"They do not understand that politics is a conflict of forces; they supposed it was a conflict of arguments. They mobilized rights, not supporters. The Jacobins had used the Rights of Man to inspire revolutionary armies; in the Habsburg Monarchy the national leaders thought that rights alone were enough, and accumulation of rights irresistible."
The Habsburg Monarchy, 1809 - 1918 by A. J. P. Taylor
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Picture This by Joseph Heller
I recently finished reading this. Here's the comment I posted at Library Thing.
"The subject of Picture This is a painting by Rembrandt. The painting is Aristotle Contemplating a Bust of Homer which becomes a nexus that joins a large number of narrative threads that wind thru history. Some of the main threads are the lives of Socrates, Alcibiades, Plato, Solon, Aristotle and Rembrandt; the Athenian and Dutch empires; the Peloponnesian War and some of the wars fought by the Dutch during Rembrandt’s life; the dictatorship of the Thirty that executed Socrates; Plato’s repeated attempts to found his perfect state in Sicily; the trial and death of Socrates."
"The subject of Picture This is a painting by Rembrandt. The painting is Aristotle Contemplating a Bust of Homer which becomes a nexus that joins a large number of narrative threads that wind thru history. Some of the main threads are the lives of Socrates, Alcibiades, Plato, Solon, Aristotle and Rembrandt; the Athenian and Dutch empires; the Peloponnesian War and some of the wars fought by the Dutch during Rembrandt’s life; the dictatorship of the Thirty that executed Socrates; Plato’s repeated attempts to found his perfect state in Sicily; the trial and death of Socrates."
Continuing in My Populist Vein, Here's Tito the Builder
Why does it appear that the Democrat Party hates and fears people who work for a living? Could it be because they don't bundle?
Chris Hitchens and Eric Alter Argue Iraq
Alter thinks we should not be in Iraq because (1)France and Germany disapprove and (2) our army really belongs in Rwanda and the Sudan.
Alter says we fought alone in Iraq. There have been English, Italian, Spanish, Polish and other forces fighting along with Americans in Iraq. By alone does he just mean that France and Germany were not there? Or is this like when Obama says he strength came from small donors. But most of his donors gave thousands but he likes the cachet that comes from the repetition of 'small donors.'
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Obamanista's Commandments
from http://thatsmeontheleft.blogspot.com/2008/10/i-will-vote-obama.html
Monday, October 27, 2008
I will vote Obama
I will vote Obama
I will vote for a man I know nothing about
I will vote because it is time for a black man in the White House
I will vote for a man I really haven't researched, and I really don't want to know anything bad about
Because I will feel noble and good that I voted for a black man
or a man who definitely is NOT George Bush
I will vote for a man whose mother left America on purpose and stated the Americans around her in Indonesia were "not her people"
I will vote for a man whose father and stepfather were not Americans or Christians even though I felt uncomfortable about that Romney fellow and his Mormonism
I will vote for a man whose father figure mentor in Hawaii was a communist and hated America and "white oppression"
I will vote for a community organizer, even though I don't know what that is
Saul Alinksy is the creator of the community organizer concept
I will not Google Saul Alinsky
I will not Google ACORN
I will vote for a man who ran unopposed for his Illinois State Senate Seat
I will not Google how that happened to occur
I will vote for a man who allies himself with an unrepentant radical terrorist
But he is an "education reformer" now!
I will not Google Bill Ayers enough to find out what he wants to reform public education into
although my children go to public schools
I will vote for a man who listened to Reverend Jeremiah Wright for 20 years
I certainly will NOT Google Black Liberation theology, white oppression, and Marxism in the same search!
I will feel good about myself after I vote Obama
who is not George Bush
I will feel good that America voted for Obama
I will await the praise from the world's opinion of us on our wise choice...
I will be surprised when they still hate us
I will be surprised when I start to hate who I voted for
I will vote "anybody but Obama" in 2012
~Joseph
Monday, October 27, 2008
I will vote Obama
I will vote Obama
I will vote for a man I know nothing about
I will vote because it is time for a black man in the White House
I will vote for a man I really haven't researched, and I really don't want to know anything bad about
Because I will feel noble and good that I voted for a black man
or a man who definitely is NOT George Bush
I will vote for a man whose mother left America on purpose and stated the Americans around her in Indonesia were "not her people"
I will vote for a man whose father and stepfather were not Americans or Christians even though I felt uncomfortable about that Romney fellow and his Mormonism
I will vote for a man whose father figure mentor in Hawaii was a communist and hated America and "white oppression"
I will vote for a community organizer, even though I don't know what that is
Saul Alinksy is the creator of the community organizer concept
I will not Google Saul Alinsky
I will not Google ACORN
I will vote for a man who ran unopposed for his Illinois State Senate Seat
I will not Google how that happened to occur
I will vote for a man who allies himself with an unrepentant radical terrorist
But he is an "education reformer" now!
I will not Google Bill Ayers enough to find out what he wants to reform public education into
although my children go to public schools
I will vote for a man who listened to Reverend Jeremiah Wright for 20 years
I certainly will NOT Google Black Liberation theology, white oppression, and Marxism in the same search!
I will feel good about myself after I vote Obama
who is not George Bush
I will feel good that America voted for Obama
I will await the praise from the world's opinion of us on our wise choice...
I will be surprised when they still hate us
I will be surprised when I start to hate who I voted for
I will vote "anybody but Obama" in 2012
~Joseph
Monday, October 27, 2008
When in Doubt, Call Everyone A Racist
This is from Amanda Carpenter at http://townhall.com/Columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/10/27/dem_playbook_shows_dirty_tactics
From the Kerry campaign came advise on how to phrase accusations of voter fraud when there was no evidence. Quotation from the Kerry instruction manual:
“If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a ‘pre-emptive strike.’” The manual said this should be done by placing stories in mainstream and specialty press “in which minority leadership expresses concern about the threat of intimidation tactics” and “prime minority leadership to discuss the issue in the media; provide talking points.”
Some of the suggested talking points included lines like “Nothing is more despicable than trying to deprive any American of the previous right to vote, the foundation of our democracy for which so many have sacrificed.”
I take, "prime minority leadership to discuss the issue in the media; provide talking points.” to be incitement to cause others to accuse people of criminal activity without factual basis. It could also be translated as, "win at ANY cost."
From the Kerry campaign came advise on how to phrase accusations of voter fraud when there was no evidence. Quotation from the Kerry instruction manual:
“If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a ‘pre-emptive strike.’” The manual said this should be done by placing stories in mainstream and specialty press “in which minority leadership expresses concern about the threat of intimidation tactics” and “prime minority leadership to discuss the issue in the media; provide talking points.”
Some of the suggested talking points included lines like “Nothing is more despicable than trying to deprive any American of the previous right to vote, the foundation of our democracy for which so many have sacrificed.”
I take, "prime minority leadership to discuss the issue in the media; provide talking points.” to be incitement to cause others to accuse people of criminal activity without factual basis. It could also be translated as, "win at ANY cost."
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Polls, Sampling and Voter Suppression
Some good news from http://virginiavirtucon.wordpress.com/2008/10/24/interesting-tidbit-on-polls/
Interesting tidbit on polls
Posted on October 24, 2008 by Riley From VV contributor Ignatius:
I was having dinner a night ago with a friend of mine who is a statistician for a well-regarded private polling company. They do some work for Republicans in California, but most of the work they do is for Democrats or Democrat-leaning operations (Unions, etc.). Anyway, her shop was retained to do a few Presidential polls for targetted states on behalf of a union so the union could decide where to spend their ad dollars for the last week. They did Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and Missouri. After mocking the hell out of the voter id spreads used by Rassmussen, Zogby, etc. (and this is coming from a committed Dem who will be voting for Barry O) she said the results of their polling lead her to believe that McCain will definitely win FL, OH, NC, MO and NV. She says Obama definitely wins New Mexico. She said that Colorado and New Hampshire were absolute dead heats. She said she thinks there is a 55% chance Obama holds on in Pennsylvania and a 75% chance McCain wins Virginia. She absolutely laughed at the public polls showing Obama leading Virginia–and pointed out that all of those polls rely on Dem turnout being +4 and as much as +7, when in 2006, Republicans actually had the advantage by +3. She also pointed out that the numbers for Obama in SWVA look absolutely awful and that McCain is running 10 points better then Allen did in NoVa. Anyway, her companies conclusion is that the election will come down to Colorado, New Hampshire and the Republican leaning district in Maine, which in her opinion might very well decide the Presidency (apparently the district in Nebraska that Obama thought he might be able to get is now off the table). She said she has very little doubt that the public polling is part of a “concerted voter suppression effort” by the MSM. She said IBD/TIPP was the only outfit doing public polling that was “worth a bucket of warm piss”.
Interesting tidbit on polls
Posted on October 24, 2008 by Riley From VV contributor Ignatius:
I was having dinner a night ago with a friend of mine who is a statistician for a well-regarded private polling company. They do some work for Republicans in California, but most of the work they do is for Democrats or Democrat-leaning operations (Unions, etc.). Anyway, her shop was retained to do a few Presidential polls for targetted states on behalf of a union so the union could decide where to spend their ad dollars for the last week. They did Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and Missouri. After mocking the hell out of the voter id spreads used by Rassmussen, Zogby, etc. (and this is coming from a committed Dem who will be voting for Barry O) she said the results of their polling lead her to believe that McCain will definitely win FL, OH, NC, MO and NV. She says Obama definitely wins New Mexico. She said that Colorado and New Hampshire were absolute dead heats. She said she thinks there is a 55% chance Obama holds on in Pennsylvania and a 75% chance McCain wins Virginia. She absolutely laughed at the public polls showing Obama leading Virginia–and pointed out that all of those polls rely on Dem turnout being +4 and as much as +7, when in 2006, Republicans actually had the advantage by +3. She also pointed out that the numbers for Obama in SWVA look absolutely awful and that McCain is running 10 points better then Allen did in NoVa. Anyway, her companies conclusion is that the election will come down to Colorado, New Hampshire and the Republican leaning district in Maine, which in her opinion might very well decide the Presidency (apparently the district in Nebraska that Obama thought he might be able to get is now off the table). She said she has very little doubt that the public polling is part of a “concerted voter suppression effort” by the MSM. She said IBD/TIPP was the only outfit doing public polling that was “worth a bucket of warm piss”.
Questions
Here are a few questions that VDH has suggested.
"Why didn’t Colin Powell and Co. jump ship in, say, June or July, and endorse Obama after many months of campaigning when his positions were already well known? That is, why wait until late October when, after the financial meltdown, Obama surged in the polls? Had Powell come out even in the first week of September, he could have demonstrated that although Obama was down by three points, he was willing to stick his neck out with a principled endorsement that may well have made him persona non grata in a McCain-administration Washington.
"Why didn’t the media or McCain just ask Obama a few of the following questions: Why did you keep emailing and phoning Bill Ayers for three years after 9/11, when the country was gripped by fear of terror, and Ayers, like bin Laden, said that he had not done enough bombing, and had no regrets about the terrorism he had committed?
Why did Obama say in 2004 to the Chicago Sun-Times that he went to Trinity Church every Sunday at 11AM, and then later claim he had not been there that regularly once Rev. Wright’s venom was disseminated to the general public? Is Obama for, or not for, a simple yes or no, missile defense, nuclear power, off-shore drilling, and coal-powered electrical generation? There might be legitimate answers, but surely the public could profit by them, rather than worry over the Palin pregnancies, wardrobe, or Tasergate.
"Why did the greatest furor against Palin originate with women, both liberals like a Gail Collins, Maureen Dowd, or Sally Quinn, or conservatives such as a Peggy Noonan or Kathleen Parker?
"So far, none of them has adduced the necessary arguments that would justify their venom against Palin: they have not demonstrated that Vice Presidential nominee Palin has less government or executive experience than does Presidential nominee Obama; they have not shown that she has said anything in two months as disturbing as what Joe Biden says almost any day, and, in that vein, they have written few columns about Biden’s lunatic assertions, such as FDR addressing the nation on television as President in 1929, or that
our nation’s enemies will test Barack Obama, and his reaction will so disappoint the American people that his polls will immediately sink; they have not shown that Palin’s ideas about shrinking government and keeping taxes low are less sound than Obama’s in time of economic downturn to raise aggregate taxes and expand government. So whence the vitriol, especially the frequent invective about Palin’s family, education, accent, or mannerisms, or the rather sexist suggestions that her looks bewitched either McCain or others?"
Here is a list of documents and such kept hidden by the Obama campaign:
1. Occidental College records — Not released
2. Columbia College records — Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper — not available, locked down by faculty
4. Harvard College records — Not released, locked down by faculty
5. Selective Service Registration — Not released
6. Medical records — Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule — ‘not available’
8. Law practice client list — Not released
9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate - - Not released
10. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth — Not released
11. Harvard Law Review articles published — None
12. University of Chicago scholarly articles — None
13. Record of baptism– Not released or ‘not available’
14. Illinois State Senate records–’not available’
If Gov. Palin had kept such things under wraps and had such a long list, the number of dinosaur media members that would have had strokes would have overloaded the hospitals of New York and Washington. Since it is Obama it is not even mentioned in polite company. (God save us from 'polite company.')
I invite the reader to reflect on why these items have been kept hidden. If you only came up with explanations that show Barry in a good light, a bright future awaits you writing children's literature, fantasy and fairy tails.
"Why didn’t Colin Powell and Co. jump ship in, say, June or July, and endorse Obama after many months of campaigning when his positions were already well known? That is, why wait until late October when, after the financial meltdown, Obama surged in the polls? Had Powell come out even in the first week of September, he could have demonstrated that although Obama was down by three points, he was willing to stick his neck out with a principled endorsement that may well have made him persona non grata in a McCain-administration Washington.
"Why didn’t the media or McCain just ask Obama a few of the following questions: Why did you keep emailing and phoning Bill Ayers for three years after 9/11, when the country was gripped by fear of terror, and Ayers, like bin Laden, said that he had not done enough bombing, and had no regrets about the terrorism he had committed?
Why did Obama say in 2004 to the Chicago Sun-Times that he went to Trinity Church every Sunday at 11AM, and then later claim he had not been there that regularly once Rev. Wright’s venom was disseminated to the general public? Is Obama for, or not for, a simple yes or no, missile defense, nuclear power, off-shore drilling, and coal-powered electrical generation? There might be legitimate answers, but surely the public could profit by them, rather than worry over the Palin pregnancies, wardrobe, or Tasergate.
"Why did the greatest furor against Palin originate with women, both liberals like a Gail Collins, Maureen Dowd, or Sally Quinn, or conservatives such as a Peggy Noonan or Kathleen Parker?
"So far, none of them has adduced the necessary arguments that would justify their venom against Palin: they have not demonstrated that Vice Presidential nominee Palin has less government or executive experience than does Presidential nominee Obama; they have not shown that she has said anything in two months as disturbing as what Joe Biden says almost any day, and, in that vein, they have written few columns about Biden’s lunatic assertions, such as FDR addressing the nation on television as President in 1929, or that
our nation’s enemies will test Barack Obama, and his reaction will so disappoint the American people that his polls will immediately sink; they have not shown that Palin’s ideas about shrinking government and keeping taxes low are less sound than Obama’s in time of economic downturn to raise aggregate taxes and expand government. So whence the vitriol, especially the frequent invective about Palin’s family, education, accent, or mannerisms, or the rather sexist suggestions that her looks bewitched either McCain or others?"
Here is a list of documents and such kept hidden by the Obama campaign:
1. Occidental College records — Not released
2. Columbia College records — Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper — not available, locked down by faculty
4. Harvard College records — Not released, locked down by faculty
5. Selective Service Registration — Not released
6. Medical records — Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule — ‘not available’
8. Law practice client list — Not released
9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate - - Not released
10. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth — Not released
11. Harvard Law Review articles published — None
12. University of Chicago scholarly articles — None
13. Record of baptism– Not released or ‘not available’
14. Illinois State Senate records–’not available’
If Gov. Palin had kept such things under wraps and had such a long list, the number of dinosaur media members that would have had strokes would have overloaded the hospitals of New York and Washington. Since it is Obama it is not even mentioned in polite company. (God save us from 'polite company.')
I invite the reader to reflect on why these items have been kept hidden. If you only came up with explanations that show Barry in a good light, a bright future awaits you writing children's literature, fantasy and fairy tails.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
They Got Her Dead to Rights
Sarah Palin Supersizes Fries
By David Axelrod, Associated Press
Media
Bubble, Oct. 23 -- Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
has come under fire in recent days after it was revealed that earlier
this year, a drive-through meal purchased by the Alaskan Governor
contained more than the usual number of french fries.
The discovery was made during a routine Associated Press search of
drive-through security camera footage obtained from the McDonald's
restaurant at 130 Front St. in Juneau, less than a mile from the
governor's mansion. On a tape from Feb. 15 of this year, a woman
closely resembling Palin can be seen speaking intently for several
seconds, pausing, and then nodding her head and smiling. According to
lip readers hired by the AP, the woman may very well have been saying,
"Oh, you betcha." And in subsequent interviews, restaurant staff have
identified the woman as the governor and confirmed that on the night in
question, Palin very likely would have been asked about her desired
number of fries.
After days of controversy and several evasions ("I sure don't
remember specific details about a fast food run I made last winter.
Aren't you being a little silly?"), Palin yesterday acknowledged
responsibility for her part in the culinary misappropriation widely
known as Deliciousgate.
"Okay, I remember now. Trig was kicking away something fierce, and I
really had a craving for a double cheeseburger," the former beauty
queen and killer of defenseless animals admitted. "Usually I try to eat
pretty healthy, but every once in a while you gotta treat yourself. And
I figured the little guy wouldn't mind. Todd said he wasn't really
hungry, but he could eat some fries maybe. So when the gal asked if I
wanted to supersize it, I figured we could just split the fries. Those
things are so tasty."
During an appearance in Indianapolis today, President Obama --
delivering his speech in front of his usual backdrop, an enormous
solid-gold statue of himself -- scoffed at the greasy slob's miserable
excuse for her career-ending irresponsibility.
"Sarah Palin says she's just an ordinary working-class American.
[laughter] Now it turns out she eats strips of potato that have been
fried and salted. And if somebody offers her more of them for a
slightly higher price... that's just fine with her. [boos] Go
along, get along, eh, Governor? Are you going to throw away the
American people's money too? We cannot afford to have this woman in the
White House. Er, I mean a cancer-ravaged heartbeat away from the White
House."
Pres. Obama then emitted a discreet puff of arugula-scented flatulence, curing a nearby blind child
By David Axelrod, Associated Press
Media
Bubble, Oct. 23 -- Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin
has come under fire in recent days after it was revealed that earlier
this year, a drive-through meal purchased by the Alaskan Governor
contained more than the usual number of french fries.
The discovery was made during a routine Associated Press search of
drive-through security camera footage obtained from the McDonald's
restaurant at 130 Front St. in Juneau, less than a mile from the
governor's mansion. On a tape from Feb. 15 of this year, a woman
closely resembling Palin can be seen speaking intently for several
seconds, pausing, and then nodding her head and smiling. According to
lip readers hired by the AP, the woman may very well have been saying,
"Oh, you betcha." And in subsequent interviews, restaurant staff have
identified the woman as the governor and confirmed that on the night in
question, Palin very likely would have been asked about her desired
number of fries.
After days of controversy and several evasions ("I sure don't
remember specific details about a fast food run I made last winter.
Aren't you being a little silly?"), Palin yesterday acknowledged
responsibility for her part in the culinary misappropriation widely
known as Deliciousgate.
"Okay, I remember now. Trig was kicking away something fierce, and I
really had a craving for a double cheeseburger," the former beauty
queen and killer of defenseless animals admitted. "Usually I try to eat
pretty healthy, but every once in a while you gotta treat yourself. And
I figured the little guy wouldn't mind. Todd said he wasn't really
hungry, but he could eat some fries maybe. So when the gal asked if I
wanted to supersize it, I figured we could just split the fries. Those
things are so tasty."
During an appearance in Indianapolis today, President Obama --
delivering his speech in front of his usual backdrop, an enormous
solid-gold statue of himself -- scoffed at the greasy slob's miserable
excuse for her career-ending irresponsibility.
"Sarah Palin says she's just an ordinary working-class American.
[laughter] Now it turns out she eats strips of potato that have been
fried and salted. And if somebody offers her more of them for a
slightly higher price... that's just fine with her. [boos] Go
along, get along, eh, Governor? Are you going to throw away the
American people's money too? We cannot afford to have this woman in the
White House. Er, I mean a cancer-ravaged heartbeat away from the White
House."
Pres. Obama then emitted a discreet puff of arugula-scented flatulence, curing a nearby blind child
Friday, October 24, 2008
Does He Have Something to Hide, or What?
from tp://www.solomonia.com/blog/archive/2008/10/rjc-obama-campaign-withd
From the Republican Jewish Coalition:
Obama Campaign Withdraws From Two Jewish Debates - Will they duck debates in Philadelphia, Los Angeles, New York and Cleveland?
Washington, D.C. (October 16, 2008) -- The Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) Executive Director Matt Brooks issued the following statement today:
Now that the Presidential debates are over, the Obama campaign is trying to cancel all remaining debates in the Jewish community that include the Republican Jewish Coalition.
Claiming they do not like recent RJC advertisements, the Obama campaign has formally instructed all of its representatives to cancel their scheduled appearances with any representative of the RJC. Former Congressman Mel Levine (CA) yesterday informed the Valley Cities Jewish Community Center that he would no longer show up for his scheduled debate this Sunday against RJC California Director Larry Greenfield. State Representative Josh Shapiro (PA) informed Temple Sinai that he would not participate in a forum with RJC Philadelphia Director Scott Feigelstein.
"The RJC is deeply troubled by this effort on the part of the Obama campaign to stifle and limit a debate on the important issues facing our country," said Brooks. "More than anything the Jewish community values dialogue. What is the Obama campaign afraid of? Why is the Obama campaign afraid to have this conversation?"
"With their recently enacted policy of not debating representatives of the RJC, the Obama campaign has underscored Senator Obama's problems in the Jewish community. It is unfortunate that the Obama campaign is unwilling and afraid to have a candid conversation in the Jewish community on the issues of great concern to Jewish voters," said Brooks.
"Throughout this campaign, the RJC has highlighted the truth about Obama's positions, his statements and his advisers. Every point raised in our ads is sourced, cited and has previously been reported in the media. We ask legitimate questions about Obama's policies towards Israel, the Middle East and Iran. Our ads have raised legitimate concerns over Obama's associations with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Robert Malley, Tony McPeak and David Bonior. If the Obama campaign is unhappy with our ads, then Senator Obama should never have associated with these individuals in the first place," Brooks added.
"Currently, the RJC is scheduled to participate in 29 debates between now and the election. In keeping with the long-standing tradition of Jewish dialogue, we look forward to these opportunities to engage the Jewish community on the critical issues," said Brooks.
The One's representatives would be far better off actually making the case that something in the RJC's ads is actually false. But they can't, because they're not.
You think ex-President Jimmy Carter has been a nightmare? Just wait until you meet ex-President Barack Obama -- when he's not running for anything anymore and he can go back to being friends with the likes of Rashid Khalidi, Ali Abunimah, Khalid al Mansour and Rev. Wright.
From the Republican Jewish Coalition:
Obama Campaign Withdraws From Two Jewish Debates - Will they duck debates in Philadelphia, Los Angeles, New York and Cleveland?
Washington, D.C. (October 16, 2008) -- The Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) Executive Director Matt Brooks issued the following statement today:
Now that the Presidential debates are over, the Obama campaign is trying to cancel all remaining debates in the Jewish community that include the Republican Jewish Coalition.
Claiming they do not like recent RJC advertisements, the Obama campaign has formally instructed all of its representatives to cancel their scheduled appearances with any representative of the RJC. Former Congressman Mel Levine (CA) yesterday informed the Valley Cities Jewish Community Center that he would no longer show up for his scheduled debate this Sunday against RJC California Director Larry Greenfield. State Representative Josh Shapiro (PA) informed Temple Sinai that he would not participate in a forum with RJC Philadelphia Director Scott Feigelstein.
"The RJC is deeply troubled by this effort on the part of the Obama campaign to stifle and limit a debate on the important issues facing our country," said Brooks. "More than anything the Jewish community values dialogue. What is the Obama campaign afraid of? Why is the Obama campaign afraid to have this conversation?"
"With their recently enacted policy of not debating representatives of the RJC, the Obama campaign has underscored Senator Obama's problems in the Jewish community. It is unfortunate that the Obama campaign is unwilling and afraid to have a candid conversation in the Jewish community on the issues of great concern to Jewish voters," said Brooks.
"Throughout this campaign, the RJC has highlighted the truth about Obama's positions, his statements and his advisers. Every point raised in our ads is sourced, cited and has previously been reported in the media. We ask legitimate questions about Obama's policies towards Israel, the Middle East and Iran. Our ads have raised legitimate concerns over Obama's associations with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Robert Malley, Tony McPeak and David Bonior. If the Obama campaign is unhappy with our ads, then Senator Obama should never have associated with these individuals in the first place," Brooks added.
"Currently, the RJC is scheduled to participate in 29 debates between now and the election. In keeping with the long-standing tradition of Jewish dialogue, we look forward to these opportunities to engage the Jewish community on the critical issues," said Brooks.
The One's representatives would be far better off actually making the case that something in the RJC's ads is actually false. But they can't, because they're not.
You think ex-President Jimmy Carter has been a nightmare? Just wait until you meet ex-President Barack Obama -- when he's not running for anything anymore and he can go back to being friends with the likes of Rashid Khalidi, Ali Abunimah, Khalid al Mansour and Rev. Wright.
Question for Obama
I got this from the Stop the ACLU website http://www.stoptheaclu.com/ The poster attended an Obama speech and had some questions about what was said.
"Senator, you told us clearly in Orlando that 95% of us will get tax cuts. You told us plainly that the under 250k crowd “will not see your taxes increase one single dime. Not your payroll tax, not your income tax, or your capital gains tax — no tax — that’s my commitment to you”, but later you said, “We’re all gonna need to tighten out belts; we all need to sacrifice.” What gives, Senator? Just lay it on me. What does that mean? How are we going to be tightening our belts? How are we going to be sacrificing? Remember, we won’t fall for that okey doke. . . .
I am glad that I took the time to attend Senator Obama’s rally and hear his own words and record them faithfully. The questions I’ve asked above are meant to be serious questions. We’re about to elect a president, and I think we have a right to at least have some of these questions answered (hell, I’d settle for them being asked by the MSM). These questions are not personal; they don’t involve scandals or conspiracies or associations. They are pure policy questions. They won’t be asked or answered, though; we know that. I just post them now so in the event that Obama wins, we can ponder them later.
"Senator, you told us clearly in Orlando that 95% of us will get tax cuts. You told us plainly that the under 250k crowd “will not see your taxes increase one single dime. Not your payroll tax, not your income tax, or your capital gains tax — no tax — that’s my commitment to you”, but later you said, “We’re all gonna need to tighten out belts; we all need to sacrifice.” What gives, Senator? Just lay it on me. What does that mean? How are we going to be tightening our belts? How are we going to be sacrificing? Remember, we won’t fall for that okey doke. . . .
I am glad that I took the time to attend Senator Obama’s rally and hear his own words and record them faithfully. The questions I’ve asked above are meant to be serious questions. We’re about to elect a president, and I think we have a right to at least have some of these questions answered (hell, I’d settle for them being asked by the MSM). These questions are not personal; they don’t involve scandals or conspiracies or associations. They are pure policy questions. They won’t be asked or answered, though; we know that. I just post them now so in the event that Obama wins, we can ponder them later.
Labels:
Barack Obama,
campaign promises,
Stop the ACLU,
tax policy
Thursday, October 23, 2008
'Hey! Maybe John Edwards Was Right'
All of the dinosaur media are in the tank and pulling punches for one presidential candidate. A comment on such behavior from the last election seems in order. Regarding the mistreatment of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Ann Coulter said, "Apparently, before being permitted to engage in free speech against Democrats in this country you have to: (1)prove that you are not a Republican, and (2) take a vow of poverty, (3) purchase the right to speak in a TV ad. On the basis of Clown Wilson, Michael Moore, George Soros, Mov-eOn.org, etc., etc., etc., I gather the requirements for engaging in free speech against a Republican are somewhat less rigorous. Hey! Maybe John Edwards is right: There really are two Americas!"
Regarding John O'Neill's book Unfit for Command, she said, ". . . the last book Democrats tried this hard to suppress was the Bible."
Regarding John O'Neill's book Unfit for Command, she said, ". . . the last book Democrats tried this hard to suppress was the Bible."
London 1904
This is film that was shot in London in 1904. It's from skynews.com. This is the world in which Marcel Proust and James Joyce flourished. Tolstoy, Checkov, T. Mann and Freud were also around.
Willie Beown on ACORN
This is from Willie Brown's column Sunday.
"The Republicans do, however, have a point about ACORN and those voter registration drives. I have dealt with organizations like that for years. They all think they are sacrosanct and entitled to play fast and loose. They see themselves as advocates of the deprived, and they are made up of a combination of idealists, elements of the religious movement, and people like Obama. People who come out of college or law school and don't really need to go out and work, so they do a stint at community service.
"ACORN and organizations like it are great places to do a stint like that. You use your skills and relationships to help them get grants. In return, groups like ACORN are unabashedly supportive of those who help them - especially with voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives."
"The Republicans do, however, have a point about ACORN and those voter registration drives. I have dealt with organizations like that for years. They all think they are sacrosanct and entitled to play fast and loose. They see themselves as advocates of the deprived, and they are made up of a combination of idealists, elements of the religious movement, and people like Obama. People who come out of college or law school and don't really need to go out and work, so they do a stint at community service.
"ACORN and organizations like it are great places to do a stint like that. You use your skills and relationships to help them get grants. In return, groups like ACORN are unabashedly supportive of those who help them - especially with voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives."
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Arrest Rove?
Since there is no warrant out for his arrest, wouldn't that make a more successful attempt at a "citizen's arrest" kidnapping?
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
More Republican Hate
No, wait those are lefties attacking Palin's motorcade. But it's acceptable because they don't like her. No justice, no peace, Dude.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
American Islam by Paul M. Barrett
I just finished a book by Paul M. Barrett titled American Islam: the Struggle for the Soul of a Religion.
The title and dust jacket misrepresent the book. It is billed as a book about Islam in America. But do not think you will read in it about the full range of American Muslims. It is profiles of seven Muslims who live or have lived in America. But the emphasis is on moderate Muslims, almost exclusively Muslims who oppose violent Jihad. It is nice to know there are some. But it becomes obvious that these moderates are outside of the mainstream. Some of them so far out that they could be considered rebels. The larger sea of American Muslims in which they swim is hostile to the moderates and to the West.
I understand that these rebels would be easier for the author to deal with. They are more likely to give him time and attention. And they are probably more likely to be honest with him. But I don’t think that gives the author the right to mislead prospective buyers of the book.
All that said I enjoyed the book. I felt I got a good sense of the people profiled and the world they live in. And it was from what the author said that I was able to see that most of his subjects were outside of the mainstream.
I don’t know if there other books about the main currents of American Islam. But, if that is what you’re looking for, this book is not it.
The title and dust jacket misrepresent the book. It is billed as a book about Islam in America. But do not think you will read in it about the full range of American Muslims. It is profiles of seven Muslims who live or have lived in America. But the emphasis is on moderate Muslims, almost exclusively Muslims who oppose violent Jihad. It is nice to know there are some. But it becomes obvious that these moderates are outside of the mainstream. Some of them so far out that they could be considered rebels. The larger sea of American Muslims in which they swim is hostile to the moderates and to the West.
I understand that these rebels would be easier for the author to deal with. They are more likely to give him time and attention. And they are probably more likely to be honest with him. But I don’t think that gives the author the right to mislead prospective buyers of the book.
All that said I enjoyed the book. I felt I got a good sense of the people profiled and the world they live in. And it was from what the author said that I was able to see that most of his subjects were outside of the mainstream.
I don’t know if there other books about the main currents of American Islam. But, if that is what you’re looking for, this book is not it.
Friday, October 17, 2008
In the Astroturfing War Room
A small boiler room in a basement in Chicago has two desks and a long table. It is an office run by Mel. Mel sometimes calls it the, ‘if the boss ever tells the truth rapid response war room and Astroturf center.’ Mel and his assistant, Marty had seen no action until Wednesday. They mainly sit around and read newspapers. Marty says their job is, “to do the reading that Eskimo bitch won’t.”
Mel and Marty have taken to calling Wednesday ‘Redistribution Day.’ It threw them into a panic of activity ever since Mel asked, “What if everyone starts talking about spreading the wealth around and it becomes a major theme in this election.”
“I think a lot of people would be energized by that,” replied Marty, “I know my two Trot uncles will love it.”
“It doesn’t matter how many Trotskyite uncles you have, Marty. Both of us will be lucky to work on a school board election if this turns into a referendum on the redistribution of wealth.”
Mel and Marty started working the phones and soon the focus became Joe the plumber instead of Obama’s lapse into honesty. DU, dKos and MoveOn all got busy spreading endless stories about Joe. Network anchors interviewed Joe and kept the coverage folksy but away from Barack.
Mel got a bonus check and he told Marty, “I hope you were paying attention. We took a story about an inexplicable tax policy and made it into a story about an unlicensed plumber that Senator Joe doesn’t trust. Did you notice how we even got some stories on the net saying we'd put Joe out of work? That'll put the fear of God into those red neck motherfuckers. Like my teacher, Saul, used to say, ‘We’re fucking over America one working man at a time.’”
Mel and Marty have taken to calling Wednesday ‘Redistribution Day.’ It threw them into a panic of activity ever since Mel asked, “What if everyone starts talking about spreading the wealth around and it becomes a major theme in this election.”
“I think a lot of people would be energized by that,” replied Marty, “I know my two Trot uncles will love it.”
“It doesn’t matter how many Trotskyite uncles you have, Marty. Both of us will be lucky to work on a school board election if this turns into a referendum on the redistribution of wealth.”
Mel and Marty started working the phones and soon the focus became Joe the plumber instead of Obama’s lapse into honesty. DU, dKos and MoveOn all got busy spreading endless stories about Joe. Network anchors interviewed Joe and kept the coverage folksy but away from Barack.
Mel got a bonus check and he told Marty, “I hope you were paying attention. We took a story about an inexplicable tax policy and made it into a story about an unlicensed plumber that Senator Joe doesn’t trust. Did you notice how we even got some stories on the net saying we'd put Joe out of work? That'll put the fear of God into those red neck motherfuckers. Like my teacher, Saul, used to say, ‘We’re fucking over America one working man at a time.’”
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Weasel Words
I just saw a report on Lou Dobbs about voter registration problems at ACORN. He says that the Obama website has been amended. It had said that Obama had never done training for ACORN. It now says that Obama has never been HIRED to do training for ACORN. Obama did do training for ACORN but it was done as a volunteer. This is a distinction that might not have even occurred to Bill 'it all depends on what you mean by is' Clinton.
Let me say that I have never been hired to distrust Senator Obama. It just happened naturally and voluntarily.
Let me say that I have never been hired to distrust Senator Obama. It just happened naturally and voluntarily.
OK, Sarah Palin Didn't Go to Harvard
This is from a letter sent to Ross Douthat that appeared in the Atlantic online at http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/the_liberal_medias_conservativ.php
I read your book and I have a question for you and all of these people. You went to Harvard. How many people from your graduating class will have accomplished as much at 44 as Sarah Palin has? How many women will? She has a successful family (compare Giuliani who the media loves). She fought a powerful political machine (compare Obama who the media loves). She accomplished things she promised to do, a pipeline and budget cuts. (compare Obama who the media loves). She gives tremendous speeches and connects with crowds (compare Bush, McCain, Romney, or just about any Republican since Reagan).
I read your book and I have a question for you and all of these people. You went to Harvard. How many people from your graduating class will have accomplished as much at 44 as Sarah Palin has? How many women will? She has a successful family (compare Giuliani who the media loves). She fought a powerful political machine (compare Obama who the media loves). She accomplished things she promised to do, a pipeline and budget cuts. (compare Obama who the media loves). She gives tremendous speeches and connects with crowds (compare Bush, McCain, Romney, or just about any Republican since Reagan).
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Time Magazine Invents "terrorist" Accusation Out of Thin Air
This from Ann Althouse
"The video shows that Ana Marie Cox did not transcribe the quote correctly. It’s not: “I’m scared of Barack Obama… he’s an Arab terrorist…” It’s: “I can’t trust Obama. I have read about him, and he’s not he’s not he’s a uh he’s an Arab.” “Terrorist” is simply not there. The McCain quote is a bit off too. He says: “He’s a decent family man citizen that I just happen to have some disagreements with on fundamental issues.” Don’t pin “terrorist” on the little old lady in the audience, and don’t pin “whom” on the presidential candidate.
AND: Note that Time’s Cox (or whoever did the transcription) not only added “terrorist” but also substituted “scared” for “can’t trust.” What does that say about the mind of the transcriber? It suggests the press is looking for evidence of fear and fear mongering. I think we’re seeing a grasping for more evidence to justify blaming the campaign for deranging the minds of McCain’s supporters. But if this woman’s concern is that Obama is an Arab and that you can’t trust him because of that, then it has nothing much to do with the Ayers connection that the McCain campaign promoted this week. So spike the quote with “terrorism” and “scared.”"
"The video shows that Ana Marie Cox did not transcribe the quote correctly. It’s not: “I’m scared of Barack Obama… he’s an Arab terrorist…” It’s: “I can’t trust Obama. I have read about him, and he’s not he’s not he’s a uh he’s an Arab.” “Terrorist” is simply not there. The McCain quote is a bit off too. He says: “He’s a decent family man citizen that I just happen to have some disagreements with on fundamental issues.” Don’t pin “terrorist” on the little old lady in the audience, and don’t pin “whom” on the presidential candidate.
AND: Note that Time’s Cox (or whoever did the transcription) not only added “terrorist” but also substituted “scared” for “can’t trust.” What does that say about the mind of the transcriber? It suggests the press is looking for evidence of fear and fear mongering. I think we’re seeing a grasping for more evidence to justify blaming the campaign for deranging the minds of McCain’s supporters. But if this woman’s concern is that Obama is an Arab and that you can’t trust him because of that, then it has nothing much to do with the Ayers connection that the McCain campaign promoted this week. So spike the quote with “terrorism” and “scared.”"
Who's Nasty Now
Here is part of a good column by Victor David Hansen
It is from http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/jumping-ship/
This is becoming a very strange campaign. On CNN this evening both David Gergen and Ed Rollins echoed the current mantra that the “old” noble McCain is gone, and a “new” nastier one has emerged, largely because of his attacks on Ayers, perhaps his planned future ads on Wright, and a few unhinged people shouting at his campaign stops. Recently Christopher Buckley endorsed Obama, likewise lamenting the loss of the old noble McCain. NY Times columnist David Brooks dubbed Palin a “cancer,” and he suggested that Obama’s instant recall of Niehbuhr sent a tingle up his leg as Obama once did to Chris Matthews as well.
A couple of thoughts: the George Bush, Sr. / Willie Horton campaign was far tougher; so were the Bush 2000/2004 efforts. If anything, McCain’s campaign is subdued in comparison to what we’ve seen on both sides in past years. Indeed, McCain as a vicious campaigner is a complete fabrication, but, again, a brilliant subterfuge on the part of Team Obama that, in fact, has run, via appendages, the far more vicious race. Obama and his surrogates have repeatedly engaged in racial politics (as Bill Clinton lamented when in fury he denounced the “race card”); when there was never evidence that McCain was using race as a wedge issue, it was clear Obama most surely was–preemptively, on at least two occasions, warning Americans he would soon be the victim of opposition racial stereotyping. His surrogates like Biden and those in the Senate continue to link legitimate worries about OBama’s past with racism.
Second, for about 3 months all we’ve heard are references to McCain’s age, with adjectives and phrases like confused, can’t remember any more, disturbed, lost his bearings, etc. Moreover, so far, McCain supporters have not broken into Biden’s email, or accused Biden of being a Nazi, or accused anyone of not bearing one of their own children, or photo-shopped grotesque pictures of Obama on the Internet (as in the Atlantic magazine case). I don’t think deranged McCain supporters in Hollywood or television almost daily are quoted as damning Obama in unusually crude terms. Nor are white racist ministers calling McCain a ‘messiah’ or McCain operatives fraudulently swarming voter registration centers. And on and on.
Instead I think what we are seeing again is an interesting phenomenon of the old nice/now mean McCain. A great many moderates and conservatives are worn out and tired of Bush and Bush hatred, the European furor, serial charges of racism and illiberalism, and finally, in their weariness, think that Obama will, in a variety of ways, just make all the ickiness go away–as if he will make all of us be liked abroad and end racial and red/blue fighting at home. They should ask themselves whether Jimmy Carter restored American popularity with his human rights campaigns, praise of left-wing dictators, dialogue during the hostage crisis (cf. “The Great Satan”), boasts of no more inordinate fear of communism, etc., or whether Obama, in his Trinity/Acorn/Pfleger years, brought racial healing and understanding to Chicago
. . . . Obama, as I have said ad nauseam, has brilliantly prepped the battlefield to such a degree that a Farrakhan endorsement or surrogates calling Palin a quasi-Nazi or a bimbo, or smearing McCain as near senile is irrelevant; yet one screamer in a crowd of tens of thousands is proof of McCain’s and Palin’s racism and hatred.
Again, most conservatives know this paradox, but for some, being outraged as the conservative voice of reason, at McCain’s supposed low road ensures a CNN spot, or some future rehabilitation during the expected Obama regnum of the next eight years. I think should I write a column praising Obama’s wit, taste in books, and metrosexuality I would be dubbed principled rather than cynical, ‘even-handed’ rather than self-serving, and a maverick rather than toadish.
It is from http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/jumping-ship/
This is becoming a very strange campaign. On CNN this evening both David Gergen and Ed Rollins echoed the current mantra that the “old” noble McCain is gone, and a “new” nastier one has emerged, largely because of his attacks on Ayers, perhaps his planned future ads on Wright, and a few unhinged people shouting at his campaign stops. Recently Christopher Buckley endorsed Obama, likewise lamenting the loss of the old noble McCain. NY Times columnist David Brooks dubbed Palin a “cancer,” and he suggested that Obama’s instant recall of Niehbuhr sent a tingle up his leg as Obama once did to Chris Matthews as well.
A couple of thoughts: the George Bush, Sr. / Willie Horton campaign was far tougher; so were the Bush 2000/2004 efforts. If anything, McCain’s campaign is subdued in comparison to what we’ve seen on both sides in past years. Indeed, McCain as a vicious campaigner is a complete fabrication, but, again, a brilliant subterfuge on the part of Team Obama that, in fact, has run, via appendages, the far more vicious race. Obama and his surrogates have repeatedly engaged in racial politics (as Bill Clinton lamented when in fury he denounced the “race card”); when there was never evidence that McCain was using race as a wedge issue, it was clear Obama most surely was–preemptively, on at least two occasions, warning Americans he would soon be the victim of opposition racial stereotyping. His surrogates like Biden and those in the Senate continue to link legitimate worries about OBama’s past with racism.
Second, for about 3 months all we’ve heard are references to McCain’s age, with adjectives and phrases like confused, can’t remember any more, disturbed, lost his bearings, etc. Moreover, so far, McCain supporters have not broken into Biden’s email, or accused Biden of being a Nazi, or accused anyone of not bearing one of their own children, or photo-shopped grotesque pictures of Obama on the Internet (as in the Atlantic magazine case). I don’t think deranged McCain supporters in Hollywood or television almost daily are quoted as damning Obama in unusually crude terms. Nor are white racist ministers calling McCain a ‘messiah’ or McCain operatives fraudulently swarming voter registration centers. And on and on.
Instead I think what we are seeing again is an interesting phenomenon of the old nice/now mean McCain. A great many moderates and conservatives are worn out and tired of Bush and Bush hatred, the European furor, serial charges of racism and illiberalism, and finally, in their weariness, think that Obama will, in a variety of ways, just make all the ickiness go away–as if he will make all of us be liked abroad and end racial and red/blue fighting at home. They should ask themselves whether Jimmy Carter restored American popularity with his human rights campaigns, praise of left-wing dictators, dialogue during the hostage crisis (cf. “The Great Satan”), boasts of no more inordinate fear of communism, etc., or whether Obama, in his Trinity/Acorn/Pfleger years, brought racial healing and understanding to Chicago
. . . . Obama, as I have said ad nauseam, has brilliantly prepped the battlefield to such a degree that a Farrakhan endorsement or surrogates calling Palin a quasi-Nazi or a bimbo, or smearing McCain as near senile is irrelevant; yet one screamer in a crowd of tens of thousands is proof of McCain’s and Palin’s racism and hatred.
Again, most conservatives know this paradox, but for some, being outraged as the conservative voice of reason, at McCain’s supposed low road ensures a CNN spot, or some future rehabilitation during the expected Obama regnum of the next eight years. I think should I write a column praising Obama’s wit, taste in books, and metrosexuality I would be dubbed principled rather than cynical, ‘even-handed’ rather than self-serving, and a maverick rather than toadish.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
The Internal Contradiction of the Obama Campaign
Reporting and musings from an attendee at a Palin fund raiser -- by Joe Malchow
from http://www.dartblog.com/data/2008/10/008230.php
So what played to this audience? What caused genuine applause? Well, one line, in particular: near the end of her twenty-minute speech, Sarah Palin told the audience that out on the hustings one comment from supporters has dominated, in frequency, all others: tell people about the real Barack Obama. She said this quietly, without drama. But: thunder, hoots, an ovation. It was the one real firework in her stump speech; yet from the cadence of the speech one could tell that it was not intended thus. Audiences know that standing up for one particular line in a political speech is reserved for positive lines—lines that honor someone, or declaim some principle, or express some affirmation, or promise some victory. Rarely are audiences moved to bolt from their chairs over a negative line. (They’re more likely to boo affectedly.) But Mr. Obama’s guile has created considerable resentment—so much, in fact, that even a flat recitation of his positions, with not a drought of oratorical flare, dazzles and refreshes and fires an audience.
Sarah Palin spent some time piquing the newsmedia, and thanks to a zealous tablemate who initiated them the New York Times earned decidedly unaffected boos from the Silicon Valley audience. But you understand that if the newsmedia were doing their job, it would not be enough for a political candidate merely to mention the opinions of her opponent. Some argument would be necessary. Not so, not so with Barack Obama. The free pass he has been given is felt—and felt widely. In the final analysis I suspect this will make the man’s candidacy weaker, not stronger. It leaves him vulnerable, qual piuma al vento, to a late-October truth-squad attack.
from http://www.dartblog.com/data/2008/10/008230.php
So what played to this audience? What caused genuine applause? Well, one line, in particular: near the end of her twenty-minute speech, Sarah Palin told the audience that out on the hustings one comment from supporters has dominated, in frequency, all others: tell people about the real Barack Obama. She said this quietly, without drama. But: thunder, hoots, an ovation. It was the one real firework in her stump speech; yet from the cadence of the speech one could tell that it was not intended thus. Audiences know that standing up for one particular line in a political speech is reserved for positive lines—lines that honor someone, or declaim some principle, or express some affirmation, or promise some victory. Rarely are audiences moved to bolt from their chairs over a negative line. (They’re more likely to boo affectedly.) But Mr. Obama’s guile has created considerable resentment—so much, in fact, that even a flat recitation of his positions, with not a drought of oratorical flare, dazzles and refreshes and fires an audience.
Sarah Palin spent some time piquing the newsmedia, and thanks to a zealous tablemate who initiated them the New York Times earned decidedly unaffected boos from the Silicon Valley audience. But you understand that if the newsmedia were doing their job, it would not be enough for a political candidate merely to mention the opinions of her opponent. Some argument would be necessary. Not so, not so with Barack Obama. The free pass he has been given is felt—and felt widely. In the final analysis I suspect this will make the man’s candidacy weaker, not stronger. It leaves him vulnerable, qual piuma al vento, to a late-October truth-squad attack.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Attacks on Free Speech
From NRO
October 3, 2008 12:00 AM
Free Speech for Me, Not for Thee
The left has learned to like some chill with its free speech.
By Rich Lowry
Barack Obama has already brought change. He’s ended the “chilling effect.”
Any restrictions on speech — real or imagined — were once inevitably deemed to have a “chilling effect” on people who would otherwise exercise their First Amendment rights if they weren’t so frightened by the possibility of running afoul of the law. Claims of a “chilling effect” were the most reliable weapon in the American Civil Liberties Union’s absolutist campaign against, say, even the most common-sensical laws against obscenity.
But the politics of free speech has been subtly shifting. Opponents of the ACLU on the Right are increasingly worried about overreaching rules against “hate speech” defining legitimate opinions as out of bounds. Meanwhile, the same people who forever decry the country’s imminent descent into the dark night of fascism are now comfortable regulating political speech in federal law and banning speech on college campuses. The Left has learned to like some chill with its free speech.
Enter the Obama campaign, which reflects the new ethos. It twice issued “Obama Action Wire” alerts for activists to call a Chicago radio station and try to shut down appearances by two Obama critics, writers Stanley Kurtz and David Freddoso. No “chilling effect” here. CNN and the Chicago Tribune reported on the effort to silence Obama’s detractors, but mostly by way of noting the Obama camp’s tech-savvy mustering of its supporters.
When an outside group ran TV ads pointing out links between Obama and the former Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers, the Obama campaign asked the Bush Justice Department — yes, that Bush Justice Department, the fount of all evil — to open a criminal investigation.
The Obama campaign’s effort dovetails with the work of an outfit called Accountable America, run by a former MoveOn.org operative. It is devoted to threatening conservative donors with legal action and exposure of any embarrassing details of their private lives if they give money to groups running ads against Obama. The New York Times account says the group hopes to create “a chilling effect,” but the phrase is used non-pejoratively.
Liberal editorial boards have apparently lost their former zest for the First Amendment. Consider this approving sentence from a New York Times editorial: “The wholesale descent into Swift Boat campaigning has been blocked — for now — by a federal judge in Virginia.” It was written about a judge denying an injunction against the Federal Election Commission sought by a pro-life group running radio ads attacking Obama. The group thinks the First Amendment protects political speech; unfortunately, the courts disagree.
But the Times goes beyond mere legalities. It asserts with no evidence that the group’s advertising is “lies,” then urges the FEC to “be vigilant for what will inevitably be fresh attempts to mislead voters with fresh lies.” Here’s a newspaper charging a governmental agency with policing and shutting down campaign ads it doesn’t like.
It’s all just a taste of what’s to come if Obama wins and Democrats have even bigger majorities in Congress, emboldening them to try to crush their antagonists once and for all. “Hate is not a family value” was a popular bumper sticker on the left during the 1990s. Now, the left has embraced hate as, if not a family value, the organizing spirit of its long assault on George W. Bush, and anyone else in the way, from Joe Lieberman to Sarah Palin.
America’s partisan politics has always featured its share of rancorous abuse, but there’s something rancid at the heart of the new, blog-driven left that believes its bullying childishness has led the way out of the wilderness. This spirit will inevitably seep into an Obama administration. Whatever Obama’s professions of his commitment to cross-partisan understanding, he’s never confronted the left of his own party and has always been willing to engage in hardball when it suits his purposes.
Little Keith Olbermanns will surely be burrowed throughout his executive branch, eager to chill the speech of the “worst people in the world.”
October 3, 2008 12:00 AM
Free Speech for Me, Not for Thee
The left has learned to like some chill with its free speech.
By Rich Lowry
Barack Obama has already brought change. He’s ended the “chilling effect.”
Any restrictions on speech — real or imagined — were once inevitably deemed to have a “chilling effect” on people who would otherwise exercise their First Amendment rights if they weren’t so frightened by the possibility of running afoul of the law. Claims of a “chilling effect” were the most reliable weapon in the American Civil Liberties Union’s absolutist campaign against, say, even the most common-sensical laws against obscenity.
But the politics of free speech has been subtly shifting. Opponents of the ACLU on the Right are increasingly worried about overreaching rules against “hate speech” defining legitimate opinions as out of bounds. Meanwhile, the same people who forever decry the country’s imminent descent into the dark night of fascism are now comfortable regulating political speech in federal law and banning speech on college campuses. The Left has learned to like some chill with its free speech.
Enter the Obama campaign, which reflects the new ethos. It twice issued “Obama Action Wire” alerts for activists to call a Chicago radio station and try to shut down appearances by two Obama critics, writers Stanley Kurtz and David Freddoso. No “chilling effect” here. CNN and the Chicago Tribune reported on the effort to silence Obama’s detractors, but mostly by way of noting the Obama camp’s tech-savvy mustering of its supporters.
When an outside group ran TV ads pointing out links between Obama and the former Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers, the Obama campaign asked the Bush Justice Department — yes, that Bush Justice Department, the fount of all evil — to open a criminal investigation.
The Obama campaign’s effort dovetails with the work of an outfit called Accountable America, run by a former MoveOn.org operative. It is devoted to threatening conservative donors with legal action and exposure of any embarrassing details of their private lives if they give money to groups running ads against Obama. The New York Times account says the group hopes to create “a chilling effect,” but the phrase is used non-pejoratively.
Liberal editorial boards have apparently lost their former zest for the First Amendment. Consider this approving sentence from a New York Times editorial: “The wholesale descent into Swift Boat campaigning has been blocked — for now — by a federal judge in Virginia.” It was written about a judge denying an injunction against the Federal Election Commission sought by a pro-life group running radio ads attacking Obama. The group thinks the First Amendment protects political speech; unfortunately, the courts disagree.
But the Times goes beyond mere legalities. It asserts with no evidence that the group’s advertising is “lies,” then urges the FEC to “be vigilant for what will inevitably be fresh attempts to mislead voters with fresh lies.” Here’s a newspaper charging a governmental agency with policing and shutting down campaign ads it doesn’t like.
It’s all just a taste of what’s to come if Obama wins and Democrats have even bigger majorities in Congress, emboldening them to try to crush their antagonists once and for all. “Hate is not a family value” was a popular bumper sticker on the left during the 1990s. Now, the left has embraced hate as, if not a family value, the organizing spirit of its long assault on George W. Bush, and anyone else in the way, from Joe Lieberman to Sarah Palin.
America’s partisan politics has always featured its share of rancorous abuse, but there’s something rancid at the heart of the new, blog-driven left that believes its bullying childishness has led the way out of the wilderness. This spirit will inevitably seep into an Obama administration. Whatever Obama’s professions of his commitment to cross-partisan understanding, he’s never confronted the left of his own party and has always been willing to engage in hardball when it suits his purposes.
Little Keith Olbermanns will surely be burrowed throughout his executive branch, eager to chill the speech of the “worst people in the world.”
Labels:
Barack Obama,
freedom of speech,
NYT,
truth squads
Biden's 14 Lies
I got this from Ace at http://ace.mu.nu/archives/274757.php
Biden's 14 Lies
Fresh from the McCain people.
JOE BIDEN’S 14 LIES TONIGHT
1. TAX VOTE: Biden said McCain voted “the exact same way” as Obama to increase taxes on Americans earning just $42,000, but McCain DID NOT VOTE THAT WAY.
2. AHMEDINIJAD MEETING: Joe Biden lied when he said that Barack Obama never said that he would sit down unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran. Barack Obama did say specifically, and Joe Biden attacked him for it.
3. OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING: Biden said, “Drill we must.” But Biden has opposed offshore drilling and even compared offshore drilling to “raping” the Outer Continental Shelf.”
4. TROOP FUNDING: Joe Biden lied when he indicated that John McCain and Barack Obama voted the same way against funding the troops in the field. John McCain opposed a bill that included a timeline, that the President of the United States had already said he would veto regardless of it’s passage.
5. OPPOSING CLEAN COAL: Biden says he’s always been for clean coal, but he just told a voter that he is against clean coal and any new coal plants in America and has a record of voting against clean coal and coal in the U.S. Senate.
6. ALERNATIVE ENERGY VOTES: According to FactCheck.org, Biden is exaggerating and overstating John McCain’s record voting for alternative energy when he says he voted against it 23 times.
7. HEALTH INSURANCE: Biden falsely said McCain will raise taxes on people's health insurance coverage -- they get a tax credit to offset any tax hike. Independent fact checkers have confirmed this attack is false
8. OIL TAXES: Biden falsely said Palin supported a windfall profits tax in Alaska -- she reformed the state tax and revenue system, it's not a windfall profits tax.
9. AFGHANISTAN / GEN. MCKIERNAN COMMENTS: Biden said that top military commander in Iraq said the principles of the surge could not be applied to Afghanistan, but the commander of NATO's International Security Assistance Force Gen. David D. McKiernan said that there were principles of the surge strategy, including working with tribes, that could be applied in Afghanistan.
10. REGULATION: Biden falsely said McCain weakened regulation -- he actually called for more regulation on Fannie and Freddie.
11. IRAQ: When Joe Biden lied when he said that John McCain was “dead wrong on Iraq”, because Joe Biden shared the same vote to authorize the war and differed on the surge strategy where they John McCain has been proven right.
12. TAX INCREASES: Biden said Americans earning less than $250,000 wouldn’t see higher taxes, but the Obama-Biden tax plan would raise taxes on individuals making $200,000 or more.
13. BAILOUT: Biden said the economic rescue legislation matches the four principles that Obama laid out, but in reality it doesn’t meet two of the four principles that Obama outlined on Sept. 19, which were that it include an emergency economic stimulus package, and that it be part of “part of a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20.”
14. REAGAN TAX RATES: Biden is wrong in saying that under Obama, Americans won't pay any more in taxes then they did under Reagan
Biden's 14 Lies
Fresh from the McCain people.
JOE BIDEN’S 14 LIES TONIGHT
1. TAX VOTE: Biden said McCain voted “the exact same way” as Obama to increase taxes on Americans earning just $42,000, but McCain DID NOT VOTE THAT WAY.
2. AHMEDINIJAD MEETING: Joe Biden lied when he said that Barack Obama never said that he would sit down unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran. Barack Obama did say specifically, and Joe Biden attacked him for it.
3. OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING: Biden said, “Drill we must.” But Biden has opposed offshore drilling and even compared offshore drilling to “raping” the Outer Continental Shelf.”
4. TROOP FUNDING: Joe Biden lied when he indicated that John McCain and Barack Obama voted the same way against funding the troops in the field. John McCain opposed a bill that included a timeline, that the President of the United States had already said he would veto regardless of it’s passage.
5. OPPOSING CLEAN COAL: Biden says he’s always been for clean coal, but he just told a voter that he is against clean coal and any new coal plants in America and has a record of voting against clean coal and coal in the U.S. Senate.
6. ALERNATIVE ENERGY VOTES: According to FactCheck.org, Biden is exaggerating and overstating John McCain’s record voting for alternative energy when he says he voted against it 23 times.
7. HEALTH INSURANCE: Biden falsely said McCain will raise taxes on people's health insurance coverage -- they get a tax credit to offset any tax hike. Independent fact checkers have confirmed this attack is false
8. OIL TAXES: Biden falsely said Palin supported a windfall profits tax in Alaska -- she reformed the state tax and revenue system, it's not a windfall profits tax.
9. AFGHANISTAN / GEN. MCKIERNAN COMMENTS: Biden said that top military commander in Iraq said the principles of the surge could not be applied to Afghanistan, but the commander of NATO's International Security Assistance Force Gen. David D. McKiernan said that there were principles of the surge strategy, including working with tribes, that could be applied in Afghanistan.
10. REGULATION: Biden falsely said McCain weakened regulation -- he actually called for more regulation on Fannie and Freddie.
11. IRAQ: When Joe Biden lied when he said that John McCain was “dead wrong on Iraq”, because Joe Biden shared the same vote to authorize the war and differed on the surge strategy where they John McCain has been proven right.
12. TAX INCREASES: Biden said Americans earning less than $250,000 wouldn’t see higher taxes, but the Obama-Biden tax plan would raise taxes on individuals making $200,000 or more.
13. BAILOUT: Biden said the economic rescue legislation matches the four principles that Obama laid out, but in reality it doesn’t meet two of the four principles that Obama outlined on Sept. 19, which were that it include an emergency economic stimulus package, and that it be part of “part of a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20.”
14. REAGAN TAX RATES: Biden is wrong in saying that under Obama, Americans won't pay any more in taxes then they did under Reagan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
