This is a difficult post to write. But some issues, no matter how distasteful, must be faced squarely. Sadly, the numbers speak for themselves. Racism is on the rise in this country.

Why the dramatic rise in racism now? I cannot answer that. Perhaps the problem was here all along and we simply chose not to see it. It was easy to ignore in the months following the election when Obama’s favorability rating was over 70%. In the euphoria of his election, many of us became too complacent about racism. With a 70% favorability rating for the President elect, we were all too willing to overlook the 30% of racist Americans who remained. It was an easy mistake to make, the racists were outnumbered by more than two to one.

Few now remember that November 2008 to January 2009 was the golden age of the new post-racial post-partisan America, ushered in by the election of our new President. Our pundits in the mainstream media helped us to understand and appreciate the deep import of the election, and the possibility of finally turning the page on our racist history.

Maureen Dowd – Nov. 9, 2008:

Joe Klein in Time – Nov 5.2008:

Keith Olbermann – Nov 5, 2008:

Jimmy Carter on Jim Lehrer – August 25, 2008

“But I don’t think there’s any doubt that there’s a spirit and a bright, new hope for America within this country and around the world. And if Obama is elected, which I think he is going to be, then I think that will be the transforming race for the end of racism, and prejudice, and hatred between races in this country.”

As always, Jimmy Carter was far ahead of the curve, predicting the golden age of a post-racial America months before it came into being.

That was then. This is now. What happened? Perhaps it was just too easy to pretend the problem was not there.

Here are the facts. Racism has been rising steadily over the last few months. In recent polls, President Obama’s approval number has dropped from 70% to 50%. This means the percentage of racists in this country has risen from 30% to 50% – a 67% increase in only eight months! Even more alarming, close to one out of two Americans are now racist. We have reached a tipping point. If this trend continues, the racists will soon be in a majority. Now, more than ever, we need the pundits and sages of the mainstream media to speak out. Racism is so insidious, so deep rooted, that we may not even know whether we are racists, unless or until bloggers and pundits make that determination through psychoanalysis.

Some of those same strong media voices who were sweeping the racism problem under the rug in January, are finally sounding the alarm now that the full scope of the problem has been recognized.

Dowd – Sep 13. 2009:
Representative Wilson shouting from the floor? = Racism

Bravo. How brave, this extraordinary willingness to make specific accusations of racism on the basis of nothing more than the imaginary voices in her head. Of course, it would be even braver if Maureen lived in a country, where, unlike here, she and her paper could be sued for slander. Sadly, some do not appreciate her principled stand against imagined racism. What are we to make of those such as blogger Clifton, who shamelessly asserts: “There is enough real racism in the world as it is; you are not helping anyone by making sh*t up!” Clearly Clifton is a racism denier.

KLEIN on Scarborough – Sep 11. 2009:
Protests in opposition to Obamacare? = Racism

Joe, keep speaking out. The administration is in denial over the real reason for the opposition to their policies. Your clear dispassionate analysis may yet snap them out of their dangerous delusions. What could they be thinking? Could anyone really believe that – a President who signs an earmark stuffed budget that quadruples the deficit, pushes through an almost $1T pork laden stimulus package that does not stimulate, takes over car companies, bails out investment bankers, institutionalizes the Bush/Cheney unitary executive, is pushing massive new energy taxes and wants an additional $1T in new health care entitlements – would raise strong opposition? Nonsense. Who could be opposed to such enlightened policies? The opposition is obviously racist. That is the only rational explanation.

OLBERMANN – Sep 8, 2009 “[video]:
Forced resignation of Van Jones? = Racism

I cannot sufficiently express my gratitude to Keith Olbermann for stepping up yet again. The attack on Van Jones was so clearly rooted in racism that one must assume anyone who would suggest otherwise is also a de-facto racist. In this context, it was particularly shocking to me that Willie Brown, Democrat, former Mayor of San Francisco, frequent MSNBC contributor, and a man who worked directly with Van Jones would sadly be revealed to be a racist. From his column Sunday:

Willie Brown – a racist. Who knew?

Jimmy Carter – September 16, 2009
Joe Wilson outburst, Protests, Obamacare opposition? = Racism

NYT – “The former president first weighed in on Tuesday during a question-and-answer session at the Carter Center in Atlanta. Mr. Carter responded to a question about Mr. Wilson’s eruption by saying that he did believe it was laced with racism. Coupling the Wilson remark with the images in recent weeks of angry demonstrators wielding signs depicting Mr. Obama as a Nazi or as Adolf Hitler, Mr. Carter said: “There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president.” He lamented the tone of disrespect toward the current president, adding: “Those kind of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate on whether we should have a national program on health care. It’s deeper than that.”

Only Jimmy Carter could speaks with sufficient moral authority to attribute Joe Wilson’s outburst, tea party protesters and health care opposition all to racism. We need that clarity now more than ever. But the more these thought leaders speak out, the more racism deniers come out of the woodwork. As if they would know better than Jimmy Carter what real racism looks like. And again, the administration refuses to face reality.

With the ex-president adding his voice to the media voices speaking out loudly and clearly, perhaps we can beat back the scourge of racism once again. While we may never again return to the golden age of November 2008 to January 2009 when only 30% of the country were racists, perhaps we can at least reverse the trend and insure that the racists remain a minority of the voters in this country. Before it is too late – like – before the next election.

^{Notes on this post: As is often the case with my posts, the idea for this piece emerged from a recent comment thread here at the Donk. A version of this post was cross-posted at Divided We Stand United We Fall where it garnered some interesting comments, and was subsequently linked at The Crossed Pond generating an even longer and more interesting comment thread.}

There’s no way he was even half as popular amongst Northerners back in the 1860s (I still bump into Civil War kooks down South who HATE Lincoln more than my wife hates the Dukes of Hazzard).

Amongst the dozens of new Lincoln tributes is a 2,024 page biography that weighs 9.3 pounds. The longest book I ever read was Stephen King’s The Stand, a good-vs.-evil plague morality tale that made me get nervous anytime I hung around someone with a terrible cough. That book weighed in at 1,141 pages — and that is my upper limit.

Any Abraham Lincoln comic books out there?

In honor of Lincoln’s birthday, I would like to shine the spotlight on one of his most devoted admirers — a banjo-playing, wood-chopping fringe presidential candidate who believes he’s channeling Honest Abe in the woods of New Hampshire.

Sadly, Carmen Chimento’s life doesn’t even merit a one-line cameo in that new 2,024 page biography.

Carmen also boasts the distinction of making the most bizarre comment I’ve ever heard about Lincoln assassin John Wilkes Booth.

What do you think?  Would we be better off today if we had a Chimento White House?

(New Hampshire political junkie Darren Garnick can be reached at www.cultureschlock.com)

More from ABC:

In the Entertainment Weekly cover story, Stewart says the power of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s entry into the race is evidenced in the ability it had to sideline every other character in the election. Stewart calls the press covering it “six-year-olds playing soccer.”

“It has cast the first African-American presidential nominee, the oldest [non-incumbent] presidential nominee, and a really wild cork vice presidential candidate completely out of the picture,” Stewart says. “The press is six-year-olds playing soccer; nobody has a position, it’s just ‘Where’s the ball? Where’s the ball? Sarah Palin has the ball!’”

Stewart insists his Daily Show, known for combing archives and stitching together footage revealing the contradictions of the political set, is “not a journalistic gotcha, it’s just anger.”

Are you angry?

I understand your position that this was satire and that Obama should have acknowledged that. In hindsight maybe that would have been best for his campaign.

But……

1. The Truth is that a large number (10%, 20%, 30%…. pick a number) of people that see the cover…… will, in fact, believe that it is making a statement about Obama, an opinion, not a satire. So, effectively, that cover has hurt his campaign by (unintentionally) further instilling mistruths about him.

2. The Cover satirizes Untruths that have been promulgated… over the past year by republicans, conservatives and the racially “insensitive”. The Editors defend it, as do you, by saying that it is “joking” about these untruths….essentially trying to help readers, thru the satire, see thru these untruths. But…. as stated above….for many Americans who see that cover…. it is convincing them of these untruths by giving a visualization of the untruths.

3. Perhaps unfair for Maddow (Countdown) to refer to Americans as being “stupid”….. wrong word….. but calling them “uninformed” is fair. And for the many, many uninformed Americans who merely see that cover on the news stand…. particularly those predisposed to fear of muslims….or fear of “black power” , the cover was fodder for their “uniformed cannons” and was very damaging for Obama.

4. result…… If the cover was not meant to harm, but to satirically inform….. it failed.

Conclusion:

Realistically….. If you wanted to inform, thru satire…. if you wanted to produce a cover to support a better informed electorate…. wouldn’t the cover have two pictures… that juxtaposed the ridiculous false images on one picture…. with the accurate images in another…..side by side. To not do this guaranteed that many would misunderstand it and allow it to become the very opposite of its intent…. a radically false and inflammatory derogation of Obama based on falsehoods regularly (not satirically) promoted thru the media and the anti obama camp.

The fact that there was no underlying indicator that this was meant as sarcasm/satire….. undoubtedly allowed many to see it as further reinforcement of falsehoods and slander.

One note about my own feelings on this since I haven’t posted about it…I do think the cover is clearly satire to the New Yorker’s traditional audience (of which I count myself a part of), but they should have realized that such a cartoon would have a much broader audience than some of their normal covers. So while I don’t find it personally offensive, I can see how others would.

Additionally, I do think it could serve to reinforce opinions with those voters who are uninformed and pay more attention to anonymous emails accusing Obama of being a secret Muslim than what the cover’s actual intent was.

What do you think?

Obama has Oprah, Edwards has Tim Robbins, Fred Thompson has The National Right To Life Committee… but Huckabee has Chuck Norris.

God help us all.

In recent weeks, the President has moved decisively to fulfill that promise. Consider the graphic of the president’s approval rating since the beginning of the Iraq occupation (from the Washington Post).

Now some would think that 65% of country (as high as 71% in some polls), joined shoulder to shoulder, arms locked in solidarity disapproving of how the president is doing his job qualifies as uniting the country. While this may be close enough for some, it is not enough for this President. He understands that the remaining ~30% of his support is comprised of hard core loyalists that fully intend to stand with him through thick and thin. With only 18 months left in his presidency, he realizes he must act decisively if he is going to truly be a “uniter”. He recently launched a three prong “shock and awe” attack on the Republican base: First standing by his discredited Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; Second, aggressively attacking Republican opponents of the immigration bill; Third, leaving loyalist Scooter Libby twisting slowly in the wind, knowing that Libby’s only crime was to perjure himself to protect Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. Is it working? Can he really unite this country? Only time will tell. The next few polls will be critical. But there are indications in both the main stream media and the blogosphere that his efforts are bearing fruit…

Continued at Divided We Stand United We Fall.

It all started with a phone call to Aaron Clarey, informing him that he’d been branded a racist.

Clarey, a Minneapolis economist, blogger and radio host, traced the accusation to a physics laboratory in California. There, a graduate student named Sanjay Krishnaswamy had created a blog on which he posed as Clarey — photograph and all — and posted comments about “miserable brown wetbacks” and why “blacks are more likely to commit crimes than whites.”

Krishnaswamy’s lawyer says the fake blog was clearly a parody, an over-the-top production meant to draw attention to the real Clarey’s “outrageous” viewpoints.

But when word of the phony blog reached Clarey’s employers in Minnesota, he says he found himself facing the potential loss of his community-education gigs teaching finance courses and salsa dance classes, not to mention his reputation.

That’s why Clarey, a libertarian who blogs under the name “Captain Capitalism,” is suing Krishnaswamy.

I can’t find a link to the fake blog — perhaps it’s been taken down due to the lawsuit — but Clarey’s blog is here.

As a brief aside, since we’re on the subject of lawsuits, is Clarey infringing on a copyright with his alter ego?

Back on topic: It’s sleazy to create a blog posing as someone else unless the intent is clearly parody. The question, then, is what is meant by “clearly.” Since I can’t find the fake blog, the strength of its “parody” argument is impossible to judge.

Anonymity isn’t really the problem here. People who post under pseudonyms — like me — may be shielded from real life personal consequences of what we write, but our words are still our own, and our credibility rises and falls based on those words. And if it came down to criminal activity, I’m sure that Blogger would roll over for a subpoena demanding my true identity, which I imagine could be tracked down through IP numbers.

So the problem is impersonation. And not just any impersonation, but impersonation with the intent to harm the reputation of the target by posting lies about him.

But there are other considerations. Is Clarey a public figure? Most likely, thanks to his prominence as an economist and radio host. But let’s look past him. Is blogging alone enough to make someone a public figure?

The question is important, because public figures have a much harder time winning suits like this one. I can call President Bush a Nazi without fear; I could conceivably be sued if I wrote that my neighbor is a Nazi. I could create a fake blog purportedly written by Bush without fear; can I do the same with Aaron Clarey? Or some random blogger I happen to dislike?

Which is why this case bears watching. It could help define the legal status of bloggers, as well as the limits of parody in the blog world.

He is talking a lot lately, out there in America, and in the Oval Office. People don’t say as often as they used to, “You watch Bush’s speech last night?” Or they don’t ask it with the same anticipation and interest.

Yeah. Most of us noticed that about two months after the last election, Peg. While you were still fantasizing about the day George would take you in his arms and plant a lipless kiss on your eager, upturned mouth.

I think that Americans have pretty much stopped listening to him. One reason is that you don’t have to listen to get a sense of what’s going on. He does not appear to rethink things based on new data. You don’t have to tune in to see how he’s shifting emphasis to address a trend, or tacking to accommodate new winds. For him there is no new data, only determination.

Nice way to try and spin your slavish devotion, Peg. It’s all about his shiver-my-loins “determination.” Sweetie, Bush is “determined” in much the same way that a person in a persistent vegetative state is “determined.” Lack of thought, lack of analysis, lack of adaptation, that’s not determination so much as a flatline on the old EEG.

He repeats old arguments because he believes they are right, because he has no choice–in for a penny, in for a pound–and because his people believe in the dogma of the magic of repetition: Say it, say it, to break through the clutter.

There’s another reason people don’t listen to Mr. Bush as much as they did. It is that in some fundamental way they know they have already fully absorbed him. He’s burned his brand into the American hide.

“Burn your brand into me,” Peggy said huskily, drawing him close. “I’m yours, mark me with your hot brand.” The rough leather of his chaps against her naked thighs made her insides churn. She pressed her mouth to his ear and in a fierce, urgent whisper said, “Clear my brush. Clear my brush now.”

What is polarizing about him is the response he elicits from Americans just by being himself. They have deep questions about him, even as he is vivid to them.

“Vivid, so vivid, yes, yes, yes, you’re so vivid, yes. My questions about you are so . . . deep. So . . . deeply vivid.”

Americans don’t really know, deep down in their heads, whether this president, in his post-9/11 decisions, is a great man or a catastrophe, a visionary or wholly out of his depth.

Um. What? That’s kind of a buzz kill isn’t it, Peg? Surely you will go on to answer this question with a ringing endorsement of Mr. Bush’s vivid determination to brand you deeply. Won’t you?

What they increasingly sense is that he’s one thing or the other. And this is not a pleasant thing to sense. The stakes are so high. If you woke most Americans up at 3:00 in the morning and said, “Tell me, looking back, what would you have liked in an American president after 9/11?” most of them would answer, “I was just hoping for a good man who did moderately good things.” Who caught Osama, cleaned out Afghanistan, made it proof of the possibility of change and of the price to be paid by those who choose terror as a tactic. Not this historical drama queen, this good witch or bad.

The one thing I think America agrees on is that George Bush and his presidency have been enormously consequential. He has made decisions that will shape the future we’ll inhabit. It’s never “We must do this” with Mr. Bush. It’s always “the concentrated work of generations.” He doesn’t declare, he commits; and when you back him, you’re never making a discrete and specific decision, you’re always making a long-term investment.

This can be exhausting.

Well, yes, Peg, all that enormousness, when you consider the depth and all, and the vividness of his branding and whatnot, yeah, that can be exhausting. Would you like a cigarette now?

But wait, what was that about him being a drama queen? A drama queen? Interesting choice of words, isn’t it?

Lie back on the couch now, Peg, and let’s talk this over. What I hear you telling me is that the vividness in the relationship was great. That part was fine. But when you woke up the next morning and had to go to work wearing the same thing you had on when you left the night before, you began to have doubts about whether this man, this impossible, determined, brutish, overwhelming, domineering, masterful, penetrating, oh God, oh God, oh God, so . . . so . . . penetrating man, might not be the guy who was really right for you. Long term.

Maybe, just maybe you’d have been better off with someone who actually thought. You know, maybe had a little less manly determination and a little more cerebral activity.

And yet: You know he means it when he says he is trying to protect America. You know his heart is in it. You know he means it when he says there are bad guys and we will stop them. And that has meaning.

Ah, what a cruel put-down. He means well. He absolutely meant to call you, he just forgot. He meant to capture Osama . . . but he didn’t. He was well-inentioned. That’s what he was: manly and determined . . . and well-intentioned.

Was it a Cialis kind of thing, Peg? Was that it? Was he unable to rise to the situation? Is that what left you cooling rather than heating up? Or is it that five years after he said “Dead or alive,” and got you all worked up he still hasn’t gotten around to cleaning out the garage or taking out the garbage? Is he kind of unreliable? Have you begun to notice that all that manly determination just seems to involve marching in circles in a swamp?

With all this polarity, this drama, this added layer Mr. Bush brings to a nation already worn by the daily demands of modern individual life, the political alternative, the Democrats, should roar in six weeks from now, right? And return us to normalcy?

Well, that’s not what I sense.

And here we see Peg putting on her make-up, doing her hair, choosing the dress that’s hot but not really slutty, and trolling for a new man to replace George. Oh, she’s disappointed with what she sees standing at the bar, but she’s looking.

One of the oldest clichés in politics is, “You can’t beat something with nothing.” It’s a cliché because it’s true. You have to have belief, and a program. You have to look away from the big foe and focus instead on the world and philosophy and programs you imagine.

Mr. Bush’s White House loves what the Democrats are doing. They want the focus on him. That’s why he’s out there talking, saying Look at me.

The end of the affair. George out there banging on the glass wearing his cowboy boots and his great big, big, belt buckle and saying, “Look at me. Look at meeee.”

You can’t beat something with nothing, and Democrats? You can’t put your vivid brand on Peggy Noonan’s hide until you have belief and a program. You’re going to have to stop reminding Peg of Mr. Bush, and help her to forget . . . forget . . .

So, you’ll need a belief. And a program. Also a cowboy costume.

(Cross-posted from Sideways Mencken.)

Look, I have no problem with a contested primary and I fully support the people of Connecticut in freely choosing the Senator they prefer…but I don’t get why the bulk of the progressive netroots feels they need to devote the lions share of their time and effort participating in this one race…while at the same time the Democrats have the best possibility to take control of the House and Senate FROM THE REPUBLICANS in years.

I’m not a Lieberman apologist and I feel the manner in which he supported the President on the Iraq war was wrong because he undermined fellow Democrats in the process. Nonetheless, I’m at a loss to see how making the defeat of Lieberman the equivalent of a public caning (in full view of the opposition and those voters who have the potential to switch and vote Democratic this election) is going to achieve the goals of the progressive netroots. Quite frankly, other than proving that they can influence a race within the Democratic Party…and likely doing so at the expense of the Democratic Party come November…I’m fully baffled by the rationale and the intensity of this feud.

Now I’ve read the carefully worded and ample pontifications on the Lieberman betrayals…and were I a woman scorned I might even run about his neighborhood putting up posters saying he’s a liar and a cheat…but since I’m not…and neither are the progressive netroots…why the hell are they doing as much? It just doesn’t add up. If we boot Joe’s booty, and we don’t gain six Senate seats, we still can’t shut George Bush down, we still can’t force an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq, we still can’t force a moderate Supreme Court appointment, and since most of us don’t live in Connecticut, we can’t even enjoy whatever pork Lamont might bring home to Connecticut (and that assumes he can bring home some pork that Lieberman couldn’t have brought).

Anyway, I’ve long believed that if you look at a situation and the effort being expended isn’t matched by the potential outcome; something else must be at play. Well it all came clear to me today with Dear Jane’s “look at me, look at me� miscalculation. Here’s the thing. Quite frankly, my inclination is to conclude that Joe Lieberman’s petulance, as annoying as it is, is simply being matched tit for tat by equally petulant individuals. This “thing� is no less than the Hatfield’s and McCoy’s.

Read the rest of the posting at Thought Theater…here:

www.thoughttheater.com

S. 1718, also known as the Preservation Of Public Lands Of America Act, authorized a shift of $138 billion from the federal Medicare fund to a massive landscaping effort that, over the next five years, will transform Yellowstone National Park into a luxury private golf estate.

It sailed through both houses of congress with bi-partisan support:

The only senator to suspect that the act was a joke was Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), who said he later overcame his suspicions, reasoning that “if it got this far, it must be valid.”

In the end the joke was on Allen.

Once Allen found out that Bush would be signing the bill into law in a special Rose Garden ceremony, he decided to let the matter drop, saying that he was “in too deep to start explaining things now.”

The Onion: Bill Introduced As Joke Signed Into Law

RP: So anyone can fly into Riyadh or Jeddah and just pick up a visa at the airport?

M: Men can, certainly, and married couples, as long as they can prove they’re married, so they’ll need to bring a Marriage Certificate, four copies translated into Arabic and certified by a lawyer. Not a Jewish lawyer, naturally. Women, on the other hand, will need to be sponsored by someone inside Saudi Arabia.

RP: But suppose they don’t know anyone in the country?

M: Well, we can’t help them there, can we? We’re not a Dating Agency.

RP: And what about couples who aren’t married, or gay couples?

M: Well as you know, we behead homosexuals, and stone adulterous or loose women to death, so it’s probably best if we don’t let them in in the first place, otherwise there’ll be no end of paperwork.

He’s also got a link to what you ladies will need to wear to those Red Sea beach resorts.

NEW YORK – When daylight-saving time starts earlier than usual in the United States come 2007, your VCR or DVD recorder could start recording shows an hour late.

Cell phone companies could give you an extra hour of free weekend calls, and people who depend on online calendars may find themselves late for appointments.

An energy bill President Bush is to sign Monday would start daylight time three weeks earlier and end it a week later as an energy-saving measure.

And that has technologists worried about software and gadgets that now compensate for daylight time based on a schedule unchanged since 1987.

“It is unfortunately going to add a little bit of complexity to consumers,” said Reid Sullivan, vice president of the entertainment group at Panasonic Consumer Electronics Co. “In some cases, depending on the product, they may have to manually increase or decrease the time.”

Associated Press: Daylight-Saving Switch May Cause Tech Woes

Stock up on canned goods, batteries, and drinking water! Not because all computers will crash, but because there’s going to be millions of idiots running around an hour behind trying to get caught up.

Let’s hope the programmers can save us like they did on the Y2K thing. That one ended up going pretty smooth.

Sometimes I just can’t stop worryin about the Democratic Party an its terrible internal divisions an stuff.

Fafblog: the great divorce

As they say, read it all.