A few days ago, I had decided to abandon TPM forever. I was sick to death of the negativity, the Obama bashing, the Republican trolls hoping to capitalize on Democratic disaffection, and the overall partisan shitheadery, In short, I had little hope for my party of hope, optimism and hard work. But tonight has changed my attitude. As of this writing, Minnesota's Democratic candidates for governor have garnered over 300,000 votes, while Republicans have managed to turn out a paltry 80,000 voters. Not only that, but the Obama-endorsed candidate, Michael Bennet, has won in Colorado. We most definitely can win in November, and we have proved that tonight. Many on the left will remain cynical and unimpressed. They are angry and disillusioned by what they see as the "failures" of the Obama administration: the deferment of the repeal DADT, the administration's refusal to fight for the public option (which would have been an absolute disaster for Democrats and for the sick), perceived continuation of Bush administration policies on issues of habeus corpus, and on and on. I will not argue those issues here. While many of the criticisms have merit, the fact is, there is a far more important reasons for Democrats to turn out and vote in November. And the Number One reason is court appointments. No matter what you think of the President Obama's policies, his appointments to the courts have been consistently progressive. If we had been able to deliver a veto-proof majority in the Senate, he would have been even more bold. On the other hand, if we lose Congress in November, we run the risk of the President being forced to appoint a centrist to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In light of what we saw in the Citizens United case, can America afford to move to the right? And what would happen if a conservative were to retire? I realize it's a long-shot, but if it were to happen and President Obama had a majority in Congress, does anyone seriously believe he would not appoint a justice who would move America to the left? For generations to come? In many ways, November 2010 is even more important than the 2008 election. Because if we win three months from now, it will serve as a total repudiation of Republican hate-mongering since President Obama was elected. But more than that, it seals the deal. It confirms that Americans desire a better, more egalitarian world. Tonight reinvigorated my hope. In November, you must get out and vote. Unless you want those right-wing losers to take over.
Just posted a comment on Jake Tapper's "Political Punch" blog on the ABC website. Here's what I posted:
"The ACLU representative sounds like a drooling
idiot. This is ONE CASE. There is no trend. It's a SINGLE CASE. And I'm
guessing the reason they're backing the Bush position is because they
have no other choice. The Bush administration probably had someone pull the guys' thumbs off with pliers. Sometimes there's no going back. But this is ONE
CASE. The ACLU is doing their job, but they need to get a grip."
Here's what the mods at ABC posted:
"The ACLU representative sounds like a drooling
idiot. This is ONE CASE. There is no trend. It's a SINGLE CASE. And I'm
guessing the reason they're backing the Bush position is because they
have no other choice. Sometimes there's no going back. But this is ONE
CASE. The ACLU is doing their job, but they need to get a grip."
If they do this to a simple comment on a blog post, what do you suppose they're doing to the news?
Much has been made of the notion that, among Barack Obama's supporters, Obama is considered "The One". It's a nutty, somewhat psycho/paranoid reference to the film, The Matix, but we get it, We're accused of being "Kool-Aid drinkers", of being hopeless idealists, of being self-blinded to the failings of "Our Dear Leader", of being hero worshipers. Our critics accuse us of lacking discernment. We're told we lack the basic skills to assess the obvious human frailties of The One we have chosen as our president. But I have a question for the critics: Do you know for a fact that Barack Obama is NOT "The One"? Because some (very few) leaders like Obama DO happen from time to time. How do you know that he is not one of these? How do you know for a fact that Barack Obama is not the next great leader of mankind? Of the world? Do you? How do you know? Give me some evidence, please. Beyond just, "I don't believe it."
Muhatma Ghandi was a regular guy who decided to stick to his guns. He became a revered world leader who, because his local issue was one that captured the world, achieved greatnesss. Gautama Buddha died a painful death after eating pork that was offered to him by a follower. According to Buddhist doctrine, Gautama Budddha was probibited from eating meat, yet He chose to follow doctrine over "reality". Was He corrupt? Was he weak? Why was He considered great? The history of Jesus of Nazareth is obscure, but He was clearly human. Who was he? No one really knows. The man who said, "The kingdom of God is within you and all around you. It is not within
buildings of wood or stone. Split a piece of wood and you will find me.
Look beneath a stone and I am there." Jesus the man clearly did not believe in the world you live in. Who was He?
So what is the problem with Obama? I'm not trying to deify the guy, but why can't he be better than the rest of us? What is the critics' problem with that notion? What evidence do Obama's detractors have to support the notion that Obama is less than great? Buddha was an average human. JFK was average. Reverend Martin Luther King was human. Jesus was human. Is it not possible that Barack Obama is human too? One of those extraordinary humans who comes along once in a generation? I believe Barack Obama IS the one. For me, that's no big deal.
Today, truthseeker77 published a "comments disabled" post entitled Keith Olbermann and the straw man fallacy. I'm not recommending that you read it. In fact, I didn't read it, and I'm making it a general rule to never read posts that have comments disabled. But after I clicked the link, I realized that when someone posts something that
looks interesting or provocative, I often scroll down to the comments first--before reading the post. I guess sometimes the effect is more interesting to me than the cause. Seeing that grey "COMMENTS DISABLED" thing at the bottom of the post caused me to reach for the Back button before the page had even finished loading.
The futility and arrogance of trying to prevent replies to your public pronouncements should be obvious to all, but apparently it's not. In my opinion, disabling comments is a silly, cowardly practice, and I'd like to see a warning right on the "Recent Reader Posts" list so I could avoid clicking the link in the first place.
At any rate, if you happen to feel the overwhelming urge to read and/or respond to truthseeker77's post, please feel free to use the space below to reply to whatever the hell it was truthseeker77 wrote.
An interesting tidbit from the Minnesota Independent:
"Less than two months after he was elected in 2002, Norm Coleman used
the power of his yet-to-be-assumed U.S. Senate office to try to
leverage a presidential pardon for convicted money launderer and Tom Petters associate Frank Vennes Jr. And two years after that, Coleman wrote yet another pardon plea on Vennes' behalf.
Vennes, whose criminal record includes 1986 pleas of guilty and no
contest to a set of charges involving money-laundering, drug and
firearms charges, is currently implicated -- though not yet charged -- in
the Tom Petters financial fraud scandal. As Jon Tevlin reported in the
Star Tribune, Vennes' home was raided by federal authorities on
September 24, and "[a]ccording to a federal search warrant affidavit,
Vennes was a facilitator who persuaded five major investors to invest
$1.2 billion in companies controlled by Petters. The document says
Vennes collected more than $28 million in commissions for his work."
"[Ayers] said that he laughed, too, when he listened to Sarah Palin's
descriptions of Obama 'palling around with terrorists.' In fact, Ayers
said that he knew Obama only slightly: 'I think my relationship with
Obama was probably like that of thousands of others in Chicago and,
like millions and millions of others, I wished I knew him better.'"
Stumping for McCain in Oxford, Ohio, House Minority Leader John Boehner called Obama out for his "present" votes:
"Now, listen, I've voted 'present' two or three times in my entire
25-year political career, where there might have been a conflict of
interest and I didn't feel like I should vote," Boehner said. "In
Congress, we have a red button, a green button and a yellow button,
alright. Green means 'yes,' red means 'no,' and yellow means you're a
chickenshit. And the last thing we need in the White House, in the
oval office, behind that big desk, is some chicken who wants to push
this yellow button."
Only one problem for Boehner: In the House, the equivalent to a present vote is to abstain. And in contrast to Obama's present votes, which accounted for 3 percent of his total votes cast, Boeher has abstained 5 percent of the time. Apparently the "chickenshit" button gets plenty of use in Boehnerland.
"The themes and messages that are galvanizing the crowds for Palin are bleeding Sens. John Sununu in New Hampshire, Gordon Smith in Oregon, Norm Coleman in Minnesota and Susan Collins in Maine. The Palin approach might have been expected to work better in more traditionally conservative states such as Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia, but they have not worked well enough to compensate for the weak Republican economic message at a moment of global financial crisis. Result: the certain loss of John Warner's Senate seat in Virginia, the probable loss of Elizabeth Dole's in North Carolina, an unexpectedly tough fight for Saxby Chambliss's in Georgia -- and an apparent GOP surrender in Colorado, where it looks as if the National Republican Senatorial Committee has already pulled its ads from the air.
The fundraising challenge only makes things worse. The Republican senatorial and congressional committees have badly underperformed compared with their Democratic counterparts -- and the Republican National Committee, which has done well, is directing its money toward the presidential campaign, rather than to local races. (It was RNC funds, not McCain '08 money, that paid the now-famous $150,000 for Palin's campaign wardrobe, for example.) This is a huge mistake.
In these last days before the vote, Republicans need to face some strategic realities. Our resources are limited, and our message is failing. We cannot fight on all fronts. We are cannibalizing races that we must win and probably can win in order to help a national campaign that is almost certainly lost. In these final 10 days, our goal should be: senators first."
Joe Biden's "rhetorical flourish" about Obama being "tested" appears to have gained a bit of traction. I'm not sure it will do any lasting damage, but why risk it? Biden could easily turn things around by pointing out two simple facts:
1). When John McCain asserts that Obama would be tested by our enemies but that he would not, he's either being dangerously arrogant or cluelessly naive. Any new administration will be tested for weakness, style, etc. To assume that you've already been tested, as McCain is doing, is absurd. There's no presidential aptitude test that you take once and then go on your merry way. Biden needs to point this out. John McCain will be tested, and he will most likely fail because he doesn't have the temperament of a leader. He is erratic, indecisive, hot-headed, impulsive and unpredictable. Precisely what we don't need in these dangerous times.
2). If something were to happen to McCain, Sarah Palin would most certainly be tested. That is a prospect too frightening to consider. She is hopelessly unprepared for the job, and Sarah Palin in the Oval Office would put our nation's security in grave danger. We can not afford to take a chance on either one of them.
Obama has made his case. He's passed the Commander-In-Chief threshold for the majority of Americans. This is the perfect opportunity to drive the final nail in the McCain campaign's coffin.
Just found some photos of Obama in St. Louis. Unbelievable. Who would have thought so many anti-American, terrorist-sympathizing, vote-stealing, baby-killing, communists could be living in one midwestern city?
