Because we’re mean like that.
This is an open thread.
I’ve sometimes used the term “liberal” to describe the subset of President Obama supporters who put the most positive left-leaning spin on the administration. He gave us “health care” is used when what we really got is a series of waivers, mandatory insurance purchases and a bunch of exchanges which will eventually cost more and do less.
But there are liberals who support the centrist Clinton administration and find President Obama to be a Jackass. There is also that small group of liberals who once supported Obama but had to break ranks when he went against their vision of liberal ideology. Then there are the libertarian who find Obama to be the worst of all worlds.
I’m not very liberal on some issues, but I have a religious devotion to individual liberty. It’s the reason this system of government exists. Libertarians (like Ron Paul) and liberals both believe in the rights of people. The difference is in what to pay for and how to pay for it. That’s where President Obama is the opposite of the liberal / libertarian mindset. He wants to give everything and pay for nothing. When pressed, he wants to tax the rich and take away from the poor. He could care less what people should have the right to do.
Jackass decided some time ago that an American working for al-Qaeda did not have the right to live. Anwar al-Awlaki was not tried or convicted of a crime. He was not charged. He was not sentenced in absentia. He was putting terrorist recruitment videos on YouTube. It doesn’t matter how bad this person was or if he even killed anyone personally. The administration just decided that it would be easier to announce their goal was to make him dead because he made them look bad.
I understand that liberals may consider Obama “their guy,” (for some reason) but this is a step too far. You can’t be a liberal if you don’t believe in personal liberty. You can be a socialist or a communist or a fascist, but liberalism dies in an environment like this.
Otherwise, you’re a party hack who is literally willing to kill anyone to win.
It just keeps getting weirder and weirder:
Democratic strategist Cornell Belcher says there is a media “double-standard” over Herman Cain saying blacks have been “brainwashed.” Belcher calls Mr. Cain a bigot and a racist and says this incident is a “teachable moment.”
It’s the revenge of Clayton Bigsby.
The list of senior terrorists killed during the Obama presidency is fairly extensive.
There’s Osama bin Laden, of course, killed in May.
Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) leader Anwar al-Awlaki as of today.
Earlier this month officials confirmed that al Qaeda’s chief of Pakistan operations, Abu Hafs al-Shahri, was killed in Waziristan, Pakistan.
In August, ‘Atiyah ‘Abd al-Rahman, the deputy leader of al Qaeda was killed.
In June, one of the group’s most dangerous commanders, Ilyas Kashmiri, was killed in Pakistan. In Yemen that same month, AQAP senior operatives Ammar al-Wa’ili, Abu Ali al-Harithi, and Ali Saleh Farhan were killed. In Somalia, Al-Qa’ida in East Africa (AQEA) senior leader Harun Fazul was killed.
Administration officials also herald the recent U.S./Pakistani joint arrest of Younis al-Mauritani in Quetta.
Going back to August 2009, Tehrik e-Taliban Pakistan leader Baitullah Mahsud was killed in Pakistan.
In September of that month, Jemayah Islamiya operational planner Noordin Muhammad Top was killed in Indonesia, and AQEA planner Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan was killed in Somalia.
Then in December 2009 in Pakistan, al Qaeda operational commanders Saleh al-Somali and ‘Abdallah Sa’id were killed.
In February 2010, in Pakistan, Taliban deputy and military commander Abdul Ghani Beradar was captured; Haqqani network commander Muhammad Haqqani was killed; and Lashkar-e Jhangvi leader Qari Zafar was killed.
In March 2010, al Qaeda operative Hussein al-Yemeni was killed in Pakistan, while senior Jemayah Islamiya operative Dulmatin – accused of being the mastermind behind the 2002 Bali bombings – was killed during a raid in Indonesia.
In April 2010, al Qaeda in Iraq leaders Abu Ayyub al-Masri and Abu Omar al-Baghdadi were killed.
In May, al Qaeda’s number three commander, Sheik Saeed al-Masri was killed.
In June 2010 in Pakistan, al Qaeda commander Hamza al-Jawfi was killed.
The Obama Body Count grows larger every day. But Jake left out a few. What about all the women and children that were “collateral damage” to the deaths listed above? What about the innocent lives that were taken when we blew up the wrong houses?
Just out of curiosity, are we running out of terrorists yet?
Every day I get emails from a variety of “progressive” groups and the theme is always the same. “Republicans want to destroy this”, or ” Republicans want to kill that”. They want money for their organizations or political campaigns and they want it based on telling you how bad Republicans are. Well, okay, they are bad. But they aren’t the problem. And never were. The real problem is that Democrats and these groups not only don’t want to face what the real problem is, they are afraid of trying to do anything about it.And that is that Barrack Obama is and always has been a political and policy fraud.
Obviously things arent exactly what everyone who supported Obama believed they would be. No real health care reform, no public option, no reducing the deficit by eliminating the $800 billion in Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 5%. No real financial reform. all of which could have easily been accomplished by someone who knew what they were doing and had the backbone and conviction and integrity to do it. There was also no standing up to Republicans nor pointing out that of the $1.7 trillion budget deficit almost all of it is completely the result of Republican economic policies and putting two unpaid for wars (which accounted for more than $ 1 trillion of the deficit) and an unpaid for drug prescription program on a government credit card to paid for later so that they could enact the Bush tax cuts. All by the way, without a word from the hypocrites in the Tea Party.
So what are organizations like MoveOn and the PCCC really so upset about? That Republicans are acting like Republicans? The Republicans are only doing what the people who vote for them want them to do as repulsive as it may be. Is it the Republicans fault that Obama and congressional Democrats never did what those who elected them wanted them to do? Is it the Republicans fault that none of the Democratic initiatives, things that most people believed were best for the country, never got through? What is it that these groups want Republicans to do? Act like Democrats?
Here is a flash for Move On, the PCCC, Credo and Democratic candidates for congress and their donors and supporters — that is what elections are all about. And in 2008 the country threw the Republicans out of control of all 3 branches of government after 8 years of disastrous Republican governance, elected a Democratic president and gave him the biggest congressional majority any president had in 60 years. And what did the Democratic president do with the biggest congressional majority any president has had in 60 years? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. He said he wanted to work with Republicans and incorporate Republican ideas ignoring the fact that if the country had wanted Republican ideas they wouldn’t have thrown them out of office in the first place. Which is why Democratic voters stayed home in 2010 giving the Democrats the worst defeat of any political party in 80 years.
Obama’s first three years in office has left the Democrats with the worst of all possible worlds. Its not as if their agenda passed and it didn’t work. Obama compromised the agenda away and replaced it with half baked ineffectual policies with nothing behind it. It’s his compromises that didn’t work. But its Democrats who stand to take the brunt of the country’s frustration with Obama just as they did in 2010 if nothing changes.
Here is what Democrats and so called “progressives” need to get through their heads. Accomplishing nothing is exactly what Obama did in his previous 11 years of elected office. And being intellectually and politically dishonest and duplicious is also exactly what Obama had been in his previous 11 years of elected office and what he was during the entire 2008 Democratic primary season. .Its there for anyone to see. It’s who and what he is. And isnt. And what he is always going to be.
But to listen to MoveOn and congressional Democrats trying to raise money, it’s the Republicans that are the problem.
We get Republican policies passed by Democrats. The Republicans call the policies socialism.
The policies fail. The Democrats get blamed. The “liberal agenda” is discredited.
This is Kafka on bad acid.
For those who claim “McCain would have been worse,” at least in that scenario the Republicans would be taking the blame.
As you already know, alleged terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki has been killed by a Predator drone strike in Yemen. A lot of people who should know better are cheering for his death.
The most common reaction seems to be “Good riddance, he was a scumbag.”
I don’t know if he was a scumbag or not. Frankly I don’t give a shit. Besides, being a scumbag isn’t a crime.
I believe in the rule of law. The law says he was entitled to due process. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution says:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Anwar al-Awlaki was not charged with any crime. He wasn’t a fugitive from justice. He wasn’t killed fleeing or resisting arrest. The government has not even made a specific allegation of a capital crime.
I don’t mourn the death of Anwar al-Awlaki. I mourn the death of the rule of law.
“If the law protects a scumbag like me, it will protect all of you.” – Larry Flynt
The US-born radical Islamist cleric and suspected al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki has been killed in Yemen, the country’s defence ministry reported.
US administration officials confirmed the reports, according to US media.
Awlaki, of Yemeni descent, has been on the run in Yemen since December 2007.
The US had named him a “specially designated global terrorist” for his alleged role in a number of attacks and US President Barack Obama is said to have personally ordered his killing.
The defence ministry statement said only that he died “along with some of his companions”.
It gave no further details of his death.
Al-Awlaki’s father, who still lives in the U.S., filed a lawsuit against the federal government, claiming his son’s civil rights were violated by the U.S. call for his killing.
A federal court dismissed Nasser al-Awlaki’s suit on Dec. 7, 2010, on the grounds that he had no legal standing to challenge the targeting of his son.
A statement from Yemen’s foreign press office said the al Qaeda suspect “was targeted and killed 8 KM (about 5 miles) from the town of Khashef in the Province of Jawf, 140KM (about 80 miles) east of the Capital Sana’a.”
Al-Arabiya television network cited local tribal sources as saying suspected U.S. drone aircraft – which are known to operate in Yemen – fired two missiles Friday at a convoy of vehicles believed to be carrying al-Awlaki and his guards.
The President of the United States ordered the killing of an American citizen without any trial or due process of law.
How do we know he’s guilty? Because THE GOVERNMENT SAYS SO!!!
In recognition of that fact, the Obama administration — once the existence of its hit list became public — began asserting, with no evidence presented and usually anonymously, that Awlaki has an “operational role” in Al Qaeda. But as Yemen expert Gregory Johnsen said today in response to the NYT debate: “We suspect a great deal about Anwar al-Awlaki, but we know very little, precious little when it comes to his operational role”; he added in response to Mendelsohn’s claim that Awlaki “played an important role in a string of attacks in the West”: “We just don’t know this, we suspect it but don’t know it.” Of course, punishing (or killing) Americans based on government accusations that have never been proven in court happens to violate a different though equally critical Constitutional principle (the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee that “no person shall be deprived of life [or] liberty . . . without due process of law).
It will never cease to amaze me how acquiescent the country is to the seizure by this President of the extremist and warped power to target American citizens, far from any battlefield, for killing, all without a shred of due process. It’s not just a profound assault on due process rights but also free speech rights.
Don’t expect much outrage from Left Blogistan on this. In fact I expect to see some of them celebrating this assassination as proof that Obama is a decisive leader.
Joseph Cannon has a pretty good post about Occupy Wall Street:
The “Occupy Wall Street” movement is morphing into a nationwide movement called “Occupy Together.” (Stupid name, but let’s not quibble about nomenclature.) Why haven’t I mentioned the protests in New York heretofore? Because I am unsure if any good can come of them. There is no leadership. There is no platform. There are no specific goals. No demands. No coherent weltanschauung.
Perhaps worst of all, this movement is primarily the work of young people — in other words, of idiots. They have no sense of history, no idea as to which past strategies have worked and which have failed. Never trust anyone under 30.
Naturally, these fetuses are reliant on Facebook and Twitter and cell phones with GPS — which means that Uncle is keeping track of their every blink, breath and cough, as they keep feeding more and more info to the data-miners. This is a revolution? The first job of a revolutionary is to get away with it — and you’ll never get away with it if you don’t know when to maintain radio silence. (Or computer and cell phone silence.)
As I said: These toddlers are idiots. Never forget that we’re dealing with the same college kids who thought that Obama was the Prog Messiah.
There is a bunch more and you should read it. Go ahead, I’ll wait for you.
Finished? Okay. This is from a discussion Joseph and me in the comments:
What, then, is to be done?
Goals determine strategy. Strategy determines tactics.
The first thing is to agree on a goal.
Without a goal how will you determine where you are going? More importantly, how will you know when you get there?
This isn’t rocket science.
A few years ago when my dad died I wanted to go to Oklahoma for the funeral. That was the goal.
After considering my options (plane, train, automobile) I decided to drive, taking my two adult sons with me. That was the strategy.
We planned a departure time, mapped a route, made preparations, and then took turns driving, stopping for gas food and sleep as needed. Those were the tactics.
What is the goal of Occupy Wall Street?
I was thinking today about the number of people who now consider President Obama to be a failure. Compare that with the increasing vociferousness of his strongest supporters. They are using arguments almost wholly tied up in racism because they are emotional arguments, don’t rely on proof and they tend to shut people up briefly.
I don’t believe in conspiracy theories. I believe that people act in predictable ways. Large groups of people act in very predictable ways. Because of that, you can fool some of the people all of the time. The marketing people behind the Obama campaign knew this as well. Create a narrative of your primary candidate as an underdog then make him inevitable during the general election. 76% of the public approved of him on Day 1. now, almost 70% don’t approve. The president hasn’t changed.
Presidential races aren’t mano-a-mano challenges where the better candidate wins. They are fights to make the public believe your story over someone else’s. John McCain was ready to challenge Hillary Clinton based on their records, their beliefs about government and their ability to make government better. The Obama campaign was ready to use public association of McCain with President Bush, covertly exploit his age and secretly attack his character.
Almost by accident, McCain stumbled upon the perfect weakness to such an orchestrated campaign. Sure, Sarah Palin was a woman and a conservative, but she has almost no sense of her own legacy. That’s a big deal, She doesn’t need to be liked. She either is or she isn’t. Being an unknown helped. It took days and weeks to push the weak “Sarah is dumb” meme. Palin responded by going after Onama’s soft underbelly, his domestic terrorist associations. If I did believe in conspiracies, I’d wonder why Nicolle Wallace and Steve Schmidt shut her down after that. Instead, I simply know they are morons.
For those of us in the minority who know how terrible President Obama would be, nothing has changed. For the majority of the dumbasses in the population, Obama is now weak because everyone thinks he’s weak. That perception makes him weak because he’s not strong enough to counter it. People thought Sarah Palin was unelectable. Now she’s within 5 points of the president without even running yet. How quickly can the public’s opinion of her change? Why are people so surprised when it does?
If you need some shill stupidity to mock, David Atkins never disappoints:
Solyndra in a teapot
David Roberts at Grist has a great overview today of the Solyndra nontroversy, based partly on recent polling and focus groups. The upshot? Support for solar energy remains strong even among conservatives, and the non-scandal “scandal” is basically confined to the Fox News nuts
If all you knew about Solyndra came from David Atkins you might think conservatives were opposed to solar energy. To the best of my knowledge no one is trying to make that argument.
There are two main issues with Solyndra:
1. How did Solyndra get approved for a half-billion loan when there was ample evidence it was a bad investment? Was it incompetence or corruption? Were any laws broken and if so, by who?
2. What should be the government role in the development of alternative energy sources? Should the government stay out of it, fund research only or make huge loans to companies like Solyndra?
Both those issues are legitimate areas for investigation and discussion.
In regards to the former, the questions go beyond Solyndra:
Nancy Pelosi is facing accusations of cronyism after a solar energy project, which her brother-in-law has a stake in, landed a $737 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy, despite the growing Solyndra scandal.
The massive loan agreement is raising new concerns about the use of taxpayers’ money as vast sums are invested in technology similar to that of the doomed energy project.
The investment has intensified the debate over the effectiveness of solar energy as a major power source.
The SolarReserve project is backed by an energy investment fund where the Minority Leader’s brother-in-law Ronald Pelosi is second in command.
PCG Clean Energy & Technology Fund (East) LLC is listed as one of the investors in the project that has been given the staggering loan, which even dwarfs that given to failed company Solyndra.
Other investors include one of the major investors in Solyndra, which is run by one of the directors of Solyndra.
Steve Mitchell, who served on the board of directors at the bankrupt energy company, is also managing director of Argonaut Private Equity, which has invested in the latest project.
Since Solyndra has filed for bankruptcy has been asked to testify about the goings on at the firm by two members of the House and ‘asked to provide documents to Congress’
The project approval came as part of $1 billion in new loans to green energy companies yesterday.
Crony capitalism is the term for when success in business depends on close relationships between private businesses and government officials. It includes favoritism in issuing permits, awarding government grants, passing special tax breaks, and writing regulations.
If a businessman gave a politician $50,000 in exchange for receiving a $500,000 grant we would have no problem calling that bribery. Crony capitalism is more insidious because there isn’t always a “quid pro quo” or even a direct connection between the businessman and the politician.
Corruption is always an issue with government. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
You can’t win with a bigot:
Janeane Garofalo: “Herman Cain is probably well liked by some of the Republicans because it hides the racist elements of the Republican party. Conservative movement and tea party movement, one in the same.
“People like Karl Rove liked to keep the racism very covert. And so Herman Cain provides this great opportunity say you can say ‘Look, this is not a racist, anti-immigrant, anti-female, anti-gay movement. Look we have a black man.’”
“If Republicans don’t support Obama it’s because they’re racists. If they support Herman Cain it’s because they’re racists.”
Janeane Garofalo is our Obot Douchebag of the Weak.
There are several political signs attracting all kinds of attention in one Uptown neighborhood.
On Wednesday, crowds gathered at the corner of Calhoun and Coralie streets, looking at several signs depicting President Barack Obama as either a dunce, a puppet or a crying baby in a diaper.
“It disrespects the nation — and President Barack Obama represents our nation,” said Skip Alexander, as he looked at one of the signs. “He represents everybody, not some people.”
Dozens of protesters came by the house in the 1500 block of Calhoun throughout the day, demanding the sign come down.
“He wouldn’t do that to [President] Bush, I’m sure. It’s just insulting. It’s insulting,” said C.C. Campbell-Rock. “He’s going to have to take them down.”
“This is nothing put pure racism,” said Raymond Rock. “This is a disgrace.”
The home is owned by Timothy Reily, who declined to be interviewed about the signs. Former Mayor Ray Nagin showed up at the house and went inside to speak with Reily. He emerged later and would not comment on what they discussed.
Some neighbors tell Eyewitness News that Reily has been putting the signs up for months. Some of the protesters learned about the signs through a local radio station on Wednesday morning.
“He can put up a sign if he wants to. It doesn’t bother me,” said Harold Gagnet, a neighbor.
“I think it’s fine. It’s on his property,” said Katherine deMontluzin. “He can say whatever he wants.”
The signs have created such a firestorm of controversy, though, that police came to the scene– called in by City Council Member Susan Guidry. She represents the district where the home is located. Guidry said she was concerned about public safety and was trying to figure out if the sign was even legal. She also said she spoke to Reily, but didn’t get far.
“We have to determine that there is a zoning law that prohibits perhaps the size of the sign, perhaps the way that it’s erected, that it is leaning over onto public property,” Guidry said. “Whatever we can use, we will, but of course, we do have to balance that with First Amendment rights.”
Yet, the signs remain in place, fanning the flames of a free speech debate on both sides of the fence.
Didn’t any of these people take civics in high school? You don’t have to be a lawyer to know about freedom of speech.
But there is also basic common sense – if somebody is trying to get attention with an offensive sign or a “racist bake sale,” the worst thing you can do IS GIVE THEM ATTENTION!!!
It’s like arguing with a troll – you only win if you don’t.
A note on epistemology. In our previous post about Melissa Harris-Perry, I offered this quote from her work:
But the responses to this recent article have been revealing in ways that I find typical of our contemporary epistemology of race….
Can someone please explain what that phrase means?
Yes, I know what “epistemology” is: The study of knowledge. How do we know what we know about reality? How do we define knowing and how do we define reality? Those are epistemological questions.
I understand the meaning of that word. What I don’t understand is how there can be an “epistemology of race” or of anything else.
A little googling reveals that academics make frequent reference to “the epistemology of” this or that. There is even a webpage devoted to something called “the espitemology of modality.” Sounds scary.
Lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about an eccentric genius named Richard Mitchell. (His works are here.) I spent three hours talking to him back in my college days; he got goofy toward the end and started singing Mahler in German. We corresponded a bit afterwards. I had long hoped to meet up with him again — a hope which ended with his death in 2002. In his veneration of the classics and of “old school” intellectual standards, he was something of a Tory. Although he called himself the Underground Grammarian, the target of his crusade was not so much sloppy grammar as sloppy thinking. He didn’t like jargon. He didn’t like bureaucratese. He didn’t like showy, empty language.
Does “the epistemology of race” mean something? Or is the phrase showy and empty?
I stand ready to be educated.
Joseph Cannon has touched on one of my pet peeves. I despise people who use what my grandma used to call “ten dollar words” to try to impress and confuse people.
From John Smith at C4P:
Governor Palin is Still Alley Cat Smart
Everyone is getting all wee-weed up lately about Sarah Palin’s supposed indecision about a run for President, especially after her interview last night with Greta. Some here are nearly suicidal. Others are begging for people to have faith and keep their powder dry. For my part, I’ll just offer a simple statement: Sarah Palin has already decided to run for President.
Suppose that you, like me, believe that she believes what she says. Phrases like ‘I’d rather sleep well than eat well’ and ‘a ship in harbor is safe, but that’s not why the ship is built’ aren’t empty slogans. They’re words that capture the essence of a life lived so far. In this world, Sarah remains UNDEFEATED if she tries but fails to win. She only is defeated if she fails to try for fear of failure. Simply put, for someone like me, Sarah running makes perfect sense. Sarah not running would be tantamount to her saying ‘all those things I’ve said and done . . . never mind, THEY were right about me’. Could you see her doing that? Could you see yourself basically ‘refudiating’ so much of what is exemplary and good about your life so far.
Now, suppose that you are like Joe McGinniss. You believe that Sarah Palin is evil and manipulative. She only cares about the money. She only cares about her brand. She’s using her supporters, especially those O4P folks who have put their lives on hold chasing a false dream. When the rubber meets the road, she’ll pass. That sounds really convincing sometimes, especially if you say it enough and even more especially if you say it after an interview like Sarah had with Greta. There’s just one tiny flaw with the theory: If you believe all of that, then it makes more sense for Sarah to run. If she’s all about the money, then “alienating” an employer who pays her a million dollars a year makes no sense. If she’s all about the “brand,” then she’ll keep more of her followers by running than by not running.
In other words, in all of this talk about whether Palin will run or not, one question is NEVER asked: Does Palin have more to gain (or lose) by running or by not running? The reason that question is never asked is because, no matter your frame of reference when it comes to “analyzing” Sarah Palin, the conclusion would be the same: She’s running. She’s always been running. She has more to lose by NOT running. And, she is playing this “to be or not to be” game for a political reason that I will articulate presently:
Everyone knows that if (when) Palin runs, she will run a grassroots campaign. She will rely on deep enthusiasm among an often underestimated group of supporters and a lot of small donations to drive her campaign. Win the nomination, and the deeper pockets will come along for the ride. That pretty much was her strategy in Alaska in her run for governor in 2006. But, the beginning is the tricky part. Like 2006, she has to strike hard and fast this time in order to diminish the organizational and monetary advantages that the so-called frontrunners have.
Think of this like Blitzkrieg. The opposition is on two flanks. One or both has more resources and more immediate access to resources. How do you win? You plan well, and, when the time comes, you strike hard and fast. That’s what she’s set up. Three months ago, Sarah was facing a two front war, with Mitt Romney (the Russia of the race) on one flank and his ally Michelle Bachmann on the other flank. Why commence the battle on that field and at that moment?
As I wrote in my previous submission about Sarah being “alley cat smart” she knew that it would be tough enough to beat Romney one on one. A two-front war would be infinitely more difficult. So, she baited Perry in to neutralize Bachmann. Perry has done just that. At the same time, I suspect that she knew her friend well enough to know that he’d (a) neutralize himself and (b) be the perfect crony capitalist foil when the time comes.
I think Sarah is planning to run. But she’s planning a campaign like nothing we’ve ever seen before.
If she runs she will be in it to win it. Traditional strategy would be to announce early, raise money, build a campaign organization and go around Iowa kissing babies and asses for 12 months. Sarah doesn’t need to do that.
She doesn’t need to raise a lot of money right now. Candidates raise money to buy name recognition. She’s already got that. She also has a campaign organization.
Just below the radar of the national media there are a lot of Palinista volunteers organizing for her in Iowa. While other candidates are spending money to build theirs, hers hasn’t cost her anything. And she has plenty of time left to kissing babies.
One argument is that it’s too late for her to get endorsements and line up establishment support. Personally I think both of those things are overrated. I’ve never let anyone else tell me how to vote. YMMV.
By waiting until the last minute Sarah has been able to sit and watch the competition take shape. Several candidates have failed to catch fire while at least one has apparently flamed out. None of the current candidates appears unbeatable while several look beaten already.
The media have tried for years to portray Sarah as some ignorant nut-job. For the last few months they have been using those same attacks on Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry. This allows Sarah to look sane and smart in comparison.
The timing of both “tell-all” books about Sarah was based on the assumption she would be a candidate by now. Sarah got to wait and see how they were received while keeping her options open.
If she was running and either or both books had landed any body blows she might have been knocked from the race. By waiting she could have simply announced she wasn’t running and denied the books had anything to do with it.
When Sarah jumps in she will be the flavor of the week. If there is one thing she is good at it’s sucking up all the oxygen. She will get tons of free media attention. By waiting until the last minute she is assured there won’t be any newer flavors coming along afterwards.
Once the voting starts the field will narrow quickly. Look how many Democrats were running in 2007 and look how fast it narrowed down to two choices after Iowa. Sarah intends to be one of those choices. I’m guessing Romney will be the other.
Mitt might have a huge war chest but he doesn’t generate enthusiasm the way Sarah does. He’s plastic man. She’s the real deal.
I expect her to run a low-budget grassroots campaign utilizing the internet and free media coverage. But if (when) she starts winning the money and the endorsements will follow.
The zeitgeist is right for a non-establishment reformer. Sarah Palin is uniquely positioned to be that person.
If the GOP tries doing to Sarah what the Democrats did to Hillary, watch how fast “Tea Party” turns into “lynch mob.”
Last night I saw upon the stair
A little man who wasn’t there
He wasn’t there again today
Oh, how I wish he’d go away
Ever been in a relationship or been friends with someone who was both paranoid and thought they could read your mind? I’m talking about someone who finds sinister intentions and meanings in the most innocuous actions and statements.
Racism is a charge which is a conversation ender. It stops discourse and should, because of this, be used sparingly and only in the most obvious and egregious cases.
However, racialized speech, which is speech that is often dehumanizing, condescending, and aggressive- passively so quite often, must be examined in terms of who is saying it, and what is being said.
Sounds a little confusing? Let me humor you and Joan with specifics:
1) The President is a coward.
This meme exists in the progressive ranks almost as pervasively as the meme that he is a Muslim and wasn’t born here exists in the GOP Tbag ranks.
Why do I liken this expression of frustration with two examples of “Othering” done by the hard right? Because like those examples of otherness calling the President a coward is racialized speech.
History lesson. The first black cadet at West Point was dismissed in his fourth year for cowardice after being strapped to a chair and tortured all night by white classmates who couldn’t imagine him graduating.
The argument against integration of the military was that blacks were cowards. That we lacked the fundamental grit to stand up to hard fighting. All evidence to the contrary in every war fought. From the black regiments of the Revolutionary War, Civil War, WWI and WWII, black soldiers were some of the hardest hit, used and bravest. A history that is almost impossible to convince people of, because of the hidden stereotype of racialized thinking and speech. So calling the president a coward is like calling an accomplished woman “a chick” or “a girl”. It is condescending and aggressively so. And it is NOT an accident of speech.
Via Ace of Spades:
An Iowa City woman is accused of ripping a door off a house and striking her boyfriend because he refused to have sex with her.
Melissa B. Minarsich, 28, of 131 Taft Speedway, is charged with domestic abuse assault, second offense, after the argument at 10:24 p.m. Monday at her residence.
Officers were called to the residence for a report of a female out of control. Minarsich’s boyfriend, with whom she has an 8-month-old son, said she became upset when he refused to have sex with her, according to police reports.
Minarsich, who smelled strongly of alcohol and had slurred speech, admitted to police this was the case.
“All I want is a piece of ass, is that too much to ask for?” Minarsich asked the police.
My ex was on parole when she busted open our brand-new front door with the neighbor’s weed-whacker, but not because she was horny.
Yes the police came, but nobody went to jail because they won’t lock you up because you’re scared of your girlfriend.
About a month ago, Jackass supporters were trying to stir the pot by putting up Mitt Romney as the only candidate Obama was afraid of. This was when Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry were contenders in the polls. Now that both have fallen in the polls and only “impossible” candidate Herman Cain is in the lead, the Republicans are now touting the idea that Romney is inevitable.
Governor Romney is a real establishment Republican. He’s also fairly conservative, especially on the Tea Party-friendly tax issues. The problem is that a lot of the base isn’t as interested in issues as they are in the kind of power structure that tends to take the power out of the hands of the voters. Plus, Romney is a flip-flopper and he thinks money is the sole determinant of electoral victory.
His organization goes back to the last decade, where Republican control of Congress created a lot of incumbents who took the Contract with America and rewrote it as a contract with big donors. The party lost big, but the organization of party insiders made sure they were okay. Romney is using a lot of those old hands, especially since Perry is the only other one with a lot of corporate connections.
Obama’s minions used a strategy toward Democrats in 2008 that told them to vote for him or get the awful McCain-Palin ticket. They were evil because they were Republicans. Forget the fact that McCain and Palin were some of the most outspoken Republicans on party corruption. Obama never criticized the corrupt money in the Democratic Party, especially when he was taking millions from untraceable donors.
Romney has a strategy for winning the Republicans nomination. Now that much of the delegates will be distributed proportionally, he can gain about 1/3 of the primary vote in each state and slowly run out the funds of other candidates. Even if an opponent “wins” a state, Romney will be sure to get a significant piece of the delegation. If he gets the nomination, 2010 tends to show that the Tea Party is loyal enough to the Republican Party to pick the guy who’s not Obama. You can’t say the same for the establishment. Look at Mike Castle and Lisa Murkowski.
My opinion has been that Mitt Romney will have two major competitors. This is also Romney’s best chance. His threshold in the polls is about 40% among Republicans. When it comes to a binary choice between him and Obama, he’s got just enough “support” to win. If he’s the nominee next November, a lot of people will vote for him, wishing they didn’t have to. Now’s the time to make sure that doesn’t have to happen.
The shoe is on the other horse:
Florida is now expected to hold its presidential primary on the last day in January 2012, a move likely to throw the carefully arranged Republican nominating calendar into disarray and jumpstart the nominating process a month earlier than party leaders had hoped.
Florida House Speaker Dean Cannon told CNN on Tuesday that a state commission exploring potential primary dates is likely to choose January 31 to hold the nominating contest.
If that happens, it would almost certainly force the traditional early states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada to leapfrog Florida and move their primaries and caucuses into early- to mid-January.
Florida’s move would directly violate RNC rules that forbid any state other than the first four “carve-out” states — Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina — from holding a primary before March 6.
States that ignore the RNC rules are subject to losing half of their delegates — party representatives who ultimately choose the nominee — to the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida, next August.
RNC Chairman Reince Priebus and other GOP officials have been aggressively lobbying Florida Gov. Rick Scott and state legislative leaders to move the primary back to February 21 in a last-ditch effort to protect the integrity of the nominating calendar, sources told CNN.
Even under the February 21 scenario, Florida would still lose half of its delegates.
But the proposal would allow Florida to go fifth on the calendar — a coveted position that the state held in 2008 and hopes to hold again in 2012.
A February 21 contest for Florida would also protect the first four states from having to move their contests to January.
But members of the Florida commission remain wary of states like Colorado, Georgia and Missouri, which are threatening to hold primaries or caucuses before February 21.
Florida’s likely decision is expected to trigger a flood of calendar moves as other states look to shore up their relevance in the presidential nominating process.
Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina are almost certain to move up in order to defend their cherished early voting status.
“If Florida decides to go in January, they blow the RNC planned calendar wide open and we’ll be back to campaigning over the holidays as Iowa and New Hampshire hold their presidential caucus and primary in early January,” said Michigan National Committee member Saul Anuzis, who is on the RNC’s presidential nominating schedule committee.
Michigan is holding its primary on February 28, which is after the first four states but still in violation of RNC rules.
Iowa has vowed to go before any other state in the process, meaning that the caucuses could be held in the early days of January, ensuring that the Republican candidates and their campaigns would likely be spending part of the holiday season in the hotel rooms of Des Moines.
What’s the hurry? Election day won’t be until the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. The party conventions won’t be until the end of summer.
They are going to front-load everything so that there is a good chance everything will be decided by the first week of March. Most of the action will be crammed between the Iowa caucuses and Super Duper Tuesday.
As for Iowa, they haven’t been doing a very good job. Even when they pick winners they end up being losers half the time.
Both parties need to get their shit together and work out a permanent primary schedule. Here’s what they should do:
1. Get rid of all caucuses and replace them with secret-ballot primaries.
2. Break up the states into four or five regions.
3. Assign each region a primary election day one month apart from each other beginning in March of each general election year.
4. Rotate the order every four years so that each region gets to be first once every sixteen-twenty years.
My plan is simple, efficient and doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of every becoming law.
Yves at Nekkid Capitalism:
The latest desperate strategy of Obama’s spin-meisters highlights the rot at the core of the Democratic party: the heavy handed use of identity politics as a cover for neoliberal policies that betray the very groups the party purports to represent.
The left is obsessed with what ought to be peripheral concerns, namely, political correctness and Puritanical moralizing, because it is actually deeply divided on the things that matter, namely money and the role of the state.
The powerful influence of moneyed interests on the Democratic party has achieved the fondest aims of the right wing extremists of the 1970s: the party of FDR is now lukewarm at best in its support of the New Deal. Most Democrats are embarrassed to be in the same room with union types. They are often afraid to say that government can play a positive role. They were loath to discuss the costs of income inequality until it became so far advanced that it is now well nigh impossible to reverse it. After all, that sort of discussion might sound like class warfare, and God forbid anyone on the mainstream left risk sound like Marx.
So the Democratic party (and remember, our two party system makes the Democrats the home by default for the left) pretends to be a safe haven for all sorts of out groups: women, gays, Hispanics (on their way to being the dominant group but not there yet), blacks, the poor. But this is stands in stark contradiction to its policies of selling out the middle class to banks and big corporate interests, just on a slower and stealthier basis than the right. So its desperate need to maintain its increasingly phony “be nice to the rainbow coalition” branding places a huge premium on appearances. It thus uses identity politics as a cover for policy betrayals. It can motivate various groups on narrow, specific issues, opening the way for the moneyed faction to get what it wants.
It took most people far too long to get that Obama was a phony because the presumption that a black man would be sympathetic to the fate of the downtrodden is a deeply embedded but never voiced prejudice (and this bias is exploited successfully by the right in depicting Obama as a socialist). Other elements of traditional Democratic associations played into the Obama positioning: his Administration is chock full of technocratic Harvard wonks, and the last time an Administration was so dominated by technocrats was under Kennedy, the last Democratic Administration to have a strongly positive (indeed romanticized) image.
These traditional iconic symbols of liberalism – secular urban elitism, blackness, technocratic skill, micro-issue identity based political organizing groups – have been fully subverted in the service of banking interests. Obama is the ultimate, but not the only, piece of evidence that these symbols are now used simply to con the Democratic base out of their support and money. The task of moving forward will require rebuilding the symbolic vocabulary of the defenders of the middle class. It will probably also require a similar intellectual civil war within the left, against people like Melissa Harris-Perry. Those engaged in that effort need to become skilled in dealing with these liberal McCarthyite identity smears.
A week or so back Michael Moore revealed his own progressive racism when he said “I went into the polls voting for the black guy, and what I got was the white guy.” A number of people rightly jumped all over the comment and he tried to play it off as a failed attempt at humor.
Many people on the left stopped short of condemning Moore as a racist and only criticized his use of racist language and imagery. But strip away the language and imagery and what you are left with is still racist.
What Moore was saying is that because Obama is black he assumed Obama would be a) liberal and b) assertive. In other words, he thought Obama would be some kind of reincarnation of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. But Moore is disappointed because Obama turned out to be Bush III.
Moore is not unique. A big chunk of the left is obsessed with identity politics. They judged Obama on the color of his skin and judged anyone who didn’t support him on the color of theirs.
They called us racists because we judged Obama by the content of his character.