Rick Perlstein fellates Josh Marshall

In his weekend link dump, Kuff fellates American Prospect fellating Zionist Josh Marshall. No, really; the word "Israel" is nowhere in the story. Perlstein also doesn't call Marshall out when he claims his audience is "left-wing," even though Marshall earlier admits that he's hated on the "socialist left." (A left-neoliberal audience is NOT "left-wing," Josh.

He's even more hated on the anti-Zionist left. That, in turn, is a mix of funny/ironic/sad because, in his Twitter feed, Perlstein himself seems at least moderately anti-Zionist, certainly on the current war. I don't know what Josh has written about the war itself, but before it, he was a full-on blank-check Zionist.

So, to riff on Perlstein? Yeah, he's had success, fiscally etc. So has Daily Kos, without Markos bigfooting the site in the foreground anymore.

Has either one had POLITICAL success other than as new font of online #BlueAnon tribalism?

Hell, no.

It's no wonder that Kuff, himself a BlueAnon tribalist who continues to maintain radio silence on Gaza, including Texas' own DPS busting up pro-Palestinian protestors at Texas universities, loved this piece. 

In response on Twitter, Perlstein gave me the old "this is the institutional framework, the duopoly is it" spiel on that. I told him that, as a member of the print media, I mentioned third parties from time to time. On Zionism, he admitted that "others were that bad, too."

As for Perlstein? Sadly, I thought he was better than this. And, I think I'll pass on his latest book when it comes it. It sounds like little more than a suaver Dan. Froomkin.

No, Kossacks, Joni Ernst did not break the law, let alone commit treason

Sen. Joni Ernst — nutcutter, yes, even a
wingnut. Not a traitor or close.
Equalled in stupidity by Democrats.

A Democratic wingnut at the Great Orange Satan thinks Iowa's junior senator, also a Lite Col in the Iowa National Guard, has violated that state's National Guard regulations.

There's nothing "contemptuous" in the 47 GOP Senators' letter to Iran. President Obama was not called the n-word, nor even a secret Muslim, nor a Kenyan native. Certainly not by any legally defined use of the word.

For those with open minds, and not Democratic Party, or para-Party, hacks, click that link and read the actual letter, OK?

Really? This is just another example of run-it-up-the-flagpole-and-salute Democrats-only partisanship. Happens in both major parties.

The letter itself was stupid, to be sure. It didn't violate any military oath for Ernst, or any other GOP senator who may have a Guard rank.

Nor, contra Democratic wingnuts, did it violate the Logan Act. The Department of State has had past opinions that the act doesn't cover Members of Congress, for one thing. Second, I argue that it's unconstitutional, at least as currently written, anyway.

And, even if it DID violate the Logan Act, such violations are NOT treason.

The details for the Logan Act are:

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments. 

 Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. 

 This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

That's it, period and end of story. Nothing about "treason," and with a max penalty of three years in prison.

As for treason? That's officially listed and detailed in the U.S. Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. 

 The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Again, nothing in there sounds even close to the Logan Act. And, there's a reason why.

"Treason," like "libel" only worse, had long been a tool of the British Crown for hauling people into Star Chamber type proceedings. And the Founding Fathers wanted to prevent something like that in the United States. 

As far as details of that first paragraph? We've not declared war against Iran; it would itself be a constitutional issue as to whether the imposition of sanctions have made Iran an "enemy." If not, then the rest of the first graf is nugatory. Even if Iran is an enemy, one would then have to prove the letter gave Iran "aid and comfort."

Thus, PuffHoes is right; the whole "treason" is nothing but Democratic clickbait for attention and campaign dollars. The Dems' Senatorial Campaign Committee is already working on that, per Politico.

In other words, this is at least the third event or pronunciamento of some size this week that's shown that both lamestream political parties can, do, and will engage in partisan hackery.

And, as for a counter-commenter on 3 Quarks Daily claiming I'm overstating things? Wrong. Between that DSCC item and 250K and counting people signing a White House petition claiming a Logan Act violation, I don't think so.

And, as I previously noted with my latest Clinton Emails update, there's "a vast left wing conspiracy about conspiracies," complete with para-political groups like MoveOn, Media Matters, etc. And, the Huffington Post piece I linked noted the same — this is all part of the vast para-Democratic outrage machine. So, sorry 3 Quarks commenter, but, I think you're wrong.

The real, real issue, per the Huff Post piece, which connects with Politico's piece on the DSCC, is this:

There are sites which send around petitions to charge Republican senators with treason, stating erroneously that the senators who signed the letter to Iran could be arrested for violating the Logan Act, and other nonsense. These sites get money for each click. Then they have your email or your Facebook and maybe all your Facebook friends, and will continue to send click bait. People waste time signing useless petitions and sharing them. This click bait money is not the same as supporting a political party, or a candidate. The click bait money props up the organization sending the click bait, and in my opinion this is all money and time that would be better spent funding candidates or real activists (who do more than send out crap on the internet).

In other words, like most things in democratic-government politics, it's all about the money. 

And, until people who claim to be Democrats recognize this, this will only get worse. And, if Tea Party wingnuts don't recognize it, that's fine. This isn't a zero-sum unilateral disarmament issue.

So, it's fun to spoof the GOP wingnuts, like claiming Ted Cruz wrote a secret protocol to that letter to Iran. It's also fun to spoof Democratic wingnuts on stuff like this. Maybe more so at times, because they tend to get huffier.

Update: It is quite arguable, that in addition to a cheap political stunt, Sen. Tom Cotton is guilty of the crime of stupidity, if he really is just now discovering that the Iranians are threateningly in control of the city of Tehran.

A word to both #Obamiacs and #Hillaryites via Ted Rall

It's the start of the new year, and I'm being snarkier than ever from my skeptical left-liberal perspective.

That said, it's a lot easier with the help of Ted Rall, a master of snark.

Ted Rall's own caption: Hillary Clinton has titles, but few achievements, to her name.
Her campaign is built on hype. People are more into what she would symbolize if she won —
a first woman president — than what she would do. Sound familiar?

That said, a couple of points to note.

First, in 2008, when people asked if I didn't want to help make history,  or whatever, I told them I was voting for both the black and the woman, in the same person, before the Democratic primaries even ended. (I have no idea if Cynthia McKinney had or has something in the closet on her sexual preferences, and it's none of my damned business if she does.)

And, per a friend of mine, I have a new word: "Demdroids."

I define it as a lower digestive system ailment one gets on a no-fiber, all neoliberalism diet.

That said, if you don't recognize that you're being fed pablum with no sustenance in the first place, you don't realize that having a low-grade burning pain in the ass is not the way things are supposed to be. 

Or, you may believe that a diet with 2 percent fiber, and the resultant Demdroids, is enough less bad than the zero-fiber GOP alternative. In that case, don't blame GOP governors for people lacking insurance, don't trot out conspiracy theories about Obamacare's website getting disrupted by wingnuts with DDOS attacks or anything else.

Look at said cartoon above, again, especially the top right panel.

I had thought about having "Be less snarky" as one of my New Year's resolutions, but I realized I'd break that in a New York minute.

Rather, mentally, I'm thinking, "Be more acccurately snarky," or "Be snarky with more precision," is what I'm looking at. New Year's resolutions, or better, goals, are supposed to be SMART: Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Time-bound and, this fits all of them.

That said, looking ahead to 2016.

While Elizabeth Warren might actually do more good in the Senate, I suspect a lot more people will run the possibility of "demdroids" in 2016 unless someone like her enters the Democratic race. Hell, maybe Tammy Baldwin should run, as long as its not on a sexual identity special interest platform.

And, let's see one, just one, Kossack post this at the great orange Satan.

That reminds me of something else. Some of you may recall the whole Daily Kos kerfuffle,where Kossacks accused Rall of racism, and Rall eventually said he would draw Obama differently? What if he just doesn't draw him at all for three more years, while continuing to take potshots? Take that, Kossacks! 

Sadly, instead, he went back to "just" drawing Obama like before. But, there's hope!

Anyway, in one post, Rall bankshots both Obama and Clinton, while perhaps setting the tone until Jan. 20, 2017. And, for Kossacks who are also Hillaryistas, now you know — mess with Ted Rall at your own peril, or with any cybercartoonist who buys coloration by the pixel-barrel.

New low from #SJW #Kossack #Obamiacs — thinking Ted Rall is racist

Oy vey.

So, Ted Rall, who has never claimed, or tried to be, Monet or van Gogh as an editorial cartoonist, but who has drawn President Barack Obama the same way for four years, is now being accused of being a racist for that drawing. (I wouldn't link to something this stupid from Kos, even with a "no follow" in the HTML; the link is from media analyst Jim Romanesko, though the original Kos link is available via him.)

And, a writer at the Atlantic is dumb enough, or politically correct enough, to jump on the Kossack bandwagon.

And, here's Rall's own comment.

First, it's interesting that he wasn't in an original list of cartoonist invitees. I suspect somebody in the Kos hierarchy already knew enough about him to be skittish.

Other than him misusing the word "censorship," which only governments can do, here's his take specific to the takedown:

This act of censorship is notable for several reasons, however:

1. This “liberal” blog has slammed me with the most severe act of censorship of my career. Since I began syndication in 1991, I have had individual cartoons killed. I have been fired, sometimes unjustly. ...

But this tops them all.

They weren’t paying for my work. To the contrary, I drove traffic to them. My cartoons were routinely among their list of High Impact Posts that elicit a lot of discussion. If you read them, you’ll see that a cadre of militant Obama defenders was determined to drive me away, and they succeeded.

This is what the Democratic Party has come to: so unable to face criticism, whether from left or right, that they stifle opposing voices. ...

3. The grounds for censoring my cartoons from the site — my drawing style — are beneath contempt. Anyone familiar with me and my work knows I’m not racist. My criticisms of the president are unrelated to his race, and to say otherwise in the absence of evidence is disgusting. Here’s the cartoon in question. It should be noted that my editors at a variety of American newspapers, magazines and websites, almost all of whom are left of center politically, some of whom are black and many of whom voted for Obama, have never expressed the slightest concern about the way I draw the president.

As someone who was blocked from Kos myself for being too Green, none of this surprises me. And, technically, like Rall  (I believe), my account wasn't deleted. It was simply "frozen," so that in some Orwellian way, Kos could say that people like me hadn't been banned.

And, contra claims by generic Kossacks that this was all a "community" thing, Markos himself at least signed off on the ban, then, in his typically Orwellian way, claimed Rall hadn't been banned, per The Progressive.

That said, what the hell do you expect from someone who claimed the CIA was full of secret liberals? Well, you get lying, dissembling, stupidity and cultic behavior all in one package.

Also part of that lying? Contra the official warning to him, I doubt Markos and other insiders think he's racist. Rather, they know he's kryptonite to Obamiacs and Obamism (got a better word) and saw this as an easy ginned-up way to dump him.

I've disagreed with Rall a few times; I even deleted him from my (fairly brief) blogroll a couple of years back, after he had been there a few years. (I can't remember why.) But in general, I think many of his cartoons and his op-ed columns are both generally good stuff. Beyond that, you know where he stands on issues.

And, to all the individual Kossacks who supported the decision?

If this is really your mindset, "eat me." Especially if you're snooty enough to call your cultish mind-hive a "more honorable community."

Especially you social justice warriors, either Kossacks or others spreading the story by Twitter, accusing Rall of ... I kid you not ... "whitesplaining."

Thank doorknob I got banned there long ago, in light of the current crop of #stupidsplaining. Or #Kossplaining. I'm just disappointed I deleted my old blog about Markos der Fu¨hrer, or I'd have cross-posted this over there.

At the same time, Rall can, as well as write or draw things I disagree with, get on his high horse of moral dudgeon his own self. Whether he was really driving that much traffic to Kos, I don't know. I especially don't know if it was that versus Kos driving more traffic to him.

So, while I agree that this is an example, and a good one, of liberal puritanism, it's also a good job of Ted Rall taking an incident, and running with it, to shove himself in the limelight.

But, to be fair, here's a short video clip of Rall talking about the cartoon.



And, I'll still take Ted Rall shoving himself in the limelight over Markos Moulitsas' fake concern trolling, or some Kossacks' real concern trolling.

Sadly, on the Progressive's piece, Rall said he's, in essence, giving in. He's going to draw Obama differently. I hope it's a sarcastic "differently." I Tweeted him that he should draw Obama to look just like Markos.

Or, given that she's a neoliberal pea in a pod, drawing him to look halfway between Obama and Hillary Clinton would be fun, too. That said, then, somebody would accuse him of mansplaining as well as whitesplaining.

===

In a separate post, Rall notes how Adbusters seems to be profiteering (more?) off Occupy Wall Street, even selling them out, he says. If you thought he was pissed at Kossacks, read this.

I did, including noticing the Adbusters email link. And, I emailed, as regular readers know I do.

Kalle Lasn of Adbusters tried some blame-dumping:

please don't confuse Adbusters with the occupywallst.org group . . .
this morning we sent this email to them:
Priscilla, Justine, Micah,
Are you all seriously doing this? Selling the Adbusters OWS poster?
Really? Do you understand how much this undermines the entire message
of the movement? Think about all the people who put their asses on
the line, risked jail and police brutality, gave their time, energy
and reputations … and you're selling the poster? You're turning the
movement into a parody of itself and proving all of the critics right.
Please stop selling this poster!
Kalle, Darren and all of us here at Adbusters

Ahh, sure, Kalle. Whatever you say.
You're the frustrated graphic artists who didn't get jobs on Madison Avenue.
Just like the OWS folks with MBAs and JDs, mad that Wall St. didn't hire them.

Sample some fine Texas whine, #Kossack style, folks

I love the Kossacks at Daily Kos, or rather, "love" them about like I love, or rather, "love" the Gnu Atheist Pharyngulac followers of P.Z. Myers, aka Pharyngula. Both Myers and Markos Moulitsas are cult-like blog leaders, for starters, with lots of motivated reasoning that churns out strange ideas at times.

One of Kos' most hilarious, of course, was the claim that there's a bunch of secret liberals in the CIA. Only thing that would have made that claim even funnier, in hindsight, would have been if he had said NSA. Beyond that, he's pretty much a total run it up the flagpole and salute it Obamiac who's made clear that politics as game, and beating the other team, is more important than the ideology you're carrying in your backfield. And, the Kossacks generally follow right along.

That leads me to MargaretPOA, trying to carry good water for Obama AND defend Texas against fellow Kossack's charges that ... it's Texas or something. This effort does indeed produce some fine Texas whine:

This effort [to evangelize in Texas] has been made much more difficult than it has to be by a minority of users who seem to revel in bashing Texans and anything Texas. This is almost always done in a broad brush sort of way and usually without any real knowledge of the state. There is also almost always a suggestion included that the United States should "let" Texas secede, (or even force us from the Union!), and so forth. This makes my job orders of magnitude more difficult because I like to direct people to Daily Kos in order to read the truth of a given topic. But head for the hills and Mary bar the door if that topic concerns Texas or Texans because I can depend on a small but very rowdy group of people to come around and start hurling insults, epithets and opinions about how everybody would be better off without Texas. ...

Now, come on! I don't come to your job and piss in your antifreeze or shit on your report! I have yet to see anybody at Daily Kos, (or elsewhere, really), suggest that Maine, Wisconsin or Ohio should be forced into Canada or that sawing off Florida would make the average I.Q. of the country go up. I don't remember anybody saying that Alaska should go back to Russia or that without Arizona we could do so much better.

OK, let's stop there and critique a few things, especially in the second graf.

First, nobody in any of the other states mentioned, as far as a governor of a state, has talked about seceding. Only Rick Perry. Wisconsin and Ohio, in political terms, are "purplish," not hard-core red. Ditto for Maine. Even Florida is less red than Texas. Alaska may be red, but any nuttery in the state centers on Sarah Palin far more than nuttery in Texas being confined to Arizona.

The second problem is that many an alleged liberal in Texas also practices what every Texas conservative does, MargaretDOA [sic]. It's called "Texas exceptionalism," the state-level equivalent of American exceptionalism, jingoism and all.

I finally had the light bulb about that come on when Democratic gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis, with her first post-announcement campaign speech in Waxahachie, during the middle of the federal government shutdown, claim that Texans would never have such government disfunction, even though Texas had had exactly that during the Legislature's second special session and Davis' treatment during that, during her filibuster. After the lightbulb came the floodwaters of connecting the dots and putting them on paper, as I did here. As someone who lives in Texas, and has for a number of years, though I'm not a native, Texas exceptionalism disgusts me as much as American exceptionalism does. And, it disgusts me more when it comes from the mouth of a liberal than a conservative.

Meanwhile, since I was banned from Kos for being too much of a Green and too much of a real liberal, Margaret's biographic tidbits open her up for more criticism:

Fifty something Texas socialist who is indescribably tired of DC politicians arguing around the edges of policy while the middle class vanishes and the poor slowly become enslaved.

Really, a socialist? And you voted for Obama twice, and willingly? We have a Green Party in Texas, though not a Socialist one, at least not one with state ballot access and the same range of support. You have a choice.

And, you opted not to follow it.

And, in doing so, as a Kos member since 2005, you helped perpetuate all the easy stereotypes about Kossacks.

Have fun stewing in your fine Texas whine. Texas exceptionalism, served in a Kossack sippy cup. Guaranteed hangover.

#DailyKos smokes Texas redistricting crap

Glad I got booted, or technically, my account got suspended, from the Daily Kos homepage years ago for being too liberal and too green. (It happens, folks; look for "Armando" on this blog and you'll find out the straw that broke the camel's back.)

Because, if I still had a usable account (and why not be straightforward and boot people rather than, like Team Obama, indefinitely suspending them), I'd go a mix of laughable and ballistic over a Texas Kossack posting shite like this.

The "shite like this" in question being a claim that Texas could have a 20-16 Democratic majority in Congress with just the right redistricting map.

As long as Daily Kos-type Texas Dems keep smoking crack, dropping acid tabs or whatever, we'll get nonsense like this. Yeah, Teh Texas Lege is going to pass redistricting that comes anywhere near close to producing a Dem majority for US Congress. 

There's more chance of Gohmert Pyle (Louie Gohmert) coming out of the closet as gay than there is of the Lege passing such a map.

Of course, the blogger says he's writing on the premise of Texas Dems having controlled the Lege for redistricting. Odds of that?

See "Pyle, Gohmert," above.

Second, the blogger in question overrates the chances of most those districts going Democratic.

Third, per this point in the post:

Incumbent preferences were mostly disregarded. If someone must insist on a >70% Obama district, well he or she doesn't have to be in Congress.

The blogger doesn't understand redistricting in general. SCOTUS has said incumbent protection is a legitimate angle in redistricting, and a House Dem in a 70 percent district would no way in hell go down to a 55 percent Democratic district on the non-guaranteed possibility of increasing Texas' House Democrats by 1, or 2. And, they would laugh their heads off at this Kossack saying that Texas could flip eight seats from the current standard.

The fact that Democrats haven't won a statewide election in 20 years now should be enough coffee-sniffing for even a numbnuts like this Kossack, but I guess not.

And, now, we have another nutbar in Kossackland.

To introduce this one: Thomas B. Edsall says that even getting Hispanic vote and registration rates up to national averages, with a presumed break of 71 percent Democrat, still leaves the Democrats and folks like Battleground Texas looking way up, way way up.

But a nutbar at Daily Kos claims Edsall says that Battleground Texas has Greg Abbott quaking. Other than Abbott's over-the-top comment that Edsall quoted, he said no such thing.
Of course, when the guy who founded you thinks there's a Fistful of Secret Libruls in the CIA, I supposed the hangers-on come by such fantasy thinking easily.

Jon Chait STOPS fellating Obama, becomes bigger hack

Exactly two months ago, political insider Jonathan Chait wrote a big steaming pile of blather with this headline: "The Case for Obama: Why He Is a Great President. Yes, Great."

It included such dreck as this:

Obama can boast a record of accomplishment that bests any president since Roosevelt, and has fewer demerits on his record than any of them, including Roosevelt. 

And dreck that is indeed.

Says who?

Not just me, but ... Jon Chait!

Exactly two months later, he writes, with this headline: "Why is Obama Caving on Taxes?" and proceeds to excoriate Dear Leader up one side and down the other.

That includes this closing paragraph:

Obama may think his conciliatory approach has helped avoid economic chaos. Instead, he is courting it.

That's a Loooong ways away from "great," isn't it?

Well, the second Chait is right. But, refusing to let even 10 percent of that thought into a political puff piece two months ago (Note: Obama's biggest achievement, allegedly, Obamacare, actually is Nancy Pelosi's doing) shows just how much a hack he is.

But, really, he's a representative of a type. In days ahead (whether the House approves the "fiscal slope" deal or not) you'll see others like Chait, neoliberal but not quite as conservative as Dear Leader, and still clueless as to how bad an executive leader he is, similarly burn rubber and strip clutches at the strenuousness of their change-of-direction rethinking about O'Bummer.

I'll bet we soon smell similar burned-out clutches from Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo, Markos Moulitsas at Daily Kos, Steven Benen at Washington Monthly, and Kevin Drum at Mother Jones, among others.

In order of hackery, Kos is right there with Chait, as is Benen, a consistent Democratic Party fluffer. Marshall at times ranks higher on the snootiness level, though.

And, even IF the House GOP approves this ... a definite if ... this is only a two-month Band-Aid. Why?  The "great" Dear Leader didn't get a debt ceiling long-term fix as part of the deal.

In any case, let's see exactly sort of Ricky Ricardo "splaining" they do.

No, Romney did NOT have a 'cheat sheet'

Mitt Romney and the handkerchief that's
not a cheat sheet./Image via BuzzFeed.

Unfortunately, via Daily Kos and other sites, notably, the Washington, D.C., CBS station with uncritical reporting, liberals, I mean Democrats, are making the claim that Mitt Romney brought a cheat sheet, “illegally,” to the US presidential debate Wednesday night.

But, showing that liberals, or I should say, Democrats, have just as much Chris Mooney type motivated reasoning to lie as Republicans, it was actually, apparently, a handkerchief, per Buzz Feed. Wish I had thought to look on a place like Memorandum FIRST before sharing the original link above on Facebook.

That said, in what's not actually a debate, sponsored by mega-rich corporations that anti-democratically excludes third-party candidates, the whole thing is nothing but theater and who the fuck cares who cares about real democracy and real political choices? Isn't the real problem, if you're a Democrat, that Obama didn't think of something similar, if Mitt had cheated? Just think of Michio Kaku's wet-dream Internet contact lenses!

so

Anyway, truth is, Mitt didn’t cheat.

But, Daily Kos, via one of its “contributors,” goes more conspiratorial than the “Bush had an electronic receiver on his back” from 2004.

Read Kos:

Yes it could be a hanky.  But it falls kind of heavy, and stays uniform in it's fold.  Plus it is flat.  I have never seen a man's hanky be so uniform and flat coming from a front pant's pocket.  Back pocket, yes, breast pocket in a jacket, yes.. but not the front pant pocket.

He was also wearing make up and to wipe any sweat from his face with a hanky would have taken off his make up.  Plus remember that old saying "Never let them see you sweat?"  If he was seen to wipe sweat from his brow, the optics would have been very bad ("Obama makes him nervous, he can't stand up to him.")

Wow. Of course, the proprietor of that website once claimed the CIA was full of closet liberals, so what can you expect? And froze my account for being too liberal and too green.

Since my friend posts all his statuses as “public,” I consider the comments by the friend of the friend legitimate to grab. Here it is:

Folks, he can be seen clearly returning to his podium at the end of the debate to pick up a sheet of paper, fold it, try ineptly to stuff it in his jacket pocket and then rope in his kid to have the son put it in his own pant's pocket.

Conspiracy thinking. Both parties do it … Democrats “pull a Chris Mooney” too.

 

Update: A second friend of this friend has weighed in, first making the assumption that I'm a typical conservative, rather than a left-liberal (at least for America, and a skeptical one, too) who voted Green in 2004 and 2008 and plans to do so again. That's despite comments on the link the second friend of a friend posted, that said Rachel Maddow had already debunked this.

And, yet another reason to say Chris Mooney is full of motivated reasoning bullshit with "The Republican Brain."

 

Schweiter is really, really anti-enviro

A day after blocking hungry bison from leaving Yellowstone National Park, Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer promoted to ranchers that they should shoot wolves on sight, even where and when not allowed:

Livestock owners in southern Montana and Idaho have authority to defend their property by shooting wolves that attack their cattle, sheep or other domestic animals. And federal agents regularly kill problem wolves, with more than 1,000 shot over the past decade.

But Schweitzer is moving to expand those killings beyond what the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has so far allowed, including to parts of Montana where ranchers are not allowed to shoot the predators.

And this was the type of Democrat that Kos, Markos Moulitsas was promoting a couple of years ago, and probably still is.


Time for somebody like the Center for Biological Diversity to haul Schweitzer's ass into court.

The Obama online coup vs. real online activism

That’s a subhead, and a great one, about halfway down John Stauber’s column about moving beyond MoveOn, aka Team Obama Cheerleaders, and using the Internet for real progressive change.

The “coup”?

Arguably the most important key to the success of President Barack Obama was his use of the Internet and his ability to harness it for publicizing his campaign, among young voters especially.

Wouldn’t disagree a bit.

Of course, MoveOn co-founder Joan Blades did, and does, plenty of Obama flacking over at Kos, another reason not to read the Orange Monster, though you do get some Obama critiquing there on occasion.

Stauber looks at both MoveOn and Kos and has suggestions for REAL online progressive activism, the next stage.

Kos gets facts wrong itself in Dem-fluffing AP attack

Yet another reason I don’t automatically vote Dem AND why I’m glad I got booted from the Kossack herd of sycophants.

BarbinMD claims the AP is fact-challenged in hanging large responsibility for Gramm-Leach-Bliley on Slick Willie Clinton’s neck.

Tis true that the name of the act, including Phil Gramm, wasn’t mentioned.

But, here’s the bigger things that AP also didn’t mention:
• Two-thirds of House Dems voted in favor of GLB
• Co-author Jim Leach is the biggest Republican to endorse Obama, and he’s never apologized for GLB;
• Before becoming Clinton’s Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin worked for Goldman Sachs, the single largest donor, by company, to Obama’s campaign.

It’s the duopoly at work!

Barb, if the AP is an “embarrassment to journalism,” you’re an embarrassment to mock indignation. Put a fork in yourself; you’re well done, Barb.

Kos may be imploding and we can only hope

A bunch of pro-Clinton members, saying they are tired of being trashed rudely by Obama supporters, without Kos himself or any of his staff lifting a finger about it, have declared a strike.

I have a question or two, though.

First, what took you numbnuts so long to get a clue?

I don’t think any of you had sympathy three or four years ago for those of us who were banned for being too Green, too independent-minded or too anti-Armando.

Screw you.

Second, what will you do when Kos permanently flips you the bird? Half of you are probably addicted enough that you’ll admit you were wrong in some sort of Kossack show trial.