Unfortunately for Inglis, there are no signs that his fellow conservatives are planning to reform their political approach. In fact, President Obama’s recess appointment of Donald Berwick to head the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services has revived the very demagogic lie that Inglis decried, the phony “death panel” claim. And it’s not just Fox News and radio talkers. On Chris Baker’s radio show yesterday, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) agreed with Baker’s reference to Berwick as “the chairman of the Obamacare death panel”:

BACHMANN: He’s the one now who will be in charge of implementing full-scale Obamacare and he’ll be in charge of Medicare and Medicaid.

BAKER: Oh boy. That’s why I’m now referring to him as the chairman of the Obamacare death panel.

BACHMANN: That’s right.

BAKER: That’s my title.

BACHMANN: That’s right because this is his quote, and I have it right in front of me. He said, “the decision is not, whether or not we will ration health care. The decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.” Well, it’s with his eyes open. Because he’s going to be the one who is denying people care.

Listen here:

Bachmann’s distorted use of Berwick’s quote acknowledging that rationing inevitably happens in any health care system is ridiculous. As the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein commented, “Only in our highly charged political discourse is” Berwick’s comment “anything but a bland statement of fact.” Klein noted that Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) has said essentially the same exact thing as Berwick: “Rationing happens today! The question is who will do it?”

O’REILLY: But my contention is that Ruth Bader Ginsburg in particular — and I’m trying to convince Megyn Kelly of this — doesn’t care about the Constitution. That all of her rulings are based upon her personal belief system about what is good and bad for American society. [...]

You don’t like it? Get a constitutional amendment and overthrow the Second Amendment. Two thirds of the states got to do it. Go ahead and put it on the ballot.

But Ginsburg doesn’t want to do that. She wants to be the end-all dictator here about her ideology. Do I read her wrong?

Watch it:

It’s not surprising to hear O’Reilly’s claim that Ginsburg doesn’t respect the Constitution, since he’s made that charge before. But it is more than a bit ironic, considering his past lack of concern with what the foundational document says. In Nov. 2009, he declared, “I don’t care about the Constitution!” when Fox News’ top legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano told him that the Constitution supported Attorney General Eric Holder’s push to try five Guantanamo Bay detainees — including Khalid Sheikh Mohammad — in New York City.

As Slate’s Jordan Michael Smith noted in April, “Shapiro talks about George W. Bush the way Buddhists talk about the Dalai Lama.” In a Jan. 2010 Big Government column — the website is owned by Honor Freedom’s communications director, Andrew Breitbart — titled “America Betrayed President Bush,” Shaprio wrote that “George W. Bush seemed to have an almost mystical understanding of what the American people needed when we needed it most” after 9/11 On FoxNews.com today, Shapiro wished Bush a happy birthday, suggesting that it will be a good one because “a lot has changed” since Bush was considered the worst president in history:

It looks like President George W. Bush may have a pretty good birthday today. After all, this time last year the liberal media was terming him as “the worst president in American history.”

But a lot has changed since then.

Shapiro based his conclusion on President Obama’s sub-50 percent approval rating, claiming it proves that “the challenges George W. Bush faced during his presidency were a lot more challenging than anyone ever realized.” But unfortunately for Bush and Shapiro, the annual Sienna Research Institute survey of presidential scholars was released last week. It found that Bush is considered the worst president of the modern era and the fifth worst president of all time.

Shapiro’s Honor Freedom “is independent of the George W. Bush Presidential Center” and has no official ties to the former president, but former Bush aide Bradley Blakeman advises the group and Shapiro claims that Bush told him that he’s “doing good work.” Like the man whose legacy he’s working to restore, it appears that Shapiro has prematurely declared “Mission Accomplished.”

In the interview, Manders said that when interviewed Angle for the first time “in this cycle,” he said he told her, “I don’t possibly think that you’re going to win it.” “you surprised everybody and won this nomination,” said Manders, prompting Angle to compare herself to Abraham Lincoln:

MANDERS: Yes. I do. I said you’ve lost, how are you going to win this? I don’t possibly think that you’re going to win it.

ANGLE: That’s right.

MANDERS: And then you surprised everybody and won this nomination.

ANGLE: That’s right.

MANDERS: This opportunity to run against the beast, Harry Reid.

ANGLE: Well, you know, it’s just like Abraham Lincoln. He lost quite a few. But he won the big one.

MANDERS: Yes he did.

ANGLE: He won the one that mattered for the country. And, really that’s what we’re in now.

Manders then suggested that Angle had “softened” her hard right image since she won the primary. “Well, you know, we’re in a general election,” replied Angle. “I actually softened because I’m being held accountable for every idle word, as you know.” She then apologized for saying that the unemployed are “spoiled.” Listen here:

Though she hasn’t abandoned her radical ideas, it’s true that Angle has sought to “soften” the presentation of her views. During the primary, Angle argued that, “We need to phase Medicare and Social Security out in favor of something privatized.” Now, Angle says it’s “nonsense” that she wants to privatize Social Security, euphemistically saying instead that “going forward we need to personalize that program.” Until last week, the “issues” page on her website said that Social Security needed to be “transitioned out.” Now, her website says, “We must keep the promise of Social Security” and “We should also create personalized accounts for the next generation that cannot be raided.”

Transcript:

MANDERS: But Sharron, you know that I over the years — and we’ve known each other for a long time, you’re one of the first people that I met when I came to town. You know over the years I haven’t softballed you. I’ve asked you a lot of questions that really held your feet to the fire.

ANGLE: The first time, the first time I had an interview with you in this cycle, you said, “come on now, Sharron, we’re just going to be straight. We’re not going to go to that nicey nicey who are you.”

MANDERS: Yeah.

ANGLE: “We’re just going to talk about it and I’m going to say to you, you’re a loser.” Remember that?

MANDERS: Yes. I do. I said you’ve lost, how are you going to win this? I don’t possibly think that you’re going to win it.

ANGLE: That’s right.

MANDERS: And then you surprised everybody and won this nomination.

ANGLE: That’s right.

MANDERS: This opportunity to run against the beast, Harry Reid.

ANGLE: Well, you know, it’s just like Abraham Lincoln. He lost quite a few. But he won the big one.

MANDERS: Yes he did.

ANGLE: He won the one that mattered for the country. And, really that’s what we’re in now.

MANDERS: Do you think you’re too over the top? Do you think that, you know, again, and I’ve told you, no listen, I’ve got to thank you, I’ve been mentioned on, heck, everybody’s show in and around the world apparently. I got an e-mail from a family member of mine. He said, oh man, you were on Rachel Maddow and the Huffington Post mentioned you. I was in the New York Times, and I was in — and I’m going, “what are they talking about?” And it was all because I said that I think you should slide to the middle a little bit. I didn’t say that you needed to change your stance or anything else. And I think those in the know know exactly what I’m saying. You need to soften a little bit your direct approach because you really smack people in the face. I think, listen to me, I know you want to defend that, but I’m just…

ANGLE: Actually, I was just going to tell you that…

MANDERS: I’m telling you, you’ve softened up since I said that.

ANGLE: Well, you know, we’re in a general election.

MANDERS: Yes.

ANGLE: And they’re demanding things, today I actually softened because I’m being held accountable for every idle word, as you know. And I said in an interview, now I have to just preface this, everyone knows I’m not a career politician. Harry Reid’s the career politician.

MANDERS: Right.

ANGLE: He’s been there for 24 years. I don’t use teleprompters, you know, whatever you ask me, whatever the folks on the phone ask me, it’s the first time.

MANDERS: I can attest it’s a straight forward answer.

ANGLE: That’s right, and it’s the first time I ever heard the question. So, when they ask me about unemployment and I said, spoiled citizenry, I want to say I’m really sorry for that remark and I want to say, that I shouldn’t have said it that way. I could have chosen better words.

MANDERS: When we come back though…

ANGLE: But, I want now, since I’ve set that bar, that I’m willing to apologize when I’m wrong, Harry Reid needs to apologize to everyone of our soldiers for saying this war is lost.

MANDERS: It would take, it would take him to the end of time to apologize for the things that he’s apologized for.

“We’re showing the Iranian government that its actions have consequences,” said Obama at the signing last night. Around the time that Obama was signing the law though, Sen. Scott Brown claimed on a right-wing Massachusetts radio show that the president refused to follow through on holding the Iranian government accountable with sanctions:

CARR: What do you think of this guy who stepped forward from the Justice Department, who was basically forced out by Eric Holder, the current Attorney General. And he says that they won’t, they won’t go after the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia even though, I mean, they didn’t even respond to the charges against them. The DOJ as you know had already won this civil case against them. And he says it’s just — and again, he’s a former high-ranking Justice Department official. He says this is just a case of racial politics by Holder and Obama.

BROWN: Well any time you have people breaking the law or influencing elections or really doing things that are inappropriate, you know, there should be repercussions. And there needs to be consistency. That’s kind of the problem with, with what I’m saying. The fact that they’re not making decisions. And if they make a decision, they don’t stick by it. For example, with Iran. You know, “we’re going to have sanctions! If you guys don’t do this by this date, you’re in trouble!” Ok, the date comes we don’t do anything. You know, “we’re going to have more sanctions, if you don’t do this, you know, you’re going to be in trouble.” And so, you need to, you need to stick to your guns and make sure you follow through and that’s not happening.

Listen here:

This isn’t the first time that Brown has launched an attack on the administration without the facts at hand. In his first press conference as a U.S. senator earlier this year, Brown declared that the “stimulus bill didn’t create one new job” and “Massachusetts has not created one new job.” In the quarter before Brown made those comments, the stimulus was estimated to have saved or created nearly 600,000 jobs. Vice President Biden’s spokesman Jay Carney told Fox News that “the Recovery Act has saved or created 53,000 total jobs in Massachusetts.”

Using a whiteboard as a prop, Rove ticked off a series of dates to support his claim that the Obama administration has done “nothing to lay the groundwork” for immigration reform:

– “President Obama, from January to January of last year to this year, did nothing to lay the groundwork for this — no meetings, no visits, no discussion whatsoever.”

– “In fact, in January of this year, Greta, the president mentioned this in the State of the Union address. Out of 7,290 words, he devoted 38 to the issue of immigration reform.”

– “In fact, you know, he said nothing else about it until March 19th.”

– “Then on the 28th of April, after he gets health care reform passed and doesn’t need Luis Gutierrez’s vote any longer, he says, Well, you know what? I don’t think there’s any immediate appetite to take up the issue this year.”

– “But then he realizes by the 5th of May that this might be a good political issue, that while he can’t get the bill passed this year, he can begin to lay the predicate among Latinos that he is their friend and Republicans are their enemy. So on the 5th of May, he says, I want to begin work this year.”

“This is cynical and it is hypocritical and it’s political with an issue that ought to be treated sincerely, honestly and outside of politics as much as possible,” declared Rove. Watch it:

Rove’s claim that Obama had “no meetings, no visits, no discussion whatsoever” about immigration in 2009 is completely false. On June 25, 2009, Obama held a bipartisan meeting with members of Congress to discuss immigration. Rove’s claim that after this year’s State of the Union, Obama “said nothing else about immigration reform” until March 19 is also false. On March 11, Obama issued a statement after a meeting with Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on the issue, saying that his commitment to reform was “unwavering.”

It’s true that Obama did frustrate immigration advocates when he told reporters on April 28 that Congress may not have “an appetite immediately to dive into” reform. The next day, however, he declared that “we can no longer wait to fix our broken immigration system.”

There’s no doubt that reform advocates have been frustrated with the pace of the Obama administration’s efforts to push comprehensive immigration reform and would like to see more concrete action. But Rove has no standing to claim the administration isn’t treating the issue “honestly” when he outright lies about their record.

Instead, said Kline, the senior Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee, the Democrats have overreached, proposing “a much more expansive approach” than that needed to protect the nation’s miners.

“Republicans,” Kline said in an e-mail, “believe we need targeted steps to improve mine safety and prevent tragedies like the one that occurred at the Upper Big Branch mine in April of this year. That means improving the mine safety laws on the books and demanding stronger enforcement by the federal agency charged with protecting miners.”

The Democrats’ proposal, Kline added, “takes a much more expansive approach, reshaping workplace safety policies that have nothing to do with protecting miners working underground.”

In particular, Kline is against “adding whistle-blower protections to the Occupational Safety and Health Act that apply to all workplaces.” The reason the legislation wants to address other workplaces is because “mines are not our nation’s only dangerous workplaces,” according to a Democratic summary of the proposal. “All workers deserve to come home safe after work each day.”

In an interview on Scott Hennen’s radio show today, Bachmann claimed that the purpose of the G-20 was to “bind together the world’s economies.” Neglecting the already interconnected nature of the global economy, Bachman declared that “President Obama is trying to bind the United States into a global economy”:

BACHMANN: What really concerned me was Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said that we don’t want to see one country’s economy doing better than another. What? This is the U.S. Treasury Secretary? We don’t want to see Zimbabwe’s economy do better than the United States? Aren’t we supposed to be about the United States and making sure that our economy can be the greatest in the world. If you look at the G20, what they’re trying to do is bind together the world’s economies. Look how that played out in the European Union when they bound all of those nations economies together and one of the smallest economies, Greece, when they got into trouble, that one little nation is bringing down the entire EU. Well, President Obama is trying to bind the United States into a global economy where all of our nations come together in a global economy. I don’t want the United States to be in a global economy where, where our economic future is bound to that of Zimbabwe. I can’t, we can’t necessarily trust the decisions that are being made financially in other countries.

“So I think clearly this is a very bad direction because when you join the economic policy of different nations, it is one short step to joining political unity and then you would have literally, a one world government,” said Bachmann. “I don’t want to cede United States authority to a transnational organization.” Listen here:

Matt Yglesias notes that “the existence of a global economy in which events outside our borders impact us is not something Barack Obama dreamed up, and the idea that having world leaders gather for occasional meetings constitutes a ‘one world government’ is insane.”

But it’s not new for Bachmann to dream up nightmarish scenarios about the U.S. ceding its economic sovereignty. Around the time of the 2009 G-20 Summit, she peddled a false conspiracy theory that the world was moving toward a unified global currency. “This is not Michele Bachmann being a kook,” declared the Minnesota congresswoman. It was and is.

Transcript:

HENNEN: What did you make of the G20 Summit this weekend in Toronto, in which President Obama says he’s going to call your bluff, Congresswoman Bachmann, about all this talk of, you know, deficits, because he’s going to cut the deficit in 2013. This after sending a letter in advance saying, whoah, be careful now with all this talk of reducing the deficit because we can’t stop this spending too quick or we’ll be in trouble there. What did you think of that?

BACHMANN: What really concerned me was Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said that we don’t want to see one country’s economy doing better than another. What? This is the U.S. Treasury Secretary? We don’t want to see Zimbabwe’s economy do better than the United States? Aren’t we supposed to be about the United States and making sure that our economy can be the greatest in the world. If you look at the G20, what they’re trying to do is bind together the world’s economies. Look how that played out in the European Union when they bound all of those nations economies together and one of the smallest economies, Greece, when they got into trouble, that one little nation is bringing down the entire EU. Well, President Obama is trying to bind the United States into a global economy where all of our nations come together in a global economy. I don’t want the United States to be in a global economy where, where our economic future is bound to that of Zimbabwe. I can’t, we can’t necessarily trust the decisions that are being made financially in other countries. I don’t like the decisions that are being made in our own country, but certainly I don’t want to trust the value of my currency and my future to that of like a Chavez down in Venezuela. So I think clearly this is a very bad direction because when you join the economic policy of different nations, it is one short step to joining political unity and then you would have literally, a one world government. That’s not going to be, I think, helpful in the future for our country and I don’t want to cede United States authority to a transnational organization.

Last night, at the Oil Palace in East Texas, Palin invoked the mantra again, saying, “I chant, ‘drill, baby, drill,’ because it will help make the country energy independent.” NBC affiliate KETK in Tyler, Texas aired an extended excerpt of Palin’s speech this morning, including her claim that if America doesn’t “drill, baby, drill,” soon we’re “going to be bowing” to “the foreign countries” that “drill for us”:

PALIN: When I was governor, I had to file an amicus brief against Exxon, in favor of the plaintiffs to get Exxon to finally pay up what they owed Alaskan victims. And thousands of Alaskans in those 20 years, the fishermen, they died. A whole other generation now that finally received some compensation. So, how dare BP put the Gulf victims through such a thing. We have to make sure that BP will not do this. Will not do what Exxon did to Alaskans all those years ago. But see, we’ve learned a lot since then.

We’ve also learned more about government’s proper role and not violating the separation of powers, which I think Obama is kind of flirting with also, some government overreach. We are a rule of laws, not a rule of presidential fiats that I think President Obama would rather have sometimes, it seems. So, anyone who wants to chastise anyone for believing in ‘drill, baby, drill,’ should keep this in mind. I first said those three little words when I was running for the number two job in our country and if I had won, my duty in the White House would have been to help our country towards becoming more energy independent because I understand why we need to be.

Watch it:

Palin is trying to have it both ways when she correctly says “we have to make sure that BP” will “pay up what they owe” to victims of the oil spill, but then asserts that President Obama is “kind of flirting with also, some government overreach.” Earlier this month, Obama got BP to agree to set up a $20 billion escrow fund that “will provide substantial assurance that the claims people and businesses have will be honored” by BP. Though Palin claims she to want guarantee that BP compensates victims, she recently bashed the escrow fund as “an unconstitutional power grab.” In her tweet attacking the fund, Palin encouraged her followers to read a column by Thomas Sowell that compares Obama to Hitler for setting up the fund.

Mr. Huckabee has gotten bad information about my work and has completely turned its meaning upside down, imputing to me a position (that gays and lesbians are disgusting) that I criticize as childish and morally deficient.

He owes me a public apology.

Beck denies the claim and says he plans to “salute Dr. King and the civil rights movement” at the rally. But Beck seriously hurt his civil rights credibility on his Fox News show yesterday when he used a quote from a 1966 speech by former Eisenhower Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson to justify his claims that communists are infesting America:

BENSON: “You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright; but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you’ll finally wake up and find that you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you; we’ll so weaken your economy, until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands.”

BECK: Are we here? We were warned that the communists were not going to go away. They were just getting started. Ezra Taft Benson knew that serious threat. He saw it first hand. He knew communists were in the government. He knew they were in the government.

Beck then went on to favorably cite disgraced Sen. Joseph McCarthy and his claim to have in his “possession the names of 57 communists who are in the State Department.” Watch it:

Who is Ezra Taft Benson? He’s a former Mormon Church apostle who, according to his AP obituary, was “closely identified with the John Birch Society” and “once told a reporter he could not see how a person could be both a liberal and a good Mormon.” He also once called the civil rights movement “a communist program for revolution in America.” [Associated Press, 5/31/1994] Benson also authored a pamphlet titled “Civil Rights — Tool of Communist Deception” and reportedly referred to Martin Luther King Jr. as the “Communist leader of the so-called civil rights movement.”

This isn’t the first time Beck has invoked this Benson quote about communism. Beck biographer Alexander Zaitchick writes:

On the morning of October 31, 2008, Beck played for his radio audience a scratchy recording from the 1960s. He set up the clip by identifying the voice on the tape belonging to Dwight Eisenhower’s secretary of agriculture, Ezra Taft Benson. While serving in that position, Beck explained, Benson had met with Nikita Khruschchev during one of the Soviet premier’s visits to the United States. In that meeting, Benson claimed to have gained valuable insight into the global communist conspiracy. Three days before the election, Beck was eager to share Benson’s insight with his audience. “Listen carefully,” said Beck. The voice on the tape began to speak:

I have talked face-to-face with the godless communist leaders, though I still feel it was a mistake to welcome this atheistic murderer as a state visitor. As we talked face-to-face, [Khruschchev] said to me, “You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright. But we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you wake up and find you already have communism. We don’t have to fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands.”

Beck stopped the tape there and asked, “Is that where we’re headed?” He quickly answered his own question. “I contend we’re already there, gang.” In fact, Beck had proof that we were already there. He then played an audio clip of a giddy African American woman who had just left a Barack Obama campaign speech.

“It was the most memorable time of my life,” she says. “It was a touching moment. I won’t have to worry about gas or mortgage. If I help him, he’s gonna help me.

In these words, Beck heard the fulfillment of Khruschchev’s threat, as relayed by the grandfatherly seer, Ezra Taft Benson. “I never thought this day would happen,” said Beck, as if extraterrestrials had just landed a spaceship in Central Park.

Beck’s decision to feature Benson on his show was a revealing one. As Beck knew quite well, Benson was not just a member of Eisenhower’s cabinet. He was a notoriously illiberal Mormon Church president who helped pioneer Mormonism’s apocalyptic hard-right strain, which Beck latched on to and appropriated following his conversion. Had Beck allowed the tape of Benson’s lecture to continue, it is possible that listeners would have heard Benson ask, “When are we going to wake up? What do you know about the dangerous civil rights agitation in Mississippi?” Or they might have heard the sound of Benson’s voice railing against “traitors within the church” who criticized the mixing of religion and extreme right-wing politics.

In an interview with the blog Scholars and Rogues, Zaitchik noted that “Benson actually wrote the forward to a Mormon-authored book of race hate called Black Hammer: A Study of Black Power, Red Influence, and White Alternatives, which had on its cover the bloody, severed head of an African-American.”

BASH: Do you see yourself doing anything to change the 2011 deadline to begin troop withdrawal?

PETRAEUS: No, as I said, I support the President’s policy and I will also provide my best professional military advice as we conduct assessments.

A Graham spokesman said attacks against the senator’s efforts are old hat.

“In spite of sustained criticism by environmental groups, Senator Graham remains steadfast in his belief that real America supports meaningful energy independence policy paired with good clean air policy,” said spokesman Kevin Bishop. “Whether it’s his support for the expansion of nuclear energy, domestic oil drilling, or pre-empting the EPA from issuing regulations on carbon emissions, we’re used to taking their slings and arrows.”

Bishop’s response reflects Sarah Palin’s divisive claim during the 2008 election that she represented “real America.” It’s ironic that in the same statement, Bishop touted Graham’s support for expanding nuclear energy and domestic oil drilling, considering that recent polls show support for both falling. Unless Graham and Bishop consider the majority of Americans to not be part of “real America,” it is Graham who is out-of-the-mainstream when he questions global warming and walks away from solving the problem.

On CNN last night, John King asked Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) if Rush was right or if the House GOP leadership was right. Coburn refused to take a definitive position, though he faintly argued that the White House didn’t engage in “fair negotiations”:

KING: Rush right or is the Republican leadership in the House right?

COBURN: Oh, I don’t know. I think it’s the cynicism of our politics today. Nobody in either party wants to be vulnerable on any issue and where’s the real leadership? You know what we lack is where is the clarity of purpose. Nobody disagrees that BP is going to be held accountable. The question is how and when and that’s a small matter right now in terms of the problem that we have.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Do you have any problem with the White House negotiating this deal?

COBURN: Well I’m not sure it’s fair negotiations because you’re dealing with one very strong party and one very weak party in terms of public relations. But you know basically holding them accountable is where we want to be and this is one way of doing it.

Watch it:

It’s not surprising that Coburn would decline an opportunity to disagree with Limbaugh, since most Republicans are loathe to cross the right-wing talker. In early 2009, RNC Chairman Michael Steele called Limbaugh’s shtick “incendiary” and “ugly,” but then quickly recanted, calling Limbaugh a “very valuable conservative voice for our party.” Other conservative leaders, like Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS), Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA), and South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford have bowed before Rush after expressing public criticism of the hate radio host.

8 News NOW reporter Nathan Baca tried to get Angle to explain what she means when she says on her website that Social Security should be “transitioned out.” Angle accused him of believing “the Harry Reid lie,” but eventually admitted that she meant she wants private accounts, which she called “personalized Social Security accounts”:

“Why do you want to eliminate (Social Security) for younger folks, because your plan calls for transitioning out,” Baca asked.

“You believe the Harry Reid lie,” Angle replied.

When asked to define “transitioning out”, Angle said, “Transition into a personalized account… personalized Social Security accounts that they can’t raid.”

The stock market, Baca countered, almost crashed in 2008, meaning millions of seniors would have had their savings accounts wiped out.

Angle replied, “Now, you’re putting words into my mouth from Harry Reid. I want you to be very clear on this. I’m here to save Social Security… Harry Reid is here to bankrupt Social Security.”

Baca eventually followed her as she exited the event, attempting to get her to explain what she meant by “Second Amendment remedies” rising from voter anger at Congress. Angle refused to comment and her spokesperson eventually blocked Baca from asking any more questions, calling him “‘an idiot’ and another term that can’t be repeated” in the process. Watch 8 News NOW’s report and footage of Baca being called an “idiot”:

Jon Ralston, the dean of Nevada’s political press who had ripped Fox News’ softball treatment of Angle, mockingly tweeted about the Angle’s confrontation with Baca using the hash tags #notFOXNEWS and #welcomehome. (HT: Ben Smith)

Rep. Jeff Miller (R-Fla.), whose Pensacola district is among the most-impacted areas in the Gulf by the oil spill, condemned Barton for apologizing to BP CEO Tony Hayward during a committee meeting on Thursday.

“I condemn Mr. Barton’s statement. Mr. Barton’s remarks are out of touch with this tragedy and I feel his comments call into question his judgment and ability to serve in a leadership on the Energy and Commerce Committee,” Miller said in a statement. “He should step down as Ranking Member of the Committee.”

HEMMER: Would you call it a shakedown? $20 billion?

BOEHNER: I have said since the beginning that BP ought to be responsible for all of this clean up. And the fact is that they’ve agreed to put this $20 billion in escrow. I don’t know what context Mr. Barton was making that remark, but I’m glad that BP has accepted responsibility for their actions.

Watch it:

Boehner’s comment that he’s “glad that BP has accepted responsibility” by putting money in the fund puts him at odds with more members of his conference than just Barton. Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), the chairman of the Republican Study Committee, issued a statement yesterday calling BP’s agreement to the fund a “Chicago-style political shakedown.” Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) called the escrow fund “a redistribution-of-wealth fund.”

Republicans, who heard Angle’s presentation were, to a letter, impressed. “She said she won, she needed money, and wanted to be a part of the team and was glad to be here today,” said Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-GA, who said Ensign also showed a recent Rasmussen poll showing Angle up 11 points against Reid. “She did a good job. She’s an articulate lady…This was an introduction. It wasn’t the kind of speech you would give to the unwashed back home, she was talking to her colleagues,” Isakson recounted.

According to the dictionary, referring to the masses as “unwashed” is “derogatory.” Wiktionary says it refers to “The collective group (‘mass’) of people who are considered by someone to be somehow uneducated, uninformed, or in some other way unqualified for inclusion in the speaker’s elite circles.”

But Obama’s seeming concession to Alexander’s position hasn’t appeased him. On MSNBC this morning, Chuck Todd noted that “it looked as if the president did take your advice. He did not make a push for pricing carbon, pollution, cap-and-trade, whatever you want to refer to it as in his speech last night.” Asked if that made him “happy,” Alexander, replied, “No”:

TODD: Did that make you happy?

ALEXANDER: No. He took part of my advice. Actually, he did, he referred to the climate bill. It’s hard — he never referred to much, to tell you the truth, Chuck. What I hoped he would do is to say he wanted a mini-Manhattan project for clean energy and focus on the things we agree on. Electric cars, nuclear plants, energy research and development. He could have done that.

GUTHRIE: How, wait, how is what he said inconsistent with that?

ALEXANDER: Well, he didn’t say that. I mean, president’s only have this opportunity every several years. I mean, President Reagan did it on the Challenger. President Bush on 9/11. This was a chance for the president to say this is the way we’re going to go.

Todd pointed out that “it did seem as if in the speech that he was trying to leave a lot of room for negotiation, that he took out any language that might have set some folks off.” Asked if that was helpful, Alexander said, “maybe so,” before criticizing Obama for “mentioning windmills and solar panels twice,” which he says “has nothing to do with reducing our dependence on foreign oil.” Watch it:

When Alexander introduced his proposal for an energy policy response to the Gulf oil crisis in a Wall Street Journal op-ed last week, the New Republic’s Jonathan Chait noted that Alexander’s clean energy vision was “a lot like the Republican health care vision: let’s do all the popular stuff and none of the unpopular stuff it requires.”

Obama’s inability to persuade his Republican critics despite making concessions recalls the Republican tactics during the health care debate. When Democrats tried to forge a compromise on the public option by proposing co-ops, Republicans simply balked and claimed it was “another way of saying a government plan.” Early in the health care debate, Obama put medical malpractice reform — a GOP-favored item — on the negotiating table, asking what Republicans had to offer in return. They replied that they weren’t willing to make any concessions.

Proving that his “inventory” has not resulted in rhetorical moderation, Beck accused President Obama of being a racist again yesterday. On both his radio show and his Fox News show, Beck used an abbreviated clip of an interview Obama gave in 1995 to suggest that the reason the president had not yet spoken directly to BP CEO Tony Hayward was because he’s a “white CEO.” On his Fox Show last night:

BECK: What is it that Barack Obama knows that he won’t even bother to meet with the guy to hear him out? Well, until, you know, he changed his mind a couple of days later.

What is it that the dictator of Iran, the crazy guy in Iran has in the credibility department that the CEO of BP doesn’t have? What is it? Tell me. I’d like to know.

Does the fact that BP CEO is a capitalist, is that — is that what does it? You know, when I meet with the capitalists — he’s a white CEO. Maybe that’s it! He’s a white CEO.

White CEOs — I don’t know if you know this — but white CEOs, they don’t like — they don’t want to pay their tax dollars and have the tax dollars go to inner city kids.

To support this assertion, Beck than played this clip of Obama:

OBAMA: And I really want to team size the word “responsibility.” I think that whether you are a white executive living out in the suburbs who doesn’t want to pay taxes to inner city children for them to go to school…

Beck added that Obama’s comment “sounds awful lot like profiling.” “May I just go out on a limb here and say, it’s almost like the president has made up his mind on this guy — and anyone like him,” said Beck. To drive his argument home, Beck then played Obama’s comments that “the Cambridge police acted stupidly” when they arrested black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates at his own home, the very incident that prompted Beck to first accuse Obama of harboring “a deep-seated hatred for white people.” Watch it:

In the midst of his accusation that Obama is a racist, Beck “raised another comparison — bashing people without any of the facts.” “See, that’s what we get in trouble for, we get accused of. But we have all the facts. I just used their words,” said Beck. But Beck didn’t provide his audience with “all the facts.” In fact, as both Mediaite and Media Matters note, Beck clipped Obama’s 1995 comments, cutting out crucial context:

I think that whether you are a white executive living out in the suburbs, who doesn’t want to pay taxes to inner-city children for them to go to school, or you’re an inner-city child who doesn’t want to take responsibility for keeping your street safe and clean, both of those groups have to take some responsibility if we’re going to get beyond the kinds of divisions that we face right now.

Beck said he was going “out on a limb” to say Obama stereotypes “white CEOs.” As Mediaite writes, “Suffice to say, it’s a long, long, long, long, tenuous limb. One might even suspect it’s an Overton Window.”