RSS

Tag Archives: Politics

Numerous conservatives have approvingly cited Mao’s and other communists’ tactics too?

Recently, conservative gabsters have been falling all over themselves in their ever higher spiraling rhetoric concerning White House Communications Director Anita Dunn for stating that Chinese Communist Mao Zedong was one of her “favorite political philosophers”, but what Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, et al, have not been telling you is that numerous conservatives have also approvingly cited Mao’s and other communists’ tactics too.

During one of his recent radio programs Rush Limbaugh said, “Can you think of anybody…who would run around and start praising Mao Zedong as a role model, as a philosopher to follow? Can you think of any…who would have previously cited Stalin or Lenin or Castro? This administration idolizes all these people. I’m not suggesting they’re mass-murderers; I’m saying they envy the total control, the tyrannical control that Mao Zedong had.”

Well, yes Rush, and Virginia, I can think of numerous conservatives who have also approvingly cited Chinese Chairman Mao Zedong. Who? Which conservatives would ever quote someone like Mao?

How about GOP Candidate, decorated war hero, Arizona Senator John McCain?

During last year’s presidential campaign McCain was answering blogger’s questions, and he was asked how he was doing. “You know, in the words of Chairman Mao, it’s always darkest before it’s totally black…(laughing)…” McCain answered.

So, a GOP presidential candidate quoted Mao?

Yep, but that’s not all, former Speaker of the House, current FOX News contributor, 2012 GOP presidential hopeful and Sean Hannity political hack, Newt Gingrich quoted Mao in a May 1995 Roll Call profile saying “War is politics with blood; politics is war without blood.” Mr. Speaker, that sounds like you’re a student of a communist Chinese leader, a man responsible for killing millions.

In a 1964 essay, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” Richard Hofstadter wrote that Stephen C. Shadegg, adviser to Sen. Barry Goldwater during his senatorial and presidential campaigns, approvingly cited Mao and quoted him, saying that he “followed the advice of Mao” while working for Goldwater and in his other campaign work. In its obituary of Shadegg, The New York Times described him as “a political campaign manager who was regarded as the alter ego of Senator Barry Goldwater in the Senator’s unsuccessful quest for the Presidency in 1964.” The Times also reported that Shadegg “for three years wrote a nationally syndicated newspaper column that carried Senator Goldwater’s byline,” “served as Western regional director of the Goldwater forces” during his 1964 presidential campaign, and “was acknowledged as the person closest to the Senator in philosophy and as the craftsman of the Goldwater image as a staunch conservative.” (The New York Times, 5/24/90)

The man acknowledged as “the person closest to the Senator (Goldwater) in philosophy and as the craftsman of the Goldwater image as a staunch conservative” said he “followed the advice of Mao”? No one is more conservative than Barry Goldwater, and his closest advisor, even the man described as “the craftsman” of Goldwater’s “image as a staunch conservative” said he “followed the advice of Mao”? He didn’t just say he admired Mao. Nor, did he say that Mao was one of his “favorite political philosophers” but that he “followed the advice of Mao”.

But there are more conservatives who have quoted Mao.

A 1992 Seattle Times article reported that Republican strategist and former Christian Coalition director Ralph Reed said in an “interview with The Phoenix Gazette” that “Mao Tse-Tung said politics is war without bloodshed. Clearly, there are some metaphors that sit nicely with politics.”

The former head of the Christian Coalition too? Say it ain’t so! Oh yes, it’s so, and Reed also admitted to admiring the tactics of the Viet Cong as well. In The Art of Political Warfare, John J. Pitney Jr., a contributing editor to the libertarian journal Reason, wrote that Reed explained the Christian Coalition’s strategy of sometimes backing ” ‘stealth candidates’ for local office who would downplay their affiliations in order to attract broader support” by saying, “It’s like guerrilla warfare. If you reveal your location, all it does is allow your opponent to improve his artillery bearings. It’s better to move quietly, with stealth, under cover of night. … It comes down to whether you want to be the British army in the Revolutionary War or the Viet Cong. History tells us which tactic was more effective.” So, Reed quotes not only Chairman Mao, but the VC too?

Hold on to your cigar with those formerly nicotine stained fingers Rush. In his December 26, 2008, Wall Street Journal column, GOP strategists and FOX contributor Karl (spelled with a K, like Soviet spelling of Kommunism) Rove wrote that he and President Bush “recommended volumes to each other (for example, he encouraged me to read a Mao biography; I suggested a book on Reconstruction’s unhappy end.) We discussed the books and wrote thank-you notes to some authors.”

Let me get this straight, former Republican President George W. Bush suggested a biography on Mao? Not a biography of George Washington, nor of Lincoln, but of Mao? Doubtless this book was chock full of not only Mao quotes, but Mao philosophical ideas as well; but I thought that no other administration?

So, Virginia, and Rush, Sean and Glenn, not only is there a Santa Claus, but yes, conservatives have also approvingly cited Mao’s and other communists’ tactics too.

 
2 Comments

Posted by on November 18, 2009 in Politics

 

Tags: , , , ,

Right Wing Radio/TV Host Impotent in Congressional Race

Right-wing media types, you know, Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc., tripped all over themselves endorsing and boosting the failed Conservative Party candidacy of Doug Hoffman in the race to fill a vacant seat in New York’s 23rd Congressional District, with several of them hosting Hoffman on their radio or television shows. They were all there to lend their “support”. But, with friends like these can a conservative party, much less the GOP really survive?

The whole gang was there pulling for carpet bagger Hoffman,  Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Mike Huckabee, Michelle Malkin, and Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com. It was a rogue’s gallery. But when all is said and done, it didn’t help. The conservative, ultra ring-wing candidate lost a seat which has not been held by a member from the Democratic Party since Abraham Lincoln was President. Just as ring-wing media didn’t sway the 2006 Congressional elections, nor the 2008 Presidential election, it didn’t prove to have what it takes in the 2009 Congressional elections. Doesn’t bode well for a GOP right-wing take over of Congress next year.

sean_hannity_009

The little leprechaun Sean Hannity told Hoffman on his Fox News Television program, the night before the election, “I think this is a referendum on a lot of what’s been going on in the country, which is moving radically to the left. And I think this election is going to be watched. I hope I’m on the air this time tomorrow night and I’ll be able to declare you the winner.”

GlennBeck_1_edited-1

Hosting Hoffman on the radio on November 2, Glenn “McCarthy” Beck said: “I like you. You seem like a normal guy. You seem like a nice guy. You seem like the kind of person that we need in Washington, which is just a regular person.”

dobbs-lou

On November 2, Mr. News himself Lou Dobbs said to Hoffman, “You know what’s the great — what the great thing is about the Dem — the Conservative candidate running for Congress, Doug Hoffman? He’s neither a professional politician; he’s a guy who’s just disgusted with the system, turns out he’s an accountant.” Moments later, Dobbs added: “It’s hard to believe, but it looks like he just might win. Now this is change I can believe in. If we can get some accountants, and teachers, and carpenters, and some plumbers, and some electricians, some truck drivers, some people who know how to work for a living in this country, I think I’m going to be one of the happiest guys in the entire nation.”

rush_limbaughOf course, who can forget Rush Limbaugh’s tasteful take on the NY 23rd race, and former GOP candidates Dede Scozzafava’s endorsement of Hoffman’s opponent, Bill Owens, “Scozzafava has screwed every RINO [Republican in Name Only] in the coun — we can say that she’s guilty of widespread bestiality. She has screwed every RINO in the country. Everyone can see just see how phony and dangerous they are. You know, 2010 might be a nightmare for PETA. Two animals may become extinct; RINOs and Blue Dog Democrats. Pelosi’s gonna kill off the Blue Dogs, and the conservatives are gonna finally get rid of RINOs. The American people have had enough.”

Two things are apparent now. First, the right-wing media folks don’t know near as much about politics in today’s America as they collectively think they do. Second, their endorsement appears to be the kiss of death. Whose praises were they all singing just over a year ago? Sarah somebody or other?

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 8, 2009 in Politics

 

Tags: , , , , ,

500,000 Attend Washington Tea Party?

glen_beck

Glenn “Joseph McCarthy” Beck, our nation’s stalwart defender against godless communism, has brashly declared that “really conservative” estimates of the recent completely spontaneous tea party march on Washington are around 500,000. Beck however claimed on “Fox and Friends” that it was really between one and two million, based on photos, and by an independent estimate made by a university, the name of which he couldn’t remember.

Others, Rush, Hannity, et al., have claimed it was larger than the crowd that gathered for President Obama’s Inauguration in January.

Official crowd estimates place the total number of attendees at somewhere between 60,000 to 75,000; while estimates for the inauguration were between 1.8 million to 2.5 million. Let’s see? 1.8 million is slightly more than 75,000; so, no Rush, Hannity, et al., your “completely spontaneous” tea party crowd was not only not larger; it wasn’t even close.

In fact, it was smaller than a lot of marches – or crowds – which have gathered in D.C. Here are only ten:

President Obama’s Inauguration = est. 1.8 million

The Moratorium to End the War in Vietnam, Nov 1969 = est. 500,000

Vietnam War Out Now Rally, Apr 1971 = est. 500,000

Million Man March, Apr 1993 = est. 400,000

The March on Washington for Lesbian, Gay, and Bi Equal Rights and Liberation, Apr 1993 = est. 300,000

The March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom took place, during which MLK gave his “I Have Dream” speech, Aug 1963 = est. 250,000

Solidarity Day March, Sep 1981 = est. 260,000

The Moratorium to End the War in Vietnam, Oct 1969 = est. 200,000

Kent State/Cambodia Incursion March, May 1970 = est. 100,000

March for Life, Jan 1973 = est. 100,000

Basically, Beck and company not only exaggerated, but greatly exaggerated, the number of marchers, in fact they grossly inflated the numbers. Why would they do that? For one very good, very large, political reason; so their own power would seem greater.

Truth is they got fewer numbers for their “completely spontaneous” march than they did for tea party day back in April. Beck, Rush, Hannity et al., are going to have to realize – as will their sponsors – that their day has passed. After months of promoting his 9-12 march on Washington, with the unabashed help of Fox News and all of his conservative buddies they can only marshal 70,000 marchers.

70,000 divided by 12 million listeners = .005 multiplied by 100 = 5%. The conservative propaganda machine could only get .5% of its listeners to respond.

70,000 divided by let’s say 60 million Republicans = .001 multiplied by 100 = .1% of all Republicans.

70,000 divided by 169 million registered voters = .0004 multiplied by 100 = .04 % of all registered voters

Your march wasn’t spontaneous.

Your march wasn’t grass roots organized.

Your march wasn’t successful.

No one is hiding in their closets in fear of the tea bag grass roots movement. At best Mr. Beck’s groupies are the extreme right wing fringe. They’re numbers don’t prove substantial political power, their numbers prove they’re inconsequential.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on September 20, 2009 in Lunatics, Politics, Right Wing Radio

 

Tags: , ,

Kit Lange’s Prophecies Seven Months Later

kitlange

Six months ago I was sent the gloom and doom predictions of Kit Lange’s, My Predictions for the New Obama ‘Presidency’.

It’s now almost seven months into President Obama’s Presidency and I thought we could all revisit Ms. Lange’s predictions and see if the Prophetess of Doom was right or not?

As many of you may know, Ms. Lange is reportedly a veteran of the United States Air Force, for which service I would salute her; however as an 18+ year veteran of the United States Army I need to say that not everyone who has served, or who is currently serving, agrees with her particular point of view.

I shall once again attempt to respond to Lange’s prophecies. The point-counterpoint includes Lange’s divinations (in normal text) and my replies (in bold and italicized):

“Now that America has shown us all that affirmative action even works in politics, I’ve compiled a list of things that you can probably expect to happen. These predictions are 80% gleaned from information all of us have access to, and 15% gut instinct based on many years of research, historical study, and being glued to current affairs. The other 5% is just anger at my countrymen’s stupidity – I admit it.

– “Websites and mass emails offering ‘free grants,’ courtesy of the government and ‘Obama’s wealth redistribution.’

Six months later still no evidence that these “mass emails” ever went out. Sounds a lot like a Senator standing before the assembled media, holding up a piece of paper in his hand and claiming it contained the names of known communists in the State Department. Now I have to admit the Government had to step in a bail out failing businesses, thanks to the mess Bush/Cheney left – you can’t fight two wars for six years and not raise taxes.

Prophecy score: 0-1

-“Israel will understand this election was the end of any type of assistance, military or otherwise, from the U.S., and will stop holding back their defense at the request of the American administration. Look for a first strike on Iran soon, as well as increased activity by the Israeli military in general. Israel is on her own now, and God help us all because of it.”

Six months later and still no massive Israeli unleashing of death upon Iran, or any of her Arab neighbors; in fact Israeli attacks have seen a decrease in the last seven months. How many times did hostilities erupt during the eight wonderfully enlightened years of Bush/Cheney cowboy diplomacy? Lange? Anyone? Bueller? Lange?

There were three major military confrontations during the Bush years, and countless missile attacks and air raids.

How many so far during Obama’s Presidency? Lange? Anyone? Bueller? Lange? The answer would be zero.

Your claim was an unsubstantiated lie in February, and it still is. In an interview with the Israeli daily news paper Haaretz, President Obama has said, “My view is that the United States’ special relationship with Israel obligates us to be helpful to them in the search for credible partners with whom they can make peace, while also supporting Israel in defending itself against enemies sworn to its destruction.”

“Israelis want more than anything to live in peace with their neighbors, but Israel also has real – and very dangerous – enemies,” Obama said.

Prophecy score: 0-2

– “Look for Iranian retaliation–against American targets. That goes doubly for other terrorist organizations. We just elected a man with the full endorsement of every major terrorist group in the world as leader of the free world. It’s the political equivalent of hiring a child molester to babysit your kids while you leave for the weekend. Not only is HE going to have fun with your child, but he’ll probably sit and watch while his friends come over and do it too.”

Six months later and no Iranian attack on the United States. No other terrorist groups either.

Prophecy score: 0-3

– “Look for far-left justices appointed to the Supreme Court, effectively tying up the entire government in a trifecta of liberal humanism, the buzzwords of which remain empty platitudes like “hope and change,” and the ultimate goal of which is socialism–and soon, sharia law.”

Six months after taking the oath of office, President Obama, has appointed the first Hispanic Woman to the United States Supreme Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, not a far-left liberal, but a moderate almost conservative pick.

Still waiting for the Socialism and Sharia Law to kick in. haven’t seen an veils in the White House yet.

Prophecy score: 0-4

– “Military cases of troops being tried and convicted for killing the enemy in combat will continue to rise–and the conviction/plea – bargain rate will stay at nearly 100%, as the government seeks to use the best men and women this country has to offer as sacrificial lambs on the altar of global appeasement. Those brave and honorable men who currently reside in prison cells across the country, stripped of their rank, their careers, families, and their good name, will not taste free air again for many years. Their sacrifices and their stories will be forgotten by the general public, remembered only by those of us who continue to fight for them.”

Like everything looked at so far I’m still waiting for the rise in military cases against our troops. As I said in February, under which administration were these “brave and honorable men” accused, arrested, tried and imprisoned? The answer hasn’t changed since then, that would be the administration President George W. Bush.

I still can find absolutely no evidence that would lead me – a commissioned officer in the United States Army – to believe that President Obama would continue the Bush Administration’s policies of accusing, arresting, convicting and imprisoning “brave and honorable men”, much less allow it to rise.

Prophecy score: 0-5

– “Look for the slow but steady erosion of rights you have enjoyed for your entire lives–all the while being told it’s “for your own good.”

Still looking for the slow but steady erosion to begin; let’s see, freedoms of free speech are still in place, as evidenced by the “protesting” in town hall meetings, and of course the April Tea Bag events. Everyone still has their guns. Religion is still free, just look at The Family on C Street. Rush and Hannity et al., are still on the air and not in a camp somewhere, that must mean freedom of the press is still in full swing. Haven’t heard of any federal troops being quartered in anyone’s homes yet; and in spite of the best efforts of the previous administration, federal troops are not going into homes without warrants and seizing property.

That “slow but steady erosion of rights you have enjoyed for your entire lives”, was stopped on January 22nd. Never in the history of our Republic were you closer to having your civil rights seriously restricted than during the eight years of Bush/Cheney. The passing of the Patriotic Act, Habeas Corpus being ignored – unconstitutionally –by President Bush and his administration, and let us not forget Republican Mitt Romney’s view that it would have been OK to wire tap Islamic houses of worship in the United States?

Prophecy score: 0-6

“Restrictions on gun ownership,”

Covered up top.

Prophecy score: 0-7

“…home schooling, encouraged dependence on the ever-growing federal government.”

Prophecy score: 0-8

“More nanny-state provisions will be put into place to protect the “disadvantaged” and the “poor,” (read: lazy, uneducated, unwilling to better themselves) {still sounding a bit racist}even while groups like the unborn, the mentally handicapped, elderly, and terminally ill are slowly pushed toward euthanasia. Of course, this will be done with feel-good phrases like “death with dignity,” “not wanting to be a burden,” and “merciful release from suffering,” all of which ignore the basic fact that we are killing people without their consent for the “good of the people.” Before you tell me I’m crazy, let’s just remember that Barack Obama was the ONLY senator in the Illinois state senate to vote against providing medical care for babies who were inconsiderate enough to survive an abortion.”

Well, Sarah Palin is claiming that we’re inches away from “Death Panels”, NOT! Well, actually, I have to take that NOT back. We do have “death panels” in America, and Sarah’s little Trig would be in danger under its jurisdiction. It’s in Texas, and then Governor George W. Bush created it in 1999.

Prophecy score: 0-9

“Also, look for taxes to go up. Yes, they’ll go up.”

Still looking for my taxes to go up…

As was made abundantly clear in February, but warrants repeating here, for eight years the previous administration of President George W. Bush prosecuted a War on Terror that has cost more than $4,000,000,000.00 (trillion) dollars while cutting tax revenues to the federal government. While the War on Terror was certainly warranted and justified, the fact that our country got mired in Iraq, which has cost $3,000,000,000.00 of the $4 trillion, without raising taxes, has effectually bankrupted our nation. You can’t spend $4 trillion dollars without raising income. And while President Bush was spending $4 trillion, and not raising taxes, he failed to increase funding for our nation’s roads, bridges, railroads, airports, schools, libraries, hospitals, etc. Now the bill has come due. Yes, President Obama will no doubt have to raise taxes, but mostly because the last Administration wanted to have its cake and eat it too.

Prophecy score: 0-10

– “You think the economy is bad now? Just wait. You’ll have the most expensive “free” health care ever. Bread lines aren’t just for Russians anymore.”

How unfortunate that the economic stimulus is working, that the Stock Market has been on the rise and that the Obama health care bill will only raise taxes on the top 2% of our country. It should be mentioned here, who drove our nation’s economy into the dirt? That would be George W. Bush. The same guy who lied us into war, who tortured prisoners and who took the Federal Government to its largest expansion in the history of our country.

Prophecy score: 0-11

“We have traded experience for color, freedom for slavery – and the irony is that the average American sheeple thinks their vote somehow righted an ancient wrong, somehow ENDED the specter of slavery and ushered in some beautiful era of liberty.”

I’m still just a simple guy who happened to grow up in the south hearing racist comments all of the time, and this is still white supremacists racist commentary.

“…In reality, we are about to be less free than you ever thought possible.”

Still waiting…

Prophecy score: 0-12

So there you have sports fans and political pundits. Six months after Kit Lange peered into her cauldron, borrowing the eye of prophecy from her sisters, not one of her dire predictions has come true.

Only one other group in the past 100 years has had a worse record than Lange’s; the Detroit Lions.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on August 18, 2009 in Politics, Racism

 

Tags: ,

Is Judge Sotomayor a Racist?

Tuesday, President Barack Obama made history – once again – when he nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice David Souter. Almost immediately, numerous right-wing radio talk hosts began smearing Judge Sotomayor as a racist and a bigot.

These hosts have been citing remarks Judge Sotomayor made during a speech at the University of California-Berkeley School of Law in 2002, when she said, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Titular head of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh claimed Sotomayor is a “reverse racist”; radio host Mark Levin called her a “bigot”; and Glenn Beck claimed Sotomayor made “one of the most outrageous racist remarks I’ve heard. … She sure sounds like a racist.”

Well, if Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levine and Glenn Beck said it then it must be true.

Of course what the right-wing doesn’t do is say under what circumstances Judge Sotomayor made her allegedly racists statement.

Judge Sotomayor was specifically referring to the importance of diversity in adjudicating race and sex discrimination cases. Something a woman, and especially a woman of color, might have just a little more practical knowledge about than a white male.

So, if Judge Sotomayor is a racists for daring to suggest that a Latina might be better qualified than a white male regarding race and sex discrimination cases, then what about Justice Clarence Thomas’ comments made during his Senate confirmation hearings responding to the question of why he “want[ed] this job,” Thomas responded, “I believe … that I can make a contribution, that I can bring something different to the Court, that I can walk in the shoes of the people who are affected by what the Court does.”

How can Justice Thomas “bring something different to the Court”? Is his educational background significantly different than the other Justices? No. What about his legal or judicial background, is it significantly different from the other Justices? No. So the difference must be, maybe, his race?

In making such a statement, according to the standards put in place by Rush, Levine and Beck, Justice Clarence Thomas must be a racist and a bigot.

During Tuesday’s broadcast of his show, Limbaugh said of Sotomayor: “So here you have a racist. You might — you might want to soften that, and you might want to say a reverse racist. And the libs, of course, say that minorities cannot be racists because they don’t have the power to implement their racism. Well, those days are gone, because reverse racists certainly do have the power to implement their power.  Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist, and now he’s appointed one.”

So, according to Rush, not only is Judge Sotomayor a racist, but President Obama is a racist as well?

Rush continued his theorizing, “In another example of her radical judicial philosophy, Sonia Sotomayor stated in a 2002 speech at Berkeley that she believes it’s appropriate for a judge to consider, quote, ‘their experiences as women and people of color’ — reverse racism. She’s a minority. Only she can understand the horrible trials and tribulations minorities have gone through, and the courts are the places where their grievances are redressed — and they’re not. The court is where the law is dealt with.

“In the same speech, Sonia Sotomayor went on to say, quote, ‘I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experience, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.’ If that’s not a racist statement, I don’t know what is — reverse racist or whatever.

During his Tuesday radio show broadcast, Levin claimed of “so-called moderate” Democratic senators voting on Sotomayor: “These people  need to understand that if they vote to confirm a radical leftist — and I  will now say what I actually believe — who is a bigot — that’s right, I  said it — then they need to pay a political price for this.”

Levin later said, “Let me defend my position that I believe this nominee is bigoted.” He continued, “Sonia Sotomayor gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge, quote, ‘may and will make a difference in our judging.’ She said, quote, ‘I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.’ Now I’m sure they’ll spin it. I’m sure they’ll attack those of us who see something like this as a red flag, but there is no way — there is no way you can justify a statement like that other than a bigoted statement. That’s not based on somebody’s content or character, as Martin Luther King would say. That’s based on a generalized statement about race and ethnicity. That statement alone — that statement alone should disqualify her. Period.”

So, would Mr. Levine also say that based on his “generalized statement about race and ethnicity” that Justice Clarence Thomas, based upon “that statement alone – that statement alone should disqualify him. Period?”

On Tuesday’s edition of his Fox “News” program, Glenn Beck said Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” comments “smacks of racism” and is “one of the most outrageous racist remarks I’ve heard.” Beck later claimed, “I don’t like the charges of, ‘Oh, you’re a racist. They’re a racist.’ Very few people are racist.

“There are racists and they’re bad people. And — but it’s — most Americans are good, just decent people, and I hate the charges and cries of racism. But when I hear this — I mean, gee. She sure sounds like a racist here.”

Would Beck ascribe the same standard to Clarence Thomas? If he were to listen to Justice Thomas’ statement would he say, “But when I hear this — I mean, gee. He sure sounds like a racist here?”

So, is Judge Sotomayor a racist as Limbaugh, Levine and Beck claim she is?

Well, first, considering the source; and second, looking at what was said in context, and from the position of thinking adult; The only possible answer is no she is not a racist, anymore than Justice Clarence Thomas is a racist, and the conservatives are extremely hard pressed to oppose her if this is their best shot.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 28, 2009 in Politics, Supreme Court

 

Tags: , , , ,

Cheney is not a Patriot

87880040MW002_DICK_CHENEY_S

Darth Cheney comes out of his lair to justify a failed presidency, and a tarnished legacy, and he does it while not wearing a flag pin anymore? Has anyone else noticed that?

The man who claims to be trying to protect America by attacking the current President’s policies is no longer patriotic? Or was his flag wearing patriotism just for show?

Cheney doesn’t love his country. He doesn’t give a damn about America, or about what America is, or ever has been. To Cheney, the first and most important person, place or thing is me, myself and I.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 24, 2009 in Politics

 

Tags: ,

Democrats won’t fund Gitmo closing?

GOP Spokesman Rush Limbaugh, reading from an Associated Press story yesterday said, “President Barack Obama’s allies in the Senate will not provide funds to close the Guantanamo Bay prison next January, a top Democratic official said Tuesday.  With debate looming on Obama’s spending request to cover military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the official says Democrats will deny the Pentagon and Justice Department $80 million to relocate Guantanamo’s 241 detainees.”

Limbaugh immediately questioned why the Democrats in Congress would turn on the President, “Now, why would this be?” he asked. “Obama said he’s going to close Club Gitmo in January 2010.  Now, the Democrats say sorry, pal, we’re not going to give you the money for that.” 

Problem is El Rushbo, under his usual motus operandi (MO for all you ditto heads), only told a sliver of truth about what was actually said. Had Maha Rushdi dug a little deeper he would have found that what Democratic Party leaders in the Congress actually said was that the Senate was not going to fund closing Gitmo until it saw what the administration’s plan was., “The administration has not come up with a plan at this point,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois, or No. 2 Democrat in the Senate. “I think Guantanamo should be closed and we have to wait for the president’s direction on what happens to the detainees.”

Durbin said that he could support transferring detainees to U.S. prisons. “Our prisons are filled with dangerous people, including terrorists. And not a single one (terrorist) has escaped.”

Durbin said the Congress simply wasn’t going to fund the closing blindly, “The feeling was at this point we were defending the unknown. We were being asked to defend a plan that hasn’t been announced. And the administration said, ‘Understood. Give us time to put together that plan and we’ll come to you in the next appropriations bill.'”

Rush further bloviated on the topic asking, “Why would the Democrats turn on Obama on this?  Why?  They don’t want to lose in 2010, and the polling data on closing Guantanamo must not be on the same page with Obama’s desire to do so.”

Well Rush actually polling data shows just the opposite, there’s a Washington Post-ABC News poll showing that 53 percent of Americans said the United States should shutter the controversial facility in Cuba and find another way to deal with the prisoners there. While 42 percent of those polled, including 69 percent of Republicans, said terrorism suspects should remain at the prison. Most Democrats (68 percent) and independents (55 percent) said they would prefer another way to handle the detainees.  So basically the country seems to fall in line on this issue along the same political lines as the last presidential election. No surprise there. One side wants to try to do things the right way, the legal way, while the other wants to do everything based on fear mongering. You figure out which party fits which description.

Rush said, “Fear is the reason, because the word is out that if we close Gitmo that some of these clowns are going to be released in the United States, and people are not excited about that.”

No one Rush, repeat NO ONE has ever said that anyone convicted, or currently suspected, of being a terrorist at Gitmo were going to be released in the United States. Some of the prisoners may be transferred to federal prisons in the U.S., but no one has said they would be released here. This is once again Rush playing on the fear of his listeners.

Rush, Hannity, et al jumped on the story some time ago that some of the Chinese Muslims known as Uighurs held at Gitmo might be permitted to live in the United States, Chinese Muslims cleared by the Bush Administration as not being terrorists. The part of being cleared by the Bush Administration as not being terrorists is the part Rush, Hannity, et al always conveniently leave out when discussing the release of terrorists into America.

So, what have we learned today?

First, Democratic Party Members of Congress have not refused to fund closing Gitmo; it said they want to see the Obama Administration’s plan for doing so before it will discuss funding.

Second, Rush only tells his listeners what he wants them to hear, what he hopes and wishes to be true. That the Democratic Party is splintering, and that Americans are living in fear. You hold on to those happy thoughts Rush, those and some fairy dust and one day you’ll fly. Oh wait, you have oxycotton for that.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 20, 2009 in GITMO, Politics

 

Tags: , ,

President Obama Voted to Commit Infanticide?

What exactly is it with conservatives and their continued bogus, ridiculous, and hyperbolic talking point that President Obama supports “infanticide,” and the extravagantly wild claim that he “voted three times that if a baby survives an abortion, it may still be killed because of the mother’s original intent to abort it?”

I’ll tell you what it is. It’s the ongoing irrational hatred of this President by the right-wing in this country. This argument of President Obama being for infanticide comes up about once a month, basically whenever the right-wing radio types can tie it to anything. And I do mean anything. The most recent attacks have surfaced because of the mini-controversy surrounding Notre Dame University’s invitation to President Obama to speak at its commencement, which incidentally is a long standing tradition at the school, a tradition to invite the newly elected President.

During a recent broadcast,  Rush Limbaugh attempted to revive the infanticide myth, “The truth is that President Obama, by virtue of his votes as a member of the Illinois Senate and as a member of the United States Senate, is perhaps the most anti-life — well, there’s no question — he is the most anti-life president we have had in American history.

“This is a man who three times voted for infanticide in Illinois. He tried to excuse it any number of ways, but this is a man who voted three times that if a baby survives an abortion, it may still be killed because of the mother’s original intent to abort it. If the abortion is botched, the doctor can go ahead and complete the job outside the womb. He voted for it three times.

“That’s — I mean, that, to me — I don’t know what — care what your position on abortion is, but now we’re not talking about abortion, not when the child has been born outside the womb and is alive. And Obama voted three times to support the notion of infanticide.”

Of course, once again, Rush is not only just stretching the truth, he’s bending it, twisting it and contorting it to the point that it in no way resembles what is true. Obama’s opposition as an Illinois state senator to SB1093 amending the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, was based upon the fact that the amendment was not necessary as the existing law already protected infants who were born as a result of an attempted abortion. Indeed, the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 states, “No abortion shall be performed or induced  when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other  than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical  care for  any  child  born  alive  as a result of the abortion.”

The proposed amendment also attempted to redefine what protections should be given to a “live child born as a result of an abortion”. It stated, “A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.  All reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice, including the compilation of appropriate medical records, shall be taken to preserve the life and health of the child.”

The Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 had already provided for such protection, “Subsequent to the  abortion,  if  a  child  is  born alive,  the  physician  required  by Section 6 (2) (a) to be in attendance shall exercise the  same  degree  of  professional skill care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would  be  required  of  a  physician  providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a  pregnancy termination which was not an abortion.  Any such physician who intentionally, knowingly,   or   recklessly violates Section 6 (2) (b) commits a Class 3 felony.”

As the proposed amendment did virtually nothing to change the state’s abortion law it must be asked why propose the amendment? Allegedly the amendment was necessary because babies which were live born were being left to die in Illinois. However, investigators with the Illinois attorney general’s office looking into allegations that fetuses born alive at an Illinois hospital were abandoned without treatment were unable to substantiate the allegations, but said that if the allegations had proved true, the conduct alleged would have been a violation of then-existing Illinois law.

The National Right to Life Committee (the group from which Rush, Hannity, et al receive their info) claims that Obama “really did object to a bill merely because it defended the proposition, ‘A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.’ And it is that reality that he now desperately wants to conceal from the eyes of the public.”

This is as ridiculous an argument as Liberals wanted the United States to lose the war in Iraq, or that Conservatives hate the environment. If I am to believe the NRLC, and Rush, Hannity et al., I have to then believe that President Obama is a monster. That he is someone who would be capable of killing a child born alive from an abortion. Talk about extremism. This is political extremism at its worst, and because it is so extreme it removes itself from intelligent discussion.

Rush, once again, the self proclaimed “truth detector” is wrong; President Obama never, repeat never, voted in support of infanticide. He voted to protect a women’s right to choose, in the face of fellow legislators who it would appear were attempting to amend Illinois state law in such a way that as to give the unborn fetus the same rights and protections of a born child, thus negating a woman’s right to choose. Sometime, maybe you’ll do a little research before you pounce on something Rush. But then again why change your MO? Why change from being the GOP’s chief hit man? And you accuse the media of committing drive bys?

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 1, 2009 in Abortion

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Arlen Specter a Traitor?

Senator Arlen Specter (R/D) Pennsylvania decides to switch parties, and everyone on the GOP side of the political spectrum is surprised? Come on Republicans, wake up. What exactly did you expect him to do?

As early as his January 6, 2009 broadcast, Sean Hannity was threatening that Specter and others who voted for the President’s stimulus package should be driven from the party. Hannity said he feared that Specter would sell us out (meaning the GOP) on the stimulus package and added “that any Republican [Senator] who supported the package needs to be thrown out of office.”

Senator Specter said he made his decision based partly on the GOP slide to the far right, “As the Republican Party has moved farther and farther to the right, I have found myself increasingly at odds with the Republican philosophy and more in line with the philosophy of the Democratic Party.”

He also said he made it because it had become increasingly more obvious that he wasn’t going to be able to win the Republican primary in 2010. So, once again my question to the GOP propaganda ministers, Rush, Hannity, et al, still stands; what would you expect him to do?

Specter’s a senior United States Senator, with a lot of power which translates into benefits for himself and especially for his state. I suppose he should have just kept running along as a Republican, and then lose the primary? Specter may be a lot of things but he isn’t stupid.

I thought it very telling that this morning I received an e-mail message from the “alleged” head of the GOP, Michal Steele. He of course wasted no time throwing out the hate, blame and fear cards.

On the Senator’s decision to switch Steele said, “Specter claimed it was philosophical–and pointed his finger of blame at Republicans all over America for his defection to the Democrats.

“I’m sorry, but I don’t believe a word he said.”

I suspect this is not so much a case of “don’t believe” as it is a case of “won’t believe”. Steele and the propagandists won’t allow themselves to believe there is anything wrong with the Republican Party. The patient is dying and they don’t want to hear it. The patient is dying and they don’t want to think about what might be necessary to save it. How can anyone leave the party of Rush and Hannity? Why would they ever want too?

Steele continues, “Arlen Specter committed a purely political and self-serving act today. He simply believes he has a better chance of saving his political hide and his job as a Democrat. He loves the title of Senator more than he loves the party–and the principles–that elected him and nurtured him.”

So, a United States Senator’s loyalties, according to the RNC chairman are to the party? I thought they were to the state from which they were elected? To the people who voted for them? Ever watch the movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” Mr. Steele? I wonder which set of characters you, Rush and Hannity would be supporting? Here’s a hint, you wouldn’t be with Jimmy Stewart.

Chairman Steele then moves from the world of “I can’t believe anyone would leave the GOP” to the land of “The leftists are coming the leftists are coming”! Along these lines he said, “Arlen Specter handed Barack Obama and his band of radical leftists’ nearly absolute power in the United States Senate.”

“…his band of radical leftists”? Band meaning a group of thieves, or outlaws? Like Robin Hood’s band of merry men? So, the attempts by the GOP of spreading fear and gloom just never seem to go away.

Steele continued, “In leaving the Republican Party–and joining the Democrats–he absolutely undercut Republicans’ efforts to slow down Obama’s radical agenda through the threat of filibuster.”

“…radical agenda…”? As in “relating to or affecting the basic nature or most important features of something”? Or did you mean the more contemporary definition, “excellent, admirable, or awe-inspiring”? No, what Steele meant was the sweeping move away from the traditional GOP way of doing things. Things like torturing prisoners, wire tapping homes, deregulating financial institutions to the point of collapse, cutting taxes while starting two wars, you know, those good old fashioned American values everyone loves and admires.

“Facing defeat in Pennsylvania’s 2010 Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record, and an end to his 30 year career in the U.S. Senate, he has peddled his services–and his vote–to the leftist Obama Democrats who aim to remake America with their leftist plan”, Steele said.

See, what did I say earlier? The land of, the leftists are coming! The leftists are coming!  This of course contrasted to the path of the GOP; The path that was quickly heading down a dangerous slope into fascism. Don’t know what else to call a political way of thinking that supported torture, invading other countries based on lies and deception, willingness to wire tap private citizens homes, and talk of sending military troops into private citizen’s homes without warrants. Sounds like fascism to me. But I digress.

Steele continued to attempt to work the GOP into frenzy, “His defection to the Democrat Party puts the Democrats in an almost unstoppable position to pass Obama’s destructive agenda of income redistribution, health care nationalization, and a massive expansion of entitlements.”

“…to pass Obama’s destructive agenda…?” Come on Steele, “destructive agenda”? This is second rate fear mongering at its lowest form.

Now after all of these arguments came Steele’s appeal to the patriots of the Republican Party, “You and I have a choice. Some will use Specter’s defection as an excuse to fold the tent and give up. I believe that you are not one of those people. When Benedict Arnold defected to the British, George Washington didn’t fold the tent and give up either.

“He grit his teeth more determined than ever to succeed. That’s what I’m asking you to do today.”

So, now Senator Specter is Benedict Arnold? Well I suppose that’s preferable to being Joseph Goebbels, you know what I mean here, Rush, Hannity et al, “if a lie is audacious enough and repeated enough times, it will be believed by the masses.” Or perhaps a Heinrich Himmler type of Republican Mr. Steele? You know the type. Developing ways to torture your enemies, and to justify all in the safety of the state? Of course there wouldn’t be anyone in the GOP supporting those kinds of ideas.

Of course Steele wasn’t the only Republican to go after the senator. Not long after Specter met privately with Republican senators to explain his decision, the party’s “so-called” leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell, said the switch posed a “threat to the country.”

The issue, he said, “really relates to … whether or not in the United States of America our people want the majority party to have whatever it wants, without restraint, without a check or balance.”

Well now, Senator McConnell, let’s see? American voters voted overwhelmingly (53% to 46%) to elect Barack Obama as President, and also voted in more Democrats than Republicans in both the House and Senate. I don’t know, but that appears to me to be the voice of the American people saying they want “the majority party to have whatever it wants”. As far as claiming that President Obama, and the majority party, having no restraints and no check or balance; We the People established a Constitution to provide those. It was you – the Republican Party – that for the last eight years that seemed to conveniently forgot we had any checks or balances.

In the end, the Republicans have no one to blame but themselves for losing the last general election. They have no one to blame but themselves for losing control of the Congress. So, Mr. Steele, Senator McConnell, Sean, Rush, et al, what did you expect Senator Specter would do? Did you expect him to stay in a Republican Party which is becoming more and more filled with the rhetoric of hate, block and blame? You all, helped create this political mess for your party when you allowed your spokesmen – people like Sean Hannity – to call for “…any Republican [Senator] who supported the package needs to be thrown out of office.” The GOP – like Victor Frankenstein – created monsters in talk radio, and now – just like Victor Frankenstein – you can’t control what is occurring. Your creations have become your nightmare. Your move to the far right will not pay off in additional voters, it will pay off in further losses in the Congress and an eroding base of support from the electorate.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 29, 2009 in Politics

 

Tags: , ,

Caldera Not Qualified?

America’s self-proclaimed truth detector has screwed up again. Yes, the man who claims to be right 99.9% of the time has made another mistake.

Jason McLane / AP Photo

Jason McLane / AP Photo

This morning – April 28, 2009 – during his second hour of bloviation, El Rushbo, while attacking the Obama Administration’s horribly bad decision to allow the plane used as a back-up for Air Force to make low altitude flyovers of New York City, claimed the person being held out as responsible isn’t qualified to be in the position of director of the White House Military Office.

Really Rush? Are you 99.9% sure of that?

Louis Caldera, (serving as director of what Rush?) the Director of the White House “Military” Office, is a 1978 graduate of the United States Military Academy, or for all you ditto-heads, West Point. He served his country as an officer in the United States Army from 1978 to 1983.

You’ve never served have you Rush?

Oh that’s right, old football injury. Or would you have had a problem passing the drug screening?

At any rate, not only is Mr. Caldera a West Point graduate, and a veteran, he also served as Secretary of the Army from 1998 to 2001. So who isn’t qualified to do what Rush?

Now, was it a bone headed decision to allow the flyover? Yes it was. But it is important to see the quality in the man who made the decision to allow the flyover, Mr. Caldera. He said he made the decision to allow it, and he apologized for it, and he said he takes full responsibility for the decision.

How refreshing to have people in positions of power who take responsibility for their actions. The previous administration would have probably claimed the pilot made the decision to perform the flyover, and if he hadn’t stepped forward and made that announcement himself, they would have used enhanced interrogation techniques on him until he did.

You, Mr. Limbaugh, are wrong again. What else is he telling his 25% share of the Republican Party (aka his loyal listeners) that isn’t accurate?

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 28, 2009 in Obama Cabinet, Politics

 

Tags: ,