Some folks have been giving Barack Obama a hard time for his claim that the court’s should serve as a refuge and defender of the oppressed in America. This, they argue, is politics substituting itself for law. They gleefully point to John McCain’s statement on what he’s looking for in a judge — a position that is supposedly non-ideological and apolitical. Conservative judges go where the law takes them. Liberal judges go where they want to go, law be damned.
Tragically, this position is false — and it’s a conservative judge who is pointing it out….
In his book, Schecter makes the case for why, although he supported McCain in his run in 2000, McCain no longer deserves support and in fact, his candidacy should be fought actively, without hesitation and on all fronts. Schecter outlines his reasons for these sentiments and fills in those reasons with more details than you may be able to absorb. Schecter draws a portrait of both McCain’s political trajectory and the parallel trajectory of how his political choices since 2001 are a thumbing of his nose at the very people who got him to the presidential precipice in the first place.
A couple of disclosures before I offer you my phone interview with Cliff: I’ve never been a McCain supporter. And I haven’t known of Schecter that long either - here’s the first post I ever wrote about Schecter. However, it was fascinating talking to someone with a seemingly vast knowledge base about someone whom I’ve never really studied.
JMZ: You argue on behalf of former McCain supporters who should be able to realize that McCain isn’t what he once was. Who, then, is the alternative and why?
CS: Well. There’s always, “What we have versus what we’d like to have.” I’m an Obama supporter and he has a lot of appeal to Independents. But he hasn’t done it the way McCain did it – by attacking his own party in big speeches. Obama has done it by standing up, not by splitting. Obama talks about rising above partisanship and reaching out to all people on all sides and getting past the muck where politics has gotten so nasty. Obama says, I’m going to talk to you like an adult. And that’s what McCain had called “straight talk” – but he hasn’t given us much of that [this election cycle.] Read the rest of this entry »
Why is the man above smiling? Because, apparently, he has a RIGHT to.
If all goes according to projections and Senator Hillary Clinton somewhat narrowly wins the Indiana Democratic primary (CBS has projected she will narrowly win it), he has a right to smile. Because if early indications are correct, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh may have provided a textbook case of the influence of radio talk show hosts on partisans in the 21st century.
His “Operation Chaos” — designed to get his listeners to vote whenever they can in Democratic primaries for Clinton to prolong the Democrats’ highly divisive Clinton/Barack Obama Presidential nomination — could have given the Cinton the winning edge, if the victory margin in the end is like what seems to be shaping up now. The New Republic’s The Plank:
Some reporters have speculated about the impact of the “Limbaugh effect” — partisan Republicans crossing over to vote fr Hillary Clinton solely to help weaken the Democrats against John McCain. The sieze of the effect is hard to measure. But there is one numerical measurement, first pointed out to me by the Pew Survey’s Richard Auxier following the Pennsylvania primary, that gives some sense of it.
One exit poll question asks Indiana voters who they would support in a Clinton-McCain contest. 17% of them say McCain. Of those voters, 41% say they would vote for McCain over Clinton. In other words, these voters, 7% of the Indiana electorate, voted for Clinton in the primary but have no intention of supporting her in the fall.
Now, this isn’t a precise measure of the “Limbaugh effect” — no doubt there are some Republicans who backed Obama in the primary out of anti-Clinton sentiment, but plan to vote for McCain in November. But it is a good place to start when making a ballpark estimate. And it’s a sizeable number — 7% may wind up being as big as her margin of victory.
The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein looks at exit polls and reaches the same conclusion: Limbaugh played a role in motivating some voters whose motive was basically to sabatoge the Democratic primary…something some Democrats have tried in cross-over primaries the past but not on such an organized, sustained and serious scale. Stein’s post must be read full but here are some excerpts:
Did Rush Limbaugh actually impact the Democratic primary?
The loud-mouthed radio talk show host has been encouraging Republicans to vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton to continue the “chaos” in the Democratic race. And a sampling of some key exit poll information suggests he may, to a certain extent, be having an effect.
Thirty-six percent of primary voters said that Clinton does not share their values. And yet, among that total, one out of every five (20 percent) nevertheless voted for her in the Indiana election. Moreover, of the 10 percent of Hoosiers who said “neither candidate” shared their values, 75 percent cast their ballots for Clinton.
These are not small numbers. By comparison, of the 33 percent of voters who said Sen. Barack Obama does not share their values, only seven percent cast their ballots in his favor. Basically, more people who don’t relate to Clinton are, for one reason or another, still voting for her. These are not likely to be loyal supporters.
He goes into some detail then writes:
The numbers suggest one of three things: A) Clinton’s support in Indiana, while clearly there, is not entirely solid; B) a large swath of Indiana primary goers simply didn’t like the nominees and thought of Clinton as the lesser of two evils; or C) Limbaugh’s hatchet plan could be having political ripples.
Perhaps it’s a mix of all three.
Republican partisans will applaud what truly seems to be a Limbaugh success. And his “legend” as someone who can press a button and get followers to do his bidding (or jettison previous beliefs and get with the party line) will grow. Some Hillary Clinton supporters will say Well, what does it matter why they vote the way the do — they have the right to vote as they vote. (Which they do.)
But there is an ineffable stench of political sleaziness when Republicans — and Democrats — decide to cross party lines to sandbag the other party. Who would have ever thought 20 or 30 — or 10 — years ago that partisans of either party would vote in another party’s primary specifically to prolong the other party’s turmoil or weaken that party’s candidate? There have been charges that siphoning off another party’s votes has been used via third parties but this hasn’t been an actual calculated strategy until now. Welcome to mega partisan 2008.
Perhaps when Superdelegates look at these numbers, it might influence their perceptions on the components of the Indiana vote….particularly as Limbaugh starts hyping his impact and if the mainstream media latches on to the story.
P.S. Limbaugh’s power isn’t just because he’s a partisan. He is also a talented, first-class broadcaster who knows how to use the broadcast medium and get and hold an audience. He makes it look easy, and it isn’t — which is why so many other conservative and progressive talk show hosts have failed.
This may be the first vote in which his influence can be measured in qualitative terms.
The latest Zogby Daily Tracking poll indicates Democratic Senator Barack Obama retains a 9 point lead over Senator Hillary Clinton days away from the Democratic Presidential primary — and the two are tied in Indiana.
Meanwhile, the latest Rasmussen poll shows Clinton has pulled even with Obama nationally among Democrats, although Rasmussen’s upcoming primary poll numbers — showing Obama leading in North Carolina and trailing in Indiana — have not changed.
Zogby reports:
Democrat Barack Obama of Illinois holds a nine point lead in North Carolina, and has now edged ahead of Hillary Clinton of New York by a statistically insignificant two points in Indiana, a pair of new Zogby daily tracking telephone polls show.
In both states, the candidates are essentially tied among moderate voters, while Obama holds leads among mainline liberals and progressives. Clinton holds substantial advantages among conservative voters likely to cast ballots in the Democratic primary election.
After a good day of polling, Obama retains a lead in North Carolina - 48% to 39%, with 13% either unsure or favoring someone else. In Indiana, Obama won the day by a small margin and now holds 43% support, compared to 41% for Clinton, with the balance either favoring someone else or undecided.
In several key past races undecideds have tended to break for Hillary Clinton. Watch the undecideds in the final batch of polling.
In Indiana, Zogby has Obama ahead of Clinton 43 to 41 percent — a statistical tie given the margin of error:
Clinton holds a sizable edge among Catholics and a small advantage among Protestant voters. She also leads among older voters, while Obama leads among all Democratic primary voters under age 55. In a key age demographic - those voters age 35 to 54 - Obama enjoys a 10-point lead. This was a group that went for Clinton in the recent Pennsylvania primary, after leaning toward Obama in the week before the election.
Clinton leads by 11 points among white voters in Indiana, which make up about 83% of the electorate. Obama leads by an enormous 10-to-1 ratio among African American voters in Indiana. He also continues to lead in northern Indiana, a large section of which is influenced by his hometown Chicago media market, and in Indianapolis. In the southern half of the state, which features a population much like that of Ohio next door, Clinton continues to enjoy a double-digit lead. Obama is holding on to a nine point lead among Indiana men, while closing the gap to five points behind Clinton among women.
Meanwhile, Ramussen shows a gain by Clinton nationally — and signs that the close race is indeed good for the Democratic party:
The race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination is now tied. Clinton and Obama are each supported by 45% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters. Last Monday, Obama led by eight. The ongoing competition between Obama and Clinton may be causing angst for party leaders, but the competition has been good for the Party label. In fact, the Democrats now have the largest partisan advantage over the Republicans since Rasmussen Reports began tracking this data on a monthly basis nearly six years ago.
In Tuesday’s Primaries, Clinton has a narrow lead in Indiana while Obama has the lead in North Carolina. Clinton leads Obama by five points. Looking ahead a few weeks, Obama has a twelve-point lead in Oregon. Rasmussen Markets data shows Obama continues to be the favorite for the Democratic nomination, but expectations have slipped significantly in recent days. Currently, the frontrunner is given a 73.7 % chance of winning.
All of this suggests that unless Obama or Clinton wins both primaries on Tuesday, on Wednesday morning the race could be exactly where it is today.
Republicans might be interested to know that there are some people in the world, in this case in Brazil, who already assume that John McCain will beat either of his Democratic challengers.
Did the Pope visit the United States in part to influence the U.S. Presidential race in favor of John McCain?
That seems to be the conclusion of a large number of mainland Europeans.
This article from France’s Journal du Dimanche au Quotidien, quoting French journalist V. Jauvert, points out, “Since April 16 - his birthday - Pope Benedict XVI has been in the United States for a rather long trip (for an old person): a week. And he didn’t go there just to blow out the candles on the cake offered by Dubya … The Pope is (subliminally) campaigning for J. McCain … the official visit of a Pope during a very tight election campaign is contrary to tradition. … this trip, beyond the spiritual and political, is a pretext to support the pro life candidate.’
Jauvert goes on to say that in 2004 before his elevation to the papacy, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote to American Bishops saying, “it’s not possible to defend the right to abortion and receive communion, and that therefore, those who vote for Kerry, who take communion each Sunday, “would be guilty of formal cooperation with the devil!”
“No one should believe that the Iraq War is really that high on the Pope’s agenda. When it came time for the Holy See to endorse a candidate for the last presidential election, the then chief-inquisitor who became today’s Pope found it more important to support the candidate who opposed the legality of abortion than the one who stood against the war. This meant that Bush garnered the support of about a million votes that otherwise would have gone to Kerry. Bush is President, so to speak, due to Benedict’s grace.”
Etschmayer goes on to say, “As Benedict XVI is a Pope of restoration, when he visits the United States during an election year it symbolizes a policy that is anti-liberal and is a sign of support for the only conservative candidate: John McCain. McCain’s talk of remaining in Iraq for even 10,000 years if need be changes nothing. In the end, the fact is that this Pope by far prefers a Christian theocracy that fights bloody wars over a liberal, non-Christian democracy that avoids conflict.”
By Patrik Etschmayer
Translated By Patrik Etschmayer
April 17, 2008
Switzerland - Nachrichten - Original Article (German)
The headlines looked to be rather promising for opponents of Bush: The Pope would give Bush a few verbal slaps in the face, unambiguously criticize him and perhaps the Pontiff would even administer a real beating. But one should not be deluded: Standing on the same foundation, these are two men that think reason and reality should take a back seat to belief in a world as one wishes it to be.
This unity stood out when George W. Bush integrated a core-belief of the Pope into his speech of welcome by stressing that it is important for the nation to heed “the dictatorship of relativism.” Ultimately, this means that both Bush and the Pope stand for an absolute believe in a God that accepts a diversity of faiths only in the sense that there are people left to convert.
It’s perhaps a little ironic then, that the relativism both of these men fight so passionately against exists between themselves, as Bush is a member of a Methodist Church while the Pope is the world’s top Catholic. As far as the Protestants, the Pope has already made his opinion quite clear: When he declared that the Protestant churches were in fact not real churches at all, it triggered considerable consternation among ecumenical [inter-church] organizations.
In this light, the Pope’s criticism of George W. Bush’s Iraq policy is doubly interesting and curious. It’s probably too simplistic to use oil to explain Bush’s drive to invade Iraq. This was certainly a major motivation but there might as well have been the hope of having his “Christian” army plant a flag of victory over the stylized Islamist fanaticism of Saddam Hussein, whose rhetoric certainly contained a religious component. Recall when Bush initially spoke of a crusade, it looked simply as a clumsy choice of words. But who today uses this expression in a military context? It’s quite possible that he actually meant it in a literal sense. A man that continuously stresses doing the Lord’s work will also be drawn into war for his master.
And no one should believe that the Iraq War is really that high on the Pope’s agenda. When it came time for the Holy See to endorse a candidate for the last presidential election, the then chief-inquisitor who became today’s Pope found it more important to support the candidate who opposed the legality of abortion than the one who stood against the war. This meant that Bush garnered the support of about a million votes that otherwise would have gone to Kerry. Bush is President, so to speak, due to Benedict’s grace.
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing translated foreign press coverage of the Pope’s visit to the United States.
Why is it that Popes don’t usually visit the United States during presidential election years? Lucas Mendez writes for the BBC Brazil, “As neutral as the papal robe is, his messages can and will be used by the candidates … every time Benedict XVI opens his mouth, Democrats and Republicans will interpret and “spin it,” according to their own political ‘gospels’” Read the rest of this entry »
April 13th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Once he was the nation’s Attorney General, appointed — and constantly protected and defended by — President George Bush. But he is considered by some to have been one of the worst Attorney Generals in recent history — and now Alberto Gonzales is having a hard time finding a job at a law firm.
Maybe not yet — but the New York Times reports that Gonzales is finding the response to his resume has not been enthusiastic:
Alberto R. Gonzales, like many others recently unemployed, has discovered how difficult it can be to find a new job. Mr. Gonzales, the former attorney general, who was forced to resign last year, has been unable to interest law firms in adding his name to their roster, Washington lawyers and his associates said in recent interviews.
He has, through friends, put out inquiries, they said, and has not found any takers. What makes Mr. Gonzales’s case extraordinary is that former attorneys general, the government’s chief lawyer, are typically highly sought.
A longtime loyalist to George W. Bush dating to their years together in Texas, Mr. Gonzales was once widely viewed as a strong candidate to be the first Hispanic-American nominated one day to the Supreme Court. A graduate of Harvard Law School, he carried an impressive personal story as the child of poor Mexican immigrants.
Despite those credentials, he left office last August with a frayed reputation over his role in the dismissal of several federal prosecutors and the truthfulness of his testimony about a secret eavesdropping program. He has had no full-time job since his resignation, and his principal income has come from giving a handful of talks at colleges and before private business groups.
“Frayed,” indeed. Any prospective employer from Mars who did not know who Gonzales is could do a Google search about his legacy and not be impressed by this,this,this, this,this,this or this.
But has there been a new development that won’t improve his legacy but will perhaps end even the remaining half-ounce of doubt about his role in “enhanced interrogation techniques” (the phrase used for “torture” by those defending the administration who apparently also like the phrase “pre-owned cars” instead of “used cars.”) and why he played the role.
There has been much weeping and gnashing of teeth among so-called conservatives because the selection of John McCain as the GOP nominee. Many have said that he isn’t a true conservative (never mind that his American Conservative Union score says otherwise).
Jonathan Rauch writes in the Atlantic that the problem isn’t that the Arizona Senator isn’t conservative enough, it’s that his “conservative” detractors aren’t really conservatives.
Using McCain’s speech at the Conservative Action Conference, Rauch shows that McCain is steeped in the conservatism of Edmund Burke, the person that many people believed was the founder of modern conservatism.
Rauch describes what Burkean Conservatism is all about:
Burke is the father of modern conservatism, and still its wisest oracle. Tradition-minded but (contrary to stereotype) far from reactionary, he believed in balancing individual rights with social order. The best way to do that, for Burke, was by respecting long-standing customs and institutions while advancing toward liberty and equality. Society’s traditions, after all, embody an evolved collective wisdom that even (or especially) the smartest of individuals cannot hope to understand comprehensively, much less reinvent successfully.
The Burkean outlook takes individual rights seriously, and understands that civic order serves no purpose if its result is oppression or misery. It also understands that social stability, far from being endangered by institutional change, positively depends upon it. Burkeans no more believe in a golden past than they do in a perfect future. For them, the question is not whether society should change, but how.
Burke himself was an advocate of change; he sympathized with the American revolution (while famously denouncing the much more radical French one), proposed curtailing the slave trade, and fought tirelessly to reform the corrupt and monopolistic British East India Company. But he believed change should take a measured pace and should try to follow well-worn social grooves rather than cutting across them. Above all, he abhorred utopian reformers, who, by disdaining real-world constraints and overestimating their own intelligence, invariably worsen what they seek to improve.
When I was trying to find out where I fit in politically, I have to say that I was attracted to Burke and his vision of conservatism. He was skeptical of radical change, opting more for incremental change. He balanced individual rights with social order. It was as Andrew Sullivan has explained a “conservatism of doubt.”
The reason that I like McCain and why I am supporting him is because I think he is true conservative. While all the other GOP leaders were talking about radical change away from some of our cherished traditions, McCain was slow and steady. Think about it: despite his reputation as a maverick, he has been one that cares more about conservation of tradition than in radical notions. I believed he has opposed torture not simply because he himself was tortured, but because of the treaties, and long held practices that the United States has followed for centuries.
The problem with today’s so-called conservatives is that they are too radical. They want to tear down anything and everything that doesn’t fit their views; damn the long held traditions. When the President and many other Republicans think it is okay to ignore past treaties, and the past traditions regarding torture of enemies for the passing need of the present, that is hardly conservative. When they ignore our tradition of welcoming immigrants and turn down any reform proposal that doesn’t simply pack up and ship every illegal immigrant back where they came from, that is hardly conservative.
Rauch notes that the invasion of Iraq was hardly a conservative venture. Remember when the elder Bush had the change to march into Baghdad during the Gulf War, he chose not to. The fear from many in the administration was that to destroy the current regime, would destabilize the country and possibly the region. That was a conservative belief. The goal of the war was to evict Iraq out of Kuwait, not to bring down Saddam, as odious as he was. The fact is, as bad as the regime was, it was what was holding the country together and removing it suddenly would have caused the chaos we are seeing nearly two decades later. The younger Bush and his compatriots had starts in their eyes, believing that Iraq could become an American-style society in the space of a short time. That idea wasn’t conservative and was about as bright as the radical ideas that came from the French Revolution.
I’m supporting John McCain because he is a conservative. Now many liberals don’t like his views and that’s okay; they have a different philosophy. But I consider myself to be a Burkean conservative and I believe Senator McCain reflects those views.
The Republican party really does need to return to its conservative roots. But it needs to understand what conservatism is.
Maybe Rush Limbaugh needs to read up more on his Burke.
April 9th, 2008 by MICHAEL STICKINGS, Assistant Editor
There isn’t much to it, but it isn’t going away. I wrote about it a couple of weeks ago, thinking that that would, for the time being, be that, but, well, that wasn’t that.
Here’s what we know: Condi went to Grover Norquist’s weekly morning gathering for right-wing crackpots and wowed the head crackpot himself. Over the weekend, pro-Condi flack-hack Dan Senor told George Stephanopoulos that “Rice has been actively, actually in recent weeks, campaigning for this,” a campaign that has included cozying up to the Norquist crowd. In response to Senor, Foggy Bottom mouthpiece Sean McCormack said that “if she’s actively seeking the vice presidency, then she’s the last one to know about it,” a too-cute evasion by far.
For his part, Norquist seems now to be pro-Condi himself: “If her goal was to convince everyone she would be a good president and, therefore, a good vice president — she hit it out of the ballpark,” he told WaPo’s Sleuth. “Is she campaigning for it? I don’t know. But if she is, she’s doing it the right way.” Not quite a full-out endorsement, as the misleading headline suggests, but not too shabby.
And what does Condi think: “Let me just say, first of all, that Senator McCain is an extraordinary American, a really outstanding leader, and obviously a great patriot. That said, I’m going back to Stanford or back to California, west of the Mississippi. I very much look forward to watching this campaign and voting as a voter.”
It’s so touching to read this and see on this video how appreciative a Republican Congressman was for a member of the military who did his duty in protecting the politician’s security and LIFE. (I’ll just bet he has a “SUPPORT THE TROOPS” bumper sticker on his car…)
Be grateful to see your tax dollars at work. (Not in the case of the politico. In the case of the young, diligent U.S. soldier.)
But that makes NO difference and doesn’t negate the Congressman’s arrogance and seeming disdain for those who don’t hold powerful positions in Congress. We will use the dreaded word “ditto” to Ed Morrissey’s sentiments here:
Does this really make it any better? After all, the contractors risk their lives as well, albeit for better compensation. One of my good friends worked in Iraq as a contractor, and I can assure McHenry that Mike the SEAL is no two-bit security guard. He’s a highly trained professional who does vital work whether as a SEAL or as a contractor.
Ding Think Progress for the inaccuracy, but McHenry isn’t off the hook.
Sometimes marriages are made in heaven. And then there are the political marriages that are seemingly made further south, in hotter climes. Now there’s a report that the honeymoon may be over between Democratic Presidential nomination aspirant Senator Hillary Clinton and conservative mega-media-giant News Corp maven Rupert Murdoch.
For political and media junkies, its timing could not be more fascinating.
So perhaps it’s exchanging one Democratic party nemesis for another — after all Clinton already WON the New York primary — but the New York Times notes that breaking up is hard to do:
A popular parlor game in political circles in recent years has been dissecting the shifting relationship between Rupert Murdoch, the conservative media mogul, and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
Two years ago, there were signs of a thaw, with Mr. Murdoch, who owns The New York Post, not only endorsing Mrs. Clinton’s bid for a second Senate term in his paper, but also organizing a fund-raiser for her.
Recently, though, the relationship appears to have taken a turn for the worse. Mrs. Clinton has been skewered in The Post throughout her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, and recently taken to task over her claim that she had encountered sniper fire in a visit to Bosnia as first lady (though she later said she had “misspoken”). The newspaper even ran an article, datelined Sarajevo, to debunk what one of its headlines labeled a “ ‘low blow’ lie.”
Now another sign has emerged offering possible clues to Mrs. Clinton’s Murdoch status: Mr. Murdoch’s daughter Elisabeth is holding a fund-raiser at her London home this month for Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.
On the other hand, there are enough variables to suggest that this may be more of an inching away from a closer relationship than any kind of a divorce. For one thing, for several years the apparent Clinton-Murdoch alliance benefited both sides.
For another, the new NY Times article notes that:
…analysis of campaign contributions from employees of the News Corporation and its affiliates, including 20th Century Fox, Fox Sports and the like, reveals they skew heavily Democratic and toward Mrs. Clinton, who collected more than $100,000 in donations compared with about $80,000 for Mr. Obama.
The records show that the employees gave less than $20,000 to Republicans seeking their party’s presidential nomination.
Last year, even Mr. Murdoch contributed $2,300 to Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign. His son James contributed $3,450 to Mrs. Clinton. This followed The Post’s endorsement of her re-election in 2006, as well as Mr. Murdoch’s highly publicized fund-raiser for her.
So Murdoch’s employees are more prone towards Hillaryland versus Obamaland or even McCainland.
In reality, wooing the people who control the press is not new in American politics. What is new and surprising to some is Clinton’s desire (for those who considered her a polarizer) and ability (she wins them over) to in-effect court rich publishers who have demonized her and her husband and even in one case suggested they were involved with murder.
Yes, politics does make strange bedfellows. And Mrs. Clinton is hoping that 8 months from now the elections will give birth to a new title before her name (President-elect Hillary Clinton).
But is all of this this negative? Not necessarily.
To many Democrats, it’s jaw-dropping. But it shows that Clinton (a) can win over her most bitter foes, and, (b) is willing to take a deep breath and make peace with those who were out for her husband’s and her political scalps…if the peace treaty can advance the Clintons’ main goal.
It does raise a question: what next, a meeting and endorsement from Rush Limbaugh?
During the March 31 edition of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Willie Geist repeatedly mocked Sen. Barack Obama’s bowling performance — which Scarborough called “dainty” — at a March 29 campaign stop at Pleasant Valley Lanes in Altoona, Pennsylvania. Deriding Obama’s score, he said: “You know Willie, the thing is, Americans want their president, if it’s a man, to be a real man.” Scarborough added, “You get 150, you’re a man, or a good woman,” to which Geist replied, “Out of my president, I want a 150, at least.”
Later in the show, after NBC political analyst Harold Ford Jr. said that Obama’s bowling showed a “humble” and “human” side to him, Scarborough replied, “A very human side? A prissy side.”
Right, because bowling is the true test not just of a president but of a man.
(And because all-American guys like Scarborough (Chris Matthews is another one) want a president on whom they can have a full-out man-crush.)
Note the language here. Obama was “dainty” and “prissy,” and certainly not “a man.” In other words, he was feminine. More to the point, he was gay. This is the language of the right, the “denigration of the female” (as my friend LindaBeth put it in a brilliant post a couple of months ago on the use of the word “pussy”).
The right uses it to denigrate its political opponents, and they are using it, and will continue to use it, against Obama. The race card will be played, too — and, make no mistake about it, appeals to racism still work — but race as a political weapon is problematic and can only be used covertly, directed at specific audiences under the radar of the mainstream media. Sexism is another matter, especially sexism tinged with homophobia, which is what Scarborough’s comments were all about. (Note that scoring a 150 makes you either a man or a good woman. This is how sexists like Scarborough view women, with utter condescension: a good woman is just an average man.) Read the rest of this entry »
Late last week, Newt Gingrich delivered a curious, under-reported speech at the American Enterprise Institute. He called it, “Answering the Obama Challenge”, and it was framed as a response to Barack Obama’s historic speech about race. (Video and transcript available here. My emphasis.)
Segregation was a horrible institution imposed by force by the state. It ruined the lives of people, it crippled their futures, it was a terrible injustice, and it is totally authentic to be angry about it. As Senator Obama notes,
the legalized discrimination—where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments—meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations.
Anyone who thinks that there was not this destructive impact is simply not in touch with the reality of American history for African-Americans.
It’s been a very long time since I’ve heard a high-level conservative discuss America’s social and economic disasters in terms other than condemnation for the people suffering them. Unfortunately, it’s really hard to reconcile this Newt Gingrich with the one who, 9 days before, called Obama’s speech “infuriating”.
March 26th, 2008 by MICHAEL STICKINGS, Assistant Editor
So you know how yesterday she just happened to bring up the Obama-Wright controversy seemingly out of nowhere, at a meeting with a Pittsburgh newspaper editorial board and then again at a press conference?
Yeah, well, it gets better.
The newspaper in question is the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, which Josh Marshall correctly describes as “the money-losing, vanity, fringe sheet of Richard Mellon Scaife, funder of the Arkansas Project, the American Spectator during its prime Clinton-hunting years and virtually every right-wing operation of note at one point or another over the last twenty years or more”.
That’s right, Clinton met with the editorial board of a major organ of right-wing propaganda. She even sat next to Scaife himself, one of the engines of the Republican Noise Machine, a man who took it upon himself to spend much of the ’90s trying to destroy the Clintons and who has spent the past several decades trying to destroy liberalism and the Democratic Party.
Now, Clinton claims that she innocently answered a question presented to her. Well, that doesn’t “ring true to me” any more than it does to Josh. This is a right-wing rag we’re talking about, a rag funded by one of the richest and most malicious of the right-wing media barons. Clinton must have known that an Obama-Wright question was coming — and she responded with what seems like a prepared answer: He wouldn’t have been my pastor, I denounced Imus, etc.
Is it any wonder so many think that Clinton will do anything to win? I understand that she needs to win Pennsylvania, and I understand that things are looking bleak, but sitting down with Scaife and engaging in a mutual assault on Obama — she was using him, he was using her, all for the common purpose of tearing down Obama — was simply disgusting.
March 19th, 2008 by DAVID SCHRAUB, Assistant Editor
An expansion on my previous post — this one explaining strains of Black Conservatism that are not separatist (such as Clarance Thomas’) and how they fit within the overall paradigm, as well as the difference between Black Conservatism and conservatives who are Black.
While the debate in the United States seems to center around whether with Barack Obama, there is any there there, it seems that in some places he is regarded as the Democratic answer to the much vaunted Republican idea machine. Alfredo Toro Hardy of Venezuela’s El Universal writes, ‘Confronted with the flood of proposals from their Republican counterparts, the fonts of Democratic thought seem to have dried up. … As if by magic, these past limitations seem to be disappearing due to the impact of the Obama phenomenon. He has been responsible with offering Democrats and his campaign a ‘vision’ which, combined with his oratory and charisma, offers a solid counterweight to the strong conservative tendency that characterizes the national mood.’
By Alfredo Toro Hardy
Translated By Barbara Howe
March 13, 2008
Venezuela - El Universal - Original Article (Spanish)
Democrats have begun confronting some serious limitations. Their lack of policy proposals and ideas has often played into the hands of Republicans - and at times when the Republicans have been particularly prolific in this regard. It’s from the right-wing side of the political spectrum that the majority of the ideas which have fed the public life of that country have emerged Read the rest of this entry »
March 13th, 2008 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
The Republican party’s Presidential nominee to be, Senator John McCain, is now dropping hints that, yes, he would indeed seriously consider his former nomination rival former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney as his running mate. And there is an irony in this.
McCain is virtually assured of getting the Republican nomination, and can plot his strategy and raise funds while the Democratic front runners batter each other. There continue to be signs that some conservatives could sit on their hands in November, since McCain was one of conservatives’ least-favorite Senators.
Romney was a favorite of conservatives — but only towards the end of the primary season, when they realized he was the only one of any strength who had a chance of stopping the hated McCain. Bu,t when Romney first appeared, conservatives poked fun at his changing positions and moderate Republican past. He started being called a RINO, became a not-to-be-trusted convert to conservatism and — as actor-Senator Fred Thompson fizzled — ended up as the great conservative hope.
There were recently rumblings about Romney being willing to run for the Veep slot. And Romney did nothing to squelch them.
GOP presidential contender John McCain would not rule out Mitt Romney as a possible running mate yesterday, noting that the former Bay State governor ran an effective primary campaign and is a rising star in national politics.
“Millions of Republicans voted for him,” McCain said during a swing through New Hampshire. “He’s earned himself a place in the future of the Republican Party.”
McCain said he is just beginning his deliberations on a running mate and that it’s premature to say whether Romney is among the names he’s considering. During a national TV interview Tuesday, Romney said he would be “honored” to be selected by the Arizona senator.
And Romney? He is now talking nice about John McCain, basically saying past squabbles were only business.
“Politics is a rough and tumble sport, and you do what you need to do to win,” Romney said on the Fox News program Hannity and Colmes. “There really are no hard feelings.” Later, Romney added, “There are things I wish he would not have said, but he was successful, and I have to recognize that now is the time for us to come together and support his candidacy.” Romney said his fund-raising team — a group of successful business associates who out-raised many of the other Republican contenders — have been put to work on McCain’s behalf.
But it would make sense. It would be perhaps the first Republican ticket in many years containing two media savvy politicos who know how to talk to the TV camera but also come across well on the TV camera.
Downside: neither have sterling, lifetime conservative credentials. But how could conservatives complain about Romney…since he had been (for a while at least) touted as the great conservative hope? CBS News’ blog thinks Romney could be a tough sell.
![[The Telegraph, U.K.]](http://worldmeets.us/images/mccainpennsylvania_telegraph.gif)
![[La Tribune, Honduras]](http://worldmeets.us/images/popepedofile_latribunahn.gif)
![[The New Zealand Herald, New Zealand]](http://www.stuff.co.nz/images/images/705183.jpg)
