The Friday Political Thread: No Hand Shows Edition

David Weigel | December 14, 2007

We survived two debates this week, an occurance which won't be repeated until... well, until three and a half weeks from now, when the Democrats and Republicans do back-to-back Jan. 5 debates in New Hampshire. Robert Novak's report is especially thorough this week and worth reading.

Unconvincing quote of the week...

"I always knew it would be hard." - Hillary Clinton, Dec. 14. Two weeks earlier she said she never considered the possibility of losing the nomination.

The week in brief...

- The much-loathed Des Moines Register debates hardly moved the needle in either campaign, although Fred Thompson showed signs of life, Hillary Clinton sounded flustered, and John Edwards announced plans to nationalize Hit & Run.

- New Hampshire Clinton backer Bill Shaheen (husband of the Democrats' Senate nominee against John Sununu) speculated—just being helpful!—that Republicans would pillory nominee Obama for his lifetime of hardcore drug use and dope dealing. Shaheen resigned.

- The energy bill, which needed 60 votes to break cloture, got 59.

The GOP rises again! This might be a half-baked theory based on a bunch of random results and fooferah, but consider:

- Last Friday, Kentucky Secretary of State Crit Luallen, a Democrat, decided not to challenge Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, whom polls show has been weakened over the last year.

- On Tuesday, Republicans held on to two open House seats in Virginia and Ohio by 21 points and 14 points respectively. The Virginia result wasn't much of a surprise, but Democrats actually made a play for Ohio, spending DCCC money, sending Gov. Ted Strickland and Sen. Sherrod Brown to campaign for Democrat Robin Weirauch after a nasty primary (the Club for Growth went in against him) apparently weakened Republican Bob Latta. Latta's win was at the high end of Republican hopes.

- On Thursday, former Mississippi Attorney General Mike Moore, a popular Democrat, decided not to run for Trent Lott's open Senate seat.

- The first poll pitting Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu against GOP Treasurer John Kennedy (who switched parties to run against her) has the second-term Democrat up only 46 to 42.

It feels very different from the winter of 2005, when Democrats were rushing into less-than-sure-thing races and Republicans were resisting Karl Rove's appeals to run for Senate. (Rove's the guy who flipped Kennedy in Louisiana.) Democrats are still cleaning up in fundraising and winning the general election, but the climate's a little worse than it was last year.

Final point: In the latest CNN poll (PDF), only 54 percent of undeclared voters want to vote in the Democratic primary. That's down from a high of 70 percent, and it's a factoid Democrats have been pushing all year as proof of their continued strength and the GOP meltdown.

Honest Barry. I try to get into the heads of Joe and Jane Iowa Voter, I really do... but it falls apart when the issue is drugs. Plenty of people think drug use is a character flaw, and I don't. So the way that Obama deals with his past drug use, as an awful youthful mistake that no boy should repeat, is probably the way to handle it even though it leaves me cold. Craig Crawford argues that it's not enough.

Throughout the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush managed to dodge detailed questions about his partying past in the same way that Obama's team is now doing – by calling foul against anyone who brings it up.

I don't think that's quite fair. Karl Rove's strategy included denying that Bush had ever used drugs and hoping that reporters would get tired of asking. Rove et al knew that Bush had been arrested for a DUI and simply covered it up for the entire campaign. That's not what Obama is doing. He's wisely been admitting what drugs he did (and what crimes he committed) for years. Still, we're a long way away from the maturity of Australia, where Bob Hawke probably became prime minister because of his legendary boozing abilities.

Debates are stupid. Fred Thompson's going all in and stumping Iowa from next week to Jan.3. His tour is dubbed "The Clear Conservative Choice: Hands Down." That's a reference, of course, to his refusal to put his hand up or down to answer the DMR debate question on global warming. John Edwards put in a manful performance at the Democratic debate, but the second-day story was all about Obama smacking around Clinton when she laughed at a question about how many Bill Clinton advisers worked for him: "Hillary, I'm looking forward to you advising me as well." It's not like we're leaving behind a great era of American politics, but... seriously? Fred's angina counts for more than Romney's precision or Giuliani's daydreaming about endless meetings?

Below the fold...

- Jim Geraghty dreams about President Ron Paul: "I can’t deny that it appeals to some dark corner of my fiscal conservative psyche."

- The Iowa Independent (part of the Center for Independent Media's new web mag network) has an Iowa cattle call that puts Ron Paul in third place.

- Matt Taibbi swoons for Barack Obama. (Fair warning: His last political crush was Kucinich.)

- Mark Hemingway tries to understand the youth-Ron Paul axis.

- Phil Klein talks to Arkansans about Mike Huckabee's pardons.

- Rich Lowry denies him clemency.

In a week that ended with buzz about drugs and dealing, I award the Politics 'n' Prog slot to Can. You can guess why.

Comments

|12.14.07 @ 6:00PM|#

Ron Paul on the Mad Money show at 6 and 11 ET tonight on CNBC!!

Fluffy|12.14.07 @ 6:01PM|#

The Republicans can't rise again because of the mass retirements.

|12.14.07 @ 6:03PM|#

We survived two debates this week, an occurance which won't be repeated until... well, until three and a half weeks from now, when the Democrats and Republicans do back-to-back Dec. 5 debates in New Hampshire.

So three and a half weeks from now, the Democrats and Republicans are going to travel back in time to Dec 5th? Cool, another month for Ron Paul.

|12.14.07 @ 6:05PM|#

Weigel,

How about a NSFW warning on the music video. I've got two more hours to go and falling asleep could cost me my job.

NoStar

Michael Scott|12.14.07 @ 6:16PM|#

"I always knew it would be hard."

That's what she said.

Oh wait, that really is what she said.

|12.14.07 @ 6:27PM|#

Ron Paul on the Mad Money show at 6 and 11 ET tonight on CNBC!!

Nice interview, Paul looked competent and confident. Cramer is a freaking lunatic, so this lovefest may not carry much weight. But, if someone is watching and this is his first impression of Ron Paul, I would suspect they would head to the website for more info.

Click \'n\' Learn|12.14.07 @ 6:33PM|#

If you're tired of Sovietski debates, consider helping push this proposal.

In fact, Reason could even get a lot of press - and do a public service - by putting things like that on, and it wouldn't take that much money just as long as it was done in a straight-to-Youtube style (with a transcript).

Of course, Reason will have to choose experts from *across the spectrum* and they'll have to deal with issues like immigration, so that might partly explain why they haven't exactly rushed to adopt the idea.

In other news:

1. The WaPo has turned on Huck. Guessing why shouldn't be difficult.

2. Ruuudy, Mitttt, and Fred all have Bush family links: lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007317.html

3. One of Reason's favorite far-left sources shows their respect for the 1st (and the truth): lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007315.html

4. Here's the part of Huck's "tough" plan the MSM won't discuss.

5. Ron Paul gets smeared; Reason would probably agree with the smear.

6. Have you been exposed to prog at work, at home, or at school? The President's Select Committee Against the Use of Prog Use recommends this six-in-one antidote.

|12.14.07 @ 6:43PM|#

- The Iowa Independent (part of the Center for Independent Media's new web mag network) has an Iowa cattle call that puts Ron Paul in third place.

I went to the link and was impressed by the # of Paul supporters talking him up in the comments. The blimp got a mention. Will all of this enthusiasm translate into a good showing in the early states? I fervently hope so, but remain skeptical.

Ali (formerly iih)|12.14.07 @ 6:47PM|#

J sub D:

The goal is to make sure to be among the top 3. I am not sure where all Romney supporters go if he does not win Iowa. That could be great news for Ron Paul after Iowa and NH.

|12.14.07 @ 6:48PM|#

The Republicans would pretty much have to start trending upward at some point, wouldn't they?

Our system tends towards parity, and I've never seen a party as far down as the Republicans in from 2006-this fall.

But I wouldn't count on that translating into pickups in Congress. In terms of vulnerable incumbents, 2006 was actually set up to be a good year for the GOP Senate. In 2008 and 2010, the map is more favorable for the Democrats. We could be talking about a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate in 2009 or 2011.

As far as the war goes, "better than mid-2006" is still pretty awful, both in terms of Iraq and domestic politics.

Ali (formerly iih)|12.14.07 @ 6:49PM|#

Note: After 4 days away from H&R, I am going to disappear again. See y'all later.

Please, everyone, take care of Dondero and Guy for me.

Hello Guy Montag!

Charles|12.14.07 @ 6:49PM|#

Unrelated to anything that is in this post, but could Hit and Run get a karma/approval ratings system thingy? There have been some real dicks around lately, in addition to the usual ones. Balko has one on his site and it seems to work well enough.

|12.14.07 @ 6:52PM|#

Joe, the Democrats have a way of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Mike Huckabee|12.14.07 @ 7:00PM|#

Do Catholics pray to Mary as a God?

I don't know - Im just a humble monotheist Baptist minister. You should ask that Hell-bound, ring-kissing , mackeral-snapping Papist Rudy Giuliani.

|12.14.07 @ 7:01PM|#

Our system tends towards parity, and I've never seen a party as far down as the Republicans in from 2006-this fall.

The Dems in '94-95 were in pretty dire straits. Weren't they seriously talking about cooperating with the Repubs in shutting down a couple of federal departments at the time?

BakedPenguin|12.14.07 @ 7:01PM|#

I try to get into the heads of Joe and Jane Iowa Voter, I really do... but it falls apart when the issue is drugs. Plenty of people think drug use is a character flaw...

Myself, I think accepting subsidies for crops you aren't growing is a character flaw.

|12.14.07 @ 7:04PM|#

Mike Huckabee,

If Rudy Giuliani is a Papist, I'm a ray of God's fluffy, nonjudgemental love shining into the world.

|12.14.07 @ 7:05PM|#

Myself, I think accepting subsidies for crops you aren't growing is a character flaw.

The truest statement I've seen all week.

|12.14.07 @ 7:07PM|#

Cesar,

I see that sentiment all the time. It seems to be based on 1) Al Gore having a small margin of victory in a campaign with a third party that only took votes from him, and 2) John Kerry coming closer to unseating a wartime president than any candidate in American history. I don't think that cliche holds up very well upon examination.

crimethink,

The Dems in '94-95 were in pretty dire straits. Yes, they were, but not this bad. It just kept coming for the Republicans in 2006. Mark Foley? What the hell was THAT?

|12.14.07 @ 7:10PM|#

I see that sentiment all the time. It seems to be based on 1) Al Gore having a small margin of victory in a campaign with a third party that only took votes from him, and 2) John Kerry coming closer to unseating a wartime president than any candidate in American history. I don't think that cliche holds up very well upon examination.

I don't know if an extremely reviled woman and a black guy whose middle name is "Hussein" will stand up very well after months of being attacked by right wing radio. Clinton could probably withstand it, but they'd destroy Obama. Remember Harold Ford? I can see it now, "Barack Hussein Osama".

|12.14.07 @ 7:16PM|#

Mark Foley? What the hell was THAT?

For reasons that I can't fathom, self loathing, sexually repressed but otherwise respectable, whackjobs are drawn to the Republican party. Expertise in political psychiatry is probably required to understand it.

Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|12.14.07 @ 7:18PM|#

"Clinton could probably withstand it, but they'd destroy Obama. Remember Harold Ford? I can see it now, "Barack Hussein Osama"."

Actually I think you are wrong. I listen to talk radio quite a lot and Rush, Tod Schnitt and Glen Beck all seem to have more respect for Obama than Hillary Clinton. That doen't mean they like the guy but they don't think he is a sleezeball in the way Clinton is.

|12.14.07 @ 7:20PM|#

Actually I think you are wrong. I listen to talk radio quite a lot and Rush, Tod Schnitt and Glen Beck all seem to have more respect for Obama than Hillary Clinton. That doen't mean they like the guy but they don't think he is a sleezeball in the way Clinton is.

Is that why Rush calls Obama the "Magical Negro"?

And they are actually right about one thing. Obama is not a sleezeball like Sen. Clinton is.

Plant Immigration RIghts Suppo|12.14.07 @ 7:25PM|#

Cesar, I listen to Rush quite a lot (no I do not agree with him on everything) and I know his style. One thing he does is take comments from liberal (in the modern sense) collumnists and use those comments against liberals (in the modern sense). Ther "magic negro" comment came from an opinion piece in the LA Times describing Barak Obama as the Magic Negro because he was the first black politiction who actually (in the opinion of the writer) had a real shot at becoming POTUS. The words did not originate with Rush Limbaugh. Rush is merely using them.

SIV|12.14.07 @ 7:31PM|#

Cesar,

I take it you don't listen to Limbaugh.
Google "magic negro" and hit "I feel lucky".
Or just go here

The "magic negro" stuff is an attack on "the drive-by media" and their support for Hillary.

|12.14.07 @ 7:32PM|#

Cesar is right. Clinton and Obama are nightmare candidates. It's amazing to see the Dems intent on picking them. Joe has a good idea concerning the Mondalization of the war supporters, but I think there is plenty of Mondalization left among Dem primary voters. Their two front runners would start any race with huge disadvantages. Despite polls there are a great deal of potential Dem voters who will have a very, very hard time voting for a woman or a black guy (much less one whose name sounds so funny and even bad to many [admittedly ignorant] folks).

I think the GOP has a couple of strong candidates, meaning they could hurt any potential Dem. However, those two are McCain (because independents and Dems like the guy) and Guliani (because of his more moderate stances on social issues), and they will almost certainly pick either the poor man's GOP Jimmy Carter or Captian No-Convictions (need I point out I'm referring to the Huckster and Mitt(stake)?).

And yes the right wing press is playing softball with Obama right now It helps them look like they may have some iota of fairness (he's not only a "good black" but a "not-so-evil Democrat") and they (or better put their listnership) hates Hillary and he is her opponent...

|12.14.07 @ 7:35PM|#

"I listen to Rush quite a lot (no I do not agree with him on everything) and I know his style."

By which you mean insipid, right?

Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|12.14.07 @ 7:35PM|#

Mr. NIce Guy, may I ask what you mean by "good black"? I am just asking what you are implying.

|12.14.07 @ 7:37PM|#

I take it you don't listen to Limbaugh.

Only intermidantly. I did hear the "magical negro" thing secondhand FWIW.

I just don't think a black guy, particularly one who had a Muslim father and who has an odd middle name, will be elected President of the United States. If 2008 comes along and Obama is President-elect, everyone feel free to hit me over the head with this comment the day after election day though.

|12.14.07 @ 7:40PM|#

"I listen to Rush quite a lot (no I do not agree with him on everything) and I know his style."

Of fat hypocrite pussy?

"Limbaugh's opponents will likely call him a hypocrite after Friday's confession, since he has criticized crack addicts in the past and said drug offenders should be thrown in jail like any other criminals.

In the past, Limbaugh has decried drug use and abuse on his bluntly conservative show, mocking President Bill Clinton for not inhaling and often making the case that drug crimes deserve punishment.

"Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. ... And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up," Limbaugh said on his short-lived television show on Oct. 5, 1995.

During the same show, he commented that the statistics that show blacks go to prison more often than whites for the same drug offenses only illustrate that "too many whites are getting away with drug use."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99731,00.html

|12.14.07 @ 7:42PM|#

PIRS-Racist people, like many right wing talk pundits, often will refer to "good blacks" (they actually use a much more offensive term) and talk them up in order to "demonstrate" that they are not unreasonably racist. Spike Lee had a little fun with this in one of his movies (the pizza one).

|12.14.07 @ 7:45PM|#

- Mark Hemingway tries to understand the youth-Ron Paul axis.

From the linked article
His conviction alone is unlikely to get the Texas congressmen elected president. But for now, if Ron Paul and young voters succeed in making the rest of the candidates adopt principles, assert their beliefs strongly, and ensure they hold fast to those beliefs and principles, who could argue against the importance of the role that Paul has played?

We can only hope that some of that priciple nonsense catches on. Lord knows GWB doesn't govern the way he talked in 2000, Romney has NO principles that I can discern.

Plant Immigration RIghts Suppo|12.14.07 @ 7:46PM|#

"By which you mean insipid, right?"

No. Not at all. I mean brilliant, inspired and quite talented. I disagree with him on a great many social issues but I must admit the man is a genius. I also do not think he is as much of a social conservative as he lets on. One of his best friends is Camille Paglia, an art critic and openly gay columnist for Salon.com. He is an enigma. For those who are not regular listeners of his program one of the things he is best at is "demonstrating absurdity by being absurd." In 1992 he endorsed Bill Clinton in order to make a point. After his endorsement he was inundated with calls asking him why and he denied making the endorsement. He did so to point out one of the character flaws of Bill Clinton. His ability to switch positions and deny having taken the previous position. Sometimes these jokes are taken out of context by the mainstream press.

|12.14.07 @ 7:48PM|#

"I disagree with him on a great many social issues but I must admit the man is a genius."

Get out much?

SIV|12.14.07 @ 7:49PM|#

In the past, Limbaugh has decried drug use and abuse on his bluntly conservative show, mocking President Bill Clinton for not inhaling and often making the case that drug crimes deserve punishment.

If MNG's statement is true why does his only citation date back to 1995 and on Rush's short-lived TV show? Rush is on the radio 5 days a week. There is good reason to think that Rush is no great supporter of the WoDs for reasons quite seperate from his history of using them.

Plant Immigration RIghts Suppo|12.14.07 @ 7:50PM|#

"PIRS-Racist people, like many right wing talk pundits, often will refer to "good blacks" (they actually use a much more offensive term) and talk them up in order to "demonstrate" that they are not unreasonably racist. Spike Lee had a little fun with this in one of his movies (the pizza one)."

That is what I thought you meant. Are you implying that any of the three talk show hosts I name above are racist?

Plant Immigration RIghts Suppo|12.14.07 @ 7:51PM|#

For the record I have never heard any talk radio host use the term "good black".

|12.14.07 @ 7:52PM|#

If you're talking conservatives, then brilliant is a word I would use for Edmund Burke or James Fitzjames Stephen. Inspired someone like Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Allen Tate or Evelyn Waugh. Quite talented (in a funny way), P.J. O'Rourke.

Rush Limbaugh? HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

Oh, dear...

Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|12.14.07 @ 7:54PM|#

"If MNG's statement is true why does his only citation date back to 1995 and on Rush's short-lived TV show? Rush is on the radio 5 days a week. There is good reason to think that Rush is no great supporter of the WoDs for reasons quite seperate from his history of using them."

One of Rush's idols is William F. Buckley Jr. who devoted an entire issue of National Review to his opposition to the War on Drugs.

Click \'n\' Learn|12.14.07 @ 7:55PM|#

Did I happen upon ThinkProgress by mistake? I say that, of course, because they and similar sites have a habit of jumping on random comments without putting them in their context.

My debate idea doesn't seem to have exactly lit the world on fire, or at least this corner of it. Can I suggest that as a good way to get Ron Paul's ideas out there?

P.S. Ron Paul!

SIVh|12.14.07 @ 7:56PM|#

Rush Limbaugh leaves quite a libertarian trail.

See Rush's blurb for REASON magazine, his friendship with Thomas W Hazlett and that he frequently turns the "Golden EIB Microphone"
over to Walter Williams (who argues for drug legalization to Rush's loyal listeners).

|12.14.07 @ 7:56PM|#

Meet the new boss..same as the old boss:

Attorney General Michael Mukasey refused Friday to give Congress details of the government's investigation into interrogations of terror suspects that were videotaped and destroyed by the CIA. He said doing so could raise questions about whether the inquiry is vulnerable to political pressure.

Apparently, DOJ also told the CIA not to cooperate with Congress either, so as not to raise the appearance of political pressure.

Plant Immigration RIghts Suppo|12.14.07 @ 7:57PM|#

Mr. Nice Guy, it seems you like one liners and snide comments. If you have actual criticisms of his show I am all ears (or eyes in this case.)

|12.14.07 @ 7:57PM|#

LOL at Hemingway's description of Paul:

But that doesn't change the fact Paul - a tragically unhip old man who comes off rather like an autistic version of Don Knotts - has animated the youth vote through the sheer force of his principled conviction.

|12.14.07 @ 7:58PM|#

Did I happen upon ThinkProgress by mistake? I say that, of course, because they and similar sites have a habit of jumping on random comments without putting them in their context.

Like you don't do that yourself, Lone Wack-off.

|12.14.07 @ 7:59PM|#

ClickNLearn,

I'll support your DebateIdea, but only on the condition that it's dubbed over in Spanish with EnglishSubtitles.

|12.14.07 @ 8:01PM|#

SIV
"If what I say is true?" Are you questioning the excellent fair and balanced reporting of Fox news my cockfighting friend? (Actually I guess what you obviously meant to say was that while it MAY be true there are only this handful of old quotes from Jabba the Pussy and therefore we can all imply the fat bastard really is not big on the WoD, since that is the only way your post makes any sense)...

PIRS
Yeah, I think most of those guys are racist and a lot of their audience is. Of course they don't "use the term 'good black'" on the air. But they engage in the "practice" of obliquely attacking minorities and then every now and then "parading" what they consider to be a "good black" in order to demonstrate that, hey, they are fair minded after all.

I guess you don't get the joke on Colbert about his "black friend."

|12.14.07 @ 8:04PM|#

SIV and PIRS "argument"
1. Rush likes some authors who are libertarians and are against the War on Drugs.
2. Therefore Rush is a libertarian and against the WOD.

Jesus, no wonder you think Rush is a "genius."

Juan|12.14.07 @ 8:04PM|#

Referring to Limbaugh by his first name alone confuses the hell out of me....

|12.14.07 @ 8:05PM|#

prolefeed,

I like how Hemingway takes a shot at Ron Paul for his "idealistic foreign policy"...aren't we supposed to be ending terrorism forever by spreading democracy still?

|12.14.07 @ 8:05PM|#

Ali -- I think you can drop the "formerly iih" thing when filling in the name field for your posts. The people who visit here fairly regularly all know about the name change. The people who rarely visit here probably don't remember any iih.

But, hey, your call.

BakedPenguin|12.14.07 @ 8:07PM|#

Speaking of random comments, Can was psychedelic? I always thought they were proto-industrial. Or am I thinking of Chrome?

|12.14.07 @ 8:10PM|#

But that "autistic version of Don Knotts" comment really takes the cake. It's just an incoherent string of insults. Does this guy know what autism actually is? Has he ever seen Don Knotts? They don't look remotely alike.

|12.14.07 @ 8:11PM|#

Our system tends towards parity, and I've never seen a party as far down as the Republicans in from 2006-this fall.

Our system does that because if either party falls much below 50%, they start drifting toward the other party's positions. Today's Republican party is far more statist than, say, the Democratic party in the early 1900s. Today's Democratic party has managed to implement nearly all the goals of the Socialist party in the early 1900s, with the reluctant assistance of GOPers afraid of hit pieces if they stood on what used to be their small-government principles.

Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|12.14.07 @ 8:11PM|#

"Yeah, I think most of those guys are racist and a lot of their audience is. Of course they don't "use the term 'good black'" on the air. But they engage in the "practice" of obliquely attacking minorities and then every now and then "parading" what they consider to be a "good black" in order to demonstrate that, hey, they are fair minded after all."

On what basis do you make this claim? I have never heard any of them "attack minorities". I have heard them attack individuals, some of who happen to be minorities. But I have never heard them attack an entire group of people who only have ancestory or skin colour in common.

Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|12.14.07 @ 8:14PM|#

"SIV and PIRS "argument"
1. Rush likes some authors who are libertarians and are against the War on Drugs.
2. Therefore Rush is a libertarian and against the WOD.

Jesus, no wonder you think Rush is a "genius.""

I never claimed Rush was a libertarian. By the way, William F. Buckley Jr. is not a libertarian either. I don't think SIV was making that claim either.

This is a change, SIV and I are on the same side in an argument?

|12.14.07 @ 8:15PM|#

MNG, I too hate people like Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton. Hate to break it to you, but that doesn't make one racist.

SIV|12.14.07 @ 8:16PM|#

MNG.


What you said is totally bullshit.
I didn't realize it was all quotes from a Fox News piece as you didn't put quotes around all of it.The archive of all his broadcasts shows Rush doesn't actively support the WoDs as a conservative issue.
Why waste the breath on a "progressive" cause like that?

BakedPenguin|12.14.07 @ 8:17PM|#

Yup, it was Chrome I was thinking of.

|12.14.07 @ 8:18PM|#

I remember several Rush episodes (his tv show, and no I can't site the actual dates it was YEARS ago) where this "genius" would simply play clips of Owen Major or some other member of the Black Caucus making some over the top speech and he would stand by the picture and make faces and literally POINT while they person spoke. It was always one of the members that had, shall we say, almost nearly stereotypically bad grasps on the King's English. It was obvious what connection he was counting on his audience to make...

I think liberals overdue the "coded racism" meme. But Rush and his ilk make it seem like they are on to something.

|12.14.07 @ 8:19PM|#

Was it true Limbaugh called for the execution of drug dealers once?

|12.14.07 @ 8:20PM|#

Hey Cesar, I hate Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and yes, I am not a racist either. But I'm confused as to what in the world that has to do with what we are talking about.

Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|12.14.07 @ 8:21PM|#

Cesar, I hate Jesse Jackson and Al Sharton also. They are the racists, they support government programs that discriminate against people on the basis of skin colour.

|12.14.07 @ 8:21PM|#

Hey Cesar, I hate Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and yes, I am not a racist either. But I'm confused as to what in the world that has to do with what we are talking about.

Liberals often call people "racist" for not following the platform of the NAACP and Rainbow/Push, thats what I'm talking about.

|12.14.07 @ 8:23PM|#

Clinton and Obama are nightmare candidates.

I agree about Clinton, MNG, except that this race is full of nightmarishly bad candidates. Edwards is worse than HRC, and Giuliani and Huckabee give me the shivers. I simply don't know what Obama stands for, and quite possibly he doesn't either.

OTOH, this is the first presidential primary in a long time when there was one person worth voting FOR in either of the major parties, versus the lesser of two evils.

|12.14.07 @ 8:24PM|#

PIRS many, too damned many, moons ago, '92-'94, I listend to Rush Limbaugh while on my daily commute. I got an hour of him a day, for 2+ years. He's funny. He sometimes make intelligent points. He's also a racist. He's exceptionaly good at code words. No, I have no transcripts available to buttress my point. But this isn't Annie, just off the pickle boat, talking here. 2+ years of an hour a day listening to his act convinced me. He was also evolving into a Repeblican party shill back then.

|12.14.07 @ 8:25PM|#

Obama is an old-school liberal. But hes a really nice guy, conciliatory, and non-confrontational. That and being the first probable black candidate is why he gets so much attention.

He'd also be destroyed in the general election for those very reasons.

|12.14.07 @ 8:26PM|#

I don't argue that Rush or anyone is racist because they hate and make fun of particular civil rights "leaders." I do maintain that Rush, and for example G. Gordon Liddy, engage in a great deal of rhetoric that is designed to appeal to racists without being overtly racist (he's not exactly Bill Bennet when he is mocking welfare queens and immigrants). And I maintain that a lot of their audience is in fact racist.

"The archive of all his broadcasts shows Rush doesn't actively support the WoDs as a conservative issue."
Well offer some up buddy. So far I've presented the evidence and your only argument has been "but that was a while back." So give us a quote where he argues against the War on Drugs. Man up or shut up.

PIRS-Well, then just change "is a libertarian" with "is not for the WOD." Or is that what you are arguing by pointing out that 1. WFB is against the WOD and 2. Rush likes him?

Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|12.14.07 @ 8:29PM|#

Mr. Nice Guy, if I had to guess it was probably Sheila Jackson Lee, an individual who, was certainly not the best that Black America in terms of intellectual fire-power. But then, she was a politician. The wisest among the human species do NOT run for public office. As Epicurus pointed out so long ago, it causes distress in the mind and the soul. She, it seems had more than her fair share of "distress".

I recorded that show most of the time (it was on late at night in my time zone) and watched most of the episodes. I do not think he was pointing fun at "black people" so much as he was pointing fun at "political people."

Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|12.14.07 @ 8:32PM|#

"He's also a racist. He's exceptionaly good at code words. No, I have no transcripts available to buttress my point."

Funny thing those transcripts, people who claim he is a racist can't seem to keep track of them.

Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|12.14.07 @ 8:33PM|#

Insert "had to offer" between "America" and "in" above.

|12.14.07 @ 8:34PM|#

crimethink -- It was a cheap shot, but imagine for a moment Jon Stewart or Steven Colbert delivering that line -- it's funny. The whole article had a funny closeted-and-in-deep-denial libertarian struggling with their dirty, dirty desires thing going, kinda like when Colbert denounces gays mode and then angrily demands the man-candy quit tempting him.

Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|12.14.07 @ 8:39PM|#

"PIRS-Well, then just change "is a libertarian" with "is not for the WOD." Or is that what you are arguing by pointing out that 1. WFB is against the WOD and 2. Rush likes him?"

I never made any claim as to Rush's position on the War on Drugs.

SIV|12.14.07 @ 8:44PM|#

This is a change, SIV and I are on the same side in an argument?

I don't think it is the first time.
Does your name refer to opposition to the white-list on plant/seed imports?

Was it true Limbaugh called for the execution of drug dealers once?

As true as Hillary's charge that Barak Obama was a major coke dealer in kindergarten.

I recall hearing (the only "hypocrite" citation
that I am aware of) Rush respond to a liberal caller on the racial penalty disparity between rock and powder cocaine that "parity" could be achieved by raising the sentence for powder as well as lowering it for crack.He wasn't specifically advocating that policy but debating the caller.

|12.14.07 @ 8:49PM|#

I think we can all be happy SCOTUS finally said this week the discretion between crack and powder cocaine sentences is ridiculous. Now, the next step is to get rid of mandatory minimums for drug offenses altogether.

Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|12.14.07 @ 8:51PM|#

SIV, yes, my name does refer to the white list. I think that all plant species have the right to "breathe free."

Mike Laursen|12.14.07 @ 8:51PM|#

Screw debates! It's about damned time we had a good old-fashioned, barn-burning candidate scandal.

SIV|12.14.07 @ 8:53PM|#

As I said above Rush leaves quite a libertarian trail.Hazlett and Williams aren't just "authors he admires" but friends who have influenced his thinking.I think (former REASON writer) Hazlet coined the term "Feminazi". Walter Williams is a regular scheduled substitute host.

SIV|12.14.07 @ 8:55PM|#

SIV, yes, my name does refer to the white list. I think that all plant species have the right to "breathe free."

We certainly agree on that.

SIV|12.14.07 @ 9:01PM|#

I think we can all be happy SCOTUS finally said this week the discretion between crack and powder cocaine sentences is ridiculous. Now, the next step is to get rid of mandatory minimums for drug offenses altogether.

I'd like to go well beyond that and restore our property rights re "drugs" to a pre-1914 status--The entire pharmacopoeia.

Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|12.14.07 @ 9:03PM|#

SIV, I am glad to hear (read) that you are a suporter of plant liberty.

This is completely unrelated to this discussion, but I remember about 10 years ago, when Yahoo Chat was still good, I had lots of good political discussions in the politics forum there. It has since then descended into nothing but ad hominims and soundbites. These threads remind me (in a good way) of my best experiences with Yahoo Chat back when it was actually worth participating in.

Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|12.14.07 @ 9:08PM|#

"I'd like to go well beyond that and restore our property rights re "drugs" to a pre-1914 status--The entire pharmacopoeia."

Yes, we should repeal the amendment that enabled the Federal Government to engage in the War on Drugs. Wait - what amednment was that again?

|12.14.07 @ 9:17PM|#

The 18th Ammendment gave the Feds the power to regulate drugs, didn't it...

Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|12.14.07 @ 9:25PM|#

Crimethink, is that the same amendment that enabled the Federal Government to regulate baseball?

|12.14.07 @ 9:29PM|#

Are there people talking about drugs in here? If there are people talking about drugs that must mean there are people doing drugs.

|12.14.07 @ 10:19PM|#

I think this is a teachable moment.

SIV defends Rush Limbaugh from the charge that his "Magical Negro" bit was racist by linking to the source he got it from.

SIV, the fact that he cribbed the term from a David Ehrenstein column has nothing to do with whether his bit was racist. This isn't about magic words, and whether they're on the special Do Not Use: Racist list of words. If you use a term to make a racist point, or make fun of someone's race, it doesn't matter where you got the term or if somebody else used it in a non-racist manner.

I used to work at a warehouse where we played cards during break, Pitch, it's a local bid/trump game in New England. If someone vacillated during bidding, they'd always tell the same joke:

Hey, are you a re-neger?

I ain't no re-neger.

Har har har. Sometimes they'd do a "funny" negro accent.

Renege is a perfectly innocent word. That doesn't mean they weren't being racist assholes.

Some people just get positively gleeful when they think they've got an excuse to be a racist asshole. Like Rush Limbaugh.

YahooJerk!|12.14.07 @ 10:19PM|#

It has since then descended into nothing but ad hominims and soundbites.

No it hasn't!!1!1! You suck!!1!! ROFLMAO!!1!

Kolohe|12.14.07 @ 10:22PM|#

Speaking of talk radio, today I happened to hear parts of Hannity's interview with Alan Keyes. All I have to say is: wow, this guy was an ambassador?

|12.14.07 @ 10:22PM|#

"As I said above Rush leaves quite a libertarian trail.Hazlett and Williams aren't just "authors he admires" but friends who have influenced his thinking."

This is the best you can do SIV? That goes up in the SIV Hall of Fame with "Humans deserve rights because humans are humans" argument from the animal rights post way back (gotta give it to you, noone has been able to refute that humans are, indeed, humans).

Rush has two libertarian friends so he must "leave quite a libertarian trail." (I imagine you mean like a snail? That fits Jabber the Hut [Rush]).

Hell, I have more than two libertarian friends so I must be Ludwig von freaking Mises.

Maybe in your fantasy land where libertarians and conservatives gambol through the fields naked and drink from the same cup Rush in particular and conservatives in general are against the war on drugs. But in reality poll after poll shows folks who identify as "conservative" supporting a harsher line on drugs than those identifying themselves as "liberal." And the FACT is that Rush has made comments supporting the WOD* and none that you can produce opposing it.

PIRS-I'm sure it was Jackson Lee, but it was also Major Owens and a few other members of the CBC. He loved it, and as J sub D pointed out, he knew exactly what he was doing by choosing these public figures and making fun of them in the way he did.

* ""There's nothing good about drug use. We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up. What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug use. Too many whites are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too."
- Rush Limbaugh show, Oct. 5, 1995

|12.14.07 @ 10:26PM|#

They are the racists, they support government programs that discriminate against people on the basis of skin colour

I hate to break this to you, but disagreeing with David Duke about affirmative action does not make one racist.

And agreeing with him on the issue does not inoculate one against being a racist.

Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|12.14.07 @ 10:39PM|#

"SIV, the fact that he cribbed the term from a David Ehrenstein column has nothing to do with whether his bit was racist. This isn't about magic words, and whether they're on the special Do Not Use: Racist list of words. If you use a term to make a racist point, or make fun of someone's race, it doesn't matter where you got the term or if somebody else used it in a non-racist manner."

In Rush's case he did NOT use the term in a racist manner.

Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|12.14.07 @ 10:40PM|#

LOL @ YahooJerk!

|12.14.07 @ 10:41PM|#

No, having a good laugh because you get to use forbidden racial terms is just hunky-dory.

It's probably not "racist," in the same sense that the six-year-old saying"fuckity fuckity fuck fuck" on a playground isn't obscene.

SIV|12.14.07 @ 10:41PM|#

joe, are you going to denounce the Racist Hillary Clinton campaign? Black man = cocaine dealer.

I love how you liberals have the magic decoder ring that translates all the conservative "codewords" as RACIST!

|12.14.07 @ 10:43PM|#

Actually, the point was "guy who says he did coke = druggie."

I don't know if that guy Shaheen was deliberately trying to get racists to make that leap, but I see they have.

|12.14.07 @ 10:45PM|#

Oh, yes:

Denounce you, Bill Shaheen! If you bring up Barack Obama's drug use, people like PIRS are going to stop thinking of him as "one of the good ones."

You know how easy it is to get them to do that, and you shouldn't have gone there.

|12.14.07 @ 10:47PM|#

PIRS,

You are clearly quite adept at denying accusations of racism, on your own behalf and on the behalf of other people who are often accused of racism.

You have a great deal of experience at this, don't you? Most people sputter and swear but you...you handle it like a real pro.

Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|12.14.07 @ 10:47PM|#

I wrote:
"They are the racists, they support government programs that discriminate against people on the basis of skin colour."

Joe wrote:
"I hate to break this to you, but disagreeing with David Duke about affirmative action does not make one racist. And agreeing with him on the issue does not inoculate one against being a racist."

Joe, replace "affirmative action" with "jim crow laws" and see if your statement still makes sense.

|12.14.07 @ 10:50PM|#

OK.

"Disagreeing with David Duke about jim crow laws does not make one a racist."

That makes perfect sense. Believing segregation is wrong - ie, disagreeing with David Duke - does not make one a racist.

I'm not sure what you were going for there.

SIV|12.14.07 @ 10:51PM|#

So the leftist PC authoritarianism says an educated professional journalist can use those "forbidden racial terms" in a sophisticated nuanced narrative but a conservative commenter satirizing said journalist can't?

Hillary really fucked up thinking the yahoo Democrat voters were going to choose her over that scary Black cocaine dealer.Your rank and file Dem proles are still dumb enough to fall for that "Party of the Working Man" BS but they can see a unprovoked vicious racial smear as clear as anyone.

Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|12.14.07 @ 10:54PM|#

Actually, when I was in college I was a conservative (for the first 2/3 of my experience) and minored in poli-sci. Most of my professors were socialists and most of my classmates thought the absolute worst of conservatives. So, yes, I became adept at defending myself. I had to. Then, I gradually became libertarian. On vacation once I bought a book called the "Politically Correct Dictionary" it defined the word "racist" as "I disagree with you."

|12.14.07 @ 10:56PM|#

From YahooNews:
"Shaheen, an attorney and veteran organizer, had said much of Obama's background is unknown and could be a problem in November 2008 if he is the Democratic nominee. He said Republicans would work hard to discover new aspects of Obama's admittedly spotty youth.

"It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'" said Shaheen, whose wife, Jeanne, is a former New Hampshire governor and is running for the U.S. Senate next year.

"There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome," Shaheen said."

That certainly is not saying Obama is or was a drug dealer. Obama has admitted using drugs, and when Clinton did that the GOP machine went after him bigtime (see, the thing to do is what Bush did [Press: Did you do cocaine? Bush: I could pass the background check at the White House]), and this guy is pointing out, quite correctly, that his admissions will likely be used against him.

Conservatives are tools for jumping up and down screaming "Look at HRC calling Obama a drug dealer!" And, of course, Hillary is her usual tool self for getting this guy to step down (but then that's the kind of thing I expect from the Clintons).

|12.14.07 @ 10:58PM|#

joe
It's OK to be confused with where PIRS is going with such a thing. I wouldn't be suprised if he shares that confusion. This is a guy who upthread said, of Rush Limbaugh that he was "brilliant, inspired and quite talented. I disagree with him on a great many social issues but I must admit the man is a genius."

I kid you not. Scroll up and have a belly laugh. I know I did.

Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|12.14.07 @ 10:59PM|#

"I'm not sure what you were going for there."

OK Joe, I will write it for you. "Agreeing with David Duke on Jim Crow laws does not make one a racist."

Does this make sense to you?

|12.14.07 @ 11:00PM|#

So the leftist PC authoritarianism says an educated professional journalist can use those "forbidden racial terms" in a sophisticated nuanced narrative but a conservative commenter satirizing said journalist can't?

That would depend on how it's done. Satirizing the journalist? Yeah, sure, that's it. That was a totally meaningful, incisive critique of Ehrenstein's ideas. And totally not a cheap excuse to call Barack Obama "negro" and laugh about it.

I'm sorry you think Barack Obama is a scary black cocaine dealer, but it's pretty much what we've come to expect from you.

PS, remember when you used to call yourself "Single Issue Voter" who only cared about cockfighting, and pretended to be horrified when I called you out as a transparent Republican shill after about two threads?

Good times. You really are easy to peg.

|12.14.07 @ 11:01PM|#

On vacation once I bought a book called the "Politically Correct Dictionary" it defined the word "racist" as "I disagree with you."

Whoops, you left off "...and never seriously thought about whether making fun of black people was wrong again," dittohead.

|12.14.07 @ 11:03PM|#

Shill is right joe. I'm a longtime reader of his stuff. SIV's posts are obviously meant to convince H&R posters that conservatives in general and the GOP specifically are great. They're almost childishly obvious...But he has come a long way these days, calling himself a "traditionalist" and "conservative." 12 steps...

|12.14.07 @ 11:03PM|#

No, that doesn't make any sense.

But don't worry. Most of what you're writing doesn't make any sense.

SIV|12.14.07 @ 11:08PM|#

Shaheen? C'mon joe all her surrogates are in on the action.She still thinks she can make it stick. Keep it up Hillary and you'll get less of a percentag of African-American Democrat Primary votes than a Republican gets in the General election

|12.14.07 @ 11:10PM|#

MNG,

PIRS's comments - check that, the comments PIRS cribbed from every perfectly-coordinated Republican media outlet in the country - are a classic example of the "You're a racist for noticing my racism" gambit.

Shaheen says Republicans are going to read about Obama's past drug use and talk about scary black drug dealers. And, well, just look at those cribbed talking points. Looks like Shaheen was right.

And yet, for observing that the Republicans are going to act like bunch of racist goobers, Shaheen gets called a racist by them.

What's funny is that exactly the same people actually are going to talk about Barack Obama, the urban politician with a history of drug use who goes to one of THOSE churches for the entire general election, without batting an eye.

But hey, only a racist would notice the Republicans are assholes about race.

|12.14.07 @ 11:10PM|#

joe
Actually the most fun with a shill I ever had was with anon. A thread on Israel conjures him up like a lamp does a genie, there to defend the Likudian view of the world. One time he was having a hard time convincing everyone here why we should keep giving gobs of taxpayer money to Israel no matter how they behave. So he started to post under, I kid you not, the handle "Lord Acton" (get it, Lord Acton is a libertarian figure, so hey, I'm not just a Likud shill I'm with you guys.") However the silly goose forgot which handle he was under in subsequent posts and everybody saw who he was. He disappeared for days, and, I can only assume, wet his pants...

|12.14.07 @ 11:15PM|#

Keep it up Hillary and you'll get less of a percentag of African-American Democrat Primary votes than a Republican gets in the General election

Mmm, I'm sure she's quaking in her boots.

Fluffy|12.14.07 @ 11:21PM|#

Joe, do I have to accuse you of having Hillary as your girlfriend again?

You are as sensitive to criticism of her - even intraDemocrat party criticism as the most unreasonable Paultard is sensitive about Ron Paul criticism.

But you keep claiming she's not your candidate and I just don't get it.

|12.14.07 @ 11:28PM|#

"Agreeing with David Duke on Jim Crow laws does not make one a racist."

You switched it around.

DISagreeing with David Duke on issues related to race does not make one a racist, was my first statement. Agreeing with him on issues related to race does not INOCULATE YOU FROM CHARGES OF RACISM, was my second statement.

I disagree with David Duke on race-related issues, just about across the board. That does not make me a racist - if anything, just the opposite.

You agree with David Duke on at least one race-related issue. That, at a minimum, does not prove your anti-racial bona fides.

Here's a hint - if you want to hold yourself out as being holier-than-thou because of your opinion about a race-related political issue, don't select your determination to see fewer black people admitted to college as the opinion you highlight. People who are actually opponents of anti-black racism can generally point to a position they hold that would actually benefit black people suffering from racism.

And before you get in a huff about how opposing affirmative action isn't, by itself, racist: I agree. It isn't.

It isn't proof that you were Martin Luther King in a past life, either.

|12.14.07 @ 11:34PM|#

Fluffy,

I don't object to legitimate criticism of Clinton.

I don't object to criticism of the Shaheen, or of the Clinton campaign, for their racial concern-trolling regarding Barack Obama's past drug use.

What I do object to are dishonest Republican talking points being waved around in bad faith. Claiming that Shaheen's comments were a smear about Obama's race, rather than an attack on his electability once the Republicans turn the Southern Strategy back on, is dishonest propaganda.

BakedPenguin|12.14.07 @ 11:39PM|#

And yet, for observing that the Republicans are going to act like bunch of racist goobers, Shaheen gets called a racist by them.

Sorry joe, have to call you on this. Try: for observing believing that the Republicans are going to act Democratic primary voters would be swayed like in fear of a hypothetical bunch of racist goobers, Shaheen gets called a racist by them.

Nothing happens in the Clinton campaign without being vetted, joe. Are you fucking kidding me? Those comments were meant to be a kneecapping like Nancy Kerrigan got. "Psst, librul pal... you vote for Obama, and teh racist Rethuglikans will take him out with his drug history".

Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|12.14.07 @ 11:54PM|#

"Whoops, you left off "...and never seriously thought about whether making fun of black people was wrong again," dittohead."

Hmm, can you point me to the thread where I have "made fun of black people"? For that matter, where any of the talk show hosts I have named above have done so? You keep making accusations but you have yet to produce evidence. Or are we to the point in our society where a person is guilty until proven innocent?

|12.15.07 @ 12:08AM|#

Keep it up Hillary and you'll get less of a percentag of African-American Democrat Primary votes than a Republican gets in the General election

Mmm, I'm sure she's quaking in her boots.

joe, are you saying that HRC shouldn't be concerned about the backlash from this smear, in primaries where in some states blacks make up half the primary voters?

Or do you think blacks will disregard this whole bidness, and that the recent migration of black voters from HRC to Obama before this got out won't accelerate?

Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|12.15.07 @ 12:11AM|#

"You switched it around. DISagreeing with David Duke on issues related to race does not make one a racist, was my first statement. Agreeing with him on issues related to race does not INOCULATE YOU FROM CHARGES OF RACISM, was my second statement."
Most people of at least average intelligence would have understood my point. You either did not or are claiming that you did not. Since you at least seem intelligent my guess is the latter.

"Here's a hint - if you want to hold yourself out as being holier-than-thou because of your opinion about a race-related political issue, don't select your determination to see fewer black people admitted to college as the opinion you highlight."
It is not my determination to see fewer black people admitted to college. It is my determination to see them admitted on their own merit. I think they can do so and will have a greater self-worth for doing so.
"People who are actually opponents of anti-black racism can generally point to a position they hold that would actually benefit black people suffering from racism."
I can. I support the elimination of the state. It is the state that enabled slavery to exist in the first place by subsidizing the return of slaves, prohibiting their ownership of firearms, prohibiting their education and emancipation. It is the state that continued to hold them down with Jim Crow Laws. It is the state that continues to provide them with inferior schools to their white counterparts. It is the state the holds families in a cycle of poverty by subsidizing that poverty . It is the state that is keeping neighborhoods where they live as warzones with the War on Drugs. Yes, I do hold such a position.

|12.15.07 @ 12:30AM|#

My original point is Barack Obama would be destroyed in the general election because 1) hes a nice guy and 2) hes black. Does anyone doubt this?

|12.15.07 @ 12:38AM|#

Cesar -- I doubt this. The last two presidential elections both came down to a single state. The demographics haven't changed drastically since then. The states where being black is a huge handicap went red in the last two elections.

The nice guy thing isn't as big a handicap as you might think -- if Obama's niceness can survive all the nastiness HRC throws at him if the race tightens up, it can survive the nastiness the Republicans throw at him. If it can't survive HRC's attacks, it won't be an issue, because he won't be the general election candidate.

Look at the matchups on RealClearPolitics.com. Obama and HRC both do equally well against Republican opponents.

Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|12.15.07 @ 12:50AM|#

"The states where being black is a huge handicap went red in the last two elections."

Other than Florida which has a huge population of old people what other state are you talking about?

Plant Im migration Rights Supp|12.15.07 @ 12:52AM|#

"My original point is Barack Obama would be destroyed in the general election because 1) hes a nice guy and 2) hes black. Does anyone doubt this?"

I do doubt it. He will be destroyed in the general election because of his positions.

|12.15.07 @ 1:12AM|#

I'll eat my shirt and shave my head if Barack Obama is elected President next year. I say this with complete, total confidence because I know it will never happen.

Again, if this does happen, joe or anyone else can feel free to post this all over H&R in November 2008.

|12.15.07 @ 1:21AM|#

Obama is black? Oh, I get it - the other half is Irish.

Resisting temptation to hit "submit"....can't stop....help.....must resist.....

|12.15.07 @ 1:23AM|#

that was aweful, let me make it up to yall:

Q: Why do you put a baby in the blender feet first?

A: So you can see his expression.

|12.15.07 @ 1:29AM|#

er awful, not filled with awe

Now I owe another joke. Ok, there was a Mexican, an Englishman, and a "African-American" standing on a bridge. Blah, blah, blah...."dodging traffic"

Neu Mejican|12.15.07 @ 1:55AM|#

BakedPenguin,

Chrome are the most important band of the 70's.
Half Machine Lip Moves is among the best rock albums of all time.

Can, however, is also quite kick-ass.
They get to be Both proto-industrial, psychedelic, protopunk, free-jazz, proto-ambient, and a host of other things. They predicted almost every musical style post- 1970.

imho...

Neu Mejican|12.15.07 @ 2:15AM|#

FWIW,

It is far more interesting to debate the prog-rock roots of Can and the proto-industrial cred of Chrome than to try and figure out whether republicans or democrats are more racist.

Way too short clip of "Firebomb" by Chrome
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO5c3pzCg78

Neu Mejican|12.15.07 @ 2:17AM|#

Fuckin' A,

Here's the whole thing.
The intertubes kick ass!!!!!

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=6173878

Neu Mejican|12.15.07 @ 2:23AM|#

And there's even this Gallon Drunk video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwzqF2ZSl4M

At least Blue Daisies is still hard to find.

Neu Mejican|12.15.07 @ 2:24AM|#

Yes,

gallon drunk has a guy who only plays the maracas... you got a problem with that!!!!

Neu Mejican|12.15.07 @ 2:27AM|#

A better maraca display...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7tlRXiOcGE

Neu Mejican|12.15.07 @ 2:29AM|#

This time with go go dancers...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQbqoQLCxQ0

|12.15.07 @ 4:48AM|#

@NoStar

How about a NSFW warning on the music video. I've got two more hours to go and falling asleep could cost me my job.

I'd have thought the word "prog" should have been all the warning you would have needed...

Ali|12.15.07 @ 6:02AM|#

Ali -- I think you can drop the "formerly iih" thing when filling in the name field for your posts. The people who visit here fairly regularly all know about the name change. The people who rarely visit here probably don't remember any iih.

Done!

(P.S. New Orleans is cool!)

Eric Dondero|12.15.07 @ 9:04AM|#

Wayne Root, Libertarian for President today on Fox News Weekend at 3:00 pm est.

BakedPenguin|12.15.07 @ 9:35AM|#

Mejican - looks like they traded the maraca player for the go-go dancers. Good call.

|12.15.07 @ 9:53AM|#

"Obama is black? Oh, I get it - the other half is Irish."

Does that mean he's an Irish jig?

|12.15.07 @ 10:07AM|#

hes black. Does anyone doubt this?

i do. he's about my shade and the census takers (after i refused to state) put me down as white.

|12.15.07 @ 10:12AM|#

OK, Dave, seriously, Ohio's District 5 (which just happens to be my home district, so I might know a little about this) has been Republican for like, ever.

Bob Latta is Del's son (I think?) and Del held that seat for thirty years. Actually, that seat was held by only 3 Republicans (Clevenger, Latta and Gillmor) for almost 70 total years.

Anyway, my point is that Rs winning OH-5 is as surprising as the New York Times endorsing the Democratic candidate for President, in that it signifies nothing.

sending Gov. Ted Strickland and Sen. Sherrod Brown to campaign for Democrat Robin Weirauch

Not that Republicans are any better in my book these days, but I will testify that all three of these Ds are grade-A douches. Although that's a given for either party in Ohio politics...seriously.

|12.15.07 @ 10:13AM|#

oh yeah, and why is Dondero pimping the Libertarian candidate? Like you actually know what libertarian means, Mr. Support Giuliani and the War on Every Foreign Country Ever.

|12.15.07 @ 10:17AM|#

Ayn_Randian, Dondero has now morphed into Mr. Im So Fucking Scared of Huckabee I'll Back Anyone Else.

|12.15.07 @ 11:02AM|#

Open thread claim! Researchers Clone Fluorescent Cats

I read this and thought "Hmmm, 500 μgrams of acid, a dark apartment, black lights and two glow in the dark kittens." Where were the glow in the dark cats in the '70s when I would have done that? And enjoyed it no end. Just the thought of it brought a huge smile to my face.

Seriously, gene splicing and cloning techniques are going to change the world in ways that we will not forsee. Buckle up, boys and girls, it's going to be a wild, interesting, and sometimes scary ride.

|12.15.07 @ 11:05AM|#

Dondero has now morphed into Mr. Im So Fucking Scared of Huckabee I'll Back Anyone Else.

Cesar, I'm not defending to Dondi, but a whole lot of people are scared of a Hickabee nomnition.

Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|12.15.07 @ 11:41AM|#

"i do. he's about my shade and the census takers (after i refused to state) put me down as white."

Edna, I wish more people would refuse to give more information on the Census than is absolutely required by the COTUSA. I will refuse in 2010.

|12.15.07 @ 11:44AM|#

Cesar, I'm not defending to Dondi, but a whole lot of people are scared of a Hickabee nomnition.

Oh, I am too. Its just funny to see Dondi jump ship from Giulani so quickly when only a few weeks ago he was confidently predicting victory.

|12.15.07 @ 11:58AM|#

Cesar
I'm not sure its over for Rudy.
I check the polls at Slate.com at this link:
http://www.slate.com/id/2175496/

Rudy is certainly hurting in the early going. But look at his massive lead in delegate rich states like New York, Florida and California.

Don't get me wrong. You could look at these polls and note that in the three early primaries, where everyone is contesting them, he is losing. And that could mean that he will certainly lose either massive ground when NY, FL and CA come around or that he will lose them outright. And Rudy must of course face the fact if he is trounced in Iowa, NH and SC he will get a lot of negative press coverage while the winners will get quite a boost. But It's also possible that if he can just hang on through the admittedly rough going of the early primaries he may do quite well later....

Huckster will play well in states with lots of evangelicals (SC, Iowa). And the Mitt(stake), a former New England Gov. should run strong in NH. But FL, CA and NY, I think, are places where both may have little appeal and the more "cosmopolitan" moderate Rep. Guliania should have his best chances.

|12.15.07 @ 12:00PM|#

Edna, I wish more people would refuse to give more information on the Census than is absolutely required by the COTUSA. I will refuse in 2010.

PIRS, good on ya mate. My wife annd I refused to provide anything other than age and sex in 2000. I strongly encourage others to do likewise in 2010.

|12.15.07 @ 12:02PM|#

"I wish more people would refuse to give more information on the Census than is absolutely required by the COTUSA. I will refuse in 2010."

Aargh, I hate to go here, but why? I mean, the Census is and has been a valuable source of social science data. It helps academics, businesses, politicans and, yes, government officials (it helps them more efficiently allocate resources and such, which, since it is our money after all, is a good thing). Is this some hyper-libertarian "creeping socialism" thing? I mean, the Census is called for in the original Constitution...

|12.15.07 @ 12:08PM|#

"PIRS, good on ya mate. My wife annd I refused to provide anything other than age and sex in 2000. I strongly encourage others to do likewise in 2010."
Again, its quirky eccentric stands like this that baffle me, and I bet most people, when they think of libertarians and conjures up old farts walking around shopping malls mumbling about "creeping socialism" and decrying the Federal Reserve and the Tri-lateral commission...

We're talking about a survey that would have to be carried out for representationl reasons anyway and so there is the chance to mine a ton of data, confidentially, that is a gold mine for many of the institutions that make this nation so great and to inform the decisions of decision makers. You'll find few people as pro-privacy as me. I've quite jobs that have drug testing on principle (I don't do any illegal drugs [the legal ones are plenty fun thank you]). I oppose cameras to stop speeders or in public places and no-knock searches and this wiretapping crap. But the Census? C'mon guys...Now you're just being cranks.

BakedPenguin|12.15.07 @ 12:09PM|#

J sub D - Have you seen Windows Media player's "visualizations"? That would have been an excellent companion to Animals or Meddle (although it was in the late 80's for me).

As for interesting pets developed by science, here's an educational one.

|12.15.07 @ 12:11PM|#

The census is forbidden by the Bible, isn't it? I seem to remember King David getting a bunch of people killed by an avenging angel for taking a census.

Oooh, that would have made an awesome YouTube debate question for Huckabee. Too late now...

CrankyPenguin|12.15.07 @ 12:13PM|#

C'mon guys...Now you're just being cranks.

Hey! Nice Guys finish last, didn't you never hear that? Put that in yur precious censoos!

Now where's my colloidal silver?

|12.15.07 @ 12:17PM|#

I worked part time as a Census canvasser many moons ago. They take AGGREGATE data. No one gives a crap about your PERSONAL data, trust me.

One of the things on the "long form" they ask about is your commute time. Not only do government decision makers use that data in road planning (you may not like the government planning and making roads, but since they are doing it it might as well be done as well as it can, it is our money and our traffic jams we're talking about) but I worked for a business that used such data in considering the location of franchises and in planning flex time arrangements. And that's just one of the literally dozens of useful variables the Census collects info on.

|12.15.07 @ 12:18PM|#

it helps them more efficiently allocate resources and such, which, since it is our money after all, is a good thing

It would be even more efficiently allocated by not taking it in the first place. Anyway, considering that "our money" gets spent on whatever people with political connections want it spent on, I doubt they'd do much worse without all the extra data.

|12.15.07 @ 12:19PM|#

by "not taking it in the first place", I mean "not taking 'our' money via the income tax"

|12.15.07 @ 12:21PM|#

MNG,

That would actually work if no one moved or changed jobs in ten years. There are far better ways of getting that information more frequently than the friggin census.

|12.15.07 @ 12:21PM|#

"Anyway, considering that "our money" gets spent on whatever people with political connections want it spent on, I doubt they'd do much worse without all the extra data."

It's not perfect, but they would do MUCH worse without information. Trust me. And while it is true that elites manipulate the system and get more out of it, its also true that very voter has some "political connection" and gets something out of it. I mean, they build roads in poor neighborhoods, ones that pay almost no taxes mind you, all the time.

"It would be even more efficiently allocated by not taking it in the first place."
I have no idea what this sentence is arguing...

|12.15.07 @ 12:23PM|#

See, crimethink, you're talking about something you don't know much about. Uhh, the Census only does the famous canvassing every ten years but they do other surveys and counts all the time. And the government, universities and businesses (especially businesses) use that info all the time.

Heck, go to their website (www.census.gov). They are always doing something, and its pretty non-invasive and useful as government programs go...

|12.15.07 @ 12:23PM|#

They wouldn't know to build roads in poor neighborhoods without the extra questions on the census?

|12.15.07 @ 12:24PM|#

"by "not taking it in the first place", I mean "not taking 'our' money via the income tax""
Maybe you're right crimethink, but since that ain't gonna happen anytime soon I'd rather them spend the money WITH relevant info than without it.

|12.15.07 @ 12:27PM|#

You're right, I don't know much about the workings of the Census Bureau, nor do I care to. But the claim you made that I'm responding to is that if we don't answer those extra questions every ten years, the marvelous efficiency of our government will deteriorate.

In other words, if the Census is humming along, collecting data every year, why are those extra questions every ten years so important?

|12.15.07 @ 12:27PM|#

"They wouldn't know to build roads in poor neighborhoods without the extra questions on the census?"

I point out the fact that they build roads in poor areas to refute your claim that all government services just benefit some rich manipulator. It's patently untrue as a generalization.

The extra questions help plan the efficient resources of all kinds of government resources. If you had limited resources to build a new road or train track or what not, don't you think knowing commuter patterns in areas would be helpful? That's just one example.

|12.15.07 @ 12:29PM|#

crimethink
so now your argument is that the ten year census is unnecessary because of the multi-year studies the census does?

Do you think a marketing wing of a big firm stops doing their big planning studies because they do lots of smaller ones, or vice versa?

|12.15.07 @ 12:32PM|#

Given the incentives, well noted by libertarians, for our government to be inefficient and stupid, and given they are going to take gobs of our money and spend it on projects anyway, I for one would like to see them try this with MORE information rather than less. Call me crazy.

|12.15.07 @ 12:33PM|#

I mean, the Census is called for in the original Constitution...

To be precise,"[An] Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."

My wife and allowed them to enumerate us. We volunteered our ages. The refusal to provide more info was civil disobedience. Government can't abuse information it doesn't have. FDR and his allies assured the citizenry that your social security number would NEVER become a national identification number. The census bureau assures us that personalized census data will NEVER be shared other government agencies.

Is that paranoid thinking, or a logical deduction?

|12.15.07 @ 12:44PM|#

As for interesting pets developed by science, here's an educational one.

Very cool. I want one for my terrarium.

|12.15.07 @ 12:46PM|#

"The states where being black is a huge handicap went red in the last two elections."

Other than Florida which has a huge population of old people what other state are you talking about?

The entire South. You know, the region that switched from solid Democratic to solid Republican because the Civil Rights Act?

|12.15.07 @ 12:47PM|#

About 60 years ago, the U.S. Census bureau provided some of that "personal" data to the FBI so that they could round members of a hated ethnic group and send them to concentration camps.

Of course, nowadays, government agents never abuse their power, and there is no chance of something like that happening again.

Sam Grove|12.15.07 @ 1:03PM|#

Entire pbs NOW episode mostly on the Ron Paul phenomenon.

|12.15.07 @ 1:04PM|#

If they want extra census info from me, they can count on it being totally falsified. Yessirree, ms. cenus takers, I am a Polynesian black crack dealer, we have forty-three toilets in the house, and twenty-seven dorgs. That's D-O-R-G-S, you left out the R. Umm, my skin is so pale from all the time spent indoors freebasing. No, write that down. Dammit, come back here, I want to help you some more!

Really, MNG, I'm supposed to help them more efficiently waste our money on all the unconstitutional stuff the federal government does?

The only thing they're authorized to do by the constitution is count the members of my household, and even that info I gave wasn't accurate last time by their criteria, since my wife was pregnant and, as far as I was concerned, the fetus inside her was a human being and thus a citizen.

SIV|12.15.07 @ 1:12PM|#

The entire South. You know, the region that switched from solid Democratic to solid Republican because the Civil Rights Act?

Where they are sooooo slooooooow and lazy it took 25-40 years to make that switch 'cause of the Civil Rights Act. We are so lazy we haven't got round to switching all our Governoors and State Legislatures.

SIV|12.15.07 @ 1:14PM|#

About 60 years ago, the U.S. Census bureau provided some of that "personal" data to the FBI so that they could round members of a hated ethnic group and send them to concentration camps.

Of course the FBI, not being a progressive organization, didn't want to do it. FDR
had to use his executive authority to make them.

|12.15.07 @ 1:18PM|#

edna, PIRS, tarran, prolefed -

Welcome to the first decennial meeting of the "Quirky, eccentric old farts" brotherhood. Since our by-laws forbid taking a roll call, let's get started.

You, in the back! Yeah you, Mr. Nice Guy! You can't stay for the meeting. We have reliable information that you're an undercover census bureau employee. Sergeant at Arms, remove the snitch.

|12.15.07 @ 1:22PM|#

MNG -- The Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal govenment from doing anythng not specifically spelled out in the Constitution. So, they're only allowed to enumerate us == count us == not spend money collecting extra data to "efficiently" administer other unconstitutional programs.

Yes, we must be whackjobs for opposing the federal government doing unconstitutional stuff.

If liberals were cows: "Well, they're going to slaughter us in that building ahead anyway, so we might as well go into the building in an orderly fashion so the process will be as efficient as possible."

|12.15.07 @ 1:24PM|#

Say what you will about Rush, but I can tell you now that when Huckleberry loses it will be because Rush convinces his listeners that populism is not a Republican value. Despite his claims of neutrality he's already starting to point out some of Huck's more egregious comments.

And JsubD, please don't disparge us hicks by affiliating us with the huckster.

|12.15.07 @ 1:28PM|#

And JsubD, please don't disparge us hicks by affiliating us with the huckster.

Sorry about that, Chief.

Fluffy|12.15.07 @ 1:47PM|#

If the anti-Huck forces succeed in destroying Huck before the IA caucus, I will be delighted. Huck already fatally wounded Romney and Giuliani, and he has now outlived his political usefulness.

Hillary Clinton|12.15.07 @ 1:57PM|#

If you want to beat the Rethuglicans and stave off a Theocracy you had better choose me and not that Muslim cociane dealer, Barak Hussein Osama.
Where was he on 9/11 ?

Eric Dondero|12.15.07 @ 2:14PM|#

Cesar, J sub D,

I'm not quite "Anyone but Huckabee." I couldn't support Ron Paul, given his Pro-Appeasement views on foreign policy. I'd abstain, vote LP or even write someone in before I'd vote for Paul. And I'd have a very hard time supporting John McCain. Like his Military Service and his Pro-War in Iraq views, but that's about it.

So, I'm "Any Fiscal Conservative" but Fiscal Liberal Huckabee.

I'd support Romney, Thompson or Giuliani.

Heck, I'd even support friggin' Alan Keyes!!

Eric Dondero|12.15.07 @ 2:17PM|#

I'm not dumping Rudy. No way! I'm just saying that if it comes to it, as a diehard Giuliani support, I'm willing to compromise with Mitt Romney so as to keep our Conservative/Libertarian coalition intact.

Even I admit, keeping the Social Cons in the GOP coalition will be dicey if Rudy is the Nominee.

Though, I'd fully expect and hope that Rudy would take a strong Social Con as his running mate like Mark Sanford of SC, Tom Coburn or even JC Watts.

Eric Dondero|12.15.07 @ 2:19PM|#

As for Wayne Root, Libertarians PLEASE NOMINATE HIM!!!

We need an insurance policy in case the GOP goes Religious Right nutball on us.

Phillies and Kubby are clearly 2nd tier. But Root has got the money and the gusto to attract a lot of mainstream Fiscal Cons to his side were the GOP to nominate the Huck-Monster.

Eric Dondero|12.15.07 @ 2:20PM|#

Why would "Dondi" pump Wayne Root?

Who the hell do you all think recruited Wayne to run for President as a Libertarian?

It was my article on RedState.com last October that first got Wayne to contact us, and prompted him to consider the idea. Ask Wayne.

|12.15.07 @ 2:25PM|#

Funny, I thought the LP had basically the same position on Iraq that Dr Paul does.

Earache Dildero|12.15.07 @ 2:43PM|#

Why would "Dondi" pump Wayne Root?

Because he's a warmonger of course.

Fluffy|12.15.07 @ 2:44PM|#

Dondero is very, very sad that his boyfriend / prom date Giuliani is spinning down the bowl.

If Giuliani and Romney get together, Eric, it will be to cry in each other's beer and swap stories about their shitty campaigns like a couple of broken has-been's.

Captain 9/11 can't understand why more people didn't buy his comic book. Oh well, Rudy. Better luck next wife.

|12.15.07 @ 3:01PM|#

If Giuliani and Romney get together, Eric, it will be to cry in each other's beer and swap stories about their shitty campaigns like a couple of broken has-been's.

Romney's beer will have to be something like this, of course.

Sam Grove|12.15.07 @ 3:04PM|#

given his Pro-Appeasement views

It's only pro-appeasement if that is why you are doing it. We can't let name calling prevent us from holding to principled stands.

It still stands that the justifications for invading Iraq were fabricated to support the policy propounded by the members of PNAC.

If we let THEIR supporters provoke us into supporting said policy with their ad hominem name calling, why THAT would be appeasement.

"Oh please, Mr. Neocon, don't call me names, I'll do anything as long as you stop calling me names."

|12.15.07 @ 3:06PM|#

Baked Penguin,

Obviously, it was supposed to be a kneecapping - one designed to make Obama look unelectable by pointing out that racist voters IN THE GENERAL ELECTION won't vote for him. It's playing on Democrats' observation that Republicans are, if not racist, prone to falling for tactics with a racist subtext.

Do you know anything about Democratic primary voters?

prolefeed,

joe, are you saying that HRC shouldn't be concerned about the backlash from this smear, in primaries where in some states blacks make up half the primary voters? No, I'm saying she shouldn't be overly concerned about it. Shaheen's gone, and Hillary is a Clinton. That ought to do it. The only people who are going to be talking about this next week are Republicans.

And while the portrayal of Republicans as sufficiently racist to fall for such Atwater-ish, Southern Strategy smears is unflattering, I think the word "smear" requires an element of untruthfulness.

|12.15.07 @ 3:10PM|#

PIORSW,

It is not my determination to see fewer black people admitted to college. It is my determination to see them admitted on their own merit.

And you believe that too many are being admitted not on their own merit, and wish to see fewer admitted.

That bit about eliminating the state as a black empowerment policy is among the most dishonest bits of hackery I've ever seen. You can't actually think of a pro-black, anti-racist position you hold, so you just found an implausible way to describe a wholly-unrelated position as if it were a anti-racist position. Slavery? There hasn't been slavery in this country in 140 years.

|12.15.07 @ 3:15PM|#

Cesar,

My original point is Barack Obama would be destroyed in the general election because 1) hes a nice guy and 2) hes black. Does anyone doubt this?

I doubt it. 1. He's a Democrat, and will be running against Republican at the end of the George Bush's term. 2. He's "mean" enough to get elected to the state senate from a Chicago district. 3. There are more people in this country who would be more likely to vote for a black candidate because of his race than against. Like the "good ones" Rush Limbaugh likes to fawn over to show how totally non-racist he is, a lot of Americans, including many who have their racial issues to work through, would jump at the chance to vote for Obama.

I understand your point, and Shaheen's point, that his race will make it easier for Republicans to paint him as a bad guy to the Cro-Magnon segment of the electorate, but that segment is both relatively small and concentrated in states he wouldn't win anyway. So he loses northern Louisiana by 90 points instead of 80 points - so what?

|12.15.07 @ 3:23PM|#

I strongly urge all small-government conservatives, especially those living in areas with a large number of people, to be true to their stated and principles and refuse to provide any information whatsoever to the census takers.

As a matter of fact, if you are a conservative and you don't actively work to make your housing unit appear unoccupied, you are selling out all that is good about America to teh libruls.

They're just going to round you up anyway and take away your guns, so stick it to the Man! Don't let them know that you're there at all!

|12.15.07 @ 3:31PM|#

Since the census is a federal project, and the information it yields helps the federal government to impose on the rightful powers of the states, it especially important for small-government-conservatives to avoid being counted if they live in red states.

Totally. You should do that.

BakedPenguin|12.15.07 @ 3:43PM|#

joe - We're on the same page (or close) regarding the Shaheen comment. I'd misread one of your previous comments, and I hadn't seen your 11:34 comment when I posted. I'd argue that it's more about the perceptions of Republican racism among Dem voters that Shaheen was going after.

Do you know anything about Democratic primary voters?

As much as anyone knows a collective. Most of my non-libertarian friends are liberals. I don't know if they're voting in the primary, though. Since I don't think you're discussing them, let me ask - So. Cal. Hispanics? Oregon ecotarians? Connecticut soccer moms? Rust belt union members? Southern blacks? Subsidy-lovin' farmers? Columbia grad students? Northern blacks? You want to narrow that collective down a bit?

|12.15.07 @ 3:48PM|#

I'd argue that it's more about the perceptions of Republican racism among Dem voters that Shaheen was going after. Yes, agreed.

I thought you were saying that Shaheen was trying to appeal to the latent racism of Democratic primary voters, which doesn't make a whole lotta sense.

I'm glad we could clear that out.

|12.15.07 @ 3:56PM|#

Going back through the thread, the dittoheads really hung themselves.

Let's get this straight: Rush Limbaugh shows clips of black politicians speaking in strong African-American accents in order to make fun of them, and that's not a racial joke. He puts together a song titled "Barack the Magic Negro," and that's not racist humor. He tells a black caller, "Take that bone out of your nose," and that's not racist. Nope, Rush is pure as the driven snow.

But Bill Shaheen says that Barack Obama's admitted drug use will be brought up by the Republicans in a general election, and that's a - what's the phrase again? Oh yeah, a "blatant racist smear."

'Kay.

|12.15.07 @ 4:14PM|#

I strongly urge all small-government conservatives, especially those living in areas with a large number of people, to be true to their stated and principles and refuse to provide any information whatsoever to the census takers.

What about me, joe? I even let them know my age and sex. I encourage others to reply to the census similarly. Maybe I missed it. Did someone opine you shouldn't give the census bureau information about the number of people at their residence?

SIV|12.15.07 @ 4:32PM|#

I thought you were saying that Shaheen was trying to appeal to the latent racism of Democratic primary voters, which doesn't make a whole lotta sense.

That is exactly what "he" was appealing to joe!
You can't put this off on Shaheen he was clearly acting "under orders" of Hillary and her strategists.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, through paid surrogates, is calling Obama a cocaine dealer .
She should have to answer to that charge.
I bet the next step is the Hillary campaign will produce someone who will claim he bought cocaine from Obama back in the early '80s.
Expect it will be well-timed.

Don't forget the Democrats invented racial politics in this country.

SIV|12.15.07 @ 4:37PM|#

But Bill Shaheen says that Barack Obama's admitted drug use will be brought up by the Republicans in a general election, and that's a - what's the phrase again? Oh yeah, a "blatant racist smear."

You take what Hillary's campaign says at face value? I thought you were smarter than that joe. Hillary's campaign is using those
" codewords" in their "policy of personal destruction". I guess you liberal Democrat Party de-coder ring only translates "Republican racism".

SIV|12.15.07 @ 4:46PM|#

So he loses northern Louisiana by 90 points instead of 80 points - so what?

Northern LA has a Black poulation much higher than most of the country. Part of the reason they still elect Democrats statewide although that era is about over. Mary Landrieu is probably considering a party switch if she survives the 2008 election.

|12.15.07 @ 4:48PM|#

J sub D: Romney's beer would have to be more like the decaf version of this

Peter Priesthoods like Mitt, especially ones pandering to the Mormon voters, don't drink O'Douls, because of the tiny bit of alcohol in it and the image it sets.

|12.15.07 @ 4:49PM|#

"Is that paranoid thinking, or a logical deduction?" Its paranoid thinking. Any information the Census can get on you they can get from sources required by law (well, not things like the commuting info, but your income, poverty level, race, age, household number, etc). Civil disobedience is defying an unjust law. Saying no the voluntary census is not that. It's just being a crank.

"Really, MNG, I'm supposed to help them more efficiently waste our money on all the unconstitutional stuff the federal government does?" Uggh, such obtuseness. They are going to take your money either way. Wouldn't you rather them spend it more efficiently? I don't think the Constitution calls for modern accounting methods in keeping up with the budget, so should we just chuck that too? I mean, who cares about efficiency in government spending? Let them throw it in a hole, huh?

"Of course the FBI, not being a progressive organization, didn't want to do it. FDR
had to use his executive authority to make them." SIV, do you ever think about the nonsense that pops into your head that you then verbalize? You do have a pre-frontal lobe with inhibitory functions don't you?
The FBI was created by T.R. Roosevelt, who was, I hate to break this too you, a Progressive (you've said as much yourself around here). Hoover was the model of a progressive and is still remembered for bringing the progressive model of law enforcement ("professionalizing" his agents, lots of training and education, civil service type regulations for promotion and hiring, a focus on law enforcement over order maintenance, the use of 'scientific management'). You really have no earthly idea what in the world you are talking about do you?
http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/history/origins.htm

|12.15.07 @ 4:50PM|#

You can't actually think of a pro-black, anti-racist position you hold, so you just found an implausible way to describe a wholly-unrelated position as if it were a anti-racist position.

I know you weren't talking to me, but I can't think of any pro-Jewish positions I hold. Does that make me an anti-Semite?

|12.15.07 @ 4:57PM|#

SIV -- Old habits die hard. It took a while for the South to go from diehard Democrats to heavily Republican, but I think it was due at least in part to the pandering by Democrats to the black votes with PC-racist stuff like the Equal Opportunity act, which made Southerners realize that the Democratic party in the South, while still practicing racism, had switched targets. That, and the struggle by the Republican party to recover from the ass-whuppin' they took in the 60s made them go from a small-government classical liberal economics orientation to a theocratic social conservative orientation to help them pick up votes in the South. Finally, losing California made it imperative for Republicans to sweep the South to have any chance for electoral college success.

|12.15.07 @ 5:07PM|#

"I understand your point, and Shaheen's point, that his race will make it easier for Republicans to paint him as a bad guy to the Cro-Magnon segment of the electorate, but that segment is both relatively small and concentrated in states he wouldn't win anyway."
Joe, it would be nice maybe if you were right. But the number of people who will not vote for a black guy is higher than I think you think it is. There are still a lot of blue collar union type Dems and older FDR loving yellow dogs who just won't do it. Besides, Obama just does not have a record of accomplishments or service. Like Edwards he is a one term senator. Not the strongest choice. And his name sounds funny and sinister to many people. He's a terrible candidate.

"Northern LA has a Black poulation much higher than most of the country." It's true, but they have a higher population of racists too.


"Hillary Rodham Clinton, through paid surrogates, is calling Obama a cocaine dealer ."
Repeating a retarded allegation does not amount to an argument or evidence SIV. I posted the entire quote upthread. Obama has talked very openly about his drug use. The GOP has a history of attacking people (white or black) that run and admit to drug use. The guy said "given what Obama has said the GOP will be all over him with questions like how much drugs did you do? Did you ever sell it?" That's hardly proof of injecting a racism meme into an election. For that kind of thing you have to go back to Bush's "interracial child" famous McCain push-poll.

|12.15.07 @ 5:10PM|#

prolfeed-actually many people, historians and even some of the parties involved, have described the GOP's Southern Strategy of using opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Brown v. Board to woo white Southern voters who were upset with a bit more than just "PC Equal Opportunity" talk. Kevin Phillips has mentioned Nixons strategy of telling the South that he would appoint judges who would be a bit more friendly on civil rights.

Don't get me wrong, liberal over-reach on civil rights was a HUGE factor (think busing and apologizing for black crime and rioting). But there is a reason why most segregationists began to switch from Dem to GOP. They took positions that seemed to represent their interests better.

SIV|12.15.07 @ 5:11PM|#

MNG,

You are quite correct in this instance ( as I was fully aware of). J Edgar Hoover ( like Harry J Anslinger of the Federal Narcotics Bureau) was a progressive for all the reasons you mention. He just wasn't progressive enough to go along with FDR and Earl Warren's policy of interring innocent Americans in concentration camps solely based on their race.

Hoover wouldn't have spied on Martin Luther King if Bobby Kennedy hadn't ordered him too.
Under written directives from Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, the FBI began tracking King and the SCLC in 1961.

Do tell your fellow liberals about J Edgar's progressive bona fides. I'm sure they will appreciate the truth

|12.15.07 @ 5:19PM|#

Fellow "liberals" of mine don't make the collosally foolish mistake you regularly make: confusing the Progressive Movement of 1890-1930 with self styled "Progressivism" of modern liberals. The Progressive movement was a bi-partisan one that started with government reform. They believed in professionalism, civil service reform science and 'de-politicalized 'rational management' within a more active government determined to solve what they saw as the unique problems of an industrial world. Teddy Roosevelt is about as far as you can get from modern liberals who use the term "progressive". Heck, Herbert Hoover was a progressive, but hardly a "liberal".

What we today call progressives, liberals, agreed with some of the aims of the Progressive Movement, and disagreed with many others. The modern liberal has much, much more in common with the Progressive Party of Wallace than with Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson. That movement had all the "lifestyle liberalism" (allowing people to do whatever with their bodies, sexually, pharmacologically, religiously [meditation and such bullshit]) that defines the progressive movement.

|12.15.07 @ 5:20PM|#

"Really, MNG, I'm supposed to help them more efficiently waste our money on all the unconstitutional stuff the federal government does?"

Uggh, such obtuseness. They are going to take your money either way. Wouldn't you rather them spend it more efficiently?

I agree some obtuseness is going on here. We disagree about the party committing it. It costs money to collect that unconstitutional extra data. The extra data will be used as justification to spend even more money on unconstitutional stuff than would occur without the data. It won't make government more efficient, it will make it more voracious.

The only reason for the census, as given in the constitution, is to allow for the accurate apportionment of political representatives. So we should give them an accurate head count in our household if asked (assuming we're not anarcho-capitalists who think voting empowers the government and is thus plain wrong), and not all the other stuff the bastards want that is unrelated to apportioning political representation.

I move the Decennial meeting of the Cranky Old Farts Who Hate Statist Excesses is adjourned. Second it, J sub D?

SIV|12.15.07 @ 5:22PM|#

Obama "admitted" drug use years ago in his biography. That pretty much takes it off the table as a known issue-- which is why Hillary Rodham Clinton has made a charge of Drug Dealing against Obama. They either have a stooge who is going to point the finger at Obama
or they are merely playing the old LBJ "I just wanna here the SOB deny it" game. Considering the risks of this charge, quite eveident at the moment, I'd say the former is true. Extra points to the "Clinton Hate Machine" if the "Obama cocaine customer" who eventually emerges is a White Woman....extra, extra points if she was under-aged at the time.

|12.15.07 @ 5:27PM|#

Saying no the voluntary census is not that. It's just being a crank.

Mr Nice Guy,
13 USC Sec. 221
TITLE 13 - CENSUS
CHAPTER 7 - OFFENSES AND PENALTIES

SUBCHAPTER II - OTHER PERSONS

Sec. 221. Refusal or neglect to answer questions; false answers

(a) Whoever, being over eighteen years of age, refuses or willfully neglects, when requested by the Secretary, or by any other authorized officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof acting under the instructions of the Secretary or authorized officer, to answer, to the best of his knowledge, any of the questions on any schedule submitted to him in connection with any census or survey provided for by subchapters I, II, IV, and V of chapter 5 of this title, applying to himself or to the family to which he belongs or is related, or to the farm or farms of which he or his family is the occupant, shall be fined not more than $100.

(b) Whoever, when answering questions described in subsection (a) of this section, and under the conditions or circumstances described in such subsection, willfully gives any answer that is false, shall be fined not more than $500.

We have different definitions of voluntary.

|12.15.07 @ 5:38PM|#

"The extra data will be used as justification to spend even more money on unconstitutional stuff than would occur without the data. It won't make government more efficient, it will make it more voracious."

You think if the government did not have that information it would just stop collecting taxes and spending money? If they are going to do it, they may as well do it in an informed manner. I may not want the government to have any of my money either, but once they have it I hope they use it as informed as possible. Again, when they make the roads I want them to take commuter patterns into account. You don't I guess. Or you think them having the info on commuter patterns will cause them to build more roads than they were going to in the first place. That's nuts.

Besides, as I argued, the Census data is a goldmine for other institutions in this nation. Think tanks (Cato uses it all the time), universities, businesses, even the military uses it.

"Obama "admitted" drug use years ago in his biography. That pretty much takes it off the table as a known issue--
Yeah, Like Bill Clinton's drug use from years ago was off the table, right?

"which is why Hillary Rodham Clinton has made a charge of Drug Dealing against Obama." Point out where she did so SIV. I've got the exact quote upthread so you don't even have to work that hard.

J sub D-Ok, so its illegal as well as cranky. Yay.

|12.15.07 @ 5:41PM|#

"Besides, as I argued, the Census data is a goldmine for other institutions in this nation. Think tanks (Cato uses it all the time), universities, businesses, even the military uses it."
Heck, its almost what I would call a public good. I sa it cited not too long ago here on H&R when someone arguing against SCHIPS cited the median family income. Where do you think they got that? It provides a wealth of information to all citizens. That makes for a better citizenry, in addition to the value of all the practical uses it is put to by businesses, universities, etc.

|12.15.07 @ 5:44PM|#

I move the Decennial meeting of the Cranky Old Farts Who Hate Statist Excesses is adjourned. Second it, J sub D?

Seconded and carried. We need a new Sergeant at Arms in 2017.

SIV|12.15.07 @ 5:58PM|#

Hillary Clinton made the charge of drug dealing through her surrogate Shaheen, who asks Obama:

'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'"

That wasn't a gaffe but a calculated move.

In case anyone missed my "bold political prediction", a person claiming to have bought cocaine from Obama will emerge-- at just the "right time" to help Hillary.I am also predicting this person is a White woman.
Kudos to the Clinton's for extra-dirty political tricks if she would have been under-aged at the time.

SIV|12.15.07 @ 6:00PM|#

edit out the apostrophe to read plural "Clintons"

src|12.15.07 @ 9:03PM|#

SIV -- any good West Wing fan knows that some "gaffes" are intentional. 22-caliber mind, anyone?

On Obama: I doubt his race would hurt him in a general election. IIRC, Bush picked up a lot of formerly Democratic minority votes in the last two elections, because of social spending and cultural conservatism. (Also low voter turnout.) If there were actually a black candidate, some of those trends might be reversed. Besides, my gut feeling is that most people who wouldn't vote for a black man aren't Democrats.

What may hurt him: connections to the Chicago machine, and concerns about his foreign policy ideas. (Picture a Giuliani/Obama match. One candidate taps into fear; the other one wants to play well with others.)

|12.15.07 @ 10:15PM|#

SIV
You're being a tool again, quoting out of the obvious context. Here you go, I'll fix it for ya:
He said Republicans would work hard to discover new aspects of Obama's admittedly spotty youth.

"It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'" said Shaheen, whose wife, Jeanne, is a former New Hampshire governor and is running for the U.S. Senate next year.

"There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome," Shaheen said."


The context, the "It'll be" preceding your quote and the immediately following sentence make it obvious that this guy (who is not Hillary Clinton but one of her many campaign operatives) was talking about what he thought the GOP would say about Obama. Which is very different than accusing Obama of being a drug dealer.

Look where Cesar said Obama's race would hurt him with some of the electorate and ditto for his name. Was Cesar encouraging voters to reject Obama on his race and was he making fun of Obama's name? No, he was predicting what would be relevant to some folks. Sheehan did the same (at least from the text thats all that one could determine).

|12.15.07 @ 10:32PM|#

MNG -- Yeah, giving a huge insider's clue to the backroom folks on other political campaigns who do opposition research, while still preserving some form of plausible deniability, knowing full well that someone not with the Clinton campaign will find it in their interest to find that dirt and run with it -- yeah, that's very different than accusing Obama of being a drug dealer. That's making sure someone else will make the accusation.

Assuming this isn't just some baseless slur.

SIV|12.15.07 @ 10:34PM|#

Oh yeah MNG,

He meant exactly what he said.He wasn't accusing Obama of being a drug dealer.
He was pre-empting the future Republican charge that Obama was a drug dealer.

You are either dumb or disingenuous MNG.
Which is it? 'd say a combination of both.
Do you think it was a bluff? Or has Hillary's op-research people found someone who will come forward at an opportune time?

(as you can see I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on this one)

Fluffy|12.15.07 @ 10:37PM|#

"Rush Limbaugh shows clips of black politicians speaking in strong African-American accents in order to make fun of them"

I agree with a lot of what you say about Rush, but not this.

No one's accent is a function of their race. Want people to not make fun of your accent? Don't have one.

And if you actually have an accent that makes you sound stupid, and someone plays an actual clip of you and laughs at you, tough luck. As long as the tape isn't altered that's just the Media Matters of accents as far as I am concerned.

Fluffy|12.15.07 @ 10:39PM|#

Mr. Nice Guy -

The art of the political smear can be a subtle one. I think that Shaheen knew exactly what he was doing. By couching his statement in Concern Troll language, he can deliver the smear while feigning ignorance and innocence. "Who, me? I'm not smearing anyone. I'm just wondering aloud what we should do if this particular smear is used. Did you get every word of that smear? I can repeat it if you need me to."

SIV|12.15.07 @ 10:42PM|#

Prolefeed,

IIRC you don't have any experience with drugs.Obama most likely "split" a purchase or got something for someone else quite a few times when he was using (ask any REASON
commenter about their personal experiences).
Expect someone to come forward during the campaign--particularly if Hillary loses Iowa and is tanking in the polls-- and say "I bought drugs from Barak Obama".Hillary will deny coordination but will admit their op-research people had spoken with the accuser.It is a dangerous play for Clinton but if she is desperate..........

White Woman|12.15.07 @ 10:47PM|#

Obama sold me cocaine when I was 16. Cocaine ruined my life but I'm in recovery now. I don't blame him but the people have a right to know.


(Now where is this Chinese guy who is going to give me $500,000 ?)

|12.15.07 @ 10:50PM|#

Hey SIV what do you think about what they did to Harold Ford JR in 2006?

SIV|12.15.07 @ 10:54PM|#

This was as subtle as a baseball bat.
That is why Shaheen had to immediately resign.
The Hillary Campaign line is that he was a loose cannon off the reservation.

SIV|12.15.07 @ 11:04PM|#

By "they" you mean the Bob Corker Campaign?

I don't think there was much of a racial angle
in that ad except in the minds of Yankee Liberals. The ad was highlighting that Harold Ford wasn't as clean as he was portraying himself.The ad was done in a humorous tone.
Ford's family is a notoriously corrupt Memphis political machine.That is what the spot alluded to.Harold Ford did very well in that election
and lost based on maturity and experience (for a Red State it was close). Inter-racial couples don't raise an eyebrow in TN or most of the South and anyone who picked up on that angle wouldn't be voting for Ford anyways.

|12.15.07 @ 11:29PM|#

Inter-racial couples don't raise an eyebrow in TN or most of the South

In border-state Virginia, this is true with white/asian (think of Jim Webb) and white/hispanic couples. But white/black couples still stick in a lot of peoples craw.

SIV|12.15.07 @ 11:50PM|#

I spent a lot of time in Roanoke( cool town!) and didn't get that vibe.I only see Southern people get upset when it is a family member involved.

I was in a Tennessee media market for the whole 2006 campaign and saw the Ford vs Corker commercials and newspaper/TV coverage daily. I was working with some TN residents-including a Democrat Party county-level office candidate. The racial aspect of the ad in question was no big deal in-State.

Ali|12.16.07 @ 12:04AM|#

In 1 minute, $10,000+ in contributions to Ron Paul! Lets set new records.

Ali|12.16.07 @ 12:06AM|#

15,000 per minute!

|12.16.07 @ 12:22AM|#

The Ron Paul money counter is making my head spin.

Chicka-boom, Chicka-boom, Don't you just love it.

PS: I spent two hours this afternoon with about 15 other RP supporters waving signs at the busiest intersection in town. My daughter and I counter 351 positive responses (smiles, thumbs up, waves, honking) and only 3 negative responses at our corner. Times that by 4 and thats 1400 favorable responses in a town with a population of 17000. (One guy rolled down his window to tell me Ron paul is a communist! Must have been a supporter of that fascist Adolph Benito Ghouliani.)

Seer|12.16.07 @ 12:24AM|#

Watching the money counter is suprisingly fun.

Ali|12.16.07 @ 12:25AM|#

NoStar- This is exciting, ain't it?

Ali|12.16.07 @ 12:25AM|#

Watching the money counter is suprisingly fun.

And addictive!

Seer|12.16.07 @ 12:35AM|#

Yeah, I'm going to watch until it hits 12 million.

|12.16.07 @ 12:46AM|#

Watching the money counter is the most fun I've ever had....with my clothes on.

|12.16.07 @ 12:58AM|#

Looks like Ron Paul is raking it in at a pretty good clip. I've noticed you can get a rough idea of the rate of donations by watching how quickly the donor names scroll by. Lots of donation, and they scroll by fast! He's almost got his $12 million target, and the Tea Party has barely started. Go Ron Paul!

Ali|12.16.07 @ 1:12AM|#

1:11 Done Deal!

Seer|12.16.07 @ 1:14AM|#

1:11- $12 million
and I can go to bed now.

|12.16.07 @ 1:19AM|#

(One guy rolled down his window to tell me Ron paul is a communist!)

He thinks Ron Paul is a communist?!! Geez, I'd hate to be that ignorant.

|12.16.07 @ 1:20AM|#

For 75 minutes the money has been rolling in at a clip of almost $5000 per minute. If that could be maintained for the next 22.75 hours that would be a quite haul for Paul of about 7.2 million.

I'll stand by my earlier prediction of 5.8 million and pray that I am too much of a pessimist.

|12.16.07 @ 1:37AM|#

Half a mil in the first hour and a half. I crippled my credit card again.

|12.16.07 @ 1:43AM|#

Tea Party vs. Nov. 5th:

http://ronpaulgraphs.com/dec_16_vs_nov_5_donors.html

They are very much outperforming Guy Fawkes day so far. I don't know what this means though since I'm not a moneybombologist.

dhex|12.16.07 @ 2:05AM|#

Want people to not make fun of your accent? Don't have one.

on what planet is that possible?

also big ups on having a decent song for once but calling can prog is fightin' words.

|12.16.07 @ 2:37AM|#

Check this. Gambling911 reports Ron Paul has the second best odds among Republicans to become the next President, only after Rudy Giuliani.

|12.16.07 @ 4:22AM|#

Prolefeed,

IIRC you don't have any experience with drugs.

SIV -- "Mormon convert" does not necessarily equal "no experience with drugs." I've taken them. I've grown them. I've sold them. I lived with a bunch of Deadheads. I've gone skinnydipping in hot springs at midnight with said Deadheads and some Hell's Angels, toking. I've spent time in courtrooms, trying (successfully) to not spend time in jail.

Now my life is kinda boring, but far less stressful. ;(

|12.16.07 @ 4:39AM|#

Ron Paul just topped 12.5million! Time to go to bed -- 11:38 pm in Hawaii.

Seer|12.16.07 @ 7:41AM|#

Gambling911 reports Ron Paul has the second best odds among Republicans to become the next President, only after Rudy Giuliani.

That part where Rudy's in first makes it lose credibility. Huck and Romney are both in better position than Gudy.

|12.16.07 @ 7:54AM|#

Let's see, Romney's campaign has been entirely based on winning all the early states, and he's now way behind in Iowa and his lead is almost gone in NH.

Huckabee has roughly no chance in more urbanized states, where Giuliani is doing well.

So I'd still say this race is Rudy's to lose (unfortunately)

Eric Dondero|12.16.07 @ 8:59AM|#

Crimethink, Romney is not "way behind" in Iowa. Where'd you get those numbers?

I've seen numbers with him comfortably ahead. And I've seen him as low as 3 points behind in Iowa. But nothing to indicate that he's "way behind."

Eric Dondero|12.16.07 @ 9:01AM|#

Smartass sob,

Ron Paul is not a "Communist." But there is something to all the rumors of Moveon.org having infiltrated his campaign aparatuses in Nevada, Colorado and northern California these past few weeks. They most certainly could be classified as Communists.

And Cynthia McKinney is now actively talking of co-opting the Ron Paul supporters after the primaries for her openley Hard-Left Presidential campaign.

No, Paul is not a Communist. But he does have some Communist elements that might bring one to that conclusion.

Eric Dondero|12.16.07 @ 9:05AM|#

Crimethink, you ask since you don't hold any "Pro-Jewish positions" if that makes you an Anti-Semite, the simple answer is:

Yes.

But not supporting the State of Israel, and its continued existence, you are defacto aligning yourself with Hamas, Al Qaeda, Saddam loyalists, Achmadinajhad, and virtulally all Jewish haters in the Middle East.

Yes, I would most definitely categorize you as an Anti-Semite.

SIV|12.16.07 @ 9:34AM|#

prolefeed,

Sorry, I must have missed the "convert" part. Then you know what I mean about how easy it would be for an acquaintance from Obama's youth to make a charge of drug dealing.

|12.16.07 @ 9:53AM|#

And I would just as definitely consider the source (if it is indeed the real Dondero).

|12.16.07 @ 9:54AM|#

And doesn't your support of Giuliani make you a "defacto" Drug Warrior?

|12.16.07 @ 10:10AM|#

Hillary does not need to do a great deal of "op-research" to back up the concerns Sheehan voiced. Obama has been quite vocal, for a candidate, about his drug use. The idea that since it was in the past the GOP is bound not to use it is hilarious, as, I point out for the SECOND time, they used Bill Clinton's past use against him with some fervor.

So here you have a party that hates drug users (the GOP). This party has used the fact a Dem candidate has used drugs in his past against said candidate. And now we have a potential Dem candidate who has talked quite openly about his involvement in drugs as a youth. And so you have a Clinton operative questioning whether the GOP will use this against him (btw-Sheehan is one of numerous "Clinton operatives" who speak to multiple media outlets every day, not knowing what any given media outlet will run with, so I'm certainly not sold on the idea that this was a concerted effort to get this meme into the media). SIV has already conjured in his head that Hillary has someone ready to come forward and implicate Obama IN THE FUTURE. How can you argue with this? Since Hillary is the Devil to folks who suckle at the teat of the GOP Noise Machine, its easy to go beyond an obvious, though fairly innocent explanation of what happened here, one that is firmly backed in the exact quote and what we already know.

Here's why I feel this was just an honest comment by Sheehan: I lean Democrat and I myself, far before this, have, as one of my concerns about him, thought about how Obama's drug use will be used against him. Democrats have seen enough of the GOP's race-baiting ads to know this could get very messy. We don't need Sheehan or op-research to concoct this....

|12.16.07 @ 10:19AM|#

Cesar
Yeah, only Yankee Liberals would be swayed by the GOP ad against Harold Ford. Lots of Yankee Liberals in Tennesee, you know? Exactly who a Republican Senatorial candidate in TN trieds to reach with his ad money.

SIV is an obvious tool. It's an obvious result of a person imbibing on too much Malkin and Limbaugh...

BTW-SIV says "by they you mean the Bob Corker campaign?"
No, we mean the Republican National Committee which put out the ad, tool. Nice try.
I like how the ad paints it as a negative that Ford 1. partied at the Playboy Mansion and 2. took money from "porn producers." I don't understand SIV, I thought only Progressives were against porn and partying?

BakedPenguin|12.16.07 @ 10:26AM|#

FWIW, Betfair has these odds for the nomination:

Benito: 3/1 Mormon Pancake: 4/1 Huckajebus: 5/1 Paul: 10/1 McCain: 11/1 Thompson: 23/1

MNG - maybe if the Dems hadn't played along with the WoD, but instead actually provided some leadership against it, none of this would have mattered. Frankly, I think it's a shitty trick by Clinton. If the Reps go after him in the GE, all the Obama campaign has to do is say "yes, but he didn't do as much cocaine as Republican GEORGE BUSH is said to have done." "He never drove under the influence of drugs as Republican GEORGE BUSH did." Repeat as needed.

BakedPenguin|12.16.07 @ 10:28AM|#

Argh. 3d pp, 2nd line should read "However, if the Reps go.."

|12.16.07 @ 10:31AM|#

Long before the national media spotlight began to shine on every twist and turn of his life's journey, Barack Obama had this to say about himself: "Junkie. Pothead. That's where I'd been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man. . . . I got high [to] push questions of who I was out of my mind."

"In the book, Obama acknowledges that he used cocaine as a high school student but rejected heroin. "Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though," he says."

That's from a Washington Post article from JANUARY. It wondres at how this will be used against Obama. This is nothing new.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/02/AR2007010201359_pf.html

Remember the "pot smoking hippie" stuff that was levelled against Bill Clinton so much? And Clinton (typical pussy that he is) only had half ass admissions of a little toking. That Obama's admissions of much more serious drug (and "hard" drug at that) use would be a field day for the Swift Boaters hardly need be a Hillary op-research project...

Hillary and Obama are both terrible, terrible candidates. I say that as someone who wants the Democrats to win the next election (though I would not mind Rudy winning). I've said it consistently here. For one side to point out how the other side has glaring weaknesses is not doing anything for any other campaigns "op-research." The weaknesses are obvious and glaring...

fluffy-I disagree with you on accents. People don't exactly "pick" their accents. They are born into them (they hear it and learn it as children). No one accent (or "lack of accent" whatever that is [choosing one pronounciation and delcaring it "correct" I guess]) is "right." It just reflects regional isolations and natural evolutions of language (especially when there is no central organization to standardize the language). In the minds of ignorant folks a person with a Southern, Appalachian, Cajun, or "African American" accent is something to laugh at. In the minds of smarter folks its just how they talk, and WHAT they say is what a person should be judged on.

|12.16.07 @ 10:34AM|#

@Earache Dildero

But not supporting the State of Israel, and its continued existence, you are defacto aligning yourself with Hamas, Al Qaeda, Saddam loyalists, Achmadinajhad, and virtulally all Jewish haters in the Middle East.

Yes, I would most definitely categorize you as an Anti-Semite.

WTF? The last time I checked the Constitution, the US Government was authorized to provide for the common defense of the several states, not foreign countries. Whether Israel builds settlements all the way to China or gets driven into the sea is a matter which the US government has no Constitutional authority to intervene in.

Therefore, I would consider anyone advocating the sacrifice of American's blood and treasure in such pursuits to be a traitor to their country, and an anti-Constitutionalist.

Sir, you are a tool, in every sense of the word...

|12.16.07 @ 10:48AM|#

We're talking about a survey that would have to be carried out for representationl reasons anyway and so there is the chance to mine a ton of data, confidentially, that is a gold mine for many of the institutions that make this nation so great


This month, reports have surfaced about two controversial counterterrorism initiatives in California. In one, Congressional Quarterly's national security editor reported that the FBI had mined data from San Francisco grocery stores to look for spikes in sales of Middle Eastern food that, together with other data, might imply the presence of extremists. In the other, the Los Angeles Police Department is using census and other demographic data to map Muslim communities in order to pinpoint the neighborhoods of potential extremists.

http://www.isthatlegal.org/archives/2007/11/law_enforcement.html

|12.16.07 @ 11:00AM|#

Alan Greenspan on ThisWeek just responded to Clinton's idea of a freeze on foreclosures on suprime loans by saying that whatever we do, we have to avoid doing something that will mess with the mortgage market like that.

Instead, he said we should print up more money (yes, he said exactly that) and give it to people facing foreclosure. It might cause a fiscal crisis, he said, but that's preferable to messing with the mortgage market.

Of course, doing nothing and letting the situation sort itself out isn't an allowed option, I guess.

Ali|12.16.07 @ 11:09AM|#

It might cause a fiscal crisis, he said, but that's preferable to messing with the mortgage market.

What a twisted way of thinking!? What a thief Greenspan is! I have never been involved in the mortgage market, I am not now and don't plan to be in one anytime in the future. If I do, I will purchase within my means. Why in the world do I have to pay a hefty inflation tax for those who involved themselves in this mess!?

src|12.16.07 @ 11:12AM|#

That should make anyone suspicious.

But I'm inclined to think that one's race and grocery store purchases are essentially public information. Anyone can see me loading my cart with hummus. Anyone can observe which neighborhoods have mosques and halal butchers. Using census data is more systematic, but I don't think it's excessively invasive. Privacy issues seem to apply more to information that a person could reasonably expect to control access to: personal conversations, health records, and so on.

|12.16.07 @ 11:20AM|#

Of course, doing nothing and letting the situation sort itself out isn't an allowed option, I guess.

Well, I'd guess that he's saying that because he realizes that the government will feel obliged to "do something", so he's promoting what he sees as the least damaging alternative. I suspect he's saying that to distract the government with the least possible evil, rather than because he thinks it's a great idea.

|12.16.07 @ 11:40AM|#

Ali, have you seen this?

Of course, to all too many Republicans, having your face next to Arabic script means you support the terrorists, but..

Ali|12.16.07 @ 11:45AM|#

crimethink,

I saw it just this morning. Looks good to me. Don't know though if Arab Americans would heed the call. They seem to lean Obama (well, after all he does have a terroristic middle name) or none at all.

Ali|12.16.07 @ 12:16PM|#

The sad thing is that many Arab and Muslim Americans see themselves as a liability if they collectively or individually endorse a specific candidate. I disagree with those among them who think that way. Simply put, they are innocent. They have not committed anything wrong to be considered a "liability". They should not shy away. They should endorse and say whatever they think is good for America, and more specifically for them as Arab/Muslim Americans. Those who do not like should just live with the reality that Arab and Muslim Americans should be treated (with its ups and downs) like the rest of American society.

|12.16.07 @ 12:50PM|#

crimethink,

I know you weren't talking to me, but I can't think of any pro-Jewish positions I hold. Does that make me an anti-Semite?

No, of course not. Nor does PRIS's ability to come up with a single pro-black, anti-racism position make him a racist.

What it does do, however, it make any claims that you are a better philo-Semite than people who DO hold a number of pro-Jewish positions pretty implausible, and that's what he was trying to do: claim that his desire to see fewer black people admitted to college (his agreement with David Duke on the issue of affirmative action) was evidence of his anti-racist beliefs.

|12.16.07 @ 12:53PM|#

MNG,

There are still a lot of blue collar union type Dems and older FDR loving yellow dogs who just won't do it.

Nah, those "Reagan Democrats" have been voting Republican for a decade. Many of them voted for Clinton, but they all voted for Bush 43.

|12.16.07 @ 1:01PM|#

Fluffy,

Whether one finds an accent to sound "stupid" is a culturally-conditioned response that is used to marginalize people from outsider groups. No one acts as if Henry Kissinger's manner of speaking makes him a buffoon. Or Tom Lantos.

|12.16.07 @ 1:03PM|#

Ron Paul donations are running about 2 hours ahead of Nov. 5th. If the current trend continues, he'll break Nov. 5th at 9:15 this evening. :)

|12.16.07 @ 1:05PM|#

So, to sum up SIV's position:

Hillary Clinton is such a master manipulator that, just as her campaign is starting to sink, she sent out one of the most accomplished political fixers in the Democratic Party on a suicide mission which both hurt her campaign and removed him from the race.

Her motivation here was to "make [Obama] deny" something which Obama himself raised in his own book.

Oh, and btw, neither Rush Limbaugh's jokes about "how black folk talk," nor the "white woman" ad aired by the RNC against Harold Ford contain the slightest racist undertones.

|12.16.07 @ 1:08PM|#

No fair, joe. Kissinger and Lantos are buffoons for plenty of other reasons.

|12.16.07 @ 1:17PM|#

a terroristic middle name

Lol. One point to Ali.

|12.16.07 @ 1:26PM|#

claim that his desire to see fewer black people admitted to college (his agreement with David Duke on the issue of college admissions based on the criteria the college deems relevant, rather than a mandatory racist government program known as affirmative action) was evidence of his anti-racist beliefs.

Removed the racism-denying PC bullshit for you, joe.

Neu Mejican|12.16.07 @ 1:31PM|#

MNG,

You do have a pre-frontal lobe with inhibitory functions don't you?

Those inhibitory functions are probably more in the basil ganglia which inhibit the frontal lobes. Of course, it is an integrated system, and we don't really understand the details yet.

Neu Mejican|12.16.07 @ 1:43PM|#

prolefeed

college admissions based on the criteria the college deems relevant, rather than a mandatory racist government program known as

Most, if not all, colleges deem diversity in their student population as an important (i.e., relevant) goal.

§ 106.3 Remedial and affirmative action and self-evaluation.

(a) Remedial action. If the Assistant Secretary finds that a recipient has discriminated against persons on the basis of sex in an education program or activity, such recipient shall take such remedial action as the Assistant Secretary deems necessary to overcome the effects of such discrimination.

(b) Affirmative action. In the absence of a finding of discrimination on the basis of sex in an education program or activity, a recipient may take affirmative action to overcome the effects of conditions which resulted in limited participation therein by persons of a particular sex. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to alter any affirmative action obligations which a recipient may have under Executive Order 11246.


Executive Order 11246
"...(1) The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the contracting officer setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause.

(2) The contractor will, in all solicitations or advancements for employees placed by or on behalf of the contractor, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex or national origin...."

If a college goes beyond these mandated steps to encourage more minority students, they are not doing it by federal mandate.

|12.16.07 @ 1:54PM|#

This month, reports have surfaced about two controversial counterterrorism initiatives in California. In one, Congressional Quarterly's national security editor reported that the FBI had mined data from San Francisco grocery stores to look for spikes in sales of Middle Eastern food that, together with other data, might imply the presence of extremists. In the other, the Los Angeles Police Department is using census and other demographic data to map Muslim communities in order to pinpoint the neighborhoods of potential extremists.[my emphasis]

http://www.isthatlegal.org/archives/2007/11/law_enforcement.html

I'm a cranky old man because I'll only put sex and age on the census form. The rest of you good citizens, provide the always threatening police state with as much data as they desire. Remember that data will NEVER be misused. That would violate the law. Our government doesn't do that stuff.

Trust us. We're from the government and we're here to help.

|12.16.07 @ 2:06PM|#

citizens who believe in the constitution have an affirmative responsibility to lie on these forms for any questions that go beyond the purposes spelled out in article 1 section 2.

Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|12.16.07 @ 2:11PM|#

joe, MNG, PIRS, SIV, prolefeed, Neu Mejican,

If we all could just admit
That we are racist a little bit,
Even though we all know
That it's wrong,
Maybe it would help us
Get along.

Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|12.16.07 @ 2:12PM|#

Sorry there wasn't a good video of the actual performance; this is about as good as I could find.

|12.16.07 @ 4:20PM|#

Did anyone else just hear that Joe "Night Trap" Lieberman just endorsed John McCain?

SIV|12.16.07 @ 4:35PM|#

So, to sum up SIV's position:

Hillary Clinton is such a master manipulator that, just as her campaign is starting to sink, she sent out one of the most accomplished political fixers in the Democratic Party on a suicide mission which both hurt her campaign and removed him from the race.

Yes to the above
She seems to have gotten away with only a minimal hit to an already faltering campaign. Shaheen takes the fall--on paper anyways.

Her motivation here was to "make [Obama] deny" something which Obama himself raised in his own book.

No...see my coment up-thread
This isn't the classic LBJ "deny you are a pigfucker" attack. The Clinton Campaign has someone ready to go public with the charge :
"Barak Obama sold me cocaine"
The Obama Campaign and the Press have been put on notice. I'm not sure when "she" will emerge,
Depends on polling and "message". I'll venture the eve of "Super Tuesday" .

Oh, and btw, neither Rush Limbaugh's jokes about "how black folk talk," nor the "white woman" ad aired by the RNC against Harold Ford contain the slightest racist undertones.

No

I've said nothing about those Rush bits-- I was
pointing out he has strong libertarian leanings. The Harold Ford ads were not targeted to exploit race, the purpose was to take the moral shine off him and remind voters that he is a Memphis Ford.


Hope this clarifies it for you joe.

|12.16.07 @ 5:12PM|#

Did anyone else just hear that Joe "Night Trap" Lieberman just endorsed John McCain?

Two treacherous scumbags together at last, eh?

|12.16.07 @ 5:15PM|#

Whenever a liberal tries to tell me what better judgement Al Gore has than George W. Bush in picking his appointments, "Joe Lieberman" always shuts them up.

|12.16.07 @ 5:24PM|#

Whenever a liberal tries to tell me what better judgement Al Gore has than George W. Bush in picking his appointments, "Joe Lieberman" always shuts them up.

Some of us are inspired by Jefferson, and some of us by Washington, and some by Hamilton...

...and some by Benedict Arnold!

Wouldn't turn my back on either one of those two for anybody's money!

|12.16.07 @ 5:54PM|#

Neu Mejican -- perhaps I am reading your link wrong. It appears to be about sex discrimination and discrimination in employment, not about the topic under discussion -- alleged discrimination in college student admissions. Are you saying there is no federal law or executive order or regulations stemming from these stipulating how colleges may administer criteria for student admissions? If so, what is joe going on about?

I am OK with a college deciding, without any federal coercion, that a diversity of student backgrounds is something to strive for in setting admissions standards, and thus striving to find talented minority students whose performance on standardized tests may not reflect their ability due to the poor quality schools they attended. I would not much care for, or encourage my children to attend, a school that decides that a certain percentage of students from one or more races, must be admitted regardless of ability (including schools with a whites-only admissions policy), but I would defend their right to be asshats like that. What I would object to, assuming it even exists, would be a federal law (or regulations interpreting that law) stipulating that certain racial groups must have a percentage of admissions in a college, regardless of ability.

If a college decided to administer admissions based strictly on academic achievement, without regard to race, I suspect the likely outcome would be that Asians would be overrepresented in proportion to their incidence in the general population, whites somewhat underrepresented, and latinos and blacks even more underrepresented. That would not be racism, even though it might lead to fewer people of the ethnic groups joe wanted enrolled actually enrolling.

Ali|12.16.07 @ 6:24PM|#

Ron Paul donations are running about 2 hours ahead of Nov. 5th. If the current trend continues, he'll break Nov. 5th at 9:15 this evening. :)

We just did at 6.00 pm.

Ali|12.16.07 @ 6:24PM|#

joe-

You're in MA and I see that you are posting here with a Tea Party going on in Boston. Why aren't you there?

Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|12.16.07 @ 10:48PM|#

I wish I could go to a fucking tea party but I'm drunk and grading tests.

Not that I should complain. I have the best job in the world. Plus I'm drunk!

XOXOX

Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|12.16.07 @ 11:20PM|#

Oh, here's the run down of my jorb:

1. Have to grade tests. :o(
2. Drunk. XD
3. Watching Star Wars on HBO. :oD

All at the same time.

I mean, FUCK, what more can you ask for???!

(That's three question marks and an exclamation point...that means I'm three times more inquisitive than I am excited.)

Neu Mejican|12.17.07 @ 12:54AM|#

Prolefeed,

What I would object to, assuming it even exists, would be a federal law (or regulations interpreting that law) stipulating that certain racial groups must have a percentage of admissions in a college, regardless of ability.

So that would mean you do not oppose affirmative action as currently encoded in federal law. (and yes, title IX regards gender discrimination...just part of the larger issue...). All affirmative action requires is that institutions actively avoid discrimination by openly seeking/recruiting the disadvantage group...it restricts policies favoring group membership as the sole criteria, but does not, iirc, bar group membership from being one of the criteria used in making a decision. All the language that I am aware of in anti-discrimination legislation includes something along the lines of "qualified individuals." You don't get into law school just because you are from a disadvantages group...you get because you are qualified...given a choice between two equally qualified individuals, affirmative action policies may favor the candidate that increases the diversity of the student population.

Neu Mejican|12.17.07 @ 12:59AM|#

Me, my spelling module seems to be disadvantaged tonight.

sheesh.

|12.17.07 @ 11:28AM|#

As usual, prolefeed can't counter my argument, so he just rephrases it to make himself feel better about his lack of aptitude.