Pre-emptive Ejection is the reason. It turns out that McCain's campaign is profiling and ejecting people who look like they MIGHT protest. Who might protest, heckle or boo? Young people.
Elborno said after seeing the people who were asked to leave, she was concerned that McCain’s staffers were profiling people on appearance to determine who might be a potential protester.
“When I started talking to them, it kind of became clear that they were kind of just telling people to leave that they thought maybe would be disruptive, but based on what? Based on how they looked,” Elborno said. “It was pretty much all young people, the college demographic.”
Elborno said even McCain supporters were among those being asked to leave.
“I saw a couple that had been escorted out and they were confused as well, and the girl was crying, so I said ‘Why are you crying? and she said ‘I already voted for McCain, I’m a Republican, and they said we had to leave because we didn’t look right,’” Elborno said. “They were handpicking these people and they had nothing to go off of, besides the way the people looked.”
Well, we knew McCain supported the Bush Doctrine. Now we know he supports preemptive action against citizens who might have questions about his leadership. It was disrespectful, dishonorable and cowardly. I don't want a gutless wonder like that in the White House.
Too sarcastic? Over the top? Perhaps. But it does go to character, Your Honors. What it shows me is that McCain is not confident enough of his ground to dare face critics at a televised event. It makes me wonder how many of the crowds are hired theatrical "extras," or even patched in with CGI.
I think this is the answer they were looking for. It's a shame that for some, it came too late.
Prof. Charles Fried, McCain advisor, defects to Obama - News: "Professor Charles Fried, an advisor to John McCain's presidential campaign, has announced that he can no longer support the McCain/Palin ticket, and has asked for his name to be removed from several campaign committees on which he has served. In a letter to the general counsel to the McCain/Palin campaign, he cited McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate as too dangerous 'at a time of deep national crisis'. Fried also publicly stated that he had voted for Obama via absentee ballot.
Fried later clarified to The New Republic that he had voted for Obama because he no longer supported the McCain ticket, and did not consider abstention 'a proper option'.
Fried has been an influential voice in American conservatism and was appointed by President Ronald Reagan to serve as Solicitor General in 1985. During his years serving with the Reagan administration, he represented the White House in over 25 cases before the Supreme Court. Fried was later an associate justice on the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. In the last decade, he has vocally supported George W. Bush's appointments of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court."
McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his heir apparent has started a stampede, not so much toward the admittedly liberal Obama's policies as toward the obviously sane alternative to this. (HuffPo)
In The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil, famous psychologist and researcher Philip Zimbardo discusses his lifelong research into the psyche of good people who engage in evil acts. He warns first about the dangers of psychological constructions that imbue people with "otherness" and then issues even stronger warnings about the dangers of psychological constructions that transform "others" into "the enemy."
The process begins with creating stereotyped conceptions of the other, dehumanized perceptions of the other, the other as worthless, the other as all-powerful, the other as demonic, the other as an abstract monster, the other as a fundamental threat to our cherished values and beliefs. With public fear notched up and the enemy threat imminent, reasonable people act irrationally, independent people act in mindless conformity, and peaceful people act as warriors.
When Sarah Palin says, in her stump speech, "Obama does not see America the way you see America," she is separating Obama from what social psychologists call the "ingroup." Both Palin and McCain suggest that Obama does not share the goals of ordinary Americans, that he and his associates are somehow anti-American, that he is a socialist, and that he pals around with terrorists.
Through this rhetoric they aim to separate Obama from patriotic Americans --- to make Obama the other, to make him one of them, to characterize him with the property of otherness. Then, Sarah Palin escalates the rhetoric by adding, "He sees America as so imperfect that he pals around with terrorists," effectively transforming the other into the enemy.
Fortunately, it seems that rather than see evil flourish, a good man has done something. No doubt this is a good deed that will be punished. But such men who made such choices made the United States and crafted it's founding documents.
This has become a time of decision for us all, and there is much more at stake - not just for citizens of the US - than who gets into the White House. This is starting to look like a sudden death pop quiz on ethics, citizenship and the proper role of religion. It's a showdown beween an authoritarian mindest of "Might makes Right" and a genuinely, bible-based mindset that says "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
The McCain/Palin campaign are casting this election in terms of good versus evil, a cage match between God and Satan. In doing so and publicly stating that they will "do whatever it takes" to win one for gawd - they are making the choice starkly clear. It's between the choice for a good man with good, solid family values and a record that honors the value of human lives, no matter how humble and disregarded - and people who value power over all.
It is, indeed, a choice between good and evil. Charles Fried chose Good. Go forth and vote likewise.
I held some hope that this presented a change for the better, so to speak. But this occurrence is about the only positive note. It's considerably muted by the fact that the hero of the piece, the Islamic McCain staffer who shut down these hateful twits has been forbidden to speak to the media, according to the latest from CNN and Huffpo:
The aide, Daniel Zubairi, had been scheduled to appear on Sanchez's mid-day program after he was caught on video talking down an anti-Muslim protester outside a McCain rally in Woodbridge, Virginia. But, even after telling the network that an interview was "good to go," the McCain shop pulled Zubairi at the last minute, leaving Sanchez in limbo on live TV.
"Wouldn't you think they would have wanted him to come on?" the CNN host would later tell the Huffington Post. "What the guy did was courageous. I called him heroic. I'm mystified why they wouldn't embrace him for his actions. Maybe they didn't like the story, but I'll tell you. I thought it was presented it in a very transparent way, if anything I kind of gushed philosophically about how impressive and real his reaction was to the protester's hateful message. It seemed to show some of the best of McCain supporters, didn't it?"
First, Representative Patrick McHenry cheered what he called the “biggest crowd John McCain has gotten in North Carolina” and emphasized that this was a critical election with a stark choice between the candidates.
“It’s like black and white,” someone in the crowd at the Cabarrus Arena & Events Center yelled out, laughing. McHenry let the remark pass and finished his speech.He yielded the microphone to Representative Robin Hayes, who prefaced his comments by saying it was important to “make sure we don’t say something stupid, make sure we don’t say something we don’t mean.” Republicans, he reminded the crowd, were kind people. Plus, he added, the liberal media had shown itself eager to distort such remarks. With the crowd duly chastened and put on best behavior, he accused Obama of “inciting class warfare” and said that “liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God.”
So to answer the confused Sanchez, they want to “make sure [he doesn't] say something ... we don’t mean.”
McCain campaign is relying more upon the America Blanca's [Spanish for "White America"] than the Daniel Zubairi's of conservatives.
Damn the Polls: McCain's Irreducibles Beg to Differ | The New York Observer: "“I don’t believe these polls,” said America Blanca, a 44-year-old small business owner from Miami who wore a red dress and was visibly pumped up by the rally. “Not one of them. Because it’s the kids answering the polls on the computers. Their parents are not home and they are answering and they will not be voting. I think if he is losing, it is only by a little spread. Very little.” She held the tip of her pointer finger about two inches from the tip of her thumb.
Asked if her business made more than $250,000 a year, the cap under which Obama has proposed cutting taxes, she said it did. Told about Obama’s proposal, she answered, “I don’t give a shit. I will never vote for a black man.”"
Daniel Varisco, anthropology chair at Hofstra University, said he wrote the "statement of concerned scholars" after seeing Islamophobia on the rise.
"The attempts to label Senator Obama a terrorist or rhyme his name with Osama (bin Laden) or accent his middle name (Hussein), as well as false claims about his being sworn into (U.S. Senate) office on a Koran, demonstrate how near to the surface anti-Islamic sentiment is in the United States," he said.
Circulating such falsehoods "avoids playing the race card directly but at the expense of Muslims," he said.
It troubles me that McCain and Palin have not taken this stunningly obvious opportunity to disavow all support from the false assocations and outright racism. While I do not think that race, per se, caused Colin Powell to support Obama - well, look to this statement:
"Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?" he asked on NBC's "Meet the Press."
"The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion 'he's a Muslim and he might be associated with terrorists.' This is not the way we should be doing it in America," Powell said, while making clear such sentiment was not coming from McCain himself.
Racism and hate speech of this sort may not have told a rock-ribbed Conservative such as Powell who to vote for; but it surely had to influence who he was unwilling to be associated with publically, for reasons both obviously political and no doubt personal on a most visceral level.
Likewise, I would not be at all suprised to soon hear Daniel Zubairi disavowing his association with McCain. Were I in his place, I'd consider the actions of the McCain campain to be a disavowal of my public disavowal that racism and anti-muslum retoric is supported by the campaign.
While racist, anti-muslim words are spread by supporters, they should be taken as one person speaking on their own behalf - if they are not disavowed, they tend to spread. And there is no lack of evidence to suggest that people speaking on behalf of the campaign and attempting to influence more have little less restraint.
Worse, Palin’s routine attacks on the media have begun to spill into ugliness. In Clearwater, arriving reporters were greeted with shouts and taunts by the crowd of about 3,000. Palin then went on to blame Katie Couric’s questions for her “less-than-successful interview with kinda mainstream media.” At that, Palin supporters turned on reporters in the press area, waving thunder sticks and shouting abuse. Others hurled obscenities at a camera crew. One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, “Sit down, boy.”
It is getting very difficult to evade the distinct impression that class and race warfare is in fact the keystone of the entire McCain/Neocon strategy. I'm going to take one speculative step beyond that - I'm beginning to suspect that McCain is positioning Palin as the new spokesperson for a resergant, racist right-wing movement. This is distinctly underlined for me by her ties to the Alaska Independance Party - a separatist movement with some disturbingly extremist positions.
But mostly, I'm just plain insulted by her suggestion that only rednecks from rural Amurika are "real americans." That everyone that has any appreciation of nuance, multiculturalism or good sushi is a "godless liberal."
In closing, I'm down with John Stewart: "Fuck Y'all!"
(From Canada, go here. Aside to BOTH comedy networks - this is a royal pain in the ass; fix it. All it takes is a simple redirect to the appropriate server, dudes.)
Frankly, I think that at certain points in time - and this is one of them - that a hearty "fuck you" is the only intelligent response to massive, visible stupidity.
I finally got to see Chris Matthews pay out the rope for Rep. Bachmann. I'd seen transcripts, with nuggets such as this, but so many people were clogging the tubes, I had to wait my turn.
"What I would say is that the news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look. I wish they would. I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out if they are pro-America or anti-America,"
Gee whiz, I'd kinda thought we'd established that witch-hunts were a bad idea, even BEFORE Jefferson's time. I was obviously wrong in believing that "Have you no decency, Sir?" was a phrase that still resonated. Clearly, millions disagree. Fortunately, those millions do not include the honorable old warrior Colin Powell.
"Mr. McCain says that he's a washed up terrorist, but then why do we keep talking about him? And why do we have the robocalls going on around the country trying to suggest that because of this very, very limited relationship that Senator Obama has had with Mr. Ayers, somehow Mr. Obama is tainted. What they're trying to connect him to is some kind of terrorist feelings. And I think that's inappropriate. Now, I understand what politics is all about, I know how you can go after one another and that's good. But I think this goes too far, and I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrow. It's not what the American people are looking for."
Powell also spoke passionately against the insinuations by some Republicans that Obama is a Muslim.
"Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian," he said. "But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, 'He's a Muslim and he might be associated [with] terrorists.' This is not the way we should be doing it in America."
Now, that's the most diplomatic bitch-slapping I've heard in recent times. It will never be all that quotable; Mr. Powell is, I'm afraid, no master of the pithy catch-phrase. But he's certainly capable of pithing essentialist idiocies.
..Mr. Obama is now [called] a socialist, because he dares to suggest that maybe we ought to look at the tax structure that we have. Taxes are always a redistribution of money. Most of the taxes that are redistributed go back to those who pay them, in roads and airports and hospitals and schools. And taxes are necessary for the common good. And there's nothing wrong with examining what our tax structure is or who should be paying more or who should be paying less, and for us to say that makes you a socialist is an unfortunate characterization that I don't think is accurate.
Powell has stated that he will be voting for Obama and that he still considers himself a Republican. I think it would be fair to assume that his conclusion is that people such as Mr. McCain and Ms. Bachmann do not meet his standards for probity and disciplined leadership.
Nor do I think Powell confuses reactionary social impositions with any sort of Conservatism, and while I might be wrong, I think he'd tend to guardedly agree with the next bit.
I personally think that the only decent position on matters of individual choice that should decently be considered to be private was best stated bluntly by one of the most contradictory, maddening and controversial politicians in North American history; one of the very few foreign leaders to ever be noticed by the American people - aside, of course, from Fidel Castro.
That's a very Libertarian idea, when you think about it. It's certainly widely quoted by Libertarians, though they tend to file off the serial numbers. And though he was a self-described Democratic Socialist, that was an economic, not a social position. I might add that he's been as much of an influence upon me as William F. Buckley - and for essentially the same reason; both men were far more interesting and useful when wrong than any two ordinary politically significant figures stumbling upon the right idea for the usual populist reasons.
I thought of Trudeau in reference to Mr. Powell, who has finally come to his parting of the ways with stupidity and who has taken the high ground as the only strategic and tactical option available.
He did not say it as eloquently as Trudeau on the eve of the FLQ crisis, but in essence we are seeing similar times and a similar impatience with those who think that violence and chaos are the proper response to political frustrations.
Pierre Trudeau - "There are very few times in the history of any country when all persons must take a stand on critical issues. This is one of these times; this is one of those issues. I am confident that those persons who unleashed this tragic sequence of events with the aim of destroying our society and dividing our country will find that the opposite will occur. The result of their acts will be a stronger society in a unified country. Those who would have divided us will have united us." - Announcing the War Measures Act to a national television audience, October 16, 1970
I hope very much that leaders and statesmen such as Colin Powell can indeed rise to this challenge, can indeed forestall what seems to me a crisis of spirit and a rising tide of intolerance. While it's not at all fashionable to equate the rhetoric of Palin and McCain with the actions of people responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing, it's damn clear that they are not as far apart as any reasonable person might wish.
Reasonable and civilized leaders do not foment hatred, do not cultivate suspicion of their rivals, do not brandish the noose and the burning cross even in the subtlest and most deniable way. The reason why should be brutally obvious, but perhaps McCain and Palin are indeed willing to "rule in Hell rather than to serve in Heaven."
But as with all Faustian bargains, the devil is in the details. The telling details are, in both cases, those who are willing to do "whatever it takes" (Palin's infamous phrase) leave a swathe of destruction behind them - and that echoing emptiness, that conspicuous, Shermanesqe path of political arson and the rape of propriety leads unfailingly to those responsible.
The Karma comes due when such people meet principled opposition and act toward that opposition as if that person were their own mirror image, projecting on that other all the evils, all the spitefulness, all the shameful guilty reservations about their own progress to power that they believe to be known only to themselves.
With Palin, McCain and their few remaining apologists, it's simple to discern their mistakes, their failures, their regrets and their gaps of leadership and comprehension, for all those things are precisely what they accuse their opponents of. They are unused - sadly - to contestation with their betters.
They are sadly shallow people, quite apparently proud of their inability to deal intelligently with complex issues, or at least unwilling to be caught thinking in public, lest "Joe the Plumber" accuse them of being "elitist." As Obama has been pilloried for saying, "it's as if they are proud of being ignorant."
No "as if." They are proud of it. They celebrate it. And they persecute anyone and any thing that bodes even the slightest possiblity of penetrating their shells of willful parochialism. These are Palin's Patriotic Americans.
I'm quite sure that the majority of her supporters would enthusiastically agree that yes, they ARE "Good, patriotic, "God-Fearing Uhmurikins" with no discernment of why this condemns them as both Unchristian AND Unamerican in their abuse of both Christ and Constitution.
Aside from being wrong, it's the sort of dumb-as-dirt wrong that leads to the sort of mess the world is now in, thanks to George Bush and the half-smart and the fully stupified folks who put the crap-flinging Chimp in power.
Well, frankly, I think it's my damn right to expect the best and the brightest, and my responsiblity to support them whenever I can. Since and including Ronald Regan, and not sparing either Clinton or Carter, all successful presidential and indeed most congressional candidates have been or styled themselves as being "low bid candidates;" the champions of Joe Six-Pack and the true and natural representative of the dumb-ass wings of each party.
In this, they were not entirely disingenuous, in that they were as easily bribed with shiny trinkets and meaningless photo-ops as were their constituents. Can we say "Keating Five?" Can we say "Enron" and "Energy Policy?" Oooh, I KNEW that we could!
I'm not one to worship at the altar of Obama. I think him a skilled politician, a remarkably good speaker, certainly a potential statesman and certainly as smart as any cracker's whip - but I do not think him better than what we should ordinarily expect of our elected leaders. I think he is a good example of what sort of people we should consider our due. It's not that difficult to choose to be an honest broker, to choose to act according to principles and to try, as often as humanly possible, to achieve something worthwhile along the path of fulfilling one's own ambitions. That is my minimum standard for myself and for anyone I choose to associate with. I do not think that a particularly high standard.
And I think that it's a standard we - not as citizens of this country or that, but as civilized persons participating in our various cultures and societies - should realize we MUST live up to in order to have a civil society to prosper within.
But I have my doubts that the United States will survive that realization. It certainly will not, cannot and should not pass through this trial unchanged. It may not survive without violence, it may not survive in recognizable form. The irresponsible and unconscionable efforts by Right-Wing conservatives, the social subversions committed by traitorous theocrats have carved out rifts between people that could well be fatal to any meaningful resolution. More personally, I found myself less and less inclined to even wish to live in a society that included people who see nooses as "fair comment" and the conscious, deliberate and malicious bearing of false witness against their neighbor as being "their Christian duty."
Fuck 'em, said I, knowing that that would be the least worst fate they envisioned for me. It was all too easy to see me and mine shoved into a cattle car on a one-way trip to a nuclear-powered microwave incinerator.
I, personally, see no profit in trying to fight that good fight there when I could do as much here in Canada and, bluntly, for a Canadian society that has far less bad karma coming due. I make no apologies for the fact that I prefer to live in a culture, a nation and a society where none of the party leaders are people who's positions insult my intelligence or who think it proper to appeal to my most base instincts.
Je suis un Canadian! Vive la Confederation! Vive la Civilization! VIVE La Banquedu Canada!
It's not difficult to point to Ms. Bachmann as being an exemplar of all that is wrong with the United States in general. But in fact, Ms. Bachmann is the direct responsibility of those who elected her, those who contributed to her campaign and those colleagues in Congress that permit her to caucus with them, valuing political expediency over the consequences of tolerating such a poster child for petty partisan patronage.
It's inconceivable to me that such a lackwit could have gotten on a ballot by any fair, legitimate, intelligent process. The fruits and nuts point to the health of the tree and it's roots. Bachmann and her ilk in elected office at all levels are the bitter fruit of a poisoned tree.
"That one," in reference to Barack Obama, might be the most talked about sound byte from any election or primary debate this year.NOW Magazine
McCain made the remark tonight when discussing a 2005 Senate vote on an energy bill. “There was an energy bill on the floor of the Senate loaded down with goodies, billions for the oil companies, and it was sponsored by Bush and Cheney. You know who voted for it? You might never know. That one,” he said, pointing to Obama. “You know who voted against it? Me.”- WSJ
You know what I think? I think the whole debate - such as it was - revealed a grumpy, shallow, occasionally incoherent old man, one who can barely contain his disrespect for his colleague.
Is it because Obama is black? Is it because Obama is clearly smarter? Is it due to some coatroom slight? Ya know, I don't really care.
How many times DID he say "My friends?" If I'd had strong drink I'd have been doing shots. It's a personal thing, but whenever someone says "My Friends" I tend to hear "My Suckers."
Other than that, I agree with others, fairly dull, but with a few welcome specifics about health care and economic policies.
McCain's son served until last month on the board audit committee of a Nevada bank that was recently seized by Federal authorities amid mounting losses and regulatory scrutiny. This article dated just days before the resignation of McCain and the seizure of the bank.
So, rather than be concerned that McCain Sr. is the man to deal with our current financial crisis, perhaps we should look to see how closely he actually is tied to and responsible for creating the crisis in the first place through influence and unwise advocacy for deregulation.
Oddly enough, while it may be that the younger McCain was refusing to "go along to get along," I can't say that I take that thought seriously enough to seriously check out. If you are going to bail for that reason, do it before things are circling the drain, and it looks more like following in daddy's Keating Scandal footsteps.
By tapping the anti-abortion and pro-gun Alaska governor just ahead of his convention, which is set to start here Monday, McCain hasn’t just won approval from a skeptical Republican base — he’s ignited a wave of elation and emotion that has led some grass-roots activists to weep with joy. -Politico.com
The problem is, those electrified grass-roots activists are mostly on the other side, as illustrated above.
Well, here's what you get for selecting a running mate based on their contrived political persona, rather than their fundamentals. And, by the way, what does this say about the capacity to gather mission critical information in the service of national security?
Isn't choosing a vice president likely the single most important national security decision a candidate and potential President could make?
Palin fires Walt Monegan, for NOT firing her ex-brother in law. Palin appoints Chuck Kopp to replace Monegan, ignoring his history of harassing women Palin is not related to. Well, there goes that whole Clintonista Crossover Dream.
This total balls-up could have been avoided by simply typing her name into Google. One would not even have to justify the cost of a thirty-dollar online background check, though either would have certainly ruled out the necessity to run her past the FBI and Secret Service.
Oh, and when you pick a woman with the goal of luring women from the supposedly "bitterly disappointed" Clinton camp, it might be a good idea to check to see if she has anything in common with Clinton, other than primary and secondary sexual characteristics.
McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his VP is drawing hoots of derision.
Once they learn that Sarah Palin opposes rape and incest exceptions for women seeking abortion, they completely write her off.
One female friend said: "Sarah Palin is to the movement for women's equality what Clarence Thomas is to civil rights. She's an extremist and an enemy to the cause that has been fought on her behalf.... Someone should stand up and say: 'I know Senator Clinton. Senator Clinton is a friend of mine. And Sarah Palin is no Hillary Rodham Clinton.'"
Booyah! Not only should somebody say that, somebody should WEAR that - ideally in front of television cameras. Oh, Look, Zazzle has free shipping this Labor Day Weekend!!! Not to mention significant volume discounts!
You know, even now, it's quite a new thing to feel personally insulted by a vice-presidential choice. But I gotta say, this ranks right up there in terms of contempt for persons, process and presidential responsiblitys with Caligula appointing his horse to the Senate. One fears, though, that the horse was more qualified in absolute terms - since horses usually fail to have huge political baggage.
McCaint's Green Policy; make Arizona Green and Colorado Sepia.
Oh, McCain. This is your idea of a "Green Initiative," ain't it?
Has it occurred to you that Coors without pure water is... Corona? Ah, but something tells me that you are not the man for a frosty can of Coors; it's a working man's beer.
McCain told The Pueblo Chieftan last week that he wants to renegotiate the 1922 Colorado River compact to re-appropriate water from the upper basin states, like Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming, where the river originates and give it to lower basin states like California, and his home state of Arizona. McCain said:
“I don’t think there’s any doubt the major, major issue is water and can be as important as oil. So the compact that is in effect, obviously, needs to be renegotiated over time amongst the interested parties. I think that there’s a movement amongst the governors to try, if not, quote, renegotiate, certainly adjust to the new realities of high growth, of greater demands on a scarcer resource.”
“Over my cold, dead, political carcass,” said Bob Schaffer, a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate. “The compact is the only protection Colorado has from several more politically powerful downstream states. Opening it for renegotiation would be the equivalent of a lamb discussing with a pack of wolves what should be on the dinner menu.”
All politics are local and McCain seems to have forgotten that some issues - such as our Yucca Mountain, water rights and grazing - absolutely can and will trump ideological support.
But when you piss off Colorado water users, you are not just pissing off Coloradans - you are pissing off the people who make, sell, buy and drink Coor's Beer.
That would be the Very Right Republican Coors Family. Now that's a gaffe! And while he will apologize - or rather, while he will "clarify his views," it won't help. He was perfectly clear the first time and it makes perfect sense - coming from the Senior Senator from Arizona. And indeed, he's been joking about it for years. Coloradans weren't sure it was a joke. Now they are sure.
An interesting point. Something even more troubling occurs to me - that both his major donors and his rank and file supporters see this as a feature.
Obama's comment; "It's as if they were proud of being ignorant" needs to be pumped up a bit. There's no "as if" about it. They ARE proud of being ignorant, they conflate willful stupidity with patriotism and they are quite willing to destroy, by whatever means necessary, anything or anyone that tends to illustrate their wrong-headedness.
Two cities filled with living, breathing counter-examples have been struck so far, punished quite deliberately for their "godless libralism" following what may or may not have been contrived disasters.
That's the problem here, folks, it should be absolutely inconceivable that our government would or could consider or permit hostile action against it's citizens. It is not only no longer a fringe belief that they could or might contemplate it, it's become prudent to assume that at the very least they will be useless in a crisis, either due to manifest incompetence or direct willful action.
You can bet that if McCain is selected and placed in a position he cannot earn and is clearly morally or mentally unqualified for, it is statistically likely that it will lead to the loss of at least one more city via neglect or direct action.
Remember, considering everything that has gone on, if the right wing can nonetheless place McCain in power, they will know they can get away with anything.
They will be wrong, but the cost of proving it to them will be very, very high.
Comments on YouTube, Digg; all over the blogosphere are largely incredulous - but there does seem to be a hard core of dead-end-dumb Dumbfuckistanis who think that if McCain says Obama thinks he is the second coming, that must be because Charlton Heston TOLD him to say it, because it was, like True.
Just like all them threat-o-meter warnings. They came straight from Heston too.
Did you hear the one about the woman who is attacked on the street by a gorilla, beaten senseless, raped repeatedly and left to die? When she finally regains consciousness and tries to speak, her doctor leans over to hear her sigh contently and to feebly ask, ‘Where is that marvelous ape?’" John McCain, 1986, The Tucson Citizen: (PDF)
He told this "joke" to a conference of the National League of Cities and Towns, while in the process of campaigning for Senate. Well, any campaign handbook will tell you to "make 'em laugh" - and experience will tell you that the best way to "make 'em laugh" is to take aim at the folks that you know trouble the folks who have the money you want. The beautiful thing about a crude joke is that it's deniable, at the very worst, you get a little free publicity (they will tell you,) all provided by "those bitches who won't vote for you anyway."
You see, when you tell a joke like that, you are sending a message. "I'm with you. I don't like these uppity women and "gorillas" any more than you do."
Of course, you do scan the room to see if there were any women or "gorillas," but no doubt there were only a couple-three servers and secretaries, so he wasn't concerned.
Betcha five bucks he's got coon jokes tailored (by a focus group) for the Hispanic community. Considering who he's running against - I bet you he's got a LOT of them.
HT BlogHer. Their take is worth reading, but it's issue oriented. My problem with this contrast in answers to the same question is far more fundamental.
Clearly, while the idiolgies and more importantly, the idiologies of supporters and donors would dictate considerably different responses, it is damned astonishing that McCain does not have a response.
It's not a difficult question. It's not a "gotcha" question, it goes directly to one of the most important issues today, health coverage in general and in specific, the health of women and reproductive choice.
Now, the questioner might not have liked the proper answer that McCain should have (based on his base) given: "Viagra is covered, and so is pregnancy and childbirth. The inability to have children is broadly considered to be an insurable medical condition, and that's what this is about." (grin) "Do I need to explain why?"
So, why didn't he have such an answer to such a blindingly obvious question? Has he never thought about the implications of the status quo regarding contraception and reproductive health? Has no-one on his staff thought them through? Because, well, it's a damn vital issue to two huge constituencies. Obama has one wrapped up (and just tied a pretty pink bow on it) - so all he has is the other.
And he has no answer. Apparently doesn't understand the question. And he cannot even recall his past votes regarding this issue. What, does he flip a fucking COIN? Is he really a principled maverick, or does he simply suffer from the sort of dissociative fugue states that people suffering from galloping PTSD are prone to?
And what happens if he is elected and has to come up with an answer to a really difficult question, like, say, To Bomb, or Not To Bomb?
Folks, the choice presented here is not between Republican and Democrat - it's between coherent and incoherent. It's between someone who can process information, consider the broad political context and come to a viable policy for improving access to health care as compared to someone who does not seem to understand that policy has direct socio-political implications and costs.
The essence of this is stark. Obama has a coherent set of ethical principles which he has applied to the issues of the day that are important to the electorate. And since he's obviously invested a great deal in considering his principles, he doesn't need to refer to his notes to come up with an answer, even if it's not something he's specifically considered.
McCain, though, seems to be rudderless when the issue cannot be transformed into something relating to terrorism, Iran, Iraq and "Islamofacism." He's unethical and unprincipled, so he's stuck when he cannot calculate the advantage of saying this as opposed to that in this particular news cycle.
And, well, we know how well the unprincipled and rudderless have served us in that regard up to now.
It's not bloggers he hates so much as the inability to control the message and hide all the evidence of having done so. Honestly, I don't think it's a tide any candidate relying on the support of the "republican base" could swim against. But McCain is drowning.
Hey, guys, when you throw someone into the deep end, maybe you should check to see if they can swim.
I have a "no torture" design at Cafepress which I think is rather good and I was trying to see why I was losing the sales race. I think I've sold two or three, total.
Well, the answer is, it's a good design, but there are a few better ones, and clearly hundreds of better-promoted ones.
But right in the middle of scratching the curiosity itch, I found a design that says "I support waterboarding."
I had to know what combination of stupidity and ignorance of our Constitutionally-recognized basic human rights would provoke creating such a thing - much less the idea of slapping it on the ass of your car.
RIGHTREVOLUTION.COM: "WE HAD THE REAGAN REVOLUTION IN THE 80'S AND THE CONTRACT WITH AMERICA IN THE 90'S. NOW WE NEED A NEW RIGHT REVOLUTION TO CONFRONT ALL OF OUR ENEMIES IN THE 21ST CENTURY!"
As the saying goes; "Be careful what you wish for, you might get it."
Assholes create enemies at an exponential rate, and right now, our foreign policy is being determined either by assholes like this, or the fools who PANDER to assholes like this, apparently ignorant of the brutal reality of legitimizing the opinions of Camaro-Driving Assholes.
I found the one you see at the top of the story. And that's your GraphicTruth for the day and a succinct summation of WHY civilized nations DO NOT FUCKING TORTURE PEOPLE.
FIRST: You make enemies, enemies that may one day be in a position to do you a serious injury.
SECOND - and more immediately - When you torture people, other people treat YOUR people accordingly.
THIRD: When you torture people, they do indeed talk. They tell you exactly what you want to hear. When people tell you exactly what you want to hear, you find out that applying that "intelligence" can lead you far, far astray. Like, for instance, where we are right now, in Iraq.
Where we torture people.
To get "intelligence."
So, like, how's that been workin' out for us?
FOURTH: Those people who understand this and who are supposedly on your side realize that you are adding to their own chances of being tortured or blown up without warning. As a result, you make enemies you don't even know about.
The vast majority of Europeans, Canadians, Australians and of course 70% of the American people can see, hear and understand the consequences and outcomes that are inevitable when you let the asshole drive the Camaro with the Red White And Blue decal onna hood that makes it go even faster!
The FBI, which does not exactly have an institutional tradition of tender concern for the rights of the accused, nonetheless maintains a strict policy against torture that not even Alito could subvert. Why?
Because torturing people gets you false leads, false confessions and acquittals - as well as making you an easy mark for disinformation. Or in other words, aside from the national security situations this causes, it can lead to the public embarrassment of elected and appointed superiors!
Even when those superiors are apparently immune to being embarrassed by the fruits of their own incompetence and malfeasance, those real-world, national security issues remain.
Remember, it's the FBI that was and continues to be our counter-intelligence arm, they went up against the best-trained agents the KGB and the Chinese could send. And, once or twice (at least), Mossad.
They learned patience and have a remarkably good record in getting real intelligence from people, without those people being converted into terrorists in the process; something that Gitmo has rather notably achieved.
But this sort of ruthlessly patient professionalism is unacceptable to the sort of Camero-Driving Assholes who think that there can be no "victory" without someone being beaten to a bloody pulp. And, quite clearly, not only do they feel they have enemies, they positively delight in making them - ignorantly and indiscriminately.
Do you think John McCain is gonna think that's funny or even remotely appropriate?
Now, like all assholes, you may well be about to say "whatcha gonna do about it," or maybe "It's a free country" or "I got a goddamn RIGHT to say whatever I want!"
Indeed. But then, if these things are true, they are true for all of us, not merely the sort of asshole who drives a Camaro as if it were a spooge filled, condom-less penis aimed at the faces of their fellow citizens.
While it is certainly "First Amendment speech," the First Amendment says nothing about legal, non-violent consequences - ranging from mockery to boycotts to direct objections to Cafepress. Those communications are also protected by the First, And Greatest Amendment.
Care to shake your fist at me? Let me refer you to the Second Amendment and Common Law. Or in other words, it's unwise in the extreme to use physical force against people who are too civil to simply beat the crap out of you on general principles. "Civilized" does not mean "pussy." Indeed, civilized nations and persons tend to be rather better prepared for violence than others - since they rather commonly run into this sort of situation and need to have a variety of options to deal with it. Those options most definitely involve physical force.
Then there are the consequences that, while not being protected by the first or recognized as legitimate by the law, can nonetheless be expected to occur on a statistical basis.
I sure as hell would not want to be parking anywhere NEAR a National Guard or Reserve outfit with that on the back of my car. Never mind being keyed, it's entirely possible that I'd find an APC parked on it.
Feel free to pass this on to Cafepress (cup@cafepress.com) and inquire as to whether the bumpersticker (and indeed, the shop itself) meets their Terms Of Service.
Or you can call Cafepress toll free at 1-877-809-1659. If you are outside of the US, please call 1-402-517-4480.
A nicely-timed Bush-Whacking, delivered in Vancouver, BC. as reported in the Vancouver Sun.
Powell said that every word of what he called his 'infamous' presentation about WMD (in Iraq) had been vetted by the intelligence community -- 'and I had no reason to disbelieve it.' The former secretary of state has previously described his prewar UN speech as a 'blot' on his record.
The gist of the story was the announcement that he was not yet certain whether he would be voting for (read, endorsing) McCain or Obama and that decision would come down to "their passion and policies."
I'm sure the public ambiguity will be clarified to each in private, should they ask.
But for my money, this was THE quote:
"We will not be terrified into changing our way of life because of some guy [Osama bin Laden] hiding in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan."
I just got done watching the clip below with a couple of Army buddies. We thought it was pretty funny how the doughy chickenhawk kid--Ben Ferguson--felt he was entitled to speak on behalf of the military. Non-serving, tough talkers like Ferguson are endlessly entertaining to us.
FERGUSON: You have a man that was shot down, stayed in captivity as a POW for five years and your guy--if you want to talk about experience--had 147 days in the Senate before he decided he wanted to be President of the United States of America. So it's pretty dumb for Wesley Clark to go out there and yes, it ticked off everyone in the military because this man--I mean, I'm sorry, being shot down, to say that doesn't qualify you to be President-this man has been around war, been in actual war zones while Wesley Clark was sitting in an air-conditioned room, telling people what to do with NATO, so I don't know if he's exactly the right guy to go out there.
Remarks below preserved because I'm on my first cuppa coffee and can't yet think for myself: BK
But the fact that CNN had this kid on to talk about things for which he has no understanding wasn't the only thing that was disturbing. I love how it's totally unacceptable to give anything other than glowing reviews of John McCain's military experience in Media World, while it's okay to slander General Clark's military service.
After Ferguson said that Clark had "ticked off everyone in the military," he went on to say that John McCain had "been in actual war zones while Wesley Clark was sitting in an air-conditioned room, telling people what to do with NATO."
Ben needs to brush up on his talking points, because Clark was actually shot four times in Vietnam, and left the country on a stretcher. Most people would consider that having been in an "actual war zone." And to be honest, the next person to debate this kid on TV should ask for an apology--or just ask him what he has against wounded Vietnam veterans.
I have come to the conclusion that there is an insufficiency of satire at Cafepress - and of course, just in general. I think that if we take this upcoming election too seriously and too personally, we may all strain something vital.
Well, to that end - and to the end of "building a residual income" - I have started a new Cafepress Store with the aim of not praising Caeser.
While my first victim was John McCain... well, that image was a gift from God, and if it's good enough for Colbert, it's good enough for me.
And yes, there ARE t-shirts. But don't you think that yard signs are more fun?
It's important to remind our leadership that our support is conditional, and contingent upon performance. We have had eight years to savor the burn of leadership that could not care less about such "intangibles" as honoring promises or even living up to the most minimal expectations. That's why I made this shirt template. YOUR reasons go into the design. Wear it (or your own design) often, so that everyone knows that your support is conditional on performance.
I support Obama, but in doing so, I intend to hold him to a much higher standard than I applied to George Bush or, for that matter, Bill Clinton. Frankly, we haven't had our eyes on the ball since Ronnie Ray-Gun took office.
I happen to think that Obama can live up to high expectations. But I also expect him to understand that in any area in which he feels less than totally sure of himself - he has a telephone. He should pick it up and call a citizen in whom he does have confidence due to evident competence. In other words, Sir; we are Citizens. And it is both the honor and the duty of a Citizen to serve at the pleasure of the President, regardless of their politics. Or it should be.
I do not shill for myself. There damn well ought to be a long list of more obvious choices, in and out of political life. And that, Sir, is my point.
Presume, Sir, that you have not just the right, but the duty to lead as broad a mandate as possible, and to continue to broaden it pro-actively for as long as you have the privilege to shape this nation.
You are the Democratic nominee for sure, and the outcome of the floor fight 'twixt Ron Paul and John McCain is going to be interesting, but the ultimate outcome isn't in doubt. I suggest very strongly to you that Ron Paul himself and those of the Ron Paul Revolution have earned a place in history as significant as your own.
Forcing Principle and Reason upon Republicans, one nickel and one hand-painted banner at a time, in service to the Constitutional principles you will be pledging to uphold - Sir, I think that deserves acknowledgment.
At the very least, I very much hope you will be insisting on him being included in any candidate debates for as long as he is still a candidate - whatever the other side may feel about it. It would be great politics - but aside from that, people might actually watch the debate and learn something from it.
Indeed, I think he (and a great many of the citizen-activists behind him) should be on the very top of that pile I mentioned earlier.
Let's get down to specifics. I support you, Barack Hussein Obama for President. Why?
That hurt to watch, even given the mercifully brief excerpts between the stunned honesty of pundit reactions. I've seen more of the actual speech, and I have to honestly say - the editing was not unfair to McCain.
Quentin Tarantio could not have come up with a good cut of that speech. And the content - "Change is Scary," delivered to a roomful of senior citizens in Louisiana - well, clearly, the professionals are sitting this election out. Change may be scary - but only if the way things are remains tolerable. Bet there weren't many supporters there from the Big Easy.
The "heir apparent" to Bush's "legacy" is no better at expressing and projecting his ideas in a compelling manner and persuading a tough room that he's worth supporting in his endeavors than was Bush. No - though it pains me to say this - he's not as good as Bush. He has a marginally better command of English, and at least he's not too proud to pretend he doesn't need a teleprompter, but, on his best day ever, Ronald Regan couldn't have made that reeking pile of crap work, and even Bush would have asked for a do-over.
Mercifully; I now have a positive choice running against a positively idiotic choice instead of a duel between mediocrities.
Barack, we are all fortunate that you had the chance to prove yourself against a truly remarkable slate of competing positive choices, coming down to the wire in a down and dirty slugfest with Hillary.
Our Republican friends had to decide, really, which candidate would be the least embarrassing representative for a carpetbag filled with broken promises and the reeking tissues used to mop up the aftermath of Imperial fantasies. Since Ron Paul wan't going to carry that sack of shit, they simply ignored him and are still ignoring him - even though he's the least worst choice.
Coulda been worse. Could have been Romney. But he and every other alternative stood for something - and whatever something you picked, it was intolerable to some other "core constituency."
So they settled on the candidate who somehow managed to be least offensive to the fewest members of the Coalition of the Damned.
I used to respect John McCain a great deal. But I'm afraid that he's lost his way; while politics is the art of compromise, it is not supposed to be the art of compromising one's principles to the end of gaining power.
He's now forthright for torture and supports the police state tactics that the Bush Cabal desires - most lately endorsing warrantless wiretapping "In this time of war." A "war" will last just as long as needed to justify the "emergency procedures" Karl Rove desires.
Whatever the orthodoxy of the Republican Party thinks, whatever their media machine believes, McCain's actual chance of winning an even somewhat honest election at this point, with the Bush Albatross around his neck and a ringing promise of a hundred more years of war in the middle east if that's what it takes to "win" is that of a urinal puck in a Texas Honky-Tonk.
GTL was wondering aloud why McCain's paster - a raving loonie by all accounts - is getting a free pass because McCain sleeps through his sermons, just like Barack Obama probably does.
Moving on to the substance, having dismissed the story as the non-story it is and taking a swipe in passing of McCain's discomfort with the width of the loopholes in McCain-Fiengold, he gets to the point.
The Gun Toting Liberal™: "If you think for ONE MOMENT, “Panama John” lacks a “skeleton” or two in his closet, you’d better think AGAIN. The man’s been to war and he was captured as a POW. My hat’s off to him for that, and I sincerely do mean that. On the other hand, I’ve been to war, too, and I guaran-damned-TEE you — you do NOT want MOI to be YOUR “Leader Of The Free World”. I’ll never be the same again, and I wasn’t even captured and/or tortured by the enemy like “Panama John” was. God Bless him, but it is simply not POSSIBLE for the man to be even the slightest bit “normal”. Ask any other war veteran and unless they, like “The Sherrif”, are blinded by the G.O.P., they’ll wholeheartedly agree."
And that's the point I think we should all consider. I've been through my own sorts of wars - equivalent levels of stress, according to folks who tell other folks they need to be wrapped tighter - and I will tell you that PTSD really does do permanent damage.
This can be a blessing or a curse, but I cannot see any way where he could possibly turn it into a blessing for him and us in the Presidency. A Senator has the slack they need to cope. I'd be real tempted (from the viewpoint of either party) to have him as SecDef. It is going to be a chrome-plated bitch rebuilding our armed forces, and we will need someone with that level of street cred with the troops to do it. One thing about PTSD - it really does enhance your level of rational paranoia.
One thing I have noticed about presidential candidates - and this troubles me in general - there are few enough legislators who are competent enough to pour piss out of a boot; it disturbs me to see the good ones go down the crapper with the bad; the general outcome of a failed run for Presidency seems to be the end of one's political career.
"Although it is not on the agenda and I suspect a goodly number of CPAC members would deny it, the biggest issue facing this crowd is whether to embrace McCain, who has been the subject of vitriolic attacks by Coulter, among other right-wing demagogues, over not being conservative enough.
As I have written early and often, as the presumptive nominee, McCain cannot win the November election without at least the tacit support of CPACers."
You know, I like to think of myself as a Conservative-ish sort of person - but apparently that particular C-Word has become as slimy, slippery and difficult to apply as that other Big Cee word (the one with the very same litmus tests, it seems); "Christian."
Now, there are ways in which I think McCain is far too willing to compromise Conservatism; but all my caviats have to do with intrusive big government and foreign warfare - aside from being more of a flip-flopper than Kerry ever was.
As far as I am concerned, it's the very antithesis of Conservatism to pee in a cup for ANYONE, much less kneel holding it before self-appointed arbiters of Conservatism, such as Coulter and Malkin to delicately taste.
The only proper response to such a request is to pee on their shoes. Getting elected at the price of the ability to do anything consistent with any identifiable set of values - much less personal honor or integrity - is a price no Real Conservative - or indeed, any person of conscience - will abide. Of course, this will not put you in a place of power - but if you HAD to sell your concience and your own freedom, you won't really be in a place of power. You will simply be a shill - and not even a well-paid shill by modern standards.
Coulter, for one, makes more money for far less effort than even George Bush gets by with.
As the contest comes down to sussing out which candidate of all presented on each side has the most ... erm ... flexibility; the most room for interpretation of intent in their rhetoric, the less interested I am in throwing away my vote by voting.
Increasingly, as the field narrows, excluding those with principle in favor of those with corporate support and not even particularly well-hidden sponsorships, I'm losing interest. Well, the only way to vote "none of the above" is to not vote at all. That is the only way to deny a plurality to everyone who participated.
As I'm on the topic of the meaningless of the duties of citizenship, let me advocate a constitutional amendment that would require that 25% of the affected population must vote with a minimum of 90% confidence in the accuracy of the tally for the election to be valid.
If elections fail three times - a constitutional convention is called and the federal government is put in abeyance.
