Finally We have a Chance to Defeat FDR

Apparently.

Rush went on quite a spiel yesterday on FDR and Obama, basically decrying Obama as the modern updated version of FDR.

That doesn't sound too bad to me, but maybe I'm not listening right.

Even back in 1944, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was doing his best to water down the basics of the founding of this country. It's just striking stuff. The battle's never going to be over, the war is never going to be over because battles are going to be fought continually over and over again, because this is who these people are. You might say, "Rush, they're saying such wonderful things for people. They want economic security, and they want freedom, and they want independence, and they want people to not be hungry and so forth." We all want that. We all want the same things. It's just this is not the way to provide it.

Sweet lord they are desperate. Dragging FDR into it?

Rush weakly explained that he brought up FDR because he wanted to point out how there was nothing new about Obama. Fair enough, I guess, but still pretty bizarre.

He also makes this historical argument.

There's nothing new about liberalism. If you, as a voter, have rejected liberalism once in your life, you have a duty to reject it at every opportunity you have. It is a demonstrable failure. It is an attack on individual liberty. It is a system that creates as much misery as possible under the guise of creating compassion and hope. Now, if you found it within yourself to vote against liberalism in 1980 and 1984, I don't know how you can vote against liberalism and ever go back to it.

So if Republicans put up a cute little puppy or a neanderthal or Sarah Palin, Rush says you are required to vote for it, him, or her. I'll admit I voted for George H. W. Bush in 1988, so I guess I'm required to vote for McCain this election.

But, when I'm in the voting booth and nobody's looking, I'm going to vote for Obama.

Desperation Pt. 23

The title of Matt Barber's article over at Townhall is entitled "Obama's Agenda is so "Gay."" Yeah that's pretty desperate.

If Bill Clinton was the first black president, Barack Obama, if elected, will be the first "gay" president. No, I don't mean he'll personally decorate the West Wing, open a bathhouse in the Rose Garden or take up with Barney Frank. I mean he'll be the most radically pro-homosexual, anti-family president in history. He's very quietly pledged as much to the homosexual "Human Rights Campaign" and other fawning members of his homofascist fan club.

Homofascist? There's no better way to explain Barber's mindset than that word. Just sums it all up. In Barbers mind, such as it is, Homosexuals are dangerously powerful and out to get good honest Christians like himself. Pretty insane.

Good Advice

William Kristol's latest article advises John McCain to return to the theme of national security, because that's a winning issue for him.

I'm not sure about that, but let's see Kristol's reasoning.

The McCain campaign intends, I gather, to return to the commander in chief theme with an event in Florida Wednesday showcasing former secretaries of state and retired senior military officers. But why not showcase young Iraq vets instead? These young soldiers and marines can testify eloquently to the success of the surge that John McCain championed, and to the disaster and dishonor that would have followed Barack Obama’s preferred path of withdrawal.

. . . McCain could point out that hope is nice and prayer is good. But, he could ask: With respect to our national security, do we really want to elect a president on a hope and a prayer?

He then recommends that McCain drop his negative advertising; because nothing screams positive message like suggesting your opponent will get us all killed.

I don't know if this will work for McCain. For one thing, the war is one area where he agrees with Bush the bulk of the time (with the exception of Torture - Bush is objectively pro-torture, McCain has some reservations). And we've seen what 8 years of Bush policies have got us.

Every Man a King

Laura Hollis has written an article over at Townhall that describes Obama as our future king. She relays the story from the old testement in which the Israelites demanded a King from the Prophet Samuel and says that our possible voting for Obama mirrors that story.

These are problems that no amount of social spending will cure, and any promise to do so is a lie, because no amount of money will change people’s hearts. And yet, instead of reaching deep within ourselves to find the solutions, we now whine and mewl for someone to save us.

And here he comes, Barack Obama, on a “righteous wind.”

As with anyone who would be king, Obama will take our money and our property in ever-larger amounts. Our children will be saddled with debt and beholden to a bloated government that will enslave the very people it promised to help. We will be at the mercy of our enemies.

Gosh - a person would have to be a super bad American and Christian to vote for a King, right? I mean this is a Democracy - I don't want to be ruled by a king.

But wait, Obama won't actually be a king - he'll be a President. And after eight years of signing statements and the unitary executive, it's a bit odd to suddenly discover that Republicans are concerned about excessive executive power.

Sorry for the Low Posting

I am on the road, preparing for a very important meeting in about 2 hours - so haven't been posting as much.

I Wish I had Thought of this First

From Glenn Greenwald's latest post.

But beyond that narrow point, why isn't this race-based analysis being applied to others who are endorsing outside of their party? I don't recall Joe Lieberman endorsing any hard-core conservative national politicians before this year, when he has spent much of his time cheering for and appearing with the McCain/Palin ticket. Using the Limbaugh/Buchanan/Halperin logic, isn't it fair to assume that at least a significant part of Lieberman's motive in endorsing McCain -- if not his entire motive -- is that he and McCain are both white, whereas Obama isn't? What's the difference between making that race-based assumption about Lieberman's endorsement and making it about Powell?

Yeah, pretty much.

I could have fun with that idea though.

Dennis Prager's latest article is on Proposition 8 out there in California. About halfway through it, he makes this interesting comment.

While there are a few sick individuals who hate gay people, I have neither seen nor heard any hatred of gays expressed by proponents of Proposition 8. Not in my private life, not in my e-mail, not from callers on my radio show.

Of course this automatically lead me to scroll down and read his comments section.

You homosexual militants stop at nothing with your agendas. The nonsense has went to far. All of your invalid arguements will be challenged, and your intimidation tactics brought out into the open.

Well that's not too bad, although calling them militants probably isn't intended as a compliment.

Once this perverted reasoning is legally accepted from a group that wants to claim healthy and normal behavior for an abnormal sexual behavior, what other group can be legally denied their claim of normality for a behavioral disorder?

For instance, suppose a group involved in bestiality wants to claim “marriage rights” for their animal partners, how can they be legally denied if they claim that they are engaging in normal behavior?

Ah - comparing homosexuality to beastiality. Always popular, and, I have to say, at least a little hateful.

History records one of the first signs of the deterioration of a society is when the homosexuals and sexual deviates emerge front and center.

. . . Say goodbye to America as it morphs into a Sodom and Gomorrah. We had a republic once but the homosexual termites and clueless liberals have assiduously succeeded in undermining its very foundations.

Comparing gays to termites, well, also seems hateful.

Homosexuality is a deviant.pathetic desease that should be wiped off the face of the earth. They are infesting our schools,sexually abusing our children,fornicating like sick animals in our public areas and are actively trying to destroy the very fabric of civilization.

Hmmmm. That sounds very hateful indeed. But fortunately one enterprising commentator explains how none of this is hate.

Trying to define anti-homosexual behaviour as "hate" or "homophobic" is absurd. You confuse hate with utter contempt and disgust while homophobic is even nuttier as it would mean fear of man...phaggots are not men and why would anyone be "afraid" of them ?

Well, that makes sen . . . what? Utter contempt and disgust isn't hatred? What is hatred then?

Rush Limbaugh doesn't get "Race"

Fortunately, his lack of understanding mirrors those of his listeners, so it won't hurt him much.

Over the weekend he made some comments on the Powell nomination which have exposed his lack of understanding about race, and brought him a certain amount of fire.

Remember, the whole quote here, folks, the whole quote is, "I'm 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." Now, just so you know, I haven't come up with any. I worked diligently on this on the airplane on the trip home from Green Bay yesterday. After I got home last night, I worked diligently. I can't find any of these inexperienced white liberals that Powell has endorsed. So they're all focusing you know it's race. This has hit a nerve. So what if it's race? Why is it so hard to admit that it's race? Ninety-five percent of black people are going to for Obama because he's black. What's so problematic about admitting this? I thought it should be about race. I thought you liberals thought this is a historic candidacy because finally we're going to elect a black guy to be president. Why hide behind this? Why act like it's not about race? What, you want to tell us it's about his policies?

See in Rush's mind there is no reason to vote for Obama other than his race, because Rush doesn't agree with his policies. This mirrors some comments he made about Powell and Condoleezza Rice back when they were being attacked. He couldn't understand how Liberals would attack black people, when we purport to love black people. He couldn't quite grasp how we might disagree with a black person, because we see him as a person who happens to be black.

There's something here that I can't quite get to - some intersection of Rush's reflexive views on race and his opinion that anybody honest and intelligent would be a conservative. Rush knows that if Powell were honest he would be supporting John McCain and Conservative (we'll take it as read that Rush thinks Powell is intelligent). So since he's not supporting McCain, there must be some corruption that is forcing him to support Obama. And given how Rush looks at Blacks, well, the corruption presents itself pretty much automatically.

Back to Palin

Peggy Noonan, speech writer for Ronald Reagan, has written an article about the end of this campaign season, in which she takes particular aim at Sarah Palin.

. . . we have seen Mrs. Palin on the national stage for seven weeks now, and there is little sign that she has the tools, the equipment, the knowledge or the philosophical grounding one hopes for, and expects, in a holder of high office. She is a person of great ambition, but the question remains: What is the purpose of the ambition? She wants to rise, but what for?

. . . No news conferences? Interviews now only with friendly journalists? You can’t be president or vice president and govern in that style, as a sequestered figure. This has been Mr. Bush’s style the past few years, and see where it got us. You must address America in its entirety, not as a sliver or a series of slivers but as a full and whole entity, a great nation trying to hold together. When you don’t, when you play only to your little piece, you contribute to its fracturing.

We talked about this in 2004. The question is how meaningful are the undecided voters? How undecided are they, really? What is more valuable, reaching out to the base and keeping it fired up and energetic or reaching out to the moderates, to the undecided. Because as Random Goblin pointed out, in a response to a post last week, those are two different things. He was speaking about Progressive Bloggers, but I think his comments refer to the politicized base on both sides of the political debate.

This is not to say that "progressive bloggers" should not keep pushing for whatever it is that they want, but that they should not be surprised when, inasmuch as they are not a majority in any sense, they do not actually get what they want.

The problem for McCain is who else does he have? Does he have a real chance of getting the middle at this point? Or is he better off concentrating on the politicized base, getting them worked up, and hoping their enthusiasm is enough to carry him to the end?

It's a political calculation, and he seems to have made his choice. I don't think it is going to work out for him.

I-Pod 10

37. The Beautiful South - "Let Love Speak Up Itself"
38. David J - "Serial Killer Blues"
39. Everlast - "Next Man"
40. Goo Goo Dolls - "Broadway"
41. M.I.A. - "Jimmy"
42. Big Brother and the Holding Company - "Road Block (Studio Outake)"
43. Quicksilver Messenger Service - "Codine"
44. Ming + FS - "Freak (DJ Abstract Break Mix)"
45. Gregory Isaacs - "Public Eyes"
46. Beastie Boys - "Dramastically Different"

Weird Mix this time around, but cool. "Codine" and "Next Man" sit comfortably next to each other at any rate.

Presented without Comment

So, forget about radical chic or any other nonsense defining this election. The fantasy of the right has been put to rest. In this year of living dangerously — 20 days that are shaking the world — personal attacks don’t work, as innumerable polls showed in the last week.

And forget about the Bradley Effect, lying about race. We should be looking at the Reagan Effect: did Obama look like a president, as Ronald Reagan had to in the last week of the campaign to unseat Jimmy Carter?

History showed one thing in 1980. It’ll show the same in 2008.

Timothy Egan, "The Deal, Sealed?", New York Times

Voter Fraud Blues

Sorry - I was at the Dentist this morning so didn't have time to post. But I did want to point you to this interview at Salon, which deals with the current Republican hysteria around Voter Fraud. Lori Minnite, a professor of political science at Barnard college was asked whether or not Voter Fraud is as big a problem as Conservatives are claiming.

No threat.

The statistics bear me out. From 2002 to 2005 only one person was found guilty of registration fraud. Twenty people were found guilty of voting while ineligible and five people were found guilty of voting more than once. That’s 26 criminal voters -- voters who vote twice, impersonate other people, vote without being a resident -- the voters that Republicans warn about. Meanwhile thousands of people are getting turned away at the polls.

The whole article is worth reading.

A Splash of Cold Water

Glenn Greenwald's blog is regular reading around here, and hopefully it is with you as well. Today's post is insightful about why an Obama victory is desirable, but not ultimately that exciting to me.

I honestly don't know of any "progressive bloggers" who blindly support Democrats. I think the strategy of the blogosphere has always been two-pronged -- (1) remove the hideous right-wing beast from power and (2) change the Democratic Party in order to make step (1) worth doing. Those are EQUALLY IMPORTANT goals.

Step (1) is merely a pre-requisite (an absolute one) to achieving anything worthwhile. But without step (2), step (1) is mostly (though not entirely) worthless, because the Democratic Party as currently constituted at its core is a wretched and status-quo-perpetuating institution. If those who spent the last eight years vigorously opposing the radicalism, militarism, and anti-constitutional abuses of the Bush administration fail to oppose the Democratic leadership with equal fervor when they violate the same principles -- as they inevitably will -- then the humiliation of the Right and its removal from power will be emotionally satisfying, perfectly just, and a very mild improvement, but will ensure the continuation rather than the termination of most of the worst abuses of this government.

I want to be clear, I am voting for Obama, I have donated money to his campaign. I want him to win. But Greenwald is right, and my gut tells me that with Obama we are getting a huge step up from Bush, but a lot of the excesses of the Bush Administration aren't going away soon.

The Sixties are Back

Rush Limbaugh yesterday explained why Obama is so terribly dangerous.

All these former SDS people -- Students for a Democratic Society, that's why its former leaders back Obama. Lots of books have been written about this.

These are the same people that backed Mao Tse-tung, Ho Chi Minh, Castro; they are Marxists; they have learned how to communicate and manipulate, they have learned to adapt socialism to American society. Tom Hayden, Angela Davis, Noam Chomsky, Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Saul Alinsky. What's amazing is that this extensive network, this extensive network and movement goes wholly unreported by the likes of Tom Brokaw, Charlie Gibson, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Katie Couric, Brian Williams. This is the movement that undermined the Vietnam War, that tried to undermine us in Iraq, and they are three weeks away from electing one of their own, if they can, Barack Obama.

The damned sixties keep happening.

I'm really not sure how scary this is supposed to be to anyway, but you should have heard Rush give this. He really sold it, as if he had uncovered some incredible conspiracy. And I imagine to someone like Rush it is scary. For some 30 years now, since Reagan, the conservative movement has been a repudiation of the sixties and the left. It must be terrifying to consider that such radical ideas as peace and love might be coming back into vogue.

But truthfully, such is not happening. Barack Obama for all the enthusiasm isn't the second coming of JFK or even Robert Kennedy. He's the second coming of Bill Clinton. A moderate liberal who will not challenge the status quo all that much, and yet draw incredible ire from the Republicans just for not being one of them.

Do they Really Believe it?

I don't know how to take a line like this from David Limbaugh's latest article.

And yet we've got a man running for the highest office in the land surrounded with anti-American allies and covert election burglars, all protected by an unprecedented mainstream-media cover-up.

Does he really believe the hyperbole? So far the Anti American Allies Obama is "surrounded by" include Bill Ayers, a person Obama knew but hasn't had much contact with recently, and Jeremiah Wright, who Obama cut off.

The covert election burglars are, presumably, ACORN and their efforts to encourage people to vote. I don't know how covert they are, since they are pretty open about existing and about trying to register the poor to vote.

And unprecedented media cover-up? Could that be because there's not much there? I mean the Ayers association has been public knowledge for months now, and several major media outlets have written on it. Isn't that the opposite of a cover up?

No. Remember when your political enemy is involved in a scandal, it doesn't matter how thoroughly he's been investigated or exonerated. No mater how thoroughly the matter has been investigated, it hasn't been investigated enough until he is found guilty of whatever the charge is.

Karl Rove - Political Genius?

Matt Taibbi has written an article over at Rolling Stone about everybody's favorite political genius Karl Rove. But Taibbi doesn't know if Rove has earned the Genius label.

Rove is not a genius, or even very clever: He's totally and completely immoral. . . .

The reason Rove continues to survive is the same reason that Johnnie Cochran was called a genius for keeping a double-murderer on the golf course — because this generation of Americans has become so steeped in greed and social Darwinism that it can no longer distinguish between cheating and achieving, between enterprise and crime, and can't bring itself to criticize winners any more than it knows how to be nice to losers. He survives because an increasing number of Americans secretly agree with Rove's vision of rules, laws and "the truth" as quaint, faintly embarrassing rituals that only a sucker would let hold him back.

Yeah, it's hard to argue with that. But here's the thing - these Rovian Tactics aren't working this election. McCain isn't winning, and at this point isn't likely to.

Got this link from Glenn Greenwald's Blog.

Doug Giles wants Christain Pastors to be more like Sean Hannity

Doug Giles latest article argues that Christian's aren't political enough and aren't going to bat for our Lord and Savior, John Mc . . . I mean Jesus Christ. In

Y’know, I appreciate O’Reilly, Hannity, Beck and others who go to bat on behalf of Christian principles, but it would be kind of nice to see some more pastors in that mix also. Ted Nugent brings more truth to the table than most pastors and priests do on radio, TV and in print.

Again, I’m glad for Bill, Sean, Glenn and Ted’s defiant input, but the insane silence amongst the brethren, especially the boys who run the so called mega-churches, to me is both pitiful and immoral. No matter how you want to slice your silence, Christian ministers and corporations, your mute mouth is cowardice of the highest order and a betrayal of our nation’s Christian heritage.

In fairness, I'd think Doug Giles doesn't think John McCain is the savior. I'm pretty sure he is more interested in tearing down the Antichrist - Barack Oba . . . I mean Barack Obama.

Not Sure I Can Improve on This

Shawn Akers has written an article over at Townhall entitled "Obama's Henchmen and the Rise of Commufascism."

Yeah I think Conservative's trepidation over Obama might be making them crazy.

The great discomfort for many Americans as they watch the current presidential contest is that the scent of such totalitarianism hangs heavy in the air; the pattern so familiar in European dictatorships seems eerily present in Barak Obama’s presidential campaign.

I suppose if I thought Mr. Akers were talking about Obama's capitulation on immunity for telecoms guilty of helping the Government spy on American Citizens I'd agree. But of course that's not what he's talking about.

Rather some of the posters put out by the campaign remind Akers of Communist posters, and some of Obama's followers have been doing some heavy handed things. And Obama's followers in this context, does not necessarily mean working for the campaign.

Political Cartoons

Comics Should be Good, a blog about comics, is doing a series dedicated to political cartoonists. So far it's really good and interesting, so check it out.

Gail Collins banal defense of Barack Obama and John McCain

Gail Collin's latest article is on the current controversies over Obama's association with Ayers and McCains association with Keating. Collins defends them because she one attended a party with Bernadine Dohrn before she joined the weatherman and before she committed any terrorist actions. And she attended a school assembly at which Charles Keating spoke.

Ye Gods.

Conservatives complaint about Obama isn't that he was in the same room as Ayers - it's that they sat on the same board (yeah there is a lot of tangential stuff they are making up, but the part that's true is that Obama and Ayers sat on the same board and that Obama attended a meet and greet at Ayers house). They feel that to do these things signifies a deeper connection or affinity for what Ayers was doing in the 1960s/1970s. You can disagree if you want (I certainly do), but it's pretty different from simply attending a party.

And the Keating matter is another step beyond this nonsense. McCain was implicated in helping Keating with his matters - he was a participant.

In fairness the column is somewhat amusing, but ye gods, how banal.