s) the president of the U.S. is a citizen", the "controversy" is about "transparency and openness". How disingenuous can a Village assh*le be?

Lou believes Obama is a citizen…."But", has, "a couple of little questions." That means that Dobbs doesn't believe Obama is a citizen, not really. Otherwise, if Dobbs actually believed Obama was a citizen, he wouldn't have those "little questions"….would he?….believing Obama was a citizen would be the end of it.

CNN contributor Roland Martin brings out the WTF paddle and swings it at Lou's ample behind….

ROLAND MARTIN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, first and foremost, he's produced the document he received from the state of Hawaii.

Now, you are saying, where's the original? According to the state of Hawaii, that is the document that establishes where he was born. So, what is the issue?

In-freaking-deed. The "issue" is DISTRACTION. If Obama, as Lou says he believes, is a citizen, then there is no "issue" at all. But how can Lou Dobbs participate…do his part….in distracting viewers away from the important health care reform debate, and other important issues….if he can't harp on an "issue" that doesn't really exist?

Roland Martin….I don't know….seems, like, normal….with this comeback….

MARTIN: So, what — what is the point? I mean, exactly where is the story in this? If he has presented a document, the state of Hawaii has confirmed that — that he was indeed born there, what's the issue?

Very obviously….there is no story here….and the only "point"….is distraction.

Then, the "believing" Dobbs, not working for, you know, liberal MSNBC, but for the "most trusted news network", CNN, goes on to prove he doesn't really "believe" Obama is an American citizen at all…

DOBBS: … do we have a — could we just put up a copy of that certificate — certificate of live birth?

What you are looking at there, which I believe is the copy that comes from FactCheck.org or Annenberg, there's no reference there to the attending physician. There's no reference there to the hospital in which he was born. It is a certificate that refers to the fact that another certificate exists.

MARTIN: He has produced a document that is satisfactory, but it's not satisfactory to you.

So, Lou, he's not here to satisfy Lou Dobbs. He's the president of the United States. He probably has other things that's on his mind than satisfying Lou Dobbs.

DOBBS: Yes. And does that, then, what, just dismiss the concern?

See?…Lou "believes" that Obama is an American citizen, but he has "concern(s)" that Obama's Hawaiian certificate of live birth isn't on the up and up. Like I said….smarmy-f*ckerness.

What Lou, and his regular wingnut audience, really concern themselves over is a popular Democratic president who intends on passing sweeping changes, including, to our rotted health care system. Conservatives, like Lou, together with their Republican partners, realize that their greatest "concern" is found in the potential of Obama and the Democrats to successfully reform health care in America. That accomplishment would damage the GOP cause for a generation.

That explains the nonsensical distractions we've seen the last 6 months…and that will explain the distractions we'll be seeing for the next 7 1/2 years.

The modern Republican Party's plight can be compared, I think, to the experience of American Protestantism in the last half of the 19th century. I'll explain in a minute.

Today, many moderates, Democrats, Independents, as well as liberals, have difficulty comprehending what looks like an obvious and ongoing denial of reality by the modern Republican Party. The creation of faux-narratives about virtually any event by movement conservatives, and the insistence that those faux-narratives actually define truth, a kind of twisted political post-modernism, has been the leading source of frustration for those who insist on empirical and scientific data.

This dynamic has led to even more division in the country where namecalling, mockery, and demonizing the other side has, so far, prevailed. The Reverend confesses that he has participated in this dynamic, often with vigor.

That being said…..The Renaissance, from the 14th through the 17th centuries, with it's emphasis on a humanist method of study rather than a spiritual one, presented challenges for religion. The Enlightenment period of history in the 18th century carried this challenge to religion even further with it's focus on reason, rather than faith, as the basis for establishing truth. Our American Founding Fathers, it can be said, were motivated by Enlightenment principles. The Industrial Revolution was a welcome byproduct of these two preceding "ages."

Although organized Christianity had what were called "Great Awakening" periods throughout these previously mentioned "ages", periods in which religious thinking experienced reform and change…..it is also true that many fringe Christian groups also came into existence during this time.

The Jehovah's Witnesses group was founded in the late 19th century in America. So too, the Seventh-Day Adventists and Christian Scientists. The Latter Day Saints (Mormons) sprouted during the early 19th century.

My purpose here is not to disparage any particular denomination or sect of Christianity, or any adherents to the dogma those denominations set forth. My point is that when traditional religious systems are challenged by science, education in general, and secular reasoning…..adherents to the "old way" often respond to those challenges with their own "new" interpretations.

Rather than considering or embracing new, emerging scientific and rational explanations for reality, made possible by Renaissance and Enlightenment progress, the aforementioned sects resorted to their own newfangled, and often bizarre, interpretations of reality.

Which sets up a segway to the Republican Party in America today.

I don't think there is any question, especially in light of the last 10-15 years, that modern Republican doctrine is experiencing serious challenges. While the traditional conservative values of self-determination and financial responsibility will always maintain their rightful place in our political discourse……recent conservative "values" are being rejected by mainstream Americans as misguided, contradictory, hypocritical, or in some cases, like the new Christian cults of the 19th century, radical and even bizarre.

The Republican Party's deal with the devil in hitching it's wagon to modern evangelical Christianity has given birth to today's active denial, or censoring, of scientific evidence. This odd-bedfellows combination produced the bizarre frenzy of GOP politicians and religious "right to lifers" that America witnessed in the Terri Schiavo ordeal. Newt Gingrich, in his most recent speech, said that college professors and high school teachers needed "removed." Modern conservatives want college professors actively "challenged", "alternative" religion-based concepts offered up equally with science-based ones, "secularists removed."

The GOP's embrace of discrimination in the gay rights issue, using as it's basis, "traditional moral values", or "defense of traditional marriage" is belied by a steady parade of Republican politicians (Gingrich, Livingston, Foley, Craig, Giuliani, Ensign) acting immorally and destructively in their own marriages. Pragmatic immigration reform has often been replaced with hateful screeds directed towards Hispanics, a stiff-necked approach to realism, a demonization of those who are considered in favor of "amnesty", a senseless and warped attack on a highly qualified Supreme Court nominee.

The recent blowup in the financial world, a direct result of the conservative doctrine of deregulation which relies on almost divine powers of an alleged "free market, combined with an almost crazed focus on tax cutting and benefit-giving to the most wealthy, has left conservatives reeling…..yet there is no admission by Republicans that their traditional doctrines have proven to be a total failure.

A political party once proud of their allegiance to liberty, freedom, and the rule of law….has now morphed into a party defending just the opposite. Torture, gulags, the denial of rights, the retraction of American freedoms, the promotion of lawlessness, the justification of government secrecy, pre-emptive wars, unaccountability…..are all now defended by the Republican Party.

In other words…..in the face of modern challenges to what conservatives have traditionally believed in……the Republican Party has responded with self-radicalization, a response so extreme and radical that facts and empirical evidence are now replaced daily with the most bizarre narratives imaginable. Moderate conservatives who insist on pragmatism and scientific fact are purged and demonized much like any religious cult would do.

If you are like me, and think that the Republican Party has gotten even more extreme over the last 6 months, to the point of bizarro….I suggest that the reason is that the GOP is afraid of the modern challenges which they have no answer for. The GOP either has no rational alternatives to offer to the voters who have rejected them or those new ideas can't be offered for fear they will be an acknowledgment of past errors. The GOP has been in the process of establishing a new political cult, cocooning itself as it were, in self-defense mode against a changing world it's members cannot face up to.

It's sad to witness.

The Akron Beacon Journal loves them some George Will. Will's Washington Post columns appear regularly in the Beacon. Recently, the Beacon reprinted one of Will's columns on global warming that included his total distortion of research findings. Will, alleged to be an intellectual, often distorts the facts as he did in his screed, also reprinted by the Beacon, about how card-check (Employee Free Choice Act) would eliminate the secret ballot for workers organizing into a union. Something that EFCA clearly does not do.

Will is back in this morning's Beacon…..and this time he's spreading stuff already disproven yesterday in those, you know, detestable blogs. (Here and here) Quoting the odious Stuart Taylor from the rag, National Journal, Will joins Daddy Limbaugh in suggesting that Obama's Supreme Court choice, Sonia Sotomoyar, will rule on the basis of her racial and gender preferences…..

Taylor has also noted this from a Sotomayor speech to a Hispanic group: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion (as a judge) than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Says Taylor, "Imagine the reaction if someone had unearthed in 2005 a speech in which then-Judge Samuel Alito had asserted, for example: 'I would hope that a white male with the richness of his traditional American values would reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life' — and had proceeded to speak of 'inherent physiological or cultural differences.' "

Context is everything here and that's why Will doesn't include it. The lifted Sotomayor quote was from a symposium speech….

The fall symposium is host to the Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Memorial Lecture….established by friends, family and associates in memory of the late Judge Mario G. Olmos '71 to honor his commitment to social justice. The endowed lecture addresses issues of justice for people of diverse national, economic, racial and cultural backgrounds.

Sentences leading up to what Will implies is racist….

I intend… to talk to you about my Latina identity, where it came from, and the influence I perceive it has on my presence on the bench….

[O]ne of my former colleagues on the Southern District bench, Judge Miriam Cederbaum….rightly points out that the perception of the differences between men and women is what led to many paternalistic laws and to the denial to women of the right to vote because we were described then "as not capable of reasoning or thinking logically" but instead of "acting intuitively."…

I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that–it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others….

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences…our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice [Sandra Day] O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure….that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group…. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown [v. Board of Education.]

You can see why Will, quoting Taylor, left the context out of his predetermined distortions. The context didn't fit the conclusions.

But it's even worse. Consider again this from Will's piece….

"Imagine the reaction if someone had unearthed in 2005 a speech in which then-Judge Samuel Alito had asserted, for example: 'I would hope that a white male with the richness of his traditional American values would reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life' — and had proceeded to speak of 'inherent physiological or cultural differences.'

Just f*cking imagine the reaction…..if a white Catholic guy said something about his unique personal experiences and the empathetic approach he would be bringing to the court as a result of those experiences…..

Can you even imagine the reaction to what Judge Alito said? Yeah, crickets. But he's a white male.

The Beacon does a great disservice to it's readers by including the slanted and error-filled columns of the Washington Post's George Will.

No, not me. I'm not down with the flu.

But I'm thinking the usual-suspect American whackos are.

The anti-American haters on the far right side of the national dial are down with swine flu. They are down with the flu, in the street-language way, because the swine flu issue gives them another opportunity to get their hate freak stoked.

At first glance, I thought it was all a brilliant counterinsurgency plan developed by Hip-Hopper, aka You B Da Man, Republican party leader, Michael Steele. Steele likes to, you know, get down. But on further examination, though Steele is, like, goofy…..even he isn't this hateful….

"Illegal aliens are bringing in a deadly new flu strain. Make no mistake about it," blares Michael Savage.

"I've blogged for years about the spread of contagious diseases from around the world into the US as a result of uncontrolled immigration," writes Michelle Malkin.

"What happens if there's a rash of deaths in Mexico… and if you're a family in Mexico and people are dying and Americans are not, why wouldn't you flood this border?" announces Glenn Beck. Link

According to those three Tea Party Patriots…..swine flu and undocumented immigrants are one and the same issue.

Same with these three….

Sean Hannity…12 seconds

Michael Savage…60 seconds

Neal Boortz….2:20

Yesterday I blogged about the GOP now being a full fledged cult, completely detached from reality, spouting the craziest stuff imaginable, disfellowshipping anyone tainted with the 'moderate', and organizing their group worship around goofy chants, faux-narrative hero worship, and a set of discredited and outdated superstitious beliefs.

How the cult leaders have handled the swine flu topic, in their insane hatred-of-the-darker-skinned way, is simply more proof that my evaluation of the Party of the Endangered Species, is accurate.

Here's a bit of non-cultic, non-hate freak, reality-based information on swine flu…..

1:35

Many conservatives have told me that the GOP's touchy obsessiveness with undocumented immigration is all about law and order and NOT about, you know, racist fears or hate of the alternative-skin color of the 'Other'. When it comes to the swine flu inspired, media hate-a-thon, in progress 24/7 on the cult-right…..it kind of looks like, you know, it's all about the hate.

Fresh off the pollster presses are brand new numbers reflecting what Republicans are thinking right now about which conservative leader represents the way forward for the GOP. While the numbers aren't surprising, really…..they surely say something about the current Party of Lincoln.

From Rasmussen we find that…..

the plurality of GOP voters (43%) say their party has been too moderate over the past eight years, and 55% think it should become more like Alaska Governor Sarah Palin in the future, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Just 24% think failed presidential candidate John McCain is the best future model for the party, and 10% are undecided.

55% of Republicans surveyed think the Republican Party "should become more like Alaska Governor Sarah Palin in the future." Only 1 in 4 Republicans think John McCain represents the way forward for the Republican Party.

To say this is disappointing is to state the obvious. I think Sarah Palin is a cute woman Governor with a fine family. I harbor no animosity towards her, …..and her campaigning last fall, though a demonstration of her unpreparedness to be on a national or international stage, rejuvenated conservatives' interest in the election and the political process.

Republicans, naturally, have every right to choose their role model going forward…..but what would the Republican Party look like, if indeed, Sarah Palin became the de facto political model for the entire party?

An endorsement for even more divisiveness.

We just kicked a Republican adminstration to the curb that was the most divisive in my lifetime. Groups of Americans were pitted against each other constantly for political purposes. Latino Americans were isolated for derision during the foolish Limbaugh-led, talk-radio blitz against the comprehensive immigration bill that even Bush favored. Gay Americans watched as Republicans sought to, once and for all, declare gays unequal with an equal rights denying Constitutional Amendment. Those Americans believing in the right to privacy in reproductive and end-of-life matters were singled out as belonging to a "culture of death" during the national embarassment that was the Terri Schiavo episode. Critics were demonized, villified and labeled anti-American and "terrorist sympathizers", with regularity, if they dared disagree with the maniacal foreign policies of George W. Bush.

So, the last Republican model, George W. Bush…….was a relatively divisive figure. Sarah Palin-as-GOP-role-model would kick even Rovian divisiveness up a notch. Palin constantly referred, during the campaign, to "real Americans" and portions of the country where "real America" was located. To Palin, Democrats were "socialists", "communists",……Obama, one who "pals around with terrorists." The Alaskan Governor's rejection of graciousness towards her VP counterpart during their debate was rude and out of place. Her comments during her acceptance speech were mean-spirited, cocky, brash and intended to be divisive.

Is that the role model Republicans really want? After Barack Obama's successful message of all-inclusiveness, his rejection of a fragmented, red and blue states country…..does Sarah Palin's model even have a ghost of a chance of catching on with the American public? The obvious answer right now is…..no. Things can change, but after 4 or 8 years of Obama, do Republicans really, really believe that Americans will open their arms to more of the same old resurrected-from-the-dead politics of the discredited Bush-Rove era? I certainly don't think so.

If Sarah Palin's campaign methodology is an indication of who she is……she has an even stronger drive to divide America than the Rove directed George W. Bush. That's saying something. Americans still don't fully know what Palin actually knows or understands due to limited exposure to press questions, but what we do know from her campaign time is that she isn't a bit backward about being divisive.

And 55% of Republicans, apparently, want their party to be more divisive just like she is.

Someone forwarded me this viral e-mail and asked if I would respond.
It is my pleasure…..

Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University, School of Law, St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts, concerning the Presidential election:

Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29

Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000

Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million Republicans: 143 million

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2 Republicans: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare…"

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years. If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message.

If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.

Number 1) The statistics in the viral e-mail, some of them incorrect, are from the Bush-Gore election of 2000. Nowhere in the e-mail is the reader told that. The e-mail is designed to mislead the reader.

Number 2) The population and square miles numbers are correct, but once again, the numbers are from the 2000 election results. The number of states in the e-mail is incorrect….Bush won 30 states, Gore 20.

Number 3) Wickedness is deceptive, subtle, insidious. Though the statistics are from the year 2000, never mentioned in the e-mail…..the murder rates per 100,000 population are totally incorrect, and for a reason, I'm sure. The e-mail says:…13.2 murders per 100,000 residents in counties won by Democrats, ….2.1 murders per 100,000 residents in counties won by Republicans. The actual numbers are 6.5 for Democratic counties, 4.1 for Republican counties.

That's quite a divergence from the facts. The intent of the deception is clear. The reader is misled to believe Democratic voters are criminals by a 6-1 ratio over Republican voters. Simply made up.

Number 4) One of the intents of the e-mail is to bash Democrats as lazy wannabe socialists who live off of welfare and don't pay taxes (besides being murderers). The "Professor" in the e-mail is quoted saying this…

"In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare…"

There is no truth, at all, in those statements. Here are the facts from an Ohio State study…..

In the 2000 U.S. presidential election, George W. Bush won most of the states that are net beneficiaries of federal spending programs, while Gore won most of the states that are net contributors to federal spending. Link

Just to be clear…."net beneficiaries" means Bush states received more taxes from the federal government than they contributed…."net contributors" means Gore states contributed more tax money to the federal government than they received.

The "Professor" lied…or simply made stuff up.

This e-mail, like many, many others, is part of the ongoing culture war in America, led primarily by evangelical Christians fearful of change. Notice that this most recent version includes undocumented Latino immigrant bashing and scare tactics. May I remind my evangelical Christian friends that Jesus didn't seek to lie, mislead and misinform as he spread his message. The Christian Saviour didn't lie, mislead, and misinform in a spirit of division and hatred, either.

Finally, in summary….the viral e-mail passed to me is over eight years old and has no relationship, whatsoever, to our most recent presidential election, even though nowhere on the e-mail is that made clear. Accurate facts are mixed with falsified numbers for the sole purpose of misleading readers into believing that Democratic voters are lazy, welfare-check cashing murderers intent on destroying the fabric of America.

"We are not Blue States and Red States….we are the United States of America." President Barack Obama.

Reference link.

Have you heard about the new resistance movement? It's a resistance movement against the not-yet-president Barack Obama.

Conservative Republicans have proven in the last eight years that they can't govern successfully on a federal level, and really don't want to anyway. The next eight years will be a clinic on what conservative Republicans do well…..obstruct progress. Block the people's will.

Barack Obama promised to end our occupation of Iraq, extend health care to virtually all Americans, end the disastrous trickle down, top-heavy economics of the past 28 years by investing in the middle class and ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest, boldly confront global warming, restore America's status in the world, and close Guantanomo, among other promises.

The American voters elected Obama with 53% of the popular vote and 365 electoral votes. An inarguable mandate from voters to implement his campaign agenda.

So…if Americans want what Obama is offering….and they clearly do….then what of conservative Republicans who voted against Obama, who don't want anything to do with his mandated agenda?
Well, their job is to stop Obama from doing the will of the people.

The "resistance" is calling….

Welcome to Obama’s nation…
The “transformational” figure who will “change the world” is now in charge, and he’s on a mission. Emboldened by an overwhelming electoral victory and a near-supermajority in Congress, President-elect

Obama and his allies are preparing to implement his liberal, “post-American” agenda. Simply put, what President-elect Obama and the Pelosi-Reid Congress have in store has the potential to rapidly move America to the socialist Left.

1 million citizens resisting…
Who can stop the Obama agenda? Only an unprecedented idea-based Resistance from freedom-loving citizens can prevent the full implementation of Obama’s march to the Left. That’s why Grassfire.org is seeking to identify and mobilize grassroots citizens who will Join The Resistance— an alliance of patriotic, resilient and determined conservatives who will not forsake their principles. Our goal? One million citizens joining together by Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009.

The Resistance States:
As an American citizen, while I will show respect to President-elect Obama, I oppose the far-Left and socialistic elements that comprise the centerpiece of his agenda. I recognize that it will take a patriotic and resilient Citizen Resistance to block implementation of this agenda and I join with others who oppose these threats to our liberties.

Specifically, I Resist:

Socialistic wealth redistribution including any and all tax increases and big-government welfare programs. Silencing conservatives through the Fairness Doctrine and other efforts that restrict free speech.
Open border anarchy including amnesty for illegal aliens and promotion of multi-nation “unions”. Government-run health care that weakens our system and imposes more tax burdens on citizens.
Weakening of our military through rapid pullback from Iraq, defunding our troops and overall disarmament. Social liberalism including radical pro-abortion agenda, the end of marriage and the homosexual agenda.
Liberal court activism that undermines faith, family and liberties while expanding government control. Post-American globalismthat diminishes our global role and threatens our national sovereignty.
Environmental extremism, the CO2 tax, undermining coal and nuclear, and bans on exploration. Weakening the 2nd Amendment through unconstitutional gun laws that take away or penalize us for owning firearms and our right to defend our family, our property, and ourselves. Link

The "resistance" has signed up about a quarter million "patriotic, resilient, conservatives" thus far, the goal is one million.

The part I like the best is this….. "Only an unprecedented idea-based Resistance from freedom-loving citizens can prevent the full implementation of Obama’s march to the Left."

If the right had any good ideas, Americans would have voted for them. They don't and we didn't. The fact that conservative "ideas" have gone down in flames during Bush-Cheney….umm….hasn't helped much either. The "freedom-loving" spin is amusing as well. Freedom of conscience to deny the rights of others? Freedom of government to torture? Freedom for the executive branch to violate law?
Freedom to be intolerant? I have no idea what freedom these obstructionist wannabes are referring to.

Even the arch-conservative freak, Pat Robertson, has said that Obama has chosen a centrist cabinet which Robertson is "pleased" with….but to the "resistance" freaks, Obama will "march" us to the left.

Naturally, all this was to be expected. The only question remaining is whether or not the corrupt main media will assist the resistors by repeatedly echoing the objections of this "idea-based Resistance."

Smart money says they will.

From a Digby post….

Ballot initiatives have been proposed in Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska and Oklahoma that would give voters the chance to decide whether they want to do away with affirmative action in government-funded projects and public schools. Link

Perhaps there's still ample time for Ohio, the state where intolerance and hatefulness is already embedded in law, to get in on this liberty-ballot-initiative-train.

Conservatives, and specifically the new brand of modern conservatives, require initiatives appealing to hate and intolerance to be placed on ballots. This tactic usually results in a higher turnout of wingnut evangelical voters. These values voters will always place value in intolerance and hate. And even when unmotivated by lackluster pseudo-conservative candidates, like John McCain, the values crowd can usually be motivated to come out and vote for intolerance. After all, intolerance and exclusivity is what makes the heart of proseltyzing religion, you know, beat.

Let's review the targets of hatefulness currently in vogue within the modern conservative movement.

First, there's the Muslim hate. It goes like this….America is a Christian nation….Muslims attacked us on 9-11….America must now hate Muslims and do everything within it's power to kill extremist Muslims while punishing as many members of Islam as possible in the process. Captured Muslims must be tortured, even though America never endorsed torture before.

If an upstart politician with a Muslim sounding name gains traction with American voters, these modern conservatives must bring that 9-11 Muslim hate down on him, no matter what. Thus the repetition of Obama's middle name and the endless cycle of lies claiming that Obama's allegiance lies with extremist Islam. Steve King (Asshole Republican-Iowa) recently demonstrated how this form of hate works.

Second, there's the intolerance and hatefulness towards homosexuals. Witness the success in Ohio-Mississippi. (Yes, that's one state). I believe Ohio joined in with 17 other Karl Rove instigated state hate initiatives in 2004. The excuse given was that marriage must be protected. Of course, that was a ridiculous excuse, but no matter, it worked out for the haters.

Just as soon as the hateful conservatives in Ohio and in other states found out they could vote against the queers and those living in "sin", they started putting on their boots to go to the polls. This patriotic display of hate and intolerance certainly helped out with the re-election of the criminal George W. Bush. Hey, hate works. That's why modern conservatives embrace it.

Third, the newest target for conservative hate….Latinos. The conservatives really, really wanted to feature Latino hate this election cycle. Coming attractions had Latino hatefulness soaring to the top of the intolerance agenda. Screecher right wing intolerance radio warmed up the audience for the onslaught. But then a funny thing happened on the way to casting votes for hate. John McCain took the GOP nomination. As you know, McCain had a difficult time at first because he didn't demonstrate enough intolerance towards undocumenteds. He led the effort for…..dare I say it…..amnesty. The Straight Talker has been since forced to straighten out his tolerant ways or be mocked by those voters who always vote for intolerance.

Lastly, when in doubt….hate the blacks. Always a good target for righteous, advantaged, conservative whites. If the conservative movement of intolerance cannot parade undocumented Latinos before Americans as their latest group to be despised and rejected as second class creatures (because McCain, you know, voted for amnesty)…..then blacks will do just fine as a replacement.

That brings us to the "strike down affirmative action now" state initiative proposals. The anti-American and intolerant Chief Justice John Roberts has already thrown down over this affirmative action topic. The intolerant and hateful modern conservatives are simply following his lead. Roberts ruled last year, along with his fringe right bench buddies, that attempts to integrate schools is really only favoritism towards a minority and injustice to the majority.

Building on that hateful and intolerant position taken by the Supreme Far-Right Court, state conservatives have come up with a plan to spread the Roberts love, and get evangelical and garden variety haters out to vote at the same time. Hell, if Roberts can strike down school integration, the intolerant and hateful thinking must have gone, the states can put blacks back where they belong about this affirmative action stuff. Thus, the 5 state initiatives to strike down affirmative action.

These hateful leaders, within the overall intolerant and hateful conservative movement, calculated that with an integration rejecting Roberts Court….they could get away with an obvious attempt to re-institutionalize hatefulness. And bring out those hateful and intolerant values voters at the same time. Kind of a two for one Blue Light hate special.

That's the other value of the modern conservative movement, they like bargains.

In a previous post I had mentioned that Mike Huckabee's poll numbers had soared soon after Mitt Romney's speech on religion. It seemed to me that Iowa evangelicals had made their decision to caucus with Huckabee, a former successful evangelical preacher, at about the same time as Romney's speech. Huckabee now leads Romney in Iowa polling by double digits.

But there's more to the story…..

A poll published this month in Newsweek magazine showed that 63% of likely Iowa Republican caucus-goers considered a candidate's views on illegal immigration "very important."

…

The biggest about-face has come from Huckabee, long admired by the immigrant rights movement for his policies as governor of Arkansas. Now, however, he is toeing the hardest anti-illegal-immigration line of any top-tier candidate, with a new "secure the borders" television ad in Iowa and a plan, announced last week, to require all 12 million people here illegally to leave the country within four months or risk serious punishment. Link

Now I realize and fully accept that what we have been witnessing in Giuliani, Romney, and Huckabee can't be described as flip-flopping. Flip-flopping, as everyone knows, is only what Democratic candidates do, not Republicans. So Mike Huckabee didn't flip-flop and change his mind on immigration, oh no, that can't be it, because Huckabee is a Republican.

I think Mike Huckabee, because he can't be a flip-flopper, is simply feeling the pain for the first time of all those Iowa evangelical types. Before he ran for president, Huckabee didn't really feel the pain of those Iowans, now he does and he wants to do something about it.

What is that pain? It's the pain of frustration one feels when things aren't going the way you would like them to go. For Iowa Republicans facing a primary and general election with party poll numbers in the basement, that pain is acute. That frustrating pain has been caused out there in Iowa by 7 long years of Bushism in America. Traditional Republican lies policies, like a strong defense, fiscal conservancy, and small government are smoldering in the ash heap of Bush/Cheney Republicanism, leaving a void to be filled. Filling that void is what Huckabee is doing with his newfound immigration position.

What platform plank can be moved into the default position when the other GOP planks have rotted so badly? Intolerance. Republicans already hate Muslims and gays, women and blacks are still hated but protected by law…..so Latino immigrants, documented and un, have become the lightning rod of those Iowan's pain. Mike Huckabee, once not as abrasive towards undocumenteds, is now taking up the painful cross of Iowa evangelicals, the cross of intolerance, and bearing it himself in the high hopes of healing his hillbilly campaign. As the new poll numbers demonstrate…..intolerance works as a pain reliever.

Like a Jewish High Priest of old symbolically taking all the sins of Israel once a year on the Day of Atonement and placing those sins onto the head of a goat then released into the wilderness, Mike Huckabee has taken the Iowa caucus goers pain upon his campaign, the pain of a diseased and terminally ill political party doomed to minority status because of their Dear and Revered Leader's rogue regime, and now Huckabee is going to place all that pain, and there's quite a lot of it, all onto the heads of undocumented Latinos.

Mike Huckabee isn't being considered a flip-flopper by Iowa evangelicals just because he's changed his mind about undocumented Latinos, heavens no. If a Democrat changed his or her mind on immigration, then yeah, that would be flip-flopping.

Bashing and threatening undocumented Latinos now when he didn't do it previously shouldn't be called flip-flopping by Mike Huckabee.

Instead, it should be called Evangelical pain management.

In the CNN YouTube "debate" on November 15th, did CNN spend over 25% of the event talking and asking questions about immigration in order to promote Lou Dobb's daily CNN anti-immigrants program?

That's what this writer from the LA Times says….

CNN chose to devote the first 35 minutes of this critical debate to a single issue — immigration. Now, if that leaves you scratching your head, it's probably because you're included in the 96% of Americans who do not think immigration is the most important issue confronting this country. We've got a pretty good fix concerning what's on the American mind right now, because the nonpartisan and highly reliable Pew Center has been regularly polling people since January on the issues that matter most to them. In fact, the center's most recent survey was conducted in the days leading up to Wednesday's debate.

….

….just 6% of the survey's national sample said that immigration was the most important electoral issue. Moreover, that number hasn't changed in a statistically meaningful way since the first of the year. In other words, more than nine out of 10 Americans think something matters more than immigration in this presidential election.

So, why did CNN make immigration the keystone of this debate? What standard dictated the decision to give that much time to an issue so remote from the majority of voters' concerns? The answer is that CNN's most popular news-oriented personality, Lou Dobbs, has made opposition to illegal immigration and free trade the centerpiece of his neonativist/neopopulist platform. In fact, Dobbs led into Wednesday's debate with a good solid dose of immigrant bashing.

….

…CNN intentionally directed the Republicans' debate to advance its own interests. Make immigration a bigger issue and you've made a bigger audience for Dobbs.

That's corruption, and it's why the Republican candidates had to spend more than half an hour "debating" an issue on which their differences are essentially marginal ….

Despite Lou Dobb's screeching in disagreement with this LA Times writer….the amount of time devoted to immigration at the start of the "debate" could be construed, I suppose, as "corrupt" self-promotion.

The Reverend has a bit of a different take, however.

The Republican Party is in trouble, electorally speaking. All 2008 election polls look bad for the GOP's chances. The Iraq war, the economy, health care, etc…..the most important issues to Americans, all favor Democrats. It's slim pickings to find some topic which Republicans are allegedly "strong" on.

Immigration, as I've mentioned before, is all the Republicans have left, and even that is questionable. Immigration is the topic wingnuts are still rallying around. It's all because of intolerance and racism, of course, but with the GOP it's whatever works. Talk-radio wingnuts were, proudly, one of the reasons a comprehensive immigration program couldn't make it into law last year. Trent Lott, no liberal, said as much.

So if CNN spent 35 minutes at the very beginning of their "debate" program on the immigration topic, a topic far down the ladder of importance to, you know, regular Americans….it could be construed as promoting Dobbs and his anti-immigration program, yes….BUT….it could also be construed as promoting a Republican Party on it's last leg, in need of a boost. Making immigration into a bigger issue because Republicans WANT it to be a bigger issue in next year's election.

25% of "debate" time given over to immigration talk, I suggest, was a gesture by CNN to boost the GOP candidates chances by making immigration seem to be a larger issue of concern than it actually is. Sure, it appeals to racists and those who are intolerant, but that's all, really, the Republican Party has left.