Al Sharpton is being attacked for being intolerant of religion by people who have utter contempt for every faith in America other than Baptist

First, let's clear the air here. This is all about Don Imus. The Republicans are livid that Imus, who they consider one of their own, lost his job after finally being called out for his ten-plus years of vile bigotry. Imus would publicly excoriate George Bush, and we loved him for it, so it's hard to see why the GOP thinks Imus is one of theirs - he's not. But the GOP does have a patent on the bigot thing, so it's understandable why they simply figured Imus would be a Republican.

Anyway, I have to laugh when FOX News and the rest of the far-right (read: Baptists) have the gall to attack anyone for being intolerant of other faiths. The far-right of the Republican party has contempt for every faith in America other than Baptist. They call Catholics a "Satanic counterfeit," Reform Judaism is roundly criticized as being too liberal and thus not serious, Episcopalians and Methodists and Lutherans (the tolerant ones) are called fringe and irrelevant, and we know what they call Muslims (remember, Mohammed was a pedophile, or that's what the religious right leaders said). So now they're all upset that Al Sharpton mentioned that Mitt Romney was a Mormon.

This issue, Mitt Romney's Mormonism, came up on CNN this past weekend when I was on Howie Kurtz's show. Howie asked me, in shock, how I could suggest that it was relevant to the presidential campaign to discuss Mitt Romney's Mormonism. Well, if Mitt Romney can discuss my rights as a gay American in terms of how it jibes with his understanding of the Book of Mormon, then I think I have a right to inquire just what is this Book of Mormon that Mr. Romney wants to impose on me and my private life. Same goes for any other candidate who embraces anyone who uses their faith to tell anyone else in America how to live.

But this is the way conservatives always act. They always try to tell the rest of us how to live, and use their own religion (or their own screwed up, usually bigoted, interpretation of what they think their religion says) to justify their fatwahs. They even go so far as to tell the rest of us that our religion is wrong and theirs is right. On gay marriage, for example, several religions, like reform Judaism and some Episcopal churches, perform gay marriages, so how can Republicans and their religious right allies justify using the Bible to ban gay marriage when some religions support gay marriage? They can't - they're simply trying to legislate THEIR religion over OURS. And that makes their religion relevant to the public debate because THEY made it relevant.

Again, these are people who say that Catholics aren't even Christians. They're people who have the nerve to tell the world's one billion Muslims that they worship a pedophile. These are people who tell us that we caused September 11 because God hates fags. These are the intolerant "religious" freaks that Mitt Romney is embracing, and we don't have the right to inquire just what Mr. Romney embraces?

They brought religion into the picture, not us.

And PS. If Mitt Romney were a Scientologist would his religion still be irrelevant? (FYI, Romney did recently say his favorite novel was "Battlefield Earth," which was written by the founder of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard.) Read More......

Open thread

Wasn't there some kind of funny email going around a few years back about the Brits apologizing to us for the revolution, or something? I was trying to find it, on the occasion of the Queen's visit, and can't find it now. I seem to remember it was really funny. Anybody know what I'm talking about? And now, I'm not talking about the Canadian apology, which is also funny. This was better. I think actually it might have been written after Bush's first or second election, and in response to it. Anyone?

UPDATE: Okay, this is getting interesting. Someone in the comments posted a link to a piece entitled "John Cleese's Letter to America." That's the piece I was thinking of. But get this. John Cleese never penned any such thing. And, there are numerous versions of it flying around the Net. About.com has dissected the history of this bit of urban legend humor. It's actually quite interesting. Here is one example of the piece. Read More......

Giuliani contributed six times to Planned Parenthood even though he'd be "okay" if Roe v. Wade were overturned

So now we have Romney, McCain and Giuliani all lying about their past in order to win the presidency. Do we really need another liar in the White House? More from Politico. Read More......

Hamas using Mickey Mouse to turn kids against Israel, America

Israel, schmisrael - they're gonna wish they were fighting the Israeli Army once Disney's lawyers get a hold of them. More from AP. Read More......

American Family Association head: Christians might hesitate to vote for Romney

Tim Wildmon, head of the religious right group American Family Association, had the following to say recently about GOP presidential candidate, and Mormon, Mitt Romney. From Pam Spaulding:

"[Romney's Mormonism] would not prevent me from voting for Mitt Romney but it might some other Christians and if you understood Morman [sic] theology (and perhaps you do) you would understand why Christians might hesitate. Mormans [sic] believe God is a physical being on a planet for instance and that one day we all will have our own planet, like God, if we are good Mormans [sic]. And on and on."

I want my own planet.

Read More......

CNN hate-host Glenn Beck sees ratings plummet

Hate is so last year. From Eric Boehlert:

[W]hereas CNN last year traded away its good name in exchange for debuting Beck's factually challenged and hateful brand of broadcasting, at least CNN execs were getting a ratings boost out of the Faustian bargain. Today, Beck's still making a mockery out of CNN's reputation on a daily basis, as he disparages liberals, gays, Democrats, blacks, immigrants, and Muslims at will. But in return, CNN's now stuck with a Beck program that's trapped in neutral and shows signs of sliding into reverse.

Well played, CNN....

It truly has become amateur hour at CNN.

James Zogby got it right late last year. After watching Beck's nearly year-long McCarthy-like crusade against Arabs and Muslims, the president of the Arab American Institute wrote, "While [the CNN] network may have hoped that Beck's flamboyant style would increase ratings, the cost to their integrity has been staggering."...

Indeed, the dirty little media secret is that Beck's show has hit a ratings brick wall. Despite the glowing press from The New York Times and The Washington Post, among others, which showered Beck with profiles because his show was being touted as the fastest-growing program on prime-time cable news, Beck in recent months has been flat-lining. In fact, he's actually losing viewers.

And Beck's ratings are plummeting. Advertisers should have been already skittish aligning their products with a show that worries that every single Muslim-American is working with the terrorists, but add poor ratings to hate and you've got a recipe for an advertiser exodus. Not to mention, it's hard for the senior brass to defend Beck against the very real inside-CNN insurgency taking place against the hate jock when Beck isn't even bringing in viewers, but rather is simply tarnishing CNN's good name.

The Nielsen rating numbers from April were particularly telling and highlighted how Beck's show appears to have completely maxed out less than 12 months after its debut. April was a news-heavy month, which produced a huge spike in cable news viewership following the campus massacre at Virginia Tech. Except, that is, for Glenn Beck. (On the night of the VT shooting, Glenn Beck finished last among prime-time cable news programs, excluding those on CNBC.)

Overall, for the month of April, ratings for CNN Headline News' prime-time lineup, which is anchored by Beck, were up a microscopic 4 percent, compared to healthy, double-digit gains posted by CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC.

A hot show? Please, Glenn Beck has become as cool as the other side of the pillow. For the month of April, Glenn Beck's original airing in the 7 p.m. time slot averaged 304,000 viewers, down from last September, when the program drew 321,000 viewers each night. In viewers aged 25-54, the key demographic group sought by advertisers, Glenn Beck averaged 122,000 last month. Again, that's down from September, when the program drew 149,000. So much for the being "the fastest-growing show on cable news," which was how Beck himself described the program earlier this year.

Last September was also when Glenn Beck surpassed MSNBC's Hardball in viewers 25-54, outpacing Chris Matthews' show by 17,000 viewers. No more. In April, Hardball beat Glenn Beck by 40,000 viewers in the 25-54 demographic each night. And often the tally these days is far larger. For instance, on Tuesday, May 1, Hardball bested Glenn Beck by nearly 200,000 total viewers. And with the presidential election season heating up, it's unlikely that trend toward the Beltway-centric Hardball and away from Glenn Beck is going to change in the coming weeks and months.

Read More......

Are the Saudis funding the Iraq insurgency?

Poppycock. Everyone knows the Saudis prefer to fund people who fly planes into buildings. More from E&P.; Read More......

LA Times says "bring them home"

This weekend, the LA Times editorial board did something that far too few observers are willing to do: it changed its mind. It looked at an evolving situation, got more information, and adjusted position to reflect reality. Was the move a little late? Yes. Was the Times' initial analysis of the surge incorrect? Absolutely. Am I willing to praise converts even at this late date? Every one counts.

The Sunday editorial said, in part,

After four years of war, more than $350 billion spent and 3,363 U.S. soldiers killed and 24,310 wounded, it seems increasingly obvious that an Iraqi political settlement cannot be achieved in the shadow of an indefinite foreign occupation. The U.S. military presence — opposed by more than three-quarters of Iraqis — inflames terrorism and delays what should be the primary and most pressing goal: meaningful reconciliation among the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.

This newspaper reluctantly endorsed the U.S. troop surge as the last, best hope for stabilizing conditions so that the elected Iraqi government could assume full responsibility for its affairs. But we also warned that the troops should not be used to referee a civil war. That, regrettably, is what has happened . . .

Having invested so much in Iraq, Americans are likely to find disengagement almost as painful as war. But the longer we delay planning for the inevitable, the worse the outcome is likely to be. The time has come to leave.

It is, indeed, time to leave. Although the Times was taken in by Bush administration spin on the recent escalation, it recognized that fact and acknowledged that the surge cannot succeed in place of political solutions, the kind of compromises that continue to be nonexistent in Iraq. Perhaps the Times was even affected by -- and I know this might seem crazy -- it's own reporting on the issue, like Sunday's article indicating that Defense Secretary Gates may not be on the same page as the administration. The Washington Post editorial board (and yes, I mean you, Fred) might take a lesson from this development.

There is plenty of talk these days about August/September being the time for final evaluation. The new supplemental bill looks like it will mark the end of the summer as a turning point, Republicans are increasingly (and noisily) dissatisfied, and more people and opinion leaders are seeing that the surge won't work. We've all been tricked before, enduring repeated claims that "we'll know in six more months," stretching over years, so I'm not entirely optimistic, though obviously the more people who recognize the war for the disaster it is, the better. Still, I'm not convinced that anyone other than President Bush is able to end the war, and there are no signs that will ever happen. In September, Bush will say that there has been progress, the war must go on, and everybody else should shut up. Reasonable people everywhere will disagree. Then what?

UPDATE: Faiz checks in to say that the conversion is even more stark considering how shabbily the Times treated Speaker Pelosi just weeks ago. As ThinkProgress notes, it's part of a trend: "Public opinion is solidifying behind a withdrawal, proponents of the war are breaking ranks, and Bush is becoming more isolated in his position . . ." Read More......

In Maine, it's official. Tom Allen is running for Senate against Susan Collins

Congressman Tom Allen just filed the paperwork today to run for the U.S. Senate seat held by Susan Collins. He's going to do an official announcement tour around Maine later this month. Tom will be Maine's next Senator.

The Allen campaign just launched its website today too.

In 1996, when Susan Collins first ran for Senate, she promised the people of Maine that she'd only serve two times. In typical GOP fashion, she lied. She's going to run for a third term. But, she won't get it.

This is going to be one of the premiere races in 2008. Susan Collins has staunchly stood by George Bush every day, especially on his war in Iraq, for which she voted in 2002. Last year, she campaigned for Rick Santorum. She cast the deciding vote to bring Trent Lott back in to GOP Senate leadership. And, all anyone needs to know about the pro-Iraq war record of Susan Collins is that pro-Iraq war Joe Lieberman supports her. She's already endorsed pro-Iraq war John McCain for President. That's the company she keeps.

Tom can -- and will win. Maine is a blue state. Tom has represented the first Congressional District, which includes Greater Portland, since 1996. He's a proven vote getter. In the 2006 election, Tom got 60% of the vote without running one t.v. ad meanwhile, the Democratic Governor was re-elected with only 38% of the vote in a four-way race. Approximately 72% of the media market in Maine comes out of the Portland-Auburn stations, which comprise the southern part of the state. A good chunk of voters in the Second District, including the very blue city of Waterville (hometown of the venerated George J. Mitchell) was in Tom's District until the last re-districting (in 2002). Collins best election was in 2002 -- the best GOP year ever, and she got just 58%.

A lot has changed since 2002, but not Susan's loyalty to Bush and the GOP. She voted for the war in 2002 and continues to support Bush's failed agenda. She can't escape that. Tom opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. He voted against the war in 2002.

Keep in mind that Susan chaired the Senate's Government Affairs and Homeland Security Committee in the last Congress. So all that government oversight that wasn't done on Iraq and Katrina, wasn't done by Collins.

This race is going to be intense. The GOP will do everything and anything to keep Collins in office. A win by Allen will increase the Democratic majority in the Senate -- and make Joe Lieberman less of a factor.

We'll be setting up an ActBlue page for Tom Allen. In the meantime, check out Tom's website and make a contribution if you can. Everything helps. Read More......

James Dobson, the Rosa Parks of Intolerance

Hy-sterical.

Click To Play

Read More......

Romney lied during GOP debate about French marriage law

Gee, what a surprise. Mr. Religious Right lied during the debate in an effort to seem all pro-marriage-y. You'll recall that Romney criticized this new wildly popular supposed French marriage contract where you only get married for 7 years. Well, I did a little searching and found out (via another blog) what Romney was talking about: France's new civil unions law, the PACS as they call it. A law that was passed in an effort to give gay people kind-of-sort-of some of the rights of marriage without actually giving them marriage (and at the same time, it gave straight couples the same right since you couldn't just give the right to gays and not straights).

Romney is against gay marriage. He's against gay civil unions. He's against gay everything. Putting aside the fact that up until two years ago Romney was pretty much for gay everything, it's rather incredible of Romney to complain that the French aren't giving gays full marriage when he won't give gays full marriage. And his central criticism about the law only being for a seven year contract, well nobody can find that anywhere - it's just not true. And yes, the law does provide a watered down version of marriage for straight couples, but that's only because people like Romney opposed giving gays full marriage - he can't have it both ways.

So, Mitt Romney is now upset that France isn't letting gays have real marriage? Or does Romney, who doesn't come off as the brightest bulb in the bunch, even have any idea what he's talking about? The man was handed some France-bashing talking points and he ran with it like the good slick-haired, well-monied, flip-flopping dimwit he really is. Read More......

The GOP Iraq dilemma, in a nutshell

From the Washington Post

"There were always two debates in the debate over timelines to end the war," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.). "George W. Bush is hellbent on January 20, 2009, when he walks out of the door, leaving a box stamped 'Iraq' for the next president. The Republicans are hellbent on not going through the next election with Iraq tied to their ankles. All Boehner said publicly was what Republicans have been saying privately for months."

Read More......

Iraq funding plan coming together in the House

House Democrats are fine tuning the next Iraq bill:

House Democrats may push ahead this week with a new war spending bill that would provide money for combat operations through midsummer, with the rest of the funds sought by President Bush withheld until commanders in Iraq provide a report on conditions there.

Senior Democratic officials say the proposal, which is still being put together and could reach a floor vote by the week’s end, is an attempt to provide the Pentagon with the money it needs while keeping pressure on Mr. Bush over his conduct of the war.

The House leadership had made no final decision, but aides said Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, was leaning toward the approach, which was developed by Representatives David Obey of Wisconsin and John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, two senior Democrats on the Appropriations Committee.

Congressional officials said that so far, the proposal had not met serious opposition from the party’s antiwar wing or from more moderate Democrats anxious about being accused of not financing the military.

It does not include the timeline for withdrawal that drew Mr. Bush’s veto of the initial $124 billion bill, but it would require a second vote by Congress to release the bulk of the money.

The Republicans are squirming. They're all freaking out, but they've decided to stand by George Bush. The Republicans have never had a plan to deal with Iraq. The Democrats do. And, the Democrats need to make those GOPers vote over and over.

We're hearing that Senator Reid is keeping a close eye on the House plan -- and keeping an open mind. Keep an eye on what Senator Feingold thinks. Read More......

Tuesday Morning Open Thread

Enough with the Queen already.

Real news? Read More......

Mitt Romney discovers "popular 7 year renewable marriage contract" in France that no one in France has ever heard of

French-bashing has been so much fun so I don't know what Romney and the GOP will do now that the right wing Sarkozy has been elected president. Over the weekend Romney spoke at Regent university, aka Pat Robertson U., and used it as another opportunity play to bizarrely attack France.

"It seems that Europe leads Americans in this way of thinking," Romney told the crowd of more than 5,000. "In France, for instance, I'm told that marriage is now frequently contracted in seven-year terms where either party may move on when their term is up. How shallow and how different from the Europe of the past."

Yes, it's so frequent that I've never heard of it nor has anyone I know who is either married or has a PACS. At a minimum it's the best kept secret in France despite being "frequently contracted" though in reality it's just another lie by Romney who is so desperate to win he will say anything. I'm very curious how his religion views lies because he so often struggles with the truth.

One thing that Romney or other French-bashers can address is why the divorce rate in France is so much lower than the US divorce rate. Maybe Mitt and the GOP can address and resolve that issue before spreading lies about other countries and questioning their morality. Heck, Mitt can also explain why more Americans are unfaithful in marriage than the French since he wants to talk about how moral America is compared to France.

Then he can tell us more about the divorce rates of GOP candidates including his hero Reagan and if we're lucky, he can even cover polygamy and the Mormon religion both in the early days as well as some of the modern day cases. Sure they're in the minority, but polygamy by Mormons is a lot more common than the renewable seven year marriage contract in France. Read More......

Ag Secretary says melamine pork & chicken is OK

Whew, thankfully a GOP appointee says it's OK so we can sleep comfortably with a full belly of delicious melamine meat. This team has been right about everything, so go ahead and buy, cook and eat it. The scientists who say it's "OK to eat" according to the AP headline are so comfortable telling you this that they aren't even named. Read More......

Obama is spot on about Detroit

It's disgraceful how badly Detroit has delivered in recent years. While other automakers were moving towards fuel efficiency Detroit made every effort to be combative and go in the opposite direction. The end result is tens of thousands of lost jobs and years away from competing on a global scale. It is in everyone's best interest to get Detroit producing sensible products that are environmentally friendly and that people want to buy instead of smearing environmentalists.

As a side note, whoever at GM thinks selling cars in Europe under the Chevy name is a good idea is kidding themselves. Chevy has a terrible reputation over here and the cars - whatever they are - look flimsier than a Yugo. Did GM hire the same team that sent the worst of Renault to America in the 1980s? Read More......

Gnite Open Thread

Here's what you've all been waiting for. It's all yours. Read More......