Calling All Wingnuts

Jay Diamond, a former conservative radio show host in the North East that changed stripes and is now an anti-corporate progressive, sent me this.  He takes on Hannity and pretty much nails the problem…:

This lack of standards is far more than a lack of good manners in racial matters; it is a complete breakdown in the most grave responsibility that a radio broadcaster has to the public; the moral obligation to tell the truth.
Right now, cynical hidden agendas rule the day on radio. And remember, no radio personality puts himself in front of the microphone. It is always the station owner who is speaking, and it is always the station owner who is responsible for upholding the ethical barricades against the lure of money and political power.

An owner who forswears his responsibility to present honest programming commits an offense against our democracy by distorting the airwaves with hidden agendas and hidden special pleadings.

This is the real offense against decency and it would be a dangerously missed opportunity if we allow ourselves to be bamboozled by media into thinking it is merely about bad racial manners.

I don’t often get pissed off. I think the reason I’ve had the success I’ve had confronting wingnuts is that I simply don’t get ruffled by their dishonest idiocy. But this time was different.

This loathsome woman, Gracie-Marie Turner, was on the Bohannon Show spinning “free-market” solutions to the national health care crisis. When I tuned in she was telling Bohannon about the horrible health care plans in states that provide insurance to their citizens. Massachusetts, for example, mandates that hair restoration be covered! Bohannon called the idea ridiculous, and I could almost hear the steam coming out of his national audience’s ears…

It was billowing out of mine too, but for a different reason.

You see, Massachusetts mandates hair replacement regimes for kids and women that survive cancer. This woman was making her political bones at the expense of bald little kids… innocent and sick… suffering…

This loathsome, hateful, despicable woman implied that fat old bald men were merrily going to the hospital for free hair plugs…

This has got to be one of the most disgusting people I’ve ever spoken to.

And listen to her response: when I callher out for her dishonesty (and my mic is muted) she pivots to say that these health care policies simply cover too much; that states shouldn’t mandate this coverage because it drives up costs for everybody.

Well…

Not everyone breaks their leg… Not everyone has their appendix burst or gets osteoporosis… Maybe we shouldn’t mandate coverage of any of that stuff either… Instead, we’ll have these little menus where we can click on or off options we do or don’t want. I’m young, so I’m not worried about heart disease - I won’t check that box. I think it’s safe to assume that the majority of people similarly situated would make the same choice. So, in the end, what we’d end up with is only people likely to suffer heart disease selecting coverage… And their premiums would reflect their risk - men over 40 would pay through the teeth for coverage.

There was just nothing honest about this woman.

She’s testifying tomorrow before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health. This is their membership. If you have any way of getting this info to anyone on the Committee, it’d be great to hear one of our Congressman make this woman answer the question Bohannon protected her from: Should little kids that survive cancer be left to their own devices when it comes to hair restoration? Why is it such a bad thing for Mass. to mandate insurance cover this?

Henry A. Waxman, CA

Edolphus Towns, NY

Bart Gordon, TN

Anna Eshoo, CA

Gene Green, TX, Vice Chair

Diana DeGette, CO

Lois Capps, CA

Tom Allen, ME

Tammy Baldwin, WI

Eliot L. Engel, NY

Jan Schakowsky, IL

Hilda L. Solis, CA

Mike Ross, AR

Darlene Hooley, OR

Anthony D. Weiner, NY

Jim Matheson, UT

Nathan Deal, GA, Ranking Member

Ralph M. Hall, TX

Barbara Cubin, WY

Heather Wilson, NM

John B. Shadegg, AZ

Steve Buyer, IN

Joseph R. Pitts, PA

Mike Ferguson, NJ

Mike Rogers, MI

Sue Myrick, NC

John Sullivan, OK

Tim Murphy, PA

Michael C. Burgess, TX

Marsha Blackburn, TN

Joe Barton, TX (Ex Officio)

First of all, I’m still cobbling together the Gingrich clips.  Video editing is slow and difficult - at least it is with IMovie and a MacBook Pro when you’re trying to splice audio from one source, pictures from another and video from yet aother…  but that’s the only way I can tell the story in sequence in a way that makes sense…  so gimme a break, and know you’ll have it sooner or later…

Anyway, I called this “piss off your friends day” because I just read the Supreme Court’s partial birth abortion ruling.  And it’s tough reading.  I’m not sure if it’s because I have a beautiful 21 month old baby girl and a 26 week fetus (it’s a boy) cooking in my wife’s tummy, but reading the opinion was really, really difficult (and probably purposefully so).  Anyway, my friends and I like to stake the claim to living in the reality-based world, so I thought it might behoove us to talk about something that we generally avoid.  Seriously, we drive past the kooks protesting at abortion clinics and, well, I can’t speak for everybody, but I know I always held them in a certain amount of contempt.  I guess I still do, because their positions aren’t necessarily consistent, but…  well, after reading the opinion, I’m a bit (tiny bit…  microscopically tiny bit that is) more sympathetic…

OK, this is the deal…  we’ve got two forms of abortion available once a woman reaches her second trimester.  The traditional method involves the doctor dilating the woman’s cervix until he can get medical instruments into her uterus.  There, he basically hacks and chops at the fetus, drawing out pieces at a time…  a leg here, the head next, maybe an wrist and hand, now the abdomen with the remaining limbs attached.  The doctor then goes back in and scrapes the walls of the uterus to make sure there are no remaining bits left inside that could make the woman sick as they rotted away.  Ugly stuff.

For a description of what’s been called “partial birth abortion”, let me quote from the text of the ruling:

In the usual intact D&E the fetus’ head lodges in the cervix, and dilation is insufficient to allow it to pass.

Haskell explained the next step as follows:

At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the
fingers of the left [hand] along the back of the fetus
and “hooks” the shoulders of the fetus with the index
and ring fingers (palm down).
While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix
and applying traction to the shoulders with the fin-
gers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt
curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand.  He
carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the
spine and under his middle finger until he feels it con-
tact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle
finger.
The surgeon then forces the scissors into the base
of the skull or into the foramen magnum.  Having
safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to
enlarge the opening.
The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a
suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull
contents.  With the catheter still in place, he applies
traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the
patient.

This is an abortion doctor’s clinical description.  Here is another description from a nurse who witnessed the same method performed on a 26�-week fetus and who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

“Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the
babyís legs and pulled them down into the birth canal.
Then he delivered the babyís body and the armsó
everything but the head.  The doctor kept the head
right inside the uterus. . . .
The baby’s little fingers were clasping and un-
clasping, and his little feet were kicking.  Then the
doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and
the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like
a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to
fall.
The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-
powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the
babyís brains out.  Now the baby went completely
limp. . . .
He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the pla-
centa.  He threw the baby in a pan, along with the
placenta and the instruments he had just used.”

Rough stuff.  But if we’re gonna live in “the reality based world”, I think it’s appropriate for us to sometimes consider the motivations of the fundies, Catholics and other people with genuine objections to abortion.

This is what I’m thinking.  I’m thinking that it’s reasonable to believe that some of these folks (especially those that have had children), look at these procedures and are repulsed in a profoundly moral way.  Maybe it’s not really the case that limiting abortion, for these people, is all about “controlling” a woman’s sexual freedom.  Maybe there’s something more there…

I’m not saying that there aren’t an awful lot of hypocrits on the other side.  And I’m not suggesting that an awful lot of horrible people like Ralph Reed haven’t used this issue to get filthy rich while ignoring forced abortions in the Northern Marianis Islands….  I think there are a lot of religious pimps out there that will get their due come judgment day.

But for the rank and file anti-abortion nuts…  well, maybe they aren’t really nuts.

Now before y’all think I’m going soft, let me dispel those fears.  I’m happy to admit that abortion, at least in teh second trimester, is a damned ugly procedure.  But as a society, we do all sorts of ugly things in furtherance of a greater good.  War, for example, no matter how justified, is the ugliest thing humans do.  We allow people to grow filthy rich and spend their money on extreme frivolties while children around the world (and in this country) starve.  How is that justified?  Well, most people will defend it on the basis of individual liberty, and say that we cannot sacrifice liberty to some socialist vision of keeping everyone from starving to death.  I understand the argument, but how is the result not ugly?

In the end, I recognize the ugliness and moral repugnance of the procedure, and I’ll concede it to my opponents, just as I hope they would concede to me that war and starvation is ugly.  But just as war and starvation are tolerated because they serve some larger moral goal, I’m gonna tolerate abortion because it serves a larger moral goal:  ensuring that when a baby is born, it’s wanted and loved.  I’ve seen too many reports of babies being left in toilets or dumpsters.  I’ve witnessed too many kids born into abusive families.  Or born with developmental disabilities because mom was an alcoholic…

And finally, if we can justify extreme disparities in wealth - to the extent that we think it’s OK to let people buy Bentley’s and Lear Jets while others starve to death - because individual liberty is that important…  well, how can it be that a woman’s individual liberty with regards to whether or not to have a baby is any less important?

I made this cal lthis morning. As far as I know, it’s the first time Mitt Romney’s faith has been discussed in the slightest detail anywhere in the media.

I don’t know why, but for some reason (maybe it’s got to do with the fact that Mormons don’t reveal this aspect of their faith until an inductee is well within the fold?), Mormons are very seldom questioned about some of the more ridiculous things they believe…

Before I get flamed, let me say that I think all religions have a certain number of ridiculous beliefs… Christians believe the earth is 6,000 years old, a prophet fed thousands of people with a coupla fish and that same guy died and then came back to chat with his friends three days later… Jews say Moses parted a sea, Noah put two of every animal on a boat and floated around for 40 days and Jonah was swallowed by a whale… Muslims believe in 72 virgins and the sanctity of Muhammed’s earthly visage… or something…

Anyway, this wasn’t about any of that. I think that even religious people will agree with me that the very idea of faith is a mystery and that it’s reasonable for the secular to think that some of the wilder ideas are, well, kinda wild. I mean, if it wasn’t Christianity, we’d be locking quite a few people up for their evangelism…

So yeah… the point of this call was two-fold. One: I was pointing out that these guys were happy to question Kieth Ellison’s faith (he’s Muslim) when he was elected to Congress, but they are all too willing to give Romney a pass. Second: Policy and how you’re gonna govern really is much more important than what you profess to believe. Bill Clinton was a Southern Baptist, but he governed much differently than, say, Newt Gingrich. You see, the fact is that I really don’t believe any of these power mad political types have any higher priority than accumulation of personal power. Their faith isn’t driving their politics; nay, I say it’s the other way around. How else to explain Romney being pro-life in Utah, pro-choice in Massachusetts and then pro-life again while running for President?

So yeah, spare me the religious talk while you’re on the stump or behind the microphone. Tell me what you’re gonna do. That’s all.

I can’t post a lot about what went on yet because I promised his staffer that I’d first reach out to his Press Secretary to see if I could get an interview with Newt, but I’m not holding my breath.

So…  let me just say this:  tomorrow, I think I’m gonna have quite a YouTube story to tell.  Stay tuned.

Asked him how we can get money out of politics and how he, his wife, Jack Abramoff, Ed Buckham and pals could spend $70,000 on a one-week vacation in England and Scotland… For a regular guy like me, struggling to make the mortgage every month, well, that amount of money spent in that short a time is just unfathomable. Further, to think that it was done by a person elected to serve - well, that’s just offensive. It makes me wonder who the real servants are - in fact, it makes me think you and I are the servants and Tom Delay and his cronies are the “let them eat cake” royalty class…

Damn, I wish I had thought to say that last night…

I would have loved the chance to follow up, but Bohannon is great at protecting his guests. I really wanted to ask if Delay was aware that the business owners he advocated for that used imported labor on the Northern Marianis Islands, did, in effect, if not in fact, actually kidnap their labor pool by enticing them to the island with the lure of jobs, and then providing no way off the islands after the companies broke their promises. Was Delay aware that women who got pregnant were coerced into abortions- if they didn’t comply, they lost their jobs…

That man is a really sick person. If you ever get the chance to meet him, look into his eyes. The term “beady eyes” was made for this man, but really, when I looked into them at CPAC, they appeared more snake-like and reptilian to me.

That said, I will give him this: he’s an accomplished oralist. I listened to him for the full hour last night, and he’s really, really talented at selling a sympathetic story. It’s scary.

The audio will be difficult to make out, so this will work better through speakers… but… the country’s top lawyer, Solicitor General Paul Clement, spoke at U. VA. Law today. Of course, I attended. And I was fortunate enough to be called on to ask a question.

The SG spoke about the Supreme Court’s year (it’s past and remaining docket), so when I asked him about the USA scandal, it was a bit out of place. But you don’t get many opportunities to ask these people the questions you have on your mind, so you take the chance when it arises.

If you haven’t been following the USA scandal, the essence of the issue is whether or not United States Attorneys have been fired for inappropriate political reasons. The administration’s defense is that these are political appointments and the USAs serve at the pleasure of the President, so there’s not “there” here.

That may be so, but I can’t imagine this will continue to be the case after this mess gets resolved. You see, according to the administration, the President has ultimate and unfettered authority to hire and fire these guys. If you look too closely at a corrupt network of Republicans, you’re fired (USA Carol Lam, who convicted Congressman Duke Cunningham (a Republican, of course) in a bribery scandal (and indicted/had under investigation several other powerful Republican officials). If you don’t indict enough Democrats on trumped up charges, you’re fired (David Iglesias, USA in New Mexico who was pressured to indict a Democrat in October of last year to provide cover for Heather Wilson (R, of course). In fact, Wilson and New Mexico’s Senator, Pete Domenici (R, of course), actually called Iglesias to pressure him on the indictments. Domenici actually called him at home!! When they didn’t get the results they wanted, they spoke with Karl Rove. Rove, when asked about Iglesias at a Holiday party, said, “He’s gone.”

Furthermore, in Wisconson, a USA managed to hang on to his job by indicting and convicting a Democrat just before the elections. The state republican party was ready with election advertisements as soon as the indictment was announced. Her conviction was just overturned and the Appeals Court that heard her case took the extremely unusual step of springing her from jail before issuing a written opinion, saying the USA’s evidence was “beyond thin”.

So the blade cut both ways - do your job (which means “do what your political handlers tell you to do” and the Republican Party’s bidding, and you won’t be fired. Act like a non-partisan law enforcement attorney, and your job is in jeopardy.

Folks - to be perfectly clear, this is barely a step removed from having your political opponents arrested for, say, child pornography, the week before the election. The administration’s argument is - and it may be correct - that if a USA refuses to take direction, no matter how outlandish - from the President’s political team, they are vulnerable to being fired. That’s why I think we’ll see substantive safeguards put in place before this is all over.

Unfortunately for the administration, there is a larger story to be told, and as a result, in their incompetent efforts to obfuscate and confuse, several high ranking officials at the Justice Department, up to and including Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, have given false testimony to Congress. Of course, their defense is that they were simple misstatements - not intentional lies - but the evidence is cutting against them.

So we just saw the go-between for Karl Rove and Attorney General Gonzalez, Monica Goodling, resign. She resigned after several weeks of paid leave, during which she said that if called to testify before Congress, she’d assert her 5th Amendment right to silence in an effort to avoid self-incrimination. This was a highly unusual circumstance. I’m not sure if there has ever been a Justice Department official on the payroll that relied on that privilege. So I asked the SG about it.

There have also been news reports that AG Gonzalez is sweating his way through “murder boards” - committees of allies that act as enemies in an effort to toughen you up for testimony before an adverse body. I asked the SG if he could offer any insight on why the AG of the USA would feel the need to go through this process if his intent was to go before Congress and tell the simple truth.

As soon as I get a chance, I’ll edit the post and add a transcription. Until then, feel free to dowload the audio, and rely on my synopsis:

SG answer to question #2: The AG is going through this process out of respect for a co-equal branch of government. He wants to give Congress what they are entitled to. (Editorial comment: this is laugh out loud funny - the executive branch has openly defied Congress at every step of this process. Congress just sent a letter noting how pissed off they are that Justice isn’t honoring legitimate requests for documents, despite promises to the contrary.)

SG answer to question #1: Justice was in a tough spot. If they compel testimony of their employees, there may be 5th Amendment implications that would justify a grant of immunity to said employee. “Testify or you’re fired” would constitute compulsion.

That’s all for now, check back later tonight.

I’m not kidding. Listen to the clip. I’ve provided full context - the question before, and the question after. McConnel never qualified his statements. Below is the relevant transcript:

Bennett: “…what does the position feel like, do you suppose, when you’re a Democrat in the Senate when your political well being is tied to, I guess, rooting that we don’t succeed…”

McConnell: “Yeah, I mean that I… there’s no question that they don’t wish this exercise well, which is why they keep moving the goalposts and keeping the issue alive. In the meantime we’re talking about the lives of our soldiers, we’re talking about the lives of a very large number of Iraqis…“

So there you have it: McConnell says Democrats don’t want us to succeed and, in fact, since we’re talking about soldier’s lives, McConnell believes Democrats want more troops to die…

How is Harry Reid supposed to work with this person? How is any Democrat supposed to maintain collegial relations with the Senate Minority Leader after this?

Here at U. Va., the Law Christian Fellowship Society hosted an event that wasn’t really publicized that much. They had a Justice Department lawyer come speak to their group. I got wind of it about 1/2 an hour before it was to kick off when I saw a guy in a suit carrying a leather folder with the seal of the US on it. I figured he was here to speak to one group or another, so I asked him what he was up to. When I found out he was from the Justice Department and here to give a presentation, well, I just couldn’t not attend.I left surprised.  At every turn, this man was kind, conscientious, and decent. His entire speech was an exhortation to the assembled to not follow the money, but rather follow their consciences. He related how he first started doing environmental law, but for Monsanto… How he came to grow disillusioned, so found a way to segue into religious first amendment work. How he feels richer in spirit, even if he isn’t richer in bank account terms. And how he ended up blessed in the end, with a wonderful wife and two kids that grew up to attend U. Va. law school.

By the end of the presentation, I just didn’t have any desire to savage this guy. He didn’t deserve it.

But the experience wasn’t a completely valueless from a partisan’s standpoint. First of all, I was happy to learn that we have at least some decent political appointees working in the Justice Department. With so much of my life focused on partisan politics and the ugliness of the Bush Administration, it’s pretty easy to fall into a trap of thinking all the people involved are morally suspect. It’s not a bad thing to learn otherwise. So I’m glad it turned out this way.

That said, an insight came to me last night when I was thinking about the experience. This lawyer told the story of what he considered to be a truly mysterious sequence of events.

You see, he explained, if there was one group that gave nothing to Bill Clinton in the ‘96 election, it was evangelical Christians. So he was shocked, bewildered and dumbfounded - in awe of God’s mysterious ways - when he was granted a White House West Wing meeting with George Stephenopoulis to talk about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which requires federal government offices (non-military) to make allowances for the free practice of one’s faith. He was even more shocked when Clinton promulgated the executive order a few months later.

He just couldn’t understand how Bill Clinton - who got nothing but abuse from evangelicals - could possibly do anything that promoted the interests of Christians. this lawyer chalked it up to the greatness of God’s work.

He told another story that was very similar to the first. A Church was being sued for tithes it received from some guy that later went bankrupt. (Tithes are a religious tradition - commandment in some cases - that require the faithful to give 10% of their pre-tax earnings to the Church.) The Clinton Justice Department took the position that this bankrupt guy shouldn’t have been able to funnel so much money to the Church knowing he was going bankrupt. If I remember correctly, Justice had prepared an amicus brief for the Bankruptcy Court explaining that the funds should be recoverable.

Well, this lawyer got wind of it and hit the phones. Eventually he landed another West Wing meeting, this time with Joel Klein, who worked as Asst. White House counsel. President Clinton himself dropped in on the meeting.

Within days, Justice had reversed its position.

Once again, this lawyer didn’t credit the Clinton’s. Instead, it was God’s work.

So I was just thinking about that dynamic, because the gulf between our sides is so vast. Maybe I’m totally misunderstanding, but it seems that by giving all the credit to God, and not speaking up at all in praise of Clinton’s professionalism, staffing choices or decision-making… well, it allows these guys to do what they’ve done since they’ve attained the reins of power: govern by partisanship, ideology and loyalties rather than competence, merit of ideas and, well, realities.
Not only did Cheney refuse to meet with any environmental groups when he developed his energy policy… not only has Bush fired people like Bunnatine Greenhouse for doing her jobs when it conflicted with rewarding his cronies… not only has Alberto Gonzalez fired republican US Attorney’s when they weren’t republican enough… but this entire administration has at every turn acted in their own naked partisan interest.

I think it’s become obvious to even the most casual (non-wingnut) observer that the right wing, and certainly this administration, lacks the ability to set aside the bloodsport aspect of politics in furtherance of the common good. The entire government has been Rovianized. Instead of “What’s good for GM is good for America” we have “What’s good for Republicans is good for America” - even if it’s bad for America.

How else do we explain the crony appointments, the self-dealing Abramoff/Cunningham scandals, the parallel email system being run out of the RNC, the abandonment of New Orleans, the cold-hearted treatment of Californians during the black-outs caused by Enron fraud in 2001, and the word put out, through the EPA but from the White House, that the (factually toxic) air was clean and safe in southern Manhattan days after 9/11?

I’m going to follow up with the lawyer that spoke here. I’m not using his name for now because I really treasured his message. But the truth is, I am extraordinarily perplexed with regards to how a person who seemed so morally enlightened can justify associating himself with this kind of administration.

I’ll get back to you later.

Enjoy