Barack Obama: The First Black Nazi

No, no, no, no , no. For the last time, NO!!!

It seems that every few months or so, the right wingers in this country need a world history refresher course. In particular, they keep forgetting that WWII-era fascism was a distinctly right-wing movement, and instead go about attacking Democrats by comparing their policies to those of fascist regimes like the Nazi party. A year ago, when election season was in full swing, these attacks were running rampant, inspiring me to author the post Right-Wing Delusions: The Liberal Nazi, debunking an idiotic viral email that was circulating at the time.

Well, the Right is at it again. President Obama and the Democratic majority in congress are attempting to make some long-awaited and much-needed changes to the country. Unfortunately for Democrats, we live in a country where people don't know their history and can only make superficial historical associations. The above picture, for example, illustrates this concept. Any kind of social reform in the U.S., whether it is welfare, Medicare, education grants, food stamps, or Social Security, is going to be labeled "socialism" by the right. That's just the way it is. The problem is, the righties don't just stop there. Almost a soon as they hear the word socialism, a few tenuously connected neurons in their brains tell them that socialism sounds an awful lot like "National Socialism," i.e. the Nazi Party. "Hey, the Democrats are Nazis! Obama is a Nazi!"

Hold on.

Let's take a brief time-out to re-educate the Right about National Socialism. The Nazi Party was a fascist regime. The party was anti-Communist, anti-liberal, and anti-intellectual. They were characterized by extreme nationalism and militarism, and religion was used as a way to control the masses. The Nazis were also clearly anti-Semitic and anti-homosexual. Hmmm.... Sound like anyone we know? The idea that the Nazis, and fascism in general, were far-right movements is hardly a matter of debate. As the following diagram of political ideology illustrates, fascism was not only a right-wing movement, but a "double-right" movement, residing on the extreme right of both the social and economic axes (and you'll note, fascism is only slightly more extreme than modern conservatism.)



The one area where Hitler shared an ideology with the left was his anti-corporate view that sought to end huge salaries for the wealthy in order to boost the economic fortunes of Germany's poor. Of course, this anti-capitalist ideology was driven in large part by Hitler's disdain for the Jews and what he saw as their hoarding of capital. Hitler was clear to distinguish between this kind of "socialism" and the Marxist ideology of ceding personal property to the state. And Hitler's means of creating equality and high employment was quite unlike modern Democratic Socialist movements. Democratic Socialism (which I will discuss further) is practiced in modern Germany and throughout much of Western Europe today. It seeks to improve economic equality through, among other things, state-sponsored education and health care, support of labor unions and a robust minimum wage. Hitler tried to achieve economic equality by seizing Jewish-owned businesses, encouraging women to stay out of the workforce, and by employing millions in an enormous military and military industrial complex.

Oh yeah. Ever heard of the Neo-Nazis? The unequivocally right-wing hate group dedicated to helping White Aryans prevent the United States from becoming "a wilderness teeming with savages," to quote the website of the American Nazi Party.

Of course the modern Nazi movements aren't so concerned with bringing about economic equality, nor is it Hitler's economic policies that right wingers are hoping to invoke when they compare Democrats to Nazis. The modern Republican Party has become a herd of sheep capable only of making simple associations and knee-jerk reactions. My theory is that when Republican politicians and talking heads continually talk down to their underlings, many of them simply flee the party. Those that remain never realize their intelligence is being insulted. So when Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh equate the Democratic Party with Nazism or fascism, the validity of such a comparison is rarely evaluated. It is simply accepted as fact, even though National Socialism and especially fascism are just about as diametrically opposed to the Progressive Democratic ideology as is possible.

It helps to understand that when Republican Party leaders compare Democrats with Nazis, they know it is a ridiculous claim to make, but they also know that their followers will not question it. What better way to discredit a political party than by equating it to one of the most oppressive, murderous and purely evil regimes in human history. As a political strategy, it is little more than very well-organized name-calling, yet it's surprisingly effective.

As we saw last summer, when the economy was in free fall and the GOP's chances of winning in 2008 were plummeting, Republicans will almost always play the Nazi/fascist card when backed into a corner. Take our current debate on health care reform. I'm certainly not opposed to debate on this issue because it is complicated and it effects many people very differently. However, in any debate, the opposing arguments must first be clearly defined. If President Obama's message is (or should be): "Healthcare costs are out of control," "Insurance companies are profiting by not treating you" and "People being bankrupted by hospital bills is un-American," then what is the opposing viewpoint? Healthcare costs are just fine, thank you? Healthcare-induced bankruptcy makes me proud to be an American? Well, no. Of course those are not the arguments being pursued by the Right. That would be insane. In their place, the right has peddled lies like "Death Panels," "government-sponsored abortion" and "euthanasia." And the Right's weapon of choice: Claims that Obama's rather modest healthcare proposals are essentially America's descent into Soviet-style socialism. What Obama and Democrats in congress are proposing is in reality a compromise between what we have now (a private insurer-dominated marketplace) and what modern capitalist nations like Canada, France, the UK and Sweden already have, a single-payer system. Essentially the current healthcare reform simply aims to extend the current Medicare system to people other than seniors, and enrollment would be completely voluntary.

According to a recent CNN/Opinion Research poll, roughly three-quarters of Americans feel major changes are needed to bring down healthcare costs and to insure the uninsured. Given that the proposed changes to healthcare are necessary, just, beneficial, cost-effective and popular, righties are again backed against into a corner. Time to play the Nazi card:

• Last week Rush Limbaugh said the Obama health care logo looked eerily similar to the Nazi Party logo. He even posted a graphical representation on his website, which bears the question, "Who's similar to Nazis?" The healthcare "logo" on Obama's website is essentially the standard Obama campaign logo with a caduceus on top of it. Of course the Obama logo just as easily resembles the U.S. Marines logo, but don't expect Rush to be comparing Obama to the Marines any time soon.
  

The Obama Healthcare logo

The Nazi logo from Limbaugh website

Marines logo

• On August 6, Limbaugh went on a diatribe claiming that the Democratic Party, modern Democratic socialism, and the Nazi Party are "all bundled up under the socialist banner."

• For several days, Glenn Beck has been pushing the eugenics angle. Somehow he has determined that Obama's health care reform will lead to the government essentially weeding out the weaker Americans as a cost-cutting measure. The whole rationing argument is so wholeheartedly stupid and irresponsible that it makes my brain hurt. As if private health insurers just treat anyone at any time for any condition. If anything, a government health program could offer more care because they aren't making a profit on your health. And what would you call leaving the poor, uninsured and underinsured to go broke or die because that's what the free market dictates? I know there's a word for that somewhere, you know, allowing the weakest of the species die off.... Damn! What is that word????!!!!
  

• Taking their cue from Beck and Limbaugh, right-wing protesters carried signs bearing swastikas and other Nazi comparisons, as blogger Motor City Liberal detailed in a recent post.

• A day after appearing on Glenn Beck's TV program, U.S. Rep. David Scott (D-GA) had his congressional office vandalized with a large swastika.

The list goes on and on. All this because Obama and the Democrats are seeking to fix a broken healthcare-for-profit system, for seeking to provide a basic human right. After all, it's illegal to refuse to treat a sick or injured person but it is perfectly legal to refuse to insure them. I'm sure there are elements of the proposed bills that are less than perfect. But to make up things about the bill that aren't there and to compare it's sponsors to murderous, fascist regimes is almost inhuman. Again, there are elements of Nazi Party socialism in nearly every modern socialist movement. But let's be honest. No one remembers Hitler for building the Autobahn or sponsoring great feats of German architecture. They remember him - as he should be remembered - as an egomaniacal, power-hungry propagandist who nearly exterminated a race of people and almost single-handedly started the most violent conflict in the history of the world. It is this impression of Nazism that is indelibly burned into the minds of millions of right-wing automatons when the Becks and Limbaughs of the world belittle the efforts of Democrats to bring about a more civilized America.

I will say this, though. If Obama wants to steer clear of all fascism and personality cult comparisons, he may want to tone down the whole propaganda poster thing.

Bad Day for the Birthers

Where's the birth certificate? Oh, right, there it is.

Last week I documented a right-wing phenomenon known as the "Birther" movement. The fringe, nut-job movement enjoyed about a week of mainstream media recognition. Albeit more about spectacle than legitimacy, they did get mainstream support from CNN's resident xenophobe Lou Dobbs, until Dobbs was instructed to drop the story by CNN management.

On Monday, the Birthers were dealt two severe blows to their already futile cause. First, the House of Representatives passed a resolution containing the provision, “Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii.” The resolution passed by a vote of 378-0, with four of the movement's biggest supporters in congress voting with the majority.

Also on Monday, the State of Hawaii certified the birth of Barack Obama in Hawaii, even though they had already this prior to the 2008 presidential election. Evidently beseiged with requests from media outlets and concerned citizens, the State Department of Health again confirmed that Obama "was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen."

So the question remains: Will double whammy finally put an end to the Birthers? If I know anything about right-wing nutjobs, I'm inclined to believe they will endure. I think this will probably put an end to the movement's support in congress as well as much of the mainstream media coverage. But the movement's most ardent believers won't be deterred by these latest realities because the Birther movement is not based in reality. The Birthers exist in a right-wing fantasy world, where George W. Bush was our greatest president, Sarah Palin is a rising political star, and Barack Obama is a radical Muslim terrorist from Kenya. As long as people are uncomfortable with Barack Obama being president they will continue support outrageous conspiracy theories in an attempt to somehow invalidate the Obama presidency.

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.

Where are all the conservative bumper stickers???

Recently I've seen a lot of bumper stickers on cars espousing a variety of political views. Interestingly (at least where I live) these stickers almost exclusively portray "liberal" sentiments or values. From "War is not the answer" to "Impeach Bush," liberals have cornered the market on bumper self-expression.


I started to imagine examples of possible "conservative" bumper stickers, and as I did so, I started to understand why you don't see very many. Almost every conservative slogan or talking point I could conceive was either ridiculous or just downright offensive when I imagined it prominently displayed on one's vehicle. Perhaps "Pro Life" is fairly innocuous, probably only offensive to abortion doctors and victims of a rape-induced pregnancy. And conservatives don't own the American flag, so only bumper stickers that are belligerently patriotic could be considered to be "conservative."


With that in mind, I thought I would utilize some free time at work - along with the Microsoft Paint program pre-installed on my PC - to provide some examples some of the more ridiculous and inconsistent conservative values:

Election '08: The tireless Right-wing effort to convince America that Barack Obama is a Muslim

Tell me that isn't a mosque in the background

Yesterday, 2008 Presidential hopeful Barack Obama won the Iowa Caucuses, taking 38% of the vote to John Edwards' 30% and Hillary Clinton's 29%. The results solidified Obama as a real contender to win the Democratic nomination and eventually the General Election. Many on the Right, however, have realized the Obama threat a while ago, and haven't waited until the General Election to start smearing him. His supposed inexperience, his position on Pakistan, his sex education policy, even his choice of fashion accessories. But a somewhat more subtle, and in my opinion irrelevant, tactic has been to question Obama's religion. While some have chosen to attack Obama's church, essentially lumping the Trinity United Church of Christ in with Jim Jones, David Koresh, the Reverend Moon and Tom Cruise, others have taken a different approach: prove to the world that Barack Obama is a Muslim.

• Conservative website Insightmag.com peddled a since-debunked story that Obama was educated at a Madrassa, a Muslim seminary school, and attributed the false story to the Hillary Clinton campaign.


• In a December, 2007 interview with Good Morning America, Right-wing pundit Glenn Beck "mistakenly" referred to Obama as "Osama" before correcting himself. "Unfortunate name," was Beck's excuse for the supposed flub.


• Conservative Frontpagemag.com published an article on December 26, 2007, using discredited accounts of a childhood acquaintance to answer that age-old question, "Was Obama Ever a Muslim?"


• Debbie Schlussel has devoted at least three blog posts to cracking the case of Obama's secret Muslim identity. In Schlussel's view, we should apply Islamic law:

  In Arab culture and under Islamic law, if your father is a Muslim, so are you.
  And once a Muslim, always a Muslim.

• Schlussel later outdid herself, posing the question of whether Barack Obama was a "man we want as President when we are fighting the war of our lives against Islam? Where will his loyalties be?"
  
• Bernard McGuirk, former executive producer of Imus in the Morning, criticized Obama for having a "Jew-hating name." Really.


• Radical right-wing website Freedomsenemies.com, states that Obama has been "a Muslim for 31 years."


• CNN Correspondent Jeff Greenfield suggested that Obama and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad somehow have similar tastes in fashion, adding:
  

  Now, it is one thing to have a last name that sounds like Osama and a middle name, Hussein, that is probably less than helpful. But an outfit that reminds people of a charter member of the Axis of Evil?

• In an apparent slip of the tongue, presidential hopeful Mitt Romney committed the common mistake of confusing Obama with Osama bin Laden:
  
  

  Actually, just look at what Osam—Barack Obama—said just yesterday. Barack Obama, calling on radicals, jihadists of all different types, to come together in Iraq.

• Rush Limbaugh referred to the Senator as "Obama Osama" no less than seven times during the June 11, 2005 edition of his radio program.
  

In addition to these concerted efforts to link Obama with Islam, the somewhat more innocent practice of using Obama's full name, Barack Hussein Obama, has become part of the right-wing canon. While I'm sure Obama appreciates the courtesy, the fact that these conservatives fail to refer to other politicians by their full names makes it clear that the real, not so innocent, intent is to make Obama appear more Muslim. The following pundits have all used this tactic:

• Ed Rogers, former advisor to Bush, Sr.
• Ann Coulter
• Richard "Bo" Dietl, frequent Fox News "analyst"
• Rush Limbaugh
• Chris Matthews
• Bill Bennett
• Bill Cunningham, conservative radio talk show host (actually falsely added "Mohammed" to Obama's name to give it some extra Muslim flair)

While the attacks by the "professional media" have been petty enough, those lobbed at Obama by Joe Righty have been truly idiotic:

• "There's no way that anyone with the middle name 'Hussein' could rise to that level of power in the United States without being the devil, in my opinion." - caller on The John Gibson Show


• "He's not open about being a practicing Muslim." - poster validuscustodiae on redstate.com


• "Hussein Obama is a dangerous covert muslism." - poster huckabeefan on redstate.com


• An email circulating in 2006 claimed that Obama's father was a "radical Muslim" and that Obama swore his oath of office on the Koran, both outrageously false.


• Conservative "blog," (to put it nicely) http://barack-hussein-obama.blogspot.com/, claimed that "Barack Obama is a MUSLIM. No ifs ands or buts," and placed this tasteful picture of Obama in front of the burning World Trade Center on the website:

Why is this a big deal? Well, it shouldn't be. A candidate's religious background means almost as little to me as his or her middle name. But as I'm beginning to discover, I'm not always like most Americans. A Pew research survey conducted in 2007 found that 45% of Americans would be less likely to vote for a candidate who is a Muslim.

So clearly, religion does matter. (Interestingly enough, and in spite of the anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S. after 9/11, Americans would still prefer a Muslim president to an atheist.) But even without the anti-Muslim hostility, the United States is still overwhelmingly a Christian nation, and candidates who appear to have more in common with the average American are traditionally seen to have an advantage. That is where I believe this effort to Muslimize Barack Obama stems from. I have to give the average American some credit. Despite the Arab name and Muslim stepfather, and even though 9/11 is still very fresh in people's minds, I don't think people are going to believe Obama is the Trojan Horse of radical Islam. But as many analysts expect another tight election in 2008, every vote counts, especially among independents. Evangelicals are not going to vote for Barack Obama, but your average, moderate Christian might, which is why conservatives are trying so hard to make Obama's "Musliminess" a wedge with which the GOP can create distance between Obama and independent voters. If Obama retains the momentum garnered from his victory in Iowa and wins the nomination, expect this sort of nonsense to increase exponentially. Because, while it is not okay in this country to attack a candidate for being black or being a female, sadly it's still okay to attack them for being Muslim.

GOP in '08: Pinning Their Hopes on Symbolic Patriotism

How can hundreds of the Right-wing's most decorated brass hide behind a 3/4" square piece of, well, decorated brass? When it's the hundreds of pro-war Republican congressmen and Bush administration officials taking safe refuge by donning the ubiquitous American flag lapel pin.

Recently, Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama explained in a campaign speech that he no longer wears his American flag lapel pin because of what it had come to symbolize.

...I probably haven't worn a flag pin in a very long time. After a while I noticed people wearing a lapel pin and not acting very patriotic....My attitude is that I'm less concerned about what you're wearing on your lapel than what's in your heart. You show your patriotism by how you treat your fellow Americans, especially those who serve. You show your patriotism by being true to our values and ideals. That's what we have to lead with is our values and our ideals.

The truth is that right after 9/11 I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security.

The whole thing is really a non-issue. I mean, it's a lapel pin, and Obama only brought it up because a reporter questioned him about it. It's not as if he called together a press conference or put the word out in a prime time TV ad. Of course, I don't need to tell anyone how Joe Righty felt about Obama's comments:

"Seeing something wrong with a flag pin or the flag ain’t too sharp. What an ASS!!!!!" - comment from stuckonstupid.com

Here's your textbook right-wing kneejerk reaction. "Look, everyone! Obama hates the American flag! I always knew there was something fishy about that guy, what with that weird name and tan complexion."

"Remember, he WAS wearing one after 9/11. Then he feels the need to put out a press release when it takes it off. He's a pandering piece of crap." - comment from RedState.com

First of all buddy, after 9/11, everyone was wearing a lapel pin, sporting T-shirts or driving around with those car window flags. If there was a positive consequence of 9/11, it was the temporary boost in the sale of cheaply produced patriotic merchandise imported from China. But I digress....The point is, if you finally decided to take down those American flags from your car windows, it doesn't make you a hypocrite. It doesn't make you un-American. And as I mentioned earlier, Obama was responding to a question specifically about the pin, so no, lapel pins are not going to be a central issue on the Obama '08 ticket.

"I have no flagpole at the moment to hang Old Glory, but proudly hang my Blue Star flag in my bedroom window until The Man comes home. Also, I place my ‘Support the Troops’ yellow ribbon magnet on the front of my car, so leftist hippie morons know precisely why I am about to run them down." -comment from MichelleMalkin.com

Very nice. Let everyone know what a great American you are right before you threaten to run your fellow Americans over in your car. The right really does it with class, don't they?

"If you cannot display an American Flag lapel pin to show Patriotism, you are NOT worthy of American air." - conservative blog Take Our Country Back

How about this: If you cannot display any patriotism other than displaying an American Flag lapel pin, you are NOT worthy of American air.

Fortunately, not everyone got it wrong. On Redstate.com of all places, a user commented:

"The only country I can think of where citizens are required to wear pins to prove their patriotism and loyalty is North Korea. Look closely at a picture of North Koreans, and you'll see the ubiquitous little lapel pins of Dear Leader.

He's also not wearing a sandwich board that says 'I love my Mom,' but it doesn't mean he doesn't. Let's let the man accessorize in peace."

Many of these flag-impaled lapels adorn suits belonging to some Republicans who have, in recent years, been "less than patriotic" to put it nicely. Some have been downright bad Americans. Yet the lapel pin remains, not as some symbol of one's inner character, dedication to that which is noble or devotion to country, but as a quick reminder that "Hey, you can't question my character or patriotism! See here? See this lapel pin?"

(more to come...)

Mitt in '08: Not Happening

Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney recently spoke before a crowd in Iowa. A full account of the story can be found here. Long story short, Romney equated his sons' work on his campaign to service to the country. Of course, a gaffe like this wouldn't be acceptable during peacetime, but with an ongoing war in the Middle East, Romney's comments should just about finish him off, sturdy chin and all.

Shockingly, the mainstream media all but ignored the gaffe. Luckily The Daily Show devoted a segment to it, which can be viewed here.

Believe it or not, the Right flocked to defend Romney's comments. Comments on USA Today's blog offered these gems:

"Lets see, what army did Hilly and Barak serve in? Maybe the career politician's wife army, the Wal Mart army or the Nigerian madrassa army."

"Is Mit(sic) Romney running for president or his sons?...They are adults and they make their own decisions. "

"This is America and, right now, there is no conscription so get over it."

"I guess I forgot that Clinton was a war hero, as was Obama and Hillary. And let's not forget that Chelsea was a Navy Seal when she decided to serve her country."

Not surprisingly, these Righties completely missed the relevance of Romney's statements. The point is NOT that Romney's sons chose not to serve in the military. No one is suggesting a parent should steer their children into military service (that's what military recruiters are for). The point of the story is that the ever-hawkish Romney is equating military service with working for your dad's election campaign (and doing so in wartime, no less). There are few things one can do that can compare to wartime military service. Maybe an undercover police officer or firefighter, but I'm pretty certain working on your dad's presidential campaign is not even in the same ballpark as military service. Just because your dad is running for public office doesn't mean you are providing some public service.

The problem with Romney's statement is that he should have stopped talking at: "They've chosen not to serve in the military in active duty and I respect their decision in that regard."
To add the line: "my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president," is disrespectful to the many, many Americans who don't think Romney would make a great president and don't feel his sons' work should be considered "supporting our nation." Last I checked, our nation was made up of many diverse people, not just those who would vote for Mitt Romney, which by recent polls is only about 6-8% of Republicans.

Helping to elect a president is not any service to the country. It is service to one particular candidate from one particular party. In Romney's case, it is a service to a very small percentage of Americans who want to see Mitt elected (as I mentioned, only 6-8% of HIS OWN PARTY!). Given that many of Mitt's views (Guantanamo, the Iraq surge, the environment, health care, Mormonism) are out of touch with MOST of America, one could reasonably argue that aiding Mitt's campaign is actually a DISSERVICE to the country AS A WHOLE.

I have volunteered for my political party before, and I can proudly say I lack the audacity to call my service a "service to the country." I was providing a service to my political party, and no one else. By contrast, our military doesn't discriminate who it supports and defends. The military defends ALL Americans EQUALLY, regardless of gender, race, economic status or political ideology, thus military service qualifies as "service to the country."

Perhaps if Mitt is elected, and his sons were to assume government posts (and not political ones), they could be considered public servants. However, if the current Bush administration is any indication, the office of the presidency doesn't exactly serve all Americans equally either. If you are a GOP campaign contributor, a corporation, an evangelical, a right-wing pundit, or "loyal Bushie," the service you receive from the executive branch is much different from the service the rest of us get.