Important questions about the 2012 attack on the American mission compound in Benghazi, Libya, include who the perpetrators were, how the attack was allowed to happen, and what we can learn from it that will help us improve security there and elsewhere in the future.  Also legitimate are questions about chain of command at the State Department, and whether Congress is adequately funding security for foreign posts.

The rest of the current inquiry is nonsense.  Within days after the attack, UN Ambassador Susan Rice was sent on a round of interviews about what was known so far about the attack.  I personally viewed her accounting of the tragedy on one Sunday morning news show after another.  She qualified everything she shared by emphasizing we weren't sure about all the details yet.  I watched as she listened in on one program while Libyan President Mohammed el-Magariaf stated emphatically that this was a terrorist attack.  Rice didn't object to this statement; she simply reiterated that there was still a lot to be learned.  

In short order, as more information emerged, the White House was completely, proactively forthcoming.  It was directly from the Oval Office that we learned this was a planned attacked, carried out by organized and well-armed extremists.  That angle was pursued at the direction of the White House, and turned out to be supported by evidence.  This evidence wasn't dragged out of the Administration by the press, or discovered through exhaustive Congressional hearings.  It was only later, when it became clear that there was nothing about this tragedy that could be pinned on the Obama administration that Republicans began clutching at the straw of the tenor of statements immediately communicated after the event.  Unfortunately for them, no wrong-doing occurred there either.

Routing a memo to a dozen people to hammer out wording before going forward is a scintillating and suspect process to exactly no one who has worked in any office, ever.  The changes supplied by the White House itself could be characterized as minimal, and as more cautious than advantageous for their image; caution well-warranted considering the fact that attacks on the embassy in Cairo occurred simultaneously and were NOT connected to terrorists.  

If you'll remember, standing in stark contrast to that caution was the tone of the statements made on this issue by then-presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who was perfectly comfortable tossing out sweeping, irresponsible, anti-Administration accusations, before all of the parts of this tragedy had even stopped moving.  If nothing else struck fear in the hearts of voters imagining such a man sitting in the Oval Office, that kind of impulsive, short-sighted, and self-serving behavior should have.

As for officials in the Internal Revenue Service targeting Tea Party-associated groups for special scrutiny, well, that news is chilling.  Any hint of such activity on the part of low-level agents would be inexcusable.  In this case it sounds like there were IRS employees with significant authority directing activity against these groups – activity that amounts to harassment.  Any American who cares about free speech should be concerned about this.  A full inspector general's report due out later this week will provide more detail.  We need to know how far-up knowledge of this activity went, and whether Congress was purposely misled.  As high as accountability lies, heads should roll.  But hopes that anyone close to president will bear responsibility are sure to be dashed.  

Those opportunistic members of the GOP who are thinking that either of these issues could provide a way out of their real task - redeveloping a political party that represents honest conservative principles - will have to go, once again, back to the drawing board.

 - Julie Boler

To be fair, Mitt Romney has to lie about President Obama's position on work requirements for welfare. 

The President supports work requirements for welfare.  And that position doesn't match the phony image of Obama that Romney wants to portray. 



This was an easy calculation for Romney campaign staffers.  A lie that confirms a prejudice is more powerful than evidence that exposes the lie.  This particular ad is widely repudiated by nonpartisan fact-checkers, but its unique characteristics blunt the force of its poor ratings: the ad is officially sanctioned by Mitt Romney himself.  It is one of the most expertly-produced campaign ads of the season.  And it is exquisitely designed for a crude, passionate response.

A saving grace for reality, though, is the simplicity of this ad's fraudulence, and the accessibility of the truth.  The original document in question, a July 12 memo from the Department of Health & Human Services, a memo in which Mitt Romney claims President Obama "quietly removed the work requirements from welfare," is right here.

The ready availability of the memo presents a rare opportunity for voters to be their own fact-checkers.  As you read it, hold these facts in mind: 

• Mitt Romney's ad states: "Obama gutted the welfare work requirement." 
  
• As you will see, Obama simply turned that question over to the states. 
  
• Mitt Romney's ad states: "I will restore the work requirements to welfare."
• As you will see, there is nothing to restore.  The requirements are in place.
• Mitt Romney, was one of the Republican governors requesting these waivers in May of 2005.  (Interestingly, the list also includes Mike Huckabee, Mitch Daniels, Mark Sanford, Tim Pawlenty, Jeb Bush, and Haley Barbour.)

Reality:
On July 12th, President Obama announced a plan to grant temporary waivers for welfare work requirements to governors who request them.  The waivers allow individual states to experiment with new approaches to welfare.  If state officials can prove that the limited program will improve their ability to get people on welfare back to work, they may be approved to use the program throughout their state.

Romney ad below:
On July 12th, President Obama announced a plan to gut welfare reform by dropping the work requirements.  "You wouldn't have to work, and wouldn't have to train for a job.  they just send you your welfare check." 

As described by Governor Mitt Romney, in a letter written on May 19, 2005, the action on welfare taken by President Obama this July was a concession to states' rights.  

In this letter, Romney and 7 other governors request the waivers Obama just granted.  Their purpose was to gain more state-level flexibility to vary work requirements for welfare so they could try new approaches.  George Bush never got around to granting their request.  Obama did.

Take a look at the 8 governors who signed this letter.  Again, the letter was written to request the action that was finally taken by President Obama this July.  

Gov. Mitt Romney, MA
Gov. Haley Barbour, MS
Gov. Gov. Kenny C. Guinn, NV
Gov. Jeb Bush, FL
Gov. Mike Huckabee, AR
Gov. George E. Pataki, NY
Gov. Linda Lingle, HI
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, CA

Now watch the 31 second ad.

Obama didn't gut work requirements for welfare.  He didn't TOUCH work requirements for welfare.  Nobody did.  Work requirements for welfare have not been reduced or removed, so they can't be "restored" by Romney. 

Obama has not acted or proposed to change work requirements for welfare.  Obama has consented  - at the request of numerous governors and state human services officials - to grant greater control of administration of welfare benefits to the states.  He has consented, as they have repeatedly requested, to allow individual states to try approaches that may include changing the work requirements, but only if they can quickly prove that the approach succeeds in getting people off welfare rolls more quickly.

Obama's own position is that work requirements should stay as they are now.  This is not a new position - he has made his belief in the reformed approach to welfare known many times.  But he has also conceded that the states can sometimes be the best place to try out inventive new ideas.

Human Services officials from a number of states have complained for years that they have to jump through too many federal hoops (like specific work requirements) when they want to experiment with how they administer welfare benefits in their own state.  Governors from both parties have proposed approaches that involve short-term changes to the work requirement but have the intent of getting people off welfare rolls more quickly.

In February of 2011, the President tasked the federal Department of Health and Human Services to find ways to support innovation in the states, without sacrificing the goals met by the work requirements.  He directed DHHS staff to meet with the governors interested in experimenting with their state programs, and find out more about what they wanted to do. 

The department came up with a system in which states could have more control over how they administrated welfare, providing they test their ideas first with pilot programs.  The plan involves giving states that apply for them conditional waivers to get around specific work requirements, as long as they can show measurable, incremental results.  In other words, a state can apply for a waiver to the work requirement in order to test a new approach.  But before they can implement it statewide, they have to show through rigorous evaluation that the new approach will result in helping people to move to self-sufficiency.

It is incorrect and untrue to say that President Obama has proposed or moved to eliminate the work requirement from welfare.  There is no proposed or completed plan coming from the White House to remove the work requirement.  Many states have no plans to change their welfare system.  Obama's decision granted requests by some states for waivers to the work requirement, giving them more freedom to break new ground.

On 7/12/12, President Obama signed off on an official memo from DHHS to the states, detailing a plan to respond to their requests.  It grants more leeway to states to try "experimental, pilot, or demonstration projects," but stresses that the goal remains helping people get back on their feet and gainfully employed, rather than dependent on welfare. 

To ensure that changes don't result in greater dependency, the memo states: "HHS will hold states accountable by requiring both a federally-approved evaluation and interim performance targets that ensure an immediate focus on measurable outcomes." 

The memo reflects Obama's often-stated belief that the welfare-to-work approach is critical, and while states will be allowed a chance to think creatively, they "must develop evaluation plans that are sufficient to evaluate the effect of the proposed approach".  If a state's new pilot program is not showing an ability to meet targets quickly, that state may lose its freedom to experiment.  The President was clear that there would be a limited window of time during which he would waive the work requirements standard.  The memo articulates the expectation that "any demonstration projects approved under this authority will be focused on improving employment outcomes."

In a letter addressed to state officials accompanying the memo, Acting HHS Asst. Secretary George Sheldon cautioned that Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was "only interested in approving waivers (to the work requirement) if the state can explain in a compelling fashion why the proposed approach may be a more efficient or effective means to promote employment entry, retention, advancement, or access to jobs that offer opportunities for earnings and advancement that will allow participants to avoid dependence on government benefits."

Sheldon added, "It is critical that we work together to develop effective employment strategies that prepare workers for the jobs of the 21st century."

On Tuesday, the Romney campaign released an ad saying the President had just "quietly announced a plan to gut welfare reform by dropping work requirements."  Under Obama's new plan, the ad tells you, "you wouldn't have to work and wouldn't have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check."

Here is a copy of the memo sent from the Department of Health and Human Services to state HHS officials.

TAKE THE QUIZ

Section One: You Might Be a Cable-News Junkie If...  The Lingo

Which of the following terms do you sometime use as described below:

• You use “dog whistle” as a verb, as in “The candidate is clearly trying to dog whistle the faith community.”
• You use “walk back" as a noun, as in “I think we're gonna see some walk back on these statements.”
• You use “surrogate" as a job title for a high-profile, partisan, political ally, who will either be claimed like family or thrown under the bus, depending.
• You use “get” as a noun, referring to the acquisition of an elusive interview subject, as in: “Congratulations on the get, Rachel!”
• You use “tick-tock" to refer to a minute-by-minute itinerary for important official events. “We should have the tick-tock on the President’s visit to South Korea for you within the hour.”

Section Two: You Might Be a Cable-News Junkie If...  The Coverage

Select one answer for each question.

1.    Which of these is not a part of the press conference non-apology apology:

• A. “I’m sorry if you feel like that was offensive.”
• B. “I’m sorry that I was taken out of context.”  
• C. “I’m very sorry. My behavior was offensive, and I'm the only one responsible. I am mortified, and deeply saddened by the hurt I've caused. I can only humbly pray that I will learn from this experience how to be a better person.”
• D. “I’m sorry I didn't use fancier words to say the stuff I really think.”

2.    Which report about energy sources and proposed alternatives will not air:

• A. Live footage of the fifth hour in a Senate filibuster of the latest energy bill.  
• B. Analysis of a recent ad, which features the stricken faces of townspeople who lost their jobs and homes after a local switch to renewable energy sources, and the deserted playground where their pale, barefoot children once played.
  
• C. Experts in the applicable field presenting feasibility studies, impact projections, and credible cost/benefit evaluations.   
• D. Panelists buzzing about the blogosphere buzz about the disputed attendance estimates for the anti-fracking rally on the National Mall.  

3.  Which of the following cable-news program anchors can go at least 15 minutes on air while scrupulously avoiding an editorial tone:

• A. Seriously?

4.  Which of these is not a phrase viewers will hear during a cable-news discussion:

• A. “That is literally the most outrageous thing I have ever heard." 
• B. “This is just typical, inside-the-Beltway thinking.”  
• C. “You may have a point. I’m afraid I don’t know enough about this topic to responsibly offer an opinion.”
• D. “Once again they are attempting to enact a policy for their own selfish gain, on the of backs hard-working Americans.”
  

Section Three: You Might Be a Cable-News Junkie If...  The Frenzy

You might be a cable-news junkie if you know that "the 24-hour news cycle" only contains news in the first hour, and is actually a 2-hour cycle, repeated 12 times. Note the level of recognition you feel reading the following example, and see scoring below.

Monday
8:00 am
“Speaking at a fundraiser in Ohio Saturday, Senator X said Y.”

10:00 am
“The question is, when Senator X said Y, did he mean to imply Z?”

12:00 pm
“Some (the anchor of the previous segment) are now asking whether in saying Y, Senator X was actually signaling Z.” 

2:00 pm
“There is growing demand (on this network) for Senator X to clarify statements made over the weekend regarding Y. It has been suggested (by the anchor of the previous segment) that the senator may have been insinuating Z.”

4:00 pm
“Staff members here have attempted to reach the office of Senator X to gain clarity about the meaning of his statements. So far, our calls have not been returned, leaving some (ibid) to wonder if there is something he is hiding.”

6:00 pm
“Good evening. In the news today, Senator X was the focus of a swirl of controversy (on this network) regarding questionable statements made Saturday at a fundraiser in Ohio. The senator has yet to issue any statement regarding such statements about his statements. The debate centers on whether the senator’s comments about Y can be taken as an indication of his stance on Z. It’s too early to say how voters would respond if they were to learn what position Senator X has taken regarding Y or Z, but Washington insiders believe that if polling was done today, things would not look good for the senator. Observers (^) are saying that the people have a right to know where the Senator stands. One anonymous but extremely well-connected policy expert has suggested that the senator’s silence indicates that he fears if he speaks out about this he will lose his base.”

8:00 pm
MSNBC panelist: “So, I mean, this is a typical hijacking of the debate by the 1%, right? This whole bent towards saying Y when you really mean Z is a distressing example of how privilege is employed to deny access. As I explain in my book, published by Cambridge University Press, available on bookshelves August 14th, $27.95 for hardback, you can’t talk about Y or Z without talking about race, class, and the international status of women.  This senator is playing right into the fundamentalist meme of the post-911 patriot, underneath the paradigm of a very sort of Christian allegorical construct. Once you parse the senator’s statements, you can learn more from what he is not saying than from what he is saying.”

CNN panelist: “As you can see from the interactive module in our new "Y/Z" room, we're finding an almost unprecedented outrage in response to the senator's recent statements, in nearly ever demographic across the country. Let's take a look at our touch-screen Senatorial Statement Stance Survey. Once we control on either end for the Tea Party and Occupy movements, what’s left is a startling historical picture of what we’re calling “US Outrage Over Time”. If you watch how the green line follows these yellow arrows, you’ll see that we clearly have not seen politics this divisive since 1836, when a senior strategist from the Whig Party accused President Andrew Jackson of releasing a fake jobs report. Any U.S. historian will tell you that the media circus that ensued was so extraordinary that the Pony Express had to hire a hundred new riders, and town criers were seen actually crying. Until we hear more from the senator, viewers can Tweet what they think he meant at #SenXSezYMeansZ.”

FOX News panelist: “Well, folks, Senator X obviously loves moochers and hates God.”

10:00 pm
“US Senator X from Ohio remains in the hot seat tonight. He continues to refuse to respond to or acknowledge our request that he either stand by or repudiate his statements. The question has been raised as to whether he is exploiting the talk about Y to secretly begin to wage a war on Z.  

12:00 am to 8:00 am
Mattress commercials.

Tuesday
8:00 am
>> 24 hours after original story <<
“Shocking allegations about Senator X emerged yesterday amid a media firestorm. After raising eyebrows with comments made Saturday, the senator appears to have gone to ground. His refusal to face the cameras has only fueled speculation. We bring you updates throughout the day.”

End of Quiz
************
Scoring 

Section One: The Lingo
Give yourself 1 point for each term you used correctly in the context provided.
5 points possible

Section Two: The Quiz
Give yourself 1 point for each correct answer.
(1) C
(2) C
(3) A
(4) C
4 points possible

Section Three: The Frenzy
Give yourself 0 points if you felt this section of the quiz was cute, but you've occasionally checked out these shows, and they seem to be talking about real things.
Give yourself 1 point if, while you do find the self-referential and splashy nature of the 24-hour cable news cycle annoying, you think it's overboard to suggest that so much coverage could be based on so little information.  
Give yourself 2 points if you have watched in subdued horror as coverage like this unfolds. And watched. And watched.
Give yourself 3 points if you feel these heroic journalists fearlessly broach critical issues that some would prefer to sweep under the rug.
3 points possible

Results and Recommendations
If you scored 0 points, I don’t understand you and I’m not sure I trust you.

If you scored 1-3 points, you are not a cable-news junkie. You are a well-adjusted, average citizen, with friends, meaningful work, and dreams all your own. You compensate for being slightly under-informed about current events with a longer life expectancy. Don't hang out with cable-news junkies.  Don't sleep with them very often.  And never, ever marry one.

If you scored 4-7 points, you are almost a cable-news junkie. You're in a precarious position. Shake it off. Take a long drive in the country this afternoon, and no talk radio for you. Come on, you can't change the world single-handedly, can you? It's all useless blather anyway, right? Right? Stay focused. Be especially vigilant in the three months before any national election.    

If you scored 8 or more points, you are a cable-news junkie. Actually, you are a pundit. What, do you have a blog or something? Do you realize that everyone but you knows you have a problem? Those people you commiserate with on facebook are not your friends. They are in it up to their necks, just like you. Your Vitamin D is bottoming out. Go outside naked; touch sticks and mud with your bare hands. Buy a real turtle. Check with a family member to see if your grandmother is still living. No, this condition won't resolve itself after the election. There is no treatment for it now, but the CDC is looking into it. It’s all over the news. 

Watch this space for updates on an already fascinating array of Republican responses to President Barack Obama's interview comments in support of gay marriage. 

First in: last night on FOX, Bill O'Reilly and Dick Morris muddle through an attempt to describe this as a bald political move.  They had a tough time of it.  They couldn't settle on what voting block Obama was going after.  Morris first suggests he is trying to lock in the gay vote, while O'Reilly sheepishly points out that the president probably had that vote already.  Morris shifts to the claim that it's an obvious grab for the middle-of-the-road voters.  O'Reilly is forced to acknowledge that minutes earlier they had just agreed that middle-of-the-road voters don't really care about this issue.  Morris flounders and seethes - perhaps Obama is pandering to the fringe.  O'Reilly looks like he'd rather be anywhere but there and vaguely agrees so he can change the subject to Morris's latest book.

(Stay tuned for more scrambling.)

I hate this column by Joan Walsh about the Republican response to Democrat Hillary Rosen's unfortunate comments about Ann Romney.  Walsh is the forthright liberal editor of Salon.com and a frequent contributor to MSNBC.  I’ve never been impressed by her, and lost more respect after reading this piece.  She uses shorthand to describe complex societal issues and comes across like all of this is so obvious that it's a chore for her to have to explain it.

After Rosen's comments on Wednesday, Walsh wrote about the ensuing uproar, and noted derisively in her column on Thursday that even after Rosen had apologized, "Republicans still won’t shut up about it."  Still?  It hadn't been 48 hours. 

Walsh writes, "An aggrieved Ann Romney even told Fox News, 'I will tell you that Mitt said to me more times than I can imagine, Ann, your job is more important than mine...'"  An "aggrieved" Ann Romney? I would have been aggrieved if someone said I’d never worked a day in my life, but as it turns out, Mrs. Romney chose to be gracious and thoughtful in her response.

Walsh goes on, "The point Rosen was making was, and is, valid: Mitt Romney repeatedly refers to his wife, Ann, in lordly terms, ‘reporting’ to him what matters to women. Reporting to him, like she’s an employee, or maybe a translator...  He should stop referring to his wife’s ‘reports’ about women’s issues, sounding like Thurston Howell III.  Ann Romney...  is a woman of great privilege. Most mothers don’t have the ‘choice’ to stay home full time with their kids; they need a paycheck. Meanwhile, her husband supports the Paul Ryan budget, which cuts nutrition programs for pregnant women and new moms and their kids. It cuts Medicaid for poor women and children. It slashes food stamp funding, when women and children make up two-thirds of the people who get food stamps. He wants to get rid of Planned Parenthood, which provides not just contraception but breast cancer and cervical cancer screenings for millions of low-income women."

Walsh is muddling her critical opinion of Mitt Romney's policy positions, (an opinion I certainly share,) with Rosen's very telling disrespect for Ann Romney's life choices.  It is simply shallow for us to say, "well, maybe Rosen shouldn't have said that, BUT...." so that we can greedily get to our own (critically important but pretty easy to make) points about the Republican approach to women's issues.  Liberals are in no danger of losing the trust of American women.  Real policy speaks louder than words.  We don't need to cram a lot of words into the reactionary moment of this particular quote.

Rosen just shouldn't have said what she said.  And the ugliest part about it was she meant it.  In the latest contribution to the bad apologies epidemic, Rosen made clear in her later commentsthat this wasn’t a gaffe.  She reinforced the points she wanted to make, using a discussion of Ann Romney’s life choice as a vehicle to criticize her husband’s positions.  

Unfortunately, the low-hanging fruit here is the opportunity to exploit the complex feelings women have about other women's choices.  This isn't just an  "upper-class problem", like Walsh complains.  If you want to classify it, literally, it is also a middle-class dilemma and distressful for low-income families.  There is a wide range of economic status that allows for some sort of choice in this area.  For some women, work outside the home would be preferable but their education and professional experience don't qualify them for positions that pay enough to cover childcare.  Conversely, some women who are high-earners sacrifice significant material comforts so they can stay at home.  There are multiple options, constraints, and desires in this area, and families make different decisions over the tenure of their child-rearing years, always vulnerable to the judgement of others.

Walsh simplistically says in the clip, “feminists learned 20 years ago that this is a dumb argument.”  But in fact, it’s a perennial topic, it’s not “dumb” or easy, and each generation of women must confront it anew.  It’s been a quarrel at times, and we won’t get anywhere by jumping all over each other or rolling our eyes about it.

As a phenomenon, the question of “working” women crept into the collective conscious on a wide scale in the mid-20th century when women who had been called to work outside the home during WWII found they wanted to keep doing so after the war.  It bubbled up as a more intensely debated issue in the 60's and early 70's, creating painful division among feminists.  The discord came to head in the 80's, when there were both improving professional opportunities for women, and increasing acceptance of the idea of the enlightened stay-at-home mom.  Playgroups and "mother's morning out" sessions popped up, and there were countless news pieces about the educated, liberated women who were leaving the workforce in droves to raise their kids.  They had three or four kids, home-schooled, grew their own food, and maintained an active civic life.  Psychologists and social scientists debated how children were affected by growing up in daycare centers.  Marriage counselors worked with couples who were struggling with confusion about the new expectations of men, obsolete expectations of women, and the division of labor in the home.

Apparently it’s time to talk about it as a nation again, but let’s take care to separate out the issues.

One discussion we should have is about the rush to polarized outrage when a partisan public figure says something stupid or offensive.  That’s about modern politics and cable news.

Another discussion should be about whether women who work at home are valued as much by society as women in the workforce, which is complex cultural question.

The plight of women who want to stay home and raise their kids but can't afford to – that’s a discussion about the economy.

The plight of women who have to stay at home, existing on welfare food stamps, WIC, and Medicaid, is a discussion about conservative disdain for funding birth control, childcare, education, and job training.

Yet another discussion is about which presidential candidate has the better interests of women at heart.  That one is about health care, equal pay for equal work, (really, America? still?), reproductive rights, equal status, (really, Augusta?) domestic violence and sexual harassment, and more.  

Democrats need not get that last one confused with the Rosen issue.  There will be more than enough time to talk about it before November, and Republicans don't hold a candle to Democrats in this area.  We are the force behind decades of progress on these issues, and no one is seriously confused about the who's who on that one.  Right-wing Republicans are hard at work today trying to reverse these accomplishments.

The Romney campaign wants to pretend that the off-base comments of a random pundit have uncovered some larger truth, like the Democratic Party's real feelings about women's issues.  That’s bogus of course, but it’s just as intellectually dishonest for liberal analysts (notably not being joined by the White House) to blather on about the right blathering on.  Give them their time: their First Lady-hopeful was brashly, inaccurately insulted. 

Just don’t let them confuse the issues.  

Apparently the Florida State Attorney for Seminole County is leaving it up to several million of us to try this case.  Don't worry about trying to get out of jury duty on this one though, it's going to be a piece of cake.

We'll have Lawrence O'Donnell as prosecutor, and Michelle Malkin for the defense.  Instead of forensics experts, we get to go with our gut.  Instead of interview transcripts, we get to hear speeches and arguments, which are much less tedious.  Instead of a learned judge deciding what evidence to let in, we can consider Trayvon Martin's school discipline records, and the moving, earnest protestations of one Joe Oliver, a sort-of close friend of the family of the defendant.  Think of it as a riveting episode of Law & Order.  Or CSI.  We're all experts these days anyway, right?  And while the courtroom setting is traditional, it's really bland, and there's no popcorn.

It may appear at first glance that this footage is of a (very adorable) young Barack Obama, Harvard Law student, introducing an admired professor to a (very geeky) smiling group of fellow students.  But rest assured, Hannity will reveal that these students are poised for pandemonium.  They fearlessly engage in sit-ins, group hand-holding, and waving big (sort of pathetic, obviously pre-Sharpie) cardboard signs.  Hannity will reveal that this distinguished, rather avuncular professor, Derrick Bell, was a mutinous Black Nationalist-type, bent on upheaval and unrest, unafraid to employ any means necessary to subvert the system and ensure the supremacy of his race.

I'll admit, I'm not sure how Mr. Hannity will pull this off.  Bell's act of revolt at the time of the clip was a plan to take a leave of absence from his tenured position as law professor until such time as the school agreed to offer tenure to a black female.  Yes, he went on one of those infamous "well-then-you-can-just-withhold-my-salary-and-vacation-leave" -type rampages from the 60's.  And honestly, Bell has had a history of working within the system at high levels of academia and prestigious national organizations.  He made a substantial contribution on more fronts than I can name here, both to the intellectual discourse about race, and to practical Civil Rights concerns. 

But if anyone can make this guy - and Barack Obama by association - look like a race-warrior, Sean Hannity can! 

Maybe he can quote some of the inflammatory language from one of Bell's polemical tomes.  For example, his book  Ethical Ambition: Living a Life of Meaning and Worth, (obviously a handbook on destroying the white devil) is replete with the message of insurrection: 

• “Power in the hands of the reformer is no less potentially corrupting than in the hands of the oppressor.”  (Wait, that sounds like a caution against using any means necessary.  Sean should skip that one.)

Ok, how about this one, from the same book:

• “We live in a system that espouses merit, equality, and a level playing field, but exalts those with wealth, power, and celebrity, however gained."  (Clearly the subtext here is, "Take to the streets!  Tear our cities down!  Burn, baby, burn!")

Maslow's Peak wishes Mr. Hannity luck.  The link is below - if you have time to view this 11:39 minutes of footage before the show tonight, you can make a drinking game out of the distortions.  And remember, the real story is always on FOX.

FRONTLINE:
The Story Behind the Obama Law School Speech Video

As advertisers pulled out of his radio program right and left, Rush Limbaugh was forced to take a humble tone, and---wait, what's this?  No humble tone here; this guy is doubling down!  Never thought I would type these words, but there's just no denying it:  Rush Limbaugh is a genius.

Here is his statement, issued Saturday afternoon:

"For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke. I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit? In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.  My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices."

Rush, "word choice" is not the problem here.  ("He used a poor choice of words" was the weaselly phrase also clung to by Mitt and Rick when they were forced to weigh in Friday.)  During his rants, Rush actually softened his word choice at one point, saying “OK, so she’s not a slut. She’s ‘round heeled."  The problem isn't phrasing.  It's that he said demeaning, slanderous things about Fluke because of her position on a political issue.  He could have said, "This good lady assuredly removes her knickers and does unspeakable things with gentlemen callers on an all-too-frequent basis.  Otherwise she would undoubtedly refrain from insisting on economic recompense for correlated expenditures."  It would have the same meaning, and it's this defamation that he should be apologizing for.

This guy knows his stuff.  By saying, "I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke," he only concedes that while people who expect insurance to cover contraception are irresponsible sexual libertines, he didn't mean Sandra Fluke was one of them.

My hat is off to Mr. Limbaugh.  He simply turned his apology into an opportunity to restate his position.  I popped the whole statement into Word - it's a total of 192 words.  After I deleted the self-serving recap, 34 remained.  And the redacted version is heartwarming:

"I chose the wrong words. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.  My choice of words was not the best.  I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices."

In the wake of his intensely offensive blather last week, Rush Limbaugh discovered that while he was talking, his money was walking. 

So far, active Limbaugh sponsors pulling their ads from Limbaugh's radio show include Sleep Train, Select Comfort, and Quicken Loans.  Other companies that have advertised with Limbaugh in the past or were erroneously named as sponsors hastened to correct these errors or distance themselves.  These include Lending Tree, eHarmony, Auto Zone, and Life Quotes.

I'm posting this immediately to clarify where these companies stand, and will add updates as they come in.  For a great overview of the whole Sandra Fluke/Rush Limbaugh story, click on this Politico blog post by Dylan Byers.  Look for my additional commentary on the whole story later this weekend, including a look at the reactions of President Obama and the Republican presidential candidates. 

Melissa V. Harris-Perry is professor of political science at Tulane University.  She is founding director of the Anna Julia Cooper Project on Gender, Race, and Politics in the South.  She is an increasingly visible and effective media personality. Harris-Perry churned quickly through her first 15 minutes of national fame and kept on charging.  After logging several years as a popular professor and an outspoken social critic on the lecture circuit, her star really began rising as an occasional guest on MSNBC's evening news commentary programs.  She quickly established an authoritative voice in the national dialogue on important cultural and political issues.  Harris-Perry now hosts her own program on MSNBC each weekend, and her contribution is truly a boon to the country.  Her show appears on Saturdays and Sundays, 10:00am-12:00pm. 

Harris-Perry is great on television, able to think on her feet during those rapid-fire, expert-in-a-box debates, and has come into her on with her own show.  She is disarmingly effective, at once confrontational and charming.  But it's in her writing that you see the depth of her insight.  What I love most about her body of work is her unwavering assertion that society has a responsibility to address racism and sexism. 

The crux of her work has been an investigation of the confluence of race, gender and politics, and especially the stubborn inequalities that exist in the US.  As I have said elsewhere on this site, these issues are not the quaint, sixties-era counterculture obsessions that conservatives and even centrist Democrats would like to make them.  If nothing else, we should view the work of people like Harris-Perry with self-interest.  We won't ever begin to realize our potential as a country until we lay these problems bare and solve them. Harris-Perry's commentary on current events, which you can read on her website, melissaharrisperry.com, is lively and smart.  She has a biting sense of humor and writes with entertaining prose, while her theories are carefully considered and defended.  It is a treat to find a writer who can be entertaining and colorful while operating inside a sound, academic format.  Harris-Perry definitely pulls that off.

In a recent article on her website, melissaharrisperry.com, Harris-Perry spoke about Presidential politics, the rhetoric around Herman Cain's campaign, and the potentiality of having two black candidates run against each other for the White House. 
"[W]e need to bury, once and for all, the idea that racism is primarily about saying mean or unflattering things about black people, and specifically saying mean or unflattering things about President Obama. We need to insist that discussions of American racism rest firmly in revealing and addressing the disparate impact of policies and practices that create or deepen racially unequal outcomes. Racial animus might have prompted the nasty signage about the president at anti–healthcare reform rallies, but who cares? The issues of racism in healthcare are the continuing racial health disparities that impact black Americans from infancy to old-age. When some whites refuse to vote for Barack Obama it might be caused by racism, but the voting racism I am much more interested in is the voting and registration regulations that state governments are imposing right now in ways that will likely disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of black voters.  If we allow white Democrats to believe that support for Barack Obama is sufficient to protect them from any racialized criticism then we will have to extend that same logic to Republican supporters of Cain. Both are ridiculous. The politically relevant question on race is not the willingness to support a candidate who shows up in a black body. Anti-racism is not about hugging the black guy running for president, it’s about embracing policies that reduce structural unfairness and eliminate continuing racial inequality."

Melissa Harris-Perry
www.melissaharrisperry.com