Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditWhile Sarah Palin talks and talks and talks in media appearances this week, the press is still letting her get away with (at least) one big, easy-to-spot lie.
For weeks, she has been asked, What went wrong with that Katie Couric interview? And Palin has repeatedly excused her disastrous performance by saying she was "annoyed" with Couric, because Katie had condescendingly asked, What do you read up there in Alaska? That's proof, Palin insists, that Couric and the liberal elite media look down on her--and by extension, all people out there in the "real America"--and she, for one, is not going to take it anymore.
Here's Matt Lauer, on Wednesday, letting Palin babble on, not bothering to question her premise:
And here's Couric not committing the original sin:
Press people, for all future interviews, please get this straight: Couric never mentioned Alaska. It's Palin who, whether out of paranoia or wiliness or both, invented the supposed Alaska slur and is blaming the East Coast media for it.
It's as if she carved a backward MSM on her cheek.
she is a sickening, ignorant, vacuous, rightwing, she-troll.
we know.
and sure, lets all get together from time to time for a good old fashioned "stupid rightwing she-troll beating" (its fun! and karmically positive too!!!)...but...
i'm more pissed about the latest new about the bailout which apparantly is turning into a reverse robin hood attempt to assure that self paid buzillionaires' lifestyles are not adversely altered one iota, while homeowners continue to be dumped on the street...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/12/2008 @ 4:42pm
Ugh. Who cares.
Posted by jackwells at 11/12/2008 @ 4:56pm
Ms. Savan,
The backwards MSM remark was pretty much spot on.
And beautifully funny.
Nicely done.
:D
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/12/2008 @ 4:57pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/12/2008 @ 4:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person
yeah - that was funny. didn't mean to dis ms. savan...good article and witty too...
just kinda getting "ride that dead horse around the room"-y now...i think...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/12/2008 @ 5:02pm
hi b kool! i saw that you said hello to me on some other thread, which i never found again. so i'm saying hello back to you, here. hope all is well.
Posted by loveloki at 11/12/2008 @ 7:23pm
These constant attacks on Gov Palin merely show the slimy, gutter views of many on the left.
As I've often said, as a general rule, the left preaches diversity, but practices hate towards everyone who doesn't line up in agreement with them. And they seem to love to get especially vitriolic and vulgar whenever they criticize someone.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/12/2008 @ 7:54pm
Just out of curiosity, is that your best defense LVL?
Posted by yutsano at 11/12/2008 @ 7:57pm
Just out of curiosity, is that your best defense LVL?
Posted by yutsano at 11/12/2008 @ 7:57pm
It wasn't a defense. I merely pointed out the obvious.
When was the last time you saw so much attention focused on the losing VP candidate in a presidential election?
Yet, leftist media like the Nation continue to attack and cast slurs against her, with an ample chorus of support from leftist bloggers.
A number of Democratic members of the media who have interviewed her have stated that they found her to be intelligent and informed and not at all like the caricatures. But even that is not the point.
Why does the left seem to feel compelled to continue attacking someone who was on the losing side of the election? What rational basis can you on the left have for this idiotic behavior?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/12/2008 @ 8:04pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/12/2008 @ 8:04pm
"Why does the left seem to feel compelled to continue attacking someone who was on the losing side of the election? What rational basis can you on the left have for this idiotic behavior?"
Her candidacy may be over. But her dishonest comments are recent.
Why the interview period? Beats me. People are stupid, hence TV is stupid?
"A number of Democratic members of the media who have interviewed her have stated that they found her to be intelligent and informed and not at all like the caricatures."
Why were these interviews not broadcast/webcast/published?
Mighta helped her campaign, assuming they are not figments of someones imagination.
Posted by Malcontent at 11/12/2008 @ 8:15pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/12/2008 @ 8:04pm
"Why does the left seem to feel compelled to continue attacking someone who was on the losing side of the election? What rational basis can you on the left have for this idiotic behavior?"
Her candidacy may be over. But her dishonest comments are recent.
Why the interview period? Beats me. People are stupid, hence TV is stupid?
"A number of Democratic members of the media who have interviewed her have stated that they found her to be intelligent and informed and not at all like the caricatures."
Why were these interviews not broadcast/webcast/published?
Mighta helped her campaign, assuming they are not figments of someones imagination.
Posted by Malcontent at 11/12/2008 @ 8:15pm
oops.
Posted by Malcontent at 11/12/2008 @ 8:16pm
Why does the left seem to feel compelled to continue attacking someone who was on the losing side of the election? What rational basis can you on the left have for this idiotic behavior?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/12/2008 @ 8:04pm
Personally I'd just as soon she go back to Alaska and go away. And would you please be so kind as to identify these Democratic interviewers who were so taken with her?
Posted by yutsano at 11/12/2008 @ 8:16pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/12/2008 @ 8:04pm
I believe Palin has brought much of the criticism upon herself.
She did not shy away from attacking Obama and/or Biden with absolutely absurd accusations during the campaign and her arrogance during her stump speeches was disgusting.
She gathered big crowds certainly, but interesting that many of the crowds that showed up for her performances, resembled Klan meetings.
Bottom line, the Couric interview was fairly straight forward and the result speaks for itself.
In hind site, I'm sure McCain seriously regrets his knee jerk and irresponsible choice of Palin ... regardless of what he may say publically.
I don't believe folks think that Palin is a total air head, but certainly she is not VP and/or Pres material.
One only needs listen to the fake French President phone call ...
Posted by Hoot at 11/12/2008 @ 8:26pm
Sarahs unintelligent immature unsophisticated mind was starkly exposed, during the fake sarkozy phone call. Sarah giggled like a school girl,her breathless "hellooo" at the start of the conversation said it all here is a sucker.
Posted by reality check at 11/12/2008 @ 8:49pm
The most vocal attacks on Palin have come from the people in her campaign. The most sexist and disrespectful comments about Palin have come from the right. Recall Rich Lowry sitting up straight while starburts popped out of the television. All of the candidates have been attacked unfairly-some more than others, but Palin seems to be the only one who is whining about it. She has been given a free pass for too long. She lies with a straight face and speaks so unintelligently that her supporters are fooled into thinking that someone so simple can't be a liar. She attacks the "liberal media" for talking down to her and voters in an effort to avoid substantive interviews so that people won't see that she is a complete fraud. I'm sick of her okey dokey act. It is an insult to the American people and to women. Have you listened to her speak? WHAT THE HECK IS SHE SAYIN' HALF THE TIME! OMG! ARE YOU FRACKIN' KIDDING ME.
Posted by allonfla at 11/12/2008 @ 9:02pm
Right now to me Sarah Palin just keeps talking and talking to fill the empty void of space. I give her credit where credit is due & yes she ran an interesting campaign with McCain -a lot of people showed love for her but it is in no way comparable to Biden as a VP and what Obama has accomplished. Listening to her or at least trying to makes me drowsy and a little ill. John McCain said today at least he's not being a sore loser and I agree with him. She needs to just chill out for a moment. Sometimes silence is golden. It's getting rediculous. Once again Palin is trying to steal the spot light not even as the election results were tallied and in she's been everywhere interviewing with everyone pleading her case. It's a bit grandiose and offensive.
Posted by something2say at 11/12/2008 @ 9:13pm
There is no statute of limitation for lib anger and rage. I found this out last night.
I was watching a show on PBS, where they were profiling Lee Atwater, a Republican strategist from 20 years ago, much reviled by the left.
This show totally skewered Mr. Atwater, and the main focus was the 1988 Bush-Dukakis contest for President.
The theme was all the horrible "wrongs" that were visited upon the Dukakis campaign, featured prominently was the Willie Horton ad.
This ad gave Dems the opportunity to throw the race card. Republicans raising a legitimate issue about Dukakis were condemned as racist by the left.
You would think leniency on crime would be an important issue for voters to consider in the campaign, but Dems say it should have been off limits.
The Duke himself, along with his wife, were interviewed in this show, carping and complaining about the unfairness of it all.
I thought to myself, my God, these people (Democrats) can not let go! They lost an election 20 years ago and are still carping and whining about it today! I guess that puts some of what I have seen during the past 8 years in perspective, people (Democrats) who can not accept defeat in an election and move forward, they must always declare some "wrong" was committed to cause the loss.
The only time things are "fair" and "just" is when libs win. So, things are "fair" and "just" now!
I saw an excellent article on the internet today that discusses some of this, I can only hope some of you libs will read it with an open mind and think a bit about your own behavior.
I can only hope.
November 12, 2008
It's How You Play The Game By Sally Zelikovsky
http://www.americanthinker.com /2008/11/ its_how_you_play_the_game.html
Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2008 @ 9:43pm
And they seem to love to get especially vitriolic and vulgar whenever they criticize someone. Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/12/2008 @ 7:54pm
Hmm. Says the group who calls gays fags and has followers who preach about their wrong lifestyle and poisoning of the American family by homosexuals and then preaches about compassion. Hilarious that you can't even see the sins of your own party through the heavy veil of partisanship that you wear.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/12/2008 @ 9:49pm
Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2008 @ 9:43pm
SJCHER, seems I read something about a "deathbed confession" of Atwater's...
what was he confessing?
Posted by Mask at 11/12/2008 @ 10:02pm
"As I've often said, as a general rule, the left preaches diversity, but practices hate towards everyone who doesn't line up in agreement with them. And they seem to love to get especially vitriolic and vulgar whenever they criticize someone."
Well, at least we're not into bombing them--say like some people on this message board who seem to love blowing the fuck out of Iraqi women and children, and seemingly loved doing the same to Vietnamese people--when they don't line up in agreement with us.
And, I am happy to say, I will gladly villify obnoxious, ignorant fools like Sarah Palin who pretty well stand against all that is good about this country.
Posted by onthehelm at 11/12/2008 @ 10:08pm
Mask,
I saw, on the show last night, that he was supposedly confessing his behavior in conducting campaigns.
I do not agree that he had anything to confess.
Politics can get rough both ways, but the left has more vitriol than the right.
Did you read the article I recommended yet? If you did or when you do, you will see that.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2008 @ 10:25pm
Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2008 @ 9:43pm
And Republicans complain about a documentary presented by a television show. Hilarious. PBS is supposed to be about talking about past events and a Republican is complaining in most likely the daftest of ways. Insulting 40% of the US society in the process. Take your partisan stupidity elsewhere. Try raising a legitimate point instead of just insulting 40% of the US.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/12/2008 @ 10:27pm
what was he confessing?
Posted by Mask at 11/12/2008 @ 10:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person
that he had been a slimeball.
i figgered sj wouldn't answer that, so i'd jump in.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/12/2008 @ 10:29pm
Politics can get rough both ways, but the left has more vitriol than the right. Did you read the article I recommended yet? If you did or when you do, you will see that. Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2008 @ 10:25pm
Hmm. Says the group who in the past used flat out racist tactics to fight off Dem's. Everyone does it equally. Stop with the partisan viewpoint. Politics is politics. The same tactics are used by both sides.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/12/2008 @ 11:03pm
Did you read the article I recommended yet? If you did or when you do, you will see that. Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2008 @ 10:25pm
By the way. No one here with a mind of their own is not going see anything in that article. That article is written by a partisan idiot. Who believes what they want to and is just preaching to a choir. Anyone who makes across the board generalizations, especially in the political world is showing that they don't care if their implication is actually true, they are just repeating the line of their party. The line from Republicans as well as Dem's is that the other side is worse because of this this and that. But anyone worth their salt can step back and look objectively and see that both sides use the same tactics just wrapped in slightly different packages.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/12/2008 @ 11:06pm
Did you read the article I recommended yet? If you did or when you do, you will see that. Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2008 @ 10:25pm
Funny that you say this also when we just came out of an election where the Republican vice-presidential candidate was stoking the fires of a crowd yelling "terrorist" and "kill him".
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/12/2008 @ 11:09pm
Did you read the article I recommended yet? If you did or when you do, you will see that. Posted by sjchermak at 11/12/2008 @ 10:25pm
You seem like a smart guy SJ. But you often sound like a kid who's parents told them what to believe and you have never questioned it. You have just tailored all of your opinions to fit within it's parameters. Try looking at politics a little more cynically and you will start to notice most of the people standing up and trumpeting their differences are not in fact different and you will notice that their supporters are fundamentally the same when you strip away the ideology, the behavior is much the same.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/12/2008 @ 11:12pm
http://www.truthines.com /2008/11/ its_how_you_play_the_game.html
Drivel.
Posted by Malcontent at 11/12/2008 @ 11:26pm
Spin, Spin, Spin ....
She is a total fraud and painfully ignorant.
Posted by SandyFeet at 11/13/2008 @ 12:49am
Wrong Question: 'Why does the left seem to feel compelled to continue attacking someone who was on the losing side of the election? What rational basis can you on the left have for this idiotic behavior?'
Right Question: Why is she making appearances before learning how to speak correctly?
Posted by Sabreen60 at 11/13/2008 @ 01:02am
Say the following out loud: Buckley, Goldwater, Welsh, Palin
Three true conservatives who were respected by the right and the left and a nauseatingly bad imitation.
Posted by MujerAlta at 11/13/2008 @ 02:33am
Of course she reads. She probably just didn't want to admit that she holds subscriptions to Cracked, The Weekly World News, and Liquor & Ammo Magazine.
Posted by koroviev at 11/13/2008 @ 03:35am
Cccomfo1,
You advise me to "stop with the partisan viewpoint".
You don't have a partisan viewpoint? It seems you do.
At various times you tell me I am supposed to think for myself. What makes you think I do not?
Let me point out something you said above:
"...Funny that you say this also when we just came out of an election where the Republican vice-presidential candidate was stoking the fires of a crowd yelling "terrorist" and "kill him".
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/12/2008 @ 11:09pm...."
BUT...then let me point this out:
"October 17 Secret Service says "Kill him" allegation unfounded By Andrew M. Seder aseder@timesleader.com Staff Writer
SCRANTON – The agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton said allegations that someone yelled "kill him" when presidential hopeful Barack Obama's name was mentioned during Tuesday's Sarah Palin rally are unfounded."
http://www.timesleader.com /news/breakingnews /Secret_Service_ says_Kill_him_allegation _unfounded_.html
Cccomfo1, I think you need to follow some of your own advice.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/13/2008 @ 07:42am
Like Bush, is she dangerously stupid or stupidly dangerous? Her brazen sense of entitlement and her lack of shame are assets--her undoing (achilles foot) would be being ignored. She is enamoured with the spotlight. She is the perfect fodder for the MSM pop culture because even scandal sheet notority fuels her ambition for more face time. She is in the mold of Bush but has the media savvy of Reagan and could be a valuble front for some behind the scenes operations.
Posted by Lil at 11/13/2008 @ 07:42am
The (largely justified) attacks continue because she remains in the public eye, she remains startlingly uninformed for a Gov., never mind VP. candidate, and because, despite all this and the various legal questions surrounding her abuses of power, there are still many who want to present her as the future of the GOP, and a possible Presidential candidate in four years! I'd think any thinking conservative would be happy to see her torn down, in the hopes that the Republican party could move away from ignorant zealotry and towards a 21st-century mindset. On that subject, where are all these thinking Republicans? I thought McCain might have been one, but his campaign showed otherwise (bravo for distancing himself from Bush now, boo for not doing so over the last eight years). I would think this would be a great time for legitimate, rational conservatives to take back their party and help move the country into the future, rather than back to the middle ages. The average American is, sadly, poorly educated. The average Republican politician is not. They know ignorance should be a bad thing, but they use it to their advantage ...even to the extent that they make sure one dubious intellect is on every presidential ticket since '76. (Okay, Dole-Kemp were only out of touch, not outright weak-brained.)
One final thought -- all the partisan name-calling is absurd, and of course there is corruption and mud-slinging and other forms of idiocy on both sides. But, though I'm no real Democrat, I will say the their are two things that sway things in their favor. First, greed and manipulation have been in the Republican platform for 40 years now. Second, while not all Republicans are racists, all racists surely vote Republican.
Posted by ElSquisho at 11/13/2008 @ 08:16am
ElSquisho,
You picked the wrong time to make your post above. I am not in a good mood to begin with today, but much worse after seeing your crap.
You are a sick, vile sanctimonius racist.
You made the comment above...... "...Second, while not all Republicans are racists, all racists surely vote Republican...."
This displays your total and complete ignorance. Why would a racist vote Republican? Republicans stand for equal opportunity, people becoming self-sufficient and making their way through life with dignity doing what they want to in life and getting where they want to be in life, and an educational system that gives people the skills to be the best they can be.
Democrats stand for the opposite. Democrats fixate and focus on race and declare themselves pure as the driven snow while throwing the race card at every opportunity, they promote and continually remind people how bad everything is and how wrong every thing is in order to keep divisions in this country roiling and unresolved, they promote dependence on goverment and promote that social justice is handing people guaranteed outcomes in life rather than granting opportunity, which is what people want (they will make their way in life and succeed on their own if they have opportunity, thank you, rather than being propped up by government), rich, white, racist Democrats look down on African-Americans with fake compassion and pandering condescension as people who can't succeed without the help of the benevolent libs, and Democrats promote lousy education in this country, teacher unions and modern educational theory are more important instead.
You say racists vote Republican but I doubt that Sen. Robert Byrd (D-KKK, W. VA) votes Republican in the voting booth.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/13/2008 @ 09:40am
Republicans stand for equal opportunity, people becoming self-sufficient and making their way through life with dignity doing what they want to in life and getting where they want to be in life, and an educational system that gives people the skills to be the best they can be.
hahahahahaha.that must be why they got trashed in the last two elections.
bye,bye baby
Posted by emile duBois at 11/13/2008 @ 09:53am
hi all,
being somewhat prescient, let me say that sarah palin will never be president of the united states of america! moreover, neither will rudy giuliani or others of that divisive ilk. In four years sarah palin will morph into a different looking person. however, that first impression: her lack of curiosity will resurface. i sleep comfortably at nights knowing this.
good day,
styles
Posted by styles at 11/13/2008 @ 10:05am
sj, Your grasp of Republican policies is sad, misguided, and, worst of all, common. A plan for a successful nation: Take thousands of human beings from another continent, who happen to be black, enslave them, force them to build your country, your agriculture, and your economy. Then, when the most blatant injustice is finally ended, allow generations of discrimination, all in the milieu of a Eurocentric, capitalist culture which offers "opportunity" as its greatest reward. So we maintain the status quo, in which the privileged thrive off their inherited opportunities, while the less fortunate, the disenfranchised, and those whose abilities do not lend themselves to cutthroat capitalism are forced to compete. Once in a while some slip through and "make it," and this apparently justifies the entire system. I am not raving about the wonders of the Democratic party, especially as it was clearly the more racist party for ages and ages. But since before Nixon took office, Republican policies have centered around promoting the rich and keeping the poor poor and ignorant. Many of the victims of these policies are of African descent. While one may try to argue that this is merely coincidence, it still stands to reason -- and is demonstrable through the past 40 years of politics -- that anyone who think blacks are and should remain inferior is going to vote for and support those policies. Your notions of education are also frightening, but at least consistently so. Surely a nation of creationists will compete deftly in the global economy.
Posted by ElSquisho at 11/13/2008 @ 10:14am
In conclusion:
If the Democrats offer "fake compassion," I say better fake than none at all. I don't see how the ideas you spew can be seen as compassionate at all. "Compassionate Conservative" is, of course, another in a long list of Orwellian terms used by the Right, as more commonly found in Environmental policy. I expect many of those Democratic racists who voted for Obama will have much more to say.
Posted by ElSquisho at 11/13/2008 @ 10:14am
She's a footnote.
Extremely lucky if she's reelected AK guv.
Bye, luv.
Although ...wouldn't it be fun to see the GOP truly interred in '12?
Sarah debating Obama. Talk about lipsticked to the slaughter.
So you go, girl, Sarah GOP '12!
More fun than Bloomie or Mitt
'84, reversed.
Posted by sloper at 11/13/2008 @ 10:29am
Want to see a quick and easy Pavlovian response from SJCHER?
Hey, SJ...
"You say racists vote Republican but I doubt that Sen. Robert Byrd (D-KKK, W. VA) votes Republican in the voting booth."------Posted by sjchermak at 11/13/2008 @ 09:40am
So why are there NO racists who vote Republican?
(Here's where he says "I'm not saying that...." and goes back off on a Robert "KKK" Byrd tangent again and pretends like there are MILLOINS of racist Dems, but maybe 5 racist Republicans!....heheh)
(Or he'll ignore this....heheh again)
Posted by Mask at 11/13/2008 @ 10:31am
Republicans stand for equal opportunity, people becoming self-sufficient and making their way through life with dignity doing what they want to in life and getting where they want to be in life, and an educational system that gives people the skills to be the best they can be.
hahahahahaha.that must be why they got trashed in the last two elections.
bye,bye baby
Posted by emile duBois at 11/13/2008 @ 09:53am
Thank JR for pointing out that liberals don't believe in personal responsibility and initiative (yeah, I know you own your own business). But you don't want to make people live that way. Only those who choose to do so. For the rest, you are quite comfortable with stealing from the labors of others and giving people healthcare, free education, housing, and even money (see EITC and the Obama "taxcut" plan). they won't have to do anything more than simply exist and you want them to enjoy the comforts of a middle class lifestyle.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/13/2008 @ 11:10am
osted by lvliberty1 at 11/13/2008 @ 11:10am | ignore this person | warn this person
this moldy old fig again. yawn.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/13/2008 @ 11:22am
hey liverty, you are on the way out. your party has been repudiated at the ballot box. why don't you give us your version of why that is.
and be sure to lecture the financial wizards at wall st and GM and the insurance giants on the personal responsibility thing. hahahahahaha
Posted by emile duBois at 11/13/2008 @ 11:26am
Keep them down! Drive them to crime! Then lock them in prisons! Then... spend lots of money to keep them in prisons! The end result of right-wing class warfare. Much better then spending that money up front to give everyone a decent life. Causes laziness. Reduces the workforce. Keeping people out of work should be the job of big business, not the government. What we should do, of course, is let poor people die, then make them into food for the rest of us. Mmm. Soylent Green.
Posted by ElSquisho at 11/13/2008 @ 11:29am
yeah, I know you own your own business).
thirty years plus of being my own boss. can you say the same? I am a craftsman and an artist. I invented my job and have taught and mentored numerous individuals.tell me again the part about personal responsibility, I love hearing fairly tales
Posted by emile duBois at 11/13/2008 @ 11:34am
ElSquisho,
Congratulations, you have managed to meld or morph over 400 years of history into one "event", an event of horrible wrong and opression visited upon "the people", opression that is in as much full force today as was the case 400 or more years ago!
Here is what really happened:
1. People were brought against their will (not by Republicans) to the North American continent, a place that was not yet even the United States of America, for the purpose of wrongly using their labor in enslavement.
2. This was wrong.
3. This type of wrong did not occur everywhere.
4. This type of wrong did occur in other places, besides here. It may have not always been in the same form (people enslaved someplace else may not been from Africa, but elsewhere), i.e, it was not a uniquely American wrong.
5. In some places, this kind of thing persists to this day.
6. Over the years, here in what became America, people (many people, of many ethnic and political backgrounds) worked to right this wrong, and then the wrongs that continued such as discrimination, Jim Crow laws, racism, etc. Much more so here in America than in other places where this kind of stuff existed.
7. There has been much progress made.
8. People have been in charge of their own destiny here in America, the land of opportunity, to a much greater degree here than anyplace else in human history.
9. In the "past 40 years" it is much of the Great Society policies that have both failed the objective and kept the poor "poor and ignorant".
Basically, you are applying the standard leftist class warfare template to a very complex issue, without recognizing much progress in righting past wrongs has been made, and made because of the promise of freedom America offers.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/13/2008 @ 11:35am
ElSquisho,
I will say you are right about one thing - that my "notions" about education are frightening.
Yes, what liberals have done to public education in this country IS frightening, to be sure!
Barack Obama, I saw on the news yesterday, will probably enroll his kids in private school when he takes up residence in the District next January.
He, of course, along with other Democrats, will no doubt seek to deny other District parents vouchers so they can do the same for their kids, because after all, vouchers are an attempt to "destroy public education"
Former Mayor Anthony Williams, a Democrat, promoted vouchers for D.C. kids so they could get a decent education.
Unfortunately, he is no longer Mayor, either from having decided to retire and not run again, or because there are term limits, I don't know which. Either way, the D.C. kids do not have somebody to stand up for them during the coming attempt to take away their right to a decent education, while at the same time the Obama children will be able to attend private school.
Mayor Williams, if you are eligible to run again for Mayor at the next election, please do so because you are needed now to help the District kids!
Posted by sjchermak at 11/13/2008 @ 11:44am
"Much more so here in America than in other places where this kind of stuff existed."
another fairy tale. I don't see much lynching in England for instance, in sharp contrast to here, where that barbaric assault continued well into this century.
american history is far too bloody to be whitewashed by such simpleminded tripe.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/13/2008 @ 11:48am
Posted by emile duBois at 11/13/2008 @ 11:48am
How about RECENT history, emile/JOHANN?
SJCHER has a problem with that too. He's still talking about "40 years of Great Society programs"...FOURTEEN YEARS after Gingrich and Clinton passed welfare reform.
Posted by Mask at 11/13/2008 @ 12:15pm
She gathered big crowds certainly.
Posted by Hoot at 11/12/2008 @ 8:26pm
The Freak Show at the Carnival used to gather large crowds aswell...
Posted by chaoszen at 11/13/2008 @ 12:17pm
Posted by chaoszen at 11/13/2008 @ 12:17pm
I think in some of the male GOPers' case it was more of the ...
"Hootchie Show at the Carnival", chaos.
Posted by Mask at 11/13/2008 @ 12:26pm
The Freak Show at the Carnival used to gather large crowds aswell... Posted by chaoszen at 11/13/2008 @ 12:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person
as did lynchings. never forget.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/13/2008 @ 12:29pm
sj, Lots of writing, still looking for a point.
I never accused the Republicans of perpetrating Slavery. An absurd observation. Pardon me for summing up a long history in a brief passage, but that is the medium. And little that you wrote contradicts my admitted shorthand.
I agree that much progress has been made. I disagree that this progress now means that we're all on equal footing, and the opportunities presented in the US are equal for all.
As for education, how does allowing people to send their kids to "good" schools not harm the "bad" schools? Shouldn't improving schools in general be the goal? This won't be accomplished by competition. This will be achieved by putting in money, training better teachers, making teaching a desirable, well-paid profession, and by, ultimately, changing the focus of our society away from the regressive, consumer-based, superficial society that we've built and exported for the last century or so.
Again, this is a complicated issue, and pointing out the necessary simplifications is not an effective way to make your point.
Teachers I know agree that the Bush plan has been garbage. Rational people agree that teaching "intelligent design" is an effective way to thwart scientific reasoning and promote a generation of confused, backward non-scientists. Case in point: all the people who post here who are clearly educated, but have never learned to question or think independently. They fall on both sides, but those on the left are at least in their environment. On the right, I only see people who don't want to expand their perspectives, but try to sound smart by spewing bitterness and arrogance. I admit my own bitterness and arrogance, but that is the privilege of the left. And if you don't grasp sarcasm, don't bother responding.
Posted by ElSquisho at 11/13/2008 @ 12:34pm
lvliberty1, I case you didn't understand, Palin is the character that has drawn attention to herslef with the possible 2012 run.
Posted by piglizard420 at 11/13/2008 @ 12:41pm
emile duBois,
People worked to stop lynchings. AMERICANS did this.
I am not trying to whitewash American history. We live in an open country with freedom, so our history is not whitewashed.
In other places, for example, Japan, they do not go into a whole lot of detail about the atrocities their armies committed prior to and during World War II.
American history is an open book for all to see.
You are the one who ignores part of that history. The part where people here, driven by their sense of right and wrong and enabled by freedom they had, and NOT because of efforts of or badgering by foreign countries, worked to right wrongs that existed and give people franchise where those people were disenfranchised before.
In "The People's Republic" of China, when citizens tried to do some of that in Tienanmen Square, they were massacred. Has anything even approaching that happened here? NO!
Plus, it always fascinates me, that you on the left hold up some other countries such as the utopias in Europe that you drool over, as paragons of virtue.... you overlook that these places, until only recently, have had a mostly one ethnic population, you assume too much when you try to portray these countries as not racist.
America has dealt with, and dealt with a lot more successfully than you belief, the issues of racism and injustice, far better than I suspect many of these utopias would have.
People known as "gypsies" were and still are opressed and ostracised in some of Eastern Europe, most notably in Hungary. Yet, from 1945 till 1989-1990, Hungary as well as it's neighbors were Worker's Paradises, People's Democracies, Utopias, where all comrades were 100% equal in every way!! Yet Gypsies were oppressed. How do you explain THAT?
Posted by sjchermak at 11/13/2008 @ 12:42pm
you overlook that these places, until only recently, have had a mostly one ethnic population, you assume too much when you try to portray these countries as not racist.
nonsense. England has always had dark people from their colonies.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/13/2008 @ 12:46pm
you assume too much when you try to portray these countries as not racist.
I have done no such thing. they were and are racist, as are we, Obama's election notwithstanding.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/13/2008 @ 12:49pm
ElSquisho,
You want to improve schools. Yet you say put in money. Money is not the problem.
You say train better teachers. But teachers can't have merit pay, pay increase is based on union seniority rules. So better teachers do not necessarily get more pay, in many cases do not, and thus leave the profession or get discouraged and stop putting in the effort.
How about this new concept that you can not discipline kids in school anymore. Sometimes kids will be kids, and need discipline. Nowadays, you can not do that.
In some places, grading is deemed to be not important anymore. Thus 2+2=5 is OK because you tried or good because it shows non conformist ingenuity and creativity. (I am not saying I have a concrete example of a teacher saying 2+2=5 is OK, it is a symbol of the negative effect of modern educational theory).
A lot of the school day is spent teaching nonsense subjects rather than reading, writing and arithmetic. Kids as early as kindergarten are taught more about sex than their parents probably know, but not just how to prevent pregnancy and STD's, also is lib belief about sexuality.
If you can explain how to overcome this, the stuff that really is why education is lousy, I would love to hear it. I don't know how you take on teachers unions, and leftist school boards and bureauacracy.
Absent that, at least vouchers give kids a chance, and maybe some day the public schools will be shamed into reforming.
You say our society is consumer based and superficial. Free enterprise and capitalism are what have given us the standard of living we have today. Would we even have automobiles or computers if from day one of this country we were socialist or communist? If we did have cars, they would be junk like that E. German "Trabant" was.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/13/2008 @ 12:58pm
How about this new concept that you can not discipline kids in school anymore. Sometimes kids will be kids, and need discipline. Nowadays, you can not do that.
I imagine you mean hitting kids, which is assault and is rightly illegal.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/13/2008 @ 1:07pm
If we did have cars, they would be junk like that E. German "Trabant" was. Posted by sjchermak at 11/13/2008 @ 12:58pm | ignore this person | warn this person
or the Chevy Corvair, which burst into flames when hit from behind.
are you sure you are not Maasch or Liverty, who have been posting this kind of nonsense for some time.
must be greatest hits time for braindead repugs.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/13/2008 @ 1:10pm
which american was it that invented the internal combustion engine? which american was it that made the first cars?
Posted by emile duBois at 11/13/2008 @ 1:11pm
poor, poor repugs. reduced to posting such drivel. they are a sad bunch. someone should give them the coup de grace.
which incidentally is pronounced cou de grass, never cou de gra. you can always spot a phony wannabe by that, and by their shoes.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/13/2008 @ 1:19pm
I hoped after the election, Palin would go away but she's on a media blitz. She's not redeeming herself in my opinion. She offends me. I was concerned the American people were stupid enough to elect those two, as that didn't happen, there is still hope for our country. The media must step up and do a better job. They need to ask the tough questions and make sure those questions are answered directly and not evaded. We need to cut through the CRAP and get our country headed in a better direction that benefits us all more equally. Do away with all political parties and politics and everybody work together with the same goal--the good of our country and people. We need intelligent. honest, honerable, committed leaders with uncompromising ethics and integrity. We need systems that don't promote corruption. We need leaders to be good examples to people with their behavior and their words and actions. Our whole society is corrupt, our systems and people at every level. Sarah Palin is a disgrace. She is a 44 year old version of Brittney Spears. She has never grown up. With all the problems we are currently having, who wants to even see her face in serious news? Keep her on Fox or Access Hollywood. I change channels when she shows up. There is no defending her. Give it up, you look stupid as she is. Republicans are finished.
Posted by oneofmany at 11/13/2008 @ 1:25pm
Do away with all political parties and politics and everybody work together with the same goal-
too late.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/13/2008 @ 1:35pm
In "The People's Republic" of China, when citizens tried to do some of that in Tienanmen Square, they were massacred. Has anything even approaching that happened here? NO!-----Posted by sjchermak at 11/13/2008 @ 12:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_Square
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosewood_massacre
Posted by Mask at 11/13/2008 @ 1:45pm
In "The People's Republic" of China, when citizens tried to do some of that in Tienanmen Square, they were massacred. Has anything even approaching that happened here? NO!-----Posted by sjchermak at 11/13/2008 @ 12:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_Square
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosewood_massacre
Posted by Mask at 11/13/2008 @ 1:45pm
Interesting insight into your thinking Mask.
In example #1, you are equating students in Tienanmen Square standing nonviolently in front of tanks with anarchists throwing bombs at police? And four of the anarchists were executed for murder.
In example #2, again you are conflating the Chinese students being mowed down by the government with innocent black families being murdered by KKK lynch mobs? Additionally, and unlike the Chinese, the Florida state govt passed a Rosewood Compensation bill which not only served as an apology, but provided some deserved recompense for that racist criminal behavior.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/13/2008 @ 2:30pm
Mask,
According to your post, in the Haymarket Square, someone threw a bomb at the police. I know, they were not supposed to respond.
In the Rosewood massacre, white mobs attacked and killed blacks, and people have been fighting to stop this kind of thing for years. It was wrong for white mobs to do that, white mobs do not do that today.
In neither case did it appear that the federal government or military made a successful effort to massacre a massive number of people, such as what I mentioned in China.
Next up, and I know it is coming, you will be telling me about May 4, 1970. I know, Nixon killed the kids at Kent State.
I know that is so because I heard somebody tell U.S. Sen. Jacob Javits so. I was sitting in a lecture hall where I went to college where Sen. Javits was talking - during the question and answer session somebody asked Sen Javits why he supported Nixon when he killed the kids at Kent State.
Sen. Javits replied that Nixon did not kill the kids at Kent State. This person then shouted back in exasperation "HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT?"
Sen. Javits probably was thinking that there must be a full moon out tonight. I would be willing to bet that person, whoever he was, is probably a regular blogger today on The Nation website.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/13/2008 @ 2:36pm
As I've commented many, many times before, I have people like LVL on my ignore list. But since so many people have commented on his/her/its post about why the "left" feels "compelled" to continue attacking someone who has lost the election, I have an idea of what he/she/it said.
Hey! To all the flaming hypocrites like LVL - why did right-wing nutjobs like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity feel a need to attack "liberals" and democrats and anyone who didn't adhere to their loopy creed for all those years? Perhaps they felt threatened by those of us who weren't in their "patriotic" (read jingoistic) mould.
Maybe some of us not-so-real Americans believe that the Sarah Palins of the world could still be a threat to sanity, true patriotism, and reality.
Just a thought.
Posted by LeeAnnG at 11/13/2008 @ 3:05pm
LeeAnnG,
I feel compelled to bring this up again, and I know you on the left do not like it, but---- why do you have lvliberty1 on your ignore list?
Why do you intentionally shut out ideas you do not agree with?
You on the left are the ones who profess yourselves to be open minded, but this is the second time in as many days that this type of sentiment has been expressed, that I have seen. God knows how many I haven't seen.
Someone yesterday, on one of the other threads, declared they pay no attention to Rush Limbaugh, etc.
Even if you don't agree with some people, how are you able to credibly discuss things and defend what you believe, if you shut out what others think?
It seems like some of you on the left think that discouse is to be a one way street (e.g., the left wants to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine" in the media). Thought you do not agree with is "hate speech" and is to be shut out and ignored.
You are possessed with wisdom, I guess because you are a leftist. Becoming a leftist or realizing one's political beliefs are leftist causes some kind of epiphany where you are then blessed with wisdom beyond belief.
You then "know better" and "know enough" to look down with scorn and derison at those not as enlightened as you, people who are either stupid to start with or led astray by the likes of Karl Rove, or whatever.
If it sounds like I am being sarcastic, that is because I am making my best effort at being sarcastic. I hope I am succeeding and that the message gets through. Probably all it will do is get me on your ignore list!!
Posted by sjchermak at 11/13/2008 @ 3:27pm
The only person I have put on my ignore list was Rese, and only because the posts were too lengthy and too frequent and you could not easily see whoever else posted, without wearing out the scroll wheel on the mouse.
And that was too bad, because some of the stuff was hilarious.
On more than one occasion, Rese commented on something that John F. Kennedy, Jr. did when he was President.
This was good, funny stuff - Rese somehow did not realize that there is no way that John F. Kennedy would feel compelled to turn any presidential decisions, let alone all of them, over to his 3-yr old child!!
Posted by sjchermak at 11/13/2008 @ 3:33pm
My thoughts on the matter are lets stop talking about her. She went back to AK with chants of "2012" which is terrifying. I would like to think that there's no way but there are people out there that actually like her. The best thing we can do, in my opinion, is just let her become a bad memory and not feed her drive for power and attention.
Posted by rcran910 at 11/13/2008 @ 3:47pm
MASK: (excerpt from the Frontline article about Lee Atwater)
"Lee apologized directly to some of the people he'd hurt," says Forbes, "but never criticized the GOP, or even disavowed negative campaigning. And his vision of politics as war would continue to affect a new generation of GOP politicians and operatives."
Carl Roves Mentor.
And to comment on this tenuous, tenuous thread.
Sarah Palin has no more credibility as a politician than a contestant on american idol. She wasn't a team player, says she likes Obama now, overspent her allowance, believes in witchcraft, blames everyone else for everything... in short, she's a republican.
Even if you didn't think that she sucks, which I do, it's just amazing that conservatives would even consider putting her in a position of power. She's ignorant, but not controllable, which is the focus when you get behind someone like her.
Some conservative posters here follow the republican mantra of response: Whatever the 'libs' say is wrong... even if they agree with you. They were bad before they were good. The liberal media (owned by conservatives) is bad. It's like a disease with no cure. Personally, I think the existence of the two party fiasc just creates mindless dissent by thse who don't realy know what the hell is going on... but wish that they did.
Posted by ficheye at 11/13/2008 @ 4:26pm
Sorry about they typo's.
I stand behind the content, however.
Posted by ficheye at 11/13/2008 @ 4:30pm
ficheye,
You of course do know what is going on, I know.
You said, with obvious sarcsam "The liberal media (owned by conservatives) is bad."
Obviously, the implication is that the media is not liberal.
You must have not been watching the post election analysis on NBC the night of Nov 4 (morning of Nov 5), where Tom Brokaw, Doris Kerns Goodwin, et. al. were sitting around the table with their thoughts.
These people were bubbling with delight. The demeanor, I can assure you, would not have been the same if John McCain would have won.
But, I know, the media is not liberal because it is owned by Conservatives. How do I know this? Because you said so, and you know what I going on, and now I do too!
Posted by sjchermak at 11/13/2008 @ 4:38pm
Okay, SJ and LVLIB...let me guess...
if I mention the "Tuskegee Syphillis Experiments", you're going to tell me...
that the US Public Health Service "isn't really" part of the US Government, right?
Or if I mention the Wounded Knee Massacre of 1890...."the Lakota had WMDs and had violated 17 UN resolutions"?
Posted by Mask at 11/13/2008 @ 4:43pm
Posted by sjchermak at 11/13/2008 @ 4:38pm
Boy, howdy. If you can't come up with anything better than that you are going to hurt my feelings just from the complete lack of content.
The real problem with your comment, however, just to leave a precise rebuttal, was your observation of how the televised media people were reacting to McCain's demise. I'd say it was relief, certainly.
I beg you to consider the awful fact... get ready... that many, many conservatives did not vote for McCain. And not just because of Sarah Palin, but because of McCain himself, his lack of understanding of economic issues, etc. Your response might be 'Well, Obama doesn't know diddley about the economy!" That may be right to a certain degree, but John McCain, considering his many years of experience in government knows a lot less than he should, seven houses not withstanding. Therefore, a vote of no confidence for the guy.
I'd say, in summation, that Obama isn't really a true liberal. He's something else, and that's what really has people going. Stay tuned, give the guy a chance, make sense, and keep it civil.
Posted by ficheye at 11/13/2008 @ 5:30pm
I live in Alaska and can assure you many Alaskans absolutely cringe every time Palin speaks. I watched the Couric interview and was astounded when she refused to answer questions about what she reads and then turned her answer into the accusation "you don't understand Alaska." It was classic passive aggressive behavior. The bottom line is Palin couldn't answer the question and rather than be honest she attacked like an angry adolescent. Couric should have fought back. Palin knows people are nicer than she is. It was obvious to me she was avoiding the question.
Posted by KatAK at 11/13/2008 @ 6:31pm
ficheye,
Don't instruct me to keep it civil!
You on the left began full-throttle un-civility from the very beginning of the Bush presidency.
And we were told over and over again that we had no right to infringe on your free speech, you had free speech and every right to speak out for what you believe and this was and is a free country and nobody had a right to order you what to think and blindly support like a storm trooper someone you opposed, etc etc etc etc ..... 8 year time period.....etc etc etc.
But now, on Nov 4, all of a sudden the rules change and I am told to keep it civil.
My post is not un-civil. I put forth my opinion, one which didn't contain any slams or the f-word.
I do remember a post a while back where madlib requested I kill myself. I guess, since madlib is lib, that was reasonable and civil.
But of course, any questioning of Barack Obama will be defined as:
1. Unpatriotic 2. Right-wing rage 3. Racism 4. Hate speech
Point of fact, as I was watching the NBC Obama lovefest, the media people were not reacting to McCain's "demise".
I am not sure now and unless there is a transcript on the internet somewhere I have no way to check, but I am not sure the word "McCain" was even mentioned during the portion of the telecast that I was commenting on.
They were starstuck and enthralled with the next president, and Doris Kerns Goodwin was giddy with the thought that the eleciton means that there will be a new progressive era.
I already know that conservatives were not thrilled with McCain. Personally, I wish that he and Sarah Palin had switched places on the ticket. If that had happened, we might be talking about President-elect Palin right now.
(and someday we still will!!!).
Posted by sjchermak at 11/13/2008 @ 6:45pm
Posted by KatAK at 11/13/2008 @ 6:31pm
Thank you for that post. It was right on the money. All Couric was getting at was "Where do you go to learn something new?". I guess Sarah couldn't hang with that. She is so good at mangling the english language, just like GW. Not a positive trait.
As a trivial aside, I would really like to know why she sounds like she's from Minnesota or Canada.
Posted by ficheye at 11/13/2008 @ 6:50pm
I think her parents are from the Midwest.
She sounds like she acquired language underwater. Her grammar is garbled and reflects poorly on her reasoning skills.
Posted by KatAK at 11/13/2008 @ 7:06pm
Posted by sjchermak at 11/13/2008 @ 6:45pm
This is a lot of fun.
Firstly, I was not instructing YOU, personally, to keep it civil. I would never do that. It was a general statement about the entire spectrum of political discourse.
I would never mis-underestimate you. But George Bush was the worst president in our history. People were right to question him from day one. That's not a point that holds any water. And looking back at the last eight years we might even be able to say that he inspired the selfishness and greed that precipitated the current financial crises. Sure, you might say that the Democrats are also to blame, but the commander in chief, The Decider, is the person who leads the way for the nation. Here's a guy who also took more vacations than any other president. A man of quality (sarcasm), and deep personal integrity (even more sarcasm). I am looking forward to his departure.
Now, that was civil, wasn't it? I'm sorry if I throw in a little sarcastic humor, but it's the best way to keep it light and still have a discourse. Please don't get so angry about people who disagree with you. Instead, I respectfully SUGGEST, you might offer your opinions about how things could be made better here in our country. Instead, it seems that you are finger pointing. It just seems that way. I could be mistaken.
And to wish that Palin and McCain had switched places. No, I'd have to respectfully disagree about that. She's a child, politically speaking, who isn't even very well liked in Alaska. She knows how to shop, though. She can see Wal-Mart from her house.
Posted by ficheye at 11/13/2008 @ 7:09pm
ficheye,
How to make things better in this country?
Try to fix public education.
Do that by:
1. Paying teachers on merit and not union seniority rules
2. Eliminating teacher tenure
3. Eliminating teacher unions
4. Allow teachers to discipline kids when necessary.
5. Teach kids skills they need, such as reading, writing, arithmetic, science, history, etc and not n0nsense subjects.
6. Have schools be for education, and not political indoctrination.
7. Allow vouchers for kids to attend other schools to get a quality education until the time public schools are reformed enough that this is not needed.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/14/2008 @ 04:17am
ficheye,
You say people were right to question President Bush from Day One. And this is a free society with free speech so people do have a right to question the President.
Make that had a right to question the President.
Because now, questioning Barack Obama will not be tolerated. It will not be tolerated any more than it was tolerated during the campaign.
People (Republicans) brining up questions about Barack Obamas past background, a background which indicates a hard left political ideology, were condemned for doing so, even though you would think his political ideology would be a relevant issue in the campaign.
That sentiment was certainly expressed on this website over and over again.
The best I can remember is that this concept began in 2004, where the Swift Boat Veterans were condemned for providing a less than flattering story about John F. Kerry's military service.
(I do notice that I have not seen any major media (ABC,NBC,CBS) expose refuting what the Swift Boat Vets said, in all these past 4 years. I wonder why? Could it be that there was some truth to what the Swift Boat Vets said? Could be, because I am sure that if ABC, NBC, CBS could have proven the Swift Boat Vets wrong they certainly would have done so)
The Swift Boat thing led to the term "Swiftboating" which seems to have replaced "McCarthyism" as the catch-all term used when the left throws a penalty flag at someone they disagree with.
So it is this inconsistency on when it is or is not OK to question a president or presidential candidate, and how it seems to coincide with whether there is an R or a D after the candidates name, that I have issue with.
I am not saying this is what you think, but what the prevailing mood among the left seems to be.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/14/2008 @ 06:48am
and someday we still will!!!).-----Posted by sjchermak at 11/13/2008 @ 6:45pm
That a prediction, SJ?
------------------
Because now, questioning Barack Obama will not be tolerated. It will not be tolerated any more than it was tolerated during the campaign.------Posted by sjchermak at 11/14/2008 @ 06:48am
Who was "shut down" for going on and on and on and on and on about Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, etc.?
Anybody? Rush taken off the air? Hannity? O'Loufa Bill? Fox News have their doors chained shut by the Obama campaign?
How was this "intolerance" manifested, SJCHER?
Posted by Mask at 11/14/2008 @ 09:31am
Mask,
Why are you asking me? You are on this website all the time!
Since the beginning of this country, candidtates have tried to point out during their campaigns the shorcomings, as they see it, of their opponent. Either way, Democrat or Republican, it used to be a normal part of politics.
But, and as you can see from some of these articles, in many cases anything negative said about Obama is deemed an "attack". The implication is quite clear - that it is wrong for an opponent to point out Obama's percieved shortcomings. Even though this type of thing has gone on in politics always, now rather than just accepting it as part of political arguing and mudslingling, it is deemed "wrong"
I could have been harvesting articles until kingdom come as examples.
Culture War Time Warp posted by Christopher Hayes on 10/22/2008 @ 4:18pm http://www.thenation.com/ blogs/jstreet/ 374979/culture_war_time_warp ?rel=sidebox
Smearing Obama By Ari Berman This article appeared in the March 31, 2008 edition of The Nation. March 13, 2008 http://www.thenation.com/ doc/20080331/berman
As World Embraces Obama, McCain Attacks posted by Ari Berman on 07/22/2008 @ 11:06am http://www.thenation.com/ blogs/state_of_change /338175/as_world_embraces _obama_mccain_attacks
Fox News on Obama's Fox Attacks posted by Ari Melber on 10/17/2008 @ 4:40pm http://www.thenation.com/ blogs/state_of_change/ 373392/fox_news_on _obama_s_fox_attacks
Willie Horton Returns As Barack Obama posted by Ari Berman on 04/22/2008 @ 3:42pm http://www.thenation.com /blogs/state_of_change/ 314260/willie_horton_ returns_as_barack_obama
When McCain Attacks... By Brave New Films August 1, 2008 http://www.thenation.com /doc/20080818 /mccainattack_video
Posted by sjchermak at 11/14/2008 @ 10:36am
Mask,
Since I know ahead of time what you will probably come back with, I will bat your arguments away for you now.
As I said, mudslinging has been a part of political life from the very beginning in this country. In either direction.
And some of the "mudslinging" contains stuff that may be rumors not substantiated, some may be claims that are actually false, and much may be actual actions by a candidate in the course of their past responsibilities, or statements of what they intend to do if elected to office, that are construed by their opponent as wrong and which the opponent would follow a different approach.
And so it is with Obama. Yes, some things such as rumors of him being Muslim were apparently false. But stuff like his past Chicago background (Ayers, the Stoger and Daley machine connection, etc) as well as labeling his beliefs as socialist, come from his actual life or stated opinions and are certainly legitimate things for an opponent to bring up if the opponent does not agree with would would likely be an Obama agenda.
So it runs the gamut, as political criticism and mudslinging always do.
It used to be that regular voters would generically complain about "mudslinging" AFTER a campaign, and then the next election mud is thrown again.
This year, there have been an inordinate amount of articles, commentary, etc. about "attacks" on Obama, as a topic in and of itself. Rather than just articles by supporters defending Obama's background and how they feel it doesn't point to socialism, if they feel that way, or why they think socialism is OK anyway, if they feel that way, the implication from the inordinate time spent on the subject is clear...... criticising Obama is wrong... even though criticism was always part of politics until now.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/14/2008 @ 10:54am
Mask,
Although I do realize that this new feature did not just begin now it is a recent phenomenon but it is not completely new this year because you on the left declare "Swiftboating" wrong - obviously attacking any Democrat is not acceptable.
You also made the remark about being "shut down" and no... nobody is "shut down" for criticising Obama... for now.
But when libs do label Conservative opinion as "hate speech" then it can start to get troublesome, since as I understand it there are some quite rigid PC speech codes in place at a lot of college campuses, and legitimate Conservative opinion can easily be labeled hate speech and then be forbidden in those venues.
So you do have to forgive Conservatives for being a little bit queasy when libs spend so much time carping about people just offering up opinions, rather than arguing the issues, because it can lead to infringement on free speech if it is allowed to go too far, as it apparently has at least in the college environment.
And no, I am not going to provide links as "proof" because there are not enough hours in the day and I can not spend my whole day parked on these blogs - I have seen commentary about this over the years and I am commenting on it at the spur of the moment in the process of expanding on what I have said..... and I do get tired after a while of having to "prove" to libs things that are actual events in the public domain or "prove" to a libs something that libs believe in (but won't or do not want to admit to) anyway.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/14/2008 @ 11:03am
SJCHER, "not tolerated" means that there has to be SOME mechinism by which it is suppressed.
NOBODY stopped you from posting on those threads. NOBODY stopped Rush, Sean, Glenn, Loufa Bill, Coulter, Ingraham, Malkin, etc., etc., etc. from going on and on and on and on and on about it...
or a WHOLE TELEVISION NETWORK (rhymes with "pox") from running with those stories.
So....where's the suppression of that "not tolerated" would indicate?
Posted by Mask at 11/14/2008 @ 11:19am
BTW, this is CLASSIC SJCHER "truthiness" derived directly from Rush...
"In some places, grading is deemed to be not important anymore. Thus 2+2=5 is OK because you tried or good because it shows non conformist ingenuity and creativity. (I am not saying I have a concrete example of a teacher saying 2+2=5 is OK, it is a symbol of the negative effect of modern educational theory)."-----Posted by sjchermak at 11/13/2008 @ 12:58pm
So it's happening "in some places"...but you can't provide a concrete example of it actually happening?
LOL
Posted by Mask at 11/14/2008 @ 11:23am
Mask,
Excellent comebacks... in the court of opinion known as "The Nation" you have won the argument!! Point made, point proven.
I already told you the speech was not suppressed, but there was the constant and inordinate amount of comment regarding "attacks" on Obama which when it was done replaced disucssion or defense of Obama policy.
And I told you that a Conservative has a right to feel queasy about this because with words such as "hate speech" thrown around so easily by libs, and with rigid PC codes on college campuses, who knows when suppression could occur.
You libs can not be trusted too much. Declaring that it is "wrong" to "attack" a candidate when the "attacks" a lot of the time are legitimate questions about a candidates background or record (what little record Obama had in this case) is certainly plowing new ground in recent years for Democrats. But you want actual examples of suppression, even though I already told you that was not the issue, and when I do not provide examples of something I never claimed in the first place, you declare I have provided no support!!!
Then, another effectve tactic by you, you switch off and change the subject to education, in order to divert attention from my argument. You do this because you have lost the point and you know it and so you try and switch.
Well done, Mask - you are an experienced lib debater because it seems you know all the lib debate tactics!
Posted by sjchermak at 11/14/2008 @ 12:39pm
"or the Chevy Corvair, which burst into flames when hit from behind."
My Ford Pinto used to have a bumper sticker that read, "Some people ought to shy away from car analogies."
...but then it was rear ended and blew up.
Posted by Malcontent at 11/14/2008 @ 12:46pm
Posted by sjchermak at 11/14/2008 @ 12:39pm
1. You feigned "victimhood" by use of "no tolerance" for attacks on Obama by citing a pro-Obama website for saying they WERE attacks....and letting YOU (and LVLIB, Darin, HAPP, PONTI, etc.) have your turn at rebutting it.
AND can cite no "concrete examples" (heheh) for how such "intolerance" prevented almost all of AM talk radio and AN ENTIRE NEWS NETWORK from doing such attacks, with sometimes NO counter-argument?
That's just whining. According to your standard, Michael Savage or a similar idiot should have been able to "raise the issue" as to "whether Obama killed his grandmother before the election for sympathy"....and NOBODY called it an attack or criticize it because that would mean THEY were being "intolerant"!
2. Your "2+2=5" story has no "concrete example" because Rush has never given you the concrete example...just the story.
Wonder why?????
Posted by Mask at 11/14/2008 @ 12:48pm
Mask,
Great standard stuff.
I didn't claim victimhood.
Libs claim victimhood when libs lose elections.
Obama and libs were in constant states of claiming victimhood this past year continuing to carp about "attacks" on Obama rather than defending his beliefs and policy. (Couldn't defend his record or accomplishments because there have been none good or bad)
AM Talk Radio in general did not "attack" Obama - it raised questions about him and criticized his policy and beliefs. Your labling it "attacks" makes my very point for me.
"AN ENTIRE NEWS NETWORK"... I have said it before... you libs can not stand a major new outlet, Fox News, not leaning lib. All networks are apparently supposed to lean lib... you never have caught on that Fox News ratings are higher because they do not lean lib... you never have gotten this point.
2+2=5 has no concrete example? Everybody but libs knows about some of the effects of modern lib educational theory.. I have seen reference that I am not going to bother to look up about teachers now using a purple pens to mark exams rather than the judgemental red pen so as not to hurt children's self esteem... solving a problem that didn't exist in the first place... I also have personal insight into how grades are de-emphasized or grades are not used..... If it is personal that means I will not be divulging it to you....
You seem to have no concept that sometimes in these blogs you get into a subject that is from the past.. where one saw or was aware of stuff from a while back... people are not walking encyclopedias that can call up all links or articles at a moments notice when they were not expecting to do so......or go search Google right now..... when they should not be spending all day on the blogs anyway. (to be continued)
Posted by sjchermak at 11/14/2008 @ 1:32pm
I am supposed to be able to call up immediate proof, on your command, or spend time revisiting something from the past, on your command, to satisfy your demand for proof.... as though you are the Lord and Master of the Internet who sets rules all must live by.... and when I refuse to do this.. you the Enlightened Lib declare I have not proven my point or Rush has not given me my point.......
Libs, of course, are under no such rules....
Where is the proof for this crap? =================== And, I am happy to say, I will gladly villify obnoxious, ignorant fools like Sarah Palin who pretty well stand against all that is good about this country.
Posted by onthehelm at 11/12/2008 @ 10:08pm ===================
Or this crap? ===================== Of course she reads. She probably just didn't want to admit that she holds subscriptions to Cracked, The Weekly World News, and Liquor & Ammo Magazine.
Posted by koroviev at 11/13/2008 @ 03:35am ===================
There aren't enough hours in the day to satify lib demands for proof that would not satisfy the lib anyway because the lib knows it is out in the public domain anyway and does not believe it anyway, whether it is supplied or not.
You also forget that in a blog, where most do not know each other, all you have to do when you realize you lose an argument is not post back and admit it. Thus even when something is "proved" all you have to do is avoid further conversation and go to the next blog.
All your idiotic mind games and jousting accomplish is to signal that you can not defend your arguments, because this b.s. you engage in takes the place of any actual cogent argument in support of liberalism.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/14/2008 @ 1:43pm
I didn't claim victimhood.----Posted by sjchermak at 11/14/2008 @ 1:32pm
"But of course, any questioning of Barack Obama will be defined as: 1. Unpatriotic 2. Right-wing rage 3. Racism 4. Hate speech"----Posted by sjchermak at 11/13/2008 @ 6:45pm
Sounds like you (and others) will be the VICTIM of unfair attacks to me, SJ????
BTW, I note in that post you couldn't exactly DENY anything, could you?
1. How was right-wing talk radio "not tolerated"? How were they prevented from doing anything, but spew...mostly with NO contradictory points of view allowed. (Yes, please tell me the number of "Dittos, Rush" calls versus "I think you're wrong and can prove it, Limbaugh calls....oops...sorry...another "concrete example" needed)
2. Did I say Fox couldn't broadcast? No....I pointed out how you had an entire and (and even by YOUR admission I presume) WELL-WATCHED news network "asked questions" of Obama (down to "Is his aunt a legal citizen and registered to vote?"). Anybody stop them via "intolerance"?
3. Finally, you bemoan being asked to "call up immediate proof, on your command" on Limbaugh Legends of "Schools teachign 2+2=5"....but don't have any trouble promulgating the tale at the drop of a hat, do you?
Yet, let somebody claim "Bush did coke upto 1990" and then when asked by you for proof of that charge...would you just let it go with them saying "I can't call up immediate proof on your command, SJCHER...but EVERYBODY KNOWS it's true!"?????
See, this is why you hate it that I tagged you with Colbert's "truthiness" charge....because it fits SO well, as it does with most ditto-heads.
Posted by Mask at 11/14/2008 @ 3:34pm
"Where is the proof for this crap?"
Posted by sjchermak at 11/14/2008 @ 1:43pm
By "crap", do you mean sarcastic speculation, brought on by palin's seeming inability (or was it unwillingness)to answer the question?
" ...you never have caught on that Fox News ratings are higher because they do not lean lib..."
In the context of factual news reporting, this has <i>what</i> relevance?
"2+2=5 has no concrete example?" No. Only you implied it did.
"Everybody but libs knows about some of the effects of modern lib educational theory..."
Nice phrasing. Now please enlighten us "libs" (Does that make you a con?). Oh, but wait;
"I have seen reference that I am not going to bother to look up"
"I also have personal insight...that means I will not be divulging it to you...."
-----------
"I didn't claim victimhood."
"people are not walking encyclopedias that can call up all links or articles at a moments notice when they were not expecting to do so"
"I am supposed to be able to call up immediate proof,"
"on your command, to satisfy your demand for proof."
Allrightythen.
"Libs, of course, are under no such rules...."
Pick a FACT, not an opinion, that you take issue with and refute it with FACT, not truthiness.
Poor SJ. Facts are hard to look up. A victim of peoples need for accountability.
Maybe if we focused more on creationism and American exceptionalism, people wouldn't grow up with that annoying hang-up with facts.
(I'm starting to feel like I could have abreviated that all, by typing, "Bonk".)
Posted by Malcontent at 11/14/2008 @ 3:49pm
You libs can not be trusted too much. Posted by sjchermak at 11/14/2008 @ 12:39pm
Am I a 'lib' if I disagree with you? When you say 'you libs' it amounts to a little name calling, since I also have some 'conservative' points of view. I think we need to hijack another thread somewhere. This ones getting pretty long.
Now this is just a question SJ, not an accusation, but do you listen to the radio shows by Rush, Hannity, Levin, and Cunningham? I'd just like to know. Hannity is calling Obama a 'terrorist' by association'. That's devisive and completely irresponsible, I feel. Maybe you don't agree with him. I'd like you to tell us all if you respect these guys or not. Then we can scratch that thought.. or it can get really interesting after that. It's a lot of fun, I'd have to say.
It is just my humble opinion that we need to all eat a little humble pie and try to create 'unity' in our country so that we can still have one. But I'm never going to listen to Mark Levin without needing some bug spray.
Posted by ficheye at 11/14/2008 @ 4:10pm
ficheye,
You say that Hannity calling Obama a terrorist by association is devisive and completely irresponsible, but was it OK then for quite a few people the left to associate George W. Bush as being the same as the leader of the Nazis in the 30's and 40's?
Maybe you would agree that was no better. But there are plenty on the left, including plenty of bloggers here, that would say Hannity is divisive and wrong but crucifying George W. Bush is OK and justified.
Thus they are not consisitent. And this is a point I have been trying to make, with no success. Mask (Maskdelta) or Malcontent or Wolfgang1 or whoever will never concede this.
George W. Bush had vitriol thrown at him and that was deemed OK and justified but now we are all supposed to unify behind Obama even if some disagree with his policies, and those who do not are devisive.
This line of thinking is arrogant, and hypocritical. I admit you are NOT one of those who are guilty of this.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/14/2008 @ 4:55pm
Mask,
You do not even read what I post. You burrow in and post the same talking points over and over.
I keep telling you nobody denied anybody the ability to criticize Obama.
What I keep referring to is the continual obsession over the course of this year that criticism of Obama should be off limits. The left spent an inordinate amount of time this year criticizing the fact that Obama was being criticized.
IN A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN?! Where normally this type of thing is par for the course!
This did not result in any denial of the ability to criticize, but it was riduculous to see the left's obsession with this, with the implication by the left that the ACT of criticism was wrong.
But I have already said this and you keep saying I havent cited evidence that people were denied or stopped etc... I don't know why you keep saying this when I didn't claim it in the first place. You have clearly not understood what I have been trying to say.... we are just talking past each other..
What I did say is that the lib themes that imply wrong by the act of criticizing Obama are to be watched carefully because libs do have the desire to control speech and libs do control speech in the college campus venue. You have to be careful that lib desire and opinion do not translate into lib action and regulation.
Libs will be pushing the "Fairness Doctrine", for example, in the next Congress.
You do ask a question "In the context of factual news reporting, this has what relevance?" (Regarding Fox News not leaning lib)
The relevance is that the rest of the media, while conducting what is supposedly factual news reporting, is instead doing news reporting with a lib twist, whereas Fox News does not, and most libs can not tolerate that. It drives them nuts.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/14/2008 @ 5:11pm
George W. Bush had vitriol thrown at him and that was deemed OK and justified but now we are all supposed to unify behind Obama even if some disagree with his policies, and those who do not are divisive.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/14/2008 @ 4:55pm
Your inability to see bushes actual crimes, as president is in no way relevant to claiming lies as facts or blaming Obama for the mess he has yet to even inherit.
Besides, I see just as many of the 'left' trashing this potential presidency, as the 'right'.
I would be willing to bet (But unwilling to verify. How annoying is that?!?), that there is plenty of "why are you so hard on bush" whining on right wing blogs.
Or maybe, at this point, it's just you.
Posted by Malcontent at 11/14/2008 @ 5:45pm
Malcontent,
Yes, the left will tee off on Obama if he does not surrender in Iraq as the hard left expects. After all, the left did crucify Hillary for being "too hawkish" on Iraq. That is something she never expected.
You ask how annoying your "unwillingness to verify" is. Actually, after I while it doesn't faze me, I take it for what it is. I know that there is a lot of closed mindedness on the left and many leftists think they know it all and do not need to avail themselves of any thought other than leftist thought.
NO, NOT ALL...for the person who will post in and say I am labeling and making generalizations about people, some on the left are not that way, but many are.
Now we get to the heart of the matter. You say "bushes actual crimes".
Let's go at it. Enlighten me. What are they?
Remember, every one you throw up at me will be like serving me a slow pitch over home plate, and just like Derek Jeter or A-Rod, I will knock each one out of the park for you, home run after home run for me.
But if you want, serve them up and we will go at it.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/14/2008 @ 8:28pm
the numbers don't lie. 78% of americans disapprove of Bush. that is all you need to know.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/14/2008 @ 8:51pm
Posted by sjchermak at 11/14/2008 @ 5:11pm
No, SJCHER, I'm sticking to the point you're trying to make, such as it is.
What the hell is this "no tolerance" and how is it manifest in a way that is DETRIMENTAL to the conservative cause????
As I've said, nobody stopped Rush or Sean or Glenn Beck or Loufa Bill or the ENTIRE Fox News Network from digging into any "questions about Obama"....
so what the hell are you complaining about? The fact that they were criticized for going into stupid crap? Gee, poor Rush and Glenn. I guess Obama's allies should have just shut up and let Limberger and the other nitwits just "question" all they wanted and never mention that most of it was bullshit, huh?
Those poor, poor guys. Not being allowed to "reveal the REAL Obama" without somebody attacking them....tut, tut.
And again, I notice you're trying to slip past the "concrete examples of teachers teaching 2+2=5 is 'okay'".
Let me ask you, has Rush ever told you something....and you decided to research it for yourself (outside of the sources Rush only wants you to read? Drudge, Weekly Standard, American Thinker?)? Even a few times? Even ONCE?
Or just "Rush said it...it's true" with you 100% of the time?
Posted by Mask at 11/14/2008 @ 9:58pm
BTW, does it work both ways or not?
"Where is the proof for this crap?"-------Posted by sjchermak at 11/14/2008 @ 1:43pm
"In some places, grading is deemed to be not important anymore. Thus 2+2=5 is OK because you tried or good because it shows non conformist ingenuity and creativity. (I am not saying I have a concrete example of a teacher saying 2+2=5 is OK, it is a symbol of the negative effect of modern educational theory)."-----Posted by sjchermak at 11/13/2008 @ 12:58pm
Posted by Mask at 11/14/2008 @ 10:00pm
Yes SJ, I have some problems with Obama. I'll air them now.
I don't think he's a terrorist, but it ticks me off. He's gotta get with the program.
And his ears... way too big. Like Dumbo or somethin'. It looks like he's gonna just take right off. A little trip to L.A., plastic surgery'll fix that right up. A little botox, maybe. Does Bill Ayers live there?
And the suits. Oh my god. A little drab is an understatement. I think he borrowed 'em from Nader. Even George Bush has nicer threads. I think Laura dresses him though. She definitely ties his shoes. Making knots is so hard.
If Obama could just borrow Sarah Palin's credit card (where this all started out so long ago) maybe he could stop by Neiman Marcus and pick up a little item or two.
Posted by ficheye at 11/15/2008 @ 07:20am
Posted by ficheye at 11/15/2008 @ 07:20am | ignore this person | warn this person
a penetrating post. I'll clip this one and keep it for my grandchildren.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/15/2008 @ 10:15am
ficheye,
You got something backwards in your post.
It is Algore who needs his wife to tie his shoes for him in the morning.
You know, the same Algore who gave a speech one time on global warming when it was 18 degrees below zero outside.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/15/2008 @ 5:13pm
Yes, Mask I adopted the use of the word Algore after I saw Rush Limbaugh use that term.
But why not? It is a polite way of showing disdain for someone who I think is a Village Idiot, and who I am grateful was not President of the U.S.
Although I admit I feel guilty for insulting Village Idiots everytime I call Algore one.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/15/2008 @ 5:17pm
"You know, the same Algore who gave a speech one time on global warming when it was 18 degrees below zero outside."
Posted by sjchermak at 11/15/2008 @ 5:13pm
That tid-bit is a