My Voting Strategy – Just Say No To Derangement

November 2, 2008
A Rabid Obama Supporter

A Rabid Obama Supporter

Riverdaughter asked us to all to come up with a single word to describe why we are voting the way we are on Tuesday.  That’s really a tough assignment because there are lots of words to choose from.  I considered “principles,” “honesty,” “integrity,” “ethics,” “experience” and “shame” because those are all things Barack Obama lacks.

I thought about using “liar,” “fake,” “phony,” or “unscrupulous” because those are all things that Obama is.  I was going to use “hubris” because that is Obama’s favorite sin, but then I saw this and realized that my word had to be “derangement.”

Obama’s strategy in the primary campaign against Hillary was to take advantage of and fan the flames of Clinton Derangement Syndrome.  Unhinged misogyny was the major component of CDS, but it went beyond that into other areas as well.  From the obsession with Hillary’s voice, ankles and cleavage to her alleged tears (or lack thereof) the media and Obama supporters became the He Man Woman Haters Club.

But they also bought into and pimped every noxious rumor and allegation that came along.  Racism, Tuzla, kneecapping and RFK were only the more prominent fables being spread by Obamanation.  They also recycled old right-wing memes from the nineties.  Even worse, they launched unhinged attacks on Hillary’s supporters too.

But the derangement didn’t end with Hillary’s candidacy, it metastisized and mutated into Palin Derangement Syndrome.  While there are reasons to oppose Sarah Palin, the attacks on her have been truly bizarre.  Sadly, many of these attacks have come from alleged feminists.

Now some people might say that it is unfair to blame Obama for what his supporters say and do.  I disagree.  First of all, Obama has never done more than tepidly denounce the attacks on Hillary and Sarah.  Secondly, while publically pretending to oppose or be unaware of the attacks, the Obama campaign has pushed them in the media and through the blogosphere.  Lastly, even if Obama were wholly innocent his supporters scare the bejeezus out of me.

It’s not enough to say I cannot support Obama, I believe he must be defeated.  I cannot in good faith advocate the defeat of Obama and then expect someone else to do the dirty work.  Voting for a third-party or NOT (nothing on top) voting would be a cop-out.  When I was young and dumb and full of shit I voted for Ronald Reagan, but for over two decades I have been a yellow-dog Democrat.  I thought I would never vote for a Republican again.

This year I will just say no to derangement and cast my vote for McCain/Palin.

Advertisements

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?


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.


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?


Our long national nightmare isn’t over

October 21, 2008

Election day is two weeks from today, but we already lost.

Seriously, no matter who wins on November 4th, we lost.  We lost this election a long time ago, somewhere between the time when the media decided they wanted Barack Obama to be the next President and when the DNC stole the nomination from Hillary and gave it to an empty suit.  We lost, Hillary lost, the nation lost.

All that is left for us is a choice between bad and worse, but that’s a distinction that Lazarus Long said is far more critical than the one between good and better.  I have no illusions about John McCain.  He will be a bad choice, and the best we can expect is that he will be a mediocre President during a time of crisis.

But Barack Obama is worse.  He is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, with an empty resume and the worst traits of George W. Bush.  His election will be a setback for liberal politics and a disaster for the Democratic party.  He will cause Democrats to lose seats in Congress (and possibly control of the Senate) in 2010 and will allow the GOP to retake the White House in 2012.  We can expect four years of gridlock, scandals, right-of-center policies, ineffective crisis management and a failed Presidency.

Either candidate will in all likelihood be a one-term President.  If McCain wins then Hillary will be well positioned to defeat him in 2012.  But if Obama wins no Democrat will be permitted to challenge him for the nomination when he runs for reelection, thus pretty much ending Hillary’s chances of ever becoming President.

It’s gonna be a long four years either way.  But then nobody said it would be easy.


Pesky Facts vs. Preferred Narratives

October 17, 2008

For over a week we have been hearing how McPalin rallies resemble lynch mobs screaming for the blood of Teh Precious.  Even His Excellency Paul Krugman said it:

Something very ugly is taking shape on the political scene: as McCain’s chances fade, the crowds at his rallies are, by all accounts, increasingly gripped by insane rage.

There’s one small problem with this media narrative:  IT’S NOT TRUE:

The agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton said allegations that someone yelled “kill him” when presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s name was mentioned during Tuesday’s Sarah Palin rally are unfounded.

Our friend gqmartinez put up a post at Corrente pointing out that these allegations are unfounded, and the reaction of the resident Obama supporters there is both revealing and disturbing:

Younger people, such as you, know of the JFK and MLK and RFK assassinations in the abstract, as things out of history, events that happened in another time and place of which you have only anecdotal knowledge and no visceral sense of context. Some of us writing here, including Sarah and myself, are old enough to have actually lived through them. We know, not just have heard about it but actually know, what those time sounded like and how it felt, the hatred and the fear and the violence and the sorrow.

Condescend much?  By the way, Robert Kennedy was killed by a Middle-Eastern immigrant who was angry over Kennedy’s support for Israel, not by a conservative Republican upset about the economy.

The point I’m trying to make is the SS found “no evidence” regarding the Scranton incident, only. That single data point got strewn all over the media echo chamber as refutation for ALL the incidents, and I find that suspect.

Except that “single data point” was the basis for all the original stories.  As Lambert quite rightly points out, the number of stories means nothing if they are all derived from the same source.

While most Correntians agreed with gqmartinez, the reaction of the Obama supporters at Corrente is typical of those who slurp the Kool-aid.  They engage in rationlization rather than rational thought:

. . . but there are multiple videos available of crowds chanting, and there is video available of the crowd booing McCain when he asked them to respect Obama.

I guess to the Sippy-Kup Kidz booing Obama is the same as shouting “Kill him.”  Of course Obama supporters think that “fairy tale” is racist and calling him “arrogant” or “presumptuous” is just another way of saying he is “uppity.”

Although it was off-topic, I was totally blown away by this comment in the thread at Corrente:

The phrase “taken into a room and only one of them comes out” is coarse and crude indeed but it is used all the time in regard to men and no one bats an eye. It certainly doesn’t mean “kill” in any way. In the macho mind the use with Hillary was an expression of equality – I know, but they’re weird in many ways – and could be seen as a sign of progress.

Welcome to Topsy-Turvyland!  As a man who watches sports and violent movies, I’ve never heard that phrase used in a nice way before.  The original and most often used version is “Two men enter, one man leaves” which comes from “Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome” and it refers to a deathmatch between two people. 

Lambert’s response was more succinct: “Denialism.”

UPDATE

The reality:

 . . . here is a real district attorney’s complaint documenting an unprovoked assault by an enraged Democrat against a McCain volunteer in midtown Manhattan: “Defendant grabbed the sign [informant] was holding, broke the wood stick that was attached to it, and then struck informant in informant’s face thereby causing informant to sustain redness, swelling, and bruising to informant’s face and further causing informant to sustain substantial pain.”


Shirts vs Skins

September 30, 2008

Ever since Barry and Donna kicked me out of the party that has been my home for over 20 years, I’ve noticed a distinct change in the way I feel about both parties.  I also find myself mystified as to how otherwise sane and intelligent bloggers can turn into uncritical partisan cheerleaders like these three stooges did.  Perhaps this article by Shankar Vedantam explains why:

“Party identification is part of your social identity, in the same way you relate to your religion or ethnic group or baseball team,” said Gary C. Jacobson, a political scientist at the University of California at San Diego. This explains why, on a range of issues, partisans invariably feel their side can do nothing wrong and the other side can do nothing right. By contrast, moderates don’t feel there is a yawning divide on issues because they don’t identify with one party or another. Moderates, in other words, are like people who are uninterested in sports and roll their eyes when fans of opposing teams hurl abuse at each other.

I am not a moderate, I am a flaming liberal, but I still don’t feel there is a “yawning divide on issues” between the Democrats and the GOP.  In fact, I see no difference at all between the two parties when it comes to corruption, but I do see a clear difference between the two candidates.

Barack Obama is far more corrupt than John McCain.