You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (958)

PLAYS: (788)

The new talking point by Fox News and conservatives who are attacking health care reform is to complain about the size of the bill. Last night on Greta Van Susteren's show, for instance, Sen. Orrin Hatch tried to tell us that the very size of the bill ensured that it would be a bad thing. Of course, most appropriations bills are bigger than this thing, and Hatch has not only voted for but sponsored his share of those. Maybe he'd find it acceptable if it were printed on golden tablets or something.

How desperate are they? Very f*&king desperate. The Democrats made a smart move by comparing it to Sarah Palin's book:

There are a lot of analogies floating around about how the Senate health care bill compares in size to other notable writings. Republicans have been hyping them all day.

Here's a new one from the Democratic arsenal: Sarah Palin's book, which runs 413 pages.

"This bill if you put in regular type style is about the same size as Sarah Palin's book," said Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska). "So it is not that big. There is a lot of show and tell and razzmatazz."

Which would be a better read?

"Depends if you want substance or not," he said.

Looks like the Palin line is a Democratic talking point. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) told a gaggle of reporters the same thing Wednesday night.

Conservatives were running around trying to wrap the entire bill around DC or something during the House debate.

Fox News jumped in with their usual conservative spin.

Today, Fox News' Live Desk continued the House Republican caucus and Politico's silly obsession with the length and size of the House health care reform bill. During a span of less than 45 minutes, co-host Trace Gallagher repeatedly told viewers the health care reform bill is so long, it makes the Russian novel War and Peace "look like a short story."

This is the time of the day where Rupert Murdoch says Fox News is in its actual "news cycle." If that's true, then why are they actively attacking the length of health care bill? Why does the page count matter to a news organization? Would they rather have a three-page bill handed over to them the way Paulsen did when he asked for $700 billion for Bush?

And Sen. Tom Coburn won't read the health care bill on the floor Saturday.

Republican Senator Tom Coburn is backing off his threat to require that the Senate read the 2,074-page health care bill because some GOP colleagues aren't supporting the effort.

The Oklahoma lawmaker said there's uncertainty about whether reading the bill during Thanksgiving week would be productive. He also said that if the Republicans do decide to tie up the Senate for the dozens of hours it would take, six GOP colleagues have committed to pitching in on reading duty.

Now I am probably not telling you anything new in this title, but when I saw this op-ed by William Kristol in his Weekly Standard magazine (hat tip to Matt Y), I just suddenly got this pounding headache and resulting furious reaction.

In areas where policies are still being debated--in foreign policy in particular--conservatives need to keep urging Obama to do the right thing. We are disgusted with Obama's irresoluteness on Afghanistan. But we continue to urge that he side with the experienced military leaders he's been fortunate to inherit against the second-guessing of political hacks (and of failed ex-generals turned political hacks). We conservatives want American soldiers to win wars, American interests to prevail, and American principles to flourish. We want the bad guys to lose. We're happy to work with President Obama to defeat them--and we only wish he shared our clarity and urgency about accomplishing that task.

That is to say, Obama should only listen to active duty generals like Petraus (USCENTCOM), Odierno (Iraq), and McChrystal (Afghanistan), not "failed ex-generals turned political hacks" such as former generals Karl Eikenberry (US Ambassador to Afghanistan) and James Jones (National Security Advisor). The latter have, of course, counseled caution before engaging deeper into Afghanistan. To be more specific, the Republican political line seems to be "yeah, we always do what our generals tell us to do - so long as their statements support indefinitely continuing the wars in the Middle East." What a ridiculous little man he is.

As far as Kristol's other statement - he wants American soldiers to win wars and American interests to prevail - I really want to haul back and punch him hard in the stomach. If you cared one iota about the American soldier, you slime, you base villain, you would have been pestering the CheneyBush administration as to its inability to put adequate numbers of American troops into Iraq and Afghanistan and its refusal to grow the military force to the numbers required for a long post-war occupation. Now we have military families breaking up, military suicide rates going ever upward, promotions for any officer with a pulse, military modernization programs on hold because of mounting operational costs, and a trillion-dollar bill that was never adequately planned for,largely due to the CheneyBush administration's inability to close the deal after eight years of continued combat.

You clearly have no respect for the American soldier or for American interests. In fact, if you were working directly against the American soldier and American interests, you could not be doing a better job.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1116)

PLAYS: (2477)

(h/t Heather)
Conservatives like Rudy Giuliani can change their views in a blink of an eye and act like WATB in the process. Anytime there's some Obama bashing to be done, conservatives happily join in even when they look like fools. Rudy, who was called as a witness in the trial of Moussaoui and applauded the America legal system now says that putting KSM on trial in New York is a really, really bad idea? Why? Well, because Rudy says so.

Here's what Rudy said after he testified in the 2006 trial.

"At the same time, I was in awe of our system," the former mayor continued. "It does demonstrate that we can give people a fair trial, that we are exactly what we say we are. We are a nation of law. . . . I think he's going to be a symbol of American justice."

I guess America doesn't need anymore shining examples of our justice system, right Rudy?

Chris Wallace puts up Giuliani's statements about the other WTC bombing trial which refute him, but Rudy dismissed his own views with nonsense.

Wallace:I want to take you back to what you said after the prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers. You said this, “I think it shows you put terrorism on one side, you put our legal system on the other, and our legal system comes out ahead.”

And after the 2006 trial of the so-called 20th hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui, you said, “It shows that we can give people a fair trial, that we are exactly what we say we are. We are a nation of war (sic).” Respectfully, Mayor, you supported civilian trials for terrorists then.

GIULIANI: And if there’s no other alternative, I support civilian trials for terrorists. The reality is there is another alternative here. And this administration has created tribunals. At least five, possibly more, terrorists are going to be tried in those tribunals.

If there was no other choice, again, Chris, I support this. If there was no other choice and they had to be tried in New York, of course they should be tried in New York. But the reality is there is another choice. It is a better choice for the government. This choice of New York is a better choice for the terrorists. Why would you seek to give the terrorists a better choice than you’re giving the -- than you’re giving the public?

His decision to be against the KSM trial is because there were other alternatives? That is idiotic at best. Jack Reed came on the show right after Rudy and denounced Rudy's talking points in their entirety.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (247)

PLAYS: (2502)

REED: Well, as you pointed out, in 2006, Moussaoui, the 20th hijacker, under the Bush administration was tried in a federal court in Alexandria, Virginia. Mayor Giuliani was one who testified in the penalty phase and he, as you indicated, claimed this was a symbol of American justice, as he said in 1993.

But this was not 1993. This was 2006. The alternative existed for a military tribunal then. The Bush administration decided to make the case in federal court. They succeeded. A hundred and ninety or so terrorists have been convicted in federal courts, only a handful -- less than 10 -- in tribunals.

There are 200 individuals serving time in federal facilities now for their terrorist crimes. So what was a statesmanlike decision by the Bush administration can’t be a political decision by this administration.

If a conservative does it, then it's awesome!

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1179)

PLAYS: (5493)

Columnist David Brooks is a conservative that isn't blindly devoted to former Gov. Sarah Palin. "She's a joke. I can't take her seriously," he told ABC's George Stephanopoulos Sunday. "The idea that this potential talk show host is considered seriously for the republican nomination, believe me, it will never happen. Republican primary voters are not going to elect a talk show host," said Brooks.

But the other conservative on the panel with Brooks wasn't buying into the Palin frenzy either. George Will thinks Republicans can do better. "Some conservatives think they have found in Sarah Palin a Republican William Jennings Bryan. Now, Why would they want someone who lost the presidency three times?" asked Will.

John Amato: David Brooks has never been much of a fan of Palin. This is from a piece in Oct, 2008:

[Sarah Palin] represents a fatal cancer to the Republican party.
--
But there has been a counter, more populist tradition, which is not only to scorn liberal ideas but to scorn ideas entirely. And I'm afraid that Sarah Palin has those prejudices. I think President Bush has those prejudices.

The conventional wisdom about the Stupak bill among the male-dominated media: Why won't the women just sit down, shut up and let the men folk do their political bidness? What is all this talk about "rights"?

Instead, ask yourself these questions: Why is it that the moderates conservatives always get their way - at the expense of liberals, and of alleged Democratic party values? Why is the compromise always on our end? Why aren't people like Bart Stupak being told to "put on their big boy pants" and swallow compromise to get health care reform?

And why isn't some progressive politician introducing a bill to cut off funding for special education or any other services at Catholic schools? After all, how is providing the services from a trailer at the far end of the school parking lot not an "accounting trick"? Why aren't liberals aggressively challenging the tax-exempt status of the Catholic church?

I was under the impression we had freedom of religion in this country. Apparently, I was wrong.

WORCESTER - Opening up a major fissure in the US Senate race, Attorney General Martha Coakley said yesterday that she opposes the landmark health care bill approved by the House Saturday because it contains a provision restricting federal funding for abortion.

Coakley, in her boldest gamble of the campaign, said that fighting for women’s access to abortions was more important than passing the overall bill, despite its aim of providing coverage for 36 million people, establishing a public insurance option, and prohibiting insurers from discriminating against patients with preexisting conditions.

“To pretend that now the House has passed this bill is real progress - it’s at the expense of women’s access to reproductive rights," Coakley said in an interview, after making similar comments yesterday morning on Boston radio station WTKK-FM.

[...] Coakley’s opposition to the bill put her squarely at odds with her three rivals for the Democratic nomination, including US Representative Michael E. Capuano, who voted in favor of the plan and blasted Coakley’s stance yesterday, calling it “manna from heaven" for his campaign.

“I find it interesting and amazing, and she would have stood alone among all the prochoice members of Congress, all the members of the Massachusetts delegation," Capuano said in an interview. “She claims she wants to honor Ted Kennedy’s legacy on health care. It’s pretty clear that a major portion of this was his bill."

He went on: “If she’s not going to vote for any bill that’s not perfect, she wouldn’t vote for any bill in history. She would have voted against Medicare, the Civil Rights bill. . . . Realism is something you have to deal with in Washington."

Why is it that "realism" is always and inevitably at the expense of women, gays and minorities? Is that the new Democratic value?

UPDATE: Apparently Capuano has since changed his position, saying he'll vote against the bill if Stupak amendment stays.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (2101)

PLAYS: (1975)

Glenn Beck must have been feeling the pressure from Virginia Foxx yesterday in the Absurd Wingnuttery Championships. So, after Foxx compared the liberal health-care reform package working its way through Congress to terrorism, Beck went on his Fox News show and compared the package to the 9/11 attacks:

Beck: On 9/11, we experienced a feeling we had never had before -- when the buildings and our markets and the economy came falling down around our ears, we realized -- 'Oh my gosh. Our country isn't unsinkable.'

We came, on that day, to the understanding that this Republic is fragile. Here we are now, a decade later. I'm on the air again, warning you that our government cannot sustain our massive spending. The system will collapse if we continue down this progressive path.

Ten years ago, I could have shouted every single day about Osama bin Laden and his wacky, crazy threats to kill Americans in New York. And no one would have been willing to stand in line two hours while some security officers made grandma take her shoes off. No one would have done it.

But don't you see -- while the government is still not willing to do these things, today, America is different. America has changed. Washington, we're not going to let you get away with it anymore.

Look, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Conservatives are awake. 912ers are willing to do the hard things. We know what this means. We're taking time out of our busy lives, taking time away from their families, they're attending town-hall meetings -- you think they wanna do that? They are calling their representatives -- how many times do we have to be yelled at by your people in Washington? to work against the enactment of health care reform.

They are reading 2,000-page health-care bills on the weekend. They 912ers are willing to stand in line and take our shoes off before the plane actually hits the tower.

Glenn Beck has a long history of exploiting the 9/11 tragedy for the sake of ratings and rantings. (Who could forget his encomium to the widows? "It took me about a year to start hating the 9/11 victims' families.")

Indeed, you could make the case that his current stellar rise was built on such exploitation. Beck was a nobody until he started making incendiary remarks about Muslims on air and attacking liberals for their insufficient patriotism after 9/11 and cheerleading the Iraq invasion as a post-9/11 necessity. It's what made him famous in the first place.

And now he's springboarding from that to leading an open revolt against the liberal policies Americans just voted to implement, throwing a tantrum because no one believes in disproven and discredited conservative dogma anymore. No one, that is, except Glenn Beck and his hapless followers.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (57)

PLAYS: (171)

Conservatives virtually declared victory after forcing a moderate Republican out of a highly contested House race in upstate New York. The Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava, withdrew Saturday virtually guaranteeing a win for Conservative Party Candidate Doug Hoffman in New York's 23rd Congressional district.

White House senior advisor Valerie Jarrett told ABC's George Stephanopolous that pressure on Scozzafava to drop out shows how conservatives are marginalizing moderates. "I think [the Republican Party is] becoming more and extreme and more and more marginalized," said Jarrett.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1315)

PLAYS: (1517)

Chris Matthews cites a recent Gallup poll in the beginning of the segment—Conservatives Maintain Edge as Top Ideological Group—which shows those who would describe their political views as conservative at 40%, moderate 36% and liberal 20%. He goes on to take this leap about just what that poll means later in the segment which Bob Herbert rightly calls him on.

Matthews: There’s a big disconnect here in the polling and I’m looking at the NBC poll, we’re going to have it more here tonight, I’ve looked at the Gallup numbers—here’s the disconnect—the Republican Party is a lousy brand name right now. It is way down below one in five, but on every issue from semi-automatic weapons to traditional values to abortion to every…regulation of business…

Buchanan: Immigrants…

Matthews: …every issue the country is lurching to the right in ideological terms at the same time as the base of the Republican brand. How do you explain that Rob?

Herbert: Are you saying the country’s lurching to the right?

Matthews: On every issue—look at the Gallup polls.

Herbert: I completely disagree with you on that.

Matthews: Ugghh…

Herbert: You’re giving too much credence to this poll. Pat just said a moment ago…

Matthews: Why don’t you look at the polls?

Herbert: …that the Republicans can unite behind all these issues for the off year elections—they can’t even—they haven’t even been able to unite in this upstate Congressional district in the Congressional election that’s coming up next week. You’ve got Republicans lining up behind the Conservative Party candidate who’s putting the knives in the back of the Republican candidate. So where’s the unity?

Never one to let logic get in the way of his preconceived notion Matthews asks if this means the conservatives are more “powerful than ever” if they’re the spoilers in Republican elections. Herbert reminds him that turning the Republican Party hard to the right is not good for them winning elections nationally. Earlier in the segment he also reminded Matthews that Republicans are not leading in a related poll about who Americans trust to run the country.

Of course Pat Buchanan, ever the staunch Sarah Palin fan-boy thinks the party needs more ideological purity and goes on to call the Republican candidate from NY-23 a liberal. As Herbert notes, Buchanan's got a pretty strange notion of who should be called a liberal these days. I would imagine the false memes continually put out by or MSM has a lot to do with people's perception of whether they are liberal or conservative or not, as was reflected in that poll. When people continually hear unions bashed and liberal treated as though it were some sort of dirty word, it's little wonder they might shy from the label.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (932)

PLAYS: (1921)

From Face the Nation, Russ Feingold has to remind Bob Schieffer that the "public option" is not a "liberal" position on health care reform. It's a compromise. What liberals want is single-payer.

SCHIEFFER: Let’s talk a little bit about health care. Where do you think health care reform stands in the Senate right now? I know you want the public option, the government-run insurance program, like Medicare for older people. The majority leader now seems inclined to include that in the bill that he’s going to bring to the floor. Do you think that has any chance at this point of passage? Because for a while now, people have been saying the votes are just not there in the Senate.

FEINGOLD: Well, I want to give my majority leader, Harry Reid credit for seriously considering putting this public option in there. I think it’s very important. It’s a sign of strong leadership on his part that he has the guts to do that. Because the American people are for some alternative that will create some competition for the abuses of the insurance industry. So I believe that there’s a good chance it will be in the bill that comes before us in the Senate. I think we have some chance of prevailing in the Senate on it and if we don't I think there's a chance it will come through the House. So I’m becoming increasingly optomistic that we will have a health care bill that will not frighten the American people, that they'll be able to see as reasonable -- it's not a complete government take over health care, but will provide an option for those that don’t have health care or are unhappy with their health care to do something else and I'm frankly getting excited that we may have some momentum for something very positive.

SCHIEFFER: As I understand it, the liberals want the, want the public option. The conservatives don’t. Do you think there’s a possibility that this thing may just end up in a log jam, that liberals won’t vote for this plan without the public option and the conserves won’t vote for it if it includes the public option, and so we wind up with nothing instead of something?

FEINGOLD: Well, that could happen, but the truth is, what liberals want is a single-payer system. Medicare for everybody. So the idea of a public option is really a very moderate idea. Within the current context of a continuing private system, it’s a tough one to swallow for many people who want a single-payer system. So this is a very reasonable approach that I would think people who are both conservative and liberal and in the middle would say, let’s try this; let’s see if this can control and bring under some reason of measure that the insurance companies could finally improve their act.

That is exactly what -- what this is. It is not a liberal or left-wing concept at all.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1433)

PLAYS: (4379)

We've wondered how long it would be before John Ziegler -- Sarah Palin's favorite braying jackass and America's least favorite bachelor -- would turn his loudmouth schtick on members of his own side who fail to live up to his worshipful worshipfulness of Sarah Palin.

Sure, he's good for a Glenn Beck episode or two, but sooner or later he was going to be dealing with conservatives who have a somewhat less-than-adulatory view of Palin.

So he attended this past weekend's Western Conservative Political Action Conference in Los Angeles with the express purpose of trying to interview David Keene, president of the American Conservative Union, which oversees the National CPAC gathering every year. Ziegler was actually a sponsor at this year's Western CPAC, where he set up a booth to hawk his "how the media screwed Sarah" video that no one either believes or wants to waste the time watching.

When he sat down with Keene, though, he went into his usual attack-mode schtick (the only person I've ever seen him interview who he didn't treat like this was Palin), and finally pushed Keene over the edge when he basically asked him why he was corrupt. Keene got up and tried to walk away, but Ziegler pursued him through the hallways, still haranguing. At one point, Keene tells him he'd like to hit him, but won't.

Finally, Keene told Ziegler exactly what everyone who's ever watched him is forced to conclude:

Keene: You're a scumbag.

Ziegler: I'm a scumbag?

[Chases Keene through another doorway]

Ziegler: Why won't you answer the question?

Keene: Because you're an a--hole. Got that? An a--hole.

Ziegler: I'm an a--hole?

Keene: Yes, you are. Now, go.

Ah, comedy gold. Especially when he tries to explain himself:

"I often get accused of being one of those who only craves personal attention and has less than pure motives."

"This entire episode has greatly furthered my already strongly held belief that the vast majority of the conservative 'movement' is 'led' by fakes, flakes, freaks, frauds, phonies and sell outs who are far more interested in protecting their own little thiefdoms than promoting the cause."

Hahahahaha.

[Via Digby.]

[Warning: Naked self-promotion ahead.]

My book The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right continues to attract a lot of interest, partly because it so clearly anticipated the current descent into madness of mainstream conservatives, currently drowning in a lake of right-wing extremism. I didn't predict tea parties, but I did warn that '90s-style militia wingnuttery was about to swamp the Republican Party, and I do explain how this is happening.

So this week I was the featured interview at Amanda Marcotte's podcast at RH Reality Check. We specifically focused on the way right-wing domestic terrorists have had a profound impact on women's reproductive rights. This is a brief interview; it starts at about the 8-minute mark and continues to the 24-minute mark.

And I was also featured as the live guest on Second Life for this week's episode of Virtually Speaking on BlogTalkRadio.

This is an hourlong session and fairly broad-ranging. It was fun for me because I've known Jay Ackroyd for over 10 years -- online (we useta post at the old Slate forum The Fray back in the day), but we only finally met in person this summer at Netroots Nation. We talk about posting at Crooks and Liars, among other things. I also get to talk about my favorite moment of the past year: Having been the guy who made Sarah Palin crazy enough to try to have McCain lie, thereby cementing her rep as a diva among the McCain campaign.

It's now been a full year since I've been at C&L. I think I'll celebrate by running the video that made Palin crazy, which occurred my first week here:

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (2882)

PLAYS: (11266)

Meanwhile, John Amato and I are ensconced in the writing process this weekend for our upcoming book from PoliPoint Press: Over the Cliff: How Obama's Election Drove the American Right Insane. (Due out next spring.) We'll have more details as we get closer.

In the meantime, I'd like to say thanks to the community of readers and commenters here at C&L for welcoming me so warmly and making me feel right at home from the start. It's been a blast, with lots more to come.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1643)

PLAYS: (2356)

Ann Coulter revealed her inner Lyndon LaRouche last night on Sean Hannity's Fox News show:

Coulter: This has nothing to do with reality. There -- I mean, most of the things, it's not a matter of forgiving Rush for saying them, he never said them -- but one thing that I think might be, I don't know, in my book, unforgivable, would be being a Nazi collaborator. And oh yeah, part of the consortium trying to buy the St. Louis Rams is still George Soros, who admitted on TV to having collaborated with the Nazis. But he's fine, because he owns the Democratic Party.

... But in any event, I would wager that a fair number of the players would agree more with Rush Limbaugh's politics than with George Soros' politics. I mean, not for nothing, a lot of them are Christians, point one. Point two -- and I mean real Christians, you know, Christ Christians -- and point two, they make a lot of money. I don't know that they like all these tax-and-spend plans of the Democrats. So I wouldn't hold it against the players. It's just these wussy owners --

Hannity: I want to know if Dave Checketts is now going to tell Soros to take a hike. Maybe that's the next question. Somebody needs to ask the NFL if they want George Soros to be a part owner. If this is the world we live in --

Coulter: An admitted -- right -- and he's an admitted Nazi collaborator. He pointed out who the Jews were in Hungary when he was 15 years old. He admitted that to Steve Croft on TV.

She's right, this explanation certainly had nothing to do with reality. Leaving aside the absurdity of claiming that NFL owners -- who are probably some of the most right-wing rock-ribbed group of Republicans in business -- were being "politically correct" and "prejudiced against conservatives" (as Hannity put it) ... And the absurdity of claiming that "he didn't say those things" by cherry-picking two fake racist quotes while ignoring the twenty genuine racist quotes ...

Coulter is not just grossly, immorally distorting Soros' story, she is also flat-out lying about it too. The claim that Soros was a "Nazi collaborator" originated with the LaRouche organization and has since spread to the likes of David Horowitz.

The facts: Soros was a Hungarian Jew who survived the Holocaust. From Media Matters:

Michael T. Kaufman wrote in a biography of Soros, Soros: The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire (Knopf, 2002), that Soros' father attempted to protect his family from Nazi persecution by paying an employee of Hungary's Ministry of Agriculture named Baumbach to take in Soros, "ostensibly as his godson." Soros accompanied his "godfather" as he went to oversee the confiscation of property from Hungarian Jews, as Media Matters has noted.

This is also where Coulter actually lies about Soros, too -- and it's an outrageous lie, too. Soros never was involved in "pointing out Jews" -- he simply accompanied his protector while he carried out his civic duties, which included confiscating property from Jews.

Here's the relevant passage from the 60 Minutes interview in question:

Continue reading »

CNN's media critic, Howard Kurtz, came up with THE answer to all our complaints:

KURTZ: And if liberals or conservatives like David Brooks don't like what the high-decibel pundits say or think they're peddling misinformation, they should go after them in the media marketplace, not with boycotts or name-calling or screaming or shouting, but on the battlefield of ideas.

Wow, that's so simple. Why didn't anybody think of that? Wait a second. Just hold on there. Isn't organizing a boycott an actual idea which then takes a ton of work to be successful? Isn't leading a boycott against a Glenn Beck or a Lou Dobbs actually going into the media marketplace and hitting them right in the pocketbook?

Can Howard suggest what battlefield of ideas I should go on? Does he consider Reliable Sources one of those battlefields? Can Howard help fund a radio program for me that will air either before or right after Sean Hannity, on all the same nationwide affiliates so I can at least partially compete with Hannidate's audience and have a chance to express my ideas at his level?

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1049)

PLAYS: (5543)

When a group of conservatives -- angered by a video showing kindergartners singing a song praising President Obama -- announced last week that they'd be protesting outside a Burlington Township, N.J., school today, school officials asked them to reconsider, since the school -- which houses kindergartners to second-graders -- would be in session:

The planned rally has school district officials planning to beef up security at the B. Bernice Young School in Burlington Township, which houses kindergartners through second-graders.

The song drew national attention last month after a video of the performance was posted on YouTube. Conservatives say it shows how schoolchildren are being indoctrinated to idolize Obama, allegations school officials have denied.

The Obama song initially was performed during a Black History Month assembly in February and was repeated in March when author Charisse Carney-Nunes, who wrote the children's book "I Am Barack Obama," visited the school.

Someone apparently with Carney-Nunes videotaped that performance and posted it at the author's Web site without the approval of school officials. A copy of that video appeared in September on YouTube, titled "School Kids Taught to Praise Obama."

Citing concerns for the safety of students and staff, Superintendent Christopher Manno has asked organizers to reconsider the protest because classes will be held that day. Manno said protesters will not be allowed on school property and additional district staffers will be on hand.

The protesters refused, of course, to reconsider:

Bill Haney, a rally organizer, said members of several groups would take part in the protest, although it was not clear Sunday how many people would be involved.

"Consider this a protest to squelch this trend to politicize our youth," organizers said in a prepared statement. "We are supporting the constitutional rights of our children and protest against the progressive social agenda promoted by the New Jersey Education Association and the National Education Association."

So there they were today, frightening children and their parents needlessly. Of course, rather than harass schoolkids, these protesters would have been more effective if they had gone, say, to a school-board meeting where decisions like these are dealt with.

At least one of the parents whose 7-year-old daughter was in the video spoke to Fox reporter Laura Ingle at the scene, and relayed her thoughts in a brief snippet:

My child's image has been hijacked, to produce -- I'm sorry, to promote a political agenda.

Now, Ingle makes this sound as if the parent is concerned about the school "indoctrinating" her child, which was what the protesters were there about. But what's clear from reading news accounts -- as well as Ingle's own reportage -- is that the parents were upset that the right-wingers had transformed a harmless school song into a cause celebre promoting the right-wing anti-Obama agenda.

This cropped up in local news accounts too:

The school district, in a statement, said that it "does not believe that protesting in front of an elementary school in session with four to seven year old children is appropriate."

The statement says that on Oct. 8, Manno contacted one of the protest's organizers personally and offered to meet with this person, who declined to meet. "It is unfortunate," the statement continued, "that an innocent, well-intentioned classroom activity by a well-respected teacher has become the object of so much debate."

Well, who were these protesters? Local parents upset with the district? -- You know, people who actually have something at stake with the conduct of their local schools?

Erm, largely no. The Courier-Post was only able to find one local couple who actually had a child at the school among the protesters (and they were more concerned with the video's release than with its content). According to the NY Daily News, they were a bunch of Glennbeckians who arrived at the school from elsewhere:

Haney's group, the 912 Project Burlington Group, is an offshoot [of] the national 912 Project founded by conservative radio and TV host Glenn Beck.

Haney said he hopes the rally will force the reassignment of school principal Denise King and will result in a reprimand of Schools Superintendent Christopher Manno by the state Board of Education.

Classy bunch, these folks.

The Big Picture: Want to know why financial reform has been dead in the water so far? "The banks run the place."

Southern Beale: No wonder Republicans didn’t bother to fix healthcare all those years they were in power. There’s too much money to be made by keeping it broken.

Truthdig: The chief justice of the California Supreme Court has a choice word for the state’s method of operation: dysfunctional

PERRspectives: The Nobel Prizes for Conservatives

Fafblog!: Our Threatiest Threat

HOLY CRAP: Clueless Christian...Biblical figures return to cleanse Conservapedia...Christian baseball?...Bill Tyndale's Bible...Jesus is their Health Care...Pray for me...Murder is caused by legalized abortion?...The First Question...Mr. Deity...Your friend & brother in Christ...Polygamous Marriages endorsed