So, my opinion doesn't count in this Rand Paul business?


Yesterday, thanks to Rand Paul, we received proof positive that the rotten racist apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

I am of course speaking of Rand Paul's not-necessarily disastrous decision to advocate for the repeal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

I say not-necessarily, because this is still Kentucky we're talking about. Not the most racist state in the Union (too many nominees to mention), but just about as racist as they come.

Mr. Paul's racism has, of course, generated a lot of chatter on the TeeVee, and in the blogosphere. In most cases, a lot of journalists went out of their way to say that Rand Paul was not a racist. Ezra Klein's post is but one example. There are more.

Why? Because he said so.

But with regard to racism, I don't believe in any racism. I don't think we should have any government racism, any institutional form of racism.

That was from the Maddow interview of May 19th.

Guess that takes care of that.

If this douchebag is going to so casually throw my rights (as an African-American) under the bus to serve his ideological aims, while his remain intact (what a coincidence), how does that not make him a racist?

Read more »

Is everyone just afflicted with short-term memory loss or what??


I am still amazed, sometimes, at how short my fellow Liberals memories can be.

A lot of them are decrying, howling in protest, and just plain ol' pissed off with President Obama's decision to allow some Offshore Drilling for Oil. (Not everyone got it wrong, though). My fellow Liberals are claiming that this was a betrayal of a promise he made on the campaign trail.

Except for the part where...you know...it wasn't.

Below is the video from a speech that Senator Barack Obama gave on August 4, 2008, on Energy in Lansing, Michigan.

The money part is about 11:54 into the video.

But to be complete, I have the relevant portion of the text right here. Please tell me where this statement diverges from what was said on Wednesday:

Last week, Washington finally made some progress on [make a serious, nationwide commitment to developing new sources of energy]. A group of Democrat and Republican Senators sat down and came up with a compromise on energy that includes many of the proposals I've worked on as a Senator and many of the steps I've been calling for on this campaign. It's a plan that would invest in renewable fuels and batteries for fuel-efficient cars, help automakers re-tool, and make a real investment in renewable sources of energy.

Like all compromises, this one has its drawbacks. It includes a limited amount of new offshore drilling, and while I still don't believe that's a particularly meaningful short-term or long-term solution, I am willing to consider it if it's necessary to actually pass a comprehensive plan. I am not interested in making the perfect the enemy of the good -- particularly since there is so much good in this compromise that would actually reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

The complete text of the speech can be found here, where the then-Senator says that drilling is basically a bull@#$% solution for short term energy prices. And so it remains. Yet, somehow the American Public is convinced the reverse is true.

I don't want to sit here and say I'm not a little disappointed by what happened, but I knew there was a reason this wasn't a kick in gut. This wasn't a freakin' surprise. Pretending otherwise is just getting sad.

This was originally published at Ft. McHenry. How the second half of this post disappeared after I published it, I have no idea.

The Myth of Corporate Omniscience...


Keith Olbermann's Special Comment last night discussed at length the Supreme Court's supremely bad decision to open the floodgates to Corporate Money into the Political Process. While I think the decision was ridiculous on its face, and harmful to the good of the country, I don't think it's the end of the world. Why?

Because the Corporations...of which you are so rightly a feared...are going to @#$% it up.

Not might @#$% it up...they will @#$% it up.

Read more »

Ralph Nader is a racist...


Some of y'all on the TPM Blogs are big Ralph Nader supporters.  So let me start out by saying something I'm going to repeat later in the piece.

This is about Ralph Nader, not about you.

Now, I'm an Obama Supporter.  I've been enjoying some of the pushback I've seen written by Liberals against my fellow Liberals in the last few days.  One of the more literate pieces I've come across is  Hendrik Hertzberg's piece in the New Yorker.  I like his work.  I enjoyed his appearances on the late, lamented Al Franken Show.  He's done better, but still...

...but I almost didn't finish the damn thing because he highlighted a quote from Mr. Nader than stopped me in my tracks, describing the sitting President as:

"...an Uncle Tom groveling before the demands of the corporations that are running our country."

Uhhh, Excuse me?

Sarah Palin picture, anyone?
As an African American, let me say that yes, I have a problem with this! (In case the title of this article wasn't enough for a clue.)
If this was the first time Ralph Nader had used racially charged rhetoric in regards to this particular President, I'd have just been angry and moved along. But it's not the first time.

It's the fourth.

Read more »

Do Progressives understand Governing, or was that all stuff being better than the Republicans at doing it from 2008 Campaign just bull#$%#???


I don't like Max Baucus.

I don't trust Max Baucus.

But my fellow Progressives, the rest of you are driving me friggin' crazy today.

The Republicans are the ones who are supposed to suck at Governance. Not us.

But listening to the debate today...you'd have to wonder.

But there's a reason why why we lost the Single Payer and/or maybe the Public Option. (At least that last one's obvious, there weren't the votes.)

There's a reason why bi-partisianship is a matter of Governance as opposed to Politics, which a lot of y'all seem to think it is.

Read more »

The Inherent Selfishness of our National Health Care Debate...


Doing the water cooler ting, and talking to other people (friends, co-workers) about Health Care Reform, has been a horrifying experience. In short, it's been a pain in the ass. All anyone can think about is themselves. Doesn't matter if they're liberal or conservative: "What am I going to lose", "I don't want to lose this", "I don't want to lose that", "I shouldn't have to give up my gold-plated Health Care for someone else", "I don't want anything to change for me."

Jesus.

Me, I'm different. I got Health Care. My workplace is loaded. I can even choose a "gold plated" option should I choose.

But for once, it's not all about me.

There's this girl. She works at a Restaurant in beautiful downtown Burbank, a local family joint. She's one of the 50 million. She doesn't have Health Insurance. She can't afford to pay the going (insane) rates with what she makes.

These is my bona-fides as a supporter of the Public Option, a real Public Option.

In truth, I'm a Single-Payer guy. The Public Option was merely the compromise I was willing to put up with.

Now, that's looking like it's gone.

A Public Option was the only way I could see my girl affording Health Insurance in the near future. No Public Option, and I don't see how she afford Health Insurance once even if President Obama's plan passes.

I don't like this. I don't like where I am. I don't like where we're at. Like most progressives, I resent over the fact that I voted for Obama and the Democratic Slate. I voted for a Platform, yet my voice isn't the one they're listening to.

At the same time, who should really be at blame here? Because I'm about to hear a lot of blame coming the President's way, and the last I checked, the President doesn't pass legislation. Congress does.

Read more »

The line that I deal with that you do not...


I'm still processing my feelings about the arrest of Dr. Henry Louis Gates. Needless to say, they start at anger, and grow from there.

Still, it is a momentary anger, a fleeting feeling. Why? Because, as a black man in America, I'm used to the kind of treatment African-American men get at the hands of Police. I'm used to hearing about it. I'm used to seeing it. I'm used to recieving it.

What I'm not used to, at least what's at this point, is the nature of the coverage surrounding the incident, and the views of some white Americans...and white people, some of whom I have some or even great respect for, is shocking me.

Read more »

The Third Hand...


There's a concept I've been discussing with my Father recently; a concept I've given to calling, the "Third Hand".

When a Political Figure acts against his nature, for whatever reason, there's usually some other force at work, something we don't see.

Put a simpler way, you got one hand on Obama pulling him one way, you got another hand pulling him in reverse, and then comes another hand (hint-hint: a Third Hand), which pushes him the way he actually goes.

Think of it like this, if there's a situation where Obama does something to deliberately anger his base, logic suggests that the alternative, whatever it may be, is far worse.

Read more »

The GOP inherits the wind...


Believe it or not, Arlen Specter's move wasn't all that surprising.

I mean, think about it. This is how the cycle works. This is the process a party goes through when its knocked out of power.

Read more »

Namecalling 101, for Conservatives.


This is country was founded on debate. And even though the debate's gotten a touch bit nasty over the last couple of days, I wholeheartedly support the principle.

So, Conservatives, particularly of the Teabagging/Anti-Tax/Herbert Hoover/24 Percent crowd, say what you want to say. You've got that right. Think what you wanna think. You don't have to like the President. You can even call him names. Lord knows, I've done it to former President Bush. Fair's fair.

But if you're going to call the President names, please dear God, know what the hell you're talking about.

Read more »

The Motherf#$%$% reponsible...


Obama gets called a motherf#$%$% on the Blagojevich tape, and yet it's his responsibility to come clean.

That's the angle being taken by our worthless Mainstream Media.

Ed Rendell:

"They have never been in an executive position before," Rendell said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "The rule of thumb is whatever you did, say it and get it over with and make it a one-day story as opposed to a three-day story. Politicians are always misjudging the intelligence of the American people."

The man who just cracked on Janet Napolitano for having no life is giving Barack Obama advice on handling the press?

Are you kidding me??

And they were worried about Biden??

Eugene Robinson:

The scandal involves Obama in only the most tangential way, as far as anyone knows, and actually seems to cast him in a favorable light. But the longer he leaves obvious questions unanswered, the longer the president-elect will have to talk about the seamier side of Illinois politics rather than initiatives such as saving the U.S. auto industry or revamping health care.

Maybe, I'm the one who misjudged Ed and Eugene. I like these guys, but they're dead-ass wrong.

What exactly is your responsibility for a story when you're as much a victim in these circumstances than anything else??

You actually had Reporters questioning Obama over the fact that he didn't repeat his call for Blagojevich's resignation.

You actually have reporters parsing when Obama used "I" versus "we" in his Press Conference yesterday.

I'm starting to get the feeling this is as much a result of Press Corps addicted to News Cycle Journalism with nothing to cover, finally getting their teeth into something, and if necessary making @#$% up to feed the beast.

Apparently covering the Financial Apocalypse is just too damn boring...

If Obama doesn't walk up to the State House, and put Blagojevich in cuffs himself, somehow it's his fault.

I expect this B.S. from Fox News...not Democrats and otherwise smart columnists...


Originally posted on Fort McHenry II.

Someone explain America to me...


Rod Blagojevich is the one who broke the law (alledgedly). Rod Blagojevich is the Governor with a 8% approval rating. Blagojevich is the Governor who's been made to look like a buffon on International Television (him and his wife cussing everything in sight). Blagojevich is the guy they're trying to get removed from Office. Blagojevich is the one who's made his state look like a fool...

...yet it's Rahm Emanuel that's getting the death threats??  The guy who may have turned Blagojevich in.  The guy who may be responsible for getting him busted.

...yet it's Barack Obama who has to explain himself to the media?

Someone explain America to me.


Originally posted on Fort McHenry II

Taking the time to actually read Team of Rivals past its cover...


What's "sacrosanct" to John McCain, and what is not...


Senator McCain, thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.  My first question.  Mr. McCain...do you know the definition of the word, sacrosanct?


Well, according to Webster's Online dictionary:


sac·ro·sanct  \sa-krō-saŋ(k)t\

Etymology: Latin sacrosanctus, probably from sacro sanctus hallowed by a sacred rite

Date: 1601

1 : most sacred or holy : inviolable

2 : treated as if holy : immune from criticism or violation

I bring this up to you, Senator McCain, because in this election, we have seen many, many instance where some things are sacrosanct, and other things are not.


For one, we can question why Senator Obama doesn't wear a flag pin (even though he has been), and the subject of John McCain's empty collar doesn't even come up.


Another, we can question why Barack Obama is able to legally purchase a small strip of land from Tony Rezko, but bring up the subject of John McCain's eight homes, and you get told about his time as a POW.


It's those POW quotes that got me thinking.


All during this campaign, we've been told about your time in the Hanoi Hilton.  For example:


If we question you about your partisanship, you say:


"In the prison camps of North Vietnam, there weren't Republicans or Democrats, there were just patriots."

John McCain July 1, 2008

If we question whether or not you were given the questions in advance at the Saddleback Forum, you say:


"The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous."

Nicole Wallace (McCain Campaign spokeswoman) Aug. 17, 2008

Heck, if we just ask you about the Keating Five scandal?


"Even the Vietnamese didn't question my ethics."

John McCain Sept. 29, 1989

So what you've said...hell, what your whole campaign has said, is that your time as a POW is sacrosanct.  It's inviolable.  We can't touch it.


But here's my question.


Why isn't John Lewis's time as Chairman of SNCC equally sacrosanct?


Let's flash back to February 18th, 1965.


An Alabama State Trooper shoots and kills a young man, Jimmie Lee Jackson as he tries to protect his Mother and Grandfather during a demonstration.  Eight days later, Mr. Jackson dies from his wounds.  James Bevel calls for a protest march from Selma to Montgomery as a protest.


George Wallace...being George Wallace...declares the march a threat to public safety and orders is stopped at all costs.  When the marchers try to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge, they are met by Sheriff's Deputies and State Troopers.  They are attacked with billy clubs, tear gas, and riot gear.  John Lewis was at the head of this non-violent march, and got his face caved in as a result.


Now, let's be honest, Senator.  John Lewis called you out on the carpet for the things you've allowed said at your rallies, and you don't much like it when anyone calls you out for anything.


"George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights.  Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama."

Actually, to say that you don't like it is doing a disservice to your anger about it.  You were pissed.


"This is not just some obscure party official," McCain said in an interview aired by CNN. "And that's what's so totally unacceptable about it."

I'm sorry, this may put me in the minority here but...what's so unacceptable about it?


John Lewis still has a metal plate in his head from what the Alabama Police did to him that day.  I think he's more than earned the right to call it as he sees it.  My question is where exactly do you get off questioning him about it?


Once again, Senator McCain...is if your time as a Prisoner of War is expected to be treated as sacrosanct by we the people, why isn't the beating John Lewis suffered being treated with the same respect?


After all, say what you will about his quote (and Lord knows you and Rick Davis have), he was at least tying his personal experience to what you've been doing on the campaign trail.


I know what you're going to say already.  You can't compare the two.  "I sacrificed five years of his life in the Hanoi Hilton," you'll say.  "I was tortured."  You can't compare the two.


I don't know...can't I?


I don't know if you want to get into a comparison of length of time because John McCain spent a scant five years of his life in a Vietnamese POW Camp, John Lewis spent all his early years in the Segregated South.  Where as your torturers, Senator McCain, at least were foreign to you, the people who nearly beat John Lewis to death where his fellow countrymen.  And after five years, Senator McCain, you were at least allowed to go home.


John Lewis was home.  There was no escape for him.


Granted, in time, things have gotten better...to a degree, but the hatred that rose up on the Edmund Pettus Bridge (and many, many times before that), has found itself resurrected at your rallies.  Instead of being a man, shutting this crap down, you've come out and said how proud you were of the people at your rallies.


In some cases (as we're seeing more and more of), you have every reason to be proud.


But now, your Campaign hatchet man, Rick Davis is threatening to go to Reverend Wright again, as  a campaign issue.  The real reason you're letting him do so, is the fact that you're losing.  But your excuse?  John Lewis.


I would ask one final question.  I would ask if you had any shame or decency left.


Sad part is, I already know the answer.

Permission for the Two Minutes Hate...


The TPM Community is, I imagine, like a lot of other Political Communities on the Internet.  It’s a place to come together, debate the issues of the day, and test the strength of your Political arguments.

This should be a good thing.  Such debates are the lifeblood of our Democracy.  It’s how we identify the path.  It’s how we move forward as a country.

But I’m starting to think that that ship has sailed.

A couple of days ago, I got an Email from my buddy Mike.  Now, for the record, he’s a staunch Barry Goldwater type Republican.  He’s for Bush, but at the same time far more amenable to arguments and discussions from the left than his brethren.  In other words, he'd readily agree with the first two paragraphs of this piece (as evidenced below).

The Email was one to a bunch of friends highlighting an article by Camille Paglia called “Nobody’s Dummy”, in which the Salon.com description of the article describes as: “Liberals underestimate Sarah Palin’s vitality and — yes — smarts at their own peril.”

Mike described what he liked:

There is no question but that Camille Paglia is a liberal.  She teaches university level Women's Studies, writes for Salon.com, and openly supports Obama for president.  However, I have read her last two columns and each time have been impressed with her intellectual honesty.  And it isn't just because she takes swipes at her own people.  More importantly, it is that she is willing to take swipes at her own people, and to acknowledge the validity of opposing points of view, while still disagreeing with them.  I think she represents something important that has been lost: Civil political discourse that is intelligent and willing to eschew a doctrinaire point of view.

First off, I’m not what you’d call the biggest Camille Paglia fan in the world.  For all of her Academic accomplishment, she always struck me as more interested in self-promotion than any particular point of view.  She craves the spotlight almost as much as she loves with the sound of her own voice.  While she’s been an Obama supporter, she always struck me as more anti-Hillary than pro-Obama.  And I would certainly wouldn't call her a Liberal or a Progressive.  As in all things, Camille Paglia's only true party is Camille Paglia.

When I watch Sarah Palin, I don’t think sex — I think Amazon warrior!

Oh yeah. That's intellectual honesty for ya!  (Wink!)

It's quite possible that Mike's just the victim of bad timing.  I will say that sending me a Camille Paglia article isn’t quite the reach-across-the-aisle moment Mike thinks it is.

Mike went further:

As a Republican, it is frankly tedious to have to start political conversations with liberals/democrats under the assumption that I am one or more of the following: (a) a programmable extension of Rush Limbaugh's will; (b) a flaming-sword Christian Warrior seeking to impose my oppressive brand of religio-social puritanism on a libertine public duped by a godless minority of liberal elites;  (c) impenetrably closed minded; (d) dumb; or (e) just another white male of privileged upbringing trying to keep what I've got by keeping other people down.  Political discourse has denigrated to ad hominem attacks where people of one point of view literally dislike those of the other.

This was the moment that served as the catalyst of this article.

That's why I sent him a link to an earlier positing of mine, thus emphasizing my unwillingness to sing kum-ba-ya with the Republicans of the world.

It's very simple.  While I am willing to engage in debate for and against all manner of Political ideas, while I am willing to listen to people who's ideas stand in opposition to my own; there is one area in which I brook no dissent: and that is the subject of the Obama’s personal safety.

Simply put, right now, Mike's guy is @#$%@$ing with my guy’s safety.

Until I start hearing from Republicans that this sort of campaign is inexcusable, the hand that reaches across the aisle will be slapped back.

The fact that McCain has decided to turn his rallies into lynch mobs should disturb all Americans.

And this hatred not only found its face and voice, but is starting to find its way to action:

An Obama sign was burned in Tampa, Florida.

Another one was burned on the front lawn of a Black family in Irondequoit, New York.

Another one near Durham, North Carolina (hard to tell where since the article is subscriber only).

This was all, apparently, in the last 24 hours (since Friday afternoon, October 10th, 2008).

I need not list out the dangers to the Obama Family, but clearly a mob mentality is being incited.

It's disturbing to see a few on the Republican side speaking out, but the number is not nearly enough.

John Weaver:

People need to understand, for moral reasons and the protection of our civil society, the differences with Senator Obama are ideological, based on clear differences on policy and a lack of experience compared to Senator McCain, and from a purely practical political vantage point, please find me a swing voter, an undecided independent, or a torn female voter that finds an angry mob mentality attractive.

David Gergen:

One of the most striking things we've seen in the last few day, we have seen it at the Palin rallies and we saw it at the McCain rally today. And we saw it to a considerable degree during the rescue package legislation. There is a free-floating sort of whipping-around anger that could really lead to some violence. And I think we're not far from that.

Frank Schaeffer:

John McCain: In 2000, as a lifelong Republican, I worked to get you elected instead of George W. Bush. In return, you wrote an endorsement of one of my books about military service. You seemed to be a man who put principle ahead of mere political gain.

You have changed. You have a choice: Go down in history as a decent senator and an honorable military man with many successes, or go down in history as the latest abettor of right-wing extremist hate.

Congressman Ray LaHood (Talking specifically about Sarah Palin):

Look it. This doesn't befit the office that she's running for. And frankly, people don't like it.

Former Michigan Governor William Milliken

He is not the McCain I endorsed.  He keeps saying, 'Who is Barack Obama?' I would ask the question, 'Who is John McCain?' because his campaign has become rather disappointing to me.  I'm disappointed in the tenor and the personal attacks on the part of the McCain campaign, when he ought to be talking about the issues.

David Gergen (again):

I really worry when we get people -- when you get the kind of rhetoric that you're getting at these rallies now.  I think it's really imperative the candidates try to calm people down.

But leave it to the McCain Campaign to stay the course:

McCain Campaign Spokesman Brian Rogers:

Raising legitimate questions about record, character and judgment are a vital part of the Democratic process, and Barack Obama's effort to silence and shame those who seek answers should make everyone wonder exactly what he is hiding.

Uhhh, Brian.  The friggin' Secret Service has gotten involved in this mess.

You are witnessing just a few of the ancillary events that thrive in the dark sunshine of racial hatred.  You would see it (and still see it today in some quarters) when a Minister will take the pulpit, read passages of scripture justifying slavery, or justifying their own supposed racial superiority.  Thus his flock could leave church that Sunday with their heads held high, firmly certain in their own righteousness.  And armed with that certainty, any actions they took over the next week could be justified by the word of the Lord.

The Minister, in short, gave them cover for their hated.  He gave them permission to hate.

What is John McCain doing now, purposely mixing the words Barack Obama with William Ayers, Barack Obama with Usama Bin Laden.  All his followers hear are the words Obama…and terrorist.  No scripture needed.  Obama…terrorist.  Thus, the next words come easily: "Terrorist", "Traitor" and of course, "Kill him" and "Bomb Him" , and McCain saying nothing in response, you are hearing cover being given.  You are hearing John McCain give his supporters permission to hate Barack Obama…even though he's said nothing at all.

Not oppose Barack Obama, oh no, that's not good enough.  He needs to turn the page.  He needs to get the country onto a whole new subject if he expects to win.  No.  The only way to get that to happen to is fan the flames of his supporters.

And to make sure the message sticks, the hatred has to spread to Michelle as well.

But the problem is…once he unleashes that hate, he cannot control it.

The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretense was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one's will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp.

George Orwell

"1984"

The signs burning across the country are just the first step.  We will unfortunately know it's getting worse, I am afraid, when we see one of Senator Obama's ground volunteers attacked.

Barack Obama:

It's easy to rile up a crowd by stoking anger and division. But that's not what we need right now in the United States. The times are too serious. The challenges are too great. The American people aren't looking for someone who can divide this country -- they're looking for someone who will lead it. We're in a serious crisis -- now, more than ever, it is time to put country ahead of politics. Now, more than ever, it is time to bring change to Washington so that it works for the people of this country that we love.

John McCain (late today of Barack Obama):

He's a decent family man with whom I happen to have some disagreements.

That's a start, but it's going to take way more than that.

Mike said to me, in his Email, that he didn't want to be lumped in with this morass of the stereotypical Republican.  He's right.  He shouldn't be.

At the same time, if he doesn't want to be lumped in with those Republicans, I think better get off his ass help to shut this crap down.  He ought to add his voice to the small chorus calling out John McCain.  Silence on his part, or anyone's part in this matter, leaves you suspect.

It is incumbent on Republicans of good character (and clearly they're out there) to stand up to the extremists in their party, and tell them that this hatred has no place in civil discourse, much less civil society.  This is what would be expected of us if some on our side were calling for Senator McCain's or Governor's Palin's harm.  (Heck, it has been called for.  What is William Ayers but an extremist from the left?)

(For the record, the black supporter of McCain's at the Waukesha, Wisconsin who claims to have "taken an ass whoopin'", if that is true…then that shouldn't be tolerated either.)

This can get out of hand fast, and the people I'll blame will be those who stood silent.

admiralmpj

user-pic

Following: 3
Followers: 9

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address