NARAL Spokesperson Rejects Bill O’Reilly

Posted by on June 4, 2009 at 5:55 pm. NO Comments :

Mary Alice Carr, vice president of communications for NARAL Pro-Choice New York, was asked to appear on the O’Reilly Factor to discuss the murder of Dr. George Tiller. She gave him the only answer that is acceptable and then explained why in an op-ed for the Washington Post.

In her column, Carr movingly described why she believed that Bill O’Reilly bore some responsibility for the heinous shooting death of a doctor at a Sunday church service. She pointed out how O’Reilly repeatedly taunted his viewers with thinly veiled messages that Dr. Tiller was an evil practitioner who had to be stopped. On his program, O’Reilly had labeled the doctor “Tiller, the baby killer.” He said that Tiller has blood on his hands and that anyone who doesn’t stop him has blood on their hands as well. Carr recognized that it was disingenuous for O’Reilly to pretend that his words have no effect, particularly after boasting about how influential he is:

“O’Reilly knew that people wanted Tiller dead, and he knew full well that many of those people were avid viewers of his show. Still, he fanned the flames. Every time I appeared on his show, I received vitriolic and hate-filled e-mails. And if I received those messages directly, I can only imagine what type of feedback O’Reilly receives. He knows that his words incite violence.”

Nonetheless, Carr had a moment of introspection wherein she considered accepting his recent invitation to appear on his show:

“But then I realized I just couldn’t. Because if the murder of a man in a house of worship wasn’t enough to make Bill O’Reilly repent, what hope did I have?”

She made the right decision. And it is not just the right decision for Carr, it is the right decision for anyone asked to appear with O’Reilly or any other Fox News demagogue. It is long past time for Democrats and progressives to come to the same realization that Carr did. You cannot win an argument with these people. Their minds are locked shut and they are doing their best to see to it that their viewers suffer the same malady.

I have written extensively on the need to Starve The Beast: Just stay off of Fox News. There is no reason to help them by lending them our credibility. There is no reason to give them cover as being “fair and balanced.” There is no reason to help them to prop up their ratings by permitting them to fabricate the sort of melodrama upon which they thrive.

Mary Alice Carr did the right thing. Now we just need to get everyone else to realize what she did: that there is no reason – ever – to go on Fox News.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Cable News Trek: The Next Generation

Posted by on June 3, 2009 at 1:41 am. 7 Comments :

Fox News has been reveling in their post-election ratings bump. By all appearances it is really just a pity party for the losers who are congregating at the Fox water cooler to assuage their misery. But I have to give them credit for having such unparalleled devotion to their demon host.

In the just released ratings for May, Fox retained its first place ranking. MSNBC moved solidly into second place. But there was some little noticed news that may whip up a little anxiety Fox programmers:

MSNBC is the #1 news network among younger viewers, Adults 18-34, in weekday primetime (93,000), M-Su primetime (89,000), and in M-Su sales prime (7 p.m.-2 a.m., 72,000). “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” was the #1 show at 8 p.m. in A18-34 (118,000).

This is a continuation of a trend wherein Fox is saddled with the oldest skewing audience in cable news. MSNBC, however, is winning amongst younger viewers, who are the future of the news consuming marketplace. That bodes well for MSNBC as this demographic group grows into the advertiser-favored 25-54 demo.

In the meantime, Fox can celebrate having cornered the market for aging political outcasts.


Right Wing Extremists Validate Concerns About Right Wing Extremists

Posted by on June 1, 2009 at 8:23 pm. 1 Comments :

Last April, the Department of Homeland Security published a report entitled: Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment (pdf). The report generated significant controversy amongst conservatives whose complaint seemed to be that the report was referring to them. At the time I wrote…

So why is Malkin, and the rest of the conservative cabal, defending these dangerous malcontents? Is it because they support criminality in pursuit of a radical conservative agenda? Or is it because they see themselves in the descriptions in the report? Either way it is clear that that they are acting as advocates for these repugnant cranks. They are apparently offended that the government would seek to protect citizens from domestic terrorists like Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph.

Now we can add the name Scott Roeder to the list. He is the suspect in custody for the murder of Dr. George Tiller. All signs point to the fact that this crime might have been prevented if proper attention were being paid to the potential risk posed by someone known to be dangerous. And that was the purpose of the DHS report – to direct attention to risks and dangerous people and groups. The report was prescient in its specificity:

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a
single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

~~~

Paralleling the current national climate, rightwing extremists during the 1990s exploited a variety of social issues and political themes to increase group visibility and recruit new members. Prominent among these themes were the militia movement’s opposition to gun control efforts, criticism of free trade agreements (particularly those with Mexico), and highlighting perceived government infringement on civil liberties as well as white supremacists’ longstanding exploitation of social issues such as abortion, inter-racial crimes, and same-sex marriage.

It is abundantly sad when events prove that ominous warnings were valid and ought to have been heeded. Perhaps the worst example of such behavior was the Bush administration’s neglect of warnings about Al Qaeda, including a National Intelligence Estimate entitled, “Bin Laden Determined to Stike in the U.S.” The knowledge that people with partisan political axes to grind feverishly seek to set such warnings aside compounds the sadness and shock.

Republicans like to pretend that they are the protectors of law and order. But when it comes to their defense of extremists on their side, they are nothing but enablers.


Glenn Beck Incites Massive Criminal Tax Evasion

Posted by on May 30, 2009 at 3:27 pm. 14 Comments :

Yesterday, on his wildly popular Fox News Acute Paranoia Revue, Glenn Beck laid out a plan to make millions of his viewers criminals. The fact that Beck spewed a tsunami of idiocy is not exactly a revelation. It is, in fact, what Fox pays him for. But now he may have scaled a new plateau that deliberately puts his audience at risk and further demonstrates his own hypocrisy and cowardice.

At issue is the commentary with which he opens his show, “The One Thing.” In yesterday’s installment he overtly made the case to his viewers that they should stop paying their taxes. He prefaced his remarks by referencing his guest from the day before. Craig T. Nelson (of Coach fame) confided to Beck that he is considering not paying his taxes anymore. Despite the fact that Nelson is just the sort of wealthy Hollywood elitist that Beck loves to dismiss as traitors, Beck was inspired by Nelson’s prospective felonious selfishness and believes that it touched a nerve with his audience. So Beck commences to reveal his scheme that he says is just “for argument’s sake.”

“I want to be clear on one thing, I am not advocating that people should not pay their income tax. This is a spooky, spooky area. […] But what, if for argument’s sake, a million Americans intentionally did not pay their taxes?”

Fox News lawyers were probably responsible for the disclaimer with which Beck began this rant. As you’ll see, the remainder leaves little doubt as to where Beck’s intentions really lie. Regular viewers already know that he despises the denizens of Washington, whom he regards as irresponsible and corrupt (at least since the Republicans were voted out). His disciples are keenly aware of his position on deficits and bailouts (except for those implemented prior to Obama’s election). With that in mind, he starts to lay the groundwork for a criminal conspiracy that he hopes will take the nation by storm. And first on the agenda is a courageous stand against the Internal Revenue Service:

“Right now the IRS is already able to go through over 150 million tax returns and punish those (believe you me) harshly, who fail to pay, you know, their income tax. They fine them between 20-25 percent. They’ll collect about $30 billion in back taxes. And going forward, the Obama administration is preparing. They are devoting an additional $400 million of your money to get more money from you.”

Here we see Beck griping that the IRS is engaged in collecting tax revenue from people who failed to pay their taxes. Presumably he thinks that the IRS should just let them be. If they don’t want to pay their taxes, so what? Leave them alone. Unless, of course, you are Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, or anyone associated with President Obama. In which case you’re a sleazeball and the IRS should throw the book at you.

As for Beck’s complaint that the current administration is budgeting $400 million to recover $30 billion in unpaid tax revenue, I’m not sure what his problem is with that. Is he dissatisfied with a 7,500 percent return on investment? Not exactly. The truth is, he is setting up the argument that deliberately withholding tax payment would not present any risk because the government couldn’t prosecute or punish the offenders if there were enough of them. Beck literally advises his audience not to worry about the consequences:

“Still, most tax evaders don’t end up in jail. […] Let’s just say a million people don’t pay – not because they’re cheap – but because they believe the principles that we were founded on have been violated. And they think this is wrong and they try to do something that they think is the only thing they can.”

Then Beck tells them to…

“Put aside the fact America’s federal, state, and local prisons are already overcrowded. They are packed 36% beyond their rated capacity. Overcrowded to the maximum. […] All in all, it’s probably not worth the government’s time to toss you in jail.”

There you have it. Feel free to cease all payments to the government. Nothing’s going to happen to you if you do it. Well, at least you won’t go to jail. Beck doesn’t address whether or not you would have to go through the inconvenience of an audit. He doesn’t raise the possibility of your home, or other assets, being seized. It must not have occurred to him that your wages might be garnished. Even a conviction with a fine and probation, with no jail time, would still leave you with a criminal record.

But never mind any of that. Beck says that this sort of tax evasion would make you like Gandhi. Beck even quotes the famous spiritual and political leader who was fighting to secure India’s freedom from the English imperialists. Gandhi said: “Withholding payment of taxes is one of the quickest methods of overthrowing a government.” Of course, in our case we are not struggling against a foreign tyrant who is imposing their will on us. In fact, for better or worse, we voted for the people who drafted our tax laws. Beck’s battle is more like that of the Fox News Tea Partiers than Gandhi’s Swaraj. But that doesn’t stop Beck from overtly advocating mass criminality. Referring to Gandhi’s fight for independence, Beck says…

“And it makes common sense. Starving them out of trillions of your hard-earned dollars would literally put them out of business. But do Americans want to do that? Do Americans who want to do that have the guts to follow Gandhi’s example, in order to save children, our grandchildren, our great, great, great, great, great-grandchildren from all of this insane debt?”

It seems that after a challenge like that, Beck’s earlier disclaimer is irrelevant. He is virtually daring you to walk up the steps of the IRS and announce your defiance of their authority. Do you have the guts to do it? Do you love your great-grandchildren?

Here’s “The One Thing” (if I may borrow that from Beck): I don’t see Beck doing any of that. I don’t see him withholding his taxes, or even threatening to do so. I don’t see him making any sort of sacrifice on behalf of his great-grandchildren. Gandhi suffered every bit as much as the people he aspired to lead. The only thing I see Beck doing is giving dangerous advice that will bring great distress to anyone stupid enough to take it (and we are talking about Glenn Beck viewers here, so…).

Glenn Beck is proving himself to be a supreme coward and a hypocrite. He won’t for a minute consider assuming the hardships that he so cavalierly counsels for others. This is a man who begins every show with the exhortation of a cult leader to “Come on, follow me.” But he is leading from the rear where it’s safer. He is happy to let his devotees be slaughtered while he takes the limo back to his security-gated estate. Then he’ll go on TV the following day and weep for their loss. He will make martyrs of his legion of tax resisters and profit from their pain.

If you believe this country is great, but people like Beck make a mockery of leadership and integrity, come on, follow me.


Fox News: Republicans Divided Over How to Attack Sotomayor

Posted by on May 29, 2009 at 12:21 pm. NO Comments :

An article on FoxNews.com is lamenting the difficult position in which Republicans find themselves with regard to President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court:

“Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s nominee to replace Justice David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court, is posing a conundrum for Republicans who are struggling to unite against a woman they presume will be a reliable vote for liberal causes.

“The GOP doesn’t want to give Sotomayer (sic) a free ride, because they believe she is a judicial activist who will legislate from the bench.”

So what’s the problem? Why don’t they just attack her as a liberal judicial activist? If that’s really their objection to her, it seems that there would be nothing controversial about taking that approach. All they have to do is fire up their slogans about Socialism and set Glenn Beck and his posse loose, and they have the makings of a conventional rightist campaign of obstructionism. The truth is, that isn’t really their objection. The article states that they are…

“…concerned that if they launch a no-holds barred attack on Sotomayor, the first Hispanic to be nominated to the court, they risk alienating a growing minority they want on their side in the voting booth.”

The only way that they can alienate the Hispanic electorate is if they were to oppose Sotomayor on the basis of her race. Consequently, they are inadvertently admitting that that is precisely what they want to do. The argument within the ranks of Republicans is not centered on Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy or record. Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich and others have already staked their claims that she is a racist, and that her gender renders her susceptible to that peculiarly feminine characteristic of empathy.

It becomes crystal clear that the dilemma facing Republicans, and Fox News, is tied solely to race and gender when you consider this simple scenario: If the nominee were a white male, would they have any hesitation to executing a straightforward campaign criticizing his record as a jurist?

The fact that there is a debate going on in the party at all, and trumpeted in right-wing media, is conclusive evidence that the real subject of the controversy is the nominee’s race and gender. They just don’t want to admit it. And we can count on Fox to obfuscate that truth and to portray the internecine squabble as something more benign. But if they were truly worried about how Sotomayor would rule as a Justice, then why would criticizing that risk their standing amongst Hispanics?

The answer? It wouldn’t. They’re lying. As usual.


Newspapers Conspiring To Hasten Their Own Demise

Posted by on May 29, 2009 at 11:43 am. NO Comments :

James Warren of The Atlantic reports that a bevy of newspaper executives gathered yesterday in Chicago for a clandestine discussion about “Models to Monetize Content.” Amongst the participants are the New York Times, Gannett, E. W. Scripps, Advance Publications, McClatchy, Hearst Newspapers, MediaNews Group, the Associated Press, Philadelphia Media Holdings, Lee Enterprises and Freedom Communication. The unadorned agenda of this cabal of publishers is to figure out how to make news consumers pick up the tab that advertisers have traditionally paid.

Setting aside the obvious appearance of a violation of anti-trust laws, the main problem with these old-media relics is that they still don’t understand the problems confronting them.

First of all, they aren’t losing money because subscription receipts are declining. Subscription revenue, while not insignificant, was never the foundation of the industry’s financial well being. It is advertisers that keep newspapers (and most media) in business. The value of subscribers is due more to the fact that higher circulation brings higher ad revenue than to the value of the actual subscription price.

Secondly, subscriptions aren’t declining because newspapers cost too much. They are declining because too often the product isn’t worth paying for. That would be true whether it were delivered to your doorstep or your browser. The state of the economy cannot be overlooked as a contributor to the subscriber exodus either. But when newspapers respond to tough economic times by cutting newsroom staff, they have to expect that readers will notice the falloff in quality. Once people perceive that they aren’t getting their money’s worth, they will be no more likely to pay for an online subscription than the dead tree variety.

Warren astutely notes in his article that newspaper executives are not the brightest inks in the well. Many of them are holdovers from an era that hasn’t kept up with modern competition. Others are transplants from TV or radio who lack experience in a medium that has little in common with its electronic cousins. The evidence of their shortcomings is observable in their haste to alter a business model that has worked fine for a couple of hundred years or more. To respond to current financial woes by shifting from a model that relies on advertisers to one that pinches readers is profoundly shortsighted. The economy, and advertising revenues, are bound to recover, but dimwitted decisions by panicky publishers could aggravate and prolong what would otherwise be a temporary setback.

There are challenges facing the newspaper business, to be sure. But there is no reason to presume that the sort of broad distribution model that has led to success in virtually every form of media has suddenly become inoperative. Newspapers need to adapt to the digital world in a manner that promotes access and ubiquity. Walling themselves off by erecting subscription barriers can only make matters worse and result in further isolation and debt.

Finally, if they think that by colluding with one another to set the terms of doing business with them will endear them to their customers, they are even stupider than I thought.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

The Figment Of The Center-Right Imagi-Nation

Posted by on May 27, 2009 at 6:03 pm. 1 Comments :

Throughout much of last year’s presidential campaign, and right on through the first weeks of Barack Obama’s administration, the media has persistently peddled the falsehood that America is a center-right nation, politically and socially. Now Media Matters has published a study (full pdf here) that thoroughly debunks this notion, and they do it by using surveys and facts that realistically portray the ideological character of the country – something the media may want to check in to.

The Media Matters study is a comprehensive look at the American electorate. It covers virtually every one of the most debated subjects of public discourse: Size of government; health care; taxes; abortion; gay rights. It also examines the demographics of age, ethnicity, gender, and geography. And every case the evidence shows that America is a progressive, and yes, a center-left nation.

And nowhere is this more misunderstood than in the media:

  • Tom Brokaw (NBC): “This country, even with the election of Barack Obama last night, remains a very centered country, or maybe even center-right in a lot of places.”
  • Jon Meacham (Newsweek): “…insisted that to govern successfully, Obama had to become a center-right leader in order to match America’s ‘instinctively conservative’ streak.”
  • David Broder (Washington Post): “…warned that too many victorious Democrats in Congress had ‘ideas of their own about what should be done in energy, health care and education.'”
  • Karl Rove (Fox News): “Barack Obama understands this is a center-right country.”
  • Chris Wallace (Fox News): “You could make the argument that this is still a center-right country.”
  • Chris Matthews (MSNBC): “I’ve noted that we’re right of center except when we’re in a crisis, when we’re left of center.”
  • Bob Schieffer (CBS): “These Democrats that were elected last night are conservative Democrats.”

I’m not sure exactly why the press is so brain dead in this regard. It’s not as if the record isn’t crystal clear. Obama was portrayed by Republicans, and most of the press, as a liberal extremist – even as a Socialist, or worse. And yet, Obama won a decisive victory. Democrats have also been winning larger majorities in the Congress with each election cycle. And Obama’s approval rating have maintained stratospheric levels. The public supports the President’s policies even when they are told that it may increase their taxes.

At the other end of the scale, Republicans are descending into historical depths of disrepute. Their de facto leaders are universally despised figures like Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh. Their policies, I’m sure, would be rejected with equal disdain, if they were to articulate any. As it is, they just regurgitate the same old slogans they have been chanting for decades, and those are not particularly well received.

It will be interesting to see what it will take to get the media to recognize what the rest the country already knows. This is a nation that has had its fill of rightist greed and incompetence. We have ousted many of the representatives in public office who led the nation down a path of war and recession. While we can, and did, adjust the make up of our government to more closely reflect our values, it will not be as easy to fix the media. But that doesn’t mean we should stop trying.


Now Republicans Are An Oppressed Minority

Posted by on May 27, 2009 at 5:21 pm. NO Comments :

This doesn’t need much accompanying commentary:

Per Rush Limbaugh: “If ever a civil rights movement was needed in America, it is for the Republican Party. If ever we needed to start marching for freedom and constitutional rights, it’s for the Republican Party. The Republican Party is today’s oppressed minority, and it know how to behave as one.”

Per Karl Rove (speaking about George W. Bush): “And let’s be honest, a certain part of the country doesn’t like people who speak with an accent.”

I guess Rove never heard of Bill Clinton or Lyndon Johnson. And this on the heels of Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. What a couple of wankers.


Fox News Analyst Backs Military Attacks On The Media

Posted by on May 26, 2009 at 6:22 pm. 5 Comments :

Ralph Peters is a retired U.S. Army officer and a Fox News strategic analyst. He is also the author of a column that advocates waging wars without any regard for the most basic tenets of human morality. The article, Wishful Thinking and Indecisive Wars, for the neo-con Journal of International Security Affairs, argues that anything goes in warfare, and it doesn’t matter who gets hurt or what violations of international law you commit.

“As our enemies’ view of what is permissible in war expands apocalyptically, our self-limiting definitions of allowable targets and acceptable casualties – hostile, civilian and our own – continue to narrow fatefully. […] Instead of agonizing over a fatal mistake made by a young Marine at a roadblock, we must return to the fundamental recognition that the greatest ‘war crime’ the United States can commit is to lose.”

That statement is ridiculous on its face. Losing, while not on anyone’s list of goals, is not a war crime at all. But gassing six million innocents is. Peters is conflating tactics with conclusions to make a point that would shame a lobotomized imbecile. His view, which justifies the killing of non-combatants, women, children, allies. and even our own troops, is a perfect example of just how depraved the warmongering hawks on the right have become. It is a view that goes a long way toward explaining how conservatives can tolerate, and even endorse, torture. But Peters goes even farther than condemning to fate the unfortunates who have to fight wars or reside in proximity to them. Peters has come out as an advocate of directly attacking the media, whom he regards as “killers without guns.” On this Peters says:

  • Today, the United States and its allies will never face a lone enemy on the battlefield. There will always be a hostile third party in the fight, but one which we not only refrain from attacking but are hesitant to annoy: the media.
  • Rejecting the god of their fathers, the neo-pagans who dominate the media serve as lackeys at the terrorists’ bloody altar.
  • Although it seems unthinkable now, future wars may require censorship, news blackouts and, ultimately, military attacks on the partisan media.”

Peters doesn’t bother to qualify these outrageous remarks, so I suppose that he would condone this tactic being carried out either on battlefield correspondents or in Manhattan newsrooms. Presumably he would support Marines advancing on television studios in New York and Washington and slaughtering everyone from the anchors to the interns. After all, if they are just “lackeys at the terrorists’ bloody altar,” why should they be afforded any mercy?

This is not an academic debate, either. The media has too often been the target of military attacks. This is what happens when you permit your values to be weakened by fear and vengeance. Peters justifies this repulsive strategy by asserting that, since our enemies have no ethical barrier to inhumane conduct, we shouldn’t be constrained by it either. Then Peters anticipates the obvious response to his paean to barbarism:

“In closing, we must dispose of one last mantra that has been too broadly and uncritically accepted: the nonsense that, if we win by fighting as fiercely as our enemies, we will ‘become just like them.'”

Peters then proceeds to refute the premise by asking if the bombing of Dresden in WWII made us like the Nazis. The problem with his construction is that it isn’t comparable. To be accurate, he should ask if we were to have built concentration camps wherein we starved, tortured, and murdered prisoners, would that have made us like Nazis. The answer is quite obviously, yes. And, unfortunately for Peters, that is precisely what he is proposing. When he says that we ought to fight as “fiercely” as our enemies, he means that we ought to be as neglectful of humane principles as the terrorists we are battling.

When moral degenerates like Peters mouth off about abandoning the values that have made our nation great, one would hope that no one would listen. But Peters has managed to secure for himself a platform that reaches millions of the already deluded – Fox News viewers. I just wonder if Peters would extend his philosophy to the Fox studios when the Marines are dispatched to kill him and his pals in the media.


The Republican Advance Team For Terrorism

Posted by on May 25, 2009 at 12:13 pm. 3 Comments :

In the past week, Republican politicians and pundits have been striving mightily to invoke fear in the hearts of the American people. They have been blanketing the airwaves with assertions that President Obama’s policies on national security (Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, torture, etc.) will result in another 9/11. It is a persistent chorus from those who brought us the first 9/11, insisting that Obama is making the country less safe.

On the surface, these panicky critiques could be characterized as warnings to the administration to change course. However, the underlying purpose of this rhetoric is actually to set themselves up to blame Obama should the unthinkable occur. But, in effect, and by their own words, they seem to be up to something even worse. They seem to be signaling to Al Qaeda that now is the time to strike. Take note of what Dick Cheney said on this five years ago:

“Terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength; they are invited by the perception of weakness.”

That quote always made me wonder if Cheney was admitting that Al Qaeda perceived weakness in the Bush administration nine months after it had assumed power and, thus, took it as an invitation to attack. However, that would presume a greater degree of honesty and self-reflection than Cheney has ever been known to exhibit. No, he was doing the same thing then that he is doing now. Stoking fear that Democrats are leading us down a path of doom. This time, with Democrats actually in power, Cheney is accelerating the rhetoric, and is bringing along reinforcements to alert the terrorists that America is “less safe” and therefore vulnerable.

Cheney: “It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness and would make the American people less safe.”

Mitt Romney: “It’s the very kind of thinking that left America vulnerable to the attacks of Sept. 11th.”

Joe Scarborough (MSNBC): “I knew by the second day that America was less safe.

Laura Ingraham (Fox News): “I think you can make a pretty compelling case that we’re less safe today.”

John Boehner: “I think this is a pre-9/11 mentality, and I think it’ll make our nation less safe.”

Karl Rove: “They’re doing the wrong thing for our country, they’re doing the wrong thing for our men and women in uniform, and they’re making us less safe.

David Gregory (Meet the Press): But do you agree with the vice president when he says that the country is less safe under President Obama?
Newt Gingrich: Absolutely.

Speaking of Newt Gingrich, in 2002, he castigated Al Gore for making a speech that criticized George W. Bush. Gingrich said that it was “well outside the mark of an appropriate debate” for a former vice-president to allege that the current president is making the country less safe. Today, of course, Gingrich is heralding Cheney for doing just that.

The questions we need to ask are these: If you were a terrorist, what would you make of all of this talk? Would it embolden you? Would you view it as an invitation? What point are Republicans trying to make? If they really believe that America’s defenses are weakening, is there a strategic purpose to broadcasting that to our enemies?

The dueling speeches from Obama and Cheney last Thursday presented a stark contrast between the two approaches. Obama offered a strong, fact-based defense of his national security agenda. Cheney reiterated the same old innuendo and fear mongering for which he is so well known. McClatchy’s Washington bureau published a point-by-point article highlighting Cheney’s departure from reality.

On the other hand, the New York Daily News published a hilariously stupid column asserting that Cheney mopped the floor with Obama. The author, Michael Goodwin, praised Cheney’s use of what Goodwin called the “most compelling” fact: “no successful attacks on America since 9/11.” There were also no Bigfoot sightings or asteroid collisions, but I’m not sure that Bush gets credit for that either. And, of course, Goodwin concluded his tripe with the approved message of the day: Obama has “been warned his policies will make it more likely we will be hit again.”

This is the dominant theme of the Republican Party today. This is a party and a philosophy that has told us that our enemies hate us for our freedom and our principles. It’s a party whose actions then led to constraining our freedom and violating our principles via the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, suspension of habeas corpus, torture, etc. It is as if they concluded that, since the terrorists hate us for our freedom, all we have to do is to be less free and they won’t hate us anymore.

The thread that runs through the Republican messaging is that America is less safe under Obama’s leadership. They are hammering the point that he has made the nation weaker and more susceptible to attack. They are broadcasting this message to the world as they advocate for policies that the world detests. So I still have to ask: What on earth are they trying to do?

How does announcing to the terrorists that they believe our nation is becoming weaker make us safer? Do they even care? Are they just pasting a big bulls eye on America and hoping for an “I told you so” moment? I desperately hope that that’s not the case, but there aren’t many other plausible explanations.