Home » Archives by category » News » Politics (Page 1685)
New Rule: IOKIYAR

Click here to view this media Other than his tasteless joke about Ellen at the end of this, kudos to Bill Maher for reminding us of just how many Republicans like Newt Gingrich who’s still pretending he wants to run for president are huge flaming hypocrites when it comes to having the audacity to tell Americans that they’re still the party of “family values.”

Continue reading …
How right-wing hysterics keep danger levels high for the nation’s law-enforcement officers

Click here to view this media Scott Noll at WREG-TV in Memphis had a fascinating story earlier this week, following up on last summer’s deadly rampage by two sovereign citizens, Jerry and Joe Kane, that left two police officers dead and several other wounded: Tonight there are new questions about how much the feds knew about an anti-government activist, accused in the deadly attack against police officers in West Memphis. WREG On Your Side Investigators have uncovered the secret FBI files showing Jerry Kane was the target of a federal investigation five years before that deadly day last May. The 19 page file was released this week, following our Freedom of Information Act request last June. Tonight, West Memphis’s police chief believes if his officers had known what was inside last May they’d still be alive today. “I felt like I let this department down May the 20, 2010 when I didn’t have the information I should have had,” said Paudert recalling the shooting that left his son, Sgt. Brandon Paudert, and Officer Bill Evans dead. The chief finds it disturbing to know the FBI knew about Jerry Kane years before that deadly day. Paudert had no idea what was in the file until we showed him. “You could become very angry very quickly when you lose your son and a fine officer like Bill Evans thinking this information was stored away someplace in someone’s file and they didn’t want to share it,” explained Paudert. The incident was yet another reminder that one of the most significant ongoing threats to law enforcement officers in this country comes from right-wing extremists of the Patriot/”sovereign citizen” variety — people who take Republicans’ government-bashing rhetoric to its illogical extreme and declare themselves free of federal laws and functionally laws unto themselves. There are constant reminders of this threat — from the Hutaree Militia to the Richard Poplawskis out there. Of course, we all were witness to the right-wing shrieking over that Department of Homeland Security bulletin warning police officers around the country about the nature of this resurgent threat. That’s because conservatives are more concerned about whitewashing away these embarrassments than they are with the lives of police officers. They like to use dead cops as props to attack liberals while loudly arguing, as Glenn Beck did a couple years ago, that even paying attention to such right-wing threats is a smear of mainstream conservatives. Ironically, Glenn Beck was nattering at length on his Fox News show this week claiming that left-wing extremists are about to start killing police officers en masse, which is why they need to destroy their unions. Right. The unfortunate reality is that federal officials are almost certainly not sharing this vital intelligence with police officers because, whenever they do, they’re viciously and loudly attacked by right-wing pundits for allegedly smearing mainstream conservatives. Amazingly, no one in the mainstream media seems to have yet cottoned to the fact that this really is a near-outright confession of complicity . Indeed, domestic terrorism is sharply increasing in the past two years, as evidenced by the 22 incidents and counting we’ve documented involving right-wing extremists committing acts of violence against “liberals” and government targets. But because right-wing talkers only want to discuss terrorism as a “Muslim” phenomenon , we’re getting a badly skewed understanding of the nature of terrorism. As Rep. Bennie Thompson explained in Politico a few weeks back: While I agree that homegrown terrorism and the jihadist threat deserve continuing attention, a single-minded approach ignores all other threats. Today’s terrorists do not share a particular ethnic, educational or socioeconomic background. Recently, when state law enforcement agencies were asked to identify terror groups in their states, Muslim extremist groups ranked 11th on a list of 18. Law enforcement agencies identified neo-Nazis, environmental extremists and anti-tax groups as more prevalent than Muslim terrorist organizations. The sophisticated explosive device found along a parade route in Washington on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, an act of domestic terrorism clearly motivated by racist ideology, should prove that other groups are just as willing and able to carry out horrific attacks on Americans. In addition, terrorist groups are not our only threat. According to the Department of Homeland Security, “lone wolves and small terrorist cells” may be the single most dangerous threat we face. Attacks are just as likely to come from lone-wolf extremists — like James Wenneker von Brunn, the Holocaust Memorial Museum shooter, or Jared Lee Loughner, who is charged with the tragedy in Tucson, Ariz. — as they are from Muslim extremist groups. And what do von Brunn and Loughner have in common with Muslim extremists like Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, and Colleen LaRose, also known as Jihad Jane? All allegedly espoused radical views on the Internet through extremist websites, chat rooms and popular sites like Facebook. This starkly illustrates what should be common sense: The most effective means of identifying terrorists is through their behavior — not ethnicity, race or religion. But that was all washed away by the right-wing shrieking over the DHS bulletin, even though the report was an important heads up about the very real danger for law-enforcement officers out there posed by right-wing extremists: The Department of Homeland Security more than likely couldn’t give a rat’s patoot about today’s right-wing Tea Tantrums, because they’re mostly exercises in futility and stupidity anyway. But I’ll tell you who they do care about: the people in uniform who go out every day and put their lives on the line to keep you and I and our families and neighborhoods safe — that is, the men and women in law enforcement. People like those three officers in Pittsburgh, who had no reason to suspect a killer was about to ambush them. A recent study by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism lays out in painful detail the very real threat that right-wing extremists pose to people in law enforcement: Research led by Dr. Joshua D. Freilich (John Jay College, CUNY) and Dr. Steven Chermak (Michigan State University) and funded by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) has revealed a violent history of fatal attacks against law enforcement officers in the United States by individuals who adhere to far-right ideology. * In the United States, 42 law enforcement officers have been killed in 32 incidents in which at least one of the suspects was a far-rightist since 1990. * 94% of these incidents involved local or state law enforcement. Only two events—high-profile attacks at Ruby Ridge and at the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City—involved federal agents. Much more common are events like the tragic Pittsburgh triple slayings. * Attacks on police by far-rightists tend to occur during routine law enforcement activities. 34% of the officers killed by far-rightists were slain during a traffic stop, and a number of law enforcement officers have been killed while responding to calls for service similar to the domestic violence call that precipitated the Pittsburgh murders. * Firearms were the most common type of weapon used during these fatal anti-police attacks. 88% of the incidents involved guns, while only 6% involved explosives and 6% involved knives. 81% of the victims were killed by guns. * Only 12% of the suspects in these attacks were members of formal groups with far-right ideologies. The vast majority—like Poplawski—acted alone. This greatly complicates law-enforcement efforts to anticipate which individuals might pose a threat to police officers. * Beyond these law enforcement murders, far-right violence presents a broader threat to national security and American citizens. Since 1990, far-rightists have been linked to more than 275 homicide incidents in 36 states. These crimes have resulted in the more than 530 fatalities, including the 168 victims murdered by Timothy McVeigh when he bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. The vast majority of these suspects are white and male, with almost 70% being 30 years old or younger. Back then, Beck and Malkin and the rest couldn’t be bothered to express even a scintilla of concern about the safety of law-enforcement officers: This is where I wonder about the grotesquely skewed priorities of the conservative movement and its leading pundits. Because all the yammering has been fearmongering about the DHS potentially targeting ordinary conservatives — especially VETERANS!!!! — when in fact there is not a scintilla of evidence they have done so or are considering it. Yet in the meantime, as we just pointed out, these right-wing extremists who are the subject and the raison d’etre of this bulletin are also known lethal threats for the men and women who work in law enforcement … So while the folks at Faux News fearmonger for the sake of yet-unharmed veterans and conservatives, they’re completely turning their backs on the interests of the men and women who risk their lives each day serving as law-enforcement officers. But if you can convince them instead that the real threat they face is the fact that they belong to those creatures of progressivism, the unions — well, that would be right-wing nirvana right there.

Continue reading …

House Bill 50 , which would allow the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) to regulate coal ash in landfills passed the Commerce and Small Business Committee unanimously on March 2, 2011. Citizens from Perry County were there to press for coal ash to be regulated as hazardous material instead of solid waste.

Continue reading …
DoD Stonewalls Dennis Kucinich’s Attempt To See Bradley Manning. Why?

enlarge Marcy Wheeler with the latest on how the Department of Defense is stonewalling Rep. Dennis Kucinich in his attempts to verify the conditions under which Bradley Manning is being held in custody: On February 4, Dennis Kucinich asked DOD to allow him to visit Bradley Manning so he could assess his conditions of confinement. On February 8, Robert Gates wrote Kucinich a short note telling him we was referring his request to Secretary of the Army, John McHugh. In a letter dated February 24–but apparently not received in Kucinich’s office until March 1–McHugh told Kucinich he was referring his request to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs. In short, a full month after the date when a member of Congress requested a visit with Manning, DOD is still stalling on a real response with bureaucratic buck-passing. As to the substantive response McHugh offered Kucinich? It matches all the disingenuous boilerplate responses the rest of DOD has offered – claiming that Manning is treated as any other “similarly situated” pretrial detainee at Quantico, without mentioning that there is at most one other Max prisoner, and none who have been held on Prevention of Injury watch for eight months. PFC Manning experiences the same confinement conditions as other similarly situated pretrial prisoners at the MCBQ Pretrial Confinement Facility. In addition, McHugh appeals to the same bogus privacy excuse that Quantico is now using to avoid explaining why they’re submitting Manning to the same treatment they used at Abu Ghraib. PFC Manning’s custody and status classifications, like all pretrial prisoners at the MCBQ Pretrial Confinement Facility, are evaluated regularly by a board of corrections specialists pursuant to Department of Navy regulations. As United States laws prohibit the release of personal identification, including personal health information, I am not able to discuss PFC Manning’s specific custody and status classifications and other aspects of his care and treatment. Effectively, they’re using “privacy” as their excuse not to admit that under POI, Manning is subject to some of the same degrading techniques we objected to in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib. Kucinich isn’t missing that parallel, either. In his response today, he said, My request to visit with Pfc. Manning must not be delayed further. Today we have new reports that Manning was stripped naked and left in his cell for seven hours. While refusing to explain the justification for the treatment, a marine spokesman confirmed the actions but claimed they were ‘not punitive.’ Is this Quantico or Abu Ghraib? Officials have confirmed the ‘non-punitive’ stripping of an American soldier who has not been found guilty of any crime. This ‘non-punitive’ action would be considered a violation of the Army Field Manual if used in an interrogation overseas. The justification for and purpose of this action certainly raises questions of ‘cruel and unusual punishment,’ and could constitute a potential violation of international law. [my emphasis]

Continue reading …
Newsweek Profile of David Brooks Reveals His Snooty Disdain For Conservatives, Washington

The March 7 Newsweek (NewsBeast) features an article titled “David Brooks Wants to Be Friends,” but there's more bridge-burning than friend-making in this interview with James Atlas. Of course, he came up in Washington through conservative opinion journalism from the National Review, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and The Weekly Standard, but “something has changed.” Conservatives are now more uncivil. Well, either that — or his paychecks are now signed by PBS, NPR, and The New York Times: But Brooks insists that something has changed in the past decade. Political discourse had grown coarse, he laments. Gone is the civilized era when “you had liberals and conservatives instead of Republicans and Democrats,” a time “before the parties devolved into teams,” each espousing its own “values” in voices grown increasingly shrill. For a high-profile journalist, he seems eager to keep his head down—it’s not a posture easy to maintain when he’s on TV every Friday night and his byline appears twice a week on the op-ed page of The New York Times. “One of the toughest things about being a columnist is that people hate you,” he said. Hate is perhaps too strong a word; it’s not a sentiment Brooks tends to evoke in people. On the contrary, his balanced views are seen as strengths, not weaknesses. Atlas and his Newsweek editors seem to think there's no reason for conflict when a former conservative decides to start defending the liberal media instead of criticizing them. In 2000, Newsweek sought out one David Brooks to deny conservatives had a liberal media-bias problem: “”The movement consciousness is based on the idea that we are a band of brave, beleaguered souls under perpetual assault from the liberal mainstream media. These people detest McCain because liberals don't hate him.”

Continue reading …
Sarah Palin gets snippy when O’Reilly tries to press her on aid cutbacks to Alaska’s poor

Click here to view this media It’s hard to say why it happened, but all of a sudden Bill O’Reilly decided last night to stop tossing Sarah Palin the usual softball questions and Hannity Jobs she’s become accustomed to during her tenure at Fox News. He asked her to finally get specific instead of bloviating in vague generalities about where and how she’s achieve the budget cuts she’s calling for. It made for the entertaining sight of the Mama Grizzly growling growling at the Poppa Bear: O’REILLY: Wait, wait, wait. Wait, wait, wait I just want to be very clear. So 55, anybody over keeps the social security that they have coming to them, but younger — (CROSS TALK) PALIN: When we — (CROSS TALK) O’REILLY: — or whatever the revision is? PALIN: — when we talk about increasing — when we talk about increasing the retirement age, there is a good proposal on the table, a good idea to look at age 55 that all of this does have to be looked at. But we need to quit assuming that government can, better than we as individuals, plan our retirement for us than our security they’re stating – - (CROSS TALK) O’REILLY: Ok, I got — I got all that. (CROSS TALK) PALIN: — and we need to — (CROSS TALK) O’REILLY: — but I got to get specific here, Governor. All right, so what you’re saying is instead of 52 it goes to 55. So you can’t draw on it until 55. Some people want mandatory retirement age where you would have to take it raised up to about 67. Are you for that? Do you want to raise that mandatory age to 67 retirement? Is that — (CROSS TALK) PALIN: Everything — everything is going to have to change for those who are enrolled in the program now and will be enrolled in the program now. But we do not change the pension benefit — (CROSS TALK) O’REILLY: I — I agree. The people who — (CROSS TALK) PALIN: — of those who are receiving it now and that what’s people care — O’REILLY: — brought in and the people who need it — (CROSS TALK) PALIN: And I really apologize that up here in Alaska we have the four second delay. So it’s — it’s not an easy exchange — (CROSS TALK) O’REILLY: Ok. PALIN: — to try to — to try to get my point across to you if you interrupt. I gather that O’Reilly can interrupt President Obama 48 times in 10 minutes, and it’s OK, but Heaven help the man who dares interrupt the Shrilla From Wasilla. If there’s anything O’Reilly hates, it’s being lectured to by his guests — that’s his job, after all. So after Palin kept spouting meaningless, vague talking points, he kept going after her. In the end, he finally produced Palin’s acknowledgement that she’s in the “So Be It” camp when it comes to taking care of America’s poor and unemployed: O’REILLY: Ok. That’s — I — I’m for that private thing and I’m for raising the ages. Now, in your state, a lot of people depended on Medicaid, particularly people in the sub Arctic region up there and they’re dependent on these government checks. You had to deal with that when you were the governor of Alaska. So we’re going to have to cut back there. Poor people are going to get hurt, poor people are going to get hurt, in the Medicare and Medicaid range. Are they not? PALIN: Everything is going to have to change. Look, how can Michael Moore, for instance, as — as you had said in your introduction, tell Americans that we’re not going broke? We take in $2.2 trillion a year and yet we’re paying out $3.5 trillion a year. What’s in the water there in Hollywood and in DC for people to not want to understand or believe — or trust what the reality is — (CROSS TALK) O’REILLY: Oh he’s just not a truthful — they are just not truthful people — they’re just not telling the truth. PALIN: They’re not truthful so we have to be truthful. And we have to deal with the reality — (CROSS TALK) O’REILLY: Ok but let’s get to the poor people. PALIN: — and reality is we are going bankrupt and the only way that we’re going to get out of the problem that we face is to cut, is to cut budgets — (CROSS TALK) O’REILLY: But let’s — PALIN: — is to reform entitlements, and then to start a pro-growth agenda that’s based on cutting taxes and incentivizing production and tapping our energy sources and again stop assuming that government can plan our economy for us. O’REILLY: Ok. But what about the poor people who absolutely need the entitlements they get? You know in your state there are a lot of people on the dole, a lot. (CROSS TALK) PALIN: There will — and there will always — (CROSS TALK) O’REILLY: So are you going to cut — are you going to cut the subsidies going to people earning, say less than $15,000 a year? Is that going to happen? PALIN: There is a need — there is a need for a safety net for those who are disadvantaged and in some of the rural communities in Alaska where there’s 80 percent unemployment, there is a disadvantage and there needs to be a safety net. But you know why there is a disadvantage here in Alaska? Because the federal government has locked up our lands and not allowed us to tap into energy sources so that we can create more jobs. Less than one percent of Alaskan land is in the private sector hands. Now, we asked the federal government and I’ve sued the federal government for allowance to be able to develop more so that people aren’t of this entitlement mentality where they believe that the only way that they can get out of a disadvantaged stage is to have government provide for them. If we had a robust economy here and all across the country, then we wouldn’t have to be looking at these insolvent entitlement programs that yes, when — when we start pulling the plug on some of them, there is going to be a shared burden across our country. I just love those shared burdens, don’t you? Especially when — as always seems to be the case when Republicans talk about them — working-class and poor people are the only ones doing all the sharing. In the meantime, you have to wonder how much longer Palin is going to enjoy her free ride at Fox. If O’Reilly is toughening up on her, that probably means Roger Ailes is getting close to throwing her to the wolves.

Continue reading …
Sarah Palin gets snippy when O’Reilly tries to press her on aid cutbacks to Alaska’s poor

Click here to view this media It’s hard to say why it happened, but all of a sudden Bill O’Reilly decided last night to stop tossing Sarah Palin the usual softball questions and Hannity Jobs she’s become accustomed to during her tenure at Fox News. He asked her to finally get specific instead of bloviating in vague generalities about where and how she’s achieve the budget cuts she’s calling for. It made for the entertaining sight of the Mama Grizzly growling growling at the Poppa Bear: O’REILLY: Wait, wait, wait. Wait, wait, wait I just want to be very clear. So 55, anybody over keeps the social security that they have coming to them, but younger — (CROSS TALK) PALIN: When we — (CROSS TALK) O’REILLY: — or whatever the revision is? PALIN: — when we talk about increasing — when we talk about increasing the retirement age, there is a good proposal on the table, a good idea to look at age 55 that all of this does have to be looked at. But we need to quit assuming that government can, better than we as individuals, plan our retirement for us than our security they’re stating – - (CROSS TALK) O’REILLY: Ok, I got — I got all that. (CROSS TALK) PALIN: — and we need to — (CROSS TALK) O’REILLY: — but I got to get specific here, Governor. All right, so what you’re saying is instead of 52 it goes to 55. So you can’t draw on it until 55. Some people want mandatory retirement age where you would have to take it raised up to about 67. Are you for that? Do you want to raise that mandatory age to 67 retirement? Is that — (CROSS TALK) PALIN: Everything — everything is going to have to change for those who are enrolled in the program now and will be enrolled in the program now. But we do not change the pension benefit — (CROSS TALK) O’REILLY: I — I agree. The people who — (CROSS TALK) PALIN: — of those who are receiving it now and that what’s people care — O’REILLY: — brought in and the people who need it — (CROSS TALK) PALIN: And I really apologize that up here in Alaska we have the four second delay. So it’s — it’s not an easy exchange — (CROSS TALK) O’REILLY: Ok. PALIN: — to try to — to try to get my point across to you if you interrupt. I gather that O’Reilly can interrupt President Obama 48 times in 10 minutes, and it’s OK, but Heaven help the man who dares interrupt the Shrilla From Wasilla. If there’s anything O’Reilly hates, it’s being lectured to by his guests — that’s his job, after all. So after Palin kept spouting meaningless, vague talking points, he kept going after her. In the end, he finally produced Palin’s acknowledgement that she’s in the “So Be It” camp when it comes to taking care of America’s poor and unemployed: O’REILLY: Ok. That’s — I — I’m for that private thing and I’m for raising the ages. Now, in your state, a lot of people depended on Medicaid, particularly people in the sub Arctic region up there and they’re dependent on these government checks. You had to deal with that when you were the governor of Alaska. So we’re going to have to cut back there. Poor people are going to get hurt, poor people are going to get hurt, in the Medicare and Medicaid range. Are they not? PALIN: Everything is going to have to change. Look, how can Michael Moore, for instance, as — as you had said in your introduction, tell Americans that we’re not going broke? We take in $2.2 trillion a year and yet we’re paying out $3.5 trillion a year. What’s in the water there in Hollywood and in DC for people to not want to understand or believe — or trust what the reality is — (CROSS TALK) O’REILLY: Oh he’s just not a truthful — they are just not truthful people — they’re just not telling the truth. PALIN: They’re not truthful so we have to be truthful. And we have to deal with the reality — (CROSS TALK) O’REILLY: Ok but let’s get to the poor people. PALIN: — and reality is we are going bankrupt and the only way that we’re going to get out of the problem that we face is to cut, is to cut budgets — (CROSS TALK) O’REILLY: But let’s — PALIN: — is to reform entitlements, and then to start a pro-growth agenda that’s based on cutting taxes and incentivizing production and tapping our energy sources and again stop assuming that government can plan our economy for us. O’REILLY: Ok. But what about the poor people who absolutely need the entitlements they get? You know in your state there are a lot of people on the dole, a lot. (CROSS TALK) PALIN: There will — and there will always — (CROSS TALK) O’REILLY: So are you going to cut — are you going to cut the subsidies going to people earning, say less than $15,000 a year? Is that going to happen? PALIN: There is a need — there is a need for a safety net for those who are disadvantaged and in some of the rural communities in Alaska where there’s 80 percent unemployment, there is a disadvantage and there needs to be a safety net. But you know why there is a disadvantage here in Alaska? Because the federal government has locked up our lands and not allowed us to tap into energy sources so that we can create more jobs. Less than one percent of Alaskan land is in the private sector hands. Now, we asked the federal government and I’ve sued the federal government for allowance to be able to develop more so that people aren’t of this entitlement mentality where they believe that the only way that they can get out of a disadvantaged stage is to have government provide for them. If we had a robust economy here and all across the country, then we wouldn’t have to be looking at these insolvent entitlement programs that yes, when — when we start pulling the plug on some of them, there is going to be a shared burden across our country. I just love those shared burdens, don’t you? Especially when — as always seems to be the case when Republicans talk about them — working-class and poor people are the only ones doing all the sharing. In the meantime, you have to wonder how much longer Palin is going to enjoy her free ride at Fox. If O’Reilly is toughening up on her, that probably means Roger Ailes is getting close to throwing her to the wolves.

Continue reading …
Orange County’s Black Eye

Click here to view this media As a follow-up to my previous post on the subject ( Hate comes to Orange County ), the reactions of the local Muslim and Arab communities to such vile intolerance and hate is as expected: shock and dismay. Al Jazeera is, as Hillary Clinton said herself , a major world news broadcaster now, “like it or not”. The Arabic version is now the most viewed broadcaster in the Middle East, and the English version has a large audience, especially on the internet. Bearing that in mind, if you were to tell any of these “patriotic Americans” [sic] seen in this clip that their ignorant actions were feeding negative perceptions around the globe, and endangering American lives you’d probably be met with either blank stares or more hate-filled rants about “not in my backyard!” nonsense. Or as Villa Park Councilwoman Deborah Pauly put it: I know quite a few Marines who would be very happy to help these terrorists to an early meeting in paradise. Charming. Your comments will likely cause some whackjob to take out a few Marines, Councilwoman. Congratulations.

Continue reading …
Orange County’s Black Eye

Click here to view this media As a follow-up to my previous post on the subject ( Hate comes to Orange County ), the reactions of the local Muslim and Arab communities to such vile intolerance and hate is as expected: shock and dismay. Al Jazeera is, as Hillary Clinton said herself , a major world news broadcaster now, “like it or not”. The Arabic version is now the most viewed broadcaster in the Middle East, and the English version has a large audience, especially on the internet. Bearing that in mind, if you were to tell any of these “patriotic Americans” [sic] seen in this clip that their ignorant actions were feeding negative perceptions around the globe, and endangering American lives you’d probably be met with either blank stares or more hate-filled rants about “not in my backyard!” nonsense. Or as Villa Park Councilwoman Deborah Pauly put it: I know quite a few Marines who would be very happy to help these terrorists to an early meeting in paradise. Charming. Your comments will likely cause some whackjob to take out a few Marines, Councilwoman. Congratulations.

Continue reading …
George Will Rips Gingrich, Huckabee and Malzberg

As NewsBusters reported Tuesday, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee was lambasted by numerous liberal media outlets for comments he made to conservative radio host Steve Malzberg regarding President Obama's past. Surprisingly joining in the harsh criticism was George Will whose column to be published in Sunday's Washington Post also excoriated former House Speaker Newt Gingrich as well as Malzberg: If pessimism is not creeping on little cat's feet into Republicans' thinking about their 2012 presidential prospects, that is another reason for pessimism. This is because it indicates they do not understand that sensible Americans, who pay scant attention to presidential politics at this point in the electoral cycle, must nevertheless be detecting vibrations of weirdness emanating from people associated with the party. Will then quoted one of Malzberg's many questions to Huckabee during his Febuary 28 interview, and actually said the former governor's answer should have been, “I've seen paranoia, goodbye.” After noting some of Huckabee's actual answer, Will continued: Republicans should understand that when self-described conservatives such as Malzberg voice question-rants like the one above and Republicans do not recoil from them, the conservative party is indirectly injured. As it is directly when Newt Gingrich , who seems to be theatrically tiptoeing toward a presidential candidacy, speculates about Obama having a “Kenyan, anti-colonial” mentality. After indirectly referring to Dinesh D'Souza's Forbes piece from last year involving Obama's Kenyan anti-colonial worldview, and how Gingrich spoke of it to National Review's Robert Costa, Will concluded: To the notion that Obama has a “Kenyan, anti-colonial” worldview, the sensible response is: If only. Obama's natural habitat is as American as the nearest faculty club; he is a distillation of America's academic mentality; he is as American as the other professor-president, Woodrow Wilson. A question for former history professor Gingrich: Why implicate Kenya? Let us not mince words. There are at most five plausible Republican presidents on the horizon – Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, former Utah governor and departing ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, former Massachusetts governor Romney and former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty. So the Republican winnowing process is far advanced. But the nominee may emerge much diminished by involvement in a process cluttered with careless, delusional, egomaniacal, spotlight-chasing candidates to whom the sensible American majority would never entrust a lemonade stand, much less nuclear weapons. What is one to make of Will going after two prominent Republicans this way, especially as Huckabee is currently leading the possible GOP candidate field according to a just-released NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll ? After a snippet of Will's piece was published by Politico early Friday morning, it was all the rage at MSNBC getting covered by Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow on their respective programs. One can only imagine how much play this will get in the next 48 hours, as liberal media members love quoting conservative commentators when they go after folks on the right. Will, of

Continue reading …