I’m old enough to remember when country singer Natalie Maines said during a Dixie Chicks concert, “We’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.” She wasn’t broadcasting a political demand for impeachment or a half-baked conspiracy theory to anyone outside of the auditorium — no audiences of millions on AM radio or cable news. Just a few thousand people in a closed setting. But based on the bug-eyed, flag-molesting outrage that followed you’d think she had colluded with Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and the ghost of Khrushchev to shank George W. Bush with a prison shiv. The nation exploded in a collective hissy fit that included a conga-line of scolding conservatives and more than a few witch-hunt style protests in which Dixie Chicks CDs were smashed by heavy machinery or burned, all to the tune of the familiar warning: don’t undermine the commander-in-chief or else.

And that was in March of 2003, years after the 9/11 attacks and long after the high-water mark of unwavering, luxuriant god-worship of George W. Bush.

In the days and months after 9/11, even hinting that Bush had acted poorly in the wake of the attacks or had perhaps not done enough to prevent them (he was warned — a lot) was immediately beaten down as unpatriotic or “with the terrorists.” The sentiment was universal. Democrats and Republicans alike agreed to lay off the president for a while, an attitude that definitely lasted for way too long and enabled a long list of craptastical laws that passed with unanimous bipartisan support — laws that we’re still trying to unravel today. It’s not a stretch to attribute this reaction to both Republican partisanship and jingoism and the strange Democratic psychosis involuntarily forcing them to be easily suckered into coitus with political enemies.

Conversely, none of the same courtesy has been extended to our current president following the Boston Marathon bombing. Not so shocking, considering how it likewise didn’t happen in the aftermath of the Great Recession, or after the killing of Bin Laden, or after the end of the Iraq War. It certainly didn’t happen following each of the various gun massacres — terrorist attacks at gunpoint. And, as we’re all aware, an outright conservative inquest was launched following the consulate attack in Benghazi, in spite of the fact that 11 similar attacks took place during the Bush years with considerably greater body counts.

Suffice to say, if another attack were to occur at or even below the level of September 11, this president would likely be impeached within a week.

Worse, the conspiracy theories first marketed by Alex Jones last week are being mainstreamed throughout the conservative entertainment complex. In the Bush post-9/11 context, imagine not only broad liberal and Democratic attacks against President Bush within a week of the attacks, but also the mainstreaming of the various 9/11 Truther conspiracies.

Both Alex Jones (naturally) and Sean Hannity launched a conspiracy theory by anti-Islam crackpot Steve Emerson involving the Obama administration’s alleged cover-up of the connection between the bombing and Saudi Arabia via the Saudi student who was questioned and released immediately following the marathon bombing.

On Friday, Glenn Beck said America should “demand impeachment” over the Saudi conspiracy theory.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) accused the president of “leading from behind.”

The Tea Party Nation not only suggested that the president was to blame for this attack, but he’s also to blame for the next attack which will happen “sooner than later.”

Fox & Friends co-host and miraculous talking monkey Brian Kilmeade said on his radio show, “So like it or not, this president has left [the Middle East] alone. And guess what happens? Now the IEDs are blowing up in our streets.” Yep, the Boston bombing was the president’s fault. 100 percent. Why? Because of the Middle East, even though the Tsarvaev’s are from, you know, Chechnya.

Rush Limbaugh attacked the president’s handling of the bombing by invoking Benghazi, the New Black Panthers (all two of them at that polling place in Philadelphia) and Rev. Wright of all people — all in the context of the Obama government’s refusal to tell the truth.

Former Bush attorney general Michael Mukasey attacked the president for apparently downplaying the motives of the Tsarnaev brothers, “There is also cause for concern in the president’s reluctance, soon after the Boston bombing, even to use the ‘t’ word—terrorism—and in his vague musing on Friday about some unspecified agenda of the perpetrators, when by then there was no mystery: the agenda was jihad.”

I think you get the idea. It’s been just over a week and all of the usual suspects are engaged in nonsense far worse than anything Natalie Maines ever said. In fact, I’m waiting for Dinesh D’Souza to release another movie about how the president’s “anti-colonialism” caused the bombing. Just wait another few days and it’ll be in wide release. Actually, I wouldn’t be shocked if the Republicans elevated the Saudi conspiracy theory into another Benghazi-style coverup plot.

It’s all yet another case study in how the Republicans too often comport themselves in the wake of a disaster — these self-proclaimed “patriots” are merely selective, fair-weather patriots, only willing to lend their unified support when the president is from their own party and prepared to bomb the hell out of brown people somewhere. They will not give an inch on anything. They will contradict themselves, ignore their own records, jump to paranoid conclusions, risk embarrassment and generally do whatever it takes to disrupt and sabotage the Obama presidency. And they’re willing to brazenly and unapologetically exploit these tragedies as a means of doing so.

Subscribe

Bob Cesca's feed

Enter email below:

Rush Limbaugh Cartoon by Ian D. Marsden of marsdencartoons.com (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By Ben Cohen: Listening to the Right wing fallout after President Obama was re-elected has been absolutely fascinating to say the least. From Karl Rove’s extraordinary meltdown live on election night to Sean Hannity’s one-eighty on immigration, it’s fair to say that the GOP is a party with an extreme identity problem. Most people in the party are aware that they have a huge, huge problem going forward – the population is changing in both color and culture, and they are fast becoming demographically irrelevant. If the Republicans want to have electoral success going forward, they are going to have to find a way to attract women, Latinos and African Americans – groups they lost in overwhelming fashion last week.

The problem is that the party is split into so many extreme factions that it will be close to impossible to unify the party under a new, more inclusive platform. The party is comprised of moderates, Libertarians and Tea Party activists, traditional conservatives, neo cons and evangelical Christians. And while there is considerable overlap, each group have their own objectives that are often at odds with each other. Hardcore conservatives don’t want more immigrants while libertarians and moderates understand the need for reform. Evangelicals will never accept gay marriage while moderates and libertarians would, neo cons want more wars, while traditional conservatives do not, and Libertarians vehemently oppose any tax hikes, while moderates understand it to be an occasional necessity.

Most worrying for the Republicans is the prominence of loudmouth media characters like Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh – virulent conservatives who influence millions of voters with their fear mongering rhetoric. Without their stamp of approval, Republican candidates lose a vital marketing tool that can seriously affect voter turn out. Had Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin not gone out to bat for Mitt Romney, it’s likely his loss would have been even worse.

In the wake of defeat, the Right wing noise machine is still out in full force because it is not in the business of self reflection. It is in the business of fear and hate – two tried and tested ratings winners that may destroy the Republican Party, but keep the multimillionaire mega mouths on air for eternity.

Rush Limbaugh went on an epic rant after last Tuesday, sarcastically suggesting that Republicans should advocate pot legalization and start their own ‘abortion industry’. He said on his show:

The youth vote! I tell you what we should do, let’s announce, starting around Christmastime, so that we can get close to being Santa Claus ourselves, let’s announce that we are for the legalization of marijuana, and that as a party we’re in favor of forgiving all student loans . . . Is that how we do it?

All these examples . . . Latinos! We’re not going to get the Latino vote by opening the borders and saying, you know what? Let anybody in who wants to come in.

Women. Let’s start our own abortion industry. Let’s go out and get the women’s vote. I just want you to think, would that work?

Not exactly encouraging. And if you thought that was bad, Mark Levin, one of the most nauseating fear merchants had the following to say about the lessons the Right should take from electoral loss:

We conservatives, we do not accept bipartisanship in the pursuit of tyranny. Period. We will not negotiate the terms of our economic and political servitude. Period. We will not abandon our child to a dark and bleak future. We will not accept a fate that is alien to the legacy we inherited from every single future generation in this country. We will not accept social engineering by politicians and bureaucrats who treat us like lab rats, rather than self-sufficient human beings. There are those in this country who choose tyranny over liberty. They do not speak for us, 57 million of us who voted against this yesterday, and they do not get to dictate to us under our Constitution.

We are the alternative. We will resist. We’re not going to surrender to this. We will not be passive, we will not be compliant in our demise. We’re not good losers, you better believe we’re sore losers! A good loser is a loser forever. Now I hear we’re called ‘purists.’ Conservatives are called purists. The very people who keep nominating moderates, now call us purists the way the left calls us purists. Yeah, things like liberty, and property rights, individual sovereignty, and the Constitution, and capitalism. We’re purists now. And we have to hear this crap from conservatives, or pseudo-conservatives, Republicans.

This ‘purism’ is a recipe for complete disaster, and the sooner the GOP exiles braggarts like Limbaugh and Levin, the sooner it can reform itself into an electorally viable political party. The problem is, letting go of the extremists means taking considerable short term losses. Republicans draw huge support from fearful white Americans who believe they are in imminent danger from marauding Mexicans, gay couples and black Muslims. They are a reliable voting bloc, and losing their enthusiasm would be very detrimental. Their economic platform has to change too – it can no longer be the party of tax cuts and deregulation at all costs – they are no longer trusted to run the economy and their inability to evolve on the issue is becoming a serious electoral burden. Again, the problem is that changing their economic principles would mean massive short term losses. The party is essentially a mouthpiece for big business, and big businesses want tax cuts. Without big business, there is no money to win elections, making it a hit the party cannot afford.

Is there a way out of this conundrum?

Frankly, it’s hard to envision one. The reforms needed will be incredibly painful and will entail some very serious action from prominent Republicans who will have to confront the militants in the party. Tokenism won’t do going forward – the changes will have to be wide reaching and meaningful – and much of the party will hate them. The Republicans will have to redefine conservatism and market it to the new America. We’ve yet to see any evidence that there is serious intention from party members to do so, making their prospects for 2016 all the dimmer.

In short, they’re screwed, and there’s not much they can do about it.

Subscribe

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below:

Glenn Beck: Getting into the fashion business

By Chez Pazienza: I realize that I’m fast becoming this site’s resident miserable bastard, devoid of all passion for political discourse and oozing nothing but contempt for the entire process, but can anybody really blame me at this point? If you want to know why I’ve all but given up on trying to effect real change through thoughtful analysis and dialog — why I think our country is politically broken beyond repair — you need look no further than this: Glenn Beck is now selling his own line of jeans. Glenn Beck. Jeans. I shit you not. If the official motto for these things isn’t “Because It Takes an Ass To Know Jeans” I’m crawling into my bathtub and dragging in a hair dryer.

Now being that Beck remains the media’s most accomplished glad-handing grifter — Olbermann’s comparison of him to Lonesome Rhodes was always inspired and dead-on — the fact that he’s hawking something new with the goal of making money for himself shouldn’t really surprise anyone. What’s amusing is that, as it has been with so many of his other ventures, Beck’s stated reason for getting into the jeans game has to do with an epiphany he apparently had in the wake of finding his staunch political beliefs personally slighted by an existing manufacturer. Late last year Beck took to his radio show and internet bullhorn to loudly proclaim that he was boycotting Levi’s jeans because he felt that their “Go Forth” ad campaign, which through a series of gorgeous and evocative images celebrated youthful bravado, promoted progressivism and “revolution.” In other words, Levi’s jeans were just too liberal for Beck, so he decided it was incumbent upon him to give his audience of aging, white resentful and paranoid Christians a fashion choice that’s more in line with their unwavering patriotism. After all, you don’t want to insult America by wearing the wrong jeans. This is what it’s come to: jeans can now be politicized. Chicken sandwiches. U.S. Olympic uniforms. Jeans. Like a nearby, handy steel chair in a WWE match, anything can be grabbed on the fly and turned into a weapon in the insufferable culture war.

For sheer comedy, there’s nothing more entertaining than watching the extended online ad for Beck’s “1791″ jeans and fashion line — the mere mention of “Glenn Beck” and “fashion” in the same sentence alone should be good for a few nice chuckles — which are billed as being as American as mom, apple pie and very stupid, gullible people, and which claim to be 100% made in the USA. What’s interesting, though, is that despite the new push from Beck, the 1791 brand of his has actually been around for about a year and may even predate his decision to publicly hang Levi’s out to dry, so to speak — meaning that, as is so often the case with a Beck enterprise, the entire Levi’s thing might have been nothing but a publicity stunt designed to drive people toward a product he already had in the works. What’s more, the average pair of 1791 jeans will set you back $129.99. For those who don’t live in comfortable jeans the way I do, you can easily pick up a pair of Armani Exchange for that price, or, if you hit the sale rack, Diesel, Varvatos USA or 7 for All Mankind. Granted those jeans won’t tell everyone that you love your country so much that you’ll drop 130-bucks to show it, nor will it let the world know that you’re an idiot who does anything a carnival barking turd like Glenn Beck tells you to, but in matters of style, it’s no contest.

But that’s really it: It’s not about style — although it can easily be argued that since fashion involves making a personal statement, nothing says more about you than wearing Glenn Beck on your ass — it’s solely about politics, or at least that’s how it’s marketed.

When I was a kid, I spent a very short amount of time at a fundamentalist Southern Baptist school — short for obvious reasons — and I remember being shocked at how dedicated the faculty and church staff was to the notion that everything a person does should glorify God. You couldn’t just listen to music; you had to make sure it was sufficiently Jesus-centric. You couldn’t dance unless it was a direct reaction to how overwhelmed with the Holy Spirit you were. If you went to the grocery store to pick up a gallon of milk, you’d better be damn sure everybody in that store knew you were there to buy milk for Christ, motherfucker. The point is that to them, religion was a show that never ended and that burrowed its way into every corner of your existence; there was no other way to do something than with God in mind. To the people on the far-right — the tea-partying dolts and Glenn Beck faithful — that’s how they feel about America. Their belief in the infallibility of the Founding Fathers, their dedication to a grotesquely fetishized vision of the United States, and their paranoia over the creeping foreign-socialist-secular humanist infestation and contamination of their precious bodily fluids guides every decision they make. For them, religion and patriotism are held with equal fervor and are, in fact, interchangeable. That’s what Beck is preying on. That kind of anxiety and delusional dedication.

There’s an audience for this kind of nonsense, and that’s the problem. Despite his diminished influence and grasp on the public and pop culture imagination, there are people out there who really will buy Beck’s jeans because they feel like Levi’s are just too commie. And they’re not all relegated to the fringes of our political discourse — far from it.

A couple of days ago, Mitt Romney pointed a finger at the President of the United States and contemptuously scolded him in front of a national audience on live television, saying “You’ll get your chance in a moment, I’m still speaking,” as if the leader of the free world were little more than an inadequate caddy at the Polo Club. Assholes like Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter saw this not as a shocking show of disrespect but as cause for a hearty high-five and the reason for the big red-white-and-blue erection suddenly pressing against their pants. When the near-boxing match that was Monday’s debate tended to favor Obama — when the president turned the tables on Romney and fought back hard — Romney’s son Tagg, the singular personification of wealthy-and-white privilege, says he wanted to “rush down to the stage and take a swing at him,” and that only the Secret Service might have prevented him from doing so. (For the record, Tagg Romney’s nothing more than another pretend-macho frat boy pussy. The only physical confrontation he’s ever been in very likely involved somebody untying the sweater from around his neck when he wasn’t looking. Fuck that guy.) Nobody of note really gives him crap for this. Mario Batali tweets a comment mildly praising one candidate and immediately gets bombarded with tweets from the other’s supporters insulting him and telling him to shut up and get back in the kitchen. Again, a chicken sandwich becomes a truncheon and the restaurant that serves it, a nuclear flashpoint in our eternal, insatiable arms race in the service of beating the living shit out of each other.

Where does it end? It ends the way it always does — with mutually assured destruction.

But hey, at least we’ll look good in our Glenn Beck jeans when it all comes comes crashing down.

Subscribe

Chez Pazienza's feed

Enter email below:

Rupert Murdoch: Media empire rotten to the core (Photo credit: DonkeyHotey)

By Ben Cohen: The news that Rupert Murdoch has confessed to there being a “cover-up” at News International over the phone-hacking scandal at the Leveson inquiry should come as no surprise to anyone. Under serious public scrutiny, Murdoch has done his best at the inquiry to play nice, expressing regret over the scandal and a desire to help authorities uncover exactly what happened.

However, Murdoch is still insisting he knew nothing about the extent of the scandal. Had he know, he claimed, he would have closed the News of the World “years before and put a Sun on Sunday in”. Murdoch stated he was “misinformed and shielded” from what was going on at the paper. Murdoch has blamed layers of management and individuals hired by other people – everyone other than himself.

It is quite possible that Murdoch didn’t know anything about the hacking and is telling the truth. But that isn’t the point. Murdoch’s media empire produces the type of journalism that relies on nasty gossip, and given the pressures to produce in such a competitive industry, it is hardly surprising phone hacking of celebrities and nationally recognized figures occurred.

Rupert Murdoch has had an deeply insidious effect on the media, particularly the news. He single-handedly created today’s current brand of personality driven news shows (Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly being the prototypes in America), and turned major newspapers and networks into propaganda outlets for Right wing political parties and big business. Accurate and honest reporting was never something Murdoch was interested in – he simply followed the money. Murdoch saw that a mixture of entertainment and coddling up to power interests was the way forward and built his empire around those principles. He was right, and he has become one of the most powerful figures the media has ever seen.

His disregard for ethical journalism has caused untold damage to what used to be considered a serious craft. It laid the foundation for a new type of journalism that put ratings above anything else. Murdoch cares only about profit, and the natural consequence of this has been to feed people’s insatiable desire for gossip at any cost.

Murdoch may claim innocence when it comes to the specifics of the phone hacking scandal, but he is responsible on a far broader basis. Murdoch’s media empire and what happens in it is a reflection of his own values – and sadly he doesn’t have any.

Subscribe

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below:

By Bob Cesca: During the Bush years, and specifically following the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the line from all of the top Republican A-listers was that criticizing the commander-in-chief while troops were in harm’s way was not only dangerous, it was unpatriotic and treasonous.

“The only ideas that they espouse are ways to undermine the troops in harm’s way and undermine their commander in chief while they’re at war. Your candidates have no idea how to keep this economy strong.”
–Sean Hannity, 10/18/06

“He’s the Commander-in-Chief. And what I find frankly repugnant about you and some of your fellow Democrats – you have undermined our president…”

–Sean Hannity, 03/19/06

“You know, Norman, those comments while we are at war, while troops are in harm’s way, while he is the commander in chief, do you not see the outrage in that?”

–Sean Hannity, 11/12/07

“I have had it with members of your party undermining our troops, undermining a commander in chief while we are at war…”

–Sean Hannity, 11/05

“You don’t criticize the Commander-in-Chief in the middle of a firefight. That could be construed as putting U.S. forces in jeopardy and undermining morale.”

–Bill O’Reilly, 04/04

“Can we do it without distorting their legacies and pandering to anti-American elites worldwide and using their deaths to embarrass and undermine our commander in chief?”

–Michelle Malkin, 11/23/05

“On the other hand, if Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat Congress are successful in undermining the commander-in-chief (thereby emboldening the terrorists to kill more Americans in Iraq)…”

–Tom DeLay, 04/11/07

“And furthermore, one of the fundamental principles we have in America is that the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces and attempts to undermine the commander in chief during time of war amounts to treason.”

–Pat Robertson, 12/07/05

Of course this rule was abandoned as soon as Barack Obama was inaugurated and became the commander-in-chief of the military. From that point on, Republicans have simply let fly all over the new commander-in-chief as if no one ever uttered those quotes.

Obviously it’s okay to, in their own words, put the troops at risk during a Democratic administration.

And also, the modern conservative movement has abandoned any sort of core values in lieu of taking the exactly opposite position of liberals, regardless of how absurd they appear. They’re soulless poseurs, which is also why so many of them are chickenhawks. They claim to support the members of the U.S. military, but when it came time for they themselves to serve, they bailed out — and often with hilarious tales of cowardice.

What’s a chickenhawk, exactly? Chickenhawks are staunchly pro-war conservatives who never served in the military because they engaged in deliberate efforts to avoid the military draft. In the name of politics, they sometimes criticize the service of actual veterans and soldiers, and in way too many cases, they like to play dress-up in military regalia. Not only do they support sending young men and women to war, but by avoiding the draft, someone else had to go to war in their places.

As for various presidents and their involvement in war, it’s also important to note that there’s no rule — moral, constitutional or otherwise — that says our political leaders had to have served in the military in order to support or order our military into a combat situation. In fact, when President Washington resigned his commission prior to taking the presidential oath of office, he established the precedent that the commander-in-chief be a civilian post and that the military be subordinate to a civilian command structure. Imagine if every time a president had to order a military strike against an enemy, he or she had to resign in favor of someone who has served? Or worse, imagine, as an American, being hamstrung into only voting for politicians with military backgrounds. Carried to its furthest extent, only choosing presidents with military service backgrounds would essentially amount to a military junta. Military service should neither qualify nor disqualify an American from elected public service, as long as they’re a civilian when they’re sworn in.

Rush Limbaugh: Draft dodger in chief

In the interest of full disclosure, I personally never served in the military. I’ve also, however, never supported Bush’s wars, and would never presume to question the military service or patriotism of anyone who has served in those wars. I would never refer to any veteran as a “phony soldier,” as draft-dodger Rush Limbaugh once did, especially if my reason for avoiding the Vietnam draft was as embarrassing as Limbaugh’s. Regarding Afghanistan, I support a pragmatic “finish the job” policy, as was also endorsed by Howard Dean, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and, naturally, President Obama in order to end the war in a responsible way.

I feel as if my position on war and the military is consistent and rational.

Ted Nugent, on the other hand, is a raging chickenhawk in every sense of the word. He’s probably the worst kind of chickenhawk, actually. Not only is he loudly pro-war, but he dresses up in military garb; he criticized — and even talked about assassinating the commander-in-chief while troops are in harm’s way (reminder: conservatives have called this kind of talk unpatriotic, anti-American and treasonous); and, worst of all, he appears to have avoided the Vietnam draft on four occasions.

First he received a high school student deferment. Then, having enrolled in community college while also working as a professional musician, he received a college student deferment. And then, he smeared himself in poop, took meth (despite his claim to have never taken drugs) and acted like a maniac. Seriously. In an interview in a 1977 issue of High Times, Nugent said:

I got my physical notice 30 days prior to. Well, on that day I ceased cleansing my body. No more brushing my teeth, no more washing my hair, no baths, no soap, no water. Thirty days of debris build. I stopped shavin’ and I was 18, had a little scraggly beard, really looked like a hippie. I had long hair, and it started gettin’ kinky, matted up. Then two weeks before, I stopped eating any food with nutritional value. I just had chips, Pepsi, beer-stuff I never touched-buttered poop, little jars of Polish sausages, and I’d drink the syrup, I was this side of death, Then a week before, I stopped going to the bathroom. I did it in my pants. poop, pi** the whole shot. My pants got crusted up.

See, I approached the whole thing like, Ted Nugent, cool hard-workin’ dude, is gonna wreak havoc on these imbeciles in the armed forces. I’m gonna play their own game, and I’m gonna destroy ‘em. Now my whole body is crusted in poop and pi**. I was ill. And three or four days before, I started stayin’ awake. I was close to death, but I was in control. I was extremely antidrug as I’ve always been, but I snorted some crystal methedrine. Talk about one wounded motherf****r. A guy put up four lines, and it was for all four of us, but I didn’t know and I’m vacuuming that poop right up. I was a walking, talking hunk of human poop. I was six-foot-three of sin. So the guys took me down to the physical, and my nerves, my emotions were distraught. I was not a good person. I was wounded. But as painful and nauseous as it was – ‘cause I was really into bein’ clean and on the ball – I made gutter swine hippies look like football players. I was deviano.

So I went in, and those guys in uniform couldn’t believe the smell. They were ridiculin’ me and pushin’ me around and I was cryin’, but all the time I was laughin’ to myself. When they stuck the needle in my arm for the blood test I passed out, and when I came to they were kicking me into the wall. Then they made everybody take off their pants, and I did, and this sergeant says, “Oh my God, put those back on! You f*****g swine you!” Then they had a urine test and I couldn’t pi**, but my poop was just like ooze, man, so I poop in the cup and put it on the counter. I had poop on my hand and my arm. The guy almost puked. I was so proud. I knew I had these chumps beat. The last thing I remember was wakin’ up in the ear test booth and they were sweepin’ up. So I went home and cleaned up.

They took a putty knife to me. I got the street rats out of my hair, ate some good steaks, beans, potatoes, cottage cheese, milk. A couple of days and I was ready to kick ass. And in the mail I got this big juicy 4-F. They’d call dead people before they’d call my ass. But you know the funny thing about it? I’d make an incredible army man. I’d be a colonel before you knew what hit you, and I’d have the baddest bunch of motherf****n’ killers you’d ever seen in my platoon. But I just wasn’t into it. I was too busy doin’ my own thing, you know.

To be fair, some time later Nugent backpedaled and said that he never pooped himself. But Selective Service records show that he received a total of four deferments, including a 4-F, which is described by the Army as: “Registrant not acceptable for military service. To be eligible for Class 4-F, a registrant must have been found not qualified for service in the Armed Forces by a Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) under the established physical, mental, or moral standards. The standards of physical fitness that would be used in a future draft would come from AR 40-501.”

Recalling that era, Nugent later said, “I did not want to get my ass blown off in Vietnam.” No one can blame him for that, but some other kid had to go in his place. That other kid could’ve had his ass blown off instead, and, while knowing this, Nugent can still go on stage playing dress-em-up in military uniforms and, between concerts, fantasize about killing the commander-in-chief — undermining the troops.

It’s admittedly difficult to fully describe, despite his crazy gun rants and threatening eliminationist language, how cowardly Ted Nugent really is, though chickenhawks like Dick Cheney are far worse, given his five deferments and subsequent involvement in ordering the most recent two wars, in addition to, as Secretary of Defense, the first Gulf War. But Nugent is near the top of the list. Poop or no poop.

Subscribe

Bob Cesca's feed

Enter email below:

US Senator Marco Rubio of Florida. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio officially threw his support behind Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney Wednesday night in an appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity” show.

“It’s evidently and increasingly clear that Mitt Romney’s going to be the Republican nominee,” Rubio told Sean Hannity. “I am going to endorse Mitt Romney.”

“He offers such a stark contrast to the president’s record,” he added.

Rubio said that the primary needed to come to a close and that Republicans must avoid a “floor fight” in Tampa this summer: “I don’t think there’s anything good about that.”

“I think it’s a recipe for disaster.”

“I think all the candidates in this race have a lot to be proud of,” speaking of the other Republicans running for the party’s nomination, but he called Obama a “disastrous president” and suggested the GOP should begin to focus on the general election.

Read more at YahooNews.com

Subscribe

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below:

NewsHounds debunks Sean Hannity's assertion that Birtherism wasn't his 'issue':

Sean Hannity’s Great American Panel unanimously and emphatically broke ranks with Hannity last night (6/29/11) as each panelist agreed that Donald Trump’s birtherism was offensive and racist. Predictably, white-rights enthusiast Hannity argued otherwise. But as the panel continued to denounce birtherism, he said, “It never was my issue.” Hannity didn’t care to enlighten us as to the definition of “his issue,” but if repeatedly giving airtime and legitimacy to suggestions that there was something fishy about President Obama’s birth certificate – even after he had produced it – counts, then it certainly was Hannity’s issue. Of course, it’s also quite possible Hannity knew all along it was a bogus controversy but he was willing to cast aside truth, accuracy and evidence in order to hit at Obama. The fact that there was a racial angle to the whole thing probably made it all the more tantalizing.

Here's Hannity not talking about his 'issue':

Subscribe

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below:

Image by afagen via Flickr

On Friday, I got the chance to speak with Keith Olbermann about his new TV show 'Count Down with Keith Olbermann' that will be aired at 8pm ET on Current TV. Olbermann spoke to a select few bloggers about the show and discussed what he hoped to achieve with it. He was in fine form, showing little regret for his acrimonious split with MSNBC and much enthusiasm for his new project.

I asked Keith about the ultimate aim of the show and whether he was attempting to move away from the previous format of 'Count Down' and the vicious partisanship present in the mainstream media.

"This is a progressive television news operation – there is no desire to shy away from that term," Olbermann told me.

"One thing I think that is pretty clear…the sort of stuff we've been doing on the practice runs or test shows – everybody is fair game," he continued."I did a commentary that went online and was also used on the practice show last night specifically criticized the President of the United States in very blunt terms of his what I thought was mishandling of Anthony Weiner's resignation."

The enormous buzz about Olbermann's new show centers around the organization he is now working for – an overtly progressive and independent company founded by Al Gore and Joel Hyatt. The network was created to challenge the conglomerate owned media, and is now available in 30 million homes around the country. Current has won various awards for its programming and puts much of its content online – a factor that clearly interested Olbermann.

"There are certain limitations in both directions that partisan media in the sort of old media format – television require and create, and we're not bound by those," Olbermann said. "We're not going to fit any stereo types, we're going to surprise people on the content."

True to form however, Olbermann made it clear that the show would reflect his own political beliefs.

"We're not going to try and sell anyone on the notion that this will be a popular program with conservatives,' he said. "I don't particularly care if it isn't, I don't think they are right about things. That's my point of view, and that's the point of view we're going to operate from."

It is easy to paint Olbermann as a liberal version of Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity – he wears his political identity on his sleeves and dedicated much of his previous show to assaulting Republicans at every given opportunity. But Olbermann has a history of confronting those on the Left just as viciously as those on the Right – a point that he wanted to impress when speaking to me.

"On the other hand, that does not mean I won't be critical, and I've already been critical of the President of the United States, the Democrats in the Senate, the Democrats in the House, all together, as individuals, certain Democrats who might be that in name only, certain liberal who maybe that in name only," he said.

"I think that the problem is not necessarily having a point of view," he continued. "It's pretending you have a point of view that is in fact someone elses in reality, like someone elses set of talking points"

This attitude – the attitude that got him fired from MSNBC has clearly not deterred Current from taking him onboard (for a reported $10 million a year – a far larger sum than he was earning before). The emboldened Olbermann promised to be more bombastic, more opinionated, and more independent than ever before.

"I will not carry water for anybody," he said. "And no one is necessarily exempt from criticism on this show."

Love him or hate him, Keith Olbermann is most definitely back.

Subscribe

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below:

Sarah Palin is back in the news in what looks like an attempt to make a second pre-run run at the Presidency. There have been a series of carefully orchestrated photo ops showcasing her 'Americanness'; Palin hanging with Hells Angels, Palin in front of the Statue of Liberty, Palin hanging with Donald Trump, with more apparently on the menu from her quickly organized bus tour around the country.

Palin fell from grace a few months ago after badly misjudging the Gabrielle Giffords tragedy and making the horrific event about herself. Her response was so narcissistic and ill timed that even her die hard fans seemed to wither away, and asides from Sean Hannity, no one was willing to risk their reputation to defend her. It looked like the game was over for Palin, as she had finally managed to implode to the point of no return. But like a star boxer who loses by brutal knockout, retirement from the limelight was simply too difficult to walk away from. There is always money to be made from stars, and someone somewhere will finance a comeback of even the lowliest attractions in the name of making a buck or two.

Palin is still a lucrative product, and despite her drastically reduced fan base, there's still enough people left to sell some t-shirts to and pack out a few stadiums in the midwest. Because lets be clear – Sarah Palin cannot conceivably win the GOP primaries and she cannot conceivably take on the President. Her backers must know this, so their motives must lie elsewhere. 

Palin is a cash cow, and she is being dragged out to perform to her audience like Celine Dion was when she moved to Las Vegas for a stable pay check. Like the former Canadian mega star, Palin is no longer an A-list attraction and can only now play to her niche.

Everyone seems to be in on the action – the news networks are hopping around her tour bus trying to ask her questions, and every presenter from Fox to CNN has included segments about her on their shows. It looks like Palin will run for President, and the networks and her backers are licking their lips with anticipation. There will be hour long specials, book deals, exclusive interviews, more reality shows, etc etc and it will get dragged out for months.

This is what passes for politics in America, and it's about to go into overdrive.

Subscribe

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below: