Score One For McCain!

"Like, McCain totally has foreign policy skills"

As Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continue to battle for the Democratic nomination, John McCain is busy locking up key endorsements. This week, McCain secured the much-sought-after endorsement of quasi-celebrity Heidi Montag. Montag, a "star" of MTV's scripted reality series The Hills, was quoted in Us Weekly magazine, espousing her preference for the aging politician. "I'm a Republican and McCain has a lot of experience," she stated.

You may be asking yourself, "Who the %@*$ is Heidi Montag?" True, scripted reality television may be a harbinger of the Apocalypse. Sure, a spoiled, Paris Hilton wannabe may not possess any real political clout. But let's not diminish the importance of this endorsement.

First, the Montag endorsement has shown a real breadth of support for McCain's candidacy. Now, he's got the senior vote and the youth vote. He's got the support of those that decry the political influence of the "Hollywood Elite," and, well, a Hollywood elitist. And while some viewers will naively dismiss scripted reality shows like The Hills and it's predecessor Laguna Beach as contrived, disingenuous garbage, centered around spoiled rich assholes you couldn't care less about, that couldn't be further from the truth. Montag is really a crossover sensation, and The Hills can potentially appeal to both reality TV and dramatic TV viewers. That's a very large demographic group, and with Montag is his corner, McCain has it all but locked up.

But in all seriousness, are we really that surprised that this flavor of the week, soon-to-be coke fiend is a Republican? Now if a young Hollywood star like Ellen Page were a Republican, that would be absolutely shocking. But Heidi Montag, not so much. She's rich, she's from Orange County, and she dates this douchebag:

Enough Said.

Now I'll admit that I don't really see Montag's announcement as a valuable "endorsement," but I'm going to have some fun with this anyway. Montag, 21, strikes me as someone who is a Republican because her parents are Republicans. A telltale sign that one is not particularly politically aware is when they are under 30 and vote for a Republican. When I was 18, I voted for Bob Dole, for Christ's sake. Why? Because my parents were Republicans and I didn't know any better. The fact that her basis for the endorsement was because "I'm a Republican," indicates the shallow depth of analysis Heidi Montag has to offer this election cycle.

While McCain will certainly take any vote he can get from anyone under the age of 60, I'm not so sure the Montag endorsement is all that great for McCain. First, it is an endorsement from someone who doesn't have the slightest credentials with which to make an endorsement. Something tells me Montag's not super excited about staying in Iraq for the next 100 years or privatizing social security. Secondly, if there's one thing typical Americans can do without, it is rich, spoiled, overexposed, talentless trust fund socialites. If I was an undecided voter and Heidi Montag (or Nicole Richie, Kim Kardashian or whomever), preferred one candidate, I'd vote for the other guy. Finally, it's not like this is an endorsement that will resonate with any key voting bloc. Ironically, most people interested in who Heidi Montag would vote for are too busy paying attention to people like Heidi Montag to even vote in the first place.

A Wolf in Elephant's Clothing?

Last week, a Mark Deli Siljander, a former Michigan congressman and Reagan appointee to the United Nations, was indicted on charges he helped raise funds and lobby for an organization with financial ties to Al-Qaeda.

Siljander, a Republican, served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1981 until 1987. He then served as a U.S. representative to the United Nations General Assembly for one year. In his private career, Siljander worked for a Christian Conservative Non-profit Organization, a Washington DC Lobbying Firm, and later for the Islamic American Relief Agency, the organization charged with aiding a known Al-Qaeda terrorist.

Clearly it is a shocking development when a former U.S. congressman is indicted for aiding a terrorist organization. However, if you have been paying attention to the right-wing talking heads and occasionally the mainstream media, the real surprise in this story might have been: "Shouldn't this guy have been a Democrat?"

For years, Republicans, as well as the right-wing media have been obsessed with telling the American people that the Democratic Party is the "Al-Qaeda Party." Presumably based in very reasonable Democratic objections to the Iraq War, The Patriot Act, Guantanamo, torture, domestic spying, and other questionable Republican anti-terror endeavors, right-wingers have scored political points perverting the Democrats' desire to preserve basic constitutional freedoms with some Democrat-Al-Qaeda alliance. Since Republican policies run in contrast to most Americans' best interests, the party decided after September 11th that one of the few winning issues they had left, national security, would be exploited at all costs. According to a July 2007 poll, when rating the political parties on different issues, Republicans were rated higher than Democrats on just three of 20 issues: moral values, a strong military, and national security. Even then, Republicans were viewed as stronger on national security by a mere 3 to 2 margin over Democrats, whereas Americans favored Democrats on their "strong" issues - global warming and health care - by a margin of about 5 to 1.

The point is, that Republicans will beat the drum of national security for as long as they are seen as strong in that area. As Americans became disenchanted with "staying the course" in Iraq, for example, Republicans largely stopped campaigning on that issue. To keep from losing their grip on one of their few remaining selling points, Republicans must:

A) Continually remind Americans that we are under attack from radical Islam, and

B) Make themselves appear stronger than Democrats on fighting Islamic terrorism.

One component of this strategy has been the effort to link Democrats and other liberals with radical Islam. Below are a few (actually a lot of) examples of this going on in the media:

• Just this week, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton suggested that "mullahs" in Iran are hoping for a Democratic victory in 2008 because a Democrat would allow Iran to continue it's supposed nuclear weapons program. According to Bolton, Iran is "thinking about...the Democratic nominee winning. I think they’re going try and string this thing out in hopes that they’ll find some more pliable administration in the White House." While it would certainly be to the benefit of Iran to not have a sabre-rattling lunatic that has talked openly about preemptive war, Iran halted their nuclear weapons program in 2003, so a Democrat in the White House would be irrelevent in this regard.

• Conservative author and newspaper columnist Dinesh D'Souza attacked liberals in his book, The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11. I guess the title pretty much sums it up, but yes, he claimed that 9/11 would not have happened if not for liberals.

• John Gibson, on his radio program in August of 2007, claimed that certain Democrats may have bargained with Al-Qaeda before the November 2006 elections, presumably because an Al-Qaeda attack would benefit Republicans in the election. Gibson went as far as to announce, "Hillary makes a deal with Al Qaeda."

• Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh had this photoshopped picture of Osama Bin laden posted on his website (notice Bin laden's party affiliation):
  

• In 2006, Glenn Beck told newly-elected congressman Keith Ellison, a Democrat and practicing Muslim, "Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies." As outrageous as that statement might be, at least Beck called the congressman "Sir."



• A 2006 New York Post editorial regarding the Senate confirmation hearings of controversial U.N. ambassador John Bolton, claimed that, "Democrats have an obligation to demonstrate conclusively to America's enemies that they don't have allies on Capitol Hill." The editorial also claimed that terrorists "were rejoicing last week and feeling emboldened in the wake of the Dems' victory."



• Weeks before the 2006 Congressional Election, Rush Limbaugh claimed that "The key voters...in this year's election are the terrorists, the Islamofascists, the jihadists," and that increased violence in Iraq at the time meant that "the terrorists around the world, and particularly, those in Iraq, are voting Democrat today."



• In 2006, after President Bush exploited the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks to drum up support for the unrelated Iraq War, Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) said of those critical of the Bush speech, “I wonder if they’re more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people.”



• After the death of Iraq insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in June 2006, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) issued a statement suggesting Zarqawi was only a "mere sliver" of the Iraqi violence and that anti-U.S. violence will continue as long as U.S. troops are in Iraq. Radio host Don Imus responded by suggesting Kucinich might take Zarqawi's place as leader of the anti-U.S. insurgency.



• Leading up to the 2006 Congressional Election, VP Dick Cheney suggested that voting for Iraq War critic Ned Lamont over the hawkish Joe Lieberman would embolden "the al Qaeda types" who want to "break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task."



• In a posting at GOP Bloggers, contributor Jon Roth cited a disputed article in the far right Wall Street Journal opinion page in leveling serious accusations on Democrats opposed to the warrantless surveillance program. According to Roth, critics of the illegal program, who sought to hold the government and telecommunications companies accountable for violating Americans' privacy rights, were "Aiding al-Qaeda against America" and had the nerve to label any criticism of the surveillance program "treason." (An interesting side-note to this blog post. Roth later suggested that President Bush went after the leaker of Valerie Plame's identity with "gusto." Seriously. That's his word, not mine. I suppose if with "gusto" means making sure no one involved with the leak ever has to testify or spend one night in jail, while no charges are ever brought against the people who actually leaked Plame's identity, then yes, "gusto" works just fine.)



• Following the March 2004 bombings in Madrid, and subsequent regime change in Spain, media figures started suggesting that terrorists might seek to use violence to oust George W. Bush in 2004. Chris Matthews claimed this put Democratic candidate John Kerry in a pickle: "Doesn't it put your party in a terrible position of having Al Qaeda rooting for you?"



• Rush Limbaugh asserted that al Qaeda terrorists "want Kerry, they want the Democrats in power. They'd love that -- I mean, based simply on what they're saying and how they're reacting to what happened in Spain. I'm not guessing."



• Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said before the 2004 Presidential Election that terrorists "are going to throw everything they can between now and the election to try and elect Kerry."



• Ray Kraft of Family Security Matters, still undaunted by the lack of any Iraq-al Qaeda link, suggested that the Democrats' April 2007 effort to set a timetable for the withdrawl of U.S. troops in Iraq was tantamount to surrender. Kraft suggested that supporters of withdrawl were giving aid to the enemy, thus being guilty of treason. Kraft also stated that if the U.S. withdrew troops from Iraq, the world would "incrementally surrender to the religious totalitarianism of Jihad." It is unclear how the United States could surrender from a conflict we have already claimed to have won:

• And while not directly asserting any ties between the Democratic Party and al-Qaeda, no discussion of the politicization of Islamic terrorism would be complete without the infamous GOP attack ad of 2006: (video here)
  

First of all, no one is celebrating the fact that a former United States congressman has ties to al-Qaeda. I'm just waiting for the Rush Limbaugh's and Dick Cheney's of the world to apologize for all the innuendo, inference, and outright suggestion that the Democratic Party is in allegiance with al-Qaeda terrorists. I'm not getting my hopes up.


Of course, these claims are so utterly ridiculous for one main reason: When it comes to who they want to kill, Islamic Jihadists do not differentiate between Republicans and Democrats.

Jihadists have said for years that they will kill any and all Americans. Osama Bin Laden himself addressed the American people in a tape released before the 2004 election, saying, "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands." The idea that al-Qaeda would be "rooting" for Democrats or that Democrats seek to give "aid and comfort" to the terrorists is so ludicrous that it's amazing the notion has persisted as long as it has.


The real irony of this alleged Democrat-al-Qaeda partnership is that during the few times Islamic terrorists have discussed U.S. political parties, it has been the Republicans they have sided with. Remember the Madrid bombings? The group widely thought to be responsible for the attacks "endorsed" Bush in 2004:

"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization. Because of this we desire you [Bush] to be elected."

But because Democrats seek to preserve constitutional freedoms and global credibility, as well protect the lives of U.S. soldiers and innocent Iraqi citizens, they are seen as being in league with al-Qaeda, when the goals of the two organizations could not be more disparate. Yet you continue to hear these connections made among the right-wing media and some of the mainstream media as well. In reality, 9/11 occurred under a Republican President and a Republican Congress. Osama Bin Laden, supposed public enemy number one and poster boy for the GOP's "Get Tough On Terror" campaign, has not been captured in over six years since the 9/11 attacks. Compared to the relatively easy capture of Saddam Hussein, Bush's failure to apprehend the founder of al-Qaeda with a $50 million bounty on his head is almost beyond comprehension.

The only real link you ever hear between al-Qaeda and the Republican Party is among 9/11 conspiracy theorists, and while these theories are probably inaccurate, the movement has been branded by the mainstream media as complete folly.

If there is a silver lining in the Mark Deli Siljander saga, it is this: One would hope that the next time a politician, pundit, or member of the mainstream media alleges some link between Islamic terrorism and the Democratic Party, he/she stops and remembers that Mark Deli Siljander was a Republican.

Fox News: By the Numbers

Just some interesting figures about Fox News and its viewers:

• Fox News currently devotes 7.9% of their coverage to the ongoing occupation in Iraq, compared to 17.8% for CNN and 15.1% for MSNBC.



• In 2004, 88% of Fox viewers supported George W. Bush, compared to 7% who supported John Kerry
  
  
• Of the three most common misconceptions about the Iraq war, a) there was evidence of a Saddam-Al Qaeda link, b) WMD were found in Iraq, and c) The rest of the world supported the US-led invasion, 80% of regular Fox viewers held at least one of these mis-conceptions, higher than consumers of any other news source. In addition, 43% believed all three misconceptions



• 49% of Fox viewers believe the media treats George W. Bush unfairly.



• Fox News devoted twice as much air time to the Anna Nicole Smith story than CNN and MSNBC.

• In a national political quiz by Pew Research, Fox News viewers scored the lowest of all regular news consumers, lower than Comedy Central, local news, and network morning show viewers. Fox viewers scored in the 50th percentile, meaning that watching Fox News regularly made one no more likely to know current political events than the average American.

Is the Media Gay for Romney?

Judge for yourself. (Courtesy of Media Matters)

Bill O'Reilly: "I mean, look, if you were to make up a guy, this would be the guy, you know, that looks presidential. He's got the jaw going on, the little gray thing in there. And I think that means a lot in America."

Dennis Miller: "Not only does he look good. He's good at what he does."

The Politico's Roger Simon: "Strong, clear, gives good soundbite and has shoulders you could land a 737 on."

The Politico's Roger Simon: "Romney has chiseled-out-of-granite features, a full, dark head of hair going a distinguished gray at the temples, and a barrel chest."

Newsweek: "The former governor of Massachusetts and candidate for the Republican presidential nomination is so buff and handsome in late middle age that when a brochure from a recent campaign showed him standing, bare-chested, on a swimming float, he was accused of sexually pandering to women voters."

Pat Buchanan: "...he's an extremely handsome man..."

Chris Matthews: "He looks like a million bucks. Everything is perfect. Everything about him is perfect -- his look, his manner, everything, the shirt, never rolled-up sleeves, the tie always tied."

One might expect such astute coverage of national affairs from the likes of Tiger Beat, but we're talking about "respected" members of the mainstream press. Of course, the point is not that all mainstream media is gay, or that Romney appeals to the closeted gay political pundit. The point is that the media is trying its hardest to deflect America's attention away from the real issues and towards nonsense about Romney's "barrel chest." It's sad, really. When compared to a guy like Dennis Kucinich, a small, modest-looking Progressive Democrat with a lot of ideas, it's sad to think that Romney is seen as the better candidate. What ever happened to appealing to the average American? Most Americans are overweight and unattractive. Why isn't Dennis Hastert getting more buzz for '08?