Fox, meet henhouse

Holy god, did Obama ever shit in his hat when he called out Fox News! Per NewsBusters:

If the Obama administration's attack on Fox News was designed to diminish the cable network's influence, the White House has failed miserably.

In fact, since Anita Dunn's now infamous appearance on CNN's "Reliable Sources" when she claimed Fox isn't a real news network, the cabler has seen HUGE gains in overall viewing AND in the important demographic aged 25 to 54.

If this is Obama's effectiveness attacking a cable network, we should all be concerned about his ability to protect our nation from REAL enemies.
Ooookay. We know that, unlike any other cable news network or the American public in general, the majority of Fox News viewers are Republicans. So what are these majority-Republican viewers hearing on Fox News?

I took a look, and I thought for a moment I had been whisked away in Chic Bob’s time machine, where the dial is always stuck on 2000:

They’re hearing the same shit we pinkos heard in 2000! Just exchange phrases like “the poor,” “the drug war,” and “climate change” with stuff like “the unborn,”“ACORN” and “war on terra,” and the language is practically indistinguishable. I say it’s time to deputize Fox to guard that particular henhouse 24/7.

[Cross-posted at Rumproast]

I smell a rat

So an industry flak organization, America's Health Insurance Plans, releases a report two days before the Baucus bill is expected to pass the Finance Committee. The report says if the bill is enacted, insurers will be forced to dramatically increase premiums so that annual family health insurance costs will equal more than half of the current median household income within 10 years:

The report said selected provisions of a bill from the Senate Finance Committee could increase premiums 18 percent more than they would otherwise rise in the next decade, to an average of nearly $26,000 for families and $9,700 for individuals in 2019.

If the committee approves the bill on Tuesday, as Democrats expect, Senate leaders plan to combine it with another Senate bill and take the package to the Senate floor, for a debate that could begin this month.
Democratic leaders and reform supporters were quick to denounce the industry-funded report, calling it "distorted and flawed" and "fundamentally dishonest." On the MSNBC yappy heads programs yesterday, some, including the estimable Rep. Anthony Wiener, cited the report's conclusions as further evidence that there needs to be a strong public option to keep the private insurers honest.

Others (Ed Schultz, for example, and a senate finance aide) went so far as to insinuate that issuing the report now was a huge tactical blunder on the part of the insurance industry -- that by showing their hand so brazenly, the industry has given the Dems the opportunity to frame the terms of the coming congressional debate:
"Instead of creating doubts, the report is actually having the opposite effect and has drawn a lot of ire from those who support reforms," the aide said. "Frankly, it will create a lot of momentum in the Senate to pass reform."
Don't be so sure. The insurance industry is greedy, heartless and rapacious. But it's not stupid. I think they have a two-level strategy here: First, to re-arm the GOP naysayers with fresh ammo they can use to scare the shit out of people who already have insurance. In 10 years, half your income will go towards supporting lazy, shiftless bottom-feeders!

The second level of the strategy is to rally the Dems around Baucus' crappy plan as it stands now.. It's a briar-patch strategy that could pay off -- if the Baucus plan passes substantially intact instead of being used as a framework on which to add meaningful cost-control measures like a strong public option, the insurance industry gets millions of new customers, permission to keep screwing those of us who have insurance with skyrocketing premiums and escapes the modicum of accountability a public option would create.

Don't fall for it, Dems.

[Cross-posted at Rumproast]

It takes a village, people

This strategy could actually work:



Ginning up outrage against health care reform efforts that would benefit most Fox viewers is more complicated than sending them into gay panic. Not that the GOP is incapable of it, as we've seen this summer. But convincing even dolts to agitate against their own interests involves some effort: It entails telling and sustaining lies and partnerships with corporations to fund the scare-mongering, with the object being to move the uninformed middle toward one side via sheer volume.

The teabag demo is already prejudiced against LGBT equality and will eagerly pounce on any moves toward advancing it. But there's no real corporate motivation to massively fund an effort to stymie LGBT equality initiatives. As Maher points out, a well-timed repeal of DADT could suck all the oxygen out of the anti-health reform movement by giving the lemmings who underpin it a shinier object on which to focus. And it's the right thing to do into the bargain.

[Cross-posted at Rumproast]

"Pop" goes the weasel

Another monumentally dumb idea from National Review’s Augean stable of bloggers -- John J. Miller highlights a reader’s objection to the proposed soft drink tax and suggests dubbing wingnut “tea parties” “pop parties” instead:

These people don’t know shit about branding or regional language differences. The whole “tea party” thing is supposed to invoke the Boston Tea Party, taxation without representation, coiled snake flags, etc., right?

If you call it a “pop party,” not only do you junk the historical references, none of the repressed drag queens in Glenn Beck’s 9/12 Patriot Clubs get to dress up in tights and tri-cornered hats. Total buzz-kill.

Also, unlike Miller’s self-admittedly smelly correspondent, many people in the country don’t even call soft drinks “pop.” According to this unimpeachable source, “soda” edges out “pop” in many places, and “coke” (used in the generic sense) dominates Dixie:

[Click here for better look at detailed map.]

As someone who might say I’m going to the store to buy “cokes” when I actually intend to purchase Mountain Dew, I can tell you that “pop” grates on my ears like a buzz-saw on a banjo. Judging from the amount of ridicule I encountered for calling generic soft drinks “cokes” during my brief time living in Boston (where they call soft drinks “tonics,” of all things), I think the feeling is heartily mutual.

So go ahead, call it a “pop party.” We non-teabaggers will sit on the sidelines laughing our asses off as the regional soft drink terminology gap causes you to explode into internecine civil war like so many Mentos in a two-liter bottle of Diet Coke.

[Cross-posted at Rumproast]

"Grassy Knoll" Guh-Daffy: Barking Loon

Jeebus H. Oliver Stone, Moammar Gaddafi is nuttier than a glue-sniffing ferret on a skateboard. Check it out:



He needs to team up with Orly Taitz pronto, and we’ll finally get to the bottom of everything from who sank the USS Maine to who stole the Sphinx’s nose.

[H/T: The Raw Story; cross-posted at Rumproast]

Monday morning trivia: Separated at birth -- plus: Ducks on parade


To amplify a point Mrs. Polly made earlier, yes, Birfer Queen Orly Taitz does bear a disturbing resemblance to the Lonely Goatherd puppet from The Sound of Music. I wonder who's pulling her strings?

Also, why don’t more people dress ducks up and parade them around in human clothes? As bipeds, ducks carry it off a lot better than Chihuahuas and housecats. And since they have wings and beaks rather than paws and teeth, it’s much more difficult for them to cast off the humiliating garments:



[Cross-posted at Rumproast]

The 50-Second Wingnut



[H/T: TPM; cross-posted at Rumproast]