This is such a stellar example of Republican hypocrisy, you'd be hard pressed to think of a better one:

The Republican National Committee will no longer offer employees an insurance plan that covers abortion after POLITICO reported Thursday that the anti-abortion RNC's policy has covered the procedure since 1991.

"Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose," Chairman Michael Steele said in a statement to POLITICO. "I don't know why this policy existed in the past, but it will not exist under my administration. Consider this issue settled."

Steele has told the committee's director of administration to opt out of coverage for elective abortion in the policy it uses from Cigna.

Federal Election Commission Records show the RNC purchases its insurance from Cigna, and two sales agents for the company said that the RNC’s policy covers elective abortion.

Until Thursday, the RNC’s plan had covered elective abortion – a procedure the party’s own platform calls “a fundamental assault on innocent human life.”

Informed of the coverage, RNC spokeswoman Gail Gitcho told POLITICO earlier Thursday that the policy pre-dates the tenure of current RNC Chairman Michael Steele.

“The current policy has been in effect since 1991, and we are taking steps to address the issue,” Gitcho said.

The RNC moved quickly Wednesday to assuage any concerns its members might have.

In a letter obtained by POLITICO, RNC Chief of Staff Ken McKay writes to the 168 committeemen and committeewomen across the country that Steele "takes this issue very seriously."

He writes that the RNC has been evaluating its health insurance policy and will continue to do so.

But they'll still be writing checks to CIGNA for that modified policy, and CIGNA is still offering abortion on its plans - which means their premium dollars are funding abortion, right? At least, according to the Stupak amendment.

Rachel Maddow weighed in on the ongoing dust-up between the White House and Fox News and the collective freak-out by Fox and the right wing over herself and Keith Olberman, among others, being invited to a meeting at the White House. She wrapped it up with this statement:

Maddow: You can be upset all you want that the president meets with people who you disagree with. But consider being fair and balanced in your criticism, at least admit that this White House has met with both sides while the Bush White House did not. You should especially admit that if you happened to have been a member of the Bush White House during that administration.

Keith joined Rachel later in the segment and talked about how hypocritical and completely disingenuous all of this pearl clutching has been by the right.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

Rep. Mike Pence has been on the forefront of pushing this Van Jones scandal created by Glenn Beck (good to see he gets his walking papers from such an impeccable source, isn't it?), calling for his resignation and saying that Jones' "extremist views and coarse rhetoric have no place in this Administration or the public debate."

But as Jeremy Scahill points out, Pence isn't bothered by the extremist views of Erik Prince of Blackwater/Xe, who has contributed thousands of dollars to Pence:

On Friday, Pence, who describes himself as “Christian, Conservative, Republican, in that order,” said Jones’s “extremist views and coarse rhetoric have no place in this administration or the public debate.” Beyond the obvious here (the hate-filled rhetoric we see every day from racist, right-wing wackos, including those in public office), it is an interesting comment considering that Pence is an extremist right-wing evangelical Christian who has taken thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Blackwater’s owner, Erik Prince. Prince has also donated to Pence’s Political Action Committee “Principles Exalt a Nation.” In December 2007, three months after Blackwater operatives gunned down 17 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad’s Nisour Square, Pence and his Republican Study Committee, which serves “the purpose of advancing a conservative social and economic agenda in the House of Representatives,” organized a gathering to welcome Prince to Washington. “Not only has Mr. Prince personally been targeted by partisan warfare repeatedly over the past months, but the use of contracting throughout the government has been under attack by this Congress,” Pence’s committee’s statement said. Should Pence resign for cavorting with and accepting campaign cash from a man who allegedly “views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe,” in the words of a former employee?

I think it's time for the majority party to start acting like one. If Republican-controlled Congress could set aside time to debate condemning MoveOn.org for their Gen. "Betray Us" ad, then the Democratic-controlled Congress ought to be making sure that the double standard of IOKIYAR no longer stands.

(Michael Steele - Talk Fast, Talk Loud - pray nobody notices)

If Michael Steele is the best the Republicans can do in explaining their somewhat maladroit attempts at shooting down Health Care reform - they're in much more trouble than anyone thought.

On NPR's Morning Edition today, Steele was asked by host Steve Inskeep about where the Republicans stood on the question of Medicare. It didn't take anytime for that particular train to skid off the tracks.

Steve Inskeep: “You warn that some of the health care proposals out there would , quote ‘create government boards that would decide what treatments would and would not be funded’, and you ‘want that decision to be between the doctor and the patient’. When a private insurance company pays now, what is your impression of who decides what that private insurance company is going to cover? Is that purely between the doctor and the patient now . . ?

Steele: “Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn’t. It depends on the type of treatement and the medicines that are at stake and I’ve had this same experience my own self, where I needed a certain type of . .you know, medication and . .you know, the insurance company is like well, you can have it, but we’ll only pay for this amount or this portion. I don’t like that anymore than I like the government doing it. And my point is . . you know the governments gonna do it, they’ll do it ten times worse and it’s gonna be more pronounced than the private insurers. And I think that’s a feature we can fix right now. And sure, there are issues in the insurance market that we can regulate a little bit better and we can control better to maximize the benefits to the consumers. That’s something we can rightly reform and fix.

Inskeep: “ wait a minute . .you would trust the government to look into that?”

Steele: “No . .I’m talkin’ about the . . .talking about . . .

Inskeep: “Who . . .you said that’s something to be looked into. Who should look into that?

Steele: “Well . . who regulates the insurance markets?

Inskeep: “The government . . .”

Steele: “Wait a minute – hold up . . You’re doing a wonderful little dance here – you’re trying to be cute. But the reality of this is very simple; I’m not saying the government doesn’t have a role to play. I’ve never said that . . . the government has a role to play, the government has a very limited role to play . .

Iskeep: “Mister Chairman, I respect that you feel I’m doing a dance here, I just want you to know, as a citizen I’m a little confused by the positions you take, because you’re giving me a very nice, nuanced position here . .”

Steele: “It’s not nice and nuanced. I’m being very clear”.

It's pretty clear to everyone but the Republicans that the Republicans don't have a leg to stand on in the Health Care debate. But rather than attempt any kind of . . .dare I say it, bi-partisan approach, they are trotting out confusion, fear, hysteria and arrogance in rapid succession, hoping some words stick and no one will notice the others.

Hell of a way to run a barbecue.

Jon Stewart notices that Glenn "I am not a fear monger" Beck had a much different attitude towards the health care in this nation last year while recovering from anal surgery.

I’ll tell you what really doesn’t speak well of our health care system: that in those sixteen months the hole that they stitched up in Glenn Beck’s ass hasn’t healed enough for him to stop talking out of it.

Our friend Digby was on an excellent panel today at Netroots Nation in Pittsburgh discussing how we find ways to talk about economic issues in America going forward, especially since we have to confront such an endless deluge of right-wing BS framing.

She points out, adroitly, that for some reasons, deficits and federal spending are only a problem when a Democrat occupies the White House. Moreover, that deficit spending in support of an illegitimate overseas war is never questioned, while deficit spending to stop the USA from falling into an economic depression or to help Americans with their health care is readily attacked without raising an eyebrow.

As usual with Digby, it's entertaining and enlightening.

Amato and I are having fun hanging out with our blogging friends. Bill Clinton is speaking tonight, and we'll have video from that in the morning.

(h/t David)
It's an ever-present meme on the Sunday shows: how will the Republican Party get back to their "rightful" place in charge of the government? Of all the problems facing the country right now, this probably ranks right up there with the federal response to Dutch Elm disease, yet it gets countless broadcast hours, over far more pressing issues.

Bush and neocon cheerleader David Brooks has a provocative solution that host David Gregory didn't notice had suspiciously leftist origins: Republicans should become populists!

GREGORY: David Brooks, how does this Republican Party of the future chart a new course. If you look back historically from Nixon to Reagan to George W. Bush. In each case, it was not only a kind of an indictment of the past, but also the charting of a new course for the future of the Republican Party.

BROOKS: Right, I take a maximalist view. I follow the British Conservative Party. They had to lose three national elections before they changed. I think this Republican Party is going to have to lose two or three national elections. So I take a long term, most pessimistic view possible. But what is the route back? It’s two things. The first thing , boring, sensible practicality. And that’s why of the potentials, Mitch Daniels, the governor of Indiana is the most sensible short term prob…answer to the Republican problems. The guy is just a good manager. You got a guy, Barack Obama, in the White House. Fantastic guy, happens to spend a lot of money. And so that would be my short term.

The long term is that they have to learn to talk to people in densely-populated parts of the country and to young people. And the answer to that is the same: They have to learn to talk the language of community and common endeavor. It’s been too much individual, profit, tax cuts. It has to be community, what we can do together, including in some cases, the government.

So the answer is to appeal to young people and urban centers by admitting that as a community, we have to take care of one another and stop focusing so much on individual profits?

David, that's called being a liberal.

It reminds me very much of something I experienced years ago. Back in the early 80s, I was invited to attend a Young Leaders of Tomorrow conference at Pepperdine University. Given its location and the names of the scheduled speakers, I should have realized that it should have been more accurately named Young Republican Leaders of Tomorrow. I was a little bit of an odd fit, and after not too subtly challenging Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf at a session (moi, a liberal agitator? Quelle suprise!) he attempted to shut me up with this little homily purported to be from Churchill:

If you are young and not liberal, you have no heart, if you are old and not conservative, you have no brain.

Harrumph! Didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now, almost 30 years later. Either you understand that we live in a society and there are responsibilities inherent in being part of that society beyond trying to prove who has the biggest phallus/weapons program, or you don't. And if you don't understand that, you have no business being a Leader of Tomorrow, young or otherwise.

And let's be honest: the Republican Party doesn't understand that. Never have and they never will. Their entire focus (and appeal) lies in that less evolved part of the brain that governs toddlers: the world revolves around you and you are entitled to whatever you want. Everyone else should be scorned and distrusted because they are trying to take what you want to have. That's been the GOP's modus operandi since the beginning.

The problem is we don't want a government run by self-centered children any longer. Not that the Democratic Party has been doing a bang-up job of governing like adults, but they are a step in the right direction.

The Reaction: American history is littered with scores of examples of doing business with tyrants but the GOP hypocrite brigade now has the unmitigated gall to claim that some handshakes are "irresponsible." 

Mondoweiss: Palestinians don't have to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, US says

DownWithTyranny!: Publicity seeking, lunatic fringe, Republican, Chuck DeVore vs Don Henley

Truthdig: Female soldiers battle sexual violence

Whiskey Fire: Guns don't kill people, but sick cultures do

ANNALS OF JOURNALISM: CNBC worried about image...Edmund Burke denounces George Will...Lights, Cameras, Mayhem!...Shoddy by choice...BillO's power in Spain...Escalate To Babble Tantrum...A different view of America...Your liberal media sets a new standard...Media fails America again...More WaPo horse pucky...Dems letting Net Neutrality die...Time Warner scraps metering trials...Swelling WH press corps...Then and Now...He said/She said Journalism...Certain facts omitted...

Since the president announced on Friday that he'd be sending an additional 4,000 troops to Afghanistan, I've heard quite a bit of far-right undermining of the commander-in-chief while our soldiers are in harm's way. Just some reminders of what I thought was the rule regarding this behavior:

"The only ideas that they espouse are ways to undermine the troops in harm's way and undermine their commander in chief while they're at war. Your candidates have no idea how to keep this economy strong."

—Sean Hannity, 10/18/06

"He’s the Commander-in-Chief. And what I find frankly repugnant about you and some of your fellow Democrats – you have undermined our president..."

—Sean Hannity, 03/19/06

"You know, Norman, those comments while we are at war, while troops are in harm's way, while he is the commander in chief, do you not see the outrage in that?"

—Sean Hannity, 11/12/07

"I have had it with members of your party undermining our troops, undermining a commander in chief while we are at war..."

—Sean Hannity, 11/05

"You don't criticize the Commander-in-Chief in the middle of a firefight. That could be construed as putting U.S. forces in jeopardy and undermining morale."

—Bill O'Reilly, 04/04

"Can we do it without distorting their legacies and pandering to anti-American elites worldwide and using their deaths to embarrass and undermine our commander in chief?"

—Michelle Malkin, 11/23/05

"On the other hand, if Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat Congress are successful in undermining the commander-in-chief..."

—Tom DeLay, 04/11/07

"And furthermore, one of the fundamental principles we have in America is that the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces and attempts to undermine the commander in chief during time of war amounts to treason."

—Pat Robertson, 12/07/05

I hasten to note that criticizing the president during wartime is fine. Hypocrisy, on the other hand, isn't. You either unequivocally support the president in wartime or you don't. You can't have it both ways, wingnuts.

(Cross-posted at BobCesca.com)

Fresh off his foray into the world of diaper-based prostitution, Sen. David Vitter still thinks he's above the law. We all know how difficult it is to fly these days and security does not mess around, but this bozo thinks airport security doesn't apply to himself.

He missed his flight and tried to open a jet way door after the gate had been closed and then got into a confrontation with airport security, trying to intimidate the security person with his importance: "Do you know who I am?" (Would've been funny if the security worker had replied: "Sure, you're that senator who likes to wear diapers with hookers, right?")

He says he walked through the wrong door and it was all a big misunderstanding. That's a joke, especially for someone who flies as much as he does. If it was anyone else the police would have been called in and he would have been taken away in handcuffs.

Of course, no one's really surprised, right? I just wonder if the Democratic communications staffers will kick into gear and capitalize on this kind of story:

WASHINGTON — Rep. John Mica was gushing after the House of Representatives voted Friday to pass the big stimulus plan.

"I applaud President Obama's recognition that high-speed rail should be part of America's future," the Florida Republican beamed in a press release.

Yet Mica had just joined every other GOP House member in voting against the $787.2 billion economic recovery plan.

Republicans echoed their party line over and over during the debate: "This bill is loaded with wasteful deficit spending on the majority's favorite government programs," as Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., put it.

But Mica wasn't alone in touting what he saw as the bill's virtues. Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, also had nice things to say in a press release.

Young boasted that he "won a victory for the Alaska Native contracting program and other Alaska small business owners last night in H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act."

One provision would have made it harder for minority businesses to win contracts, and Young explained that he "worked with members on the other side of the aisle to make the case for these programs, and was able to get the provision pulled from the bill."

Yet later in the day Young — who recently told McClatchy that he would've included earmarks, or local projects, in the bill if it had been permitted — issued another statement blasting the overall measure.

"This bill was not a stimulus bill. It was a vehicle for pet projects, and that's wrong," he protested.

(h/t Dave)

John McCain tries his level best to look concerned for the plight of the average American while he bemoans that gosh, golly gee, the stimulus bill just wasn't bipartisan. That is why, of course, despite his home state of Arizona nearly topping the lists of foreclosures for the country, McCain couldn't bring himself to support the stimulus bill. But what makes his plaintive wailings all that much more amusing is that McCain actually whines about the....wait for it...tax cuts, that he admits have not worked in the past. You know, those tax cuts added to gain bipartisan support? They weren't bipartisan, according to Grumpy McSame.

But the point is, this bill was not bipartisan. It was -- it is incredibly expensive. It has hundreds of billions of dollars in projects which will not yield in jobs. Now, if you think we need to improve education, spend money for it, fine. But this was supposed to be a package that was going to create jobs. A lot of this package will not create jobs. A lot of the tax cuts we've tried before of just giving people some money, it hasn't changed the way that savings have been conducted by Americans. So I'm not happy--and most of us aren’t-- at the lack of true bipartisanship in approaching this legislation.

Are you kidding me? The utter hypocrisy is mind-blowing...and yet, McCain has the audacity to sit there with a look of deep regret and sincerity on his face as he spews complete tripe. But host John King is not about to let McCain feel alone in his regret, so he launches what has to be the biggest softball concern troll framing I've heard this morning:

KING: Let's go to the process a little bit more. It’s a thousand pages. It’s eight pounds. We had it fedexed out to us. We’re contributing to the economy just having it shipped out here. Some of the changes were literally hand-scribbled on the side of the page. This happens all the time, unfortunately…

McCAIN: It’s the old business as usual…

KING: Well, if it’s the old business as usual, didn’t President Obama promise a new way of doing things in Washington? You say it was a terrible start. Are you sitting in your office these days saying, "I told you so"?

This from the man who warned Obama about being too liberal.

Forehead, meet keyboard. What I wouldn't give to see an intellectually honest discussion of the stimulus bill...obviously, it will not be found on "State of the Union".

HuffPo:

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), who broke with his party to support President Obama's stimulus package last week, said before the final vote Friday that more of his colleagues would have joined were they not afraid of the political consequences.

"When I came back to the cloak room after coming to the agreement a week ago today," said Specter, "one of my colleagues said, 'Arlen, I'm proud of you.' My Republican colleague said, 'Arlen, I'm proud of you.' I said, 'Are you going to vote with me?' And he said, 'No, I might have a primary.' And I said, 'Well, you know very well I'm going to have a primary.'"

Specter, along with centrist Maine Republican Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, joined with Democrats last week to move the stimulus bill forward. Specter said he doubted there would be any more Republican votes than those three Friday night.

"I think there are a lot of people in the Republican caucus who are glad to see this action taken without their fingerprints, without their participation," he said.

Specter was asked, How many of your colleagues?

"I think a sizable number," he said. "I think a good part of the caucus agrees with the person I quoted, but I wouldn't want to begin to speculate on numbers."

Gutless, gutless wonders....they allegedly agree on the need for the stimulus, but are afraid to stand up for what's right. Ladies and gentlemen, once again, I give you today's GOP. Explain to me why Democrats keep expressing the need for bipartisanship...

DCCC head Chris Van Hollen puts it into perspective (if only the media would actually frame it this way):

“Americans will hold House Republicans accountable for just saying no to saving and creating three to four million jobs and the largest tax cut in American history.

“House Republicans are fast becoming party of No-bama. Americans will hold Republicans accountable for being the party of no – no to President Obama’s economic recovery, no to children’s health care, and no to equal pay for women doing equal work.”

GOP Leader John Boehner channels his inner Norma Desmond and throws a hissy fit on the floor of the House in response to the stimulus bill. I guess we should be grateful he didn't start crying again.

Funnily enough, Boehner's performance was eerily reminiscent of another Republican temper tantrum:

The press today continues to focus on the GOP doomsday scenarios about what Obama's economic initiative will mean to America and how it's going to gut the economy. How it will put America on the road to "financial disaster," as Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) declared last weekend. And of course, his dire rhetoric generated headlines. (“We’re taking an enormous risk -- an enormous risk -- with other people’s money,” added Sen. Mitch McConnell this week.)

The press takes these swipes very seriously, in part because the press always treats GOP rhetoric about the economy and finances seriously. Why? Because Republicans know economics. Everybody inside the Beltway understands that CW.

Just like the GOP knew economics back in 1993 when the new Democratic president Bill Clinton struggled to get his centerpiece economic legislation passed. Back then the GOP was sure the bill was a recipe for disaster. At the time Newt Gingrich announced "The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people off of work and onto unemployment and will actually increase the deficit." He was positive a recession would ruin America's economy within the "next year," or even "over the next 60 days."

And Newt wasn't alone. The whole GOP crew was in Chicken Little mode and the press back then, just like today, made sure to record and amplify every dire warning: "A recipe for economic disaster," warned Phil Crane of Illinois. "It is going to lead to a Clintastrophy, an economic Clintastrophy," added Indiana's Dan Burton.

Yeah, that decade of prosperity...that was hard to take, wasn't it? And the most pathetic aspect of how seriously and credibly the establishment media takes these GOP whingings and sturm und drang is how nakedly obvious--yet unmentioned--the political machinations drive this, just as they have in the past:

December 2, 1993 - Leading conservative operative William Kristol privately circulates a strategy document to Republicans in Congress. Kristol writes that congressional Republicans should work to "kill" -- not amend -- the Clinton plan because it presents a real danger to the Republican future: Its passage will give the Democrats a lock on the crucial middle-class vote and revive the reputation of the party. Nearly a full year before Republicans will unite behind the "Contract With America," Kristol has provided the rationale and the steel for them to achieve their aims of winning control of Congress and becoming America's majority party. Killing health care will serve both ends. The timing of the memo dovetails with a growing private consensus among Republicans that all-out opposition to the Clinton plan is in their best political interest. Until the memo surfaces, most opponents prefer behind-the-scenes warfare largely shielded from public view. The boldness of Kristol's strategy signals a new turn in the battle. Not only is it politically acceptable to criticize the Clinton plan on policy grounds, it is also politically advantageous. By the end of 1993, blocking reform poses little risk as the public becomes increasingly fearful of what it has heard about the Clinton plan.

Repeat after me: Boehner and the GOP do not care about Americans. They do not want the stimulus to succeed because it will hurt their party. That's all that matters to these swine.

(h/t Heather)

Rachel Maddow shows how ridiculously easy the Feds have made it for financial institutions to apply for relief, so much so that she's tempted to create "The Rachel Maddow Show Bank Holding Company" to get in on the action.

It also shows the rank hypocrisy of Republicans now screaming that the bailout of the auto industry must come with strings attached, since they felt no similar compunction while handing over trillions of taxpayer dollars to financial institutions. Further, the financial institutions feel no compunction to be accountable for how they've used the money, nor how they compensate their employees and executives.

Transcripts below the fold

Continue reading »