On Sunday Pelosi and the Dems got the Healthcare Reform bill Passed, something that Hillary couldn’t do when William Jefferson was president—history has been made, no matter what happens next. Of course, what’s next is what’s been going on already. For a year now we’ve been listening to the right’s rhetoric against Health Care reform, but that’s all it is: rhetoric. And it goes on. You have to admire the “conservatives” who are, indeed, conserving their stance, regardless.

Already we’ve got a quarter of the States’ Attorney Generals prepping lawsuits against the bill. (“13 attorneys general sue over health care overhaul,” Seattle Times, Mar 23, 2010) And what’s “hilarious” about this is they’re suing specifically over a portion of the bill that was the only part Republicans wanted—the part the requires people to buy health care, or get fined. (“Healthcare reform bill included big GOP idea: individual mandate,” Miami Herald, Mar 23, 2010) Let’s not wax paranoiac about that—let’s not assume the GoP laced the bill with a poison pill just to get the whole state-rights thing going. No, let’s chalk it up to the vast difference between Political Conservative and Popular Conservatives.

To think that a bunch of fat cat money-hungry elitist old-world politicians are the ones who represent good old country-boy Americans is not laughable anymore, it’s tragic. The very people who made them poor in the first place, shoved them to the side where they got stuck on a moralistic time warp, are now the ones courting them, to stay in office. They have nothing in common except rhetoric, and so that’s all there is to health-care opposition.

The use the same tactics as terrorists, fear mongering, outrageous slippery-slope arguments. The bill will kill the elderly? Bankrupt the country? Expand government? Install socialism? How? How will it do these things? Quit talking in platitudes—save that for your Jesus rants. We’re not interested in fiery pulpit speeches. We want dialogue, we want context, we want to understand.

You know what other attitude is supported by rhetoric, only, and has no basis in fact, logic, or any kind of reason? Racism. The reason a lot of people on the left thing conservatives are anti-Obama for reasons of racism alone is because the right sounds just like the people against civil rights in the 60s. It’s really hard to see any difference.

And what with the recent spate of violence against Democrats around the country, one wonders if there’s any difference at all, or if we need to bother finding one. (“Health care reform anger takes a nasty, violent turn,” CNN, Mar 26, 2010) Of course, when Obama said “Go for it” he wasn’t talking about bricks. He was talking about mid-term elections. The reason Obama is not that student standing in front of the tanks in Tienanmen Square is because Obama is president of the most powerful nation on earth, and leader of the party in charge. You want to start a civil war, Republicans? You think you can rally poor folk to die so you can stay in power? Go for it.

This blog aspires to be like that as well, hence the name. All punditry is foolish. Pundits are basically lobbyists to the public. Yes, I’m hoping you pick up on the negative connotation of “lobbyists.”

To that end, I have the radio these days tuned to the conservative station. I end up hearing Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage. Sometimes local guys. Sometimes Rush Limbaugh. As for the latter, he’s really becoming a case of inverse Poe’s Law (there may be another word for this—let me know). I hear him literally huffing and puffing and saying outlandish things, I can’t be certain it’s not an actor doing a parody of him.

Yesterday I heard Glenn Beck making fun of the census, but I got bored before I could tell if he was just being silly or if he had a real problem with it. A quick search today reveals he does, indeed, have a problem with the Census. It will bring back slavery, don’t you know, because it asks you what race you are.

I looked to see what Rush and Sean had to say, but didn’t find much in my quick searches—just people saying that Rush was against it, in general, something about it being unconstitutional or not what the founding father shad in mind, and all I could find on from Hannity was rantin’ and ravin’ against ACORN, which at one point was going to assist the Census Bureau, but now is not.

Other searches for Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly only yielded more left-wing rantin’ and ravin’. I guess I’ll need to watch their shows and read their columns to catch this stuff myself. This is not something I relish doing.

At any rate, I need to come up with a justification for your reading all this. So here’s the payoff—we got out Census questionnaire in the mail yesterday, and I’m sort of excited. We’re going to fill it out on the same day we do our taxes. I can’t speak for anyone else, left or right, white or not, but I’m feeling pretty good about being an American, getting to participate like this. Some people like to vote. Me, I like to contribute.

It seems Rush “I’m not a caver” Limbaugh has been dropped by the group looking to buy the St. Louis Rams. I will now quote my local paper, quoting Limbaugh: “This is not about the NFL. It’s not about the St. Louis Rams. It’s not about me… This is about the ongoing effort by the left in this country, wherever you find them, in the media, the Democrat Party, or wherever, to destroy conservatism, to the prevent the mainstreaming of anyone who is a prominent as a conservative… Therefore, this is about the future of the United States of America and what kind of country we’re going to have.”

Really, that’s all you have to read. Just that quote. Ignore my commentary, ignore what the NFL has to say about this, various players, pro-Rush and anti-Rush people. Just read what he said: that his being dropped from the group trying to buy the Rams is only about the Future of The United States of America.

The hypocrisy of Limbaugh is truly astounding. When Hannity does it, you chalk it up to his willful ignorance. When Beck does it, you assume he’s depending on the ignorance of his watchers. But this, from Limbaugh, smacks of true dementia, as if Limbaugh really does, genuinely, sincerely, have some kind of mental disorder. To actually be so paranoid as to believe the left is out to get him, even while he announces that he hopes the Obama administration fails. To insist that his buying a sports team is an act of mainstreaming, while at the same time insisting that Obama’s bid for the Olympics in Chicago was an act of pure ego. To claim that the Democrat party is out to destroy conservatism, while simultaneously holding that he agrees with the Taliban over the recent Nobel Peace Prize award.

Punditry has gotten to the point, lately, where I actually read the paper and scan over Limbaugh’s website just so I can look forward to what the Daily Show is going to do with the antics performed by the right. Here’s my ethics question: is it unethical to laugh at the mentally handicapped, especially if they’re trying to be the opposite of funny?

It really is too easy. Rush said “I’m not a caver. Pioneers take the arrows. We are pioneers.” Yes, you read that right. Rush invokes that old stereotype of cowboys and injuns to assert his steadfastness.

Remember when Rush was trying to get on Monday Night Football? And they gave the job to Dennis Miller instead? If nothing else, at least we know one bastion of Americana hasn’t caved in the last six years.

The argument goes that the cross is a war memorial, and the challenge from the pro-cross camp is that it honors all war dead, not just Christian war dead. Damned absurd, of course, but I’d like to address something a little more basic:

How does a few tons of concrete in the middle of the desert honor anybody? Honor? What is honor?

I suppose someone will tell me that a person looks at the monument, remembers that soldiers died fighting for our country, and should be thankful in some capacity. This is something I have never understood. What’s the good of that “thankfulness.” Does it make people act better—and who’s to say what “better” even means? Do people look at a war memorial, consider the sacrifice that soldiers made, and choose therefore to pay their taxes on time? To work as volunteers? To vote for the more “patriotic” congressional candidate? (ugh).

To me, the whole thing smacks of appeasement (to dredge up a word from the anti- anti-Bush camp of a few years ago). Seems to me that folks who’d send other people’s sons to be ripped to shreds by enemy gunfire for the sake of political expediency and economic excess do so at the behest of “honor,” which is paltry payment. If the war is so damned important, why aren’t the decision-makers going? Why aren’t their sons going?

I say, to “honor” the war dead, instead of putting up a cross in the middle of nowhere, how about we create some war-memorial jobs. Heck, if Verizon can sponsor a football stadium, what’s the problem with The World War II Veterans Honorary Park Cleanup Program. Or the Vietnam Veteran’s Children’s Education Foundation.

Yes, it’s a mouthful. But at least we’d get real benefit from it. Compare that mouthful to the hundreds of pages the Chief Justices are going to produce in deciding the fate of the Mojave Cross.

Because they don’t vouch for any kind of political ideal anymore. They are strictly anti-Obama. Whatever Obama wants, they’re opposed to, regardless of what it means. You know people like this—ask them who their favorite football team is, and they’ll say “whoever’s playing against the 49ers.” Or the Yankees. Or the Lakers.

Which is fine in sports, but in politics is just damaging to the country as a whole. It’s the cancer that makes a two-party system truly worthless. It’s the reason the proposed healthy care plan can’t get legs.

The latest example is how the various pundits are joyful about in Obama’s not getting Chicago for the 2016 Olympics. Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, to name a few. Go read this better written article at Huffington to see what I mean.

Glenn Beck crying on cue, Sean Hannity invoking the name “Hussein” every time he mentions the president, Anne Coulter’s Muslim-bashing. These are not “conservative” issues. These are the rants and insults that chubby arm-chair quarterbacks hurl at the guy in the bar wearing the other team’s colors.

Ask their followers why they’re anti-Obama, and they’ll give you reasons like He Wasn’t Born Here, or He Wants To Kill Grandma, or even His Wife Wears Outfits That Expose Her Shoulders. Can someone explain to me how this has anything to do with making our country a better place to live?

“That Trip to Copenhagen was a huge waste of time. There’s more important things for him to be doing.” That’s one argument, but consider this: Obama has been president for just 260 days. When your Bush was President, he spent over 900 days at Camp David or his ranch. I think we can spare Barack HUSSEIN Obama a few days to bring some goodwill and tourist revenue to one of our nation’s premier cities.

So I’m calling for an end to giving them the benefit of the doubt. They do not preach a conservative message, these angry gorillas. They don’t have a right-wing agenda. They’re not even capable of a pro-rich conspiracy anymore. I mean, at least Cheney, being evil, was true to a form.

No, they’re just a bunch of GoPs in their ball caps and their team-shirts, throwing beer cans at the other teams’ logo. Losers.

Here’s what El Rusho had to say:

Blah blah blah, then, “Republicans like sex, too. Up ’til now that’s been debatable. Republicans are these church going, moralistic no-fun-in-life kind of people according to the libs. …for crying out loud, folks, this is inexplicable. …lust is the one human emotion over which you have no control. It can make you do things that in your sane moments you would never do. …But I’ll tell you what. If he were a Democrat it would be a resume enhancement.” Note that clipped out a lot more blah blah blah. Go to Monsieur Le Rush’s website and read the transcript for yourself.

Notice how Rush first uses this to attack liberals. Yes, a Republican cheats on his wife, and it’s liberals fault for thinking the GoP is sexless. Next, notice how the harshest thing Rush can say about the man’s being a cheater is “it’s inexplicable.” Measure that against the words he used to describe Clinton. Or Kennedy maybe. Or Wayne Hayes, Barney Frank, Jim McGreevey, or Eliot Spitzer.

More interesting to me is how Fox news has treated this, specifically, they’re use of the (D) incorrectly. That’s right, the identified the cheater is a Democrat. I wish I could have been there, I mean, which would be worse to your stereotypical South Carolinian? That the governor cheated on his wife, or that somehow a Democrat got elected to Governor?

Thanks to an article on Reddit, other instances of Fox using the wrong political designator for scandalous Republicans have been collected. Take a look:

Mark Foley, Republican Congressman from Florida: wrote perverted e-mails and instant messages to underage male pages.

Pat Toomey, Republican congressman from Pennsylvania: helped write legislation that repealed most of the Glass-Steagall Act, which has led to our current economic crisis.

Lincoln Chaffee, Senator from Rhode Island: favors increased federal funding for health care an increase in the federal minimum wage, affirmative action and gun control. Voted against the Flag Desecration Amendment. Limbaugh and Coulter are both on the record as being very much anti-Chafee.

Ted Stevens, Senator from Alaska: took bribes, and became the fifth sitting senator ever to be convicted by a jury in U.S. history. Wears Hulk ties.

Fox does this all the time—go hit the Google, see if you can find more. Heck, someone probably has a blog dedicated to just this subject.

Go read this: http://www.truthout.org/061009L. It explains how, so far, our Government has been turning a small profit on the bailout.

Yes, that’s right– not only did the bailout start the recovery process, it has also been good for the budget.

I’m only telling you this so that you’ll have it when your conservative friends lambast Obama for giving away our money to fatcats.

If they have a valid argument to make, listen to them, and discuss.

But if they’re just bashing, out of a sense of political loyalty, hitting ‘em back with the article.

Peace.

It’s time to stop pulling punches. It’s time to call them out for what they are: hate mongers. Already I’ve seen one conservative say that this will result in a liberal-media going out of control with spin, and that it will result in a law arresting anyone who speaks out against abortion. Of course he was being a bit hyperbolic, but, dude, seriously? Your take from this murder is that the liberal media will use it to their advantage?

No. There is only one way that Limbaugh, Hannity,. O’Reilly, and Coulter can talk about this without looking like terrorists: to condemn the act utterly and leave it at that. Don’t rehash abortion arguments. Don’t use this as a platform to talk about rights and God and babies. Call Tiller’s murderer a murderer and say nothing else, or be painted as a terrorist.

Yes, I know, they have a right to speak that way. And I believe they should have this right. But I don’t think this right justifies what they say. It does not make what they say morally correct. If that were true, then they’d have to admit that Larry Flynt’s publication of pornography is also morally correct, since he has the legal right to do so. No, what they say is legal, but it is also wrong.

How about that? A liberal saying we don’t need laws, i.e. government telling is right from wrong.

No good will come if this, and if we are very lucky, no good means no bad either. At the very best, the country will ignore this as thoroughly as we ignored it in 1983, which was also designated The Year of The Bible. Do you remember that? Me neither, and I was in Kansas at the time, where the Bible has a little more presence than some other places.

More likely, however, is that bad will come if it—outrage, anger, and you can say goodbye to bipartisanship. At the forefront will be the “separate church from state” group, who will have to drop more important, legitimate battles, in order to address this more publicized and ridiculous one. Rather than striking down every anti-gay statute based on religious motivation, they’ll be called upon to denounce this act of clear pandering.

Because that’s what it is. The Republicans are losing their grip. They’re losing constituents, and losing confidence. This is nothing more than an attempt to shore up votes, to draw a thick line. The declaration is obvious: if you believe in the bible, you are a Republican.

Me, I’m an American before I’m either a conservative or a liberal, but if these time-wasters in the house want to draw lines, and force us to declare our party affiliation, if they demand that we make this a purely political issue, fine: My president is a Democrat, my representatives in the House and Senate are Democrats, and therefore, you cannot make 2010 the year of the bible, since you do not represent the will of all or even most of the people.

Shame on you.

This article was brought to my attention by someone who I will not name, out of respect. I mean, he’s an otherwise nice guy. But he posted a link to this article, and then said, “If I pay my credit card bills before they draw interest, it’ll mean I pay for it in other ways, more than those who carry debt…That’s a great law!! We end up paying for people who don’t pay…good thinking here!” (I changed the wording, because I don’t want to appear to be sucker-punching him in a place he cannot respond. But this is the gist.)

In response, someone else wrote “Another amazing Washington accomplishment! Gotta love those flippin goof balls!” (I didn’t change this one. I don’t know this guy).

This guy is a conservative, by the way, if you could not tell. More than once he’s posted similar commentary, bashing our Democratic congress and our Democratic president. And I’ve found myself jumping into argue against him, only to erase everything I wrote before posting, because there’s no point attempting a rational discussion with someone who makes irrational statements.

So, did you read the article? Am I wrong? Is there anything in there about Congress passing a law that MAKES credit card companies try to punish us for paying our bills on time? Is there anything indicating these “flippin goodfballs” have done something that directly makes my life worse?

Because what I read was that Congress wants to stop credit card companies from making billions of dollars off of predatory lending. We all saw what happened the last time predatory lending ran rampant. The housing industry collapsed and out country entered a recession.

Here at Antipundit, our goal, when we remember to do it, is to dismantle the nonsense that comes out of knee-jerk reactions. And we try to be careful, and we try not to write something based on our own knee-jerk reactions. So tell me if I’m having one. Because what I’m seeing is a conservative spinning a good thing into a bad thing just because democrats are doing it!

That’s not just crass—it’s evil. Yeah, I said it. I very much doubt the second commenter even bothered reading the article. I’m pretty sure he saw the posting, and assumed Congress was, in fact, passing a law that required credit card companies to charge us more for paying our bills on time.

Now, this guy, he’s not a professional. He’s not on the airwaves, he’s not earning money from sponsors who pay to place ads in and around vitriol and hatred. He’s just a guy, and he’s got a right to his opinion, of course. But what about the professionals? What are they saying about this? I’m going to go do some poking and find out.