[I]t does point to the motley crew the Republican National Committee is willing to work with in order to connect with the right-wing base.

No wonder they have to take money from terrorists.

It's nice to see that NewsMax has actually found a limit to how much bad taste and traitorous talk they will condone. Sure, they were slower than Little Green Footballs, but they're still ahead of RedState, the Freepers and most of the rest.

Missing Headline: "Republican-backed Columnist Promotes Military Coup"...

Can't anybody here play this game?

Earlier today, NewsMax yanked the column from its site, and a representative distanced the outlet from the writer.

This sentence is the only surprise about this affair.

How depressing.

can you say sedition boys and girls?

Second theAmericanist. Sounds like the RNC is paying good money to spread word about a coup.

An even better reason to write to the RNC and ask them to make a public, unambiguous condemnation of this column. They can't say that it doesn't concern them if they sponsor the site. You'll find their web site here:

http://www.rnc.org/splashpage/index.aspx

Let me co-sign the Americanist. There needs to be an explicit link back to the RNC. They can't support these groups without any cost.

Looks like someone needs to be defunded and someone else needs to do some distancing.

Missing Headline: "Republican-backed Columnist Promotes Military Coup"...

I like it. That is exactly the headline that would be on Drudge were it the DNC.

or, if you connect the dots and follow the money...

"RNC shuttling money from terrorist Alishtari to Columnist Promoting Military Coup"...

The way to do this is for SOMEBODY to make the Republican FUNDING for the site that promoted this guy's column into an issue -- as in "Despite RNC denials, it has emerged that..."

Get 'em to deny any connection. Then get 'em to deny that funding the guy's site wasn't a connection.

Have the guy (who, btw, worked for two Democratic Presidents) on cable and ASK him if he knew that the site was funded by the RNC.

Then ask him if he still thinks a military coup is reasonable.

Get a Republican Congressmen (hell, by next week they may have a Coup Caucus) to endorse his idea.

Fercrysakes, these guys keep giving us opportunities that an LBJ or a Jack Kennedy would have gotten a week's worth of pounding the bad guys out of, and we let 'em slip away in half a news cycle.

And this will get what percentage of the "General Betrayus" coverage?

i don't know what his involvement is now, but richard mellon scaife at one point was the second-largest shareholder in newsmax according to sec documents. his stake amounted to a quarter of the company's outstanding shares.

also, the top guy at newsmax was one christopher ruddy, the so-called investigative reporter behind many of scaife's cheap shots at the clintons.

and there is this little gem from the company's prospectus filed with the sec earlier this decade:

"We recognize that the publishing industry's increased competition for
readers and viewers has resulted in a trend toward more demographically targeted
editorial, feature and advertising content. We believe that a growing group of
educated and sophisticated readers is seeking timely, comprehensive and
trustworthy news and information that is an alternative to the mainstream press.
For example, Fox News Channel began as a direct competitor to cable giant CNN.
After just four years, Fox now outpaces CNN in viewers, has become profitable
and has built a valuable business. So far, existing online news sources have
failed to meet the demand for alternative content like that Fox News Channel is
providing on cable television."

And why shouldn't these people say and do what they do? There are never any negative consequences. Joe Wilson broke a longstanding rule of decorem and became a wingnut hero. Beck, Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, Palin, the more outrageous and uncouth their rhetoric, the richer they get.

As things are now, the first Republican 2012 hopeful who gets within spitting distance of Preisdent Obama, and actualy spits on him will be his/her party's nominee for president.

Wow, conservatives can say things that are too offensive for Newsmax? I knew there had to be a limit to how crazy they could go, but I just never thought it'd be found in my lifetime.

Wonders never cease.

The page is still in Google:

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:st9T5Lydw4kJ:www.newsmax.com/john_perry/obama_military_coup/2009/09/29/266012.html+newsmax+john+perry&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

The GOP helps fund Newsmax? Didn't the GOP hang the Bush-as-Nazi poster that someone submitted to Moveon.Org around the necks of the left? In that case, Moveon got smeared by something they did not even do; here we have a website partially funded by the GOP advocating (well, OK, speculatively advocating) a military coup to remove the democratically-elected president of the US. There should be a direct question asked to the GOP -- why should you not be held responsible for these reprehensible views? If the GOP feels that it has no responsibility for its subsidiary, it should denounce Perry and his undemocratic views in no uncertain terms.

MA-SEN Republican candidate Scott Brown had an ad campaign on Newsmax and wound up appearing next to this column. This was not a matter of Google-ads putting it wherever, but Brown choosing to advertise on this particular wingnut site.

For further coverage of this, including a statement from Brown himself repudiating the column and affirming civilian control of the military, see this Blue Mass Group thread:

http://www.bluemassgroup.com/diary/17097/bmg-exclusive-scott-brown-ad-appears-on-column-proposing-military-takeover-of-the-us

Every person that considers himself a progressive or liberal should check out the front page of the usatoday, as a learning experience. As of now, one of the top headlines is "Republicans demand apology for death quip". This is re: the democratic congressman that characterized the republicans (lack of) policies on healthcare reform as "die quick".

During the last few months republicans (ex VP candidates, congressmen, prominent conservative bloggers) have:

- Interupted a presidential address to congress with a shouted accusal of lying. [Joe Wilson]
- Accused the president of pushing policy that would put Sarah Palins disabled baby in front of "Obamas death panel" that would let him die. [Sarah Palin, republican VP candidate 2008]
- Claimed that "we need to realize that [the president] is an enemy to humanity" [Rep. Trent Franks]
- Suggested that it might be necessary for the army to overthrow american democracy and stage a coup d'etat because Obamas policies are unacceptable to conservatives. [newsmax.com - sponsored by RNC]

Only one of these four stories made the headlines and it was possibly the least outrageous (while still being more outrageous than Grayson's unprecedented lack of decorum towards the POTUS).

Now ask yourself: how come that when one democrat steps out of line, two hours later we can read about it on the online frontpage of americas biggest newspaper?

Is it because the modern media environment is biased towards conservative messaging and viewpoints. Is it because of conservative media bullying anxious, pussy-ass journalists into pushing their talking points?

Yes and yes. But much more than this it is the fucking inability of progressives - in politics, media and in private - to respond properly to when conservatives step accross the line.

When Sarah Palin in so many words accuses the POTUS of wanting to put her disabled son in front of a "death panel" and have him put to death, then she is in fact commiting an unconscionable, slanderous act. When she commits this act, every progressive should keep in mind that she is in fact committing an unconscionable, slanderous act.
Musing about the sillyness and craziness of conservatives is appropriate when a VP candidate does not know what the "Bush Doctrine" is or when she cannot answer what magazines she reads. It is not appropriate when she accuses the president of wanting to see her disabled son dead.

That is the kind of moral clarity that is missing in our messaging from the progressive camp. That is the major reason why we get hung high for shoplifting and conservatives gets away with murder.

Never lose track of whats acceptable and what is not, don't forget priorities. If your opponent steps accross the line, make him pay. Don't sacrifice the opportunity to make your case loud and clear for the sake of a few wiseass clever remarks and a pat on the back for being intelligent and intellectually honest.

Now, it is not president Obama or the White House who should have to make this case, get this message out to the american people. They don't need to get involved in the mudslinging contest or taking morally challenged republicans to task. It isn't even democratic congressmen preferably.

It is every progressive pundit, every progressive blogger, every progressive voice in the medias' fucking duty to get out there and clearly make the moral and practical case to the american people, without indulging themselves in their pathological compulsive smartassedness that only allows the case to be made in a roundabout, clever, "balanced" way, and always eventually muddles and drowns the message.

It is the fucking responsibility of progressives that consumes blogs, tv and newspapers to keep our pundits, bloggers, and media in line, and to go out and make the case ourselves.

Whining and feeling sorry about the evilness of republicans, theunfair media and the stupidity of the american people is a big fat self-deception. It is WE who are not doing our job.

Errata, should read:

While Wilsons unprecedented lack of decorum towards the POTUS still being far more outrageous than Grayson's "die quickly" quip.

How do one get rid of NewsMax? They're like a bad case of herpes. Somehow I got on their shit list (you know, the list of people they send their shit to) and I can't get off of it. They've got an "unsubscribe" option but of course it doesn't work — surprise!

I'm a crazy old disabled veteran and I'm not computer literate, so I don't know how to stop this goddamn harassment; the shit just keeps coming...

Maybe I can find out where their offices are...

and, y'know...

What should the Dems in congress do about Grayson then?

They should of course offer to settle it all in a bipartisan manner.

Introduce a new bill that calls on Grayson, Palin and Franks to retract and publicly apologize and on the RNC to distance themselves from newsmax and stop all sponsoring and advertisements.

I guarantee the Newsmax piece will end up as part of an right-wing chain email by the end of the week, complete with a narrative about how our fascist government gagged this citizen's brave speech and that now is the time to rise up before we're all subjected to an even worse fate.

Fun, fun, fun.

I find it never hurts to point to the obvious around here: the reason why Limbaugh, Beck, WIlson, Chuck Norris, Perry, etc., do not suffer because they say such bullshit to their base... is because their base likes it.

The reason why far milder and less typical stuff said by guys on the left gets dragged out into a brighter critical spotlight faster, and stays longer, is because our base does NOT like this stuff.

Our response to the wingnuts can't be effective when the result is to promote 'em to their own audience.

So my own Notion is that we tie people who WOULD suffer from the association -- like the Republican National Committee. Somebody who does actual, yanno, REPORTING, could find out exactly how much money they have given NewsMax, and cite every single dollar in every single story that follows up about Perry, viz., "The conservative columnist who promoted a military coup against the President of the United States on a site which has received $X from the Republican National Committee since 1998, has written a weekly column for the site since 1999...."

And, puh-leeze, enough with the "but the RNC wouldn't suffer from the link..."

It's the same as the Chuck Norris opportunity -- REAL patriots piss on guys who stain the flag.

Any outfit that would support a pathological travesty such as WND, is disgraced. Remember the "Baal" article, and other atrocities dissected here.

Second, what Danny said!

theAmericanist: Exactly! Tie them to it and make them pay as much as possible.

It's true like you say that there is a fundamental assymetry between the left and right b/o the kind of people who are attracted to the left and right.

The rightwing are not (and now less then ever) very genuinly interested in intellectual honesty, independent and honest reporting in the press, etc. They are interested in winning by any means because they think it is gods will, it is good business, otherwise they will be punished bye the base etc. The fact that we ARE interested in those things, sometimes works to our advantage and sometimes to theirs. But there is no reason whatsoever for us not to work to maximize our gain and minimize theirs in every situation.

The audience for what we and our spokespeople say is in fact not their 20% base, it is in fact the 20%-30% in the middle.

If we can just get ourselves a little more synchronized about these things: Sometimes the heat is off and then we can allow ourselves to pontificate about detail, be wiseasses, be intellectually honest and hold ourselves and our fellow progressives up to our high ideals. Sometimes the heat is on and we need to focus on priorities, message discipline, hammer in our points, make a clear case and make conservatives pay for every little mistake and every transgression they make. If discipline and streetfighting feels icky we need to remind ourselves that we believe that our goals fulfilled will make america (even) better and that that trumps preservation of purity.

When something like Grayson goes down, we have to bite the apple and declare that it is unfortunate and out of line and then bring up Sarah Palin, Joe Wilson, rep. Frank, newsmax.

We need to mail bomb MSM about why they are not covering Frank and Newsmax.

Sarah Palin need to apologize in public for her slanderous remarks against the president.

Rep. Frank need to apologize in public for his outrageous comments about the president.

RNC need to distance themselves from newsmax, and they need to be held accountable.

Every republican politian need to answer if they think it is apropriate for Sarah Palin to make the remarks she made. It may be to late now, but a politician on the opposing team NEED to be made a political leper for making such comments as she made. It is our job to make that happen.

MSM need to discuss what it means for America when an actual VP candidate makes that kind of remarks SP made about her son and the president.

And so on, and so on.... Because the republican base may not care, but the american people sure cares if they have it up in their face.

"And why shouldn't these people say and do what they do? There are never any negative consequences. Joe Wilson broke a longstanding rule of decorem (sic) and became a wingnut hero. Beck, Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, Palin, the more outrageous and uncouth their rhetoric, the richer they get"

there are consequences. these people are heroes in their own little nutball world but have little influence beyond. to use a trite phrase, they preach to the choir. if they truly wanted to influence the outside world, they'd take more reasoned conservative stances on the issues. they could have reasoned discussions with those on the other side and factually debate the issues of the day. they might actually change a few minds. they could do that but they'd also lose their audience and much of their income. in fact, the more irrational they are, the better it is for their bank accounts.

these people are not political thinkers. they're not policy wonks. they're entertainers who are taking advantage of the situation for their personal benefit. credibility means nothing to them because they don't need it or want it.

Beside the seditious nature of the article, I find the description of how the coup would operate most interesting.

Apparently Obama would just give speeches and act as a figurehead. But what happens to the legislative and judicial branches? Would Obama be required to veto any legislation passed by congress which doesn't match up with the military's needs? If so, what if congress overrides the veto?

What about the courts?

I actually disagree with Danny -- but this isn't so much what I think ought to be done, as an extension of the analysis how Rs and Ds are different:

Pat Buchanan nailed it, as he often does, cuz he's more or less the walking id of the Republican party in some ways: when Reagan was caught violating pretty much everything he had ever pretended to stand for in the Iran-contra mess, and a bipartisan group of Republicans and Democrats began to coalesce to clean up the incredible pile of crap that fell out, Buchanan's response was perfect: When they come after your guy, he said, you don't join the committee: you lock the doors, barricade the staircase, and start firing from the upper floors.

So, no, I don't think it's sound strategy OR tactics to say that Grayson should apologize, "just like" Palin and Wilson and the rest.

Grayson was right. Republicans DO tell old and sick people their best hope is to die quickly, because the free market insurance business finds no value in their health care. (Um, cuz they're old and sick and can't pay for the dialysis and 24/7 nursing? No, d'uh.)

Wilson was wrong. Obama's health care plan did NOT cover illegal aliens.

See how it works?

Palin was a bit different -- she was wrong to say the Obama plan has death panels, but the smart tactical response in her case isn't to call her a liar, it's to demand to know if she REALLY believes that Medicare should REFUSE to pay for end of life counseling.

With a charge like that, you get in her face -- do YOU know the difference between a DNR and a morphine drip? Who is going to explain that to your mother? To Todd? Who is supposed to explain to a person entering a nursing home what a living will means? Who would you trust with those decisions, Governor Palin -- your husband, or the Senate majority leader? Explain Terri Schiavo again.

With a Chuck Norris, offering to SELL desecrated American flags to make a political point, it'd be best for a decorated veteran to publicly call him an anti-American pussy. (Jim Webb, call your office.)

With Perry -- all but unknown, after all -- you go after the big target, which is the RNC. But you don't let 'em off the hook, with the two-step: first NewsMax drops the guy, pretends they never met him, and then the RNC mumbles they didn't actually fund MUCH of the site, and besides... old news.

It's not a question of ideology, nor even of audience (though, like I said, that's important), but of technique: the wingnuts have been trained, literally, in a narrative approach to stories which always, every time, focuses on their base.

You're right that we should focus on the people we need to persuade, and leave 'em with the 30% rump: but we DON'T, because our base likes different stuff than their base does.

Look at health care -- why weren't there stories going into the 4th of July about the outrageous excuses for 'pre-existing conditions' which health insurance companies use to deny care?

See the difference? We spent the last half of the summer hearing about 'death panels' and 'illegal aliens getting health care', cuz we lack TECHNIQUE.

We're like all those damn academic historians, who can cite data and create graphs about how many of the Founders were married to left-handed lesbians, but can't tell a story worth hearing to save their lives.

theAmericanist: Well, I agree one hundred percent regarding the primacy of the "loyalty to the team" ideal with the republicans. And it's maybe not unreasonable to guess that a part of that is related to the fact that soldiers, deeply religious people and southerners are core constituencies of the right, all of whom have their separate, good reasons to cherish that ideal. And I do think we'll need more of that, not less - however unattractive the "hive mind" may seem from a certain perspective.

Of course it's not always so easy, especially when things don't go your way. (Even for the republicans - look at how the various factions of the McCain campaign chewed each other up in public when the shit hit the fan). But to get ourselves at least a little bit closer to republican "discipline" I think the maxim of "protecting the queen" would serve us well, the "queen" in our case being advocating the superiority of the progressive viewpoint and enabling the implementation of progressive policy solutions AND protecting the credibility of our most visible officeholders and advocates (right now, obviously, the POTUS).

With Grayson then I see where you're coming from, but the problem as I see it is that Obama, and his core advisers have chosen (since before the primaries and up until now) for the democrats to stay above the mudslinging and inflamatory rethoric. Personally, I think that's basically a sound strategy, given that that's who we want to be, and that sensible, progressive policies are more likely to prevail in a reasonable, civil public conversation.

But the other team has apparantly chosen to try to exploit that by practicing all the dirty streetfighting moves that Obama cannot or will not use (and they do have plenty of skill, practice and means for that); while at the same time holding Obama to his publicly declared higher ideals and constantly looking for an opening to get to cry hypocracy if he should respond in kind.

With Grayson, I think it was basically good that G. went on the offensive, god knows that his "transgression" if there even was one is not in the same league as what the other side pumps out every single hour. But because of the rights superior focus, noise machine, and message discipline, he is within one our on the frontpage of UsaToday - while Palin, Franks and Newsmax is not. All of us progressive footsoldiers must accept that fact as our own failure to make our case to the American public through the available channels.

Now the right hopes to slap the hypocricy charge on democrats - and by proxy on Obama. They want to have a vote on censuring Grayson and if the Dems votes against they hope to contrast that with the Wilson vote. Nevermind that they all voted against censuring Wilson, nevermind the difference in order of magnitude of interupting the POTUS speach to congress with false accusations of lying, never mind the fact that 45000 ppl die each year for lack of coverage and the republicans in reality don't want any reform bill to pass.

They want to slap the charge, bring it to the public through the media, and then constantly bring up democratic hypocrisy and how everyone is as bad as the next each and every time some rightwinger steps over the line or throws some red meat to the Beck loonies.

So my suggestion then was to go along and play the rope-a-dope. In fact the repubs did publicly ask Wilson to apologize (even though they then voted against censure at the same time as Wilson was raising money from the wingers touting his offensive conduct). We can do exacly the same as they did: give Grayson a light, symbolic slap on the wrist while in no way throwing him under the bus. "Unfortunate choice of words" or something such. What I'm saying is that we should also go on the offensive and disarm their o-so-clever censure vote trick. Why not use this oportunity to put these really quite outrageous transgressions of very prominent republicans - that we have so far failed to make them pay for in even a small way - right in the middle of the public eye; now that the Republicans have gotten the medias attention? If they want a nice, bipartisan bill about civility they can vote for the bill calling on Franks, Palin and the RNC to apologize as well, and specifying exactly for what.

And it's even easier for congress to do that if the blogosphere, the pundits and concerned citizens like us chimes in and demands it! :)

Well he sure has balls, Grayson :) Here's hoping it all ends well for us!

You don't understand what you're talking about.

Republicans all but unanimously OPPOSED a resolution that mildly rebuked Wilson. Sure, they would love a party-line vote that rebuked Grayson -- and yeah, they'd point to it and say: see, we're just like them: they complained about our guy, we complained about their guy,

Why on earth would we do that? We want to make our DIFFERENCES clear -- and more than that, we want to use our differences with Rs to persuade independents.

Your idea seems to be that we would do that by voting to rebuke one of our own. There are a lot of flaws with that, but the simplest one is that it would AGREE with Rs that Grayson had earned a rebuke.

And then we'd be left to say, um, so did Wilson? So you're proposing a SECOND way Ds are like Rs, as a way to demonstrate our differences?

See how it fails?

The fact is, Grayson isn't important -- except as one more D in an R district, so he is an example of the 52 Ds who replaced Rs in the House. We have to keep those guys, and we are unlikely to do that by rebuking them in House votes.

The way to make our differences with Rs clear so that we persuade independents is to DEFEND Grayson -- because, UNLIKE Wilson, he told the truth. His floor speech wasn't uncivil at all -- that IS what Rs are offering the ill and elderly. Get in their face -- if they want to haul their sniveling selves in front of cameras to tell us just what they ARE offering the ill and elderly, we want to hear 'em: -- private insurance plans? Name the ones that cover the ill and elderly, Republican Congressman. Medicare? Didn't you vote to CUT it just last summer, Republican Senator?

You don't score on defense. Let's start playing offense on THEIR 20 yard line.

yes.As per earlier items I would like to say NewsMax is now saying Perry's only relationship w/ it is as an "unpaid blogger," but in 1999, when he first became associated w/ it, NewsMax issued a press release describing him as its "Senior Editor." That has continued to be his title. He's been a featured columnist since then...

winter olympics

i definitely agree

you slightly change me point of view