As much as Phil 'Empty Suit' Griffin might think it so, Keith Olbermann is not the equivalent on the Left of wingnuts in Rupert Murdochs' stable: Hannity, SarahPac, Hucabee, Beck, and the most egregious violator of all, Murdoch himself. To say, as Keith elegantly noted, that he is "equidistant" from these right wing propagandists, posited by Jon Stewart in his flower power 2010 Hippie rally to nowhere, is wrong.
Keith committed a technical violation of MSNBC's standards by not seeking pre-approval before he made modest campaign contributions. Considering that CNBC, with the biggest collection of whackjobs in NBC's employ — from Rick Santelli, fake "father" of the Tea Party with his insane and inane rant on the (one year later) high-flying stock exchange floor, to "Mad Money" Jim Cramer, the prognosticating fool whose wrong predictions keep people coming back for more financial snake oil, to libertarian transplant Dylan Ratigan burning a hole in the midafternoon ratings — aren't subject to this restriction, then by definition the standard that is not universal within NBC was unfairly applied to Keith. (Parenthetically, why is the CNBC "talent" not bound by the campaign contribution standard; do they get a special dispensation/exemption from the suits?)
Which brings us to Phil 'Empty Suit' Griffin himself. Perhaps this suit, who is known for grandstanding, poorly thought through decisions, felt the pressure of seeing Keith Olbermann and Ed Schultz prominently displayed on Jon Stewart's self-indulgent Jumbotron. I could think of better use for Stewart's time, e.g., mobilize his viewers to contribute to desperately needed Free Clinics around the nation. Oh wait, while Stewart and Colbert were satirizing the news — Colbert made a mockery of Congress with his testimony, probably giving his viewers another excuse to stay home and not vote — Keith was singlehandedly promoting the Free Clinics in several different states as a means of helping people in desperate need of medical care and raising the nation's awareness of the need to pass comprehensive healthcare reform. And very quietly, without fanfare, Keith contributed seed money to get these clinics going.
What have you done, Jon Stewart? And you, Stephen Colbert? What did you accomplish with your silly 'Restore Sanity' rally other than fire a self-indulgent, self-serving broadside at "cable networks" of which you're a part, but evidently feel exempt from when taking shots at lying politicians because ... you're a "comedy" and "political satire" channel. Please. You're no different than those you criticize except that your hubris makes you believe you're special and different. I watch Keith and Big Eddie precisely because they call it like they see 'em and have the facts to back it up. LIARS are LIARS. It's not that complicated.
For all your Cumbaya platitudes that so impressed the Idiot Punditocracy and the Queen Bee with the funny "it wahs saw mawving" accent — 'you go I go' (except if you're sitting in traffic because your Governor Christie axed the Lincoln Tunnel expansion project and someone pulls out a gun and commits an act of road rage) — what have you accomplished? The Democrats — my party because, along with Bill Maher, I want to breathe clean air and drink water that doesn't catch on fire (did you see Keith's pre-suspension report?) — took a "shellacking" according to our President whom you, Stewart, disrespected with the glib "dude." In the last analysis, your hip 18-to-39 demographic audience decided to stay home or hang out at Starbucks drinking overpriced coffee. To me, and I said it before the rally, the test of whether your outsized ego trip accomplished anything was whether you could motivate your audience to vote. You could not.
Stewart and Colbert 'Rally to Restore Sanity' = FAIL!
Thanks to Bill Maher for being the anti-Stewart/Colbert and not pulling his punches or tiptoeing through the tulips. This is WAR, and as far as the nation and our planet are concerned, the comedic satire of Stewart/Colbert are increasingly irrelevant. Take your 'civility', Jon, and shove it up Colbert's ass. Given how it's worked for the wingnuts — racism and name-calling against Obama, targeting Latinos with xernophobic hatred, lies upon lies, violence against the Left, and their primary goal to turn Obama into a one-term president — what's next ye Einsteins of comedy, we're supposed to embrace 'civility' NOW?
There's a new 'Worst Persons in The World' list: Phil 'Empty Suit' Griffin, the corporate lackey; Fox, the Tea Party/GOP propaganda arm; and the numero uno jackasses of comedy and political commentary, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.
And as we need MORE incivility on the Left, I'll close with this message to them: Goodnight, good luck, and GO FUCK YOURSELVES!
Saturday, November 06, 2010
World's Worst Person Makes a Comeback: Phil Griffin
MSNBC president Phil Griffin, pictured below, tops the list of world's worst persons with his ludicrous suspension of Keith Olbermann. Um Phil, replacing Keith with Thomas Roberts is like yanking Tom Seaver from the Mets all-time starting lineup and replacing him with Mark "Boom-Boom" Bomback. Roberts' vague warning that he's a karate yellow belt notwithstanding.
 |
| Griffin mulls MSNBC's future. Dim bulb moment: "Let's embrace the CNN model!" |
Rachel slams the suits with the viewers' perspective:
Progressives stand by Keith. Please sign this petition to put him back on the air NOW. 197,000+ and counting. (We might even take Chris Matthews's signature. And Jon Stewart's too. We go, now you go.)
Friday, November 05, 2010
Leaning Backward: (MS)NBC Suits Strike Again
NBC has suspended Keith Olbermann for making campaign donations. Specifically:
$2,400 to Congresspersons Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, who won their elections, and Jack Conway, Kentucky AG who lost to Rand Paul. Grijalva was re-elected despite death threats, racist campaign literature depicting him as a Mexican "bandido," and a package mailed to his office containing a toxic substance. Thanks for contributing to some good Democrats, Keith.
Here's the thing: $7,200 in campaign contributions hardly rises to the level of $2.5 million contributed by Fox owner Rupert Murdoch to the RNC and Republican Governors Association. Murdoch said he was contributing to his "friend" John Kasich, former Fox host, who won a narrow race for governor of Ohio. Friend or not, Rupert's millions provided Kasich and the successful GOP candidates for governor in other states plenty more juice than Keith's modest contributions. Michael C. Moynihan, writer for the libertarian magazine Reason, made a lot of sense in criticizing MSNBC president Phil Griffin:
$2,400 to Congresspersons Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, who won their elections, and Jack Conway, Kentucky AG who lost to Rand Paul. Grijalva was re-elected despite death threats, racist campaign literature depicting him as a Mexican "bandido," and a package mailed to his office containing a toxic substance. Thanks for contributing to some good Democrats, Keith.
Here's the thing: $7,200 in campaign contributions hardly rises to the level of $2.5 million contributed by Fox owner Rupert Murdoch to the RNC and Republican Governors Association. Murdoch said he was contributing to his "friend" John Kasich, former Fox host, who won a narrow race for governor of Ohio. Friend or not, Rupert's millions provided Kasich and the successful GOP candidates for governor in other states plenty more juice than Keith's modest contributions. Michael C. Moynihan, writer for the libertarian magazine Reason, made a lot of sense in criticizing MSNBC president Phil Griffin:
“Isn’t it unfair to hold Olbermann, who is one of the most partisan people on television (if not of Earth), to the same standards as, say, Brian Williams? Countdown exists to promote Democratic candidates and liberal policies, which is just fine by me. So why shouldn’t Olbermann, as a private citizen, be allowed to donate money to those candidates he plumps for on television?”Please don't tell us Tom Brokaw and Charlie Rose had a hand in this. Every time they trot old Tom out of mothballs, trouble follows.
Thursday, November 04, 2010
Return of The Dumbass: Chris Matthews
One of this blog's favorite original features was to pick out absurd letters to the editor in the Chicago Tribune to mock, finishing with a graphic showing someone sitting in the corner with a duncecap, and the slogan, "Go sit in the corner, dumbass." From time to time we like to expand our good-natured mockery to others in more elevated positions, who therefore ought to know better.
Today the prize goes to MSNBC political analyst and host of Hardball, Chris Matthews. The first time Chris's bizarre and unsubstantiated theory that President Obama was driven to legislate from the left by obstructionist Republicans came up in his interview of former President Carter. (See my post "With Eight Days to Go, Matthews Scapegoats The Left: Stay Classy, Chris”.) Then, Chris asked President Carter this loaded question: “Is the left always going to be a thorn in the side of a center-left or moderate Democratic president?”
We're not sure if Matthews shared this absurd theory with his colleagues during election night coverage, but he's back at it today. Interviewing Senator Michael Bennet from Colorado, Chris doubled down (to coin the political season's most overused buzzword) on his fanciful notions:
The criticism that President Obama was driven to the left by an obstructionist Republican Congress is, to put it mildly, a misrepresentation of the facts. The consensus among political observers, from Jonathan Alter to Paul Krugman, is not that President Obama's legislation was “leftwing;” but that it was pragmatic or conservative enough to pass muster with Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, and Blanche Lincoln. Moreover, it wasn't mainly a “leftwing” argument Republicans used to attack it, but the “sweetheart deals” such as the so-called “cornhusker kickback” with other concessions to various special interests. Paul Krugman said:
Enough is enough. If Chris has specific evidence to back up his assertion, present it. Gather a panel that might comprise Krugman, Alter, Maddow, Olbermann, O'Donnell, Big Eddie, and run the anti-left mantra by them. And if Chris's theme is that healthcare was a major component of the President's so-called “leftwing legislation,” it was Mr. Obama himself who made the decision to prioritize it, over the objections of his closest advisers. So arguably, President Obama's “lefty” image to the extent it exists is by his own choice. In fact, Mr. Obama confessed that if passing healthcare reform makes him a one-term president, it will have been worth it. Just ask Jonathan Alter.
STOP scapegoating the left with “falsie” facts, Chris. And without further ado:
Today the prize goes to MSNBC political analyst and host of Hardball, Chris Matthews. The first time Chris's bizarre and unsubstantiated theory that President Obama was driven to legislate from the left by obstructionist Republicans came up in his interview of former President Carter. (See my post "With Eight Days to Go, Matthews Scapegoats The Left: Stay Classy, Chris”.) Then, Chris asked President Carter this loaded question: “Is the left always going to be a thorn in the side of a center-left or moderate Democratic president?”
We're not sure if Matthews shared this absurd theory with his colleagues during election night coverage, but he's back at it today. Interviewing Senator Michael Bennet from Colorado, Chris doubled down (to coin the political season's most overused buzzword) on his fanciful notions:
“The Republican strategy of the last two years has been to force Obama over to the left, so that he can only pass leftwing legislation, or center-left legislation, without the grace of a bipartisan support. They won. They made him into a lefty.”It's interesting that Chris repeated the mildly pejorative adjectives “leftwing” and “lefty.” Is Chris Matthews predisposed against the left, for some reason? On substance Mr. Matthews, you're “entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts,” as your colleague Lawrence O'Donnell likes to say, by way of former NY Senator Pat Moynihan.
The criticism that President Obama was driven to the left by an obstructionist Republican Congress is, to put it mildly, a misrepresentation of the facts. The consensus among political observers, from Jonathan Alter to Paul Krugman, is not that President Obama's legislation was “leftwing;” but that it was pragmatic or conservative enough to pass muster with Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, and Blanche Lincoln. Moreover, it wasn't mainly a “leftwing” argument Republicans used to attack it, but the “sweetheart deals” such as the so-called “cornhusker kickback” with other concessions to various special interests. Paul Krugman said:
“If Democrats do as badly as expected in next week’s elections, pundits [Matthews] will rush to interpret the results as a referendum on ideology. President Obama moved too far to the left, most will say, even though his actual program — a health care plan very similar to past Republican proposals, a fiscal stimulus that consisted mainly of tax cuts, help for the unemployed and aid to hard-pressed states — was more conservative than his election platform.”Indeed, the fact President Obama needed 60 votes, including those of Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Max Baucus, and Mark Pryor (shall I go on?) hardly sustains Chris's idiotic theory that President Obama turned into a “lefty”(toad?) right along with all these centrist and right-of-center senators. Moreover, progressives and liberals, while accepting the half-loaf, hardly considered Mr. Obama's legislative achievements “leftwing.” And yet we have to put up with this kind of nonsense from Mr. Matthews.
Enough is enough. If Chris has specific evidence to back up his assertion, present it. Gather a panel that might comprise Krugman, Alter, Maddow, Olbermann, O'Donnell, Big Eddie, and run the anti-left mantra by them. And if Chris's theme is that healthcare was a major component of the President's so-called “leftwing legislation,” it was Mr. Obama himself who made the decision to prioritize it, over the objections of his closest advisers. So arguably, President Obama's “lefty” image to the extent it exists is by his own choice. In fact, Mr. Obama confessed that if passing healthcare reform makes him a one-term president, it will have been worth it. Just ask Jonathan Alter.
STOP scapegoating the left with “falsie” facts, Chris. And without further ado:
Chamber of Commerce Gets its Wish, Opening Salvo of Political War
Total gridlock is what we can expect for the next two years. And lots of pain for the nation. Forget what the White House says. It’s self-serving spin to counter the other side’s tough talk with all those Teabagger bayonets pointed at John Boehner’s and Mitch McConnell’s back.
The House can do whatever it pleases with its Republican majority. But it will be mostly posturing with a Senate still in Democratic hands without the requisite 60 votes to pass legislation and a president (Mr. Obama’s appetite for a fight is very much in doubt) presumably ready to wield the veto pen.
The beginnings of this open warfare (whether or not the President chooses to recognize it) began, ironically, when it became clear to Republicans that Barack Obama would be elected president of the United States in 2008. Eleven days before Obama’s inauguration, Republicans held a powerpoint strategy session to plot their return to power. House Speaker-to-be John Boehner has said there will be "no compromise" with the White House. Mitch McConnell doubled down on his vow to make President Obama a one-term president his highest priority. So much for jobs, economic growth, unemployment, healthcare, financial stability. They plan to move on those too. Back to the Bush nightmare status quo ante.
The Republicans have no new or coherent ideas. That will become patently obvious as soon as they try to govern. Which is why they've taken aim at the President. Impeachment is not off the table. Nor are frivolous investigations into the President's citizenship, or whether or not he offered a job to defeated Pennsylvania Senate candidate Joe Sestak. So much for not "relitigating" the past, even if the issues are bogus. Given the choice of fighting back or being crucified by Republican extremists, the President may reluctantly opt to fight.
President Obama’s left flank is restive. Liberals and progressives warned the President early in the process that Republicans would not negotiate. Yet the President insisted on transferring total ownership of healthcare reform to the Senate committees, with predictable results. Deadlines were missed. Precious time that could have been used to pivot to jobs and the economy was wasted schmoozing recalcitrant senators. The President was overly deferential to “Indian chief” chairmen like Chris Dodd and Max Baucus.
In Jon Alter’s book about Obama’s first year, the frustrated progressive fighter, NY Congressman Anthony Weiner, asked the President what he expected to get from rejected overtures to the other side. The answer was the two Maine senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. In the end, the President got neither.The President’s timidity, his reluctance to take on GOP obstruction full-bore, the loss of messaging, all contributed to the result of November 2. In a pre-election meeting with progressive bloggers, the President said, “I’m President and not king. And so I’ve got to get a majority in the House and I’ve got to get 60 votes in the Senate to move any legislative initiative forward.”
Yes, but the reality is, healthcare was passed through reconciliation with fewer than 60 votes, as Republicans dragged financial reform and small business tax breaks late into the legislative term, when these bills would least impact voter perceptions going into the election. It may be all water under the bridge, but the President’s favorite term to explain letting Bush and Cheney skate or addressing the repeal of healthcare and financial reform legislation — we're not going to “relitigate” these issues — will be a hard sell. Democrats are too honest, unfortunately, to be effective at matching Republican sound bite distortions and talking points.
Time to hit the reset button. House Republicans are ready to repeal this historic legislation. This time the White House had better get its messaging right. It starts at the top. Would Presidents Lyndon Johnson, Truman, or FDR have allowed legislative issues to languish this way for so long? In 1946-1948, Truman faced bigger Republican majorities and he rolled them with his combative challenges to the “do-nothing” Congress.
President Truman actually campaigned against a tax cut for the highest brackets, which was passed over his veto, by calling it the “rich man’s tax law.” It’s nearly impossible to imagine President Obama pulling a Truman and drawing a line in the sand on extending the Bush tax cuts for multimillionaires. But we can always hope. Wasn’t that Obama’s campaign slogan? After historic losses for the Democratic Party in the 1946 midterm elections, President Truman came roaring back to defeat Dewey in the biggest presidential upset of the last century. Truman was written off by all the pundits, who had predicted a sweeping Dewey win. Instead, not only was Truman reelected (on his own right) but a Democratic Congress was elected, wiping out the short-lived Republican gains of '46. Going into 2012, this should be the Democratic Party's template for success and electoral redemption. President Obama has the added advantage that his approval rating is higher than Harry Truman's was leading up to the Democratic convention of 1948.
The Republican establishment, and the Tea Party, are fortunate to have been rescued from self-destructive incompetence and extremism by a radicalized right wing Supreme Court. The right wing high Court handed down its most politically partisan and ideological split decision in Citizens United since wresting the 2000 election from the people’s hands and elevating George W. Bush to the presidency. The result of Bush v. Gore was catastrophic and, it could be argued, still being felt today.
Everywhere else, the infusion of secret funds laundered through the Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove’s group made the difference, mostly on the House side impelled by misguided and misinformed Tea Party energy. These days the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is cocky enough to do a victory lap while sending its newly purchased House reps (I should say “representatives”) a wish list to “promote their interest at the expense of the country, environment, and world.”
The election made interesting news in India. From their perspective, “India baiter Dan Burton,” set to chair the South Asia subcommittee, worries for his consistent hostility to India. MoveOn, a real netroots people organization was mentioned for its campaign against Republicans who have actively lobbied for shipping jobs overseas, to India and China:
The foreign media from China and India, for example, regard the Tea Party/Teabaggers as a wild card of sorts. They are a useful tool to corporations and plutocrats as long as they can be manipulated by corporations represented by the Chamber, Karl Rove, and original astroturfer Dick Armey. Confronted by the reality of government and to whom Republicans in Congress owe their loyalty and allegiance — hint, Teabaggers: It’s not the public — the Tea Party (writ large) should be in for a rude awakening and more ire hurled at (GOP) government. At which point we may hear whispers of a chain-smoking John Boehner doubling down on the scotch.
It should also be noted that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell today was doubling down on his statement to make President Obama a one-term president as his his top priority for the next two years. Just in case he had been misunderstood (by Robert Gibbs and President Obama) the first time.
McConnell said there will be no “capitulation” from Republicans although they are willing to work with the President if Democrats agree with all GOP positions. Lost in the mix is the fact that Democrats still control the presidency and the Senate, and Republicans abused the filibuster in a historically unprecedented way by obstructing every Democratic initiative, including those that were Republican proposals. These include small business tax incentives and cap-and-trade, an original GOP proposal once pushed by John McCain and Lindsey Graham, before they reinvented themselves as wingnut anti-science climate change deniers.
In keeping with the “wish list” of the corporations (above), who in this brave new post-Citizens United world represent the aspirations of the “American people,” Senator McConnell said Republicans intend not only to repeal the healthcare bill but financial regulations reform as well. McConnell conflated and renamed the corporate wish list to “wish list of the American people.”
Despite being Minority Leader, and showing utter contempt and disrespect for the separation of powers and the national interest, as defined by the voters' split decision, McConnell laid down the gauntlet. He has zero interest in promoting economic recovery and job growth. His rationalization is that Democrats have only helped people “in the short term.” Senator McConnell would not specify what this "short-term help" was: unemployment insurance extensions; elimination of pre-exisitng conditions for children, who will remain on their parents' policies until age 26; a consumer financial protection agency; the regulation of banks, Wall Street, and oil companies? Tell us, Senator McConnell, repealing which of these “short-term” benefits will help the “American people” long term, and how. Actually, in an amazing display of GOP Orwellian-speak, all of these initiatives stand to really help the American people in the long-term, after 2014 and beyond.
The House can do whatever it pleases with its Republican majority. But it will be mostly posturing with a Senate still in Democratic hands without the requisite 60 votes to pass legislation and a president (Mr. Obama’s appetite for a fight is very much in doubt) presumably ready to wield the veto pen.
The Fake War: Calm Before The Storm
The beginnings of this open warfare (whether or not the President chooses to recognize it) began, ironically, when it became clear to Republicans that Barack Obama would be elected president of the United States in 2008. Eleven days before Obama’s inauguration, Republicans held a powerpoint strategy session to plot their return to power. House Speaker-to-be John Boehner has said there will be "no compromise" with the White House. Mitch McConnell doubled down on his vow to make President Obama a one-term president his highest priority. So much for jobs, economic growth, unemployment, healthcare, financial stability. They plan to move on those too. Back to the Bush nightmare status quo ante.
The Republicans have no new or coherent ideas. That will become patently obvious as soon as they try to govern. Which is why they've taken aim at the President. Impeachment is not off the table. Nor are frivolous investigations into the President's citizenship, or whether or not he offered a job to defeated Pennsylvania Senate candidate Joe Sestak. So much for not "relitigating" the past, even if the issues are bogus. Given the choice of fighting back or being crucified by Republican extremists, the President may reluctantly opt to fight.
What Went Wrong: Historic Legislation The Public Knows Little About
President Obama’s left flank is restive. Liberals and progressives warned the President early in the process that Republicans would not negotiate. Yet the President insisted on transferring total ownership of healthcare reform to the Senate committees, with predictable results. Deadlines were missed. Precious time that could have been used to pivot to jobs and the economy was wasted schmoozing recalcitrant senators. The President was overly deferential to “Indian chief” chairmen like Chris Dodd and Max Baucus.
In Jon Alter’s book about Obama’s first year, the frustrated progressive fighter, NY Congressman Anthony Weiner, asked the President what he expected to get from rejected overtures to the other side. The answer was the two Maine senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. In the end, the President got neither.The President’s timidity, his reluctance to take on GOP obstruction full-bore, the loss of messaging, all contributed to the result of November 2. In a pre-election meeting with progressive bloggers, the President said, “I’m President and not king. And so I’ve got to get a majority in the House and I’ve got to get 60 votes in the Senate to move any legislative initiative forward.”
Yes, but the reality is, healthcare was passed through reconciliation with fewer than 60 votes, as Republicans dragged financial reform and small business tax breaks late into the legislative term, when these bills would least impact voter perceptions going into the election. It may be all water under the bridge, but the President’s favorite term to explain letting Bush and Cheney skate or addressing the repeal of healthcare and financial reform legislation — we're not going to “relitigate” these issues — will be a hard sell. Democrats are too honest, unfortunately, to be effective at matching Republican sound bite distortions and talking points.
What Would Truman Do? FDR, LBJ? Hmm ...
Time to hit the reset button. House Republicans are ready to repeal this historic legislation. This time the White House had better get its messaging right. It starts at the top. Would Presidents Lyndon Johnson, Truman, or FDR have allowed legislative issues to languish this way for so long? In 1946-1948, Truman faced bigger Republican majorities and he rolled them with his combative challenges to the “do-nothing” Congress.
President Truman actually campaigned against a tax cut for the highest brackets, which was passed over his veto, by calling it the “rich man’s tax law.” It’s nearly impossible to imagine President Obama pulling a Truman and drawing a line in the sand on extending the Bush tax cuts for multimillionaires. But we can always hope. Wasn’t that Obama’s campaign slogan? After historic losses for the Democratic Party in the 1946 midterm elections, President Truman came roaring back to defeat Dewey in the biggest presidential upset of the last century. Truman was written off by all the pundits, who had predicted a sweeping Dewey win. Instead, not only was Truman reelected (on his own right) but a Democratic Congress was elected, wiping out the short-lived Republican gains of '46. Going into 2012, this should be the Democratic Party's template for success and electoral redemption. President Obama has the added advantage that his approval rating is higher than Harry Truman's was leading up to the Democratic convention of 1948.
A Feingold Challenge From The Left?
The rather blunt White House sharpies advising President Obama should take note of progressive champion Russ Feingold’s statement in his concession speech: “On to 2012!” A primary or even an independent challenge from the Left could well spring from the Democratic Party’s most fiercely independent progressive voice. The former Wisconsin senator didn't sound like he was lobbying to be named President Obama's Wisconsin election 2012 campaign chairman.
The possibility of a serious Feingold challenge depends entirely on President Obama's posture between now and 2012. The ball is in the President’s court. Progressives are ready to defend the historic legislative achievements of the 111th Congress and we expect the President to use the veto pen to stop any attempt to roll back healthcare or financial reform dead in their tracks.
On the bright side for Democrats, the usually disciplined Republican leadership faces a huge problem on its extreme right wing. The Tea Party eruption was a perfect storm of principled and unprincipled populist opposition that actually helped Democrats retain control of the Senate, slowing the wave in Connecticut, Delaware, and West Virginia, ending with a Democratic goal-line stand in Nevada, Colorado, Washington, and California.
On the bright side for Democrats, the usually disciplined Republican leadership faces a huge problem on its extreme right wing. The Tea Party eruption was a perfect storm of principled and unprincipled populist opposition that actually helped Democrats retain control of the Senate, slowing the wave in Connecticut, Delaware, and West Virginia, ending with a Democratic goal-line stand in Nevada, Colorado, Washington, and California.
Corporate Money Strangles U.S. Democracy
The Republican establishment, and the Tea Party, are fortunate to have been rescued from self-destructive incompetence and extremism by a radicalized right wing Supreme Court. The right wing high Court handed down its most politically partisan and ideological split decision in Citizens United since wresting the 2000 election from the people’s hands and elevating George W. Bush to the presidency. The result of Bush v. Gore was catastrophic and, it could be argued, still being felt today.
The unlimited infusion of corporate cash into the 2010 midterm elections is the single most important issue to have turned a fair democratic election into an unfairly stacked contest of unlimited secret corporate donations targeting and picking off Democratic candidates that could not compete with the corporate money deluge. Republicans will lie shamelessly on this issue (Hailey Barbour) contending that unions spent more, etc. The reality is, unions could not possibly match the corporations. Furthermore, their contributions were not secret.
All the analysts are talking the numbers, and what they mean, in a vacuum. There is a certain excitement about the "horse race" aspects of the election coupled with all the cool computer graphics that just doesn't lend itself to examining, say, the ratio of secret corporate money to the defeat of targeted Democratic candidates. Perhaps Nate Silver can quantify and model the money issue, candidate for candidate. Absent the huge corporate (and foreign) slush fund that enabled the “wave” and distorted the elections in immeasurable ways, no analysis is honest and complete. The purchase of our democracy by narrow corporate interests, oligarchs, and plutocrats is the single most important story (period!) of this election cycle, told and untold.
In Wisconsin and Florida, flawed and inferior self-funding candidates defeated solid rivals. A healthcare criminal bought his way into the Florida governor’s mansion. Wisconsin inexplicably turned against the conscience of the Senate, Russ Feingold. The right wing will point to California making the case that self-funding is a wash. Not quite. California is still a predominantly blue state with a huge media market that is less susceptible to large infusions of campaign cash. Both Jerry Brown and Senator Barbara Boxer were sufficiently well funded to get their message out and beat back the Whitman-Fiorina challenge. California was also the only state in which the money issue was effectively framed and used against the self-funders.
Corporations Make "American People" Wish List
All the analysts are talking the numbers, and what they mean, in a vacuum. There is a certain excitement about the "horse race" aspects of the election coupled with all the cool computer graphics that just doesn't lend itself to examining, say, the ratio of secret corporate money to the defeat of targeted Democratic candidates. Perhaps Nate Silver can quantify and model the money issue, candidate for candidate. Absent the huge corporate (and foreign) slush fund that enabled the “wave” and distorted the elections in immeasurable ways, no analysis is honest and complete. The purchase of our democracy by narrow corporate interests, oligarchs, and plutocrats is the single most important story (period!) of this election cycle, told and untold.
In Wisconsin and Florida, flawed and inferior self-funding candidates defeated solid rivals. A healthcare criminal bought his way into the Florida governor’s mansion. Wisconsin inexplicably turned against the conscience of the Senate, Russ Feingold. The right wing will point to California making the case that self-funding is a wash. Not quite. California is still a predominantly blue state with a huge media market that is less susceptible to large infusions of campaign cash. Both Jerry Brown and Senator Barbara Boxer were sufficiently well funded to get their message out and beat back the Whitman-Fiorina challenge. California was also the only state in which the money issue was effectively framed and used against the self-funders.
Corporations Make "American People" Wish List
Everywhere else, the infusion of secret funds laundered through the Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove’s group made the difference, mostly on the House side impelled by misguided and misinformed Tea Party energy. These days the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is cocky enough to do a victory lap while sending its newly purchased House reps (I should say “representatives”) a wish list to “promote their interest at the expense of the country, environment, and world.”
- Across the board extension of Bush tax cuts, most importantly for millionaires and billionaires. The Democratic proposal is to make the middle class tax cuts (up to $250,000) permanent, and not add another $800+ billion to the deficit.
- A rollback of pending regulations — you know, back to the Bush-Cheney deregulation days that gave us BP, mine disasters, environmental pollution, salmonella outbreaks in our food chain, toxic toys and exports from China, and anti-science climate change deniers — in the EPA, labor, and energy departments, among others. Joe Barton, the Texas congressman who apologized profusely to BP’s Tony Hayward on behalf of (?) … is slated to be the new chairman of the House Energy Committee.
- A “reprieve” from higher taxes on overseas profits and penalties for moving jobs overseas.
- A rollback of the financial reforms that passed Congress. Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are on record for repeal of the less-than-sweeping financial reforms passed over Republican opposition. They want to take us back to the status quo ante when the freewheeling dearth of regulations caused the near-financial collapse of our economy.
- A rollback of legislation that allows the Fed to set banking fees, so consumers don’t get hosed.
The election made interesting news in India. From their perspective, “India baiter Dan Burton,” set to chair the South Asia subcommittee, worries for his consistent hostility to India. MoveOn, a real netroots people organization was mentioned for its campaign against Republicans who have actively lobbied for shipping jobs overseas, to India and China:
Television advertisements paid for by liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee accused candidates Mark Kirk and Bobby Schilling, both Republicans running in Illinois, of supporting tax breaks for businesses operating in countries like India, and therefore, being responsible for the loss of American jobs.It is worth noting that from a foreign perspective MoveOn is an adversary to keep on their radar. Kirk (Senate) and Schilling (House) won their elections in Illinois. Clearly, those Orwellian empty warehouse ads run by the Chamber and Karl Rove, blaming Democrats for the loss of jobs had the desired effect of confusing voters about the truth, which is the exact opposite. It’s the old Hitler-Goebbels maxim: the bigger the lie, the easier it is to sell to low-information voters and brain-scrambled Tebaggers. In most cases, these secret "carpet bombing" ads lied with impunity, and few stations actually had the resources in real-time to fact-check everything they ran. They were happy to take the corporate buyout, along with Republicans and Teabaggers.
However, there is little indication that the new cohort of Republicans in Congress, whose members often betray a proclivity for isolationism, will necessarily be more sympathetic to international business interests.
The foreign media from China and India, for example, regard the Tea Party/Teabaggers as a wild card of sorts. They are a useful tool to corporations and plutocrats as long as they can be manipulated by corporations represented by the Chamber, Karl Rove, and original astroturfer Dick Armey. Confronted by the reality of government and to whom Republicans in Congress owe their loyalty and allegiance — hint, Teabaggers: It’s not the public — the Tea Party (writ large) should be in for a rude awakening and more ire hurled at (GOP) government. At which point we may hear whispers of a chain-smoking John Boehner doubling down on the scotch.
Mitch McConnell Extends An Olive Branch Covered With Thorns
It should also be noted that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell today was doubling down on his statement to make President Obama a one-term president as his his top priority for the next two years. Just in case he had been misunderstood (by Robert Gibbs and President Obama) the first time.
McConnell said there will be no “capitulation” from Republicans although they are willing to work with the President if Democrats agree with all GOP positions. Lost in the mix is the fact that Democrats still control the presidency and the Senate, and Republicans abused the filibuster in a historically unprecedented way by obstructing every Democratic initiative, including those that were Republican proposals. These include small business tax incentives and cap-and-trade, an original GOP proposal once pushed by John McCain and Lindsey Graham, before they reinvented themselves as wingnut anti-science climate change deniers.
In keeping with the “wish list” of the corporations (above), who in this brave new post-Citizens United world represent the aspirations of the “American people,” Senator McConnell said Republicans intend not only to repeal the healthcare bill but financial regulations reform as well. McConnell conflated and renamed the corporate wish list to “wish list of the American people.”
Despite being Minority Leader, and showing utter contempt and disrespect for the separation of powers and the national interest, as defined by the voters' split decision, McConnell laid down the gauntlet. He has zero interest in promoting economic recovery and job growth. His rationalization is that Democrats have only helped people “in the short term.” Senator McConnell would not specify what this "short-term help" was: unemployment insurance extensions; elimination of pre-exisitng conditions for children, who will remain on their parents' policies until age 26; a consumer financial protection agency; the regulation of banks, Wall Street, and oil companies? Tell us, Senator McConnell, repealing which of these “short-term” benefits will help the “American people” long term, and how. Actually, in an amazing display of GOP Orwellian-speak, all of these initiatives stand to really help the American people in the long-term, after 2014 and beyond.
Can the Teabagger candidates be counted on to sell out their pretend populism in order to kowtow to business interests? Chances are, yes! (See: the economic policy proposal Rand Paul presented post-election: "Don't tax yachts, because that hurts everyone!")As Hunter Thompson said, “let’s get down to brass tacks: (Setting aside all the Orwellian lingo of the GOP) “How much for the presidency?” Money is no object. And POWER is the name of the game.
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
As John Boehner's Tears Go By
For me, the most embarrassing, fingernails scraping blackboard moment of yesterday’s campaign coverage was to watch Speaker-to-be John Boehner burst into tears talking about “chasing the American Dream” and mopping floors to put himself through college on his path to the House Speakership. It’s right up there with Nixon’s weepy farewell, “always remember, others may hate you. But those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself.”
I take it Nixon was referencing his “enemies list” when he said the haters won’t win “unless you hate them.” Nice to know it was nothing personal. Like Nixon before him, John Boehner is a career politician first elected to the House exactly 20 years ago this month.
So when Boehner addressed a Through The Looking Glass gathering of Tea Partiers to say he was a Washington “outsider” and “there will be no compromise,” he must have forgotten about his country club Republican corporate connections and all those years spent as a corporate shill, highlighted by passing out tobacco lobby checks on the House floor. He also must have forgotten the voters’ perennial plea that the parties work together to solve the nation’s problems.
Rachel Maddow cut right to the quick of Boehner’s moist tear ducts, when she noted in her inimitable way that this guy cries at the drop of a hat. He cries at ribbon-cutting and award ceremonies, and he wept copiously urging fellow Republicans to vote for George Bush’s TARP program in 2008 — which became an anti-Obama distortion used by Republicans and groups like the Chamber of Commerce (that supported TARP) against Democrats in the 2010 campaign. Why is it that the crowd reflexively chants “USA, USA, USA” when Republicans of the male gender cry? (Weird...)
The big unspoken question at today’s presidential presser was how President Obama will react to the potential avalanche of frivolous investigations stemming from Rep. Darrell Issa and spurred on by Michelle Bachmann and her caucus of Tea Party nutjobs, now that they have subpoena power. The birthers and tenthers are just itching to open a probe into the President’s citizenship in an official attempt to deligitimize his presidency just in time for the 2012 elections. Perhaps then we’ll be treated to yet another bizarre display from Speaker Boehner channeling Nero and the burning of Rome … as tears go by.
I take it Nixon was referencing his “enemies list” when he said the haters won’t win “unless you hate them.” Nice to know it was nothing personal. Like Nixon before him, John Boehner is a career politician first elected to the House exactly 20 years ago this month.
So when Boehner addressed a Through The Looking Glass gathering of Tea Partiers to say he was a Washington “outsider” and “there will be no compromise,” he must have forgotten about his country club Republican corporate connections and all those years spent as a corporate shill, highlighted by passing out tobacco lobby checks on the House floor. He also must have forgotten the voters’ perennial plea that the parties work together to solve the nation’s problems.
Rachel Maddow cut right to the quick of Boehner’s moist tear ducts, when she noted in her inimitable way that this guy cries at the drop of a hat. He cries at ribbon-cutting and award ceremonies, and he wept copiously urging fellow Republicans to vote for George Bush’s TARP program in 2008 — which became an anti-Obama distortion used by Republicans and groups like the Chamber of Commerce (that supported TARP) against Democrats in the 2010 campaign. Why is it that the crowd reflexively chants “USA, USA, USA” when Republicans of the male gender cry? (Weird...)
The big unspoken question at today’s presidential presser was how President Obama will react to the potential avalanche of frivolous investigations stemming from Rep. Darrell Issa and spurred on by Michelle Bachmann and her caucus of Tea Party nutjobs, now that they have subpoena power. The birthers and tenthers are just itching to open a probe into the President’s citizenship in an official attempt to deligitimize his presidency just in time for the 2012 elections. Perhaps then we’ll be treated to yet another bizarre display from Speaker Boehner channeling Nero and the burning of Rome … as tears go by.
TEA PARTY Remedial Education: Teabaggers LOSE in Nevada!
In a vote for SANITY, Harry Reid defeated Sharron Angle by a SOLID 5-6 percentage points.
Looking at the Nevada electoral map, there was a lot of talk about "none of these candidates" as a viable option for Nevadans to express their displeasure with all choices. The speculation was this ballot protest choice would be huge. It turns out to have been no more than 2 percent of the vote.
After all was said and done, all the money poured into the state to defeat the Senate Majority Leader, in the state with the worst unemployment and highest foreclosure rate in the nation, the TEA PARTY Republicans were CRUSHED; nay, they were schooled in civics, common decency, and tolerance.
They tried to make it about Harry Reid. But in the end, it was all about Sharron Angle. Take this as an object lesson, Teabaggers: When you base your message on racism and bigotry; when you single out Latinos and beat up on them, dehumanize them, beat them like a Piñata, you've stirred a sleeping giant.
THIS IS AMERICA. This is NOT Nazi Germany. This is a multicultural nation. You could have beaten Harry Reid if you hadn't run such an insane candidate, who ran away from the media, hid in her bunker, said so many crazy things that she was muzzled by her own Washington handlers, like some Soviet Politburo member.
THIS IS AMERICA. And Latinos, Asians, African Americans, and Native Americans, are as entitled to be part of this nation as every other citizen. For Angle, the medieval racist to use the boogieman of illegal immigration is what finally did her in. Latinos, American citizens, turned out in huge numbers to hand her a defeat of BIBLICAL proportions.
One final observation about Harry's victory. Nevada is a gambling state. Gamblers are jaded and cynical, unsentimental libertarian high-wire act types. They knew Harry and they were ready to dump him unceremoniously, given the right candidate. Nothing personal, the economy was brutal.
But one thing gamblers cannot countenance is being embarassed by a flighty, crazy woman politician. They have a strict code of honor and they do not like bigots. Their tenuous existence depends on truly judging people by the content of their character. They move easily among Latinos, African Americans, and Asians. Gamblers may vote Republican, but they don't suffer racists easily.
They may not have agreed with a single policy position of Harry's but when a bigoted politician beats up on the guy who parks their car at the casino or serves them their regular burger'n fries after a losing night, they take it personally. It's unscientific, I know, but it may explain the obvious swing of undecided, disgusted Nevadans to Harry. Nevada gamblers strongly disapproved of Angle.
And so did the other undecided Nevadans. They don't like racists any more than they tolerate bullies. In the end, they did not embrace Harry. But they strongly rejected Sharron Angle. What repulsed those of us on the outside about her, also repelled Nevadans. Sharron Angle was an acute embarassment to Nevada. That was Nevadans' voting booth calculation. It's really that simple.Theirs was a vote for tolerance and decency, and yes, sanity. They made Harry sweat. But then they came home.
Looking at the Nevada electoral map, there was a lot of talk about "none of these candidates" as a viable option for Nevadans to express their displeasure with all choices. The speculation was this ballot protest choice would be huge. It turns out to have been no more than 2 percent of the vote.
After all was said and done, all the money poured into the state to defeat the Senate Majority Leader, in the state with the worst unemployment and highest foreclosure rate in the nation, the TEA PARTY Republicans were CRUSHED; nay, they were schooled in civics, common decency, and tolerance.
They tried to make it about Harry Reid. But in the end, it was all about Sharron Angle. Take this as an object lesson, Teabaggers: When you base your message on racism and bigotry; when you single out Latinos and beat up on them, dehumanize them, beat them like a Piñata, you've stirred a sleeping giant.
THIS IS AMERICA. This is NOT Nazi Germany. This is a multicultural nation. You could have beaten Harry Reid if you hadn't run such an insane candidate, who ran away from the media, hid in her bunker, said so many crazy things that she was muzzled by her own Washington handlers, like some Soviet Politburo member.
THIS IS AMERICA. And Latinos, Asians, African Americans, and Native Americans, are as entitled to be part of this nation as every other citizen. For Angle, the medieval racist to use the boogieman of illegal immigration is what finally did her in. Latinos, American citizens, turned out in huge numbers to hand her a defeat of BIBLICAL proportions.
One final observation about Harry's victory. Nevada is a gambling state. Gamblers are jaded and cynical, unsentimental libertarian high-wire act types. They knew Harry and they were ready to dump him unceremoniously, given the right candidate. Nothing personal, the economy was brutal.
But one thing gamblers cannot countenance is being embarassed by a flighty, crazy woman politician. They have a strict code of honor and they do not like bigots. Their tenuous existence depends on truly judging people by the content of their character. They move easily among Latinos, African Americans, and Asians. Gamblers may vote Republican, but they don't suffer racists easily.
They may not have agreed with a single policy position of Harry's but when a bigoted politician beats up on the guy who parks their car at the casino or serves them their regular burger'n fries after a losing night, they take it personally. It's unscientific, I know, but it may explain the obvious swing of undecided, disgusted Nevadans to Harry. Nevada gamblers strongly disapproved of Angle.
And so did the other undecided Nevadans. They don't like racists any more than they tolerate bullies. In the end, they did not embrace Harry. But they strongly rejected Sharron Angle. What repulsed those of us on the outside about her, also repelled Nevadans. Sharron Angle was an acute embarassment to Nevada. That was Nevadans' voting booth calculation. It's really that simple.Theirs was a vote for tolerance and decency, and yes, sanity. They made Harry sweat. But then they came home.
"When I get to be senator," said the "2nd Amendment remedies" candidate with the hubris of the VILLAGE IDIOT. Really? IN YOUR DREAMS; YOU LOSE. BITCH!
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Guttersnipe Alert: ABC Drops Breitbart From its Election Coverage
Chalk one up for the good guys. As the House falls to Republicans.
Memo to ABC: When you invite incompetent, loudmouth, blowhard liars to the dance, you get incompetent, loudmouth blowhard skunk-farting lies stinking up the party. In short, what do you expect when you invite the skunk to your Tea Party? Hmm ... I'm beginning to see ABC's dilemma.
This letter canning Breitbart by ABC News digital division chief is a gem of contained contempt over the presumptuous arrogance of a liar, guttersnipe, and skunk who would deign to claim journalistic equivalence with Georgie Boy & Co.
Memo to ABC Digital: LIE DOWN WITH DOGS, EXPECT TO WAKE UP WITH FLEAS.
Most impressive candidate interview: Michael Bennet of Colorado. A true renaissance candidate. If this impressive candidate loses to a Teabagging chauvinistic hack ... Can you say, MEDIEVAL?
Memo to Lawrence O'Donnell: Lost in that longwinded gas attack of his is the fact Blanche Lincoln was (a) polling exactly the same as her final election numbers v. Boozman, while Lt. Governor (hardly an unknown) Halter was super-competitive; (b) the public option was also a poll winner in Arkansas; (c) it was whole series of positions by Lincoln, including a very public and disgraceful objection to raising the liability limits for lawsuits against BP and the Gulf corporate polluters. It was not lost on progressives, Mr. O'Donnell, that Lincoln was the biggest recipient of corporate oil money among Democrats.
The answer to O'Donnell's rant masquerading as a question is, absolutely, progressives would have done it again. Double down. The real question is, would the Clintonite party elders be forward-looking and realistic enough to dump a Democrat who had done practically nothing to advance the Democratic agenda, and support Halter, a candidate whose race would likely be much more competitive and winnable.
By the way, Lawrence, all these pompous predictions based on your vast bureaucratic experience in the Senate — yawn. Your understanding of process and political currents comes off as clunky and kind of rusty. On the bright side, you've got an inside track on the Idiot Punditocracy.
Memo to ABC: When you invite incompetent, loudmouth, blowhard liars to the dance, you get incompetent, loudmouth blowhard skunk-farting lies stinking up the party. In short, what do you expect when you invite the skunk to your Tea Party? Hmm ... I'm beginning to see ABC's dilemma.
This letter canning Breitbart by ABC News digital division chief is a gem of contained contempt over the presumptuous arrogance of a liar, guttersnipe, and skunk who would deign to claim journalistic equivalence with Georgie Boy & Co.
We have spent the past several days trying to make clear to you your limited role [dumbass wingnut] as a participant [representing the lunatic fringe] in our digital town hall to be streamed on ABCNews.com and Facebook. The post on your blog last Friday created a widespread impression that you would be analyzing the election on ABC News. We made it as clear as possible as quickly as possible [don't you understand English, arrogant prick!] that you had been invited along with numerous others to participate in our digital town hall. Instead of clarifying your role, you posted a blog on Sunday evening in which you continued to claim a bigger role in our coverage. As we are still unable to agree on your role, we feel it best for you not to participate. [In short, get lost asshole. And good riddance!]
 |
| ABC Scrapes the Bottom Searching For "Political |
Most impressive candidate interview: Michael Bennet of Colorado. A true renaissance candidate. If this impressive candidate loses to a Teabagging chauvinistic hack ... Can you say, MEDIEVAL?
Memo to Lawrence O'Donnell: Lost in that longwinded gas attack of his is the fact Blanche Lincoln was (a) polling exactly the same as her final election numbers v. Boozman, while Lt. Governor (hardly an unknown) Halter was super-competitive; (b) the public option was also a poll winner in Arkansas; (c) it was whole series of positions by Lincoln, including a very public and disgraceful objection to raising the liability limits for lawsuits against BP and the Gulf corporate polluters. It was not lost on progressives, Mr. O'Donnell, that Lincoln was the biggest recipient of corporate oil money among Democrats.
The answer to O'Donnell's rant masquerading as a question is, absolutely, progressives would have done it again. Double down. The real question is, would the Clintonite party elders be forward-looking and realistic enough to dump a Democrat who had done practically nothing to advance the Democratic agenda, and support Halter, a candidate whose race would likely be much more competitive and winnable.
By the way, Lawrence, all these pompous predictions based on your vast bureaucratic experience in the Senate — yawn. Your understanding of process and political currents comes off as clunky and kind of rusty. On the bright side, you've got an inside track on the Idiot Punditocracy.
TEA PARTY Remedial Education: Eight Myths Voters Believe as They go to The Polls
Reprinted from Dave Johnson's column as a public service Tamron Hall can't provide because she helps perpetuate them. ("News Nation"... riiiight. Tamron, news is more than an unimaginative slogan.)
Heard on the Thom Hartmann Show from smarter-than-corporate-media listeners:
"The opposite of PROGRESS is CON-gress; a Republican Congress."
"Vote Democratic so we can decaffeinate the Teabaggers."
1) President Obama tripled the deficit.
Reality: Bush's last budget had a $1.416 trillion deficit. Obama's first budget reduced that to $1.29 trillion.2) President Obama raised taxes, which hurt the economy.
Reality: Obama cut taxes. 40% of the "stimulus" was wasted on tax cuts which only create debt, which is why it was so much less effective than it could have been.3) President Obama bailed out the banks.
Reality: While many people conflate the "stimulus" with the bank bailouts, the bank bailouts were requested by President Bush and his Treasury Secretary, former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson. (Paulson also wanted the bailouts to be "non-reviewable by any court or any agency.") The bailouts passed and began before the 2008 election of President Obama.4) The stimulus didn't work.
Reality: The stimulus worked, but was not enough. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus raised employment by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million jobs.5) Businesses will hire if they get tax cuts.
Reality: A business hires the right number of employees to meet demand. Having extra cash does not cause a business to hire, but a business that has a demand for what it does will find the money to hire. Businesses want customers, not tax cuts.6) Health care reform costs $1 trillion.
Reality: The health care reform reduces government deficits by $138 billion.7) Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, is "going broke," people live longer, fewer workers per retiree, etc.
Reality: Social Security has run a surplus since it began, has a trust fund in the trillions, is completely sound for at least 25 more years and cannot legally borrow so cannot contribute to the deficit (compare that to the military budget!) Life expectancy is only longer because fewer babies die; people who reach 65 live about the same number of years as they used to.8) Government spending takes money out of the economy.
Reality: Government is We, the People and the money it spends is on We, the People. Many people do not know that it is government that builds the roads, airports, ports, courts, schools and other things that are the soil in which business thrives. Many people think that all government spending is on "welfare" and "foreign aid" when that is only a small part of the government's budget.
 |
| TEA-Drunk GOP Voter: Let's Get STOMPED IN THE HEAD Again: Wheee! |
"The opposite of PROGRESS is CON-gress; a Republican Congress."
"Vote Democratic so we can decaffeinate the Teabaggers."
Experience a Random Act of Culture ... And Vote!
This is so cool ... thanks, telemann:
Hope it puts everyone in a civic, voting spirit...
On Saturday, October 30, 2010, the Opera Company of Philadelphia brought together over 650 choristers from 28 participating organizations to perform one of the Knight Foundation's "Random Acts of Culture" at Macy's in Center City Philadelphia. Accompanied by the Wanamaker Organ - the world's largest pipe organ - the OCP Chorus and throngs of singers from the community infiltrated the store as shoppers, and burst into a pop-up rendition of the Hallelujah Chorus from Handel's "Messiah" at 12 noon, to the delight of surprised shoppers.
Hope it puts everyone in a civic, voting spirit...
Monday, November 01, 2010
Presidential Election in Brazil: A Tough Lady For a Tough Act to Follow
Dilma Rousseff became the first woman to be elected president of Brazil, as standard-bearer of the Worker’s Party of outgoing President Lula, the world’s most popular democratically-elected leader (more popular than Obama). Lula, with an off-the-charts approval rating of 80 percent, tapped Dilma to be his successor. Lula is limited to two terms of office by Brazil’s constitution. Dilma won a resounding victory of 55 percent to 44 percent of the vote over her rival as 135 million Brazilians went to the polls to elect a new president.
Dilma chose armed struggle as a guerrilla leader against the military dictatorship that ruled Brazil with an iron fist from 1964 to 1985. In a strange twist of fate, Dilma took a parallel path to the presidency as did her contemporary, Michelle Bachelet, former president of Chile. Both women were imprisoned and tortured by the U.S.-backed military regimes of their countries. Dilma was subjected to electric shock torture by sadists trained in the notorious military School of the Americas, a.k.a “school of the assassins” in Fort Benning, Georgia.
Known as a tough administrator, trained as an economist, Dilma served Lula as his energy minister, interior minister, and chief of staff. She is a cancer survivor, and by all accounts, one tough lady. Dilma assumes the presidency of a nation on the rise — currently the 8th economy of the world, Brazil is expected to be the world’s 5th largest economy by the time it hosts the 2016 Olympic Games.
The charismatic and beloved Lula is one tough act to follow. He presided over a booming economy that lifted 10 million Brazilians out of poverty and into the middle class. Lula, a self-made man with little formal education, is a founding member of Brazil’s Worker’s Party. He began his career as a lathe operator before moving up the trade union ranks to a leadership position during the turbulent era of the U.S.-backed military regime. Several times imprisoned by the military for his union organizing activities, he later won election to Congress. Lula is credited with being one of the most influential voices compelling the military to restore direct presidential elections.
A testament to his grit and perseverance, Lula ran for president three times before finally being elected. He was resoundingly re-elected with near-record vote totals for a world democratic leader. His approval ratings, as all-round good guy and model world citizen, have been sky-high as he prepares to leave office.
Part of Lula’s popularity derives from his innately Brazilian decency. When an Iranian woman was convicted of adultery and sentenced to be stoned to death, the case became a global cause célèbre. Using his infuence with the Iranian regime, Lula offered her asylum, on the spur of the moment, when he learned of the case.
President Lula said, “I can't imagine someone being stoned, I can't imagine. That’s why I made the request. If there was condition to send her to Brazil, we would receive her with arms wide open.” Lula opposes the death penalty, saying “I don't think the state has the right to kill a person.” If she “is causing problems there,” he added, “we will welcome her here.”
Foreign Minister Celso Amorim said, formalizing the offer: “I called my Iranian colleague ... to say that the action hurt the sensibility of the Brazilian people … In that moment, actually, the news we had was more about the stoning, which was based on a highly debatable crime in our view of the world.” Amorim described Ashtiani's threatened punishment as “something that is really baffling to our culture and to the way we see the world.”
Human rights organizations around the world hailed the offer as “unprecedented” and asked Brazil to continue using its influence “to lobby for the release of 12 other women awaiting execution by stoning.” While the Iranians have rejected Brazil’s offer of asylum, the high-level spotlight placed on this as a human rights issue has caused Iran to back down from going forward with the executions.
Dilma promised to carry on Lula’s social welfare policies to eradicate “misery” once and for all, improve the nation's healthcare delivery systems, and continue the pro-growth economic policies. Thanking the press, President-elect Dilma Rousseff said:
Dilma chose armed struggle as a guerrilla leader against the military dictatorship that ruled Brazil with an iron fist from 1964 to 1985. In a strange twist of fate, Dilma took a parallel path to the presidency as did her contemporary, Michelle Bachelet, former president of Chile. Both women were imprisoned and tortured by the U.S.-backed military regimes of their countries. Dilma was subjected to electric shock torture by sadists trained in the notorious military School of the Americas, a.k.a “school of the assassins” in Fort Benning, Georgia.
 |
| Mugshot of Dilma Rousseff: From captured guerrilla leader in 1972 to President-elect of Brazil in 2010. |
The charismatic and beloved Lula is one tough act to follow. He presided over a booming economy that lifted 10 million Brazilians out of poverty and into the middle class. Lula, a self-made man with little formal education, is a founding member of Brazil’s Worker’s Party. He began his career as a lathe operator before moving up the trade union ranks to a leadership position during the turbulent era of the U.S.-backed military regime. Several times imprisoned by the military for his union organizing activities, he later won election to Congress. Lula is credited with being one of the most influential voices compelling the military to restore direct presidential elections.
A testament to his grit and perseverance, Lula ran for president three times before finally being elected. He was resoundingly re-elected with near-record vote totals for a world democratic leader. His approval ratings, as all-round good guy and model world citizen, have been sky-high as he prepares to leave office.
 |
Going out on a high note: President Lula and First Lady Marisa LetÃcia stroll the majestic esplanade of the Alvorada Presidential palace. Official portrait of the world's most popular leader. |
President Lula said, “I can't imagine someone being stoned, I can't imagine. That’s why I made the request. If there was condition to send her to Brazil, we would receive her with arms wide open.” Lula opposes the death penalty, saying “I don't think the state has the right to kill a person.” If she “is causing problems there,” he added, “we will welcome her here.”
Foreign Minister Celso Amorim said, formalizing the offer: “I called my Iranian colleague ... to say that the action hurt the sensibility of the Brazilian people … In that moment, actually, the news we had was more about the stoning, which was based on a highly debatable crime in our view of the world.” Amorim described Ashtiani's threatened punishment as “something that is really baffling to our culture and to the way we see the world.”
Human rights organizations around the world hailed the offer as “unprecedented” and asked Brazil to continue using its influence “to lobby for the release of 12 other women awaiting execution by stoning.” While the Iranians have rejected Brazil’s offer of asylum, the high-level spotlight placed on this as a human rights issue has caused Iran to back down from going forward with the executions.
Dilma promised to carry on Lula’s social welfare policies to eradicate “misery” once and for all, improve the nation's healthcare delivery systems, and continue the pro-growth economic policies. Thanking the press, President-elect Dilma Rousseff said:
“I don’t deny that at times some of the things that were reported left me sad. But those who, like me, fought for democracy and for the right of free opinion, risking our lives, those who, like me and so many others no longer among us, dedicated all of our youth to the right of free expression — we were natural lovers of liberty. I said and repeat, that I prefer the noise of a free press to the silence of the dictatorships.I read somewhere about how special American democracy was. I too believe in American exceptionalism. But today, at least, American democracy takes a backseat to Brazil’s. Brazilian exceptionalism is on proud display to the world in the force and beauty and dignity of its democracy. It’s an awesome thing to see. This daughter of a Bulgarian immigrant has done good. And so has Brazil.
The task of succeeding [Lula] is difficult and challenging. But I know how to honor this legacy. I learned with him that when you govern thinking of the public interest and of the most needy, an immense force springs from the people and helps us govern, a force that carries the nation forward and helps us win the biggest challenges.”
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Reflections on The Jon Stewart Rally to Restore Sanity
According to 'polls' reported by the DC Caller (a wingnut rag, so take it with a grain of salt) only 1% of rally participants plan to vote Republican. Whether or not it was a political rally, ultimately, that's the only statistic that matters. And if Democrats or big ‘L’ small ‘l’ liberals (Brit/Canadian ‘Liberal’ party?) or lonely moderates were inspired by Jon Stewart to hop on the Peace Train in an updated salute to flower power, that’s okay too.
Back then, those original hippies couldn’t levitate the Pentagon, or stop the Vietnam War. Possibly they swung a damn close election to the dark Nixonian side. Ironically, in today’s political environment, Nixon would have been purged from the Republican Party. Some say that he was, but that’s another story.
Nixon said he had a “secret plan” to end the Vietnam War. But it took a concerted, organized, grassroots movement of committed Americans mobilizing various sectors of society to finally bring an end to our bloodiest conflict of the last half-century. Not soon enough to saves the lives of so many of our troops who served and paid the ultimate sacrifice. Stateside, there was bloodshed and violence, too. Chicago 1968. Kent State 1970. Two examples of peaceful demonstrations turned violent and tragic by the repressive interventionist arm of the state.
Yet somehow, it was done.
Today’s progressive netroots are direct descendants of those 60s protesters. President Obama owes his election to them. And to the extent they have mobilized and turn out next Tuesday will determine the scope of Democratic pushback against the vaunted “wave.”
Elections matter. Elections have consequences. Today the Huffington Post ran a depressing lead story. “Likely Majority Will Be Non-Voters: Younger, Poorer, Less Educated, More Liberal.” A good chunk of them are likely Jon Stewart fans, too. If his rally inspired some of them to get out and vote, then it's all gravy. At a minimum, it was food for the soul. For a day. And it was good.
In the “high-wire act” that Stewart “pulled off magnificently,” according to Arianna Huffington, he had to gloss over appearances of overt partisanship or politics, even though it went off three days before a seminal election in our history. But Stewart wallopped Glenn Beck in attendance and vibes, I'm told. That too, was good.
Also glossed over were the relative but sharp differences in Stewart’s critique of cable news, of which his program is a part. It could not have been done objectively without singling out Fox News for special focus. It has been said ad nauseum, but it is worth repeating: Fox is not a legitimate news channel; it is the propaganda arm of the GOP. In this role, with an assist from Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and right wing hate radio, Fox has done enormous damage to the body politic.
There is a real, qualitative difference in how Fox reports and comments on the news as opposed to MSNBC and CNN. The latter two actually have standards and practices that preclude the broadcasting of outright lies. Fox does not. On MSNBC information is sourced and referenced in quotes. On Fox it is not.
Standards and practices of journalism is the essential difference between Fox and its competitors. Stewart, who feels strongly about civility in our political discourse fudged these differences to make a broader, apolitical point.
But that’s just tinkering around the edges. If Republicans make the gains predicted by Charlie Cook and overheard by Howard Fineman, then we’d better strap on our seat belts because we’re in for a rough, bone-jarring ride. Just as Paul Krugman predicted. And he’s never wrong.
The antidote. Get out there and vote. Tell your friends, everyone you know. Go vote. Your future, our future depends on it.
Seriously.
My favorite musical moment of the Jon Stewart rally: Yusuf Islam. I love this song, and just about everything this cat wrote. Thanks for bringing him out, Jon, if only for much too brief a moment:
Back then, those original hippies couldn’t levitate the Pentagon, or stop the Vietnam War. Possibly they swung a damn close election to the dark Nixonian side. Ironically, in today’s political environment, Nixon would have been purged from the Republican Party. Some say that he was, but that’s another story.
Nixon said he had a “secret plan” to end the Vietnam War. But it took a concerted, organized, grassroots movement of committed Americans mobilizing various sectors of society to finally bring an end to our bloodiest conflict of the last half-century. Not soon enough to saves the lives of so many of our troops who served and paid the ultimate sacrifice. Stateside, there was bloodshed and violence, too. Chicago 1968. Kent State 1970. Two examples of peaceful demonstrations turned violent and tragic by the repressive interventionist arm of the state.
Yet somehow, it was done.
Today’s progressive netroots are direct descendants of those 60s protesters. President Obama owes his election to them. And to the extent they have mobilized and turn out next Tuesday will determine the scope of Democratic pushback against the vaunted “wave.”
Elections matter. Elections have consequences. Today the Huffington Post ran a depressing lead story. “Likely Majority Will Be Non-Voters: Younger, Poorer, Less Educated, More Liberal.” A good chunk of them are likely Jon Stewart fans, too. If his rally inspired some of them to get out and vote, then it's all gravy. At a minimum, it was food for the soul. For a day. And it was good.
In the “high-wire act” that Stewart “pulled off magnificently,” according to Arianna Huffington, he had to gloss over appearances of overt partisanship or politics, even though it went off three days before a seminal election in our history. But Stewart wallopped Glenn Beck in attendance and vibes, I'm told. That too, was good.
Also glossed over were the relative but sharp differences in Stewart’s critique of cable news, of which his program is a part. It could not have been done objectively without singling out Fox News for special focus. It has been said ad nauseum, but it is worth repeating: Fox is not a legitimate news channel; it is the propaganda arm of the GOP. In this role, with an assist from Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and right wing hate radio, Fox has done enormous damage to the body politic.
There is a real, qualitative difference in how Fox reports and comments on the news as opposed to MSNBC and CNN. The latter two actually have standards and practices that preclude the broadcasting of outright lies. Fox does not. On MSNBC information is sourced and referenced in quotes. On Fox it is not.
Standards and practices of journalism is the essential difference between Fox and its competitors. Stewart, who feels strongly about civility in our political discourse fudged these differences to make a broader, apolitical point.
But that’s just tinkering around the edges. If Republicans make the gains predicted by Charlie Cook and overheard by Howard Fineman, then we’d better strap on our seat belts because we’re in for a rough, bone-jarring ride. Just as Paul Krugman predicted. And he’s never wrong.
The antidote. Get out there and vote. Tell your friends, everyone you know. Go vote. Your future, our future depends on it.
Seriously.
My favorite musical moment of the Jon Stewart rally: Yusuf Islam. I love this song, and just about everything this cat wrote. Thanks for bringing him out, Jon, if only for much too brief a moment:
Media Matters to The Rescue
Media Matters CEO David Brock has issued a statement concerning the allegations of media malfeasance made by Sarah Palin and the Joe Miller campaign:
This entire incident is illustrative of how disturbing the Tea Party candidates really are. As with their supporters, these unqualified individuals live in a world of media conspiracies that, quite conveniently, provide an excuse for them to avoid contact with the media or give interviews to clarify their extremist policy positions uttered at campaign events, outside the comfort zone of 'Fox News' or 'Christian Broadcasting'. But the harsh reality is their wounds are self-inflicted. No one in the media instructed Joe Miller to lie multiple times about his personnel records and direct his goons to illegally handcuff and detain a reporter who was seeking some answers. Is it any wonder Miller was trying to conceal this information from the public? In any normal campaign year, such candidate disclosures would be immediately disqualifying. Still, the voters of Alaska are reasonable, once given the facts. They've already deep-sixed Miller in the polls. Moving on.
Sharron Angle has systematically refused to grant any interviews. The few snippets we can glean show a woman who is so woefully unprepared to be a United States senator, so extreme and radical right wing in her views, such a despicable and revolting racist, that she isn't only an embarassment to the people of Nevada, but a genuine threat to serious government in our nation, at a time when it is desperately needed. Hopefully, cooler heads among a majority of Nevada voters will prevail and they will re-elect Harry Reid. To give up the Senate representation of the Majority Leader for a woman with bizarre fundamentalist ideas bent on destroying government is an act of madness by voters driven by a distressed economy. Hopefully, they'll think this thing through in Nevada voting booths, wake up and send Harry back; at least until they can find a candidate who meets the minimum qualifications for the position. Angle's solution is "2nd Amendment remedies." That's armed revolt against our government, people. Please, Nevadans, vote for the unpopular Reid. It's important.
There's more. Carl Paladino, the Tea Party candidate for governor of New York, has sent one porn and bestiality e-mail too many. He defiantly threatened a N.Y. Post (Rupert Murdoch's rag!) reporter, to "take him out." We may laugh at Christine O'Donnell, but she represents a kind of incompetent craziness, a kind of populist insanity, that permeates the Tea Party movement. Her utter ignorance of the 1st Amendment and the Constitution is mind-boggling, particularly considering the Tea Party hangs its dubious hat-full-of-holes on first principles, and all. They don't know squat about the Constitution, and get their fake U.S. history, e.g., there is no separation of church and state in the Constitution, from Glenn Beck and his fraudulent "University." It's like we're living in the Idiocracy. For real.
Ken Buck, an extremist on women's issues, stands a good chance to be elected senator from Colorado. As with many other Tea Party candidates he favors carving up the Constitution to roll back more than 100 years of settled law, to redefine citizenship and provide for the indirect election of senators. That was a provision popular with authoritarian Latin American governments, those that used to be known as "banana republics" for codifying their dictatorship into the Constitution. This is what certain Tea Party elements espouse. And on it goes. American voters need to wake up from what can only be described as a state of temporary insanity and keep these Tea Party candidates away from government. In this sense, we can hope Jon Stewart's rally to Restore Sanity will have done some good.
"Sarah Palin has made serious accusations of journalistic malfeasance. Either Palin accurately described the tapes, or she did not. America's news consumers need to know the truth about these serious accusations. The public in Alaska needs to know the truth so they are fully and correctly informed before they cast their ballots Tuesday. Palin has a responsibility to release the full, unedited tapes publicly and to all media."The statement from KTVA:
A press release issued Saturday October 30, 2010, by the Joe Miller campaign claims that KTVA personnel, "openly discuss creating, if not fabricating, two stories about Republican nominee for U.S. Senate, Joe Miller." KTVA General Manager Jerry Bever says, "It's unfortunate that this recording has happened. It's unfortunate because it does not accurately reflect the journalistic standards of our newsroom and the garbled context will no doubt leave more questions than answers. The Miller campaign's analysis of the recording is incorrect in many material ways ranging from personnel involved in the conversation, the interpretation of conversation snippets and the reported transcript of the perceived garbled conversation."The doctored tape is at Breitbart's site. Listen to it there, if you wish. Shame on ABC for having contracted with Breitbart to do its election coverage. Boycott time, people. What are the odds Breitbart, Palin, or Miller will release full tape and transcript per Media Matters request?
"While the recording is real, the allegations are untrue," said Bever. "The recording was the result of a cell phone not being hung up after a call was placed to Randy DeSoto, Joe Miller campaign spokesperson, Thursday afternoon to discuss Joe Miller's appearance on that evening's newscast. That phone call was placed near the end of a coverage planning meeting in our newsroom regarding that evening's Miller rally in downtown Anchorage. The group of KTVA news personnel was reviewing potential "what-if" scenarios, discussing the likelihood of events at the rally and how KTVA might logistically disseminate any breaking news."
Bever continues, "The perception that this garbled, out of context recording may leave is unfortunate, but to allege that our staff was discussing or planning to create or fabricate stories regarding candidate Miller is absurd. The complete conversation was about what others might be able to do to cause disruption within the Miller campaign, not what KTVA could do."
While Bever would not discuss any personnel issues linked with the recording, Bever says "Have we had internal discussions about the level of professionalism we need to bring to our conversations, internally and externally? Of course we have, this is a lesson to learn from."
This entire incident is illustrative of how disturbing the Tea Party candidates really are. As with their supporters, these unqualified individuals live in a world of media conspiracies that, quite conveniently, provide an excuse for them to avoid contact with the media or give interviews to clarify their extremist policy positions uttered at campaign events, outside the comfort zone of 'Fox News' or 'Christian Broadcasting'. But the harsh reality is their wounds are self-inflicted. No one in the media instructed Joe Miller to lie multiple times about his personnel records and direct his goons to illegally handcuff and detain a reporter who was seeking some answers. Is it any wonder Miller was trying to conceal this information from the public? In any normal campaign year, such candidate disclosures would be immediately disqualifying. Still, the voters of Alaska are reasonable, once given the facts. They've already deep-sixed Miller in the polls. Moving on.
Sharron Angle has systematically refused to grant any interviews. The few snippets we can glean show a woman who is so woefully unprepared to be a United States senator, so extreme and radical right wing in her views, such a despicable and revolting racist, that she isn't only an embarassment to the people of Nevada, but a genuine threat to serious government in our nation, at a time when it is desperately needed. Hopefully, cooler heads among a majority of Nevada voters will prevail and they will re-elect Harry Reid. To give up the Senate representation of the Majority Leader for a woman with bizarre fundamentalist ideas bent on destroying government is an act of madness by voters driven by a distressed economy. Hopefully, they'll think this thing through in Nevada voting booths, wake up and send Harry back; at least until they can find a candidate who meets the minimum qualifications for the position. Angle's solution is "2nd Amendment remedies." That's armed revolt against our government, people. Please, Nevadans, vote for the unpopular Reid. It's important.
There's more. Carl Paladino, the Tea Party candidate for governor of New York, has sent one porn and bestiality e-mail too many. He defiantly threatened a N.Y. Post (Rupert Murdoch's rag!) reporter, to "take him out." We may laugh at Christine O'Donnell, but she represents a kind of incompetent craziness, a kind of populist insanity, that permeates the Tea Party movement. Her utter ignorance of the 1st Amendment and the Constitution is mind-boggling, particularly considering the Tea Party hangs its dubious hat-full-of-holes on first principles, and all. They don't know squat about the Constitution, and get their fake U.S. history, e.g., there is no separation of church and state in the Constitution, from Glenn Beck and his fraudulent "University." It's like we're living in the Idiocracy. For real.
Ken Buck, an extremist on women's issues, stands a good chance to be elected senator from Colorado. As with many other Tea Party candidates he favors carving up the Constitution to roll back more than 100 years of settled law, to redefine citizenship and provide for the indirect election of senators. That was a provision popular with authoritarian Latin American governments, those that used to be known as "banana republics" for codifying their dictatorship into the Constitution. This is what certain Tea Party elements espouse. And on it goes. American voters need to wake up from what can only be described as a state of temporary insanity and keep these Tea Party candidates away from government. In this sense, we can hope Jon Stewart's rally to Restore Sanity will have done some good.
Sister Sarah Goes Over The Deep End After Watching Those Rabid MSNBC Libs On Stewart’s Giant Screen
Let’s face it: Mama Grizzly is not an original thinker. (Smirk.) But she’s really good at copy-catting her personal demons. My theory is that after months of Olbermann’s truculent “that woman is an IDIOT” drumbeat on his amusing Palin segments, she must have lost it watching Keith on the big Jon Stewart screen calling her buddy a “BASTARD” while Big Eddie, batting cleanup, leans into the giant screen yelling, “REPUBLICANS ARE LIARS!”
Don’t you just love name-calling? I do, especially when it’s TRUE.
Add to that an immense crowd of young Jon Stewart fans, numbering in the hundreds of thousands, all but one percent, according to the wingnut rag DC Caller (so, grain of salt), committed to voting for Democrats. That frightening show of comedy-reality media power must have tipped the teetering half-governor of “AL-ask-UH” over the porous border between tenuous re-AL-iTEE and craven conspiracies of the “corrupt liberal media.” She adds ominously, “we have it on tape!” She had to “put up with ['those corrupt bastards'] for two years now … Wait until it busts all over the nation!” (“Get tape doctor Andrew Breitbart on the phone,” hisses Sarah to straw carrier.) Palin becomes increasingly incoherent and paranoid: “…someone who [fills? You must mean:] feels, Lisa Murkowski, so entitled to seat that she and … some complicits will do anything, they will stop at nothing.”
Whoa … Is this woman crazy delusional, or what? There’s more: “the CBS reporters … are saying let’s find a child molester in the crowd as a supporter for Joe Miller…” Okay, time out. Does Sister Sarah actually have tape evidence that CBS reporters were conspiring to find a ‘child molester’ who is a Miller supporter? To make matters worse, the seemingly out-of-control leader of the Republican Tea Party charges these creatures she calls “complicits” want to “concoct a Ron Paul moment [you must mean 'Rand' missy] there let's find any kind of chaos so that we can tweet an alert and say, 'oohh there's chaos, Joe Miller got punched.' That's sick. Those are corrupt bastards.”
Hmm. Just wondering: What’s this fixation with CBS News? Is it something to do with that eevil eye? Does Sister Sarah think they’re “limp” and “impotent” too? Can we at least agree Sarah Palin isn’t just an IDIOT — there’s a good chance she’s clinically INSANE?
Don’t you just love name-calling? I do, especially when it’s TRUE.
Add to that an immense crowd of young Jon Stewart fans, numbering in the hundreds of thousands, all but one percent, according to the wingnut rag DC Caller (so, grain of salt), committed to voting for Democrats. That frightening show of comedy-reality media power must have tipped the teetering half-governor of “AL-ask-UH” over the porous border between tenuous re-AL-iTEE and craven conspiracies of the “corrupt liberal media.” She adds ominously, “we have it on tape!” She had to “put up with ['those corrupt bastards'] for two years now … Wait until it busts all over the nation!” (“Get tape doctor Andrew Breitbart on the phone,” hisses Sarah to straw carrier.) Palin becomes increasingly incoherent and paranoid: “…someone who [fills? You must mean:] feels, Lisa Murkowski, so entitled to seat that she and … some complicits will do anything, they will stop at nothing.”
Whoa … Is this woman crazy delusional, or what? There’s more: “the CBS reporters … are saying let’s find a child molester in the crowd as a supporter for Joe Miller…” Okay, time out. Does Sister Sarah actually have tape evidence that CBS reporters were conspiring to find a ‘child molester’ who is a Miller supporter? To make matters worse, the seemingly out-of-control leader of the Republican Tea Party charges these creatures she calls “complicits” want to “concoct a Ron Paul moment [you must mean 'Rand' missy] there let's find any kind of chaos so that we can tweet an alert and say, 'oohh there's chaos, Joe Miller got punched.' That's sick. Those are corrupt bastards.”
Hmm. Just wondering: What’s this fixation with CBS News? Is it something to do with that eevil eye? Does Sister Sarah think they’re “limp” and “impotent” too? Can we at least agree Sarah Palin isn’t just an IDIOT — there’s a good chance she’s clinically INSANE?
Just last night it was revealed that, at the rally I had for Joe Miller on Thursday, it was revealed and we have the tape that proves it, that the CBS reporters, the affiliate in Alaska, conspired to make up stories about Joe Miller. We have the tape, Chris. I can't wait until it busts out all over the nation to show what it is that we, kind of what I put up with for two years now with the media, but what Joe Miller is faced with, in dealing with someone who feels, Lisa Murkowski, so entitled to seat that she and some of her people including some complicits in the media will do anything, they will stop at nothing.And what the HELL is Ree-VILLED? Can this unhinged MORON at least make a good faith effort to properly enunciate the few words in her very limited vocabulary?
[snip]
I'm saying that we have it on tape, the CBS reporters in the affiliate up there in Alaska are on tape saying let's find a child molester in the crowd as a supporter for Joe Miller, let's blast that. Let's concoct a Ron Paul moment there let's find any kind of chaos so that we can tweet an alert and say, 'oohh there's chaos, Joe Miller got punched.' That's sick. Those are corrupt bastards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
of you have sat, and perhaps thought, with us!
