The big conservative brouhaha du jour is phony outrage over Chris Hayes’ ruminations on his MSNBC show about the indiscriminate use of the word “heroes” with respect to fallen solidiers. Here’s the key graph in Chris’ rap:

I feel uncomfortable about the word hero because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war. Um, and, I don’t want to obviously desecrate or disrespect memory of anyone that’s fallen, and obviously there are individual circumstances in which there is genuine, tremendous heroism, you know, hail of gunfire, rescuing fellow soldiers and things like that. But it seems to me that we marshal this word in a way that is problematic. But maybe I’m wrong about that.

This is hardly spitting on the graves of the war dead, is it? But after lots of agitation from conservative media outlets, the Veterans of Foreign War, exercising an extreme version of what the Right would call “political correctness” in any other context, blasted Hayes and MSNBC:

“Chris Hayes’ recent remarks on MSNBC regarding our fallen service members are reprehensible and disgusting,” VFW National Commander Richard DeNoyer said in a statement to FoxNews.com. “His words reflect his obvious disregard for the service and sacrifice of the men and women who have paid the ultimate price while defending our nation. His insipid statement is particularly callous because it comes at a time when our entire nation pauses to reflect and honor the memory of our nations’ fallen heroes.”

He continued: “It is especially devastating to the many broken-hearted children, spouses and parents, left behind to grieve for a loved one. Such an ignorant and uncaring and blatant disregard for people’s deep feelings are indefensible, and that is why the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States demand that Mr. Hayes and MSNBC provides an immediate and unequivocal apology.”

While they were at it, the VFW might have expressed a few words of dismay at the regular exploitation of fallen soldiers by conservative pols and garden-variety militarists who want to borrow some of that heroism to grind their many axes, often at the expense of present and future men and women in uniform. That is part, of course, of what Chris Hayes was talking about in expressing his ambiguity about the term “heroes.”

But I guess the VFW doesn’t do nuance, and is “fair and balanced” only in the sense of Fox News.

My main issue with Hayes’ statement is that he is conceding the conflation of the courage and sacrifice of armed services members with the jingoism and chickenhawk tough-talk by which they are exploited. Putting your life on the line for your country is heroism. Leading your country into useless or immoral military conflict, or identifying patriotism with the abandonment of American values and the destruction of American honor, is something like the opposite of heroism. You don’t have to be terribly nuanced to understand the difference. I don’t expect the members of the wingnutosphere who are piling onto Chris Hayes to acknowledge any of this. But any veterans group should know better.

I’m writing this from an intensive care unit where my stepfather is slowly recovering from surgery, so I may not be at the top of my game. And I greatly appreciate Ryan Cooper’s emergency guest blogging on Friday along with Adele Stan’s typically excellent weekend stint.

But aside from the distractions, it’s also Memorial Day, where most Americans commemorate the horrific sacrifices associated with the country’s wars by engaging in activities as remote from the inspiration of the holiday as possible. That’s okay; to use the ultimate cliche, it’s freedom from violence and even from a sense of political urgency that warriors (if not always those who send them into wars or lead then once they are there) often hope to preserve.

So here are some light Memorial Day BBQ treats:

* E.J. Dionne celebrates the combative tone of the president’s re-election campaign.

* TNR’s Tim Noah explains some of the top conservative catch-phrases.

* McCain shrugs off Bain record as reflecting sad but necessary cruelties of modern capitalism. Geez, senator, couldn’t you use a code word like “creative destruction?”

* Kicking ‘em when they’re down: Alex Pareene adds his fine two cents to the demolition of Kevin Williamson’s revisionist take on the GOP and civil rights.

And in non-political news:

* Need something to wash down that Doritos Locos Taco? One franchise offering Mountain Dew A.M. Cocktail! Only in America.

Back shortly for more langorous Memorial Day blogging.

Now and then the snails-eye-view of daily coverage of the presidential contest is punctuated by the Big Thumbsucker, the panoramic view that attempts to explain the big picture with more or less perspective and precision.

The latest BT treatment available is by John Heilemann at New York, which is based on extensive discussion with the Obama campaign staff and its allies in the poiltical and fundraising worlds. Its interest, if not its usefulness in understanding exactly what is going on in ObamaWorld, flows from its mirror-like reflections of the various anxieties the president’s team is willing to express. Will the economic numbers hold up or improve through November? What if Romney stops making gaffes that reinforce the Democratic message? What if Republican efforts to depress turnout about Obama’s young-and-minority “base” succeed, even marginally? What if some single event narrows the path to victory (e.g., a backlash against the president’s support for same-sex marriage takes North Carolina and Iowa off the table?).

But the main fear that is expressed in Heilemann’s piece is about money, and particularly the vast advantage Republicans are building in Super-PAC funds.

Axelrod is endeavoring not to panic. “We don’t know yet how big a problem it will be,” he says. “We’re actually about to test the limits of what money can do in politics, because there’s gonna be so much of it concentrated in so few states. The real question is, at what point is so much too much?”

By “testing the limits,” Axelrod is not simply talking about how big the money advantage to grow to be, but whether it will overwhelm or reinforce the general assumption that paid television advertising has a limited impact on presidential contests, particularly those where the target of the ad is a universally-known incumbent. And he may also be alluding to the message-coordination problem Republicans could face if the people running super-PACs decide the Romney campaign isn’t pursuing the most fruitful attack lines on Obama, reflecting the deeper lack of trust that conservative activists have in their candidate and his team.

The most useful part of Heilemann’s piece is this nice summary of how the 2012 Obama strategy differs from that of 2008:

In the campaign prior, any mention of Wright caused a collective coronary in Chicago; this time, it provokes high-fives. In the campaign prior, Team Obama boldly bid to expand the map; this time, it is playing defense. In the campaign prior, the candidate himself sought support from the widest possible universe of voters; this time, instead of trying to broaden his coalition, he is laboring to deepen it. Indeed, 2012 is shaping up to be an election that looks more like 2004 than 2008: a race propelled by the mobilization of party fundamentalists rather than the courtship of the center.

Conservative media and some MSMers will, of course, try to describe this scenario as one of a failed president seeking to distract voters from his responsibility for his record. Indeed, the title and subtitle assigned to Heilemann’s piece (for which I do not blame the author)—“Hope: The Sequel; for Obama & co; this time it’s all about fear”—perfectly represents what you will hear day after day about the deflation of the high spirits of 2008. At some point, we will be reminded of the famous “Mean Jimmy” segment of the 1980 presidential race when Carter sought to raise awareness of Reagan’s many radical issue positions over the years.

The reality is that the vast investment of the GOP and the conservative movement in the destruction of Barack Obama—and everything he represents—is approaching a potential payoff point, and it’s reasonable to expect them to double down—rhetorically and financially. The campaign will indeed “test the limits” of how far the conservative noise and money machine is willing to go, and how much power the incumbent has to push back or turn the tables. Anyone without deep malice towards Obama must surely understand he cannot and should not run a happy-talk campaign that simply boasts about his accompllishments and pretends the opposition is composed of good-hearted folk who are potential partners in governing. While the overall dynamics of the campaign do resemble 2004, it’s probably going to make that contest look like a pleasant exchange of views or a sporting contest where everybody dresses their wounds and gets ready for the next game or season. This one is for keeps.

So Donald Cardinal Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, went on Fox News yesterday to complain that the MSM wasn’t sufficiently excited about the lawsuit his and other dioceses (and a smattering of educational institutions like Notre Dame) launched last week against the federal government to seek a total exemption from the contraception coverage mandate on First Amendment grounds.

What he was really complaining about, of course, is that the non-conservative-ideological media isn’t reporting the conflict between the Bishops and the Obama administration as an epic conflict between the totalitarian state and the poor pathetic church-of-the-catacombs, just trying to practice its faith without bothering anyone. Fights over health insurance regulations for employers, which is the other way to interpret it, don’t tend to command gigantic coverage.

But the really interesting thing about Wuerl’s appearance was this:

Asked about speculation that the suits were just a vehicle for conservative members of the church to go after President Obama — considering dozens of dioceses did not join the suit — Wuerl said the Catholic community is unified.

“I have yet to see among the bishops any split at all,” he said.

Seems to Wuerl the Church isn’t the whole community of the faithful, much less the Mystical Body of Christ, but the Bishops. That explains a lot.

Since a lot of people seem to conflate Memorial Day with Veterans Day, or simply think of both as generic flag-waving, service-honoring events, you’ll probably hear about a new Gallup survey showing Mitt Romney with a sizable lead over Barack Obama among vets.

Much of the advantage, of course, comes from the various identities of people who disproportionately make up the ranks of military veterans. For obvious reasons, they tend to be male (though less than in the past). And because the cohort of American men subject to conscription (which ended in 1973) is by definition aged 57 or over, they will reflect the increasingly Republican partisan leanings of older men—or at least older white men. It is true that younger veterans share these leanings, but that’s probably attributable to the predispositions of the relatively small percentage of men who choose to enter the military in the post-conscription era.

Interestingly, there is virtually no gap between the presidential preferences of veteran and nonveteran women, and no “age gap” among the veterans themselves, according to Gallup.

The less than positive record of Republicans in taking care of the needs of veterans (as reflected by their demand during the debt-limit negotiations to expose veterans programs to the “defense sequester” to lessen the impact on current Pentagon spending) will undoubtedly receive some attention from the Obama campaign and congressional candidates over the next few months.

This will be the first election since World War II in which neither major-party candidate is a veteran. But that probably won’t keep Republicans from trying to claim some inherent if unearned superiority as the party wearing the uniform. At least Mitt Romney won’t be landing jets on any aircraft carriers.

I may have more to say about this later today, but I don’t much care for the political usages of Memorial Day. As far as I’m concerned, it’s not “about” the righteousness or wickedness of this or that war, or this or that government—but simply a remembrance of the people—combatants and noncombatants—who sacrifice, and are sacrificed, in war. So in that spirit, here’s Alison Krauss performing “Scarlet Tide.”

Thank you all for reading and engaging in the conversation, or for simply stopping by, even if you were on a Harley.

Tomorrow being the official observation of Memorial Day, I leave you with a couple of items dedicated to that theme, as well as a few other links.

As you have your fun, please don’t forget to think of the meaning of the day. The U.S. has been in a state of near-continuous war ever since its founding, so we have many war dead to remember. As for me, I’ll also be thinking of the people of Afghanistan. Though the goal of the U.S. and NATO was never to wreak death and destruction upon non-combatants, women and children, it’s something that just keeps happening. Why?

* The New York Times serves up a truly interesting history of Memorial Day’s origins in a story that leaves one with the impression that, even if all war ended tomorrow, some two dozen towns will be arguing in perpetuity over the claim to being Memorial Day’s birthplace.

* At Mother Jones, you can find a list of progressive military veterans who are running for Congress

A couple of other things:

* Paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey predicts that the debate over evolution will end soon, in the imminent moment when scientists have the proof that seals the deal. Apparently, he’s yet to learn that here in America, we live in a fact-free universe. AP has the story.

* My AlterNet colleague, Sarah Jaffe, looks at how the big banks are using tactics that stoke up legal fees in order to force homeowners who sue them out of court.

Until next time… In the meantime, don’t forget to apply the sunscreen.

Follow us on Twitter @washmonthly, and Adele @addiestan.

Just how does he do it, one wonders. How does Mitt Romney get way with accepting the most noxious sort of wingnuts, misogynist and racist public figures as his endorsers, only to draw bemused responses from most in corporate media?

You’ll recall we started a bit of a cottage industry here, detailing the hatefulness of Ted Nugent, a walking DEFCON* alert of racism and sexism, whose endorsement the Romney campaign welcomed, and has yet to repudiate. Of course, the woman-hating Kid Rock has played at a number of Romney rallies. Then along comes Donald Trump, who spouts off the right’s most discredited conspiracy theories whenever he can, including the refusal of the paranoid fringe to accept President Obama’s birth certificate as legitimate.

One who is not amused is the right-wing columnist George Will, whose remarks today on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos” could pave the way for closer media scrutiny of Romney’s posse of publicity-seeking poison-spewers. Via ThinkProgress:

WILL: Donald Trump is redundant evidence that if your net worth is high enough, your IQ can be very low and you can still intrude into American politics. Again, I don’t understand the benefit. What is Romney seeking?

Wow — a Republican smacking down the 1 percent. And this from a guy who accepted an award from David Koch. (I saw it with my own eyes.)

Will’s consternation no doubt stems from the optics of this thing. Here’s the Daily Beast’s Lloyd Grove, reporting his interview with Trump on Friday:

First things first: Donald Trump is delighted that Mitt Romney is using The Donald’s star power to lure lottery contestants and donors to a major fundraiser June 28 for Romney’s presidential juggernaut.

[…]

“I’m honored that they feel that way about me,” Trump told The Daily Beast on Thursday night, as the reality-television star/real-estate mogul was being described in the media as the Republican answer to George Clooney (whose movie-star magnetism helped raise $15 million for President Obama at a similarly touted event two weeks ago)…

No sooner were those dutifully gooey sentiments out of the way than The Donald—who plans to host a lunch or dinner for the presumptive GOP nominee and some of his lucky supporters at one of the Trump properties in Manhattan—launched into a furious disquisition concerning Obama’s place of birth.

read more »

Today brings more evidence of cracks in the Republican coalition. In its lead story, Politico serves up a rap on Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s lack of vision. But if you read the subtext, the people making the claim are a group of right-wing Republicans.

Add that to the spate of defections and insurgencies roiling the right, you have to wonder about the strategic prowess of those Democrats who have expressed concern about President Obama’s offensive against the Romney camp based on the Republican’s record at Bain Capital. After all, the blueprint for the offensive was written by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich during the Florida primary campaign. (Gingrich was dispatched to Meet the Press this morning to defend Romney’s Bain record, which he did not so effectively.) In fact, what we may be seeing with the Obama campaign’s Bain offensive is a rare instance of a Democratic campaign actual using a wedge strategy — one of the right’s tested weapons.

From Politico’s Reid J. Epstein and Ginger Gibson, in a piece titled, “Mitt Romney not Into ‘vision thing’”:

“I don’t know what he’ll do on anything,” Club for Growth President Chris Chocola told POLITICO. “And that’s, that’s the concern that people have always had is, you don’t truly understand what Mitt Romney is going to do.”

[…]

“At the end of the day, you can’t just be all, you know, anti-Obama,” said former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, whose state is key to Romney’s chances. “It has to be, I think, two parts that and one part here’s the antidote, here’s the vision, here’s the path that I would like to lead America down.”

Politico failed to note that Blackwell is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council, a politically important group.

But wait, there’s more:

And GOP strategist Mark McKinnon — who advised former two-term Republican president George W. Bush — said it’s time for Romney to outline his agenda.

This follows news of several freshmen members of Congress going on record about why they won’t sign the anti-tax pledge demanded by Grover Norquist in exchange for a once-crucial nod by Norquist’s group, Americans for Tax Reform. Among them is Allen West, the military veteran and uber-Tea Partier from Florida.

read more »

Had he not begun popping up in commercials for the down-market clothier, Old Navy, Robin Leach might have found fodder for a television program in today’s front-page New York Times story about Ann Romney’s love affair with dressage.

For those, like me, who had to look up that word, let me caution you that it has nothing to do with the $1,000 tee-shirt Mrs. Romney wore on CBS This Morning. (If only her path had crossed Mr. Leach’s, he might have told her that a reasonable facsimile could be had at Old Navy for about $15.)

Dressage is a rather rarified equine sport that involves coaxing very expensive horses into committing dance moves. In what will no doubt be decried on the right as an act of class warfare, the Times gives a glimpse of the Romney lifestyle through the prism of Ann Romney’s passion for the sport in which she has won championship medals.

The piece by Trip Gabriel, focuses on the relationship between the Romneys and Jan Eberling, Mrs. Romney’s dressage coach, and an aspiring Olympian who enjoys the Romney’s support. That relationship, Gabriel writes:

…also offers a glimpse into the Romneys’ way of life, which they have generally shielded from view.

Protective of their privacy, they may also have been wary of the kind of fallout that came after Mr. Romney’s mention of the “couple of Cadillacs” his wife owned and the disclosure of plans for a car elevator in the family’s $9 million beach house in California, which prompted criticism that Mr. Romney was out of touch with average Americans.

Not to mention the car elevator and the friends who own major sports franchises.

It’s important to note that the rap on Mitt Romney is not that he is rich, but that he seems to be clueless about the way in which regular Americans live. FDR and JFK were both wealthy (though not quite in the Romney way), but both conveyed a sense that they were aware of the trials faced by everyday people.

read more »

Egypt’s first real presidential election ended in a tie between a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and a former member of the Mubarak regime. Not exactly a result to set revolutionary hearts aflutter. Now the two will face off in a run-off election.

The Los Angeles Times offers a nicely written, succinct report by Jeffrey Fleishman and Amro Hassan. Some snips:

The campaigns of Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Morsi and former Prime Minister Ahmed Shafik sought to broaden their appeal before their runoff election next month. Neither man is regarded as epitomizing the spirit of the revolution — Shafik was prime minister during the deadly crackdowns on protesters days before Mubarak fell last year — but politics is often about image readjustment.

[…]

“I pledge to every Egyptian that there will be no turning back and no re-creation of the old regime,” Shafik said at a news conference. “Egypt has changed, and there will be no turning back the clock. We have had a glorious revolution. I pay tribute to this glorious revolution and pledge to be faithful to its call for justice and freedom.”

[…]

Morsi’s campaign did its best to invoke the revolution too. The Brotherhood, which controls nearly 50% of the parliament, was late to the revolt and has since been criticized by activists as being more politically opportunistic than patriotic. The Brotherhood — one can almost hear a trill of ominous violins — has characterized Shafik as a Darth Vader-like holdover from the Mubarak era.

Love the evocation of cinematic sound effects. Hey, the paper’s in L.A. You won’t find that kind of thing in a New York Times news report.

Good morning, Animals! Bobbing around the Web, I’m finding things to be a bit sleepy in the news department. You know, of course, that the world takes a day or two off from making news during a U.S. holiday weekend.

But apropos of our discussion yesterday, tripped off by the arrival of Rolling Thunder in Our Nation’s Capital, about the decibel levels of Harley Davidsons, the Washington Post has a front-page story about how all those customized bikes just may feature “enhancements” that violate environmental and noise standards. BIG NEWS!!!

In fairness to reporter Debbie Cenziper, who delivered a solid investigation into the lucrative and virtually unregulated after-manufacture motorcycle parts market, the piece, I think, is mis-framed by its headline. The most interesting aspect of Cenziper’s article is how the dangers inherent in many bike modification kits comport with a neo-liberarian biker culture where, as the reporter describes it, “freedom reigns.”

Now, that’s an interesting story. A culture steeped in libertarian ethos puts itself and the public at risk via a virtually unregulated market.

Cranking up the percolator. Looking forward to spending the morning with you.

Thanks, Animals, for stopping by and joining in the conversation today. My big takeaway from y’all? As a convo-starter, motorcycles trump politics any day. Or maybe the politics of motorcycles trump the politics of politics. Or something.

On my way out the door, I leave you with a few bits to ponder:

* A spate of recent robberies and arson attacks against women’s health facilities in Georgia has drawn the attention of the FBI, which is investigating. The National Abortion Federation issued an alert to clinics across the country.

* The New York Times has a poignant story about the price of standing for marriage equality in North Carolina, as experienced by one gay businessman.

* Syria: From a place that serves up only horrible news these days, something even more horrible than usual, via the Washington Post.

On the lighter side:

* Obama declares himself the “twoosh-master” after executing perfect 140-character tweet during first-ever White House Twitter Q&A; session. Via Politico.

* There’s something really weird going on between John Edwards and four female alternate jurors at his campaign finance/conspiracy trial that involves apparent color-coordination and flirtation.

* At Hullabaloo, digby offers up an amusing mash-up of “issue alerts” from the Islamophobic Web site, rightmarch.com

* And the New Yorker’s Steve Coll on why he’s unfriending you.

Follow us on Twitter @washmonthly, and Adele @addiestan.

If you’re a member of the U.S. military and you happen to be a woman, you might think you were entitled to the full range of health care allowed your civilian counterparts. But you would be wrong. That’s why Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., crafted an amendment to the National Defense Appropriation Act that would grant, according to the Ms. magazine Web site:

the same rights as civilian women under federal policies that provide affordable abortion care to women who are the victims of rape or incest. Under the current policy, servicewomen are only eligible for abortion care if the woman’s life is at risk.

On Thursday, just in time for the Memorial Day weekend, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved the amendment by a 16-10 vote. The measure must next move to the Senate floor, and faces an uncertain future if, as expected, the appropriations bill goes to a joint conference. (The House bill is not expected to include a similar provision.)

Currently, abortions are forbidden to military personnel unless they are victims of sexual assault rape or the pregnancy endangers their lives. But if the pregnancy is the result of a rape the soldier, sailor or Marine must pay for her own abortion — a cost that can be prohibitive on a military paycheck. And in a war zone, a woman in uniform will likely find no civilian medical professionals available to her who will perform the procedure.

This is all the more galling when one considers the epidemic of sexual assault against military women that continues to grip the armed forces — assaults perpetrated by men who are supposed to be their comrades.

read more »