Getting Healthcare News from People Who Told You Second Hand Smoke was Harmless

Back in the '90s, one of Rush Limbaugh's big issues was the "junk science" that held that second hand tobacco smoke was bad for you. Never mind the obvious; that if first hand smoke was bad for you, the idea that second hand smoke was not is absurd. But Limbaugh was and is an expert in making endless gullible people believe patently ridiculous things, which made him the perfect propagandist to rile up dopes into thinking you had some sort of a right to smoke around the baby and that the liberal nanny state was taking that right away -- not because of health concerns, but because they're all commies who hate big business. Limbaugh continued the fight long after the battle was lost, insisting as recently as 2010 that "second hand smoke is harmless."

This campaign wasn't exactly Limbaugh's idea. Tobacco giant R.J. Reynolds enlisted him and others in a big PR push that included the arguments that nicotine was "NOT addictive,"  to "point out 'victimhood' of smokers--outside in wind and cold--as pariahs." The idea was to "create fear of loss of liberty" and to "incite smokers to rebel and spread that rebellion to nonsmokers now!" Who would be more perfect than Limbaugh's audience of "dittoheads"  -- a group of constantly whining conservatives completely convinced of their perpetual victimhood? Always quick to reactionary rage and never prone to deep thinking, the far right talk radio base has always been a herd of buffalo that corporations could panic into a stampede and send to trample (or try to anyway) anyone they wanted. They became the "town hall mobs," which in turn became the Tea Party.

This, I believe, is essential background in understand the furor around this:

Talking Points Memo: Donna received the letter canceling her insurance plan on Sept. 16. Her insurance company, LifeWise of Washington, told her that they'd identified a new plan for her. If she did nothing, she'd be covered.

A 56-year-old Seattle resident with a 57-year-old husband and 15-year-old daughter, Donna had been looking forward to the savings that the Affordable Care Act had to offer.

But that's not what she found. Instead, she'd be paying an additional $300 a month for coverage. The letter made no mention of the health insurance marketplace that would soon open in Washington, where she could shop for competitive plans, and only an oblique reference to financial help that she might qualify for, if she made the effort to call and find out.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Rush Limbaugh, McCommie

As you most likely know, fast food workers in several cities staged a strike yesterday. The main demand: a rate of pay of $15 an hour -- a little more than double the federal minimum of $7.25. "When they work hard every day for all day long and they don't get paid enough wages to put food on the table and to support their families, then we as a community suffer," explained  Fran Quigley, a clinical professor at Indiana University McKinney School of Law, who joined workers on the picket line.

But why should Quigley care? After all, you have to assume he makes a bit more than the average fast food worker. If we rule out the fact that he's just a good person and assume he's motivated only by self-interest, he still has a compelling reason to support higher wages for these workers, as USA Today reports:

Taxpayers subsidize workers who earn too little, he said, by paying for food stamps and other entitlement programs in which many low-wage workers participate. Profitable corporations employing such workers often make enough money to increase those workers' wages, Quigley said.

This is the conservative case for raising the minimum wage. And it's a case that conservative blowhard Rush Limbaugh doesn't seem to understand.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

"I'm Not Racist, But ___"

One thing I think we can learn from the Trayvon Martin shooting and its aftermath is that there are one helluva lot of rightwing racists in America. As revelations go, it's not much of one. All you have to do is tune in Rush Limbaugh to have that one confirmed.

But another thing we can learn about rightwing racists is that they don't seem to understand what racism actually is. And we get no better demonstration of this fact than this story from The Grio:

A letter, sent via the City of Sanford's official letter, and addressed to the city manager, decries the treatment afforded the currently suspended police chief, Bill Lee. It faults the now familiar villains, according to Lee's defenders: Rev. Al Sharpton, Rev. Jesse Jackson, and the country's African-American attorney general, Eric Holder.

"Dear City Manager Bonaparte," it begins. "The racist travesty that took place in Sanford should not be laid to rest and the city should not move on until there is a thorough condemnation of the Rabid Racist Ni**ers and their organizations, along with the irresponsible media, that formed a treasoneous [sic], anti-American, vigelante [sic] feeding frenzy race riot. Ni**ers like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Eric Holder, and that dancing baboon of the New Black Pu***es should be in jail, preferably shot."

Mr. Bonaparte is black. And letters sent to city officials via the Sanford website are public record.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

GOP Unable to Retreat from Disastrous War on Women

A new Economist/YouGov poll [pdf] shows Barack Obama defeating Mitt Romney in a head to head match-up. At 47% to 41%, it's a pretty convincing win. Undecideds can't make up the gap for Romney here. While not a slamdunk by any means, it still looks like a good bet.

But the big news out of this poll is that the suggestion that the numbers could've been a better bet for Romney, had his party not decided to launch a war against half of the American voting population. In the Republican War on Women -- an aggressive war of choice, by the way -- Republicans are the ones taking a beating.

Among women, President Barack Obama leads Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney by 55%-38% in the Economist/YouGov poll (Week of 3/17/2012). That 17-point deficit among women right now is too much for Romney to overcome, as Romney leads Obama among men by 45%-43%.

Right now, it is Newt Gingrich and even Rick Santorum (not so much Romney) who are the real lightning rods for women angry at Republicans in general.  For example, among women, Romney is viewed favorably by 36% and unfavorably by 46% of women.  By comparison among women, Santorum’s standing is 30% favorable rating and 50% unfavorable, and Newt Gingrich’s standing among women is 22% favorable-60% unfavorable.  (Obama is 50% favorable-42% unfavorable among women.)

The Republican Party is losing women at a pretty good clip. And the state parties aren't helping things much. Even as Republicans at the national level recognize that they simply must stop talking about women, those at the state level aren't getting the message. Ultrasound laws and attacks on Planned Parenthood are rampant. People who think this is all about contraception and Rush Limbaugh talking about sluts are missing the bigger picture.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Right Pounding the Panic Button Over Limbaugh

We start the day with yet another Rush Limbaugh post, mostly because the reaction of the rightwing blogosphere to his slut-shaming scandal is just so fascinatingly wrongheaded. I'm sure all of these people consider themselves "experts" in the field of politics, yet their approach to this problem of theirs is comprised entirely of weak spin, obviously false equivalencies, and laughable attempts to play the victim card. It's like a case study in how to completely blow crisis management. They're going to dig in, damn it, and if that doesn't work, they're going to dig in deeper.

A big part of the problem is that they're used to dealing with low-information types. It's easy to fool people who don't know anything but what you tell them, but it's quite another to convince everyone else. For example, the aptly-named Jammie Wearing Fool reported the shocking revelation that Sandra Fluke wasn't just some random Georgetown student grabbed off the street to testify before congress, she was an activist (I guess you're supposed to gasp here). There's a lot of rooting around in her past to uncover this secret information, but they could've saved themselves the trouble and just looked at the transcript of her testimony.

My name is Sandra Fluke, and I’m a third-year student at Georgetown Law School. I’m also a past-president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice or LSRJ. And I’d like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies and all of the student activists with us and thank them so much for being here today.

(Applause)

We, as Georgetown LSRJ, are here today because we’re so grateful that this regulation implements the non-partisan medical advice of the Institute of Medicine.

Keep in mind that Jammie Wearing Fool reports this as some secret info that's been uncovered through relentless Googling. Yet these were literally the first words out of her mouth in her testimony. They also reveal that she's a 30 year-old and claims that previous reports put her at 23, but a trip through Google News shows that the only people mentioning her age as 23 are citing the JWF report. Why it would make any difference anyway isn't clear. But it appears to be an entirely made-up talking point. This argument is lame beyond words.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Limbaugh's 'Slut' Comments Bring Out the Most Self-Destructive Tendencies of the GOP Base

Right now, the GOP is in a bit of a tailspin. The base seems to be at the stick and they're determined to point the nose straight at the ground. They'll show that stupid planet -- they'll crash this thing right into it and then we'll see who's boss!

A quick spin through the rightwing blogosphere shows a widespread political tone-deafness beyond any I think I've ever seen before. Rush Limbaugh's "slut" comments and subsequent non-apology have thrown them into a complete frenzy of boneheadedness and mindless rage. It's really something to see. They're riding this political loser all the way to the pavement.

I don't want to get too psychoanalytical -- mostly because I'm not qualified -- but you really have to wonder if the recent death of Andrew Breitbart figures into all this. Breitbart was popular on the right, they have no one to blame for his death, and all that emotion has to go somewhere. So it's pointed at innocent bystanders; Sandra Fluke and the people who agree with her. Breitbart's dead, Limbaugh's "under attack"... It's not hard to see the fear and rage that's always there finally boiling over as a result. If you read the comment threads to some of the wingnut blog entries, you'd think it was 9/11 all over again.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Are Republicans Finally Done Apologizing to Limbaugh?

You have to wonder why Rush Limbaugh holds such an exulted position in the Republican pantheon. Not only did Republicans put him in their top three "least favorite" news personalities in a recent Harris Poll, but he's frequently more trouble than he's worth. Yes, he's the top-rated talk radio host in America. Yes, his audience is nearly entirely Republican. And yes, that audience are proudly "dittoheads" who do whatever Limbaugh tells them to. But all of that means jack. No one listens to talk radio. The local classic rock station probably has a bigger audience than Limbaugh in any given market. In any sane world, he would be nobody. The vast, vast majority of Americans -- and even of Republicans -- don't hang on Rush's every word. In fact, that majority doesn't listen to him at all. Color me perplexed.

Maybe it's Limbaugh's position as a corporate mouthpiece that frightens the GOP. It's not who he speaks to that's important, but who he speaks for. His market share isn't really the result of popularity, it's the result of Clear Channel's desire to get Limbaugh's voice heard. If Rush were left to live or die on ratings, he would've been cancelled long, long ago (as his ratings-dependent TV show was) and talk radio in general would be a dead medium. He's like Glenn Beck before Fox News finally tired of him -- a revenue hole, but useful as a propaganda tool.

Which is why it's hard to get extremely excited by this news:

Politico:

One of the advertisers on Rush Limbaugh’s popular conservative radio show Friday announced that it is pulling its ads in the wake of the host’s controversial “slut” comments this week.

“We don’t condone negative comments directed toward any group. In response, we are currently pulling our ads from Rush with Rush Limbaugh,” the company Sleep Train Mattress Centers announced on its Twitter account early Friday.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Little Bullies, Schoolyard Taunts, and Republican Campaigning

When I was in grade school, there was this one kid. Of course, he will remain nameless, because this is the story of a little prick. He delighted in hurting people's feelings and pushing people's buttons. And he was also a coward. If you chased him down, he'd beg and cry and promise to stop being such an a-hole, but as soon as he got out of reach, he'd go right back to being a jerk -- I mean immediately. I would've kicked his ass -- maybe I should've -- but I wasn't that kind of person, I was raised right. I see now that he was some category of bully, but it didn't seem like it at the time, because all the violence in that particular relationship would've come from me. But bully he was, because he enjoyed abusing other people. And he did it because he knew I wouldn't hurt him, despite the fact that I was one of the biggest kids in the school. Seriously, I could've snapped him like a twig.

If current events are any indication, that kid has a job in the Republican Party today. At the very least, he's a Tea Partier. They're the party of insults, the party of smears, and they do it because they know liberals won't hit back in the same way. We can't, really. Our voters wouldn't like it. We're persuaded by rational argument, not schoolyard taunts. But Republicans love jerks. If you're an abrasive loudmouth, you're the best thing ever. If you don't believe me, turn on talk radio and count the seconds between insults. You won't count very high. Or better yet, correct a rightwinger on twitter. Their very first response to you will be an insult that they think is knee-slappingly clever. They mistake debate -- which in its purest form should be a fact-based, logical exposition of truth -- for a knock-down, drag-out fight in which the one who gets to say, "Ooh, burn!" is the obvious winner. Facts are meaningless, logic is irrelevant, truth is for losers. Politics is about insults and political debate is just a more formal version of "the dozens."

Which brings us to this photo being passed around by David Limbaugh:


Click to enlarge

How very typical.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Say it With Me; John Boehner is Just Wasting Everyone's Time

Seriously, what the hell is Sir John of Orange doing? Last night, Boehner finally had to abandon his attempt to get his debt limit bill passed, because he couldn't get enough votes in the House to push it through. But that's OK, because there was no way in hell the Senate was going to pass it anyway. Metaphorically speaking, he was gunning the engine in a desperate attempt to run straight into a brick wall before the clock ran out.

Now, he's actually taking the zero chance his bill had of surviving in the Senate and moving it into negative territory, by tying his bill to a Balanced Budget Amendment to please the crazies.

Politico:

House Republican leaders will tie a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution to their two-step debt-ceiling bill — a move that is all but certain to clinch the necessary votes to pass Speaker John Boehner's proposal a day after it stalled...

CONTINUE TO POST>>

You Can't Fight Crazy -- But You Can Vote it Out of Office

I hate to say it, but part of me -- the "I told you so" portion of my brain -- wants the Republican Party to remain stupid, for the president to fail to convince them to come off the ledge, and for the US to default. This part of my brain feels that if we go over that cliff, Republicans (and the craziest Tea Party nuts especially) will have been proven wrong once and for all. After all the Tea Party, always more than happy to believe whatever horsecrap makes them more comfortable, is home to the idea of the default myth -- i.e., that if the debt ceiling isn't raised, the US won't default and anyone who says otherwise is just a commie spendthrift trying to scare you. My lizard brain thinks that when interest rates skyrocket, deficits get even worse, and unemployment goes through the roof, then they'll see...

But, of course, a more rational part of me knows that this is a fruitless hope. After all, didn't I just say that they believe whatever they want to believe? You can't convince them with proof. They'll just come up with some crazy argument that the US didn't default, that the administration held back its secret hoard of money to punish Republicans at the polls. When you're dealing with people who engage in magical thinking, "proof" is a meaningless word.

Unfortunately, it's looking more and more like the "I told you so" portion of my brain may get some satisfaction. As the August 2 deadline approaches, there are few signs that the nuts are becoming saner and that reality will finally sink in. And while that may not happen to the looniest Republicans, it's happening to their traditional backers and enablers.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Winning the GOP Primary in Wingnutopia

Gallup reports a new poll using a somewhat misleading headline; "With Huckabee Out, No Clear GOP Front-Runner." The reason I say this is somewhat misleading is because there wasn't a clear frontrunner with Huckabee in. The GOP field this year is a mix of no-names, frootloops, and finger-in-the-wind flip-floppers. The Gingrich campaign is (perhaps prematurely) already being declared dead in the water, a victim of the candidate's mouth. Anyone who remembers Newt's days as speakers won't be surprised -- he was always one to speak before thinking, assuming that every random thought was brilliant and worthy of great attention. His current situation must seem very familiar to him.

What we do see in the Gallup poll is a sort of split between the more pragmatic primary voters who recognize their candidate has to win a general election and the true-believers, the 'baggers, and the talk radio-informed who demand nothing short of wingnut purity. In that poll, leading the pack -- albeit barely leading -- are Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin. That would be the same Sarah Palin who recent polling shows would lose even to Dennis Kucinich (a "rout," in the pollster's words) in the general election. In short, be prepared for a lot of "who's the soul of the Republican Party?" articles, because the answer to that question isn't extremely clear.

And Newt's reportedly washed-up campaign? Scoring third right now.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

For Republicans, a Coming Dose of Reality

Part of the problem I have with Republicans is that they refuse to live in reality. For most, the cause is the fact that they don't have to. Former lobbyists, PAC folks, wealthy vanity campaigners, CEOs, and various and sundry political hacks, the closest many have come to hardship is finding out the club is out of topshelf scotch. They still have nightmares about that awful, awful rail booze.

But for others, there's a self-inflicted ignorance. Many of the fresh new GOP faces in Washington represent the first generation of lawmakers whose entire adult lives were spent under the spell of conservative talk radio. They were probably introduced to politics by Rush Limbaugh in the '90s and they haven't moved that dial since. If they don't live in the real world, it's because they no longer know where it is.

Regardless of the reason that reality is a strange neighborhood to them, when Republicans take a walk through it, it comes as something of a shock.

Politico:

Ask any House Republican about repealing President Barack Obama's health care law, and you'll get the same fiery, self-assured talking points about tearing down what Speaker John Boehner has called a "monstrosity."

But talk to some of the 16 freshman lawmakers who have declined their government health benefits, and you'll hear a different side of the story -- about tough out-of-pocket expenses, pre-existing conditions and support for health reforms that would help those who struggle with their coverage. As they venture into the free market for health insurance, these lawmakers -- many of whom swept into office fueled by tea party anger over the health care law -- are facing monthly premiums of $1,200 and fears of double-digit rate hikes.

CONTINUE TO POST>>