Stephen Colbert Resurrects Character, "The Word," Jon Stewart and Coins "Trumpiness"

Perfect. I've been saying for months (seems like years) that the whole Donald J. Trump phenomenon seemed to hinge upon "truthiness," and "gut-feel," a form of fact-free-but-feels-right politics, practiced by arch Republicans. But it never felt like enough to explain it. After all, truthiness has been a Republican thing going back to the beginning of the Dubya era, at least. The Trump thing, this unbelievably unqualified, unexplainable famous-for-being-famous, reality star turned politician as an actual candidate for president? It's so strange, so out of explainable historical context, it just seems like bad writing. Who would have believed it, if it was foretold twenty years ago? Ten?

But, having been prescient before, Stephen Colbert has resurrected his arch conservative character (also called Stephen Colbert), brought along retired Jon Stewart, and his character-defining comedy segment, The Word, the bit that brought truthiness into being, in his very first show. And the new Word is:

TRUMPINESS.





[Excerpt]

Stephen Colbert Brought Back “Stephen Colbert”—and Jon Stewart—to Explain the Rise of Trump
 
The 2016 Republican National Convention is a scary time for many Americans—including many Republicans—and so on the Late Show on Monday night, Stephen Colbert brought back two figures from the in-retrospect quite comforting era of the mid-to-late 2000s: Stephen Colbert (the character) and Jon Stewart. . .

Read more at: Slate

Republicans Keep Accidentally Admitting that Voter ID Laws are Trojan Horses

A typical Voter ID reminder. I had to show one in Ohio
to vote in the Democratic primary, my first. But I had
no issues, fortunately.

Though I really haven't posted much lately, one continuing theme is the idea of trying to figure out the politics of the day, and the intent behind them. Do politicians (and their followers) believe the rhetoric they're spewing when they pass controversial or radical laws? Do they buy their own BS, or are they being deliberately disingenuous.

In the previous post, I wondered if anyone really believes the "religious freedom" excuse with all of these new anti-gay laws and bills. And in this one, does anyone really believe that Voter ID laws have anything to do with preventing in-person voter fraud? Or are they really all clear that this is about voter disenfranchisement, as is eminently clear? It's surely a mixture, and not always the same from politician to politician, or voter to voter. And just like with the other issue, it's wholly dependent upon intelligence, gullibility for "truthiness," or a lack of interest in digging beneath the surface.

Which is a handy reminder for me. Blogging apathy is a bad thing for me, should I wish to have a voice. I may have a tiny corner of the internet, but if I reach only a few people on any given story, it has the potential to exponentially seed some truth, rather than just truthiness.

[Excerpt]

Another Republican Admitted That Voter ID is All About Disenfranchising Democrats

They keep doing it. Republicans continue to accidentally spill the beans about unspoken GOP plots to roll back constitutional rights. Donald Trump, last week, accidentally blurted something about punishing women who undergo illegal abortions. And this week, Glenn Grothman, a Republican congressman from Wisconsin, became another in a growing list of mid-level conservatives to blab about the true intention of voter ID laws: to disenfranchise Democrats. . .

Read more at: The Daily Banter

Carly Fiorina: Strong and Wrong!

Image from source, Esquire

Well, Carly Fiorina did well the other night, didn't she? She kicked and screamed enough to get removed from the kiddie table debate, and into the proper (though "adult" doesn't sound right) one, making a nice. . .even?. . .eleven candidates. Or contestants. Whatever. But, she did it, she got in, and by all accounts, she actually won the thing.

But if you paid attention to what she said, she was just wrong all over the place. It won't matter. Why? Well, it's that whole, Republicans prefer strong and wrong over weak and right. So long as you believe what you're saying to your core--or at least express yourself as though you do--and espouse a few hard right ideas, you're golden baby. Attention Jeb!, Bobby and the rest: Get confident, stupid!

So, Carly can make stuff up about Hillary Clinton (ironically while accusing her of lying), or she can invent a fake--but horrific!--Planned Parenthood video, but if she stares at the camera like a cobra about to strike, while delivering the lie in a resolute, confident voice? Pure. Conservative. Gold.

It shouldn't surprise me, from a group that absolutely gobbles up "truthiness," fact-like nuggets that feel true, rather than are necessarily actually true. It explains perfectly the whole phenomenon of Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, and "sincerely held beliefs" that require no doctrine and no evidence.

And it contrasts rather sharply with Donald Trump's much coarser version of the same thing. Fiorina is the refined version, Trump the larval stage. Where he's got pure id, with a child's penchant for tantrums and flair with vocabulary, Fiorina is polished and refined. But don't mistake her strength and confidence for accuracy or honesty.

[Excerpt]

Carly Fiorina: Strong, Crisp, and Effective if You Ignore the Facts

Let us take one more tour of the battlefield before we retire to the gift shoppe at Ronnieworld to pick up some Fawn Hall Authorized Confetti (Guaranteed 100 percent Genuine Secret Government Documents!) or, perhaps, for the kids, a Junior TOW Missile Commander suit complete with Iranian flags on the sleeves. What we saw last night, and I stayed awake for the whole damn thing so I now know all I care to know about Chris Christie's secret crush on Abigail Adams, was the triumph of fiction over fact, of fantasy over reality. In other words, what we saw was the most fitting tribute to Ronald Reagan ever produced. Congratulations, one and all. The final fealty of the Republican Party to total and complete bullshit has been sworn. . .

Read more at: Esquire

Matt Baume On "Religious Liberty"

Found at: Joe.My.God.

Right Wing World On an Anti-Gay Legislating Blitz (And Why it's B.S.)

Let's get this out of the way right at the beginning: The argument that salespeople, shopkeepers, cashiers, clerks, bakers, photographers, caterers, florists, dress sellers, tuxedo renters and the like should have the "religious freedom" to refuse service to a class of people in order to protect their right to "sincerely held beliefs" is bullshit. Straight up bullshit. We've been down this legal path before, with religious justifications behind attempts to wiggle out of civil rights era legislation. It didn't work then, it shouldn't work now. The similarities are unmistakable, and unsurprisingly, those behind these arguments are doing their best to point out why that kind of discrimination was wrong, but this kind of discrimination is legitimate and necessary.

But think about that for a second. Proclaiming your religion and beliefs in cherished, sacrosanct terms, and then using them to justify discriminating against a group of people. What a thing to hang your religion on.

Now that marriage equality is poised to become a 50-state-wide reality (assuming the Supreme Court rules in that direction), religious conservatives have been in a full-blown, desperate panic over how to limit or stall it. Two major legal strategies are spreading like wildfire. One of those is to initiate legislation that effectively ignores or attempts to trump the Supreme Court, but refusing to--and in some cases punishing other legislators and judges who--follow the law. This tack is virtually assured to fail, and serves only to cast  major doubt on these legislators' grasp of the Constitution, and on any claims they may have of "fiscal conservatism." Quite simply, they're going to lose, and they're going to cost their states lots of money in legal fees.

The other tack is to create legal exemptions and loopholes for religious people. This tells the religious person: you don't have to follow Law X because it is against your religion. And this is where writing about this subject starts to get difficult. This is where it hits a tangent prism that confounds me as a writer, as to which direction of wrong to tackle first, and how to tie it all into a bow. So, I'm going to try a bullet-pointed list of problems with why this sort of legal strategy is fraught with problems. This is by no means a comprehensive list, either.

• Religious beliefs need no evidence or justification. They don't even need scriptural citation. For example, there is no implicit Biblical commandment for being against abortion or against selling products or services to gay people. A person could claim a "sincerely held belief" to almost anything. In Hobby Lobby, the beliefs in question didn't even need to match scientific fact that contradicted the beliefs, all that mattered was the belief.
• Though so far, the topic has pretty much been limited to the wedding industry, and the subject of marriage itself, what legal reasoning could restrict these exemptions (or this complaint) to marriage? Why would it only apply to weddings? It isn't hard to conceive that granting special exemptions to this industry and subject would be a foot in the door for exemptions for all sorts of other things. And while this may sound like a slippery slope logical fallacy, I have seen no argument that would restrict these laws in any way to this specific subject.
• Christianity is not the only religion whose beliefs would need to be respected if such a set of laws were passed. It would apply to all religions, presumably major established ones, as well as cults, and brand new, just-born religions. Given that no evidence or scripture is even needed to claim religious belief, an enterprising individual could invent his own religion on the spot, in an attempt to skirt the law.
• Gay marriage, homosexuality and the wedding industry are by no means the only category of law that could be claimed in conflict with "sincerely held belief." The fact that this category is claiming most of the attention in the news right now shows the transparent nature of the push: though they'll go to great pains to avoid mentioning gay people or same-sex marriage in legislation, it's that purposeful avoidance of naked animus that will make these exemptions so vague as to have trucks driven through them.
• The obvious cause of this new flurry of legislation is religious opposition to same-sex marriage. But these are civil marriages, legal contracts. Not "holy matrimony." These are not marriages in the name of the religions objector's church, or in the name of the objector's God. They are, legally, no more religious in nature than a business contract or a building permit, unless the participants attach their religious beliefs to it. The religion of the formal occasion professional, or the government clerk servicing the civil contract are utterly irrelevant.
• Selling goods or services to a wedding party have not--prior to the advent of same-sex marriage--been seen as endorsement of, or participation in the event the goods or services were used for. If they had been, we'd have already seen "sin checklists" that quiz brides and grooms about infidelity, religious compatibility, prior divorces, and countless other attempts to root out sin. Such a thing would have been seen as outrageous and preposterous in the industry, until now. Which should be telling.
• There is an inherent irony involved in a religious push that simultaneously attempts to shield one group of people from violating their "sincerely held beliefs," while barring other people from following their own. These laws would ignore the customer's beliefs, by trumping them with the business person's (or civil clerk's) beliefs. It forces the customer to follow the seller's religion, or to be refused service. That the people behind such laws are very likely the same people who would be most paranoid about "Sharia Law" ought to be another red flag.
• All of this legislation effectively ignores religions that are in favor of same-sex marriage, and/or gay people in general. These religions do exist, and are growing in number.

 

Anti-gay Texas legislator and cartoon

character, Cecil Bell.

There is so much more that is wrong about what's going on here, that I could double or triple the length of this article. I'll continue to try to get more succinct in future attempts, believe me. Unfortunately, the "truthiness" behind this kind of legislation is succinct. It's simple, to be more precise, and strikes a chord. Or a cord, actually, a safety cord on a parachute that gets anti-gay religious conservatives safely around having to acknowledge that gay people are attaining civil equality in any area. People who have a knee-jerk desire to stamp out these kind of gains very often--nearly always--are blind to the unintended consequences of their proposed legislation. They simply want to stop it, or barring that, delay it as long as possible. But the reality is, this isn't just a Pandora's Box they're opening, it's a series of them. A series of nesting Pandora's Boxes. And it makes their opposition to Sharia Law untenable. A better writer than me should focus on that last part. Maybe then, we could show them why this path would be a huge mistake, not just for gay people, but for those with "sincerely held beliefs."

Here are a few stories going on right now, regarding attempts by religious conservatives to legally discriminate against gay people:

Texas: Anti-Gay Marriage Bill Scrutinized in Committee
Indiana: Tech leaders to Pence: Veto 'religious freedom' bill
California: California Seeks to Head Off Initiative to Execute Gays


 

The Gay Thing: So-called "Religious Freedom" Cases are Not What They Seem

When I started this blog, I never intended for "The Gay Thing" to be anything more than an occasional topic. The news cycle doesn't really permit that anymore, does it? Couple that with the fact that this blog is also my sounding board, the place where I go to get things off of my chest. And this topic often generates that need, particularly when it comes to backlash and stupidity (they often go together).

Here's a FOX "News" story about one of the early
"religious freedom" cases, Sweet Cakes by Melissa.
There wasn't legal marriage in Oregon at the time.
Helpfully labeled so you know he's not Melissa.

Marriage equality is very nearly a done deal. Before the end of the year, we'll likely be past 35 states and the District of Columbia. What's left is pretty much the deep south and the Dakotas, with some stragglers around the edges (come on, Ohio, you're embarrassing me!). But the anti-gay side--and don't kid yourself, that is what they are--isn't ready to give up. Since they're pretty much out of options in regard to the actual legality of same-sex marriage, what they've got left is to make all sorts of claims of "religious freedom." They're actually making a case that the ability to legally discriminate, shun, or otherwise refuse service to gay people, is a central tenet of their religion.

And the story about the
Houston sermon subpoena
thing from Joe.My.God.
That's mayor Annise Parker,
who's caught up in it.

Finding the commandment or verse that calls for this is difficult, but that's not stopping them. This actually started a while back, when the marriage equality tsunami was just a few lapping waves. It was odd too, because it was almost exclusively wedding industry Christians (cake bakers, photographers, venue operators, dress makers, caterers) from states where gay people couldn't marry anyway. It actually rather shone a light on their lie that they weren't anti-gay, just religiously objecting to gay marriage. How can that be true when these weren't legal marriages anyway? Sometimes--as in a religion-meddling-in-politics case in Houston--marriage isn't even a part of the controversy. It's pretty plain: they just don't like gay people, and want to be mean and/or able to ignore that they exist.

So, they've amped up their martyr complexes, and made mini celebrities out of themselves all across Right Wing World. And now that equality has come to the majority of the US, they're turning it up to eleven. The trouble is, their claims have just enough truthiness, and surfacy-outrage to potentially stick. In other words, though their claims are absolute bullshit, it might sound convincing enough to create backlash. Now, why do I say their claims are bullshit?

Well, first there is the above note that they have a difficult time pointing out the specific religious objections they might have to selling products or services to gay people. Second, this often has little to do with marriage itself, it has to do with public accommodation laws, which predate legal marriage. If you have a public accommodation business, open to the general public, you must serve the general public. It's as simple as the Woolworth's lunch counter not being legally able to bar black customers. I don't care if you don't think sexual orientation is a perfect analogy to race, legally, these cases are identical. If there is a public accommodation law that covers gay people (and they are far from universal, lest you think otherwise), you can't refuse to do business with them just because they're gay. Or have a different religion. Or are black. Or anything else covered by the law.

The unbelievable disingenuousness of Las Vegas
wedding chapels (Elvis?) alleging to be solemn
churches is just galling.

Now, there are new cases, even right here in Nevada, where wedding chapels are deciding not to perform marriages for gay couples, using a "religious freedom" excuse. And this is where the truthiness comes in. It sounds like a religious freedom case, because: chapel. And the officiant may very well be religious and homophobic (I'm sorry, your religion doesn't shield you from being a bigot). But these chapels, in every one of these new cases, are not churches, they are businesses. Consider if you will, the parade of couples who have gone through your average Las Vegas little white chapel. Do you mean to tell me every one has been as pure as the driven snow, with a religion that aligns perfectly with the officiant? Really?

So, while I believe that these cases are bullshit, and a transparent attempt by the anti-gay to exert some control over a situation where they have none, I do worry. I saw Hobby Lobby, a case that was a

A rustic, wild west, for-profit church?!?
Our latest martyrs from Idaho.

Pandora's box filled with mind boggling implications. One of them could be giving these chapels inherent religious beliefs and rights, out of thin air. And once you've carved out exceptions to some laws for the "sincerely held beliefs" of one religion, tell me, where would it stop? This isn't a slippery slope question, this is an obvious, and clear eventuality: there would suddenly be other beliefs that need to be "protected" by carving out exceptions to other laws. And pretty soon, it wouldn't just be Christians seeking them. Right Wing World rarely thinks about that.

As an atheist, I am a staunch supporter of religious freedom, because it protects my lack of belief, or is supposed to. But I don't like disingenuous, manipulative, dishonest movements like this one. And I have a very hard time thinking it's a good idea to grant legal exceptions for what amount to mythical beliefs.

Rachel Maddow on the Not-So-Factual Politifact

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

A Word About Gas Prices

Newt Gingrich released a stream of lies, half-truths and twisted facts in his oddly triumphant failure speech on Super Tuesday. But it wasn't his twisting of the truth that bothered me. It was the truth, out of context. And that is, gas prices when President Obama took office on January 20, 2009.

Yeah, $1.61 gas lasted a long time, didn't it? Image from GasBuddy.com

Newt said gas prices were below $2 per gallon on Inauguration day, and he wasn't wrong. But he wasn't fair either. Because that was the nadir of gasoline prices during a very volatile time. During President Bush's last year, gasoline prices soared to--as yet--still unprecedented levels. The average price got as high as $4.12, and I personally paid over $4.65 in California in June of 2008.  But take a look at that chart. Gas prices plunged in a never before seen way. From north of $4 to below $2. It then hit an uptick at the end of December, 2008. The direction changed three weeks before Obama was inaugurated.

So, when you hear the line that gas was cheap, and "Obama's policies" made it go up, you can chalk some of that up to timing more than policies. No way did an Obama policies make gas go above $2 in his first three months. And in no way can you take January 2009's average gas price as some sort of baseline, or usual price. It just wasn't. Context is everything, but perception unfortunately often rules the day.

Conclusion: Newt knows all of this, but doesn't provide context because he thinks the people listening to him won't know the difference. That--to me--shows a contempt for his audience: us. I don't like that, do you?

Rush Limbaugh (and his supporters) are Inside the Bubble

I don't know how Rush fits in there.

There's something odd going on right now. First, it's odd that Rush Limbaugh and his vile self have overshadowed the GOP presidential contest. But second, it's odd that the whole episode is being argued by Rush and his supporters from an alternate universe. They are all inside the bubble, using their own "facts," irrespective of what is actually going on.

I was just listening to Kevin Wall, the local Las Vegas drive-time host on KXNT radio. He started with a clip from Don Imus about Rush, calling his "apology" insincere. Wall then asked his listeners to vote on that topic. Then, he launched into a diatribe about how Sandra Fluke wanted "us" to pay for her birth control. That she was 30, and should buy her own, not expect it for free, with "us" footing the bill.

Fluke wanted nothing of the kind. She was--first of all--not arguing for herself, but for a friend of hers. And that friend--a lesbian with no need for contraception--needed the pill for ovarian cysts. And because her insurance--which she must buy as a student at their school--didn't cover it. Even at her doctor's request. This has nothing to do with Fluke's sex life, which she never discussed. This has nothing to do with "us"--taxpayers--paying anything. Here's a link about the whole thing, if you want to know more.

But how can Rush turn this into a now nearly week-long battle (losing now nine sponsors), when the actual meat of the story is 100% wrong? How can simpleton Kevin Wall continue the discussion with no idea what the story is actually about? And how can Rush's fans and supporters be standing with him, still insisting that Sandra Fluke is a "slut?" This is astoundingly stupid.

The Truthiness of Mitt Romney

Image from source, MaddowBlog

It's generally accepted by we lowly citizens that politicians fudge the facts and skew the truth. The heads of the parties spin the story of the week. After a big political event, the press sit for interviews in what is actually called the "spin room".  Usually, only the most hyperbolic throw the word lie around, and when they do it, they are often lying. But it is lying. Even the ones on our own "team" do it, and we shrug and say, "that's politics." It's a sad reality of life. It's just a matter of degrees, I suppose.


Now, few people would say that Newt Gingrich never lies. He's famous for it. But what about that handsome Mormon fellow, Willard "Mitt" Romney? Surely he's not a serial liar like the rest, right? Well. . .


[Excerpt]


Chronicling Mitt's mendacity

Several weeks ago, I launched a Friday afternoon feature, highlighting the most offensive Mitt Romney falsehoods of the week. I was off last week, but let's get it started again.

1. Romney claimed President Obama "went before the United Nations" and "said nothing about thousands of rockets being rained in on Israel from the Gaza Strip.

True or false? The claim isn't even close to being right. . ."

Read much, much more at: The Maddow Blog

Rachel Maddow: PolitiFact, You're Fired!

Agreed. When their "lie of the year" turned out not to be, the writing was on the wall. Rachel Maddow took them to task on Wednesday night and again on Thursday. Here's her first piece, to be followed by the new one when it is posted.



And here is the followup.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Sharron Angle Bans Press, Won't Take Questions

As much as I dread the possibility of a Republican takeover of our politics (still hoping not), one of the many things I'm dreading, is the charge of "sore loser."  What do I mean? Only that if that scenario comes to pass on Tuesday, any negative reporting of that fact will be met with those cat calls.  We've heard it before. . .in fact, we heard it for eight fricking years.

A short two years later, America has inexplicably (apparently) flipped back to the same force of negativity that swamped the economy, and ruled with a hammer. They will name us sore losers, but have shown themselves to be the worst winners  possible. And they will again. One more time, we will have to endure a stunning blindness to their own behavior. The tea party is a collection of sore losers. They'll tell you that they were a response to President Obama's policies, but that isn't true. Considering that the tea party formed mere weeks after Obama's inauguration, there simply wasn't time. But what's truth? It apparently has very little place in our politics these days.

In fact, all the rules seem to be out the window. Sharron Angle, the brightest star on the hybrid tea bagger/GOP elephant, wants us to pretend she's never had extreme positions. She expects the media to ask her only the questions she wants asked, as though they are there for her promotion only. She thinks she can simply set the rules for the press, and get away with it. The sad thing is, she IS getting away with it.  I'm frankly baffled by her viability. In no other election cycle would she have had any hope of getting elected to national office.


[Excerpt]


Angle spokeswoman bans 2 Las Vegas TV stations from election night party for asking questions

Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle's campaign is banning two Las Vegas television stations from covering the candidate's election night party as punishment for asking questions without permission. . .

Read more at: Washington Examiner

Quickie Post #2: Seinfeld: George Tells the Truth

I'm exceptionally busy with my various projects, which is why the blog has been a little thin the last few days. Still, I'd like to keep the blog current, so I'm just going to post a couple of quickies, with not much commentary. I usually like to add my own spin, often with a lengthy (windy) dissertation. Tonight though, just some cut and paste jobs (with attribution, of course).

This clip from an episode of Seinfeld that happens to be on right now, reminded me very much of a fight I had with my brother on a very different subject. I'm George in this case, though the fight wasn't this funny.

Sarah Palin's Book Bus Tour. . .With Wings!

What the hey, I haven't picked on Sarah Palin in a little while. As radio host Jon Elliott says, you can't leave her alone. She's like a chew toy to a dog! Anyhow, it would seem that Palin's camera-ready arrivals at her many book signings across this great country of ours in her fancy-schmancy Sarah bus are a bit artificial. Her bus is little more than a very big taxi from her plane. Her $4,000-per-hour plane. Am I picking nits here? Maybe, but one of the main things her rabid fans like to say about her is how real, how truthful, how genuine she is. Moose crap. Also.

FOX "News" Ratings Bump Lacks Truthiness

Like many stories by and about FOX "News," there is more and less to this one than meets the eye. After the White House's Anita Dunn made a highly qualified statement--in the negative--about FOX "News," the story blew into a much bigger deal than it was, touted by FOX itself as a "war." I'm not sure an hour even went by for weeks that somebody on FOX didn't mention it. They were simultaneously reveling in it, and playing hyper defense. Ironically, much of their coverage helped to prove that they aren't a legitimate news outlet.

Much of the crowing coming from the opinion channel was to tout a supposed ratings spike, inspired by the White House "war." As often happens when FOX is crowing, the story was picked up all across the mainstream media. And, as happens all too often, it was reported as true, almost without question (except for MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann and The Rachel Maddow Show, the thorns in FOX's paw). But was there really a bump?

It turns out, if there was, it was very minor, and statistically insignificant. FOX "News" does get stellar ratings in the low-stakes cable news game, but the truth is, they barely budged in the two weeks following the trumped up war. [Editor's Note: Yes, this story is from last week. But if I just found it, maybe you haven't seen it yet either!]

[Excerpt]

The myth of Fox News' ratings spike

Fact: The breathless claim that Fox News' ratings recently spiked thanks to the White House's public critique is bogus hype -- hype that Fox News and the Beltway press have relentlessly pushed.

It's just not true. . .

Read more at: Media Matters

Can Obama Steer Election Back to Substance?

Photo from source, New York Magazine

A good chunk of my posts on the blog have had to do with my frustration that the Presidential campaigns so far have gotten bogged down in bullshit. All of the dishonest attack ads from John McCain are one example. The rapturous response by the right toward Sarah Palin, is another, with their utter disregard for anything negative that is reported about her.

Much of the McCain side of the campaign is eerily reminiscent of the whole George W. Bush tenure, which hinged upon Karl Rove's ability to drive every story, once again heedless of actual reality. Many liberals, such as myself, sit here in befuddled amazement that clear-cut facts get Cuisinarted into something that doesn't even resemble what is going on.

The story below is a fascinating discussion by people in the reality-based community about the campaigns so far. And as Stephen Colbert said, reality has a well-known liberal bias.

[Excerpt]

Eli Attie and Ken Layne on Whether Obama Can Steer This Election Back to Substance

Every day until November 4, a series of writers and thinkers will discuss the election over instant messenger for nymag.com. Today, West Wing screenwriter and former Al Gore speechwriter Eli Attie and Wonkette's Ken Layne discuss the inscrutability of undecided voters, whether the debates will matter, and what Philip K. Dick has to do with it. . .

Read on at: New York Magazine

McCain Camp Lies About Green Screen/Walter Reed

Photo from Brad Blog

I've written a lot in the past that it is a shame that we not only expect politicians to openly lie to us, we usually shrug it off, almost without a thought. Well, unless he wags his finger at us and tells us he "didn't have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." Then, people will rant and rave about it for years.

Politicians lie about big stuff (Mrs. Palin's "bridge to nowhere" lie), they lie about small stuff ("I'm staying in this to the end!" by every primary contender except Hillary Clinton), and absolutely inconsequential stuff like that in this story. Most media outlets hedge around calling politicians on lies. They use phrases and words like, "misstatement," "doesn't line up with the facts," even "untruth," but rarely say the candidate lied.

In this case the magnitude of the lie, and the thing being lied about aren't of much notice. It's the story of a campaign screw-up, and at John McCain's big speech, no less. Hardly earth shattering. But that's kind of the point, isn't it? There was no need to lie here, and they didn't at first. Then they came up with a story with an air of "truthiness" about it, and changed their true answer to a lie. Why? And why do most of us not care?

The reason I care, is that this has been the pattern of the current holder of the White House for the entire term. Start with one story, then change it to something that sounds better, more "truthy," and then change it again. Heedless of video or audio proof that their story has changed, they change it anyway. If that is what McCain aims to continue, I want no part of it.

[Excerpt]

Those of Us Who Are About to Tire Swing. . .

It always brings a tear to my eye when I see the Grey Lady hopping on the McCain tire swing. But there she goes. Yesterday the McCain campaign was all mum on the Walter Reed/Green Screen goof until deep in the evening when they released some pro forma bamboozlement to the effect that it was all on purpose. They mean to highlight the middle school. . .

Read more at: TPM Muckraker

McCain's Dishonest Mud Slinging & Poo Flinging

Here's my take on how the "negative" campaigning is going so far this Presidential election year. Barack Obama has gotten a few digs in, but not very many. As far as I can tell, Obama's ads are fairly straight forward and honest. I'm sure there's a little political flair there, but I don't see any flagrant truth-twisting or lying in the ads.

John McCain, on the other hand, has fired off one negative ad after the other. The targets are wide, and the truth is thin. He's attacked Obama for being "too popular," has compared him to celebutards, blamed the price of gas on Obama, and now is hitting him with a claim of corruption. That corruption has to do with a shady guy named Tony Rezko, and Obama may have had some dealings with the guy. But I question how much impropriety could have been involved if McCain has to gin up the story to sell it.

And this was in response to Obama's "McCain forgets how many houses he has" gaffe, no less. The only connection in the two stories is the word "house." Weak.



[Excerpt]

Rezko Reality: McCain misfires as he attacks Obama's home purchase

The ad says Chicago power broker Tony Rezko got "political favors" including "$14 million from taxpayers." But there's no evidence of any connection to the Obama home purchase. The $14 million was to build apartments for low-income seniors. Obama wrote a letter supporting the "worthy" project, but both men say Rezko didn't ask for the letter.

It says Rezko "purchased part of the property [Obama] couldn't afford." Rezko's wife did buy an adjoining tract but later sold the land at a profit. Obama paid market price for his home. . .

Read more at: Newsweek

More on the "China Drilling for Oil in Cuba" Story

Image from source, TPM Muckraker

This story is a prime example of how the right-wing operates, and for why we absolutely need a change in the political direction in this country. There is no guarantee that a Barack Obama Presidency would bring about that change, but of our two choices, it is the best one we've got.

It's possible--maybe probable--that other Presidents (and their administrations and supporters) have engaged in this type of behavior. But the Bush Administration (with support from right-wing talk radio and FOX "News") have turned "truthiness" into standard operating procedure. It works like this: assert something to be true, even if you know it's not. Appear on FOX "News," and spread your story. If your story is questioned or even debunked, keep repeating it anyway. Friendly surrogates and pundits then quote your story, and eventually report the story as true. Over and over. For a grace note, you can then cite one of those people as evidence of the merit of the story!

This China/Cuba story by all appearances is false. Just like the Iraq-9/11 story, and oh-so-many others. No matter how thoroughly debunked it is, some of the right-wing mouthpieces will still assert that it is true. Maddening.

[Excerpt]

Searching For The True Source Of A Bogus Story

We've been trying to find the original source for that mysterious meme about China drilling for oil off the coast of Cuba and Florida.

It's flat out wrong. The AP debunked it a few days ago after Vice President Dick Cheney tried to pass it off in remarks to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce about high energy prices. . .

Read more at: TPM Muckraker

Whack-a-doodle Clinton Supporters

Now, wait. Before you get all defensive, I'm not saying all Hillary Clinton supporters are nuts. But the two ladies featured here sure are. I'm sure there are mostly sensible Clintonites just like there are mostly reasonable Obamatons. One problem I have is that vocal Clinton supporters seem to believe every bit of twisted, warped truthiness out of the Clinton campaign. "More votes than any primary candidate in history!" Yeah, if you count those voters jusssst a certain way. . . You get my point.

But the worst attitude--one that I don't see or hear much from Barack Obama supporters--is the notion that they will enthusiastically vote for John McCain if their Democratic choice isn't nominated. What? Are these people really Democrats? They'd not only allow, but assist in seating another Republican administration? Would they be happy to see a solidly conservative Supreme Court? Do they want more wars? Crazy.




Source: The Jed Report