First it was Rev. Wright…then Bill Ayers….with all the accompanying non-biased, and Pulitzer-Prize-caliber reporting. Then came the "Hillary Clinton was cheated," narrative suggesting (wrongly) that she had more primary votes than Barak Obama. All this was followed by "Obama's only a celebrity like Paris." Then came the "how can Obama overcome his problem with white voters?" question.

Sarah Palin's entry brought with it the "palling around with terrorists", "Obama is a Marxist", "real Americans in real America", and "Obama is not sufficiently patriotic." All accusations that had to be deeply plumbed for there wingnut wisdom.

Immediately following Obama's election, it became full metal jacket Blago. Obama is from Illinois, (via Kenya) Emmanuel is from Illinois, Blagojevich was governor of Illinois….ipso facto, weeks and weeks were spent "informing" us about an Illinois governor who did what every American elected official does….traded on his influence.

In January came Rush's "hope he fails" comedy routine….and a Serious search to unpack the deep profundity in that statement. The stimulus "discussion" gave opportunity for corporate-whore media to entertain (on a 2-1 basis over Democrats) the thoughts and demagoguing of Republicans and conservatives on the Sunday morning "news" programs. Despite having his electoral ass kicked, and despite the fact that McCain now plays an insignificant role in a 40 GOP'er Senate, John McCain recorded his 14th appearance on the Sunday morning "news" shows recently.

Ordering that Guantanomo would be closed brought with it such an unhinged response from dishonest neo-conservatives and their obedient knee-jerk children that the thought of dangerous criminals being held on "American soil" became the most imminent national threat. Terrorists in American prisons?….How can we ever be safe?

And then it really started to get crazy. March brought with it the TeaParty Blitz….and the long awaited return of Dick Cheney to national corporate-whore media…..this time with mini-me-Dick, daughter Liz, out spreading the "torture love" doctrine of Father Dick. Neither holds public office, Father Dick is hated by most Americans….but there they were, "news" program after "news" program, telling us to be very, very afraid if America stops torturing. You see, the Dicks are Serious.

Don't forget the marvelously patriotic and sensible "birther" movement still championed by over half of Republicans and the recently released CNN xenophobe, Lou Dobbs….and naturally, all of the AM radio talkers and FOX.

The summer of 2009 may just be referred to in the history books as the "Summer of Incoherence"….as BeckerHeads, TeaBaggers, and Townhall Buster-Uppers, some carrying loaded weapons, saturated the "news" with their sour grapes of discontent with a black Democratic president intent on destroying America and replacing it with (take your pick)….socialism, communism Maoism, Stalinism, or Nazism……all conveniently interchangeable at a moment's notice. Desperate cries of, "I want my country back", echoed repeatedly through the TeaBags.

ACORN became, overnight, one of America's most dangerous domestic enemies. Amateur wingnut videographers, working with FOX, stung those primarily-black-employee-run Acorn offices in a daring and patriotic commando raid to save us all…..I guess from signing up more black voters. "Breaking News" ensued.

"Killing grandma", "death panels", (another 1/2 term Governor Palin gem), "death books for veterans", "Obama will take away your Medicare",…filled the late summer and early fall, with yet more incoherent TeaParties and 9-12'er events, led by America's brilliant new Paul Revere, Glenn Beck…and of course, FOX. No one is sure how many Baggers turned out on Beckerhead day. Somewhere between 60,000…..and 2 million. No way to know.

Now we're being flooded with "Obama and the Democrats are sneaking in tax-payer abortions", "Obama is 'dithering' on Afghanistan", and the recent election (which added a new Democrat to the House) is a "sign that Americans are rejecting Obama's leadership," "Obama and the Democrats (after 10 months) are in deep trouble."

This past week has brought with it the "Ft. Hood massacre is the first terrorist attack in the U.S. since 9-11," proving, I'm sure, that without the Dick's torture, we are all doomed. Calls for renewing "investigations" into American Muslims and Muslim groups are rampant.

Obama left today on an Asian-countries tour….and dollars to donuts….I bet we'll get to hear all about how Obama had to get out of D.C. to avoid all the "controversies" he's created. Just more "dithering."

Now….it could just be me….but it sure as hell seems like corporate-whore media has joined with conservative and GOP wingnuts in "creating reality" for the last year and a half. An anti-Obama-and-the-Democrats narrative template has been placed overtop of ALL events since the beginning of last year.

Or maybe not. Like I said….it could just be me.

The United States is a uniquely exceptional country in the world and always has been. Take the former Soviet Union as an example of how superior the US. is. The Soviets were silly enough to allow communist authoritarians to rule over them. The U.S., on the other hand, is a much more advanced society in which only corporate oligarchs can be our authoritarian rulers. The U.S. is a Christian nation and the former Soviets were only godless atheists bound for hell.

The Soviets were foolish enough to invade Afghanistan in 1979 where they experienced a nine year quagmire of futility, and then left in 1989, not able to complete their mission of defeating the cave-dwelling Mujahideen. It is widely held that the Soviets foolish adventure in Afghanistan led directly to their disintegration as a superpower.

The United States invaded Afghanistan in 2001 and are still experiencing a quagmire of futility 8 years later in what has been declared an attempt to defeat a medieval-Islamic group called the Taliban.

See? We're superior to the former Soviet Union. We're smarter. We don't make the same mistakes the godless atheists did.

The issue before the new American President is what to do now as we start our 9th year of quagmire. Having appeared 13 times so far this year on the Villager Sunday teevee morning shows, President John McCain, unelected but entitled to make our military decisions because….well…just because…..had this to say yesterday to Obama as 31 congressional members met with the elected President Obama to exchange ideas on our Afghan quagmire…..

Mr. McCain told the president that “time is not on our side.” He added, “This should not be a leisurely process,” according to several people in the room.

A few minutes later, Mr. Obama replied, “John, I can assure you this won’t be leisurely,” according to several attendees. “No one feels more urgency to get this right than I do.”
..[..]..
After the meeting, Mr. McCain warned against any middle ground. “Half measures is what I worry about,” he said. Citing the Bush administration’s experience in Iraq, he added that half measures “lead to failure over time and an erosion of American public support.”

Anyone remember the unelected President McCain chiding the genuinely-unelected President Bush about "half-measures" or "leisurely" approaches to Afghanistan when the genuinely-unelected President Bush was defrauding America into a new war of choice? Anyone?

More President McCain after the meeting….

McCain warns: "There's been this argument that the threat now is not Al Qaeda … The fact is, we all know that if the Taliban come back, Al Qaeda will come back. And they will come back in Afghanistan and they will come back in Pakistan."

The unelected President McCain's speciality is military strategy and foreign policy….and when it comes to those specialities, McCain is really, really smart. As Digby points out from this report….

The Taliban now has a permanent presence in 80% of Afghanistan, up from 72% in November 2008, according to a new map released today by the International Council on Security and Development (ICOS). According to ICOS, another 17% of Afghanistan is seeing ‘substantial’ Taliban activity. Taken together, these figures show that the Taliban has a significant presence in virtually all of Afghanistan.

President McCain: "if the Taliban comes back"…..umm, Maverick, they're back. And what of al-Qaeda whom Johnny Mac said emphatically, "will come back", if, you know, the Taliban comes back?

Petraeus, May 10, 2009….

The head of U.S. Central Command said Sunday that Al Qaeda is no longer operating in Afghanistan, with its senior leadership having moved to the western region of Pakistan.

McChrystal, Sept.9, 2009….

"I do not see indications of a large al-Qaida presence in Afghanistan now," McChrystal told reporters at the Dutch Defense Ministry, where he met military officials.

NSA Chief, James Jones, Oct 6, 2009….

He said that according to the maximum estimate, al-Qaida has fewer than 100 fighters operating in Afghanistan without any bases or ability to launch attacks on the West.

Whatever the Villager Choir and the Just Say No GOP Chorus have been, and will be, singing near term about al-Qaeda coming back if the Taliban comes back……it simply is not so.

There may be legitimate reasons to continue to strike at the skeletal remains of al-Qaeda inside Afghanistan…..but the "return of the Taliban" is not one of them.

We need to remove as many troops from Afghanistan as soon as we can, even if the Afghanis choose to support the already-returned Taliban. Our mission was to destroy the al-Qaeda network. We've made great progress towards fulfilling that mission.

We won't do any of that, of course, because we, unlike the former Soviets, are uniquely exceptional. Even when we make tragic mistakes, we don't. So, expect the same hew and cry from the neo-conservatives and the same braying from the military-industrial complex supporters in Congress…..and a continuation of a no-end-in-sight quagmire in Afghanistan accompanied with loud cheerleading about how we're "going to win."

America has been involved in imperialistic-minded interference in other nation's governments and elections for as long as I can remember. It's what we do. And I suppose that helps in understanding why America's leading neo-conservatives, senators like Lindsey "Huckleberry" Graham (R-SC), John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (ASSH*LE-CT) have been calling for U.S. interference in the Iranian election dispute. Old habits are difficult to break.

Watch Graham and McCain explain how it's our duty to interfere with other countries. First 2 minutes….

McCain…"America's position in the world is one of moral leadership. And that's what America's all about."

America's "moral leadership" in Iran, over oil, in the 1950's led directly to the dysfunctional Islamic government in Iran today. America's "moral leadership" in Iraq during the 1980's led directly to the rise of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, which led to more American "moral leadership" in the crime and quagmire of today's occupation of Iraq. America's "moral leadership" in Afghanistan during the 1980's led directly to the establishment and strengthening of Bin Laden's extremist group, al-Qaida.

If that's "moral leadership"…..what the hell would immoral leadership look like?

Set aside the 50's and the 80's "moral leadership" for a moment. How has that leadership been on display the last 8 years? America now admits to having savagely tortured detainees held in secret gulags around the world….and reserves the right to continue doing so. THAT'S what America is all about.

America attacked the nation of Iraq, without just cause, and still occupies it today with U.S. military troops and bases. Hundreds of thousands were killed, millions displaced. THAT'S what John McCain calls "moral leadership."

And don't forget that the shameless neo-conservative, John McCain, wanted to spread that American "moral leadership" to the country of Georgia when it was in a dispute with Russia. "We're all Georgians, now", McCain ridiculously insisted.

America's "moral leadership" has been on display in Latin and South America and southeast Asia, and many other places, as the U.S. attempted to mold the world in it's image against the wishes of the people being molded. It's what we do. Meddle in other countries affairs. THAT'S what America is all about.

This messianic mentality, this triumphalistic attitude, is hated by the people of other countries. This "moral leadership" is seen by others for what it actually is…..the mindset and actions of a bully always seeking to get it's own way.

There's an undercurrent throughout American political thought which sees the U.S. as the nation that god, himself, has raised up to do his bidding. Because of such thinking, many Americans deceive themselves into believing that all this "moral leadership" that McCain talks about, no matter how abhorrent, no matter how bloody, is god's will…..that no matter how we interfere or who we interfere with….it is always the right thing to do, because we are America, god's new chosen people….and as McCain said, "moral leadership is what America is all about."

Many of today's Republicans are just itching to spread that "moral leadership" to the streets of Iran.

Referring to American exceptionalism-believing neo-cons, Digby riffs….

These people really believe that the way to keep America on top is to behave like a crazed, hysterical bully lashing out at every slight and insisting that everyone acknowledge our moral superiority even though it is patently untrue. Exceptionalism means never having to say you're sorry.

Although Digby's context was the current Republican talking point which calls Obama's mentioning of American involvement in the overthrow of the democratically elected Iranian goverment in 1953….a continuation of his "apology" tour……I will apply her comment to the advice now being offered up to Obama by elected Republicans concerning the current Iranian election dispute.

First…Obama's explanation about his administration's stance on Iran's election and it's aftermath….

"The easiest way for reactionary forces inside Iran to crush reformers is to say it's the U.S. who is encouraging those reformers. So what I've said is this…it's up to the Iranian people to make a decision. We are not meddling…and ultimately the question that the leadership in Iran has to answer is their own credibility in the eyes of the Iranian people. And when you have 100,000 people who are out on the streets peacefully protesting and they're having to be scattered through violence and gunshots, that tells me the Iranian people are not convinced of the legitimacy of the election."

The 'America-is-right-about-everything' crowd in the Republican Party (including neo-con Joe Lieberman), using American exceptionalism "reasoning", launched their "We should meddle" meme beginning yesterday….

Mike Pence (R-IN), "The American cause is freedom, and in this cause the American people will not be silent, here or abroad. If the president of the U.S won't express the unqualified support of our nation for dissidents in the streets of Tehran, this Congress must. Today I'm introducing a resolution that will do just that. It will condemn the violence against demonstrators by pro-government militia in Tehran in the wake of the elections. It will affirm our belief in the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections. And lastly, and most importantly, it will express the support of the American people for all Iranian citizens who struggle for freedom, civil liberties and the protection of the rule of law."

Eric Cantor (R-VA), "We have a moral responsibility to lead the world in opposition to Iran's extreme response to peaceful protests."

Senator John McCain (R-AZ), "I think they (Iranian leaders) should be condemned, it's obvious this was a rigged election. Depriving people of their democratic rights is really a sham they pulled off and I hope that we will act."

"He (Obama) should speak out that this is a corrupt, flawed sham of an election. The Iranian people have been deprived of their rights. We support them in their struggle against a repressive oppressive regime."

To many Republicans, and to all neo-conservatives, everything that happens in the world is about America. In this tunnel visioned understanding of the world, America has not only the right to dictate the terms for the ultimate destiny of other nations, we are obligated to dictate those terms. The U.S, alone, is exceptional in all things…..and because we are…..we, alone, should instruct other countries on what they should do and how they should do it.

The American war crime in Iraq is a case study in that misguided national narcissistic thinking.

The Iranian election is not about America, and therefore it should go without saying that the U.S. has no right to instruct Iranian leaders on what to do about their nation's disputed election.

In 2000, when America was experiencing their own disputed election, was it any other nation's right to condemn the undemocratic decision by 9 black-robed men and women to decide who would be America's president? Absolutely not. And isn't it true that if any other nation's leaders would have condemned the 2000 election as undemocratic, flawed and corrupt, Americans would have been justified in telling those critics to go pound salt?

Why would that same basic rule not apply to the Iranian election?

American neo-conservatives, and most Republicans, have lost all self-awareness on international issues. They are hopelessly enamored with their own unrealistic view of American exceptionalism. Contrary to the views of these national narcissists, America doesn't have all the right answers. As Digby said, America is not morally superior to other countries…..no matter how many American-mirror-gazers stamp their feet insisting otherwise.

Obama's response to the Iranian election is the proper response. Republicans and neo-conservatives would have us side, loudly, with Iranian street-protestors, giving current Iranian leaders the justification they need to kill and imprison many more reformers in the name of protecting their country from outside influences.

Republicans and neo-conservatives don't much care about any of that. As they admire their reflections in the America-is-exceptional mirror, they tell themselves, over and over, that American exceptionalism means you never have to say you're sorry…..about anything.

Republican war hero and last year's GOP presidential nominee…

"All I can say is that it was used in the Spanish Inquisition, it was used in Pol Pot's genocide in Cambodia, and there are reports that it is being used against Buddhist monks today," McCain told the New York Times
"Of presidential candidates like Mr. Giuliani, who say that they are unsure whether waterboarding is torture, Mr. McCain said: 'They should know what it is. It is not a complicated procedure. It is torture.'"

Are Republicans, the same Republicans who reveled in McCain's warriorhood and hero-dom during last year's RNC Convention going to now reverse course and go against the words of their celebrated warrior?

Republican ultra-hero, Ronald Reagan, in a speech to the Senate May 20, 1988, confirming his support for America's signing of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degading Treatment or Punishment.

"Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today."

For conservatives, no one rises up to the level of divinity like Ronald Reagan. Yet, under the presidency of Reagan, not only was the Convention Against Torture ratified, but Reagan's Justice Department successfully prosecuted a case of waterboarding. Was Reagan misguided?

From the body of the Convention….

Article 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

Article 2

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Bush/Cheney, and those who still defend them, tell us that "everything has changed since 9-11". They tell us that al-Qaida is stateless and, therefore, it's members have no rights under the Geneva Convention. Captured Al-Qaida members, we're told, are not prisoners of war, but instead, "enemy combatants." Ronald Reagan approved of the Convention Against Torture which specifically forbade just those kinds of circumventions meant to justify torture.

Article 3

1.No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

Article 4

1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.

Article 5

1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following eases:

(a) When the offences are committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State;

Article 7

1. The State Party in the territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.

Article 16

1. Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article 1, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture

Geneva Convention….which applies, at the very least, inside Iraq and Afghanistan….

the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, ratified in 1949, which states in Article 17:

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

Texas waterboarding prosecuted in 1983……

At the trial of the Texas sheriff, Assistant U.S. Attorney Scott Woodward said the prisoners who were subjected to waterboarding were not “model citizens” but they were still “victims” of torture.

“We make no bones about it. The victims of these crimes are criminals,” Woodward said, according to a copy of the trial transcript. One of the “victims” was Vernell Harkless, who was convicted of burglary in 1977.

Gregg Magee, a deputy sheriff who testified against Sheriff Parker and three of the deputies said he witnessed Harkless being handcuffed to a chair by Parker and then getting “the water treatment.”

“A towel was draped over his head,” Magee said, according to court documents. “He was pulled back in the chair and water was poured over the towel.”

Harkless said he thought he was “going to be strangled to death,” adding: “I couldn't breathe.”

One of the defendants, Deputy Floyd Allen Baker, said during the trial that he thought torture to be an immoral act but he was unaware that it was illegal. His attorneys cited the “Nuremberg defense,” that Baker was acting on orders from his superiors when he subjected prisoners to waterboarding.

Was waterboarding a crime in 1983?

Federal prosecutors secured a 10-year sentence against the sheriff and four years in prison for the deputies.

Finally….why Bush's torture-is-legal memo writers are also guilty of crimes…

But that 1983 case – which would seem to be directly on point for a legal analysis on waterboarding two decades later – was never mentioned in the four Bush administration opinions released last week.

Case law proving waterboarding is a crime considered to be torture.
Republican heroes standing against torture. Unambiguous conventions and treaties spelling out in great detail what Bush ordered was, indeed, torture, and therefore, criminal.

All that's needed now is a backbone.

Watch the first minute of the following video featuring the StraightTalker, John McCain,…..

"My constituents are REALLY angry," losing presidential candidate, John McCain, said yesterday. "When they see this type of corruption taking place, with the misuse and corruption of their tax dollars that they work so hard for. Yeah, they're angry, and I'm hearing from them by the thousands."

Last November, McCain heard from tens of millions of Americans who didn't want him as their president, choosing Barack Obama instead.

Looking to find his pre-2008 presidential campaign mojo, which had always kept his base, the media, under a "straight talk express" voodoo spell, the Arizona senator returned to his old ways, as Chris Cilizza stated cynically, yet correctly….

"I love the return of the old John McCain, the more 'in sadness' than 'in anger' tone that he has."

John McCain is oh-so-sad

John McCain is sad and angry, and his constituents are REALLY angry.

About what?

The $410 billion Omnibus bill. The bill has already passed in the House and awaits passage in the Senate. Which explains yesterday's faux-anger theater by the "sad" John McCain.

What is the Omnibus bill? The Politico…

The giant measure covers more than a dozen Cabinet departments and represents unfinished business from last fall, when Democrats and the Bush administration were at loggerheads over domestic spending.

What "unfinished business?" What "loggerheads over domestic spending?"

November 18, 2008, CongressDaily…

Federal government programs are being funded through a continuing resolution (CR) Congress approved in late September that expires March 6. Democrats opted to fund the government through a CR after President Bush said that he would veto any appropriations bills topping the levels recommended in his fiscal 2009 budget.

During debate on the CR Sept. 25, House Appropriations Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., said Bush sought to cut $14 billion from domestic programs, including research funding at the National Institutes of Health and low-income aid for home heating. Rather than capitulate, said Obey, "we would kick the can down the road … so that if we have a president that will negotiate" some of that funding could be preserved.

The Reverend is aware of the GOP's extremely low approval ratings, now somehwere around 24%, and I am also fully aware of the recent Wingnut War skirmishes provoked by the Comedien-King. John McCain is too.

What can a disapproved-of political party facing a Comedien-King-led insurgency…..do? Attempt to distract us away from their embarassing and ugly insurgency, an insurgency which has already wounded the GOP's in-title-only leader, the hip-hopper, Michael Steele…baby.

Why do I call McCain's, and the GOP's, "anger and sadness" over the Omnibus bill, a distraction?

John Heileman of New York Magazine, on Hardball….

"This stuff is such small potatoes compared to the stuff that's on the president's agenda."

The Omnibus bill amounts to $410 billion. It should have been passed last fall. Of the $410 billion, only $7.7 billion consists of earmarks. That is less than 2% of the total bill. Less than 2%. Additionally, those less-than-2%-of-the-total bill earmarks are transparent. Americans have easy access to discover the who, what, and where in those earmarks. Furthermore, those transparent, less-than-2%-of-the-total bill, earmarks will stimulate economic activity and job growth in the states that receive them.

That is what the "straight-talker" calls "corruption." That is what John McCain is so angry and sad about. Small potatoes, small ball.

Some of McCain's former base, main media, however, were quickly re-hypnotized by the small potatoes, straight-talking, voodoo-anger-and-sadness, theater.

Chris Matthews' fell immediately under the phony spell….

"Don't you think the DOW would stop dropping if we had a president who would stop signing pork bills?"

"Let's listen to John McCain, I think he has a really good point here. He lost the election. I don't think he lost this argument."

"Well,….you guys are cynical. I don't care if he lost the election, he's right on this one."

Once re-hypnotized, revisionism is never far behind…

"The argument made this past campaign was that we had irresponsible spending the last eight years."

Perhaps this was "the argument" conservatives and Republicans were having amongst themselves, as they sought, in predictable deathbed-confession style, to finally distance themselves from the hated Bush-Cheney regime. But I'm sorry Angry Johnny and Re-Hypnotized Chrissy….earmarks never, ever were "the argument" of the last election cycle.

Yes, we all know the GOP is angry…and sad. Angry and sad because they have become a pathetic minority, without power, without new ideas, and continually ravaged now by the insurgency led by Comedien-King.

But….. Republicans, could you at least spare us the embarassing, imbecilic, "we're mad" theater? It's all just so transparently stupid.

Filmmaker Alexandra Pelosi, daughter of Nancy Pelosi, reminds anyone listening that over 58 million Americans voted for John McCain and against now-President Barack Obama last fall. That's a lot of Americans. Pelosi's new film, "Right America: Feeling Wronged", aired last night on HBO, and is available now on HBO-On-Demand on Time Warner systems. The Mrs. and I watched last night.

Ms. Pelosi follows the McCain/Palin campaign, interviewing regular voters from places like, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, and Pennsylvania. The regular folks Pelosi interviews are committed conservatives, the Republican base, who, each election cycle, religiously vote for GOP candidates and issues…..as is their right in free America.

The Reverend highly recommends Ms. Pelosi's 45 minute film.

The film demonstrates, at least to me, the huge influence right wing radio and FOX teevee has had, and continues to have, on this "hidden" Republican base. The amount of misinformation, twisted understandings, and occasional hate that is verbalized in the film is actually quite staggering. Even though Barack Obama won the presidential election handily….we are still a quite divided electorate.

Ms. Pelosi was interviewed about the film by WNYC's Leonard Lopate. Here's a 4:22 piece of that interview….

Lopate says that these GOP base voters are an "embarassment to those they are supporting" and that's why their viewpoints are rarely seen and heard on the teevee.

Ms. Pelosi predicts in the interview that she will be instantly criticized for the film by FOX, saying that she is only trying to "embarass the Republican Party by putting some of these GOP base members on teevee…..the irony is that they're embarassed by their base. Right wing radio is where these people pick up their talking points. These people at the rallies are just mimicking what they hear on right-wing radio….but when these people are put on teevee, people will say 'Oh well, you picked the one lunatic in the crowd'….For every person who states Obama is the anti-Christ, there are hundreds…and I think it came from right-wing radio."

I think Pelosi is correct.

Misinformation has become an industry in America in the last 15 years or so. Mountains of money have been made through misinforming listeners, readers and viewers. So widespread has spreading misinformation become, that Karl Rove was able to successfully carry out his own misinformation and propaganda campaign for 8 years while working for a Republican president. This misinformation industry has been very detrimental to the nation's unity….our sense of 'we're all Americans and in this together.'

Pre-emptively……yes, many Obama voters were giddy swooners who never dug deeply into policy issues….but the Democratic base was not embarassed to have these folks seen and heard in the media…..and evidence of blatant misinformation was scant.

If you have HBO….and the time….watch "Right America: Feeling Wronged". It's quite a conversation piece.

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.

Gallup has come out with a new poll-map, by state, showing the importance of religion in Americans' daily lives. It seems that, on average, 65% of Americans consider religion important in their daily lives while 35% do not. Ohio ranks 25th, with Ohioans considering religion to be important in their daily lives by 65%.

Importance of religion by state

Now compare Gallup's poll findings on religious importance to the electoral map for the 2008 presidential election.

2008 presidential election by state

Those who read this blog regularly already know where The Reverend stands on the topic of religion. I will always champion the right of all Americans to practice their religious beliefs as they see fit. At the same time I believe that religion, when taken seriously, as 65% of Americans obviously do, is needlessly divisive and socially destructive.

The most religious states, in order, are Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas and Georgia. Those states, coincidentally or not, are also the same states that voted by the largest margins against President Obama. Of the top 15 most religious states according to Gallup, only North Carolina voted in the majority for Obama.

It is true, just as with religious practice, that Americans have the perfect right to vote for anyone they please, regardless of religious beliefs or state residency. Again, at the same time, it is hard to dismiss the correlation of Republican-voting states with the most religious states.

If you are part of the 65%, and usually bristle when reading criticisms of religion….or Republicans, you probably should stop reading about now.

During the presidential campaign, John McCain, representing the Republican Party, targeted, almost exclusively, the GOP base. The choice of Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate was made with this same base in mind. That base, as we see from the maps, is concentrated in the most religious states.

Generally, McCain campaigned on "more of the same" Republican dogma, particularly on national defense and economic issues. Sarah Palin campaigned similarly, although her rhetoric was much more abrasive. More tax cutting primarily benefitting big business, anti-reproductive choice for women, tough, militaristic talk aimed at Muslim countries, even further deregulation for the benefit of corporations, particularly Big Oil, more Supreme Court Justices like Roberts and Alito who favor the powerful at the expense of the weak, a big business-favoring plan for health care, and an overall respect for capital's rights at the expense of labor.

States with a high percentage of religious voters voted overwhelmingly for that platform….in some cases even in higher percentages than they did for Bush in the two previous elections.

The Christian Saviour, whom these religious voters worship, taught, almost exclusively, contrary to the GOP platform. Jesus spoke out against the powerful, the wealthy, the religious, the warmongers, the intolerant, the hypocrites,…..but he ALWAYS taught his followers to help the powerless, society's marginalized, the unclean, the poor, the outcasts, the oppressed. Jesus taught peace, not violence and war. Jesus spoke his harshest words to the most religious, those who elevated in importance the trivial over basic human concerns.

The American states where religion is seen as extremely important in daily life are the same states that voted overwhelmingly against the teachings of their Teacher. The American states where religion is regarded as extremely important in daily life voted overwhelmingly for our nation's most powerful and against the common human concerns of our nation's, and the world's, powerless.

These religious voters seek to defend their support for the powerful, the militaristic, and the wealthy by reverting to old pious sounding arguments over zygotes, taboo sexual orientations, fears of the "Other", "Christian" nation sponsorship of religious symbols, loving the sinner and hating the sin, defense of the Chosen at the expense of the ghettoized, and the use of violence for peaceful(!) purposes.

Wouldn't the Christian Master, if he were alive today on earth, say the same words he spoke to the most religious in his day? Wouldn't Jesus, today, still speak the same words to those who ALWAYS favored the powerful over the powerless in his day?

Wouldn't he?

One characteristic of this year's presidential campaign was the non-stop attempt by McCain-Palin to rally the Republican base. John McCain, allegedly a "maverick" who often broke with his party, chose Sarah Palin as his running mate in order to excite GOP-base voters enough to come out and vote for the elephant ticket.

Even in the last days of the campaign, using embarassingly buffoonish characters like Plumber Joe, McCain and Palin were still, and only, appealing to the GOP's core supporters. Republican mouthpieces, when asked about this strategy, responded by saying that if they had not used such a base-attracting tactic right up to the election…..their defeat would have been even worse. It was a face-saving strategy….I guess.

Yet, seven weeks after the election, the GOP, curiously, is still rallying their political base. Many, not all, of the Republican party leaders, people like John Boner(sic)(R-OH) and Eric Cuntor(sic)(R-VA), have analyzed their party's crushing November defeat and have concluded that the GOP's electoral failure is a direct result of too much moderation in the party. I know it sounds a bit wacky….but it is what it is.

Following that too-much-moderation call comes former Tennessee GOP chairman, Chip Saltsman's gift of a CD to RNC members. Saltsman wants to be the new Republican National Committee Chairman, so he decided to campaign for the job by sending out CD gifts. Saltsman, demonstrating his non-moderate stance, included on the CD Rush Limbaugh's non-moderate song, "Barack, the Magic Negro." Set to the tune of "Puff, the Magic Dragon", the song includes non-moderate phrases like "white guilt" to explain how a black man got elected to the presidency. The most non-moderate appeal of "Barack, the Magic Negro" is the ghettoized, gangsta' vernacular used throughout. Nothing says 'we're not moderate, we're Republicans' quite like white guys making fun of the way blacks talk, huh?

Then the cat fight broke out.

Mike Duncan, current RNC chair, and obviously a stinking moderate, responded to Saltsman's gift….

“The 2008 election was a wake-up call for Republicans to reach out and bring more people into our party,” said Duncan, who is seeking reelection to his post. “I am shocked and appalled that anyone would think this is appropriate as it clearly does not move us in the right direction.”

Duncan's response seemed, you know, reasonable. Other GOP non-moderate leaders disagreed….

Mark Ellis, the chairman of the Maine Republican Party. “When I found out what this was about I had to ask, ‘Boy, what’s the big deal here?’ because there wasn’t any.”

Alabama Republican Committeeman Paul Reynolds said of the CD….“didn’t bother me one bit.” “This is just people looking for something to make an issue of.”

Oklahoma GOP Committeewoman Carolyn McClarty added. “I think it was innocently done by Chip.”

But what better way for non-moderate Republicans to justify non-moderate songs poking fun at "Negroes" then by blaming the turmoil on…wait for it….the liberal press….

…one committee member told Politico. “Mike Duncan is a nice guy, but he screwed up big time by pandering to the national press on this.”

Ohio's own non-moderate, hyper-theocon, Uncle Tom, former election fixerOhio Secretary of State, Kenneth Blackwell, displayed his non-moderate posture with this….

“Unfortunately, there is hypersensitivity in the press regarding matters of race. This is in large measure due to President-elect Obama being the first African-American elected president,” Blackwell said in a statement.

Yeah, that touchy press….liberal tight-asses, they…. just can't appreciate a good "Magic Negro" song about America's first-ever black president. No sense of humor.

If what you've read thus far seems a bit bizarre, even coming from GOP leaders…get a load of this….

As a result of his position, a source close to the race said that at least 12 uncommitted committee members have contacted Blackwell to thank him for his support for Saltsman and have expressed anger toward Duncan and Anuzis(Mich. GOP chair) “for throwing a good Republican under the bus.”

Indeed, in a fluid race in which six candidates are vying for the votes of 168 members, both Blackwell and Saltsman stand to benefit from a backlash to the flap. Link

GOP'ers attribute their huge losses in 2008 to being too moderate, too soft. GOP national chairman candidate, Chip Saltsman, mails out proof he's not soft……he's willing to make racial fun of our new "Magic Negro" president. That's how non-moderate he is, by god,….Rush Limbaugh-like non-moderate. Ken Tom Blackwell, responding to criticism of Saltsman, blames the "hypersensitive media" adding, "When looked at in the proper context, these concerns are minimal." A dozen non-moderate brethren immediately thank Uncle Ken Tom. All this, according to the non-moderate Politico.com, benefits Saltsman and Uncle Ken Tom.

All I can say to these crazy cats is…..I'm glad you know what you're doing…..because this all looks like a non-humorous, political clusterf*ck to me.