North . . Dogma

There is a part in the great movie Tombstone where Doc Holliday (played brilliantly by Val Kilmer) utters a memorable phrase:

It appears that my hypocrisy knows no bounds.

I was reminded of this line this morning.  No, not the time where John Cole was aghast at one predictable instance.  I mean, come on, that’s shooting fish in a barrel.  I’m talking about a politician standing up in a church pulpit and admonishing others for what he claimed was bearing
false witness:

"It’s wrong to demonize and cartoonize one another, and to ignore evidence, and to make false charges and to bear false witness…..."Sometimes I think our friends on the other side have become the people of the Nine Commandments."

The politician?  Bill Clinton.  Insert your "8 commandments" own joke to follow that walking joke having the audacity to talk about the ten commandments (let’s focus on adultery as well as false witness, shall we?).  Yes, it is wrong to lie.  Yes, it is wrong to demonize.  Yes, it is wrong to cartoonize.  Let’s hope someone told Terry Lenzner & Richard alladino.  Let’s hope someone told your wife as it pertains to blaming your peccadilloes on some Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.  Let’s hope someone told your boot-licking water carrier Sid lumenthal.  Let’s look at what the Clinton lapdogs are doing to the SBVT.

I wonder:  Does claiming that your opponents want to starve children count as an attempt to "demonize" another?  How about wanting to serve arsenic to kids?  How about wanting old people to die?  How about poisoning the water?

Never mind.  I think I already know the answer…..and it’s full of nuance.

That loud sound you hear is the constant echo of chirping crickets from the folks who claim that a Bush theocracy is right around the corner, as yet another Democrat preaches politics from the pulpit of a church.  I used to seek their reference on such matters, as a point of simple decency, consistency and intellectual honesty.  Now, I know that so many couldn’t care less if they’re duplicitous as long as ‘their guy’ wins an election.  I stopped giving a damn about those freaking conscienceless hypocrites.

And if someone doesn’t like my language, they can narc on me to my preacher…who, by the way, isn’t a Democrat politician campaigning during service.

Since Max Cleland has assumed professional victim status (not to be confused with Coretta Scott King’s professional widow moniker), here’s something posited in January:
—————————————-

The blogosphere is chok-full of people ‘fisking’ Paul Krugman.  Sometimes, it’s a little much.  Hey, the guy is an opinion writer in the NYT & anyone who thinks that paper is anywhere near it’s apex of credibility is dreaming.  So I must admit that I rarely read the fellow.  Heck, finding a hyper-partisan lackey who hates the president is about as difficult as scratching my belly and from my experience about the last people who know about the actual workings of how companies budget and how the ‘real’ economy works are economists (sorry to any economists out there); because there’s more substance in actual numbers than economic theories.  His rantings resulted in jack-squat as far as swaying public opinion in ‘02 and there’s no reason to think that he’s doing more than appeasing an audience that is already in agreement.

All that being said, I see that he’s the latest to jump on the bandwagon of faux assertions (otherwise known as lies) regarding the urban legend ofquestioning Max Cleland’s patriotism.  I guess this will have to be a monthly feature here, since there is so much false information out there.  Just in case there are any questions, here’s the commercial in question (thx to Marshall).  Look at it for yourself, instead of relying on what
someone else says.

Now, I’ve said all along that I thought it was stupid to question Cleland’s own campaign theme of "the courage to lead" because anyone who served in a war gets the benefit of the doubt when it comes to courage.  However, there’s no rational way (emphasis on ‘rational’) that anyone can discern that Cleland’s patriotism was questioned in the commercial.  I’ve discussed this thing a lot more than I should have to, primarily because the DNC talking points came down in October of ‘03 and thus the campaign of excuses & victimization was underway.  In the past I’ve seen people swear that the commercial morphed Cleland’s face into Osama & Saddam.  I’ve seen people swear that the commercial compared Cleland to Osama and Saddam.  More than
anything else, I’ve seen folks swear that the commercial questions the patriotism of Cleland.  One more time:

• The commercial goes after Cleland’s campaign theme of the ‘courage to lead’


• The commercial shows pictures of our enemies while saying "as America faces terrorists and extremists dictators "


• The commercial does not question anyone’s patriotism, but rather attack Cleland’s theme of having the courage to lead while kow-towing to the union demands for the homeland security department

And before I get inundated with folks saying "it implied" an attack on his patriotism, that is a stretch of monumental proportions.  I could say that Dean questioning Bush’s decision to go to war would be questioning his patriotism since that choice cost American lives.  Or that the DNC attacks on the administration’s post-war plans questioned their patriotism because it involved accusations of cronyism.  I wouldn’t do that because it’d be childish and petulant (well, okay, I cede the notion that it therefore wouldn’t be out of order for one of my entries, but bear with me :>).  There’s such a thing as dirty politics.  If you want to claim the commercial is a cheap shot – fine.  If you want to say that the commercial was over-the-line, fine.  If you want to say that the commercial was ill-timed, fine.  Like I said, I thought it was off-base to target ‘courage’, especially that of someone who lost their limbs in a war (no matter how it happened – yes, I know what occurred), but don’t urinate on me & claim that it’s raining by climbing on top of your ‘I’m persecuted’ horse and riding a crusade of "he questioned his patriotism", because it’s just an out-and-out lie. 

And for my friends on the left who are becoming irate while reading this because they think I’m coming across as a GOP stooge, I type this as a former Max Cleland voter who has simply become fed up with falsehoods in politics.  I’m calling them as I see ‘em & feel free to disagree, but the urban legend is getting old. It was false to state that Max Cleland lacked
courage IMO and it’s false to charge that the commercial questioned his patriotism.  And the kicker: If the election between Chambliss & Cleland were to be held again today, the margin of Saxby’s win would be even wider.

Last week he began a column that I couldn’t finish because he said the administration has turned the country to the ‘far right’.  Since the Taliban is the ‘far right’ and Tom Delay represents the ‘far right/ of actual American politics and keeping in mind that the administration is filled with pro-choice cabinet members, has passed the biggest entitlement program since the great society, signed Ted Kennedy’s education bill into law and has increased non-defense spending more than Clinton could’ve ever dreamed, I now need someone to explain to me why I should read anything by Paul Krugman ever again.  And that is a serious request.

—————————————

I’ll be blunt: The “let’s feel sorry for the crip” staged photo-ops can only be used so many times.

Sorry, Max. You had my vote in the 80s. You lost it, later. Apparently, I’m not alone in feeling that the government would be a better place without you in it. And to think that a war hero has now been reduced to pulling duty on John Kerry’s dirty-work detail…..

insideajc@ajc.com
tbaxter@ajc.com
ajones@ajc.com
mmanuel@ajc.com

To all,

Although I think it is a good thing for the local press to give coverage to blogging, I’m simply bewildered by what I saw in the Sunday edition. I can understand having a deadline and a limited amount of space for a story to be give while trying to present politically balanced portrayals, but for TWO puff pieces to be put forth on Markos Zuniga without even mentioning one of the more popular instances of hate speech within “blogdom” is more than striking. I am, of course, pointing to this entry from Mr. Zuniga, discussing the burning deaths of the American contract workers that occurred back in March (his commentary was in April):

Found here:

“Every death should be on the front page (2.70 / 40)
Let the people see what war is like. This isn’t an Xbox game. There are real repercussions to Bush’s folly.
That said, I feel nothing over the death of merceneries. They aren’t in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.”

Go read for yourself, and also witness some of the back-slapping and agreement from some of the readers that site attracts. This is no mere ideological activist wishing to rid the DNC of soft money, as was portrayed in the pieces, and much more than a bunch of Democratic party stalwarts rooting for Kerry in the comments sections.

To publish glowing articles (with pictures), including above the fold front-page placement, without one mention pertaining to one of the more egregious instances of vile hatred is akin to reports on Strom Thurmond that would conveniently leave out his support for segregation. Since space could not be a legitimate option, as two stories were involved, I’m left with only two plausible reasons for such a glaring omission: complete ignorance or willful neglect. Neither are favorable, I might add. My only quandary is whether the pieces actually reflected ignorance due to the lack of exposure to reading blogs or were written from the standpoint of admiration of Mr. Zuniga’s (rather hateful) site.

Two of the reasons for the rapid growth in blog readership is because the ‘establishment’ press gives either a partial or skewed account. The readers of the AJC got both on Sunday. Your subscribers/readers deserve the clear picture, not puff pieces on a rather hateful human being who dances on the graves of American citizens (whom he calls “Mercs”) and reacts with a “screw them” notation. Will AJC readers ever get a clear picture?

If that is indeed among “the new faces of the Democratic party”, then the country is in need of another strong and proud party.

If you’re going to have people write reviews, please send someone who knows something other than their local grunge band or Madonna:

However, from the show-openers "Jump" and "Runaround" to the encore versions of "You Really Got Me" and "Panama," this concert was more about that manly band of old, and about having a good time.
Hard-rockers such as the Roth-era "Somebody Give Me a Doctor," the newer "Poundcake" and the totally new "Humans Being" all fit the old Van Halen mold.

"Totally new Humans Being"?  Gee, I wonder how Twister will do at the box office?

I think it’s a good choice for Kerry….he certainly could’ve done a lot worse.



Now, let’s sit back and count the number of times the national press corps uses the word ‘gravitas’.

Wow.  Right after noting in a previous post, which shows folks endorsing the stature of Jesse Jackson while calling folks like
Clarence Thomas & Jesse Lee Peterson "handkerchief heads" (can’t you just feel the love coming from a select few on the left?), the esteemed Mr. Jackson
harkens back to the confederacy:

The right wing fights for a series of constitutional amendments. They intend to have their ideology protected by law. They intend to push the ideology of the Confederacy and continue to challenge
the vision of the Union.

***************

How are blacks to persevere and thrive as a race if they continually play the victim role?  It’s ridiculous.

 

I’m not saying blacks in America haven’t been dealt a raw deal, but the way to improve the situation is not blanket condemnation of the "white oppressor".  Doing that is a crutch and an
obstacle towards any sort of actual improvement of their current condition.  Victim my ass. You’re only a victim if you allow yourself to be.

Charles Cooper has an interesting article pertaining to blogging the
conventions:
 

I’d like to believe that free debate will remain unfettered, but the reality is that the big political interest groups won’t ignore a medium that allows them to so powerfully manipulate a
party message. Moves are already afoot to shade the blogosphere ever so slightly for partisan advantage.

The Democrats plan to invite a limited number of bloggers to their summer political convention
in Boston. A
Republican spokesman quoted by the Associated Press says the GOP is still thinking about what it wants to do. My hunch is that they’ll do pretty much the same as the democrats. And why
not? This is the best guarantee of "positive" coverage since the spinmeisters in the Pentagon came up with the idea of embedding reporters with the troops fighting in Iraq.

[...]

Because this is such a hot ticket, the parties are not going to take unnecessary chances. So after vetting the list to weed out any cantankerous curmudgeons, the candidate pool will
consist of mainstream hacks, true believers and morally rancid suck-ups to political authority. In other words, the kind of folks who will blend quite nicely into the big show.

Sounds good on paper, but the plan would inevitably boomerang. Do you really believe that bloggers with legitimate street reps won’t scream bloody murder? The reality is that the
parties will get skewered—rightfully—for manipulating these oh-so-shiny cyberprops when they’d be better served by inviting folks of an independent bent.

Even if the two parties do show courage and allow for a multiplicity of blogging voices, I’m afraid that the writing’s already on the wall. Scrolling through countless "political blogs"
on the Internet, how many of them are authored by party operatives? Truth be told, there’s no way to really know the answer. Still, in a word that has raised agitprop to an art, I don’t
take anything at face value anymore.

I’ll be more than happy to read insights from various bloggers who are ‘in the tank’, so to speak, when it comes to voting for their prospective candidates…provided that they give me an account that I can believe is an honest
assessment.  What I don’t want to see is someone carrying the water for the party & sending me the talking points (I can get that by watching the networks cover the events and talk to the
partisans attending or from the ‘pundits’ who are lapdogs for their candidates during the discussions).  And if I were a betting man, I’d say that’s pretty much what’s going to happen.  In the last
3 months or so, much of blogdom has turned into little more than a launching pad for the party e-mails to be published on the web so more readers can view.

So much for originality and independent analysis…

...just want put some thoughts out there.

• John Kerry’s divorce is his own business.  Unless there is evidence of something fraudulent or illegal, leave it be.


• John Kerry’s medals were awarded.  Last time I checked, you couldn’t buy them.  If the military said he earned ‘em, good ‘nuff for me.


• John Kerry’s character was questioned earlier this year by false claims of an affair.  That was beyond offensive and I noted that his word was good enough for me at the time.

Look, if Kerry’s elected, we’re gonna be just fine.  He’s not going to allow our country to become a target for a shooting gallery of terrorists or appoint Jane Fonda as secretary of defense. 
I know this because (a) he’s not the spawn of the devil that it’d take to open up our country to attack; (b) the voters would pretty much put an end to the Democratic party in response during the ‘06
mid-term elections and; (c) the GOP congress (looks like it’ll stay that way) wouldn’t tolerate such nonsense to become law.  Probably, I’d pay more in taxes short term and a lot more in taxes
long term, especially if his domestic spending measures came to light, but the union won’t come to an end.

This stuff has got to stop somewhere.

I don’t care for folks that portray the re-election of Bush to be the final nail in the coffin of breathable air, our national dignity and the precursor for corporate control over the Bush built
theocracy known as America any more than I care to hear fingernails on a chalkboard.  It’s nonsense.  Bush is doing what he feels is right, just like Kerry would.  The means are just
different, so let’s argue.  These endless conspiracy theories (now being buffered by the lunatic rantings from the new front man for the left, Michael Moore) are doing nothing constructive for
national discussions. 

It’s garbage.  And it’s based on the loathing of other humans simply because they disagree, which means it’s also stupid (and spare me the "they’re going to damage our country" hyperbolic blather).  Let’s take out the trash, folks, and discuss the disagreements on policy, not which side is the bigger evil.  We know who the evil really is…..they hijacked our planes and behead other
humans. 

 

Priorities.  Outside the box.

Goodbye, 2003. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

President Bush invaded Iraq after saying Baghdad had weapons of mass destruction, which it didn’t, links to al-Qaida, which were never proved, and a hankering for uranium from Africa, which wasn’t true.

Who’s writing this? Terry McAuliffe?

By Alex Johnson

Reporter

A clear violation of the “truth in advertising” laws if I ever saw one…

The remainder of the article doesn’t get any better. If “Alex Johnson” isn’t a non-de-plume for ol’ Terry, I’ll eat my hat…

Paula Zahn’s show, discussing the 5 year anniversary of the impeachment of Clinton

Zahn: "So when the President ultimately admitted his inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky, did you feel betrayed?"

Paul Begala: "Oh, yeah. Oh, Paula, I’ve never written about this, because, you know, it was a very personal time. I was, I felt betrayed. I was very, very angry. I thought for a long
time, I went on a long vacation, long for the White House, two weeks. And I thought about quitting…"

Zahn: "Lisa [Caputo, Hillary’s press secretary], were you mad at the President?"

Caputo: "Oh, definitely. I mean, I, too, felt misled, deceived in so many ways, and so disappointed, and in a lot of respects, disillusioned. I believed him, his wife believed him, and
so many of us who had worked for him in the White House and who had remained friends of his believed him, and a lot of us went out on the air, on television, and publicly defended him based on
what he had said to each of us, both publicly and privately, and, you know, I think still to this day, I don’t think I fully have gotten my head wrapped around it."

Spare me before I barf. 

I know this is a contentious topic but whatever faction one came down upon on this issue aside, the notion that some of those people actually believed Clinton (and I’m cynical about any
politician, but this is Bill Clinton we’re talking about) as some paragon of virtue in that area who’d never do such a thing is about to make me toss my cookies.  "Thought about quitting",
"betrayed", "disillusioned"...gimme a break.  Those folks were kneepadders before, they were kneepadders during and they were kneepadders after Clinton decided to use his wife as a doormat & they
did squat in response because it was all about politics (and, of course, the President was the victim of those wascly Wepublicans).  I guess they chalked up the ‘middle class tax cut turned tax
increase’ as a mulligan & figured he wouldn’t lie.

Hey, tell me Bush is giving perks to a corporation & I wouldn’t dismiss it off hand.  Tell me Newt was underhanded about something & I’ll probably believe it as possible.  Mention that
Dan Quayle did something embarrassing last weekend & I’d give it a high probability of actually happening.  Yet these guys are telling me that they had no inclination that Clinton would do such a
thing?  Forgive me for being sorta unpleasant during the holiday season, but the B.S. meter can only go so high. 

I’ll try to come up with something a little lighter, but people blindly carrying the water drives me crazy. [kneejerk ‘but what about ’ response coming in 5, 4, 3…]

 

I wondered yesterday if the mainstream news media would start the "Howard Dean is really a moderate" theme as soon as it appeared that he’d become the probable nominee.  Not pundits, not bloggers, but mainstream news media.  Sadly, my prognosticating cynicism was (again) right on the money.  I give you the CBS evening news (executive editor – Dan Rather) reporter Byron Pitts
last night, via the MRC:

This five-term former Governor had a moderate record during his ten years in the Vermont state house. He was a fiscal conservative, well known for being frugal from budget cuts to his own
bargain-basement wardrobe. Dean supports a balanced budget amendment, and he was given top marks from the National Rifle Association.

There’s more, from CBS’ David Axelrod:

Donna Brazile ran Al Gore’s campaign in 2000. She says Gore delivers help Dean needs, and not just in Harlem where Gore ran strong. Gore, a centrist Southerner, offers more."

Our mainstream news media playing accomplice.  Right on cue.

This commercial will get you near-universal condemnation from the Democratic intelligencia.  On top of that, it will also spur urban legends such as
morphing Osama into Cleland, calling Cleland a coward and accusations of "questioning the patriotism" of Cleland, when a quick view of the commercial shows you that the only way anyone can come up with "questioning
the patriotism" is via inferring (badly) under your own predetermined auspices (plus being a little drunk, since nothing of the sort occurs).

This commercial will get you "does it really say anything that’s untrue" (in the comments) and….well, just check out the
comments.

Such is the world where the bar is placed at different heights for political purposes.

 

 

Thx to Demmons and Cole for the link.

Way back in the 1950s, when I first tasted politics and journalism, Republicans briefly controlled the White House and Congress. With the exception of Joseph McCarthy and his vicious ilk, they were
a reasonable lot, presided over by that giant war hero, Dwight Eisenhower, who was conservative by temperament and moderate in the use of power.

That brand of Republican is gone, and for the first time in the memory of anyone alive, the entire federal government—the Congress, the executive, the courts—is united behind a right-wing
agenda for which George W. Bush believes he now has a mandate.  That agenda includes the power of the state to force pregnant women to surrender control over their own lives.  It includes using the
taxing power to transfer wealth from working people to the rich.  It includes giving corporations a free hand to eviscerate the environment and control the regulatory agencies meant to hold them
accountable.   And it includes secrecy on a scale you cannot imagine.

Above all, it means judges with a political agenda appointed for life.  If you like the Supreme Court that put George W. Bush in the White House, you will swoon over what’s coming. And if you like
God in government, get ready for the rapture.  These folks don’t even mind you referring to the GOP as the Party of God.  Why else would the new House Majority Leader say that the almighty is using
him to promote a Biblical world view in American politics?  So it’s a heady time in Washington, a heady time for piety, profits and military power. All joined at the hip by ideology and money.
Don’t forget the money. It came pouring into this election, to both parties, from corporate America and others who now expect the payback. Republicans out-raised Democrats by $184 million and they
came up with the big prize: monopoly control of the American government and the power of the state to turn their radical ideology into the law of the land.

Well, that certainly would be what a lot of folks backing the venture are wanting.  Of course, folks like me have wondered what the problem is, since they get that stuff said on the taxpayer
dollar on PBS by the likes of Bill Moyers all the time.  Why do I allege that?  Because that’s who said the quoted text above.

Gary Willis, presidential "historian" on CBS’ Face the Nation, answering this question from Bob Shieffer: How do you view Bush and his presidency as he nears the end of his first term?" 

Wills: "Well, I think it was a great lost opportunity. Right after the attack on the World Trade Center, the whole world coalesced around us. NATO suspended its rules. They were, there was an
outpouring of genuine feeling. And we had the chance then to go to the world, to the UN, and to say, ‘This is an attack on all of us. This is a crime. And we have to mobilize police forces to chase
down these people in whatever country they’re in. And we need your intelligence, we need your help, we need cooperation. This is a worldwide thing.’

This isn’t a lie, but this is an example of how Willis doesn’t "get it", and illustrative of why so many Democrats who don’t "get it" simply cannot understand the public support for Bush or the
WOT.  It was 9/11!  We no longer wish to find the people who committed the crime against us and "bring them to justice" (read: arrest them, but whatever you do, don’t kill them! 
That’s inhumane!)  Going the law enforcement route is what we did after the 9/11 bombing, folks.  It only deterred the guys who were caught and emboldened the terrorists behind it, who
supported it with funds and terrorists worldwide who wish death to us ‘infidels’.  Well, 19 terrorists died killing almost 3,000 Americans & if we hunted down ‘those people’ who we could convict
in a court of law as being accessories, we’ll lose because it won’t deter the terrorists. 

Learn this and learn it well: Those radical Islamists who are out to commit terrorism against us are more than willing to give their lives so that they can kill many more American people and as
long as we try to ‘bring to justice’ those terrorists or their accessories after the fact, we’ll lose.  The war on terror is being fought so that we (hopefully) will never have another 9/11, or
another terrorist attack at all – because the people planning (in any manner, be it intel, munitions, sabotage, etc.) the attacks are eliminated from the scenario and all those even considering the
notion of joining that cause are deterred (and they won’t be deterred by emitting love, folks).  Flower children seeking to sing kumbayah with the radical Islamists need not apply.  Maybe
you disagree, but if you do, please understand that those who preach the law enforcement route don’t "get it".  We don’t want the terrorist act to ever be committed.  GET IT?

Back to the lies:

And instead we rebuffed them

Lie.  Actually, we went to the UN and practically begged every nation to join with us.  They rebuffed us.

we said we didn’t need them.

Lie.  Bush spoke to the UN & encouraged them to honor their own relevancy.  Colin Powell went to the UN and urged every nation to join the cause.  Some, like France, said they didn’t
want to join us under any circumstances.

We offered to have pre-emptive war.

We offered Hussein the chance to comply with 1441 (which he refused).  We then engaged in a pre-emptive war as a means to ensure that those breaches would not involve methods to harm America
or America’s interests.

We went on our own.

Not only a lie, but a blatant lie that is oft repeated amongst the anti-Bush crowd.  The dead Italian, Australian & British soldiers’ families surely would be offended by the ignorance of Mr.
Willis and his cohorts, if not offput by the crass demeanor involved in assuming that their lives were irrelevant.

We gave contracts only to our own.

Unless I’m mistaken, those Japanese advisors that were killed the other day weren’t under contract for Halliburton.

We made it clear that we didn’t want anything but money and bodies

Blatant lie.  We made it clear that adherence to 1441 would result in no war and that breach of 1441 would result in pre-emptive war and regime change.

not anybody to help us

Lie.  We went to the UN to get other nations to join us.  Remember the mantra that we ‘paid off’ Turkey?

to advise us

Lie.  We went to the UN to get other nations to join us.  Remember the mantra that we ‘paid off’ Turkey?

to work with us.

Thank you, Tony Blair, for making it so easy to point out this lie.

Great opportunity lost.

That’s an opinion that I can only argue against, not prove true or not.  However, I can also point out the great opportunity lost when Bob Shieffer failed to point out any – any – of the demonstrably transparent lies that Gary Willis put forth on a Sunday network show.  For all the folks who are aghast that anyone could consider the mainstream media to be slanted – here’s yet another exhibit of allowing someone to put forth falsehoods without even considering a foundation of truth.

 

Thx to the MRC for the text.

Which will happen first?

1 – Jesse Jackson arrives in Cincy
2 – Al Sharpton mentions the Cincy incident during a debate
3 – “Lynching” is used to describe the incident