John “Century” McCain Reduces the RNC to Babbling
Now, I’m sure the RNC has better reasons to call a press conference and claim this ad is "false and defamatory" than any real belief their hysterics will keep the ad off the air. They’re almost certainly trying to blur this ad with the GOP’s own controversial ads: there’s the DCCC’s two FEC complaints–backed up by documentary evidence–that the NRCC and Freedom’s Watch are coordinating ads, and the race-baiting ad that the strangely impotent John McCain could not prevent the NC GOP from airing. In other words, the GOP is likely trying to water-down any focus on their own (in the NRCC-Freedom’s Watch case) illegal ads. Perhaps, too, they’re testing the mettle of the cable networks, to see if similar complaints will work as we get closer to the election.
But they can’t really be ignorant enough to believe that such an attack won’t attract more attention to the ad–and to McCain’s vision of a century in Iraq?
What I most like about their attack, though, is the way their argument has reduced their babbling lawyer to utter unintelligibility.
This is a complaint about the facts that are being misrepresented in the ad, and this being a deliberate falsehood, that we are saying, stations have an obligation to protect the public from airing a deliberate falsehood.
First, as the GOP must recognize well from having pioneered this kind of ad, there really aren’t facts that are being misrepresented. Consider the content:
- A questioner asks McCain: President Bush has talked about staying in Iraq for 50 years.
Now to be fair, Tony Snow tried mightily to deny the one thing everyone understood as soon as Bush started saying Iraq would be "like" Korea. That we’d be there for a "like" amount of time, 50 years. But to make the assertion that Bush wants troops in Iraq for 50 years and McCain wants them there for a century, this ad relies solely on this video showing McCain responding to a question about Bush’s 50 year statements in Derry NH. The question and answer happened–it is not an assertion, it is just a video clip.
- McCain suggests–speaking of a long-term deployment and mentioning Korea specifically–"maybe a hundred."
- 5 years, $500 billion, over 4000 dead.
Gosh–we could have been hardnosed! We didn’t even mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead.
- If all he offers is more of the same, is John McCain the right choice, is John McCain the right choice for America’s future.
In point of fact, since both McCain and Bush are referring to a Korea-model for our engagement in Iraq, his proposed policy is more of the same.
And that schmoozy hug at the end? Not a photoshop.
So, back to the RNC lawyer’s babbling: first, no "facts misrepresented in the ad." There’s really no central logical assertion at all, in fact. Rather, any argument the ad makes is just associational–implying that McCain’s willingness to keep troops stationed in Iraq for a century means more of the dollars and death lost in Iraq. And–as Max Cleland would be thrilled to explain to the RNC–that doesn’t mean the facts are misrepresented. In fact, as Max Cleland would be thrilled to explain to the RNC, this as associational claim–that McCain’s stance will lead to more ugly violence–is a heck of a lot more sound than some other associational ads that Max Cleland can think of.
Then babbling RNC lawyer tries to equate "facts misrepresented in the ad" with "deliberate falsehood." "This is a complaint about the facts that are being misrepresented in the ad, and this being a deliberate falsehood." But does he succeed? What the RNC would like you think is "this complaint asserts that the ad misrepresents the facts, which means that the ad is a deliberate falsehood." But that’s not what babbling RNC lawyer says. After all, what’s the antecedent for "this" in the second clause? The complaint? Or the assertion that facts are being misrepresented? Or "the facts that are being misrepresented"? My vote is for "the complaint." But even if "this" doesn’t refer to "the complaint," it still refers to the facts that are being misrepresented … meaning: "the facts that are being misrepresented are a deliberate falsehood." I’d buy that too, I guess.
So let’s continue.
This is a complaint about the facts that are being misrepresented in the ad, and this being a deliberate falsehood, that we are saying, stations have an obligation to protect the public from airing a deliberate falsehood.
Again, I’m sure the RNC intends to say that "this complaint asserts that the ad misrepresents the facts, which means that the ad is a deliberate falsehood which the stations have an obligation to protect the public from seeing." But boy, with that babbling, you wouldn’t know it. "This complaint about the facts [passive construction hiding the agent misrepresenting], [run-on and unclear antecedent making it unclear what is the misrepresentation], [huh? phatic?], stations have an obligation to protect the public from airing a deliberate falsehood."
Perhaps I’m over-reading. But I would advise cable stations not to report on the GOP complaint. Because the babbling RNC lawyer believes stations should not report on deliberate falsehoods.
I love the Republicans’ assertions that the ad takes McCain’s statement out of context. To me, investigating the context just makes his statement even more deranged.
Okay, he said it’s alright to be there 100 years if troops aren’t being harmed, but he also says he wants them there because al Qaeda is there making plans. He gives no context to how we achieve the situation of no violence for the troops and doesn’t say how their presence (without violence) disrupts al Qaeda’s planning.
total.batshit.crazy.
The ad, and the discussion it leads to, is a complete winner for us. Let’s hope the “bomb Iran” companion ad is in the works.
Signed. The lawyer sounds about as coherent as McCain himself. “As long as Americans aren’t being injured or harmed, or wounded or killed.”
Josh has more from when McCain was on Chris Wallace.
I thought Fox News has legally established that
are not against the law.
(And aren’t you supposed to be eating Haggis today? Have a good trip!)
The permalink to the Ambinder column isn’t working, but the entry is on his main page. I looked on the RNC page for an address for Sean Cairncross, the babbling RNC lawyer, so I could send him a copy of this. Too bad they don’t have a contact for him. Perhaps one of his many friends will get this to him so he can try again using clear, simple and direct English prose.
EW, yoo can haz grate trip.
YouTube is a National Treasure…
For the EW’s:
Turas math dhuibh!
The Klynn Family (And MacIntosh Clan)
This is a complaint about the facts that are being misrepresented in the ad, and this being a deliberate falsehood, that we are saying, stations have an obligation to protect the public from airing a deliberate falsehood.
Ergo, the “complaint” is a deliberate falsehood.
I’d hold on this asshole’s retainer.
mcain’s answer includes this:
which, of course, is nuts.
but that doesn’t make the dnc ad an honest one. imo, it’s not.
why that should be a problem from networks that routinely lie is beyond me.
and the rnc’s complaint is idiotic.
still, i’m pretty pissed at the dnc.
selise,for the ad to be dishonest, there would have to be some circumstances in which McCain would pull out of Iraq. Do you think there is any chance of that?
no. not even if hell freezes over.
but that’s what i think – not what mccain said.
Even taking the most liberal interpretation of dishonesty, the assertion of the ad is that:
1) President Bush has said we’ll keep troops in Iraq long term (50 years): true
2) McCain’s policy in Iraq is the same–he would even go further, and keep them in Iraq 100 years
Note, importantly, both Bush and McCain are arguing the same thing–that we’re going to be in a S Korea-type situation in Iraq for the foreseeable future.
The ad then says, “If all he offers is more of the same, is John McCain the right choice, is John McCain the right choice for America’s future.” With regard to this issue–whether we’re going to be in a S Korea situation in Iraq, McCain’s policies and Bush’s policies are the same–arguably, McCain is worse.
So the premise of the ad is absolutely fair, IMO. Bush and McCain share the same policy on anticipating a S. Korea situation in Iraq, and if people don’t like Bush’s policy, then it follows that people won’t like McCain’s.
As to the background–the violent images–one might argue that’s associative. That BUsh and McCain aren’t arguing that 4000 people should die every 5 years. Nevertheless, that is what the result of Bush’s policy has been.
1. i do
2. that’s my problem – because the ad makes it seem so.
3. or worse, i agree. but the ad does not say that would be the result of mccain’s policy.
furthermore, i’d prefer to see the dnc build a democratic brand that includes the idea that democrats can be trusted to tell truth.
i don’t object to inflammatory ads – i even liked the betrayus ad. it’s the playing loose with the evidence that i object to.
looks like i’m in the minority though, so i’ll try and leave it alone.
(my bold)
Like that. Like THAT a great deal. You’re not in a minority, you are a voice worth listening to who has dedicated their life to government accountability. Thus, I listen.
There is a way to be effectively tough on issues without walking on the line of compromise.
McCain would attack Iran
What makes the ad dishonest, Selise?
Why are you upset with the DNC? I think Dean is doing a bang-up job, and this ad is terrific.
I agree, that is part of the context of his answer. However, my fifteen year-old son got to the heart of the context concern.
He asked, “If Americans are not being injured or harmed, wounded or killed then what purpose does it serve Iraqis for us to be there 100 years? If those things are not happening, then doesn’t that mean Iraq is a stable, sovereign nation? What is our ‘purposeful sphere of influence’ in Iraq at 100 years? Oh yeah, oil.”
He did also ask, “Can we have just one election that addresses issues and does not allow for ad battles?” He continued, “Politics is gamemanship and cheating. Out of respect for voters and our democracy, it should be sportsmanship…but that’s an alternate universe. Maybe the DNC would do the country some good by setting the example and make ads that take the ‘high road’ and every time the RNC takes the low road to just counter with the truth. AT 60% disapproval for Bush who has hugged and endorsed McCain, the DNC has safe room for conducting a campaign with sportsmanship and civility – the people want it in these serious times. Anything else belittles the fate of We the People and democracy.”
He’s got a point. If the DNC takes the low road, voters are just going to see both party candidates as “more of the same.” DNC cannot afford that viewpoint by voters, because they will not show up to vote. He thinks the country is moving in that direction already with the antics between Clinton and Obama and that the Dem party would “fly” with a united, on the issues, “build a coalition for democracy preservation” approach.
He said a better ad would have been a soldier returned from Iraq who now opposes the war being asked the question, do you want us there for 100 years even if it would be safe for our troops?
H figured the soldier’s answer would be effectively compelling and counter McCain without doing the delicate “walk the line of near smear”.
Got to love kids…they see the heart of concern.
In 1992, during the run-up to the election, my daughter, then in 8th grade and I listened to NPR on the way to school. One morning, she asked me why the repubs were attacking Clinton, and he didn’t respond in kind. I offered an explanation like yours. She wasn’t impressed. Now she reminds me what happens when our side doesn’t fight back. We get impeached.
Appreciate the story.
For us, it’s been the issue of having a family member in Iraq for 4.5 years. It’s also personally knowing loss from this war. It’s also being furious that your family spent years sending supplies to under supplied troops.
For us, we want a different election paradigm from the Democrats. One that we can be confident will be about the issues spot on. Let McCain make his own bed with his own spin.
There are ways to “fight back” that are more effective than traditional campaign approaches.
And I think there are many in the country who want to see that paradigm from the Dems.
We are not suggesting backing down, just expecting smarter branding.
The Bush/McCain line is “oh, but being in Iraq 50 or 100 years would be great if there were ponies”. The Ad says “100 years in Iraq is nuts”. The Republican response is “you are taking this out of context because you don’t mention the ponies.” Since there are no ponies, I don’t see that the Dem ad is unfair.
This is a complaint about the facts that are being misrepresented in the ad, and this being a deliberate falsehood, that we are saying, stations have an obligation to protect the public from airing a deliberate falsehood.
My edit towards interpretation:
…and, this being a deliberate falsehood that we are saying,…
O/T
Asian Times front page has some interesting articles worth noting:
http://www.atimes.com/
Here are the headlines:
Iran holds key to India’s energy insecurity
The race is on for India’s mega fighter deal
China intensifies war against splittism
North Korea stoic in the face of famine
US embroiled in de-basing deal
Iran steps into enemy’s territory
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/M…..9Ak03.html
(My bold and “must reads” in light of Syria presentation.)
We lawyers have a long and storied history of making shit up that confuses subjects and use long and archaic descriptions for crystal clear, simple things; it is a way to keep the law in “the club” and make people continue to pay us money. Every now and then, however, you stumble into the pleasant opposite; an instance where the law actually boils and refines a bunch of stuff down into one clear and concise thought or word. This is one of those times, and the law has a word for arguments that are crafted to look viable, but are legally meritless and fraudulent. The word is “specious”.
Yeah, the RNC position is meritless overall. Just would like a “smarter” effort by the DNC and I think selise has a valid point. The point could have been made more effectively without going “near” the line.
Now, RNC would have been better off keeping quiet. The attention has actually been free advertising for the DNC, which I think may have been part of the intent.
Of course, tons of people will view the original YouTube and then watch the ad and say, “Well, he did say 100 years.”
bmaz, people (the voters we need) are getting tired of the Clinton-Obama “crap sling” and are not going to put up with the DNC “going there” on the national level. It may be meritless, but there are voters we need, who see it as walking close, too close to “the line”.
I think the point I take away from selise is the thought of how are we going to run the national campaign? “Smart, tough and precise on the issues” or gamemanship, one-up-manship and at times questionable? The latter loses voters for the dems leaving a door “for the RNC base”
Her ‘Democratic brand point” is spot on.
This opens the door to address how stations allowed THAT to happen in the last election in serious ways. Where were they then? This allows the opportunity to point out that stations cannot “game” the PR machine this election and if they are going to cry that obligation now, super, because they obviously failed tremendously in the last election.
and @ 27
You tend to contridict your own statements! You are way to concise
That’s the baffle them with bullshit part.
I like the bit where the public airs the falsehood.
OT, but did I just see POTUS blaming Americans and corporations for the trouble we’re in and going tsk-tsk, no refineries have been built for the last 30 years. Here’s a concept: nationalize the oil companies. Make them not-for-profit. Heh.
That must be a request that cable and broadcast media not air any RNC ads, non?
Facts, like torture, are whatever the GOP says they are and are subject to change from the beginning of a sentence ’til the end of a sentence.
I’m just wondering what McCain’s position was when Bush’s stated position was that we were not going to stay in Iraq forever, we were only going to stay until we got the job (rid Iraq of WMDs) done and not one day more.
Talk about repeating falsehoods over and over and over on the teevee.
What happened to Custer, in a nutshell, was that he was tracking the Sioux into the Black Hills by following the gouges in the ground made by their tent poles, which they were dragging along with them.
As his pursuit went deeper and deeper, he noticed that several different trails of dragged tent poles had come together and were now moving in the same direction. Eager for a fight, he decided that he was tracking a large enough body of Indians that he would make an attack.
So, he sent his (Indian) Scouts ahead to discern the lay of the land, while continuing to follow the Sioux. At about the same time as Custer arrives on the bluffs above the shoals of the Little Big Horn and sees Indian women cleaning clothes in the river, his Scouts come back and tell him that he’s about to make a huge mistake.
The Scouts tell him that as they rode around and ahead, they crossed many different tent pole trails – all of them headed to the shoals of the Little Big Horn. They told him that there were a hell of lot more Indians there than he had seen up to now, and that Custer didn’t have nearly enough Troops to ‘win.’
In fact, iirc, much of what we know about Custer’s actions leading up to the Battle came from a Scout, who made his report of the amassed Sioux Tribes – and then rode home knowing a disaster was forthcoming. Aside from the forensics of the battlefield, all that we know about the battle itself comes from the Sioux.
So, Custer hears the reports of his Scouts and says something like, “Sure, but they’ll fight to protect their women, and I can attack right now.”
Which is, in fact, what he did.
The Sioux Warriors responded by masterfully diverting Custer away from the women, and drawing his forces into a U-shaped ambush that ‘closed’ around him on a slight rise in the wide open – where he made his last stand.
A lot of incredibly brave, honorable men – including Custer’s brother, Tom, iirc, still the only two-time winner of the Medal of Honor – went down in this miniature repeat of Cannae, when Hannibal baited the Arrogant Romans into a U-shaped ambush that slaughtered 70,000 of Rome’s finest in one afternoon.
Bush and McSame are both Dangerously Capable of ‘mis-reads’ and ignoring sound advice. The fact that they ’see’ US on a slight rise in the Middle East, yelling ‘Bring it on!’ for the next 50 to 100 years should be Alarming.
RFW, I think that is a very apt analogy for the mindset of Bush, Cheney and McCain. I think, in a way, Iraq itself is the “U-shaped ambush” and, like Custer and the Romans before him, they were anxious and desirous of charging in. Sometimes you get what you asked for; sometimes you get a lot more.
I will say this, McCain will be on the order of 170 years old when he see us leaving Iraq; I am glad he is willing to see it through. I wonder how many Americans, Iraqis and their children will not because of the craven bloodlust of these people. And for what? What have we gained? What has anybody gained?
ouch:
..way TOO…
No one in India, Egypt and the UK; in the Baltic and Russia; in Algeria, SE Asia and France; or in Belgium and the former Congo, would have understood McSame’s statement as anything but a claim to empire. No matter how he parses it, his statement would not have been accepted as a necessary, neutral guarantee of security for a broken country.
Cracked already, Humpty Dumpty’s been tossed off the wall and smashed to pieces. We did it. He can’t fix himself, if at all, while we step on the pieces, no matter how ardently neocon Welfare Queens claim that Iraq is “sovereign” and that our “occupation” ended in 2004. Not while we retain over 300,000 thousand troops, mercenaries and contractors in country. Not while our politicians nourish notions of Christian Crusade and our mega-companies slaver like Pavlov’s dogs over first dibs to their oil and development contracts.
I think EW’s analysis is spot on. Conflating Democratic ads that accurately portray GOP falsehoods with false GOP ads about Democrats debases the coinage of electoral debate, already thin and bent. Some voters will give up in frustration, an outcome the GOP hopes will favor them. It worked with their debasement of the impeachment process, which helped mightily in keeping in office a president and vice president who deserved forced removal more than any predecessor.
This is only one technique. The GOP’s quiver is full and it will loose its electioneering arrows en masse, hoping some will hit an exposed target. We’re the heathen Celts battling Longshanks. The stakes aren’t land and titles, but representative government. For the GOP, it’s jail or humiliation for a score of their powerbrokers, and billions in subsidies and immunities for their corporate supporters, hundreds of millions for their lobbyists, and tens of millions to Karl Rove alone.
It ain’t gonna be pretty and it won’t be nice. I hope that Obama and Clinton are girding their loins; we’ll need them both on the field, whatever roles they play, not negotiating back room deals for lands on both sides of the border.
They weren’t heathen.
selise:
I’ve watched the ad, and my only issue is the obvious “cut” between the “maybe a hundred” and “that’d be fine with me”. I don’t think it’s really dishonest, though. Some people want to get the hell out of Iraq, and some don’t. McCain is clearly in the “don’t” camp. If he’d like to “clarify” his comments by saying that he only meant a hundred years if there were ponies, that’d be fine with me, but I don’t think this ad distorts his position at all. He gets points for not saying “the next six months will be critical”. Someone obviously looked at calendar and realized that six months is STILL before the election.
Years ago I worked with a guy who didn’t appear to be a native speaker of any language. I saved some of his emails because they contain priceless crimes against English such as “I can start working on this as soon as you give me the submit a change management form to implement.” I think the RNC has hired him.
Glenzilla has a marvelous expose on the “liberal”, average-guy Brian Williams, who thinks Peggity Noonan deserves a Pulitzer for her election-year OpEds. Especially her latest diatribe about America, not Hillary, being Obama’s “problem”. “Curl up with this one and give it the quality time it deserves,” says Brian.
That tells me Brian hasn’t taken an American history class since grade school, that he thinks Howard Zinn is the guy who runs the deli, and that he prefers the myths perpetuated or invented by Lynne Cheney and Jonah Goldberg.
Glenn slices and dices Williams, America’s news reader, as if he were a shrimp on a Japanese skillet. Average guy Brian lives on a reno’ed Connecticut farm, drives his 477 horsepower Porsche and has digs on the upper East side when he can’t be bothered to zoom-zoom home for the evening. But he knows all about us yokels.
Mr. Williams has one thing right. “Vinny”, a Williams’ invention — the proverbial blogger with a modem, a Powerbook and a one-room apartment in the Bronx that he hasn’t left in two years — really is serious competition for Brian’s journalism.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
Oh, and that Vinny-the-blogger guy in his one-room apartment in the Bronx that Williams invented to illustrate how working class, low-brow and uninformed bloggers are? Williams tells us so on his blog.
Excuse the double post; lurking moderator, please repair. TQ.
In the background, these issues are a steady thump, thump, thump:
– climate change
– price of oil
– threat of war against Iran
– Libby’s pardon
– evangelical disenchantment with the GOP of Bush43
– housing meltdown, increasing foreclosures
– food supply problems
– college out of sight for more Americans
– no resolution to the immigration mess (i.e., government = broken)
– political corruption (95% GOP)
Given the gravity of problems, McCain’s best hope is being perceived as a ’straight talker’.
Other politicians can whine about being ‘taken out of context’, but a ’straight talker’ doesn’t get a pass on that particular topic.
Relish. The. Irony.
The kids are fightng at the ‘lake again. Can I lurk over here with the big people for a while?
Thanks
Napoleon McCain wants to give us four more years of this (emph. added):
http://www.juancole.com/
bmaz at 27 – I believe many studies have been done on laying seige to castle-occupying Oppressors, and the ‘best practices’ seems to be the equivalent of the Powell Doctrine for the Oppressed: Gathering strength – out of sight – and only revealing itself when the Oppressed have achieved ‘massively overwhelming force.’
This situation is further complicated, imvho, because Bush invoked the Christian God as his authorizer for the Invasion.
If you’ve ever wondered how long-standing and ancient cultures acquired Cosmologies with ’stacks of Gods on top of each other,’ wonder no more…
So, when Bush and Israel play the My God is Bigger Than Your God game, the stakes are high – so high they can only see two possible outcomes – Total Domination or Total Annihlation. In his depraved need to ‘win’ at all costs, Bush has even resorted to Torture!
In Islamic War Councils, the great Warrior Saludin is held in high esteem as an honorable General during the times of the Crusades. I believe it’s their tradition to offer terms for a face-saving walk-away solution before imposing a regimen of increasing humiliation to the Opponent as punishment for their Pride.
Bush, the Christian God he invoked, and now McCain too, are already bent over a barrel – We can’t sustain the cost of Occupation, we can’t prevent the build-up of Force by the Oppressed, and Bush and McCain can’t Admit A Mistake – they are ‘frozen’ at the wheel, headed straight for the cliff.
At best, imvho, we’re heading for a Military Disaster, the downside of which, along with the Recession, might be the demise of our Superpower Status – and a lot of suffering by all those Christians who say Grace everyday with “God is great, God is good…” All for Bush’s Folly.
As for Bush, he just wants it to be someone else’s problem, without him being held responsible or accountable – and voila! there’s McCain saying, “Pass Me the Rock, Dubya!”
When We are left holding the bag of Broken America, it won’t bother Bush at all. He’s long since become comfortable amidst his own destruction.
Back tonight!
There is a stray ‘that’ instead of ‘which’ in the Rnc atty rambling:
“This is a complaint about the facts that are being misrepresented in the ad, and this being a deliberate falsehood, that we are saying, stations have an obligation to protect the public from airing a deliberate falsehood.”
Alternatively, the that could stay, and the same lexical effect could be achieved by adding punctuation, placing a colon or even a comma after ‘from’: “that we are saying, stations have an obligation to protect the public from: airing a deliberate falsehood”…
I liked the parenthetical: “and this being a deliberate falsehood,…” It has a latinate sonorousness as an introduction. The speaker, however misselects his linking word; this is a common defect in some teen speech in our times. I work with PhD postgrads all the time, whose lexis is peppered with word selection difficulties, in their hastiness.
One of the Dccc aims in the ad which strikes a tone of veracity by metaphor for me is its depiction of the word arts as practiced by McCain.
Here is a nice but breathless Lederman parsing of excerpts from an especially evasive McCain interview during McCain’s confused attempts to gain the spotlight in 2006 in the DTA congress secret deals during writing MCA. In the interview McCain sounds like the Rnc atty.
After re-reading that 2006 transcript, it seemed to me Dean has the tenor about right in the 2008 campaign.
It’s pretty standard for the RNC and Bush to accuse the facts of getting reported and getting in the way of all their optimism, isn’t it?
As far as the DNC goes, this seems like a fair ad. McCain has steeped himself in the idea of staying in Iraq, because we are winning. This is the closest he’s come to presenting a timetable for withdraw.
The real screw up of the DNC was not seating the delegates in FL and MI. That’s going to go down in history as one of major political fuck ups ever if it poisons the results of the Democratic nominee. And it could!
Florida and Michigan chose that for themselves. We’ve already been through that one.
I don’t agree. And, in any case, the voters didn’t choose it, and they’re the ones who don’t get their vote counted.
I see that a bit differently. The real screw up of the political leaders in Fla. and Michigan and the very passive people in September 2007 in those states drew a perfectly appropriate response from the DNC and the major fuckup that is already history is that of people like Dingle, Levin, Gettlefinger, Granholm, Cheeks Killpatrick and Wasserman Schultz. They broke the rules, they bought it, and now they will live with it in their laps forever. They acted like children, they continue to act like children, and they punished the people of Michigan and Florida.
There is a candidate who did not give a rats ass about Michigan and Florida voting from August 2007 until March 2008 who suddenly became very concerned that votes be counted in elections that were not real, so that they could be used to help a desperately sinking campaign rather than out of any concern for voters or fairness.
What should also go down in history is the removal of the egregiously stupid Michigan leaders and those superdelegates who defiantly engineered the problem including Wasserman Shultz. They knew exactly what they were doing.
Rotating Regional primaries in 2012 are the lesson that “history” teaches.
Sorry it’s Debbie the Dingell of course.
I just walked by John Bolton outside the AEI. Unfortunately, I had just looked up from a can of cashews I was greedily eating, so I didn’t have anything more clever to say than “Thanks for that war.”
Pretty clever. Hope you didn’t gag on those cashews.
I would have if he had been ready with a withering retort like, say, “Easy on the cashews, paunchy.”
Good one. Wonder if he would have taken a cashew from you?
Another republican WINNER!!! (Raw Story)
San Diego GOP Chair.
Well, it sounds like we’ll only be in Afghanistan another few months. Because we’re winning! Or at least we’re not losing, says someone named Bret Stephens in today’s WSJ. Yes,
How long does Carly Fiorina think we should be in Iraq? Because, she’s on the Veep short list. (I know, LOL.)
And Obama just repudiated Wright……:(
I’m so confused now.
I thought Rev Wright’s remarks were dead-on, especially
when he responded to his critics who said he was unpatriotic. Hell,
he spent six years in the Marines and understands the true America…
Yup, frankly the more I listened to him the more I liked him. I feel sad.
I agree. I think that’s what scares the pants off Republicans like Vitter and Craig and Rove. It exposes the GOP’s two top fallacies (apart from “we don’t toture”): “racism is over” and “America’s never had a class war before, and doesn’t have one now”. Hence the non-stop media war to discredit Rev. Wright and the churches that form the heart as well as the soul of the African American community, as they do for much of the Hispanic community. I think only secondarily are these attacks on Obama directly, though they are that, too.
Racism remains a central GOP platform, though like a building’s 13th floor, it goes unnamed. So, too, with the class war that Bush and others wage, as demonstrated by the last eight years of accelerating income at the top, unemployment at the bottom, and the growth the union bashing industry.
Exposing those fallacies may help African Americans, immigrants, the poor and middle class to find common cause. It may motivate them as a solid majority to vote out of office those they think are responsible. That’s a bipartisan problem, as the many Blue Dogs demonstrate, but it hits at the heart of the GOP and McCain’s Media.
Hence, even the New York Times’ Alessandra Stanley describes Rev. Wright as “wriggling” out trouble, a description that only another snake-in-the-grass, or one who’s had too many dates with other Manhattanites, could love.
There were two comments that were poorly chosen even if Wright meant to be use rhetorical license to drive home points as many people like him do from the pulpit.
1) The US government did not deploy HIV or originate it and use it as a tool to impose illness on people.
2) The US did not”deserve” 911 attacks.
In addition to those two comments being ridiculous beyond the pale, Wright should be smart enough to know that the vast majority of the American people and their cable networks are dumb enough, to run Wright 24X7 as they are, and to continue to focus on moronic issues like flag pins–one of the dumbest questions any ABC news or network news multimillionaires have ever asked or chosen to showcase in the history of television.
That Wright continues to be the major focus of 24 hours of cable “news” television is an accurate index of the stupidity factor in the US.
Their is also a phenomenon in American that once the media has portrayed something or someone out of context, it will be adopted with no critical thinking or actual objective examination.
i’ve listened to both sermons in full and i never heard him say any such thing about 911. can you give a cite to back up your claim? thanks.
I’m with you. Much of what Rev Wright has to say is the truth. Most Americans do not want to hear the truth. How often are you hearing the “God Damn America” without the full sentence “God Damn America for KILLING INNNOCENT PEOPLE”
Although Wrights body language and antics remind me of I do not like to say it they remind me of bubble boy Bush.
Jane, it really is embarrassing to see you undress a (Republican) lawyer in public like that. After all that exposure, I feel like I need some brain bleach.
Now not only does our emperor have no clothes, but his putative successor’s lawyers don’t have clothes either.
Bob in HI
I thought everybody knew that HIV was created in a lab in Maryland by Russian and US scientists from vials of some sheep-affecting virus and distributed in vaccines in Africa. The rate of disease spread is not consistent with passing the disease person-to-person. That’s old news.
While I don’t know it’s true, I certainly can’t say with certainty that it is not true.
What bothers me is that the talking stupids (Scarborough, Hannity, …) attack Rev. Wright without investigating whether his claim is true. Why on earth would the stupids think that just because they don’t know something then it is absolutely false? What egos!
Hi, commenting w/o reading comments yet:
It doesn’t matter if the ad is true or not, RNC will still call anything they don’t like a pack of lies.
Just gooper speak for we really don’t like this!
Oh, and you are so very mean to bring it to everyone’s attention. For shame! You mean person. /s
“………….stations have an obligation to protect the public from airing a deliberate falsehood”
Really? Will this demand apply to Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly and Gibson on a daily basis? Or merely during presidential election years? Or will it only apply to the DNC?
I know the answers to all of these.
No.
Now along with “hypocrites” we can add the labels “crybabies” and “whiners” to the Republican brand.
Wimps! Wahwahwah, I want my mommy!