The swift-boating of Hillary Clinton?

By Richard Barry

We are now starting to hear about a new book by Peter Schweizer called “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.” It will be released May 5th.

One reason it is making headlines is because various major media outlets, including Fox News, The Washington Post, and the New York Times, have made "exclusive agreements" with the author to pursue stories contained therein.

Amy Chozick at the Times writes that “Clinton Cash” purports to expose how “foreign entities who made payments to the Clinton Foundation and to Mr. Clinton through high speaking fees received favors from Mrs. Clinton’s State Department in return.”

Those defending Mrs. Clinton point out that Schweizer comes at things from a decidedly conservative perspective and has a documented track record of getting important things wrong.

Erik Wemple at The Washington Post contacted people at three of the major media outlets involved to discuss what the "exclusive agreements" entailed. The National Editor at his own paper, Cameron Barr, said this:

We made an arrangement with Peter Schweizer’s publisher so we could read his book before publication because we are always willing to look at new information that could inform our coverage. Mr. Schweizer’s background and his point of view are relevant factors, but not disqualifying ones. What interests us more are his facts and whether they can be the basis for further reporting by our own staff that would be compelling to our readers. There is no financial aspect to this arrangement.

Well, what could be wrong with that? Maybe nothing. Or maybe giving someone credibility out of the gate who doesn't deserve it is a problem.

In an interview with Rachel Maddow below, David Brock calls what Schweizer is up to "swift-boating," which is a term we all remember well. And for a long time we have also known that if you repeat a lie often enough, it starts to feel like the truth to too many.

Perhaps Hillary and Bill Clinton have done some things that are problematic. If so, I hope that comes out.  But I am also sure that the anti-Hillary machine, and all the money behind it, will make up what they can't prove.  I just hope "serious" media outlets don't help them do it. 

Two things I don't care about: The Royal Baby and Anthony Weiner's sexting

By Frank Moraes 

(Ed. note: I'm with Frank on this. I don't give a shit about the Royal Baby, other than to the extent that I care about human beings generally, because I loathe that silly family and stupid institution. As for Weiner, the way the media are reacting with a combination of prudish moralism, titillation, and hypocrisy almost makes me feel sorry for him. As it is, I don't care about the sexting, because I'd like to think I have a broad understanding of and appreciation for human sexuality. The problem there is the dishonesty, narcissism, and lack of judgment. I'm not sure that disqualifies him for mayor, but he does seem to be a shameless creep. -- MJWS)

I have no interest in the royal baby. In general, I have no interest in a royal family -- at least until the sons start killing each other in order to become king. To me, we had a war so we wouldn't have deal with this bullshit. And then when we created this country, we specifically didn't create our own explicit class of people who are better than the rest of us. It's all a big joke and people who are caught up in it really need to get a life.

The other thing I don't care about is Anthony Weiner's newest sex scandal. But I do care about how the Democratic ecosystem reacts to it. It isn't new, of course. We all know that when something like this happens to a Republican, they circle the wagons. Eventually, they may abandon the man (It's always a man!) in the middle of it. But they will assume the best and try to play defense. The Democrats are just the opposite—they have no loyalty at all. It doesn't matter if it's former IRS head Steven T. Miller or Shirley Sherrod or Weiner. Democrats might think that we should be understanding of the unnamed masses, but if it is a named person who is part of our team, they have to go.

Read more »

Michele Bachmann's influence: Credit where credit is due

By Mustang Bobby 

Rachel Maddow thinks that Michele Bachmann was far more influential in shaping the agenda of the modern Republican party than people give her credit for:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

She may have a valid point. Without Ms. Bachmann, would we now have people in the Senate like Ted Cruz of Texas, Rand Paul of Kentucky, and Mike Lee of Utah? (We will always have folks like Louie Gohmert, Virginia Foxx, and Steve King battering against the walls of Congress.) 

As Ms. Maddow noted in her piece, Matt Taibbi warned us in 2011 against making fun of Michele Bachmann: 

You will want to laugh, but don't, because the secret of Bachmann's success is that every time you laugh at her, she gets stronger. 

Fortunately, his prediction did not come true; Michele Bachmann's ride to national prominence was accompanied with the same laugh-track that followed Charlie Sheen's career path, and the Mel Brooks method — laughter as the best weapon — did not enable her. 

It was inevitable that we would have gotten the growth of the fringe-right even without the able assistance of Ms. Bachmann. That destiny was set long before she came on the scene in Congress. One can make the case that it started with the Republicans' reaction to the election of Bill Clinton, or even as far back as the presidency of Ronald Reagan where the damp and fetid undergrowth of religious bigotry and patriarchy grew and spread as a response to Roe v. Wade and the progress of LGBT rights. The emergence of Barack Obama — a man who encapsulates every boogedy-boogedy stereotype of the Other and Liberalism that the GOP has been mustering since the defeat of Herbert Hoover — broke open the floodgates, and Ms. Bachmann, ever the opportunist, took full advantage of it. 

As Edward R. Murrow once said about another prominent Republican, she did not create this situation, she merely exploited it — and rather successfully. 

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Another Republican, Obama?

By Frank Moraes 

I have had major problems with the nomination of James Comey to head the FBI. But now I'm not sure. You see, today Glenn Greewald wrote, "James Comey is far from the worst choice to lead the FBI." That's probably about equivalent to most people saying, "James Comey is the best person we could realistically get."

Of course, Greenwald wrote that after an article blasting Comey for two very troubling actions while working for George W. Bush. The biggest one is that Comey was the guy who signed off on the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program. You probably remember that. It was big among liberals at the time. I was outraged. Of course, the Obama administration has been no better. In fact, the Obama administration followed the Bush lead by giving all of the phone companies immunity. Well, it was Comey who signed off on that, claiming that it was legal.

Also of concern: Comey signed off on the use of torture. Of course, he was against it and repeatedly said so. But in the end, he did it. That doesn't exactly speak to the mainstream narrative that he's a guy who stands up for principle. I'm sure you know the story of him fighting with Alberto Gonzales over something that was so illegal even Comey disagreed with it. If not, here is Rachel Maddow the other night gushing about it:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

But my problem with James Comey doesn't have to do with any of this. I figure Comey probably isn't a bad choice for the job. But just like with Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, "Is no Democrat good enough?" I understand that as often as not these days, Republican bureaucrats are more liberal than Democrats. But I don't like the optics. And I especially don't like them with regards to security and military positions. It makes it look like Republicans really are better at these things than Democrats. In a fundamental sense, this means that Obama really doesn't care about his party. And that's a bad thing at a time when Republican politicians care only about theirs. 

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

What's wrong with MSNBC? (hint: Joe)

By Mustang Bobby

Why are MSNBC's ratings so low? Well, as Alex Parene at Salon suggests, it's not because of Rachel Maddow:

"Morning Joe" is the lowest rated of the big three cable news morning shows in both total viewers and the younger demographic. Fox News' Red Eye — a show Fox airs at 3 in the morning — had more total and 25-54-year-old viewers in April 2013 than "Morning Joe" did. "Morning Joe" in April 2013 was down, from its April 2012 numbers, in total and in young viewers by a greater percentage than the rest of the network as a whole.

I'm not harping on "Morning Joe" because I think the show is representative of everything wrong with contemporary political elite thinking, though it is, but because it illustrates MSNBC's larger problem: It's a political talk show. Every other TV morning show is mostly fluff and weather. "Morning Joe," instead of entertainment news updates, has a former member of Congress wave a newspaper at Mark Halperin for a while. MSNBC's target audience may just be much less interested in listening to people talk about politics in spring 2013 than they were during an election year.

What would you rather wake up to: a perky news anchor shitting rainbows about traffic, weather, and the latest on Justin Bieber, or Joe Scarborough ranting to Mark Halperin about Benghazi! and the socialism of Obamacare? Granted, the morning crew at Fox and Friends isn't exactly Mensa in the Morning, but at least they're sitting on a couch.

MSNBC's biggest problem is that their target audience — progressives or at least those who don't care for Fox's rabid partisanship — aren't a mass communication major market. They don't listen to talk radio unless it's interrupted by a pledge drive:

MSNBC is actually making some good decisions, lately, from the point of view of someone who'd like (talking head) cable news to be better. And anyone who says the network's failing because of liberalism should probably have to account for the fact that the channel's highest-rated show remains Rachel Maddow's. (Followed by O'Donnell, who really is the insufferable smug self-satisfied liberal caricature everyone thinks all of MSNBC is.)

But do you know who watches cable news all day? And at prime time? When there's not an election on, or a war, or some terrorism? Older conservative people. If MSNBC wants better ratings, it'll either have to train a generation to want to pay attention to political years all the time, or it'll have to produce a scripted show about zombies.

Maybe that's why they run "Caught on Tape" all weekend. Add in some undead and you've got a hit.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

David Axelrod doesn't call us fucking retarded

By Frank Moraes

On the other night's Rachel Maddow Show, David Axelrod explained that everything Obama has ever done or ever will again do is just right. We actual liberals just don't get it. We don't understand the bigger issues that Serious Democrats understand. We don't understand that "free" trade agreements are great because they make rich people even more rich, even though they don't help the poor and middle class anywhere. We don't understand that the loss of manufacturing jobs is just a sign of globalization and there is nothing we can do so we ought to be happy with those minimum wage service jobs. We don't understand that what is good for GE, Exxon, and GM is good for America.

In other words: we don't understand that the Republicans are right about all the economic issues.

Axelrod patiently explained that we just have to do something about Social Security because Medicare is in trouble. He also explains that, sure, he would be for raising the payroll tax cap. That ought to be part of the mix. That was his word: part. Because, you know, we have to be reasonable about this. For every dollar that a rich man pays, we need to take a dollar away from a poor man. Not doing that might, I don't know, hurt the feelings of the Republicans. Of course, Axelrod was quick to note that a payroll tax increase will never happen. Rachel Maddow pushed back on him pretty hard; it was nice to see. And it even made Axelrod backpedal a bit.

And maybe that's why he never got around to saying that liberals are fucking retarded. Maybe that's why he's not mayor of Chicago.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Liberal priorities

By Frank Moraes 

Maybe I'm just a cynical old guy. But Rachel Maddow spent the entire A section of her show talking about gun control. I'm cool with gun control. As I've argued before: by the time we notice that the government is coming for us, our guns won't do bit of good. (It is interesting that those most concerned about their guns being taken away, are not at all concerned about targeted assassination and executive overreach. Instead, they cheer it on: We're number one! We're number one!) So I'm fine with the government coming in and taking away all our guns. The idea that universal background checks will destroy our liberty is more than ridiculous.

But it isn't that important either. With tighter gun control, we might reduce the number of gun homicides by a thousand per year. That's a very big deal to those thousand people who don't get murdered. My question is just how big a deal it is more generally. Families USA reported that 26,000 Americans die every year because they lack health insurance. It is hard to say how many people die early because of poverty. We do, however, know that people in the upper half of income earners live six years longer than those in the bottom half of income earners. So I tend to think it is millions.

This isn't just about what's most important. I believe that Rachel Maddow is pushing the gun control story -- which she has been doing for months -- because it is one issue that looks like a winner for liberals. But is that really what liberals should be pushing? I find that liberals do this much too much for my tastes. There was much rejoicing after the Fiscal Cliff deal, "We made the Republicans cave on taxes!" The fact that the president didn't get a good deal didn't seem to matter. And now it looks like a Pyrrhic victory.

Read more »

Math class warfare

By Mustang Bobby

Rachel Maddow explains how raising taxes on incomes over $250,000 works:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

If you can't watch the video, what she's telling us is that people who are freaking out about plans to raise taxes on those who make over $250,000, the hike will only effect the income over $250,000. So if you make $250,001, the higher rate applies only to the $1. ABC News and The New York Times are not making that clear. Not only that, anyone who makes over $250,000 and doesn't have the intelligence to hire an accountant to manage their money deserves to pay all the taxes we can squeeze out of them. 

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Republicans vs. reality

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Via Limbo, here's Rachel Maddow, at her finest, explaining just how detached from reality Republicans really are:

Quote of the Day: Rachel Maddow on truth in politics

By Richard K. Barry 

There's also an interesting conversation to be had about how much you can get away with and still be considered a viable candidate for president. Are we so inured to the idea of everybody calling each other a liar, that when somebody actually really does blatantly lie it doesn't matter anymore? Ultimately, that is not a question about these guys fighting it. That is a question about us.

- Rachel Maddow -

It would appear the Romney campaign is hoping Americans simply won't care about lies told in the heat of a campaign. But, more to the point, Romney is betting that Americans won't do the work necessary to distinguish between campaign rhetoric and things that can be proven wrong. He is hoping voters will roll it into one big ball.

There is a difference between candidates characterizing each other in unflattering ways and candidates simply saying things that are factually untrue. They may be related, but they are not the same thing. To the extent that we accept evidence as significant in determining what is true and what is not true, Mitt Romney's campaign has a record of lying about all sorts of things. Yes, as voters we may tune out when, for example, Romney says Obama wants to punish success in America. After all, how would you definitively prove or disprove something like that? But when Romney actually misquotes Barack Obama to say that Obama believes business people are in no way responsible for their own success, that's a lie, and provable as such.

If Romney wants to say Barack Obama doesn't know what it takes to make a business work or create jobs, that's campaign rhetoric. If he says Obama intends to raise taxes on small business, that is a statement contrary to fact, a lie.

It's one thing to say that President Obama is all about big government, which is campaign rhetoric. It's something else for him to say that Obama has doubled the deficit, which is untrue.

Steve Benen has been cataloging a number of instances in which Romney has lied about Obama's record, not simply characterized it in an unflattering light.

It's easy to tune out campaign rhetoric or simply consider it as the way candidates talk. But we make a mistake if we ignore things candidates say that are demonstrably untrue. Romney is hoping voters won't do the hard work to distinguish between those things that cannot be proven wrong and those things that can. He may be right.

In this sense, Maddow is right. This is about us. 

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Keith Olbermann leaves MSNBC

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Keith Olbermann announced on air on Friday that that edition of Countdown would be his last. He is leaving MSNBC.

He did not say why, but he hinted that he was being let go: "I think the same fantasy has popped into the head of everybody in my business who has ever been told what I have been told: that this is going to be the last edition of your show."

His was MSNBC's flagship show, its most popular and, in a way, the show that defined the entire network. His being let go may have something to do with Comcast taking over NBC. Perhaps his new bosses just didn't want him anymore.

Perhaps they dislike him, perhaps they dislike what he stands for, perhaps they intend to move the network away from the left. Or perhaps not, or at least not yet. The prime-time line-up will still feature Maddow and O'Donnell, the latter of whom will be moving to Olbermann's 8 pm slot, as well as Schultz. (As Politico is reporting, however, "Comcast distanced itself from any notion that it had something to do with the decision, releasing a midnight statement saying it had not yet closed its transaction with NBC Universal and so does not yet have operational control," and had no intention of interfering with NBC's "news operations" in any event.)

Perhaps money had something to do with it. Given Maddow's success, if not quite as his level, perhaps he just wasn't needed anymore, and perhaps the network, new owner in place or not, figured it was best to buy him out of the remaining two years on his four-year, $30-million contract.

Or perhaps it was just time, given that it was bound to happen eventually. As The New York Times's Bill Carter notes, "NBC's management had been close to firing Mr. Olbermann on previous occasions, most recently in November after he revealed that he had made donations to several Democratic candidates in 2010," including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Similarly, Politico reports that "several sources close to the situation said its roots lay in Olbermann's defiant reaction to being suspended," a suspension that was incredibly stupid.

So while Olbermann may only have learned of his firing, if we may call it that, on Friday, or while perhaps a deal was reached sometime within the last couple of days, it's pretty clear that the network was just waiting for the right time to push him out.

Anyway, I'm sure more will leak out before too long.

As for me, needless to say, I'll miss Olbermann immensely, and I highly doubt that MSNBC will be the same, that is, as effective a vehicle for liberal-progressive commentary in opposition to the conservative propaganda of Fox News, without him.

But of course he'll be back. He'll likely have to do like Conan and stay off the air for awhile, but I'm sure he'll find another network soon enough, assuming he wants to do what he's been doing.

I'd say CNN, but that network, once a leader, is apparently committed to lameness and irrelevance. It's the network of Piers Morgan, after all, all due respect to Anderson Cooper.

So we'll see. We still have Maddow, of course, and Colbert as well. I'd add Stewart, but I fear he may have jumped the shark, as they say, some time ago. But there's no one quite like Olbermann, no one I've found so moving and so inspiring while also so admirably pugnacious among television's leading commentators. I think back to his Special Comment about his father last February, one of the most amazing things I've ever seen on TV, and I'm still almost brought to tears.

What country is this? A country that needs Olbermann on the air.

Good night, and good luck, Keith. Come back soon.

**********

Here's Olbermann signing off:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

If it's broke...

By Mustang Bobby

Here's Rachel Maddow last night on the broken Senate and what it's costing us not just in terms of getting things done but in terms of how our country works:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I'm not sure that there's ever going to be any reform in the way things work on Capitol Hill. I know people who work there on both sides of the aisle and the one thing they agree on is that yes, the process sucks but neither side is willing to make the changes to get it to work as intended because if they do, they would have to give up something and, more importantly, they don't trust the other side to act in good faith when they achieve the majority. In other words, they are sure that all of the checks and balances that one side advocates for, i.e. the protection of the minority, an end to the secret holds and the arcane rules of procedure, would be used against them when they're not in power.

We saw this played to a fare-thee-well last winter during the healthcare debate. The Republicans carried on about how the bill was "rammed down their throats," just like the stimulus bill and the bank bailouts, conveniently forgetting that all of the bills passed through the legislative process without any slight of hand.  Indeed, those of us who wanted the bills to pass were frustrated at the tortuous and tortoise-like process. This is in stark contrast to the GOP's thrill of getting the Bush tax cuts and agenda swept through both Houses back in 2002 while at the same time darkly threatening to invoke the dreaded nuclear option, something the Democrats never even brought up last winter.

There will be a lot of talk about reforming the rules of the Senate and changing the filibuster rules to allow debate to go forward and putting an end to secret holds. That's all it will be, though. Every election cycle brings in new faces and tyro staffers who are determined to shake up Washington and change the way it does business. And then they get in office, they get invited to dinner with a few lobbyists, and, two years later, someone else is running against them because they're part of the problem.

And so it goes.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

This is what Jon Stewart was talking about

By Edward Copeland

To paraphrase the old Clinton campaign battle cry, "It's the media, stupid."

When the whole TSA media explosion began, it was one of those rare stories where all sides of the political spectrum seemed to agree from the likes of Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake to an assortment of conservative talking heads. It even had its own variation of "Don't tase me, bro" with "If you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested" before true horror stories came out of passengers who had colostomy bags broken and urine collection bags ruptured, women who had their prosthetic breasts which they got after cancer surgery moved around as if they were puzzle pieces, etc. (Read Capt. Fogg's post for some of the examples.) It all pointed to improper training. Well, cable can't stand something like that, so they had to find political sides.

Suddenly, the left decided the whole issue was raised by neocons and the right to try to use racial profiling, even though days earlier they agreed with some of the ridiculousness of the system that still doesn't really add to protecting our skies nine years after 9/11. What makes this completely nonsensical and infuriating is that there is real news going on.

North Korea attacks a South Korean island in the most serious engagement between the two countries since 1953 in the same week we learn that North Korea has built another uranium enrichment facility. Do cable news shows want to discuss the serious implications of this? They could even put a political spin on it, if they wanted, as Jon Kyl continues to oppose the latest START treaty for no apparent reason.

I just watched Ed Schultz throwing a conniption fit about racial profiling and the TSA and Rush Limbaugh and I just couldn't take it anymore and I did what I do more and more when I need reasonable news coverage: I watched PBS' the NewsHour. They, of course, had in-depth coverage of the Korean situation as well as the fake Taliban negotiator, a promising drug that might actually prevent HIV infection and details of the financial reform. In fact, they went an entire hour without mentioning the TSA or what the cable channels would have you believe is today's other story of monumental importance: Prince William and Kate Middleton have set a wedding date!

Of course, I'm not even mentioning MSNBC's corporate synergy with NBC by using its nonstop coverage of the TSA imbroglio to play the Saturday Night Live skit about it from last weekend about it (which they do every time there is a new SNL on) as if it's an essential part of illustrating the story. Chris Matthews went as far as calling it the greatest SNL sketch ever. It aired on Olbermann, Maddow and O'Donnell last night and Morning Joe, Hardball and Schultz today.

Politico's Mike Allen had a funny tweet earlier today pointing out that Good Morning America actually did lead with the North Korean situation, but the Today show actually chose to go with the wedding date. As Fran Lebowitz said in the wonderful documentary about her that premiered on HBO last night, Public Speaking, I remember when news used to mean information.

It's like Jon Stewart said during his interview with Rachel Maddow. Was the Juan Williams story really as important as cable news made it out to be? No, but it fit their narrative and their template. There are far too many important things going on both domestically and overseas to waste our times on this nonsense anymore. Our "leaders" in D.C. can play politics, but they've lost the ability and the interest to govern and none of the talking heads on either side have any role in governance. Enough.

Quote of the Day

By Creature

"As I've tried to explain, the GOP moderates are gone and the two or three that are left (Snow, Collins, maybe even Scott Brown) still vote like a hive. They even block things they agree with. We can debate why they always vote in lock-step, but we can't debate the fact that they have. I truly do long for a world where news is news and facts are facts. Where an informed public made wise decisions after actively gathering those facts. Where moderates existed in the GOP that could be reasoned with to support moderate legislation (which all this president has offered so far, much to my liberal-socialist chagrin). I long for a world where there is no FOX News or Rush Limbaugh. In that world Keith could go back to sports broadcasting, Rachel could be a world renowned foreign correspondent for NPR, and Jon Stewart could go back to making bad movies and doing bland stand-up. But that's the dream, not the reality." -- me, in an email to a friend (and blog reader) as I continue to try to convince him that MSNBC is not FOX News and that ultimately we agree on Jon Stewart's overriding argument (that cable news is destroying America).

The Rachel Maddow - Jon Stewart interview: What politics is not

By R.K. Barry

I finally got a chance to watch the entire Rachel Maddow - Jon Stewart interview. I'm sure that many people are tired of the dust-up to do with Mr. Stewart and the suggestion by some on the left that he was claiming an equivalence between what goes on at Fox News vs. at MSNBC.

That's getting old and I don't care about it anymore and neither, apparently, does Mr. Stewart, who wasn't claiming anything of the sort in the interview. Good.

No, something else came to mind while watching this very interesting exchange. It was that politics is not what Jon Stewart thinks it is. If he, as a bright and decent man, thinks that politics bears some resemblance to the way people communicate with each other and negotiate preferences in the every day world, he is mistaken.

Politics is, and has always been, an entirely different form of human endeavour and to attempt to understand it by any other set of rules than those that apply uniquely to it is shear folly.

Politics is, excuse the tired term, a blood sport. It is about putting your argument in front of the voters and ridiculing the other guy's argument. It is about "going after" one's opponents to make them look incompetent, clueless or otherwise just plain wrong.

It is not about working together to find common ground, at least not in the election period and increasingly not even in the governing phase, though I think we make too much of this being a new phenomenon. Republicans in FDR's time, for example, actively worked to thwart his plans to resurrect the nation amidst a depression in the hope they could return to power sooner.

Politics is about spinning and messaging that de-emphasizes inconvenient truths that weaken your position. It is about shading the facts, or telling half-truths to make one's arguments look stronger. It is about appealing to certain interests held by particular constituencies as a way to make them forget that most of your platform doesn't really benefit them at all.

It is almost always a very nasty game, which is why people don't like it. Moving mass opinion requires tactics that are not wholly honest. It just does. Scream if you like, it doesn't change the facts.

Jon Stewart is not wrong when he chastises those engaged in politics, and those who report it from strong ideological perspectives, for being part of a frequently unpleasant game. And the thousands of people who went to Washington with him are not wrong for wishing that politics was more civilized. All these fine folks are not the first to wish it so.

Niccolo Machiavelli is credited with having said that in politics we have to assess the means we can tolerate based on their relationship to the value of the ends that result -- the ends justify the means idea. The right, in great part through their mouthpiece at Fox News, has clearly decided that any deception, any reprehensible tactic, is justified because the stakes are so high. The left, at times through MSNBC, does politics the old fashioned way: they spin, they hold clear ideological positions, they emphasize certain facts, they engage in some choice name-calling, but they do not typically make shit up.

The left in America is just not willing to go as far as the right to realize their political goals, so I guess Machiavelli is only partly correct. The left doesn't have the same taste for blood as the right and they are suffering electorally for it.

I don't think that Jon Stewart thinks that everyone is the same in the way that they do politics. But I do think that the he and those who went to Washington with him have an unrealistic idea of what is involved, not that it's a bad idea to wish that human beings behaved better.

I also don't think I want the left to follow suit and completely spoil anything they might hope to gain by crawling into the gutter with the other side. But they are going to have to use more of the tools required by politics because that's the way the game is played. They, and those who support them, will have to decide what means they can tolerate and how far they will go to secure the ends they value.

Lest you think I am talking about anything insidious, I am not. Obama, Democratic politicians, supportive media, other progressive groups all need to push back hard against their political opponents with arguments and characterizations, based on fact, that make Americans understand the dangerous future the right is offering. The gloves need to come off.

Now is not the time for us all to get along. Now is the time for the left to fight back with all the legitimate tools politics offers.

As I said, Jon Stewart seems to be a smart and decent man, but what he is on about is not politics, though in a better world it might be.

Rachel on Keith

By Creature

Brilliant.

Credit where credit is due

By Creature

Rachel rules

By Creature

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Rachel gets it

By Creature

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The will of the Wasp

By Capt. Fogg

Rand Paul is not Ron Paul and I'm not flattering him by saying it. There is a difference between principle and bull-headed intransigence and Paul the younger seems as unclear about that as he is not quite up to the task of successfully debating Rachel Maddow about his distaste for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Asked whether he thought a restaurant had the right to refuse service to black customers, Paul commenced a rather evasive dance around the subject by trying to describe regulation as ownership.

"What about freedom of speech?" asked the less than candid Candidate. "Well what it gets into then is if you decide that restaurants are publicly owned and not privately owned, then do you say that you should have the right to bring your gun into a restaurant even though the owner of the restaurant says 'well no, we don't want to have guns in here' the bar says 'we don't want to have guns in here because people might drink and start fighting and shoot each-other?'" Paul replied. "Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant? These are important philosophical debates but not a very practical discussion."

Unfortunately, more than just being grammatically confused, he's wrong. He's equivocating and the debate is, of course, entirely about practical matters. Can we agree, for instance, that being black in a restaurant is fundamentally different than carrying a gun in a bar and if so, his analogy is defective and a fallacy of distraction? Certainly a speed limit is not Government ownership of my car, health regulations imposed on food producers aren't the equivalent of owning the family farm nor is forcing Woolworth to stop creating two Americas with their policies isn't Marxism.

Is the government of and by the people allowed,as the founding documents imply, to promote liberty for all, to promote peace and domestic tranquility by imposing limitations on individual behavior? Is he arguing for a government so impotent it must inevitably fall into feudalism and exploitation? Those are the questions he begs and the questions he avoids. Sorry Doctor, I think the balance between individual liberty and being a free country is a practical and necessary discussion.

Is it practical to have a society so far beyond the control of its members that justice becomes only a matter of the will of the strongest and the richest and most well connected -- the will of the WASP? No, unlimited individual license does not allow for a society at all, much less a free one.

Still it's all about the practical as opposed to the relentlessly repeated and self referential principle and we've all heard of or can easily come up with examples where freedom cannot be unlimited for many reasons; where behavior that needs to be restrained cannot be restrained by anyone other than Government. Is it preferable to allow my neighbors to forbid Baptists to live on my block and ignore my freedom or is it better to protect the minority against the majority, which is a common definition of democracy as distinguished from mob rule. No, if this is but a "philosophical" discussion it's because he doesn't want to address the inevitable questions Libertarians invite when they refuse to discuss its inherent limitations.

The traditional 'best government is least government' trope reduces to absurdity all by itself as quickly as does his argument that any restraints or obligations put on behavior or business practices constitute ownership and are an unnecessary stain on the pure and absolute freedom we've somehow decided is our birthright. Certainly although he assures us that he would never patronize a business that discriminates, he realizes that his sentiments are not universal. He realizes that he's giving license to anyone to debase any group he likes and to diminish their lives, their liberty and their pursuit of happiness. He realizes that such a nation as he dreams of would be fractured, Balkanized, a loose, weak, unstable confederation of hostile groups no more pleasant than a baboon troupe and with each of us at his neighbor's throat. He must realize that he's appealing to bigots, racists and sociopaths of no conscience -- and all in the name of principle and freedom.

So why is he debating as though the balance between too much and not enough wasn't worth discussing? As though that wasn't the real question? Perhaps its because he's pandering to an audience somewhat less rational than Ron Paul's: to an audience whipped into irrational fury by the basic requirements of civilization; too hungry for revenge against a maturing world and too angry and self centered to give a damn what he can do for his country.

(Cross posted from Human Voices)