If Obama is responsible for Orlando, is Bush responsible for 9/11?

By MARC McDONALD

Sen. John McCain got a lot of flak on Thursday for saying that President Obama is "directly responsible" for the shooting at Orlando's Pulse nightclub in which 49 people were killed.

I've got a couple of observations about this remark. First of all, McCain jumped the shark for me a long time ago. I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised at this latest nutty remark. Some time during the fiasco of the Bush years, McCain went from being a straight-shooter, sensible Republican to being prone to unhinged outbursts that one would normally encounter on talk radio.

But I wouldn't be too hard on McCain. Other Republicans have been saying virtually the same thing about Obama for years. In GOP World of Drudge/talk radio/Fox News, Obama is to blame for everything bad that ever happened. In their view, if someone slips on a grape peel, Obama is to blame. Over the years, many Republicans have rushed to blame Obama for everything from the Boston Marathon bombing to the San Bernardino attack.

For example, Ted Cruz repeatedly blamed Obama for failing to heed a warning about the San Bernardino attack that didn't even occur before the attack.

Oddly enough though, Obama never gets the slightest bit of credit from the GOP for anything good that happens ---and a lot of good has indeed happened on his watch.

Take the fact that there hasn't been a 9/11 on Obama's watch. (The likes of Orlando and San Bernardino, while horrific, were vastly smaller in scale that the apocalyptic disaster of 9/11, by a million miles the worst terror attack in America's history).

Incidentally, all mass shootings are acts of terror. Let's face it: in the U.S., mass shootings are routine events---and have been for decades.

The fact is, there hasn't been a 9/11 on Obama's watch. Obama in fact, has had a stellar record in keeping the American homeland secure. But he gets zero credit for it from the GOP. Just as he gets zero credit for the record stock market, the record corporate profit levels, and the record monthly streak of private-sector job growth. But listening to right-wing media, you'd be completely in the dark about any of these facts. I continue to hear Republicans (incredibly) claim that the disastrous Bush economy was better than Obama's economy.

While Obama gets zero credit for no 9/11 attacks and the stellar stock market, who do you think will immediately get ALL of the blame the second this stellar track record comes to an end? You can be assured that if there's another 9/11, Republicans will be howling that same day that it's all Obama's fault and that he should immediately resign. The same deal with the roaring stock market. If the market crashes tomorrow, it'll all be Obama's fault.

But some observers might make the claim that "This is just politics---it works both ways."

Does it, though?

Recall the aftermath of 9/11. I don't recall a single Democrat pointing the finger at Bush. In fact, the nation rallied around Bush. Bush's approval rating soared to 90 percent. I'm still unclear as to why this was. Even if you could argue that the Commander-in-Chief Bush was blameless for the disastrous breakdown in national security, I'm still in the dark as to why Bush's approval rating would soar into the stratosphere.

After 9/11, Bush's approval rating remained sky-high for years. It was only after the Iraq invasion started to descend into hellish chaos that Bush's approval rating began to sag.

So there you have it. If Obama is in charge, he gets blamed for everything. But if a Republican gets dandruff or has a leaky faucet, it's all Obama's fault.

Recall that with Bush in the White House, he pretty much got a free pass on just about everything.

War crimes? No problem.

Torture? No problem.

Illegal and unconstitutional warrantless wiretaps? No problem.

Lying the nation into an unnecessary, disastrous war? No problem.

Bush always got a free pass from Republicans (and frankly, from a lot of other people, as well as the mainstream media, much of the time).

All this came to an end, of course, when Obama was sworn in. And, of course, it continues today with Hillary Clinton. Say what you want to about the email scandal---but on a good day, Bush had bigger scandals than that before breakfast.

And take (please) the so-called Benghazi "scandal." Benghazi has now been investigated by 10 different congressional committees, chewing up over $7 million in taxpayer dollars. Incredibly, the endless and blatantly partisan investigations into Benghazi have now lasted longer than the government's investigation into 9/11.

As Dick Cheney put it in an interview with Sean Hannity about Benghazi, "I think it's one of the worst incidences, frankly, that I can recall in my career."

Yeah, Dick, whatever.

Never mind that, under Bush, there were 39 attacks or attempted attacks on U.S. embassies and embassy personnel. 87 people died during those attacks. And every attack was treated by the mainstream media as nothing more than a routine 24-hour news cycle story. Benghazi has gotten vastly more media coverage than all those attacks combined.

Of course, one of the key difference is that, when Benghazi happened, the gigantic million-watt Republican propaganda loudspeaker amplified the story. The whole right-wing talk radio/Drudge/Fox News GOP apparatus was able to breath constant new life into Benghazi. By constantly fanning the flames and shrieking about Benghazi, the GOP noise machine was able to repeatedly push the story into the mainstream media.

And, of course, as long as the Great GOP Noise Machine is around to distort news coverage, we can expect to see more of the same throughout a Hillary Clinton presidency. Which is one big reason why Hillary needs to restore the Fairness Doctrine. Until that happens, the likes of Rush will continue to pollute the public airwaves unchecked (public airwaves, which incidentally are owned by the American people).

How Rush Limbaugh Damaged The GOP Brand

By MARC McDONALD

When Rush Limbaugh first began spewing his daily dose of bigotry, lies and GOP propaganda back in the mid-80s, Republican leaders rejoiced. In Limbaugh, the GOP had a powerful spokesman who managed to persuade working-class white men to vote against their own interests.

In Limbaugh, the GOP also had a powerful political weapon. In the 1990s, they needed to tarnish President Clinton's reputation. And Limbaugh was on the case, sliming Clinton on everything from Vince Foster to Whitewater. No facts or truth was required, just smears.

Limbaugh's success spawned an entire industry of like-minded right-wing talk radio propagandists, each more extreme and outrageous than their predecessors. They proceeded to take over the AM radio dial. Then Fox News appeared, as well as the likes of Drudge and other right-wing Web sites.

Limbaugh, however, remained the King of GOP Propaganda. And millions of ditto-head listeners across the nation lapped up everything he dished out.

Throughout the 1990s, Limbaugh appeared to be an invaluable asset to the GOP.

But it was all a mirage. In reality, Limbaugh was a growing problem for the Republican Party. And today, he's become a serious liability that continues to damage the GOP brand.

The first signs that Limbaugh was poison for the GOP occurred during the administration of George W. Bush. Of course, Bush was a disaster for the GOP. Which made things decidedly awkward for Limbaugh, the de facto spokesman of the GOP.

With Bush, Limbaugh had two options. The first was that he could criticize Bush and retain whatever few shreds of credibility he had left. The second was that he could support Bush.

Limbaugh, of course, chose to continue backing Bush. In desperation, Limbaugh continued to cling to the faint hope that the long train wreck that was the Bush presidency would eventually turn itself around and that Bush's approval ratings would halt their long descent. Of course, that never happened.

Bush never regained favor with the public. And since he blindly supported Bush to the very end, Limbaugh lost whatever credibility he had left.

Since the 2008 election, Limbaugh has relentlessly pounded away at President Obama every day. But Limbaugh's attacks on Obama are increasingly toothless and impotent and often reach the point of self-parody.

Today, Limbaugh has become a clown and a laughingstock to the general public. Sure, the shrinking numbers of ditto-heads continue to lap it all up. But nobody else takes seriously anything that Limbaugh says.

In short, Limbaugh is no longer converting anyone to the GOP's cause these days. And his once-powerful ability to spread GOP propaganda has been greatly weakened.

Even Limbaugh's once-formidable smear tactic skills have all but vanished. Over the years, Limbaugh has promoted so many discredited smears that nobody takes him seriously any more, outside of the ditto-head base.

Today's Limbaugh has become a pathetic shell of his former self. But for the GOP, it actually gets much worse. The fact is, these days, Limbaugh has become a major liability for the party.

This became evident around the time of the Sandra Fluke controversy. For years, Limbaugh had possessed a special talent to use sexist, racist speech and somehow not pay a serious price for it. But all that came crashing down when Limbaugh called Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute."

Unlike previous Limbaugh controversies, the Fluke case didn't simply go away after a couple of news cycles. The controversy dragged on and on for months. It wounded Limbaugh deeply and led to a massive exodus of advertisers.

Of course, the Fluke case didn't merely damage Limbaugh. It damaged the GOP brand. After all, Limbaugh has been GOP's most powerful and high-profile voice for over two decades. Try as they might, GOP leaders were unable to effectively distance the Republican Party from Limbaugh's remarks.

It was one thing for Limbaugh to alienate African-Americans with his racist comments. It was quite another to alienate women (who, of course, make up a majority of U.S. voters).

I suspect that around the time of the Fluke controversy, the GOP's party leaders began to realize that they had a big, big problem on their hands with Limbaugh.

And it's a problem that's not going to go away. For all the talk about Republicans trying to become more mainstream, the fact is, Limbaugh today is as extremist and offensive as he's ever been. What's more, there's now an entire army of radical right-wing talk show hosts on the radio dial, along with the likes of Fox News and Drudge.

The right-wing propaganda apparatus shows absolutely no sign of moderating its extremist views. Listen to today's talk radio and you'll find hosts like Glenn Beck and Mark Levin, who are even more extremist and crazy than Limbaugh.

Besides damaging the GOP brand, the likes of Limbaugh and his talk radio clones are also a powerful force in pushing today's GOP to maintain its hardline, extremist positions. If any individual GOP politician dares to step out of line, he or she can expect torrents of abuse from the likes of Limbaugh.

I suspect today's Republican leaders realize that, in Limbaugh and his ilk, the party has created a Frankenstein that is doing far more damage to the GOP than it ever did to the Democrats.

It's hard for me to conceive of how the GOP will ever solve this mess. Even if they ever somehow persuade Limbaugh to tone down his extremist hate speech, a dozen other right-wing talk hosts will immediately step up to fill his shoes.

Indeed, I suspect Limbaugh realizes this dilemma himself. He likely knows that, if he tones down his radical views, he'll lose his audience to the other right-wing talk radio sharks who are circling in the water. On the other hand, surely even Limbaugh has grasped the fact that his extremism has severely damaged his beloved GOP in recent years.

What Progressives Can Learn From Andrew Breitbart

BY MARC McDONALD

Normally, when someone passes away, everyone tries to think of something kind to say about them. But I can't do that with Andrew Breitbart. I absolutely despised him while he was alive. And his death doesn't change my feelings one bit.

However, I do think that we progressives can learn a thing or two from Breitbart.

By that, I don't mean resorting to using dirty tactics and twisting the facts around to attack opponents, as Breitbart did. No, what I'm talking about is learning a thing or two from his hard-core, take-no-prisoners attacking style to get what we want.

Democrats (and progressives in general) are just too goddamn timid and polite these days. We let Conservatives steamroll right over us again and again. On the other hand, Cons know exactly what they want and they'll do whatever it takes to win. And that is why they've pretty much gotten everything they've wanted for the past three decades.

Breitbart nearly always got what he wanted. It didn't matter if his tactics were questionable or slimy. They got the job done. A good example was when he posted video of Shirley Sherrod that made it appear that she'd made racist remarks. (Of course, she'd done no such thing, as was clear when the full video was released). But Breitbart still "won" in the end. After all, Sherrod was forced to resign, apparently with the White House's approval.

The Sherrod case involved a despicable tactic by Breitbart that summed up his approach to politics: attack, attack, attack---and worry about the facts later, if at all.

Once again, I'm not suggesting we progressives copy this sort of slimy technique. But we do need some of the fire and conviction that Breitbart had in spades.

We need to fight tooth and claw for what we want, instead of timidly sitting around letting the GOP steamroll over us again and again.

Take the 2000 election, for example. The GOP fought ferociously on behalf of George W. Bush, even to the point of bringing in a rent-a-mob to bang on doors and intimidate Florida election officials. Meanwhile, the Gore team sat around politely, waiting for the phone to ring.

Yes, what the GOP did was despicable and it dealt a severe setback to democracy in America. But I get the feeling they didn't lose one second's worth of sleep over their sleazy tactics. And what's more, their guy got into the White House, despite losing the popular vote by 539,000 votes. In the end, they got everything they wanted: their war for oil, their tax breaks for the rich, and their billions of dollars in no-bid contracts for Halliburton.

Modern day politics is like a back alley switchblade fight. The GOP has known this for the past 30 years. And so they always come equipped with a switchblade, and whatever else they need to win the fight.

Meanwhile, the Dems have a bizarre fixation on using a polite, timid approach to politics. Unlike the GOP, they fail to grasp that the game has changed and that sometimes, you've got to use brute force and have a willingness to fight fire with fire.

After all, simply having the facts on his side didn't help John Kerry in 2004. On the other hand, the Swift Boat Liars' willingness to lie and use vicious, sleazy attacks sank Kerry's presidential bid.

The worst part of it was that, unlike the GOP, Kerry didn't need to lie. But he did need to use brute force (and a very loud megaphone) to get the truth out. He needed to get into the liars' faces and scream at the top of his voice that they were lying. In the end, his timid, polite approach failed. He failed to realize that, in modern day politics, politeness and being a gentleman and even having the truth on your side often isn't enough to win elections.

It's a lesson that the Dems have yet to grasp. In modern politics, if you want to win, you've got to have the fire, the hunger, and determination of people like Breitbart. Unlike Breitbart, you don't need to lie---but you do need to learn to bring a switchblade to a street fight.

Whatever Happened to the Anger On the Left?

By MARC McDONALD

The past three decades have been a Right-Wing wet dream for America. The Republicans have gotten their way on virtually every single issue while the Democrats have meekly rolled over.

Which raises a question. Why are the Republicans so angry these days? And why are the Democrats so goddamn happy?

What do the Republicans have to be angry about, anyway? During most of the past three decades, they've controlled all the levers of power. And even when they didn't control the White House, they might as well as have, with Bill Clinton's "Republican Lite" policies.

The Republicans have gotten pretty much everything they've wanted: their tax cuts for the rich, their sweeping deregulation, their dismantling of the social safety net, their gutting of labor unions, their blood-for-oil wars, their shredding of the Constitution: you name it.

What's more, they blatantly stole the past two presidential elections (and got away with it). And they're the one who are seething with anger these days?

And yet if you tune into Fox News or talk radio or the Right-Wing blogs these days, you encounter the most incredible seething anger and passion. Tune into just the first five minutes of unhinged Right-Wing nutcase Mark Levin's radio program sometime and you'll encounter more anger than a year's worth of reading Mother Jones or The Nation.

All I've got to say is: where can we on the Left get some of that anger to fire up our base?

After being screwed for 30 years by the New Right, you'd think the Left in this country would finally have built up some anger and passion. But instead, there seems to be way too much humor, fun and frivolity on our side these days. Even Mike Malloy's once-incendiary radio program has mellowed out in recent months.

The Left could really use a few lessons from the the Republicans these days. The GOP is a master of rallying the troops by adopting a "take-no-prisoners" hard-line approach to politics. They're also good at rallying the base with a constant "siege mentality" that would have their supporters believe that the Left is on the verge of destroying America (ironic, when you consider who's really done all the damage to our nation in recent decades).

Democrats ought to enter a street fight with the GOP with the appropriate tools: a switchblade, a .38-caliber pistol, and a pair of brass knuckles. Instead, they bring nothing to the fight but good manners and a promise to fight fairly and by the rules. In a street fight, that approach loses every f*cking time---but the Dems appear to be incapable of grasping this basic fact.

Take Obama's current campaign strategy. He's vowed to take the high road and run a polite, dignified, no-slime campaign. McCain, on the other hand, is throwing everything he has at Obama. Day after day, McCain essentially calls Obama a traitor.

And McCain's slime is working. Obama's lead in the polls is now dangerously thin. And if recent U.S. election history repeats itself, Obama looks to be in real trouble by November.

Aren't Democrats angry about all this? Nope. While the GOP is using angry fire-and-brimstone "All Liberals Are Traitors" rhetoric to fire up the troops, we're once again acting polite, sipping our tea, and minding our manners, smug in the belief that the nation couldn't possibly be so stupid as to vote for a third term of George W. Bush.

One thing I will give the Republicans credit for: they are angry, passionate and willing to fight tooth-and-claw for what they believe in. They fight dirty and even steal elections if they have to. And do you think they lose one second's worth of sleep over it? Don't bet on it.

And meanwhile, the Dems are smug, arrogant, and way, way too goddamn polite these days. We need to get angry for a change and start fighting fire with fire.

Did A Culture of Right-Wing Hate Lead to Church Shootings?

By MARC McDONALD

A man who is accused of shooting and killing two at a Tennessee church apparently targeted the congregation "out of hatred for its support of liberal social policies," police said Monday.

One might ask: where would such extreme hatred of Liberals come from?

To get the answer, turn on Right-Wing talk radio any day.

There, on a daily basis, you'll hear the most amazingly vicious bashing of Liberals imaginable.

From Savage to Limbaugh to Hannity to the rest of HateWing radio, every day, one hears the most extraordinary demonization of Liberals and Democrats. If you get all your news and views from HateWing radio (as many Dittoheads do), you'll be convinced that Liberals are traitors who are working hand-in-hand with Al Qaeda to undermine the American nation.

Along with the hate, there's a hefty of dose of violent threats against Liberals on the AM radio dial these days.

Take right-wing nutcase Michael Graham, for example. In June 2007, he said he wanted to see someone "whack" the Clintons in a Sopranos spoof. And in 2003, Graham said of Hillary Clinton: "I wanted to bludgeon her with a tire iron."

Such inflammatory language is nothing new for the right-wing. Recall how Ann Coulter once wrote that the debate over Bill Clinton should be about "whether to impeach or assassinate."

Such seething hatred and threats of violence have ricocheted around the GOP echo chamber for at least the past couple of decades. And it hasn't been limited to right-wing talk radio.

Recall the comment by Jesse Helms in 1994: "Mr. Clinton better watch out if he comes down here. He'd better have a bodyguard."

Or G. Gordon Liddy's comment in 1995, when discussing how he'd used stick figures of the Clintons for target practice. "Thought it might improve my aim," he said.

Given this toxic stew of hatred and violent threats that poisons our nation's political discourse, we really shouldn't be surprised that there are many people out there who harbor extreme hatred toward Liberals.

Update:

Books seized from suspect Jim David Adkisson's home, included The O'Reilly Factor, by television commentator Bill O'Reilly; Liberalism is a Mental Disorder, by radio personality Michael Savage; and Let Freedom Ring, by political pundit Sean Hannity.

Knoxville Police Department Investigator Steve Still wrote in the search warrant that Adkisson went on a rampage at the church, "because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country."

WSJ Bizarrely Claims Surge's "Success" Means Troops Must Stay

By MARC MCDONALD

In its lead editorial Friday, The Wall Street Journal took a swipe at Barack Obama for calling for a withdrawal of American troops from the fiasco in Iraq. That much was predictable from this right-wing rag. But what's bizarre was the Journal's reason for opposing the withdrawal of our troops: the "success" of the surge.

Huh?

Since it was bought by Rupert Murdoch, the Journal has increasingly begun to sound like an unhinged right-wing blog---fanatical in its support of George W. Bush and its foaming-at-the-mouth hatred of Democrats. And like the lunatic fringe blogs MichelleMalkin.com and Little Green Footballs, the Journal is increasingly disconnected from reality.

On Friday, the Journal predictably took aim at Scott McClellan, along with the rest of the Great GOP Noise Machine. In the middle of an editorial bashing McClellan, the Journal paused to take a shot at Obama:

"Mr. Obama has staked out a position for immediate troop withdrawal that looks increasingly untenable amid the success of the "surge" and improving security in Baghdad and Basra."

Let me see if I understand this correctly: the surge is a "success" and, as a result, this means our troops can't be brought home? Then, exactly, when can Americans look forward to our troops coming home and the end of this bloody fiasco of a war?

The Journal follows the same sort of infantile "heads I win, tails you lose" logic that the NeoCons use so often these days. If horrible violence continues in Iraq, the Right-Wing demands that our troops stay there. But if violence declines, this also means our troops must stay in Iraq.

In any case, it's highly debatable whether the surge has worked at all. And as Middle East experts like Nir Rosen have repeatedly reminded us, the recent decline in violence has nothing to do with the increase in troops announced by Bush in January.