On Sunday’s World News on ABC, correspondent Jonathan Karl suggested that Democrats in the House, rather than take a political position based on principle, refuse to vote for a budget plan that would reform Medicare because they wish to use Medicare to run against Republicans and take back the House.

As Karl recounted that he had recently spoken with House Democratic leaders, it is unclear whether he meant that one of the leaders had actually made this admission to him, or whether his assertion was his own perception. Karl:

I’ve spoken to a lot of top Democratic leaders in the last couple of days about this. Speaker Pelosi – former Speaker Pelosi made it clear that she was not going to support anything that would touch Medicare or Social Security. And the reason for that, David, is that Democrats are already campaigning to try to take back the House by saying it’s Republicans that want to cut Medicare, so there is no way they’re willing to go along with anything that could be portrayed as a cut to Medicare.

 By contrast, the same night’s CBS Evening News and the NBC Nightly News showed no skepticism in the Democratic strategy on Medicare spending. CBS’s Bill Plante:

At tonight’s meeting, sources tell us, the President is continuing to press for his grand bargain, the $4 trillion cut. Republicans don’t like that because it increases taxes. Democrats don’t like it because it trims Medicare and other social spending. The White House folks have their own spin on it: They say that it means to President is showing leadership.

And Chuck Todd on NBC:

Over the last 48 hours, both parties have been taking the temperature of their bases when it comes to Democrats trying to figure out if there was support for some of these tough Medicare and Social Security cuts and Republicans trying to figure out if they could do massive tax reform that, in the long run, would bring in a trillion dollars in tax revenues that would go to deficit reduction.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor is being volunteered by several reporters as a frightening Leader of the Fringe who are just trying to wreck the country. Rich Noyes reminded me yesterday that this is what they did when Newt Gingrich walked out of the 1990 budget talks that were George H.W. Bush's political undoing. Check out our golden oldies from Notable Quotables. Replace "Gingrich" with "Cantor" and this would seem awfully current: 

Well, House Republicans are the big problem because they've been trying to count, and they really are a minority of a minority and they're inconsequential. So they are now being ripped apart….They are just really torn apart between wanting chaos, wanting to destroy everything and not have an agreement, sort of a scorched-earth, Newt Gingrich-led policy, and wanting to be conciliatory and come up with a solution….The Democratic plan is really a genius of a plan because it does everything that most people, 81 percent of Americans, would want: It raises taxes on the rich." — NBC Capitol Hill reporter Andrea Mitchell on Sunday Today, October 14, 1990.

Here's a few more that demonstrate that some things really don't ever change:

"The American people have failed to realize that they have a responsibility in all of this. But one of the reasons is that for ten years, Republicans in the White House, first Ronald Reagan and then George Bush, have been telling them they don't have to pay for what they get." — Andrea Mitchell, October 12, 1990 Nightly News.

"Many of those interviewed described the budget dilemma as partisan war, with the Democratic Congress trying valiantly to protect the interests of the little people against a pull-out-all-the-stops assault on spending by Daddy-Warbucks Republicans."
– Washington Post staff writer Guy Gugliotta in October 6, 1990 news story on public reaction as gauged by Post reporters.

Bob Squier, Democratic Strategist: "I think that it was a game of chicken. I think what you had was Gingrich, who is supposed to be part of the leadership, leading people literally out of the deal."
Bryant Gumbel: "Acting irresponsibly."
Gumbel: "….Is this the legacy of Ronald Reagan politics, I mean, feel-good politics of the '80s, no-responsibility politics of the '80s?"
Roger Ailes, Republican Strategist: "I think that's a misnomer…"
Gumbel: "But weren't the '80s about spending what we didn't have? And that was Ronald Reagan."
– Exchange on Today, October 5, 1990.

Bill Maher can't go an hour without saying something disgusting about Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann.

On CNN's "Piers Morgan Tonight" Monday, the misogynistic comedian said that he hopes the former Alaska governor gets into the presidential race "so that they split the MILF vote" (video follows with transcript and commentary):

PIERS MORGAN, HOST: If you had a choice, gun to your head, which one is it? Palin or Bachmann?

BILL MAHER: I would need a gun to my head. I hope Sarah Palin gets in so that they split the MILF vote.

For those needing a translation, MILF stands for "Mom I'D Like To F–k."

Classy guy, isn't he? And, of course, Morgan thought this was hysterical.

More importantly, MSNBC indefinitely suspended Mark Halperin last month for calling President Obama a d–k. Isn't this worse, or is all fair when it's directed at a conservative woman?

Whatever the answer, Maher wasn't done:

MAHER: But I guess Bachmann, I don't know. Who could say? Because, at least she's somebody who can read. You know, she has a job. She was a lawyer. She’s in Congress. She's not someone who just sits there and reads the prayers on her Blackberry like Sarah Palin. I mean, you know, we're splitting hairs here.

MORGAN: Could Sarah Palin become president? Is it possible in the current climate?

MAHER: Absolutely. Yes. People who say this one is a joke, or this one is a joke. I remember when I was twelve years old in 1968 and Ronald Reagan was first considering running for president, and I remember what a joke that was. Ronald Reagan? You mean the "Bedtime for Bonzo" guy? Well, I think he did become president. Yes, absolutely, because if she could get the nomination, and anything can happen with, I mean, this Republican Party is not your father's Republican Party. Somewhere along the line they got on a short bus to Crazy Town, and if someone gets the nomination of one of the two major parties, especially in a bad economy with a black president, yeah, she could become president.

Honestly, what does it say about our society that this disgusting creature gets invited on so-called cable news networks to spout his highly misogynistic opinions?

NewsBusters has been reporting for weeks that the Obama-loving media are going to do anything possible to smear all Republican contenders for the White House in the coming months.

On Monday, ABC's "World News" actually began with a segment that included undercover videos of Congresswoman Michele Bachmann's husband's clinic where homosexual patients are allegedly counseled to pray to become heterosexual (video follows with transcript and commentary):

DIANE SAWYER, HOST: Good evening. We begin tonight with an ABC News investigation. Tea Party powerhouse Michele Bachmann has rocketed to the top of the Republican pack. Tonight, a closer look at the business she and her husband own back home in Minnesota. An outside group filmed undercover video inside the Bachmann’s Christian counseling center. Bachmann’s husband has said he does not try to turn gay people straight. ABC's chief investigative correspondent Brian Ross is here with those tapes and to tell us what they show tonight. Brian.

BRIAN ROSS: Well, Diane, they are quite a couple, and we're learning a lot more about their views and how they've made their money.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROSS (OFF CAMERA): Michele Bachmann tells supporters her husband, Marcus, has been the key to her 33 years of happy marriage.

CONGRESSWOMAN MICHELE BACHMANN (R-MINNESOTA): I just wanted to say I have a very big advantage, because Marcus has his Ph.D. in counseling and he's a marriage counselor.

BRIAN ROSS (OFF CAMERA): But Dr. Bachmann’s brand of counseling is highly controversial and could become a campaign issue.

BACHMANN: Here's my husband, Dr. Marcus Bachmann.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROSS (OFF CAMERA): Operating out of suburban Minneapolis, Dr. Bachmann runs a Christian counseling firm, co-owned with his wife, that at times, according to former patients, has tried to convert gay men into heterosexuals through prayer.

ANDREW RAMIREZ, FORMER PATIENT: His path for my therapy would be to read the Bible, and pray to God that I would no longer be gay.

ROSS (OFF CAMERA): Andrew Ramirez of Minneapolis was seventeen when his family sent him to Bachmann and Associates where he says a counselor working for Bachmann tried unsuccessfully to "save" him from his sin.

RAMIREZ: God would forgive me if I was straight.

ROSS (OFF-CAMERA): Dr. Bachmann, who has described homosexuals as barbarians, denied as a false statement five years ago reports his clinic tries to convert gay men to straight. But undercover video shot just last month inside the clinic by a gay advocacy group seems to show some form of the practice is indeed offered.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED THERAPIST: But the truth is God, God has designed, he designed our eyes to be attracted to the woman's body, to be attracted to, you know everything, you know. To be attracted to her breasts.

ROSS (OFF CAMERA): A member of the group told the clinic of feelings towards men and depression and asked if he could be rid of his homosexual urges through therapy and prayer.

UNKNOWN THERAPIST: I think it's possible to be totally free of them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN BECKER, TRUTH WINS OUT: It’s unambiguous. The goal was to change me from homosexual to heterosexual.

ROSS (OFF CAMERA): Asked about our report today at a campaign appearance in Iowa, Michele Bachmann would only today she was proud of the clinic.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BACHMANN: I’m here today to talk about jobs and the economy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROSS: In a statement, the campaign said the Bachmann’s clinic provides a variety of services, but because of confidentiality cannot comment on any specific treatment. The American Psychological Association has told members the idea of converting gays through therapy to being straight is both ineffective and potentially harmful, Diane.

SAWYER: A Brian Ross investigation. Thanks, Brian.

Trying to further press the point, this was the headline and picture at ABCNews.com:

To be sure, anti-theist press members would predictably find any therapy involving prayer to be offensive, but airing undercover videotapes created by an advocacy group does seem odd given the mainstream media's antipathy to what James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles uncovered at ACORN roughly two years ago.

I guess the use of such footage is just fine when it's disparaging a prominent conservative.

It's also peculiar to lead with this story rather than the President's morning press conference about the debt ceiling. Says a lot about ABC News's priorities at this point.

One also recalls how long it took most mainstream media outlets to pay any attention to presidential candidate Barack Obama's America-hating spiritual adviser Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Consider, too, how little attention the junior senator from Illinois' connections to convicted real estate developer Tony Rezko got, or his ties to domestic terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.

By contrast, just weeks after Bachmann tossed her name into the presidential ring, ABC's airing undercover footage of her husband's clinic taken by an LGBT advocacy group. I'm sure the producers see it as all being for a good cause, especially as Truth Wins Out is using the free publicity to raise money.

As we've been saying, you better fasten your seatbelts.

What the media are going to do in the next sixteen months to get Obama re-elected will defy the imagination.

*****Update: Upon reflection concerning this segment, something has struck me as even more absurd about how "World News" reported these videos.

A man walks into a Christian clinic saying he has "feelings towards men and depression and asked if he could be rid of his homosexual urges through therapy and prayer." And he's outraged when a therapist at this Christian clinic tells him to pray?

That's like walking into a McDonald's complaining of hunger and being disgusted when the kid behind the counter suggests a Big Mac.

Exactly why is this news?

As for the first patient Ramirez, why didn't Ross ask him the reason his parents sent him to the Bachmann clinic when he was seventeen? Was it because he was gay and they were Christians thinking a Christian clinic would help their son with what they thought was a spiritual problem?

When you think about it, this whole report was something you'd expect on "Comedy Central" NOT ABC's "World News."

It is truly fascinating how liberal media members will do anything to protect the reputation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

On this weekend's "McLaughlin Group," Newsweek's Eleanor Clift revised history to largely absolve the two government-sponsored enterprises for last decade's mortgage collapse while predictably blaming it on Wall Street and of course George W. Bush (video follows with transcript and commentary):

ELEANOR CLIFT, NEWSWEEK: Because Wall Street wants to make it look like Fannie and Freddie were the drivers behind the mortgage collapse, when in fact Wall Street led the way and Fannie and Freddie basically caught up. I think, you know, Fannie and Freddie were the product of government policy, both parties, and President Bush championed the ownership society, and pushing low-cost mortgages were part of the Republican inroad into the Hispanic community.

So this wreaks of politics, but you cannot say that Fannie and Freddie led the way with all those financial instruments. Fannie and Freddie got into the act when they lost a great section of the mortgage market because Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch and everybody else was trading on these financial instruments, and, and, and the unregulation allowed them to go ahead. So, they were, they were part of the crowd, but they did not, they did not lead the way.

The "Wall Street" character Gordon Gecko famously said, "A fool and his money are lucky to get together in the first place."

I'd love to know what he'd say about this nincompoop.

To claim that Fannie and Freddie weren't leaders in expanding the mortgage market that led to the housing bubble and the eventual near collapse of the entire financial services industry is addle-minded even for Eleanor.

To quickly refute her claim, let's cite a source she trusts; in September 1999, the New York Times reported:

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets — including the New York metropolitan region — will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

Readers are advised that this was months before the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 was enacted largely deregulating financial institutions to do virtually whatever they wanted, and roughly fifteen months before the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 deregulated derivatives.

As such, it is quite absurd to say Fannie and Freddie didn't lead the way in driving the mortgage bubble or that George W. Bush played a significant role.

But there's more in this Times piece that folks like Clift conveniently ignore:

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.'' [...]

By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.

So, back in September 1999, under pressure from the Clinton administration to make more loans to minority and low-income home owners with bad credit ratings, Fannie eased the credit requirements on loans it would purchase.

At the same time, someone familiar with the industry was cautioning that such a move would force a government rescue of the GSE if the economy slumped.

As we all now know, the rest is history except for folks like Clift who feel they need to revise it in order to protect the institutions and the Party they so deeply adore.

Nice try, Eleanor.

In their Sunday evening coverage of the Minnesota government shutdown, Associated Press reporters Steve Karnowski and Amy Forliti failed to mention any form of the word "tax," failed to mention "spending" in the context of government outlays, and fretted that a prolonged shutdown might cause a "brain drain" from state government.

The failure to bring up taxes is clearly the item's most egregious oversight, since the shutdown is all about taxes, specifically Democratic Governor Mark Dayton's refusal to sign a state budget that doesn't contain tax increases on high income-earners.

On the plus side, though it took an one of the people interviewed to say it and the disclosure didn't appear until the end, the wire service has acknowledged that "Dayton vetoed all major state agency funding bills Republicans passed at the end of the session." In other words, it is inarguably the case that Dayton chose to shut down the government when he could have kept it running.

Here are several paragraphs from the AP pair's report, concentrating on the ones very late in the story which contain workers' varying opinions of the situation:

Idled Minn. public employees holding on — for now

(Paragraph 4)

Many of the 22,000 public employees out of work in Minnesota's budget impasse say they will get through the extended layoff by tapping into personal savings, relying on a spouse's income or unemployment checks, and making household spending cuts. But others are looking for new jobs, creating the potential for a brain drain that would be one more negative from the nation's longest state government shutdown in a decade.

(Paragraphs 13 through 21)

… Jim Ullmer, of Crystal, a commercial vehicle inspector for the Department of Public Safety, has been babysitting his 18-month-old granddaughter, who he took to an anti-shutdown union rally at the Capitol last week.

… Ullmer also has been spending time on the phone. He's the chief steward statewide for members in his agency who belong to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. He tells members curious about how long the shutdown will last to call their legislators.

"Ask them. They're the ones who are keeping us out here," Ullmer said.

The workers' money woes contrast sharply with the position of state lawmakers, who are still eligible for their salaries during the shutdown – although some have chosen not to take them. And while their unions are a traditional power base for Democrats and support for Dayton remains strong, it's not universal.

Brian Lindholt, of Minneapolis, says Republicans could end the shutdown simply by meeting the Democratic governor halfway.

… But Pakieser, who belongs to the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees, criticized the unions for their close alliance with the governor.

"I feel like Dayton has gone out of the way to mislead people about his compromise attitude," Pakieser said. He said a video is circulating on YouTube of Dayton imploring lawmakers in February to join him in pledging not to shut down the government, yet Dayton vetoed all major state agency funding bills Republicans passed at the end of the session.

"It just looks to me like he wanted to force a shutdown. … He chose to spread maximum pain throughout the state government," Pakieser said.

The final paragraphs cite and quote a gentlemen who believes both parties are equally to blame.

As to the "brain drain" argument, c'mon. It's hard to believe that as well-paid as public-sector employees are that finding others to fill in the breach wouldn't be all that difficult.

As noted earlier, there's no discussion of Dayton's obsessive desire to raise taxes, and how he'd rather shut down the government and idle 22,000 state employees than keep the government running and work on justifying the increase he wants. The wire service reporters' defense may be that it was supposed to be a human interest story about how public-sector employees are faring, but shouldn't readers know why it's happening to have meaningful context for understanding the the woe-is-us factor?

The first half of the previous paragraph sounds like someone we know in Washington, doesn't it? It would not be a surprise if that person is also looking to shut down the government to make a tax-raising point. The success or failure of Dayton's effort would appear to have significance beyond the Gopher State.

Cross-posted at Bizzyblog.com.

David Gregory decided to have a very fair and balanced roundtable discussion at the conclusion of Sunday's "Meet the Press" exclusively with the perilously liberal Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson and the equally left-leaning Chuck Todd of NBC News.

With the subject being Newsweek's new cover story about former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, Todd mysteriously made the case for how slim her chances of winning the GOP presidential nomination were by claiming, "Rush Limbaugh is an incredibly influential figure in the Republican Party, and he could never win the Republican nomination" (video follows with transcript and commentary):

DAVID GREGORY, HOST: Let me do one other political note because Sarah Palin is being heard from again–cover story in Newsweek. And I want to pullout the portion where she talks about her prospects, which is quite interesting. We'll get that together and put that up on the screen. Again, granting an interview to Newsweek. "I can win." She says, "The people of America are desperate for positive change, and deserving of positive change … I'm not so egotistical as to believe that it has to be me, or it can only be me, to turn things around. But I to believe that I can win."

What is she up to here, Chuck?

CHUCK TODD, NBC: I'm not going to pretend–we never–to try to crawl inside and see if she's going to do things predictably the way other presidential candidates do is a mistake. It feels like she is simply trying to go out on her own terms. You know, she didn't want the Tucson response that she made when she called blood libel and all those things after the Gabby Giffords shooting to be the most–the lasting impression of Sarah Palin 2011. She wanted to get out–she wanted–if she's not going to run, she wants to be able to have that be the message. "I could win, but I don't need it."

GREGORY: But she has this quality of wanting to very much stay on the margins, be a spoiler if that's, if that's the role. But it, it's just completely unconventional.

EUGENE ROBINSON, WASHINGTON POST: It is completely unconventional. I'm not exactly sure, beyond the influence she has now as a, as a kind of gadfly, as a, as a political presence, I'm not sure how this path that she seems to be on gets her any more influence. I'm not sure where it gets her. She hasn't done any of the stuff that you'd–that you would need to do, traditional or nontraditional, to run for president. I don't think she's running.

TODD: Look, Rush Limbaugh is an incredibly influential figure in the Republican Party, and he could never win the Republican nomination.

ROBINSON: Mm-hmm.

TODD: I think that's where Sarah Palin's coming. She's going to be an incredibly influential figure on a conservative movement in the Republican Party. That's what she wants. And I don't know if she'd get nominated. Look at her numbers among Republicans. She doesn't have the support among Republicans to win this nomination.

To begin with, one has to wonder whether "Meet the Press" has decided to go MSNBC on its viewers.

David Gregory, Eugene Robinson, and Chuck Todd a roundtable doth not make. This is the kind of "roundtable" one would expect on "Countdown with Keith Olbermann."

That said, it's quite a statement for Todd to claim Limbaugh could never win the Republican nomination for president.

As one of the most popular and highly recognizable conservatives on the face of the planet, Limbaugh could be a powerful force in politics if he ever chose to run for office.

If a totally unqualified junior senator from Illinois with absolutely no accomplishments in public or private life outside of academia can get elected president, Rush Limbaugh conceivably could win the Republican nomination.

But whether or not that's the case, exactly what has Limbaugh to do with Palin who has successfully run for office achieving a governorship which is no small feat.

Bringing Limbaugh into the equation seemed more of an opportunity to bash conservatives, which again was what one would expect from MSNBC.

Sadly, this was in keeping with the entire tenor of Sunday's installment which began with a rather softball interview with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner who was largely allowed to echo White House talking points with little challenge.

Particularly disturbing was the section about the debt ceiling when Gregory chose to not ask specific numbers despite being given a big opening to do so.

The Secretary told his host that following August 2nd, the treasury will only have existing cash on hand and incoming revenues to pay the obligations of the federal government:

TIMOTHY GEITHNER, SECRETARY OF TREASURY: And every week starting the week of August 2, we have to go out and finance roughly $100 billion in maturing obligations of the government. We make 80 million checks a month to Americans, 55 million people on Social Security benefits, millions more Americans on veterans benefits, Medicare, Medicaid, people who supply our troops in combat. Eighty million checks a month. So on August 2, we're left with the cash on hand and the cash we take in. And we have to convince people to come and refinance $500 billion in maturing principal payments that come due in August.

With such an opening, a good interviewer would have asked exactly how much cash is on hand, what are the projected revenues for August as well as the debt obligations so that they can be met.

As NewsBusters has been reporting for days, treasury is projecting $172 billion worth of revenues for the month along with likely no higher than $35 billion in interest payments.

Since this is a key issue concerning the debt ceiling, why wouldn't Gregory have asked the man with the most information about these figures?

Might that have let the cat out of the bag that this really isn't the crisis the White House has ginned up, and that there is indeed no chance America is going to default on its debt in the coming months?

Having let Geithner nicely off the hook for having to answer any indelicate questions, Gregory instead chose to grill Republican presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty like a suspect in a capital crime.

If he would have been this aggressive with his previous guest, maybe America would have actually learned something about the looming debt ceiling beyond what the White House wishes.

I guess that's not as important to Gregory as bashing conservatives.

It wasn't a good week for those Kossacks who still believed that President Obama was the Great Progressive Hope. A Washington Post report that Obama is open to entitlement cuts was especially discouraging to many on the left.
 
On Friday, one Kossack asserted that Obama has absolutely no principled reason for being a Democrat, and another suggested that Obama is (perhaps subconsciously) a GOP mole. That's a nasty accusation given what the Kos gang thinks about Republicans (see below). As usual, each headline is preceded by the blogger's name or pseudonym.

BrooklynBadBoy: Obama is a Democrat by process of elimination
 
…President Obama…has no political ideology…
 
…Obama is a Democrat, but only because he has no choice. You can't get elected without a major party and he has no chance in the Republican Party because he isn't a right wing nutcase…
 
Eric Stetson: Obama isn't really a Dem at all
 
…[W]e have a Republican president in Democratic clothing. In other words, Democrats nominated and elected a president who is, for all intents and purposes, a trojan horse for the other side.

I don't mean that Barack Obama was secretly a conservative who had a stealthy and brilliantly executed plan to get elected as a Democrat and then ruin that party from within. What I mean is that, regardless of his actual beliefs or motivations, the effects are the same…

Mark Sumner: The GOP is prone to 'fit[s] of auto-cannibalism'

…The whole "if a little is good, then more must be better" theory that is practically the formula for modern conservatism on any subject from tax cuts to school vouchers is an constant invitation to find ways to destroy our own system; a recipe for guaranteed overreaction. It's a prerequisite of any Republican presidential candidate — don't have a reasonable response to any issue, always, always, always go overboard. Following this scheme leads to an inward facing fit of auto-cannibalism. To an acute disorder known as Conservatitus…

Rick Aucoin: The Republican party is a faith-based cult

…We have one political party that runs from Liberal to Pro-Corporate, and another political party that is…a cult. That scorns facts, reason, education.  They argue subjects as matters of faith, not as matters of fact.  And you will make no more headway with them on the subject of trickle down economics than you will on the subject of the divinity of Christ.

Because their view on trickle down economics and the divinity of Christ comes from the same parts of their brain…

Meteor Blades: Conservative patriotism = jingoistic racism
 
…Our nation is awash in purveyors of what makes a true patriot and what does not in terms Il Duce would have loved. They equate aggressive nationalism with patriotism, dissidence with treason, love of country with love of leaders. Such upsidedownism is a hallmark of right-think. For two and a half years, Beck and a boatload of like-minded others have been fabulously well-paid to spread their poison about liberals, in general, and Barack Obama, in particular. Unlike the purveyors of Manifest Destiny who had no need to hide their desires for a white man's America, today's pretend patriots, all too many of them grifters, wink, nod and dog-whistle their way through the script…
 
RavagerOfWorlds2: The right dreams of 'corporate anarchism'
 
…Al Qaeda only dreamed of doing the sort of damage that Republicans are willing to inflict on America…

…[T]he overall hatred of government in Conservative Circles…led to the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. This sort of hatred led to the Civil War. This sort of hatred is destroying America.

And the traitors to America are smiling on prime time. They're being extolled for their virtues. They're getting a free pass while they are slitting all of our collective throats for their corporate backers. The dream of the conservative movement, is to turn all of America into Somalia; without government, without security, and a free for all of the "free market." Their dream is corporate anarchism, and the death of our republic.

Kaili Joy Gray: Pro-lifers are 'terrorist, murderous scumbags'

…Here's a little unsolicited tip to the "pro-life" movement. You want people to stop accusing you of being the terrorizing, murderous scumbags you are? Stop being terrorist, murderous scumbags. That just might be a good start.

People that have been watching Chris Matthews since the Republican presidential debate in New Hampshire last month know that the devout liberal has suddenly and quite mysteriously developed a soft spot for Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.).

On Sunday's "The Chris Matthews Show," the host actually said to his guests, "I wonder whether cerebral writers like George Will and David Brooks, bright people, are not really in tune with that base out there that she is" (video follows with transcript and commentary):

ANDREA MITCHELL, NBC: The majority of people in this country are not willing to do the things that John Boehner is now prepared apparently to do, that the President wants us to do, that leadership arguably needs to do in order to get past this crisis. Michele Bachmann really has her, her finger on that pulse. She’s put up a new ad, her first ad in Iowa, which says, “I will not vote for a debt ceiling.” That’s…

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: No matter what, she won’t.

MITCHELL: …categorically. Even if it has all of the cuts that the Republicans want. So she is taking it one step farther and I think that she is really in tune with the majority of the people, whether they understand the facts or not.

MATTHEWS: Okay, that's Iowa. It's the religious right and she may be perfectly, perfect pitch. Will that sell across the Republican base in the country? Can she compete for the nomination right to the end?

CLARENCE PAGE, CHICAGO TRIBUNE: I don't think so. She has all the vulnerabilities of Barry Goldwater who got the nomination back in 1964, and he was attacked for these very issues, Social Security and the rest.

MATTHEWS: But he won, the nomination.

PAGE: He did, because at that time the moderates were weak. And they're weak now. That's her best shot, because it's a shrunken party from what it used to be. But I think because of recent events, a lot of the Republican moderates, the David Brooks types, you know, are going to be the ones to stand up and call a halt, but it will come after South Carolina.

MATTHEWS: I wonder whether cerebral writers like George Will and David Brooks, bright people, are not really in tune with that base out there that she is.

BOB WOODWARD, WASHINGTON POST: That's right.

This hasn't become a tingle up the leg yet, but Matthews seems rather smitten with the Minnesota Congresswoman.

The problem is, from a conservative standpoint, it's really hard to see this as good news.

As Politico's John Harris told Matthews last month, the candidate the press fall's in love with early on typically doesn't do well in the primaries.

"There’s almost an inverse relationship between how much reporters gush about somebody – 'Oh, he’s impressive' – and their actual chances."

This is especially true for Republican candidates.

Maybe that's Matthews' intention.

Hmmm.

The upcoming issue of Newsweek has a cover story about former Alaska governor Sarah Palin.

Here's the picture with the headline, "'I Can Win": Sarah Palin on why she's so confident – and how she'll decide whether to run in 2012":

That sure is a heck of a lot different than the November 2009 Newsweek cover photo that generated so much outrage for the obvious sexist overtones:

Lest we forget last month's pathetic cover of Mitt Romney:

When you compare the three, this most recent is certainly the best cover photo.

As for the contents, stay tuned.

*****Update: For those that are interested, the article to be available on newstands Monday has just been released on the internet. It's actually a good piece well worth the time.

As far as media issues are concerned, readers might find this interesting if not necessarily novel for her:

A campaign—even one as defiant of conformity as Palin’s would likely be—would require expanding that circle to include political professionals of uncertain loyalty. And it would mean opening the door to news organizations with which she has been openly feuding for the last couple of years.

Or not.

“The mainstream press is becoming less and less relevant,” she said, adding that she would have no hesitation in shunning media outlets she does not trust.

“I would say no to those who have lied about me. There is no need to reward bad behavior. I’ve learned. You know, once bitten, twice shy. I have learned.”