You are currently browsing the monthly archive for February 2008.
President Bush, saying he was unaware of predictions of $4-a-gallon gasoline in the coming months, told reporters Thursday that the best way to help Americans fend off high prices is for Congress to make his first-term tax cuts permanent. [...]
When taking the question about the $4 milestone, Bush told the reporter, “That’s interesting. I hadn’t heard that.”
So Americans are supposed to pay $4 a gallon to get the kids to and fro, go to the grocey store or do other shopping, visit with family or go sight-seeing, and, of course, get to work … and Bush’s “conservative” suggestion for how to help is to transfer middle class earnings to the wealthy by making permanent his tax cuts for the upper classes?
No wonder conservative policies are failing left and right — they’re unstable and provide “solutions” to the wrong problems.
Instead of those tax cuts, if the President actually cared about $4/gallon gas he would’ve started (in Jan. 2001) investing the money given back in tax cuts into sustainable energy efforts like the Apollo Project.
Alas, modern conservative-partisans could care less about the common good with this me-me-me attitude of theirs and so, like lemmings off a cliff, they drag us all toward ever more costly policies that lead to issues like $4/gallon for Regular Unleaded, billions a month for the Iraq Civil War, spiralling out of control health care costs, etc.
* Note that the quotes attributed to Pres. Bush in that CNNMoney.com article are not in chronological order. In reality, the dumbfounded quote came before the solving-the-wrong-problem quote.
The Clinton campaign schools us on just why the right-wing memes about the Clintons exist in the first place by threatening to sue the Texas Democratic Party over “primacaucus” rules that have been in place for decades…
Way to feed into stereotypes, Camp Hillary:
The campaign in Texas is close. Delegates selected by popular vote out of the 31 Senate districts will probably be split more or less evenly. [...]
The Clinton campaign strategy is to justify taking the fight beyond Texas even if they fall further behind Obama in the national delegate count. To do that, they must cast doubt over the fate of the 67 delegates that will be chosen at the caucus level. Hence, their tough positioning in phone calls with Texas Democratic Party officials and others involved in the primary here.
The Texas rules have been in effect for decades. Bill Clinton ran twice under these rules. They are no surprise to anyone, and both campaigns know they have to play by the same rules. There is little point to raising concerns before the election — except one campaign finds itself running a very unique kind of effort. To remain viable, the results of the caucus in Texas must be thrown into doubt. Almost any legal challenge will do. The Clinton narrative can be maintained– but only if their falling further behind in delegates is not reported or is at the least cast into doubt for a news cycle, or two or three news cycles.
Texas’ hybrid primary/caucus would not be questioned were it not that one candidate appears to have an advantage in caucus settings. Or that in a close race, the popular vote in senate districts will probably translate into an even split of delegates. Consequently, the Clinton campaign finds Texas to be a poor place to build a firewall or mount a comeback. That’s an historical accident. Attacking the state party here would be irresponsible and damaging to Democratic prospects here in both the near and long term.
The overwhelming numbers of Texas who have voted early in the Texas primary is symptomatic of the changing political tide here. Much work has been done rebuilding the progressive movement in the Lone Star State. Attempts to taint the primary, and consequently the primary and caucus decisions of Texas voters, will set this effort back.
(emphasis added)
Precisely. I’m all for going down fighting, but at least fight the good fight and be responsible. Gah.
Kagro X warns us:
Killer terrorist vacuum cleaners. Fucking hell!
Good on Fox Propaganda for keeping the citizenry informed of the dangers of Roomba. We wouldn’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud… or a dust bunny.
And Milk Dud’s own not-quite-with-it campaign manager puts on his Carnac the Magnificent hat to join in the malarkey-making fun!
Archie has the details on Ill Review’s ignorance and Billy the Kid’s silliness, fiction, baloney, hogwash and even his advice for other campaign managerists.
No wonder Bill Foster is actually starting to take a lead against these clowns.
No wunder cosnervative partysans have a problm with publik skools — they seeem to haf had truble lerning the “nashunal langwijj”. And apparently it’s been a problem for constives for a while… a long, long while — full of challanges. No, reallye.
(“pffft… Paging Mr. Racits. Mr. Racits to the front desk please. Mr. Morans would like to see you… pfft.”)
There will be a spelling lesson for conservatives this Saturday, February 30th. First come, first served. 
Turns out folks in Tennessee don’t really like having asses be the face and voice of their state in news media across the nation. And here conserv-o-partisans were complaining about McCain backing away from his friend’s xenophobic introduction the other night. Are they going to whine about the Volunteer State’s embarrassment at the hands of TN-GOP’s spokesman now?
We know Barack Obama’s middle name is Hussein but didya know he’s black too? These two otherwise pointless facts are apparently appalling to the partisans running amok in the formerl-grand ol’ party….
Why do these charletans, who are so clearly lying, continue to promote their baloney? (And yes, they must be lying because they can’t claim ignorance given how often the truth has been pointed out to them.)
Illinois Review editor Fran Eaton gives her mentor of mischief Phyllis Schlafly space at ye ol’ Ill Review to peddle those same tired lies about Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the ERA.
Why is it that when conserv-o-partisans don’t have a leg to stand on they resort to lying instead of trying to promote alternatives? Simply having another person repeat the same lie doesn’t somehow magically make it a tiny bit more truthy. It’s just repeats the lie and makes liars out of not one, but now two conservatives.
PS: Is this what conservative-partisans usually refer to as “self-loathing” given that these lionesses of conservativedom are so ardently against equal rights for their own gender that they’d lie about the ERA? Hmmm…
Steve “Hector Jebediah Tiberius” Greenberg apparently likes extra names. Taking a tack from Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mr. Greenberg has taken to using Rep. Melissa Bean’s maiden name to declare that she is “un-American”.
How much money is Mr. Greenberg planning to waste on this losing strategy? Because really, he ought to leave some of it for his kids’ college funds so they can enjoy the same silver spoon lifestyle he’s been blessed with that apparently leads one to think a US Congresswoman’s maiden name somehow implies she is un-American.
Gee, where have we seen this strategery of conservatives repeating a candidate’s middle name in order to impugn their patriotism? It seems to me this sort of kindergarten game is part of the cons’ go-to pattern of bs… When you have nothing but failed policies and hot air, apparently you start resorting to make a fool of yourself as Mr. Greenberg and other conservative partisans are more and more frequently doing.
To paraphrase one of Sen. Obama’s strategists, Robert Gibbs: We can’t solve America’s problems with childish quips about people’s middle names…
Greenberg needs to grow up. This is our nation’s future we’re deciding in November, not some hockey game.
(PS: Yes, I made up those middle names for Mr. Greenberg to demonstrate how pointless his attack was… Anyone can make anything up and say boo about it; that’s easy. I’d rather have Congressmen and Congresswomen who deal in truth and reality.)
Why is it that Republican officials and candidates seem to be having so much trouble actually following the rule of law lately?
On the heels of the Republicans’ Congressional committee accounting scandal, we’re learning now that John McCain may be brazenly trying to skirt around the campaign finance law that has his name on it (McCain-Feingold) by pretending he never pledged to sign on to public financing, even though he obviously did according to his own bank’s loan docs.
Dem chairman Howard Dean is calling him out on it and putting his feet to the fire to follow his own law.
On top of that, we’re seeing locally that IL-14 GOP candidate Jim “Milk Dud” Oberweis could also be playing fast and loose with the finance laws by giving his campaign his own money in an end-around which may violate that same McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. Of course, Oberweis has a history of FEC violations having been fined a rather small (for a millionaire) sum of $21,000 in 2004 related to the Oberweis Dairy ads which ran simultaneous to one of his failed Senate runs.
Plus, in what appears to be a separate violation of election law, several Chicago-area TV stations have had to pull Oberweis’ ads in recent days because they directly violated disclosure rules.
Of course, there’s also the appalling and ongoing Oberweis problem with blatant lies which, while unethical, is “legal”. In 2004 he lied about the number of illegal immigrants in that infamously (and inadvertently) hilarious helicopter commercial. Then, during his 2006 run for governor, he cooked up false newspaper headlines in his failed attacks against Judy Baar Topinka. Staying true to dishonest form, just this month he decided to lie about mythical troop “withdrawals” from Iraq in one of his TV ads, among other falsehoods over the years.
Recent AP news headline:
Obama fights false link to Islam
Dan Curry doesn’t like that the AP is reporting on the Obama camp’s defense of their candidate’s faith. He thinks that the simple act of reporting on Obama’s actions somehow means the AP is coming to Obama’s “defense” against conservative-partisans’ xenophobic lies against him.
Worse, he compounds the cons’ lies about Obama (the “false link” which he “fights” back against) with a lie of his own about the AP, claiming they didn’t “defend” Mitt Romney of all people (didn’t he drop out about 9 eons ago in campaign time?) which I take to mean he thinks the AP never ran stories about Romney defending himself.
I don’t recall AP jumping this quickly to the defense of Mitt Romney and the many smears of his religion. (link original)
Except that Mitt Romney is a Mormon. Ergo, it would not be false to call him a Mormon and there would be no need to defend against false “links” to the Mormon Church.
On the other hand, Barack Obama is a Christian and not a Muslim. Ergo, it would be a lie to call him a Muslim, especially if it is done in an attempt to simultaneously deride Islam and smear Obama. And in this modern political age such fallacies require vigorous, continuous defense with the bright light of truth (whether the lies stem from conservativedom in general vis a vis lying chain emails or one con in particular, say, Mr. Curry).
Shouldn’t the AP (and all media) be reporting the truth? Why does Mr. Curry take issue with reporters reporting actual fact-based news? Simply reporting the truth is not “defending” this or that candidate. It’s just being honest.
What doesn’t Dan Curry get about that? Perhaps he’s just so dizzy from all his frantic spinning that he’s now flipping out … or maybe he’s kept his partisan blinders on so long he’s lost all capacity to actually see reality.
Or is it the case that Mr. Curry would prefer to have the AP stop reporting on Republicans’ defense of their own candidates (seeing as how he doesn’t like it when they report on Dems defending against cons’ lying)? He best start whining about the myth-busters at Snopes.com also seeing as how they’ve also pointed out that cons’ claims of Obama being Muslim are false (big red “false” icon and all).
Now, it could very well be that Mr. Curry is sore that his fellow conservative partisans did indeed attack Gov. Romney’s faith (similar to their lying about Sen. Obama’s Christian faith) with falsehoods, innuendo and downright sectarian bullcrap as this Illinois Review post lays bare.
It’s not the AP’s fault that Mr. Curry’s partisan allies decided to put the “con” in “conservative” and lie about one of their own; though such lying clearly does appear to be par for the course.
Besides, the AP actually did report on Gov. Romney’s defense of his own faith many times over. Again, maybe Mr. Curry is too dizzy from all his spinning to “recall” Romney’s ‘major speech on faith’ in Texas last year but the AP covered it and other instances of “Mormon defense” quite handily here, here and even here in quotes that CNN picked up from an AP reporter’s earlier work… The list of media stories from the AP and others covering Romney’s and other Latter-day Saints’ defense of the Mormon faith are plentiful if Mr. Curry had bothered to deal with the truth instead of spinning his bs.
By the way — following what passes for the conservative-partisans’ own logic — we find that lying about a Christian, smearing his good name and distorting his bedrock faith means that conservatives are themselves anti-Christian. Who knew? [Shrug.]
Let me start by saying that no matter who it is or whatever party banner or independent effort they run under anyone who runs for president must, by default, love their nation. Why else would folks from Ron Paul and Mike Gravel to John McCain and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama subject themselves to years’ worth of bullcrap if not for the chance to convince their fellow Americans they have solid plans to make our nation better.
Yet last week CNN and MSNBC asked readers what they thought of Obama’s patriotism, taking the partisan criticism of him as facts rather than opinions… And AP reporter Nedra Pickler, wife of a FOX News propagandist, told newspaper readers what to think about Obama’s heartfelt loyalty to America…
Essentially, the newsies were simply following up on conservative partisans’ charletan rants and flailing fibs about Sen. Obama’s hands, suit jackets and wife (not necessarily in that order).
Regarding his hands, cons are squawking that he doesn’t hold his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance which is odd since he does. Even more strange, some cons apparently don’t think that lie is enough of a lie so they’ve exaggerated it into claiming he refuses to even say the Pledge. Again, he actually does say it and has in fact led the Senate’s reciting of the Pledge on occasion, as seen on C-SPAN.
The one (1) photo they are actually referring to comes from last summer’s Tom Harkin Steak Fry event in Iowa in which he stood at attention during the National Anthem. Now, not everyone holds their hand over their heart for the Anthem and there’s no law in this supposedly free country saying citizens must place the palm of their hands X number of inches from their heart muscle. But it’s clear that he sang the song (and it wasn’t even the Jimi Hendrix version) and that he also recites our Pledge.
So, there’s one lie for the conserv-o-partisans regarding Obama’s staunch patriotism.
Regarding his suit jackets, cons complain that Sen. Obama does not wear a flag pin on his lapel. Hypocritically enough, several of the Republican presidential candidates also do not wear flag pins, including one John McCain.
Why are there no day-long news segments questioning John McCain’s patriotism?
Senator Obama’s response is basically, “Bring it on.” If cons want to question his patriotism while supporting a GOP party that sent our troops into war undermanned and ill-equipped, has handed over billions of taxpayer dollars to war profiteers in no-bid contracts, and has neglected and abandoned our troops once they return … well then these folks are much further gone than we all originally thought.
While that’s not a lie it certainly is a healthy helping of hypocrisy.
Finally, and perhaps most telling in their attempts to smear Sen. Obama’s dedication to our nation, cons are now going after his wife, Michelle. Recently, Mrs. Obama told a rally crowd , “Hope is making a comeback and, let me tell you, for the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change.”
Given the context of that rally, and the fact she has said similar (though differently worded) things in the past, it’s abundantly clear that Mrs. Obama was discussing her pride in America’s (little-d) democratic process and in this sense “country” means her fellow voters. And why shouldn’t she be proud of her fellow voters “for the first time in her adult life”? It’s clear that, unlike the past two or three decades, entirely new groups of Americans are now engaged in the process in record-breaking numbers from sea to shining sea.
That is something to be proud of.
But when the cons get a hold of that string of words, they not only remove the context but also highlight the half-quoted portion that they can make sound the most siniste… and so Michelle Obama’s pride in her fellow voting Americans becomes a conservative-partisan smear against her patriotism and, by extension, a smear against the presidential candidate himself.
So now we even have a half-quote that the cons are working on turning into a lie, as evidenced by Rep. Joke Jack Kingston (R-GA) string of fibs and ever-longer nose during his recent Bill Maher appearance (Kingston hit just about every lie on the books while making a complete ass of himself on national TV).
If all the conservatives have against Obama are lies about his love for America, a patriotism that is clearly very deeply woven into the fabric of his being rather than the “last refuge” sort of patriotism eminating from scoundrels like Rep. Kingston and other cons, why isn’t the media explaining the truths these partisans are trying to mask rather than infopimping their attacks?
But no, no. Obama supposedly gets a “free pass” from the “liberal” media… Yet another lie from conserv-o-partisans on top of a stack of lies and daunting doses of double-talk.
It matters not if the media promotes this roll of baloney out of an irrational fear of continually (and erroneously) being labeled “liberal” or because they think these non-issues are somehow legit news stories and they have 24 hours of newstime to fill. The credibility they lose by engaging in these lazy partisan he-said/she-said pissing contests directly affects their bottom line — as ad revenues, readership tallies and viewer ratings all indicate — because Americans are smarter than that.
For weeks (even months) conservative-partisans and other Obama haters have been trying to build up at least two themes against the Senator. The first is this notion that the media is somehow giving him a pass and the second is this bizarre plug-n-play infopimping about Obama’s strong patriotism (they pulled this same plug-n-play move against Kerry and Gore… go figure.)
While certainly both Obama and McCain have enjoyed some deferential treatment from the media, they are also both hit hard on a regular basis.
The current conservative retort to McCain being a “media darling” is to point to the recent stories in the NY Times, Washington Post and elsewhere regarding his coziness with a lobbyist and the favors he tried to pull for her clients. But even griping that the media is somehow turning on McCain isn’t accurate since the Times held off on that story for months — and the actual first-run article was simply a recitation of facts (McCain’s staff did distance him from the lobbyist out of concern about “appearances”, etc.).
But for some reason, cons keep whining that Obama too is getting a “free pass” from the media, a claim that simply isn’t true.
For years, the Trib and Sun-Times have been pouring over Obama’s legislative records, his donor forms, and even the real estate records on his home purchase in the hopes of finding something dire regarding Rod Blagojevich’s friend, Tony Rezko. But there’s no there there (and I’ll be the first to eat crow if something is ever found).
More recently, the tee-vee newsies have been jumping onto the slightest things — and echoing con talking points in doing so — in what conservatives would likely claim would be a concerted effort to tarnish Obama had he been a Republican.
Last week, CNN and MSNBC both gratuitously infopimped the cons’ meme questioning Obama’s staunch patriotism. Even the Associated Press got in on serving up the pig slop with a story doing little more than promote the conservative partisans’ baseless attacks.
And, of course, Tim “Meet the Press” Russert just decided to jump on the Six Degrees of Kevin Farrakhan trolley with a weak game of “gotcha” vis a vis a line of questioning that could best be described as pointless drivel and guilt by association malarkey.
So, conservative partisans, just how is it that playing up these sorts of non-issue, partisan-based stories is a “free pass”?
Dan Curry wants to know if Barack Obama agrees with Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid’s assertion that the American taxpayers shouldn’t be spending money to keep our troops in the middle of a civil war.
In fact, Mr. Curry seems to think there is no civil war and that somehow “law and order [is] breaking out in Iraq” instead.
Two points: First, it’s unclear which war Mr. Curry is trying to spin, because the one in Iraq is still very much racked with sectarian violence, ie, a “civil war” as citizens kill each other en masse. Second, Mr. Curry can try to wish away the recently cooled Iraqi Civil War between sectarian factions but the fact that our taxpayer-funded bribes to “insurgents” have led them to stop some (not all) of their killing doesn’t mean the desire to kill has subsided — because it hasn’t.
Maybe Mr. Curry is reading the same fiction 4-time candidate Jim Obeweis is reading — seeing as how Mr. Oberweis thinks we’re somehow “gradually withdrawing” troops.
And this is a guy who whines that the media “spins” for liberals? Ha!
The title of this post is a bit tongue-in-cheek. For most folks not out on the far-right partisan fringe, Illinois Review never had credibility to begin with (so how could it crater, right?).
Yet partisan infopimper and Illinois Review editor Fran Eaton is managing to drag the Review to new lows by approvingly linking to her friend Dan Zanoza (he doesn’t like corporate media) and his race-baiting and sectarian divisiveness regarding Presidential candidate Barack Obama. Curiously, Mr. Zanoza declares himself Executive Director for an outfit he calls “Republicans for Fair Media”. In reality, it’s clear he defines “fair” as actually being glowingly biased in favor of Republicans without an ounce of truth that might somehow ding Republicans. (He is also the fellow who most recently claimed Obama was the anti-Christ — and he was serious in his careless blasphemy.)
Arch points out Mr. Zanoza’s latest effort to rationalize his growing-less-subtle closet racism and xenophobia in which he pulls out the ol’ “shedding light” canard. Says Mr. Zanoza:
You see, during a McCain rally in Ohio, a popular radio talk show host, Bill Cunningham (“The Big Show” with Bill Cunningham) was warming up the audience for McCain. While doing so, Cunningham used Obama’s full name, Barack Hussein Obama, three times and pointed to the fact the American mainstream media has given the junior Senator from Illinois a virtual pass on the issues. Cunningham also said the national media needed to “peel the bark off Barack Hussein Obama.”
After the event, McCain held a scheduled press conference and issued an apology for Cunningham’s performance even though McCain had not heard Cunningham’s rally warm-up. McCain went on to talk about what an honorable man Obama is and he praised Hillary Rodham Clinton in the process. [...]
I don’t think there’s any problem with using Obama’s middle name. It’s part of his heritage. It’s part of who he is. And, if that heritage, combined with some of the recent comments made by Obama and his wife, Michelle, shed light on this man’s true world view, the American people have a right to know it or hear it.
Is there a problem with saying “Barack Hussein Obama”? No more of a problem that always using “Daniel Tiberius Zanoza” (or whatever the “T” stands for). Normally, it just sounds real stupid to use full names because it’s not common practice.
But in this case, the issue that Sen. McCain has with its use is the attempt to turn a middle name into a xenophobic, anti-Islamic smear. Mr. Zanoza has a problem with McCain being cordial — apparently he’d rather see a Disunited States of America because that is precisely where this continually devolving partisan divisiveness will lead (whether from Illinois Review, Mr. Zanoza, or talking head Mr. Cunningham).
It’s odd that Mr. Zanoza and other conserv-o-partisans would wax angrily about Sen. McCain being gracious to both leading Democratic contenders. Sen. Obama himself routinely pays his respects to Sen. McCain’s service to our nation, and rightly so. There don’t seem to be many (if an) partisan liberals running around squealing about that.
Yet Mr. Zanoza’s us-v-them mentality can brook no compromise whatsoever and that’s just plain sad.
It also belies his rationalization wherein he explains away his loathing for Obama with the stock answer, “And, if that heritage, combined with some of the recent comments made by Obama and his wife, Michelle, shed light on this man’s true world view, the American people have a right to know it or hear it.”
The problem is there is absolutely nothing indicating Sen. Obama has been in any way influenced by his father Muslim faith (other than conservative partisans’ fear-mongering and baseless insinuation). Indeed, his dad walked out when Obama was 2. It was bad enough when Sen. Clinton dug up kindergarten theme papers but this ongoing xenophobic ranting from conservative partisans over something that ended when Obama was 2 is beyond pathetic.
Moreover, Michelle Obama already explained that her comments were about her pride in the current state of America’s political process — a point she has made over and over (and over) in a variety of speeches, albeit with more clear phrasing, and which is directly to related to the hundreds of thousands of voters who are showing a very high interest level in this election.
It’s telling that the cons have to resort to a half-quote anyway in order to make her sound like she’s somehow unpatriotic. (Clearly, this “patriotism” infopimping is the emerging plug-n-play meme of 2008… I’m sure the Republican National Committee has already placed an order for a url along those lines.)
The only reason for someone to use his full name and then to go a step further by trying to claim that his middle name somehow influences his “true world view” is out of pure hatred for someone who may be “other” — and that’s racist and xenophobic.
You can’t “shed light” on something that isn’t there — you can only make up baloney and pass it off as “having a right to know”. No matter how Mr. Zanoza tries to rationalize his closet racism, it’s still shining right through the slats on those closet doors.
–
PS: Did we mention Obama is black? That is also apparently bad according to conservative partisans and their corporate media “gotcha” enablers who promote pointless and weak-kneed guilt-by-association bs.
Conservative partisan and former Alan Keyes for Senate worker Fran Eaton is certainly entitled to her opinions and her version of values, just as much as the rest of us over here in the mainstream are free to point out the failings of her so-called “conservative” values (just look at how well Pres. Bush’s conservatism has “worked” for America).
But, lately Ms. Eaton has decided to simply flat-out lie in order to promote opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment (an odd topic to lie about, eh). She’s even dragged Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg into her lies by outright making things up about what Just. Ginsburg said regarding ERA.
And ArchPundit has been calling her out on those lies with gusto. For whatever reason, Ms. Eaton feels it necessary to lie in order to advance her conservative opinions. Sadly, the Southtown Star continues to give her a corporate-media forum in which to do it.
Why does anyone still believe anything Ms. Eaton says? More troubling, why does the Sun Times News Group give her lies a patina of credibility by letting her write in their paper?
Shame on both of them.
