Category Archive

How f’ing sick do you have to be to tie in Chicago’s recent rash of gun violence and murdered children to the Presidential campaign???

Congrats, Anne Leary and Gang… You’ve gleefully skipped right over trying to actually find a solution to the problem and instead dove headfirst right into that disgusting cesspool of partisan politicking; a sewage pond you’re now choosing to fill with the still fresh blood of those children whose souls you’re now abusing.

Ms. Leary is promoting yet another trite guilt-by-association smear — a low-budget YouTube ad, hoping to be picked up and endlessly replayed for free on the boob tube — from yet another con partisan who has no interest in actual, honest conservative principles but rather a near-prurient need to score evermore partisan chits. Ms. Leary finds herself applauding the news that ABC’s Jake Tapper will be promoting the video as well as the alphabet network apparently continues down its path of turning the news division into just another version of their soaps.

While Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain are actually trying to have an issues-based campaign debated on high standards, Ms. Leary and her con comrades would rather try to smear Obama with any shred of “violence” or “radicalism” by playing Six Degrees of Bullshit. (Then again, Ms. Leary, you’re admonishing your own nominee because he doesn’t see a place for the unprincipled uber-partisanship you espouse … just so we know where you’re coming from.)

Say, who’s behind this propaganda effort to try and overtly connect Obama to the concept of “violence” as a means to tarnish him through the use of the common propaganda technique of “transferance”?

None other than Floyd Brown, a low-brow GOP operative known for producing vitriolic guilt-by-association ads that do absolutely nothing to actually prevent the violent crimes he exploits for his partisan gain.

I don’t know of a word in the English language that accurately describe just how pathetic, amoral and debasing such partisans who would use the murders of children for purely partisan gain really are. But Ms. Leary, you’re right there with Mr. Floyd in whatever ring of hell that peccant place is.

Those kids are dead — and you’re using their murders to channel your hatred for Sen. Obama?

Again, a strong enough word does not exist, though loathsome comes close.

(PS: Contrary to popular belief, the death penalty has been proven time and again to not deter murder and other violent crimes as it is … so what on earth are Ms. Leary and Mr. Brown trying to accomplish?)

–

As an aside, Rep. John Fritchey makes several very good points in his discussion of the actual topic — gun violence. Ms. Leary and her cohorts would do well to stop shooting up with their partisan syringes for a time and think about practical means to prevent such violence instead…

Con partisans are positively giddy claiming that Sen. Obama is somehow “whining” about Wednesday night’s True Hollywood Story - “On Stage” … “debate”. (Methinks they need to get their mock-o-meters checked. Making fun of how odious that Reality TV programming was is not the same as “whining”.)

Would conservative complainers like Anne Leary, John Ruberry and Dan Curry be saying the “hard questions” needed to be answered had it been Sen. John McCain … and if he had been asked a litany of Heathers fodder such as:

• McCain’s role in Keating 5
• when the violence will end in Iraq in order for the proposed 100 (or million, take your pick) years of American deployment to begin
• “Bomb-bomb-bomb-Iran“
• the blonde lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, riding on McCain’s “straight talk” bus
• McCain’s divorce from his injured first wife (who remained true to him as he was held as a POW) and affair before his divorce
• why would John McCain’s Florida co-chair offer $20 to perform oral sex on another man
• Keating 5
• Pastors Parsley and Hagee and their anti-Catholic, pro-Armageddon preaching and why McCain would specifically seek out endorsements from such men
• why did he wear a bulletproof vest and require a large military escort (replete with gunship helos) while declaring a Baghdadi market that has seen many horrific bombings (including within days of his visit) was just jim dandy
• the blonde lobbyist riding on his bus
• Keating 5
• tax cuts for the wealthy while mainstream Americans (the other 90% of us) are struggling
• the blonde lobbyist riding on his bus
• why McCain caved on unAmerican torture
• is McCain Episcopalian or Baptist and why switch if switch he did
• the blonde lobbyist riding on his bus vis a vis McCain’s reputation as a skirt-chaser
• McCain’s record of coziness to lobbyists in contrast to his media persona as a straight talker
• McCain’s relationship with conservative pastors who blamed 9/11 and Katrina on Americans, thus making them anti-America conservatives
• the patriotism of conservative pastors who blamed 9/11 and Katrina on Americans
• is McCain an elitist because he married into a $100 million fortune
• his current wife’s past drug habit
• why Americans should vote for someone like McCain who admits he doesn’t know much about economics and, of all people to advise him, turned to the architect of much of the nation’s current credit woes, especially during a widespread downturn
• would John McCain consider Florida State Rep. Bob Allen for VP
  
• the blonde lobbyist riding on his bus

My hunch is conservative partisans would be hopping mad. In fact, we’d likely be hearing weeks’ worth of “Woe is me, the mean media is soooo snively and (gasp) lib’rul…”

Their concern would likely be especially acute if some of the questions were initially raised a day or two before in an interview the supposedly neutral moderator had with, say, Sam Seder or Rachel Maddow. Seeing as how former Clinton White House staffer George Stephanopolous apparently got some of his “debate” questions in his interviews with conservative pundits Sean Hannity and Steve Malzberg I’m sure Curry, Ruberry and Leary would be fine with a debate moderator using questions verbatim from Rachel Maddow.

Then again, as Mr. Ruberry’s excuse-making declares, those lines of questions also get to a more fundamental query, “Does he have good judgment?” … at least in a push-polling, rumor-mongering kind of way.

If the media is going to buy into these conservative partisans’ character-assassination-as-legit-campaign-tool efforts (and, indeed, further that cause by chewing up and regurgitating opponents’ tired and old attacks for half of a debate) then Sen. McCain ought to answer “tough questions” that have little or nothing to do with what the American people actually care about.

–

As an aside… I wonder how long it’ll be before we’re back to being told by these same con partisans that the media is too soft on Sen. Obama.

–

(adapted from a shorter DKos comment; h/t to smintheus and georgia10 for their ABC sideshow “debate” synopsis as reference)

On her blog, Anne Leary describes herself in part with “Graduate of Harvard, MBA University of Chicago.”

We’ve already learned that, if one practices her comrade Team America’s “logic”, no one is allowed to actually describe themselves by their job or other commonly accepted descriptors. This means that TA is no longer allowed to call himself a “lawyer”. It also clearly implies that the guy he and Ms. Leary support for reelection to Congress is not supposed to call himself “Representative” because of this new rule they’ve made up.

Now we find out that, based on what passes for Ms. Leary’s own version of “logic”, alumni of a given school are supposed to call their alma mater to attack anyone who is associated with that school but has fallen out of favor with some random gaggle of partisans.

In other words: Alumni of Harvard and the University of Chicago… call your alumni office. There’s a partisan whiner using your good name to promote her propaganda…

Sound ridiculous? No more ridiculous than the bizarre catfight GOP partisans are trying to info-pimp over Dan Seals’ position as an adjunct professor at Northwestern University.

For some reason, Ms. Leary and her friend TA think it’s a lie to tell people that you are an adjunct professor when, in fact, you actually are an adjunct professor.

You would think that, by their own descriptions of themselves, these would be smart people. TA is a lawyer. Ms. Leary is an Ivy League grad with experience in the banking industry.

Yet, when it comes to partisanship, they throw all logic out the window in their efforts to be base and petty. Refusing to acknowledge that a professorship is actually a professorship they instead attack the candidate (because he dares to oppose ‘their guy’) and anyone who points out little things like “facts” and “reality”.

Mark Kirk is a nice enough fellow and clearly very bright. Why he tolerates having a bunch of weak-kneed Tanya Harding imitators who rely on fibs and twisted tales as ’supporters’ is unclear.

For the record, Ms. Leary thought she was calling me and others out in one of her posts by declaring that the Repub partisans’ whining about their own manufactured controversy is “damaging” to Prof. Dan Seals and that any efforts to point out those partisans’ own lack of logic are somehow ad hominem attacks.

Since she at times has an affinity for the delete key, I’ll repeat my reply here:

How is pointing out the Republican partisans’ fallacies about Prof. Dan Seals “damaging” to him?

While you’re at it, Ms. Leary, you may wish to look up the definition of “ad hominem” as it fits your own “hysterical ranting” much better than any of the other actual posts discussing this topic (right or left) to date.

Unlike Ms. Leary, TA usually has the decency to acknowledge his errors. (Except, quite obviously, in this ongoing embarrassment to himself.)

Given how regularly Ms. Leary decries theocratic fascism and its harsh punishments (and often rightly so), one would think she would oppose such partisan-based ‘rhetorical stoning’ of her fellow Americans. One would be wrong.

Apparently, in Ms. Leary’s backyard and TA’s version of America, they (and only they) get to declare what is kosher for everyone else to say and they (and only they) can decide what is “true” or not, even if their partisan decrees are clearly false in and of themselves.

Update: Ms. Leary attempts to respond. It’s unclear what she still doesn’t understand but in her response she “sqeals” about that Dan Seals…

Ms. Leary: “Hey, I earned my degrees fair and square.”

That’s nice. Nobody said she didn’t.

Rather, I pointed out (above) that her fellow members of the Crimson and Maroon nations might disagree with her “sqeals” and “hysterical rantings” and want to call their respective alumni offices to complain that she lists Harvard and the University of Chicago in her blog’s bio. That is, after all, what she wants Northwestern alumni to do with regards to Dan Seals.

Ms. Leary: “Nobody’s paying me to teach some part-time class”

I’m sure if Ms. Leary wanted to teach a class and was accepted by whatever institution she applied at (or was recruited by) they would, in fact, pay her.

Or, in her partisan zealotry, is she suggesting professors and teachers are not supposed to be paid?

Ms. Leary: “I’m not using some phony title”

Who is? Dan Seals, whether Ms. Leary and her colleagues like it or not, is a Visiting Lecturer at Northwestern University. Another commonly accepted word for “visiting lecturer” is … “professor.” Nothing phony there — but there sure is a lot of made-up outrage coming from one side of the political aisle.

Ms. Leary: “To try to get a real job”

No one else involved in this discussion, including the candidates, is doing that either.

Ms. Leary: “I don’t mindlessly recite Dem talking points to desperately try to change the subject”

Nor do I.

It is rather obvious though, that Ms. Leary, tends to recite conservative talking points to desperately distort a given subject.

Besides, who’s changing “the subject”? The subject is the conserv-o-partisan Kirk supporters’ manufactured and info-pimped non-story about Dan Seals job as a visiting lecturer at Northwestern University. Is that not the topic of this blogpost?

Or is pointing out that this non-controversy is, in and of itself, a transparent effort to avoid actually discussing issues that matter. (Apparently simply mentioning words like economy, health care, or, gasp, Iraq is now defined as “hysterical ranting” per the most recent Dictionary of Standard English, Anne Leary Hyperpartisan Edition.)

And finally, Ms. Leary concludes her prose with some “hysterical ranting” about Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. (Yes, that’s a joke friends.)

Over at her backyard, conserv-o-partisan Anne Leary is apparently worried that a President Barack Obama “would disarm us … In the face of an Islamofascist terrorist enemy as relentless as any we faced in the Cold War, as murderous and hate-filled as Adolf Hitler, with the terror state of Iran harboring and arming terrorists, hell-bent on developing nuclear weapons …”

Question for Ms. Leary: Where was the Iranian President (and Holocaust denier) Ahmadinejad was over the weekend?

Answer: Baghdad, hoping to “strengthen ties” with his Iraqi brethren in a nation our president (with the support of blinded-by-partisanship cons such as Ms. Leary) invaded under false pretenses in order to ‘liberate.’

That’s right. The leader of the nation Ms. Leary fears so much went straight to the heart of the nation we are propping up to the tune of nearly $4000 per second so that Iran and Iraq could form closer bonds.

And Ms. Leary is worried about the one presidential candidate who wants to change that dynamic, a certain Barack “The One Who’s Sane” Obama?

Methinks Ms. Leary is worried about the wrong things, and perhaps ought to look in a mirror and realize she’s pointing more fingers back at herself than at Presidential Candidate Obama. All that spinning is just making her and her cohorts falling-over dizzy.

Anne Leary burps up a repetition of a recent Mark “Canuck Carpetbagger” Steyn column about a rambling set of disparate notions including — among other barely coherent noshing — murder rates, gun oversight, and Philadelphia. You have to dig through the muck to get to any sort of point, and even then neither Steyn nor Leary have much of a “point” as it is.

Steyn’s premise in the paragraph that Leary lifts is that the murder rate dropped nationally in the 90s, at a time when 40 million more guns entered the American marketplace. He ignores the fact that the economy also improved throughout the 90s, thanks to Pres. Clinton’s center-left policies, which may have had just as much as anything else to do with lowering crime (including murders) — working people earning a paycheck they have much less incentive to steal, deal drugs, etc. and while they’re at work they are not out murdering people. But enough about successful Democratic presidencies, conserv-o-partisans like Steyn and Leary can’t be bothered with acknowledging such things.

Instead, Steyn and Leary both parlay their bizarrely plucked out of nowhere factoid about crime in the 90s to jump to a conclusion. By comparing Philly to, say, Montpelier, Vermont Steyn attempts to make a point about culture. (Again, Steyn and his fan Leary find another point with which they cannot be bothered — guns may be plentiful in both Philadelphia and Montpelier though I suspect Vermonters own more of the hunting variety rather than the gangbanger sort.)

You see, Steyn’s rationale for bring up Philadelphia in the first place is the story of a boy who was shot while riding his bicycle because he was holding up traffic.

Mr. Steyn, and Ms. Leary by extension, believe this to be a sign of our culture. What this sign says is not clear because neither Steyn nor Leary fully explain themselves. For Mr. Steyn, it appears to mean our culture is weak and listless. He advances his theory to the point where he leaves Philadelphia and declares that our entire culture “is not comfortable with ideology”. An odd thing to declare coming from an ideological conservative purist like Mr. Steyn. Is he saying he is uncomfortable with his own ideology? Is he saying he’s uncomfortable with liberals’ ideology (to the point that he apparently ignores it as if not looking at it will make it magically disappear)?

Even more kooky is the rest of Ms. Leary’s post. She uses Mr. Steyn’s paragraph on Philadelphia as a springboard to launch into a diatribe about the conservatives’ “culture wars”. Yet, here she is contradicting herself in nearly the same breath, railing at first against our own culture which she apparently also thinks is to weak and listless, and then railing against a culture of sharia in the Middle East.

In the end, she ends up promoting her own version of sharia for America (just as long as its a sharia she agrees with). The problem is not with the ol’ canard “what doesn’t ‘the left’ get”. Rather, the problem clearly lies in the fact that contradictory conserv-o-partisans clearly can’t comprehend their own disparate thoughts are in direct competition with each other. One can’t claim to want the end of sharia elsewhere (no matter how many political points you score in so doing) while simultaneously promoting it here at home.

If it’s truly “the culture, stupid” … why would anyone listen to people who so easily (not to mention stupidly) contradict themselves out of mere partisanship?

What does Anne Leary, the Backyard “Conservative”, not understand?

Criticizing hawkish political pursuits doesn’t make someone anti-semitic. Plain and simple. If it did, then conservative partisans such as Ms. Leary’s ally Andy Lappin (as opposed to honest and forthright conservatives) would have to be considered un-American since they’re constantly railing against their fellow Americans, making things up as they go along in order to “prove” their fallacy-based rhetoric.

Likewise, satirizing instances of Republican anti-semitism is not anti-semitic in and of itself. Plain and simple. If it did, then conservative partisans such as Ann Coulter, Charles Krauthammer and the like would have to be considered “America haters” for their many crude attempts at derogatory humor against liberals (and any other Americans they decide to oppose on a given day).

Clearly, pointing out these facts gets under Ms. Leary’s skin.

Perhaps Ms. Leary is ashamed that her comrades include well-known hate groups, such as the domestic terrorist cells of the Klan, allied with her to the conservative cause. Whatever the reason, it’s odd to see her constantly making excuses for her allies’ actual instances of anti-semitism — such as she did for Gov. Tommy Thompson, whom she calls an “un PC old idiot fart” — and other forms of prejudice while simultaneously digging for any scrap of debate which might appear like anti-semitism if it is half-quoted and cut and pasted just so… That very act of digging dilutes the rare, but still despicable, instances of actual hatred.

On the other hand, there is also the coy D.W. at “Rants of a Jewish Republican” who correctly notes that joking about anti-semitism can at times trivialize actual, harmful anti-semitism.

What D.W. doesn’t seem to grasp is that muddying the waters by attempting to redefine anti-semitism into a political meaning also trivializes anti-semitic hatred. This is precisely what happened as Mark Kirk’s staunch supporter Andy Lappin blasted out a smear email full of half-quotes, out-of-context clips, and other fallacy-based material while attempting to paint half-a-million Americans (and any candidates who may associate with that large group) as “anti-semitic”. The fact he had to distort reality in his attempt to “prove” his point only makes him appear desperate to paint his political opponents with the harshest vitriol he can dream up.

Indeed, it’s clear that D.W. does not understand this as in his post on the matter he says:

Anti-Semitism is no trivial matter, it is a serious issue and making jokes about it serves no useful purpose, and at worst is a disgrace to the entire debate.

I will not give the blog the satisfaction of mentioning their name, but their attempt to trivialize the issue is reason enough for any Jew or a supporter of Israel to boycott their site until such time as an apology is issued. (emphasis added)

There are plenty of supporters of Israel who disagree with a hawkish stance and believe that such an ardent political position in fact fuels anger in the region and provides a rationale for psychopaths to recruit new terrorists. But in D.W.’s context, the only “true” supporters of Israel are those who support military responses rather than diplomatic and other efforts … and anyone opposed to such a political stand are somehow considered “anti-semitic” in the view of D.W. and others.

He conflates political discourse with anti-semitism just as Mr. Lappin, Ms. Leary, Bill Baar, and other conservative partisans have also done in the course of their routine partisan jockeying.

Attempting to cast political ideologies in terms of anti-semitism does much more to trivialize the issue than satire about a former Republican presidential candidate’s remark about “Jews and finances and things”, as Ellen Beth Gill has pointed out time and again (and again).

Satire points out the ridiculousness, hypocrisy and underlying misconceptions of such a remark. Somehow D.W. must’ve missed the long history of humorists who highlight such sorts of hatred by poking fun at it — not that either Gov. Tommy Thompson’s stereotypical comment or Trapper John’s recent satire of the Thomspon campaign appeared in the least spiteful. Attempting to redefine the phrase is an attempt at fundamentally altering its meaning, which can only lead to it being watered down and, at some points, perhaps even left meaningless.

Finally, if D.W. thinks that Jews are the only demographic to have ever been the subject of vile hatred (as he appears to claim) he is, in every sense of the word, sadly mistaken.

In fact, all he has to do is head over to the websites of FreeRepublic, Michelle Malkin, Bill O’Reilly, and other conservative partisans to see plenty of disgusting, intentionally harmful rhetoric against these people’s fellow Americans. And those folks are his “allies” in the Republican cause.

Ok, so it’s not a quote from today. It’s from a few months back and it was said by a man who just added another “former” to his resume; former Wisconsin governor, former Secretary of Health and Human Services, and, now, former presidential candidate Tommy Thompson (warning: that news site had some strange pop-ups):

Speaking to an audience at the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism in Washington D.C., Thompson said that, “I’m in the private sector and for the first time in my life I’m earning money. You know that’s sort of part of the Jewish tradition and I do not find anything wrong with that.”

Thompson later apologized for the comments that had caused a stir in the audience, saying that he had meant it as a compliment, and had only wanted to highlight the “accomplishments” of the Jewish religion.

“I just want to clarify something because I didn’t [by] any means want to infer or imply anything about Jews and finances and things,” he said.

“What I was referring to, ladies and gentlemen, is the accomplishments of the Jewish religion. You’ve been outstanding business people and I compliment you for that.” (emphasis added)

Not that remarking that Jews are “outstanding business people” and adept at “earning money” is any sort of prejudicial stereotype or anything … but the comments would have the same effect if Mr. Thompson had said that he compliments black people on their athletic prowess and singing abilities … or that he admires Chinese people on their martial arts, fried food preparation and laundry skills.

It was an off-hand remark based on at least a caricatured stereotype of a minority, if not outright prejudice based on preconceived notions — ie, anti-semitism (prejudice against Jewish people).

The remark that was not meant “to infer or imply anything about Jews and finances and things” also recently became fodder for a crass joke, as Daily Kos front-page editor “Trapper John” wrote an elegy for Mr. Thomspon’s recently concluded woebegone presidential campaign and poked fun at many of Mr. Thompson’s notable missteps on the campaign trail.

And wouldn’t you know it but apparently supporters of Mark Kirk picked right up on the satire to lambaste not Tommy Thompson for uttering the remark in the first place, but Daily Kos for allowing a post making fun of the remark. These folks are calling the joke itself anti-semitism. What do these people not understand?

Archpundit reports that the same folks who promoted a fallacy-based smear email attack last week (also misrepresenting Daily Kos in that earlier email) are at it again, ignoring Republican Tommy Thompson’s original caricature in favor of heaping another helping of misconstrued lies on progressive Daily Kos.

When did these geniuses supporting Mr. Kirk decide that satirizing anti-semitic remarks was in and of itself anti-semitic (while simultaneously deciding that Republicans can make anti-semitic remarks with barely any consequence)? That is the peak of hyperpartisanship.

Moreover, when will their comrades like Anne Leary, Bill Baar, and others stop defending such complete ineptitude and stop willfully ignoring such abject partisan-fueled fibbing?

(And here conservatives complain that liberals don’t get humor…)

UPDATE: Anne Leary clearly doesn’t understand the point of this post, as she has used her own little echo chamber to claim I’m somehow “trivializing” anti-Semitism here and here (same content). No. I’m pointing out that the conservative partisans’ attempts to redefine the word to fit their own political meaning trivializes actual instances of hateful anti-Semitism. More specifically, such trivialization can be seen as Mark Kirk’s supporters continue to blast out smear emails with fallacies about his political opponents, relying on out-of-context cut and paste jobs and half-quoted material to paint his opponents as “anti-Semitic” when it couldn’t be further from the truth (one of Mark Kirk’s Democratic opponents is himself Jewish and both have strong stands supporting our ally Israel).

Ms. Leary’s myopic posts only prove these points. My full response to Ms. Leary is here.

I posted earlier on Anne Leary’s bizarre defense of the fallacy-based, innuendo-mongering Mark Kirk-supporter Andy Lappin. At the beginning of her shrill post, she tried to change the subject away from her defense of hollow rants (which began when her ideological comrade snidely labeled 500,000 Americans “anti-semitic” simply because he disagrees with their philosophical values and principles)…  She wanted to stop talking about her and her comrades’ hyperpartisanship in favor of a suggestion:

While Illinois Reason chooses to vent about the “dangers of hyperpartisanship” I suggest a little thought about the danger of Iran. Or al-Qaeda.

If she wishes to discuss the dangers of Iran or al Qaida then let us do so.

Yes, Iran and al Qaida are dangerous entities. No one is denying or ignoring this.

That is why, in part, Sen. Obama on the presidential campaign trail has suggested we figure out a way to better handle both because the current strategies clearly aren’t working (ie, where’s bin Laden)?

Iran…

Specifically, with Iran, saber-rattling about their nation allegedly arming Iraqi insurgents (none of which have been proven true) is only provoking more tension — especially in light of the fact that Bush’s Pentagon has lost track of 190,000 weapons in Iraq, letting tons of US weapons and armor fall into Iraqi insurgent hands.

As for any nascent Iranian nuclear program, clearly saber-rattling isn’t doing a darned thing to help in that regard as the upstart Iranian president only stiffens his spine. If, instead, a Western leader were to try and calm the stormy seas in that region through some mature diplomacy, perhaps the world would be the better for it. But if a nuclear weapons program is ever found to exist (and not by using “evidence” of faked-up sort provided in the lead-up to the Iraq war) then there’s a damn good argument to be made for strategic strikes. (Strategic strikes making the most sense seeing as how on the one hand, given the size of that nation and the influence of its dominant religious sect worldwide, an all-out invasion is implausible and on the other hand, the Iranian youth [the largest demographic segment by far] had been leaning pro-West before the beginning of Bush’s failures in Iraq, as conservative Newt Gingrich puts it).

al Qaida…

As for al Qaida, one only needs to read the bizarrely two-faced criticism from conservatives regarding Sen. Barack Obama’s statement that he would capture or kill bin Laden even if the president of the nation that is de facto harboring him will not. Since when is a strategic hit or a covert op an “invasion”?

If Ms. Leary truly thinks al Qaida is so dangerous perhaps she ought to encourage her comrades to concentrate more on Afghanistan and the nether regions of Pakistan, which is al Qaida’s homebase, instead of continuously propping up Pres. Bush’s own change-of-subject, his war in Iraq.

Democrats are willing to spare no expense to actually attack and capture al Qaida’s chief. Conservative partisans on the other hand seem wont to spare no smear or distortion in verbally attacking those who would suggest such a common sense thing. Perhaps this is because they don’t want anyone calling attention to how obviously weak their strategy of inflating the so-called ‘global war on terror’ has been (this is the war that even Newt Gingrich acknowledges is a fake prop, just as John Edwards calls it nothing more than a bumper sticker slogan).

First, a little background: Early last week one of Congressman Mark Kirk’s strongest supporters, Andy Lappin, distributed an attack email based on lies, innuendo, and twisted logic. Mr. Lappin’s targets were the two current Democratic candidates seeking the nomination to challenge Mr. Kirk next fall.

Mr. Lappin and his wife have in the past contributed the max dollar amount to Mr. Kirk, and clearly (through his smear email) Mr. Lappin is attempting to lend his direct support to him as well. Reaction to the smear campaign was swift from throughout not just the Tenth Congressional District but also the region.

Several partisan conservatives (as opposed to honest conservatives, who are forthright about lies when they see them) attempted a strange sort of counterpunch, charging that a blog called Daily Kos is somehow anti-semitic. The Daily Kos blog was the subject of Mr. Lappin’s email, as he attempted a weak guilt-by-association tactic against the Democratic candidates. Because it is free and open, anyone can read the Daily Kos blog for themselves and determine if they think it is the least bit “anti-semitic”.

The fact of the matter is that while random jerks do occasionally post to that blog — it’s a free blog — the entirety of the site itself is not anti-semitic and any such actual postings, rare as they may be, are routinely dealt with quickly and forcefully by the other 130,000+ Daily Kos users who oppose such off-color bunk.

Now that we’re all caught up…

I must’ve struck a nerve with conservative-partisan Anne Leary since her response to my post on the dangers of hyperpartisanship was a feeble attempt to change the subject to Iran (?) and al Qaida (?) and away from the utter lack of facts or reasoning in the conservative-partisans’ rants about the Daily Kos blog (including her own vitriol over it).

She labels her weak reply “Slander and Slaughter” … which is strange because nobody has slandered her and, unless I’m mistaken, no bloggers have slaugtered anyone either. Always good to start with some definitions, lest the partisan cons try their hand at redefinition one more time.

Read the rest of this entry »

Anne Leary pipes up at Backyard Conservative about the recent fallacy-based attack email circulated by Mark Kirk supporter Andy Lappin.

Ms. Leary takes it upon herself to declare people are denying that anti-semitic writings are posted at Daily Kos with a post called simply enough, “Deny It All You Like” … yet she offers no evidence that anyone is denying these things are posted at Daily Kos because the fact is, no one is denying that people post off-color crap at Daily Kos.

One has to wonder if Ms. Leary and those like her had her V8 because what people are denying is that Daily Kos in its entirety is anti-semitic. We deny that claim because, well, because it’s not … and anyone with an Internet connection can see this for themselves by visiting the Daily Kos site for themselves instead of relying on partisan conservative activists who carefully edit material to find the worst, most offensive material possible, often removing context surrounding the material in the first place to make it appear even more dire.

Before going further it is worthwhile to note that hard-line conservative-partisans are attempting to redefine the word “anti-semitism” to include a political meaning, as Ellen Beth Gill and others have been saying for some time.

Read the rest of this entry »

Last week several conservative partisans mocked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) plan to have the Republican obstructionists actually follow through on their threats to filibuster a sensible strategic extraction from Iraq.

They giggled upon seeing the cots and pillows. They ranted about the overnight debate itself. They snickered over the wee little signs that Senators placed on easels.

Then the next morning, despite a majority voting in favor of ending debate, that majority was not large enough and so the Republicans’ filibuster obstructionism continued (not enough of those so-called maverick, defecting, changing minds Republicans actually sided with our troops to leave our failed president’s side). Thus, the so-called “liberal” media all parrotted the conservatives’ talking point that Leader Reid had failed…

Except … the conservative partisans are still all whiney about the whole thing. In fact, many are downright red-faced over it, even though Reid “failed” according to the talking heads. (A very good rebuttal to that Fred Hiatt silliness is here on Frank’s post. And while much of the elected Republicans’ crankiness is related to Reid’s removal of the entire Iraq bill, cutting off those who would “defect” from Bush by promoting and voting for pussy-footing hollow amendments that mean nothing, the conservative pundits should in theory have no reason to be upset since they got their way.)

So if the press is all repeating the refrain that he “failed” but the conservatives are still mocking and excoriating him … either they enjoy beating a dead horse while he’s down or Leader Reid didn’t actually fail at all.

It’s pretty clear given the level of vitriol pouring forth from the cons, that Leader Reid has not failed, not in the least. In fact, it is again the media which has failed (by regurgitating those tired conservative talking points without a moment’s thought) and the conservatives themselves who have failed to recognize that the nation no longer believes them when it comes to Iraq.

And if we Americans no longer believe their bloviating about how wonderful Iraq is …

… and about how “they” will all follow us home while simultaneously “they” commit chaotic genocide against each other at home (do they ever listen to just how contradictory their own bizarre claims are?) …

… and about how Iraq is the “Central Front in the War on Terror” despite the fact that the guy who masterminded 9/11 is dancing jigs and making movies three countries away in Pakistan (again with the contradictions, considering Pakistan is our “ally” in the “war on terror”) …

… and about how we must next invade Iran (because, well, because there are a lot more Iranians than there are Iraqis which means our military will need to buy more ammo and weaponry from the military-industrial complex that donates so heavily to Republicans …no, wait, just “because”) …

… If we Americans no longer believe these people who have been dead wrong on everything about Iraq and this invasion then that means that these conservative partisans are just plain stupid.

And that makes the people (on the blogs, in the media) even more stupid for falling for their BS, no?

And if the people originating this malarkey are just plain stupid, and the people regurgitating same are even worse, then the rest of us reasonable Americans can feel free to ignore their silly funhouse-mirror ruminations — and that clearly makes them hoppin’ mad.

(Major hat tip to mcjoan, who links to Frank, Atrios, and Oliver Willis.)

Which is it?

Either (a) “the terrorists are going to follow us home if we leave Iraq”…

or, (b) “chaos and genocide will ensue if we leave Iraq”…

Or maybe conservative partisans are going to start claiming that Iraqi civil war insurgents are going to swim around Africa and cross the Atlantic (the long way) in order to “follow us home” and “commit genocide” in, say, Peoria.

Why does anybody still listen to these nattering nabobs? They can’t even make up their mind on which dire, fear-for-fear-itself, Armageddon talking point du jour they want to promote.

UPDATE: The Illinois Review’s Eric Ivers (aka “Buford Gooch”) falls victim to both the “fight them over there, so they don’t shop at Wal*Mart” strawman and the much more sinister listing of alphabet soup media acronyms. Enough! indeed. As Pete Speer asks in comments, when is Mr. Ivers enlisting? (…Let alone requesting duty in Baghdad.) Conservative crybabies have a habit of spouting off these dire-sounding talking points, and then not following up to actually do anything about it, as Max Blumenthal notes when he visits College Republican Chickenhawks.

Over the last few days, several conservative partisans — including Illinois’ own Backyard Anne and Extreme Bruno — have noted the Democratic Party’s coverage of Fred Thompson’s foibles, usually with the comeback that “They must really be a-skeered of the guy to go after him like that.”

Um, no.

For one thing, that would imply that conservatives and the Republican Party (Karl Rove in particular) were deathly afraid of how well a Howard Dean candidacy would do in 2004 (let alone a Hillary or Barack candidacy in ‘08). To this day, conservative partisans still label Gov. Dean “crazy” because they apparently like beating a dead horse.

For another, the DNC’s “Republican Presidential Candidates” blog is actually covering all the front runners (even Duncan Hunter and Jim Gilmore have gotten mentions in recent days) and pointing out the many areas in which they are hypocritical, wrong, pandering or otherwise acting goofy. Welcome to politics. If cons have a problem with that then they might as well leave because we have this little thing called Freedom of Speech in this here country. The DNC blog isn’t anything the Repubs and their allies haven’t also done; so quit whining.

And despite some of the cons’ tin-foil rants, there’s nothing secret or conspiratorial about it. Heck, I even linked to it. Look, I’ll link it again just so you can see how out in the open and public it is.

Sidenote: Anyone else noticed how many times this “Dems are focused on Thompson” meme made its way into the supposedly “liberal” press lately? (See London Telegraph — repeated in New York Sun, USA Today, AOL News Blog, and The Politico, among others.)

The guy who helped spy for Nixon during Watergate ain’t all that, but the supposedly “biased” media is happy to give the actor the part of pitiable victim.

As stated, the Dems are also going after McCain, Giuliani, Romney and the other plodding elephants… Just as the Repubs are going after Clinton, Obama, Edwards, etc. But the so-called “liberal” mainstream media makes Thompson out to be some sort of martyr… Hmm, must be that “bias” showing.

Diane Sawyer was apparently not a nerd in school:

During the July 17 edition of ABC’s Good Morning America, co-anchor Diane Sawyer falsely claimed that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) “vows to filibuster, talking all night to close out all topics besides a vote on Iraqi troop withdrawals.” (emphasis added)

Ms. Sawyer, a filibuster means a legislator wants to avoid voting on something and so they delay it such that it essentially cannot be voted on.

Sen. Reid wants to vote on a strategic plan to sensibly extract our troops from the Iraqi Civil War during a phased redeployment.

Sen. Reid wants to have an up-or-down vote, ergo he does not want to filibuster.

Word from Anne Leary’s backyard is that Ms. Leary agrees with Ms. Sawyer’s patently wrong statement. She tries to quip that Sen. Reid is attempting to hold himself hostage. I cannot fathom how someone could be that blinded by partisanship, but sure enough Ms. Leary is. Like Ms. Sawyer, Ms. Leary is just silly when it comes to actually figuring out facts.

It is the myopic Republicans who cannot understand that the conservatives’ lies about Iraq have placed our brave soldiers and Marines smack dab in the middle of another country’s 1500-year old civil war.

It is the Republicans who want to continue to defy the American public, denying the will of the people.

It is the obstinent Republicans who do not want to vote on changing course; just as the hard-nosed Democrats refused to allow votes on extremist hard-line conservative judicial candidates in recent years.

It is the Republicans who have “vowed to filibuster.”

Sen. Reid is simply making them actually do it.

If the Republicans do not want to end our involvement in the Iraqis’ Civil War, then they should vote against any of the array of amendments and plans any number of Senators have offered — rather than simply stomping their feet in an effort to save face for their highly unpopular president and his war based on lies.

Then again, remember when the Republicans in the Senate were hopping mad that they too wanted up-or-down votes? Indeed, were they not so red-faced and fuming that they vowed to end the “filibuster” itself once and for all with what Sen. Trent Lott termed the “nuclear option”?

It wasn’t that long ago, was it? No, it wasn’t. From Think Progress:

Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS): “[Filibustering] is wrong. It’s not supportable under the Constitution. And if they insist on persisting with these filibusters, I’m perfectly prepared to blow the place up.”

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) spokesman: “Senator McConnell always has and continues to fully support the use of what has become known as the ‘[nuclear]’ option in order to restore the norms and traditions of the Senate.”

Of course, filibusters on all sorts of legislation actually are the “norms and traditions of the Senate” but far be it from me to point out another bout of Republican misinfo.

The Republicans’ capitan, Sen. McConnell, and others have recently whined about being forced to actually live up to their threats to filibuster amendments on strategic redeployment.

Well, in the words of the Senior Senator of the Great State of Illinois, Sen. Dick Durbin:

Once again I would ask the minority leader from KY [Sen. Mitch "Nuclear Option" McConnell], please look at the record. What you said earlier on the floor is not accurate….One of the critics of this recently called it a stunt. A stunt! A stunt that we would stay in session. A stunt that we would have a sleepless night for Senators. I don’t think it’s a stunt. I think it reflects the reality of this war. How many sleepless night have our soldiers and their families spent?

Petey LaBarbera has recently taken to calling gay Americans “Brown Shirts” — a unfortunate and obvious Nazi reference.

Now, Petey’s odd mix of hatred and fetishism for gay folks is well-documented but this allusion is particularly despicable since, as ArchPundit explains, the Nazis murdered gay people in addition to Jews, gypsies, and others and the gay Americans to whom Petey is referring were simply criticizing the vituperative claims made by someone who routinely criticizes demonizes them.

Maybe in Petey’s world defending yourself means you’re a Nazi … but not out here in the real world. Of course, Petey and others who hate gay people do often sound quite defensive themselves (when they’re not being offensive) so I wonder if, ironically, Petey also considers himself to be a Brown Shirt.

(Say, where are all those conservative partisans who complain ad nauseum about Nazi references when you need them? Wait. I know. It must be ok when conservatives call people Nazis but when anyone else even uses the word.)

This sort of incoherent, obnoxious, and ultimately unintentionally inept invective is clearly part of a trend as other conservatives have taken to antagonizing one group while ironically criticizing other demographics without realizing it.

Indeed, Anne Leary (Backyard Cons.) in recent weeks copied and pasted yet another passage from some right-wing commentary in which Muslim burqas were critiqued because conservatives think they may lead to Vitamin D deficiency of all things (Vitamin D being produced in part thanks to skin exposure to UV light).

Unbeknownst to Ms. Leary, Catholic nuns are also usually covered almost completely head to toe. Why isn’t Ms. Leary concerned about their Vitamin D.

Of course, Ms. Leary ignorantly began her rant about women’s clothing customs by wondering if feminists would ever be interested in the plight of Muslim women. They of course, have been for years (but don’t tell Ms. Leary, she might wake up from her bizarro dreamworld).