A poll released by Vanity Fair and 60 Minutes reveals that Rush Limbaugh is considered the most influential conservative voice, by a wide margin:

The radio host was picked by 26 percent of those who responded, followed by Fox News Channel's Glenn Beck at 11 percent. Actual politicians - former Vice President Dick Cheney and former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin - were the choice of 10 percent each.

However, that influence that Limbaugh and Beck enjoy can be transferred to possible candidates in the form of positive coverage and endorsements. The Washington Post sums up the media power dynamics, explaining:

In a new Washington Post poll, Palin beats other GOP leaders on two questions: who best represents the party's core values, and who Republicans would vote for if the presidential nomination battle were held today. But she has particular appeal to the loyal followers of Limbaugh and Beck, two of the most popular conservative talk show hosts in the country.

Overall, 18 percent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents cited her as the person most representative of the party's core values, the highest percentage among prominent Republican figures. Among those who regularly listen to Limbaugh, however, Palin was cited by 48 percent, and among Beck's viewers, it was 35 percent, far surpassing others.

Interestingly enough, some party members are still lukewarm on Palin, so conservative activists have launched a new campaign - Tricky Dick 2.0 in 2012!

The organization - "Draft Dick Cheney 2012" - launched on Friday, and unveiled their new Web site. Their aim: To convince the former vice president to seek the Republican presidential nomination in the next race for the White House. But there may be a major roadblock to the group's pitch - Cheney himself.

"The 2012 race for the Republican nomination for President will be about much more then who will be the party's standard bearer against Barack Obama, the race is about the heart and soul of the GOP," said Christopher Barron, one of the organizers of the Draft Cheney movement. "There is only one person in our party with the experience, political courage and unwavering commitment to the values that made our party strong – and that person is Dick Cheney."

Sigh.

Matthew Yglesias shares my sentiments:

I know some liberals who are excited about the prospect of a joke candidate like Sarah Palin or Dick Cheney getting the GOP nomination in 2012. Not me. The basic fact of the matter is that power tends to alternate between the two political parties. Ultimately, the nation's interests require both parties to nominate the best people possible. So I hope the Republicans find someone who's very smart and compelling and does an excellent job of identifying and explaining the flaws in Barack Obama's approach. Cheney couldn't possibly win a presidential election . . . unless somehow he could, in which case the country would be set for a world of pain.

Poll: Limbaugh is most influential conservative [AP]
Palin particularly popular among fans of Limbaugh and Beck [Washington Post]
New group tries to convince Cheney to run in 2012 [CNN]
Cheney for President? [Think Progress]

Earlier: Purity Balls: Republican Party Proposes Test For Politicians

The Wall Street Journal (natch) provides the most concise summary of the resolution and the text of the actual proposal.

But first, writer Peter Wallsten offers this interesting observation:

RNC meetings, traditionally fairly staid affairs focused on mundane rules and convention planning, have become lively in recent years as the party has slipped into minority status. Many committee members are elected by conservative party activists in their home states, and some pushed resolutions in the waning years of the George W. Bush presidency challenging his support for more open immigration laws.

Organizers of the new purity test said they decided to allow deviation on no more than two issues in deference to the mantra of the late President Ronald Reagan, who, as the resolution states, believed "that someone who agreed with him eight out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent."

Still worshiping at the altar of Reagan? Good to know!

The actual proposal is even better - was there any Republican Party before Ronald Reagan - and reads as follows (all emphasis mine):

WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan believed that the Republican Party should support and espouse conservative principles and public policies; and

WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan also believed the Republican Party should welcome those with diverse views; and

WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan believed, as a result, that someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent; and

WHEREAS, Republican faithfulness to its conservative principles and public policies and Republican solidarity in opposition to Obama's socialist agenda is necessary to preserve the security of our country, our economic and political freedoms, and our way of life; and

WHEREAS, Republican faithfulness to its conservative principles and public policies is necessary to restore the trust of the American people in the Republican Party and to lead to Republican electoral victories; and

WHEREAS, the Republican National Committee shares President Ronald Reagan's belief that the Republican Party should espouse conservative principles and public policies and welcome persons of diverse views; and (Wait, is this a repeat from three lines ago?)

WHEREAS, the Republican National Committee desires to implement President Reagan's Unity Principle for Support of Candidates; and

WHEREAS, in addition to supporting candidates, the Republican National Committee provides financial support for Republican state and local parties for party building and federal election activities, which benefits all candidates and is not affected by this resolution; and

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee identifies ten (10) key public policy positions for the 2010 election cycle, which the Republican National Committee expects its public officials and candidates to support [...]

And what are these ten key public policy positions? Here's a hint - the list is defined by what they oppose, not what they support.

1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill;
(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
(4) We support workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing, denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership; be further,

RESOLVED, that a candidate who disagrees with three or more of the above stated public policy positions of the Republican National Committee, as identified by the voting record, public statements and/or signed questionnaire of the candidate, shall not be eligible for financial support and endorsement by the Republican National Committee [...]

The Party of NO has spoken. (And in the case of number nine, spoken in circles. Isn't denial of health care and rationing occurring because of this prohibition on government funding of abortion? Whatever, details, details!)

The NY Times' Caucus blog accurately summarizes the nature of the proposal by explaining:

The resolution invokes Ronald Reagan, and noted that Mr. Reagan had said the Republican Party should be devoted to conservative principles but also be open to diverse views. President Reagan believed, the resolution notes, "that someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent."

Hence the provision calling for cutting off Republicans who agree with the party on seven of 10 items.

The Times also explains how the proposal is going to cause problems for RNC Chairman Michael Steele:

While it is unclear whether the test will be adopted when it is put up for consideration before the Republican National Committee early next year, its drafting is a striking example of the intensified internal debate among Republicans about how best to handle pressure from conservatives to move the party more to the right and to recapture control of Congress and the White House.

Its introduction increases pressure on the party chairman, Michael Steele, as he tries to maintain a balance between those in his party who have been saying the road to a Republican comeback is to include divergent views and appeal to the political center, and those who say the party needs to more fully embrace conservative principles.

The Times reached out to spurned GOP candidate Dede Scozzafava, who was so thoroughly attacked for her "liberal" views by the Republican establishment that she ultimately ended up endorsing a Democrat earlier this month:

The list was clearly influenced by the divisive Congressional race in upstate New York this fall, when conservative activists deemed the Republican nominee for the seat, Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, too liberal and instead supported a third-party candidate, Douglas L. Hoffman.

Under conservative pressure, Ms. Scozzafava withdrew from the race but supported the Democratic nominee, Bill Owens, whose victory removed the seat from Republican hands for the first time in more than 100 years.

On first blush Ms. Scozzafava said she found the new proposal "ridiculous," though she said she would have to read it in full before drawing a final conclusion. "I'm not a big fan of pledges," she said in an interview, "because things don't always fit through a keyhole and governing isn't always that easy."

However, by choosing to create the we-embrace-diversity-until-we-don't doctrine, the GOP has assured the prediction from BarbinMD over at DailyKos: "They're all teabaggers now."

Some Conservatives Push a ‘Purity Test' for GOP Candidates [Wall Street Journal]
G.O.P. Considers ‘Purity' Resolution for Candidates [NY Times]
Conservatives Make a List to Measure Candidates' Commitment [NY Times]
Purity Now, Purity Tomorrow, Purity Forever ... [Daily Kos]

Relating the tale of Dede Scozzafava, a Republican Congressional hopeful targeted by Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin for being pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, Linda Hirschman explains that the GOP has a definite idea for the role of women in the party - and it isn't in elected positions.

But Scozzafava's defeat and the mounting campaign against Hutchison reveals a fascinating and underreported problem for the Republicans: They will only run women who will say that women should not control their reproductive fates. Although there are many male Republican candidates who easily embrace this position, politically accomplished women who believe in criminal abortion are rare, even in the Republican Party. And the ones who surface are likely to be, well, rogue. [...]

The transformation of the Republican Party by the rise of conservative, evangelical, and Southern movements disables the Republicans from grooming a new generation of female candidates. For one thing, the fecund, domesticated women they admire are too busy staying home with their children, and as a result there are very few prominent female Republican office-holders (as Palin's incoherent campaign reflected, it is very hard to be Tracy Flick, from Election, and June Cleaver simultaneously). The only elected female Republican governor (there are two who succeeded governors who resigned) is an outlier-a pro-choice Jewish woman from Hawaii. And Alaska's young Senator Lisa Murkowski is classified as a moderate and has a mixed record on the all-important abortion litmus test. By contrast, there are 13 female Democratic senators and four elected female Democratic governors. Only one-quarter of the 80 female representatives in the U.S. Congress are Republican; three-quarters are Democrats. Republican Scozzafava's withdrawal leaves these numbers in place.

It's clear that the unrelenting adherence to an anti-choice agenda is hurting the Republican party, in both representation and numbers. However, there are many who embrace their anti-choice stance and are using it to advance other priorities. In a different Daily Beast piece, Dana Goldstein explores how conservatives are successfully flexing their lobbying might and severely restricting abortion rights in the health care bill:

The Pelosi bill contains a number of provisions that would improve women's access to affordable health care, including ending "gender rating"-in which insurers charge women more for coverage-and making it illegal to classify C-sections, domestic violence, and even pregnancy as pre-existing conditions that disqualify women for health insurance. It includes new funding for comprehensive sex education, supplanting some of the abstinence-only programs favored by the Bush administration. The bill also aggressively expands Medicaid, the existing federal health-insurance program for low-income women and their children, which includes generous birth-control coverage.

But on the narrower issue of abortion access and affordability, the major pro-choice organizations aren't shy about expressing their disappointment: The legislation references abortion more than 25 times, mostly in an effort to restrict access to the procedure.

Conservative opposition to the health care bill has manifested in a few ways that actually strengthen regulations surrounding abortion. So, even with a pro-choice majority, our reproductive rights are still in danger:

Adam Sonfield, senior public policy associate at the Guttmacher Institute, which researches reproductive health issues, told The Daily Beast, "Currently, it's not that we can't pay for coverage that includes abortions. It's that we can't cover abortions. The new standard is stricter than the standard in Hyde."

In addition, in each state, the health-insurance market must include one plan that does cover abortion, and one plan that does not. But because the vast majority of insurers currently do cover the procedure, pro-choicers view the provision as a step forward for the opposition. "That kind of leans toward the pro-life position," Waxman said.

How the GOP Loses Women [The Daily Beast]
Abortion Under Fire [The Daily Beast]

In a Washington Post editorial today, columnist Kathleen Parker hails entrepreneurs Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina and famous daughters Meghan McCain and Liz Cheney as "a glimpse at what could become a surge of hormonal correction on the conservative side." Whitman is running for governor of California, Fiorina is challenging Barbara Boxer in the Senate, Liz Cheney just started a new website, and Meghan McCain is, well, Meghan McCain. Parker points out that these women — especially those actually campaigning — might help mitigate the dearth of powerful women in the Republican party, which currently boasts only three female governors. She writes,

This deficit in high office is both a taint on the GOP and a reflection of the broader assumption that Republicans are monolithically against women's rights. Specifically, the party's pro-life platform alienates pro-choice women, as well as moderates, who otherwise might find common cause with conservative principles.

Women such as pro-choice Whitman and "personally" pro-life Fiorina could help change that impression, while also raising other issues women care about. Fiorina caused a slight ripple in the Republican zeitgeist during McCain's campaign when she criticized insurance companies for covering Viagra and not birth control.

Parker points out that Meghan McCain is pretty liberal on social issues too, and that she, Whitman, and Fiorina might represent an emerging breed of Republican woman — one ready to roll back some of the GOP's more woman-hating policies. This would presumably be good for women who are, say, fiscally conservative, but who have felt alienated by the party's direction in the last 20 years or so. That said, Liz Cheney is pretty much a chip off the old block of grade-A evil, and Parker's predictions of a woman-led tide of greater ideological diversity slam up short when they hit one very visible woman: Rep. Michele Bachmann.

In a Times profile, Monica Davey tallies up the disturbing markers of Bachmann's popularity. She's in the calendar of "Great American Conservative Women"
(apparently she's November). She appears on cable an average of once every nine days. She's seeking reelection to the House, but some speculate she might run for governor of Minnesota. And Sean Hannity has called her "the second-most-hated Republican woman in the country, second to Governor Palin, which is a good position." Given that Bill O'Reilly also thinks she's hot, Bachmann's cred with the far right could hardly be higher.

Of course, she's also batshit insane. Davey points out that Bachmann won't complete her census forms because she thinks they're "intrusive." She thinks health-care reform means death panels and "prayer and fasting" are the way to stop it. She also thinks reform will cause schoolgirls to "be taken away to the local Planned Parenthood abortion clinic, have their abortion, be back and go home on the school bus that night." And she apparently thinks Obama might try to get rid of the dollar. It's not just that Bachmann's views aren't woman-friendly — they're not friendly to anyone with a brain.

Parker's hopes for a "hormonal correction" to the Republican Party are all fine and dandy, but being a woman doesn't necessarily mean that you're in favor of women's reproductive rights — or that you're sane. McCain, Whitman, and Fiorina might be early signs of an expanding and diversifying GOP, or they might be decoys, luring fiscally conservative but socially liberal women into a party that's not really going to represent them. Sarah Palin continues to consolidate her power (this time with a national organization called Stand Up for Our Nation), Liz Cheney echoes her dad's old pro-waterboarding rhetoric, and Republican women who stray too far outside the party line (like Olympia Snowe) get called "stupid girls" and, interestingly, "Jezebels" by conservative commentators. So while a newer, broader GOP is a nice idea, Meghan McCain and her ilk might just be beckoning moderate women into a tent that doesn't actually have much room for them.

Time For The GOP Women [Washington Post]
A G.O.P. Agitator Not Named Palin [NYT]
Palin To Launch 'Stand Up For Our Nation' [Politico]
Conservative Radio Launches Sexist Attacks Against Snowe, Collins [Media Matters]

The House vote on the defense bill was 281 to 146. Unlike usual defense bill votes, most of those in opposition — 131 out of the 146 — were Republicans objecting strenuously to inclusion of what they referred to as "thought crimes" legislation in a defense bill.

"The inclusion of 'thought crimes' legislation in what is otherwise a bipartisan bill for troop funding is an absolute disgrace," said Rep. Tom Price of Georgia, head of the GOP conservative caucus.

And why were they so upset? They were just looking out for hate speech:

GOP opponents were not assuaged by late changes in the bill to strengthen protections for religious speech and association — critics had argued that pastors expressing beliefs about homosexuality could be prosecuted if their sermons were connected to later acts of violence against people who are gay.

Supporters countered that prosecution could occur only when bodily injury is involved, and no minister or protester could be targeted for expressing opposition to homosexuality.

Well, as long as that's settled...

This legislation comes at an interesting time. One of the Republicans protested:

"This is radical social policy that is being put on the defense authorization bill, on the backs of our soldiers, because they probably can't pass it on its own," House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said.

Right...because soldiers couldn't possibly have an interest in protections that now include sexual orientation, gender, gender identification, and disability. I mean, obviously, every single red-blooded American solider is male, het, and proud! Well, unless you're a female soldier being dismissed due to Don't Ask Don't Tell:

All the services kicked out a disproportionate number of women under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, according to Department of Defense data obtained by the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The center studies gender and sexuality in the military. [...]

In addition, the Army removed more women under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy at a greater rate than men when compared with the ratio of women to men in each service.

Of those discharged under the policy, 36 percent were women, although women make up only 14 percent of troops in the Army, the data showed.

But who cares about facts? To the Republicans, these are "thought crimes" not "losing my job to discriminatory practices" problems or "tie someone to a fence after pistol whipping and torturing them" crimes. So, it's perhaps a good thing that "The Laramie Project: 10 Years Later" is showing at 120 theaters around the globe on October 12th, to commemorate the 11th anniversary of Matthew Shepard's death from "thought crimes."

House Votes To Add Sexual Orientation To Law On Hate Crimes [Washington Post]
House Extends Hate Crime Law To Cover Gays [MSNBC]
More Women Than Men Dismissed From Military For Being Gay [CNN]
Guthrie To Present 'Laramie Project' Epilogue [MPR News]

The National Republican Congressional Committee laid down the gauntlet. Yesterday, Contessa Brewer called Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz to discuss the egregious remarkk, and it was evident that she was using all of her journalistic restraint not to go off. Brewer pointed out:

"Last week, when General Gates said the exact same thing, you didn't hear the Republicans standing up and saying that McChrystal should put him in his place."

Joanna Burgos, the NRCC spokesperson, didn't bother to engage with the charges of sexism, instead focusing on how Wasserman Schultz was "attacking white males," by revealing the demographic make-up of the NRCC and pointing to those same Faux News polls Karl Rove trotted out in the WSJ as proof that the GOP is winning over the public.

Brewer added, "even though our polls show the approval rating for Congressional Republicans at nine percent." For real, GOP, y'all need to stop testing her.

Wasserman Schultz pointed out that the Republicans hatred of women "goes wide and deep." (Case in point: Yesterday's vote on the 2010 Defense Appropriations Bill.)

Brewer, however, had a point to drive home. She noted:

Even though Ken [Spain, spokesperson for the RNCC] had the opportunity to go back and say "You know, I poorly chose my words," he said "Nancy Pelosi is playing out of her league." [Why] is it that when men disagree with women they have to demean their intellect?

Brewer FTW!

Wasserman replied "when Republican men disagree with women." Personally, I'm with Brewer. The primaries showed us that a lot of Democrats don't really have an issue with misogyny, even if they aren't as willing to voice it as the Repubs.

Today, Pelosi struck back. saying, simply:

"It's really sad; they just don't know how inappropriate that is," she told reporters during her weekly presser on Thursday morning.

"I'm in my place. I'm the speaker of the House, the first woman speaker of the House, and I'm in my place because the House of Representatives voted me here. But that language is something I haven't even heard in decades."

Video here:

Predictably, the GOP had a response to that:

"Rather than deflecting from the real issue at hand and refocus on defeating terrorists, Nancy Pelosi would rather make party politics a higher priority than our national security. The fact of the matter is that most Americans agree with General McChrystal's strategy on Afghanistan, but Pelosi self-righteously believes she is better suited to craft our country's military policy. The last time Americans saw this type of outright contempt directed toward a four-star general is when this same San Francisco liberal attempted to undercut General David Petraeus by declaring his successful surge strategy a ‘failure.'"

Addition to the earlier list: Start firing people. NOW.

"I'm in my place. I'm the speaker of the House" [Politico]
GOP: Pelosi's Objection To Our "In Her Place" Crack Means She's Soft On Terror [The Plum Line]

Earlier:

Crazy Like A Fox: Karl Rove Declares Victory In Healthcare Conflict
Sen. Franken Fights KBR On Behalf Of Rape Vicitims
Pimp My GOP: How The Republican Party Can Become Relevant Again

To conclude, Republican party needs to add Kelli Goff's book Party Crashing: How the Hip Hop Generation Declared Political Independence to the general reading list. (Hey, strategists: Put down The Bell Curve and read something that might actually help you. And stop reinforcing the racism, it's strong enough in the party.) Guess what - young black people are dying to leave the Democrats! We are ready to go! There are lots of conservatives and moderates of all backgrounds currently with the Dems who would love to cross the aisle. After all, it gets really easy to be taken advantage of if a political party thinks your constituency is on lock. So come on people, work with us. As soon as the GOP starts seeing us as a little more than macacas, border jumpers, dangerous/stupid foreigners, and ingrates who should be thankful for the white man's salvation, we're totally over there. And guys - which I say because there is little to no female leadership - you may want to start fast. It's going to take a while before we start to believe you.

John McCain's Mission: A GOP Makeover [Politico]
The Wizard Of Beck [New York Times]
Schmidt: Palin Would Be Catastrophic [Politico]
Hip Hop Republican [Hip Hop Republican]
Where HipHop and Libertarianism Meet [Official Site]
Words. Beats. Life[Official Site]
Bad Day For USA. Good Day For GOP? [Politico]
Rush Limbaugh On David Brooks: 'JEALOUS' [Politico]
Party Crashing: How The Hip Hop Generation Declared Political Independence [Amazon]

Earlier: Top 10 Ways Male Politicians Confess To Extramarital Affairs

On the Republican side, Michael Steele has written an op-ed for Politico, in which he says, "As an African American, I know what racism is and that is not racism." I can't dispute that Michael Steele has an experience of racism that I, as a white woman, have no clue about. But I certainly can dispute his logic when he says, "It is becoming increasingly clear that some in the Democratic Party need a serious history lesson. Slavery was racist, Jim Crow laws were racist, segregation was racist – opposing a radical political agenda is not."

Without even getting into the implication that if it's not as bad as slavery and segregation, it doesn't count as racism, let me say I agree with Steele that opposing a radical political agenda is not an intrinsically racist act. The problem with his framing here is that our president does not have a radical political agenda. Our president is, in fact, a centrist who's increasingly pissing off his progressive base. The notion that he's a secret socialist, or that a health care reform proposal designed to increase market competition and regulate only the most monopolistic and downright evil business practices is somehow radically anti-capitalist, is pure bullshit. And it's pure bullshit intended to stoke the fears of those voters already predisposed to assume they cannot trust the president. That mistrust is, of course, largely a function of decades of Republican deception about Democrats in general, but the suggestion that racism is not playing a crucial role in arousing baseless suspicion of the current president is an expression either of willful ignorance or craven politicking. I'm going with number two.

And that goes for the Democrats as well. I can understand perfectly well why white Dems up to and including my beloved senator Dick Durbin are all over the news this morning saying, "Racism isn't the issue at hand, nothing to see here, move along folks." I can understand why Obama is distancing himself from Carter's assertions. Because discussing race makes white people fucking crazy. (Be assured that I include myself in that.) We don't want to examine how racism operates systematically, regardless of whether we as individuals use the N-word or have friends of color. What we want is reassurance that we are good people — and that good people by virtue of their very goodness will never, consciously or unconsciously, behave in racist ways or perpetuate racist systems. So politically, it's wise for Dems from Obama on down to offer that reassurance to the white electorate. There's a mid-term coming up and all.

But those of us who aren't running for office should still be taking this opportunity to discuss why that's the politically savvy move even for liberals, why we crave that reassurance more than an open discussion of racism, why we automatically give the benefit of the doubt to the person saying, "There's no bigotry here" instead of the one saying, "You know, I think there is." Or why we keep making arguments like, "Oh, all of this has happened/would happen to a white president, so it's not racist" without acknowledging that it's impossible to make a useful comparison when our sample size of presidents of color is 1. Why is the default assumption that white people are not behaving in racist ways — again, consciously or unconsciously — when we live in a country that has only had equal rights on paper for a generation? Not to mention a country where the latest meme about Joe Wilson's outburst is that Obama started it — by being a poor guest. (Here in the Midwest, we also prioritize being a gracious host, but maybe etiquette's different in South Carolina.)

Thankfully, Jimmy Carter is not running for reelection, which means he's not shutting his big, fat, beautiful mouth on this subject. Yesterday, he continued his commentary about race and racism, telling students at Emory University in Atlanta:

When a radical fringe element of demonstrators and others begin to attack the president of the United States as an animal or as a reincarnation of Adolf Hitler or when they wave signs in the air that said we should have buried Obama with Kennedy, those kinds of things are beyond the bounds.

I think people who are guilty of that kind of personal attack against Obama have been influenced to a major degree by a belief that he should not be president because he happens to be African American. It's a racist attitude, and my hope is and my expectation is that in the future both Democratic leaders and Republican leaders will take the initiative in condemning that kind of unprecedented attack on the president of the United States.

It's not racism, it's being an American [Politico]
In the race from race, Democrats rebut Jimmy Carter [Politico]
New GOP Meme On Joe Wilson: Obama Started It! [TPM]
Carter again cites racism as factor in Obama's treatment [CNN]

Everything I type keeps coming out "Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck FOR THE FUCK OF SHIT FUCK I'M MOVING TO FUCKING CANADA!"

So please enjoy your morning dose of Rage while I get myself together:

Slightly better.

Now on to the actual story. Obama had planned to give a speech to schoolchildren, encouraging them to work hard and stay in school, similar to one George H. W. Bush did in 1991. Conservatives caught wind of this and decided to create a new rage-filled campaign about socialism and indoctrination. The Politico reports:

School districts from Maryland to Texas are fielding angry complaints from parents opposed to President Barack Obama's back-to-school address Tuesday – forcing districts to find ways to shield students from the speech as conservative opposition to Obama spills into the nation's classrooms.

The White House says Obama's address is a sort of pep talk for the nation's schoolchildren. But conservative commentators have criticized Obama for trying to "indoctrinate" students to his liberal beliefs, and some parents call it an improper mix of politics and education.

Now, the speech is optional for schools. The speech will be broadcast during school hours and made available online to students who want to watch it. And I can understand the objection to having political figures in schools. But, as usual, an actual conservative response and the bullshit being peddled are completely different.

As an example, take fucknut Jim Greer, the Florida GOP Chairman, who compared Obama to the Pied Fucking Piper and referred to the speech as "liberal propaganda." Two minutes in to a segment on Hardball last night, Greer tried to explain his willful misinterpretation:

"That was 20 years ago," has been the rallying cry of McDonnell's supporters.

Well, fine. 1989 was ages ago, even if the fashions are still with us. But then, how do you explain what you've been doing for most of your career? As the Washington Post article states:

The 93-page document, which is publicly available at the Regent University library, culminates with a 15-point action plan that McDonnell said the Republican Party should follow to protect American families — a vision that he started to put into action soon after he was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates.

During his 14 years in the General Assembly, McDonnell pursued at least 10 of the policy goals he laid out in that research paper, including abortion restrictions, covenant marriage, school vouchers and tax policies to favor his view of the traditional family. In 2001, he voted against a resolution in support of ending wage discrimination between men and women.

Wait a minute. That time frame just shrank from twenty years to eight years. What's up with that?

Then McDonnell tries to play the "I can't be sexist, I have a wife and a daughter" card. Through a statement, McDonnell explains:

[H]e is "fully supportive of the tremendous contributions women make in the workplace. My wife and daughters work. My campaign manager in 2005 was a working mother. I appointed 5 women to my senior staff as Attorney General."

His website even runs with this idea even further, listing testimonials from various women who have worked with McDonnell to explain that he really supports strong women.

Judy Ford Wason, Williamsburg says:

"I know and have confidence in Bob McDonnell. He respects and surrounds himself with strong working women. His daughter served our nation in Iraq. His campaign manager in 2005 was a working mom.

And Janet Polarek, Richmond says:

I speak with direct experience when I say unequivocally that Bob McDonnell supports and champions working moms. He is a true friend to the working mothers of Virginia."

So I guess being a "true friend" doesn't extend to advocating for equal pay.

DNC Chairman Tim Kaine ran in to kick McDonnell while he's down - in an email sent to his core base, Kaine writes:

All people are entitled to their personal beliefs. After years of working with Bob, I believe this article is an accurate reflection of his sincere and long-standing views. But I do not believe that this philosophy, which Bob has worked strenuously to implement as an elected official, is the right direction for Virginia. In fact, I think it would take us backwards and jeopardize much of the success we have achieved in the Commonwealth in recent years.

Creigh Deed's basic governing philosophy is simple – what is best for Virginia. That has been his hallmark during his legislative career and no one voting for Creigh would have to wonder whether he had another agenda.

Burn. But we rolled right into the hard sell, so I wouldn't count this as a TKO.

Ultimately, it is important to maintain a solid grip on the facts presented. I'm sure most of us would say that our views on certain topics do change as time goes by and life goes on. Many of us would not want to be judged on something we wrote twenty years ago.

But it's a little hard to advocate that kind of position when you have a public voting record that demonstrates just how similar the 1989 vision matches the 2009.

'89 Thesis A Different Side of McDonnell [Washington Post]
Virginia Women Respond to Latest Deeds Attack [McDonnell for Governor]
Kaine: McDonnell thesis an 'accurate reflection' of views [The Politico]

Former House Speaker and Congressional-staff-boinker Newt Gingrich is still running for President, which is why he took to the airwaves cable wires yesterday to blast Rush Limbaugh without apology, hoping his surprising display of testicular fortitude will be able to net him the nom in 2012. Plus, Rush Limbaugh is a jerk and the GOP actually doesn't seem to know what the fuck it is doing, which is why they plan on escalating their attacks on Obama and crowing about how well they're going to do during the midterm elections. But at least they won't be doing it via Michael Steele's blog, which he's totally taken down now that the GOP is all about Twitter. Though at the point at which John McCain is twittering about how to manage beaver, Twitter might really be over.

In the meantime, pretty much every member of the new Administration was the subject of a long profile, interview or OpEd piece this weekend, including senior adviser David Axelrod, speechwriter Jon Favreau (Axelrod calls him "Mozart"!), Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (it was International Women's Day and women's rights are important!), Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner (needs a bigger staff!) and the Big Guy himself, who finally sat down for an interview with the New York Times after they kept whining about how it was a tradition that the Presidents give them the first interview. Oh, and let's not forget Michelle Obama's prom date who got interviewed about the blessed event.

In other news, Obama is all up in ur stemcells, overturning your research restrictions while Attorney General Eric Holder promises that the Civil Rights division of the department he now heads will finally get around to doing stuff on civil rights. Ted Kennedy had his big birthday party at the Kennedy Center (it's good to be a Kennedy), Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi cursed one another out and Eliot Spitzer probably choked a prostitute. Oh, and Sanjay Gupta will not be the next Surgeon General of General Hotness which means people are floating Howard Dean's name yet again even though he's apparently really, really not getting an Administration appointment, people, geez. For the millions and millions the health care industry has donated to politicians over the years, they get to decide.

From: LJarmak
To: Anna
Cc: Dodai
Subject: You just don't see the light...do you??

As a hard working middle-aged woman I was so disappointed on your view of Gov. Sarah (next VP) Palin. Don't you get it?? She is the ONE that will open the doors for all women to get further ahead!!! It does not matter if you agree or disagree with her politics....she will open the door for many others! You can't be so stupid as to think it can't be a conservative woman....are you????
Rumors have it that Biden will excuse himself from the ticket around October and the "desperado" Obama will put Hillary on to replace him....as a former Hillary supporter...my women Family and friends will be voting for McCain and Sarah Palin.

Why is it even the most backward countries have/have had women leaders...why not the USA? Because its people like you...that secretly still want men to run it!!!!!!! Start thinking outside the box and not the men at the DNC!

One of millions

And!

From: William Smith
To: Jessica
Cc: Anna

Subject line: Face It Ass... She's Going to Be the Next Vice President!

She's the "One", not your vacuous headed 'teleprompter' candidate. Too bad you haven't done your research. She's what "womanhood" is ALL about. Suffer.

"Suffer"? Nah. This was just the morning pick-me up we wanted.