Carville and Greenberg focus-grouped a bunch of conservative republicans, and they determined that race did not motivate them.  These voters are, admittedly, conscious of being called racists, and say that if they disagree with Obama's policies, they fear being tagged with that label or are at least aware that they will be.  It's also clear that no amount of fact is going to penetrate their bubble.  These folks are hard-core.
At the risk of being accused of discounting evidence in front of my nose, I don't buy the absence of a substantial racial angle.  At all.  And, (shocker!) none of the voters admitted to harboring prejudices--just like that justice of the peace in Louisiana.  I simply don't trust the reliability of their research on something like this.  It's not as if the report surveyed their attitudes on other aspects of life or programs, and asked -why- they held particular positions.  It's been my experience that most people that harbor prejudices will simply deny having them, and then ask the black guy next to them how long they've been a janitor.  Most people who are really not will admit to thinking about race, and not being really sure whether certain beliefs are "right" or "wrong," but at least actively endeavor to figure that question out.  Given this focus group's makeup, it's just not convincing.  If Michelle Obama can't travel to SC because of security, something is seriously out of whack.
And I have to wonder about the angles of the authors.  Cui bono?  (I honestly don't know the answer to that).  *The above is rank speculation and should be regarded as such.  Comments welcomed.

So it seems some feewings at the White House got hurt, and they're "shocked" that the insurance industry would do such a thing.  
Let me explain.  No.  There is too much.  Let me sum up.
In order for this to be a "surprise" of other than the "gee I didn't know you were going to do this -today-" variety, you would have to have believed that the tea party/freedom works movement protesting "death panels" and the like all spontaneously erupted out of genuine citizen concern and understanding.  Betsy McAughey [sic?] is out telling lies because she feels morally compelled to do so.  And the thing is, IT WORKED.  The scaremongering, lies, and non-stop media focus on complete BS caused all kinds of problems, including (a) dropping BO's approval rating and (b) causing all kinds of legislative delays.  
If you were them, having witnessed what you just got away with, why wouldn't you go to the same playbook again?  AHIP just witnessed how effective the "ooga-booga" strategy can be. All they need is a couple of weeks and, compared to the "death panel" approach, the critiques are far more difficult to explain (tho' Klein does a decent job at the WaPo).  (No links to that rag any longer) and can be dismissed as "social scientists disagree" or some other such nonsense.     
In short, scaremongering worked.  It's no surprise they're back at it.  And, once again, the Post treated that release as A1 news.  Too bad they discontinued their pay-for-access regime, right?

The funny guy knows his stuff.
Note the style: minimal speechmaking, found the premise of the employers' argument, and attacked it ruthlessly with short, pointed questions.  And wouldn't let him waffle, or run out the clock.  The whole thing was decidedly un-senatorial.  (Taking the witness to task over a probable typo is a bit much, and I'll bet whoever drafted that testimony caught hell back at the office.  Nonetheless, the way the premise was dismantled was beautiful).

Franken for SCOTUS?

So the PO goes down because of a bunch of insurance company lackeys from, by and large, rural states.  There ain't that many voters in these states.  I really, really, hope that we see a primary.  
It's not over, though. The PO is in the House bill, and there still is such a thing as a floor amendment.  The most important thing now is that these senators find out that their vote has consequences.

Remember that story about how the swim club in Philly kicked out a group of minority kids that had rented the place and then said "racist?" "Who, us?"  
Yes, you.Cost of excluding one kid: $50K (paid to the state).  
It's a shame that the lunacy of Glenn Beck et al so dominates our national discourse, because since the shrub left office it seems like these kinds of stories are becoming more frequent, if underreported.

It's been, I think, one of the great unchallenged truths of the conservative mythos that St. Ronald and his Star Wars plan bankrupted the Soviets.  Well, it turns out that that wasn't true at all, really,  Reagan's role was considerably less than his hagiographers would have us believe. Nobody could have predicted this, of course.

Like, late night I'm on a first class flight
The only brother in sight the flight attendent catch fright
I sit down in my seat, 2C
She approach officially talkin about, "Excuse me"
Her lips curl up into a tight space
Cause she don't believe that I'm in the right place
-Mos Def

Does anyone really think that Wilson (R-Crackerville) would have talked that way to a white president? Really?  Really?  Which one?
Over at Digby's place, there is a post suggesting that this is OK because in England, they do this all the time.  This ain't England.  As I recall, as a country, we made that point as clear as we possibly could have.  If the president talks to congress every week and takes their questions, then perhaps we would have that tradition.  We don't.  
There is nothing left of the Republican party but white trash.  And yes, I think Wilson ought to be called a racist.  And a liar.
Here ends todays rant.

I believe no one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one other than Glenn Beck should go broke because they get sick. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day.

Mental health break.  
The joys of youtube.  

Bloomberg has sued the Fed to disclose documents describing how the TARP money (and that infused into various affiliated programs) was actually used by the banks that signed up for it.  A federal district court has done what Congress could not do: order the Fed to turn this information over under the FOIA.  The banks, it turns out, have taken the position that the release of accurate information will cause the spread of rumors that will undermine the capitalist system.  Because, you know, in the system right now, BoA is a magic pony that exists due to its superb financial management (of unlimited taxpayer largesse.)

There is a jaw-dropping article in Time in which the CEO of Goldman (this year's comp: 68.5 million) expresses his consternation that people hate Goldman Sachs despite the fact that they're making sh---loads of money.  I just don't understand these people.
(I was going to write about TK.  Ironically, it feels like the country lost someone who understands how folks like Goldman play the game (and, indeed, could have easily played on that side), but yet decided to use those talents and privileges for those who did not have them because, as he figured out, the game is if not rigged, very difficult to play.)

Now that Jacko got whacked.

Mr. Blutarski walks it back.

Sullivan's on vacation, so he appears to have allowed a lazy college student to fill in for him.  The gist of this imbecilic piece defends scalia's recent dissent in the Court' s order of review in a death penalty case in which the state's witnesses have recanted. Scalia stated that the defendant got a fair trial, and that's the end of it, so he's guilty.

Which, yes, certainly sounds like a terrible thing to say. But is this a crazy view? I'm not a lawyer and can't speak to whether the court has "never held" what Scalia says, or whether Davis actually had a "full and fair trial." I hope neither of these things is true. But if they are true, why would it be so surprising? Procedural rights (like the right to a lawyer or the right to avoid self incrimination) do not guarantee a specific outcome (like the correct decision in a case). It is possible to imagine a fair trial that respects everyone's rights but nonetheless reaches the wrong conclusion.
I think procedural rights are useful in large part because they prop up substantive considerations that our society values -- like guilt or innocence when guilt or innocence is deserved. But an alternate view of procedural rights -- or a view that says, simply, that it's not the role of the Supreme Court to decide these things -- doesn't seem like it's molded out of unalloyed craziness.

 
Yes, it is a crazy view.  These procedural rules are supported by a substantive guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment in the document that the Court is supposed to construe.  So in this warped view of the world, if all the boxes are checked and it comes out later that you're innocent--you die.  But hey--you're not a lawyer; have done no research and omitted any reference to the main constitutional provision that might have something to say about your theory.  Why, precisely, is this person qualified in ANY respect to opine on these issues?  

Talk about lowering the bar.  After all, this could never be taken out of context, right?  I can see it now... Glenn Beck said that "Even David Frum thinks"

If Barack Obama really were a fascist, really were a Nazi, really did plan death panels to kill the old and infirm, really did contemplate overthrowing the American constitutional republic--if he were those things, somebody should shoot him.

Uh, is it all of them at once? Because, you know, a lot of people thought your old boss and Cheney were hell-bent on number three, and I still don't think that is an appropriate response.  (Impeachment, criminal prosecution, and incarceration were completely satisfactory.).  More distressingly, a lot of people believe this to be the case for the current president. 
Heckuva job, David.