But Nancy Pelosi decides not to be completely brow beaten, like many other Democrats, by absurd threats of “filibuster” and helps pass an overly controlling health care bill that tells Americans what they must do, at a time when with health care costs spiraling out of control and some type of reform sorely needed, is the “biggest political victory for a woman ever achieved in America.”

That’s Bill Maher. The same Bill Maher who thought he was being chic when he called John Kerry a flip flopper, helping to validate over a year and close to hundreds millions of dollars of far right wing propaganda

At least he’s somewhat funny:

Two months ago, conservative Fred Barnes wrote, ”The health care bill is dead with not the slightest prospect of resurrection.” Well, if it’s dead, you just got your ass kicked by a zombie named Nancy Pelosi. Seriously, the last time a Democrat showed balls like that John Edwards’ girlfriend was filming it. Make all the botox jokes and she-shops-too-much jokes you want, but this is the biggest political victory a woman has ever achieved in America. Yes, Nancy Pelosi likes nice clothes. So does Sarah Palin. The difference is Nancy Pelosi pays for hers.

He also makes a separate good point: “You can’t use the statement ‘there will be no cooperation for the rest of the year’ as a threat if there was no cooperation in the first half of the year.”

Maybe at least Pelosi and a few others finally figured that out.

Far more of the African American community is being devastated by the policies of today than were being devastated by the policies of slavery.

As the original material source suggests (and reasonably, if one listens to the actual audio of the statement), it seems that Representative Trent Franks did not really mean the comment as racist, “paternalistic” or as an insult. But the statement is rather incredible, regardless.

Here’s guessing that “far more” if not all of the people who are “African American” prefer the “policies to today” to slavery, and that a lot of people, perhaps rightly so, would take great offense at Frank’s statement.

It’s easy to just scapegoat a group, and mix in a few wildly exaggerated and in most cases idiotic stereotypes that appeal to our deepest and most base emotions.  It’s the exact opposite of leadership. It’s cowardly, it’s insecure, it’s mean spirited. It’s ignorant.

At CPAC today, Tim Pawlenty went off an a really nasty rant about how liberals all sneer at conservatives for not having gone to Ivy League colleges and for not liking “brie and chablis.”

As this country moves further and further to the right, and– as we continue to have the opposite of our best and brightest, but the most gifted spinmeisters, seek to inform and lead our debate — misleading rhetoric continues to replace fact and understanding, America is beginning to slowly change. We are starting to enter the age of ignorance.

With all this information and misinformation abounding, in journals, magazines, books, universities, Internet sites galore, few can tell anymore what is spin and what is fact; with that which appeals to the lowest common denominator often rising to the top.  Like a shipwrecked crew in an ocean locked lifeboat, water all around yet dying from dehydration, our democracy — with information all around as misinformation continues to lead our national debates, is itself being threatened. From the inside.

For the record, Chablis is pretty lame. But we’re not liberals, so maybe we just don’t know — like 12 year school yard kid Pawlenty clearly does.  But this 12 year old prejudiced, ignorant, snob is a Governor of a state.

Maybe some Liberals can come off as a little elitist at times. Some, not understanding conservatives, sometimes do show disdain. It’s not helpful, and the disdain, with far more effective framing and messaging, is often shown right back.

But it’s idiotic, to bring brie and chablis into it. It’s not a metaphor. It’s a friggin’ cheese, and a crappy wine.  It’s the fallback for the weak, the lazy, the unthinking mind.  Exactly what Pawlenty seems to be insecure about being accused of, or, more likely, is trying to capitalize on, exploit, appeal to, foment,  in others.

Incidentally, Pawlenty graduated from one of the best law schools in the country.  He (theoretically) should know better. As should those putting up with this kind of lame reverse elitist snobbish contempt from the anti Chablis one time junior varsity Hockey Player.

One who, by the way, is considering a presidential run in 2008. No, not president of the local crass and lame divide and conquer stereotyping club; president of the United States.

A potential presidential candidate who — in addition to railing against any personal preferences for the easy targets of brie and chablis, picked an odd time to use a violence against Government metaphor:

Conservatives could learn a lot from Tiger Woods’ wife Elin, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty said at the Conservative Political Action Conference today.

“She said, I’ve had enough,” Pawlenty said. “We should take a page out of her playbook and take a 9-iron and smash the window out of big government.”

One day after one Andrew Joseph Stack, using an airplane as a missile, did just that.

Pawlenty, in this same CPAC speech, also rails against Liberals trying to take away freedoms, and how conservatives will “fight back.”

It’s not clear which freedoms he is talking about, since neither group has a full monopoly on taking away freedoms, but it seems conservatives have the clear if not lopsided edge here.

Yet clearly Pawlenty is not talking about the most basic freedoms of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, because once we “suspect you” of something, you have no more rights. Which defeats the ENTIRE purpose of having rights, in the first place. But that’s okay, just rail about protecting freedoms and at the same time rail against those laws and constitutional provisions that actually protect them, while blaming, of course, “Liberals” for everything once again. Classic rhetoric. The new fuel for America.

Brown’s victory gives Republicans the numbers in the Senate to filibuster most Democratic legislation…

Yes, it does, if one goes by the reasoning of the New Yorker’s Hendrik Helzberg, where the Filibuster is an evil tool that only one party has the right to both use, and prevent the other party from using.

Because, of course, Democrats used it all the time to stop legislation earlier this decade, right? And in particular, to stop all those super ideological Judicial appointments by the Bush Administration, too.

Or maybe not.  Let’s look at the ramifications of Democrats presuming that the filibuster is an occasional tool, except when their opponents badger them, then it is only an “extraordinary circumstances” tool, on the one hand,  but that in the hands of their political opponents can simply be used with impunity to no challenge at all.

Of course, Martha Coakley, the Democrat who lost in a state where only 13 percent of voters identified as Republicans, ran a campaign that should be a mandatory lesson for all her supporters in Cambridge.

Among other great sins, she belittled the retail politics of her opponent, who stood in the cold of a Bruins hockey game at Fenway Park, thus disparaging three great New England institutions a single two-second sound bite. It follows, then, that she didn’t know that Curt Schilling, the Boston pitcher who bled through his sox, was a Red Sox fan. Stealing a page from Mike Dukakis when he decided to spend August mowing his lawn while the 1988 presidential contest slipped away from him, her campaign essentially went dark with a double-digit lead. And she did what no Kennedy had ever done — she took the voter for granted.

…Democrats are good at bleeding, kvetching and woe-is-me-ing.

Democrats taking voters for granted.

Democrats belittling opponents in ways that don’t speak out to those beyond their own base, but that invariably impugn the very voters that they need to reach. (We won’t add “Democrats mocking these suggestions as irrelevant, or worse, because, well “we told the truth,” “If we got the message, then doesn’t that prove it was effective?” See here, for a classic example.)

Democrats then spending a whole lot of time, complaining about the very things that shouldn’t have happened, because it was all “so obvious.”

Yeah, we’ve heard this before.

It also ties in with a post here yesterday that asked “Just how bad are Democrats at Controlling the Debate,” and which made the same point which Egan ascribes to Jon Stewart, whom he calls the most astute political commentator in America. (Maybe he’s just the best known.)

This huge majority, as America’s most astute political observer, Jon Stewart, pointed out, is far more than George W. Bush ever had, and he used it to do whatever he wanted to with the country.

You don’t say. Our point, exactly. And we ask, why?

How come you knew that the way to beat these guys was to put em on defense.

The common sense mind boggles. It reels.  Very uncharacteristically, it grasps for air.  Truly, Democrats did not know this. And this is what, more than anything else, defines the past nine years.  The story behind the story — as always, more important than the one that is commonly “known,” or maintained.

How come you knew that the way to beat these guys was to put em on defense.

Mind you, Matthews is not talking about just Republicans here, or even the “Right,” but the far right (as he illustrates by way of example at the outset), which has come to take over, and largely define the Republican Party today.

Largely because Democrats did not know. Among other things, not so known.

Update: Matthews says something else pretty interesting on that video.  Minute 2:00

Why did the Democrats spend the last year or so attacking the way things are, as  a way of getting them fixed.

There are some things wrong with this statement; it plays to right wing framing, and it is somewhat misleading.  But there is also a great deal of truth in it. Or, more accurately a great deal of truth, in terms of how things are perceived. Democrats spend an unfailingly small amount of time defining the issues, and an even unfailingly smaller amount of time, defining their opponents.

Matthews, bad as he is, is not making these statements in a totalvacuum.  Democrats have spent a lot of time telling Americans what their opponents are, concluding what there opponents are, noting how “obvious” it is what there opponents are, but they have spent precious little time defining their opponents. Or even defining the issues, for that matter.

They usually play defense. It’s almost as if the Right is paying them. But it’s not. Democrats really seem to ofteh think that everyone knows what they “know” and so engage accordingly.  And this gets wildly self reinforced online, where the phenomenon is even worse.

Grayson — a pretty bright guy, self made, wildly rich, grew up dirt poor, put himself through Harvard and Harvard Law — may also think a lot of this stuff is obvious. But at least he shows what this stuff is.  And he does not play unnecessary defense.

As we noted earlier, Republicans fear him, because, as he put it;

The Republicans are serious about getting rid of me, because they are scared.  They have already set up a site to attack me. And the reason is simple; they don’t want my tough attitude to rub off on other Democrats.

No doubt. Whether Republicans  realize it, or not; they don’t.

By the way, it is important  to note — particularly given the level of vitriol on the web — that tough attitude is not defined by getting mad and calling people names.  It is defined by showing the case to the American people, breaking it down into terms that they — and not just the self reinforcing choir — can understand, and by turning their opponents miscues and misrepresentations into defining stories about them; not playing into them, and, as Matthews put it, “playing defense.”

Update II: We heard Matthews’ statement incorrectly.  Which lead to a fairly interesting analysis of how Democrats are often perceived to be “complaining.”  It turns out that we had it backward, and heard “did” when Matthews said “did not.”  Matthews: Why didnt the Democrats spend the last year or so attacking the way things are, as  a way of getting them fixed.

Well, interestingly, before agreeing with Matthews (well, agreeing with the opposite of what he was saying) we first noted “There are several things wrong with this statement” (the statement that was, in fact, the opposite of what Matthews was saying.)  Frankly, we don’t like the new “correct” statement either, but this is in some measure a function of framing. If Matthews simply meant “Why didn’t Democrats make the case as to what the issues are,” and then of course tie those into their opponents’ leadership and constant rhetoric, then it works.

From this morning’s fundraising email from the NRCC, signed by [Joe] Wilson:

There has been a lot of debate on what is true in the debate over government-run healthcare. But Democrats continue to spin and mislead the public in an attempt to stifle honest and open debate …..If we can raise more money than the Democrats, we’ll send a message .

From the DCCC’s fundraising email, signed by Paul Begala:

“You Lie!” That was one Republican Congressclown’s response to President Obama’s call for action on health insurance reform…Classy….But now the very liars who heckled President Obama for calling them out are raising millions of dollars off of their rude, dishonest attack — and even claiming victory in the media for it!

We think this sets up the Republicans perfectly for not just a fundraising email, but a full blown TV ad, that should say something like this:

Can you believe it America?  Congressman Wilson helped point out the hypocrisy of the Obama Administration’s push, as Democrats continue to continue to spin and mislead the public. We need to raise money to correct this stifling of open and honest debate by those dastardly Democrats, and now those same Democrats are actually, scandalously, trying to raise more money off of our fundraising that was pointing this out!

“We’ll see your two lies, and raise you one hypocrisy, a misrepresentation, and two government social workers thrown in.”

But the Democrats should then re-raise, with an ad that goes something like this:

Can you believe those absolutely classless, ”classy” Republicans, America!!  First they tried to raise money off of Joe Wilson’s outrageous attack upon the President, and did so by trying to project their own constant dissembling on the health care bill onto us, just like they always do!  Then, when we pointed this out – to raise funds to show these vicious lie — they used this against us to fund raise some more; by re-spinning those same lies! (And calling us “dastardly.”  America, make them apologize).  Even signed once again by “Classy” Joe Wilson.  Help us raise money now to defeat these lies about the truth we were telling about the lies they were telling about the truth!!!!

Of course the Republican camp will then run another ad, which will say something like this:

Hey, would somebody simply explain to the American people what this is all about so that we Republicans can stop lying so easily about it and actually have an informed discussion over the issue and see what we can do about these outrageously spiraling taxpayer funded medicare and medicaid expenses, which eat up more government funds than anything save perhaps national defense?

Yeah, Right.

Yet the media has covered the story quite a bit. As they have covered ACORN for quite some time now, on the continued rantings of those who think ACORN is the biggest thing in America.

But still, why hasn’t the media covered this latest “pimp” scandal even more?  Salon Columnist Glenn Greenwald, clearly, wonders as well why the media has not covered the  huge, enormous ACORN scandal as the very huge, enormous, once in several years type scandal that it quite clearly is.  Some hyperbole aside, his piece is well worth reading.

But even if the media “ignored” this HUGE story — which according to the far right means not making it one of the bigger stories in ages –Congress didn’t, and promptly passed a bill to address the situation. (As Congress often does, most particularly this decade, to address “situations.”)

However, there was a little problem.

So a few days ago Greenwald “interviewed”  Florida Representative Alan Grayson on just exactly this problem was.  Grayson, it should be noted, is a pretty formidable attorney.  (Here, he is lovingly described by Rolling Stone reporter and latest “in” commentator guy Matt Taibbi, in a pretty hilarious and entertaining post that describes Taibbi’s “personal experience” with him.  The video of Grayson grilling the Chief Counsel for the Federal Reserve, embedded at the bottom), gives a pretty good indication of Grayson’s skill set.)

Glenn Greenwald: You discovered that there was a potential consequence in this bill that was probably not intended by the bill’s sponsors. Can you talk about [that]?…

Alan Grayson: Well, I wouldn’t go that far, but I will say that it is true that 10 out of the 10 biggest defense contractors have been convicted of fraud at one time or another in the past few years, and ACORN hasn’t, it’s difficult to frame any bill, whatever one’s intent, to punish ACORN and keep ACORN from being funded by fed contracts…[and] This bill, taken literally, at its words, actually forbids and prohibits fed funding of virtually every large defense contractor in America.

Glenn Greenwald:Why couldn’t the bill just have simply said we will defund ACORN, and left it at that?…

Alan Grayson: The Constitution specifically prohibits bills of attainder; bills of attainder are actions by Congress that are directed toward one individual or one organization. And the reason for that is that Congress is a law-making body, not a judicial body. We [Congress] don’t actually decide guilt or innocence; we don’t decide liability, and therefore the Constitution understandably forbids a law that singles out ACORN or any other organization for punishment.

Glenn Greenwald: …Before you got to Congress, one of the things you were known for was working on fraud and abuse among contractors in Iraq. Can you put, in terms of the cost to the taxpayer of funding ACORN versus, say, the waste and abuse that comes from fraud on the part of military and defense contractors in Iraq [in context]?….

Alan Grayson: AG: …The amount of money that ACORN received in the past 20 years, all together, is roughly equal to what the taxpayer paid to Halliburton each day, during the war in Iraq.

We  agree that the ACORN scandal bears looking into.  But it also seems fair to ask the far right, if some dime store low level employees of already scandal ridden ACORN, engaging in some two bit, and somewhat hilarious, if not disturbing, ”free” pimp and prostitute and income sheltering advice is a national scandal of such epic proportions as to warrant a full court press of ongoing national news coverage; where was the same cry for more glaring media coverage, with respect to the far more significant — from a taxpayer standpoint – fraud convictions of each of our nation’s top defense contractors?

True, the ACORN story is more salacious.   But from a taxpayer standpoint, as Grayson points out, Halliburton – which has already been convicted of fraud with respect to expenditure of Taxpayer funds (awarded via not bid contracts, as well, upping the price to taxpayers considerably) – received from taxpayers each and every single day, roughly the same amount that ACORN had over 20 years. (The far right is also calling out for an investigation of Obama, as if he has been ACORN’s CEO just before becoming president;  Dick Cheney was Halliburton’s CEO.)

If we are talking about taxpayer support of fraud and improper purpose, it seems like Congress was focused on making an issue out of a pretty small ACORN, that fell from the mighty Oak tree of taxpayer funded fraud and abuse, instead of also going after, say, an actual mighty tree of fraud and abuse itself.  Wouldn’t all those Independent, anti Big Government, anti Fraud and Abuse, anti Waste of Taxpayers’ Money Tea Partiers agree with this?

Probably not. And therein lies the political problem that America is facing today.