Can we stop questioning this guy's patriotism already?

I just wanted to quickly comment on the following.

Throughout the 2008 presidential campaign, Republicans have repeatedly attacked Barack Obama for an alleged lack of patriotism. From his absent lapel pin to his wife's "proud of my country" comments, Righty has seized upon every opportunity to paint Obama as someone not all that psyched about the U.S.A. Some have even gone as far as to call Obama Anti-American and a "terrorist." He has even been attacked by his opponents for believing the country is not the "greatest source for good in this world" and is "imperfect." (Shit, at this point I would take imperfect, and maybe like, the 35th greatest source of good in the world.)

While the validity of such attacks can be easily disputed, I would simply like to respond by saying this: Barack Obama is running for President of the United States. As a brilliant, well-spoken and well-liked scholar, Obama could likely earn fame and/or fortune in any number of private sector capacities. He instead has spent much of his adult life as a community organizer, Illinois State Senator and U.S. Senator. Now he is seeking the highest office in the country and arguably the world. President of the United States is a tough job, a thankless job, and for Barack Obama, a very dangerous job.

Yesterday, federal authorities disrupted a neo-Nazi plot to assassinate Senator Obama. It is the second such plot uncovered, after authorities arrested three would-be Colorado assassins in August. The Tennessee-based neo-Nazis planned to kill Obama and go on a shooting spree at a "predominantly African-American school." Here's a photo of the nutjob, pulled from his MySpace page:

Whether or not these threats are legitimate remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that there is an element that exists in the United States that welcomes the assassination of this political figure. It's becoming clear that Obama is not so much "The One," but rather The One Right-Wing Radicals Have Been Waiting Their Whole Lives to Assassinate. After all, this is a nation with a history of offing its most charismatic, influential and forward-thinking leaders. Obama is a radical neo-Nazi's wet dream: a little Kennedy, a little MLK.

I am in no way suggesting that the views of these radical racist elements represent the right as a whole. Certainly they inhabit the right half of the political spectrum, but I'll spare right-wingers from any guilt-by-association smear. The point I'm trying to make is that by attempting to lead a violent, gun-toting nation with a history of racism and demonization of the left, Obama is taking a pretty big risk. He's doing so, in essence, to take on probably the most difficult and stressful public service job in the world. So stop claiming this guy is un-American, a Muslim or a terrorist. Stop harping on his lapel pins and his middle name. This is a guy who has the opportunity to bring the nation together and move it forward. To to so, he has chosen to campaign in the lion's den, speaking to large outdoor crowds in the South, Western Pennsylvania, Michigan, West Virginia, and so on. This likely caused him a few sleepless nights. And if elected, we will likely hear about similar assassination plots every few months or so.

So while Obama might not be a great war hero, but one could easily say he is putting his life on the line to serve his country. Regardless of how one feels about Obama's political views, it's time for the questions about his patriotism to end.

No, Inland Empire! That's a bad Inland Empire!

I just had to comment on this. Thanks to The Press-Enterprise and Thinkprogress for picking this one up.

For those of us in Los Angeles, the Inland Empire is sort of like our retarded cousin to the east. The IE (or the 909) is like having a little bit of Alabama right in your own backyard. Whenever COPS is not filmed in the South, it's in the IE. The 909 is to air quality what China is to civil liberties. You get the idea. Every so often they do a bad thing and have to be reprimanded. You can't really blame them for doing the bad thing. They are, after all, the IE. But they still need to be learn that what they did was wrong.

This week the Press-Enterprise reported on a disturbing newsletter circulated by a Rancho Cucamonga based Republican women's group. The newsletter contained what was meant as a critique of Barack Obama's claim that he "doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills." Here's what they came up with:

Let me just say that I typically have a pretty high threshold for racism. There are many occasions when claims of racism are bandied about inappropriately. THIS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE OCCASIONS. This is so racist that it just slaps you in the face. There's a great Dave Chappelle stand-up routine where he talks about this kind of racism:

Have you ever had something happen that was so racist that you didn't even get mad?...I mean it was so blatant you were just like "Wow." Almost like it didn't even happen to you, it was like a fucking movie.

Aside from the collard greens and pigs feet, the illustrator pretty much nailed all of the African American food stereotypes. Now I have to come clean for a minute. As a teenager, my friends and I once regrettably took part in a "traditional black picnic," for black history month, featuring pretty much the same fare depicted on the "Obama Bucks." I now realize that the picnic idea probably amounted to racism. Victimless racism, but racism nonetheless.

The problem with the above depiction of Obama is that is was circulated to members of the community, as supposedly representing the organization's members. Of course, this kind of thing shows up all the time in Republican-affiliated newsletters and websites (here, here, here, here, and here). Appeals to racism generally work to the GOP's advantage. What made this story unique in my opinion, was the utterly moronic claim of ignorance on the part of the person responsible for the newsletter's circulation. Diane Fedele, president of the Chaffey Community Republican Women, said this of the illustration:

I didn't see it the way that it's being taken. I never connected. It was just food to me. It didn't mean anything else.

Yeah, no. Nobody is buying for a minute the idea that watermelon, fried chicken, ribs and Kool-Aid are "just food" whilst encircling a black man. There are times when I may be ignorant to racism. I'll hear someone cry racism and I say to myself, "Wow, really? That's racist? Good to know." Like apparently Jar Jar Binks was racist. Not a racist, mind you, but I guess the character invoked some unfortunate black stereotypes. I don't know. But this Obama Buck crap is different. I assure you if I were a contestant on the Pyramid, and my partner rattled off those four foods, I'd be like, "Dude, you had me at watermelon: Foods Black People Like to Eat!"

So don't sit there and try to tell people you didn't know it was a racial stereotype. Stop saying that you don't see the color of people's skin, only the character of their soul. Wait! Let me guess. You had a friend in college who was black, right? I knew it. Just stop it already. We get it. You're a racist. You thought it would be funny. You thought no one would say anything because they're all racists too. It's fine. Some people are just racists. Just stop telling people you didn't know any better, because fucking dogs knew that picture was racist.

Damn. Now I'm hungry.

UPDATE:

Tonight, Keith Olbermann named Diane Fedele his Worst Person in the World for her lame brained excuse given for circulating the racist newsletter.

Obama vs. McCain? Shit, the REAL debate is on YouTube

When I began this blog, it was meant in large part to be a kind of centralized dumping site for all the online discussions and arguments in which I had become engaged. While it has strayed a bit from that ideal, I still like to include occasional commentary from online discussions I have had with Joe Righty (a moniker meant to encompass all right-wing bloggers/commentators with no official ties to mainstream or right-wing media).

As you may know, I utilize YouTube quite often as a primary source of documentary information. Occasionally I feel the urge to comment on a video or on someone else's comment. In researching my last post, Drinking the Sarah Palin Kool-Aid, I came across this gem mocking Palin's ignorance of crucial U.S. foreign policy concepts:



I found the following user comment disturbing and decided to leave a comment. Here is the comment, posted by user jimmyvan1775:

1.You can really tell a lot about a celebrity by their fans. You can also tell a lot about the fans by their choice of celebrity. This guy is a leftist idiot, a real tow the Democrat party line moron. He has the freedom to spew this kind of stupidity; others even have the right to believe it. However, lets remember that the Bush Doctrine has kept us safe to shop, work, go to movies, and yes watch retards like Maher

2. It was the Democrats, Bill Clinton, which treated terrorism as a criminal action rather than an act of war. As a result we enjoyed events such as the first bombing of the WTC, the bombing of our embassies, the bombing of the USS Cole, and the debacle that was Somalia, among other events. Now, in the waning years of the Bush administration, the left has to find a new village idiot. Sarah Palin has more backbone, brains, ands brawn, than the entire left-wing in this country.

I felt compelled to leave the following comment, hoping to set the record straight for the man:

Dude if you think attacking a country without the desire nor the means to attack the U.S. has kept us safe, then you also belong in the Category 5 Moron class. This is what is fundamentally wrong with Neo-conservatism. You believe that your right to shop and go to the movies is more important than an Iraqi citizen's right to be alive. That is an egotistical, reckless and deranged worldview. You wonder why al-Qaeda wants to attack us? Not for our freedoms, but for things like the Bush Doctrine.

Today, I was greeted by this reply from the incensed conservative:

YOU said, "Dude if you think attacking a country without the desire nor the means to attack the U.S. has kept us safe,"

Dude, I don’t think, I KNOW that sending troops into Iraq has KEPT the terrorist IN THE MIDDLE EAST fighting our solders THERE, and that has kept US safe HERE in the continental U.S.

YOU said, "then you also belong in the Category 5 Moron class."

Once again, for the real CAT. 5 Moron here, if we keep the Islamist (those are the bad guys in our story) in the Middle East, they can not set bombs in our backyards. President Bush and the military (those are the good guys) have done exactly that.

"This is what is fundamentally wrong with Neo-conservatism. You believe that your right to shop and go to the movies is more important than an Iraqi citizen's right to be alive."

First of all I am a CONSERVATIVE, none of this neo crap. As a part of my conservative beliefs, I think that when a group of people attack us and kill thousands, like say, I dunno, maybe THE TWINS TOWERS on SEPTEMBER THE ELEVENTH IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD TWO THOUSAND AND ONE, that give us the absolute RIGHT to kick the tail of ANY HUMAN BEIBNG or ORGINIZATION that is involved with these enemies in any way. By the way, we aren’t fighting and killing Iraqis, we are fighting and killing TERRORISTS that are in Iraq.

"That is an egotistical, reckless and deranged worldview."

What is truly egotistical, reckless, and deranged, is the worldview of idiots with no ability to rationally examine a situation and come to a logical conclusion is somehow given the status of true thought. I mean people that simply absorb the comments made by retards like Maher, are allowed to believe their words are just as valid as the words of someone who truly uses his or her mind.

"You wonder why al-Qaeda wants to attack us? Not for our freedoms, but for things like the Bush Doctrine."

You poor, poor, left wing propaganda casualty. They attack us because we aren’t like them. They attack us because we don’t call God Allah, and we pray whenever we feel like it, and some of us don’t pray at all. They hate us because we treat women with respect and not like dogs and slaves. What happened first? Did we preemptively, unilaterally, enter Iraq happen first? Or did the terror attacks on 9/11 happen first? How can they hate us for something that we had not even considered as a national policy at the time they did what they did? Confusing? Well, let’s make it clear. Al-Qaeda hates us for being us, and not them. As a result of this hatred they attacked us. We determined as a nation that we would find and kill or capture as many terrorist as we could. This led us into Iraq, and thus the “BUSH doctrine”.

Please do some research and thinking, maybe you can break the stranglehold the mainstream media and idiots like Maher have on your mind. Leave the dark side and come over to the light. You can do it!!!!

First, let me say that being smug ("You can do it!!!!") about something of which you are ignorant is neither endearing nor a good way to win an argument. That said, I would like to use this space to reply to the spirited post by jimmyvan1775.

"Once again, for the real CAT. 5 Moron here, if we keep the Islamist (those are the bad guys in our story) in the Middle East, they can not set bombs in our backyards. President Bush and the military (those are the good guys) have done exactly that."

This response represents what is fundamentally wrong with most proponents of aggressive military action. The "Good vs. Bad" and "Us vs. Them" scenarios are as inaccurate as they are juvenile. Foreign policy is not a fairy tale. There are not always well-defined good guys and bad guys. When you enter into a conflict believing you're on the "Good" side, then any action taken by that side is deemed infallible. Trust me, I wish global relations were that simple. I wish we were always right. But that kind of myopia is not only ignorant, it's also why many foreign countries despise the United States for our unrepentant unilateralism.

Second, the notion that "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" is almost as ludicrous. The Right likes to point to the fact that we have not had a major domestic terrorist attack since the Iraq War began, as if that has prevented an attack. Fair enough. Assuming correlation equals causation, as the user has assumed, here are just a few other significant post-9/11 events that have also thwarted terrorism:

• The New England Patriots win the Super Bowl three times (2002, 2004, 2005)
• The last episode of "Friends" airs (May 2004)
• Hurricane Katrina (August 2005)
• Pluto redesignated as a dwarf planet (August 2006)
• Martin Scorcese wins first Ocsar for The Departed (February 2007)
• Barack Obama becomes first African American major-party presidential candidate (June 2008)
• Michael Phelps wins 8 gold medals at Beijing Olympics (August 2008)

It is not any more preposterous to claim these events were related to 9/11 than to make that claim of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Yet right-wingers continue to assert these false links, which have even been debunked even by their own heroes:

September 2003: President Bush admits that there is "no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."

June 2004: 9/11 Commission Report finds no link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

August 2004: Dick Cheney claims he never made Iraq-9/11 connection.

August 2006: Bush admits that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, then suggests that no one in the administration ever made that claim.

September 2006: Cheney admits there is no Iraq-9/11 connection.

Even if we could overlook the FACT that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, one would still have a difficult time making the argument that invading a sovereign Arab nation would make us safer here in the U.S. Just looking at the idea at face value, it's difficult to believe that motivated terrorists would stop planning coordinated 9/11 style attacks in favor of essentially becoming cannon fodder in Iraq. As if Osama bin Laden said, "You know...that 9/11 attack went pretty well for us, but what I think we need is to do is go to Iraq and be blown away by tank fire." Bin Laden may be a sociopath, but I give him more credit as a tactician than to believe that.

Of course, the difficulty in convincing Joe Righty using logic is that he often doesn't have the fundamental facts straight. He believes that all terrorists are irrational and only want to attack Americans because they "hate our freedoms." In believing that fallacy (which I will explain in more detail later), Joe Righty essentially feels that nothing the United States actually does will have any effect on the way these people view Americans. That being the case, the only way to prevent more terror is to kill ALL the terrorists, making America safer in the process. As you may have predicted, this is simply not the case. Expert assessments and actual U.S. intelligence have found that the U.S. presence in Iraq is inspiring terrorists and making the world and U.S. citizens less safe. Even General Petraeus, whose word conservatives value just slightly less than the word of God, could only muster an "I don't know" when asked if the Iraq strategy was making Americans safer.

Of course, even if one could claim that we're "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here," there are still a few obvious moral impediments. One, it's not really fair to Iraqi citizens for their country to be destabilized to the point of civil war so that the United States can outsource its terrorism problem. Imagine, if you could, that China is at war with some radical anti-Chinese element residing in Mexico. Imagine that the Chinese leader says (in his best Bill Lumbergh voice), "Hey, America. Yeah...see we've got this war-type thing going on with some guys down in Mexico, so if you could just...let us occupy your country for the next several years while we fight them. I hope you don't mind. Of course, many of them will cross over here to try and kill our soldiers, and in the process, many American civilians will die in the crossfire. But hey, we need to fight them here so we don't have to fight them at home. 'Mkay?"

The second obvious moral issue is the idea that a U.S. soldiers' death is worth less than the "potential" death of a U.S. civilian. Look, I understand that certain sacrifices are expected to be made when one dons the uniform. What makes the notion of preemptive war so ridiculous is the fact that in sending troops into the line of fire, some will certainly be killed. By comparison, there is no guarantee any Americans will die if troops are not sent into a preemptive battle. Given how shoddy the pre-war intelligence was (lies, exaggerations, forgeries, cherrypicking), what are the odds that a military death has actually saved a civilian life? Five percent? Ten? So much for "an eye for an eye." 3,000 Americans are killed in the 9/11 attacks, and what do we do? We send 4,000 more to die, create violent unrest in Iraq while Osama bin Laden remains a free man. And somehow people who question that strategy are called un-American.

First of all I am a CONSERVATIVE, none of this neo crap.

Not surprisingly, neoconservatives don't much care for that label, probably because of the negative connotation these philosophies have garnered in recent years. But make no mistake about it. "Nation-building" and aggressive foreign policy (i.e. the Bush Doctrine) are hallmarks of neoconservatism. Still not convinced? Here's what some prominent neocons have said about the Bush Doctrine:

William Kristol: "The world's a mess....The danger is not that we're going to do too much. The danger is that we're going to do too little."

Richard Perle: "So the message to Syria, to Iran, to North Korea, to Libya [four countries that have not attacked nor threatened the United States] should be clear. If we have no alternative, we are prepared to do what is necessary to defend Americans and others.

David Horowitz: "Today 'neo-conservatism' identifies those who believe in an aggressive policy against radical Islam and the global terrorists.

Paul Wolfowitz: "if we say our only problem was to respond to 9/11, and we wait until somebody hits us with nuclear weapons before we take that kind of threat seriously, we will have made a very big mistake."

Just because you don't like the label, it doesn't mean it isn't aptly applied.

As a part of my conservative beliefs, I think that when a group of people attack us and kill thousands, like say, I dunno, maybe THE TWINS TOWERS on SEPTEMBER THE ELEVENTH IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD TWO THOUSAND AND ONE, that give us the absolute RIGHT to kick the tail of ANY HUMAN BEIBNG or ORGINIZATION that is involved with these enemies in any way. By the way, we aren’t fighting and killing Iraqis, we are fighting and killing TERRORISTS that are in Iraq.

Again, Iraq was not at all involved with the September 11th attacks. The attacks were perpetrated almost entirely by Saudis, who received training in Afghanistan. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was a Kuwaiti living in Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden was from Saudi Arabia. And you can't be so naive as to believe we are only fighting "terrorists" in Iraq. Exactly who we are fighting in Iraq is an extremely complex issue, as CNN's embedded reporter Michael Ware explains here. It is fairly common knowledge that the Iraqi insurgency began with the vacuum created by the removal of Saddam Hussein. Initially, the insurgency was born from a combination of Saddam loyalists, Iraqi nationalists (who resented U.S. occupation), disgruntled Iraqi military (whose unit's were disbanded under the Coalition Provisional Authority) and some Islamic radicals. We know that there now exists an al-Qaeda presence, but experts believe it represents a small percentage of the overall fighting, and did not come to be affiliated with al-Qaeda until 2004, after U.S. troops arrived.

Finally, to illustrate just how improbable is the idea that only "terrorists" have been killed in the Iraq War, one need only look at any of the estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths. Estimates run as high as 650,000 civilian casualties. Even if you take the Bush Administration's word for it and assume that only 30,000 Iraqis have died since 2003, that is still 30,000 civilians!!!! Not terrorists, but civilians, and by Bush's own admission. Of course, given the Bush administration's extensive war propaganda machine (here and here), the chance that their estimate is correct is highly unlikely. No one suggesting that the U.S. military gunned down 650,000 Iraqi civilians, only that these people would theoretically still be alive were it not for the American military presence in Iraq. I wonder if jimmyvan1775 remembers the sacrifices these people made when he goes shopping. Probably not.

What is truly egotistical, reckless, and deranged, is the worldview of idiots with no ability to rationally examine a situation and come to a logical conclusion is somehow given the status of true thought. I mean people that simply absorb the comments made by retards like Maher, are allowed to believe their words are just as valid as the words of someone who truly uses his or her mind.

I generally try to avoid making statements that, taken out of context would mean virtually nothing without a few key partisan words. For the sake of illustration, I'll break with tradition, and offer this critique of jimmyvan1775:

What is truly egotistical, reckless, and deranged, is the worldview of idiots with no ability to rationally examine a situation and come to a logical conclusion is somehow given the status of true thought. I mean people that simply absorb the comments made by retards like Maher Hannity, are allowed to believe their words are just as valid as the words of someone who truly uses his or her mind.

See what I mean? A virtually universal statement. Although I would submit that my argument has relied on a breadth of information from a variety of actual documented sources, while my conservative counterpart has (I can only assume) relied almost exclusively on Fox News talking points (hand delivered by the White House) to defend...well, the White House. What you find, when you actually fact check and diversify your information stream, is that the conclusions you are able to draw are invariably more valid.

They attack us because we aren’t like them. They attack us because we don’t call God Allah, and we pray whenever we feel like it, and some of us don’t pray at all. They hate us because we treat women with respect and not like dogs and slaves.

I also dealt with this topic several months back. The University of Maryland conducted a public policy survey entitled the 2008 Annual Arab Public Opinion Poll, a vast survey of the current attitudes of Arab citizens. The polling found that 80% of those surveyed based their opinions about the United States on "American Policy" compared to 12% who responded that "American Values" were most influential. For all we have heard about Muslims "hating freedom," these data really blow that idea out of the water. Certainly there exist some radical elements in the Arab world, and certainly, taken literally, the Koran can be seen as promoting violence against the "infidel". But again, these people represent a very small percentage. Besides, there are many non-Muslim nations throughout the world, often with more liberal societies than that of the United States. Yet it is the United States that, in the same survey, was viewed "Very Unfavorably" by 64% of the Arab world. Does anyone really believe that all this anti-U.S. animosity is created entirely from a disdain for American values? If that is the case, why don't we see similar anti-Chinese, anti-Italian or anti-Brazilian sentiment? They are just as non-Muslim as the United States. Is Brazil any less liberal a society than the United States? Is Italy any less free? The freedom-hating Muslim theory is one that has been debunked so many times, yet it somehow remains a belief espoused by many Americans.

What happened first? Did we preemptively, unilaterally, enter Iraq happen first? Or did the terror attacks on 9/11 happen first? How can they hate us for something that we had not even considered as a national policy at the time they did what they did?

Those are all great rhetorical questions. However, since we have already seen that 9/11 had nothing to do with the Iraq War, these questions are reduced to mere historical trivia rather than the cause and effect relationship the author had hoped to establish. Here are a few more rhetoricals, but this time, with that relationship.

What happened first, September 11th or the Reagan-era bombings of Lybia?

What happened first, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing or U.S. support of Israel?

What happened first, the U.S.-led coup in Iran and subsequent installation of a puppet government or the Iran hostage crisis of the early 1980's?

In each case, of course, U.S. foreign policy preceeded the terrorist act. Why is there a causal relationship between these events? Because the terrorists that carried out these acts actually said what their motivations were. In fact, in the last several hundred years, I'm not sure there has ever been a terrorist attack on the United States that was the result of hatred of our values. This idea is an invention of the mainstream media and the U.S. government, as a means of deflecting guilt away from our own past military escapades. That is certainly not to say that these terrorist attacks were justified by any means. It says that ignoring the terrorists' motivations and writing off attacks as acts of lunacy does nothing to help thwart future attacks.

We determined as a nation that we would find and kill or capture as many terrorist as we could. This led us into Iraq, and thus the “BUSH doctrine”.

I might have to re-read my history book, but I always thought we went to fight in Afghanistan because we were trying to fight and kill terrorists. By the Bush administration's own admission, the Iraq war has at various times been about liberating the Iraqi people, deposing a brutal dictator, finding the WMD's, and was a mission from God.

And the notion that "we determined as a nation" to go to war with Iraq is highly suspect. Look at how the nation feels today. As the public came to understand the costs and learned that the justifications for war were flimsy if not outright lies, people withdrew support for the war. Currently 65% oppose the war and only 39% feel we were right to invade Iraq. Certainly the war had more support in the beginning, even in congress. Yet in October 2002 (a month before a congressional election), despite the fact the president and intelligence experts were telling congress that Iraq had nukes and that and Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks, 23 Senators and 133 Members of the House boldly voted not to authorize U.S. military involvement in Iraq. So we certainly did not go to war "as a nation" but rather as a nation divided. Once the holes emerged in the pre-war intelligence, support for the war dwindled dramatically and was the primary reason for the 2006 shift of power in congress.

Please do some research and thinking, maybe you can break the stranglehold the mainstream media and idiots like Maher have on your mind. Leave the dark side and come over to the light. You can do it!!!!

Well, I decided to take him up on this little challenge. How'd I do? I certainly outdid him on the research aspect, but let's examine the question of "thinking" for a bit. Which would you say requires more thinking?

- Constructive criticism or name-calling ("idiots", "retard")

- Relativism and objectivity or "Good Guys" versus "Bad Guys"

- Careful, documented analysis or regurgitation of GOP talking points

Naturally, the options in blue exhibit more sound reasoning than the chest-pounding, knee-jerk type of responses seen in red.

Perhaps most disappointing about jimmyvan1775's post is the fact that he never quite addresses the main point of my comment, the critique of his claim that Americans should have the right to shop and go to the movies even if it means the deaths of many innocent people. I suppose my opponent would counter by claiming that no innocent Iraqi was killed, as all Iraqis are terrorists. Really? Even the women and children? They were all terrorists too, huh?

Finally, a few words now for jimmyvan1775:

Whether or not you choose to believe it, yours is an insulated worldview, shared by an ever-dwindling number of like-minded individuals. In fact, we are both in the minority with respect to our views on the Iraq War. I opposed the war from the beginning. You still support it now. In between, 35% of Americans withdrew their initial support for the war, with about 60% currently opposed, according to Gallup polling. Only about 40% support the war. Who are these people? Basically, they are the ill-informed, or should I say, misinformed. Despite the notion being debunked by the 9/11 commission and the Bush administration, 30% of Americans still believe Saddam was "personally involved" in the 9/11 attacks. In an internet world where information is so readily available, how are so many Americans so wrong about major current events? Is it stubbornness? Intellectual laziness? Fox News? Whatever the cause, Americans need to start allying themselves with the facts rather than blindly following the leader. The United States was founded on dissent. The founding fathers saw it necessary to include freedom of speech, freedom of the press and checks and balances to dissuade groupthink from stifling dissent. Because of these allowances, the truth about the Iraq War has come out and many Americans have changed their minds. Certainly you too are allowed dissent from the mainstream and continue to tow the GOP party line, but why would you? Why cling to beliefs that are just not true? Do you still believe the Earth is flat? Do you still think slavery was moral? Do you still think witches ought to be burned? Assuming the answer to each is no, why do you still cling to the idea that the Iraq War has anything to do with September 11th or making Americans safer? In this age of information, you have every opportunity to acquaint yourself with the truth. I humbly implore you to do so.

You can do it!!!!

Drinking the Sarah Palin Kool-Aid

When John McCain picked Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his running mate on August 29th, the campaign got a quick jolt of energy from the party's social conservative base, resulting in a momentary boost in the polls. This initial energy was met almost immediately with very pertinent questions about Palin's qualifications to hold the highest political office in the country. Since then, opinion of the governor has been on the decline, spurred on by her "Bridge to Nowhere" lies, the "Troopergate" scandal, her daughter's "shotgun weddin'", dead moose carcases, speaking in tongues, book burning, and a seemingly endless supply of public gaffes that would make Miss Teen South Carolina blush. As a result, the McCain campaign has seen a 5 percentage point lead in Gallup polling turn into a 9 point deficit.

So if McCain doesn't exactly have a Palin Problem, at best his campaign has seen zero net effect from her joining the ticket. The idea that Palin is not qualified to be President of the United States is hardly a matter of opinion. Holding office as governor of a small state and mayor of a very small town do not make an impressive resume. Say what you will about Barack Obama's lack of experience, but at least he has had experience at the national level. I would prefer a candidate with four years in the U.S. Senate to one with fifty years as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska. Public opinion seems to agree. 57% of those surveyed in a October 3 CNN poll said that Sarah Palin was not qualified to serve as president, compared to 18% who felt the same about Joe Biden. (It is interesting to note the very low number for Biden here. Almost any poll conducted about a candidate's likability, favorability, or readiness typically skews along party lines, with results usually falling between the 35% and 60% levels. Biden's 18% - compared to 80% who believe he IS qualified - is a staggeringly low number. This means a lot of Republicans swallowed their pride and admitted Biden is indeed prepared for the job and Sarah Palin is not.)

Certainly Obama's credentials can be debated. I would even feel more comfortable if he had one more term in the Senate. But when John McCain (the same John McCain who has cancer and would be the oldest president ever to take office) selected a first term governor of Alaska as his running mate, experience, for all practical purposes, was taken off the table. After all, who in their right mind would say that an already embattled first term governor from the nation's 47th most populous state is more qualified to lead the United States than a man who taught constitutional law for 12 years, was a state senator and community organizer from the third most populous city in the country, and served in the U.S. Senate for four years?

The answer, of course, is no one. No one in their right mind, that is. That hasn't prevented the radical right from not only coming to the defense of the flailing Palin, but from engaging on some sort of Palin worship that truly boggles the mind. Conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt is currently working on a book entitled, How Sarah Palin Won the Election ... and Saved America. Another conservative pundit, Randall H. Nunn, had this observation: Sarah Palin is "quite possibly the strongest candidate conservatives have seen since Ronald Reagan." What? Not better than Reagan? So you can see the kind of derangement I'm talking about. That said, I give you my Top 7 Most Ridiculous Things said in Defense of Sarah Palin:

7. Palin is a "real person" and that qualifies her to be President. Ironically, Republicans seem to love Sarah Palin because there is nothing exceptional about her. When news of Palin's pregnant 17 year old daughter was announced, Republicans lined up to praise Palin for it. The pregnancy made Palin "a real person like all the rest of us" and "show[ed] the Republican Party is a real American party," according to two RNC delegates. Conservative pundit Frank Salvato more eloquently stated Palin's qualifications thusly:

At this, our country’s most critical hour, when irreverent forces – both foreign and domestic – strive to destroy our nation, we should all be thankful that a real American, with real life experience as a citizen and a patriot’s love of country, chooses to exercise civic responsibility.

You can almost hear "Battle Hymn of the Republic" in the background. New York Times contributer Judith Warner summed up the right's affection for "real people" over qualified people in her blog:

One of the worst poisons of the American political climate right now, the thing that time and again in recent years has led us to disaster, is the need people feel for leaders they can “relate” to.

Or, as Bill Maher less eloquently put it, "shit-kickers voted twice for a retarded guy they wanted to have a beer with and everybody else had to suffer the consequences." As long as the GOP continues to lose on the issues, they will frame this election as "The Real People" versus "The Elitists." Of course, the Democrats could just as easily frame the election as "The Smart People" versus "The Dumb People" or "The Wrong Ideas" versus "The Right Ideas," but they shouldn't have to. Being "elite" is not a bad thing, nor does it make one an elitist. No offense to all the "real people" out there (a group to which I also belong), but let's leave the job of governing the greatest power in the world to the elites this time.

6. Defending censorship. Michelle Malkin posted on her website an entry entitled, "The Bogus Sarah Palin Banned Books List," assailing an obviously phony list circulating the internet after evidence of Sarah Palin's desire to ban books as mayor of Wasilla surfaced. The problem with Malkin's rescue effort: nowhere does she refute the story that Palin tried to ban books, only that the "list" was a fake. And she does so with such self-satisfaction as to make one's stomach turn. Palin's book-banning is a story that I don't think has gotten nearly enough traction. She later tried to terminate the librarian who opposed banning books. After a public outcry, Palin backed down, claiming the librarian was marked for termination because she was friendly to her opponent in the most recent mayoral election. A couple of things to take from this episode. One, the book banning allegations have not been sufficiently debunked. Two, I seriously doubt there was hardcore porn on the shelves at the Wasilla Library. Chances are, Palin was seeking to censor books with an anti-Christian or anti-Conservative message. Three, you know you're small potatoes when you send a political payback message to the town librarian. I hope the janitors at city hall support Palin if they value their jobs.

5. The faux outrage over Obama's "lipstick on a pig" comment. Even though John McCain and other politicians have used the common expression, many claimed it was directed at Sarah Palin. Of course, Obama was talking about McCain's policies, not Palin, but the McCain campaign and the right-wing media went forward with the outrage anyway. Jane Swift, head of the "Palin Truth Squad," seemed to think it was crystal clear: "Senator Obama uttered what I can only describe to be disgusting comments, comparing our vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, to a pig." Swift also noted that "she's the only one of the four presidential candidates or vice-presidential candidates who wears lipstick." Well, that's good enough for me. Here's the entire right-wing thought process on this one (in your best caveman voice): "Palin say lipstick. Obama say lipstick. Me mad!!!"

Right-wing tough guy Sean Hannity maintained the faux outrage even after guest Mike Huckabee refuted the claim. September 9th on Hannity and Colmes, the clip of Palin's hockey mom/pit bull knee-slapper was played immediatly preceeding the Obama "lipstick" comment. After Huckabee explained the ubiquity of the expression, Hannity insisted that, "He's talking about Sarah Palin," and it's "naive and irresponsible" to believe otherwise.

This phony "pig" controversy is made even more ridiculous by the fact that it's being feuled by the campaign of a man who actually joked about the physical appearance of a political opponent's teenaged daughter:

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno."

-John McCain, 1998

4. Palin's bogus foreign policy credentials. Perhaps the most hilarious defense of Sarah Palin is the idea that Alaska's geographic proximity to eastern Russia somehow gives her adequate foreign policy experience to be President. First, how does physical proximity yield experience? I live down the street from a hospital, but I wouldn't say I'm qualified to be a doctor. Yet Palin herself made this moronic claim, after the right began repeating it ad nauseum. Fox's Steve Doocy made the claim on Fox and Friends on August 29th (the day Palin was nominated), saying, "she does know about international relations because she is right up there in Alaska right next door to Russia." A few days later, Cindy McCain repeated it. Then John McCain said it. Even if Palin's foreign policy theory were true, it would only be helpful if the U.S. were to enter into a conflict with Russia (or, I suppose, Canada). As Palin will soon learn, there are 190 other countries in the world, many of which share no border with the United States.

3. Criticism of Palin = sexism. Let's get one thing perfectly clear: if Barack Obama had chosen Hillary Clinton as his running mate, no one outside of Alaska would know who Sarah Palin is. McCain certainly could have chosen Mike Huckabee or Sam Brownback if he really wanted to appeal to the Christian conservative base. He chose Palin because she is a woman, plain and simple. That is the very essense of sexism. But to hear the right tell it, it's not the selection of Palin but the often well-deserved criticism of her that is sexist. Rush Limbaugh claimed that the ethics investigation into Palin's firing of an Alaska State Trooper is "pure sexism." That's right. Investigating a woman is sexist, according to Limbaugh. The sexism claims don't stop there. McCain advisor Carly Fiorina cried sexism after the SNL's initial portrayal of Governor Palin (played by that chauvanist pig Tina Fey). Dick Morris was lampooned by Jon Stewart for his Palin-Hillary double-standard. Speaking of the initial Palin media frenzy, Morris claimed that "a man would never have had to go through this." Except several months earlier he essentially said that if Hillary Clinton couldn't take the heat, she should get back in the kitchen. The bottom line is that Sarah Palin is woefully unqualified to be President, and it has nothing to do with gender. Like the "lipstick on a pig" fake controversy, the phony sexist outrage seems almost choreographed by the McCain campaign and the right wing media. It's now beginning to look like Palin was chosen to allow the campaign to play the gender card.

2. Palin Derangement Syndrome (PDS). At some point shortly after the Republican National Convention, right-wing talking heads were dispatched with the identical message that critics of Sarah Palin - her experience, her intelligence, her political views or her campaign tactics - have no logical basis for such criticism. It's virtually identical to Bush Derangement Syndrome, an idea put forth to shield George W. Bush from frequently warranted criticism. It's the idea that any criticism of a Bush is spawned from irrational hatred of the man, not his actions, abilities or beliefs. Michelle Malkin was out in front of this one, first claiming PDS after news surfaced that a pregnant Palin had boarded a plane for Alaska after her water broke in Texas, hardly an obstetric recommendation. On September 12, John Fund of the Wall Street Journal cried PDS on Bill Maher in defense of Palin's embarrassing interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson. On September 18, Cinnamon Stillwell of The San Francisco Chronicle (yes, apparently it's possible to be named Cinnamon and not be a stripper) gave an ominous warning to PDS-stricken Democrats that "a public backlash over perceived media bias against Palin may be brewing." If that is the case, this brew is taking quite a while to ferment. It has been three weeks since Stillwell's prediction, a period that has seen the percentage of people that feel Palin is qualified to be President drop from 50% to 43%. So, if anything, Palin Derangement Syndrome more aptly describes those on the right who still feel Sarah Palin is a qualified candidate for national office. What PDS really is is an effort to group all criticism of Sarah Palin, warranted or otherwise, under the same umbrella and write it off as sheer lunacy.

1. Sarah Palin is more qualified that Barack Obama. Say what you will about Obama's relative lack of experience, but compared to Obama, Palin looks like a small-town mayor. Oh, well, yes, I guess that's what she is. Poor analogy. But check out some of these fanatical statements:

• McCain staffer Jill Hazelbaker: "She has a record of accomplishment that Senator Obama simply cannot match."


• Rudy Giuliani: "She had to make decisions....All Senator Obama has had to do is talk. That's all he does.”


• Rush Limbaugh: "She's more qualified than Barack Obama....He has not done one thing to qualify himself to be President of the United States."


• Randall Nunn of The New Media Alliance: "Governor Palin understands the Bill of Rights better than this Harvard trained elitist."

Much of the Republican's claim hinges on the idea that one must hold an executive capacity to be a great president. One need not have any experience in national politics, but being a state governor and having "executive" experience is really what counts. Of course, very recently we have enjoyed the presidency of someone who was governor for a longer period of time from a much larger state, coupled with vast executive experience at the corporate level. His name was George W. Bush, and we all know how that ended up. (in case you're unaware, Bush's approval rating has recently polled as low as 22%.) Republicans are now suggesting that someone not as qualified as Bush on the same experience assessment is somehow more qualified than Barack Obama. Good luck with that one.

More "Shady" Tactics by the GOP

You really have to admire the ingenuity of the Republican Party. When the typical assortment of innuendo, spin, demonization, ad hominem, flag-waving and fear-mongering aren't enough, Republicans get creative. This week Open Left and Think Progress both covered a story about a rather brash Republican smear campaign launched by embattled congressman Virgil Goode. The campaign ran an ad (video here) literally altering their opponent's physical appearance.

The Democratic challenger, Tom Perriello is portrayed in the ad as a bearded, swarthy, sinister character. What's the problem, you ask? Only that Perriello doesn't really look like that.

As you can see (above picture comes from Perriello's own campaign website), Perriello has light brown hair and what might easily be called a fair complexion. So who's that menacing rogue pictured in the smear ad? Well, it's Tom Perriello, at a time when he was unfortunate enough to be photographed with a beard. Run the pic through Photoshop, add an ominous soundtrack and voila! A friendly-looking white guy becomes Lucifer personified. Here's what I'm talking about:



Above are the doctored image and the source image side by side. But let's forget for a minute how they doctored Perriello's appearance and instead focus on why they did it. I think that is fairly straightforward. Most voters in Virginia's 5th congressional district probably don't know what Tom Perriello looks like. If Virgil Goode can make people believe that some dark, hairy weirdo with (gasp!) a foreign-sounding surname is coming from New York to depose their congressman, it's probably to Goode's advantage. One could certainly argue that physically altering your opponent's appearance in a smear ad might not be the most virtuous path to re-election. Time and time again, however, Republicans seem to get away with this garbage, and this year will likely be no different.

Probably more disturbing than the utter lack of ethical constraint on the part of the Virgil Goode camp is the very blatant political fear-mongering this stunt represents. Republicans have often resorted to racist and xenophobic innuendo in political campaign ads. Why should this year be any exception. The dark, bearded and/or mustachioed and possibly foreign antagonist is an archetype whose connotations have been strengthened even more by recent U.S. history. Archetype? What archetype? Glad you asked.

There are the modern villains, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden:

Then we get into the realm of fictional and/or historical villains. Why not start with pirates:

Captain Jack Sparrow

Edward Teach (aka "Blackbeard")

Captain Hook

Captain Morgan

Then we move to famous cartoon villains:

Brutus/Bluto from Popeye

Stromboli from Pinocchio

Jafar from Aladdin

Captain Hook, once more

Duke Igthorn from Disney's Adventures of the Gummi Bears

Wario

And finally some archetypal villains of no particular classification:

The Sheriff of Nottingham

Count Rugan (aka, "The Six-Fingered Man") from The Princess Bride

"Evil" Spock

Andy from Pee Wee's Big Adventure

I guess my issue with this campaign tactic is not so much the dishonesty or lax ethics. What is truly disturbing is the idea that in 21st century American politics, a major party candidate feels the need to appeal to ignorance, xenophobia and racism in order to secure victory. Of course, even if Tom Perriello actually did look like Stromboli, that's still no reason not to vote for him. But evidently Virgil Goode doesn't think very highly of the voters in his congressional district. He believes these people are more likely to react to sinister images of his opponent than to vote on character or issues. In an election year that has seen a floundering American economy and two stagnant wars, that is an extremely cynical assessment of American political will.

On the September 12, 2008 edition of his HBO talk show, Bill Maher defined cynicism as it relates to the token nomination of Sarah Palin:

A real cynic is someone...who knows better but knows that the stupid people don't. They know what the dumb people don't but they know that somebody like that [Palin] can get over on the dumb people.

Virgil Goode certainly fits this definition of cynicism. Who knows? Maybe he's right. Maybe the best way to get elected to political office is to trick your constituency. One would hope, however, that this type of campaigning backfires on the GOP. One would hope for a voter revolt of sorts, where people simply say, enough already. We're tired of being talked down to. We're tired of being frightened into voting Republican. We're tired of Republicans assuming we hate foreigners and wierd names. Impeding this "revolt," unfortunately, is the fact that this Karl Rove style of campaigning usually works. As long as it works, I don't expect Republicans to stop employing it. So it's up to voters themselves to wise up. It really doesn't matter if Tom Perriello looks like a dark-skinned foreigner or whether Barack Obama has a peculiar sounding name. Here's a general rule you might want to follow: If Virgil Goode's attack ad makes you more likely to vote for Virgil Goode, then you probably shouldn't be voting.