Mandel's Campaign Blocks Cameras at Public Forum

On Wednesday evening, a candidates forum was held at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Blue Ash. The event was sponsored by several Conservative groups including COAST, the Cincinnati Tea Party and Right to Life of Greater Cincinnati. The event was moderated by former Hamilton County Commissioner, Phil Heimlich. Heimlich posed questions to candidates who are competing in many races this Spring and the vast majority of the candidates in attendance were running as Republicans.

My initial intention in covering this event was to talk to attendees and participants to see where the Conservative movement is heading. Now that the health care reform legislation has become law, it is a forum like this that can give some insight into the direction that the Republican Party will choose to take.

However my initial goal was sidetracked once the Republican Candidate for Ohio State Treasurer, Josh Mandel, took the stage. At 32, Mandel is currently the youngest member of the Ohio House of Representatives, has served in the Marine Corp. and has been on two tours of duty in Iraq. As Mandel took the stage, he was given a standing ovation for his service and it was clear during the first few moments of his speech that he was going to be well-received.

Shortly into my videotaping of Mandel's remarks, my attention was drawn to my right, where another gentleman was videotaping the speech. A member of Mandel's campaign, who I would later identify as Joel Riter, was trying to block this man's camera. (Riter is also the Legislative Aide for Josh Mandel in the Ohio House) It took me a moment to realize what was happening, but I quickly turned my own camera lens on this situation.

Once Riter noticed that he was being recorded, he promptly came over to me as I turned my lens back to the speech. Riter proceeded to hold his Blackberry approximately six inches from my face and take multiple pictures of me. In-between pictures, he proceeded to block my camera lens from videotaping Josh Mandel's speech.

I confronted Riter, asking what why he was standing in front of my camera to which he replied: "Are you working with the Democrats?" When I told him that I wasn't he said, "I thought you were, you're not?" Again, I said that I wasn't and Riter informed me that he was blocking the other man's camera because he did work with the Democrats. Here is the video:



After the candidate forum ended and I had packed up my video equipment, I ran into Josh Mandel outside. I approached him to ask about this incident, but as you will hear, once he heard that The Cincinnati Beacon has a "liberal" perspective, he completely ignored me.

Mandel made time for Republicans Phil and Rebecca Heimlich and even Democratic City Council member Cecil Thomas, but ignored my attempts to ask him about his staffer. I approached Councilman Thomas about the situation after Mandel had finished with him. Here is the audio beginning with my questioning of Mandel:



After the event, I asked the other gentleman who was having his camera blocked, if he had a moment for a question or two. He referred me to Seth Bringman, the Communications Director for the Ohio Democratic Party. Bringman issued this statement:

“Tracking your opponents is a standard practice of both parties. We had a tracker from the Ohio Democratic Party at this event, which was open to the public. Like any of our trackers, he was both respectful and professional.”

Even though both Joel Riter and Josh Mandel did not comment on this matter at the event, I also made an attempt to contact Michael Long, the Political Director for Mandel's campaign. He did not respond to either my email request or to the message that I left with his office. If I hear back, I will post his response in full.

While the majority of the Candidate forum was calm and civil, this incident took several by surprise. I had more than one citizen come up to me in the ballroom asking who the "man blocking the cameras" was. When I explained who he was and why he was blocking the cameras, these attendees expressed disgust and made mention that they would contact the campaign. You even heard COAST member Mark Miller say that this behavior is "not cool" in my interview with Cecil Thomas.

As the Mandel Campaign and Mandel himself remain silent on this issue, the fact remains that they felt it appropriate to block the cameras of those who they disagreed with during a public forum. Joel Riter operated under the assumption that I was with the Democrats and though he apologized to me personally when he realized I was not, still felt justified in blocking the camera of the gentleman who was working for the Democrats.

Josh Mandel also decided that he would only permit himself to be asked questions by media outlets who have a "Conservative" lean as evidenced by his repeated dismissal of my questions. These actions are quite curious for a candidate who claims to run his campaign with "honesty" and "integrity".



This piece is cross posted here.

Jon Stewart Uses Half his Show to Spoof Glenn Beck

Jon Stewart has parodied Glenn Beck in the past, but the other night on The Daily Show, Stewart devoted half of the show to spoofing Beck.

It may not have been Stewart's funniest moment, but it works as an effective piece of satire to ridicule Beck's unique brand of crazy.

Here is the segment:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Conservative Libertarian
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Reform

Running Off the Rails...

I've listened to preachers
I've listened to fools
I've watched all the dropouts
Who make their own rules
One person conditioned to rule and control
The media sells it and you live the role

Photo courtesy of here and the lyrics are from Ozzy Osborne's "Crazy Train".


Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) appeared on Glenn Beck's show this afternoon in what can only be described as a complete train-wreck.

Massa has made news as of late due to his announcement that he is resigning his Congressional Seat due to intense pressure from the White House surrounding his potential vote for the health care legislation. The White House has denied this claim and shortly after Massa made this claim, Glenn Beck jumped at the chance to let Massa tell exactly how the White House had pressured him to resign.

This situation got even more complicated earlier today when it was revealed that Massa was being investigated for inappropriately groping male staffers.

Glenn Beck was quite intrigued by the "White House forcing out a Congressman" angle of the story and desperately tried to get Massa to give him all the juicy details. Massa had nothing to offer aside from the "shocking" revelation that Washington is a town that has fallen victim to partisanship.

Beck set up the segment saying that he didn't know who this guy was or if he was a bad guy, but that the allegations of being forced out of office made this an interesting story. After a five-minute build-up, Beck introduced Massa and the first words out of Massa's mouth were:

"Can I just start off with something? I wasn't forced out, I forced myself out. I failed. I didn't live up to my own codes. I own this."

Wow, glad that was settled so quickly! Not only that, but Massa continued on and admitted that he did grope a male staffer and "tickled him until he couldn't breath". Beck was clearly taken aback from the very beginning and it only got crazier from there. Watch the whole intro and the first segment:



Picture of x-ray's, tickle fights, a reversal of position and that is all within the first segement of this program. It actually looks like Beck is the sane one in these clips. Massa would go on to describe an encounter that he had with a naked Rahm Emanuel in the House of Representative's communal shower. From the Huffington Post:

"I was in my first two months," he said. "I was in a battle about the budget, Rahm was angry with me. He poked his finger in my chest while we were in the shower. I went through it on the radio show. Not only did it happen, I will never forget it. Rahm Emanuel doesn't like me. I get it."

Despite all of this, Beck continued to plead with Massa to tell the public something new about how he was forced out of office by the White House, but Massa continued to give him absolutely nothing:



This all led Beck to apologize to his viewers for "wasting their time" with the interview. Just watch Beck's face during this last segment as he realizes that he has successfully booked someone on his show who is spouting off something crazier than him:



This was truly a crazy interview, one that Beck certainly did not see playing out as it did. Former Rep. Massa showed signs of dealing with some intense pressures that are obviously affecting him and led to his being all over the place during this hour of television. I think it can be surmised that the White House probably didn't force him from his job and that there is more that has yet to have been discovered regarding the investigation into Massa's "groping" of his staffers. Massa even stated that there are "probably text messages" out there that could be wrongly perceived.

Beck expected Massa to come on and spill the beans about how the White House is full of unprecedented corruption and how they threw their weight around, forcing Massa to resign. What became clear to Beck from very early on was that his plan backfired in a big way. Massa is obviously having some problems in his life right now and his behavior in this interview exemplified why it was probably a mistake for Beck to try and embrace him politically.

Upon Further Review...

In case you missed it, last week the District Attorney in Brooklyn, NY cleared the local ACORN office of wrong-doing in the incident where Conservative activists James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles posed as a pimp and prostitute to solicit advice from ACORN employees.

What is more is that a law enforcement source brought to light what many have been suspicious of the entire time. From the New York Daily News:

While the video by James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles seemed to show three ACORN workers advising a prostitute how to hide ill-gotten gains, the unedited version was not as clear, according to a law enforcement source.

"They edited the tape to meet their agenda," said the source.

O'Keefe and Giles - who visited ACORN offices in several cities, including its Brooklyn headquarters - stirred controversy when they posted the videos on their Web site.

They were hailed as heroes by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and their footage led several government agencies to temporarily cut funding for ACORN as the prosecutors opened an investigation.

"On Sept. 15, 2009, my office began an investigation into possible criminality on the part of three ACORN employees," Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes said in a one-paragraph statement issued Monday afternoon.

"That investigation is now concluded and no criminality has been found."

So not only was the Brooklyn ACORN office cleared of wrong-doing, but it has become clear that O'Keefe edited his videos in a misleading way.

It is also important to remember that O'Keefe's fellow Conservative activist Hannah Giles, (who played the role of the prostitute in these videos), confirmed that O'Keefe did NOT wear the outlandish pimp outfit when he went into the ACORN offices as many had thought. From BradBlog:

I asked Giles about a criticism that’s often been leveled against them — that they hyped up the video by wearing outrageous clothes in promotional materials and the videos’ introductions that they didn’t wear in the actual stings.

“We never claimed that he went in with a pimp costume,” said Giles. “That was b-roll. It was purely b-roll. He was a pimp, I was a prostitute, and we were walking in front of government buildings to show how the government was whoring out the American people.”

But it's not like O'Keefe contributed to this "confusion" by letting everyone think that he wore that outfit during the "stings" right? Oh wait...



Apparently he was only dressed in khaki's and a white shirt and posed as the concerned boyfriend of Hannah Giles who wanted to protect her from an abusive pimp. Quite different than what Fox News and the likes of Andrew Breitbart led the public to believe.

O'Keefe is currently still under investigation for reportedly trying to conduct some type of "sting" in the office of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) back in January. Despite all of this, both O'Keefe and Giles spoke this weekend at the 2010 California Republican Assembly conference in an apparent show of support from some on the political Right.

Bill Cunningham Makes 'Most Outrageous Comments of 2009" List, 3 Times

The end of the year usually brings about many "Best of" and "Worst of" lists that attempt to summarize various points of interest from the previous year. Media Matters for America is no exception to creating such a list as the liberally-slanted non-profit has compiled the most "Outrageous" comments from Conservative commentators in 2009.

Many of the usual suspects are on the list, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck even had the dubious honor of being dubbed 2009's "Misinformer of the Year" for calling the President a racist and comparing modern day America to the rise of Nazi Germany. You can watch the special video that Media Matters created for Beck at the bottom of this post.

In the mix with all of these nationally known Conservative voices is a man who resonates in a special way with the city of Cincinnati and who had three of his comments make the "Most Outrageous" list that was compiled by Media Matters.

Bill Cunningham has always been known for stirring up controversy on his Monday-Friday talk show and there have been a few instances when he has gained some national attention for his antics. Remember when Cunningham warmed up the crowd at a local event before John McCain took the stage in 2008 during the campaign season? Or how about the times when Cunningham has gone on Sean Hannity's show on Fox News to give voice to one crazy theory after another?

It should come as no surprise that Cunningham would land on such a list.

Here are the three comments that Media Matters considers among the "Most Outrageous" of 2009.

1. Cunningham on the Poor: "They're poor because they lack values, ethics, and morals."

On the January 4 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Cincinnati-based radio host Bill Cunningham continued his attacks on the poor, stating: "[P]oor people were not and are not poor because they lack money. They're poor because they lack values, ethics, and morals." Cunningham added: "All that the mid-'60s and '70s did to the black community was to pay black fathers money on condition that they not be involved in the lives of their children and that black mothers were told that if you married, it would have a painful consequence. If, on the other hand, you acted irresponsibly by producing children out of wedlock, you would have a positive consequence, because government would fund bad behavior."

2. Cunningham on Section 8 housing: "I like keeping all those degenerates in one location so we can keep an eye on them"; residents "sit around and fornicate, defecate"



3. Bill Cunningham claims stimulus "give[s] ACORN up to $4.2 trillion" and contains "$350 million to hand out condoms and birth control pills so the poor can fornicate like rabbits"



and here is the video that Media Matters put together for Glenn Beck's "Misinformer of the Year" award:



You should check out some of the other items that made the Media Matters list and also feel free to post your favorite "outrageous" quotes in the comments section. What moments stick out in your mind from the past year either from national figures or on a local level from figures in Cincinnati?



This is cross posted here.

Peter Bronson Implies that Hanukkah is Inferior to Christmas

In case you missed it, former Cincinnati Enquirer columnist Peter Bronson has started a new blog. You may remember Bronson for posting a fake picture of Al Franken in a diaper on his (Enquirer) blog and pretending that the photo was real. This was despite the fact that the photo had been debunked years before by many other sources, including his own paper.

When my fellow writer, Jason Haap, at the Cincinnati Beacon called him on it (gaining national exposure), Bronson first tried to justify it and then deleted the entire post from the web shortly before losing his job at the Enquirer.

Bronson resurfacing on his own website means that he is no longer is bound by any constraints and is now free to spout his Conservative views to his heart's content.

Take this piece from just the other day in which Bronson expresses anger over "the most despicable 'holiday' ad this year...so far". What commercial you may ask? This one:



Can you guess why Bronson awards this commercial the most despicable yet? (Hint: it is not because the commercial is super annoying) Here is why:

The American Family Association threatened a boycott over the ad, and the Gap people apparently got the message. The AFA announced:

“Gap’s Vice-President of Corporate Communications, Bill Chandler, informed the AFA via email that Old Navy’s new commercial “has a very strong Christmas theme.” … ”We firmly believe that Gap is responding to an enormous amount of pressure from the AFA network. It looks like Gap has finally decided that a recession is a bad time to take a principled stand on secularism and alienate a huge percentage of their customer base. We’re happy that they’re apparently keeping Christ and Christmas in the Christmas season.”

Liberals in the press had seizures defending GAP and ripping AFA for its boycott threat. I guess there is no insult to Christians that is too tacky for “tolerant” liberals to support.

That's right, Bronson thinks that this ad is "insulting" to Christians because it mentions Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, and Solstice and that it is evidence of how PC our culture has become. In case you missed it, the ad didn't insult Christmas or neglect to mention Christmas, it just mentioned other celebrations that take place during the holiday season.

Bronson again:

Christmas is a holy day. Christians respect Hanukkah and even Kwanzaa. (Solstice? Please.) So is it really too much to ask for a little respect in return, even from the retailers who exploit Christmas to make their biggest profits?

It is unclear in Bronson's post how he feels that the holiday of "Christmas" and "Christians" in general were insulted (aside from over-commercialization). Since Christmas was mentioned in the commercial, one can only assume that he is angry that other holidays were included. Bronson claims that "Christians" respect other holidays (except for the one that he thinks is really nuts), but if he views that Christmas was insulted simply by mere mention of other holidays in the commercial, then one would have right mind to question whether he really does "respect" these other holidays.

Well, it's a good thing that we don't have to guess any longer. One reader that commented on Bronson's post pointed out that there are multiple holidays that are celebrated during that time of year and it looks like GAP was just trying to appeal to their young, hip and diverse audience. Here was Bronson's response (emphasis mine):

Hannukah is a pretty minor holiday on the Jewish calendar, Kwanzaa was just made up and solstice is strictly from the outskirts of Green Town. Equating those with Christmas denigrates the meaning. I guess that was already done long ago by the commercialization of Christmas, but it doesn’t help to accelerate it in the name of more commercialization. I think you’re right that the younger generation is more PC. And it’s a pity.

That's right, equating other holidays, like Hanukkah, with Christmas "denigrates" the meaning of Christmas. So the way that Christmas is insulted in the GAP ad according to Peter Bronson, is because the other holidays are merely mentioned in the same breath as Christmas. Doesn't sound very respectful to me. Seems like the problem is not with the so-called "PC culture", but with Bronson's view that inferior holiday celebrations somehow cheapen the holiday that he celebrates.


This piece is also posted here.

Chris Wallace on Limbaugh: He is a 'Sweet', 'Vulnerable' Man

Remember when Chris Wallace interviewed former Vice President Dick Cheney? You know, the interview that Andrew Sullivan likened to "a teenage girl interviewing the Jonas Brothers"? Well, our good buddy Chris Wallace has done it again, this time in an interview with Rush Limbaugh.

Just watch how Wallace characterizes Rush Limbaugh in this online video from Fox:



Wow, Limbaugh is "nice", "sweet" and "vulnerable". Don't hold back there Chris. As for the actual interview, Wallace lobs softball after softball at Limbaugh like he did for Cheney. Here are a few of my favorite excerpts:

WALLACE: If you had to bet now, does Barack Obama win re- election in 2012?

LIMBAUGH: If I had to bet now, he will not.

WALLACE: Have you got a name of somebody who’s going to beat him…

LIMBAUGH: No.

WALLACE: … can beat him?

LIMBAUGH: No. I have no clue about that.

WALLACE: If he does win, how is Rush Limbaugh going to handle seven more years of Barack Obama?

LIMBAUGH: You know, I’m glad you asked me that, because one of the questions I always get is, Rush, isn’t Obama — aren’t these Democrats in power good for your business? The way I go about my business, I’m out to get the highest ratings I get every day.
I’m going to attract the largest audience I can regardless the news. It’s my — it’s my talent that draws the crowd. The news is incidental to it. No. I’m worried, seriously worried, about the future of the country.
I would never put my personal success in front of what I think is something that’s disastrous for the country.

[...]


WALLACE: I think you’re a great broadcaster. How can you possibly be worth that kind of money?

LIMBAUGH: Very simply. Value is determined by what somebody will pay you to do what you do. I’m probably worth more. I’m not complaining. Do not — do not misunderstood.
But you know, this whole question — see, because I’m a capitalist. You’re worth whatever you can get. You’re worth whatever your value is, and that’s determined by what somebody’s willing to pay you for it.
And the only reason I get that money is because the people who invest in me get results beyond their expectations.

[...]

WALLACE: In the Time Magazine article about Glenn Beck recently…

LIMBAUGH: Oh, yeah.

WALLACE: … they write just as you found your place as the triumphant champion of the age of Reagan, that Beck is tapping into the fear and anger on the right today.
Is that why you think he’s struck such a chord, because he taps into the fear and the anger of the conservatives today?

LIMBAUGH: There is a lot of fear. There’s a — there’s a tremendous amount of fear in the country over what is happening in Washington to individual liberty and freedom. He may well have tapped into that.
The anger — I think that’s — that’s sometimes overplayed, because it’s become a cliche for the left to say angry white men as a way of denigrating conservative energy and ideology. But there’s no question there’s a lot of anger. And if — and if he’s tapped into that, I wouldn’t be surprised.

WALLACE: When you look at Glenn Beck and you see this explosion, what do you feel?

LIMBAUGH: Well, I’m kind of — I’m kind of proud.

WALLACE: No envy, no competition?

LIMBAUGH: No, no, no, no, no. I mean, my radio audience is astronomically high. I’m — look it, in 1988 there was nobody doing what I’m doing. Nobody. You had — CNN was the only cable network, and you had the three networks and the newspapers.
And now look. Now look what’s out — all of this conservative media, conservative talk radio, television, Fox News, the conservative blogosphere. I mean, I — in one way, I could — I could — if I wanted to have my ego to be as big as Obama’s is, I could say, Look what I created.
So any success out there on my side, conservative media — damn, if it’s going to help us get this country back, bring more in.

You can watch the whole interview here and remember, this is the "news" programming that Fox claims is "Fair and Balanced".

Hundreds of Tea-Party Members Gather Downtown to Oppose Health Care Reform Legislation

On Saturday afternoon, hundreds of people gathered outside the Carew Tower building carrying signs and chanting the phrase "We Surround Them" in order to voice their opposition to the health care reform legislation that is currently before both houses of Congress.

This event was organized by members of the Fairfield-based Cincinnati Tea Party as well as the Cincinnati 9/12 Project. While the march around Carew Tower was meant to send a message to Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-OH) of Ohio's first district (whose office is inside Carew Tower), there were many people in attendance who were not constitutes of Driehaus. One protester was commenting on how she drove from Liberty Township to attend the event while others commented that they lived outside of Driehaus' district.

This event was the culmination of a week of protests that were staged at various exit ramps off of I-275, where members would hand out leaflets and other information on health care reform. I-275 was a symbolic choice as the highway literally "surrounds" the city of Cincinnati and the message of "We Surround Them" has been a central theme in Glenn Beck's 9/12 Project.

After the march, the protesters gathered on Fountain Square to hear speakers, recite the Pledge of Allegiance and listen to Lee Greenwood's patriotic anthem "God Bless the USA".

Chris Littleton, Director of the Cincinnati Tea Party, was the first to speak and he drove home the point that the while the Tea Party movement "has no problem" with health care reform, they believe that government intervention in the health care system will lead this country down a "slippery-slope" toward a single payer system and eventually, wealth redistribution. Littleton made the statement that the current health care system is broken due to the government's attempts at regulations and challenged the crowd to name something good that the government has done in the past 100 years.

Littleton chided the creation of the Department of Energy as well as the Department of Education mockingly saying "...that has really worked out well hasn't it?" Littleton did not cite any specific statistics to explain why he believed that these Departments were a problem, but the crowd seemed to agree as a chorus of boo's came in response to the mention of the Department of Education. It was also unclear as to what Littleton meant when he stated that former President Carter created the Department of Energy to stop "our dependence on energy".

Founder of the Cincinnati Tea Party, Mike Wilson, then took to the stage to exclaim that he didn't really want to be at the rally since it was the homecoming game for the Cincinnati Bearcats, but that he felt it was important to make the time for this cause. Wilson, criticized the mainstream media for ignoring stories like that of the undercover operation that recently took place by two Conservative activists who sought advice from ACORN employees while dressing and posing as a pimp and a prostitute. It is unclear which media outlets Wilson feels have ignored the story as a quick Google search shows a wide-range of coverage on this topic.

Cheers erupted from the crowd as Wilson asked if anyone listens to Glenn Beck. Wilson claimed that Beck is one of those in the media who are bringing important stories to light. Wilson cited the resignation of Van Jones from the Obama Administration as an accomplishment to Glenn Beck and stated that the White House is so afraid of Fox News and talk radio because they are always "scooping" outlets like the New York Times and Washington Post. Wilson also spoke of Glenn Beck's latest target within the Obama Administration, White House Communications Director Anita Dunn. Wilson stated, as Beck has done, that Dunn said that two political philosophers that she turns to the most are Mother Theresa and Mao-Tse-Tung...apparently further "evidence" of socialism/communism in the Obama White House.

It is important to note that, Crooks and Liars has shown how Beck edited Dunn's quote to serve his purpose. Here is the Dunn quote that Beck ran:

"[T]wo of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Tse-Tung and Mother Teresa, not often coupled with each other, but the two people that I turn to most ..."

and here is the full quote:

"The third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse-tung and Mother Theresa -- not often coupled with each other, but the two people I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point which is 'you're going to make choices; you're going to challenge; you're going to say why not; you're going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before."

This distortion was not addressed by Wilson, nor was the fact that Beck has lost dozens of advertisers on his program ever since he labeled President Obama as a "racist". What was addressed was how Wilson feels that the government is unfairly infringing in the lives of Americans and how health care reform is just another way that the government will be telling people what to do. Wilson's example of how government is currently overstepping its boundaries was how the school that his son attends apparently prevented his son from eating sugar-free pudding that Wilson had packed for him because it wasn't in one of the food groups that is approved of by the Department of Agriculture. "You know what? It's my life!" shouted Wilson.

The final speaker at the event was former Congressman Steve Chabot (R-OH) who will be running against Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-OH) to try and earn back his seat in Congress that Driehaus took from him in 2008. Chabot compared the Presidency of Barack Obama to that of the runaway balloon that received lots of coverage a few weeks ago: "Lofty and shiny at first, but found to be nothing but hot air and empty after crashing to the ground."

Chabot claimed that politicians and "their special interest friends" are trying to push through government health care that would "increase health insurance costs" and "increase the deficit". There was no mention of the score that the Congressional Budget Office gave the legislation put forth by the Senate Finance Committee which states that this particular bill will actually reduce the deficit by $81 billion over a 10 year period.

Chabot went on to claim that the Tea Party movement is important because they "are helping to educate your fellow Americans about the truth about what is actually taking place in Washington."

"The Washington establishment and their allies in the mainstream press said that you were just the Fox-watching political fringe, a temporary bump in the road. Well, they know better now," Chabot exclaimed. Chabot embraced the Tea Party movement and the 9/12 Project by associating himself with the movement, often using the term "we" and "us" in describing "Republicans or Conservatives or tea-partiers or 9/12'ers or whatever you want to call us..."

Chabot concluded by stating that the country will be "taken back" by Conservatives and Republicans. "No moderates!" shouted a woman from the crowd as Chabot insisted that the "left-wing agenda" of the last year can "do a lot of damage" and will be "hard to reverse" in the future. Chabot told tea-party founder Mike Wilson that he hopes to work with him once he is back in Congress and once Wilson gets elected to the Statehouse (which Wilson is running for to "fight back against the Federal Government").

There was much criticism of of Rep. Steve Driehaus by former Congressman Chabot due to Driehaus not agreeing to speak at this event. "It's unfortunate that Steve Driehaus chose not to show up today to listen to your concerns," Chabot stated, "and finally tell us where he stands on the important health care issue. Although he has been particularly cagey in letting his constitutes, you, know where he stands, he did find time to let Howard Dean know that he supports the so-called public option plan."

Though Driehaus did not speak at this event, it is important to note that it is not completely accurate to imply that Driehaus has been hiding from the public or failing to let people know where he stands on issues of health care. Rep. Driehaus has held multiple town hall meetings on the topic of health care, during which he was repeatedly shouted down and booed by members of the same organizations that sponsored this rally on Fountain Square. You can view footage of these town hall meetings at links here, here, here, and here.

The Fountain Square event concluded with the singing of "God Bless America" as well as a call for donations to help pay for the event on the square by members of the Tea Party organization. "It's on my credit card right now," joked Director Chris Littleton, "and that gets really scary for me."

Below is some video that I took at the event so that you can see what took place and discuss the topic further:




This piece is cross posted here.

Katie Couric Interviews Glenn Beck

The other day, I posted a preview clip of Katie Couric's upcoming interview with Glenn Beck. Here is the full interview:


Watch CBS Videos Online

The interview is very interesting and some of the highlights include:

- Beck connecting his former alcoholism with believing in "socially liberal" ideas.
- Beck's continued insistence that he was yelling just as loud about President Bush as he is about President Obama.
- Beck stating that he was angry about the passage of the Patriot Act.
- His statement that "If you are not afraid of your government...the government can become a nightmare."
- and his attempts to justify his calling Obama a racist because Obama views the society through the "prism" of a historical pattern of racism.

After watching this interview, it is still puzzling as to what Glenn Beck believes. Frankly, I don't think that he knows what he believes. Many of his answers went off on tangents and he often accused Katie Couric of trying to set him up. Paranoid is a good word to use in describing Beck's demeanor during this interview.

One of the most interesting moments comes at about the 23 minute mark in the interview when Couric relays a question from a Twitter user. The question asks what Beck meant by "White Culture" when he infamously said that President Obama has a "deep-seated hatred for White Culture". Beck initially says that he doesn't know and then proceeds to dance around the question. When Couric presses him, he then claims that she is attempting to trap into giving her a "sound byte". He even has a Sarah Palin moment when he claims that Couric is playing a "gotcha" game. Couric asks Beck if he should be able to defend the controversial statements that he makes and Beck continues to stay mum.

This exchange is important because it demonstrates that Beck has no clue what he meant by that statement. This response is a microcosm of Glenn Beck and shows him to be a man that is confused as to what he believes, paranoid, and someone who strings loosley connected questions and statements that only scratch the surface, but are presented as providing answers to deep and complex questions.

Schizophrenic Conservatism

One of the more interesting topics that I find myself coming back to is the continuation of various protest movements that have sprung up around the country in opposition to the Obama Administration. I wrote about the paradox in these protests here, discussed how Glenn Beck's crazy hypocritical antics are fueling them here, and highlighted a video that shows the kaleidoscope of issues that are being protested here. Just when you think that all of this can't get any more confusing, it does.

Glenn Beck is going to be interviewed on CBSNews.com this evening by Katie Couric. A short clip has been released to promote this interview. Watch how Glenn Beck says that he doesn't like John McCain because he is some "progressive like Theodore Roosevelt" and how he thinks that McCain would have been a worse President than Obama or Hillary Clinton:


Watch CBS Videos Online

Astounding coming from the same guy who has devoted his show on Fox News to claiming that Obama is a Marxist and a racist. Couple that with the continued exposure of Beck as an outright hypocrite and you can't help but ask where on Earth he stand politically. For example (h/t dday), here is Beck (back when he was on CNN) talking about how Ron Paul supporters are terrorists:




Also note that in that video clip Beck says (of Ron Paul):

"It's really not the way I would go, tying in my movement with a historical terrorist attack, especially in post-9/11 America."

Beck is the same guy who started the 9/12 Project.

Here is another video (made by a Ron Paul supporter) that contains a video clip of Beck stating that he supports the $700 billion bailout that President Bush proposed as well as Beck's endorsement of the Patriot Act:




and in this clip from the other day, (can you guess what is coming?) Beck states that he was critical of Bush and "hated him" for the bailouts:




This is the guy who has been a driving force behind the tea-party and 9/12 Project protest movements that we have seen explode since President Obama took office back in January. He is a personality that literally cries on-air while delivering passionate speeches about how this country is falling apart, yet it is quite clear that what Glenn Beck believes (at least politically) shifts when he needs to attract ratings.

What Beck is promoting a brand of Schizophrenic Conservatism that has resulted in people showing up at large rallies claiming that they are against everything from health care reform to socialism to spending to illegal immigration to a "Muslim" taking over the country, etc.

Glenn Greewald weighs in on this confusion:

Increasingly, there is great difficulty in understanding not only Beck's political orientation but, even more so, the movement that has sprung up around him. Within that confusion lies several important observations about our political culture, particularly the inability to process anything that does not fall comfortably into the conventional "left-right" dichotomy through which everything is understood.

[...]

Ultimately, Beck himself is just a histrionic intellectual mess: willing to latch onto any hysterical accusations and conspiracy theories that provide some momentary benefit, no matter how contradictory they might be from one moment to the next. His fears, resentments and religious principles seem fixed, but not his political beliefs. Like the establishment leadership of both political parties, he has no core political principles or fixed, identifiable ideology. His description of himself as a "rodeo clown" might be the most perceptive thing he's ever said. Attempts to classify him on the conventional political spectrum are destined to fail, and attempts to demonize him as some sort of standard Republican bogeyman will inevitably be so over-simplified as to be false. Such efforts assume far more coherence than he possesses.

Far more interesting than Beck himself is the increasingly futile effort to classify the protest movement to which he has connected himself. Here, too, confusion reigns. In part, this is due to the fact that these "tea party" and "9/12" protests are composed of factions with wildly divergent views about most everything. From paleoconservatives to Ron-Paul-libertarians to LaRouchians to Confederacy-loving, race-driven Southerners to Christianist social conservatives to single-issue fanatics (abortion, guns, gays) to standard Limbaugh-following, Bush-loving Republicans, these protests are an incoherent mishmash without any cohesive view other than: "Barack Obama is bad." There are unquestionably some highly noxious elements in these groups, but they are far from homogeneous. Many of these people despised the Bush-led GOP and many of them loved it.

Add to all of that the fact that this anti-Obama sentiment is being exploited by run-of-the-mill GOP operatives who have no objective other than to undermine Democrats and return the Republicans to power -- manifestly not the goal of many of the protesters -- and it's impossible to define what this movement is or what is driving it.

This is exactly what we have seen in several of the videos that I have shot outside the health care protests that have taken place over the Summer. My video interview with Jim was a prime example of a protester who made several points that were loosely connected together under the umbrella of "we are being taken over by socialists."

This is not to say that some of the issues that are being voiced by protesters are not genuine. In fact, many of the issues transcend the mentality of left versus right. Many people, myself included, care about Wall Street's influence on the government, care about rampant government spending, and care about the erosion of our civil liberties. Greenwald is right to point out through these protests, the curtain has being pulled back on the countries inability to collectively analyze issues outside of the Beltway's typical "left vs. right" mentality. This mentality has certainly trickled down to the populous and end up making issues even more complicated in the long-run.

This kind of complication manifests itself when you mix legitimate concerns of citizens with interests that work hard to maintain the status quo. These interests include national media figures like Beck, the influence of party interests who are working toward the political goal of defeating Obama, and those who perpetuate so-called "facts" that end up being completely wrong. What results is more than a complete mess. What results is a movement that does not know whether they are coming or going, let alone where they stand.


This piece is crossposted here.

Modern Day McCarthyism

This is an interesting video compilation that compares the McCarthyism of the past, with its recent resurgence into the public debate:

Video of the Tea-Party March on Washington

What exactly is being protested here?

Harnessing Progressive Outrage

Author and Journalist Dave Lindorff has an interesting piece that is posted over at Counter Punch regarding the debate over health care reform. The main point of his piece is that the right-wing protesters are not really the main story:

What they are conveniently forgetting is that these are not really "town meetings" at all, at least in the sense of the town meetings I grew up with, and started out covering as a young journalist in Connecticut--that is, meetings called and run democratically, with leaders elected from the floor, open to all residents of a community.

These "town meetings" are really nothing but propaganda sessions run by members of Congress who are trying to burnish their fraudulent credentials as public servants, and trying to perpetrate a huge fraud of a health care bill that purports to be a progressive "reform" of the US health care system, but that actually further entrenches the control of that system by the insurance industry, and to a lesser extent, the hospital and drug industry.

[...]

Any mention of a system that works--single payer--the system we already have in the form of Medicare for the elderly and disabled, and the system that has proved successful for almost four decades in Canada-- has been systematically blocked and censored out of the discussion. Every effort has been made to bury an excellent bill, HR 676, offered up by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), which would cover every American by simply expanding Medicare to cover everyone.

The only proper response at this point is obstruction, and the more militant and boisterous that obstruction, the better.

Instead of opposing the right-wing hecklers at these events, progressives should be making common cause with them. Instead of calling them fascists, we should be working to turn them, by showing them that the enemy is not the left; it is the corporations that own both Democrats and Republicans alike.

A couple of notes on this post that are worth mentioning. Lindorff is correct to observe that all the focus on the right-wing disruptions of the town hall meetings have lent a certain brand of sympathy from progressives to the Obama Administration and the currently proposed bills that are before Congress. With so much time needing to be spent correcting the ridiculous claims (euthanizing the elderly via "death panels", government control of which doctors that you can see, etc.) it takes away from the time that could be spent having a real conversation about options, like single-payer, that are not even being considered or discussed.

Lindorff also has a valid point that what is actually being advanced as a truly progressive reform of the health care system, is actually turning out to be a giant compromise between those who wish to reform the system and the lobbyists of the health care industry. Yesterday, The Huffington Post got their hands on a White House memo that outlines a compromise that was reached between the Obama Administration and the pharmaceutical lobby. Bloomberg is also reporting that there are six lobbyists for each member of Congress that are working to shape the terms on which health care will be reformed. These lobbyists have one thing on their side that constituents of members of Congress don't...large sums of money which too often translate into the power to influence critical decisions that we are told are in the public interest.

The issue I take with Lindorff, is his prescription for progressives to advance their calls for a single-payer system. His advice is two-fold; first, to disrupt these town hall meetings by being both "militant" and "boisterous". Second, to join the protesters on the right by finding common cause with them and trying to "turn" them by focusing their anger on corporate interests.

Lindorff's first point, that progressives should adopt the very tactics that they have been denouncing all this time, would simply be counterproductive. What good would being "militant" and "boisterous" be considering we have seen first-hand how ridiculous and anti-democratic this has been when displayed by the protesters on the right over the last few weeks? One of the very criticisms of the right has been that their tactics of disruption have resulted in the suppression of views from progressives who also may oppose the health care reforms. What good would be brought to the views of progressives if they also engaged in the shout-down tactics? I would argue that little to no good would be served by adopting these tactics.

Lindorff's second point is that progressives should be finding common cause with the right and should work to "turn them" by showing them that the common enemy are the corporate interests. While this may seem like moving a mountain, it could be a worthy long-term goal. This is not a good strategy for this current issue nor would much success come from even beginning to attempt to "turn" people who currently believe that moderate reforms to the system will result in the United States turning into Nazi Germany. Call me crazy, but I can't imagine the following scenario:

Conservative: "Down with Government control of health care decisions! We are turning into Nazi Germany! Obama is a socialist! You are going to kill my elderly parents!"

Progressive: "But what is being proposed isn't a government takeover of the health care system."

Conservative: "Really?"

Progressive: "Nope, but let me tell you why you should support a true government-run system and how the corporate interests are screwing us both."

Conservative: "Okay, I will listen calmly to your viewpoint, consider all the merits of each system, and then be open to changing my mind."

Please excuse my oversimplification in this example, but "turning" conservatives in order to unite with them to fight for a common cause is not a feasible strategy in my mind, especially in the short-term and especially when discussing health care reform given the current political climate.

Should progressives be angered and outraged at the insistence by Congress that the single-payer option be kept off the table? Most certainly.

Should tough questions be asked at these town hall meetings about this topic? Definitely.

Should progressives continue to fight for a health care system that would cover all Americans while not sacrificing the quality of care? Absolutely.

Should this be done by adopting the same disruptive tactics at town hall meetings and joining with Conservatives to attempt an approach as a "united front"? I don't think this is a good idea.

There are other ways with which to affect change and to use activism in order get Congress to take the option of "Medicare for all" seriously. Before all this outrage began, Jane Hamsher was (and still is) doing a commendable job at organizing and I think that progress can be achieved with both grassroots and coordinated efforts from progressive organizations. These voices are (unfortunately) being drowned out by all the screaming and all of the misinformation that is trying to be corrected. While it may seem like an easy step to sympathize with the Administration in lieu of all crazy rhetoric being spewed from the right, progressives should not sacrifice their own voices. We can do better in this debate over health care reform and in order to get health care widely recognized as a human right and in order to get every person covered, we must do better.

The Water Continues to Boil

There was a town hall meeting on health care reform in Tampa, Florida last night with Rep. Kathy Castor (D) as the featured speaker. More than 1,000 people showed up for this forum and like we have seen in other parts of the country (including here in Cincinnati) things quickly got out of hand. The venue could not hold all of the people that showed up and when some were denied entry into the building, they began banging on the windows and chanting. Here is a report from the FOX affiliate in Tampa:



If you are like me, you are probably thinking, how on Earth can anything get accomplished in a setting as crazy as that? Well, it appears that nothing did get accomplished in Tampa last night (emphasis mine):

Moments later, violence broke out just outside the main auditorium doors, prompting police to close off the meeting room. A freelance photojournalist was among those roughed up suffering damage to both his glasses and camera equipment.

"That's the most violent anyone has been towards me," said Mark Bishop, who drove from Orlando to video tape the event. "It was surprising to say the least."

At least one person was treated for minor injuries following the altercation and could be seen on video with a shirt partially torn off his body.

Outside, both those for and against President Obama's health care reform ideas chanted and yelled, at times banging on the outside of the auditorium windows. Some argued face to face in the parking lot, shouting and screaming at each other as police officers looked on.

"We walk a fine line between freedom of speech and public safety," said one of the commanding Tampa Police officers on scene who indicated no arrests were made.

Not long into the meeting, Rep. Castor was escorted out of the building after being encouraged by an event organizer to leave. It appeared the congresswoman gave up on trying to get her points across after the crowd inside grew unruly.

While there have been threats of violence and while members of Congress have received death threats over this issue (more on this in a moment), this appears to be the first instance where we actually have reports of violence breaking out at one of these town hall meetings. Here is another amateur video from last night:



There are two points that I would like to make. The first is that what happened last night in Tampa, is a goal of this movement. The town hall meeting had to be shut down and that is a win for the Republicans and Conservatives who oppose health care reform. Instead of offering solutions or constructive ideas to revise the health care system, they simply have taken the position that it will lead to "socialism" and all conversation about it should be shut down.

The second point is that this type of anger is not rooted in, nor is it specifically about, health care reform. This is the same kind of rage that we saw during the campaign for President when the right-wing supporters of John McCain claimed that Obama was a terrorist, that his friends were terrorists, and that he was going to destroy America. This is the same kind of rage that we saw once Obama took office and tea parties were organized in opposition to the stimulus. This is the same kind of rage that we see from time to time when the issue of race is brought up either in the Henry Gates case, the nomination of a Latina to the Supreme Court, or the legitimacy of Obama's birth certificate. They claim that Obama is a racist, a foreign-born operative, and imply that he isn't really "one of us". This rage has now morphed into the opposition to health care reform, but it still has the same ugly undercurrent that is all too recognizable.

Here is another interesting wrinkle in all of this (from the St. Petersburg Times):

Instead, hundreds of vocal critics turned out, many of them saying they had been spurred on through the Tampa 912 activist group promoted by conservative radio and television personality Glenn Beck. Others had received e-mails from the Hillsborough Republican Party that urged people to speak out against the plan and offered talking points.

This behavior is being encouraged (and in some cases organized) by some Republican and Conservative groups for political gain. This is actually being viewed as a political strategy that benefits the health care industry (which donates money to many politicians) as well as allowing these politicians to cloak themselves in this astroterf populism as they prepare to run for office in the next election. This rage is also being encouraged by people like Glenn Beck (who thinks Obama is a racist) and Rush Limbaugh which not only has the profitable result of gaining them ratings, but of whipping up the rage of fringe elements of the movement that may feel it necessary to stop (in their view) the "destruction of America" at all costs.

To be frank, I worry about where this rage is heading. I fear that the encouragement of these actions will allow for their continued embrace as a legitimate means to an end. When things begin to escalate from words, to symbolic hangings (in the video below), to fights...one only has to wonder where this stops and what goals are to be achieved by such practices.

Rachel Maddow spoke about this on her show last night and I it relates to this discussion and is on point:

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

Pat Buchanan Sees the Republicans as a Big-Tent Party (Full of Whites Who are Being Discriminated Against)

After President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to become the next Supreme Court justice, the issue of race has been discussed on Conservative talk-radio and by some Republican members of Congress. As Sotomayor was questioned this past week during her confirmation hearings, some pundits even referred to her as a "reverse racist" and undeserving of the nomination because she was an "affirmative action" nominee. One of these individuals was Pat Buchanan. Last night Rachel Maddow had him on to discuss his position on Sotomayor and ended up exposing Buchanan as a bigot...again:

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

Maddow is right when she says that Buchanan is dating himself and stuck in the 1950's. Republicans should be running far, far away from Buchanan and other bigots who are advancing arguments like this.

Sarah Palin Resigns as Alaska's Governor

Sarah Palin has announced that she is resigning as Governor of Alaska:



So why did she resign? In Palin's words:

And there is such a need to BUILD up and FIGHT for our state and our country. I choose to FIGHT for it! And I'll work hard for others who still believe in free enterprise and smaller government; strong national security for our country and support for our troops; energy independence; and for those who will protect freedom and equality and LIFE... I'll work for and campaign for those PROUD to be American, and those who are INSPIRED by our ideals and won't deride them.

I WILL support others who seek to serve, in or out of office, for the RIGHT reasons, and I don't care what party they're in or no party at all. Inside Alaska - or Outside Alaska.

But I won't do it from the Governor's desk.

Of course the odd timing of this resignation, as well as her rambling resignation speech, have led many to speculate on the "real" reason that Palin is stepping down.

There is one report from Andrea Mitchell at MSNBC that indicates Palin is fed up with politics altogether and wants out:

Speaking on MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell reported that, according to "people very close to Sarah Palin," she has "told her supporters that she is out of politics, period. She is fed up with politics. She doesn't like her life. She feels that she needs to raise her family. She's sick of the commute from Wasilla to the capital. And she really does not want to run for higher office, that this is not a case where she is stepping down in order to clear the way for a presidential run. In fact, she has told some of her biggest backers in the national Republican Party that they are free to choose other candidates for 2012, which of course opens new avenues for Mitt Romney, for Tim Pawlenty, for other potential candidates who are definitely in the running."

There are also people speculating that Palin resigned in order to make some money before running for the Presidency in 2012 and then you have those who are saying that Palin is resigning in front of a big scandal that is about to break. Max Blumenthal on The Daily Beast:

Many political observers in Alaska are fixated on rumors that federal investigators have been seizing paperwork from SBS in recent months, searching for evidence that Palin and her husband Todd steered lucrative contracts to the well-connected company in exchange for gifts like the construction of their home on pristine Lake Lucille in 2002. The home was built just two months before Palin began campaigning for governor, a job which would have provided her enhanced power to grant building contracts in the wide-open state.

SBS has close ties to the Palins. The company has not only sponsored Todd Palin's snowmobile team, according to the Village Voice's Wayne Barrett, it hired Sarah Palin to do a statewide television commercial in 2004.

As of right now, analysts can only speculate, but it must be noted that Palin's resignation probably doesn't make a lot of sense if she plans to run for President in 2012. It would seem to me that she would at least want to have served a full-term as Governor to be able to tout that qualification if she was going to run for the nation's highest office. It would probably even make more political sense to run for re-election so that if she was planning a Presidential run, she could at least tout that she was elected to a second term.

What doesn't seem to make sense is if she is planning on laying low and playing the "the liberal media forced me out" card before running for President in 2012. While that may have some appeal to her conservative base, I can't really see that as a political strategy that would give her the type of widespread appeal that she would have to rely on to get her through the primaries. In all other normal situations, I would almost put money on the option that her resignation has something to do with an upcoming scandal. The abruptness of her decision as well as the odd timing really sets off my political scandal radar, but I need to remind myself that we are talking about Sarah Palin. Palin is not a normal political candidate and her decisions do not always make rational sense. Maybe she really is planning a run in 2012 and thinks that this is her best option. Time will certainly tell, but something tells me that the story of Sarah Palin's political career is not over just yet.

More Jesse Ventura

In case you didn't get a strong enough dose of Jesse Ventura with my earlier post, here is a clip from last night's "Hannity" on Fox News:



Sean Hannity's attempt at engaging in a new conversation with Ventura goes down the tubes quickly when he brings up the ridiculous "Obama is an idiot because he uses a teleprompter" smear. Ventura does a good job at countering the talking points that Hannity puts forth, but as expected, one is never going to make any headway on this program. Hannity has a list of questions and talking points that he is going to bring up no matter what his guest says and it results in him not addressing any points the guest brings up while quickly darting to the next item on his list. There is nothing "conversational" about that.

Michael "McFly" Steele Stars in 'Back to the Future: RNC Chair Edition'

RNC Chairman Michael Steele has a piece that is currently posted over at Politico that discusses reshaping the Republican Party. Steele believes that America needs the Republican Party now more than ever because the Democrats version of change has been to "push America to the left farther and faster than I think anyone could have imagined."

In response to the policies of the Democrats Steele says that the Republicans should do the following:

First, the Republican Party will be forward-looking – it is time to stop looking backward. Republicans have spent ample time re-examining the past. It has been a healthy and necessary task. But I believe it is now time for Republicans to focus all of our energies on winning the future by emerging as the party of new ideas. Republicans are emerging once again with the energy, the focus, and the determination to turn our timeless principles into new solutions for the future.

Later in his piece to emphasize this point Steele then says this:

The Republican Party has turned a corner, and as we move forward Republicans should take a lesson from Ronald Reagan. Again, we’re not looking back – if President Reagan were here today he would have no patience for Americans who looked backward. Ronald Reagan always believed Republicans should apply our conservative principles to current and future challenges facing America. For Reagan’s conservatism to take root in the next generation we must offer genuine solutions that are relevant to this age.

So let's get this straight, Steele thinks that Republicans need to look to the future and away from the past and the means by which to do this is to...look to Ronald Reagan's brand of conservatism and let it take root in the next generation.

Ronald Reagan "would have no patience for Americans who looked backward," Steele says, and then in the exact same paragraph advocates for Reagan's brand of 1980's conservatism.

Why would anyone take this seriously?

Helping to Explain the Fragmenting of the Right

What can help explain the decline of the Right in this country? Glenn Greenwald thinks that part of it is quite simple: the face that they put forward in the form of conservative talk radio, is repulsive. From Greenwald's entry:

Last night, someone named Andrew Wilkow guest-hosted Mark Levin's radio program -- one of the highest-rated right-wing talk radio shows in America, whose host is selling more books to a right-wing audience right now than anyone since their leading intellectual historian compared liberals to Nazis with a smiling Hitler face on the cover -- and within the first fifteen minutes this is what he said:

"Perez Hilton, who I am now terming a vile sodomite . . . yeah, Perez, you’re a vile sodomite – doesn’t that word have a ring to it – sodomite -- and vile – vile sodomite – it just sounds so good to hear in my headphones – vile sodomite . . . . I’m not sure whose idea it was to have an overweight homosexual . . . What do gays constitute? They could announce the cure for AIDS on Logo and nobody would know for two weeks . . . And again, Perez Hilton, you’re a vile sodomite . . . and then this vile sodomite . . ."

It went on and on like that. He then continued:

"You, the idiot taxpayer, are paying the salary of that nice little boy, Rachel Maddow . . . Keith Olbermann’s nephew, Rachel Maddow . . ."

No one is saying that the entire Conservative movement endorses these ideas or this kind of discourse, in fact this is precisely the point that Greenwald is trying to make, that this is part of the reason the Right is in decline. But shows like Levin's are widely popular and act as the face of a movement that claims to be the primary voice of genuine populist opposition to the current Administration.

As Camille Paglia mentions in her most recent piece:

In a harried, fragmented, media-addled time, there is an invigorating simplicity to this political fundamentalism. It is comforting to hold fast to hallowed values, to defend tradition against the slackness of relativism and hedonism. But when the tone darkens toward a rhetoric of purgation and annihilation, there is reason for alarm.

Greenwald Nails the Conservative Reaction to Homeland Security Report

The Department of Homeland Security has recently issued a warning to local law enforcement officials about the rise in rightwing extremist activity. From the Washington Times article:

A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines "rightwing extremism in the United States" as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.

"It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,"

Glenn Greenwald documents the response from the right:

Conservatives have responded to this disclosure as though they're on the train to FEMA camps. The Right's leading political philosopher and intellectual historian, Jonah Goldberg, invokes fellow right-wing giant Ronald Reagan and says: "Here we go Again," protesting that "this seems so nakedly ideological." Michelle Malkin, who spent the last eight years cheering on every domestic surveillance and police state program she could find, announces that it's "Confirmed: The Obama DHS hit job on conservatives is real!" Lead-War-on-Terror-cheerleader Glenn Reynolds warns that DHS -- as a result of this report (but not, apparently, anything that happened over the last eight years) -- now considers the Constitution to be a "subversive manifesto." Super Tough Guy Civilization-Warrior Mark Steyn has already concocted an elaborate, detailed martyr fantasy in which his house is surrounded by Obama-dispatched, bomb-wielding federal agents. Malkin's Hot Air stomps its feet about all "the smears listed in the new DHS warning about 'right-wing extremism.'"

While Greenwald states that this report is, in some instances, comprised of some generalizations and is "overly broad", he rightly points out the irony that those who supported the creation of the surveillance state are now suddenly concerned about its existence:

the political faction screeching about the dangers of the DHS is the same one that spent the last eight years vastly expanding the domestic Surveillance State and federal police powers in every area. DHS -- and the still-creepy phrase "homeland security" -- became George Bush's calling card. The Republicans won the 2002 election by demonizing those who opposed its creation. All of the enabling legislation underlying this Surveillance State -- from the Patriot Act to the Military Commissions Act, from the various FISA "reforms" to massive increases in domestic "counter-Terrorism" programs -- are the spawns of the very right-wing movement that today is petrified that this is all being directed at them.

Talk about coming full circle:

Indeed, thanks to the very people who are today petulantly complaining about politically-motivated federal police actions (now that they imagine it's directed at them rather than at people they dislike), the Federal Government today has the power to eavesdrop on telephone calls and read the emails of American citizens without warrants; monitor bank records without court approval; obtain all sorts of invasive personal records, medical and financial, without Subpoenas; and obtain and store a whole host of other personal information about American citizens who have not been accused, let alone convicted, of having done anything wrong. Also thanks to them (and things like the War on Terror, the War on Drugs, the Patriot Act, the FISA Amendments Act, etc. etc), most of this is carried out without any real oversight or safeguards, left entirely to the judgment and good faith of federal officials to wield these powers carefully and for proper ends. And, better still, federal officials can hide behind sweeping claims of secrecy and National Security to prevent courts from scrutinizing what they did and determine if it was illegal (we call that "the state secrets privilege").

[...]

This is all as laughable as it is predictable. Just a couple months out of power and they have suddenly re-discovered their fear of the Federal Government and their belief in the need to limit its powers.

Greenwald nails this and I will end with one more excerpt from his piece:

Apparently, though, the Right has forgotten these important lessons about Trusting Our Political Leaders and instead is now embracing a newfound and quite disturbing devotion to Terrorist Rights. To borrow from Sarah Palin, they are apparently more worried about whether the Timothy McVeighs and Eric Rudolphs of the world can plan their next violent attack without interference from the DHS than they are in having the Government keep us all Safe. What kind of twisted, warped, subversive political movement prioritizes Terrorist Rights over the Safety of Americans like this?