From the January 19 edition of CNN's Campbell Brown:
Loading the player reg...
In a January 11 post, RedState's Erick Erickson attacks Erroll Southers, President Obama's nominee to be chief of Transportation Security Administration, asserting that video shows that "[a]ccording to Erroll Southers, pro-life Christians and our support of Jews is a bigger threat to national security than Al Qaeda." In fact, Erickson's claims about Southers -- whose confirmation vote was delayed due to a Republican hold -- are distortions or downright falsehoods.
From Erickson's January 6 Red State.com blog post:
Okay, so this post really isn't about the Crimson Tide, but there is a crimson tide out there this morning - the Democrat dead pool.
Bill Ritter, the Governor of Colorado, is gone.
Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) is gone.
Chris Dodd (D-CT) is gone.
These three all announced on the same day and on the heels of all the other Democrats retiring and Parker Griffith switching to the GOP.
Meanwhile Evan Bayh is looking more and more vulnerable in Indiana.
Something is happening. Whatever it is is most definitely bad for Democrats and good for freedom.
The crimson tide of Democrat destruction rolls on. Is it a coincidence that Alabama has an elephant as its mascot?
From the January 4 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
Loading the player reg...
The right-wing media have spent the year BEGGING for progressive leaders to call them Nazis.
Back in April, media conservatives freaked out over declassified Department of Homeland Security report detailing potential increases in right-wing extremism. Ignoring the possibility that the election of a black president could have an actual effect on the radicalism and recruitment of actual hate groups - like, for instance, the Klan - the Limbaughs and Hannitys of the world were convinced that the report was actually aimed at them.
Then in August, Nancy Pelosi commented that protestors are "carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on health care." Sure enough, swastikas and other Nazi icons had appeared on signs carried by those protestors, who were suggesting that the Democrats' health care reform plans were reminiscent of Hitler's Germany. But the right-wing was sure that Pelosi was talking about them, and had been calling the protestors or opponents of health care reform "Nazis."
Now, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) is getting the same treatment. In a floor speech yesterday, Whitehouse criticized Senate Republicans' rampant obstructionism of health care reform efforts, specifically their refusal to support cloture on a defense appropriations bill in hopes of slowing down attempts to move to a vote on health care. Whitehouse stated that Senate Republicans were "desperate to break this president," adding "They have ardent supporters who are nearly hysterical at the very election of President Barack Obama. The birthers, the fanatics, the people running around in right-wing militia and Aryan support groups, it is unbearable to them that President Barack Obama should exist."
From Whitehouse's December 20 floor speech (about 115 minutes in):
The lowest of the low was the Republican vote against funding and supporting our troops in the field in a time of war. As a devise to stop health care, they tried to stop the appropriation of funds for our soldiers. There is no excuse for that. From that, there is no return. Every single Republican member was willing to vote against cloture for funding our troops, and they admitted it was a tactic to obstruct health care reform. The Secretary of Defense warned us all that a "no" vote would immediately create "a serious disruption in the worldwide activities of the Department of Defense," end quote, and yet every one of them was willing to vote "no."
Almost all of them did vote no. Some stayed away, but that's the same as "no" when you need 60 "yes" votes to proceed. Voting "no" and hiding from the vote are the same result. Those of us on the floor see it was clear. The three of them who did not cast their yes votes until all 60 Senate votes had been tallied and it was clear that the result was a foregone conclusion. And why? Why all this discord and discourtesy, all this unprecedented destructive action? All to break the momentum of our new young president.
They are desperate to break this president. They have ardent supporters who are nearly hysterical at the very election of President Barack Obama. The birthers, the fanatics, the people running around in right-wing militia and Aryan support groups, it is unbearable to them that President Barack Obama should exist. That is one powerful reason. It is not the only one.
Rather then assess the validity of Whitehouse's claims - do such people exist, and do they support Republcian senators? - the right-wing started screaming about how Whitehouse was accusing them all of membership in hate groups.
Washington Times blogger Kerry Picket got the ball rolling, providing Whitehouse's full comment but doing so under the headline, "Sen. Whitehouse: foes of health care bill are birthers, right-wing militias, aryan groups." RedState's Erick Erickson took over from there, claiming that Whitehouse said that "If you oppose health care deform, you are a racist, hate-spouting, Aryan who roots for the assassination of Barack Obama" and "labeled everyone opposed to the legislation as racist hatemongers rooting for bullets against the President." The claim spread through the right-wing blogosphere from there, and just made the jump to Lou Dobbs' radio show.
What seems oddest about the right-wing media's obsessive claims that progressives are calling them Nazis is the implication that comparing your political opponents to Hitler and company is out of bounds. If the right really believes that such comparisons are beyond the pale, maybe its time for them to stop informing us how much Obama and his politics remind them of Hitler.
The right-wing noise machine is sure that a snowstorm in December is proof of something, they're just split on what exactly.
Newt Gingrich became the latest to play the ridiculous "it's snowing so global warming must be a hoax" card. Gingrich took to Twitter - where he's been schooled before - on Saturday morning to share a few thoughts about the storm:
newtgingrich As callista and i watched what dc weather says will be 12 to 22 inches of snow i wondered if God was sending a message about copenhagen
newtgingrich After the expanding revelations of dishonesty in climategate having a massive snow storm as obama promises our money to the world is ironic
newtgingrich There is something jimmy carter like about weather service upgrading frrom winter storm to blizzard as global warming conference wants US $
Of course as Media Matters has pointed out ad infinitum, individual storms have nothing to do with human-caused climate change.
With all these added complications, don't be surprised to hear a new Republican talking point: Even Mother Nature hates health care reform.
RedState editor Erick Erickson responded:
I hate to correct him, but actually the talking point is that God hates the Democrats' health care deform. With funding death panels and abortions, of course the Almighty would send a snow storm or, in Brian's words, a snowpocalypse to shut down Washington.
Oh, and kudos to Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council for organizing the "pray-in." Looks to be working.
So does that mean DC residents should blame God or the Family Research Council for shutting down the city?
In an attack against Department of Education official Kevin Jennings, RedState.com's Erick Erickson again advanced the repeatedly debunked falsehood that Jennings "encouraged a sexual relationship between a boy and an adult" and the smear that Jennings "supports NAMBLA."
Right-wing bloggers have cheered a Swiss referendum establishing a constitutional ban on the construction of minarets. The bloggers have termed this prohibition on building new mosque towers a "VICTORY!" that demonstrates that the Swiss have "at least partial immunity to the European Malaise."
Reading a RedState blog post on his radio show, Rush Limbaugh stated that the "Obama administration intends to purge Republicans from the civil service retroactive to five years ago, starting in the year 2010." In fact, the Office of Personnel Management memo that Limbaugh was referencing would require federal agencies to seek OPM's approval to hire both current and recent political appointees for jobs they apply for in the future, not jobs they already hold; furthermore, the memo explicitly states that "political appointees may not be excluded from consideration for Federal jobs because of their political affiliation."
A post by RedState.com's Erick Erickson that Rush Limbaugh is hyping falsely claims that a memorandum from the federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM) will "purge the federal government of Republican civil servants" and "forc[e]" former Bush administration political appointees who currently have positions in the federal civil service "out of their jobs."
In fact, the OPM memo does nothing of the sort. It merely beefs up current OPM rules aimed at preventing political appointees from "burrowing in" to the civil service, thereby receiving the job security benefits that civil servants -- but not political appointees -- receive. While the memo states that agencies must seek permission from OPM to hire people as civil servants if they have been political appointees "within the last five years," nothing in the memo creates authority for anyone to fire current federal employees. Therefore, the OPM memo does not "purge" anybody.
From Redstate.com managing editor Erick Erickson's Twitter feed:
Following Democrat Bill Owens' November 3 victory in the contested NY-23 Congressional race, right-wing bloggers have sought to highlight the "under-reported fact" that Bill Owens "campaigned against the public option." However, while Owens modified his position on the public option during the course of the campaign, he has expressed support for a public option since September, and on October 30 Owens endorsed the public option in the House health care reform bill.
Several conservative commentators have touted a Gallup poll finding that 20 percent of respondents identify themselves as "liberal," 36 percent as "moderate" and 40 percent as "conservative" to criticize President Obama and his agenda and to claim America is ideologically a "conservative" country. But political scientists dispute the reliability of voters' identification with political ideologies, and other polling has found that a strong majority favors the more progressive position on a number of issues.
Right-wing bloggers have recently attacked Newt Gingrich for endorsing Republican Dede Scozzafava over Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in the special election to fill Army Secretary John McHugh's (R-NY) vacated congressional seat. On her blog, Michelle Malkin said "no thanks" to the possibility of a Gingrich 2012 presidential run, noting that he is the "most prominent GOP endorser of [the] radical leftist NY-23 congressional candidate," while at RedState.com, Erick Erickson reportedly wrote -- before removing the post -- that Gingrich "stands athwart history and pees on the legacy of 1994."