Happy Hour Discurso

Today's opining on the public discourse.

This is the funniest fucking thing I've heard all day:

Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity were all over the latest video release in the self-concocted ACORN "scandal" they've been pitching all over the cable and airwaves the past week. This time, they supposedly caught an ACORN volunteer named Tresa Kaelke giving them advice on how to set up their pimping operation.

Now, you'd think they would clue in that they were being put on when the woman talked about having killed one of her ex-husbands, but no. They proceeded apace -- and then splashed it all over Fox News this week, credulously.

Ellen at Newshounds has the rest of the story:

The only problem? It’s not true. As ACORN has stated in its press release,

“They were not believable", said Ms. Kaelke of the two actors. "Somewhat entertaining, but they weren't even good actors. I didn't know what to make of them. They were clearly playing with me. I decided to shock them as much as they were shocking me. Like Stephan Colbert does – saying the most outrageous things with a straightface." While her sense of humor might not be funny to many people, the fact is that she spun false scenario after false scenario and the videographer ate them up.

ACORN provided a copy of a San Bernardino police report of their investigation into the “homicide” of Kaelke’s husband. The police concluded, “the claims do not appear to be factual. Investigators have been in contact with the involved party’s known former husbands, who are alive and well.”

It probably would've been better if all ACORN employees had just thrown the "pimp & pros" out on their asses, but still - hilarious. And what a beautiful demonstration of Faux News' inability to engage in actual journalism.

Speaking of people demonstrating their ability to believe whatever they want to hear, Rush Limbaugh has now decided that the President is personally responsible for school bullies:

Among some of President Obama's more despicable right-wing detractors, there has long been a racial element to their attacks. Generally, however, there's at least some subtlety to the race-baiting. Even the most depraved conservatives realize that unvarnished racism will generate a backlash, so they tend to be cautious.

Yesterday, however, the right came about as close to "straight-up George Wallace-style race-baiting" as we've seen from high-profile conservatives all year. It apparently started with a blaring headline on Drudge: "White Student Beaten on School Bus; Crowd Cheers." In 2009, a fist fight among teenagers on a school bus is now important national news, because the kid throwing the punch was black, and the kid taking the punch was white.

Rush Limbaugh decided President Obama is somehow responsible for this.

"It's Obama's America, is it not? Obama's America, white kids getting beat up on school buses now. You put your kids on a school bus, you expect safety, but in Obama's America the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering, 'Yay, right on, right on, right on, right on,' and, of course, everybody says the white kid deserved it, he was born a racist, he's white."

Publius added, "[I]t's not not just Limbaugh. It's also Malkin, and Gateway Pundit, and Drudge, and Tom Maguire."

For those who believe reality matters, the school-bus fight reportedly had nothing to do with race, but rather, a couple of bullies who like to dictate who sits where on the bus. Conservatives who consider the fight of great national importance didn't even get the basics right. (Of course, even if the scuffle had been racially motivated, it takes a truly deranged political observer to hold the president responsible.)

Funny. I never heard about Bush being personally responsible when hate crimes rose 8% in a single fucking year during his reign.

Of course, Limbaugh's never alone in his hate-mongering. It seems the entire right wing went howling after this story - even after it was shown to have nothing to do with race and everything to do with regular ol' schoolyard bullying. Never let it be said that they let a fact get in the way of a good tantrum.

And just to put the rotten cherry on the pathetic sundae, here are the results of a recent poll:

A new Public Policy Polling survey of New Jersey voters has some shocking results: 21 percent either believe or aren’t sure that President Obama is the Anti-Christ. Twenty-nine percent of Republicans and 35 percent of “conservative” voters also either believe he is or aren’t sure.

You can just imagine what those results would be in the deep South.

Keeping up with the paranoia theme, Michelle Bachmann (R-Batshitcrazyville) has decided that Obama's out to take away our food:

A year and a half later, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) is worried. "President Obama said we can't eat as much food as we want and think the rest of the world will be okay about that, as if that matters to freedom-loving Americans," she told her colleagues from the House floor this week.

"Well, we just heard last week that the Federal Government now under the Obama administration is calling for a re-ordering of America's food supply. What is that going to mean? Now will the White House decide how many calories we consume or what types of food we consume?"

Yes, Michele, that's exactly what it means. In fact, ACORN will now be responsible for preparing all foods in all households. President Obama will appoint a "dinner czar" to make sure you don't skip your vegetables. If you do, a "death panel" will decide whether you qualify for dessert.

Minnesota: if you have any sense of self-worth, you will vote this circus clown out ASAP. And get her into a good psychiatric hospital. The sooner, the better.

And, finally, here's something that's hilarious in a different way. The Cons are attempting to explain that they were actually fiscal conservatives even when they were spending like shopping addicts trying to drain the joint bank account before the divorce was final:

Byron York reports that conservatives felt "deep reservations" about George W. Bush's "governing philosophy," but just didn't talk about it much. (thanks to reader D.D. for the heads-up)

Conservatives greatly admired Bush for his steadfastness in the War on Terror -- to use that outlawed phrase -- and they were delighted by his choices of John Roberts and Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court. But when it came to a fundamental conservative principle like fiscal discipline, many conservatives felt the president just wasn't with them.

You saw that throughout the 2008 Republican presidential primaries, when GOP candidates, while not mentioning Bush specifically, got big applause from conservative Republican audiences by pledging to return fiscal responsibility to the White House. [...]

Republicans have again found their voice on fiscal discipline. And some of them wish they had been more outspoken when a president of their own party was in the White House.

As DougJ asked, "How long til they start describing Bush as 'liberal'?" I'm guessing any minute now.

As a work of revisionist history, York's piece is almost amusing. Conservative Republicans on the Hill backed Bush on just about everything he asked for over two terms. GOP lawmakers helped Bush add $5 trillion to the national debt, and didn't hesitate to put two tax cuts, two wars, Medicare Part D, and No Child Left Behind on the national charge card, left for some future generation to worry about.

If Republicans were uncomfortable with any of this, they hid their concerns well.

And as Steve Benen goes on to point out, they still haven't got any fiscal discipline cred.

Of course, they haven't got any cred on anything at all, so I guess that's all right, then.