I Stand With Rush Limbaugh



This is a real thing in the world.

“The radical left wants to censor Rush and his commonsense conservative message”

And, completely unsurprisingly, it’s Astroturf from noted douchebag L. Brent Bozell:

Brent Bozell, the president and founder of the conservative Media Research Center, has launched a website in support of Rush Limbaugh in the wake of fallout over his attack on Sandra Fluke, because, as Bozell says, “this isn’t about what Rush said last week, it’s about roaring hypocrisy and it’s about censorship.”

(Source: tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com, via stfuconservatives)

Rick Santorum is a hateful bigoted piece of shit. He is completely intolerant of the entire modern world and wants to put his religion ahead of the country. The fact that he is anywhere near a Presidential fucking election tells you everything you need to know about how far gone the Republican party is.






Also he’s a frothy mixture of lube and feces after anal sex. 

Well now I have to reblog this again. 

Honestly, that whole thing was a lot cuter when he was polling around 3-4%. Nowadays I worry that his “google-problem” detracts from the serious threat that this guy really is.


Can we come up with a pejorative nickname for this guy - something catchy, that can catch on with the media? I would say Ayatollah Santorum, but I don’t want to offend Muslims.

(Source: stfuconservatives, via stfuconservatives)

Robert Reich: Why No Responsible Democrat Should Want Newt Gingrich to Get the GOP Nomination


Republicans are worried sick about Newt Gingrich’s ascendance, while Democrats are tickled pink.

Yet no responsible Democrat should be pleased at the prospect that Gingrich could get the GOP nomination. The future of America is too important to accept even a small risk of a Gingrich presidency.

The Republican worry is understandable. “The possibility of Newt Gingrich being our nominee against Barack Obama I think is essentially handling the election over to Obama,” says former Minnesota Governor Tom Pawlenty, a leading GOP conservative. “I think that’s shared by a lot of folks in the Republican party.”

Mitch Daniels and The Cost of Iraq



The administration’s top budget official estimated today that the cost of a war with Iraq could be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion, a figure that is well below earlier estimates from White House officials.

In a telephone interview today, the official, Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., director of the Office of Management and Budget, also said there was likely to be a deficit in the fiscal 2004 budget, though he declined to specify how large it would be. The administration is scheduled to present its budget to Congress on Feb. 3.

Mr. Daniels would not provide specific costs for either a long or a short military campaign against Saddam Hussein. But he said that the administration was budgeting for both, and that earlier estimates of $100 billion to $200 billion in Iraq war costs by Lawrence B. Lindsey, Mr. Bush’s former chief economic adviser, were too high.


Anyone curious about the cost of America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan can look it up on costofwar.com, up to the latest fraction of a second. Last weekend, the Iraq war had cost more than $800 billion since 2001; the Afghan war, $467 billion plus.

Slavery, the Civil War, and Violence

Ta-Nehesi Coates:

We have, thus far, established that Ron Paul’s version of the Civil War is wrong on chronology, and wrong on economics. But what of Paul’s contention that slavery was ended in every other country without the violence that swept over America:

Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I’m advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war.

I think we can grant the technicality here—that the specific sort of violence. a civil war launched by slave-holders to establish an empire of White Supremacy, makes America different. But if Paul’s point is simply one of nomenclature, or specimen, it doesn’t has little import on his greater argument—that the horrific violence that attended America in 1860 was, somehow, preventable. 

But in talking to Robinson, (I really wish I had storyfied our convo) it became clear that comparing figures obscures a larger reality—from the time slavery was introduced to Haiti to the time it left, there was violence. Slavery is violence and any survey of its history violence at its onset, violence at its height, and violence attending its end. 

The segment in bold is something that has re-calibrated my thinking on the violence of the Civil War. When you consider that slavery itself is a form of violence - setting aside the violence that slaves endured in being captured and transported, as well as from masters - suddenly, the moral imperative of the Civil War becomes clearer. I’ve started to come around to the line of thinking that the Civil War was not a tragedy, but a necessity, and claiming that it could have been ended “without violence” is not just farcical from a socioeconomic standpoint, but ignores the fact that the violence began well before a shot was fired on Fort Sumter.

Damn you Gilt