...will he ever win?

Mr. Beck owned up to embellishing the truth just a wee little bit. You know, for flavor.

I sense an opening. Like the witch-burning scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, what comes next is Glenn Beck admitting that he smeared a junior-high school step dance troupe because they looked militant.

Perhaps we should all encourage this new attitude from Beck. Maybe the media should conspire to ask him if he maybe, possibly embellished the truth a little bit there. And maybe they should follow up on that whole "white culture" remark while they're at it.

September 04, 2010 01:30 PM

Babble on, Babylon!  We're watching you!

It's that time of week, once again, and the question of the hour is: "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who can spot the most blathering idiot of them all?"

Once again, it COULD be you!  But only if you participate by entering your nomination in the comments below.

Last week's contest was won by sTiVo's nomination of Matt Bai:

Matt Bai Disregard the sideshow controversy over whether or not Matt Bai in the New York Times misrepresented Oregon Congressman Earl Blumenauer as describing Social Security as "existing on make-believe money."  Blumenauer now says that he was misrepresented (Bai did not place this phrase in quotes so I can't exactly say 'misquoted').   Regardless of what Blumenauer said or meant, let's focus on the deeply repellent Mr. Bai, conventional wisdom's most faithful weathervane.  Even if Blumenauer uttered the repugnant stuff that Bai says he said, let's talk instead of Bai's rush to embrace that toxic sludge.  If Bai also committed the further sin of lying about Blumenauer, well, so much the worse for him, but even without it, Bai's article was bad enough. The liberal groups that are already speaking out against the debt panel's unfinished work have chosen to start with Social Security because it is likely to be at the center of any budget compromise. "If there's a place where it looks like Republicans and Democrats can reach agreement, we're afraid it's Social Security," says Frank Clemente, the director of Strengthen Social Security. (In other words, the two parties might actually work together on something. They must be stopped!) Classic Versailles, unadulterated.  Bipartisanship regardless of content, is always a good thing.  But never ask it of Republicans.  It's always a matter of Democrats giving up their "unrealistic dreams" like Social Security in spite of its seventy-five year history of success.   Let's also note the projection by which liberal Democrats can be accused of blowing up bipartisanship - when it's as obvious as the nose at the end of Bai's face that it's Republicans who have been gleefully about the business ever since Obama was elected of spurning all of the President's increasingly pathetic efforts to secure "bipartisanship".  It never occurs to the Bais of the world that seeking agreement with an adversary who "negotiates" by moving further and further away from your position is basically negotiating with yourself. However, it's not quite unadulterated Versailles.  In its pure form of course, Versailles logic simply accepts Republican talking points as undebatable, thereby protecting itself from inconvenient facts.   But this is the New York Times, America's liberal paper of record.  So the devil must appear to have been given his due.  Thus, Bai actually deigns to make an "argument" about the facts of the matter. The coalition bases its case on the idea that Social Security is actually in fine fiscal shape, since it has amassed a pile of Treasury  Bills - often referred to as i.o.u.'s often referred to as i.o.u.'s by Republicans and Wall Streeters, that is - who in their own businesses and investment schemes are more than happy to leverage all kinds of debt to the hilt - in a dedicated trust fund. This is true enough, except that the only way for the government to actually make good on these i.o.u.'s is to issue mountains of new debt or to take the money from elsewhere in the federal budget, or perhaps impose significant tax increases - none of which seem like especially practical options for the long term. So this is sort of like saying that you're rich because your friend has promised to give you 10 million bucks just as soon as he wins the lottery. Sigh.  As Paul Krugman repeatedly notes on the pages of the same newspaper, Wall Street money owned by the deficit hawks is currently flowing massively into these same T-Bills, these supposedly worthless Ponzi Scheme papers.  Lottery tickets indeed.   Ah, the "Liberal Media".

Can you do as well or better this week?  Only if you try!

Rules on the flip!
The Rules:

(A) We're looking for inane blather that is blissfully indifferent to the actual facts of the matter being commented on.  These are the "Chatty Cathy" Awards, not the "Archie Bunkers."  Of course, this doesn't exclude wingnut punditry, it's just that cluelessness is what we're looking for, more than hatefulness.  If you can find examples that combine both, though... I think you've got a real winner.

(B) You may nominate any pundit from the M$M-print, broadcast tv/radio or cable-or from any online extension or associated outfit.  (If this really catches on for some reason, I may decided to break the awards into separate categories at some point.) Nominations should include the name of the person nominated (preferably in the subject line), the outlet and date, an exact quote of what they said or wrote, and a link to where it can be found-original, transcript, or first-hand report (such as Media Matters).

(C) You may submit as many nominations as you want, but each must be in a separate comment.

(D) People vote for each nomination by giving recommendations.  There is no limit on how many recommendations you can give.

September 04, 2010 12:00 PM

Balkinization: Torture and Littering

Facing South: Honoring Labor in the South

South Florida Lawyers: Rick Scott, 5th Amendment Warrior!

The WAWG Blog: When people are voting agianst their interests, more interest-based arguments don't help

Informed Comment: Collapse of Kabul bank points to fatal corruption of Karzai government

Prometheus 6: A good effort, but Chris Rock doesn't have to worry yet

September 04, 2010 12:00 PM

CBS News Correspondents, the night before the Chicago Democratic National Convention in 1956, on What's My Line. Behind Walter Cronkite -- left to right Charles Collingwood, Eric Severeid, Douglas Edwards and Robert Trout.

Open Thread below...

September 04, 2010 03:30 AM

Chris Rock famously quipped,"You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is a Chinese guy, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are name 'Bush,' 'Dick' and 'Colon.' Need I say more?" He should've added that the best Southern rock band is from Queens, NY, not exactly Alabama. The Brought Low's three excellent albums seamlessly bridge the gap between Skynyrd and Queens of the Stone Age. If you see that they're playing at a dive bar near you, bring five dollars for cheap beer and some earplugs. They're loud and they're great.

September 04, 2010 03:00 AM

Gee, no irony in this video from "the friends of Dan Maes", is there? "Last man standing," indeed:

Top Colorado Republicans are attempting to convince gubernatorial nominee Dan Maes to drop his bid for governor by the end of Friday, a well-placed Republican in the state tells POLITICO.

In a meeting Friday morning, party chairman Dick Wadhams and other members of the state GOP executive committee met with Maes to present what one called “damaging evidence” that hasn’t yet been made public but would further erode his standing as a candidate, according to the source.

A second Republican consultant confirmed the account and said while there was no explicit ultimatum presented by the chairman to Maes, the message was clear.

“It was: Do you really want to put your family through this? If you stay in the race, you’ll have to endure this and this,” said the Republican, citing potential reports by the Denver Post.

Wadhams did not respond to a call for comment and another Republican aide said he did not expect the chairman to address the media until Maes came to a decision.

A Maes spokesman indicated that the candidate was meeting with those who want him out of the race.

“Dan is listening to the concerns of those who believe he should stay in the race, as well as those who believe he should step aside. He has no plans to exit the race at this time,” said Maes spokesman Nate Strauch.

Since upending Rep. Scott McInnis in the GOP primary last month, Maes has run into a string of problems and questions about his own credibility. Earlier this week, the Post reported that Maes falsely claimed he did undercover police work in Kansas before being terminated. He lost the endorsements of former Sen. Hank Brown and former state Senate president John Andrews.

Early Friday afternoon, GOP Senate nominee Ken Buck also withdrew his support for Maes, the latest signal that his time as a candidate may be limited to days, if not hours.

Of course, no matter who they replace him with, it's over. Democrat John Hickenlooper is far ahead in the polls anyway.

How come we keep hearing about the Tea Partiers' occasional successes -- like Joe Miller in Alaska (now there's a good national barometer) -- and ignoring their multiple failures?

It will certainly be interesting to learn what these papers were about to report. Sounds like there were some juicy skeletons in Maes' closet. But then, right-wing authoritarianism does bring out the best in people, doesn't it?

September 04, 2010 02:00 AM

Sometimes we take for granted the voting age has always been 18. But no. We talk about the elusive Youth Vote, but in 1950 it was non-existent. There was talk about lowering the voting age to 18, but nothing ever really came of it until 1970 - twenty years after this address to the people of Michigan by Governor G. Mennen "Soapy" Williams. Logic dictated that, if you were could be drafted into the Military and fight a war, you should be able to vote. But that concept was a stretch for some. Many people thought if you lowered the age of voting to 18, you had to lower the age of drinking to 18 as well. Many states did lower the age of drinking to 18, but voting was still a ways off.

G. Mennen Williams: “My proposal to lower the voting age from 21 to 18. This idea has been discussed widely during the last ten years. Many prominent leaders and citizens of both political parties have endorsed it. But no action has ever been taken. I think it is time to submit this very important question to the people. And because it will require a vote of the people at the election next November, I decided to recommend it at this special session of the Legislature.”

It's interesting to consider that now, since the 18 year old vote has been in place for 40 years, most politicians rely so heavily on it. The lower voting age has meant a more progressive leaning anyways. Something about being young and seeing possibilities and having the power of change at your fingertips is intoxicating to those seeking power. But that enthusiasm is sometimes fickle. As was quickly evidenced in 1968 with assassinations, the Vietnam War and the general disillusion with our country's leaders. I remember very vividly the overwhelming Youth movement embracing Robert Kennedy (at that time it was still 21) and how it evaporated within days of his assassination. Rather than maintaining eyes on the prize, there was a massive disconnect, a general apathy that made the Presidency of Richard Nixon possible. Granted, the Democratic Party was in a state of chaos after RFK's death, and it was that chaos coupled with the disconnect that served a shift to the right in 1968 possible.

I'm afraid we're faced with a similar situation now; the very real notion of a disconnect with the Youth Vote. Principles and ideals have changed considerably since 1968, as they were in 1950 . Ironically, during both periods there were wars being waged (three months after this broadcast the Korean War got started) and 18 year olds were fighting them and dying from them. But today I think the disconnect is the loss of optimism that change, any sort of change, is not an instantaneous thing. Perhaps that's the syndrome of youth. Then as now, we saw change as something achieved instantaneously - the snap of a finger, as it were. The constant with Youth, no matter during what period of time in history, is that all things are possible and can happen if you want them to. Cynicism comes along with grey hair and lowered expectations, it seems.

Yes, we have politicians who, in lieu of being in one party, could just as easily be in the opposite party - they are professional and malleable and are devoid of moral fiber. This back-bending urge to be Socratic and "Let us reason together" becomes so much placating to the rants of spoiled children that it almost mocks the concept of leadership and steering the Ship of State anywhere but on the rocks.

The anger of the Youth Vote to "throw everyone out and start over" sounds good, sounds dramatic and has righteous indignation written all over it - but as history has also proven, it throws out numerous babies with the purge of putrid bathwater. We have to realize the problems of our government are deep-seated and go back as far as January 1969. We just assume it's been eight years because, well . . we just don't think back that far.

And where will that Youth Vote be, come this November?

But at least in 1950 they were trying to think ahead.

September 04, 2010 01:00 AM

Sam Seder has another superb episode of "That's Bullshit" featuring the fine folks attending GlennBeckapalooza last week. One of the more interesting interviewees opines that black people should love coming to Beck events and Tea Parties -- because, after all, when they do, they're fawned all over by white people eager to prove they're not racist.

Me? I'm with Sam and the flag vendor.

Meanwhile, Jason Easley at PoliticsUSA has evidence that Beck was wearing a bulletproof vest under his shirt that day. (I wondered about this myself at the time.)

That raises the question: Did Martin Luther King wear body armor on Aug. 28, 1964? Answer: No. Because he was about love, not fear.

September 04, 2010 12:00 AM

Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota joined Greta Van Susteren's show to brag about how he decided to play politics and refuse federal money for health care. As an editorial at the Minneapolis Star Tribune asked "How much federal money will Minnesota lose to other states because Gov. Tim Pawlenty dislikes the new federal health care reform law?"

Pawlenty's refusal of federal money smacks of politics.:

How much federal money will Minnesota lose to other states because Gov. Tim Pawlenty dislikes the new federal health care reform law?

The ticker clicked another $1 million on Wednesday, the deadline for Minnesota's application for a grant to help fund the establishment of an exchange at which people can shop for affordable health insurance.

That's chump change compared with the money he has already turned down, to the detriment of sick and needy Minnesotans and the professionals who treat them. The Republican governor has already spurned early enrollment of the state's poorest adults in the state-federal Medicaid program. DFL legislators say it would bring an additional $1.4 billion to the state's health care industry through 2013 and fund an estimated 22,000 private-sector health care jobs.

Also on Pawlenty's rejection list: $68 million to bring a federal high-risk insurance pool to Minnesota (a justifiable choice, since Minnesota's own pool is less expensive for most people than the federal one); $1 million for premium rate reviews, and $850,000 for teen-pregnancy prevention -- though Pawlenty did apply for a $500,000 abstinence-only sex ed grant. The latter program will cost the state an additional $350,000 and offers weaker evidence of effectiveness. Pawlenty must have been persuaded by something other than cost and results. Read on...

It's really pathetic this guy looks like he's putting presidential politics and his hope for a run in 2012 ahead of the citizens of his state. Shameless. I've said this before and I'll say it again. As bad as anyone on the left thought the weak tea we managed to get passed with this health care bill and with our corporate bought Senate was, all the Republicans will do is make it worse when given the chance as Pawlenty has shown us here. They don't care how many suffer as they help make the bill and its application worse instead of better to score political points. I feel for the residents of his state that deserve better leadership.

September 03, 2010 11:00 PM

[H/t America's Voice]

After her horrendous performance the other night in her debate with Democrat Terry Goddard, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is doing what she does best: Running from tough questions ... you know, what most folks call accountability:

Arizona voters won't be seeing any more debates between the top gubernatorial contenders.

Incumbent Republican Jan Brewer said Thursday she has no intention of participating in any more events with Democrat Terry Goddard. She said the only reason she debated him on Wednesday is she had to to qualify for more than $1.7 million in public funds for her campaign.

"I certainly will take my message in a different venue out to the people of Arizona," she said.

Yes, we can imagine what that venue will be. After 20-plus appearances on Fox News and none with any local TV journalists, we're getting the idea. (When she adds later in the piece that she will "be available for interviews," we're sure she will ... with Greta Van Susteren and Sean Hannity.)

Anyway, Brewer said, she believes the debates help Goddard more than they benefit her.

"Why would I want to give Terry a chance to redefine himself?" she said.

Translation: why create another situation where I would just be destroyed at my own hand?

Brewer conceded that her performance in Wednesday's debate, and her refusal to answer a question from reporters afterward, was not well-handled. That includes an opening statement when she lost her train of thought and went silent, and walking away after the event rather than answering questions about her prior statements about headless bodies in the desert.

Brewer blamed part of her post-debate activities on her gaffe in her opening statement. The governor also said she presumed reporters would want to talk to her about some of the issues raised during the hour-long, televised debate.

"All you guys were doing and talking were beheadings, beheadings, beheadings," the governor said. "That is something that has stuck with you all for so long, and I just felt we needed to move on."

Actually, Jan, the issue is that you have refused to retract those remarks, even though (a) they have been proven utterly false, and (b) they have helped kill the state's tourism economy.

And the fact is, you just don't want to answer that question. Because you can't without admitting you're a crappy governor.

September 03, 2010 10:00 PM