Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Happy Hour Roundup

* In a very interesting move, Obama will campaign for embattled Dem Rep. Tom Perriello of Virginia, whose race has become a referendum on whether a Dem can win in a tough district by unabashedly standing up for the Obama/Dem agenda.

* Jack Conway's campaign keeps up the pressure on Rand Paul over the stomp heard 'round the world:

"We are still waiting for Rand Paul to apologize to the victim of this attack. A boot stomp to the head of a woman is never appropriate, Rand should apologize to her, stop blaming others, and identify the others involved in this thuggish behavior and disassociate his campaign from them immediately."

In fairness, the Paul campaign has clearly condemned the attack.

* I'm told the victim, Lauren Valle, will be on Keith Olbermann tonight expounding on what happened, so definitely tune in for that.

* Remember how the right wing American Action Network got its ad yanked in Connecticut earlier today? Turns out AAN has had another spot yanked in Colorado, this one for falsely claiming Dem Rep. Earl Perlmutter voted to give Viagra to rapists.

* Steve Benen reminds us that the zombie falsehood about health reform sending you to jail has been refusing to die for a dispiritingly long time.

* Meg Whitman is only against the Arizona immigration law in her Spanish-language ads.

* The stomper was also a Rand Paul campaign donor.

* Those who keep claiming, absurdly, that the outside cash won't matter in the elections should know that outside spending is on track to eclipse that of the national parties, which is unprecented.

* And: The outside cash that's being poured into the Colorado Senate even though it supposedly won't have any effect is now at $30 million and counting.

* The Pennsylvania Senate race is shaping up as a thriller.

* I'm really glad to hear that many Tea Partyers don't buy the bogus claims that the media has treated them unfairly, because if anything, coverage of the "movement" has inflated its historical and political significance to absurd proportions.

* Chris Cillizza warns against treating the expected Dem bloodbath in 2010 as an omen for Obama in 2012.

* No surrender? Chris Bowers has this to say about Nate Silver's and Pollster.com's predictions that Dems have a 21 percent chance of keeping the House:

Yes, Democrats are behind. However, a 21% chance of victory is far from being defeated. We are still in this, and there is still time to make a difference.

* And Jonathan Capehart does a nice job debunking the latest idle parlor game speculation about Sarah Palin's path to the presidency.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | October 26, 2010; 6:07 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, 2012, Campaign finance, Happy Hour Roundup, Senate Dems, Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Stomp victim Lauren Valle speaks: Attack was "premeditated"
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

The first half-decent critique of Charles Murray's op ed in this paper that I've found comes from David Frum...

"Reading Charles Murray’s slapdash article in yesterday’s Washington Post, the thought occurs: how does an intelligent man and serious thinker produce such silly work?"
http://www.frumforum.com/murrays-bogus-elite

Posted by: bernielatham | October 26, 2010 6:14 PM | Report abuse

-Two Miller security team members investigated in Alaska-

Commanders at Fort Richardson, Alaska are investigating two soldiers who were involved in a highly publicized altercation with a reporter at an event for Republican Senate candidate Joe Miller, a base spokesman said.

The soldiers were working as part of Joe Miller's security team when they handcuffed a reporter from the Alaska Dispatch who was trying to ask the candidate questions.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/26/two-miller-security-team-members-investigated-in-alaska/

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 26, 2010 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Arizona voter citizenship law overturned

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down an Arizona statute requiring residents to prove their U.S. citizenship in order to register to vote in federal elections.

The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision overturning part of a 6-year-old voter-approved initiative designed to prevent illegal immigrants from voting, comes a week before U.S. congressional elections on November 2.

...


Arizona voters passed a state initiative in 2004 requiring individuals to produce proof of citizenship, such as a passport, to register to vote, and a picture ID, such as a diver's license, or two pieces of non-photo ID, in order to actually cast a ballot.

The appeals court upheld polling-place identification provisions. But it struck down the proof-of-citizenship requirements as being in conflict with a national voter registration law passed by Congress, which has paramount authority under the U.S. Constitution to regulate federal election procedures.

It was not immediately clear what effect the court's decision might have on next week's election.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2010/10/arizona_voter_citizenship_law_overturned.php?ref=fpa

Posted by: suekzoo1 | October 26, 2010 6:15 PM | Report abuse

No mention of the PPP poll that shows Paul with a 13 point lead over Conway? It seems definitive now that the Aqua Buddha ad backfired. Even if Paul takes a small hit from the stomping indecent, Conway blew it with the ad.

Posted by: johnyt1977 | October 26, 2010 6:17 PM | Report abuse

@benen:

I really am glad President Obama rescued the American automotive industry: "The Ford Motor Company said on Tuesday that it earned $1.7 billion in the third quarter and that it expected to have zero net debt by the end of December, one year ahead of forecast. It was the sixth consecutive profitable quarter and the best third quarter in more than 20 years for Ford."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/27/business/27auto.html

From his roundup:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_10/026325.php

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 26, 2010 6:19 PM | Report abuse

How does the TeaOP promote fear?

Let me count the ways:
-Fear of Gov't
-Fear of non-Whites
-Fear of "elites"
-Fear of "death panels"
-Fear of jail time for lack of insurance
-Fear of the "other"
-Fear of yadadada.

What a bunch of chicken little crybabys.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | October 26, 2010 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Oooohhh - other stuff *did* happen today?

Posted by: sbj3 | October 26, 2010 6:23 PM | Report abuse

No mention of the PPP poll that shows Paul with a 13 point lead over Conway? It seems definitive now that the Aqua Buddha ad backfired. Even if Paul takes a small hit from the stomping indecent, Conway blew it with the ad.

Posted by: johnyt1977
-------------------------------
Actually, I agree with you about the race. Even if Paul takes a BIG hit from the stomping incident, he'll still win (the AquaBuddha ad was a mistake). And I doubt he will take a big hit, or even a small hit. He got out in front of this story and condemned the assault and the campaign worker. Some may criticize him for not condemning more, but that won't play. Paul did the decent thing, and condemned the assault.

And I'm not even a Paul supporter.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 26, 2010 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Greg: "* Those who keep claiming, absurdly, that the outside cash won't matter in the elections should know that outside spending is on track to eclipse that of the national parties, which is unprecented."

Are you counting unions as part of "outside cash"?

Bernie, is David Frum a propagandist?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 26, 2010 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Won't SOME patriot go to Virginia, wear a wig, and rush Obama with an unidentified object in your hand like Ms. Valle did to Paul?!

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 26, 2010 6:28 PM | Report abuse

-Motor City Growing Again, Big Three Automakers Ford, GM and Chrysler Add Jobs To Michigan Plants-

Ford Motor Company's plan to add more than 1,000 jobs at seven Michigan plants is proof that the Motor City, so hammered by this economy, is finally seeing early glimmers of a comeback.

[...]

"I think everyone's pretty excited, the mood here is great!" Maks said.

Ford plans to add 1,200 new jobs at seven Michigan plants over the next three years. The job-building is part of a huge new investment by all three Detroit automakers.

[...]

The Michigan Economic Growth Authority is expected to approve tax breaks worth more than $2 billion for the big three automakers, and 13 other companies. The tax incentives kick in only if the automakers keep their promises to hire thousands of more workers.

[...]

Along with hiring, the tax breaks will also help retain more than 200,000 jobs in Michigan.

[...]

"I'm gratified that we are seeing the tail end of that recession, that we are seeing the auto industry rebound and that's a very good thing," Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm said.

Less than two years after the entire auto industry teetered on the brink, all that taxpayer money, state and federal, has helped it turn the corner.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/motor-city-growing-big-automakers-ford-gm-chrysler/story?id=11973039

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 26, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

NPR receives threat; timing suggests link to Juan Williams firing

"NPR received a bomb threat Monday, five days after its decision to fire news analyst Juan Williams sparked a hugely negative reaction.

Sources at the news organization said the threat was received via U.S. mail and was immediately turned over to local police and the FBI. The organization did not publicly disclose the threat or release details, on the advice of law enforcement officials.

The letter didn't reference the Williams firing specifically, but people at NPR, who spoke about it on the condition of anonymity, said the timing and tone suggested it was sent after Williams's widely publicized termination."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/26/AR2010102604909.html

Posted by: suekzoo1 | October 26, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

"NPR received a bomb threat Monday, five days after its decision to fire news analyst Juan Williams sparked a hugely negative reaction."
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/26/npr-bomb-threat/

Move along. Nothing to see here.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 26, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

schrodingerscat at 5:55 PM writes


Are you planning a civil war if Obama is not re-elected???

____________________________

The black minister in Texas starting talking about 2nd Amendment solutions "if they didn't get what they wanted."


I think the blacks in this country are going to be upset if Obama is not re-elected -

AND who knows what will happen???

Will Obama leave the White House voluntarily, or will he try to incite violence to keep him in office?

Who knows? But there are certainly enough unregistered guns in the inner cities.


.

Posted by: LeafofLife | October 26, 2010 6:31 PM | Report abuse

"NPR received a bomb threat Monday"

Domestic Republican Tea Party terrorism much?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 26, 2010 6:32 PM | Report abuse

"Study Documents Chamber of Commerce Takeover Of Supreme Court

A new study by the progressive Constitutional Accountability Center compares how the Chamber of Commerce fared before the Supreme Court in the early 1980s (the last time that none of the Court’s present members were justices) to their record before the Roberts Court — and the results are quite stark. While the Court’s moderates are about as likely to favor the powerful corporate lobby’s position as conservative Justice William Rehnquist was in the early 1980s, the conservative majority is now significantly more likely to favor corporate interests than the most pro-corporate member of the Court twenty-five years ago (the study did not include the Court’s two newest members because of an insufficiently large data sample):

(graph at link)

These numbers are particularly striking in light of the fact that Justice Lewis Powell, the most pro-corporate member of the Burger Court, drafted an influential memo for the Chamber laying out a blueprint for the Chamber to influence American politics and judicial decisions. Powell may be the visionary behind the Chamber’s takeover of the Courts, but the Court’s present majority embraces this takeover far more than even Powell believed acceptable. To read more about the study documenting the corporate takeover of the Supreme Court, visit the Wonk Room."
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/26/chamber-scotus/

The Powell memo referenced is described, along with consequences, here:
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Republican-Propaganda1sep04.htm

Posted by: bernielatham | October 26, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

LeafofLife apparently subscibes to the second "Fear" in my list above.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | October 26, 2010 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Andrew Sullivan gets it depressingly right...

"My sense, and it is a deeply depressing one, is that the Republicans have absolutely no intention of proposing, let alone making, any serious cuts in entitlement or defense spending if they gain control of the House or Senate, that they will try to stop any increase in taxes for those earning over $250,000 a year, and that their goal will be to destroy Obama personally and politically as they tried with Clinton. They have no constructive agenda. they have no interest in actually tackling the debt - just using it as a political ammunition."
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/10/gingrich-no-tax-increases.html

Posted by: bernielatham | October 26, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Friday, October 29 at the Charlottesville Pavillion (700 East Main Street) 5:00 p.m.

I've got Bridgeport covered already, but we need someone on Saturday evening for Chicago (1130 Midway Plaisance North) and then Cleveland (Wolstein Center at Cleveland State University, 2000 Prospect Avenue) at 12 noon on Sunday.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 26, 2010 6:40 PM | Report abuse

"They have no constructive agenda. they have no interest in actually tackling the debt - just using it as a political ammunition."

Yeah. No kidding. It couldn't be more obvious unless they came right out and said exactly that.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 26, 2010 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Sorry suz. I guess yours came in while I was typing.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 26, 2010 6:41 PM | Report abuse

I think Joke is planning some domestic terrorism on PL.

He has said multiple times today that he wants to do something at Obama's appearance in CT. And now he is trying to whip up some kind of attack or fear of an attack on President Obama at other locations too.

I believe that, yes, he is that insane.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 26, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Clarence Thomas' ex girl-friend on CNN...
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/25/scotus.thomas.mcewen/index.html?hpt=C1

As I suggested earlier, the odd and seemingly inexplicable call from Mrs Thomas to Anita Hill seems best explained as a pre-emptive PR move. I assume that the Thomas' got wind that this lady was shopping a book.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 26, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Joke, I encourage you to take a plastic gun to one of these events and try to rush the stage. Really, you should.

Freaking lunatic.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 26, 2010 6:46 PM | Report abuse

You think a little head-stomping is bad?

Wait until 2012 elections.

Civil War 2 starts January, 2013.

Posted by: pmendez | October 26, 2010 5:24 PM
_______________________________

What does this mean? I never got an answer???

Does this mean the Obama does not intend to leave office if he loses the election???

Clearly, the democrats have shown that they are willing to disregard the sentiments of the American People in order to push through their far left-wing agenda - so how far will they go??

Already, one can not trust the democrats to do what they say.

However, this trend among the democrats toward PROVOKING violent incidents - and then trying to whip up their base on the internet - is CONCERNING.


.

Posted by: LeafofLife | October 26, 2010 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Ethan,

Ford did not take a penny from the Feds in the auto-bailout.

President Obama had zip/zero/nada to do with their comeback.

They took a financial gander in 2006, borrowed to nearly 100% of their capitalization so they had working cash, held the line with the UAW, designed and built lines of quality vehicles, and advertised with the way cool dude from "Dirty Jobs."

They are eating ObamaMotors lunch.

Hey, how's your Volt?

Posted by: tao9 | October 26, 2010 6:56 PM | Report abuse

You think a little head-stomping is bad?

Wait until 2012 elections.

Civil War 2 starts January, 2013.

Posted by: pmendez | October 26, 2010 5:24 PM
_______________________________

What does this mean? I never got an answer???
=======================================
@pmendez,

STRF demands that you come out of your foxhole and explain JUST WHAT YOU MEAN.

Bwahahahaha!!!!!!!!!! Anyone see pmendez? Send him out to explain himself. What a dope.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 26, 2010 6:57 PM | Report abuse


Bernie, do the progressive Constitutional Accountability Center, Andrew Sullivan and CNN engage in propaganda?

Do they share your understanding of propaganda?  If so, how?

Does Greg Sargent, or any other commentors here share your understanding of propaganda?  If so, how?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 26, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse

They took a financial gander in 2006, borrowed to nearly 100% of their capitalization so they had working cash, held the line with the UAW, designed and built lines of quality vehicles, and advertised with the way cool dude from "Dirty Jobs."

They are eating ObamaMotors lunch.

Hey, how's your Volt?

Posted by: tao9 | October 26, 2010 6:56 PM |

.................

Yes, but they have some built in accumulated obligations, that GM no longer has, so Ford will be facing a serious cost per car disadvantage in the coming years.

This is guaranteed to bring tears of laughter to your eyes.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCbuRA_D3KU

Posted by: Liam-still | October 26, 2010 7:04 PM | Report abuse

jeezus, what a depressing day. Serwer writes on a Cohen piece wherein Cohen says:

"Her charges fell somewhat short of blatant, coercive, sexual harassment"

And after the initial post, Adam does an update:

"UPDATE: According to the New York Observer, Cohen has been disciplined for making sexually explicit remarks to other employees at the Post before, although that internal inquiry concluded that while Cohen had helped create a "hostile working environment" and had engaged in "inappropriate behavior" he was not guilty of "sexual harassment," which I guess explains why he's splitting hairs here. The Post has been down this route before with Juan Williams, who was facing his own allegations of sexual harassment while defending Thomas from Hill's charges in his published columns during the confirmation hearings."
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/adam_serwer_archive?month=10&year=2010&base_name=i_wonder_what_its_like_to_work

Posted by: bernielatham | October 26, 2010 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010:

Be afraid, be very afraid.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 26, 2010 7:05 PM | Report abuse

"Chris Cillizza warns against treating the expected Dem bloodbath in 2010 as an omen for Obama in 2012."
-----

Really?

"Republican Rick Scott now leads Democrat Alex Sink by six points in the race to be Florida’s next governor. It’s the widest gap between the candidates in six months of polling."

In Ohio and most of the rust belt, Obama is now less popular than Bush43. When the Republicans take over the governor's mansions in these states and the coming tsunami hits Washington, I can't see how it doesn't bode ill for Obama in 2012. I know the line about how he can use the Republicans as foils if they take the house, but this isn't the 1990s. The economy's in the tank, unemployment is at 10%, and the worst of the mortgage crisis may be yet to come. The Dems' policies are being rejected as failures by the voters, so if Obama takes the likely route of making the Dems the party of "No" he may very well be a one-termer. And he certainly deserves to be.

Posted by: Brigade | October 26, 2010 7:16 PM | Report abuse

You think a little head-stomping is bad?

Wait until 2012 elections.

Civil War 2 starts January, 2013.

Posted by: pmendez | October 26, 2010 5:24 PM

__________________________________

The unbelievable thing here is the liberal group MoveOn.org had their person come from Washington - and who ended up CHARGING at Rand Paul.

This violent incident was clearly provoked by a liberal group - who has been known in the past to take UNDISCLOSED contributions.


Then this liberal group has a spokesman ready to go - and to get the base all whipped up on the internet.


IS this a new pattern?

What will 2012 be like? Will liberal groups be PROVOKING VIOLENT INCIDENTS all over the country?

And then claiming the 2012 election is not legitimate in some way???

Is this the beginning of a strategy to get the base to do this all over the country?? And then blame the other side?

Will Obama and the democrats RESPECT the election results when Obama gets voted out in 2012???

Will Obama agree to leave the White House voluntarily - or will Obama try to stay in office by some means ??

Posted by: LeafofLife | October 26, 2010 7:16 PM | Report abuse

"Tribune Co. CEO resigns amid tales of raunchiness, company files bankruptcy reorg plan"

http://www.startribune.com/business/105559953.html

"WILMINGTON, Del. - Tribune Co. CEO Randy Michaels resigned Friday amid tales of raunchy behavior as the company looked to shift attention back to its efforts to emerge from bankruptcy protection. Hours later, the company filed its latest reorganization plan in court.

Michaels' departure comes at a pivotal time for the troubled media company. After nearly two years operating under bankruptcy protection, Tribune Co. is drawing up a reorganization plan that it hopes a federal judge will approve before the end of the year.

Michaels, 58, joined Tribune Co. three years ago following an ill-fated $8.2 billion buyout engineered by real estate mogul Sam Zell in 2007. Michaels became Tribune Co.'s CEO late last year. Michaels, a former radio disc jockey, won Zell's trust as CEO of a radio broadcast company that Zell owned, Jacor Communications."

Posted by: Liam-still | October 26, 2010 7:18 PM | Report abuse

Jake,

Cut the khrap. If you're a con, and not merely an astrigent, show some restraint,
some manners and some...honor.

& don't give me no tu quoque malarkey.

Posted by: tao9 | October 26, 2010 7:20 PM | Report abuse

The new census is expected to show a nearly 45% increase in the number of Hispanic Americans since 2000, to a total of 50 million. This couples with continuing audience erosion at the major networks and Univision's recent deal with Mexican programer Grupo Televisa, which locks up the source of much the network's popular programing for at least another decade.

____________________________


45% can NOT be explained by birthrate alone


This is crazy - this population explosion is an INVASION.

The nation has been INVADED - and the government should respond to enforce the laws -

If Obama does not want to properly enforce Federal laws, he should resign.

Posted by: LeafofLife | October 26, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Bernie,

Surely you think Prospect engages in propaganda, no?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 26, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

tao9:

I am not posting "khrap" (nor "malarkey"), so I can hardly stop doing do.

Posted by: JakeD2 | October 26, 2010 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Jake

Many of the liberals do not remember the Spring of 2008 - when the Obama campaign was telling Superdelegates that the black community would retailate and perhaps even riot in the streets if Obama did not get the Superdelegate support he needed to secure the democratic nomination.

The Obama campaign made phone call after phone call to democratic delegates demanding that the "will of the people" not be over-turned by the Superdelegates - hence extensive efforts were undertaken to count the popular votes to determine the "will of the people."


BUT the theme was set - the Obama campaign made clear that the black community would riot in the streets - and attempt to disrupt the Convention - if the legitimate votes did NOT go their way.


This did happen.

There appears to be a willingness on the left to threaten violence if they don't get their way.

There is also another troubling pattern.

The left appears more than willing to CLAIM that the right is about to get violent - in an effort to JUSTIFY their own violence. We heard this time and time again in the democratic talking points concerning the Tea Party.


At this point, this nation must be clear: OUR ELECTIONS WILL BE RESPECTED.

Acorn, vote-stealing and voting machines pre-set to democratic candidates WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.


.

Posted by: LeafofLife | October 26, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

If you can't stop yourself from, "Be afraid, be very afraid," or further excreta, are we to expect more gimlet mots such as...

"Lets get ready to rummmmbbbble!"

Posted by: tao9 | October 26, 2010 7:37 PM | Report abuse

McWing and Tao, looks like any efforts at real debate or conversation are out the window tonight, the pretenders are holding court. See y'all manana. I've got to get busy anyway programming those voting machines and trying to find someone to beat me into submission so I can claim victimhood. This place has turned into an insane asylum so I'm changing my favorite novel back to "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest". Forget "War and Peace", there's no such thing as peace anymore.

Posted by: lmsinca | October 26, 2010 7:43 PM | Report abuse

ALL the voting machines should be checked in the country - to make sure they are not pre-set to democratic candidates

There are scattered reports around the nation of this happening.

.

Posted by: LeafofLife | October 26, 2010 7:46 PM | Report abuse

On a slightly different issue than tao's post just above.

I'm getting more than a little fed up with posters here, liberal or whatever, who continue to do the personal insult stuff and who continue to respond to our most disruptive guest.

I did junior high school a long time ago and I do not have any desire to go back.

Stop it.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 26, 2010 7:48 PM | Report abuse

rukidding7 wrote,
"...the violence coming from the right is not unprecedented...but you have to go back 50 years to the '60's to find this kind of large scale violence and violent talk coming from the left. That's just a simple fact!"

Re: the woman assaulted at the Paul Rally:

naksuthin wrote,
"The Brown Shirts did the same thing in Nazi Germany."

gposner wrote,
"Watching this episode one is reminded of those grainy black and white films that show the early days of the Nazis."

tdiaz wrote,
"This violence has a long pedigree in the modern right wing"
------------------------------------------

The moonbats and scissorbills were out in full force today. The above quotes were just a few of many. Are you people out of your minds? Don't you ever feel even a little silly making ridiculous claims that are so easily refuted?

"The 1992 Los Angeles Riots, also known as the 1992 Los Angeles Civil Unrest and Rodney King Uprising, were sparked on April 29, 1992, when a jury acquitted four Los Angeles Police Department officers accused in the videotaped beating of black motorist Rodney King following a high-speed pursuit. Thousands of people in the Los Angeles area rioted over the six days following the verdict. At that time, similar, smaller riots and anti-police actions took place in other locations in the United States and Canada. Widespread looting, assault, arson and murder occurred, and property damages topped roughly US$1 billion. In all, 53 people died during the riots and thousands more were injured."

1999 "For four intense days last week, the city of Seattle was under siege: the air burned by the acrid scents of tear gas and pepper spray, the rain-slicked streets patrolled by hundreds of police in black riot gear, the air echoing with the rhythmic chants of protesters and the ugly sound of vandals smashing windows. Thousands of marchers were choked by gas and bruised by rubber bullets; almost 600 were arrested. Just before U.S. President Bill Clinton arrived in the city late Tuesday, authorities declared a civil emergency, called in the National Guard and imposed a daily curfew covering 37 square kilometres of the downtown core from 7 p.m. to 7:30 a.m. Police threatened to arrest anyone not on legitimate business, and cleared the streets by firing countless canisters of tear gas. Yet perhaps the oddest aspect of the surreal strife in the home city of Starbucks and Microsoft was the protesters' target: the droning meetings of a once-obscure international trade grouping."

"ST. PAUL, Minn. — Percussion grenades, tear gas and nearly 400 arrests marked the final anti-war march during the Republican National Convention. More than 800 arrests were reported during a week of sometimes peaceful, sometimes violent dissent."

Of course it's just a "simple fact" that no such large scale violence and violent talk has come from the left since the 1960's---nothing like an agitator getting trounced at a Paul rally.


Posted by: Brigade | October 26, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Bernie, I was just going to post Frum's response to Murray.

Great stuff. At least Frum doesn't suffer fools.

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 26, 2010 7:58 PM | Report abuse


I'm sure all the inbred neoconfederates are psyched about violence against women today.

YEAH, STEP ON HER HEAD! LMAO

There's blood in the water and I'm sure every Tea Party scumbag out there just couldn't be more excited. Violence and behaving like the ingrates they are is what they LIVE for.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 26, 2010
-------

You know you're a nutbag hate-monger and D-bagging winger when you're to the left of Ben Jealous on matters pertaining to race.

"We know the majority of Tea Party supporters are sincere, principled people of good will." ---NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous

Posted by: Brigade | October 26, 2010 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Add this to list of bizarre and unusual campaign trail antics: at last week's Tea Party Express rally in Phoenix, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio welcomed Sarah Palin with a pair of pink underwear. . .

Posted by: Liam-still | October 26, 2010
-------

Don't feel bad. I hear he has a pair just like them for Barack.

Posted by: Brigade | October 26, 2010 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Tea Party, Catholic Church version...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39821248/ns/us_news-life/

Posted by: bernielatham | October 26, 2010 8:03 PM | Report abuse

If Tea Party coward Tim Proffit wants to make his address public, I'd be happy to come over and kick the living sh*t out of him. That is if he'll fight a male.

Posted by: ExConservative | October 26, 2010
------

Be sure to wear your blonde wig and pink panties. If the Moveon.org men weren't all pantywaists like this guy, they wouldn't send a woman to agitate a crowd---they'd go do it themselves.

Posted by: Brigade | October 26, 2010 8:07 PM | Report abuse

@bernie,

Just reading through your link. This reminds me of my childhood when you had to check whether the music you played in church was approved. No Germans were ever approved. You can guess why.

The witch hunters in the Church won't last. I realize how ridiculous that sounds in light of history--I even laugh at myself. But, American Catholics have a strong libertarian streak, and they won't stand for the Taliban-Catholics long.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 26, 2010 8:10 PM | Report abuse

This is a disgusting, disgraceful chapter in American History.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | October 26, 2010
-----

Right. A female member of Moveon.org's rent-a-mob gets assaulted at an event where she's agitating, and it's "a disgusting, disgraceful chapter in American History." I wonder why some yellow-bellies like you didn't show up instead of sending a woman?

Posted by: Brigade | October 26, 2010 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Tea Party, Catholic Church version...

High time.

Posted by: tao9 | October 26, 2010 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Bernielatham at 7:48 writes

I'm getting more than a little fed up with posters here, liberal or whatever, who continue to do the personal insult stuff and who continue to respond to our most disruptive guest.

I did junior high school a long time ago and I do not have any desire to go back.

Stop it.

___________________________________

So NOW you want to BULLY everyone else to act the way you want them to act ?

Is that the story now? Who made you the Queen Bee of the 8-year-old girl clique??


This is getting ridiculous.

What are you going to do, if they don't do what you want???


AND again - this comment at 7:48 is not "intent to harass" - Bernie is harassing everyone.

Posted by: LeafofLife | October 26, 2010 8:15 PM | Report abuse

...for example, according to the FBI 48% of all homicides in 2009 were of blacks yet blacks comprise 12.8% of our total population.

yeah you guys talk. Meanwhile the people in the inner city keep right on killing each other.

I live near a bastion of Democrat rule: Cleveland Ohio. The murder rate in the city is astounding, yet Democrats have ruled the place since before Dennis the Menace Kuchinich.

so tell me, my little goat sucker, when is all that liberal jaw jacking going to result in something actually improving? Simple answer, based on the track record: never.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | October 26, 2010
-------

The poverty pimps want to keep people dependent, not solve the problem. The mystery is why their victims keep boot-licking and voting for them.

Posted by: Brigade | October 26, 2010 8:15 PM | Report abuse

Folks,

Let the police and prosecutors handle it. We should not be posting how to find the person or persons, so that people can harass them. That could also turn very ugly. Inciting retaliation is also not acceptable.

Posted by: Liam-still | October 26, 2010 5:05 PM
-------

You're sounding uncommonly sensible, Liam. Not feeling well?

Posted by: Brigade | October 26, 2010 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Bernielatham at 7:48 writes

I'm getting more than a little fed up with posters here, liberal or whatever, who continue to do the personal insult stuff and who continue to respond to our most disruptive guest.

Our most disruptive guest responds to bernie:

So NOW you want to BULLY everyone else to act the way you want them to act ?

Who made you the Queen Bee of the 8-year-old girl clique??
--------------------------------------
No good deed goes unpunished.


Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 26, 2010 8:20 PM | Report abuse

ONE POINT which none of the liberals are talking about

The audio in the Lauren Valle Charging Incident - clearly indicates the Rand Paul people asking for the police.

Then a Rand Paul person STOPS the person with his foot on Lauren Valle.

The Rand Paul people STOPPED AND LIMITED the restraint of Lauren Valle.

No one wants to talk about that.


Again, Lauren Valle should NOT have been charging the candidate.

And when she was initially told to stop, Lauren Valle should have listened and stopped rushing the candidate.

AND when she was intially restrained, Lauren Valle should NOT have struggled and continued to CHARGE toward the candidate.


Those actions of Lauren Valle CREATED the entire incident. She went to the rally looking to create an incident. The Rand Paul people were not looking to create an incident.

.

Posted by: LeafofLife | October 26, 2010 8:25 PM | Report abuse

Hey guys it's a blog.

You can't type a right jab or a left hook (even w/caps and !!!!).

You can't really defend a agit/gal or punch a redneck or kick a hippy here, not bodily anyway.

So stow the pixel courage.

You all sound like Joy Behar.

Posted by: tao9 | October 26, 2010 8:28 PM | Report abuse

Ethan,

Ford did not take a penny from the Feds in the auto-bailout.

President Obama had zip/zero/nada to do with their comeback.

They took a financial gander in 2006, borrowed to nearly 100% of their capitalization so they had working cash, held the line with the UAW, designed and built lines of quality vehicles, and advertised with the way cool dude from "Dirty Jobs."

They are eating ObamaMotors lunch.

Hey, how's your Volt?

Posted by: tao9 | October 26, 2010 6:56 PM
-------

You beat me to it. However, I don't think facts play a very large role in Ethan's world.

Posted by: Brigade | October 26, 2010 8:28 PM | Report abuse

""Study Documents Chamber of Commerce Takeover Of Supreme Court"

Study by left-wing extremists, you mean. Several

The "study" showed that Justice Stevens voted for the COC's position 9% more in the Roberts ear than in the Burger era. Since the entire "takeover" amounts to winning 25% more during the Roberts five years than the Burger five years they chose for comparison, the "takeover" actually amounts to winning 16% more cases. Shocking, very shocking.

The comparison of justice to replacement justice shows something telling to the observant as well: the only unequivocal replacement of a liberal by a conservative or vice versa has been the replacement of Marshall and Thomas, and theirs greatest difference in voting. Since the court is generally divided 5-4, that one substitution likely can alone account for the whopping 16% difference, if it needs any accounting.

And that it needs accounting is of course an assumption of the "study" but an assumption the authors admit is just that. They made no effort to evaluate who "should" have won any of the cases.

Some big corporate takeover. A quantitative "study" of this kind is virtually meaningless, because anyone who cares about the rule of law or justice should care who should have won.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 26, 2010 8:29 PM | Report abuse

Great stuff. At least Frum doesn't suffer fools.

Posted by: BGinCHI | October 26, 2010 7:58 PM
------

Frum is a fool himself.

Posted by: Brigade | October 26, 2010 8:31 PM | Report abuse

When all the Republican women candidates are shouting at their opponents to man-up, is this they were referring to? To behave like Rand Paul and his thugs.

Posted by: Realist17 | October 26, 2010 8:37 PM | Report abuse

"I've got to get busy anyway programming those voting machines and trying to find someone to beat me into submission so I can claim victimhood."

I knew it, lms. I knew it. But the easier way to do the latter is to beat yourself up and then call the media.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 26, 2010 8:38 PM | Report abuse

"In a last-ditch effort to salvage the Democratic majority, President Obama is encouraging Hispanic voters to remain inspired by stalled immigration "reform" to vote against Republicans on Election Day. More importantly, President Obama is inspiring his constituents to “punish our enemies and reward our friends,” encouraging a similar kind of “thugocracy” we have seen with labor unions."
---Raven Clabough 10/26/10
------

I don't think we've ever had a more contemptible human being in the White House. He's run around the world apologizing for his country; he can't bring himself to call Bin Laden, Chavez or even Ahmadinjejad enemies, but he calls American voters who oppose his policies enemies.

Posted by: Brigade | October 26, 2010 8:39 PM | Report abuse

Scott,

If you are out there, in answer to your question last night, yes, it is all idle talk. You busted me. The real problem is that one of my many flaws is that I can't ever say who or what is the best, greatest, favorite, etc.

I'm too complicated. Or it is too complicated, or something. It's complicated. But I do know ice cream is the greatest food. That's the one thing I know.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 26, 2010 8:42 PM | Report abuse

QB1,

If I didn't know better, it sounds like the authors were advocating the adoption of a viewpoint, based on dubious data. I wonder if the "linker"
Here was also trying to push a narrative.

But wouldnt that be propaganda? That just wouldn't do, ergo I do not believe it. You are dismissed sir!

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 26, 2010 8:44 PM | Report abuse

Mark Halperin and some of the other talking heads on MSNBC this morning seemed to think that Rand Paul pretty much destroyed the laughing jackass (Conway) in their final debate. They said Paul appeared knowledgable and statesman-like while Conway seemed like an impetuous adolescent.

Posted by: Brigade | October 26, 2010 8:46 PM | Report abuse

The liberals who are attacking the Rand Paul campaign - I have not seen one STATE CLEARLY that Lauren Valle's conduct was improper, and that she provoked the situation.

Instead, the liberals prefer to use this incident for partisan gain.

Clearly, this is important - because the liberals appear ready to use this kind of incident TO JUSTIFY VIOLENCE COMING FROM THE LEFT.


Obama's campaign in 2008 already stated a clear willingness to THREATEN STREET VIOLENCE in order to secure votes for their candidate -

Clearly, that is out of bounds. However, Obama has already done it once, and that means Obama can do it again.


We have a Black Minister in Texas threatening "2nd Amendment solutions" if they "don't get what they want"


Many liberals on this blog and elsewhere have called for the SILENCING of points of views which they do not like.

It is amazing how quickly MoveOn.org was ready with their spokesman - ready with a statement from Lauren Valle who provoked the incident - and how PARTISAN the comments have been.


Joy Behar threatened Sharon Angle today - she dared Sharon Angle to come to the South Bronx and see how they respond.


So, Muslims ARE allowed to have a mosque at Ground Zero, according to Joy Behar, but Sharon Angle - a US Citizen - should NOT go to the Bronx ???


Disgraceful - that attitude is a NATIONAL DISGRACE.


.

Posted by: LeafofLife | October 26, 2010 8:50 PM | Report abuse

This rightwing mania is contagious. I saw Bob Beckel on television defending Juan Williams. According to Beckel, anyone who says they wouldn't feel uneasy upon boarding a plane with several Muslims is a liar. I guess that covers a few people we know.

Posted by: Brigade | October 26, 2010 8:55 PM | Report abuse

Brigade at 8:55

I would be willing to go on a plane with Obama.

.

Posted by: LeafofLife | October 26, 2010 8:57 PM | Report abuse

The former Rand Paul volunteer who stomped on the head of a prone MoveOn activist tells a local CBS affiliate he would've never put his foot on the victim at all if it wasn't for his bad back.

According to WKYT, "[Tim] Profitt explained that he used his foot to try and keep her down because he can't bend over because of back problems.

------------------------
The last time I heard such a good excuse is when I couldn't practice the piano because it disturbed my cat.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 26, 2010 9:04 PM | Report abuse

I am annoyed and disappointed. Miller got sent to the eap for doing a political poll on break? Amateur.

Hey Joe! You let your enemies down.
If you want to get into the repentant scandal survivor, newly self-righteous role, you have to do better. Even being a newly quit smoker entitles you to please-learn-from-my-mistakes lectures.

You can't apologize to Jesus and "all the people I may have hurt" for using your computer on a lunch break. What a loser.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/10/26/us/politics/AP-US-Alaska-Senate-Miller-Records.html?hp


Posted by: shrink2 | October 26, 2010 9:05 PM | Report abuse

12BB "I couldn't practice the piano because it disturbed my cat."

You shouldn't play Cecil Taylor.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 26, 2010 9:11 PM | Report abuse

Troll,

First, wow, I had better start editing and proofreading. That was some mess I typed. Glad you could decipher it.

Second, yes, it's almost like there is an agenda behind these groups. If only we had bernie's edumacation we might be able to see the truth behind the truth, the man behind the curtain, the masters behind the puppets. But, alas, we are just ignorant rubes.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 26, 2010 9:16 PM | Report abuse

Chris Bowers as The Boss:

Like soldiers in the winter's night with a vow to defend, No Retreat, baby, No Surrender.

Posted by: converse | October 26, 2010 9:17 PM | Report abuse

BG wrote: "Bernie, I was just going to post Frum's response to Murray.

Great stuff. At least Frum doesn't suffer fools."

I've been following Frum for quite a few years. He comes from a famous Canadian media family and his mom was quite brilliant. But he got captured by Conrad Black's circle and then fell into the US Republican crowd and then the neoconservatives around the Bush administration. I never much liked the fellow until the last few years when, for whatever set of reasons, he jumped off the careening catastrophe the US right has become.

But though his critique on Murray's op ed is better than anything else I've bumped into, it is disappointing in that it deals in the present. There's enough there to make Murray look a fool or worse, as Frum details, but it misses the more fundamental historical error made. Oh well. I'll take what I can get.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 26, 2010 9:19 PM | Report abuse

Brigade brings up this point:

"In a last-ditch effort to salvage the Democratic majority, President Obama is encouraging Hispanic voters to remain inspired by stalled immigration "reform" to vote against Republicans on Election Day. More importantly, President Obama is inspiring his constituents to “punish our enemies and reward our friends,” encouraging a similar kind of “thugocracy” we have seen with labor unions."
---Raven Clabough 10/26/10


____________________________________

I see a MAJOR PROBLEM with the Federal Official in CHARGE of ENFORCEMENT of Federal Immigration Laws to be making partisan political statements like this.

Obama crosses the line here.

Obama is holding out the promise of legalization of illegal aliens - all in exchange for VOTES for his party.


When a Federal Official is elected, he or she TAKES AN OATH to uphold the Federal laws as they stand.

Obviously, we have a situation in which Federal laws are not being enforced - so for Obama who is RESPONSIBLE for that enforcement - to make such statements is wrong.


Posted by: LeafofLife | October 26, 2010 9:21 PM | Report abuse

"They have to sit in the back."

"Punish your enemies and reward your friends."


So much for one America. So much for hope and change.

This is the most bitterly divisive and nasty-tongued President we've ever had. I can see why Michele used to go around campaigning about what a mean country this is. The Obama household must be one cauldron of bitterness and negativity. And meanness. Because both Barack and Michele are mean, mean people.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 26, 2010 9:21 PM | Report abuse

QB1,

Wheels within wheels, my friend. Wheels within wheels.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 26, 2010 9:24 PM | Report abuse

I was going to note this Norm Coleman item in the morning but didn't get to it ("Soros is trying to buy the election"). The point I was going to make was a reminder about how a certain sort of propaganda gets commonly done by the modern right - if they are doing something for which, if found out, they'll look very bad, they simply accuse the other side of doing it too. Therefore, no guilt. It's a standard ploy and if you watch for it, you'll see it again and again.

But here's Tomasky's take. I'll quote just a line I find agreeable (I truly despise Coleman) but the whole piece is typical Tomasky, smart and worthwhile...

"Coleman has been a bottom-feeder for a long time, going back to his absurd attacks on Kofi Annan, is really scraping it now."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2010/oct/26/george-soros

Posted by: bernielatham | October 26, 2010 9:27 PM | Report abuse

Obama said this to hispanics:

President Obama is inspiring his constituents to “punish our enemies and reward our friends,” encouraging a similar kind of “thugocracy” we have seen with labor unions."

________________________________


First, Obama in 2008 said that if the nation would elect him, he would be bipartisan - and work to unite the nation.


What a complete disgrace.

In addition, for the person who is in charge of Federal Immigration enforcement to say this - that is IMPEACHABLE.


This indicates a willingness on the part of Obama to make OFFICIAL CONCESSIONS in exchange for votes.


Obama has crossed the line here.

.

Posted by: LeafofLife | October 26, 2010 9:31 PM | Report abuse

http://www.newcriterion.com/postprint.cfm/Psychos-for-Rational-Argument-6393

heh

Posted by: tao9 | October 26, 2010 9:32 PM | Report abuse

Digby, one of the really bright lights that the new media has allowed to emerge, lays it out...

"Right now all that should matter to any of us is defeating the most radical, authoritarian, anti-intellectual Republican class in modern memory (and that's saying something.) They were thoroughly repudiated at the polls in the last two elections and they haven't learned a thing from those losses. Indeed, the lesson they took was that they hadn't been aggressively wrong enough. Instead of seeing where they went wrong and making adjustments, they've doubled down on their worst policies and are prepared to go even further.

In normal times they wouldn't stand a chance of doing any better than a normal midterm and would probably do worse. But these aren't normal times. The average American is frightened and confused while the rightwing is excited and overstimulated. The toxic combination of Bircherism, big money, xenophobia and social conservatism that defines the Tea Party is happening at a moment of maximum danger."

It's a long post but cogent and worthwhile.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/theyre-from-tea-party-and-theyve-come.html

And now I'm going to head home.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 26, 2010 9:34 PM | Report abuse

Hmmm. A little thing going around the email distribution system. I like it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=XNUc8nuo7HI

Posted by: actuator | October 26, 2010 9:37 PM | Report abuse

Tao9 - GM has returned nicely to profitability. You missed several important facts.

The collapse of GM and Chrysler would have led to the collapse of their suppliers. The same suppliers that Ford needs to remain viable. Hence, Ford was fully supportive of federal intervention even though its lack would have knocked out competitors.

More than that, the cost of pension liabilities and collateral damage would have easily exceeded the final cost of the auto bailout. It's not ideology, my friend. It's numbers.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | October 26, 2010 9:37 PM | Report abuse

Bernie's Digby quote: "In normal times they wouldn't stand a chance of doing any better than a normal midterm and would probably do worse. But these aren't normal times. The average American is frightened and confused while the rightwing is excited and overstimulated. The toxic combination of Bircherism, big money, xenophobia and social conservatism that defines the Tea Party is happening at a moment of maximum danger.""

You owe me a new computer screen. That is the funniest paragragh I've read since John Hughes put pen to paper and authored Christmas '59 for National Lampoon. I laughed so hard soda squirted through my nose.

"Bircherism" My God that's hilarious!

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 26, 2010 9:40 PM | Report abuse

A conway supporter also stepped on a Paul supporter, http://www.kypost.com/dpps/news/political/2-fights-break-out-during-paul_conway-debate-_5305909

Lets report both sides of the story..

Posted by: CarolinaMike | October 26, 2010 9:41 PM | Report abuse

Paul Lane

So the government should guarantee the high union pensions of the auto companies?

Sounds like Goldman-Sachs which bought credit swaps from AIG - then then when AIG went bust wanted the government to guarantee AIG.

_________________________


I'd like to see what Goldman has been up to since we "saved" them -

In return, how many people did they throw out of their homes?

Posted by: LeafofLife | October 26, 2010 9:44 PM | Report abuse

Carolina Mike

You are correct - the Conway people were violent as well - an apparently they drew blood


Here is the quote:


The second occurred after a Conway supporter stepped on the foot of a female Rand supporter, who recently had foot surgery, according to police.

The woman was wearing a surgical boot, but after the injury, her incision was cut open. Police say she refused medical treatment and also filed an assault report.

Posted by: LeafofLife | October 26, 2010 9:54 PM | Report abuse

@leaf/STRF/or whatever sockpuppet you're using today:

"schrodingerscat at 5:55 PM writes


Are you planning a civil war if Obama is not re-elected???"

I didn't write that...YOU did....and I don't appreciate the implication that those are my words.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | October 26, 2010 9:58 PM | Report abuse

Troll,

I don't know. I think the preceding paragraph is even funnier.

Digby is a world-class doofus. It's really funny to see someone like bernie who fancies himself the intellectual creme de law creme fawn over such clowns. Ideology has so blinded them to reality that even now they don't know what is hitting them.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 26, 2010 10:00 PM | Report abuse

You shouldn't play Cecil Taylor.
--------------------------------
Shrink---

Hello there! This is like Fix old home week. Most of the rogue's gallery are here. You remember JakeD# and 37thandOStreet, the bad boys of the Fix.

DDawd drops in, brigade and leichtman, mark in austin, ceflynline, margaret meyers and myself, of course. Oh, I hope I haven't forgotten anyone from the Fix.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 26, 2010 10:02 PM | Report abuse

Oh, I hope I haven't forgotten anyone from the Fix.
--------------
How could I forget BB, the Fairlington Blade. He doesn't come on this blog and pick fights, that's why.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 26, 2010 10:05 PM | Report abuse

@cat,

STRF wrote to pmendez: Are you planning a civil war if Obama is not re-elected???
----------------------------------
Pmendez? Anyone see pmendez?

If there is ever a time when it would be GREAT to see and hear from pmendez, this would be it. Right?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 26, 2010 10:09 PM | Report abuse

Schroedingercat

you are correct - I meant to place the other quote - from the other person in that place - pmendez at 5:24

_____________


You did make a comment on the subject, but the reference I made did not accurately indicate your views toward starting a civil war in this nation if Obama is not re-elected.

I did accurately state what the Obama campaign was threatening - in its calls to Superdelegates in the Spring of 2008 - the Obama people stated that blacks would riot in the streets if Obama did not get the nomination and it was perceived that the Superdelegates stole it from him.

The black Minister in Texas stated this week that there are 2nd Amendment remedies available - and he spoke of the violent Revolution against King George.

The black Minister also said that "the option is on the table."

There is a great deal of talk from the left about violence - and whether that talk is aimed at justifying their own violence is certainly an issue.


.

Posted by: LeafofLife | October 26, 2010 10:10 PM | Report abuse

"GM has returned nicely to profitability."

Profitability? Perhaps. It's the "nicely" that's a little off.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sales for most major auto makers were down in September from August, as reported by MSNBC. Ford (F) was the standout with sales up 2%. Here are the numbers for the other companies:

•General Motors (GM) sales declined 3%.
•Chrysler was up less than 1%.
•Toyota (TM) fell less than 1%.
•Nissan (NSANY) was down 3%.

The year-over-year numbers are more encouraging:
•GM was up 11%.
•Toyota was up 17%.
•Honda (HMC) rose 26%.
•Nissan rose 35%.
•Ford, again the standout, was up 46%.

http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/10/03/auto-sales-down-in-september/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They still owe the Feds $50Billion and change. When's the IPO?

Posted by: tao9 | October 26, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse

This is the most bitterly divisive and nasty-tongued President we've ever had.
....
Posted by: quarterback1 | October 26, 2010 9:21 PM
===========

Apparently you slept through the years 2001-2009.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | October 26, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse

I guess MSNBC is going all Godwin all the time.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/26/new-msnbc-talking-point-this-rand-paul-incident-is-reminiscent-of-1930s-germany/

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 26, 2010 10:14 PM | Report abuse

12Barblues

There appears to be several paid bloggers from Obama's organizations who used to be on the Fix now on this blog. They are just posting under different names.


Pmendez was on the Fix previously.

Ethan is curious - he seems to be paid by some organization to be on the blog.

12Bar - we all know that you recruited many of those people to come over this blog so they would start fights. You instigated much of this.

So, please don't forget to mention your role in all of this.

I am sure that you are proud of yourself - carrying over the bad atmosphere from that dead blog over to this one.


Anyway - that is what you did.

Posted by: LeafofLife | October 26, 2010 10:17 PM | Report abuse

"You did make a comment on the subject, but the reference I made did not accurately indicate your views toward starting a civil war in this nation if Obama is not re-elected."

If I remember correctly - my post was only to point out to you that pmendez was, despite your assertions, NOT an Obama supporter or a progressive. As such, it was ridiculous of you to use his post as a springboard to complain about leftists threatening civil war.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | October 26, 2010 10:19 PM | Report abuse

BB,

Don't misunderstand me. I have no brief for the death of GM et.al.. I'm just not sanguine re: the mngt team (UAW+Govt+Crony).

BTW: "Ford continues to be the most reliable American automaker. Ninety percent of Fords, including Lincoln models, have at least average reliability."

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/cr-recommended/best-worst-in-car-reliability-1005/reliability-findings/reliability-findings.htm

Posted by: tao9 | October 26, 2010 10:27 PM | Report abuse

12B, yeah, Zouk has once again dumped thigh deep guano on the fix. I wonder if CC will notice.

The last idea on the fix was to create a safe place for people who actually want to know what each other think (the internet had so many promises). The idea was that there would be a community, not of purity tested like minded people (Aschenblog, etc.), but of people who knew how to respect the debate.

It did not happen. It has moved to a twitter click model.

CC posts too much garbage, leaves the twitter poo all over the comments and inhibits new posters.


Posted by: shrink2 | October 26, 2010 10:33 PM | Report abuse

I guess MSNBC is going all Godwin all the time.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | October 26, 2010 10:14 PM |
==========================

Heavens! Why can't MSNBC hold itself to the high standards of the Republican party's leaders:

UPDATED: Why is Byron York silent about Limbaugh and Beck calling Obama a Nazi?

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200908100008

I know, IOKIYAAR.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | October 26, 2010 10:33 PM | Report abuse

Schrodingerscat

I remember seeing that person pmendez on the blog before - and I thought that person was a leftist - however you may be correct.


The person did make some reference to violence in January 2013 - the beginning of a civil war if Obama did not get re-elected.


And I did ask for clarification.

The truth is that the democrats - for almost a year now - have been trying to make a case that the Tea Party is becoming violent.


That is CLEARLY not the case - so the democratic line can ONLY be viewed to JUSTIFY VIOLENCE FROM THE LEFT.

This has been a recurring theme from the left - they are threatening the nation IF THEY DON'T GET THE "TRANSFORMATIVE CHANGES" which they have been looking for.

The country has clearly rejected these attempts to impose radical idealogy on this nation.


However, the democrats keep on going back to their own line - that violence is coming next.

There has been reports of Acorn, and faulty voting machines - all apparent attempts by the democrats to manipulate the election process.

PLUS the democrats seem to be supporting non-citizens being allowed to vote in various locations.

Anyway - it is clear that this kind of talk IS coming from the left.

Posted by: LeafofLife | October 26, 2010 10:33 PM | Report abuse

Hey 12BB,

re: Bringing Fixers over here!

Good comments, seem like hearts in the right place...the more the merrier.

thanx

Posted by: tao9 | October 26, 2010 10:36 PM | Report abuse

"Apparently you slept through the years 2001-2009."


On the contrary, I was wide awake while you were no doubt in need of mental health treatment for our derangement. Bush didn't call Dems "enemies." He didn't tell them they had to "sit in the back." He didn't daily mock and condescend and ridicule them. He didn't call them liars. He didn't routinely use violent rhetoric to call on his supporters to confront the other side. Etc. In your imagination, perhaps. But not in the real world.

Pelosi gets fired next week. Obama in 2012. Americans have had enough of being called cowards, mean, ungrateful, irrational, terrorists, racists, etc. by their own President and his lackeys.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 26, 2010 10:41 PM | Report abuse

There appears to be several paid bloggers from Obama's organizations who used to be on the Fix now on this blog. They are just posting under different names.
------------------------------
Ok, STRF, this is your chance.

Why don't you tell us about the cabal of paid liberal posters on the Fix, who met secretly by email, in order to defeat you. Why don't you tell us about the secret coded signals they would send each other, so they would know what to do next. Why don't you tell us how the liberals would take turns, around the clock to defeat 37th&OStreet.

Why don't you tell us how this secret cabal of paid posters have now followed you to Plumline.

It's all about you. Wasn't that it?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 26, 2010 10:42 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade:
"The collapse of GM and Chrysler would have led to the collapse of their suppliers. The same suppliers that Ford needs to remain viable. Hence, Ford was fully supportive of federal intervention even though its lack would have knocked out competitors.

More than that, the cost of pension liabilities and collateral damage would have easily exceeded the final cost of the auto bailout. It's not ideology, my friend. It's numbers."

Tao, there is a great deal of truth in this. My BIL has been an admin assistant to the executive staff at Ford for the last 15 years, and was involved in the prep work for Alan Mulally's appearance at the congressional hearings prior to the bailout of GM & Chrysler. Mulally was reluctant to participate because of the potential harm to Ford from being lumped in with the other two. But they also knew that if they didn't appear supportive of federal assistance and GM went under, it would be very difficult for Ford to survive the fallout. Chrysler was a different story. If they ceased to exist, the disruption to the supply chain would have been far less, but still dangerous to Ford. GM going under had the potential to take Ford with it.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | October 26, 2010 10:43 PM | Report abuse

In addition, the reference to January 2013 indicated to me at least - that the comment meant to imply that Obama would refuse to leave office if he were not re-elected.

I can think of no other reason to reference violence and that month.

Again - my concern is the repeated pressing by the democrats over the past year concerning potential violence from the Tea Party - which is clearly not the case.


So the ONLY reasoning of the democrats pressing this line is that the democrats would be SEEKING TO PROVOKE AN INCIDENT WHICH WOULD LEAD TO MORE LEFTIST VIOLENCE.

It appears that MoveOn.org has already started to test this kind of strategy.


They send someone in, get some video - and they are all ready with a spokesman and they try to get the internet afire with the reaction to the "grave injustice" - all provoked and planned by Moveon.org.

Clealy - the leftists in Obama's administration are OUTSIDE of the range of political beliefs of any administration for decades -

In fact, there has not been a more RADICAL administration of leftists - ever.

The country does not know what Obama's czars are up to - and the country has little reason to have ANY confidence that these people will act in accordance with what the country wants.

EVERY indication leads to the conclusion that these people are in TO FORCE THEIR LEFT WING AGENDA ON THE COUNTRY - not to govern with the consent of the governed.

Posted by: LeafofLife | October 26, 2010 10:46 PM | Report abuse

@tao Like lmsinca...I'm outta here tonight the haterade is a little strong...

Before I depart however...CONGRATS to your Giants putting it on the 'Boys! And the job your guys did to poor Tony Romo would warm the cockles of Brigade, Joke and our other blog pseudo bad arses. I hate the Cowboys...and I was happy your guys won...but I dislike ANY team's stars getting injured.

I'm still trying to decide where I place Eli in my pantheon of Q.B.'s...sometimes I think...wow..other times...mediocrity personified.

Posted by: rukidding7 | October 26, 2010 10:47 PM | Report abuse

quarterback1 at 10:41 PM

Excellent set of points

Bush didn't call Dems "enemies." He didn't tell them they had to "sit in the back." He didn't daily mock and condescend and ridicule them. He didn't call them liars. He didn't routinely use violent rhetoric to call on his supporters to confront the other side. Etc. In your imagination, perhaps. But not in the real world.

Pelosi gets fired next week. Obama in 2012. Americans have had enough of being called cowards, mean, ungrateful, irrational, terrorists, racists, etc. by their own President and his lackeys.

_________________________________

The President should NOT be calling anyone in the country "enemies" - and that just happened today.


This is coming from the Chief Law Enforcement Official for the Federal Government

Obama said : “punish our enemies and reward our friends”


Sorry, this is WAY out of bounds.


Obama should NOT be talking about American citizens this way - this is IMPEACHABLE -


Obama is clearly indicating a willingness to treat American citizens DIFFERENTLY based on partisan affiliation.


THAT IS NOT EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.


Obama should be impeached. He is just too inexperience and unqualified to handle the job. That is clear.

Posted by: LeafofLife | October 26, 2010 10:58 PM | Report abuse

thanx RU,

I don't like seeing guys go down either. I'm holding judgement as well on E. Manning...if Tyree doesn't catch the ball on his helmet the Giants lose that Superbowl, and Eli's rep would be much less exalted.

Have a good BearcatWednesday.

Posted by: tao9 | October 26, 2010 11:00 PM | Report abuse

thanx also suekzoo for the GM/Ford intel.

{{{Full disclosure: LOVE&LOVE my 1999 Suburban. It's a camp/car now, 10 miles a day--tops--on weekends, but what a horse!}}}

Posted by: tao9 | October 26, 2010 11:06 PM | Report abuse

rukidding

We agree on one thing - Eli Manning

Posted by: LeafofLife | October 26, 2010 11:09 PM | Report abuse

Politico is reporting:


"Democratic Party machinery has outraised its Republican counterpart in this campaign cycle by almost $270 million."


REALLY?

The democrats are outspending the Republicans by $270 Million. WOW


I suppose the FLOOD of money threatening our democracy is coming from the LEFT.


.

Posted by: LeafofLife | October 26, 2010 11:39 PM | Report abuse

"There's Adam Clymer -- major league @sshole -- from the New York Times," Bush said. "Yeah, big time," returned Cheney.

P.S. QB1, "He didn't routinely use violent rhetoric to call on his supporters to confront the other side."

When did Obama do this? Beck does it on FAUX on all the time. But I'm going to need a quote before I accept any of your laundry list, re: Obama.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | October 26, 2010 11:39 PM | Report abuse

Politico is now reporting that Obama and the democrats actually have $270 MILLION more campaign cash than the Republicans.


Well.... what is Obama talking about?


Obama is claiming that democracy is being stolen by all this campaign cash - is Obama talking about himself ???

Obama is unbelievable in his deceptions.


History will tell us that the smoke and mirrors around Obama was unprecedented.

Posted by: LeafofLife | October 27, 2010 1:01 AM | Report abuse

LeafofLife/RainForest:

Keep that wierd stuff coming! YEah. WE love it.

Yeah. I get your "see if the Libruls can rebut this" trip (how much u gt paid?), but you have to step uP.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | October 27, 2010 3:57 AM | Report abuse

Anectodal, but telling:


Today, one week before the Election, I saw a man out putting up "Perry For Governor" signs here in town.

They were BIG signs.

BUT, at least here in Denton Texas, you would wonder who was running against White!

In Austin, Bob Wills is still the King.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | October 27, 2010 4:19 AM | Report abuse

"Can you hear the crash? It sounds similar to a grand piano hitting the ground after the pulley gives way. It sounds a lot like two vehicles colliding in slow motion after one runs through an intersection. It sounds like my son when he fell and broke his arm. A Harris Interactive poll puts the Obama approval rating at a mere 37% just days before he’ll be handed a massive electoral defeat at the polls." ---rightpundits

"-NEW YORK , N.Y. - October 25, 2010 - President Obama is spending the next week crisscrossing the country in support of Democratic candidates before this year's midterm elections. While the president may do a great job of energizing the base, he may not be able to convert any Independents who have yet to decide for whom they will vote. Currently, two-thirds of Americans (67%) have a negative opinion of the job President Obama is doing while just over one-third (37%) have a positive opinion. This continues the president's downward trend and he is now at the lowest job approval rating of his presidency."
---Harrisinteractive.com

tick tock tick tock.

Posted by: Brigade | October 27, 2010 6:26 AM | Report abuse

bernielatham wrote,

Digby, one of the really bright lights that the new media has allowed to emerge, lays it out...

"Right now all that should matter to any of us is defeating the most radical, authoritarian, anti-intellectual Republican class in modern memory (and that's saying something.) They were thoroughly repudiated at the polls in the last two elections and they haven't learned a thing from those losses. Indeed, the lesson they took was that they hadn't been aggressively wrong enough. Instead of seeing where they went wrong and making adjustments, they've doubled down on their worst policies and are prepared to go even further.

In normal times they wouldn't stand a chance of doing any better than a normal midterm and would probably do worse. But these aren't normal times. The average American is frightened and confused while the rightwing is excited and overstimulated. The toxic combination of Bircherism, big money, xenophobia and social conservatism that defines the Tea Party is happening at a moment of maximum danger."
-------

Now we all know there are some ignorant people in the Democratic party; but c'mon, is anyone really ignorant enough to take this sort of nonsense seriously?

Posted by: Brigade | October 27, 2010 6:31 AM | Report abuse

Oh, I hope I haven't forgotten anyone from the Fix.
--------------
How could I forget BB, the Fairlington Blade. He doesn't come on this blog and pick fights, that's why.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | October 26, 2010 10:05 PM
-------

What about pmendez and DDAWD?

And for all of those pining for a new format:
-------

12B, yeah, Zouk has once again dumped thigh deep guano on the fix. I wonder if CC will notice.

The last idea on the fix was to create a safe place for people who actually want to know what each other think (the internet had so many promises). The idea was that there would be a community, not of purity tested like minded people (Aschenblog, etc.), but of people who knew how to respect the debate.

It did not happen. It has moved to a twitter click model.

CC posts too much garbage, leaves the twitter poo all over the comments and inhibits new posters.

Posted by: shrink2 | October 26, 2010 10:33 PM |
------

Thank you.

Posted by: Brigade | October 27, 2010 6:37 AM | Report abuse

It appears that Obama was at it again on Al Sharpton's radio show, demonizing voters who have rejected his policies. It's beginning to look more and more like those 20 years in Jeremiah Wright's church are a pretty accurate reflection of Barry's character. He's one really misguided and pathetic individual. How long before he melts down and starts howling about crackers?

Oh, and it looks like Meg Whitman is living proof of how pouring big money into an election makes the difference. Maybe if she hadn't so pandered to the left, conservatives would have embraced her. She can turn from pro-choice to pro-life on a dime, depending on her audience. Why anyone would want to deprive Moonbeam of the opportunity to drive California further into toilet, I can't imagine.

Posted by: Brigade | October 27, 2010 6:47 AM | Report abuse

"This is the most bitterly divisive and nasty-tongued President we've ever had. I can see why Michele used to go around campaigning about what a mean country this is. The Obama household must be one cauldron of bitterness and negativity. And meanness. Because both Barack and Michele are mean, mean people"

You are either unhinged or a paid propagandist. No one with any sense believes that Obamas are hateful people. And everyone knows that the Radical Right Wing -- of which you play your miserable part -- is fostering division and despair because all it cares about is destroying Obama, which GOP leaders have openly declared again and again.

Or as Bernie said:

"a certain sort of propaganda gets commonly done by the modern right - if they are doing something for which, if found out, they'll look very bad, they simply accuse the other side of doing it too. Therefore, no guilt. It's a standard ploy and if you watch for it, you'll see it again and again."

Posted by: wbgonne | October 27, 2010 7:11 AM | Report abuse

McWing:

Good questions on propaganda, although it is no surprise that there are no answers forthcoming. If you are not a part of the echo chamber, it seems, you are either to stupid or too blinded by ideology to merit a response. Which raises the question of just who it is that is actually being stupid and/or blinded by ideology.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 27, 2010 7:17 AM | Report abuse

Actually, I think you guys are likely too lazy and too invested in your ideological certainties and it would be a waste of my time. But the earlier offer is open. Write up a workable and sensible definition of the term that differentiates it from other similar activities and let me know what you came up with. If it meets an appropriate standard of discernment and objective rigor, I'll play. Otherwise, I've no reason to do so.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 27, 2010 7:34 AM | Report abuse


OMG major brands giving out samples on their favorite products check at http://bit.ly/aJWSXv tell others

Posted by: aldojoe26 | October 27, 2010 7:34 AM | Report abuse

Bernie said:

"I truly despise Coleman"

Anyone else notice how many people Bernie "despises", and how comfortable he seems announcing the fact? He's doing an excellent job demonstrating that the standard lefty narrative, that hate is supposed to be the province of the right, is just more leftist projection. Speaking of which, Bernie also said:

"a certain sort of propaganda gets commonly done by the modern right - if they are doing something for which, if found out, they'll look very bad, they simply accuse the other side of doing it too. "

This, of course, is one of the classic "rules for radicals", pace Saul Alinsky, with whom Bernie is no doubt quite familiar. Indeed, the accusation itself is a perfect demonstration of its application, although Bernie has dropped the "too" part and insists, laughably, that it is the sole province of "the modern right".

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 27, 2010 7:35 AM | Report abuse

"Saul Alinsky, with whom Bernie is no doubt quite familiar."

Now, that's funny. I've read not a single sentence from the fellow.

Posted by: bernielatham | October 27, 2010 7:37 AM | Report abuse

Further to the point: Never in my memory has there been an occasion where the opposition party so immediately devoted itself to destroying a president (except, maybe, Clinton who -- coincidentally I'm sure -- was the last Democratic president). If you noticed, from Inauguration Day the GOP made it its business to attack Obama non-stop on everything he did and, worse, who he was. First mission, make Obama's strength as a leader and a speaker into a weakness by mocking him as self-aggrandizing. Second, attack attack attack then as soon as Obama responds accuse him of betraying his vow for post-partisan governance. I have no doubt that some strategists -- Rove, Luntz, etc. -- developed an attack plan even before the Inauguration: when Obama does this we attack like this, when Obama does the other things we attack like that. It is a despicable and un-American scheme but it is far worse than that because it is motivated solely by greed. The Radical Right Wing despises the American People are only uses them to achieve its aim of total domination by the SuperRich.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 27, 2010 7:38 AM | Report abuse

Too much "the trouble with YOU is..." on this thread.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 27, 2010 7:42 AM | Report abuse

If I knew this, I've somehow forgotten it.

In '82, 36% polled wanted Reagan to run again. In '94, 44% wanted Clinton to run again. Presently, 47% polled wish Obama to run again.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/2010/1026/Should-Obama-run-again-More-voter-enthusiasm-than-for-Reagan-in-82

Posted by: bernielatham | October 27, 2010 7:43 AM | Report abuse

qb:

"This is the most bitterly divisive and nasty-tongued President we've ever had."

I think it would be an interesting study to analyze the partisan invective in Obama's public speeches relative to that of other presidents. I also have the sense that Obama is particularly divisive, but that could just be a function of faded memory and sensitivity to it given my opposition to Obama. Plus, I was out of the country for much of Clinton and Bush's terms, so I may not have been as exposed to their public pronouncements as Obama's, and that too might effect my impressions. Anyway, I think it would be interesting to do as an academic exercise.

BTW, re idle talk...I have a couple of friends with whom I regularly engage in meaningless e-mail arguments about the top ten X (name your topic). We once spent three days arguing over whether the famous Pine Tar incident belonged on a list of top ten bad umpiring calls. In the end we agreed that it did, but for completely opposite reasons. One guy claimed calling Brett out was a horrible call, while I (and my brother) claimed that the commissioner overruling the call and forcing the 9th inning to be replayed was the horrible call. Idle talk, yes, but entertaining nonetheless.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 27, 2010 7:55 AM | Report abuse

""There's Adam Clymer -- major league @sshole -- from the New York Times," Bush said. "Yeah, big time," returned Cheney.

P.S. QB1, "He didn't routinely use violent rhetoric to call on his supporters to confront the other side."

When did Obama do this? Beck does it on FAUX on all the time. But I'm going to need a quote before I accept any of your laundry list, re: Obama."

That's the best you've got on Bush, huh? A bad name caught by a mic he didn't think was on.

I listed a few of Obama's gems a day or two ago, but I did it without quotation marks or attribution, and one of your lefty comrades immediately said I was a sick and twisted person who needed therapy, before he realized they were all Obama's words. Perhaps you didn't see it.

It's going to be hand to hand combat.

If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun. Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl.

Argue with your neighbors, get in their face.


If you get hit, hit back twice as hard. (Just before some of his thugs attacked Ken Gladney.)

. . . so I know whose ass to kick.

If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, 'We're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on . . .

Those are all Obama's own words. He's got a thing for violent rhetoric. Not violent rhetoric toward our actual enemies, of course. That would be too provocative and irresponsible. But toward his domestic enemies, that's totally different. And if we started to compile his merely divisive, demonizing rhetoric attempting to define people who disagree with him out of America, that list would go on forever. You know -- bitter clingers, they have to sit in the back, I don't want to hear much talking . . .. This guy is an endless fount of divisive, demonizing rhetoric.

Then there was his energy lackey Salazar: Our job is to keep the boot on the neck of BP.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 27, 2010 7:57 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"I've read not a single sentence from the fellow."

Probably not something you ought to admit if you want your self-proclaimed status as an expert in propaganda techniques to be taken seriously.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 27, 2010 7:59 AM | Report abuse

ifthethunderdontgetya,

I forgot this: those are all Obama's own words, and, no, I'm not going to go find links for you. If you've been paying attention, you know they are true. If not, you can google them for yourself.

I don't have time to do the homework for all the lefties here who have blocked out reality for years on end.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 27, 2010 8:00 AM | Report abuse

wbgonne, didn't you hear Michelle Obama say that, for “the first time,” in her adult life,” she was proud of America (Feb 19, 2008)? Was that not "hateful"? I think you are also forgetting how some Democrats tried to destroy Bush43 and CHEERED when shoes were thrown at him.

As for Lauren Valle, I'm glad she's okay (her words last night on Olbermann) and had no intent to make contact with Rand Paul. I hope that the Kentucky jury will understand a legitimate concern for the candidate's safety however. I'm not in a position to render judgment on that case, but she could have had a gun under her disguise.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 27, 2010 8:01 AM | Report abuse

"Then there was his energy lackey Salazar: Our job is to keep the boot on the neck of BP."

TA-DA! Occasionally the truth slips out and here we see what the Radical Right Wing truly cares about. Big Oil. Big PHRMA. Wall Street. Health insurances companies. American citizens are nothing but worker drones and units of consumption; they are INFERIOR to corporations who recognize the truth -- and are even programmed to that effect -- that money is everything.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 27, 2010 8:05 AM | Report abuse

Excellent piece by Greenwald in response to a Burn's defense of his NYT piece on Assange...
http://www.salon.com/news/media_criticism/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/10/27/burns

Posted by: bernielatham | October 27, 2010 8:08 AM | Report abuse

Obama is probably the most level-headed, undogmatic, reasonable and rational president we've had in years. He is also young and attractive with a beautiful family. And he is by all accounts an exceedingly decent man. You hate him because your ideology compels you to do so, no other reason. Stop trying to drag other people into your hideous fantasies.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 27, 2010 8:09 AM | Report abuse

BP employs lots of AMERICANS! Ask them what they thought about Salazar (and Obama's) attacks on their company.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 27, 2010 8:13 AM | Report abuse

wbgonne:

"Obama is probably the most level-headed, undogmatic, reasonable and rational president we've had in years."

Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 27, 2010 8:16 AM | Report abuse

I don't hate Obama. Can you answer the questions now?

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 27, 2010 8:17 AM | Report abuse

To those who insist upon comparing Bush II to Obama -- give it up. Bush was elected in a controversial, bitterly-contested election yet the Democrats didn't come near to the scorched earth campaign the GOP launched against Obama from Day One. Waterloo, anyone? After 9-11, the entire country rallied around Bush and supported him through Afghanistan. When Obama launches a preemptive war under false pretenses, then drags America through a succession of soul-sickening civil rights violations the American people will -- and should -- turn on him. But the Radical Right Wing -- operating solely in the make-believe world of propaganda and disinformation -- doesn't need evidence or cause. The War On Reality provides all the cover the GOP needs to effectuate its Plutocratic, anti-American agenda.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 27, 2010 8:17 AM | Report abuse

I'll toss in one bit from Greenwald's piece. It's actually from a letter from "John Parker, former military reporter and fellow of the University of Maryland Knight Center for Specialized Journalism-Military Reporting". I note this as it speaks to the "fetishization" of militarism (and the authoritarianism that goes hand in hand) which, though particularly evident on the right, is a deep feature of American culture as it inevitably is with any culture involved in widespread imperial activities and goals.

"The sad lack of coverage ("Sunday talk shows largely ignore WikiLeaks' Iraq files") of the leak of unfiltered, publicly owned information from the latest WikiLeak is disturbing, but not historically out of the ordinary for major American media.

The career trend of too many Pentagon journalists typically arrives at the same vanishing point: Over time they are co-opted by a combination of awe -- interacting so closely with the most powerfully romanticized force of violence in the history of humanity -- and the admirable and seductive allure of the sharp, amazingly focused demeanor of highly trained military minds. Top military officers have their s*** together and it's personally humbling for reporters who've never served to witness that kind of impeccable competence. These unspoken factors, not to mention the inner pull of reporters' innate patriotism, have lured otherwise smart journalists to abandon – justifiably in their minds – their professional obligation to treat all sources equally and skeptically.

Too many military reporters in the online/broadcast field have simply given up their watchdog role for the illusion of being a part of power..."

Posted by: bernielatham | October 27, 2010 8:19 AM | Report abuse

Scott,

I agree that it would be an interesting study to compare rhetoric, although I am always dubious of such studies that presented as objective when they aren't. But I've little doubt -- really none -- that Obama's public rhetoric is on a completely different plane for divisiveness. Bush, despite the left's unhinged imaginations, always maintained a sense of sobriety and decorum in public addresses and comments. He simply didn't use the divisive and often violent rhetoric of "enemies" and "hit back" that Obama routinely does. I don't think Clinton did, either.

This is, btw, a surprise to me since he took office. I knew in 2008 that he was a radical leftist, but I didn't realize he had such a nasty streak, even though he had made a few of these comments then. But his principal mode of public discourse has become mockery, ridiculue, and condemnation.

Re: top 10s, and the like, what you describe is exactly my. I like a good discussion of "top X," but I have trouble producing simple answers or lists. I have to argue the merits of Jane Austen versus Hemingway or Robert Heinlein or Jules Verne (Mysterious Island, my secret favorite).

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 27, 2010 8:20 AM | Report abuse

Wow, bad editing again. Should have said:

exactly my problem with answering questions like bernie's.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 27, 2010 8:22 AM | Report abuse

Enjoy the Troll Talk!

Later.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 27, 2010 8:22 AM | Report abuse

"You are either unhinged or a paid propagandist. No one with any sense believes that Obamas are hateful people. And everyone knows that the Radical Right Wing -- of which you play your miserable part -- is fostering division and despair because all it cares about is destroying Obama, which GOP leaders have openly declared again and again."

wb dwells in a fantasy world. Nuff said.

Btw, I don't think I said the Obamas are hateful. They are certainly angry, bitter, and divisive. They are resentful. They clearly do hate that too many Americans -- bitter clingers -- are not appropriately grateful (“You would think they should be saying thank you") for the Obamas' selflessly giving themselves to transformatively leading the country toward socialism.

They just don't get why Americans have not taken their scolding to heart and accepted that America is "just downright mean" and needs Obamafication. And they are mad about it. Endlessly mad and bitter and divisive. I don't know whether that means they are hateful.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 27, 2010 8:32 AM | Report abuse

"Troll"? I'm asking what your definition of "hateful" is. Don't bring it up if you don't want to be challenged.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 27, 2010 8:35 AM | Report abuse

Currently, two-thirds of Americans (67%) have a negative opinion of the job President Obama is doing while just over one-third (37%) have a positive opinion. This continues the president's downward trend and he is now at the lowest job approval rating of his presidency."
---Harrisinteractive.com

tick tock tick tock.

Posted by: Brigade | October 27, 2010 6:26 AM |


Interesting arithmetic.

Posted by: pragmaticstill | October 27, 2010 8:35 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/10/the_morning_plum_121.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 27, 2010 8:36 AM | Report abuse

Bernie says:

"...as it inevitably is with any culture involved in widespread imperial activities and goals."

Don't you just love the way he smugggles in these unexamined premises/assertions?


Posted by: ScottC3 | October 27, 2010 8:37 AM | Report abuse

"Write up a workable and sensible definition of the term that differentiates it from other similar activities and let me know what you came up with. If it meets an appropriate standard of discernment and objective rigor, I'll play."

Why don't you just give your definition of propaganda, bernie? It's your argument. What sense does it make constantly to argue that everywhere are examples of right-wing propoganda, while claiming that no one else could understand your argument without reading your library and duplicating your education? Are we misunderstanding that as your position?

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 27, 2010 8:38 AM | Report abuse

The Rand Paul thugs did Lauren Valle a big favor. She was an unknown, professional, political agitator, probably jobless and broke and now she's a leftist pop star.

Barack and his Obamatons have allied themselves with several foreign nations to wage an all-out, political war on the American state of Arizona. This is an outrage to all, patriotic Americans and will help seal the fate of the America hating ObamaNation.

Never in the annals of history has the leader of a nation declared war on his own country. This will go down as a low point in American history, that is certain.

Obama seems to think he and his Obamacrats will reap a bonanza of latino votes for pandering to their border bandido bretheren. Actually, Democrats already get most of the latino votes so the illegal AMNESTY ploy is a bust.

But, for every latino that falls for the AMNESTY, carrot & stick trick, there are ten, true-blue, American citizens who will vote against Obama from pure outrage.

We all know that rewarding lawbreakers just produces more lawbreakers. The bizarro world ObamaNation seems to prefer them over law abiding Americans.

Disgusting!

Posted by: battleground51 | October 27, 2010 8:38 AM | Report abuse

"I knew in 2008 that he was a radical leftist,"

And thank God for that or else he wouldn't have fought so hard against including >$200b in tax cuts in the stimulus bill, or fought so hard for a single payer system, or immediately pulled our troops out of Aghanistan, or signed an executive order repealing DADT, or absolutely insisted on letting all of the Bush tax cuts expire, or investigated the Bush Administration for war crimes or...

Seriously. You're clueless. But that's right, I keep forgetting how much you "understand" progressives' positions on issues.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | October 27, 2010 8:41 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/10/the_morning_plum_121.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | October 27, 2010 8:46 AM | Report abuse

wbgonne:

"Obama is probably the most level-headed, undogmatic, reasonable and rational president we've had in years."

Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.
Posted by: ScottC3 | October 27, 2010 8:16 AM | Report abuse

So this, you think, is the perfect occasion for comparing President Obama to a brainwashed Communist assassin. Congratulations. You are another Great American Patriot.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 27, 2010 8:49 AM | Report abuse

ScottC3, don't answer that question! You have the right to remain silent.

Posted by: clawrence12 | October 27, 2010 9:01 AM | Report abuse

qb:

"Why don't you just give your definition of propaganda, bernie?"

This is a game Bernie plays. He's done it to me before, asking me to define his terms while refusing to do so himself.

His current excuse for refusing to answer the questions is just that...an excuse. Worth his time? For chrissakes, this is a comments board on an obscure blog. Nothing anyone says here is worth the time it takes to say it, except as self-amusement. If everyone refused to engage with anyone who's mind was already made up, we'd all end up talking to ourselves.

All his excuse tells us is that he enjoys pontificating to people who will nod in assent, and he doesn't enjoy the back and forth with people who don't agree with him, at least with regard to his obsession. Simply put, Bernie likes an echo chamber, particularly one where he gets to make the noise and everyone else repeats after him.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 27, 2010 9:06 AM | Report abuse

"Seriously. You're clueless. But that's right, I keep forgetting how much you "understand" progressives' positions on issues."

My claim was that conservatives in general understand liberal positions better than vice versa. This blog proves me correct every day.

"And thank God for that or else he wouldn't have fought so hard against including >$200b in tax cuts in the stimulus bill, or fought so hard for a single payer system, or immediately pulled our troops out of Aghanistan, or signed an executive order repealing DADT, or absolutely insisted on letting all of the Bush tax cuts expire, or investigated the Bush Administration for war crimes or... "

The far left certainly knew who its candidate was, didn't it? Tactical restraint and recognition of the reality of checks and balances are all you are talking about.

He knew he couldn't get single payer; we know he favored one, because he repeatedly said so.

Using the tax code redistributively is entirely within the far left's tactical playbook. That's what he has done and tried to do. He just doesn't have the political power left -- despite huge majorities -- to eliminate "tax cuts for the rich."

DADT is a law. He couldn't repeal it with an executive order. Instead, he has taken the typically dishonest stealth approach of putting up a feigned defense of DADT in court, helpfully announcing in his own public statements that DADT serves no purpose and should be repealed, which statements the judge then, as intended, quoted in her opinion finding that the CiC has himself said it serves no purpose. I think Alinsky would be proud.

O never promised immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan. He always claimed it was the "right" war and vowed to refocus attention there.

War crimes, huh? After promising a "reckoning," his admin did re-investigate Yoo and Bybee, and tried to railroad them, in one of the most disgracefully dishonest and partisan episodes in DOJ history. I guess you forgot.

Yeah, he's radical left alright.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 27, 2010 9:10 AM | Report abuse

wbgonne:

"So this, you think, is the perfect occasion for comparing President Obama to a brainwashed Communist assassin."

Actually the comparison being drawn was between you and the brainwashed Major Marco, not Obama and Raymond Shaw. Kind of obvious, I think, since I responded to your words by quoting Major Marco's.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 27, 2010 9:15 AM | Report abuse

wbgonne:

"So this, you think, is the perfect occasion for comparing President Obama to a brainwashed Communist assassin."

Actually the comparison being drawn was between you and the brainwashed Major Marco, not Obama and Raymond Shaw. Kind of obvious, I think, since I responded to your words by quoting Major Marco's.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 27, 2010 9:15 AM | Report abuse

Oh, so you are actually comparing President Obama to a Communist infiltrator trying to take over the United States for his Communists masters. Well, that's perfectly alright. And anyone who reads this blog knows just what a blind Obama loyalist I am not. But being a Radical Right Wing propagandist means you can say and do anything you want because you, by definition, are a Great American Patriot and reality is whatever you say it is.

Posted by: wbgonne | October 27, 2010 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Scott,

I think of Bernie as a preacher preaching to the faithful. Although that comparison is unfair to most preachers.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 27, 2010 9:43 AM | Report abuse

ScottC says:

"Actually the comparison being drawn was between you and the brainwashed Major Marco, not Obama and Raymond Shaw."

wbgonne says:

"Oh, so you are actually comparing President Obama to..."

It is a strange mind indeed that interprets the former to mean the latter.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 27, 2010 9:46 AM | Report abuse

"This blog proves me correct every day."

Too bad your own posts don't.

Your basic assertion comes down to "Obama's a radical leftist - despite all evidence to the contrary - because I say so". It's absurd.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | October 27, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

"Too bad your own posts don't.

Your basic assertion comes down to "Obama's a radical leftist - despite all evidence to the contrary - because I say so". It's absurd."

When you want to deal with the evidence that he is, feel free.

When you want to demonstrate that you can understand and articulate conservative positions on issues, also feel free, but no one will be waiting. I asked anyone who wanted to refute or debate my proposition, and there were no takers. Just a lot of hot air liker yours.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 27, 2010 10:11 AM | Report abuse

@qb-

Obama is a "radical leftist".

Jeebus, can you not parrot extremist winger tripe for just one day?

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | October 27, 2010 10:30 AM | Report abuse

"When you want to deal with the evidence that he is, feel free. "

Try providing some. Most of your "evidence" comes down to YOUR belief that he's not chasing a radical agenda for tactical reasons. Well, - I would say that doesn't make him much of a radical then, does it? Hmmmm.....let's see...what do you call someone who believes in something if it works and rejects impractical ideas? I believe we have a word for it in English....it's called a "pragmatist".

He's a radical you say for going after Yoo and Bybee - wouldn't a "radical" go after Cheney and Bush? Perhaps turn them over to the Hague? Or was he just playing 11 dimensional commie pinko chess to try and lull them into a sense of security?

"O never promised immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan. He always claimed it was the "right" war and vowed to refocus attention there. "

Wow - what a subversive stance. Puts Marilyn Buck to shame. Next thing you know he'll be bombing Pakistan with drones...

Posted by: schrodingerscat | October 27, 2010 11:27 AM | Report abuse

"Try providing some. Most of your "evidence" comes down to YOUR belief that he's not chasing a radical agenda for tactical reasons."

Nope, sorry, not a mere belief but a belief supported by plenty of evidence.

He has explicitly stated that he would prefer a single-payer universal health care system, but that it would take time to achieve politically. He explicitly stated one of the goals to be elimination of employer-based insurance. He has never recanted, and it is an open secret that Obamacare was designed to lead to further government takeover. You're dishonest if you deny that.

He can't repeal DADT with an executive order. His approach is to condemn it in all his public statements and claim that it serves no purpose and undermines national security, while pretending to go through a deliberative process about repeal. This is all a distraction, becaues at the same time his DOJ is putting up a feigned defense of DADT in court and his own statements are being used to defeat it. No one cared what he thought when he was Senator Obama; but now that he is CiC the court cites his pronouncements as dispostive proof that DADT serves no purpose. This is the perfect strategy for an Alinsky radical. If the gambit pays off, it will result not only in forcing the radical gay agenda on the military but in placing another foothold for gay rights in constitutional "jurisprudence."

We could go on to issue after issue. People on the left feign outrage when I and others label Obama for what he is: a radical steeped in the thought neo-Marxism. Tactical pragmatism and denial are precisely two of its defining characteristics. The former community organizer and teacher of Alinsky tactics is carrying out that vision perfectly. You should be proud of it.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 27, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

"He's a radical you say for going after Yoo and Bybee - wouldn't a "radical" go after Cheney and Bush? Perhaps turn them over to the Hague?"

If he were stupid, perhaps. It tells us a lot about your logic that your test for radicalism is whether he turned Bush and Cheney over to the Hague for war crimes prosecution.

Posted by: quarterback1 | October 27, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

s'cat:

"Most of your "evidence" comes down to YOUR belief that he's not chasing a radical agenda for tactical reasons. Well, - I would say that doesn't make him much of a radical then, does it? Hmmmm.....let's see...what do you call someone who believes in something if it works and rejects impractical ideas?"

You've conflated "tactical" with "practical". They may sound similar, but they do not mean the same thing.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 27, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

"Nope, sorry, not a mere belief but a belief supported by plenty of evidence. "

Too bad you still haven't provided any.

"He has explicitly stated that he would prefer a single-payer universal health care system, but that it would take time to achieve politically."

I guess all those recipients of Medicare are "radical leftists"? What about all those ex-military members enjoying the benefits provided by the VA?


"His approach is to condemn it in all his public statements and claim that it serves no purpose and undermines national security, while pretending to go through a deliberative process about repeal."

Kind of like Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen? Like Colin Powell? Are they students of Alinsky, too?


"Tactical pragmatism and denial are precisely two of its defining characteristics."

Shorter qb: who are you going to believe - me or your lying eyes?

Posted by: schrodingerscat | October 27, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

"You've conflated "tactical" with "practical". They may sound similar, but they do not mean the same thing."

And you seem to think the two terms are mutually exclusive.

Why can't ya'll just admit that you might possibly have a bias that leads you to ascribe the absolute worst possible motives to Obama's every move and utterance? You laugh at Bernie and his propoganda conspiracies, but quite frankly, you and qb are engaging in the same sort of behavior.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | October 27, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

s'cat:

"And you seem to think the two terms are mutually exclusive."

No, not at all. A person can be pragmatically tactical, or even tactically pragmatic. But a person being tactical is not, necessarily, being pragmatic as your argument implies.

BTW, the terms radical and pragmatic are not mutually exclusive either. A person can have rather radical policy goals while at the same time attempting to achieve those goals in a politically pragmatic way. For example, a person who desires a socialized healthcare system certainly has a radical goal, but may advocate for and implement a much more politically viable policy than full-fledged socialism, knowing that a) it is the best he can get at the moment and b) it will pave the way for further movement towards his goal. Again, there is nothing mutually exclusive between being a radical and being pragmatic.

"Why can't ya'll just admit that you might possibly have a bias that leads you to ascribe the absolute worst possible motives to Obama's every move and utterance?"

I am certainly biased, but I can't say that it leads me to ascribe the worst motives to everything Obama does, because it doesn't and I don't. Where do you think I have ascribed any motives to Obama, much less the "worst possible" motives?

For the record, I think that generally speaking Obama (like most high ranking politicians) does what he does out of the best possible motives...he thinks it will be best for the nation. I just think he is wrong about what he thinks is in the best interests of the nation. Tragically wrong. Hopefully not catastrophically wrong, but I do worry about that, too.

Posted by: ScottC3 | October 27, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

"Too bad you still haven't provided any."

Unless you count Obama's own specific words and actions. You know, this is where objective observors would tend to declare your argument lost -- where specific facts are cited and you repeatedly pretend none were.

"I guess all those recipients of Medicare are "radical leftists"? What about all those ex-military members enjoying the benefits provided by the VA?"

So now you've moved beyond denying that he favors single-payer, universal health care to denying that is radical. Okay, I think we get it now.

"Kind of like Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen? Like Colin Powell? Are they students of Alinsky, too?"

And here too, you have now moved from denying his goal or tactics to suggesting they aren't radical. Yes, we are getting it now.

I don't know much about Mullen, except that anyone chosen by Obama would be expected to have been screened and approved for service to Obamanism. Powell has always been a lefty and now makes his career out of portraying liberalism as authentic conservatism and Republicanism.

None of it calls into question a word of what I said: Obama is pursuing a perfectly Alinkyite radical strategy on DADT.

"Shorter qb: who are you going to believe - me or your lying eyes?"

I pointed to specific facts. You closed your eyes to them because you don't want to see them.


Posted by: quarterback1 | October 27, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

What will happen if Paul gets elected and wants to cut some of the programs that many tea people are so used to having, and quite fond of? When their anger is then aimed at him, he'll just send his redneck thugs out to deal with them.

Posted by: valerie14 | October 27, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company