Limbaugh's Comment Emphatically Repudiated

The people of the world hate this country more than they like him, and they don't like him all that much. And he's going around the world and saying, you know what? Our country sucked. Until nine months ago, and I ask you to look at all the positive things we've done in my administration. So he goes over there, and the world rejects Obama, the world rejects Chicago, and they obviously enjoyed doing it.

It's a good thing I didn't comment about this portion of Rush Limbaugh's rant of October 2, 2009 about the failure of President Obama with his trip to Copenhagen to have effected delivery to the U.S.A. of the 2016 summer Olympics. I think (or, rather, thought) that there was something to Limbaugh's suggestion that there is greater antipathy in the world toward the United States than love for Barack Obama- or at least the hostility is more significant, more likely to have an impact in international relations.

Well, an announcement early this morning was instructive: if you (or I) have an impulse to agree with Rush, ignore it. Let it pass. Reject it, even. Everyone has heard:

President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday, a stunning decision that comes just eight months into his presidency.

Less than nine months into his presidency, Barack Obama has been awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee said it honored Obama for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

The decision appeared to catch most observers by surprise.

Yes, me too. By the time anyone reads this post, Limbaugh's radio program will already have begun on Friday. Obviously, he will roundly condemn this decision and President Obama's foreign policy. But.... Rush's very effort to suggest that Obama's selection was unworthy demonstrates the fallacy of his statement The people of the world hate this country more than they like him, and they don't like him all that much. If President Obama's achievements thus far are limited, the choice of the American president for the Peace Prize drives home more definitively the reality that the "world" likes him very, very much.

Way Off Target

First we had the failed presidency of George Herbert Walker Bush; then the historically failed presidency of George W. Bush. Do we have a Jeb W. Bush presidency in our future? We all better hope not.

Speaking on GOP TV's Fox and Friends on October 8, J. Bush was quoted by swamppolitics.com as claiming, seriously

"I was on the plane yesterday coming up to Washington and I heard someone complain that their child's acne was because of George Bush. Of course last week the Olympics didn't come to Chicago, that was my brother's fault."

The former governor of Florida, apparently failed to name names, recognizing that identifying any of these naysayers would open his silly comments to examination. Here, certainly, are a few individuals he was not referring to:

Rick Moran, in the conservative pajamasmedia.com: "He placed the prestige of his presidency directly on the line and failed. That’s the bottom line. He gambled with the one thing no president should ever gamble with unless the stakes are much higher than his hometown getting the Olympic games."

Michelle Malkin, posting on her blog: "Goodbye, 'yes, we can.' Hell, 'no, you can't.'"

Glenn Beck, on his syndicated radio program: "He just gave a speech yesterday and he said, look, it's important. I am the guy I am here to bring the whole world together. I am here to I can I got the whole world in my hand, I got the whole wide world in my hand, I got the whole wide world in my hand, I got... what? Oh, crap."

Lou Dobbs, on his syndicated radio program: "Lots of folks are going to be going to Rio because they won the 2016 Olympics and Chicago -- Chicago, well, they were smeared, they were wiped out...."

William Kristol, on Fox News Sunday, quoted by Think Progress: Come walk with us. I’m here for America. Can you imagine if some Republican — if Bush had done this and we hadn’t gotten it? Typical Bush heavy-handedness, cowboy unilateralist, hegemonic imperialist action. Obama falls into that trap and they went for it. I must say you couldn’t help be amused by it."

And of course, Rush Limbaugh:

Oh, man, oh, man, oh, man. The worst day of Obama's presidency, folks, the ego has landed. The world has rejected Obama! Chicago, the least number of votes, first elimination in the round of voting for the Olympics in 2016. When you stop to think about it, folks, doesn't it make sense? Our president, "Barack Hussein Obama! Mmm, mmm, mmm. Barack Hussein Obama! Mmm, mmm, mmm," had been running around the world for nine months telling everybody how much our country sucks. He's been running around the world apologizing for the United States of America. Why would anybody award the Olympics to such a crappy place as the United States? Oh, man, folks. I wonder how victory looks to Obama now that it has escaped him and passed him by. He doesn't want to win in Afghanistan but he certainly wanted to win in Chicago. I think the world apparently wants the guy to fail. Because Obama has failed, the world rejected Obama first of all the people, the world rejected Michelle (My Belle) Obama, the world rejected The Oprah....

Folks, the worst day of his presidency....

Now, you do have to ask yourself a question. You do have to ask a serious question here. Is this guy, at the end of the day, a blithering moron?

It wasn't only the right-wing. Even the Associated Press got into the act, calculating

President Barack Obama's failed bid to bring the 2016 Olympic Games to Chicago cost more than a bruised ego.

Taxpayers shelled out probably $1 million or more for the president, his wife and others to fly to Copenhagen and back to woo members of the International Olympic Committee.

The criticism of President Obama's foray into Olympic politics began prior to the trip, Media Matters pointing to the negative comments of talk show host Sean Hannity, the Washington Examiner's Byron York, the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes, the Media Research Center's Brent Bozell, and, as expected, various figures on GOP TV. At least these guys and gals, commenting before the trip, weren't at that point grabbing at the low-hanging fruit, but indicative of the critical analysis of Barack Obama for making the trip.

And on and on and on. Did you see all those references to President George W. Bush in those statements? No, because no one blamed Mr. Bush for the loss of the 2016 Olympics- or if he/she did, it's incumbent on Jeb Bush to call the individual out. But Jeb Bush, displaying as much courage as his brother did skill in running the country, did not and will not.

next up: "El Rushbo" said in his rant something particularly relevant to the news of today. Then, more Jeb.

Pagans Of The Right

It all could be a joke, an elaborate ruse intended to make liberals look ridiculous as we ridicule what is almost too astonishing to be real.

But I'll play along. Wikipedia describes conservapedia as "an English-language wiki-based Web encyclopedia project written from an Americentric, conservative Christian and predominantly young earth creationist point of view." Conservapedia's own website announces the "Conservative Bible Project" to counter the "Liberal bias (which) has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations." The Bible will be rewritten re-translated according to these ten guidelines:

1.Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias

2.Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity

3.Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level[3]

4.Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;[4] defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".

5.Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";[5] using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census

6.Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.
7.Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning

8.Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story

9.Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels

10.Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."

Conservapedia describes the Bible conventional translations of the Bible as "liberal falsehood," "dishonestly shrewd," and "socialism." (Wouldn't this be "liberal falsehoods," "dishonest shrewdeness," and "socialism"; or "falsely liberal," "dishonestly shrewd," and "socialistic"?- oh, never mind.) An example of the latter is use of the "conservative word 'volunteer'" once in the English Standard Version while "the socialistic word "comrade" is used three times, "laborer(s)" is used 13 times, "labored" 15 times, and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") is used 55 times."

Mike Lux at Open Left notes it is "re-translating the Bible to make it fit better with conservative ideology in which "you find something inconvenient or tricky in a beloved text, just get rid of it. Next up: The Declaration of Independence and Gettysburg Address." Little Green Footballs claims the effort is "a tacit admission that the Bible itself is not the unchangeable, literal word of God, but can be edited as necessary to fit political purposes." Markos Moulitsas of DailyKos contends "these jokes are now setting out to rewrite the Bible to better ratify their own hate and bigotry. It's nothing new for religion -- people have been reinterpreting holy texts from pretty much every religion imaginable to justify all manners of horrors."

Unfortunately, these two views from the left suggest an unfortunate bias against Scripture. Conservapedia's scheme is not "a tacit admission that the Bible is not.... the literal word of God," given that "admission" is the "acknowledgement of the truth of something." And Moulitsas' remark that "people have been reinterpreting holy texts..... to justify all manners of horrors" implies that the thrust of translation of "holy texts" actually has been an effort to justify those horrors. That is, apparently unbeknownst to Moulitsas, not the purpose of the ongoing efforts of biblical translation. While he properly scolds these conservatives for rewriting the Bible to eliminate alleged liberal bias, he carelessly infers they should "adjust their belief structure to better line up with the actual Bible."

No, the right would argue, our belief structure already lines up with the Bible, at least on the matters of abortion and gay rights. That is an arguable proposition, as is the insistence that one's views on 20th century issues should be dictated by words, which do not bear directly on those issues, spoken/written by God/human beings nearly 2000 years ago. Liberals have spent several years, and much emotion, arguing that one's perspective on those things need not be dictated by the biblical interpretation of some scholars and many ideologues.

Nicole Belle at Crooks And Liars, then, is the most judicious, explaining

These right-wing ideologues know better than the early church councils that canonized Scripture? They really think it's wise to force the word of God to conform to a 21st-century American idea of what constitutes conservatism? These jokers don't worship God. They worship ideology.

They are ideologues; coincidentally of a Christian perspective, perhaps not, but clearly individuals who wish to subordinate to political doctrine any religious faith they possess. They have a right to these priorities; still, their project is not an admission that the Bible is not the literal word of God, given that the jury is still out on that issue. Nor should these ideologues be credited with legitimately attempting to forge a translation consistent with their politics. Their goal is not even a literal translation, but apparently a dynamic equivalence, at the expense of accuracy. It is a feeble and inglorious attempt to refute biblical Christianity, wrapped in a misleading vessel.

A Con Job On Afghanistan

It is not ignorance with Rush Limbaugh. Rush knew enough in one of his rambling discourses on October 4 to explain "McChrystal wants to shift troops away from those remote outposts that are difficult to defend and move them into more heavily populated areas as part of a new strategy to focus on protecting Afghan civilians and this is what Obama's waiting on."

Limbaugh, apparently, has some idea of what the issues are in Afghanistan. But this didn't stop him from telling a caller a few minutes later

We were there before he got there but he ramped this up and I'm wondering how much of it was genuine or because he thought he had to just because during the campaign the Democrats say we should never have been in Iraq, we should have been in Afghanistan. That's where we needed to be. Bush distracted us from the real problem. That's where Osama is. We need to going after Osama. Now they couldn't care less about Osama

Never mind that Limbaugh won't acknowledge that President Bush had no policy toward Afghanistan. Secretary of Defense Gates is only the latest individual to notice "that the strategy the president put forward in late March, is the first real strategy we have had for Afghanistan since the early 1980s. And that strategy was more about [the] Soviet Union that it was about Afghanistan" (a strategically disastrous policy at that).

The manipulative nonsense Limbaugh is spewing here is the implication that President Obama is reluctant to provide the 40,000 additional soldiers requested by General McChrystal because "they (presumably the administration's doves but, as usual, Limbaugh cowardly avoids specificity) couldn't care less about Osama." But as someone with a decent knowledge about the war there, Limbaugh is intentionally misrepresenting the policy issue.

McChrystal is urging a counterinsurgency strategy (COIN), which would

underscore how much the mission in Afghanistan has shifted from the narrow focus of "get Al Qaeda" that prevailed at the start of the war to one where US soldiers and civilian aid workers are expected to reduce corruption at the local and national levels, train Afghan cops and soldiers, improve local economies, and aid in building a democratic central government.

In contrast, V.P. Biden wants to

Scale back the overall American military footprint in Afghanistan, drop the mission of rescuing the country from the Taliban, focus on strikes against Al Qaeda along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border -- the real threat to U.S. national security -- using special forces and Predator missile attacks.

Does this sound like "now they couldn't care less about Osama?" Of course not, and Limbaugh realizes it. He could inform his listening audience of those facts in the public domain, as Trudy Heller did on Sunday in The Philadelphia Inquirer upon noting

Only 16 percent of Pakistanis expressed a favorable view of the United States in a recent Pew Research Center survey. Only 13 percent had confidence in President Obama - a mere bump of 6 percentage points over former President George W. Bush.

And, critically, 76 percent are opposed to Pakistan's partnering with the United States in drone attacks against al-Qaeda and other extremists - even though those drones killed the man accused of murdering former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.

And then he could make a reasonable observation, such as

Unless the United States develops a strategy for reaching Pakistanis, with real stories of U.S. aid - not fake "public diplomacy" - the local population will continue to view us with hostility, no matter how much aid money we send there. That hostility translates into gains for al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Rush Limbaugh could reverse course and occasionally provide his audience with information. Understandably, though, he finds it more productive to proceed on his course of deception and disinformation in his pursuit of re-creating a Republican majority.

Not Treason, But....

According to Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution, treason "shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." So they are not traitors.

Not Republican Senators Jim DeMint of South Carolina or Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma (what's with Jims, anyway?) nor Republican U.S. Representatives Eric Cantor (Minority Leader) of Virginia or Mark Kirk of Illinois. Nonetheless, Eric Kleefeld of Talking Points Memo helpfully describes their shenanigans:

• Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) is visiting Honduras in order to support the recent military coup against a leftist president, which has been opposed by the Obama administration and all the surrounding countries in the region. (Late Update: DeMint's office says he is not taking sides during his visit to the current Honduran leadership, denying the New York Times reports that this was his intention.)

• Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) will be going to the upcoming climate change conference in Copenhagen, bringing a "Truth Squad" to tell foreign officials there that the American government will not take any action: "Now, I want to make sure that those attending the Copenhagen conference know what is really happening in the United States Senate."

• House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) traveled to Israel, where he spoke out against President Obama's opposition to expanded settlements. He also defended Israel on the eviction of two Arab families from a house in east Jerusalem, which had been criticized by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

• Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) boasted in June that he told Chinese officials not to trust America's budget numbers. "One of the messages I had -- because we need to build trust and confidence in our number one creditor," said Kirk, "is that the budget numbers that the US government had put forward should not be believed." Since then, he has declared his candidacy for U.S. Senate.

No, they have not committed treason. But they apparently have violated the Logan Act, which codified at 18 U.S.C. [sections] 953, states:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply,
himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

There has been only one instance of an indictment for violation of the Logan Act, no one ever was prosecuted. Further, the language is overbroad and therefore is generally considered unconstitutional.

However, it remains on the books. Democrats, if they had a backbone, would call for the prosecution of one or more Repubs (my favorite would be Kirk, whose act was most reprehensible). When the GOP rises as one to protest, Democratic members of Congress should move to repeal the Act. Of course, none of these thoroughly irresponsible Republicans would be prosecuted; if a Democratic Administration refuses seriously to consider investigating former Vice-President Dick Cheney or lawyers or policymakers involved in torture, no member of the GOP ever would be prosecuted for going abroad and undermining his country.

But Democrats? If the Logan Act remains on the books, in some future Repub administration, there will be a move to prosecute the likes of a Jimmy Carter, Jessie Jackson, or Al Sharpton (by then, probably not any of them). And although the effort probably will fail legally, it will prove a bonanza politically.

Haughty, Thy Name Is Pawlenty

The next time you hear someone suggest that Barack Obama, Democrats, or liberals, or those on the far left are "elitists," remind them of Tim Pawlenty.

Yes, the mild-mannered, relatively reasonable Republican from the eminently reasonable state of Minnesota, who Thursday on GOP TV disparaged (video below) middle class consumers, sneering "There's a joke out now that says the main value of the Cash for Clunkers program may be that we'll get a lot of cars with Obama stickers off the road."

Tim Pawlenty wants us to know that people who could afford to drive nothing better than a "clunker" are all the same. They're all Obama voters, presumably lacking the class of Repub primary voters. Pawlenty, now rivaling Glenn Beck and Repub chairman Rush Limbaugh in scorn for the American people, apparently is in training to seek the GOP presidential nomination.

Limbaugh Misses Again

It's one thing to call the President of the United States a "moron" who "has a chip on his shoulder about this country." Personal criticism without evidence is silly and degrade the speaker far more than the object of the scurrilous attack.

And we expect such classness from Rush Limbaugh. But in between the attacks on a president's character, intellect, or race, Limbaugh actually makes baseless judgements. After claiming that the Administration's policies are "going to send us back into another recession," Rush on Friday declared

there isn't anybody with a half a brain of economic literacy who would be doing anything Obama is too good right now policy wise in the middle of a recession, nobody would dare say that what they are doing is designed to create jobs.

Apparently, the chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Romer, does not have half a brain, given that she has pointed out (pdf)

the CEA found that the fiscal stimulus has raised real GDP growth by roughly 2 to 3 percentage points in both the second and third quarters. We estimated that as of August, it had raised employment relative to what otherwise would have occurred by approximately one million. We also showed that our estimates were very much in line with those of a broad range of private forecasters and the Congressional Budget Office. There is a widespread consensus (except perhaps on the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal) that this aspect of the policy response has been highly effective at alleviating the real decline and counteracting the effects of the financial crisis.

Very dry, that. Here, though, an Associated Press reporter notes that as states cut their budget for combating domestic violence, money from the stimulus package keeps battered women's shelters open, preserving jobs and aiding victims of crime.

Fighting crime was one of the rationales for the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act - but most of the focus has been on police, not victims.

A little over $76,000 in stimulus money helped save the job of Cindy Lyons, an advocate for the Domestic Abuse Project in Minneapolis, for the next two years. Lyons helps victims get their locks changed, handles paperwork for protective orders against their abusers and sometimes gets them out of town.

The Minnesota Department of Public Safety's Office of Justice Programs got 72 applications for $2.4 million in stimulus money for violence against women.

"It's saving jobs," said Cecilia Miller, who administers crime victim services funding.

Obviously, the fairly timid economic program, crafted for bipartisanship, has not yet turned the economy around. Paul Krugman argues yesterday in his New York Times column "unless the government does much more than is currently planned to help the economy recover, the job market.... will remain terrible for years to come." President Obama, as Krugman foresaw earlier in the year, has turned policy in the right (left, barely) direction, in part with a necessary, but fairly meager, stimulus package.

Conservative critics, however, made dire (if vague- details are not their strong suit) predictions about the disastrous impact they were confident Obama's plan would have. Inflation would run rampant, and soon, they implied; instead, recovery has been slow and sluggish, fairly ratifying the concerns of Krugman and some others on the left that Obama was being insufficiently bold.

It would be too much to expect that Limbaugh would commend President Obama for anything. Still, Minnesota's example is a reminder that stimulus funding has benefitted many Americans most in need of help- which may be yet another reason Rush Limbaugh is so exorcised about the economic recovery effort.