I'm very confused.
Last week the Post's Paul Kane reported that Dems weren't landing as much Wall Street donor cash, in part because there was a "de facto boycott" of the Democratic Party by wealthy donors. Why? Because they were turned off by the party's anti-big business rhetoric. (Too "antagonistic.")
At the time I noted my surprise since I haven't been hearing any kind of populist-driven anti-business rhetoric coming out of the White House or Congress. And indeed, Kane himself didn't provide any quotes to back up his claim about the supposed big business bashing that Democrats were doing.
But the real confusion comes in the form of a new Politico article, which claims Democrats, and especially Sen. Chuck Schumer, are drowning in Wall Street money. And Dems are positively lapping Republicans in terms of cashing Wall Street checks.
Wall Street money rains on Chuck Schumer
Note this passage [emphasis added]:
Of the $10.6 million the [financial] industry has given to sitting senators this year, more than $7.7 million has gone to Democrats.
Maybe Kane and the Post could update the report about that Wall Street "boycott" of the Democratic Party.
During a discussion on FoxNews.com's Freedom Watch, senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano claimed that the White House is taking "an aggressive role in local politics" and wondered if "secession movements" are the answer to maintaining "freedom." Guest Lew Rockwell - a regular on FoxNews.com - said that "we need to return to the original American principles of secession, of nullification, and of interposition."
What far-right bloggers lack in common decency them make up for in blinding ignorance. And FDL's right, this is just beyond belief, even for the morally-challenged GOP blogosphere.
The blogger is Dan Riehl and his twisted premise about the census worker who was recently tortured to death in Kentucky and was found with "fed" scrawled across his chest, is this:
Was Census Worker Bill Sparkman A Child Predator?
Classy the way Riehl puts the dead man's full name right in the headline next to "child predator," right?
Keep in mind, Riehl quickly admits he doesn't have the slightest idea why the census worker was killed, and that the "child predator" thing is just, y'know, a hypothetical. He's simply "speculating" and "keeping an open mind." But he's gonna float it anyway. And then he's gonna open up his comment section to more right-wing crazies who are invited to invent conspiracy theories blaming the murdered census worker for his own death.
Question: Is anybody within the right-wing blogosphere going to denounce this kind of heartless idiocy from a high-profile hate merchant like Riehl?
UPDATED: Right-winger Roger Hedgecock, based on no facts, suggests the census worker was killed because of a "our still open border with Mexico."
From the September 29 Washington Times editorial, titled "Sex scandal double standard":
When Republican Rep. Mark Foley was caught chasing congressional pages, he got exactly what was coming to him. In a blizzard of coverage (1,400 stories, according to Google news), Mr. Foley's creepy behavior was examined from every possible angle. Nobody wanted to hear that the congressman's stupid and objectionable behavior was confined to e-mails and text messages. His immediate resignation didn't quiet the furor. When two years of investigations found no crime, the results got barely a peep.
Whether the press feeding frenzy around Mr. Foley's disgrace was justified or not, the explosion of coverage was certainly understandable, even predictable. That reality is what makes coverage of Kevin Jennings, President Obama's "safe school czar" something of a mystery.
Mr. Jennings brings all the sleaze of Mr. Foley. Sex and the underaged? Check. An older man? Check. Potential misbehavior by a government official? Check.
And the Jennings case brings a lot more: A "safe schools czar" who failed to report a statutory rape? An education leader who encouraged a 15-year-old student to be comfortable with sexual abuse? A federal official who ignored a law requiring him to report even the possibility of a crime?
And it is not just sex, there's a political angle, too. Since taking office, the Obama administration has been hammered by repeated breakdowns in its vetting process. Appointees who don't pay taxes. An appointee who signed on to accusations that the previous administration was complicit in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. And now an appointee who thinks sex between an adult and a 15-year-old is no big deal.
More than 60 advertisers have reportedly dropped their ads from Glenn Beck's Fox News program since he called President Obama a "racist" who has a "deep-seated hatred of white people." Here are his September 28 sponsors, in the order they appeared:
Time does not minimize the crime, which in its details is creepy, but jail would no longer serve a purpose.
Actually, Cohen never uses the word "rape." Indeed, at one point, he refers to it as a seduction:
He seduced -- if that can possibly be the word -- the 13-year-old Samantha Geimer with all the power and authority of a 44-year-old movie director who could make her famous.
No, Mr. Cohen, "seduced" cannot possibly be the word. Pick another. Give "rape" a try. It fits pretty well.
At least Cohen's Washington Post colleague, Anne Applebaum, sets him straight. Oh -- wait, I'm sorry; Applebaum agrees Polanski should not be imprisoned:
He did commit a crime, but he has paid for the crime in many, many ways: In notoriety, in lawyers' fees, in professional stigma. He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar.
Oh, he wasn't able to receive his Oscar? Well, that changes everything! Clearly, the man has suffered enough! In fact, let's all apologize to him. Applebaum comes close in her conclusion:
If he weren't famous, I bet no one would bother with him at all.
Well, nobody would write columns arguing that he's already been punished enough by being kept from displaying an Oscar on his mantle, that's for damn sure.
UPDATE: Conservative blogger Patterico says Anne Applebaum's husband, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, is lobbying the US to drop proceedings against Polanski. That sure seems like something Applebaum should have disclosed, doesn't it?
UPDATE 2: Applebaum says she's disclosed before, so it's no big deal that she didn't this time:
"I have disclosed that before, more than once. Also, when I wrote the blog I had no idea that my husband, who is in Africa, would, or could do anything about it, as Polanski is not a Polish citizen. I am not responsible for his decisions and he is not responsible for mine. "
Applebaum's previous disclosure of who her husband is, of course, has next to nothing to do with the question of whether she should have disclosed that her husband is lobbying the US to go easy one Roman Polanski at the same time she is writing a Washington Post column to that effect.
But then, maybe she's just adhering to the Howard Kurtz school of intermittent disclosure.
UPDATE 3: Applebaum's defense of her defense of Polanski has some flaws.
This must be one of the stranger White House critiques I've read in quite a while [emphasis added]:
Obama can seem a mite too impressed with his own aura, as if his presence on the stage is the Answer. There is, at times, a self-referential (even self-reverential) tone in his big speeches. They are heavily salted with the words "I" and "my." (He used the former 11 times in the first few paragraphs of his address to the U.N. last week.) Obama is a historic figure, but that is the beginning, not the end, of the story.
Does Obama constantly refer to himself as an historic figure? Not that I can tell. But maybe Fineman's hearing something else from Obama.
As for Obama's speech to the U.N., which Fineman claimed was way too self-referential, let's take a quick look at the text:
I come before you humbled by the responsibility that the American people have placed upon me, mindful of the enormous challenges of our moment in history, and determined to act boldly and collectively on behalf of justice and prosperity at home and abroad. I have been in office for just nine months -- though some days it seems a lot longer. I am well aware of the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world. These expectations are not about me. Rather, they are rooted, I believe, in a discontent with a status quo that has allowed us to be increasingly defined by our differences, and outpaced by our problems.
Yeah, Obama just needs to get over himself.
The blogger's creepy desire to demonize U.S. school children who in any way cross paths with Obama, or even sing his praise, is now hurtling into the area of dementia.
In August, Malkin attacked an 11-year old because she stood up and asked Obama a question at a town hall forum. Last week, she smeared second graders because they sang a song in honor of Obama during Black History Month. This week, she ridicules teenagers who took part in the White House's volunteer initiative to be junior lobbyists for the push by Chicago to land the 2016 Olympics.
BTW, in case you didn't know, Chicago's attempt to win the Olympics is now viewed within the fever swamps of the right-wing blogosphere as the epitome of all that is evil and crooked in the world. Why? Because Obama's for it, that's why.
Stay classy Michelle.
I had never heard of Sal Fasano until 2006, when the well-traveled MLB veteran joined the New York Yankees as a back-up catcher -- a move that, unfortunately, required Fasano to trim back his unquestionably impressive fu-manchu mustache to comply with Boss Steinbrenner's rules on facial hair. Fasano has moved on since then, playing with three different minor-league organizations in as many years, soldiering on in spite of advancing age, failing knees, and already dim professional prospects that won't get any brighter.
As Sports Illustrated's Jeff Pearlman wrote last week, there's a very good reason why Fasano hasn't hung up his spikes yet -- his youngest son was born with hypoplastic heart syndrome. According to Pearlman, if Fasano "spend[s] so much as a second on a major league roster" this season, the Major League Baseball health plan will cover him and his family for the entire year. Salaries and health plans for minor-league catchers aren't what you'd call glamorous, and they certainly aren't generous enough to cover the costs incurred by the multiple surgeries needed to treat hypoplastic heart syndrome, which, as Pearlman notes, well-exceed $1 million. So Fasano just has to hope that he'll be called up, even if he doesn't see any playing time, and even if it's just for a day.
In short, Fasano is another of the many millions of Americans who, despite ongoing hard work and sacrifice, are still unable to manage the country's increasingly expensive health care system. But Glenn Beck has a solution for all the Sal Fasanos out there...
Go to Walgreens.
No, seriously. That's the "free-market" solution to rising health care costs that Beck offers in Arguing with Idiots. From pages 258-259:
That leaves those who attack the American health-care system with only one main argument: quantity versus quality. Sure, America has the best health-care system, they'll say. For those who can afford it-but too many can't.
Finally, an argument with some truth to it. For all of its unacknowledged virtue, our health-care system does still leave too many without coverage. The real question is what can rectify that more efficiently: a free market or a government monopoly?
Answer this question: What three letters can get you quality medical care for about half the price of a typical doctor's appointment and provide a 90-day supply of most prescription medications for less than a movie and popcorn, all while giving you the opportunity to pick up Cheetos, Mentos, Oreos, Pepto, and probably even this book-o.
The answer is W-A-L. You can get all of these things at your local Walgreens and/or Wal-Mart.
Walgreens is leading the way in the development of retail health clinics, which means that you can basically see a medical professional right in the pharmacy. Wait times are minimal, the cost is low, and you can grab a Whatchamacallit bar on the way out.
Beck goes on to write that a trip to a Walgreens health clinic is "about one-sixth the cost of a trip to the emergency room," and that the medical care is "usually given by a master's-degree-educated nurse practitioner." That's well and good, but there is also a pretty strict limit on the types of medical care you can receive at retail health clinics. One such outfit, MinuteClinic, makes clear that they treat only "minor" illnesses and injuries, and states explicitly that if you need X-rays or sutures, you will be "referred to another care setting." For Sal Fasano, whose son needs heart surgery, a trip to Walgreens isn't going to solve anything. Nor will it help someone in need of chemotherapy or an MRI.
A 2006 study by the Department of Health and Human Services found that the five most expensive health conditions to treat were heart disease, cancer, trauma, mental disorders, and pulmonary conditions, and that these five conditions alone accounted for 31 percent of the total growth in health care spending from 1987 to 2000. To what extent can retail health clinics defray the expense of treating these conditions? Beck doesn't say -- indeed, it doesn't appear as though he even considered it.
To sum up, Beck's "free-market" solution is divorced from reality and completely unserious, which is pretty much what we've come to expect from Beck when it comes to health care and a host of other issues. As one of Fasano's backstop brethren once put it, it's déjà vu all over again.