I know we posted the Dr. Laura Schlessinger story on C&L a few days ago, but I wanted to make another significant point, if I may. In our book, 'Over The Cliff," we talk about how the Southern Strategy was used by the Republican party and how it evolved from outright racism to using code words to get the same points across. Chapter Six:

In 1981, political scientist Alexander P. Larris sat down for an interview with an anonymous Reagan strategist who outlined for him how the strategy worked:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting
taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that.

But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

It later emerged that the strategist was a young South Carolinian and Strom Thurmond protégé named Lee Atwater, a former chief executive of the College Republicans who had worked on the Reagan campaign under political director Ed Rollins.

What we have happening now is that the extreme right wingers like Dr. Laura and Breitbart are actually throwing their dog whistles in the garbage because they figure that if they yell "nigger " enough times out loud to the world and hold their breaths then that vile word will no longer hold the same despicable meaning that symbolized Jim Crow in American history to the media and their acolytes. Cheap Labor Conservatives do hate to be called racists and they have been trying to shed their racist past, but now with the economy down, conservative propagandists are reverting to a pre-1954 mindset on racism. It's sad and sickening, but it's happening. I actually never thought that in less than two years, the right wing noise machine would be as emboldened as they are now over race. Limbaugh's openly racist rants began as soon as President Obama took office and then FOX News immediately jumped on the bandwagon to promote every phony New Black Panther type smear they could find. All Cheap Labor Conservatives better start loading up their Ipods with the top 100 songs of 1954. Can you name the number one song? It has something to do with the time of day.

And don't forget to buy our book.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (80)

PLAYS: (175)

Straight from the Cold War, former ambassador John Bolton attacks Russia's decision to provide low-enriched uranium fuel to Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactor. Unsurprisingly, he uses the situation to suggest that Israel (or the United States) should attack Iran's nuclear energy infrastructure prior to the insertion of the fuel rods into the reactor. The fact that Iran has agreed to turn over the spent fuel rods back to Russia after their use doesn't appear to be a part of the discussion. The Faux News anchor helpfully feeds Bolton the lines needed to sensationalize the story and slam the United Nations as a bonus. From Newsmax:

Bolton made it clear that it is widely assumed that any Israeli attack on the Bushehr reactor must take place before the reactor is loaded with fuel rods.

"If they're going to do it that's the window that they have," Bolton declared. "Otherwise as I said before, once the rods are in the reactor, if you attack the reactor you're going to open it up and radiation will escape at least into the atmosphere and possibly into the waters of the Persian Gulf.

"So most people think that neither Israel nor the United States, come to that, would attack the reactor after it's been fueled."
------------
The failure to demand it be shut down began in the Bush years, he said, and continues with the Obama administration "under what I believe is the mistaken theory that Iran is entitled to the peaceful use of nuclear energy."

"I don't think Iran is entitled to that, or I don't think we ought to allow it to happen, because they're manifestly violating any number of obligations under the non-proliferation treaty not to seek nuclear weapons. But this has been a hole in American policy for some number of years, and Iran and Russia are obviously exploiting it," Bolton said.

The attitude that Iran isn't entitled "the peaceful use of nuclear energy" is not one shared by the many non-aligned nations who are signatories of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. It's also interesting that pundits like John Bolton and his Faux News cheerleaders always forget that it was the United States government that first encouraged Iran to develop nuclear energy.

No, this is just another opportunity for The Mustached One to get on his high horse and repeat his mantra on how Israel would be justified in attacking Iran, how Iran's threat is at least equal to the 9/11 highjackers, that containment and deterrence won't work on Iran and that only a pre-emptive attack will stop other Middle East countries from seeking nuclear weapons. He's quite mad, but the right wing still loves him.

As a side note, one might suggest to the Obama administration that it might consider abandoning the Bush administration's policy of not negotiating with Iran until it promises to abandon its nuclear weapons program and allow IAEA inspectors back into the country. Isolation tactics don't seem to work when countries with economic problems need to make deals with anyone willing to pay cash. A more nuanced (and sane) discussion of Russia's deal with Iran can be found at the Washington Post.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (517)

PLAYS: (1460)

John Cornyn is the gift that keeps on giving. In one day, he's managed to generate two delicious, juicy, sound bites of stupid. Beginning with his appearance on Fox News, where he tossed the First Amendment in the trash for the sound bite:

This is not about freedom of religion. I do think it's unwise to build a mosque in the site where 3,000 Americans lost their lives as the result of a terrorist attack.

My, how subtle. Carefully framed so that Muslim = terrorist to stoke up the fear. But beyond that, what happened to conservatives' deep and abiding respect for the Constitution?

I'll call this one what it is: A flip-flop. They were for the Constitution before they were against it, and they were for freedom of religion before they were against it, too -- at least, for Muslims. Christians, evidently, are a class unto themselves.

But wait! There's more.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (42)

PLAYS: (381)

Cornyn is desperately trying to put lipstick on a pig with his lukewarm Tea Party endorsements. This one made me laugh out loud.

Look, I think, you know, these races are going to be decided based on how people feel about the economy, how they feel about spending and debt. In Nevada, for example, 14.2 percent unemployment, 70 percent of the home mortgages are under water. If you like the way things are going in Nevada, I suppose that people will vote for Harry Reid. If they don't, then I think they have a good alternative in Sharron Angle.

Because outright crazy is good for the economy? Just to reiterate, Sharron Angle thinks Social Security should be privatized like Chile's, and she bases her idea on the fear foundation that Social Security is going broke, which it's not. Her MO is to do nothing, vote No on everything, and tell us all we're a bunch of deadbeats for wanting to work for a living wage. She advocates armed insurrection, thinks abortion should be outlawed even in the case of rape or incest, and fantasizes about coked-up stimulus monkeys.

Yup, just what Nevada needs.

And then, just as a final parting gift, this little gem.

But we're going to try to get as many Republicans because we think that will force President Obama to the middle, for example, when President Clinton had a Republican Congress. And we think that would be a good thing for the country, forcing things back toward the middle instead of the extreme policies that we've seen coming out of Washington.

Forced to the middle? Really? I'm almost afraid to imagine what Cornyn's idea of the middle is.

Seeing Cornyn dance around his own party's hard turn right, divisive tactics, and takeover by the John Birch society is entertaining, but it also should unwind the constant drumbeat that Republicans are going to sweep in and win large majorities in November. The deep divides and constant shark-jumping does not inspire confidence in their policies, their candidates, or their message.

I would advise them not to count their votes before they're cast, even if they do use voting machines.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (171)

PLAYS: (598)

Republican strategist and former Mike Huckabee and Kathleen Harris adviser Ed Rollins threw RNC Chairman Michael Steele under the bus on Face the Nation this weekend.

Here's more from Think Progress -- GOP strategist says RNC Chairman Michael Steele is a ‘disaster.’:

Michael Steele’s term as Republican National Committee Chairman has been riddled with controversial verbal missteps that have roused the scorn of his Republican colleagues. His most recent gaffe in mischaracterizing the Afghanistan war prompted an outcry among prominent Republicans who called for his ouster. Remarking on the appearance of “Shadow RNC” Chairman Ed Gillespie over Steele as the RNC mouthpiece, Face the Nation’s Bob Schieffer asked GOP strategist Ed Rollins today whether the GOP should “do something” about Steele. Rollins doubled-down on his dismissal of Steele’s efficacy, calling him a “disaster” who has “failed miserably” in his mission:

SCHIEFFER: But Ed Rollins, I want to ask you about this. I mean quite frankly, no offense to Ed Gillespie who I have been dealing with and know to be a good guy for years and years and years but he wouldn’t be here unless if the chairman of the Republican Party currently Michael Steele was willing to go on television. But he’s so immersed in controversy that he’s kind of in a bunker these days. Are Republicans going to have to do something about Michael Steele?

ROLLINS: Well, there’s no time. Obviously he’s been a disaster. You have three men on this show — not me, but the other three — who have all been party chairmen and very distinguished party chairmen. Michael Steele has failed miserably in the things you’re supposed to do — raise money and basically go out and articulate the message. It’s not going to matter though. In 11 weeks from now, what he says and does in the next 11 weeks is not going to matter.

So nice to see Republicans saying that what the head of the RNC does doesn't matter. Michael Steele is the gift that keeps on giving.

History Eraser Button: A few photos of stuff the same distance from the World Trade Center as the "Ground Zero Mosque. Hallowed Ground? How can I tell?

The Reality-Based Community: Prisons Without Walls

Whiskey Fire: I am aware of his work

slacktivist: There is no basis in law, principle, doctrine or morality for opposition to the free exercise of religion by Islamic Americans. And their proximity to the Temple of Mammon on Wall Street doesn't change that.

Rising Hegemon: Never Speak Ill of the Dead

OFF THE BEATEN PATH: Youandmedoweagree's Blog, Great Big Lies, Reverend Manny and the Twilight Empire

I couldn't agree more with Joan Walsh, who called Harry Reid a "tower of Jello" on the Islamic Community Center issue.

Open thread below...

“Elvis has transcended the exasperating constrictions of time and place.” The same New York Times that cruelly dismissed Elvis in 1956, now said, “He stood there at the end, his arms stretched out, the great gold cloak giving him wings, a champion, the only one in his class… He looked like a prince from another planet.”

RIP January 8, 1935 – August 16, 1977

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (498)

PLAYS: (2969)

At least two prominent Republicans are going against the bulk of their party to say that Muslims have every right to build an Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero.

Monday Morning, Conservative MSNBC host Joe Scarborough found himself agreeing with former Bush advisor Mark MicKinnon that Muslims have a right to build the controversial mosque.

"When I was in Congress in 1994, when I got elected in '94, I was considered to be one of the more conservative guys up there," Scarborough began.

"I am feeling further and further distant from the people who are running my party," he said.

Scarborough pointed to comments where Newt Gingrich accused President Barack Obama of pandering to Muslims. The president had spoken out Friday in favor of Muslims' right to build the mosque.

"Nazis don't have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington," Gingrich said on Fox News Monday. "We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor. There is no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center," he said.

Reflecting on Gingrich's comments, Scarborough didn't know where to begin. "To suggest that someone trying to build a -- a tolerant center for moderate Muslims in New York is the equivalent of killing six million Jews is stunning to me," he said.

"It's stunning and it is so contrary to our country's principle and the Republican party," agreed McKinnon.

"I'm glad to see we're together on this and unfortunately I think we may get our membership revoked at the Pachyderm Club," said McKinnon.

"Screw 'em," interrupted Scarborough.

"I agree," said McKinnon.

A poll taken by Fox News Aug. 10 - Aug. 11 found that 64 percent of respondents thought it would be wrong to build a mosque near Ground Zero.

President Barack Obama seemed to pit himself against public opinion Friday when he said that Muslims have a right to choose where they worship.

But let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are.

But on Saturday, the president clarified that he wasn't saying that building the Islamic Center was necessarily a good idea.

"My intention was simply to let people know what I thought, which was that in this country, we treat everybody equally and in accordance with the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion," the President said during a visit to the Gulf Coast yesterday.

"I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there," Obama said. "I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That's what our country is about."

Frames are beginning to take clear shape for the midterms, and yes, Social Security will be under attack. While Republicans won't necessarily push privatization, they'll try to make points with the usual fear tactics about how the "Social Security Crisis" will bankrupt the country. Paul Krugman has some things to say about that.

The math is wrong and so is their attitude

Social Security’s attackers claim that they’re concerned about the program’s financial future. But their math doesn’t add up, and their hostility isn’t really about dollars and cents. Instead, it’s about ideology and posturing. And underneath it all is ignorance of or indifference to the realities of life for many Americans.

What crisis?

So where do claims of crisis come from? To a large extent they rely on bad-faith accounting. In particular, they rely on an exercise in three-card monte in which the surpluses Social Security has been running for a quarter-century don’t count — because hey, the program doesn’t have any independent existence; it’s just part of the general federal budget — while future Social Security deficits are unacceptable — because hey, the program has to stand on its own.

What's really going on here?

What’s really going on here? Conservatives hate Social Security for ideological reasons: its success undermines their claim that government is always the problem, never the solution. But they receive crucial support from Washington insiders, for whom a declared willingness to cut Social Security has long served as a badge of fiscal seriousness, never mind the arithmetic.

There's much more to Krugman's article, all worthy of attention. Bottom line is easy: Social Security should not be on the table. At all.

Ugh. Why is it so difficult to find Democrats not eager to bow to the craven fear-mongering of Republican rivals? TPM:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has now spoken out on the Muslim community center in New York -- saying that while the organizers are free to construct the project, it should be moved somewhere else.

"The First Amendment protects freedom of religion. Senator Reid respects that but thinks that the mosque should be built some place else," said a statement from Reid spokesman Jim Manley. "If the Republicans are being sincere, they would help us pass this long overdue bill to help the first responders whose health and livelihoods have been devastated because of their bravery on 911, rather than continuing to block this much-needed legislation."

Fer cryin' out loud. Reid is running scared because of rival Sharron Angle's taunts that Reid is Obama's waterboy by the lizard brains who want to equate all Muslims with terrorism and 9/11.

"As the Majority Leader, Harry Reid is usually President Obama's mouthpiece in the U.S. Senate, and yet he remains silent on this issue. Reid has a responsibility to stand up and say no to the mosque at Ground Zero or once again side with President Obama---this time against the families of 9/11 victims. America is waiting."

And of course, he caves. Saying that they have a First Amendment right to build it isn't that revolutionary a stance to take. One would hope that the Majority Leader of the Senate has at least a cursory understanding of the Constitution (which is, by the way, more than we can say for Angle). But to say that they should move it is to play into the irrational hatred and bigotry of the lowest common denominator and something for which Reid should be wholly ashamed. Greg Sargent:

Despite Reid's reaffirmation of this right, his response is still weak and indefensible. And it leaves the President hanging after he took a big risk to do the right thing. Obama did not explicitly endorse the decision to build the center. But Obama did say that if the group does proceed with that decision, we must respect that decision, in accordance with American values.

Reid is not willing to say that. Rather, he's saying, in effect, that even if he supports the group's right to build the center, he's not willing to respect the decision to do so. That's unacceptable, and leaves Obama isolated at a very sensitive moment.

What's more, it's unclear why coming out against the plan in the manner Reid did is even good politics for Democrats at this point. Reid basically threw the whole Dem caucus under the bus: With the Senate leader at odds with the president, the media will press every Senate Dem to declare which side they're on.

Dumb, Harry. On every level. Even Republican advisers like Mark McKinnon think that pursuing this is a loser for Republicans. Why do you need to be a loser too?

Want to tell Harry that he needs to smarten up? Contact him here.

UPDATE: Haaretz is claiming that the Cordoba House has decided to move, something Cordoba House representatives are denying.