Month: October 2012

.

Palin accuses Obama of ‘shuck and jive shtick’

(The Ticket) – For those who aren’t familiar with the phrase, “shuck and jive” is a racially-tinged expression. According to the user-submitted Urban Dictionary, the term “originally referred to the intentionally misleading words and actions that African-Americans would employ in order to deceive racist Euro-Americans in power, both during the period of slavery and afterwards.”

As Politico points out, this isn’t the first time the phrase has come up and inspired controversy. Several years ago, Andrew Cuomo, then New York’s Attorney General, used the expression while campaigning for Hillary Rodham Clinton. “You can’t shuck and jive at a press conference. All those moves you can make with the press don’t work when you’re in someone’s living room.”

Cuomo was promptly blasted by CNN’s Roland Martin, who wrote, “‘Shucking and jiving’ have long been words used as a negative assessment of African Americans, along the lines of a ‘foot shufflin’ Negro.’ In fact, I don’t recall ever hearing the phrase used in reference to anyone white.”

Facebook – Sarah Palin

Here’s a happy headline: Netroots Bloggers Mark 10th Birthday in Decline and Struggling for Survival. It’s kind of shocking to realize that I met Susie Madrak and Duncan Black and Chris Bowers and upyernoz and Brendan Skwire and Chris Baldwin and Mithras and Delaware Dem and so many other gifted writer/activists seven and half years ago. Philadelphia had a special culture in that 2005-2008 span. The 2008 primaries put some strain on some relationships, but it was really the battle over the Wall Street bailout and the public option that splintered the movement. That, and we lost our bar and had a bunch of kids.

The slow breakup of the Philly group mirrored the splintering of the national netroots movement. Audiences became polarized. Some people saw their job as speaking truth to power no matter who was in power, while others wanted to work with the team we had helped put in power to achieve as many of our goals as possible.

The sense of common purpose died. But then we also suffered numerous financial calamities, with Blogads petering out for all but the biggest blogs, Google paying us a pittance, and the Democratic Party keeping us at arm’s length. With the advent of Facebook and Twitter, many bloggers took a major hit in traffic, too.

I don’t think America really knows how much they owe to the Netroots. Those early warriors changed how you are experiencing this election. They changed how the media reports the news and made them more accountable. They made politicians more accountable for what they say, how they vote, and whom they take money from. They will also go down in history as the people who not only opposed the war in Iraq but figured out how to make sure the world knew about that opposition. Future generations will look favorably on that, just as we look favorably on the people who protested Vietnam or the brave Germans who resisted Hitler.

I really love all the people I came to know in those early days. You won’t find better people anywhere. But, as a group, we haven’t been rewarded and we haven’t prospered. Most of us (those still in the game, anyway) are still relying on the financial support of our readers.

But, then, we were all wired a little differently, weren’t we?

.
Romney wants to return to Reaganomics and US might of exceptionalism expansion

More to come in comment, difficulty to post YouTube videos.

October Surprise, A Bogus Story About Iranian Deal

Israel, Reagan and October Surprise of 1980

Shamir’s October Surprise Admission

But Shamir had a startling assessment of the larger October Surprise issue. “I know about all the efforts of the Carter administration,” he said. “And, well, I read this interesting book of Gary Sick’s,” a reference to the 1991 book, October Surprise, in which former National Security Council aide Gary Sick made the case for believing the Republicans had disrupted the hostage negotiations before the 1980 election.

With the topic raised, one interviewer asked,
“What do you think? Was there an October Surprise?”
“Of course, it was,” Shamir responded without hesitation. “It was.”

Later in the interview, I tried to get Shamir to expand on his confirmation that an October Surprise plot had occurred in 1980. But Shamir seemed to have second thoughts about his frankness. After all, the official Israeli position was that the Begin government had not gone behind Carter’s back to collaborate with the Republicans.

“Well, I know in America, they know it,” Shamir said cryptically. “I have not been interested in it, and I don’t remember anything that could help. …”
“If you did know about it, would you tell us?” I asked.
“No, no, I don’t remember such matters, you know,” Shamir said with a wry smile.

With that Shamir refused to elaborate further. The planned documentary with the Shamir interview never was aired, since the producers ran out of money before it could be completed. I included more on the interview and other details gleaned from that Israeli trip in my 1993 book, Trick or Treason.

• George Marshall and forming a Jewish State of Israel (see historic correction on handwritten note by President Truman)

All videos posted in first comment below …

In looking at the early voting numbers in North Carolina, I’m struck by a few things. First, voting is up among all groups, which is not what most people would have expected. As a general rule, higher voter participation is good for the Democrats. Throughout the year conservatives have frequently questioned the polls under the assumption that 2012 would have much lower turnout than the pollsters were assuming based on 2008 models. While all things may not be equal (polling hours, for example), after five days of early voting there are no signs of depressed turnout. In fact, the evidence suggests that turnout will be higher this time around.

Second, in 2008 blacks made up 22% of the North Carolina electorate. So far, they are 35% of the early voting electorate. In fact, if I am reading this correctly, 12,000 more African-Americans have voted in North Carolina than have white registered Republicans.

Third, it looks like about 55% of early voters are women and that about 60% of those women are registered Democrats. Those are two numbers that should concern Team Romney because, in combination, they suggest that left-leaning women are pretty fired up about voting in this election.

Fourth, and this is the only bad news, Monday was the first day that the Democrats didn’t exceed their numbers from 2008, but Republicans and unaffiliated voters stayed above the 2008 watermark. This could be a blip, or the first indication of a problem.

I’m not willing to sign off on MattTX’s methodology, but he presently estimates that Obama has banked a 93,000 vote lead in the Tarheel State. But, remember, he only won the state by 14,000 votes the last time around.

I think it’s important to look at these number for more than just what they can tell us about North Carolina. They seem to prefigure a high turnout election, much like 2008. We are still seeing the Democrats show much more enthusiasm than the Republicans for early voting, but the advantage hasn’t necessarily increased; there are just more voters on both sides. In any case, what we’re seeing in North Carolina is encouraging for what it tells us about the state of the race.

Yesterday, during what the Evansville Courier & Press says was an otherwise strong debate performance, Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock handed the Democrats a gift. He was asked to explain why he opposes abortion rights for rape victims and he said that “even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.” I think we can set aside philosophical and theological discussions about predestination and the degree to which God controls and approves of everything that happens. As a political matter, what Mourdock said is poison. It makes it sound like every pregnancy resulting from rape is part of God’s plan. And the logical inference from that is that God approves of rape if it results in pregnancy. One can imagine a rapist’s defense attorney attempting to use this defense in court.

Mitt Romney’s spokeswoman Andrea Saul immediately said that the presidential candidate does not agree with Mourdock’s statement. Yet, somewhat awkwardly, a commercial featuring Romney and Mourdock began running on Indiana television on Monday. So far, the Romney campaign has not committed to taking down that ad.

After the debate, Mr. Mourdock attempted to do some damage control:

“Are you trying to suggest that somehow I think God ordained or preordained rape? No, I don’t think that anyone could suggest that. That’s a sick, twisted — no, that’s not even close to what I said,” Mourdock said.

“It is a fundamental part of my faith that God gives us life. God determines when life begins,” he said. “I believe in an almighty God who makes those calls. … There are some things in life that are above my pay grade.”

A normal human being will have trouble reconciling the idea that a pregnancy could be something that God intended to happen with the idea that God didn’t ordain or preordain the rape that caused that pregnancy. The loophole is, of course, that some things are above Mr. Mourdock’s pay grade and are not supposed to make sense.

One irony here is that Joe Donnelly, the Democratic candidate opposing Mr. Mourdock, is also anti-choice. The difference is that he is willing to make exceptions for the life and health of the woman, or in cases of rape and incest. So, there’s a clear choice between the two candidates, but both choices are still bad.

This whole scandal matters for more than one Senate race in Indiana. It matters because Mitt Romney’s running mate holds the exact same views about rape and choice as Mr. Mourdock. As you can see in the following interview where Paul Ryan discusses the controversy over Missouri Republican Todd Akin’s comments about “legitimate rape,” Ryan does not believe the “method of conception” had any bearing on whether abortion should be permitted. If the method of conception is rape, that shouldn’t be treated any differently than if it was consensual.

Now, it’s true that Ryan says in the same interview that he is joining Romney’s ticket and will support Romney’s exceptions for rape, but that doesn’t change his personal view which would take precedence if it turns out that Romney has a brain tumor or something and won’t be completing his term in office.

While it might seem that the most jarring thing about Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock’s views is their eccentric interpretation of female biology or God’s providence, the focus should remain on the policy. Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, and Paul Ryan all oppose exceptions for rape, and for the same reason.

Let’s do a little exercise. I am going to provide you with some couplets. They are things Mitt Romney said at different times about the same subject. And I want you to try to explain to me how they do not contradict each other. Ready? Here goes.

‘It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam.’

‘I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there.’

Now, a cynic might think that a coward occasionally wishes he had courage, and that someone who counter-protested draft resisters at Stanford might have a little lingering guilt about using a religious exemption to avoid being drafted. Otherwise, the two comments cancel each other out and one must be a lie.

Here’s another:

‘This is a completely airtight kennel mounted on the top of our car.’

‘They’re not happy that my dog loves fresh air.’

Here, a cynic might note that putting your dog in an airtight kennel will result in asphyxiation after a few hours and that is why no one manufactures airtight kennels. They might also point out that a dog that loves fresh air would probably not love being asphyxiated on the roof of Mitt Romney’s car. But what he meant was that the kennel protected the dog from the worst of the wind and that it only evacuated its bowels all over the back windshield of the car because it’s what dogs do when they’re having a good time.

Ready for another one?

‘I saw my father march with Martin Luther King.’

‘I did not see it with my own eyes.’

Cynics, being cynics, might point out that you can’t see things with other people’s eyes. To see things, you must use your own eyes. But those would be very gullible cynics because George Romney never marched with Martin Luther King, Jr.

‘I respect and will protect a woman’s right to choose.’

‘I never really called myself pro-choice.’

This is somewhat like ordering a hamburger and then telling the waitress who delivers your meal that your didn’t order beef on a bun. The first statement was obviously time-limited, and the second one was probably untrue.

Next:

‘I’ve been a hunter pretty much all my life.’

‘Any description of my being a hunter is an overstatement of capability.’

I’d like to supplement this couplet with an additional quote: ‘I’m not a big game hunter… I’ve always been a rodent and rabbit hunter. Small varmints, if you will.’

When you call yourself “pretty much” a lifelong hunter, you mean that you are not a lifelong hunter. This became clearer during his subsequent statements.

Finally:

“We’re going to cut taxes on everyone across the country by 20 percent. Including the top one percent.”

“I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans.”

He said the first in a primary debate and the second in the first presidential debate. This one can’t be salvaged.

Feel free to create your own couplets.

Richard Mourdock has some funny ideas about God and rape:

Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said Tuesday that pregnancy that results from rape can be “something that God intended to happen.”

“I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God,” Mourdock said at a debate (posted below is the video from the state Democratic Party, which created the title of the video). “And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

The GOP traded Dick Lugar for this guy?

Michael Tomasky on Mitt Romney’s ability to lie without shame or even apparent self-awareness.

We’re used to a politician who says, “You know, I once thought…” or something like that. Then our minds can kind of buy the idea that he’s flip-flopping. Most pols do this. It used to be thought by political consultants that pols had to do that part of it. But not Romney and his team. No acknowledgement, not an inch. A complete lie. And a real f-you, by the way, to voters who’d like to know why he changed his mind, except why bother, really, since there’s no substance there. He changed his mind to win, period.

The Romney campaign is a massive f-you to anyone who actually pays even partial attention to American politics. I honestly don’t know how politically-engaged conservatives can take Romney’s flip-flops without growing disgusted and voting for Gary Johnson or something. As much as they dislike President Obama, at least he isn’t the leader of their party. To have Romney take over the Republican Party for four or eight years ought to terrify anyone in the party who actually has a principle they are not willing to sacrifice. It’s not that Romney would govern as some moderate. It’s that he’s never made a promise he isn’t willing to break the moment it might confer him some advantage. He literally never means what he says. His word is worth absolutely nothing. And those are not attributes you want in the leader of any organization, whether it be the federal government or a political party.

To put it another way, one silver lining of Bush v. Gore was that it denied Joe Lieberman the advantages of incumbency in 2008. It’s quite possible that Lieberman could have used his clout and fame after eight years as vice-president to win the nomination of the party in 2008, and he could be running for reelection right now. That would have done strange and unpleasant things to the progressive movement in this country, and I am glad that I didn’t live in that alternate reality even if the reality I did live through in the Bush years was a living hell.

But Joe Lieberman isn’t a perfect corollary to Mitt Romney. It’s not that Mitt Romney would buck his party and endorse Hillary Clinton in 2016. He’s not some kind of secret moderate. He’s nothing. He’s whatever he thinks you want him to be at any moment. He’s not the most interesting man in the world; he’s the world’s least reliable man.

You can find various lists of Romney’s flip-flops on the Google Machine. Here’s one. They are never exhaustive because Romney creates one or two or three new flip-flops every day. No human can keep up, although people try.

Here’s what I’m saying. I’ve been watching this campaign for three years now, everyday, all day long. I know Mitt Romney really well at this point. And anyone who is thinking of voting for him should know that they are going to get to know him very well, too, if he is the president of the United States. And, you know what I can tell you with 100% confidence after watching Romney so closely all this time? You are going to hate a President Romney worse than anything you have ever hated in your life. Americans will begin counting the days until they can replace Romney within 90 days of his inauguration. No one likes Mitt Romney. There are three kinds of people. People who hate Mitt Romney. People who hate Mitt Romney but hate the president more. And people who have not spent enough time with Mitt Romney.

And most of the people in the second category are also in the third category.

We can be grateful that intrepid political reporters at ABC News are aggressively fact-checking President Obama’s “horses and bayonets” comment.

Fox News, too.

These reporters are killing a good joke. Did you laugh when Obama told the joke? Yes? Then that’s the end of it.

Jesus, it’s almost like these folks have forgotten the famous bayonet charge during the 2004 Battle of Fallujah.

Charles P. Pierce’s reaction to last night’s debate is about the same as mine. The best I can say for Romney is that perhaps he figured that if he could make it look like there isn’t a whiff of difference between the two parties on foreign policy, he’d win because of the economy. It’s not half bad as a theory, but he didn’t really execute. I don’t think anyone came away thinking that Romney and Obama are equals on foreign policy. Still, I think it would have served the country better if Ron Paul had been the moderator, if only because he would have questioned some of the assumptions both candidates and both parties are operating under. Bob Schieffer merely invited them to expand on those assumptions, chief among them being that America should try to control everything that is happening in the world all the time.

If you scratch the surface, you can see Obama making modifications to some of these assumptions, while Romney calls any deviation from permawar in Central Asia and the Middle East some kind of apology. But that Mitt Romney didn’t really show up last night. Or, he kinda did, and he kinda didn’t. One moment he sounded like John Lennon and the next moment he sounded like John Wayne. He criticized the president for acknowledging that America has allied itself with dictators and then denied that we ever allied ourselves with dictators and then praised the president for not sticking it out with fallen dictators. It was that sort of night. Romney was incoherent to anyone conversant with history, but I don’t think he was any clearer to dumbasses.

It seemed as if Romney wanted to avoid looking scary on foreign policy, perhaps to prevent a huge gender gap from opening up. But he looked scary for a different reason. He looked scary because he couldn’t hold his own on foreign policy. If that wasn’t clear from his answers it was at least clear from his demeanor.