Search Archives:

Custom Search
Showing posts with label Sarah Palin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sarah Palin. Show all posts

Monday, March 19, 2012

The Fox News Death Panel of Experts

Today I posted an image called "Fox News killed my mother." Because it did. It was the most widely circulated image I've ever posted. But, after about and hour I could no longer read any of the comments. Still can't. And some of you have messaged me to say you can't see it. So here it is again. This time, my explanation will be in the first comment instead of here. Basically my mother fell and refused to go to the doctor because she was afraid that "Obamacare" would get information about her and use it in their "death panels." Since then several of you shared identical experiences. This is how their fear mongering is killing our nation, one person at a time, one lie at a time.
-Tracy Knauss, Facebook

"FOX News is killing America one lie at a time, one life at a time. I know this personally," Knauss wrote in her comment. "FOX News killed my precious mother, Hallie. She watched FOX religiously. And when she fell ten days before she died, she refused to go to the doctor because, 'I don't want Obamacare to get all of my information!' she declared, recalling the warnings from FOX News 'anchors.' She was emphatic. She was not going to consort with the Muslim enemy. As she made out her will she told her lawyer, 'I don't want any of my money going to the Muslim Brotherhood!' And her last protestation dealt with 'Obama's death panels.' Mother died just days later. I hold FOX News responsible for my mother's death."

It seems the real death panel here is the panel of "experts" (otherwise known as "PR flacks") on any given Fox News program. This is the danger that not only Fox News presents, but the entire rightwing "news" industry and the Republican Party: when you lie to people about healthcare, bad things happen. It's really no different than being a snake-oil salesman -- except, for some reason, you aren't held responsible for the damage you cause.

But I'd go further here. Yes, Fox is the worst of the mainstream media -- followed by talk radio on the second tier and the wingnut blogosphere at the lowest -- but the supposedly "unbiased" media sources share a lot of the blame as well.

Monday, March 12, 2012

GOP on Gas Prices: 'Quick! Look Over There!'

Gas pumps
We've seen this movie before. Ahead of a big holiday that traditionally involves post-winter travel, gas prices begin to rise. They rise in the spring, ahead of Memorial Day and Easter. Then later, they'll raise again before the Fourth of July. We've been spared the worst of this lately, because of a poor economy. Gas prices need to respond to the economy and low demand means low prices. The price of a good or recovering economy is higher prices. It can't really be helped. And, of course, there's always the "genius of the free market" -- in the form of speculators -- artificially inflate the price of oil.

In our present circumstance, speculators are the biggest problem. Oil prices are actually falling -- and prices at the pump rise. If you ever needed any evidence that the price of gas is inflated, there you go.

Still, it's the president taking the beating here.

Washington Post:

Disapproval of President Obama’s handling of the economy is heading higher — alongside gasoline prices — as a record number of Americans now give the president “strongly” negative reviews on the 2012 presidential campaign’s most important issue, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Tuesday, September 06, 2011

Conservatives and the Politics of the Tattletale Child

It's all so terribly unjust. It turns out that, if you unfairly characterize people as "thugs" and "goons," those people will have a poor opinion of you. They might even want to beat the people you're supporting in elections. It's shocking, I know. Who would expect the rhetoric of demonization to come with consequences? Surely not the Tea Party and surely not Fox News. And, since consequences are only for non-'bagger non-supermen, Fox was there to make sure those consequences didn't exist.



OK, OK, OK... Let me get it together here. I'm still in stitches over the claim that the Tea Party doesn't say things like that. Right. And Dean Martin never drank. And, of course, calling Hoffa a "thug" and comparing him to mafioso Tony Soprano is totally justified, given the context.

Context is key here. Because the context presented by Fox News was not the context presented to reality. Using what Media Matters describes as a "dishonestly cropped video," Megyn Kelly and Fox offered a version of Hoffa's speech that was easy to completely misunderstand. "Everybody here's got to vote," Hoffa said in the fuller context. "If we go back and keep the eye on the prize, let's take these son of a bitches out and give America back to America where we belong! Thank you very much!"

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Little Bullies, Schoolyard Taunts, and Republican Campaigning

When I was in grade school, there was this one kid. Of course, he will remain nameless, because this is the story of a little prick. He delighted in hurting people's feelings and pushing people's buttons. And he was also a coward. If you chased him down, he'd beg and cry and promise to stop being such an a-hole, but as soon as he got out of reach, he'd go right back to being a jerk -- I mean immediately. I would've kicked his ass -- maybe I should've -- but I wasn't that kind of person, I was raised right. I see now that he was some category of bully, but it didn't seem like it at the time, because all the violence in that particular relationship would've come from me. But bully he was, because he enjoyed abusing other people. And he did it because he knew I wouldn't hurt him, despite the fact that I was one of the biggest kids in the school. Seriously, I could've snapped him like a twig.

If current events are any indication, that kid has a job in the Republican Party today. At the very least, he's a Tea Partier. They're the party of insults, the party of smears, and they do it because they know liberals won't hit back in the same way. We can't, really. Our voters wouldn't like it. We're persuaded by rational argument, not schoolyard taunts. But Republicans love jerks. If you're an abrasive loudmouth, you're the best thing ever. If you don't believe me, turn on talk radio and count the seconds between insults. You won't count very high. Or better yet, correct a rightwinger on twitter. Their very first response to you will be an insult that they think is knee-slappingly clever. They mistake debate -- which in its purest form should be a fact-based, logical exposition of truth -- for a knock-down, drag-out fight in which the one who gets to say, "Ooh, burn!" is the obvious winner. Facts are meaningless, logic is irrelevant, truth is for losers. Politics is about insults and political debate is just a more formal version of "the dozens."

Which brings us to this photo being passed around by David Limbaugh:


Click to enlarge


How very typical.

Tuesday, August 02, 2011

The "Unbiased" Media Strikes Again

When I woke up this morning, I cracked open my paper and came across this simpleminded and asinine opinion piece, courtesy of the Wisconsin State Journal editorial board. Yay for the debt limit deal, they argue, because it proves that Washington still works, despite the best efforts of some imaginary, bipartisan obstruction patrol.

The ideologically-driven progressives on the far left and the rigid tea party crowd on the far right seem equally entrenched against building consensus around workable solutions.

But at some point, the relentless finger-pointing and blaming of "the other side" needs to stop so America's very real and complicated problems can be addressed in meaningful ways.


The first thing that popped into my mind was a quote from Paul Krugman. "The 'both sides are at fault' people have to know better; if they refuse to say it, it's out of some combination of fear and ego, of being unwilling to sacrifice their treasured pose of being above the fray," he wrote recently. "It's a terrible thing to watch, and our nation will pay the price."

Wednesday, July 06, 2011

Republicans Have an Odd Definition of "Exceptional"

Wikipedia defines the concept of American exceptionalism this way:

American exceptionalism refers to the theory that the United States is qualitatively different from other nations. In this view, America's exceptionalism stems from its emergence from a revolution, becoming "the first new nation", and developing a uniquely American ideology, based on liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism and laissez-faire. This observation can be traced to Alexis de Tocqueville, the first writer to describe the United States as "exceptional". The term "American exceptionalism" itself was first used by members of the American Communist Party in the 1920s, in reference to their belief that "thanks to its natural resources, industrial capacity, and absence of rigid class distinctions, America might for a long while avoid the crisis that must eventually befall every capitalist society."


Of course, the entry goes on in some detail, but the broad concept is pretty much all there; America is a unique nation for many reasons. Personally, I believe the most important distinction is that we are a nation founded in law -- we exist for a reason. Where other nations may exist because of ethnic or religious identity, America does not. And we aren't defined by our existence within the borders of an ancient monarchy or tribe. "I am American" means something very different from "I am French," for example.

The problem with American exceptionalism isn't that the concept exists -- in fact, it's not difficult to see the validity of the argument. The problem is that it sounds vaguely like an argument that it is not; that the US is better than other nations and entitled to take liberties in the world. It was the Bush administration and their defenders who argued that America the Exceptional had the right to invade Iraq, in defiance of international law.

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Truth? There is No Truth

What the hell is wrong with Republican voters? That's a question I've asked myself again and again and have yet to come up with a satisfying answer. It's as if reality has no meaning for them and they believe the universe is a big chunk of clay, waiting to be molded into whatever they want it to be. Even history means nothing -- just words on a page that can be edited to fit new narratives. We in the reality-based community are stuck in our slavish devotion to perceiving things as they actually are, while conservatives seem to see themselves of free from everything. Everything, that is, but a rigid ideology that runs contrary to most of those pesky facts. Science is the enemy. Math is the enemy. History textbooks are the enemy. The media is the enemy. If it disagrees with the ideology, it is the enemy.

Consider, for example, Minnesota Representative and presidential candidate Michele Bachmann. Despite being a noticeably low-wattage bulb, she's become a bona fide possibility for the GOP nomination. Public Policy Polling finds that if Sarah Palin doesn't run, Bachmann "will pretty instantaneously vault to co-front runner status with Mitt Romney, provided she can continue her current momentum" and Gallup reports that she "finds herself in a relatively positive position among Republicans as she begins her formal campaign."

Granted, most of this polling was done before Bachmann had a rough few days of seemingly constant gaffes, but gaffes are what she does. A combination of serial liar and ignoramus, none of what's been making headlines for her lately can come as a real surprise to anyone with even a passing familiarity with the woman.

Monday, June 13, 2011

Polling Suggests Tea Party is Loud, But Not Numerous

Tea Partier with megaphoneThe 2012 presidential campaign begins today, about as officially as it ever will. A presidential debate in New Hampshire tonight features Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Ron Paul, and Tim Pawlenty. This is by no means the full field. Missing will be John Huntsman -- absent by choice -- and former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, a Ron Paul clone that event organizers decided "was not viable as a candidate." At this point, neither are Gingrich or Paul, but I guess name recognition earns you some slack.

Going into this, Romney is definitely the candidate to beat. A new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll puts Romney at the head of the pack by a fairly respectable margin, beating his closest competitor -- the as yet unannounced Sarah Palin -- 24% to 20%. After that, it's Giuliani with 12% and it just gets sad after that.

Gallup likewise has a poll out and the news for the non-Romneys there is worse. While Mitt's percentage is identical to CNN's findings -- 24% -- everyone else is worse off. Palin only scores 16%.

Friday, June 03, 2011

GOP Eating Their Own Again

Romney and PalinDavid Frum is not happy with media coverage of the GOP presidential campaign. Writing for CNN, the former George W. Bush speechwriter complains that everyone but the party's current frontrunner are getting all the coverage. Turn on the TV and we see Sarah Palin zipping around on the back of a motorcycle or talking heads wondering "when Texas Gov. Rick Perry will join the presidential race and when Newt Gingrich will quit," he says.

Meanwhile, the man who was and is the actual front-runner in the Republican presidential race rates barely a mention in the media commentary.

I'm talking about Mitt Romney of course, the former governor of Massachusetts who has polled first in almost every Republican presidential preference poll since January 2009. Yet somehow the commentariat will not believe it.

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Sarah Palin, Cultural Troll, Strings Out Her 16th Minute of Fame

Palin on motorcycle"Liberals like this? Then I don't."

I think that pretty much sums up the entirety of Sarah Palin's political philosophy. She represents the reactionary nature of modern conservatism, where -- if it weren't for the left -- she'd have no idea what she stood for. She's a policy lightweight and she's fasting in a smorgasbord of information, yet starving for attention.

At her very core, Sarah Palin is what so many rightwing people are -- a troll. And that's why the far right loves her. She is what Ann Coulter was, until Coulter became familiar and boring. These people have the attention span of goldfish and Ann Coulter, once the right's woman of the future, turned out to be the flavor of the month. Sure, she still sells books, but her days on the covers of magazines are over.

What both Palin and Coulter have learned is that the best way to a wingnut's heart is through their hatred. If you can piss liberals off, then you're all right. Policy ideas, actual logical arguments, facts and figures -- who needs them? Just say something that liberals will hate and the wingnuts will love you.

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Winning the GOP Primary in Wingnutopia

WingnutGallup reports a new poll using a somewhat misleading headline; "With Huckabee Out, No Clear GOP Front-Runner." The reason I say this is somewhat misleading is because there wasn't a clear frontrunner with Huckabee in. The GOP field this year is a mix of no-names, frootloops, and finger-in-the-wind flip-floppers. The Gingrich campaign is (perhaps prematurely) already being declared dead in the water, a victim of the candidate's mouth. Anyone who remembers Newt's days as speakers won't be surprised -- he was always one to speak before thinking, assuming that every random thought was brilliant and worthy of great attention. His current situation must seem very familiar to him.

What we do see in the Gallup poll is a sort of split between the more pragmatic primary voters who recognize their candidate has to win a general election and the true-believers, the 'baggers, and the talk radio-informed who demand nothing short of wingnut purity. In that poll, leading the pack -- albeit barely leading -- are Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin. That would be the same Sarah Palin who recent polling shows would lose even to Dennis Kucinich (a "rout," in the pollster's words) in the general election. In short, be prepared for a lot of "who's the soul of the Republican Party?" articles, because the answer to that question isn't extremely clear.

And Newt's reportedly washed-up campaign? Scoring third right now.

Monday, April 18, 2011

Celebrities For Prosperity: Sarah, Andy, and the Professional Protest Crew Put on a Big Show

Check out this video from the big Tea Party "rally" in Madison this weekend, where a group of rightwing celebrities -- headlined by Sarah Palin -- parachuted in from out of state to take Wisconsin back from... well, Wisconsinites, I guess.

Ah, the sweet smell of astroturf.



As you can see, things didn't go quite according to plan. If you check mainstream media, however, you learn it was a tremendous success. Which doesn't explain why Andrew Breitbart -- after complaining about the lack of civility -- told the booing crowd to "go to hell."

Almost nothing about this rally was real. The only thing grassroots about this was the boisterous counter-protest. The stage, the PA, that big plasma screen monitor for the people in the back, even the crowd, were all paid for by Americans For Prosperity, a Koch-funded front group.

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Raw Chicken Sandwiches are More Popular

Sarah Palin and Charlie Sheen
Call it "Adventures in Random Polling." Turns out there's some really bad news for Sarah Palin on the public opinion front.

Public Policy Polling:

We've found a lot of brutal poll numbers for Sarah Palin so far in 2011: down in South Dakota, down in South Carolina, down in Arizona, only up by 1 point in Texas, only up by 1 point in Nebraska to name a few. But this has to be the worst -- independent voters say they would support Charlie Sheen over Palin for President by a 41/36 margin. Seriously.

Despite her deficit with independents Palin does lead Sheen 49-29 overall. We also tested Barack Obama against Sheen and the President leads 57-24.

Thursday, January 27, 2011

On Milbank's Palin Embargo

I'm not completely sold on Dana Milbanks's embargo on Sarah Palin news for the month of February. Personally, I'd like the unpopular Palin and the equally brainless demagogue Michele Bachmann to become the two vacant faces of the Republican Party. The only downside to this that I can see is that people will start equating a midwestern accent with idiocy.

In any case, it's not February yet, so deciding to join in or to violate the ban is a moot point. Which is good, because it turns out someone told Sarah to say something clever and she's extremely proud of herself.

Politico:

Former Alaska GOP Gov. Sarah Palin said Wednesday night that President Barack Obama's call for "winning the future" during his State of the Union address is best framed by the acronym it shares with a much different phrase -- "wtf."

"That was a tough speech to sit through and try to stomach," Palin said during an interview with Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren.

Monday, November 24, 2008

The Terrorist Candidate


During the election campaign, it definitely got out of hand. Losing and desperate, the McCain campaign tried to capitalize on Barack Obama's weak connection to '60s radical William Ayers. That people confused this attack with a separate email smear campaign saying that Obama was a Muslim and, perhaps, a terrorist himself was probably less than coincidental. Barack Obama was the "soft on terrorism" candidate, which in turn became the "terrorist candidate" in many people's minds. The far right and the racist crowd aren't known for their deep intellect. I know that most people immediately suspect claims that are too good to be true, but I'll never understand how people can fall for claims that seem too bad to be true. If a claim about a candidate is so bizarre that it seems absurd, then guess what? It probably is.

Still, as I said, there are always plenty of dopes who'll fall for anything and it's probably safe to assume that most of those people voted McCain-Palin. But the McCain campaign needed every vote they could get and they weren't extremely picky about where they came from. If someone would cast a ballot for McCain-Palin because they were terrified that Barack Obama was going to sell out America to al Qaeda, then so what? A vote's a vote.

But they were playing with fire. Stupid people can be brutal people and gullible people are about 90% stupid people. The decision to believe that Barack Obama was an actual, honest to goodness terrorist betrays a bad decision-making impulse that goes farther than just that one choice. That decision led to other decisions and those decisions were just as idiotic. Earlier this month, the Telegraph reported that, as the William Ayers talk increased on the stump, there were entirely predictable consequences.

Sarah Palin's attacks on Barack Obama's patriotism provoked a spike in death threats against the future president, Secret Service agents revealed during the final weeks of the campaign.

The Republican vice presidential candidate attracted criticism for accusing Mr Obama of "palling around with terrorists", citing his association with the sixties radical William Ayers.

The attacks provoked a near lynch mob atmosphere at her rallies, with supporters yelling "terrorist" and "kill him" until the McCain campaign ordered her to tone down the rhetoric.


It got so bad that Michelle Obama asked a campaign aide, "Why would they try to make people hate us?"





The answer is simple -- that's just what Republicans do. They can't win the debate if it's based on policy, so they make it about personality. Listen to right wing talk radio any day of the week and you'll hear it. They don't just misrepresent facts, they make stuff up. During the campaign, Team McCain tried to paint Obama as a supporter of infanticide. Again, the concept of "too bad to be true" is completely foreign to many minds. They believed that Barack Obama was a secret Muslim terrorist who supported killing babies without reason. There is no lower limit as to how stupid and gullible some people are willing to be. Al Qaeda openly hoped McCain, not Obama, would win. But that didn't bother these chumps, who couldn't possibly have been paying attention to the real world.

So it's more than a little ironic that and a lot less than surprising that al Qaeda came out with an attack against the President-Elect.

In a propaganda salvo by Al Qaeda aimed at undercutting the enthusiasm of Muslims worldwide about the American election, Osama bin Laden’s top deputy condemned President-elect Barack Obama as a “house Negro” who would continue a campaign against Islam that Al Qaeda’s leaders said was begun by President Bush.

Appealing to the “weak and oppressed” around the world, the Qaeda deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, said in a video released Wednesday that the “new face” of America only masked a “heart full of hate.”


It's less than surprising, because al Qaeda would've launched a propaganda attack against any of the candidates. But it's ironic because Barack Obama -- painted as the "terrorist candidate" -- turns out to be al Qaeda's worst nightmare.

"While it’s a bit irritating to have an atavistic mass murderer presume to dictate appropriate politics for a black American, Zawahiri’s diatribe is good news," writes the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Cynthia Tucker. "In fact, it may be the best news we’ve gotten in the struggle against al Qaeda since the so-called Sunni awakening in Iraq. Zawahiri and his fellow jihadists are clearly worried both about the symbolic power of an Obama presidency and about the smarter strategy against terrorism that Obama has laid out."

Bush's strategy in fighting terrorism has been idiotic. Invading Iraq was a pointless distraction and treating al Qaeda as a military problem, rather than a criminal problem, is using the wrong tool for the job. We've been treating a loose association of religious nutjobs like a foreign power. Tucker describes these actions as "a gift to al Qaeda and its recruiting efforts."

"They allowed bin Laden and Zawahiri to paint the U.S. government as an imperial power bent on a 21st-century crusade against Islam," Tucker writes, "However, that’s a more difficult argument to make when the Oval Office is occupied by a black man whose Kenyan grandfather was Muslim and who played with Muslim friends during his childhood years in Indonesia."

The things we were all supposed to be suspicious of are the things that makes him a huge problem for terrorists. It was easy to accuse Bush of prosecuting a racist crusade to wipe out Islam, but Barack Obama? Yeah, that doesn't fit as well. They're reduced to racism.

Of course, the people who fell for the "Obama's a secret terrorist" lie are no dumber than those who care what al Qaeda thinks. But it's the broader message that causes them trouble and the lie is much harder to swallow this time around. Obama's plan to withdraw from Iraq doesn't help any, either. Al Qaeda wanted McCain because they could count on him to foolishly continue the occupation until time stopped, if that's how long he thought it would take. Nothing would make terrorists happier. The United States' greatest military victory may have been a war with two fronts, but it's the sort of thing you want to do only if you absolutely have to. Many in al Qaeda see Afghanistan as being what brought the USSR down -- the expense of the invasion bankrupting the invaders. This was their greatest victory and they probably hope to be able to use the same strategy twice -- keep the enemy shooting until they can't afford bullets anymore.

But they know Barack Obama won't fall for that. So they try to provoke him with taunts worthy of a racist schoolyard bully. Sadly, this sort of thing probably worked with Bush, but "no drama Obama" is a leveler head. He won't be insulted into making a stupid decision to prove his tough guy bona fides. The days of having a reliably violent fool in the White House are nearly over.

Likewise, closing Guantanamo will be a blow against terrorism. Ending torture will be a blow against terrorism. Restoring justice and constitutional principles will be a blow against terrorism. Everything Bush argued we absolutely had to do to fight terrorism was an overreaction. You don't have to commit crimes to fight criminals. If the United States once again becomes a just nation, it's a lot harder to convince people that we're evil. It's a lot harder to convince people we're crazy when our approach to fighting international criminals is rational and measured.

It may be that there was no more crippling blow to terrorism than the election of the "terrorist candidate."

-Wisco

Thursday, October 30, 2008

The Fight After the Fight

I've decided to spend the remaining days until the election coming up with reasons to vote. But the best laid plans yada-yada-yada... I started out writing this as another post about why you should vote, but after editing, it turned out to be more about after the election. Still, you go vote. We've got to win the big one before we take on the following little battles. So vote to take the grand prize and here's a little preview of what'll happen afterward.

The right isn't going away after Tuesday. They're going to work to rebuild their movement and to tear down Barack Obama. A lot of people think that Obama's ad last night was overkill -- after all, he's far enough ahead in the polls that he can just run out the clock and do fine. But a big part of Obama's continued campaigning isn't about November 4, but November 5 and beyond.

The good news is that the most recent example we have of the right's attempts to discredit a president didn't work at all. Bill Clinton was supposedly everything from a serial killer to a cocaine smuggler. In the end, the right managed only to inoculate the public against BS and instill skepticism in the electorate. When Clinton was finally impeached for a crime with all the seriousness of an unpaid traffic ticket, his approval rating actually increased. Most disapproved of the impeachment effort.

So that's the good news; Republicans suck at this stuff. The bad news is that it's 100% guaranteed that they'll make the effort anyway. William Ayers isn't going away either. Nor is Rev. Wright. The Republican party will go into full damage control mode -- which usually means that, rather than build themselves up again, they'll try to damage Obama to an equal extent and level the playing field that way.





Will John McCain go away? Probably. Losing candidates tend not to stick around in the limelight. Maybe he'll retire or maybe he'll be like John Kerry -- he'll go back to work and leave all the headlines behind. Either way, we're probably done with John McCain.

But not Sarah Palin. She'll get a PR rep and a makeover. She's ambitious and she's had a taste of the big time. She's not going anywhere. And the base -- both leaders and the flock -- don't want her to.

New York Times:

“She’s dynamite,” said Morton C. Blackwell, who was President Ronald Reagan’s liaison to the conservative movement. Mr. Blackwell described vying to get close to Ms. Palin at a fund-raiser in Virginia, lamenting that he could get only within four feet.

“I made a major effort to position myself at this reception,” he said, adding that he is eager to sit down with her after the election to discuss the future. Asked if the weeks of unflattering revelations and damaging interviews had tarnished her among conservatives, he replied, “Not a bit.”


Brent Bozell, a so-called "conservative media critic," says it's a "top order of business" to figure out how to use Palin to rebuild. "Conservatives have been looking for leadership, and she has proven that she can electrify the grass roots like few people have in the last 20 years," he told the NYT. "No matter what she decides to do, there will be a small mother lode of financial support behind her." As I said, Bozell bills himself as a media watchdog, but he's actually a one man PR firm and attacks the media for not buying into Republican spin. If he has his eyes on Palin, it means he has a post-election BS campaign in mind. That's what he does for a living.

And those "grassroots" who wil be "electrified?" Here's what they look like:

FiveThirtyEight.com:

After [a Florida McCain] rally, we witnessed a near-street riot involving the exiting McCain crowd and two Cuban-American Obama supporters. Tony Garcia, 63, and Raul Sorando, 31, were suddenly surrounded by an angry mob. There is a moment in a crowd when something goes from mere yelling to a feeling of danger, and that's what we witnessed. As photographers and police raced to the scene, the crowd elevated from stable to fast-moving scrum, and the two men were surrounded on all sides as we raced to the circle.

The event maybe lasted a minute, two at the most, before police competently managed to hustle the two away from the scene and out of the danger zone. Only FiveThirtyEight tracked the two men down for comment, a quarter mile down the street.

"People were screaming 'Terrorist!' 'Communist!' 'Socialist!'" Sorando said when we caught up with him. "I had a guy tell me he was gonna kill me."

Asked what had precipitated the event, "We were just chanting 'Obama!' and holding our signs. That was it. And the crowd suddenly got crazy."


A man Garcia described as "a big stocky man wearing a tweed jacket" threatened him, telling him "I'm gonna beat you up the next time I see you." For daring to support Obama. These people don't oppose, these people hate. They seem incapable of anything other than extremism -- blind support for their candidate of choice, mindless anger toward those who support anyone else. Attacking Garcia and Sorando wouldn't have accomplished anything, it wouldn't have made McCain any more likely to win Florida -- in fact, it probably would've made it less likely. But it would've felt good to these nuts who are motivated solely by passion. The right -- who are constantly complaining about "feel good" politics -- are all about doing what feels good. If what feels good works, all the better. But if what works doesn't feel good, they ain't gonna do it. And, if what feels good doesn't work, they'll try to convince you that it does.

But when did McCain rallies turn this ugly? After McCain chose Sarah Palin, of course. Anti-evolution, anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-sex ed, Sarah Palin is their kind of folks. People who define themselves by what they oppose like the governor who does the same. Racist, ignorant, and pigheaded, they'll follow anyone who says the magic words earnestly enough. If she's an intellectual piece of fluff, so what? So are they.

But if these people think they can bully the rest of us into believing what they do -- and they do, that's what right wing media is all about -- then they've got another thing coming. Tony Garcia has a message for the big moron who threatened him at the rally.

"You tell that guy he can find Tony Garcia down at the West Dade library every day from 7 to 7 helping people early vote. I'll be there from 1 to 5 on Saturday and Sunday," he told FiveThirtyEight.com. "You tell him if he wants to kick my ass that's where he can find me. Come beat me up."

The bad news is that the right is ready to pull the sore loser gambit and try to destroy the next president. The good news is that they're cowards and we're ready for them. You want to try to kick our asses?

Here we are, punks.

-Wisco

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Vote Dammit!

The McCain team got some news yesterday. It wasn't good. I imagine that they drew straws or flipped coins or played rock-paper-scissors to find out which adviser would break it to the candidate and get an up-close look at his legendary temper -- the Senator from Arizona stands a damned good chance of losing Arizona.

AZCentral.com:

A new poll from Arizona State University shows the presidential race too close to call in Sen. John McCain's home state.

The Arizona senator is leading Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obama by 2 percentage points, 46 to 44, down from a 7-point lead a month ago and a double-digit lead this summer. Factor in the poll's 3-point margin of error, and a race that was once a nearly sure thing for McCain is a statistical dead heat, pollsters say.

"One would think McCain would still carry Arizona, but anybody who says they can predict the state this time, they can't. It's going to depend on who goes to the polls," said Tara Blanc, associated director of the poll by ASU's Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication and local PBS affiliate Channel 8 (KAET).


Not surprisingly, the pool of remaining undecideds there is small, at about 9%. There's a real chance that Arizona could go blue this year, but only if Obama voters get out and vote.





And, with a mere five weekdays until E-Day, that's what it's down to -- who votes. Both in Arizona and nationally. That's bad news for John McCain who, despite firing up the base with his selection of Sarah Palin as running mate, finds himself losing the voter enthusiasm race. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll taken last week found that enthusiasm for McCain was low. 26% of respondents said they were "excited" to cast their vote for the Republican, 34% were just "satisfied," and the largest percentage -- 39% -- called him "the lesser of two evils.”

Obama did much better, with 52% saying they were "excited," only 14% calling him "the lesser of two evils," and 33% merely "satisfied." Excited people vote, unexcited people may not. If past elections are any indication, Obama will have the edge in voter turnout. There are voter suppression efforts going on out there, but they only seem to be succeeding in the states McCain would probably win anyway. Still if Democrats don't make it their goal in life to punish illegal campaign tactics and make elections must harder to steal in this next term, they may not get another chance for a while. Democrats are taking this election because it's not close enough to steal.

For their part, the GOP is planning (plotting?) their triumphant return at some undetermined point in the future. Politico's Jonathan Martin reports that they've already scheduled the strategy meeting.

Two days after next week's election, top conservatives will gather at the Virginia weekend home of one of the movement's most prominent members to begin a conversation about their role in the GOP and how best to revive a party that may be out of power at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue next year.

The meeting will include a "who's who of conservative leaders -- economic, national security and social," said one attendee, who shared initial word of the secret session only on the basis of anonymity and with some details about the host and location redacted.

The decision to waste no time in plotting their moves in the post-Bush era reflects the widely-held view among many on the right, and elsewhere, that the GOP is heading toward major losses next week.


"There's a sense that the Republican Party is broken, but the conservative movement is not," Martin's source told him. The idea will be to rebuild a "national grassroots political and policy coalition similar to the out Reagan years." I guess that means "pre-Reagan" years, since the talk is of the time during the Carter administration.

"Should McCain lose next Tuesday, the conversation will include who to groom as the next generation of conservative leaders," Martin writes. "A list that will feature [McCain running mate Sarah] Palin at or near the top." The lesson, apparently, was that McCain wasn't far enough to the right.

The logic here is a little hard to grasp. If the problem with the candidate was that he wasn't conservative enough, how did that result in voters turning in droves to a candidate Republicans pretty successfully branded as extremely liberal? In what world does that argument make any sense? Reason would seem to lead you to the conclusion that McCain either wasn't moderate enough or failed to portray himself as moderate enough. Yet here they are, assuming that someone like Palin holds the keys to the kingdom. No wonder they're losing seats all over the nation.

Still, November 4 isn't a sure bet -- it's just damned close to one. Those two, four, eight, twelve years in the political wilderness won't happen for Republicans if people don't get out and vote. Aesop's tortoise and the hare, you know. Sit at home in smug certainty and that big lead in the polls means jack.

That goes double for you, Arizonans. For the rest of us, if someone asks why you think McCain's losing, tell them it was because he wasn't conservative enough.

Reinforcing Republican false assumptions can't hurt any.

-Wisco

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

'We're Getting Ready for the Biggest Culture War Battles Ever'

Last week, I wrote that Sarah Palin believes the election is "in God's hands." Despite this, I predicted that the right wouldn't sing the Hallelujah Chorus when the Almighty chooses Obama. Consistency isn't the strong point of the religious right. When what you want to happen happens, God has rewarded you. When what you don't want to happen happens, God is testing you. When disaster visits your opponents, it's the judgment of the Almighty. When disaster visits you, you're freakin' Job.

So, the religious right -- who had previously warned of doom for America if McCain was the GOP nominee -- are now great big fans of the Senator from Arizona. Given the adaptive nature of their beliefs, McCain (but mostly the super-Godly Sarah Palin) is now America's Great Hope. Woe be unto America if God's chosen be not elected.

The reliably lunatic Janet Folger (who had previously warned that Hillary Clinton would round up Christians and put them in re-education camps) tells us in a column at WorldNetDaily that "You cannot be a Christian and vote for Obama."

To all those who name the name of Christ who plan to willfully disobey Him by voting for Obama, take warning. Not only is our nation in grave danger, according to the Word of God, so are you... [T]his election is not about race. It's not about the economy. It's about obeying God.

[...]

Be forewarned: If you willfully disobey God on life and marriage because of race or false hope for the economy, you will usher in the kind of change that brought the Soviet Union to collapse.


Wait, the Soviet Union collapsed because it finally stopped being Christian? You sure about that Janet? Because that seems like an insane misreading of history to me. But that's not the really crazy part. The crazy part is that if you vote for Obama, you're going to hell. Really, it's right there in the Bible.

"To those who call themselves by the name of Christ who ignore what God says about life and marriage, who and are clinging to a fantasy of economic gain, think again..." she says. "Then obey Him in the voting booth and out of it. If not, do us all a favor and quit calling yourself a Christian."





People are beginning to worry that the religious right is going to go crazy after November. I'm wondering when they've supposedly stopped being crazy. The religious right news service OneNewsNow.com wonders "Toy giant promoting Islam?"

Some concerned parents have contacted the Mattel toy company with allegations that one of its dolls utters words which promote Islam.

The Little Mommy Cuddle 'n Coo dolls are manufactured by Fisher-Price, which is part of the Mattel toy empire. However, a number of parents contacted the company when they heard the doll say these words: "Islam is the light."

While the doll appears to utter "Islam is the light," the company denies that is actually what it is programmed to say. Mattel insists that Little Mommy Cuddle 'n Coo features realistic baby sounds, including cooing, giggling, and baby babble, with no real sentence structure. The toy company claims the only scripted word the doll says is "mama."


I submit to you that the religious right is already as crazy as it's possible to be and still be able to distinguish between Obama and McCain. If they were any crazier, they'd think both candidates were giant locusts or something. Still, they're threatening to become crazier -- or, at least, more vocal -- in the future. They also seem to have dropped any pretense that McCain's going to win this thing.

"An Obama victory will galvanize social conservatives for 2010 and 2012 and they will look for a standard bearer they can rally around," says Evangelical right leader Richard Land. And that standard bearer looks to be Sarah Palin. No, really. Remember, these were the people who not only believed that Mike Huckabee was endorsed by Jesus, but that he had a chance in hell.

"The Alaska governor has excited the evangelical base but her strident opposition to abortion rights and other hard-core conservative positions have alienated more moderate voters," reports Reuters. They don't see this, because they think they're the mainstream.

"I've been on the phone the last couple of days with some of my friends... and we're getting ready for the biggest culture war battles ever," says the Catholic League's William Donahue. "There is nobody in the history of the United States who has run for president who is a more enthusiastic supporter of abortion rights than Obama."

"Obama will use your tax dollars to kill innocent children, and then he'll take your paycheck and use it to 'spread the wealth around,'" writes Janet Folger.

Some are predicting God's punishment for electing Obama. Former GOP presidential candidate and right wing nutjob Gary Bauer warned that "God could take his hand of protection off of America." What happened the last time God lift his protective hand? 9/11. I guess God's a terrorist.

In a week exactly, America will chose it's next president and all signs point to it being Barack Obama. In response, these people are going to get vocal. The good news is that they're really, really crazy, stupid, and annoying. The more they freak out, the less attractive they become. They may think they'll rally behind Palin to take back America in 2010 and 2012, but unless they find some way to make lunacy palatable, they'll only screw themselves worse with their shrill stridency.

Still, strap yourself in. Things are going to get stupid.

-Wisco

Monday, October 27, 2008

Shameless in Pennsylvania

Barack Obama is secretly a Muslim. Barack Obama is secretly socialist. Barack Obama secretly subscribes to "black liberation theology." Barack Obama's secretly not a US citizen. Barack Obama is secretly a terrorist. Barack Obama is secretly the antiChrist.

Just when you thought the fearmongering couldn't get any more stupid, Pennsylvania voters received an e-mail telling them that Barack Obama is secretly Hitler.

A new e-mail making the rounds among Jewish voters in Pennsylvania this week falsely alleged that Mr. Obama “taught members of Acorn to commit voter registration fraud,’’ and equated a vote for Senator Barack Obama with the “tragic mistake” of their Jewish ancestors, who “ignored the warning signs in the 1930’s and 1940’s.”

At first blush, it was typical of the sorts of e-mails floating around with false, unsubstantiated and incendiary claims this year.

But where most of the attack e-mails against Mr. Obama have been mostly either anonymous or from people outside of mainstream politics, this one had an unusually official provenance: It was sponsored by the Pennsylvania Republican Party’s “Victory 2008” committee.


The email was "signed" with the names of prominent McCain supporters. It's since been pulled and the Pennsylvania Republican Party as repudiated it, firing the strategist who helped draft it. The important word there is probably "helped." He wasn't the only one involved, he was just the only one fired. Someone had to take the blame and it was this strategist, Bryan Rudnick, who was going to do it.





Rudnick says he got approval for the e-mail from "officials at several levels." He usually worked in Florida, but was sent to Pennsylvania to help with Jewish outreach there. I could go ahead and debunk the mass e-mail, but why bother? Talk about your slow moving targets. The broader issue here is the McCain campaign and the Republican party are completely in love with BS and nothing is too low for them to try.

When a woman with a history of mental illness claimed that she was attacked for being a McCain supporter, Team McCain tried to push the story to prominence despite the obvious problems with it. In fact, some of the details appear to have been created by the McCain campaign to tie the attack -- which never actually happened -- to Obama.

TPM Election Central:

John McCain's Pennsylvania communications director told reporters in the state an incendiary version of the hoax story about the attack on a McCain volunteer well before the facts of the case were known or established -- and even told reporters outright that the "B" carved into the victim's cheek stood for "Barack," according to multiple sources familiar with the discussions.

John Verrilli, the news director for KDKA in Pittsburgh, told TPM Election Central that McCain's Pennsylvania campaign communications director gave one of his reporters a detailed version of the attack that included a claim that the alleged attacker said, "You're with the McCain campaign? I'm going to teach you a lesson."

Verrilli also told TPM that the McCain spokesperson had claimed that the "B" stood for Barack. According to Verrilli, the spokesperson also told KDKA that Sarah Palin had called the victim of the alleged attack, who has since admitted the story was a hoax.


According to TPM, the McCain campaign was "pushing a version of the story that was far more explosive than the available or confirmed facts permitted at the time." The original report came from KDKA-TV in Pennsylvania and cited the McCain campaign as one of their sources. They've since pulled that information from their site, but TPM preserved it:

According to a campaign spokesperson, after seeing her bumper sticker supporting McCain, the suspect said, "Oh you're with McCain, you're with the McCain campaign? I'm going to teach you a lesson."

After beating the woman, the McCain camp says the suspect carved a "B" in her cheek for "Barack" Obama.


The fact is that the McCain campaign was telling the media details they couldn't possibly have known. They wanted this story to go nationwide and they got exactly what they wanted. Unfortunately for them, the story lived about ten minutes before it all fell apart and the "victim," Ashley Todd, was arrested and charged with making a false report to police.

I could go on and on and on. There are so many examples of this. But the fact is that when the chips are down, Republicans are turning to fearmongering and race-baiting. Looking back at this campaign, I think we can safely say the GOP has run a campaign anyone but the GOP would be ashamed of. Of course, they're shameless -- they don't freakin' care. If they win, they win and the ends always justify the means. If they lose, then they gave it a good shot and hopefully scuffed future President Barack Obama up a bit.

But history remembers these things. We're going to look back at the Bush years and McCain's bid to continue them. When we do that, a lot of people are going to be ashamed. The racism, the hate, the lies, the fact that McCain-Palin rallies look more like angry mobs than anything, all add up to a very despicable campaign. All of it is shameful now and will be seen with shame tomorrow.

But some of us won't be ashamed. At least, not for ourselves. Throughout the Bush years and into this campaign -- maybe the last gasp of the neocons -- we've taken the high road. We've stood by the Constitution and the law. We won't be ashamed.

McCain has said that he's proud of his campaign. He can't possibly be. He's just not ashamed of it and that's not the same thing. He looks at the polls and hopes the "Bradley Effect" is real. He hopes that racism and fear are strong enough. He hopes that you can be frightened into and lied into making an extremely stupid choice. And he hopes he can disenfranchise enough voters to be sworn in in 2009. McCain can't be proud of his campaign, because there's nothing to be proud of here. McCain clearly hopes the worst of Americans will choose the president, not the best of us.

We're the ones who can be proud. Those of us who've worked to get Obama elected and, further, those of us who stood against Bush every step of the way. We can be proud. When history looks back at this time, Americans will be ashamed of some Americans -- but not us. We fought the good fight and we did it fairly. We used reason where they used emotional appeals to fear and hate. We did the way you're supposed to do it -- by making the better argument.

Take a moment to think about this point in time. You've done the right thing and you can be proud of it. McCain backers can be happy with the way they've campaigned, but they can't possibly be proud.

--Wisco

Friday, October 24, 2008

I, Robocaller

Robocalls. If you're a voter in one of the "battleground states," you're familiar with them. Right when you're in the middle of doing something liberal -- say, destroying the family by making cakes for same sex weddings -- the phone rings and a voice tells you "the truth" about Barack Obama.

Who makes robocalls? That should be obvious from the name -- robots. Clearly, they see the McCain-Palin ticket as being stronger for their radical robot agenda. The metal men, with their fierce laser beam eyes and computer brains, want nothing more than to see McCain elected.

Why?

I looked up the Three Laws of Robotics and discovered a chilling fact. See for yourself:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.


My discovery? That there's nothing barring a robot from lying. You could argue that losing an election would constitute "harm" for Barack Obama, but robots -- with their merciless calculations -- could see McCain losing as an equal harm. The second law could be overriding the first, since offense and defense are merely different positions in the same game. Team McCain orders the robots to make the calls, so the robots do it. The harm caused to Obama by doing it is rendered neutral by the harm caused to McCain by not doing it.

And doing it they are. Oh, yes indeed. Doing it they most certainly are...





I've received the following call personally:

Hello. I'm calling for John McCain and the RNC because you need to know that Barack Obama has worked closely with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, whose organization bombed the U.S. capitol, the Pentagon, a judge's home and killed Americans. And Democrats will enact an extreme leftist agenda if they take control of Washington. Barack Obama and his Democratic allies lack the judgment to lead our country. This call was paid for by McCain-Palin 2008 and the Republican National Committee at 202-863-8500.


Of course, this is guilt by association. Obama and Ayers were recruited by the same foundation to work on education issues. This is the same as holding you responsible for the people your employer hires. It's a ridiculously wild pitch and isn't getting over the plate with voters. So, of course, the robots tried a different pitch:

Hello. I am calling for John McCain and the RNC because Barack Obama says small town folks like us cling to our guns because we are bitter. And elitist Democrats who want to control Washington and completely ban hand guns and most hunting rifles. The NRA said that Barack Obama would be the most anti-gun president in American history. These elitist Democrats just don't understand us and we can't trust them with our 2nd Amendment rights. This call was paid for by the Republican National Committee and McCain Palin 2008.


One thing becomes clear with this call, the robots think humans are idiots. I got this one and, although it talks about "small town folks like us," I live in Wisconsin's second largest city. The belief in human irrationality is further manifest through the assertion that Obama "would be the most anti-gun president in American history." The robots know his opinions about guns -- even if he were the "most anti-gun president" ever -- have been rendered moot by the Supreme Court. The familiar Republican scare tactic of Democrats coming to take your guns away is even more nonsensical than it ever was. They literally can't.

I warn you, this next robocall is chilling:

Hello, this is Governor Tom Ridge, America's first Secretary of Homeland Security. I'm calling for John McCain and the RNC because this week Joe Biden, Barack Obama's running mate, made startling comments that we must take seriously. He reminded us of Sen. Obama's inexperience when he said that America would face an international crisis that Sen. Obama would be unprepared to handle alone. If the Democrats win complete control of government they will want to give traditional civil rights to terrorists and talk unconditionally to dictators and state sponsors of terror. Barack Obama and his Democrat allies lack the experience and judgment to lead America.


That's right, Tom Ridge, former Secretary of Homeland Security and one-time shortlister for McCain running mate, is a robot! And, as the call demonstrates, robots are not incapable of lying. Obama would "give traditional civil rights to terrorists?" Since when are civil rights a mere tradition? They're written into the Constitution. And once you're found guilty of a felony, you lose your civil rights. Robo-Ridge's call makes no sense. Remember, robots believe you're completely irrational.

Other political figures have also exposed themselves as robots:

Hi, this is Rudy Giuliani and I'm calling for John McCain and the Republican National Committee, because you need to know that Barack Obama opposes mandatory prison sentences for sex offenders, drug dealers, and murderers. It's true, I read Obama's words myself. And recently, Congressional liberals introduced a bill to eliminate mandatory prison sentences for violent criminals -- trying to give liberal judges the power to decide whether criminals are sent to jail or set free. With priorities like these, we just can't trust the inexperience and judgment of Barack Obama and his liberal allies. This call was paid for by the Republican National Committee and McCain-Palin 2008.


This explains so much. The reason Giuliani was repeating "9/11, 9/11, 9/11..." throughout the campaign was because he was caught in a recursive programming loop. He's obviously been rebooted since then, but his code is still faulty. Mandatory minimum sentencing isn't the same thing as "mandatory sentencing." Sentencing is always mandatory -- if you've been found guilty of a crime, you've got to be sentenced to something. Yet Robo-Rudy seems to believe that Obama is against sentencing criminals. Why on Earth would he be?

Because humans are irrational, that's why. To the awesome metal men, you might as well be an overly-emotional squirrel. The human mind is a complete mystery to them.

But why do the robot hordes want McCain -- a human -- to be president? We've seen plenty of examples of McCain's primary emotional state -- silent, barely contained rage. We know he's not a robot.

The answer will leave you speechless:

Hi, this is Sarah Palin. One of our local campaign volunteers just called you, and I wanted to follow up and ask for your support. You know our opponents may talk a lot, but they haven't done much listening. I know what it's like to be a hard-working mom. I know how hard it is to make ends meet during tough times like this. John McCain and I know our country is hurting, and we know how to turn it around. We'll get our economy back on track. we'll cut your taxes and lower prices at the pump and at the grocery store. John McCain and I are the mavericks who will reform Washington, Wall Street., and all the wasteful government in between. I hope John McCain and I can count on your support on November 4. We won't let you down. Paid for by McCain-Palin 2008 at 703-418-2008.


Dear sweet God, Sarah Palin is a robot. The reign of humans on this world may be drawing to a close.

For the love of all that is decent and human, vote!

VOTE!!

-Wisco