Fox News Reports: Rupert Murdoch Endorses Unconstitutional Lawlessness

Posted by Mark NC on June 16, 2012 at 10:57 am. 2 Comments :

In the wake of President Obama’s announcement that his administration would suspend deportation of certain younger immigrants who came to this country as children, Fox News and a phalanx of Republican lawmakers rushed to characterize the plan as a violation of the law and a breach of the constitutional separation of powers. Never mind the fact that the immigrants affected by this initiative never broke any law, and that their immigration status would be technically unchanged, the panicked martinets of virtue on the right are aghast at what they perceive as an immoral grant of amnesty.

One notable exception to this is the CEO of News Corp, Rupert Murdoch. Along with fellow captains of commerce, Klaus Kleinfeld of Alcoa and Philippe Dauman of Viacom, Murdoch released a statement applauding the President’s action:

“We hope this prompts Congress to reach agreement on common-sense immigration policies that reflect American labor market needs and American values. Young people who had no choice over coming to this country, have grown up here and now want to become productive members of our society should not be treated like criminals.”

Yep, Rupert Murdoch said that. What’s interesting is that Murdoch’s statement stands in stark contrast to what some of his own employees at Fox News are saying on the subject. This has set off a battle over deportation, but it’s more of battle between Fox News with it’s boss, than with President Obama.

Sarah Palin: Our president still doesn’t understand the three branches of government. He thinks he can usurp the Congressional branch of our government and dictate and mandate a policy like this.

Charles Krauthammer: Beyond the pandering, beyond the politics, beyond the process is simple constitutional decency. This is out-and-out lawlessness.

Monica Crowley: It’s such a naked politically pandering move […] a breathtaking power grab by the president.

And the Republican parade of circular kneejerkers predictably piled on with hyperbolic accusations of political opportunism and illegality, beginning with the President’s GOP opponent who falsely describes the policy as an executive order.

Mitt Romney: I think the action that the president took today makes it more difficult to reach [a] long term solution because an executive order is of course just a short term matter.

Steve King (R-IA): Americans should be outraged that President Obama is planning to usurp the Constitutional authority of the United States Congress and grant amnesty by edict to 1 million illegal aliens.

Allen West (R-FL): Is this one of those backdoor opportunities to allow people in the next five months to get the opportunity to vote? Will we see Janet Napolitano and the President come out with a new edict that says since we allow these people to be here legally, we’re now going to allow them to vote? How far down the rabbit hole will it go?

Marco Rubio (R-FL): By once again ignoring the Constitution and going around Congress, this short term policy will make it harder to find a balanced and responsible long term one.

Dan Coats (R-IN): The administration’s unilateral decision today to give amnesty to certain illegal immigrants is not the answer.

Chuck Grassley (R-IA): The President’s action is an affront to the process of representative government by circumventing Congress and with a directive he may not have the authority to execute.

Lamar Smith (R-TX): President Obama and his administration once again have put partisan politics and illegal immigrants ahead of the rule of law and the American people.

Lindsey Graham (R-SC): President Obama’s attempt to go around Congress and the American people is at best unwise and possibly illegal.

By condemning the President in this manner, all of these stalwart, conservative politicians and pundits are also condemning their primary media benefactor, Rupert Murdoch, who supports Obama’s decision. It would be fun to ask Murdoch for his response to the charge that he advocates the unconstitutional usurpation of tyrannical powers on behalf of foreign criminals invading the country to steal our jobs. Especially when some of those making the charge work for him.

What’s worse is that the charges flying wildly from conservative ranks are wholly erroneous and irresponsible. There can be no constitutional infraction of law when there is no change in law whatsoever. The President is merely exercising the same sort prosecutorial discretion that is practiced everyday by the Justice Department and attorney generals in every state. And the charge that this policy is a path to amnesty or citizenship ignores the fact that there is no change at all in the legal status of those affected. Leading the way in delusional diatribes, as usual, is Allen West, who manages to squeeze a voter fraud conspiracy out of this issue.

Some of the President’s critics are decrying the policy shift as “political.” The problem with that complaint is that anything the President does between now and election day could be characterized as political. If he were to commit military resources to the Syrian rebels, whose need is dire, Republicans would denounce it as politically timed. The same criticism would emerge were he to greenlight the KeystoneXL pipeline, an action favored by the GOP. It literally wouldn’t matter what the issue is, the right would attack it as politics.

The truth is that the charge of politicization is itself political. It is the last resort of a critic who is unable to make any substantive criticism. And, in the end, what’s really wrong with political decision making? Isn’t it just the execution of policy that pleases a constituency? And isn’t it the role of public servants to produce the results that the public wants?

Let’s face it, this is just another example of President Obama being unable to do anything that will satisfy his critics. By taking affirmative steps on an important matter, Obama is accused of being political. Were he not to take such steps he would be accused of neglecting the duties of his office. In effect, the right is insisting that no president do anything of significance during an election year. Of course, if that were to occur that president would be maligned for being more interested in campaigning than governing. Lose/lose.

For the past three and a half years the Republicans have demonstrated their preference for legislative stalemate rather than risk the President achieving something positive for the nation and getting credit for doing so. They are putting their own electoral welfare and lust for power above that of the country, and that, more than anything else, is political.

Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Celebrity Arbiters

Posted by Mark NC on June 15, 2012 at 3:20 pm. 5 Comments :

It is becoming almost too predictable that whenever you see a headline on Fox Nation you can assume that it isn’t the truth. Case in point: Today the Fox Nationalists posted an item about President Obama’s remarks at a fundraiser yesterday. The headline on Fox Nation is “Obama Tells Celebrities They’re the ‘Ultimate Arbiter’ of America’s Direction.”

The quote cited by Fox, as lifted from the Associated Press, read, “You’re the tie-breaker. You’re the ultimate arbiter of which direction this country goes.” Guess what. That is not what Obama told the guests at the fundraiser (who were not necessarily celebrities). The full quote, which is available on the White House web site, reads:

“[U]ltimately you guys and the American people, you’re the tie-breaker. You’re the ultimate arbiter of which direction this country goes in.”

So contrary to the false impression made by Fox (and the AP) that implied the President was elevating a room full of celebrities to some sort of Politburo, the truth is that Obama was speaking broadly and including all of the American people. It was an outright expression of populism and democracy that Fox is trying to turn into some kind of elitism. The same phony characterization also turned up on Fox News with Megyn Kelly drilling home the elitist message.

The funny thing is that, even if what Fox is saying were true, I would much rather have people like Sarah Jessica Parker and George Clooney influencing public policy than Romney’s cohorts like Donald Trump and Sheldon Adelson. At least I’d know that their motives were based on their principles and aspirations for a better world, rather than on self-interest and aspirations for more power and wealth.

Karl Rove’s Super Amazing Political Funtime Analysis Happy Hour

Posted by Mark NC on June 14, 2012 at 4:10 pm. 2 Comments :

The man who used to be known as Bush’s Brain may have spent too much time with America’s foremost remedial president. Karl Rove seems to have leaked a significant amount of grey matter as evidenced by this stunningly inept observation about President Obama and the economy:

“It is fine for him to try and blame it on President Bush or a Japanese tsunami or on ATM, but it makes him look weak, and the American people are not that dumb! […] Let him keep doing that because the American people see that as a weak leader. That’s not somebody who’s in charge. That’s somebody who’s making excuses. And we do not like to elect people President of the United States who are excuse makers. We want a president to be big and bold.”

Romney - Not Stupid Got that? America wants a big, bold, non-excuse maker. And blaming Bush for the wrecked economy won’t work because the American people aren’t stupid. That’s a mantra that Romney also likes to chant. In fact, he made it into a campaign slogan. This may be the first time a candidate has ever had to go to such lengths to remind his followers that they aren’t idiots. But that argument becomes more difficult to defend when polling shows what the American people really think. A new Gallup poll says that…

“Americans continue to place more blame for the nation’s economic problems on George W. Bush than on Barack Obama, even though Bush left office more than three years ago.”

The poll shows that two-thirds of respondents (68%) still blame Bush for the state of the economy. That includes about half of the polled Republicans who also continue to hold Rove’s former boss accountable. Consequently, Obama should not be shy about hanging this economic albatross around Romney’s neck. The Romney campaign has already affirmed that their policy agenda is “Bush on steroids.”

Ironically, I have to agree with Rove about a couple of things. First, he appears to be right that the American people are not dumb. They know exactly who is responsible for where we are today and they are not likely to to want to return to the policies that got us here. Secondly, Rove’s advice that Obama continue to blame Bush is pretty sound based on the mood of the electorate.

The problem for Rove is that he’s right for all the wrong reasons. He doesn’t understand where the American people are, and he wouldn’t agree with them if he did. He’s just trying to rehabilitate his own shattered reputation because, as the political architect of the Bush administration, he’s just as responsible for the financial hole we are in as Bush is.

It’s about time that the right quit yakking about Democrats looking backwards to blame Bush. Obama is not reaching backwards to assign responsibility for current conditions to the past president. He is forecasting the future consequences of repeating those mistakes. It is the Republicans who are bringing the Bush era back to the table by proposing nothing but what the Bush administration did. They are offering nothing new in the way of solutions. In fact, the only initiative they will articulate out loud is to preserve the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthy. So the Obama administration has no choice but to rebut those proposals. That is not an attack on Bush. It is an attack on the current crop of Republicans who are parroting Bush.

And if it weren’t bad enough that Americans blame Rove and Bush for our current economic problems, they also blame Republicans in congress today for deliberately sabotaging the recovery in order to make Obama look bad. So not only are they dredging up the old Bush era policies that already failed so decisively, they are obstructing Obama’s new solutions from being enacted.

Since the day that Obama was inaugurated, the GOP has explicitly stated that their top priority is to make Obama a one-term president. That’s not a governing agenda. That’s the purest and most cynical form of self-serving, political gamesmanship imaginable.

Glenn Beck Reviews Black-Themed Obama Campaign Ad

Posted by Mark NC on June 13, 2012 at 10:59 am. 3 Comments :

If you were looking for an authoritative analysis of an Obama campaign advertisement targeting an African-American constituency, who better to consult than homeboy and O.G. (Original German), Glenn Beck?

That’s who Bill O’Reilly turned to last night on the O’Reilly Factor, and he got his money’s worth. The segment included pleadings from Beck for O’Reilly to use the “M” word (Marxist) about Obama. O’Reilly giggled flirtatiously but succumbed only so far as to declare Obama the most liberal president in America’s history (which is news to liberals).

After listening to the new ad, the pair expressed their shock upon seeing an overt appeal to a targeted demographic group, something they seem to think never happens in advertising.

Beck: I’ve never heard anything like that, Bill.
O’Reilly: In a campaign ad, I haven’t either. I would love to see Mitt Romney’s backup singers though. They probably look like the Osmonds.
Beck: Here’s the problem with that ad. I mean it’s two-fold. In that ad they talk about, you know, we’ve got your back, Mr. President. Isn’t the President supposed to have our back? Isn’t he supposed to be that guy that insures that he’s watching our liberty and our life so nobody comes and kills our family or kills us, and nobody comes and scoops us up off the street in the middle of the night?

First of all, I find it interesting that O’Reilly would surmise that Romney’s backup singers would look like the Osmonds, a quintessentially white family of Mormons. I wouldn’t argue with that, but it’s Beck’s commentary that really demonstrates a fundamental ignorance and hypocrisy.

Beck seems to have missed entirely that the ad is a litany of all the ways in which Obama “has our back,” by enumerating the policies he is pursuing. The only thing that Beck hears is the Motown-like chorus. Even worse, Beck seems to be confusing the role of the president with the role of a bodyguard. His assertion that the President is supposed to protect us from some unidentified assailants is downright looney, however, it fits nicely into Beck’s patented formula of fear mongering. To Beck there is no dark corner of the room that isn’t filled with stalking demons.

Seeing as how Beck is also one of the biggest proponents of right-wing criticisms of the so-called “nanny state,” it is curious that he has now assigned the President the responsibility for policing our neighborhoods and protecting us from whoever it is that Beck imagines is threatening to “scoop us up off the street in the middle of the night.” That duty might distract the President from trivial matters like the economy, jobs, and foreign affairs. It might also piss off Spiderman who will surely regard it as an intrusion into his jurisdiction.

Watching O’Reilly and Beck analyze an Obama ad aimed at African Americans is not unlike watching Rick Santorum and Pat Robertson reviewing the DVD release of “Brokeback Mountain.” There is very little of value that one could extract from their analysis. But what’s truly frightening is that Fox’s viewers will sop up their bile and regard it as credible. At least until they are scooped up off the street in the middle of the night.

Mitt Romney: Protecting America From The Scourge Of Firefighters, Police, And Teachers

Posted by Mark NC on June 9, 2012 at 12:31 pm. 2 Comments :

Now here’s a campaign platform that takes real guts. Mitt Romney has boldly come out against big government and its coddling of superfluous bureaucrats that drain our nation of scarce resources. And Romney courageously puts names to these bloodsucking parasites who provide no discernible benefit to society. Here is what he had to say about them:

“[Obama] wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more fireman, more policeman, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people.”

That’s right. The American people need help, and not the kind that President Obama is proposing. They don’t need fires extinguished by lazy civil servants. Real Americans will pick up their garden hoses and attack the blaze from their rooftops. Forest and prairie fires are actually a cheap method of clearing unsightly trees and brush. And paramedics only serve to exacerbate the socialist notion that victims of heart attacks and car accidents are “entitled” to life-saving emergency care.

The American people don’t need more police either. Protection from robberies and assaults is only sought by pussies and the French. And besides, if you really want police protection you can just start earning more money and move to a wealthy community where more officers are deployed and private security can be acquired for hefty fee. This is America, dammit. If you can’t get rich and pay for your own security, that’s your fault. And if you don’t stockpile weapons in your home, then you don’t really love your family. Just ask Mitt Romney (shooter of varmints) if he relies on the government for protection (well, except for all those secret service agents that cost taxpayers millions of dollars).

And don’t even get me started on teachers. What a waste of money that could have been spent on invading Iran. It’s not like America is the stupidest country in the world. At 37th worldwide there’s like 100 other countries that are stupider (and 36 that are smarterer).
Mitt Romney - We're Not Stupid Again the solution is simple. Send your children to expensive private schools like Romney’s Cranbrook, where they can get a superior education while traumatizing other students because they look different than you. The kids that are stuck in overcrowded public schools should stop whining and be grateful for community colleges and the jobs awaiting them at McDonalds. Romney has finally shown the courage to put an end to the fallacy that our children are the future when, in reality, they are just a bunch of germ-ridden fiscal burdens. Although the end result of this might make it harder for Romney to live up to his campaign slogan: We’re Not Stupid!

Mitt Romney, and most of the press, are preoccupied with an out-of-context soundbite where Obama said that “the private sector is doing fine.” When the whole of Obama’s remarks are considered it is clear that he was making a relative reference that the private sector (that has gained 4.2 million jobs in the last couple of years) is doing better than the public sector (which is still down 700,000 jobs). And if the jobs of firefighters, police and teachers were restored it would not only help those Americans, but it would produce more economic activity as a result of their employment (reducing the unemployment rate a full point) and improve the quality of life for all the Americans who benefit from the work they do.

In his remarks, Romney said that Obama was “out-of-touch.” It really takes cajones for a multimillionaire son of governor to call somebody else out-of-touch. But leave it to Romney and the Republican Party to twist reality out of all proportion and to take a position advocating fewer first-responders and educators. And these are the same people hyping so-called American exceptionalism.

Breitbart Bites: A Tea Party At Disneyland With Junkfood And Chili Peppers

Posted by Mark NC on June 7, 2012 at 4:46 am. 1 Comments :

Breitbart News has an arduous task as it seeks to produce a daily menu of moronic musings to satisfy their dimwitted readers. It seems a near impossible mission to continually churn out the quantity and quality of idiocy that they somehow manage to maintain. Here are a few recent examples of the prime cuts of cretinism that have graced their puerile pages.

Ray Bradbury: Science Fiction Legend; Tea Party Patriot
The news that Ray Bradbury, author of classic books such as Fahrenheit 451 and The Illustrated Man, passed away Wednesday surely stirred pangs of grief and memories of inspiration for millions. But for the Breitbrats it was a morbid opportunity to polish their egos by sponging off of the reputation of a beloved storyteller. These parasites can’t even set aside a time to mourn without attempting to turn the occasion into a partisan political affair. At 91, Bradbury had a long life and expressed a wide variety of views. In his later years he did tend to lean to the right, but he never associated himself with the Tea Party. For the Breitbrats to assert that after his death is not unlike the disturbing Mormon practice of Baptizing Jews posthumously.

Disney Kneels Before The State: Bans ‘Junkfood’ Ads
To today’s conservatives, the worst thing that any business can do in the age of Obama is to align itself with any initiative whose purpose is the well-being of society and it’s inhabitants. That’s the cliff Disney stepped off of when, in partnership with First Lady Michelle Obama’s campaign for children’s health, they unveiled plans to keep junk food ads off of their child-focused TV networks, radio stations and Web sites. To the Breitbrats, when a business chooses to refrain from indoctrinating kids with unhealthy messages, it is not the free market at work, but a capitulation to a tyrannical government. Breitbrat John Nolte begins his advocacy of Big Mac brainwashing by denying the existence of the very real problem of child obesity. But then he launches into a surprising justification:

“The left’s rebuttal is always the same: Well, we have to pay the health care costs for the obese.

Yes, we do, but the cost of liberty is not always fair — but it’s worth every damn penny.”

Get it? Nolte favors passing on the costs of treating illnesses resulting from obesity and malnutrition to society-at-large. Sounds like universal healthcare (aka socialism) to me. He thinks it’s perfectly OK for all of us to pay for the consequences of behavior that will drain the nation’s treasury if that behavior was freely chosen by the patient. And he shudders at the thought of people being informed about their health choices, even if the person is only ten years old. At the same time, he opposes paying for medical care for those unfortunates who might randomly develop kidney disease or multiple sclerosis or any number of other illnesses that are not behavior driven. That’s because he values liberty so highly that even socialism is justified to preserve our right to totally screw ourselves up.

Chili Peppers Rally For President Kardashian
The Breitbrats like to see themselves as trendy fashionistas who are hip to the scene, man. That’s likely an emotional reaction to their having been such pathetic outcasts in their youth. So now, in adulthood, they strive pitifully to fit in with what they think is cool. The result is an attempt to ridicule President Obama by arbitrarily associating him with a Kardashian. And as if that weren’t lame enough, they go on to insult the Red Hot Chili Peppers who provided free entertainment to thank Obama campaign volunteers for their service.

Breitbrat Christian Toto derides the Red Hot Chili Peppers as “aging punksters.” OK, the Red Hots aren’t 20-somethings, but my guess is that Flea would kick Toto’s tail in a contest to see who rocks harder. What’s more, when the most prominent rocker in the Romney is camp is Ted Nugent, a senior citizen has-been with a gun fetish, you might want to lay off the age jokes. Nugent spends his weekends at state fairs on nostalgic reunion tours, while the Red Hots fill stadiums and still chart hits. This one is currently at #17:

In these few items the Breitbrats have thoroughly demonstrated that they are shameless partisan hacks, incoherent hypocrites, and wretchedly feeble culture critics. No wonder their model of obsession-fueled, juvenile journalism (i.e. “vetting” the President) is such a sorry failure. Somehow they have managed to make Andrew Breitbart’s laughably weak and transparently biased blog conglomerate even dumber and less consequential.

THE VETTING: Mitt Romney’s Shameful Record Of Military Cowardice And Hypocrisy

Posted by Mark NC on June 6, 2012 at 4:57 pm. 4 Comments :

Today is the 68th anniversary of D-Day, the day that commemorates the Allied forces’ invasion of Normandy in 1944. Mitt Romney has no scheduled appearances on his calendar to mark the occasion. Instead, he solicited donations from wealthy Republicans at private fundraisers in San Antonio and Houston.

Perhaps Romney’s reticence to bring attention to this anniversary has something to do with the fact that his personal history with regard to military service is an embarrassing jumble of hypocrisy, dishonesty, and irresponsibility.

Mitt Romney In 1966, Romney was a vocal proponent of the Vietnam war. At Stanford University he attended rallies in support of the conflict and engaged in counter-protests against peace activists. Nevertheless, Romney was content to let other young men risk their lives for their country while he attended school and went to France on behalf of his Mormon church. In 2007, Romney had the gall to tell the Boston Globe that…

“I was supportive of my country. I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there, and in some ways it was frustrating not to feel like I was there as part of the troops that were fighting in Vietnam.”

However, Romney’s alleged frustration was contradicted by his remarks to the Boston Herald in 1994 when he admitted that…

“I was not planning on signing up for the military. […] It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam, but nor did I take any actions to remove myself from the pool of young men who were eligible for the draft.”

So the Romney of 2007 was revealed to be a liar by the Romney of 1994. But that’s not all. The Romney of 1994 was also a liar because he did, in fact, remove himself from the draft for many years with deferments for both college and Mormon missionary work. And Romney’s lack of the character and courage to live by the principles he professed has rubbed off on his five sons, who were all old enough to serve in Afghanistan and/or Iraq, but who declined to enlist. In a display of utterly revolting elitism and ego, Romney defended them saying that “one of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping to get me elected.”

So on this anniversary of D-Day, draft dodger Romney chooses to forgo a formal remembrance in favor of attending a flurry of fundraisers. And how does Fox News report this state of affairs?

That’s right. It’s all about Obama. And even though Romney skipped D-Day and went fundraising instead, there is no mention of that by Fox. They do however, say that “Obama’s failure to mark D-Day in any significant way is both a shame and a political mistake.” Therefore, it ought to be equally shameful for Romney. At least Obama never evaded military service at a time of war, as did Romney and his sons. It is also notable, in a disturbing way, that the Fox Nationalists took the extra step to complain about the political fallout from not commemorating this anniversary. That is really all they think about. Politics is far more important to them than principle. Had Obama held a D-Day event, the response from Fox would undoubtedly have been that he was exploiting it for political gain and using the troops for a photo-op.

Fox News can be relied upon for only one thing: Strictly one-side, partisan propaganda for the benefit of Republicans and the detriment of Democrats. Roger Ailes works for the RNC, or perhaps vice versa. It’s hard to tell.

For the record, both Obama and Romney tweeted memorials to D-Day participants and survivors.

Not So Breitbart: Pathetic Vetting Of Obama’s BBQ With Bill Ayers

Posted by Mark NC on June 4, 2012 at 1:12 pm. 11 Comments :

The “vetting” of Barack Obama continues at Breitbart News and, true to form, serves only to embarrass the juvenile efforts of Breitbrat Joel Pollak and his childish pals who suffer an acute case of Obama Derangement Syndrome. Today’s banner headline at the Breitbrats sandbox blares: “Exclusive – The Vetting – Senator Barack Obama Attended Bill Ayers Barbecue, July 4, 2005.”

OMG! Barack Obama has been caught at a clandestine socialist assembly of treasonous celebrants of America’s independence. These subversives were observed igniting fires (in BBQ grills) and launching explosives (fireworks). They may even have been imbibing beer and other alcoholic intoxicants.

Breitbrat Joel is clearly proud of the shocking revelation he has uncovered that puts Obama in the backyard of his neighbor, Bill Ayres, for an ostensibly patriotic party. The “proof” that so excites Pollak is an ancient blog post by another neighbor of Ayers that describes a third-hand witness to Obama sharing a picnic table at a Fourth of July gathering. The author said…

“Guess what? I spent the 4th of July evening with star Democrat Barack Obama! Actually, that’s a lie. Obama was at a barbecue at the house next door (given by a law professor who is a former member of the Weather Underground) and we saw him over the fence at our barbecue. Well, the others did. It had started raining and he had gone inside be the time I got there. Nevertheless.”

Well then, that settles it. The author of the post never saw the then-senator, but some unnamed person claims to have seen him. And there couldn’t be any possibility of this mysterious party guest making a mistake, could there? The post goes on to note that despite keeping a watch out for a confirmation siting, there were no other Obama spottings. The only corroboration was “another source” quoted by Pollak who was also not identified.

Even if true, Pollak’s unrestrained glee over this “discovery” means nothing. It stems from his false contention that Obama’s socializing with Ayers contradicts a statement his campaign issued in 2008. However, the quote that Pollak himself posted says…

“Mr. LaBolt said the men first met in 1995 through the education project, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and have encountered each other occasionally in public life or in the neighborhood. He said they have not spoken by phone or exchanged e-mail messages since Mr. Obama began serving in the United States Senate in January 2005 and last met more than a year ago when they bumped into each other on the street in Hyde Park.”

Of course, there is nothing in that statement that conflicts with an account of Obama encountering Ayers at a neighborhood party. In fact, it explicitly affirms that Obama had such contacts “in the neighborhood.” Where’s the controversy?

Pollak is plainly obsessed with smearing Obama for having had a relationship with a neighbor who was also a respected university professor and education consultant. But Pollak’s pea-brain can only contain information about Ayers that portrays him as the “radical, domestic terrorist” of his youth some forty years ago. Pollak cannot see past his hostility toward Obama, and the result is hysterical conspiracy tantrums like this. It’s the same sort of dementia that produces absurd postings on Fox Nation like today’s article that proposes that Obama had an “unpresidential” past:

The past to which the Fox Nationalists refer is his adolescence when he did unpresidential things like play basketball and wear hats. Seriously? This is the best they can do?

Mitt Romney Gives His Tea Party People What They Want – Pigheaded Nastiness

Posted by Mark NC on June 2, 2012 at 4:49 pm. 2 Comments :

From the start of the 2012 election cycle there was one thing that was clear and consistent about Mitt Romney’s campaign: that he would be neither clear nor consistent.

Romney has been on both sides of every major issue. Whereas he once bragged about his unwavering defense of Roe v Wade, he now calls for it’s repeal. He once claimed that he would be a stronger advocate for gay rights than Ted Kennedy, but now adamantly supports the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act. He mercilessly bashes ObamaCare, seemingly oblivious to the fact that his own RomneyCare in Massachusetts was the basis for it. Point to a Romney flip and there is a flop following closely.

The only consistent thing about Romney is his clockwork-like predictability in changing his shape to become whatever he thinks the far-right Republican base wishes for him to become.

Perhaps the most fervent desire of the conservative crowd is for a candidate that will mix it up with his opponent, Barack Obama. They want a fighter who will throw everything, including the kitchen sink, into the ring. Nothing is off the table – not birtherism, not race, not religion, nothing. They want a knock-down, drag-out brawl that leaves Obama bloodied in a gutter. And that is exactly what Romney is now promising to deliver. According to a Romney adviser…

“There were a lot of folks who didn’t think he’d have the edge to really take on the president […] They’ve been pretty surprised and impressed at how willing Boston has been to push back.”

Rush Limbaugh gave what to him must be the highest praise, saying that “This is not the McCain campaign.” Indeed, Romney is trading in substance for belligerence. His strategy hinges on avoiding weaselly policy positions that he knows will upset his base, and feeding them raw anger that appeals to their bloodlust for Obama. And above all, never back down or apologize. Even if it means tolerating Donald Trump’s ignorant birtherism and Ted Nugent’s violent wet dreams. Another Romney aide, after being told that conservatives were comparing his tactics to the late, notoriously dishonest bomb thrower Andrew Breitbart, said “Oh great, that’s what we were going for.”

The media, as usual, is getting it all wrong. After Obama made some comments about Romney, who unlike John McCain, lacked the moral leadership to denounce creeps like Trump and Nugent, a report by the Associated Press bore the headline, “Obama longs for GOP rival like McCain.” That’s taking it a bit too far, to say the least. Obama would just like to see the crazy fringe dwellers, like those who think Obama is a Muslim plant sent to hand America over to its enemies, be shunted to the sidelines where they belong. On occasion McCain would do that, but to Romeny that would signal weakness to his Tea Party masters.

A couple of days ago Bill Clinton was interviewed on CNN and said that Romney had “a sterling business career,” and that he was certainly qualified to run for president. The right-wingnut crowd frothed with excitement that this polite remark was tantamount to an endorsement of Romney, even though Clinton explicitly said that Obama was by far the better choice. That led to Clinton’s clarification today:

“I said, you know, Governor Romney had a good career in business and he was a governor, so he crosses the qualification threshold for him being president,” Clinton said. “But he shouldn’t be elected, because he is wrong on the economy and all these other issues.

“So today, because I didn’t attack him personally and bash him, I wake up to read all these stories taking it out of context as if I had virtually endorsed him, which means the tea party has already won their first great victory: ‘We are supposed to hate each other to disagree.’ That is wrong.”

That’s precisely what today’s Republican Tea Party is advocating. There is simply no place for reasonableness, compromise, or maturity. At the same time, there is no disgracefulness that is beyond the pale. The lesson that the right learned in 2008 was that any expression of respect or courtesy, or any accommodation to civility, is a betrayal of principle. The ideal aspiration of the right is for a candidate with the most pigheaded sense of nastiness and an absence of shame. And if that’s what they want then, by God, that’s what Romney will give them.

Romney’s most urgent goal now is to portray himself as the fiercest warrior on the battlefield. It doesn’t matter what he’s fighting for so long as he leaves a lot of corpses on the ground. As I said once before, he is “The Punisher.”

Right-Wing Racists Ask: Where Da White Women At?

Posted by Mark NC on June 1, 2012 at 2:58 pm. 5 Comments :

If you think that’s funny, you should hear the remarks made by Tim Graham, the Director of Media Analysis for the uber-conservative Media Research Center. In an interview with NRA News, Graham was curious as to why the press refrained from reporting a particular aspect of President Obama’s past:

“…they talked about his white girlfriends in college. Which again you would think that would be a story that a news media that is so conscious about race seemed to not think that was an interesting development, that Obama had these white girlfriends.”

Really? Why exactly would that be an “interesting development?” Is there something wrong with interracial relationships? Was Graham disturbed that the purity of his white sisters was being defiled by a young black man? How would he have the media report this scandalous revelation? And what relevance does he think it has to the presidential election today?

Graham has outted himself as a most vile bigot. He pretends that there is some social significance to the fact that Obama had white girlfriends, but the reality of it is that he’s just plain racist. And this is a theme that right-wingers have attempted to sneak into the campaign ever since Obama emerged as a national figure. Last year Fox Nation posted this thinly disguised racial attack on Obama.

It’s five months before the election and already the conservative haters are loading their attacks with overtly racist themes. And then they complain when people correctly point out their flaming prejudice. Well I have one message for them: If you don’t like being called racist, stop being racist.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: