The Hollywood Liberal

Grounded in their own alternative reality
Just a bunch of concerned citizens — like always — as long as they come from the Right, no matter what they say.

Prominant Tea-Party leader, and champion speller Dale Robertson, via Sir Poseyal Knight of Desposyni — yeah, I know — at flickr.com

The NAACP released a report, detailed, supported in great detail, about the Tea Party movement and it’s relationship to bigots and other extremists. The very first sentence of the report says:

We know the majority of Tea Party supporters are sincere, principled people of good will.

Okay, whatever, it’s after that they get to the actual evidence.

As the “outrage” over pointing out the obvious ensues, let us look at how prominent members of the movement “doth” prove the evidence wrong — outside of Carl Paladino’s forwarded email of course:

How about Texas GOP candidate for the 30th District, Steven Broden?

“We have a constitutional remedy. And the framers say if that don’t work, revolution.” “The option is on the table. I don’t think that we should remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms. However, it is not the first option.”

Golly that’s nice. Might be second option though.

Or maybe it is this guy?

The Republican candidate for state Senate in the 52nd District said Wednesday night that black men “find it more lucrative to be able to do drugs or other avenues rather than do education.”

I imagine this gentlemen would find out more about black men, but when he sees them all garbed and black it makes him worried and nervous so he’s never actually met one.

There are so few extremists and bigots associated with the Tea Party movement. Not this guy? Or this guy? Or this guy? Or even these guys and these guys ?

No, in David Broder’s daily fantasy, they are all just people who will have to act like veterans.  Veterans of either the Confederacy or the Einsatzgruppen, but veterans nonetheless.

?

Early Morning Swim: Nancy Pelosi Talks to Keith Olbermann about Midterms
“If they win — which I fully intend to stop them from doing — but if they were to win, it would mean that we are now… a plutocracy and oligarchy,” Pelosi said. “Whatever these few wealthy, secret, unlimited sources of money are can control our entire agenda,” she added.

Sigh.

“If they win — which I fully intend to stop them from doing — but if they were to win, it would mean that we are now…  a plutocracy and oligarchy,” Pelosi said. “Whatever these few wealthy, secret, unlimited sources of money are can control our entire agenda,” she added.

Wouldn’t want that to happen now, would we?

?

I’m Lovin’ It

By Mr. Fish

Related Entries

• October 21, 2010 Thugs on the Right
• October 20, 2010 Wars Will Cease When We Refuse to Fight

DADT Is Back, But Decisions All Go To Obama Civilian Appointees
WASHINGTON — The Defense Department on Thursday declared that “don’t ask, don’t tell” is once again the law of the land but set up a…

Dems Get In Touch With Their Feminine Side
SEATTLE — In a last-ditch effort to prevent electoral disaster, President Barack Obama and Democratic allies are vigorously wooing women voters, whose usually reliable support…

Ami Bera, MD: Karl Rove and Dan Lungren
Today the Sacramento Bee reported on Dan Lungren’s latest conflict of interest. While Karl Rove’s shadowy front group tries to bail out Lungren in a…

PA-Sen: 43% Sestak (D), 43% Toomey (R) (Muhlenberg 10/21)
Muhlenberg College / Morning Call 10/18-21/10; 421 likely voters, 5% margin of error Mode: Live phone interview (Muhlenberg PDF) Pennsylvania 2010 Senate 43% Sestak (D),…

President Obama Films ‘It Gets Better’ Video To Combat Gay Bullying
President Obama appeared in a video in support of gay teenagers on Thursday as part of the It Gets Better Project, an initiative launched by…

Fox revives abortion funding falsehood to call Sestak a liar

On Fox & Friends, Michelle Malkin falsely claimed that Rep. Joe Sestak had “finesse[d] the truth” when he said that he had not supported federal funding for abortions. Malkin asserted that Sestak had done so when he “voted for Obamacare.” In fact, the health care legislation Sestak supported did not expand federal funding of abortion.

Malkin attacks Sestak with health care reform abortion falsehood

Malkin: “You can’t finesse the truth… Joe Sestak voted for taxpayer-funded abortions” by supporting health care reform. On the October 21 edition of Fox & Friends, Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin discussed the October 20 debate between Pennsylvania senatorial candidates Republican Pat Toomey and Democrat Joe Sestak. Host Steve Doocy introduced clips from the debate during which the two candidates disagreed over whether Sestak had supported federally-funded abortion.

Malkin responded to the clip: “Look, you can’t finesse the truth. Joe Sestak voted for Obamacare. Obamacare in essence and essentially bottom line gives taxpayer dollars to abortions. Joe Sestak voted for taxpayer-funded abortions. Period.”

Health care reform did not change long-standing restrictions on federal funding of abortions

As Media Matters for America has previously documented, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which Sestak supported, does not provide for federal funding for abortions beyond what is allowed under existing law. Under the Hyde amendment, first passed in 1976, taxpayer dollars can only be used for abortion procedures in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother’s life is in danger.

Health reform Act forbids use of federal subsidies for abortion services except in cases already permitted under federal law. The Act states that if a “qualified health plan” offered under the health insurance exchange provides coverage of abortion services for which public funding is banned, “the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable” to the federal subsidies created by the bill “for purposes of paying for such services.” Federal funding is currently banned, under the Hyde amendment, for all abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or if the life of the pregnant woman is in danger.

Health reform Act requires insurance plans with abortion coverage to segregate funds to ensure that federal dollars do not fund abortions. The Act requires issuers to “collect from each enrollee” in plans that cover abortions a “separate payment” for abortion services. All such funds are deposited into a separate account used by the issuer to pay for abortion services; federal funds and the remaining premium payments are used to pay for all other services. Additionally, as Slate.com’s Timothy Noah noted, the Act requires that “every insurance exchange must offer at least one abortion-free health plan.” Noah also noted that enrollees opposed to abortion coverage or the added fee “can simply choose a different health plan offered through the exchange, one that doesn’t cover abortions.”

Current law permits abortion coverage through Medicaid so long as funds are segregated. According to a November 1, 2009, study by the Guttmacher Institute, 17 states and the District of Columbia “use their own funds to pay for all or most medically necessary abortions.” These states provide coverage in all cases, not just those of life endangerment, rape, or incest. Therefore, in 17 states, Medicaid, a federally subsidized health care program, covers abortions in circumstances in which federal money is prohibited from being spent on abortion.

Politifact.com: Senate bill is clear that “public funding through tax credits and government subsidies for elective abortion services” will be “prohibited.” Running a fact-check on Bart Stupak’s March statement that “there will be no public funding for abortion” in the final health care bill, Politifact.com ruled his claim true. Politifact explained that the bill “requires that anyone who selects a plan that covers abortion must pay $1 a month toward a segregated fund that would pay for abortion services,” including those who receive federal subsidies for health insurance. Politifact concluded:

At the climax of the health care debate from the floor, House Republican Leader John Boehner said that even with the executive order from the president, the Senate bill would provide “taxpayer funding of abortions for the first time in 30 years.”

We don’t agree. It’s understandable that abortion foes opposed a proposal that gives more people the opportunity to obtain insurance that cover abortions. But it’s another thing to say those abortion services would be paid with federal dollars. The Senate bill states very clearly that public funding through tax credits and government subsidies for elective abortion services offered in the exchange is prohibited. But more than that, the bill sets up a mechanism to ensure that abortion services offered in the exchange are paid entirely from patient premiums, premiums paid by people who have chosen a private plan that covers abortion. The executive order puts the weight of the president’s word behind providing a way to ensure two checks go to insurers every month, so that abortion dollars and federal dollars are not commingled.

We think that’s enough to back up Stupak’s claim, “There will be no public funding for abortion in this legislation.” But that’s a conclusion we reached before the president promised an executive order, back when Stupak disagreed with us and insisted the bill would have had federal dollars subsidizing abortions. We don’t understand how the executive order changes Stupak’s logic on this issue, but no matter how he arrived as his conclusion, we think he’s right now. And we rule his claim True.

Fox pushes falsehood that Stupak amendment was needed to prevent federal abortion funding

Fox graphic: Sestak voted against “[r]estrictions on federal funding for abortion.” As Malkin finished speaking, Fox aired a graphic reading, “Restrictions on federal funding for abortion, House vote 884.” A picture of Sestak is at the top of the screen, and the box “no” is checked off under the graphic. House vote 884 was on Stupak’s amendment to the House health care bill, proposed in November 2009. From Fox News:

House bill already forbid the use of federal funds for abortions except in previously specified cases. This version of the bill, which passed the House but was not passed by the Senate, included language expressly forbidding federal funds spent in public health insurance options from being used for abortions, other than exceptions for rape, incest, and those endangering life of the mother. The bill also banned federal affordability credits from being used to pay for abortion services banned under the Hyde amendment.

Stupak amendment would have effectively banned abortion coverage for some who had it. The Stupak amendment would have effectively barred insurance companies from offering plans that cover abortion through the health insurance exchange. As Media Matters for America has documented, such a provision — if implemented as part of the House health care reform bill — would have effectively caused a number of people who currently have abortion coverage to lose that coverage.

–C.R.

E-Mail Lists ‘Birther’ As Recruitment Coordinator For IL Poll Watching Effort
Sharon Meroni, an Illinois resident who is a member of the so-called birther movement, is listed as “Recruitment Coordinator” in a poll watching effort in an e-mail obtained by TPMMuckraker.

Eight Bell Officials Plead Not Guilty To Inflating Salaries With Tax Dollars
Eight former and current officials from Bell, California pleaded not guilty today to charges that they used public funds to inflate their salaries for part-time elected positions.

Presented By:

Ye Olde Scribe Presents: Pop’s Quiz
“Even an OLDE fool could answer right. But how about a young Juan?” One question quiz today, boys, girls and Mr. Williams. If Muslims make your flight scary and maybe a bit (Jet) Blue, shouldn’t you also be frightened for the kiddies if a priest is on your plane?” Yes_____ No______ Multiple answers mean you flunked because you’re a religious […]

Race for Pennsylvania Governor Tightens
A new Quinnipiac poll in Pennsylvania shows Dan Onorato (D) has erased most of Tom Corbett’s (R) 15-point likely voter lead and now trails by just five points in the race for governor, 49% to 44%.

Said Peter Brown: “As we get closer to Election Day, Democrats are showing more interest in voting. This is often the case in off-year elections and that makes this a more competitive race. Onorato has the momentum, but Corbett still has the five-point lead with 11 days to go.”

A Public Policy Polling survey this week found Corbett’s lead at just two points, 48% to 46%. However the Morning Call tracking poll shows Corbett leading by nine points, 49% to 40%.

Union Leads in Outside Spending
The Wall Street Journal reports that while most attention has been given to the large spending initiatives by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other pro-Republican groups, the public-sector union American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, or AFSCME, is “now the biggest outside spender of the 2010 elections” and is spending $87.5 million to boost Democratic candidates.

Said the head of AFSCME’s political operations: “We’re the big dog. But we don’t like to brag.”

Biden Says Outside Funding Jeopardizes House Control
Vice President Biden told Bloomberg TV that Democrats will retain control of the U.S. Senate but he worries that “hundreds of millions of dollars in anonymous donations to campaign groups backing Republicans could cost his party its House majority.”

Said Biden: “We will keep control of the Senate for certain, and I believe we’ll keep control of the House. The only caveat I’d put in terms of the House is how much impact [the outside funding has].”

Quote of the Day
“I did shake his hand and when I did, he pulled me close and I didn’t pull back because I’m a gentlemen. He does it to everybody… I’m very proud of the fact that I was decent to the president of the United States of America.”

— Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (R), according to the Miami Herald, when asked if he regretted the now infamous hug with President Obama during a 2009 rally in support of the stimulus.

The Monster: How a Gang of Predatory Lenders and Bankers Fleeced America, and Launched a Global Crisis
Exposing the major players behind the biggest financial hurricane in the history of global capitalism.

The U.S. Medical Marijuana Club Could Expand to 16 States This Election
Arizona and South Dakota on the verge of further ratifying this country’s growing pot reform bent.

The Feds New Bubble (Masquerading As A Jobs Program)
The latest jobs bill coming out of Washington isn’t really a bill at all. It’s the Fed’s attempt to keep long-term interest rates low by pumping even more money into the economy (“quantitative easing” in Fed-speak). The idea is to…

The Burden of Roth’s “Nemesis”
In 1943, Arthur Koestler published a little novel, which he called?Arrival and Departure. The story, actually a kind of dramatized essay, features a young protagonist, Slavek, a student leader from Eastern Europe (we assume Hungary), who escapes the local fascists…

Presented By:

Buck Embraces Inhofe: ?Global Warming Is The Greatest Hoax?
Colorado Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck, like his endorser Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), believes “global warming is the greatest hoax that has been perpetrated.” Buck is part of the Tea Party army storming the U.S. Congress this November that believes the overwhelming scientific consensus about the threat of fossil fuel pollution is a conspiracy. On […]

Colorado Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck, like his endorser Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), believes “global warming is the greatest hoax that has been perpetrated.” Buck is part of the Tea Party army storming the U.S. Congress this November that believes the overwhelming scientific consensus about the threat of fossil fuel pollution is a conspiracy. On Wednesday, Buck toured the state with Inhofe, whom he celebrated as “the most conservative senator in the U.S. Senate.” Meeting with supporters, Buck said the “evidence just keeps supporting” Inhofe’s senseless conspiracy theory:

Sen. Inhofe was the first person to stand up and say this global warming is the greatest hoax that has been perpetrated. The evidence just keeps supporting his view, and more and more people’s view, of what’s going on.

In reality, the year 2010 is in the course of becoming the hottest year in recorded history, with Zambia the 18th nation this year to reach an all-time record high.

In their joint appearance in Longmont, CO, Inhofe explained whom he and Buck will be fighting for — corporate lobbyists:

I never dreamed that we would end up with someone in the White House with a huge majority that would attack every institution that made America great. Right before we broke for this recess I had in my office five groups of people. One was a group that was the insurance industry, one was the fiscal industry, one was the military — the defense contractors — one was the energy industry, and of course, the health care industry. Each one of those groups thought they were being targeted.

Watch it:

“I came out here because I’m lonely,” Inhofe said. “Ranked the most conservative senator? That’s right. But we’ve got a lot more coming in, more than any other election in the history of this country.”

Juan Williams Stands By His Claim That He Has ‘Anxiety’ When He Sees Muslims On Airplanes
News broke last night that NPR fired Juan Williams for saying this week on Fox News that he gets “nervous” and “worried” around Muslims on airplanes. Many media figures and right-wing blogs are incensed, charging that Williams has been taken out of context. Today on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, co-host Willie Geist complained that “We live […]

News broke last night that NPR fired Juan Williams for saying this week on Fox News that he gets “nervous” and “worried” around Muslims on airplanes. Many media figures and right-wing blogs are incensed, charging that Williams has been taken out of context. Today on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, co-host Willie Geist complained that “We live in a culture now…where context doesn’t matter…where you can yank a quote out” and “don’t tell the rest of the story.” Co-host Joe Scarborough concurred. “He was setting it up to say, ‘Listen I understand people get nervous, sometimes I get nervous, but we’ve got to move past that.’”

Responding to his firing today on Fox News, Williams stood by his original comments. He said he was trying to tell host Bill O’Reilly that Americans have “to make sure we don’t have any outbreak of bigotry” but that “there’s a reality” you “cannot ignore” that 9/11 was connected to Islamic radicalism:

WILLIAMS: Wednesday afternoon, I got a message on my cell phone from Ellen Weiss who is the head of news at NPR asking me to call. When I called back, she said, “What did you say, what did you mean to say?” And I said, “I said what I meant to say” which is that it’s an honest experience that went on in an airport and I see people who are in Muslim garb who identify themselves as first and foremost as Muslims, I do a double take. I have a moment of anxiety or fear given what happened on 9/11. That’s just a reality. And she went on to say, “Well that crosses the line.” And I said, “What line is that?”

And she went on to somehow suggest that I had made a bigoted statement. And I said “that’s not a bigoted statement. In fact, in the course of this conversation with O’Reilly, I said that we have as Americans an obligation to protect constitutional rights of everyone in the country and to make sure we don’t have any outbreak of bigotry but that there’s a reality. You cannot ignore what happened on 9/11 and you cannot ignore the connection to Islamic radicalism and you can’t ignore the fact that what has been recently said in court with regard to this is the first drop of blood in a Muslim war on America.

Watch it:

The only way Williams could have been taken out of context would be if he had said his feeling of fear when seeing Muslims on an airplane is wrong. But he did not say that in his original segment with Bill O’Reilly. (ThinkProgress has provided the full transcript here.) And today on Fox, Williams reiterated his claim. Salon’s Glenn Greenwald has also debunked the claim that Williams was taken out of context:

[Many] claim that Think Progress deceitfully edited the video of Williams’ comments here in the same way that Shirley Sherrod’s comments were taken out of context, and that the full context of his remarks makes clear that he said nothing bigoted. Please. […]

Williams began by telling O’Reilly that he was “right” in his view on Muslims. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with candidly admitting that he gets nervous when he sees Muslims on airplanes — even though those feelings reflect some highly distorted thoughts — as we all have irrational reactions to various situations. But Williams was not condemning his own reaction [emphasis in original]; to the contrary, he went on to justify it by saying that people who wear “Muslim garb” are “identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims,” and that “the war with Muslims” (quoting Faisal Shahzad) is one of those “facts we can’t get away from.”

The Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan said that Williams’ comments are “the working definition of bigotry,” and asked rhetorically, “What if someone said that they saw a black man walking down the street in classic thug get-up. Would a white person be a bigot of he assumed he was going to mug him?”