Gathering of loons via Steve took it.

Continuing to open yap and insert ass, the random wingnutty Obama school speech idiocy continues:

After reading the text on Monday, even Jim Greer, the Florida Republican Party chairman who last week accused the president of seeking to use the speech to foist “socialist ideology” on schoolchildren, said he could find nothing to criticize in its text.

"In its current form, it’s fine,” Mr. Greer said in an interview. “But it remains to be seen if it’s the speech he’s going to give.”

Because you can never be too careful about that hide the socialist ideology published in advance speech bait and switch maneuver, now can you? It is to laugh.

The speech?  It’s terrifying stuff alright:

What you make of your education will decide nothing less than the future of this country. What you’re learning in school today will determine whether we as a nation can meet our greatest challenges in the future.

You’ll need the knowledge and problem-solving skills you learn in science and math to cure diseases like cancer and AIDS, and to develop new energy technologies and protect our environment. You’ll need the insights and critical thinking skills you gain in history and social studies to fight poverty and homelessness, crime and discrimination, and make our nation more fair and more free. You’ll need the creativity and ingenuity you develop in all your classes to build new companies that will create new jobs and boost our economy.

How dare the President of the United States tell our nation’s children to dream big and dare to solve our most pressing problems. The nerve.

What’s not funny about all of this? The amount of ink and airtime that’s been devoted to a false, ginned-up hissy fit when real, substantial problems for our nation’s children and teachers are sitting out there getting barely any notice. (more…)

. . . the Obama administration is planning a major revival of high-impact civil rights enforcement against policies, in areas ranging from housing to hiring, where statistics show that minorities fare disproportionately poorly. . . .

Among the critics, Hans von Spakovsky, a former key Bush-era official at the division, has accused the Obama team of “nakedly political” maneuvers.

Having Hans Von Spakovsky accuse you of “nakedly political” maneuvers is like having David Duke call you a racist.

Given his crusade during the last election cycle to question absentee ballots?  

Or his failed bid for an FEC position after a host of issues with his prior politicizing behavior were exposed, including:

Try von Spakovsky sockpuppeting an article about voter suppression in violation of DOJ rules while he was still an employee there ostensibly working on civil rights issues.  Or how about participating in an effort to disenfranchise elderly Native American voters in Arizona on a technicality rather than working to find a way to support their right to vote. Or the entire gaming the system for The Math scheme at the DOJ. Or that a number of his subordinates at the DOJ wrote in to the Senate to say that von Spakovsky has neither the ethical underpinnings nor the commitment to voting integrity that should not be gamed for political purposes to be anywhere near the FEC. And there is so much more: see Digby and Adam at ePluribusMedia, for starters.

Seriously. “Nakedly political” maneuvers?  Von Spakovsky oughtta know. 

It is to laugh. A lot.

Especially since Von Spakovsky’s tenure at DOJ Civil Rights was rife with odious policy and politics, to the point that his co-workers wrote to the Senate opposing his FEC nod.  Who could possibly forget all that tap dancing before the Senate on politicization issues?

Wouldn’t it have been the least bit relevant for the reporter to let readers know that:

In Oct. 2007, Obama “derailed” a vote on Spakovsky’s nomination, which eventually led to Spakovsky’s withdrawal from his nomination. In an op-ed explaining his opposition, Obama wrote that Spakovsky had “amassed a record” of “putting partisan politics above upholding our civil rights.”

Shouldn’t that at least get a little exposure for readers to weigh? Along with his affiliation with the Heritage Foundation, as his post-FEC wingnut welfare gig?  And his several ethical lapses?

There are days when I despair of the current state of reportage. Today is one of those days.

UPDATE: Ooops, I neglected to say that it was Charlie Savage doing the reporting — and he’s usually really good. Which poses the question whether it was an editorial decision to pull out any background on Von Spakovsky and his role in the politicization under Bush, and, if so, why.

With the recent release of a myriad of e-mails, documents and breathy reportage and leakage, it’s no wonder that Rove and Gold Bars Luskin tried to get themselves out in front of the wave by giving multiple "exclusives."

Oxymorons notwithstanding, when you have bad PR coming your way, it’s always better to stand in front of it shouting "look, over there!"

It’s like the dogs in Up.  Except Rove and Luskin have better Beltway material to offer up than a squirrel sighting, I’m certain.

Any day now, I expect to see anonymous exclusives about the Cheneyites or some other poor, expendable sap or deserving payback offendee cropping up in a news exclusive near me.

Honestly, it’s been their M.O. for ages, so it’s not exactly a shocker when it happens, now is it?

Deflect, deny, desensitize. Rinse, lather, repeat.

What’s funny is the breathless tone of Isikoff’s latest in Newsweek.

In perhaps the most significant passage in the new material, former White House counsel Harriet Miers—questioned by the judiciary committee for the first time in June—described getting a phone call from a "very upset" Rove telling her that Iglesias was "a serious problem and he wanted something done about it."

Who here didn’t know about the ruckus caused by NM GOP politicos and Rove having their fingers in this particular political pie? Don’t be shy, raise your hand. *crickets*

The more intriguing question for me is: will Harriet, also being in this up to her overly-eyelinered eyeballs, spill on the Turdblossom to save her own scrawny hind end? Or, more importantly, to deflect any tarnish from Dubya’s hiney?

Will Rove get a polite little card with to the effect of "roses are red, violets are hokey, get some more lawyers or head to the pokey," in Harriet’s swirly handwriting?

A girl can dream.

This line from Gilbert & Sullivan’s H.M.S. Pinafore sums up the Beltway whole mess, doesn’t it?I grew so rich that I was sent by a pocket borough into Parliament. I always voted at my Party’s call and I never thought of thinking for myself at all.I had forgotten how much I love a Gilbert and Sullivan farce until I was reminded of them over the weekend by, of all people,

Why is it in this country that it feels like we continually back people into a corner. Sometimes of our own making, sometimes of theirs, but oft times a combination of both. And then we bitch about them being in that damned corner. But we never really bother contemplating how they got there in the first place.

Scott Roeder, who shot Dr. George Tiller, links himself to Operation Rescue in a jailhouse interview. Color me shocked:In a phone interview Friday, Roeder said he was upset at the president of Operation Rescue, Troy Newman, who had condemned the killing and said his organization had nothing to do with Roeder.

Randall Terry is at it again. Because apparently the half-skull poster of Sonia Sotomayor and exhortations to his unstable flock about the Angel of Death weren’t nearly enough to get him the fundraising haul attention he needed. In any polite society, his brand of dangerous stoking of the fires of hell would get him shunned by decent people. In fact, it’s well past time that GOP lawmakers were asked — clearly and without any ambiguity — what they think of Terry’s fire and brimstone violence stoking on behalf of their policy agenda.

You decide: horror movie poster or dog whistle call to action from Randall Terry to every nutball with access to God only knows what.

Just take a look at the poster to the left of Terry’s “Anti-Sotomayor Tour” and tell me there isn’t an irresponsible undercurrent of violent thought running through it.

I want to amplify what Kyle at Right Wing Watch said about this: