Early voting is under way, and the Charleston Gazette reports that voters complained of their vote being switched (in the report, from Democratic to Republican.)
Voting is a partisan exercise. Counting votes is not, or should not be.
When I cast a vote, I want it be counted as I cast it. Once again, we go back to the fact that votes must be verifiable and hand-countable, and in many cases this is not true.
Many electronic voting systems do not allow manual recounts. This is a travesty.
West Virginia is not the only state where problems have been reported already. The list is long.
In related news, the Washington Post reports, and Brad Blog reprises the article, that massive vote purges that have led to thousands of registered voters being incorrectly rejected at the polls.
All these reports show that we need non-partisan, federal voting standards. Same equipment (or ballots), same vote verification mechanisms, same registration forms, one voter database, one identification procedure, everywhere in the country.
To complete the sad picture of our election system just two weeks before the election, news just came that a the owner of YMP, a GOP voter registration outfit, has been arrested in California for actual voter registration fraud. I wrote about about YMP's suspicious activities, in this post, just yesterday.
We can no longer allow a system in which voting registration, election management, and board of elections are a partisan affair.
The next Congress, and the next President owe it to the American people to set up a non-partisan, fair voting system.
Please follow the links to Black Box Voting and Voters Unite for more information, and for ways you can help.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Sen. Bernie Sanders On Real Time
Below is a clip of Sen Bernie Sanders's (I-VT) appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher on Friday night.
Sen. Sanders got the biggest ovation I remember a politician getting on Real Time, when he said the following:
Notably, Sen. Sanders calls himself a Democratic socialist, which is just about the most extreme suicidal maneuver a politician could perform in the United States. And yet, his message is more powerful than any prejudice the American people may have, and he keeps getting re-elected. Kudos, people of Vermont!
Earlier in the clip, Bill Maher also made the following comment about people who use Joe The Plumber's rationale ("Republicans will make it easier for me to get rich!") to decide who to vote for:
Incidentally, does Bill Maher read this blog? :-)
Watch it soon, before it is removed from YouTube.
Sen. Sanders got the biggest ovation I remember a politician getting on Real Time, when he said the following:
There is a lot of hate out there, and it's often among white guys. And you know why they're angry? They're angry because they're working really hard, their standard of living is going down, they're working really hard and the world is passing them by and they're not... they don't understand why. And instead of getting angry at the big money interests who are sending their jobs abroad, or taking away their health insurance, or giving tax breaks to people who don't need it, what the Republicans have successfully done is [they've] taken that anger, and turned it on gay people, turned it on the abortion issue. And what our job is is to bring people, in my view, around a progressive agenda, which is "let's all work together, you're a working person, let's work together.
Notably, Sen. Sanders calls himself a Democratic socialist, which is just about the most extreme suicidal maneuver a politician could perform in the United States. And yet, his message is more powerful than any prejudice the American people may have, and he keeps getting re-elected. Kudos, people of Vermont!
Earlier in the clip, Bill Maher also made the following comment about people who use Joe The Plumber's rationale ("Republicans will make it easier for me to get rich!") to decide who to vote for:
He's voting on the basis of a fantasy! He actually benefits from Obama's tax plan, but in his mind... His great wealth [...] only exists in his head, because Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity talk to him in the car every day and they get him all [worked up] about the immigrants and the gays and all these people, and the liberals, and this "uppity" black man that's going to be the president, they're all going to take away this fantasy life that doesn't exist. This is what's so sad about it. [Emphasis added.]
Incidentally, does Bill Maher read this blog? :-)
Watch it soon, before it is removed from YouTube.
Ex-Voting Rights Chief Slams ACORN Investigation
"During the twenty-one years I was there, even though there were political appointees who I worked with, never did we inject partisan considerations into our law-enforcement responsibilities. That has clearly not been the case in recent years under this administration. And it's going to take a long time to cleanse the Department of Justice." (Read the rest of the article on TPM Muckraker.)
More From Gen. Colin Powell
Here is an interview that Gen. Colin Powell gave to reporters after announcing his endorsement of Barack Obama.
Salient parts of the interview start at about the half point mark, where Gen. Powell addresses campaign negativity, Rep. Michele Bachmann's inexcusable McCarhtyist comments (which he labels, quite mildly, as "nonsense") and the accusation that Obama is a socialist because he wants to review and revise the tax structure of our nation. Gen. Powell addresses the issue of income redistribution with the wisdom you would expect from an intelligent person, saying that all taxation leads to income redistribution and that most of the income is redistributed to everyone in the form of roads, education, services, etc.
Salient parts of the interview start at about the half point mark, where Gen. Powell addresses campaign negativity, Rep. Michele Bachmann's inexcusable McCarhtyist comments (which he labels, quite mildly, as "nonsense") and the accusation that Obama is a socialist because he wants to review and revise the tax structure of our nation. Gen. Powell addresses the issue of income redistribution with the wisdom you would expect from an intelligent person, saying that all taxation leads to income redistribution and that most of the income is redistributed to everyone in the form of roads, education, services, etc.
My Nomination For Tomorrow's Worst Person In The World
I admit it's not very original, but I bet Keith Olbermann will award Worst Person In The World to involuntary comedian, Rush Limbaugh, for this statement:
In rhetoric, this argument is known as "the douche bag fallacy."
Secretary Powell says his endorsement is not about race... OK, fine. I am now researching his past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed. I'll let you know what I come up with.
In rhetoric, this argument is known as "the douche bag fallacy."
George W Bush: Great President Or The Greatest President?
Of course, I am saying that in the Colbertian sense of the word.
But the San Francisco Chronicle correctly points out that the current crises force us to rethink the lie that Reaganomics has always been.
It is worth stressing that President Bush's criminal and corrupt mismanagement of government, aided by his Republican accomplices for the most part of the eight years of Bush's irresponsible reign, may have done more to destroy Reagan's toxic legacy than anything I have seen in my lifetime.
The Bush administration, its cronies, and the Republican party, have managed to prove the point that Reagan famously made in 1981, that "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
Of course, the well-known twist on Reagan's words is that the centerpiece of Republicans campaigns is that government is the problem, which they set out to demonstrate once they have been elected.
The correct restatement of that famous and irresponsible pronouncement is "Bad government is not the solution to our problem; bad government is the problem." People are not tired of government, they are tired of incompetent government. And lately it has become painfully obvious that incompetent government, not government itself, is the cause of our problem.
Which would make Bush the greatest president I have seen in my lifetime: Not for his actions, but for their consequences.
But the San Francisco Chronicle correctly points out that the current crises force us to rethink the lie that Reaganomics has always been.
It is worth stressing that President Bush's criminal and corrupt mismanagement of government, aided by his Republican accomplices for the most part of the eight years of Bush's irresponsible reign, may have done more to destroy Reagan's toxic legacy than anything I have seen in my lifetime.
The Bush administration, its cronies, and the Republican party, have managed to prove the point that Reagan famously made in 1981, that "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
Of course, the well-known twist on Reagan's words is that the centerpiece of Republicans campaigns is that government is the problem, which they set out to demonstrate once they have been elected.
The correct restatement of that famous and irresponsible pronouncement is "Bad government is not the solution to our problem; bad government is the problem." People are not tired of government, they are tired of incompetent government. And lately it has become painfully obvious that incompetent government, not government itself, is the cause of our problem.
Which would make Bush the greatest president I have seen in my lifetime: Not for his actions, but for their consequences.
GOP Terrified Of American Voters
That is the title of a column in today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Colin Powell's Inspirational Endorsement Of Obama
As I said yesterday, some endorsements carry more weight than others. Colin Powell's carries a ton of weight, not just for who he is, but for what he said.
There is a lot to like about the reasons Powell gave to justify his endorsement of Sen. Obama, but the one that stands out is the one I emphasized above, because Obama's soaring rhetoric has been used by his detractors as a liability. Obama's opponents have portrayed him as an empty shell, a "rock star" politician, a person who thinks of himself as a messiah. The worst elements of the Evangelican and Conservative fringe have even drawn comparison between his rhetoric and Hitler's (thus earning a permanent place in rhetoric's Hall of Shame.)
Powell is saying, correctly, that style enhances Obama's substance. The ability to inspire is a useful complement, one might say an essential one, in a good politician. Good ideas, without the ability to inspire support for them, are doomed to fail. Crafting excellent solutions, without the capacity to convince others to implement them, makes their implementation unlikely. Oratory alone does not prove a candidate's ability to lead. But that is not the argument Powell makes for Obama, whom he credits with having "both style and substance."
Gen. Powell also gave a scathing indictment of the negative tactics of the McCain campaign, of McCain's judgment in his pick of Sarah Palin as his running mate, of the direction the Republican party has taken, tacking further to the right.
Other concerns expressed by Gen. Powell include McCain's incomplete grasp of the economic problems the country faces, McCain's duplicity about the Ayers-Obama connection (if McCain thinks Ayers is a washed up terrorist, why focus so much of his campaign on it, and why employ the disgusting robo-calls that McCain was a victim of in 2000?), the danger of two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court (this coming from a man who says that he is still a Republican), the distressing use of the "Obama is a Muslim" falsehood, embraced by senior members of the Republican party, to taint his character by association ("But the really right answer is, what if he is?", said Powell. "Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America.")
McCain's supporters who would be quick to dismiss Powell's endorsement, should consider a few examples of what their candidate said in the past of Colin Powell:
You should watch the clip of Gen. Powell's endorsement of Obama below, and share it with convinced and unconvinced friends and family alike.
Also, Zbigniew Brzezinski comments on Powell's endorsement, calling it a comprehensive indictment of the McCain/Palin ticket.
I [have] come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities--and we have to take that into account--as well as his substance--he has both style and substance--he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president. I think he is a transformational figure. He is a new generation coming into the world--onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I'll be voting for Senator Barack Obama. [Emphasis added.]
There is a lot to like about the reasons Powell gave to justify his endorsement of Sen. Obama, but the one that stands out is the one I emphasized above, because Obama's soaring rhetoric has been used by his detractors as a liability. Obama's opponents have portrayed him as an empty shell, a "rock star" politician, a person who thinks of himself as a messiah. The worst elements of the Evangelican and Conservative fringe have even drawn comparison between his rhetoric and Hitler's (thus earning a permanent place in rhetoric's Hall of Shame.)
Powell is saying, correctly, that style enhances Obama's substance. The ability to inspire is a useful complement, one might say an essential one, in a good politician. Good ideas, without the ability to inspire support for them, are doomed to fail. Crafting excellent solutions, without the capacity to convince others to implement them, makes their implementation unlikely. Oratory alone does not prove a candidate's ability to lead. But that is not the argument Powell makes for Obama, whom he credits with having "both style and substance."
Gen. Powell also gave a scathing indictment of the negative tactics of the McCain campaign, of McCain's judgment in his pick of Sarah Palin as his running mate, of the direction the Republican party has taken, tacking further to the right.
Other concerns expressed by Gen. Powell include McCain's incomplete grasp of the economic problems the country faces, McCain's duplicity about the Ayers-Obama connection (if McCain thinks Ayers is a washed up terrorist, why focus so much of his campaign on it, and why employ the disgusting robo-calls that McCain was a victim of in 2000?), the danger of two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court (this coming from a man who says that he is still a Republican), the distressing use of the "Obama is a Muslim" falsehood, embraced by senior members of the Republican party, to taint his character by association ("But the really right answer is, what if he is?", said Powell. "Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America.")
McCain's supporters who would be quick to dismiss Powell's endorsement, should consider a few examples of what their candidate said in the past of Colin Powell:
McCain's high opinion of Powell as one of the "most credible, most respected" men in America is not merely an election-year spasm, either. When asked in 2001 if he would have chosen Powell for a Cabinet position had he succeeded in his first presidential run, McCain said "oh, yes." During two December 2000 appearances on NBC Nightly News, McCain described himself as "exuberant" over Powell's selection as secretary of state, which he predicted would secure "a beneficial effect on the conduct of American foreign policy."
You should watch the clip of Gen. Powell's endorsement of Obama below, and share it with convinced and unconvinced friends and family alike.
Also, Zbigniew Brzezinski comments on Powell's endorsement, calling it a comprehensive indictment of the McCain/Palin ticket.
Avoid Straight Party Voting!
The fraud of 2008 is under way, and it has nothing to do with ACORN.
There have been numerous confirmed reports of machine "malfunctions" that cause the vote for president not to be counted by electronic machines when the "straight party vote" option is selected.
Please read the following alert to see if it applies to the state you live in.
My prediction? If polls tighten to within 3-4 percentage points in key battleground states, McCain will magically pull off an upset, and the media analysis will revolve around the "Bradley Effect", instead of focusing on the known machinations of corrupt election officials.
Oh, and Fix News will launch the following alternative explanation, which all other networks will swarm like pilot fish: thousands of voters registered fradulently by ACORN in key states did not show up to vote or were rejected at the polls. In other words, Fix News will say, ACORN's new voter numbers were inflated by their fraud, which we were the first ones to tell you about, when the true explanation has to do with vote suppression instead, at the hands of Republican vote challengers. Remember, Rove's goal is "a permanent Republican majority."
I hope I am wrong.
There have been numerous confirmed reports of machine "malfunctions" that cause the vote for president not to be counted by electronic machines when the "straight party vote" option is selected.
Please read the following alert to see if it applies to the state you live in.
My prediction? If polls tighten to within 3-4 percentage points in key battleground states, McCain will magically pull off an upset, and the media analysis will revolve around the "Bradley Effect", instead of focusing on the known machinations of corrupt election officials.
Oh, and Fix News will launch the following alternative explanation, which all other networks will swarm like pilot fish: thousands of voters registered fradulently by ACORN in key states did not show up to vote or were rejected at the polls. In other words, Fix News will say, ACORN's new voter numbers were inflated by their fraud, which we were the first ones to tell you about, when the true explanation has to do with vote suppression instead, at the hands of Republican vote challengers. Remember, Rove's goal is "a permanent Republican majority."
I hope I am wrong.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
There Are Endorsements And There Are Endorsements
While we wait to find out whether, as rumors have it, Gen. Colin Powell will endorse Barack Obama in tomorrow's appearance on Meet The Press, here is a pretty powerful endorsement:
That is from the Chicago Tribune's Editorial Board. Easy, you will say: Chicago? Obama is from Chicago, who'd you think they'd endorse? Well, not a Democrat. It has not happened once since 1847, the year the newspaper was founded.
And on his radio show, conservative pundit Michael Smerconish said this:
Some endorsement are more noteworthy than others.
Many Americans say they're uneasy about Obama. He's pretty new to them.
We can provide some assurance. We have known Obama since he entered politics a dozen years ago. We have watched him, worked with him, argued with him as he rose from an effective state senator to an inspiring U.S. senator to the Democratic Party's nominee for president.
We have tremendous confidence in his intellectual rigor, his moral compass and his ability to make sound, thoughtful, careful decisions. He is ready.
That is from the Chicago Tribune's Editorial Board. Easy, you will say: Chicago? Obama is from Chicago, who'd you think they'd endorse? Well, not a Democrat. It has not happened once since 1847, the year the newspaper was founded.
And on his radio show, conservative pundit Michael Smerconish said this:
John McCain is an honorable man who has served his country well. But he will not get my vote. For the first time since registering as a Republican 28 years ago, I'm voting for a Democrat for president.
Some endorsement are more noteworthy than others.
Sowell Strikes Again--Out.
The Constructive Curmudgeon, Denver Seminary professor and vociferous advocate of all things Conservative, does not love McCain, but he despises Obama so much that he will uncritically and enthusiastically publish just about anything intended to tear Obama's character apart. He did it again, drawing his readers' attention to an article by the unreliable Thomas Sowell.
Prof. Sowell's Record Versus Rhetoric is a perfect, albeit disheartening, example of disgraceful framing and dishonest spin. Of course, it drew hundreds of mostly positive comments from his indoctrinated readers.
One paragraph into his opinion, Sowell says this:
Perhaps this was true when Sarah Palin was announced as McCain's running mate, when most people knew little or nothing of her. But questions about her knowledge, her intellectual competence, her fitness for the job, and even her character has emerged soon after that trump anything that was initially said about her experience. Experience is no longer the prevalent issue, and many conservatives have censored McCain's decision to select Palin as his running mate.
It gets worse, much worse.
This paragraph can only be accepted as truthful if one chooses to ignore the ample and available evidence against Sowell's statements. For example, saying that "whole years of Barack Obama's life are engulfed in fog" ignores the fact that Barack Obama has been subjected to fierce scrutiny for the last two years, which have been filled by his politically-motivated adversaries with the repetition of already debunked accusations.
Sarah Palin, on the other hand, has come to the stage of national politics less than two months ago. Only time will tell what, if anything, she is hiding from public scrutiny. Considering the many distressing details of her political career that have emerged in only the last six weeks, the outlook's not good. We can only assume there would be plenty more to frown on in the next 22 months.
Even more despicable is Sowell's talking point, straight from the RNC and the McCain campaign, that Obama has associated with, and had political alliances with, "vile people." Sowell leaves his further accusation that Obama has "directed taxpayer's money" to vile people unsubstantiated, of course. Why? Because most people of average intellect and an unbiased mind would be loath to agree that ACORN is a group of vile people. It is a group whose goal is to help the poor and the disenfranchised. But Sowell's strength does not consist in substantiating his accusations. Evidently, he'd rather rely on sophistry and innuendos, so all's well in his corner.
Next Sowell says:
Yes, indeed, we don't have to judge her by her rhetoric, because that would not reflect well on her.
As for judging her by her record, remember that President Bush also came from the executive branch of the Texas government (he was Governor, just like Palin). Who wants to argue with me that experience in the executive branch of state government is a good indicator of suitability for the White House, after the last eight years?
In any case, I've always been of the opinion that experience is an overrated indicator of a person's ability and suitability for a job. Experience is mainly a measure of time spent doing something, not of the judgment that one is endowed with. This goes for Sowell as well. I am sure he has more experience at writing than I do, but look at the arguments he made in his article.
On Obama's record, Sowell has this to say instead:
Sowell is, not to mince words, dishonest: "innumerable times" tries to convey the idea of Obama's irresponsibility. The facts? According to the Associated Press:
So Sowell fails to mention that the "innumerable times" he refers to amounts to 3% of Obama's total votes in the Illinois legislature. Even if that were a valid measure of responsibility, consider for example that McCain has missed 50% more votes in the 110th Congress than Sen. Johnson of South Dakota, who recently returned to the Senate after suffering a brain hemorrage on Dec 13, 2006.
Sowell continues:
His reference to Chicago style politics? It should be clear by now that all a dishonest man like Sowell can do is resort to unsubstantiated/unsubstantiable "guilt by association" and to ad-hominem attacks, as he does right in his next paragraph:
The Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac mess is so large that to say that one man (in Sowell's example Franklin Raines) was at the heart of the mess (implying he was responsible for it) is misleading at best.
Given what we know about Sowell from just this one article, we can assume the claim is not only misleading but dishonestly motivated. For example, he fails to mention that even deeper at the heart of the mess we're in was Phil Gramm. (If you are interested in understanding how, just click the previous link.)
Gramm's associations with McCain? Until recently, he was the most senior economic advisor to McCain's campaign, and its co-chair, but he was forced to step down last July in the wake of these super-intelligent comments that he made just days before resigning: "You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession," and "We have sort of become a nation of whiners." Yes, Gramm really nailed the problem that he, to quote Sowell, "was at the heart of". But since Sowell does not live in one of McCain's seven glass houses, he can throw stones on McCain' behalf.
Sowell then tries to explain the reason why Palin gets negative coverage (hate, as the Constructive Curmudgeon describes it in customary academic fashion) as opposed to Obama's positive coverage in the media. This is how he does it:
Let's pretend he did not use the lame "appeal to victimhood", and move on. Sowell then says:
In other words, she is better than Obama because, unlike Obama, she does not have a degree from Columbia University, because she is not a magna cum laude Harvard graduate, because she has not taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School.
Her folksiness (not that it is by any means contrived) and her humble academic record, in Sowell's warped mind, is why the media elite renders a negative opinion of Palin, when they in fact should be charmed by the fact that her stated foreign policy qualification include being able to see Russia from Alaska's shore, or the fact that she cannot name a single newspaper or article that contributed to her foreign policy views. But those, according to Sowell and to the authors of Republican talking points, are "gotcha" questions. Is Sowell's assessment disingenuous? Yessireebob, you betcha!
Sowell concludes his fantasy-land, ad-hominem laden opinion piece with the following, enlightening paragraph:
Aside from McCain's own association with G. Gordon Liddy and Palin's support for the Alaska Independence Party, the trouble is that lately both Republican candidates and their campaign have spent a lot of time instilling hostility and even hatred for Americans whose ideas differ from theirs.
I will leave it to Sowell to explain how that is not graver than the trumped-up charges he offers against Obama.
Prof. Sowell's Record Versus Rhetoric is a perfect, albeit disheartening, example of disgraceful framing and dishonest spin. Of course, it drew hundreds of mostly positive comments from his indoctrinated readers.
One paragraph into his opinion, Sowell says this:
The issue that is raised most often is her relative lack of experience and the fact that she would be "a heartbeat away from the presidency" if Senator John McCain were elected.
Perhaps this was true when Sarah Palin was announced as McCain's running mate, when most people knew little or nothing of her. But questions about her knowledge, her intellectual competence, her fitness for the job, and even her character has emerged soon after that trump anything that was initially said about her experience. Experience is no longer the prevalent issue, and many conservatives have censored McCain's decision to select Palin as his running mate.
It gets worse, much worse.
Sarah Palin's record is on the record, while whole years of Barack Obama's life are engulfed in fog, and he has had to explain away one after another of the astounding and vile people he has not merely "associated" with but has had political alliances with, and to whom he has directed the taxpayers' money and other money.
This paragraph can only be accepted as truthful if one chooses to ignore the ample and available evidence against Sowell's statements. For example, saying that "whole years of Barack Obama's life are engulfed in fog" ignores the fact that Barack Obama has been subjected to fierce scrutiny for the last two years, which have been filled by his politically-motivated adversaries with the repetition of already debunked accusations.
Sarah Palin, on the other hand, has come to the stage of national politics less than two months ago. Only time will tell what, if anything, she is hiding from public scrutiny. Considering the many distressing details of her political career that have emerged in only the last six weeks, the outlook's not good. We can only assume there would be plenty more to frown on in the next 22 months.
Even more despicable is Sowell's talking point, straight from the RNC and the McCain campaign, that Obama has associated with, and had political alliances with, "vile people." Sowell leaves his further accusation that Obama has "directed taxpayer's money" to vile people unsubstantiated, of course. Why? Because most people of average intellect and an unbiased mind would be loath to agree that ACORN is a group of vile people. It is a group whose goal is to help the poor and the disenfranchised. But Sowell's strength does not consist in substantiating his accusations. Evidently, he'd rather rely on sophistry and innuendos, so all's well in his corner.
Next Sowell says:
Sarah Palin has had executive experience-- and the White House is the executive branch of government. We don't have to judge her by her rhetoric because she has a record.
Yes, indeed, we don't have to judge her by her rhetoric, because that would not reflect well on her.
As for judging her by her record, remember that President Bush also came from the executive branch of the Texas government (he was Governor, just like Palin). Who wants to argue with me that experience in the executive branch of state government is a good indicator of suitability for the White House, after the last eight years?
In any case, I've always been of the opinion that experience is an overrated indicator of a person's ability and suitability for a job. Experience is mainly a measure of time spent doing something, not of the judgment that one is endowed with. This goes for Sowell as well. I am sure he has more experience at writing than I do, but look at the arguments he made in his article.
On Obama's record, Sowell has this to say instead:
he voted "present" innumerable times instead of taking a stand one way or the other on tough issues.
Sowell is, not to mince words, dishonest: "innumerable times" tries to convey the idea of Obama's irresponsibility. The facts? According to the Associated Press:
Obama acknowledges that over nearly eight years in the Illinois Senate, he voted "present" 129 times. That was out of roughly 4,000 votes he cast, so those "presents" amounted to about one of every 31 votes in his legislative career.
So Sowell fails to mention that the "innumerable times" he refers to amounts to 3% of Obama's total votes in the Illinois legislature. Even if that were a valid measure of responsibility, consider for example that McCain has missed 50% more votes in the 110th Congress than Sen. Johnson of South Dakota, who recently returned to the Senate after suffering a brain hemorrage on Dec 13, 2006.
Sowell continues:
"Clean up the mess in Washington"? He was part of the mess in Chicago and lined up with the Daley machine against reformers.
His reference to Chicago style politics? It should be clear by now that all a dishonest man like Sowell can do is resort to unsubstantiated/unsubstantiable "guilt by association" and to ad-hominem attacks, as he does right in his next paragraph:
He is also part of the mess in Washington, not only with numerous earmarks, but also as the Senate's second largest recipient of money from Fannie Mae, and someone whose campaign has this year sought the advice of disgraced former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines, who was at the heart of the sub-prime crisis.
The Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac mess is so large that to say that one man (in Sowell's example Franklin Raines) was at the heart of the mess (implying he was responsible for it) is misleading at best.
Given what we know about Sowell from just this one article, we can assume the claim is not only misleading but dishonestly motivated. For example, he fails to mention that even deeper at the heart of the mess we're in was Phil Gramm. (If you are interested in understanding how, just click the previous link.)
Gramm's associations with McCain? Until recently, he was the most senior economic advisor to McCain's campaign, and its co-chair, but he was forced to step down last July in the wake of these super-intelligent comments that he made just days before resigning: "You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession," and "We have sort of become a nation of whiners." Yes, Gramm really nailed the problem that he, to quote Sowell, "was at the heart of". But since Sowell does not live in one of McCain's seven glass houses, he can throw stones on McCain' behalf.
Sowell then tries to explain the reason why Palin gets negative coverage (hate, as the Constructive Curmudgeon describes it in customary academic fashion) as opposed to Obama's positive coverage in the media. This is how he does it:
One reason of course is that Senator Obama is ideologically much closer to the views of the media than is Governor Palin.
Let's pretend he did not use the lame "appeal to victimhood", and move on. Sowell then says:
More than that, her whole life has been outside the realm familiar to the intelligentsia of the media. She didn't go to the big-name colleges and imbibe the heady atmosphere that leaves so many feeling that they are special folks. She doesn't talk the way they talk or think the way they think.
In other words, she is better than Obama because, unlike Obama, she does not have a degree from Columbia University, because she is not a magna cum laude Harvard graduate, because she has not taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School.
Her folksiness (not that it is by any means contrived) and her humble academic record, in Sowell's warped mind, is why the media elite renders a negative opinion of Palin, when they in fact should be charmed by the fact that her stated foreign policy qualification include being able to see Russia from Alaska's shore, or the fact that she cannot name a single newspaper or article that contributed to her foreign policy views. But those, according to Sowell and to the authors of Republican talking points, are "gotcha" questions. Is Sowell's assessment disingenuous? Yessireebob, you betcha!
Sowell concludes his fantasy-land, ad-hominem laden opinion piece with the following, enlightening paragraph:
Whatever the shortcomings of John McCain and Sarah Palin, [...] they have not spent decades working with people who hate America.
Aside from McCain's own association with G. Gordon Liddy and Palin's support for the Alaska Independence Party, the trouble is that lately both Republican candidates and their campaign have spent a lot of time instilling hostility and even hatred for Americans whose ideas differ from theirs.
I will leave it to Sowell to explain how that is not graver than the trumped-up charges he offers against Obama.
Do Not Miss Tom Toles's Latest Cartoon!
When they say a picture's worth a thousand words, this is literally what they mean.
Wanna Talk About Voter Registration Fraud?
So let's talk about it.
As I said in several of my recent posts, the type of fraud that Republicans accuse ACORN of engaging in is not voter fraud at all.
But even if it were, consider that the number of successful voter prosecution cases pursued by the Feds between 2002 and 2005 is--get ready for this--twenty-four, as noted by Think Progress in a 2007 post. Staggering number, isn't it?
Is voter registration fraud "destroying the fabric of democracy" as two-faced John McCain said in Wednesday night's debate? Sure. Wait until that army of Disney and other assorted cartoon characters shows up at the polls with their valid Mickey Mouse, government-issued driver licenses to exercise the right they fraudulently obtained. Gimme a freaking break!
On the other hand, guess who is engaging in actual voter registrationn *fraud*? You would never know it, but it's the GOP.
YPM is a firm whose services were retained in California by the Republican Party. The LA Times reports:
If you think this is an isolated case, think again:
And here's the kicker:
The last quote is particularly distressing, because it is not just about voter registration fraud. It is about fraud with intent to suppress the vote.
So you see, once again the GOP stands out as the party of hypocrisy.
Republican Congressmen and pastors rant against homosexual behavior, then it turns out they engage in homosexual activities themselves (Sen. Craig, Ted Haggard, and don't forget to look up Mark Foley, Glenn Murphy Jr, and Bob Allen of Florida). They talk about the sanctity of marriage, but they divorce and remarry as if marriage were only a civil contract (guffaw, guffaw for Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh--who we might as well consider a Republican operative, etc.). And they accuse others of destroying the fabric of society with voter registration fraud while they are actually doing it themselves.
It wouldn't even be so despicable, were it not for the fact that they also portray themselves as the party of Jesus. You know, the guy who said "Why do you see the speck in your brother's eye but fail to notice the beam in your own eye?"
Perhaps all the prayerful ones out there can join and pray that we are delivered from hypocrisy. Please?
As I said in several of my recent posts, the type of fraud that Republicans accuse ACORN of engaging in is not voter fraud at all.
But even if it were, consider that the number of successful voter prosecution cases pursued by the Feds between 2002 and 2005 is--get ready for this--twenty-four, as noted by Think Progress in a 2007 post. Staggering number, isn't it?
Is voter registration fraud "destroying the fabric of democracy" as two-faced John McCain said in Wednesday night's debate? Sure. Wait until that army of Disney and other assorted cartoon characters shows up at the polls with their valid Mickey Mouse, government-issued driver licenses to exercise the right they fraudulently obtained. Gimme a freaking break!
On the other hand, guess who is engaging in actual voter registrationn *fraud*? You would never know it, but it's the GOP.
YPM is a firm whose services were retained in California by the Republican Party. The LA Times reports:
Voters contacted by The Times said they were tricked into switching parties while signing what they believed were petitions for tougher penalties against child molesters. Some said they were told that they had to become Republicans to sign the petition, contrary to California initiative law. Others had no idea their registration was being changed.
If you think this is an isolated case, think again:
Election officials and lawmakers have launched investigations into the activities of YPM workers in Florida and Massachusetts. In Arizona, the firm was recently a defendant in a civil rights lawsuit. Prosecutors in Los Angeles and Ventura counties say they are investigating complaints about the company.
And here's the kicker:
Some also report having their registration status changed to absentee without their permission; if they show up at the polls without a ballot they may be unable to vote.
The last quote is particularly distressing, because it is not just about voter registration fraud. It is about fraud with intent to suppress the vote.
So you see, once again the GOP stands out as the party of hypocrisy.
Republican Congressmen and pastors rant against homosexual behavior, then it turns out they engage in homosexual activities themselves (Sen. Craig, Ted Haggard, and don't forget to look up Mark Foley, Glenn Murphy Jr, and Bob Allen of Florida). They talk about the sanctity of marriage, but they divorce and remarry as if marriage were only a civil contract (guffaw, guffaw for Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh--who we might as well consider a Republican operative, etc.). And they accuse others of destroying the fabric of society with voter registration fraud while they are actually doing it themselves.
It wouldn't even be so despicable, were it not for the fact that they also portray themselves as the party of Jesus. You know, the guy who said "Why do you see the speck in your brother's eye but fail to notice the beam in your own eye?"
Perhaps all the prayerful ones out there can join and pray that we are delivered from hypocrisy. Please?
Friday, October 17, 2008
Voter Homework, Oct 17
With two weeks or so to go before the election, and in the wake of what the Republican echo chamber led by Fox News continues to misleadingly call voter fraud by ACORN, many shows have been talking about election fraud. Bill Moyers, as so often, did it best.
Watch the Moyers interview with NYU professor and election expert, Mark Crispin Miller.
PBS's Now also has an interesting report on the implications that the current economic crisis has in a battleground state, Virginia. It contains some really scary comments by a voter who says she is not going to vote for Obama because of his name, the fact that his mother was an atheist and that his father was a Muslim, but some heartening facts, too, like the fact that U.S. troops serving overseas have contributed five times as much money to Obama's campaign than to McCain, showing that the Republican stranglehold on military vote is perhaps starting to crumble.
Watch the Moyers interview with NYU professor and election expert, Mark Crispin Miller.
PBS's Now also has an interesting report on the implications that the current economic crisis has in a battleground state, Virginia. It contains some really scary comments by a voter who says she is not going to vote for Obama because of his name, the fact that his mother was an atheist and that his father was a Muslim, but some heartening facts, too, like the fact that U.S. troops serving overseas have contributed five times as much money to Obama's campaign than to McCain, showing that the Republican stranglehold on military vote is perhaps starting to crumble.
Colbert Skewers The Old Hypocrite
In his analysis of the final debate, Stephen Colbert takes McCain to task for the hyperbolic statement that ACORN is "destroying the fabric of democracy" in America, and other inanities.
.
.
Sen. McCain, Stop The Lunacy!
Michele Bachman may not speak for Sen. McCain, but this is something he needs to repudiate!
If McCain says nothing, his silence will confirm what we have known all along: That he, his campaign and his party, represent the worst this country has to offer. Nothing but incendiary, divisive rhetoric, aimed at destroying opponents. In essence, the exact antithesis of what he represents as his best quality: the ability to reach across the aisle.
It will also say that he agrees with Bachmann's point of view that "people would love to see an exposé like that", referring to the House Un-American Activities Committee led by Joe McCarthy, another exemplary Republican whose idea of liberty was closer to Mussolini's than to the Founding Fathers'. Yes, Ms. Bachmann: people are dying for another witch hunt like McCarthyism, but this time let's do it more like the Spanish Inquisition, for ratings' sake, and have Fox News televise it 24 hours a day. Oh, and let's have you chair the committee and hope that your political career is as long and prosperous as McCarthy's.
And by the way, I just contributed to Tinkleberg 08, as I hope other readers will do.
America, you must give these dangerous charlatans the electoral drubbing they deserve on Nov 4.
If McCain says nothing, his silence will confirm what we have known all along: That he, his campaign and his party, represent the worst this country has to offer. Nothing but incendiary, divisive rhetoric, aimed at destroying opponents. In essence, the exact antithesis of what he represents as his best quality: the ability to reach across the aisle.
It will also say that he agrees with Bachmann's point of view that "people would love to see an exposé like that", referring to the House Un-American Activities Committee led by Joe McCarthy, another exemplary Republican whose idea of liberty was closer to Mussolini's than to the Founding Fathers'. Yes, Ms. Bachmann: people are dying for another witch hunt like McCarthyism, but this time let's do it more like the Spanish Inquisition, for ratings' sake, and have Fox News televise it 24 hours a day. Oh, and let's have you chair the committee and hope that your political career is as long and prosperous as McCarthy's.
And by the way, I just contributed to Tinkleberg 08, as I hope other readers will do.
America, you must give these dangerous charlatans the electoral drubbing they deserve on Nov 4.
Election Fraud Alert: This One Is Real!
Rolling Stone just published Block The Vote, an exposé on voter fraud being perpetrated by Republican operatives in key states.
Also, yesterday I wrote a post called Voter *Registration* Fraud, Republican Dirty Tricks, and David Iglesias. In it I spoke of the US Attorney firing scandal (the Bush Administration fired US Attorneys that *IT* had appointed because--among other things--they refused to prosecute bogus claims of voter fraud).
Today Robert Bauer, General Counsel for the Obama campaign, sent a letter to AG Mukasey asking the DOJ to extend the ongoing investigation of the US Attorneys firing scandal to include the recent and ongoing use of political pressure on law enforcement authorities to help with the smear campaign that Republican operatives have been conducting against ACORN.
Some say this is the Obama campaign fighting back against what is sure to be the third presidential election in a row manipulated by Republicans to their advantage, but is it too little, too late?
I really don't have a good feeling about the way things are going, and I am not the only one. Can someone post a comment to explain why I should not worry?
Also, yesterday I wrote a post called Voter *Registration* Fraud, Republican Dirty Tricks, and David Iglesias. In it I spoke of the US Attorney firing scandal (the Bush Administration fired US Attorneys that *IT* had appointed because--among other things--they refused to prosecute bogus claims of voter fraud).
Today Robert Bauer, General Counsel for the Obama campaign, sent a letter to AG Mukasey asking the DOJ to extend the ongoing investigation of the US Attorneys firing scandal to include the recent and ongoing use of political pressure on law enforcement authorities to help with the smear campaign that Republican operatives have been conducting against ACORN.
Some say this is the Obama campaign fighting back against what is sure to be the third presidential election in a row manipulated by Republicans to their advantage, but is it too little, too late?
I really don't have a good feeling about the way things are going, and I am not the only one. Can someone post a comment to explain why I should not worry?
For All You Anti-American Bastards
According to Palin, unless you live at a Palin rally or in a small town that she visits, you are anti-America.
All I can say to you latte-drinking, Prius-driving, NY Times-reading city dwellers is: shame on you, America-hating bastards!
All I can say to you latte-drinking, Prius-driving, NY Times-reading city dwellers is: shame on you, America-hating bastards!
Looks Like A Joke
Looks like a joke. Isn't a joke.
Palin's Staffers Keep Her Away From The News To Avoid Being "Depressed". And yet, she is going on SNL tomorrow night? Oh, I get it! To cheer her up? Has she seen Tina Fey's maulings of her vacuity?
But... wait a second! Wasn't one of the right's memes during the Democractic nomination campaign that Obama was the ultimate celebrity candidate? (A charge, by the way, that deserves this articulate and intelligent response).
Palin's Staffers Keep Her Away From The News To Avoid Being "Depressed". And yet, she is going on SNL tomorrow night? Oh, I get it! To cheer her up? Has she seen Tina Fey's maulings of her vacuity?
But... wait a second! Wasn't one of the right's memes during the Democractic nomination campaign that Obama was the ultimate celebrity candidate? (A charge, by the way, that deserves this articulate and intelligent response).
Thursday, October 16, 2008
No Moral Equivalence
The media have gotten in the habit of creating false moral equivalences where there are none. They do so, presumably, in the name of a misguided sense of fairness and balance (with the exception of the Fair and Balanced network, Fox News, which unabashedly gives 3 times as much airtime to Republicans as to Democrats). But building artificial parallels, and destroying any sense of proportion in the process, is not a service to the public, it is a disservice to journalism and its audience.
My previous post exposes one such glaringly false parallel: the false analogy the media have built between voter registration fraud, perpetrated by canvassers who work for a non-partisan organization (ACORN) that helps the poor and disenfranchised (Democrats, mainly) and illegal voter suppression tactics, perpetrated by Republican operatives to disenfranchise large numbers of mainly Democratic voters in swing states.
But the perfect example of how the media manufacture balance where there is none is their treatment of campaign negativity.
Let’s get this out of the way: Both sides engage in spin. Both sides have talking points. Both sides try to paint their candidate in the best possible light and his opponent in the worst one possible. Both sides resort to negative attacks. But that is where the similarities end.
However, while both campaigns are indeed guilty of many forms of negative attacks, there are substantial differences in the type, the degree and the gravity of the accusations that are flung around.
For example, saying that a candidate is erratic, or that he behaves erratically, as Obama and his campaign have done about McCain, is aimed at painting a picture of John McCain's volatility, lack of resolve, and impulsive temperament.
Saying that a candidate pals around with terrorists, as Sarah Palin said of Obama's superficial association with William Ayers, is not just commentary on Obama's presumed lack of judgement: it is a pedestrian and inflammatory effort to paint him as a terrorist, a truly dangerous individual. So it is not surprising (and perhaps not altogether accidental) when a deranged individual at a McCain rally yells "Terrorist!"
Saying that John McCain's plans are a repeat of the policies of the sitting president is an attempt to convince people who are not happy with the way things have been going for eight years to vote for change.
Selectively quoting Sen. Obama's statement that "We’ve got to get the job done [in Afghanistan], and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there" to make it sound like Obama actually said that our troops are "just air-raiding villages and killing civilians" attempts to paint Sen. Obama as unpatriotic and unworthy of being commander-in-chief because he hates our troops. It is no wonder, then, that other deranged individuals at McCain and Palin rallies yelled "Traitor!" and "Off with his head!"
Stating that a John McCain White House would be run by lobbyists, as evidenced by the number of lobbyists who occupy important roles in McCain's campaign (including Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manage) is designed to convince people that it would be corporate interest, not their interest, that would be served by a McCain presidency, without going as far as saying that Sen. McCain is a crook.
But stating, as McCain did on several occasions, that Obama is a Chicago-style politician is a direct and unsubstantiated assault on Obama's character. It doesn't just say that he is bought by special interests. It says, essentially, that Obama is corrupt and that he associates with shady characters. That is worse than saying someone associates with lobbyists, because it is a not so thinly veiled attack on the moral fiber of Obama the person, not Obama the politician.
Arguing that Roe v Wade should be settled law, as Sen. Obama believes, and that the right of women to have access to legal abortion services should not be repealed is a policy position, however misguided one might think it is.
Accusing Obama of having "extreme pro-abortion views" (instead of pro-choice) is read meat for Evangelicals and is code for "baby killer." In other words, McCain implies that Obama is not simply a bad choice for president, but a dangerous one (and trust me, many Evangelicals hold that view.)
There is no argument on the fact that both campaigns are guilty to a smaller or larger degree of deceiving the public about the other candidate, and in a perfect world that would not be condoned or tolerated. But it is one thing to go after (and often distort) the policy differences of your opponent. It is quite another to systematically demonize your opponent, to impugn not simply his judgment but his character and his moral compass, to rally fear about him instead of promoting your own merits.
Let's be clear: Only one campaign is engaging in gutter politics.
There is no equivalence.
My previous post exposes one such glaringly false parallel: the false analogy the media have built between voter registration fraud, perpetrated by canvassers who work for a non-partisan organization (ACORN) that helps the poor and disenfranchised (Democrats, mainly) and illegal voter suppression tactics, perpetrated by Republican operatives to disenfranchise large numbers of mainly Democratic voters in swing states.
But the perfect example of how the media manufacture balance where there is none is their treatment of campaign negativity.
Let’s get this out of the way: Both sides engage in spin. Both sides have talking points. Both sides try to paint their candidate in the best possible light and his opponent in the worst one possible. Both sides resort to negative attacks. But that is where the similarities end.
However, while both campaigns are indeed guilty of many forms of negative attacks, there are substantial differences in the type, the degree and the gravity of the accusations that are flung around.
For example, saying that a candidate is erratic, or that he behaves erratically, as Obama and his campaign have done about McCain, is aimed at painting a picture of John McCain's volatility, lack of resolve, and impulsive temperament.
Saying that a candidate pals around with terrorists, as Sarah Palin said of Obama's superficial association with William Ayers, is not just commentary on Obama's presumed lack of judgement: it is a pedestrian and inflammatory effort to paint him as a terrorist, a truly dangerous individual. So it is not surprising (and perhaps not altogether accidental) when a deranged individual at a McCain rally yells "Terrorist!"
Saying that John McCain's plans are a repeat of the policies of the sitting president is an attempt to convince people who are not happy with the way things have been going for eight years to vote for change.
Selectively quoting Sen. Obama's statement that "We’ve got to get the job done [in Afghanistan], and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there" to make it sound like Obama actually said that our troops are "just air-raiding villages and killing civilians" attempts to paint Sen. Obama as unpatriotic and unworthy of being commander-in-chief because he hates our troops. It is no wonder, then, that other deranged individuals at McCain and Palin rallies yelled "Traitor!" and "Off with his head!"
Stating that a John McCain White House would be run by lobbyists, as evidenced by the number of lobbyists who occupy important roles in McCain's campaign (including Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manage) is designed to convince people that it would be corporate interest, not their interest, that would be served by a McCain presidency, without going as far as saying that Sen. McCain is a crook.
But stating, as McCain did on several occasions, that Obama is a Chicago-style politician is a direct and unsubstantiated assault on Obama's character. It doesn't just say that he is bought by special interests. It says, essentially, that Obama is corrupt and that he associates with shady characters. That is worse than saying someone associates with lobbyists, because it is a not so thinly veiled attack on the moral fiber of Obama the person, not Obama the politician.
Arguing that Roe v Wade should be settled law, as Sen. Obama believes, and that the right of women to have access to legal abortion services should not be repealed is a policy position, however misguided one might think it is.
Accusing Obama of having "extreme pro-abortion views" (instead of pro-choice) is read meat for Evangelicals and is code for "baby killer." In other words, McCain implies that Obama is not simply a bad choice for president, but a dangerous one (and trust me, many Evangelicals hold that view.)
There is no argument on the fact that both campaigns are guilty to a smaller or larger degree of deceiving the public about the other candidate, and in a perfect world that would not be condoned or tolerated. But it is one thing to go after (and often distort) the policy differences of your opponent. It is quite another to systematically demonize your opponent, to impugn not simply his judgment but his character and his moral compass, to rally fear about him instead of promoting your own merits.
Let's be clear: Only one campaign is engaging in gutter politics.
There is no equivalence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)