Category Archive

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)

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.

Says the spinster:

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.]

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!

Dan Curry (of the perhaps intentionally revealing “Reverse Spin” blog) has yet another post up railing against Hillary Clinton’s acceptance of donations from International Profit Associates’ John Burgess, this time in response to her endorsement by the Illinois chapter of NOW. Mr. Curry’s complaint is that Mr. Burgess has been accused of sexual harassment and, as such, a woman candidate should not (in his opinion) be accepting his donations, nor should a woman’s organization be condoning the acceptance of said donations by offering their endorsement for that candidate… It’s textbook example of weak-kneed, partisan-influenced ‘guilt by association’ spin.

Interestingly, Mr. Curry — over the course of about 20+ posts this year — has continuously and regularly ranted about IPA, its owner and the politicians which receive donations from same. Oddly enough, Mr. “Reverse Spin” himself has simply been spinning on this issue all along. (Notice he admits his writings are still spin, though he tries to claim it’s somehow “reverse”…)

How do we know he’s just spinning on and on incessantly about IPA? You have to look hard, may even need a magnifying glass, but Mr. Curry actually told us he’s just spinning.

In only one (1) of those 20+ posts this year do we learn exactly why Mr. Curry is so obsessed with IPA: he is “assisting” IPA’s business opponents. Is he being paid to “assist” those anti-IPA forces? Or is he doing it because he likes the way they smell? We don’t know because Mr. Curry is more than vague when it comes to those he is “assisting” in his attacks against IPA and those who receive donations from the company and its colleagues.

Now, it’s all well and good for bloggers to write about folks they like and want to help (I sure do enough of that). It’s even ok for them to go ahead and get paid to write favorable or unfavorable opinions. But, typically such ‘influenced’ writing (whether voluntary or compensated) is regularly disclosed so readers can judge for ourselves the writings’ worth which is why I and others make a point of routinely noting our own disclosures.

Mr. Curry is running at less than 1 in 20 on that count. Why doesn’t he care to disclose his relationship with IPA’s opponents more often? What’s he hiding behind that curtain? Is it because he’s just trying to gloss over his biased spin opposing the candidates he so clearly despises?

Writing, “Small business owners across the country, who I’m assisting,” once inside of a year doesn’t cut it by any reasonable measure of honesty. Instead, it renders Mr. Curry’s own rants about IPA’s alleged dishonesty all the more hypocritical.

Is IPA bad news? Allegedly so, given the many ongoing investigations of the company, its leadership and its associates. But that doesn’t excuse Mr. Curry’s own lack of forthrightness in his many continued discussions of the matter.

Dan Curry’s “Reverse Spin” has a new post up attacking Americans for excercising their First Amendments rights of free speech and free assembly.

Mr. Curry is concerned that the media will cover the news, which is odd since the newsmedia is supposed to cover the news.

In this case, the news is about the YearlyKos convention which begins today and runs through Sunday at Chicago’s McCormick Place Convention Center. He thinks the media is going to go somehow show liberal bias if the cover the news that the convention is in town.

But, simply covering a news story about a convention of political activists clearly does not indicate a bias. It’s a big convention. Presidential candidates (along with candidates for everything from township trustee to US Congress).

Like it or not, it’s just as much news as a DNC or RNC convention, or even the CPAC meeting of conservatives from a few months back which made headlines when conservative spokesperson Ann Coulter called Sen. John Edwards a faggot, and the conservative crowd cheered.

Now, Mr. Curry, in trying to claim that Markos “Kos” Moulitsas (founder of the DailyKos blog — the YearlyKos convention is an offshoot of the blog) spouts “hate speech” links to a years-old comment from Mr. Moulitsas who, in his anger over highly-compensated mercernaries in Iraq, did indeed go over the top.

And that’s why Mr. Moulitsas expressed his mea culpa for the comment (not that Mr. Curry would bother even acknowledging this):

I was angry that five soldiers — the real heroes in my mind — were killed the same day and got far lower billing in the newscasts. I was angry that 51 American soldiers paid the ultimate price for Bush’s folly in Iraq in March alone. I was angry that these mercenaries make more in a day than our brave men and women in uniform make in an entire month. I was angry that the US is funding private armies, paying them $30,000 per soldier, per month, while the Bush administration tries to cut our soldiers’ hazard pay. I was angry that these mercenaries would leave their wives and children behind to enter a war zone on their own violition.

So I struck back.

Unlike the vast majority of people in this country, I actually grew up in a war zone. I witnessed communist guerillas execute students accused of being government collaborators. I was 8 years old, and I remember stepping over a dead body, warm blood flowing from a fresh wound. Dodging bullets while at market. I lived in the midsts of hate the likes of which most of you will never understand (Clinton and Bush hatred is nothing compared to that generated when people kill each other for politics or race or nationality). There’s no way I could ever describe the ways this experience colors my worldview.

Now, if being angry that soldiers (whose duty it is to go to war) get 1/10th the respect of mercernaries (who choose to be in a war) makes Mr. Moulitsas a “hater” in Mr. Curry’s eyes, so be it. But I wonder what he considers his own repeated epithets, which hurls the way of anyone to his left.

As for YearlyKos itself, I suppose Mr. Curry considers journalists like Rich Miller to be biased because he part of a panel discussion on Illinois politics. And I suppose Mr. Curry considers FairTax.org to also be biased because they are one of the conventions sponsors.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Curry simply doesn’t like the politics of YearlyKos attendees, so he finds any coverage of it to be suspect and any “big names” associated with it to be off the mark. Such is life in a “reverse spin zone”, I suppose, but it’s as intellectually dishonest as the similar attacks flowing from the hypocritical Bill O’Reilly (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, …).

I take the title of his blog to mean Mr. Curry is still spinning facts, just in the reverse of whatever sort of spin he feels is already out there in the ether… Fair enough, but spin is spin. And Mr. Curry is certainly taking the BS to new levels with his half-facts about Markos Moulitsas, the half-million strong Daily Kos blog and the 2nd Annual YearlyKos convention of political activists and others — all of whom are Americans just like Mr. Curry.

In other words, Mr. Curry is railing against these Americans for doing the exact same things he himself does — expressing their political beliefs. But, since he disagrees with their values and convictions he feels the need to spin out a silly, vacuous attack.