Author

Uncategorized

I’m going to nominate James Wolcott’s post over at Vanity Fair for funniest ever. Read the whole thing here. For my money, Wolcott is the most entertaining writer in the blogosphere. In this post, Wolcott describes the implosion of the righty bloggers as they come to grips with the possibility of an Obama presidency. Or, as Wolcott says:

It’s been quite an inglorious spectacle, watching these wracked souls lose their sh*t as they swing from the belfry.

Wolcott later adds:

It’s one of the richer ironies of this election season that the conservative bloggers disparage Obama as a phony lightweight, a glib opportunist, a suave vessel of empty eloquence, yet endow him with the sinister strength to bend America to his socialist will and fog men’s minds.

I encourage you to read the whole thing. There are some R-rated right wing rants regarding Obama that you have to read to believe (Teaser: Beneath Obama’s cool persona lies a megalomaniac…graphic descriptions ensue comparing Obama to Stalin, Saddam, and Pol Pot.)

Priceless.

Wolcott ends the piece with this pithy smack-down:

And to think they called us “sore losers” in 2000! They haven’t even lost yet and they’re already blaming the victor, acting all butch and making with the big talk about stocking up on gold and ammo as they hole up in the shag-carpeted panic room and let their whiskers grow. They can’t face the fact that conservatism has epically failed; this is their way of pouting and refusing to come out and play, leaving everybody else to deal with the ruin left behind.

PS. Honorable mention to an Internet classic “Playing Poker With Dick Cheney.”

Uncategorized

We have an example this week of the lowest, most dangerous form of race-baiting imaginable. Stop me if you’ve heard this one. A large (six foot four!), angry, black man sexually assaults and mutilates a young, white woman. Of course, it was easily shown to be false and the disturbed woman who made the whole thing up has confessed to the crime.

But the more interesting part of the story for me is not the crime itself but the reaction from the bloggers of the John Locke Foundation. Predictably, the most disturbing is from the self-proclaimed journalist and nasty piece of work Jon Ham. Go here to read it.

The screaming, blood-colored headline on Drudge right now says:

SHOCK: MCCAIN VOLUNTEER ATTACKED AND MUTILATED IN PITTSBURGH

‘B’ CARVED INTO 20-YEAR OLD WOMAN’S FACE… DEVELOPING…

We don’t have the details yet, but if it should turn out that the “B” was for “Barack” and that the McCain volunteer was indeed attacked because of her political views, will any story mention the phenomenon of “the Angry Left”?

First of all, what kind of “journalist” links to frickin’ Matt Drudge? Let me give some advice to Ham: if Drudge says a story is “Developing” you might want to find a second source for confirmation. Secondly, Ham seems particularly excited with Drudge’s use of a “screaming, blood-colored” headline. Say what? Am I missing something here? I haven’t seen a right wing blogger this excited since Rich “Starbursts” Lowry stood at attention when Sarah Palin winked at him. The disappointment of Ham and his commenters was almost palpable when Ham had to update the story with the actual truth.

Jon Sanders was less excited, but little better, in his handling of the hoax here. Notice that both Jon’s, once they reluctantly accepted that this was not going to be a game-changing Willie Horton moment, treat the story as a political prank…nothing more…and they mainly want to focus on the story as an example of left-wing media bias.

Here is what the Locke bloggers should have said if they felt the need to mention the story at all.

“This was more than a prank or hoax. This was race-baiting…pure and simple. There is no more vile and despicable chapter in our nation’s history than the lynchings that occurred when mobs were incited to riot. All Americans can agree that we should condemn this behavior, and that it has no place in our political conversation.”

As an aside, Josh Marshall says it’s “Time for Answers” for the McCain campaiign to come clean regarding the role of its staffers in hyping this story.

Uncategorized

As everyone knows by now, Colin Powell has endorsed Barack Obama for President. But the most interesting information was revealed in Powell’s question-and-answer session after his appearance on Meet the Press. It seems Powell is not too thrilled with the McCarthyism of John McCain and Sarah Palin and their smears of Obama as a Socialist. Here is what Powell had to say about taxes and the negativity of the McCain campaign:

I was troubled a couple of weeks ago when in the middle of the crisis, the [McCain] campaign said, “We’re going to go negative,” and they announced it, “We’re going to go negative and attack [Obama's] character through Bill Ayers.” Now I guess the message this week is, “We’re going to call him a socialist, Mr. Obama is now 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 paid them, in roads and airports and hospitals and schools. And taxes are necessary for the common good. And there is nothing wrong with examining what our tax structure is or who should be paying more, who should be paying less. And for us to say that that makes you a socialist, I think is an unfortunate characterization that isn’t accurate.

I don’t want my taxes raised. I don’t want anybody else’s taxes raised. But I also want to see our infrastructure fixed. I don’t want to have a $12 trillion national debt, and I don’t want to see an annual deficit that’s over $500 billion heading toward a trillion. So, how do we deal with all of this?

And that’s the point. Taxes will always be paid by Americans. Every administration sets tax policy. It is silly to say that Obama is a “socialist” because he wants to return to the same tax policies that we had in the 1990′s under Bill Clinton. It’s a matter of fairness. The middle-class has been propping up the upper class for 30 years. It’s time for the tax pendulum to swing the other way in favor of working families.

If nothing else, it should be entertaining to watch right-wing heads explode in Freedomworld as the banks are nationalized and people making more then $250,000 go back to Clinton era marginal tax rates.

Uncategorized

John McCain’s fake hysteria was on full display in last night’s debate. Discussing voter registration drives in predominantly urban and minority communities McCain said this:

We need to know the full extent of Senator Obama’s relationship with ACORN, who is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe
destroying the fabric of democracy.”

Nonsense. Don’t be fooled by the predictable right wing hysteria over ACORN and “voter fraud.” Here is a helpful glossary of terms:

1) Voter Registration Fraud: This is when registration cards for “Mickey Mouse” are submitted. These are easily identified (often by the group registering voters i.e. ACORN since they are required by law to submit all registration forms…even the one’s which are obviously fraudulent). Effect on the integrity of election results? None.

2) Voter Fraud: This would be if “Mickey Mouse” actually showed up and tried to cast a vote. Effect on the integrity of election results? Negligible. From 2002 to 2005, only 25 people have been convicted of voter fraud. That’s 8 per year…nationally.

3) Voter Supression: This would be if Michael “Mickey” Johnson was a correctly registered and fully qualified voter. He is likely to be African-American; living in a predominantly African-American neighborhood… in a battleground state. His right to vote may be suppressed by the following means: innaccurately and illegally purging from voter list, disproportionately long lines to vote in minority neighborhoods, voter “caging”, scurrilous intimidation tactics such as blanketing a neighborhood with fliers stating “people with unpaid parking tickets will be arrested if they attempt to vote”, being purged from the voter list if your house is in foreclosure, etc. Effect on the integrity of the election process? Significant. Recognize that tens of thousands of legal voters can be disenfranchised with one keystroke.

If there is a threat to the fabric of our democracy it is voter supression. Whenever our right wing friends mention “voter fraud” they are laying the groundwork to disenfranchise legal voters. It is particularly shameful that the votes they don’t want to be counted are those of low income and minority voters.

Uncategorized

So… conservative Republican John McCain decided to resurrect the "attack them as Liberals" approach in his debate against Barack Obama.  McCain stretched the truth on Friday when he said "Senator Obama has the most Liberal voting record in the United States Senate."  Neocon pundit William Kristol confirmed the strategy in his column in the New York Times yesterday, stating that attacking Obama as too liberal is "How McCain Wins." 

If I were Obama, I would shove it right back down the throat of the churlish and childish McCain during the next debate with this quote from John F. Kennedy (Sept. 16, 1960):

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

If you watched the debate on Friday, read the bold-faced portion above and tell me which candidate is better equipped to handle the challenges of the 21st century and which candidate is more interested in reigniting the culture wars and refighting the Cold War.

*For the audio of JFK's speech click here.