Yes There is an American Taliban. Run By Conservative Christians.

Christian Hate Group ‘Repent Amarillo’ Terrorizes Texas Town, Harassing Gays, Liberals, And Other ‘Sinners’

An evangelical Christian hate group called “Repent Amarillo” is reportedly terrorizing the town of Amarillo, Texas. Repent fashions itself as a sort of militia and targets a wide range of community members they deem offensive to their theology: gays, liberal Christians, Muslims, environmentalists, breast cancer events that do not highlight abortion, Halloween, “spring break events,” and pornography shops. On its website, Repent has posted a “Warfare Map” of its enemies in town.

Calling Repent an “American Taliban,” blogger Charles Johnson notes that the group’s moniker “Army of God” is a rough translation of “Hezbollah.” Led by a man named David Grisham, a security guard at a nuclear-bomb facility called Pantex, Repent first gained media attention in Texas following a campaign to boycott Houston for electing a gay mayor. The group, which is associated with Raven Ministries, collaborates with other Christian groups as well as forced pregnancy advocacy associations like “Bound 4 Life.”

I wouldn't call these conservative Republican Christians Nazis, only they seem to believe in a kind of eliminationism that was a hallmark of fascists ideology.

Conservatives Do have Values. They Are Just Abhorrent Values

Leslie Marshall Pushes Back Against the Elitist Attitudes of O'Reilly and Dana Loesch . . . Why Fund Education, Can't Save the Kids Anyway

Arrogant Scumbag Jim Bunning (R-KY) Accepts Deal On Jobless Benefits

Kentucky Republican Jim Bunning relented on Tuesday evening, freeing the Senate to approve stopgap legislation extending for another month a host of programs, including highway funding, health insurance subsidies for the unemployed and benefits for the long-term jobless. That gives Congress time to consider the far larger measure covering most of the same programs.

But the daunting price tag on the longer-term measure guarantees more complications and an even rougher path through the Senate than experienced by the bill passed Tuesday.

Bunning held up action for days, causing the government to furlough highway workers and allowing some unemployment benefits to expire.

Quick Fact: Former Bush White House Chief of Sleaze Karl Rove falsely claims Dems are "changing the rules midstream" by using reconciliation

Asking if the Democrats using the "changing, shifting term" reconciliation will "help," Sean Hannity prompted former Bush aide Karl Rove to falsely claim that Democrats are "changing the rules midstream" by using reconciliation to pass health care reform legislation. In fact, reconciliation is a process that has repeatedly been used to pass legislation, including several major tax cuts under Bush.

Republicans Claim to Represent the Average American. Their Policies Say Otherwise

Two faced idiot Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) really hopes no one checks the facts as it he plays arrogant obstructionist, For Hatch's GOP, No Reconciliation with the Truth

Political scientist Joshua Tucker looked at the 19 times reconciliation was used between 1981 and 2005, and found that 14 of them were Republican initiatives. If you extend that analysis out to 2008, then 16 of 21 reconciliation bills were Republican.

More here on the UnAmerican and deceitful Senator from Utah, Orrin Hatch Rewrites History Of His Own Voting Record On Reconciliation . And even more here on Orrin Sad Sack(R-UT), Hatch Forgets About The Bush Years, Claims Reconciliation Is Meant To ‘Balance The Budget’

Anyone think we're in too much debt now? Hatch helped pass those tax cuts for miliionaires during the Bush era which are a large chunk of the reason Bush left America in debt and in such dire straights to deal with the Great Recession.

Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy

Consider first the median income. When Bill Clinton left office after 2000, the median income-the income line around which half of households come in above, and half fall below-stood at $52,500 (measured in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars). When Bush left office after 2008, the median income had fallen to $50,303. That's a decline of 4.2 per cent.

That leaves Bush with the dubious distinction of becoming the only president in recent history to preside over an income decline through two presidential terms, notes Lawrence Mishel, president of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. The median household income increased during the two terms of Clinton (by 14 per cent, as we'll see in more detail below), Ronald Reagan (8.1 per cent), and Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford (3.9 per cent). As Mishel notes, although the global recession decidedly deepened the hole-the percentage decline in the median income from 2007 to 2008 is the largest single year fall on record-average families were already worse off in 2007 than they were in 2000, a remarkable result through an entire business expansion. "What is phenomenal about the years under Bush is that through the entire business cycle from 2000 through 2007, even before this recession...working families were worse off at the end of the recovery, in the best of times during that period, than they were in 2000 before he took office," Mishel says.
Bush's record on poverty is equally bleak. When Clinton left office in 2000, the Census counted almost 31.6 million Americans living in poverty. When Bush left office in 2008, the number of poor Americans had jumped to 39.8 million (the largest number in absolute terms since 1960.) Under Bush, the number of people in poverty increased by over 8.2 million, or 26.1 per cent. Over two-thirds of that increase occurred before the economic collapse of 2008.

The trends were comparably daunting for children in poverty. When Clinton left office nearly 11.6 million children lived in poverty, according to the Census. When Bush left office that number had swelled to just under 14.1 million, an increase of more than 21 per cent.

The story is similar again for access to health care. When Clinton left office, the number of uninsured Americans stood at 38.4 million. By the time Bush left office that number had grown to just over 46.3 million, an increase of nearly 8 million or 20.6 per cent.

The trends look the same when examining shares of the population that are poor or uninsured, rather than the absolute numbers in those groups. When Clinton left office in 2000 13.7 per cent of Americans were uninsured; when Bush left that number stood at 15.4 per cent. (Under Bush, the share of Americans who received health insurance through their employer declined every year of his presidency-from 64.2 per cent in 2000 to 58.5 per cent in 2008.)

When Clinton left the number of Americans in poverty stood at 11.3 per cent; when Bush left that had increased to 13.2 per cent. The poverty rate for children jumped from 16.2 per cent when Clinton left office to 19 per cent when Bush stepped down.

Every one of those measurements had moved in a positive direction under Clinton. The median income increased from $46,603 when George H.W. Bush left office in 1992 to $52,500 when Clinton left in 2000-an increase of 14 per cent. The number of Americans in poverty declined from 38 million when the elder Bush left office in 1992 to 31.6 million when Clinton stepped down-a decline of 6.4 million or 16.9 per cent. Not since the go-go years of the John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson administrations during the 1960s, which coincided with the launch of the Great Society, had the number of poor Americans declined as much over two presidential terms.

The number of children in poverty plummeted from 15.3 million when H.W. Bush left office in 1992 to 11.6 million when Clinton stepped down in 2000-a stunning decline of 24 per cent. (That was partly because welfare reform forced single mothers into the workforce at the precise moment they could take advantage of a growing economy. The percentage of female-headed households in poverty stunningly dropped from 39 per cent in 1992 to 28.5 per cent in 2000, still the lowest level for that group the Census has ever recorded. That number has now drifted back up to over 31 per cent.) The number of Americans without health insurance remained essentially stable during Clinton's tenure, declining from 38.6 million when the elder Bush stepped down in 1992 to 38.4 million in 2000.

Looking at the trends by shares of the population, rather than absolute numbers, reinforces the story: The overall poverty rate and the poverty rate among children both declined sharply under Clinton, and the share of Americans without health insurance fell more modestly.

So the summary page on the economic experience of average Americans under the past two presidents would look like this:
Under Clinton, the median income increased 14 per cent. Under Bush it declined 4.2 per cent.

Under Clinton the total number of Americans in poverty declined 16.9 per cent; under Bush it increased 26.1 per cent.

Under Clinton the number of children in poverty declined 24.2 per cent; under Bush it increased by 21.4 per cent.

Under Clinton, the number of Americans without health insurance, remained essentially even (down six-tenths of one per cent); under Bush it increased by 20.6 per cent.
Adding Ronald Reagan's record to the comparison fills in the picture from another angle.

Under Reagan, the median income grew, in contrast to both Bush the younger and Bush the elder. (The median income declined 3.2 per cent during the elder Bush's single term.) When Reagan was done, the median income stood at $47, 614 (again in constant 2008 dollars), 8.1 per cent higher than when Jimmy Carter left office in 1980.

But despite that income growth, both overall and childhood poverty were higher when Reagan rode off into the sunset than when he arrived. The number of poor Americans increased from 29.3 million in 1980 to 31.7 million in 1988, an increase of 8.4 per cent. The number of children in poverty trended up from 11.5 million when Carter left to 12.5 million when Reagan stepped down, a comparable increase of 7.9 per cent. The total share of Americans in poverty didn't change over Reagan's eight years (at 13 per cent), but the share of children in poverty actually increased (from 18.3 to 19.5 per cent) despite the median income gains.

Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) Screws Over America Out of Petty Partisan Spite - Tell Bunning to Resign Now

The anti-America right-winger Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) collects his paycheck, but will deny thousands theirs - Thousands Of Federal Workers Are Furloughed Without Pay Today Because Of Sen. Bunning’s Partisanship

Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) Over the weekend, approximately 400,000 laid-off workers may have lost their unemployment benefits, COBRA subsidies to help defray health care costs expired, and loans for small businesses ran out of time — all because of Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY).

Last week, the House passed an extension of these benefits. Bunning, however, blocked the Senate from moving forward over “a dispute over how [the bill] should be funded,” and complained that the Democrats’ insistence on trying to ensure that unemployment benefits not expire had caused him to miss a college basketball game.

Several Republicans have defended Bunning’s destructive tactics, although Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) called on him to move aside. Inhofe pointed out that since the bill also contained transportation funding, an expiration could lead to furloughs of employees of the Federal Highway Administration. Indeed, today, 2,000 federal transportation workers have been furloughed without pay.

Also write our lazy lying Republicans Senators and tell them to study some history. Since they seem to have nothing else to do but give American workers the shaft its the least they could do while collecting taxpayer provided salaries, Great Grand-Daddy of Reconciliation

Is Ronald Reagan the Great Grand-Daddy of Reconciliation?

That was TPM Reader and former congressional staffer BP says ...

As a Senate Committee staffer in the early 1980's, I participated in the first major use of reconciliation, and I would like to recount my experience. I understand that CRS has documented significant instances of reconciliation, but I would like to provide some personal flavor.

First, reconciliation was a little noticed provision of the Congressional Budget Control and Impoundment Act of 1974, a significant attempt by Congress to establish a disciplined process for getting a handle on the burgeoning federal budget in the waning years of the guns and butter policy of the Johnson Administration, which carried out both the Great Society and the Viet Nam War simultaneously. I believe reconciliation was first used in 1978 to "reconcile" budgetary problems in the National School Lunch Program.

Second, Ronald Reagan came to D.C. in 1981 with a least four stated, major goals: balance the budget, cut taxes, increase the defense budget and hold Social Security constant. His OMB director, David Stockman, who was a former John B. Anderson staffer as was I, hit upon reconciliation as a vehicle to drive not only budgetary changes but major, major policy changes as well. Stockman circulated what we called his little black book, which contained all sorts of suggested changes to federal programs. Stockman purposely want to move quickly in order to fracture what he called the "Iron Triangle", namely the troika of Members of Congress who created specific programs, bureaucrats who ran administered those programs and citizens who benefited from those programs, from binding together to resist change.

Third, the process was begun in the House and was led by another of the conservative icon, Phil Gramm, who was one of the major horseman of the reconciliation apocalypse. In fact, the House bill was referred to as Gramm-Latta, the other half being former Congressman Del Latta of Ohio. The Reagan/Stockman/Gramm/Latta proposal made enormous changes in not only tax policy but also to appropriations and authorization language for underlying federal program statutes. The budget alternative also was moved so precipitously through the House that the name of CBO staffer Rita Seymour was actually printed, along with her phone number, in the massive, printed amendment that came to the House floor. When I made speeches on this legislation, I used to sarcastically call it "trying to undo twenty years of laws in twenty minutes."

Fourth, when it got to the Senate, where I worked as a professional staff member on the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Education, Arts and the Humanities, chaired by the Vermont U.S. Senator Bob Stafford, the process got considerably slower. One reason: the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, chaired by Orrin Hatch, was closely divided with nine Republicans and 7 Democrats. A good part of the reconciliation bill was devoted to enacting a Reagan favorite, block grants. I believe at least four or five of these had to go through Labor and Human Resources so that the underlying statutory language could be changed by the authorizing committee. Stafford and fellow GOP committee member Lowell Weicker refused to agree to the changes the White House wanted. By not joining the other seven Republicans on the committee, they created a logjam that kept the flood of Reagonomics from rushing over the Senate. Eventually, Stafford and Weicker extracted significant compromises from the White House, and the Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act of 1981 became law.

People should disabuse themselves of the notion that major changes were not made. In our little subcommittee alone, we ended up amending the Higher Education Act, the student loan program, and the fundamental Elementary and Secondary Education Act, all foundational elements of the Great Society. Had it not been for Stafford and Weicker, the changes would have been even worse. And, even now, we are living with the results of some of the revisions we made in 1981, many chosen purely to meet the budget authority and budget obligation targets handed down by the Senate Budget Committee.

I know that Republicans have canonized Saint Ronnie and want him up on Mount Rushmore, but please remind his latter-day acolytes that Reagan is the great grand-daddy of reconciliation, and had it not been for that now-dead breed of moderate Republicans including Bob Stafford and Lowell Weicker, the Reagan Revolution would have been even more wrenching to our national fabric. Today, the consequences of the 1981 OBRA continue to spawn damaging aftershocks, and congressional Republicans who deny this fact are either choosing to ignore it or are lying. I tend to think they are doing the latter.

Maybe Conservatives Lie So Much Because They Lack Normal Moral Sensibilites

The Persecution of Sarah Palin: Teflon in convenient book form

Weekly Standard associate editor Matthew Continetti's book The Persecution of Sarah Palin: How the Elite Media Tried to Bring Down a Rising Star lives up to its name -- the author does indeed paint his subject as the victim of persecution by the "feral beast" of a mainstream media taking their cues from "the partisan and vitriolic blogosphere." They "malign[ed] facts" about Palin and tried to "undermine Palin's accomplishments," he writes.

Continetti, however, is so wrapped up in Palin's purported victimhood that he takes her side on everything and attempts to shoot down any and all critical and contradictory information. And he's not averse to occasionally fudging things to make reality fit his narrative.

For instance, Continetti writes that New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller "simply asserted that Palin had been a member" of the secessionist Alaskan Independence Party, adding, "None of this was true. It did turn out that Todd Palin had briefly been a member of the AIP; that may have been the basis for Bumiller's mistaken claim that Sarah Palin was a member 'for two years.' Who knows?"

Continetti should have known. The same day Bumiller's article appeared, a Times blog post stated that "[t]he information in the Times article was based on a statement issued Monday night by Lynette Clark, the party's chairwoman, who said that Ms. Palin joined the party in 1994 and in 1996 changed her registration to Republican." According to the Times, Clark later stated she could find no documentation that Sarah Palin was a member. The Times then issued a correction to Bumiller's article, which Continetti doesn't acknowledge.

Continetti also insisted Palin's claim that she told Congress, "Thanks, but no thanks," on the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere" is "literally true" because, although she "expressed her support for the bridge" while running for governor in 2006, she cut state money appropriated for the bridge and, in September 2007, "she directed the Alaska Department of Transportation to find a less expensive alternative."

But as Media Matters for America has detailed, Palin was never in a position to reject the bridge. After authorizing funds to be spent specifically on the bridge project in August 2005, in an appropriations bill in November 2005, Congress earmarked the money for Alaska, but specified that it did not have to be spent on the bridge. Further, Palin did not refuse the funds or reimburse the federal government; as The Washington Post noted, "Palin's decision resulted in no savings for the federal government. The bridge money is being spent on other highway projects in Alaska." Moreover, when Palin "directed the Alaska Department of Transportation to find a less expensive alternative" to the bridge, her stated rationale was not that she thought it was a waste of money but, rather, that Congress was unwilling to appropriate more money to build it.

Much of the book plays the equivalence game, offering up a series of "yes, but" claims to work around legitimate criticism or to excuse any Palin behavior he couldn't otherwise explain away:

* Yes, Palin had no foreign policy experience, but neither did Obama. Besides, Palin herself said leadership is more about vision than experience, and the Constitution doesn't require it anyway. Oh, and she had the same amount of executive experience as Calvin Coolidge and Teddy Roosevelt.

* Yes, her criticism of earmarks during the campaign ran counter to her own hiring of a lobbyist to obtain them as mayor of Wasilla, but VP candidates are supposed to reflect the head of the ticket, and, "Besides, a politician can always change her mind."

* Yes, Palin botched her interview with Katie Couric, but Couric had a "hostility toward conservatives" and "[t]he bias in her questions was clear."

* Yes, the $150,000 clothes-buying spree looked bad, but it "said absolutely nothing about her and a lot about the bizarre priorities of her handlers."

As the subtitle of his book indicates, Continetti regularly plays the "elitism" card in order to attack the alleged anti-provincialism of not just the media but any Palin critic. While Continetti concedes that "a gulf of ignorance, misunderstanding, and invective separates the Americans who live in urban areas from the Americans who live in distant provinces and rural places like you'd find in Alaska," he too often bashes the former and revels in the latter.

Continetti's response to movie critic Roger Ebert's complaint that Palin had spent almost no time outside the United States was to mock the idea of traveling abroad: "Two weeks with a backpack and a Eurail pass, or a semester spent partying -- sorry, 'studying abroad' -- in Santiago de Chile on your parents' nickel are not the only ways to express 'curiosity' and nonprovinciality."

Continetti touts Palin's accomplishments as mayor of Wasilla and how she "presided over the town's transition from rural backwater to thriving suburb," but he also makes sure to note that Obama is "a product of Columbia and Harvard, a professor at the University of Chicago law school, a United States senator who as president would take his wife on 'date nights' to New York City."

But elitism is only one part of Continetti's Obama-bashing; there's also much complaining that Obama wasn't held to the same standards as Palin. Continetti expresses annoyance that reporters dared to ask about Palin's Pentecostal upbringing and her current evangelical Christian faith -- even quoting Southern Baptist Convention official Richard Land calling such queries "beyond the pale" -- but declares that Obama's "anti-American, anti-Semitic, racist reverend" didn't get sufficient coverage.

And Continetti did not like Tina Fey's Palin impersonation on Saturday Night Live one bit, calling her portrayal that of "a happy-go-lucky idiot," insisting that in one skit "the superficiality of Fey's Palin was juxtaposed with the substance of [Amy] Poehler's [Hillary] Clinton." (Where did he find the "substance" in Poehler's portrayal of Hillary as a tense, bitter harpy?) Continetti then bashes Fey, along with New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, as "anti-Palins" who "used comedy to assert superiority over the upstart from Alaska whose prominence and success challenged their core beliefs."

Continetti also claims that Palin and Fey "could not be more dissimilar," because while Palin "comes from the I-can-do-it-all school," Fey is, er, "also pretty, married, and has a daughter" as well as the star, chief writer, and executive producer of a network TV program. Where's the dissimilarity Continetti cites? He continues: "[T]he characters she portrays in films like Mean Girls and Baby Mama, and in television shows like 30 Rock, are hard-pressed eggheads who give up personal fulfillment -- e.g., marriage and motherhood -- in the pursuit of professional success." Regarding Fey's 30 Rock character, he adds, one "would be hard pressed to name a more unhappy person on American television."

That's right -- despite claiming that Palin and Fey "could not be more dissimilar," Continetti's comparison actually refers to the characters played by Fey.

GOP Rep. implies blacks were better off as slaves’

GOP Rep. implies blacks were better off as slaves’

Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) is well known as a diehard opponent of abortion. He formerly served as the executive director of the Arizona branch of the Family Research Institute and has called President Obama an "enemy of humanity" because of his pro-choice stance.

Franks may have gotten himself in more trouble than he anticipated, however, when he insisted to blogger and political activist Mike Stark that abortion was worse for African-Americans than slavery.

"In this country we had slavery for God knows how long," Franks told Stark. "And now we look back on it and we say, 'Well how blind were they, what was the matter with them.' ... And yet today half of all black children are aborted. Half of all black children are aborted. Far more black children, far more of the African-American community, is being devastated by the policies of today than were being devastated by the policies of slavery."

Stark's own comment on the interview is that "it sounds an awful lot to me like the Congressman is suggesting that blacks were better off as slaves. To be fair, Congressman Franks is as sincere as he is conservative. The issue of life never falls out of first place in his legislative priority list. I don’t believe for one second that he intends to insult anyone; I don’t think he sees the racism (or paternalism) in what he’s saying. Still.... This is pretty bad."


According to blogger BruinKid at Daily Kos, however, Franks' claim is not the truth. BruinKid calls Franks' "1 in 2" figure "pure bullshit" and explains that it came from "a blatant misreading of the original 2004 CDC report."

This is not the first time Franks has made similar statements about black abortion rates. He wrote last April in the conservative Washington Times, "The history of the American abortion movement is replete with evidence of the purposeful placement of family planning clinics in areas with high concentrations of minorities. ... The impact has been devastating to black families. Fifty percent - 1 in 2 - of black children are aborted today in America. ... Do we realize that, primarily through federally funded abortion clinics placed in our inner cities, we are contributing to the deadliest form of discrimination in our country's history against the most-discriminated-against minority in American history by systematically eliminating fully half of all blacks waiting to be born?"

According to BruinKid, however, what the CDC report actually says is that among black women there are 472 abortions for every 1000 live births, meaning that "if you want the percentage, it's 472 / (472 + 1000) = 32%. (FYI, the percentage for whites is 13.9%.) Now, I don't want to get into a debate on whether 32% is too high of a number. But we simply don't refer to a percentage that less than one-third as being 'almost half'! Well, unless you're a pro-lifer, I guess."

An additional aspect of the "black genocide" argument was recently addressed by Shani O. Hilton, writing at The American Prospect about an ongoing billboard campaign in Georgia.

"Poor women have four times as many unintended pregnancies as women who live above the federal poverty line," Hilton writes. "Among black women -- who are more than twice as likely to be poor than white women -- the numbers are even more dramatic. Sixty-nine percent of their pregnancies are unintended, and they have 37 percent of all abortions, a number wildly disproportionate to their representation in the population. Black women may be having more abortions, but that doesn't prove that they're being coerced into having them. The only thing it proves is that black women are disproportionately having pregnancies they didn't intend."

But perhaps the aptest comment on Franks' remarks was provided by a blogger from his home state of Arizona, Stephen Lemons. "Republican Congressman Trent 'Foot-in-Mouth' Franks is truly the gift that keeps on giving," Lemons writes. "The goofy, amiable wingnut from Arizona's Second Congressional District is known for his hard-right stance on just about everything from abortion to President Obama's birth certificate, which he desperately wanted to see at one point. To say he's outdone himself with his latest racially-charged statements ... would be ignorant of Franks' history of saying stupid stuff. Granted, though, this one is a dozy."

"Considering his record for wacky statements," Lemons concludes, "Franks should walk around with a sign that says 'I'm sorry' round his neck. Would save us all a bunch of time."

Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) is about as sincere as any lunatic.

'Ram it through': Media adopt GOP characterization of majority vote

In the past week, media figures have routinely referred to a potential effort to pass a health care reform bill with a majority vote as an effort to "ram," "jam," or "cram" a bill through Congress, a characterization pushed by Republican politicians. The reconciliation process, which enables the Senate to pass legislation with 51 votes, has been used repeatedly by Republicans, including to pass major changes to health care laws.

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) Dismisses The Adverse Effect Of His Holds On The Pentagon, Says He Has No Clue If Nominees Are Qualified

Conservatives - Crooks, Liars, Thieves and Just Plain Nuts

A Savings and Loan Bailout, and Bush's Son Jeb

After Jeb Bush, a son of the President, and a partner bought a Miami office building using money an associate had borrowed from a local savings and loan, the Federal Government wound up repaying most of the loan.

The savings institution became insolvent, and the Government paid more than $4 million to make good the loan as part of the bailout of the savings industry. Mr. Bush and his partner negotiated a settlement with regulators in which they repaid $505,000 and retained control of the building. While they still have a $7 million mortgage to pay on that property, the settlement with the Government lifted from their backs a $4.565 million second mortgage.

Jeb recently implied that Sarah Palin was an idiot. Who knows, maybe he's right, but it's hypocritical coming from a immoral cretin of the Bush Dynasty who only escaped becoming a convicted felon because of his family's money and power.

John "The Maverick" McCain is running for yet another Senate term. Who says it does not pay to be a two faced faced crook and serial liar.

Thus far 114 Rethuglican Deficit Peacocks have slammed the Recovery Act ( stimulus bill) then gone back to their districts to claim credit for the jobs and economic activity President Obama's Recovery Act created. Honorable behavior? These Conservatives Peacocks would need a dictionary to look up the meaning of the word honorable.

Fox, Andrew Breitbart, Drudge, Brian Kilmeade, Steve Doocy and Glenn Beck have zero respect for their viewers, have embraced nutball behavior as their norm and do not seemed to have read that commandment about baring false witness - Caught in the act -Kooky Rightwing Media Lies about "nuclear option and health-care reform.