What Will be Outcome of Wisconsin?

It is easy to see the beginnings of things, and harder to see the ends.
-- Joan Didion

In the February weeks I spent in snowy Madison, Wisconsin, that line of Didion's, the opening of her 1967 essay "Goodbye to All That," ricocheted through my mind as I tried to make sense of the massive protests unfolding around me. What was I witnessing? The beginning of a new movement in this country -- or the end of an existing one, the last stand of organized labor? Or could it have been both?

None of us on the ground could really say. We were too close to the action, too absorbed by what was directly in front of us.

Of course, the battle between unions, progressive groups, and Wisconsin Republican Governor Scott Walker is not over. Not by a long shot. A county judge recently blocked "publication" of Walker's anti-union legislation, saying it was possible Senate Republicans violated Wisconsin's rigorous open records law when they rammed through a vote on his bill to do away with the collective bargaining rights of state workers. The case could end upbefore the state Supreme Court. But that didn't stop the state's Legislative Reference Bureau from publishing Walker's bill anyway, touching off another round of arguing about the tactics used to make the bill into law. As of this writing, its actual status remains unclear. If a judge does force a new vote, it's unlikely the outcome will change, though even that's not certain.

Either way, the meaning of Madison, and also of what similar governors are doing amid similar turmoil in Columbus, Indianapolis, and other Midwestern cities, remains to be seen. Without the ability to bargain collectively, unions may indeed be fatally weakened. So, you could argue that the wave of attacks by conservative governors will gut public-sector unions in those states, if not wipe them out entirely.

On the other hand, those same efforts have mobilized startling numbers of ordinary citizens, young and old, educated and not, in a way none of us have seen since perhaps the 1930s. I know this for a fact. I was there in Madison and watched hundreds of thousands of protesters brave the numbing cold while jamming the streets to demand that Governor Walker back down. The events in Madison radicalized many young people who kept the flame of protest burning with their live-ins inside the Wisconsin State Capitol.

What remains to be seen is whether the new spark lit by the Republican Party's latest crusade against unions can in some way fill the space left by those unions which, nationwide, stare down their own demise.
Andy Kroll, Tom Dispatch

POTUS Feels GOP & Israel Ruin His Egypt Plan

Rubin, who writes many blog posts and articles, believes that this is the most important post he has written in a long time. According to Barry, the Obama administration is pursuing a disastrous policy by trying to distinguish between the ‘bad Islamists’ from al-Qaeda and the ‘good Islamists’ from the Muslim Brotherhood.

Now we come to the paragraph I warned about, the explanation for how the administration may be about to plunge into the biggest disaster in U.S. foreign policy of…well, of a very long time.

Here it is:

“The administration is already taking steps to distinguish between various movements in the region that promote Islamic law in government. An internal assessment, ordered by the White House last month, identified large ideological differences between such movements as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and al-Qaeda that will guide the U.S. approach to the region.”

Get it? Al-Qaeda is bad because it wants to attack U.S. embassies, the World Trade Center, and the Pentagon.

BUT the Muslim Brotherhood is good! Because it merely wants to seize state power, transform Egypt into an Islamist state, rule almost 90 million people with an iron hand, back Hamas in trying to destroy Israel, overthrow the Palestinian Authority, help Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood overthrow the monarchy, and sponsor terrorism against Americans in the Middle East.

I’m sure you can see the difference. This is the nonsense that the administration has been working toward for two years. It is the doctrine pushed by the president’s advisor on terrorism, elements in the CIA, and White House ideologues. The State and Defense departments are probably horrified.

Not everyone agrees with Obama. Jennifer Rubin (no relation) urges the Obama administration to condition good relations with Egypt on keeping the Muslim Brotherhood out of the government.

The degree to which the U.S. can influence events is unclear, but we might at least start by articulating that good relations with the U.S. are dependent upon movement toward a democratic government, respect for human rights, and maintenance of the peace treaty with Israel. All of that, we should make clear, is put into question by the sort of Islamic regime that the Muslim Brotherhood would dearly love to establish.

That’s also the view of Representative Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), the new Chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia.

The US should condition aid to Egypt – now at around $1.5 billion a year – on whether the Muslim Brotherhood ends up in the government, Chabot said.

“They’re about Shari’a law, they’re about suppressing women’s rights, and I don’t think that we ought to condone that, I don’t think that ought to be any part of the future of Egypt,” he said. “We might not have the power to implement the US program, but I think with our support – financial and otherwise – that we can maybe encourage things that would ultimately be in their best long-term interests, and Israel’s and the United States’.”

That’s obviously not the view of the Obama administration, which is urging Israel not to ‘fear changes’ in the Middle East.

US President Barack Obama told Jewish donors in Miami on Friday that Israel and the United States should not be afraid of changes taking place in the Middle East.

Obama said that the world needs to be “sober” about the current transformation in the region but stressed that the West shouldn’t fear the future.

Speaking at a fund-raising dinner in Miami on Friday night, Obama said he told a group of Jewish leaders at the White House Tuesday: “We can’t be naïve about the changes that are taking place in the Middle East,” but “we should not be afraid of the possibilities of the future.”

…

Obama acknowledged Friday that when it comes to changes in the region, “there are going to be some bumps along the road,” and charting a path forward will mean US participation and a will “to seize that moment.”
“We’re going to have to be engaged and we’re going to have to be involved and we’re going to have to reach out,” he said. “But I’m actually confident that 10 years from now we’re going to be able to look back potentially and say this was the dawning of an entirely new and better era.”

Curiously, John Hinderaker apparently saw an earlier version of the article quoted above, in which Obama goes further and says

All the forces that we see building in Egypt are the forces that should be naturally aligned with the US, [and] should be aligned with Israel.

John says that claim is “far from self-evident.”

Was Obama talking about the Egyptian protesters who shouted “Jew, Jew” as they stripped Lara Logan naked and beat her with poles? Regardless of whether the “building forces” in Egypt “should be” aligned with the U.S. and Israel, I am not confident that they are. Not “all” of them, anyway.

John goes on to cite former CIA analyst Paul Pillar, who reflects the Obama administration’s optimism:

“Not everyone will find it reassuring that the gamut of prospective regimes runs all the way from the Muslim Brotherhood to al Qaeda, a Brotherhood spin-off. But our old friend Paul Pillar, now retired from the CIA, reinforces the Obama administration’s optimism:”

Paul Pillar, a longtime CIA analyst who now teaches at Georgetown University, said, “Most of the people in the intelligence community would see things on this topic very similarly to the president — that is, political Islam as a very diverse series of ideologies, all of which use a similar vocabulary, but all quite different.”

…

“The main challenge President Obama will face is a political challenge from across the aisle, and one reinforced by Israel,” said Pillar, whose portfolio included the Middle East.

One is left speechless. Turmoil in the Middle East promises a set of new regimes; the optimistic scenario, apparently, is that they will be dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood rather than al Qaeda. And the main problem this will pose for the President will come from the Republicans! And, of course–but why?–those pesky Israelis. We can describe this charitably as a remarkably Washington-centric view.

It’s also an Israel-centric view. The problem with potentially Islamist governments – according to the CIA and the Obama administration — is Israel and the Jews. Why didn’t I think of that?
Do you like this story?

Republicans Stop,Squirm and Run from Promises

2. @njslea Operation Cast Lead cut Hamas rocket attacks by 95%. Nuclear bombs would be even more effective.
3.

@DavidDuke2012 Military health care is the best and cheapest to run. Only Taliban oppose it.
4.

@BardOfEarth The operating principle is to make the foe die for his country.
Nevada's Sharron Angle will use the "Second Amendment Remedy" to kill Harry Reid if he wins election. The Arabs refer to beheading.

Egypt funds legislation to permit US fathers to decapitate daughters who hold hands hands with boys who are outside the majority religion.
7.

The Communists typically ban labor unions. US conservatives oppose the Employees Free Choice Act EFCA.

Europeans penalize the poor with a sales tax VAT of 17%. The #teaparty would raise a national sales tax of 23%.

The Pakistanis stone rape victims to death. Sharron Angle would force a victim to bear a rapist's child.

Ahmadinejad would murder all Christians and Jews who refuse to convert to Islam.
Removing our economic safety net reduces our standards to Taliban levels.

Voting Republican you can look forward to joblessness and homelessness.
#teaparty is subverting our institutions such Social Security and Medicare.
GOP is damaging USA much more than our Al Qaeda foes.
Americans can blame GOP for our economic tailspin. GOP conducts sedition for our economic rivals.

Republicans now being called on their outsourcing of US jobs and their use of secret funding from overseas sources.
The Obama overhaul of the auto industry has worked, as the firms have revived profitability and new hiring.

Oregon GOP House candidate is not concerned about the sources of his funds.
In New York Karl Paladino uses campaign funds for cronies.
Christine O'Donnell uses campaign funds for personal expenses. Connecticut candidate Linda McMahon denies her oft-repeated plan to reduce minimum wage.
In Florida Marco Rubio backtracks on his aims to increase Social Security retirement age. In Colorado Ken Buck renounces his 23% national sales tax plan.
Rand Paul runs from his support of $2000 Medicare deductible.
Republicans stop, squirm and run from their stated positions.

Downhill with the GOP

Once upon a time, a Latin American political party promised to help motorists save money on gasoline. How? By building highways that ran only downhill.
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

Paul Krugman
Go to Columnist Page »
Blog: The Conscience of a Liberal
Readers' Comments

I’ve always liked that story, but the truth is that the party received hardly any votes. And that means that the joke is really on us. For these days one of America’s two great political parties routinely makes equally nonsensical promises. Never mind the war on terror, the party’s main concern seems to be the war on arithmetic. And this party has a better than even chance of retaking at least one house of Congress this November.

Banana republic, here we come.

On Thursday, House Republicans released their “Pledge to America,” supposedly outlining their policy agenda. In essence, what they say is, “Deficits are a terrible thing. Let’s make them much bigger.” The document repeatedly condemns federal debt — 16 times, by my count. But the main substantive policy proposal is to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, which independent estimates say would add about $3.7 trillion to the debt over the next decade — about $700 billion more than the Obama administration’s tax proposals.

True, the document talks about the need to cut spending. But as far as I can see, there’s only one specific cut proposed — canceling the rest of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which Republicans claim (implausibly) would save $16 billion. That’s less than half of 1 percent of the budget cost of those tax cuts. As for the rest, everything must be cut, in ways not specified — “except for common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops.” In other words, Social Security, Medicare and the defense budget are off-limits.

So what’s left? Howard Gleckman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has done the math. As he points out, the only way to balance the budget by 2020, while simultaneously (a) making the Bush tax cuts permanent and (b) protecting all the programs Republicans say they won’t cut, is to completely abolish the rest of the federal government: “No more national parks, no more Small Business Administration loans, no more export subsidies, no more N.I.H. No more Medicaid (one-third of its budget pays for long-term care for our parents and others with disabilities). No more child health or child nutrition programs. No more highway construction. No more homeland security. Oh, and no more Congress.”

The “pledge,” then, is nonsense. But isn’t that true of all political platforms? The answer is, not to anything like the same extent. Many independent analysts believe that the Obama administration’s long-run budget projections are somewhat too optimistic — but, if so, it’s a matter of technical details. Neither President Obama nor any other leading Democrat, as far as I can recall, has ever claimed that up is down, that you can sharply reduce revenue, protect all the programs voters like, and still balance the budget.

And the G.O.P. itself used to make more sense than it does now. Ronald Reagan’s claim that cutting taxes would actually increase revenue was wishful thinking, but at least he had some kind of theory behind his proposals. When former President George W. Bush campaigned for big tax cuts in 2000, he claimed that these cuts were affordable given (unrealistic) projections of future budget surpluses. Now, however, Republicans aren’t even pretending that their numbers add up.

So how did we get to the point where one of our two major political parties isn’t even trying to make sense?

The answer isn’t a secret. The late Irving Kristol, one of the intellectual godfathers of modern conservatism, once wrote frankly about why he threw his support behind tax cuts that would worsen the budget deficit: his task, as he saw it, was to create a Republican majority, “so political effectiveness was the priority, not the accounting deficiencies of government.” In short, say whatever it takes to gain power. That’s a philosophy that now, more than ever, holds sway in the movement Kristol helped shape.

And what happens once the movement achieves the power it seeks? The answer, presumably, is that it turns to its real, not-so-secret agenda, which mainly involves privatizing and dismantling Medicare and Social Security.

Realistically, though, Republicans aren’t going to have the power to enact their true agenda any time soon — if ever. Remember, the Bush administration’s attack on Social Security was a fiasco, despite its large majority in Congress — and it actually increased Medicare spending.

So the clear and present danger isn’t that the G.O.P. will be able to achieve its long-run goals. It is, rather, that Republicans will gain just enough power to make the country ungovernable, unable to address its fiscal problems or anything else in a serious way. As I said, banana republic, here we come.

US Unemployment for Those Under 25 is 54%

The GOP lacks a sense of urgency about the current economic situation.
Newt Gingritch points to philosophical aspects.

Newt cited Camus.
“The authorities can’t stand the truth.” His discussion of Orwell was more narrowly targeted. The message of “1984,” he explained, is that centralized planning inherently leads to dictatorship, which is why having a secular socialist machine try to impose government-run health care in this country is such a significant step away from freedom and away from liberty, and towards a government-dominated society.
He did not predict the outcome of a gridlocked Congress.
Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2010/03/08/100308taco_talk_hertzberg#ixzz0h1DJzBDP

Putting the Unemployed Under the Bus
Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the Republican whip, argued that unemployment benefits dissuade people from job-hunting "because people are being paid even though they're not working."
Unemployment insurance "doesn't create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work," Kyl said during debate over whether unemployment insurance and other benefits that expired amid GOP objections Sunday should be extended.
"I'm sure most of them would like work and probably have tried to seek it, but you can't argue that it's a job enhancer. If anything, as I said, it's a disincentive. And the same thing with the COBRA extension and the other extensions here," said Kyl
- Huffington Post

Economic Prospects for Citizens Grim to 2019
If the COLA for food stamps is frozen over the next eight years, NPP analysts project a 19% erosion in the buying power of those stamps due to inflation. This means that, by the end of 2019, a similar family of four, eating at exactly the same level, would be paying $611 a month for its food, or $100 more, while still receiving that same $321.
In other words, if the 2011 budget and its projections proceed as planned, a great many Americans will be hungrier and still jobless in a harsher, meaner world, while what budgetary savings are achieved on the backs of the poorest Americans will be gobbled up by wars, weapons, and other “security” needs. Ordinary Americans will largely be left in a sink or swim world and the waters will be very, very cold.

Jo Comerford, National Priorities Project

The Doom Cycle
The good news is, there 's still plenty of time to do for financial reform what Obama should have done for health care -- go out and sell a clear and specific package. And he needs to make the point that, much like health care, doing it incrementally won't work. Leaving too-big-to-fail banks to continue doing business as they have been is like operating on a cancer patient and taking out only half the tumor -- the disease is guaranteed to come back. And eventually prove fatal.
- Arianna Huffington HuffPo

Reconciliation is the Only Option

"If the starting point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate," Boehner and Cantor wrote.
Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward in a bipartisan way, does that mean he has taken off the table the idea of relying solely on Democratic votes and jamming through health care reform by way of reconciliation? As the President has noted recently, Democrats continue to hold large majorities in the House and Senate, which means they can attempt to pass a health care bill at any time through the reconciliation process. Eliminating the possibility of reconciliation would represent an important show of good faith to Republicans and the American people.
House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)
House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA)

Robert Gibbs responded for the President
"The President looks forward to reviewing Republican proposals that meet the goals he laid out at the beginning of this process, and as recently as the State of the Union Address. He's open to including any good ideas that stand up to objective scrutiny. What he will not do, however, is walk away from reform and the millions of American families and small business counting on it. The recent news that a major insurer plans to raise premiums for some customers by as much as 39 percent is a stark reminder of the consequences of doing nothing."
By Michael D. Shear, Washington Post

May I suggest an alternative?
If we must pass a universal health plan by reconciliation, we might join the other industrial nations in single payer. H.R. 676 seems to be a reasonable start. It may be administered through the existing Medicare framework.
To bring costs into line with the European experience, I suggest an across-the-board reduction of forty percent for the health industry. This would include all premiums, fees, salaries, charges, prices and rentals.
Coverage of the new plan should include all US citizens resident in the country. No citizen should be denied health care.
Legislators who voted against health care reform should be tried for involuntary manslaughter of victims who died lacking proper health coverage.

Democrats are Boring

Since the 2008 election, the conservatives have managed to shift much of the blame for the sorry state of our affairs to the Democrats. This shows the GOP expertise in media marketing, information control and propaganda. The GOP has seized the high ground on every important election issue since the War of Independence. They post lies daily to tie the opposition into knots. Liberal outlets such as Media Matters and MSNBC are forced to go on the defensive making sounds as distressed school marms in front of an unruly class. If the public wanted to understand the workings of economics and history, they would listen to NPR. As Democrats appear to be talking from college lecture notes, they prepare for another 40 years in the political wilderness.

Hiding a Recession

Creative Number Crunching

Republicans cooked the books in the election run-up.
The government bureaucrats plug data into models that simulate economic activities.
The published statistics are estimates based on estimates.
Any competent statistician or economist can massage the output to match his boss's expectations.

Bush Coup Scenario

A Bush/Cheney Coup Is Possible
Since I haven't heard from Lyndon LaRouche after 1983, I thought he was dead. I watched the coverage of the siege on NDTV 18/3. It was realistic and utterly chaotic. Totally unlike the World Trade Center tragedy, they lacked a string of 'witnesses' who mouthed the Administration line.
I can't imagine the Brits being involved in this. They are too class conscious to murder tourists in posh hotels. The Mossad would have notified the Jews in the Chabad House to steer clear that day. The Americans are too much in love with their high tech toys to limit themselves to 300 dead. If a nuclear war begins, it will point directly at the USA. Nobody else hates Pakistan AND India enough to set up a nuclear war between them.
After the attack on Iran failed to materialize, the Republicans rushed to bail out the financial interests before the GOP scuttled the ship of state. As they did not want to get lynched before they left town, they lowered the gas prices. I thought they kept control of the MSM simply to keep from sinking below the radar. However, the estimate of Pakistani A-bombs has risen from 4 to 150 in the past few months.
Bush could attack India with a number of suitcase bombs, blame it on Pakistan and retaliate with the US Navy. He could declare Martial Law. Backed by the US Military patrolling our streets, he could remain POTUS for some time.

Tennessee GOP Attacks Michelle Obama

The Tennessee GOP hasn't yet had their fill of Obama dirty tricks. A few months ago, they circulated a photo of Barack Obama in traditional Somali garb. Now, they are going after his wife.
Today they have circulated a video of Michelle's now-infamous 'proud' comments, which have been combined with shots of Tennessee voters describing why they are proud of their country:
The Obama camp fired back defending Michelle Obama:
This is a shameful attempt to attack a woman who has repeatedly said she wouldn't be here without the opportunities and blessings of this nation. The Republican Party's pathetic attempts to use the same smear tactics to win elections have failed in Mississippi, failed in Louisiana, and will fail in November because the American people are looking for a positive vision of real change. And if the Tennessee Republican Party has a problem with Senator Obama, maybe next time they'll have the courage to address him directly instead of attacking his family.

Here is What Obama Said

More GOP Lies

John Kerry, HuffPost

Here is what Obama said about Mid-East conflict:

“But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable.”

Here is how two Republicans distorted the words:

But of course, today, rather than seriously disputing that, or, even better, offering a vision of their own on how to find peace in the Middle East and security for Israel, Rep. John Boehner and Rep. Eric Cantor - senior leadership in the House GOP -- decided to ignore the actual meaning of English words and simply invent something Barack Obama didn't say. Here is what they said

Israel is a critical American ally and a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, not a 'constant sore' as Barack Obama claims. -- John Boehner

It is truly disappointing that Senator Obama called Israel a 'constant wound,' 'constant sore,' and that it 'infect[s] all of our foreign policy.' These sorts of words and characterizations are the words of a politician with a deep misunderstanding of the Middle East and an innate distrust of Israel -- Eric Cantor

Rush is Trying to Tear the GOP Apart

Rush Limbaugh Is Trying to Tear the GOP Apart

By Eric Boehlert, Media Matters for America

Rush Limbaugh, the marauding Frankenstein's monster of the Republican Party, is on the loose again, causing all kinds of political damage with his signature off-balance swings. But as has become his custom recently, the pain from Limbaugh's rampage is being felt by his creators -- his enablers -- inside the GOP.

Limbaugh and the rest of his get-John McCain brain trust -- Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin, and campus instigator Ann Coulter -- have been tripping over themselves to get in front of a microphone (preferably a television one) to denounce the Republican Party's presumptive nominee and to suggest that perhaps conservatives should even vote Democratic come November.

After years of watching Limbaugh and his various band of midnight riders within the Republican Noise Machine launch countless, hateful crusades against liberals and Democrats, it's extraordinarily satisfying to watch the Republican Party leadership discover what it feels like when Limbaugh sets his venomous, factually challenged sights on their own front-runner.

For progressives, the sprawling GOP brawl is what blogger TRex would call a schadenfreude sundae. What could be more enjoyable than watching McCain get bogged down in the far-right swamp? Answer: Watching a handful of right-wing pundits come to the belated conclusion that Limbaugh is a dunce. Or, as one Weekly Standard blogger put it last week, the Limbaugh-led response to McCain was "unhinged -- and at times spectacularly disgraceful." And Dinesh D'Souza concluded, that, yes, Limbaugh is an "egomaniac" who "has grown accustomed to conservative bigwigs worshiping at the Shrine of Rush." (Truth is, Limbaugh's not that well liked among Republicans.)

Really? Limbaugh is spreading misinformation? He's wallowing in demagoguery while bordering on megalomania? He and his pals appear to be far more interested in the number of media mentions they rack up than they do in advancing the conservative movement? Ah, what a tangled web the GOP weaves. Wonder how McCain and the Republican Party minions enjoy following behind Limbaugh's broadcast each weekday with a bucket and shovel, cleaning up the mess spread all over the floor. Enjoy!

But this is what Republicans created. They wanted Limbaugh to be an attack dog and to chew up and spit out his/the party's opponents. They wanted him to label Democrats as traitors ("What's good for Al Qaeda is good for the Democratic Party in this country today"), to label them abhorrent and mentally deranged. They wanted Limbaugh to ignore any semblance of decency when demonizing the other side. Indeed, there has been virtually no offensive line that Limbaugh has crossed that Republicans have not dutifully justified or explained away.

Even last year when Limbaugh denigrated members of the U.S. armed forces, calling military men and women who criticized the war in Iraq and advocated withdrawal "phony soldiers," what did the GOP do? It rushed to Limbaugh's defense.

The pats on the back came from presidential contender Fred Thompson and Senate Republican Conference chairman Jon Kyl (AZ), and House Minority Leader John Boehner (OH) as well as his No. 2, Roy Blunt (MO), along with fellow Reps. Mike Pence (IN), Scott Garrett (NJ). Mean Rep. Marsha Blackburn (TN) supported legislation that commended Limbaugh following his "phony soldiers" crack. Rep. Eric Cantor (VA) even unveiled a Stand With Rush e-petition, urging "conservatives around the country" to fight for Limbaugh.

Oh, and let's not forget Mitt Romney's reaction to the "phony soldiers" controversy, which was priceless. (Romney was the candidate Limbaugh championed as the one true conservative in this year's Republican race.) Romney flip-flopped! Here he is momentarily chastising Limbaugh's comments. And here Romney is, just days later, as he "rushes to the defense of Rush Limbaugh." (And Republicans used to claim that candidate Al Gore had no moral compass?)

Meanwhile, it really was rather sad to watch former Sen. Bob Dole last week write a letter to Limbaugh trying to reason with the talk-show host about whether candidate McCain was sufficiently conservative. Or when McCain himself suggested that the talk show hosts simply "calm down." Or when Bud McFarlane, former national security adviser to President Reagan, took to the pages of The Wall Street Journal over the weekend to urge Rush and his angry pack to "be rational."

Rational? Where have these Republicans been for the last decade? The Noise Machine doesn't do rational. Was Limbaugh being "rational" when he toasted photos of the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib as "good old American pornography"? Was Malkin being rational last year when she attempted to Swift Boat a traumatically injured 12-year-old boy? Was Coulter being rational … well, ever?

Sorry, GOP grown-ups. If there's one thing the Republican Noise Machine is allergic to, it's reason. And decency, and respect, and rational behavior.

And besides, why is it left to retired Republican graybeards like Dole and McFarlane to try to broker peace with the Limbaugh crowd? McCain, the party's presumptive nominee, is being savaged by a corral of radio talk-show hosts every day, and yet the silence among Republican elected officials has been deafening. Why? Because they're too afraid to stick up for their own candidate, too afraid Limbaugh and his wannabes will try burn somebody else at the stake.

I don't think progressives could have choreographed a better media meltdown if we tried.

Fact is, every time Limbaugh causes a controversy these days, the Democratic Party's political fortunes rise just a little bit -- like when he's treating McCain like a bum, or degrading phony soldiers, or mocking actor Michael J. Fox for allegedly faking the symptoms of his crippling Parkinson's disease while appearing in a Democratic-sponsored campaign ad.

What's so spectacular for the home team is that Limbaugh's crusade to demolish McCain stems from the radical right's fervent desire to cleanse the Republican Party of those who are deemed to be insufficiently pure in their conservative beliefs. And it's not just the candidates. Limbaugh has been clear that his deep disdain for McCain is driven by the fact that he might attract voters in the fall -- the wrong voters -- who do not adhere to the radical right's litmus test of right and wrong.

What Limbaugh and company are doing with their diatribes is launching political correctness into the stratosphere, and in the process herding voters toward the Democratic camp.

The best part? The whole crusade has been a colossal flop. On the eve of the Super Tuesday primary, lots of cogs in the Republican Noise Machine demanded that their readers and listeners embrace Mitt Romney.

Instead, McCain and Mike Huckabee -- the other GOP candidate deemed totally unworthy by the mighty Limbaugh -- pretty much ran the table and shoved the anointed one, Romney, right out of the race. I'd suggest the stunning failure to move the needle even an inch among self-identified Republican voters represented a nice punctuation point on the Republican Noise Machine's collapse, which, naturally, has closely mirrored President Bush's downward spiral. (The same post-Bush tremors are being felt at Fox News; read about their ratings woes here.)

Why did the get-McCain gambit fail so miserably? Maybe Republican voters saw through the transparent attacks. After all, Limbaugh himself wrote a column for The Wall Street Journal during the 2004 presidential campaign in which he commended McCain for being among the "unabashed and unashamed advocates of conservative principles and policies" in his speech at the Republican convention.

And if Limbaugh's uncontrollable disdain for McCain is based on that candidate's allegedly leftward drift on the issues, then why didn't Limbaugh try to run Rudy Giuliani out of the race? (Not that Rudy needed any help.) Giuliani's history of supporting abortion rights, embryonic stem-cell research, and gay rights makes McCain look like Ronald Reagan's long-lost brother.

And I'm sorry, but Romney

as the conservative true believer? Baystaters must have spit up their Summer Shack clam chowder when they heard that line. In a manic attempt to veer right for his White House run, Romney flip-flopped on a buffet of supposedly core Republican issues, such as immigration reform, abortion, gun control, tax cuts, and gay rights. (Go here to watch Romney perform one of the purest flip-flops ever captured on tape.)

More likely, Limbaugh is just wildly out of touch with the Republican Party. During President Bush's radical pro-war tenure, the right-wing talkers and bloggers convinced themselves they represented the mainstream -- the majority -- of the GOP. But they don't. They represent the radical CPAC wing of the GOP. And it's a shrinking minority.

I just hope the McCain Crazies keep it up. Their unhinged efforts perfectly capture the state of today's conservative movement. For instance, at one point when Limbaugh was ranting against the Arizona senator on his radio show, a caller asked whether he thought McCain would pick Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) as his running mate. Limbaugh sniffed that "Lindsey Graham is certainly close enough to [McCain] to die of anal poisoning."

A Limbaugh pal told the New York Daily News that the host was simply "using a time-honored synonym for 'brown-nosing.' " But as the paper reported, "[I]f you Google the term, the only people who seem to be using it are proprietors of porn sites. "

And then there was Laura Ingraham, the oxymoronic thinking person's right-wing radio host, who became so unnerved at the prospect of a McCain nomination that she suggested that some despondent conservatives would turn themselves into "suicide voters" and cast a ballot for a Democrat in November rather than vote for McCain. (Charles Hurt, the D.C. bureau chief for the New York Post, made the same unhinged analogy.)

Suicide voters and anal poisonings, all in the name of destroying the Republican nominee from within. Hey, GOP, that's quite a Noise Machine you've constructed. Now good luck trying to dismantle it.