A Joke That's All Over The Internet But Worth Keeping

A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him, "Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am."

The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, "You're in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above ground elevation of 2,346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude.

"She rolled her eyes and said, "You must be an Obama Democrat."

"I am," replied the man. "How did you know?"

"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically correct,  but I have no idea what to do with your information, and I'm still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help to me."

The man smiled and responded, "You must be a Republican."

"I am," replied the balloonist. "How did you know?"

"Well," said the man, "you don't know where you are or where you are going. You've risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You're in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but somehow, now it's my fault."

Truthers, birthers, and cowards:

The week at Fox News

When Fox host and senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano appeared on "Conspiracy King" Alex Jones' radio show last week and announced that 9-11 "couldn't possibly have been done the way the government told us," he seemingly put his employer in a difficult position.

Sometimes You Just Need To Rant

I found an excellent article (or rant) and thought I would share~Mem

The Rant by Randy Haspel

It's been more than 20 years since I visited Israel as part of a statewide delegation led by then-Senator Al Gore Jr. It was a multi-religious group, which was great for me as a product of a Jewish home and a Catholic education. I saw the tourist sights, but I was inclined to break away from the group, particularly at night, and stroll the streets in order to get a personal feel for the place. Chance encounters, in combination with walking in ancient footprints, soon had me believing that I was a part of some larger scheme.

The Song Of The Teabigots, Repubs and Faux!

Obama made me do it! Can someone please get these people a sandbox, some cookies, milk and a nap pad! NOW!~Mem

Breitbart Claims That His Edited Sherrod Video is an Obama Plot to Destroy Him
Posted on July 27, 2010 by Jason Easley

Andrew Breitbart was on Michael Savage’s show today, where he claimed that his own edited video of Shirley Sherrod is really a campaign by Barack Obama to destroy him. Breitbart said, “I believe that he is orchestrating the campaign to destroy me and my reputation.”

Here is the audio courtesy of Media Matters:

In response to a caller who asked if Obama’s appearance on The View this week is payback for his possibly asking program last week to put on Shirley Sherrod, Breitbart said, “I don’t know, but I think, I’m not going to say I feel bad for President Obama because I believe that he is orchestrating the campaign to destroy me and my reputation.”

Okay, so according to Breitbart, Obama was behind his editing of a 25 year old video of Shirley Sherrod, to give the false impression that she was racist. Obama also told Breitbart to post the video to his own website for the sole purpose of using the doctored video as grounds for firing Ms. Sherrod so that the truth could soon emerge, which would destroy Breitbart’s reputation as a, “credible journalist.” The problem is that even before this Breitbart had no credibility after the ACORN video was exposed as a doctored fraud.

It is revealing that Breitbart did not get to go on Fox News, Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh’s radio shows in order to make his case, but that he has been reduced to going on Michael Savage’s show, which is most decidedly part of the B team in the right wing media. It would appear that all of the A list big audience programs are distancing themselves from him. Despite what he thinks of himself, Andrew Breitbart is not important enough for the President of the United States to waste one second thinking about him, much less hatch a plot to destroy him.

Breitbart is trying to appeal to the natural paranoia of the conservative mindset in order to save his own hide. If we suspend all logic and reality for a second, and believe Breitbart’s story, then he is the biggest idiot on the face of the earth. His defense is that he is a victim of an Obama plot, which means that he played a role in setting himself up, because he edited the video and ran it on his site. Even the most die hard Obama hating conspiracy theorists have to shake their heads at that one. Breitbart should have been finished after his ACORN video was debunked, but now he and his race baiting really are done. Let’s hope Shirley Sherrod sues him for every dime he’s got, and maybe she can take over his website and use it to combat racism. That would be some true poetic justice.

It's Time To Send Rupert Murdoch And The Arabian Prince Packing!

Unbelievable! Fox has lied out of it's teeth since President Obama announced his run for President! They have filled the minds of the American people with the koolaid of deception, racism, hate mongering, fear and violence and they have the nerve to want an apology. Why because they have gotten away with this for two years now. Not only have they gotten away with it but they have made their "journalism" acceptable and copied by others!

We have hundreds of video's and audio's proving their actions and yet it continues! When I walked away from the republican party and never looked back I did so in part because I was tired of the lies that fox was spreading and I was tired of the hate that was filling our Country! I was appalled by the racism they spewed day in and day out and they want an apology? In my opinion the best thing that could happen to fox is to get booted off the airways and out of the Country! ~Mem

Fox News Demands an Apology for Being Called Racist
Posted on July 26, 2010 Jason Easley

Fox News’ Brit Hume delivered a commentary on Special Report with Bret Baier, where demanded that the media apologize to Fox News for calling them racist. Fox wants an apology from the NAACP, Howard Dean, and Shirley Sherrod. Hume said, “You might think all this would be the stuff of further apologies.”

Video courtesy of Media Matters:

Hume said, “As victims of unfair media treatment go, Shirley Sherrod got off easy. Within 24 hours or so from her forced resignation from the agriculture department, she’s been apologized to, offered a new job, and later even got a call from the president himself. All of this the result of a truncated Internet videotape that made it appear she had once done less than her best for a white farmer because of his race. It was unfair, and the apologies were deserved, but the initial rush to judge Sherrod was not the only rush to judgment in this affair.” Read More...
(more videos)

What Buck REALLY regrets is getting caught saying it!

Newsflash! Teabigots I'm here to tell you that they all think you are a bunch of dumb asses! You fight against your own self interest to keep these ASSHATS rich! If you don't get this by now then you will continue to lose your homes, your jobs and your health! They don't care! Get a clue! You are being used! They are not fighting for the little man or main street! Good time to bring up the fact that Sarah Palin is not one of you! She is rich, famous and hungry for power! (Thanks to you!) Take the food off your table, let your kids go hungry and keep sending that money so that the Palins of this world can live a life of luxury! Just a little example of what we are talking about. (And these people vote?) As grandma would say..."if the foo shits...wear it!" ~Mem

*Added note for those not aware, this video was taken during the election when Fox Media was still promoting HRC even though she had formally ended her campaign Jun 7, 2008. Even in September they were still trying to anger the crowd (especially the women who supported HRC) hoping these people would vote for McCain/Palin.

Senate hopeful Buck regrets criticism of Tea Party birthers (at least he knows the birther thing is a joke)
By Allison Sherry
The Denver Post

Posted: 07/26/2010 12:23:46 AM MDT

Updated: 07/26/2010 12:29:13 AM MDT

Republican U.S. Senate hopeful Ken Buck called Tea Partyers questioning the authenticity of President Barack Obama's birth certificate "dumba---s" to a Democratic operative recording his comments without his permission.

On an audio tape obtained by The Denver Post, Buck was caught muttering "will you tell those dumba---s at the Tea Party to stop asking questions about birth certificates while I'm on the camera?" outside a June 11 event in Crowley.

Buck then started laughing as he walked into the event with the Democratic tracker.

"What am I supposed to do?" he asked, rhetorically.

So-called birthers have challenged Obama's standing as president by arguing that he was not born in the United States. Hawaii officials have repetedly confirmed the president's citizendship.

Election News and Candidate Info

Buck has positioned himself as the Tea Party candidate, and on Sunday, he said if he had it to do over again, he would not use the negative language.

Still, he said at an appearance in Broomfield, people who obsess about Obama's birth certificate at campaign events distract from bigger problems.

"I'm not suggesting the language was appropriate," Buck told The Post and 9News, which also has the audio tape. "But after 16 months of being on the campaign trail, I was tired and frustrated that I can't get that message through that we are going to go off a cliff if we don't start dealing with this debt."

Political "trackers" are an opposition mainstay on a campaign trail. They usually work for the other political party or an opponent. Because they are everywhere — trailing along with the campaigns, working nights and weekends — candidates often become comfortable with them.

The comment is the third in which Buck has been caught speaking bluntly in recent weeks.

At a July 8 rally with South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, former Rep. Tom Tancredo said the biggest threat to the United States was President Obama. Tancredo's

Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck campaigned at private Douglas County gathering Tuesday night. He spoke at the home of Jack and Susan Baker in Larkspur Tuesday night, July 20, 2010. Karl Gehring, The Denver Post (THE DENVER POST | KARL GEHRING)

*Comments went viral and grabbed headlines nationwide.

After the event, Buck told a Democratic tracker, again surreptitiously recording him, that he "can't believe that guy (Tancredo) opens his mouth."

Last week, tape was released of Buck telling an Independence Institute group July 17 that voters should pick him "because I do not wear high heels," he said, referring to his primary opponent, former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton. "I have cowboy boots, they have real bull---- on them."

Buck on Sunday said the slips are products of grueling months on the campaign trail.

"They've had a mic on me for 16 months," he said. "There are times of frustration where I vent.

"In this case, I vented to the wrong person. It wasn't a public setting. I was talking to an individual."

The state Democratic party would not disclose the name of the tracker who recorded the comments.

Political scientist Norman Provizer said "all political campaigns should carry duct tape and use it on candidates whenever they're out of control."

But, the Metropolitan State College of Denver professor said Buck likely didn't alienate too many voters.

"I think overall you can make an aggregate judgment, 'Is this something that will cause everyone to flock from him and search for something else?' " he said. "I don't think that will happen if he handles it correctly."

Tea Party leader Lu Busse said Buck should have "used a better choice of words" and shouldn't have lumped all Tea Partyers together.

"There are certainly many of us who have questions about Obama's documentation and records," but that isn't the biggest problem facing the country, said Busse, chairwoman of the 9.12 Project Colorado Coalition.

"We're looking at what they (candidates) have done in the past and what they say they are going to do in the future."

Busse said it probably won't cost him votes.

"We are going to stay focused on issues," she said, "and not who calls us names."

The Secrets of Obama's Underappreciated Success

I believe the President is still on track, has done some amazing things in his short time and will be known as one of the greatest Presidents to serve our Country~Mem

By Mark Halperin Monday, Apr. 26, 2010

Barack Obama's right-wing opponents cast him as a socialist failure. His left-wing hecklers see him as an overcautious hedger. But, critics notwithstanding, the President is on a path to be a huge success by the time of November's midterm elections.

Before the jabberers on the right (What about the huge debt, the broken tax pledge, the paucity of overseas accomplishments?), the yammerers on the left (Guantánamo hasn't been closed, gays aren't serving openly in the military, and too many policies cater to business interests) and the chides in the media (POTUS and party poll numbers are down, and Washington is more partisan than ever), look at the two key metrics that underscore Obama's accomplishments. It is too early to assess the ultimate measure of victory: whether the President's actions have been prudent and beneficial, domestically and internationally. But by Election Day 2010, Obama will have soundly achieved many of his chief campaign promises while running a highly competent, scandal-free government. Not bad for a guy whose opponents (in both parties) for the White House suggested that he was too green in national life to know how to do the job — and whose presidency began in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis that demanded urgent attention and commanded much of his focus. (See "Obama's Troubled First Year: Grading Him on the Key Issues.")

Let's start with the competence Obama has shown. As he proved in the campaign, he is a master of personnel decisions, choosing people who are excellent at what they do, but also requiring that they play nicely with others. In the two most vital areas, national security and economic policy, all the President's women and men generally get along well with one another, and have had critical roles in advancing the agenda. It is true that the economics team has some rivalries, and the Administration still hasn't figured out how to overcome its collectively weak public-communications skills on the economy. But overall, the White House is populated by hard workers who are rowing in unison to advance the cause and rarely take their disagreements public through damaging leaks.

Obama's two best personnel decisions are probably the two men serving right below him: Vice President Joe Biden and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. Yes, Biden still falls victim to caricature as an irrepressible big mouth and is the butt of late-night jokes. And Emanuel can be overly brash and flutter nerves on Capitol Hill and among Administration allies. But Obama knew what he was getting in both men, and they have performed up to or above his expectations. With their West Wing offices across the hall from each other, Biden and Emanuel often work in tandem, each doing more heavy lifting than is publicly seen or commonly known. Obama — who proved during the campaign that he knows how to maintain control of his operation without micromanaging — sets the tone and overall goals, and then allows his Veep and chief, along with other senior advisers, to execute his plans. (See who's who in Barack Obama's White House.)

Biden has traveled extensively overseas and across the country and has helped coordinate both national security policy and congressional strategy, all while dealing with governors and mayors on the economy. Politically, he is expected to be an asset in the midterms, as he was in 2008, with white working-class voters who appreciate his homely truths and affable manner, and who still haven't warmed to Obama.

As for Emanuel, Obama was intent on selecting a tough, competitive, savvy chief of staff, one who would be able to use the levers of power to advance an agenda through both legislation and executive action. Emanuel unexpectedly found himself in the spotlight last week when he appeared on Charlie Rose and repeated his oft-expressed interest in one day serving as mayor of Chicago. The press flew into a frenzy, and some pundits deemed the remark an unseemly display of ambition. It was, in fact, a reminder of Emanuel's deep ties to his hometown, his reluctance to leave his job as a member of Congress to join the Administration — part of the House leadership, Emanuel was on a direct path to be the Speaker within a decade — and his willingness to bow to Obama's wishes and jettison his long-term plans in order to manage the White House. (See "Obama's One-Year Anniversary: A Mixed Scorecard.")

Emanuel's hand (and his six years of experience in the Clinton Administration) can be seen in many facets of the Administration's operational success. The White House controls the Washington and media agenda on most days, carefully coordinating with Capitol Hill and interest-group partners. Bad news is not allowed to fester. And the greatest asset, the President himself, is deployed with strategic planning and tactical nimbleness.

It's easy to forget what circumstances could be like, what problems Obama might have encountered. Think back just a few years ago, to the last time a young Democrat was swept into the White House on a message of change. Unlike Bill Clinton, especially early in his presidency, Obama has largely maintained control of his public image, preserved the majesty of the office (a job that has become harder than ever because of the toxic freak-show nature of our politico-media culture) and maintained good relations, in public and private, with the armed services brass, the intelligence community and law enforcement.

The passage of the health care bill and the pledge to help Democrats wherever possible with fundraising and political assistance has (for now at least) quieted the Capitol Hill voices that until recently were questioning the White House's competence and commitment. Control of Congress makes things easier, for sure, but so does an absence of indicted, disgraced or bungling appointees. (See what to watch at Obama's health care summit.)

Over the past 16 months, both Biden and Emanuel have expressed concern internally that Obama has been too bold, risking his presidency on big bets. But those disagreements with the President have been fleeting and mostly futile — and, as it happens, unwarranted. So far, most of Obama's big bets have paid off.

The health care bill's passage is, of course, the White House's signal achievement, and was accomplished without revealing the Administration's cognizance (thanks to internal polling and focus groups) of the legislation's stark unpopularity among the public. But beyond health care, Obama acted decisively to stop the world from going into economic depression, after inheriting a mess from his predecessor. Quibble all you wish about the dimensions of the stimulus law or the administration of TARP or the Detroit bailout, but the actions taken were professionally handled, apparently necessary and, so far, constructive. Strikingly underrated by the Washington press corps are Obama's gains on education policy, including a willingness to confront the education establishment on standards for both teachers and students. Overseas, Obama has snagged an arms-reduction deal with Russia, managed the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq exactly as promised, eliminated numerous terrorist leaders through an aggressive targeting operation and laid the groundwork for dealing with Iran and, perhaps, North Korea. (See the five immediate benefits of health reform.)

In the months ahead, the President will likely pass a financial-regulation overhaul (despite this past weekend's snags), manage the confirmation of a second Supreme Court nominee with relatively little commotion, announce the reduction of the U.S. troop level in Iraq to about 50,000, showcase the undercovered gains on education reform, take advantage of the improving economy to tout his stimulus efforts and sharpen his "Obama-Biden future vs. Bush-Cheney past" argument to help stave off massive Democratic losses in November. He also has a decent chance to pass a small-to-medium-size energy bill. True, some promises, like comprehensive immigration reform, will remain on the sidelines, but most of his major goals will be completed or well under way.

Assuming the President will need a game-changing move in the wake of any significant midterm losses, Emanuel has already played a clever bit of inside-baseball, installing his old friend and Clinton Administration ally Bruce Reed as staff director of the bipartisan deficit-reduction commission that is due to make recommendations in December. If there are big Republican electoral gains, expect the analysis from conservatives and the media to be that the country wanted a check on big spending from Washington. That overriding concern could shape the outcome of the elections more than any of Obama's accomplishments or appreciation for the job he has done thus far. The commission's proposals could then be coordinated with an "I get it" message from Obama, providing a bold opening to the second half of his term, as he sets about tackling another campaign promise: long-term deficit reduction. A difficult pledge to achieve, perhaps, but given the President's track record, it is one that shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

See a report card on Obama's first year.

See TIME's 2008 Person of the Year: Barack Obama.

Read more:

Watch The Weekly Address

Good afternoon,

Right now many Americans are still feeling the effects of the recession. Small business owners are having a hard time getting the credit they need to hire and grow, and millions of our friends and neighbors are still looking for work.

In his Weekly Address, President Obama calls on Congress to stop their procedural maneuvers and allow for a simple up or down vote on expanded unemployment insurance and additional tax cuts and lending for small businesses. These are two much-needed measures that will provide a boost to our economy and relief to our friends and neighbors who can’t find jobs.

Take a moment to hear what he has to say:

For the past 18 months, President Obama has been fighting to help small business owners because he understands that small businesses are key to getting the American people back to work. He has been fighting for expanded unemployment insurance because he understands that putting money in the pockets of the people who are most likely to spend it is a cost-effective way of boosting local economies and creating jobs.

Unemployment insurance is a vital lifeline for many families struggling to find work in these tough times. Over the past few weeks, that lifeline has disappeared for more than 2 million Americans, and if Congress doesn’t act, that number will grow to 3.2 million people by the end of this month.

Getting our economy back on track hasn’t been easy, but passing important legislation to support small businesses and Americans looking for work has proved nearly impossible. Repeatedly, Republicans have used procedural maneuvers to deny this legislation an up or down vote.

There may be a lot of controversial topics out there, but support for small businesses and unemployment insurance shouldn’t be among them.

It’s time for an up or down vote on these important measures. It’s time for Congress to act.

Sincerely,

David Axelrod
Senior Advisor to the President

Obama Slams GOP for Obstructing Progress

(AP) President Barack Obama is taking aim at Senate Republicans, accusing them of playing politics with measures that would extend benefits to the unemployed and increase lending to small businesses.

Striking a deeply partisan tone in his weekly Saturday radio and online address, President Obama said the GOP leadership has chosen to "filibuster our recovery and obstruct our progress" by blocking votes on agenda items the president says would breath life into the economic recovery.

"These steps aren't just the right thing to do for those hardest hit by the recession," Mr. Obama said. "They're the right thing to do for all of us."

The address was recorded at the White House before President Obama flew to Maine on Friday for a weekend family vacation.

Lawmakers have been battling for weeks over extending unemployment benefits to workers who have been out of a job for long stretches of time. The last extension ran out at the end of May, leaving about 2.5 million people without benefits.

The House has already passed a bill to extend the benefits through November, but with the death of Sen. Robert Byrd, Senate Democrats don't have the 60 votes they need to overcome a GOP filibuster. The Senate plans to take up the measure again on Tuesday.

President Obama said lawmakers' obligation to extend benefits is both moral and practical, citing some read more...

Life Long Republican Says Obama, Reid, Pelosi deserve our thanks!

By Lynn M. Hansen (Guest commentary)

Last Edit: Apr 5 2010 - 2:31pm

As an American and a resident of Weber County, I salute President Obama, Sen. Harry Reid, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi for pushing the health care reform bill through the legislative process. Until the administration of George W. Bush, I was an avid Republican and served in the Reagan and Bush (senior) administrations as a political appointee. But I will not allow Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh to define conservatism for me, nor will I accept the half-truths and invectives with which they pollute the airways.

Those who listen to these hate-mongers should realize that they have become millionaires by peddling the views they do. I recall Limbaugh frequently stating that he hoped Obama would fail. That is tantamount to wishing America would fail for Obama is our freely elected president.

What has happened to civility in this country? I did not vote for Obama but we, the American people, did. I consider myself an American, not a Utahn. I served 23 years in the United States Air Force and repeat the Pledge of Allegiance to one nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

For as long as he is president, I will respect the office of president and the person who occupies it. It is pure hypocrisy or worse for those who legislate (many, if not most of whom are millionaires) to try to deny basic insurance coverage to middle- and lower-class Americans. We must understand that each member of the House of Representatives and each senator -- Republican and Democrat -- has health insurance with the major portion of their premiums being paid by the taxpayer. I know because I having worked in the government also have such a policy. Where is the "justice for all" in this?

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the legislation would extend coverage to 32 million Americans who lack it and cut deficits by an estimated $138 billion over a decade. If realized, the expansion of coverage would include 95 percent of all eligible individuals under age 65.

For the first 10 years, it will cost about $100 billion a year. This is about the yearly cost of the Iraq War. Why is providing health care to Americans less desirable than invading and fighting a protracted war in a country far away that did not threaten us?

Republicans constantly assert that we will pay more taxes. Wait a minute. Who will pay more taxes? Not people in my income bracket! In fact, we may well see tax relief. Those who will be taxed more are families whose income exceeds $250,000 annually or singles whose income is at $200,000. Why do those who claim we will pay more taxes never mention these details?

The insurance industry, which spent millions on advertising trying to block the bill, would come under new federal regulation. They would be forbidden from placing lifetime dollar limits on policies, from denying coverage to children because of pre-existing conditions and from canceling policies when a policyholder becomes ill. Does the ordinary citizen understand that CEOs of insurance companies make millions of dollars every year? Some make as much as $24 million a year. Is this what we mean by free enterprise?

Never in the more than 15 years that I have resided in Europe have I met a person who wanted to trade their health care system for ours. I had a hip replacement performed in Germany. The procedure was no different or the care less than that I received for a like operation at McKay-Dee in Ogden.

It is disingenuous to say that we will receive inferior care under the legislation that Obama has signed. It is equally devious to cite horror cases from England or Canada. We have enough of our own. And it is simply wrong to call this socialized medicine knowing that people tend to associate socialism with communism.

Finally, my religious faith believes that governments are instituted of God for the good of the people -- all people, not just the rich and privileged! We are often reminded of our duty to care for the less fortunate. I therefore find it odd that the residents of this state are so anti-Obama.

West Haven resident Lynn M. Hansen received a B.A. from Utah State University and an M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Utah. Appointed ambassador by President Reagan, he served as head of the U.S. Delegation to the Geneva Conference on Disarmament and later with the CIA as vice-chairman of the National Intelligence Council. He recently returned from Hamburg, Germany, where he served as LDS mission president.

By FRANK RICH

Published: March 27, 2010

THERE were times when last Sunday’s great G.O.P. health care implosion threatened to bring the thrill back to reality television. On ABC’s “This Week,” a frothing and filibustering Karl Rove all but lost it in a debate with the Obama strategist David Plouffe. A few hours later, the perennially copper-faced Republican leader John Boehner revved up his “Hell no, you can’t!” incantation in the House chamber — instant fodder for a new viral video remixing his rap with will.i.am’s “Yes, we can!” classic from the campaign. Boehner, having previously likened the health care bill to Armageddon, was now so apoplectic you had to wonder if he had just discovered one of its more obscure revenue-generating provisions, a tax on indoor tanning salons.

But the laughs evaporated soon enough. There’s nothing entertaining about watching goons hurl venomous slurs at congressmen like the civil rights hero John Lewis and the openly gay Barney Frank. And as the week dragged on, and reports of death threats and vandalism stretched from Arizona to Kansas to upstate New York, the F.B.I. and the local police had to get into the act to protect members of Congress and their families.

How curious that a mob fond of likening President Obama to Hitler knows so little about history that it doesn’t recognize its own small-scale mimicry of Kristallnacht. The weapon of choice for vigilante violence at Congressional offices has been a brick hurled through a window. So far.

No less curious is how disproportionate this red-hot anger is to its proximate cause. The historic Obama-Pelosi health care victory is a big deal, all right, so much so it doesn’t need Joe Biden’s adjective to hype it. But the bill does not erect a huge New Deal-Great Society-style government program. In lieu of a public option, it delivers 32 million newly insured Americans to private insurers. As no less a conservative authority than The Wall Street Journal editorial page observed last week, the bill’s prototype is the health care legislation Mitt Romney signed into law in Massachusetts. It contains what used to be considered Republican ideas.

Yet it’s this bill that inspired G.O.P. congressmen on the House floor to egg on disruptive protesters even as they were being evicted from the gallery by the Capitol Police last Sunday. It’s this bill that prompted a congressman to shout “baby killer” at Bart Stupak, a staunch anti-abortion Democrat. It’s this bill that drove a demonstrator to spit on Emanuel Cleaver, a black representative from Missouri. And it’s this “middle-of-the-road” bill, as Obama accurately calls it, that has incited an unglued firestorm of homicidal rhetoric, from “Kill the bill!” to Sarah Palin’s cry for her followers to “reload.” At least four of the House members hit with death threats or vandalism are among the 20 political targets Palin marks with rifle crosshairs on a map on her Facebook page.

When Social Security was passed by Congress in 1935 and Medicare in 1965, there was indeed heated opposition. As Dana Milbank wrote in The Washington Post, Alf Landon built his catastrophic 1936 presidential campaign on a call for repealing Social Security. (Democrats can only pray that the G.O.P. will “go for it” again in 2010, as Obama goaded them on Thursday, and keep demanding repeal of a bill that by September will shower benefits on the elderly and children alike.) When L.B.J. scored his Medicare coup, there were the inevitable cries of “socialism” along with ultimately empty rumblings of a boycott from the American Medical Association.

But there was nothing like this. To find a prototype for the overheated reaction to the health care bill, you have to look a year before Medicare, to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Both laws passed by similar majorities in Congress; the Civil Rights Act received even more votes in the Senate (73) than Medicare (70). But it was only the civil rights bill that made some Americans run off the rails. That’s because it was the one that signaled an inexorable and immutable change in the very identity of America, not just its governance.

The apocalyptic predictions then, like those about health care now, were all framed in constitutional pieties, of course. Barry Goldwater, running for president in ’64, drew on the counsel of two young legal allies, William Rehnquist and Robert Bork, to characterize the bill as a “threat to the very essence of our basic system” and a “usurpation” of states’ rights that “would force you to admit drunks, a known murderer or an insane person into your place of business.” Richard Russell, the segregationist Democratic senator from Georgia, said the bill “would destroy the free enterprise system.” David Lawrence, a widely syndicated conservative columnist, bemoaned the establishment of “a federal dictatorship.” Meanwhile, three civil rights workers were murdered in Philadelphia, Miss.

That a tsunami of anger is gathering today is illogical, given that what the right calls “Obamacare” is less provocative than either the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Medicare, an epic entitlement that actually did precipitate a government takeover of a sizable chunk of American health care. But the explanation is plain: the health care bill is not the main source of this anger and never has been. It’s merely a handy excuse. The real source of the over-the-top rage of 2010 is the same kind of national existential reordering that roiled America in 1964.

In fact, the current surge of anger — and the accompanying rise in right-wing extremism — predates the entire health care debate. The first signs were the shrieks of “traitor” and “off with his head” at Palin rallies as Obama’s election became more likely in October 2008. Those passions have spiraled ever since — from Gov. Rick Perry’s kowtowing to secessionists at a Tea Party rally in Texas to the gratuitous brandishing of assault weapons at Obama health care rallies last summer to “You lie!” piercing the president’s address to Congress last fall like an ominous shot.

If Obama’s first legislative priority had been immigration or financial reform or climate change, we would have seen the same trajectory. The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play. It’s not happenstance that Frank, Lewis and Cleaver — none of them major Democratic players in the health care push — received a major share of last weekend’s abuse. When you hear demonstrators chant the slogan “Take our country back!,” these are the people they want to take the country back from.

They can’t. Demographics are avatars of a change bigger than any bill contemplated by Obama or Congress. The week before the health care vote, The Times reported that births to Asian, black and Hispanic women accounted for 48 percent of all births in America in the 12 months ending in July 2008. By 2012, the next presidential election year, non-Hispanic white births will be in the minority. The Tea Party movement is virtually all white. The Republicans haven’t had a single African-American in the Senate or the House since 2003 and have had only three in total since 1935. Their anxieties about a rapidly changing America are well-grounded.

If Congressional Republicans want to maintain a politburo-like homogeneity in opposition to the Democrats, that’s their right. If they want to replay the petulant Gingrich government shutdown of 1995 by boycotting hearings and, as John McCain has vowed, refusing to cooperate on any legislation, that’s their right too (and a political gift to the Democrats). But they can’t emulate the 1995 G.O.P. by remaining silent as mass hysteria, some of it encompassing armed militias, runs amok in their own precincts. We know the end of that story. And they can’t pretend that we’re talking about “isolated incidents” or a “fringe” utterly divorced from the G.O.P. A Quinnipiac poll last week found that 74 percent of Tea Party members identify themselves as Republicans or Republican-leaning independents, while only 16 percent are aligned with Democrats.

After the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, some responsible leaders in both parties spoke out to try to put a lid on the resistance and violence. The arch-segregationist Russell of Georgia, concerned about what might happen in his own backyard, declared flatly that the law is “now on the books.” Yet no Republican or conservative leader of stature has taken on Palin, Perry, Boehner or any of the others who have been stoking these fires for a good 17 months now. Last week McCain even endorsed Palin’s “reload” rhetoric.

Are these politicians so frightened of offending anyone in the Tea Party-Glenn Beck base that they would rather fall silent than call out its extremist elements and their enablers? Seemingly so, and if G.O.P. leaders of all stripes, from Romney to Mitch McConnell to Olympia Snowe to Lindsey Graham, are afraid of these forces, that’s the strongest possible indicator that the rest of us have reason to fear them too.

Correction: Timothy Geithner’s title at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York was president and chief executive officer, not chairman, as I wrote here last week.

OBAMA PUSHES NEW LIMITS ON BANKS

Found On The Wall Of A 6th Grade Class Room

President Obama Accepts Nobel Peace Prize (Video)

Great Day For America! Our President Wins Nobel Peace Prize!

Obama's Health Care Reform In 4 Minutes

President Obama's Speech 9-9-09 On Health Care Reform And Letter From Sen. Kennedy

9-9-09 (See Letter From Sen. Kennedy By Scrolling Down)

The White House has released the text of the letter from the late Sen. Ted Kennedy that President Obama referenced in his address to Congress:

May 12, 2009

Dear Mr. President,

I wanted to write a few final words to you to express my gratitude for your repeated personal kindnesses to me – and one last time, to salute your leadership in giving our country back its future and its truth.

On a personal level, you and Michelle reached out to Vicki, to our family and me in so many different ways. You helped to make these difficult months a happy time in my life.

You also made it a time of hope for me and for our country.

When I thought of all the years, all the battles, and all the memories of my long public life, I felt confident in these closing days that while I will not be there when it happens, you will be the President who at long last signs into law the health care reform that is the great unfinished business of our society. For me, this cause stretched across decades; it has been disappointed, but never finally defeated. It was the cause of my life. And in the past year, the prospect of victory sustained me-and the work of achieving it summoned my energy and determination.

There will be struggles – there always have been – and they are already underway again. But as we moved forward in these months, I learned that you will not yield to calls to retreat – that you will stay with the cause until it is won. I saw your conviction that the time is now and witnessed your unwavering commitment and understanding that health care is a decisive issue for our future prosperity. But you have also reminded all of us that it concerns more than material things; that what we face is above all a moral issue; that at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country.

And so because of your vision and resolve, I came to believe that soon, very soon, affordable health coverage will be available to all, in an America where the state of a family’s health will never again depend on the amount of a family’s wealth. And while I will not see the victory, I was able to look forward and know that we will – yes, we will – fulfill the promise of health care in America as a right and not a privilege.

In closing, let me say again how proud I was to be part of your campaign- and proud as well to play a part in the early months of a new era of high purpose and achievement. I entered public life with a young President who inspired a generation and the world. It gives me great hope that as I leave, another young President inspires another generation and once more on America’s behalf inspires the entire world.

So, I wrote this to thank you one last time as a friend- and to stand with you one last time for change and the America we can become.

At the Denver Convention where you were nominated, I said the dream lives on.

And I finished this letter with unshakable faith that the dream will be fulfilled for this generation, and preserved and enlarged for generations to come.

With deep respect and abiding affection,

[Ted]

We Can't Afford To Wait

President Obama's Speech To School Children

Scroll down to see video with Laura Bush on her response to Obama Speaking to Our Schools.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Laura Bush Praises Obama, Defends Back-To-School Speech

The Great Indoctrinator

by Jed Lewison
The Great Indoctrinator
Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 09:30:03 AM PDT

In 1988, Ronald Reagan pushed his anti-government, low-tax ideology in a speech broadcast to classrooms nationwide, adding that he had supported "Negro" educational institutions. Here’s excerpts:

Fast-forward twenty-one years later, and the very same people who lapped up Reagan's right-wing speech are throwing a fit because today Barack Obama gave a totally different kind of classroom speech, one focused not on politics, but rather on the importance of staying in school.

You can read the speech here and judge for yourself just how stupid the people freaking out about it are. [Video]

Indeed, the people who fueled the freakout in the first place are backtracking. Before the speech, Florida GOP chairman James Greer, who last week said the speech would "indoctrinate America’s children to his socialist agenda," now says "it's a good speech, I'll let me kids watch."

To be fair, Greer is still bonkers. He now claims that if he hadn't falsely accused President Obama of trying to indoctrinate America's youth to the ways of socialism that Obama would have done just that. In other words, Greer is basically claiming to have saved American civilization.

The real reason for Greer's shift is probably this article in the Orlando Sentinel which fiercely mocked Greer for engaging in his own indoctrination program. It turns out that Greer regularly visits Florida classrooms to pitch Republican political talking points.

All that this means, however, is that Jim Greer has a lot in common with Ronald Reagan. Both are right-wingers who tried to (using Greer's words) "indoctrinate" Americans' children.

As for President Obama, not so much. This morning, he wasn't trying to indoctrinate -- he was trying to inspire America's children to excel in school. And he wasn't doing it because excelling in school will usher in a new era of socialism, he was doing it because children studying hard today will help make our country an even better place to live tomorrow.

We need more of that kind of attitude from the GOP. Whatever happened to country first? Instead, their stuck in crazy-land, following Glenn Beck's every utterance and boycotting a speech about staying-in-school.