McCain-Palin: The Perils Of Promoting The Past As Prologue?

John McCain’s decision to attach the imagery of Bill Ayers to Barack Obama is reckless. By casting this election as a continuation of the ideological conflict that characterized the unrest during the era of the Weathermen, John McCain may well be fomenting the reemergence of radicalism.

Commentary By: Daniel DiRito

It seems to me that a significant question will emerge in the aftermath of the 2008 election. The crux of that question has been framed by the inflammatory rhetoric of the McCain-Palin campaign in recent days. In its effort to sway voters and win this election, the McCain campaign has chosen to ignite animosities that will undoubtedly linger beyond November 4th…animosities that have the potential to unleash the very kind of violence that typified the groups and individuals the McCain campaign has attempted to link with Barack Obama.

At the core of the conflicts that marred the sixties and

Friday, August 5th, 2011 by Daniel DiRito |

Teabagging and Fox News Douchebaggery

Do they just not understand the pseudo-sexual references (both straight and gay) to the phrase, “teabagging”?? Whoever ginned up this campaign at Fox is looking like a total smacked ass at this point.

Commentary By: Richard Blair

As many have commented here and other places over the past week or so, the upcoming Fox News-inspired “Tax Day Tea Party” this coming Wednesday raises the bar on the concept of total lunacy.

Teabaggin’. Do these morons simply not understand the cultural sexual references, both straight and gay? Perhaps this video will help them grasp the concept:

Every time that I think that Fox News (and GOP media hacks in general) has lowered the national discourse to its lowest possible level, they surprise me. But still, I suppose it “sells” to their core audience.

Friday, April 10th, 2009 by Richard Blair |

Colbert Goes Stewart on Glenn Beck

It’s really disheartening that, between all of the cable news outlets, we can be subjected to 20 hours of politically oriented news programming every evening, yet it takes two 30 minute humor shows (44 minutes total, if the commercials aren’t considered) to really get to the nub of the right wing wankery.

Commentary By: Richard Blair

It’s very sad when the best source of debunking the right wing noise machine comes from a cable channel that’s devoted to comedy. A few weeks back, Jon Stewart spent nearly a week castigating CNBC (in general) and Jim Cramer (in particular) for their cheerleading of the financial markets, even as Wall Street was clearly in the midst of a supercritical, nuclear meltdown.

Yesterday evening, Stephen Colbert took his own shot at an easy target – Glenn Beck. Here’s a wipe-the-tears-from-your-eyes funny clip of Colbert’s rant:

The Colbert Report Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The 10/31 Project
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor NASA Name Contest

It’s really disheartening that, between all of the cable news outlets, we can be subjected to 20 hours of politically oriented news programming every evening, yet it takes two 30 minute humor shows (44 minutes total, if the commercials aren’t considered) to really get to the nub of the right wing wankery.

What’s killing me is that the right wing yakkers would have been screaming for left-centrists commentators to be rendered to GITMO on charges of sedition, had any of the very few left-center voices on TV in 2005 been advocating for the level of civil disobedience that the right wing yakkers are now pushing in 2009.

Glenn Greenwald has a great breakdown on the endless right wing pity party.

Wednesday, April 1st, 2009 by Richard Blair |

When Does Dick Cheney Become Merely an Historical Footnote?

Dick Cheney is whining about how Bush didn’t pardon Scooter Libby, calling the Libby conviction a “miscarriage of justice.” The real injustice here is that anyone other than historians are puclishing any of Cheney’s words. Would that Cheney went the way of the Evans-Novak Report, which ceases publication next week.

Commentary By: Steven Reynolds

Dick Cheney is out of office, and already an ugly footnote in history, a man who learned dirty politics and a lust for power early, and then put those values into practice over the last eight years. American history will come to see Dick Cheney as arrogant and as an enemy of the constitution. But for now the media is covering everything Dick Cheney says, though he’s only talking to the few people who are friendly to him for the moment, like William Kristol at the Weekly Standard. So what’s Dick Cheney whining about now? He’s whining that George Bush didn’t give Scooter Libby a pardon. Here’s the scoop from CNNPolitics:

Former President George Bush should have pardoned Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Dick Cheney said after stepping down as vice president this week.

“He was the victim of a serious miscarriage of justice, and I strongly believe that he deserved a presidential pardon. Obviously, I disagree with President Bush’s decision,” Cheney told Stephen F. Hayes of the Weekly Standard, a leading conservative Washington magazine.

Libby, Cheney’s former chief of staff, was convicted of obstructing a federal investigation into the revelation that Valerie Plame Wilson was a CIA agent.

He was sentenced to 30 months in prison and fined $250,000. Bush commuted the sentence, which he called “excessive.” But he did not pardon Libby, much to the aggravation of many influential conservatives.

My view is that Cheney is simply a greedy mother who wants everything his way. Cheney orchestrated the exposure of a CIA agent as an instrument for him to gain politically. Everyone knows that is shameful. Libby got caught lying, and in this country lying to authorities has consequences. Well, Libby didn’t have to pay those consequences because Bush commuted his sentence. Sucks, but what are we going to do. Now Cheney whines because Bush didn’t give Scooter a full pardon?

I suggest Cheney go whine to historians or something. Better yet, go whine to Bob Novak, the big mouth who published the story exposing CIA agent Valerie Plame. Then Cheney will get what he deserves, absolutely zero press, because the Evans-Novak Report is shutting down. There’s something poetic about that timing, just three days into the transformative Presidency of Barack Obama.

Friday, January 23rd, 2009 by Steven Reynolds |

Taking Advantage of the Obama Girls for Profit

I think the action figures of Barack Obama are tacky, and I’ve said so, risking the wrath of the folks at buzzflash, who joked a bit with me. It is wrong to make dolls in the likeness of the Obama girls, evidently without the family’s permission. The dolls are beanie babies. Ty, Inc. needs to rein in its lust for the almighty dollar.

Commentary By: Steven Reynolds

I complained, in a good hearted fashion, I hope, when offered an Obama action figure as a premium for pledges to the site. Well, I know it was good hearted because Mark Karlin, Editor and Publisher of buzzflash, said so in a comment to my post. Heck, and as I look at that action figure, it is benign next to this one being marketed by Gamu Toys and reviewed as “best Obama action figure ever” by Gizmodo, the gadget blog. OK, I know the President is fair game, and that means people can make money off of his image and brand, but the Gamu action figure (back in my day they used to be called dolls) poses with swords and guns. Eww!

Anyway, Barack Obama might be fair game, but Malia and Sasha should not be. I’ll admit, I’m one of something like seven billion people who have fallen in love with those two, so maybe I am hypersensitive wanting to protect them or something, but I do think it is important to keep them living as normal life as ever. That’s not going to happen with Ty’s new Sasha and Malia dolls. Yeah, they’re sort of like Presidential daughter beanie babies. Yuck!

Of course we know that beanie babies were a craze among Sasha and Malia’s age group. the craze has died, but I’m betting Ty has a winner here. At least in Washington I’ll bet that tons of Sasha and Malia’s schoolmates will buy the dolls and then bring them to school for Sasha and Malia to sign. That isn’t good. No 10 and 7 year olds should be made celebrities to the point of signing autographs. Indeed, Ty shouldn’t be cashing in on the President’s daughters. Of course, they claim that the little black dolls with the names of Sasha and Malia are not patterned after the Obama girls. From WBBM:

Ty Inc. has released the 12-inch plush dolls as part of the company’s “TyGirlz Collection,” introduced in 2007. The Sasha doll has pigtails and wears a white and pink dress with hearts. The Malia doll has a side ponytail and a long-sleeve shirt with capri pants.

The Oak Brook-based company chose the dolls’ names because “they are beautiful names,” not because of any resemblance to President Obama’s daughters, said spokeswoman Tania Lundeen.

“There’s nothing on the dolls that refers to the Obama girls,” Lundeen said. “It would not be fair to say they are exact replications of these girls. They are not.”

You saw the picture of the dolls earlier. Their names are Sasha and Malia, and other of the dolls are named for important women of today. There’s a Hillary one, for instance, and she’s white! No, the denial by the Ty folks is about as convincing as a Dana Perino answer. We’re talking lies and lying liars territory.

Thursday, January 22nd, 2009 by Steven Reynolds |

The Bush Legacy of Racist Politicization of Justice

Did Bradly Schlozman politicize the DOJ Civil Rights Division? Evidently there is not enough evidence to bring him to trial for that or for lying to Congress. But the report gives us the evidence that is ugly, especially in the injection by Schlozman of racism into the very Division of the DOJ charged with combatting racism in the US.

Commentary By: Steven Reynolds

The biggest triumphs of our system of justice in the last 100 years, I would argue, were in the 50′s and 60′s, and dealt with the civil rights movement. In America we recognized the racism in our past and went a good, if long ways towards correcting that racism that was nearly hard-wired into our institutions. The United States Department of Justice is housed in the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building, and RFK himself was instrumental in leading the DOJ in civil rights issues. The Civil Rights Division was founded in response to Civil Rights legislation and is charged with enforcing the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1968, among other statutes. The Division is a testament to what is good in our system of government, perhaps one of the most important testaments to the good of our system of governmetn. It is now clearer than ever that the Bush Administration has made a mockery of this, one of our most important institutions.

First, the Civil Rights Division under Bradley Schlozman clearly participated in illegal, politicized hiring practices. From McClatchy:

A former acting Justice Department civil rights chief illegally favored conservative job applicants as “real Americans,” kept liberal lawyers off key cases and lied in Senate testimony to conceal his misconduct, internal investigators say in a report made public Tuesday.

Bradley Schlozman privately dubbed liberal department lawyers “commies” and “pinkos” and told a subordinate that the Civil Rights Division shouldn’t be limited to hiring “politburo members” who belong to some “psychopathic left-wing organization designed to overthrow the government,” the department’s inspector general and Office of Professional Responsibility found.

Last March, officials from the two offices asked the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia to investigate whether Schlozman had committed perjury in June 2007 Senate testimony and written follow-up responses. Federal prosecutors decided last week not to bring charges.

The 70-page report, the last to be publicly released on four joint internal investigations stemming from the 2007 scandal over politicization of the Justice Department, was completed in July but had been kept secret pending the outcome of the criminal inquiry.

It concludes that Schlozman kept tight control over hiring in five key sections of the Civil Rights Division and “improperly used political or ideological affiliations” in assessing applicants for experienced and entry-level career jobs, violating the federal Civil Service Reform Act and department policy.

Of 65 lawyers whom Schlozman hired from 2003 to 2006 and whose political affiliations were evident, 63, or 97 percent, were Republicans or conservatives and only two were Democrats or liberal, it said.

When Schlozman was approached by a lower-level manager or fellow department political employee about a job applicant, he sometimes blurted, “Conservative?” or “What’s his view of the world?” the report says.

Other reports detailing the political bias and extremism at the Civil Rights Division under Schlozman can be found at The Hill and at the Washington Post. That’s devastating, of course, but worse is that the Schlozman tenure of the Bush DOJ Civil Rights Division was marked by blatant racism on Mr. Schlozman’s part. Yes, blatant racism on the part of Bradley Schlozman reported today by Rolling Stone:

The report is shocking. But even moreso in a topic it touches on only tangentially – racism in the Civil Rights Division of the Bush DOJ. Schlozman tried to have one “Democrat in hiding” that he oversaw exiled because she: “wrote in Ebonics,” “was an idiot,” and “was an affirmative action thing.”

(The attorney in question graduated magna cum laude from a top law school and was repeatedly praised in her performance reviews for her strong writing and analytical skills.)

There is also this email exchange between Schlozman and John Tanner, the Voting Rights division chair who infamously asserted that Voter ID requirements that disadvantage the elderly have no impact on minorities because, “minorities don’t become elderly the way white people do. They die first.”

Tanner and Schlozman are discussing how they like their coffee, with Tanner writing that he took his “Mary Frances Berry style – black and bitter.”

Berry, an African American, chaired the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights for nearly a decade, ending her service in 2004.

There may be no more lasting shame that will stick to the Bush Administration than the institutionalization of racism in the Civil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice. But the report that came out this week has failed to recommend prosecution for Schlozman, and his own lawyer is interpreting that as vindication in what appears to be the usual whiney Republican fashion. Their line is that since they were not charged with a crime there is no moral taint, but reasonable observors will see moral taint all over the Bradley Schlozman tenure at the DOJ. There is no other way of interpreting Schlozman’s tenure than that it corrupted the fine work of the Civil Rights Division, an institution that was one of our proudest over the last half of the 20th Century.

Yes, Katrina tars Bush, as does torture and Abu Ghraib and Gitmo and the list goes on and on and on. His ugliest legacy is the institutionalization of racism, via his man Bradley Schozman, in the very agency charged with combatting racism. We do not expect Mr. Bush or Mr. Schozman to admit any of the shame that drips from their actions, because we know that it is vital to the Republican Brand never to admit wrongdoing or shame. We must instead make everyone aware of this promotion of racism by Republicans, and console ourselves int he knowledge that virtually every demographic of color is now avoiding the Republican Party as if they were wearing white sheets. As if? Given the revelations yesterday one wonders if “as if” is an appropriate turn of phrase.

In the interest of full disclosure, my wife and I are in the process of adoption, and the child we adopt will likely be African American. We don’t pat ourselves on the back for this, as we know we will benefit far more than the child will by the opportunity for parenting. But civil rights and race issues are definitely on the front burner for us as we go through this process. As a further aside, this adoption could happen very soon, though out of caution I would say in the next couple of months.

Wednesday, January 14th, 2009 by Steven Reynolds |

GOP Intellectual Center: Goldwater, McCarthy, Reagan, Elmer Gantry?

Neal Gabler points out that today’s Republicans are more like Joe McCarthy than Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater. Alas, such comparisons are becoming as trite as that comparison Godwin’s Law describes. Let’s forumulate another analogy. Is Elmer Gantry too trite to use? Paradise Lost? How about D.W. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation?

Commentary By: Steven Reynolds

Neal Gabler has a nice column in yesterday’s LA Times where he ponders the notion of the Republican intellectual center. He’s following avidly, as we all are, the infighting among the GOPers as they fight to remake themselves. Will the GOP follow the extremist social conservatives, or will they hearken back to a philosophy from an earlier time, to Reagan, or Goldwater? Gabler’s thesis is that there is not intellectual center for the Republican Party, that all they’ve got left are angry and ugly talking heads like Hannity and Limbaugh, and that, as such, what plays for an “intellectual enter” for the Republicans is more like the McCarthy of the HUAC era. Here’s a bit from that LA Times article:

McCarthyism, on the other hand, which could be deployed by anyone, thrived. McCarthyism was how Republicans won. George H.W. Bush used it to get himself elected, terrifying voters with Willie Horton. And his son, under the tutelage of strategist Karl Rove, not only got himself reelected by convincing voters that John Kerry was a coward and a liar and would hand the nation over to terrorists, which was pure McCarthyism, he governed by rousing McCarthyite resentments among his base.

Republicans continue to push the idea that this is a center-right country and that Americans have swooned for GOP anti-government posturing all these years, but the real electoral bait has been anger, recrimination and scapegoating. That’s why John McCain kept describing Barack Obama as some sort of alien and why Palin, taking a page right out of the McCarthy playbook, kept pushing Obama’s relationship with onetime radical William Ayers.

And that is also why the Republican Party, despite the recent failure of McCarthyism, is likely to keep moving rightward, appeasing its more extreme elements and stoking their grievances for some time to come. There may be assorted intellectuals and ideologues in the party, maybe even a few centrists, but there is no longer an intellectual or even ideological wing. The party belongs to McCarthy and his heirs – Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and Palin. It’s in the genes.

I’m not here to say Neal Gabler is wrong, as there seem to be many McCarthyite tendencies among the Republicans nowadays, but it seems to me that he doesn’t fully describe this intellectual vacuum of the Republicans. Changing a vision of Republican lineage from Goldwater to Joe McCarthy seems too obvious to me. Surely such a move might have rigor, but it seems almost a Godwin-like move. Or maybe I should say that he adequately doesn’t cover the contradictory elements of Republican strategies. Isn’t Elmer Gantry a more apt metaphor, bringing together as it does the notions of deceit, religion, and collective anger? Of course, Elmer Gantry is a bit of an allegory about Mr. McCarthy, is it not?

It’s a nice little intellectual exercise. What best represents the Republican intellectual center? It’s just too easy to imagine that center to be My Pet Goat, or The Very Hungry Caterpillar, or even the Bible. I suppose Paradise Lost, with the Devil as the tragic hero, might be a nice work by which to describe the Republican intellectual center. Even then, though, such a highly moral text doesn’t seem to me to have the kind of irony necessary to describing Republicans in their present state of sin. But one look at a guy who supposedly represents the intellectual wing of the GOP, William Kristol, nails this question, I think. Here’s Kristol giving Bush advice, from next week’s Weekly Standard:

In addition, Bush can explain to Americans just how his administration’s detention, interrogation, surveillance, and other counterterrorism policies have helped keep us safe. If he lays out the case for them publicly–as his appointees are surely doing to their transition counterparts privately–he’ll make it easier for the incoming Obama administration to back off rash promises and continue most of the policies. This would be a real service to the country. It would also force a rethinking, by those capable of rethinking, of the cheap and easy demagoguing on issues like Guant–namo and eavesdropping. Over time, Bush might even get deserved credit for effective conduct of the war on terror.

As it happens, a Rasmussen Reports survey last week found about half of U.S. voters say the United States should not close the terrorist detention facility at Guant–namo, while less than a third think it should. So, on this and other war-on-terror-related issues, Bush’s positions are reasonably popular–even though the Bush administration has done very little to make its case. Attorney General Michael Mukasey did a good job of laying out the argument for the administration’s conduct of the war on terror in remarks to the Federalist Society a little over a week ago. Bush should take up this cause.

One last thing: Bush should consider pardoning–and should at least be vociferously praising–everyone who served in good faith in the war on terror, but whose deeds may now be susceptible to demagogic or politically inspired prosecution by some seeking to score political points. The lawyers can work out if such general or specific preemptive pardons are possible; it may be that the best Bush can or should do is to warn publicly against any such harassment or prosecution. But the idea is this: The CIA agents who waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and the NSA officials who listened in on phone calls from Pakistan, should not have to worry about legal bills or public defamation. In fact, Bush might want to give some of these public servants the Medal of Freedom at the same time he bestows the honor on Generals Petraeus and Odierno. They deserve it.

OK, maybe this extended quote represents just what Gabler meant with the McCarthy metaphor. Kristol is talking the straight Bush line on terror, cherry picking polls when they support him, and calling for a hard line backed by the kind of jingoistic rhetoric that might make McCarthy proud. Kristol goes so much further, though. The man wants to give the Medal of Freedom to people who tortured prisoners, who kept some innocent prisoners at Gitmo for years? No, this is far more Orwell than McCarthy. This is just bizarre, and more bizarre still is that someone like William Kristol has a job writing this drivel.

Monday, December 1st, 2008 by Steven Reynolds |

Weekly World News > World Net Daily

World Net Daily has gone further over the top, reporting that Barack Obama is developing facial tics, and how Michaelle is all disraught. They plagiarized a quote by some Doctor, representing the quote as if it came in an interview. Their fiction isn’™t nearly as entertaining as Weekly World News, but the whack jobs on the right are eating it up.

Commentary By: Steven Reynolds

World Net Daily is reporting that Michelle Obama is disraught! Disraught, I say! She is worried about the stress and its effects on Barack Obama. Evidently, according to WingNutDaily, and no other credible source, Barack Obama has developed a facial tic because of the stress. Oh Noes! From WingNutDaily:

The strain of the long campaign and a frenetic transition period is beginning to wear on the face of President-elect Barack Obama, who has developed a facial tic under his right eye.

The tic on the lower part of his right orbital bone is clearly visible in his recent interview with ABC’™s Barbara Walters. Campaign insiders say it first emerged during the primary season and has now become chronic.

A facial tic is a repetitive, spasmodic movement often involving the eyes and facial muscles. The cause of tics is unknown, but stress appears to increase their severity.

‘œThe patients I’™ve treated with tic disorders had one thing in common: They knew that the tics worsened when they were under stress,’ said Dr. Robert T. London, a psychiatrist with the New York University Medical Center.

. . .

London says studies show that simple tics disappear during sleep, which suggests that a relaxation treatment, such as hypnotherapy, might work better than medication to calm the misfiring nerves during the day.

One guage of how real this story is would be a simple google search. When one performs one for ‘œObama’ and ‘œfacial tic,’ one gets many results from right wing sites, all quoting the WingNutDaily story. A similar search of google news reduces the results substantially, with no American news agency picking up the story at all. It appears WingNutDaily simply made the story up.

I’™m all fascinated by this Robert London they used as their ‘œexpert.’ A quick look at his background shows London to have graduated with his MD from the University of Miami in 1971. Let’™s be generous and say the guy did so at age 25. That puts him at 62 years old or so. He serves now as a Clinical Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, with his office in Bellevue. 62 years old and only an Assistant Professor? Wow! I’™ve half a mind to email the guy and see if he really said what he said. But why do that? Let’™s just take the string of the sentence WingNutDaily quoted and see where they plagiarized it from. Remember, they made it look like the good Doctor was commenting via an interview with WingNutDaily’™s reporter. They certainly didn’™t credit July’™s edition of Clinical Psychiatry News. No, this isn’™t just dishonest about Obama potentially having a tic, but it is dishonest to use Robert London’™s work without citing the source.

Weekly World News uses the same tactics, citing real Doctors as if they were commenting on the fiction Weekly World News weaves around the story. But Weekly World News is far, far better and has far more journalistic integrity than WingnutDaily. They’™ve got Bat Boy gobbling up a whole turkey, and aliens out shopping on Black Friday. Hey, it could happen! And it is far funnier than any of the fiction WorldNetDaily puts out.

Sunday, November 30th, 2008 by Richard Blair |

This Week’s Political Fiction/Yawner: Tweety Running for Senate

Arlen Specter’™s seat in the Senate is going to be challenged by none other than Chris Matthews of Hardball? Now there’™s a Celebrity Death Match I’™d yawn through. To be serious, we’™ve got a lot more urgent issues in this country than this potential race between Mr. Single Bullet theory and the wienie who is Chris Matthews.

Commentary By: Steven Reynolds

Is he going to run against the Dinosaur Arlen Specter? Will Pennsylvanians get to see a real live celebrity coming to their town to campaign? Will someone finally make the single bullet theory a campaign issue? Will Tweety be able to keep his big yap shut and act like a politician, or will that even cancel out his celebrity? All good questions, and the web is in a tizzy the last few days over the possibility of Chris Matthews gearing up to run for Senate in 2010 in PA. Sorry, I’™ve been more productive those last two days yawning and such. Is the latest news from the center of the state of PA, Patriot News? I suppose so:

Chris Matthews, the host of MSNBC’™s ‘œHardball,’ isn’™t ready to say he’™s running for the U.S. Senate from Pennsylvania, but he continues to talk with top Democrats about the possibility.

Matthews met with state Democratic Party officials this week to talk about challenging Republican Sen. Arlen Specter in 2010. He met with Democratic State Committee Chairman T.J. Rooney and executive director Mary Isenhour in Washington, D.C., to discuss the logistics involved in a Senate run.

Isenhour said she left that meeting convinced Matthews has not made up his mind about running.

This story of Chris Matthews coming back to PA to run for Senate is capturing the hearts and minds of nearly everyone. Man! Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake and Huffington Post is giving advice on how Tweety could beat Specter. Quinnipiac has run a poll pitting Matthews against Specter. is running a story about how Chris Matthews is staffing up for a Senate run, and Talkingpointsmemo is running a story with a Matthews nondenial denial about staffing up. There’™s a frenzy going on, and if I were smart I’™d just stay out of it.

I’™ll settle on a yawn. First, the PA Senate seat isn’™t so important. Arlen Specter will be running for his last term in office, he’™ll be in the minority and during a Democratic Presidency to boot. I don’™t mean to praise Mr. Specter any, but the Republican Party has changed mightily since he first ran for Senate, and while he’™s not been all that mavericky, GOP values are not Specter’™s values. One imagines that he’™s tired of having felt the whip these last few years as the Republicans forced him into line time and time again. All this is to say that I’™d not concentrate any national money here in an effort to unseat Specter, as there are plenty of other Republicans I’™d rather see get the boot. Sure, SPecter has done some dispicable things while Bush is in power, but now a Democrat is in power, and I fully expect Specter to turn into the wind a bit. All this is to say I don’™t see this seat as a huge priority.

Matthews? Why would we want Matthews as a Senator? He hardly makes a good TV talking head. If it weren’™t that Matthews was a God in comparison to his counterparts over at FoxNews, we’™d think Matthews was some kind of numbnut hick who couldn’™t report work a pile of crap. Matthews has already got the world in the palm of his hands anyway, what with the Chris Matthews Show and Hardball. He’™s the darling of all the talking heads and the heir to the Russet mantle. Why the heck would he want to go to the Senate, assuming he could beat Specter?

OK, ok, I know Matthews has a long history in politics, that he wrote speeches for Carter, worked for Tip O’™Neill, b lah, blah, blah! Yeah, I’™ve watched Hardball enough that I know the stories by heart. A strong bio does not make a candidate, a hot gossipy news story, or even anything all that interesting. There is a simple bottom line.

Look, Arlen Specter huffed and puffed and threatened to stand in the way of the Bush Administration spying on American citizens. Then he backed down and let the Bushies abuse our sivil rights. Bad Boy, Arlen. Tweety won a Media Matters of America Award for ‘œMisinformer of the Year’ in 2005. It’™s not like we’™d be replacing Specter with the higher priced spread or something. In fact, this would be like replacing day old white bread with day old whole wheat. Still day old, still not all that much nutritional vale, and both of them would be squashed by poltiical pressure as easily.

This is a stupid issue for all sorts of folks to be getting excited about.

Saturday, November 29th, 2008 by Richard Blair |

Donna Brazile & Sarah Palin: The Truth Is Black & White

The McCain campaign’s use of inflammatory innuendo is an affront to American decency and a detestable example of cynical contrivance. The following videos highlight the hypocrisy of Sarah Palin as well as the promise of rejecting her rancid racial rhetoric and McCain’s reckless candidacy.

Commentary By: Daniel DiRito

It’s easy to get lost in the rampant rhetoric of elections. All too often we forget what the stakes are and just how important it is to vote. We do so at our own peril. The following two videos serve to illuminate the bright line between rhetoric and reality.

In the first video, we garner some insight into the extent of Palin’s hypocrisy and her willingness to ride the political fence for advantage. While Sarah Palin is busy traveling the country attempting to portray Barack Obama’s brief association with former Weatherman, Bill Ayers, as the reason to reject his election, she completely ignores her own suspect affiliations.

She wants us to believe that Barack Obama is a terrorist sympathizer because he sat in the same room with Bill Ayers and served on an education committee with him. At the same time, she completely ignores her endorsement of a man and an organization that is actively seeking the secession of the state of Alaska from the United States…a man whose hatred for his country is every bit as inflammatory as the words of Barack Obama’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright.

Now take a look at the second video and listen to the impassioned remarks of Donna Brazile as she elucidates the essence of this election absent hateful hyperbole. If Brazile’s utter honesty doesn’t move you, you might want to start looking for your misplaced soul. If you don’t know where to look or can’t be bothered, I know an abrasive Alaskan governor you might want to pal around with.

If you want to know why this elections matter, watch these videos a second time and ask yourself where the truth lies. The evidence is overwhelming. Casting a vote on election day is our opportunity to send a message that the truth still matters. If Sarah Palin wants to reject America when it’s politically expedient, I think it’s only appropriate we return the favor.

Given the choice, I’d much rather take a seat in the back of the bus with Donna Brazile than hitch a ride on the “Straight Talk Express” with the likes of Sarah Palin and John McCain. Come November 5th, I want it to be clear that Donna Brazile can sit anywhere she likes and I want Sarah Palin to know that her brand of rancid rhetoric has no place at the political table.

Sarah Palin’s Pals

Donna Brazile

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

Wednesday, October 8th, 2008 by Daniel DiRito |
Next Page »