Got your riot gear ready?

October 29, 2008

Get your pitchforks and torches ready, and a list of the stores you plan to loot, cuz according to Obamanation all hell breaks loose on November 4th and 5th.  That is, of course, assuming that the racists in the country steal the election that Teh Precious has already won.

Seriously, that is the message we are hearing.  It’s an amped up version of what Donna Brazile and other Obama supporters said would happen in Denver if Hillary “stole” the nomination from Teleprompter Jesus.  Obamanation’s rebels without a clue don’t really plan to riot, it’s just part of the pre-election haka, designed to convince us that Obama is the inevitable winner.

But over at Corrente, Chicago Dyke poses this question:

For the sake of argument, let’s say Obama wins, very clearly and obviously in your own mind. And let’s say that somehow, insert your own 2000 redux here, “they” (try to) take it away from him, via Brooks Brothers riots and SCOTUS foolishness and other sundry undemocratic methods. What is your response, if any? And why? How would it be different than if HRC had had it stolen from her? Or the candidate of Your Choice?

I don’t think McSpain has the ground game to steal it this time; I also don’t think Wall St/Telco Ave money wants Obama to lose. So honestly I’m not so worried about it. I think we’ll get a “democratic” prezint next Jan. But let’s say the paranoid, insane racist members of the Franchise refuse to give up power, and pull out all the tricks, and declare at 3am Nov 5 that “McCain Wins!” What do you do?

Although she slides in the mention of Hillary and “candidate of Your Choice” along with some other qualifiers and disclaimers, the framing of the question is premised on the idea that if the election is stolen, it will be stolen by McCain and the GOP.  Now I’m not trying to pick on CD or anyone at Corrente, but I think a very important question needs to be asked:

Assuming for the sake of argument that you are convinced the election was stolen from the rightful winner, does your reaction depend on which side did the stealing?

Just a note for our GOP friends

October 28, 2008

We have been seeing quite a bit of you lately.  Some of you are visiting here, some of us are visiting over there.  We have formed an informal strategic alliance to defeat Barack Obama.  But make no mistake, we are not Republicans nor do we  wish to join your party.  As our blogmother said yesterday:

And to all of you Republican readers out there, I just have one question:  what are you doing here?!  I mean, seriously, we are Democrats.  Some of us are Liberals.  We believe in the common good and progressive taxation and supporting unions and that kind of stuff.  (Stop flinching)  I think it’s fascinating that we are suddenly cool to you guys, like some kind of exotic species.  Maybe you like to run with a dangerous crowd.  Take a walk on the wild side.  But let’s be honest, we’re just not into being Republican.  If some of us vote for McCain, it’s only because he’s more honorable than Obama and didn’t screw half of his party out of their votes.

Please spare us the right-wing talking points.  if you want to talk strategy, that’s fine.  But don’t start talking about policy, because we are liberals.  Let me repeat that: WE ARE LIBERALS!  After the election, let’s hold some online debates and discussions.  I’m all for that.

But there are only six days left until election day, and I’m down to my last nerve.  And when you start spewing Reagan/Bush bullshit, you’re getting on it.  You guys already have all the PUMA votes you can get.  But if you keep insisting that Barack Obama is really a socialist, I may vote for him in spite of everything. 

Are we clear?

It’s McCain’s fault that Obama avoids the press!

October 27, 2008

Some news stories make you go “WTF?”  Jake Tapper wrote one yesterday:

On Oct. 24, 2007, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said that as president he would hold regular press conferences and “not just call on my four favorite reporters.”

But the Democratic presidential nominee hasn’t held a full press conference — submitting himself to more than a handful of questions from his whole press corps — in more than a month, since Sept. 24, 2008, in Clearwater, Fla.

The candidate often bemoans the media asking silly and superficial questions. The media isn’t focused on the important issues facing the nation, he complains.

On Saturday in Nevada, Obama sat for an exclusive interview with Mario Lopez, the actor who played “A.C. Slater” on “Saved by the Bell,” to air on the TV show “EXTRA!”

According to the promotional materials from “EXTRA!,” “Asked about the tragic news that (actress Jennifer) Hudson’s mother and brother were killed Friday in Chicago, Obama states, ‘Oh it was heartbreaking, in fact I’m still trying to get a phone number to call her at this tragic time. She is somebody who has campaigned for me, she also lives in my community. So, we’re really going to have to help her and pray for her and her family during this difficult time.'”

So far, so good.  This is the kind of reporting we need more of, exposing the hypocrisy and bullshit of politicians.  But while it’s unusual to see a story like this about Teleprompter Jesus, that’s not the Whiskey Tango Alpha part:

One of the problems his press corps has in gaining access to the frontrunner is the fact that Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., whose life used to be a roving press availability, has cordoned himself off from the media except in drips and drabs.

Earlier this year, many in the media thought McCain’s reputation for access and openness would force Obama to follow suit; instead the opposite dynamic has played out as Obama’s campaign justifies Obama’s refusal to take questions by pointing to his far less accessible rival.

Gee Jake, remember when Teh Precious whined “Can’t I just eat my waffle?”  Who was he running against back then?  When has Uh-bama ever held an extended press conference?  He can’t handle more than eight questions without whining and running off.

Do you really think that McCain is responsible for what Obama does, or is it just a requirement that every story be biased against McCain?

Don’t believe everything you read

October 26, 2008


     I saw a link to a post at Taylor Marsh and some intuition made me click on it.  The post concerned a letter from someone claiming to be a former PUMA:

Dear Taylor, I wanted to write to you and apologize for things I’ve thought and said in the past after our primary elections were over. I admit, I was very very mad at you for not going along with what I know believe was a staged GOP chaos operation. I don’t feel good about myself or my actions being involved in a group that was nothing but full of lies and hate and looked at people like me as disposable if I no longer went along with their agenda. I feel disgusted, sad and just icky. If I could take the last few months back, I would. I am saddened and ashamed of my actions and behavior. I want to say I am deeply sorry for things I’ve either posted here out of anger or elsewhere. I wrote the following as a way I hope I can roughly explain my horrible experience with the so called PUMA group. Take care.

The last couple months I started to get the feeling these were not even Hillary supporters, much less Democrats. I found them parroting Rush talking points, posting articles from Free Republic and even throwing Hillary Clinton under the bus. I’ll never forget one thread where Hillary was fundraising for Obama. Two supposedly Hillary P.U.M.A. said she looked haggard and unattractive. I began to see the months I spent fighting misogyny along side people I thought were on my side be wasted and flushed down the drain. They also continued to insinuate Hillary was a weak woman and being controlled by Obama, that she doesn’t really support him, only doing what she is told to do. …

… Over the last couple months I noticed my favorite Hillary board begin to change. Republicans were made moderators and the new members vs old members was 2:1….

… I had posts deleted for pointing out Sarah Palin supported giving $150 per severed wolf paw in Alaska that was killed from an aerial plane. I had posts deleted that said trickle down economics doesn’t work. I had posts deleted that showed McCain favors giving tax cuts to the wealthy while Obamawants to give a break to the poor and middle class. I was told by Hillary supporters that McCain has a better tax plan AND healthcare plan than Obama. When I said no and pointed out reasons guessed post was deleted. Right there was my proof these were never Hillary supporters. …

I would like to thank the P.U.M.A.s for making me wake up before it was too late. … … …

(emphasis added)

I’m assuming that the ellipsis marks [. . .] were placed there by Ms. Marsh to indicate missing text.  Now Taylor supported Hillary during the primaries but promised that she would support Obama if he became the official nominee.  I’m not going to criticize her for keeping that promise, even though I chose a different path.

But when I saw that letter I recognized it from a post I saw while wading through some sewage early this morning:

Read the rest of this entry »

Would You Buy A Used Car From This Man?

October 26, 2008

Democrats For Principle Before Party is running this ad.

You can help – donate at Tom In Paine

How low can they go?

October 24, 2008

As noted in the previous post, the young woman in Pittsburgh lied to the police about being attacked.  That story is disgusting, but this is worse:

Earlier today, John Moody, executive vice president at Fox News, commented on his blog there that “this incident could become a watershed event in the 11 days before the election. If Ms. Todd’s allegations are proven accurate, some voters may revisit their support for Senator Obama, not because they are racists (with due respect to Rep. John Murtha), but because they suddenly feel they do not know enough about the Democratic nominee.

“If the incident turns out to be a hoax, Senator McCain’s quest for the presidency is over, forever linked to race-baiting.”

(emphasis added)

Let’s see, 20 year-old female McCain volunteer tells police she was attacked because of the “McCain” sticker on her car.  Initial reports treated the story as true, the McCain campaign expressed sympathy, some people on both sides expressed skepticism.  Others who believed the young woman felt that the very real misogyny emanating from Obamanation was to blame, but no one I saw proclaimed that Obama’s “quest for the presidency was over.”

Today the young woman recants, and admits she lied.  Her motive for lying has not been reported, but she is obviously disturbed.

Media conclusion:  It’s all McCain’s fault.

Of course Teleprompter Jesus isn’t even responsible by the media for the things he himself does and says, let alone what one isolated supporter does.

It turns out her pants were on fire

October 24, 2008

Those of us who gave her the benefit of the doubt can officially feel foolish:

At a news conference this afternoon, offiicals said they believe that Ashley Todd’s injuries were self-inflicted.  

Todd, 20, of Texas, is now facing charges for filing a false report to police.

Todd initially told police that she was robbed at an ATM in Bloomfield and that the suspect became enraged and started beating her after seeing her GOP sticker on her car.

Police investigating the alleged attack, however, began to notice some inconsistencies in her story and administered a polygraph test.

Authorities, however, declined to release the results of that test.

Investigators did say that they received photos from the ATM machine and “the photographs were verified as not being the victim making the transaction.”

This afternoon, a Pittsburgh police commander told KDKA Investigator Marty Griffin that Todd confessed to making up the story.

No explanation has been offered for why Ms. Pinocchio made her false report in the first place, but I’m sure all the real victims of misogynistic violence and intimidation are really grateful to have their credibility diminished by this young woman.  Stories like these provide “reasonable doubt” in the minds of juries.

I hope they throw the book at her.  I’m sure Obamanation is celebrating.

She doesn’t eat puppies either

October 23, 2008

From the Associated Press:

Sarah Palin is blaming gender bias for the controversy over $150,000 worth of designer clothes, hairstyling and accessories the Republican Party provided for her, a newspaper reported Thursday.

“I think Hillary Clinton was held to a different standard in her primary race,” Palin said in an interview with the Chicago Tribune posted on the newspaper’s Web site Thursday night. “Do you remember the conversations that took place about her, say superficial things that they don’t talk about with men, her wardrobe and her hairstyles, all of that? That’s a bit of that double standard.”

Palin, who is John McCain’s vice presidential running mate, said the clothes were not worth $150,000 and were bought for the Republican National Convention.

Most of the clothes have never left the campaign plane, she told the newspaper.

“It’s kind of painful to be criticized for something when all the facts are not out there and are not reported,” Palin said.

“That whole thing is just, bad!” she said. “Oh, if people only knew how frugal we are.”

News of the purchases of designer clothes, largely from upscale Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus, contrasts with the image Palin has crafted as a typical “hockey mom.”

McCain was asked several questions on Thursday about the shopping spree — and he answered each one more or less the same way: Palin needed clothes and they’ll be donated to charity.

“She needed clothes at the time. They’ll be donated at end of this campaign. They’ll be donated to charity,” McCain told reporters on his campaign bus between Florida rallies.

I waited eight years for this election, now I can’t wait for it to be over.

Religious Bigotry? Bringiton!

October 22, 2008

What else do you call this except religious bigotry?:

The Republicans are liars, remember? All the Pro-8 ads that have been running are filled with lies, thanks to the Mormon cash, and like Dominionists the Mormons by faith believe that it is perfectly acceptable to lie to achieve “God’s” ends.

I’m related to some Mormons.  Some Republicans too.  They are all good people, and unlike the person quoted above, there is no bigotry in their minds or hatred in their hearts.  Sadly, this isn’t the first time Corrente has permitted some truly deranged posts and comments.  And as I said before, the partisanship trap is intellectually lazy and bad for our nation. 

I would have left a response over at Corrente but Lambert kicked me out for making his blog look bad.  So much for the high ethical standards of PB 2.0 

Progressives used to have principles.  Liberals still do.

What if?

October 22, 2008

The incomparable Bob Somerby makes a very astute observation:

Why had Klein reinvented things so? We don’t have the slightest idea. But here’s a possible hint: In 2006, the presumptive Democratic nominee was a certain Hillary Rodham Clinton. And make no mistake: If Clinton had run against McCain this year, this campaign would have been covered quite differently by more than a few major “journalists.”

Oh you betcha!  Not that long ago John McCain not-so-jokingly referred to the media as his “base” and they universally portrayed him as a straight-talking maverick.  So when did they suddenly decide that McCain was old and evil?  It wasn’t until after they declared that Barack Uh-bama was the “presumptive” (presumptuous) nominee and Hillary was forced to suspend her campaign.  Then they turned on McCain like a bad dog. 

But what if somehow Hillary had managed to win the nomination?  After-all, she was the popular vote winner, and won all the big states except Illinois, as well as the critical swing-states.  The goofy DNC rules gave Obama a narrow lead in pledged delegates, primarily (pun intended) due to the way his campaign gamed (cheated) in the red state caucuses and the overwhelming (85-90%) support he received from African-American voters in southern (red state) primaries.  Neither Hillary nor Teh Precious won the nomination outright based on pledged delegates, it was decided by the superdelegates.  So what if the SD’s had voted for her instead of him?

One thing is for sure, the media would still be loving them some straight-talking St. Maverick.  He wouldn’t be old, evil, or racist.  Assuming he had still chosen Sarah Palin she would be considered a smart, reform-minded candidate who was uncorrupted by Washington D.C.  She would also be getting praised as something new and exciting, a conservative, christian feminist.

We would still be hearing a lot about racism though, because the media would be constantly talking about how African American voters would be staying home on election day to protest how Hillary had stolen the nomination with the help of racist superdelegates.  Even if Obama was her running mate, voting for McCain (or not voting) would be considered the only principled choice for progressive Democrats (not just AA voters) because the racism and corruption of the DNC could not be tolerated.

If Obama was not her running mate, he would not be out campaigning on Hillary’s behalf.  He would be praised for showing party loyalty by not launching a third-party campaign or (publically) criticizing Hillary, and would already be considered the Democratic front-runner for 2012.  Meanwhile he would continue to demonstrate his awesome post-partisan leadership skills in the Senate.

One other thing – the recent financial crisis would have been laid squarely at the feet of Bill Clinton, and it would be lamented that no one heeded the warnings given by both McCain and Senator Obama.

So, am I right or am I right?