By Jeremy
I have to admit, I quite like how Tim Blair is covering the US election on his Australian Daily Telegraph blog – relentlessly, and in obnoxious far-right code. Given that his aim appears to be to trawl for Republican votes (“a few more standers could make the difference”), his descent into the vernacular of the American extreme right is reassuringly counterproductive.
Tim seems to have fallen in love with that particular online culture in which talk of public health care is indistinguishable from Stalinism. In which the acronym ACORN equals “Democrats trying to steal the election” (outrageous lie though that is) or where the name Ayers equals “Obama pals around with terrorists” or where the words “community organiser” are like the funniest punchline ever. In which the financial crisis is due not to rich people playing tricky games with vast sums of money, but to legislation preventing banks from discriminating against people solely on the grounds of their living in a low-income neighbourhood. In which “Joe the Plumber” (TM) is a non-partisan, neutral representative of middle America. In which the poor old GOP, which has no powerful media conglomerate-owning supporters whatsoever and does not in any way represent corporate America and the ultra rich, is constantly oppressed by a “liberal media” that hates decency and wants to convert your kids into becoming homosexual muslim terrorists.
But here’s the thing – if you’re not already part of the cult, the above articles of faith will not really make any sense to you. In fact, they’re so odd that they’re more likely to drive you away. The community they describe is not swinging-voter friendly – insincere platitudes about how much the Republicans love “real Americans” notwithstanding. In the main it is an unattractively angry, aggressive, hostile, self-righteous, fearful, hollow and nasty congregation of noise, and as long as the Republicans and their supporters revel in it, they will persuade very few to convert to their ranks.
And nor is the theme likely to encourage many Australians to read a Tim Blair column in the Daily Telegraph.
So please, tim. Continue.
144 Comments
28 October, 2008 at 11:09 am
But but, Obama has dinner with a Palestinian 5 years ago, and the MSM is covering for his.
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/peter_wallsten_hand_over_that_tape/
Cant you see it people, all Palestinians are terrorists but only Timmeh will open your eyes.
28 October, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Cosmicjester – it is the particular Palestinian that is the issue. Not because he is a Palestinian, but because of his position in the PLO. Your attempt to smear Tim is wrong. But don’t let facts get in the way of a good prejudice!
28 October, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Nic
1. Obama never hid his relationship with Khalidi, he has admitted it and i cant see anything wrong with it
2. As he has already admitted to knowing Khalidi what is the tape going to prove that isnt already known?
3. The LA Times admitted to having the tape back in April of this year. If having dinner with a Palestinian was such a grave offence where was the wingnut outrage back in April? Why start demanding the tape a week before the election?
4. It hasnt been proven that this guy was a spokesmen for the PLO. It is an unproven allegation that the wingnuts have all decided to declare true (groupthink at work)
5. Khalidi being Palestinian is completely the issue. Remember Racist Michelle Malkin who is pushing this story also took issue with a donut king commercial that featured a scarf that look too Palestinian for her liking? The wingnuts are trying to blur the lines between being Palestinian, supporting a two state solution and being a terrorist.
28 October, 2008 at 12:24 pm
The frustration on the Right is palpable. All their usual dirty tricks are failing them this time around – yet they’re still clinging to them.
Things like the ridiculous ‘PLO footage’ controversy above are perfect examples of it. Obama admits to being at the meeting and to the guest list of attendees – so what’s to be gained by release of the footage other than its potential for use by Republicans in attack ads that totally misrepresent the tone and content of the meeting.
Everyone knows that’s why the repugs want it released – not because they have any interest in a genuine analysis of the issues underpinning the meeting or the US involvement in the Israel/Palestine conflict, but simply so they can edit it into an attack ad to further pursue their idiotic and utterly dishonest meme of “Obama is a terrorist”.
Lets be serious – anyone who genuinely believes that Obama is sympathetic towards terrorism is living in a fantasy land. It increasingly appears, however, that Blair is only comfortable within that fantasy and is rejecting reality as a coping mechanism.
28 October, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Fuck yes CosmicJ – everything you said and more.
Why start demanding the tape a week before the election?
I think everyone knows the answer to that.
28 October, 2008 at 12:47 pm
“4. It hasnt been proven that this guy was a spokesmen for the PLO. ”
Hmmm Even if he is a member??? The PLO – Yasser Arafat’s mob – Fatah (largest group in the PLO) – you know the people the US and Israel armed in their pathetic attempt to destabilise and overthrow the DEMOCRATICALLY elected Hamas..
So where’s the problem with having dealings with the PLO? If it’s OK for Bush and Sharon/Olmert to arm them and get them to attempt to overthrow a democratically elected government then surely attending the same dinner as a member isn’t a problem???
“Cosmicjester – it is the particular Palestinian that is the issue. Not because he is a Palestinian, but because of his position in the PLO.”
See above Nic – more hypocrisy from the wingnuts…..
28 October, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Here is an excerpt from Obama’s speech in Ohio yesterday.
In this election, we cannot afford the same political games and tactics that are being used to pit us against one another and make us afraid of one another. The stakes are too high to divide us by class and region and background; by who we are or what we believe.
Because despite what our opponents may claim, there are no real or fake parts of this country. There is no city or town that is more pro-America than anywhere else – we are one nation, all of us proud, all of us patriots. There are patriots who supported this war in Iraq and patriots who opposed it; patriots who believe in Democratic policies and those who believe in Republican policies. The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America – they have served the United States of America.
You can’t read that and not know that this guy offers a fundamentally preferable alternative to the politics of fear and division offered by McCain/Palin.
28 October, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Say it ain’t so Mondo (insert post beauty contest wink here)
28 October, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Well the Repugs believe it aint so – that’s for sure.
They seem to have based their entire electoral appeal around a claim that their supporters are the only ‘real Americans’. This would make city-dwelling democrats ‘fake’ Americans, with all the implications that come with that.
You don’t need a psychology degree to see how fundamentally dangerous and divisive their politics are.
28 October, 2008 at 3:59 pm
RobJ, Cosmicjester.
The main concern amongst the right-wing blogospher with wanting to view the videotape is that it is possible, given the history of Israel bashing carried on by institutions to which Khalidi is associated, that speeches in the function (not just a personal dinner) may have contained serious anti-semitism. If so, it is newsworthy that Obama (and his friend Ayers too) sat through racism and did or said nothing. Just like he sat through 20 years worth of racist hate speech of his friend and pastor Wright.
My personal view is that it is impossible to judge without seeing the video. The video may be completely innocuous and nothing may have been said. But I do find it highly interesting that the LA Times consider the existence of the video to be newsworthy and do not want to release it. If it was a video of Palin, you’d be wanting it released, wouldn’t you?
Your attempts to smear Tim Blair as suggesting that all Palestians are terrorists is simply wrong and suggests you are not aware of the issue at all.
Of course, this whole site exists to smear Tim Blair, so that is not unusual.
28 October, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Like I say Nic, if associating oneself with PLO members is such a sin why aren’t you calling for the head of Bush and Olmert?
28 October, 2008 at 4:29 pm
As i said Nic why is there a sudden concern about the tape? the article from the LA Times admitted to having a tape back in April. So why wasnt Timmeh and Michelle and all the other wingnuts calling for the tape back then?
Answer, they want to release it just before an election so that Obama is forced to refute “palling around with terrorist” allegations just before voting day, so that millions of voters have Obama and terrorists connected in their minds on voting day.
You accuse me of smearing Nic, how is the wingnuts just declaring with no evidence that Khalidi was a PLO operative. Perhaps Timmeh and Michelle and co. should back up that claim before they shout “ZOMG MSM BIAS IN THA TANK” blah blah blah
28 October, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Just like he sat through 20 years worth of racist hate speech of his friend and pastor Wright.
This is just a ridiculous regurgitation of a wingnut smear. To describe two decades of the sermons of a popular and successful pastor as “20 years of racist hate speech” is an utterly vacuous piece of hyperbole.
Certainly the sermons of Wright were quasi-political, and certainly he indulged in the black evangelical tradition of fiery language and damnation of perceived oppressors, but a description of his influence in these terms is simply beyond reason. The desperation with which the conservative blogosphere is seeking to smear Obama by any means possible is reaching new lows every day.
28 October, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Cosmicjester. Call Tim by his real name – or you’ll just sound like a moonbat.
Read my above comment again, you obviously don’t get the issue.
The Times article describes Khalidi as a PLO spokesman. I don’t know what more evidence you would like?
28 October, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Mondo,
I formed my own judgements on Wright’s comments from this wikipedia article, which appears to be quite balanced:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Wright_controversy
I’d say calling Supreme Court judges Klan members, suggesting that America invented HIV to kill blacks is racist. His later comments that African-Americans use different parts of the brain and have different tones to whites is also racist. It raises the question, why did Obama sit through this obviously whacky stuff that was preached for so long.
I might have been a too harsh in saying it was race-hatred. That term should probably be reserved for the racism displayed by the alleged neo-nazi thugs:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7694254.stm
28 October, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Corling (sic) wee Timmy Timmeh (sic) is lohts (sic) ov (sic) farn (sic).
28 October, 2008 at 5:28 pm
“Of course, this whole site exists to smear Tim Blair, so that is not unusual.”
The whole site, eh? Which part of this post was a “smear”, Nic?
28 October, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Nicceh : In regards to childish name calling, the vast majority of Timmeh’s blog is devoted to ridicule and name calling. Why should i show more respect to him than he gives to his opponents?
As for proof that the Palestinian is a dirty stinking PLO operative, linkeh pleaseh
And i will ask you again, if a video of Obama having dinner with a dirty stinking Palestinian was such a big deal, why wasnt Timmeh and the wingnut-o-sphere demanding the tape back in April when the LA Times story was written?
28 October, 2008 at 6:15 pm
I put money that Timmeh will cry when the results come in. Much like he did when Howard lost. I wonder if Timmeh was the yob who was screaming ‘m-a-a-a-a-a-t-e’ during Howard’s concession speech?
28 October, 2008 at 6:30 pm
I see dead people everywhere given this comment in the Sunday Telegraph.
“Jim Nuzzo, a White House aide to the first President Bush, dismissed Mrs Palin’s critics as “cocktail party conservatives” who “give aid and comfort to the enemy”.
He told The Sunday Telegraph: “There’s going to be a bloodbath. A lot of people are going to be excommunicated. David Brooks and David Frum and Peggy Noonan are dead people in the Republican Party. The litmus test will be: where did you stand on Palin?”
If there is to be a purge with support of Palin as the test then the Republicans are will on the way to changing from a large party just short of a majority of voters to being a proud and pure party with a hard core minority and little change of a majority. If and when a centre-right wing party loses to a centre-left wing party the way forward is always the centre.
28 October, 2008 at 7:04 pm
“But here’s the thing – if you’re not already part of the cult, the above articles of faith will not really make any sense to you. In fact, they’re so odd that they’re more likely to drive you away.”
Bolt and Blair in a nutshell. Their articles are always so unflinchingly conservative, and generally disdainful of anyone who is not so, that there is no way that anybody who doesn’t already subscribe to their opinions would ever be taken in by their point of view. A whole career about preaching to the converted, wouldn’t give me much job satisfaction.
I really cannot see the point of either of them. Why moan about a lack of conservative representation in the media and then use your own just to sing from the conservative songbook?
28 October, 2008 at 9:28 pm
“The frustration on the Right is palpable. All their usual dirty tricks are failing them this time around – yet they’re still clinging to them.
Things like the ridiculous ‘PLO footage’ controversy above are perfect examples of it. Obama admits to being at the meeting and to the guest list of attendees – so what’s to be gained by release of the footage other than its potential for use by Republicans in attack ads that totally misrepresent the tone and content of the meeting. ”
If I hear one more person claim that the Republicans own attack ads and the Democrats / Obama supporters are above all that, I will throw up. Obama will win the election. He deserves it. McCain would have been a great candidate in 2000, but has campaigned sluggishly at best in ‘08. But this ridiculous suggestion that taking things out of context and playing the man is the domain of the Republicans is garbage. Did anyone see Farenheit 9/11? Bush is worthy of so much valid criticism but his opponents overplay their hand, using distortion and hyperbole to make him seem even more of a dunderhead than he already, obviously is.
And let’s not forget the overarching tone to all of this, just like the Australian Federal elections of 1996,98 2001 & ‘04. The people were fooled by the dirty tricks of the Liberals, only to magically see the light in 2007. I’m sorry, but that is arrogant bullshit. In the same way, commentators are now praising the wisdom of the American people for accepting obama, yet slander the same nation as racist, uninformed hicks when two terms of Bush come their way. It is a selective, pompous, self-indulgent way of viewing democracy, which is an imperfect tool and must be viewed as such.
The contributors to this site are very rarely any less blinkered and selective than the much derided Blair and Bolt.
28 October, 2008 at 10:08 pm
daics i’ll give you what i think is the run down of aussie elections
96:most australians were sick of labour party and keating was on the nose, any liberal leader would’ve won that one.
98:despite the tendency of aussies to give at least 2 terms to most governments the libs lost the popular vote and got home with an effective campain in the marginals.
01: 9/11
04:Latham and also an economy in the middle of the mining boom.
07: howard lost his own seat.
28 October, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Ah yes, I stand corrected. What a succinct 68 word summary of what 20 million people thought of four elections spread over 12 years. Balanced, fair and full of depth and insight.
28 October, 2008 at 11:43 pm
All this far-right angst over Rashid Khalidi???
I guess it’s the perfect storm for them – a black Democrat and a Palestinian – in the same room for f’s sake!!! How many infarcts in the conspiracy cortex did that cause?
They want the video so they can see them feasting on the Jewish babies.
29 October, 2008 at 4:03 am
As an American, who sometimes posts at Blair’s site, and who is voting for McCain, I’m thrilled to step up to your easy pile of bullshit:
OK, I’ve been on the American right since likely before you were a gleam in your father’s eye.
What the f**k are you blabbering about re: codes.
Tax codes perhaps? Sorry, but the right is pretty consistent worldwide: we know that the most effective governments tax their folks the least, and that the less money a government gets, the less intrusive it is. Jeez Blair/Bolt Watchers, I’d think you would welcome such a Libertarian view.
Criminal codes perhaps? Sorry, but I’ve seen nothing but good argument regarding punishment of CRIMINALS, independent of their heritage or motives, on Blair’s site.
Well, with lines like “his descent into the vernacular of the American extreme right is reassuringly counterproductive,” Maureen Dowd’s Depends must be counterproductively overflowing by the snark threat that you pose. Listen buddy (oops, more American vernacular), Tim’s traveled around the US more than a bit, and he’s a good writer who connects with a very broad audience, including many Americans, even “descent-ed” folks like me.
Whoa.
I’ll be the first to admit that we have issues to resolve regarding health care FUNDING in this country, if you’ll admit that your “indistinguishable from Stalinism” phrase is just plain stupid. WRT Tim’s loves, I’d guess writing, family, and cars, but you’re the expert.
And this is where the overall ignorance of your post really got to me! If you were in any way sincere, and had spent any time in the US, you would understand that ACORN is an electoral kleptocracy. It’s the modern manifestation of the vote-accumulating party machines that were dominant in American politics from the late 1800s well into the 20th Century.
“Better to be silent and thought the fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.” Gather some facts before you make absolutely wrong statements like that. Here’s a start: review the Fannie and Freddie CEO testimonies before Congress from the Clinton years. Then peruse their Annual Reports to shareholders. And top it off by studying their campaign contribution patterns.
Have you ever been standin’ in your driveway, just washin’ your car, and some dork with gazillions of TV cameras behind him shows up?
No, me neither.
I would have yelled, “Hey, this is private property. Get the f**k off my lawn.”
Joe, certainly a kinder host than me, went along with the game.
Another WTF statement: “and wants to convert your kids into becoming homosexual muslim terrorists?”
And a closing rant:
No, here’s the thing –
You need an editor. Or some drugs to calm you down. Likely both.
I’ll agree here though:
29 October, 2008 at 5:54 am
And, once again, Daics rides off into the sunset chuffed in the knowledge of putting all those ‘contributors’ back in their place.
His word-counter tucked comfortably under his arm…
29 October, 2008 at 6:35 am
“Or some drugs to calm you down.”
LOL – you clearly haven’t read your own rant.. I’ve only read enough of your long winded post to see myself that it’s a rant… ;o)
29 October, 2008 at 6:37 am
…..Not that there’s anything wrong with ranting, I’m a frequent ranter myself but when I’m ranting I don’t suggest others need to calm down… That’s just double standards, you know, the standards hat hypocrites adopt.
29 October, 2008 at 7:57 am
Jeremy,
I think Smike summed it up nicely. While we are on the subject of Blair Bolt Watch, when is the picture above going to be changed to conform to basic physics?
29 October, 2008 at 8:03 am
I think Smike summed it up nicely
I agree with you Nic, Smike is spot on.
Sorry to tell you this Jeremy but your points about the US and the US election expose you as someone that knows nothing about US politics and culture.
29 October, 2008 at 8:11 am
timmy could easily brand his blog with fox news logo and nobody would be any the wiser. the talking points and angle given to issues are exactly the same.
29 October, 2008 at 8:14 am
“Sorry to tell you this Jeremy but your points about the US and the US election expose you as someone that knows nothing about US politics and culture.”
From the person who believes that John McCain personally hand picked Palin as a running mate.
But wait!
There’s more……
The guy who believes that Palin has a credible chance of becoming president in 2012.
29 October, 2008 at 8:24 am
RobJ – what are you talking about? You don’t think that John McCain picked Palin as a running mate. Who did?
Palin has a credible chance of running for the Republican Presidential ticket in 2012 – it is approximately 3.5 years too early to judge whether she will get the nomination. I haven’t seen anything from Rad Pipper that says that Palin would win both the nomination and the 2012 election.
29 October, 2008 at 8:28 am
“RobJ – what are you talking about? You don’t think that John McCain picked Palin as a running mate. Who did?”
More naivety from the right – John McCain accepted Palin on the recommendation of the GoP – Clearly you don’t have a clue either!
“Palin has a credible chance of running for the Republican Presidential ticket in 2012 – it is approximately 3.5 years too early to judge whether she will get the nomination. I haven’t seen anything from Rad Pipper that says that Palin would win both the nomination and the 2012 election.”
She is not Presidential material, I realise that Bush wasn’t either but once bitten……..
29 October, 2008 at 8:30 am
“I haven’t seen anything from Rad Pipper that says that Palin would win both the nomination and the 2012 election.””
That’s not what I’ve claimed either. Rad claims she’s a credible chance and that we’re all underestimating her, why don’t you just read the Blog if you’re going to participate…
29 October, 2008 at 8:44 am
I haven’t seen anything from Rad Pipper that says that Palin would win both the nomination and the 2012 election
You are exactly right Nic. I have never said that it is guaranteed that she will win in 2012.
I have been clear in my point that there is a good chance that she can use the next 4 years to gain the experience, silence here critics and be a very good chance of running on the republican ticket.
It is comments like this from Rob that I heavily dispute;
She is not Presidential material, I realise that Bush wasn’t either but once bitten……..
It is plain stupidly and extreme short sightedness to right Palin off now as not being presidential material. Especially when you take into account that she IS the governor of Alaska.
29 October, 2008 at 8:47 am
“You are exactly right Nic. I have never said that it is guaranteed that she will win in 2012. ”
Errrr – where did I claim such a thing?
“It is plain stupidly and extreme short sightedness to right Palin off now as not being presidential material. ”
Time will tell Rad…
“Especially when you take into account that she IS the governor of Alaska.”
BFD!!!
Rad – That you think McCain hand picked Palin is neither here nor there but when in the next breath you claim others are naive you expose your consistent hypocrisy. (and naivety)
29 October, 2008 at 8:53 am
RobJ, what does it matter who picked Palin to run? I don’t understand why this is alleged to expose that Rad Pipper is either a hypocrite or naive?
29 October, 2008 at 8:57 am
“Especially when you take into account that she IS the governor of Alaska.”
BFD!!!
It is a BFD Rob. To be president you need executive experience leading a country or state, and be involved in policy making. As governor of a state, she has all this experience.
What’s laughable is that you choose to somehow ignore this experience which amounts to far more experience that Obama has. It is also the highest level of experience that any presidential candidate can have.
You are delusional if you think that her experience as governor of Alaska doesn’t matter and even more delusional to write her off now, when she has 4 years to gain experience in the minor areas that people criticise her.
29 October, 2008 at 9:04 am
“What’s laughable is that you choose to somehow ignore this experience which amounts to far more experience that Obama has. ”
Bush was governor of the largest state…. He’s the worst President in living memory – thus BFD.. He’s wrecked the economy and has the blood of 100 000’s on his hands.
We’ve been over this very recently Rad, Bronwyn Bishop is ‘experienced’ but she’s a clown as well, same for Wilson Tuckey! By your rationale Morris Iemma would be a better candidate than Obama.. As would any other leader of a state regardless of whether they were actually any good.
“You are delusional if you think that her experience as governor of Alaska doesn’t matter and even more delusional to write her off now, when she has 4 years to gain experience in the minor areas that people criticise her.”
You’re delusional if you don’t realise the GOP are going to dog pile her if McCain loses next week. The bitching and back stabbing has already started.
“RobJ, what does it matter who picked Palin to run? ”
It doesn’t matter, Rad thinks John McCain hand picked her, then calls others naive.. He’s a hypocrite but the point is utterly wasted on you!
29 October, 2008 at 9:12 am
Bush was governor of the largest state…. He’s the worst President in living memory – thus BFD.. He’s wrecked the economy and has the blood of 100 000’s on his hands
I get it now Rob. When you say that palin is not presidential material, you mean that she would never be a president that you or the left could approve of. In other words, you are just hoping that palin never gets the chance to run for president.
We’ve been over this very recently Rad, Bronwyn Bishop is ‘experienced’ but she’s a clown as well, same for Wilson Tuckey! By your rationale Morris Iemma would be a better candidate than Obama.. As would any other leader of a state regardless of whether they were actually any good
The difference being that she has been very successful as governor of Alaska. She also had the highest approval rating of any governor in the entire USA.
You are right that being a governor on it’s own isn’t enough. It comes down to how they have performed in the job. Palin has been very successful as governor as Alaska.
29 October, 2008 at 9:17 am
RobJ:
“It doesn’t matter, Rad thinks John McCain hand picked her, then calls others naive.. He’s a hypocrite but the point is utterly wasted on you!”
I still don’t get it. Why does it make him naive?
“Bush is the worst president in living memory” What, worse than Nixon?
29 October, 2008 at 9:19 am
“I still don’t get it. Why does it make him naive?”
Sorry Nic I’m at a loss to explain the obvious any more plainly
29 October, 2008 at 9:21 am
It doesn’t matter, Rad thinks John McCain hand picked her, then calls others naive.. He’s a hypocrite but the point is utterly wasted on you!
You are naive to thing that a presidential candidate hand picks a VP. Both Obama and McCain have a massive political campaign machine behind them and the pick of the VP would be one of the biggest decisions of their campaign. There would be a cast of thousands of advisers and campaign managers that would be involved in the VP pick process.
Obama’s pick of biden and McCain’s pick of Palin would not have been simple choices and they wouldn’t have been choices Obama or McCain would have made on their own. Of course they would make the executive decision and have a right to veto.
29 October, 2008 at 9:21 am
If I hear one more person claim that the Republicans own attack ads and the Democrats / Obama supporters are above all that, I will throw up.
What a phenomenal strawman for Daics to open his account with – nobody here has claimed that the Democrats are “above” attack ads, let alone made claims that such a thing occurs enough times to induce Daics’ vomit. How strange that his first line of attack is to misrepresent the arguments actually being made here?
There’s no doubt that both sides “do” attack ads – that’s simply a statement of the blatantly obvious. Nonetheless there’s equally no doubt that the Republicans rely on them to a far greater extent than the Democrats. Anyone who really wants to see the truth of this can look to the stats – which currently prove that the proportion of ‘attack’ ads aired by the Democrats is FAR lower than that of the repugs. This is not a subjective view – this is simply the objective truth.
How telling that the one example of Democrat campaign ’smearing’ that Daics managed to produce had nothing to do with the Democratic party and wasn’t even part of an election campaign. It was a privately produced hollywood film.
Yet again – the desperation of the Right to whitewash what is turning out to be a landslide defeat for them is pathetic. Pretending that there is absolute equality in the depravity of the electoral tactics rolled out by either side is simply more head-in-the sand revisionism.
As for ’smike’ – what a pile of ill-informed and totally irrelevant rubbish. His bland assertion that the current financial crises is due solely to the lending practices of two banks in the nineties is by itself enough to quite conclusively unmask him as a crackpot. Why would you engage in argument with someone who is so obviously addicted to the Blair Juice.
ACORN is an “electoral kleptocracy”? Jesus – this guy’s completely lost all ability to perceive any reality other than the one being spoon-fed to him by the far right.
29 October, 2008 at 9:21 am
“I get it now Rob. ”
No, no you don’t! As with Nic, I’m tired of going around and around in circles..
29 October, 2008 at 9:29 am
The problem for rob is that he is trying to oversimplify what I have said in the past. I have never said that McCain just hand picked Palin. I have made the point that he would have been involved in the final decision.
It is obvious that there would have been an enormous selection process, which would have involved dozens of possible VP candidates. McCain would have had a team of advisers and even relied on others as references to help him and his campaign team make the final decision.
McCain process would have been very similar to Obama’s.
29 October, 2008 at 9:50 am
“McCain process would have been very similar to Obama’s.”
Did Obama’s pick need to placate the crazy fundamentalists? No, I don’t think it did!
29 October, 2008 at 10:10 am
“McCain process would have been very similar to Obama’s.”
Did Obama’s pick need to placate the crazy fundamentalists? No, I don’t think it did!
OMG you really are naïve.
Do you honestly believe that there is only one reason why a presidential candidate would pick a VP?!
Well at least this helps me understand why your views of palin are so partisan and short-sighted.
29 October, 2008 at 10:38 am
Why does RadP seem to take such an avid interest in US politics?
29 October, 2008 at 11:10 am
It is obvious that there would have been an enormous selection process, which would have involved dozens of possible VP candidates. McCain would have had a team of advisers and even relied on others as references to help him and his campaign team make the final decision.
Rarely do you see Matt admit so readily to the fact that his argument is nothing more than pure speculation. He doesn’t know any of the above as fact – he doesn’t even have any evidence to suggest it’s true – he’s simply guessing as to what he thinks probably happened, and then referencing his own guesses as a factual basis for critcising other arguments.
It’s pretty much all he ever does here.
29 October, 2008 at 11:15 am
“It’s pretty much all he ever does here.”
He rates Palin as a credible prospect – Enough said!
Palin – the right wing religious nut case who believes abortion should be banned – even for rape victims. What a sick bitch! Only the nutters would vote for her, you know the type that believe the earth is 6 000 years old and fossil evidence is the devil trying to deceive us.
The Republicans are already pissed off with her, whilst Rad thinks she’ll be grooming herself for 2012 I believe she’ll be a laughing stock for the Democrats and scapegoat for the likely Republican failure.
29 October, 2008 at 11:29 am
Back to the topic a little bit – I do actually think that Andrew Bolt can be a quite solid conservative commentator on basic politics. I can find myself agreeing with quite a few of his criticisms of the style of the current Labor government. On the US election, Bolt has been wise enough to hedge his bets and acknowledge the likelihood of an Obama victory and be critical of McCain and his poorly run campaign. Tim Blair, however, doesn’t have as much wisdom or indeed very much to say at all. His parroting of US RW talking-points are just in-keeping with his style of content-free commentary by glib one-liner.
29 October, 2008 at 11:44 am
He rates Palin as a credible prospect – Enough said!
More than that – he rates her as a credible prospect because she will be perceived as a superior economic manager.
There really is no limit to the level of self-delusion that Matt is capable of.
29 October, 2008 at 11:49 am
a reality check for rad: hover your mouse over the people and nespapers:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/fullpage/the-palin-effec.php
the number of the right who are backing away from palin is staggering given how excited they were when she first burst onto scene.
29 October, 2008 at 11:52 am
By the way, Rob, I should add that I don’t really think that your description of Palin as “a sick bitch” is entirely warranted or fair.
She seems like a perfectly nice lady to me, although one who holds dangerously simplistic and ill-informed world-views. While her attitude on abortion is misguided (in my view anyway), her elevation of the right of the foetus to live above the right of the mother to choose is entirely consistent with a particular kind of morality.
In fact – her position is vastly more consistent than those who object to ‘normal’ abortion as murder but who make an exception in the case of rape or incest. It’s either murder or it isn’t guys – make up your minds.
Attempts to demonise Palin as somehow ’sick’ or mentally unhinged are no better than the attempts to portrat Obama as a terrorist. She’s not sick – she’s just wrong.
29 October, 2008 at 12:00 pm
“She seems like a perfectly nice lady to me, although one who holds dangerously simplistic and ill-informed world-views. ”
Not to me, I wonder how much pressure she was prepared to let her daughter and son in law endure just to improve her own chances? I’d NEVER impose on my son for my own career prospects..
Here’s an indication of her inappropriateness for the highest office on the planet, this is lifted from another forum:
“Sarah Palin, apparently ignorant of basic science history, held a speech mocking research into fruit flies. What pushes this from tragedy into farce? In the next paragraph she states her support for research into early identification of autism and similar disorders. Research that is done using fruit flies.”
Here’s the transcript:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/Speeches/Read.aspx?guid=3d5fc0cf-8229-490f-879b-91f6f4bb9eb2
29 October, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Yeah – look no arguments there. She certainly is willing to use her family in her election campaign and her views on fruit fly research really do highlight how ignorant she is.
Nonetheless these actions really do not warrant descritpion of Palin as “a sick bitch”. That sort of divisive and aggressive language is best left to the crowds at her rallies.
29 October, 2008 at 12:36 pm
OK – I’ll refrain.
BTW – If this troopergate thing is fair dinkum then it appears that she used her position to vindictively wreck her ex Bro in Law career.
I know the wingnuts like to defend her with the “well the trooper was a prick” defence, to me though that’s even more damning, ie why wasn’t something done before he divorced Palin’s sister???
Ugghhhh, the more I think of her the more I think I detest her and everything she stands for… I think I’ll stop now.
29 October, 2008 at 12:50 pm
The claim made by some that since we are Australians so we do not understand U.S. culture and politics is ridiculous. Politics is politics and American culture not so different to England or Australia or any other westernised country. If the ‘you don’t understand the culture’ statement was referring to Iran or some nation with a markedly different culture than our own, fair enough. I take note that the U.S. does not have a problem interfering in the politics of nations with vastly different culture than their own.
John McCain seems like a resonable person, if a little old for the top job, many on the religious right in America seem to think he is to left wing. McCain thought Palin would be a good choice to attract votes from the Jerry Falwell side of politics and she seems to have achieved this, however I think she has frightened of the undecided voters with her over the top rhetoric and folksy style.
Of course the election has not happened yet and anything can happen on election day, the favourite does not always win the race, but a McCain/Palin win seems unlikely and I think it very unlikely Palin will get the party nomination in 2012, as I have said previously.
29 October, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Smike’s rant was gold. Apparently if you don’t agree with the American right on an issue you’re just “ignorant”.
What more needs to be said?
29 October, 2008 at 1:46 pm
I’m not sure exactly what the term “electoral kleptocracy” actually means, or wether it applies to ACORN, however, there seems little doubt that this organisation’s workers have a history of – shall we say, questionable – performance in registering voters. (I won’t provide links — a quick google search will turn up plenty of examples should anyone wish to view some).
Surely there is a limit on how many times an organisation can use the excuse “it was an individual worker’s doing and not the policy of the company”.
I think that because of it’s behaviour in this regard, the depth of Obama’s involvement and /or links with ACORN do require some examination, if only to finally clear up and remove the perception that seems to be out there that he was involved in any of it’s more dubious practices.
As for Palin 2012 — yes, she is Governor of Alaska, so experience probably isn’t the issue, but I suspect that she, along with everyone else involved with this campaign on the Republican ticket will be way too much on the nose for both the less hard-nosed Republican voters and for the swinging voters. I can’t see her getting close to being nominated.
RobJ
Re Troopergate…
I’ve read through Branchflower’s report, and it seems that Palin ceased to pursue the matter herself once she became Governor, however, and this to me at least seems like an even worse abuse on her part, she allowed her husband free access to Government employees and resources with which he continued to pursue it — I reckon she should have to answer some very serious questions about that.
By the way Mondo,
“Why start demanding the tape a week before the election?
I think everyone knows the answer to that.”
I guess its the same reason that French Hollis was originally going to hold onto Branchflower’s findings and release them 4 days before the election…Let’s face it, politicians and their campaigns are all the same, they all use every dirty trick in the book if they can.
29 October, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Let’s face it, politicians and their campaigns are all the same, they all use every dirty trick in the book if they can.
Exactly. Same old same old. The Dems would be doing exactly the same thing. For the Repubs it’s a sure sign that Obama is the Antichrist. For the Dems, it’s a smear campaign and a silly guilt-by-association non-issue.
29 October, 2008 at 3:31 pm
I guess its the same reason that French Hollis was originally going to hold onto Branchflower’s findings and release them 4 days before the election…
You’re using something that never happened to tarnish the electoral strategy of the Democrats? That’s crazy.
If Branchflower had sat on the findings of the report for a month and then released them 4 days before the election then that would be a clear attempt to play dirty tricks. He would have rightly been condemned if he had done it.
But he didn’t do it. The investigation occurred entirely in line with a schedule that was set before Palin even became the GOP nominee for VP. The “october surprise” that the Right has made such a fuss over was simply the fact that the investigation was due to release its findings in October.
Let’s face it, politicians and their campaigns are all the same, they all use every dirty trick in the book if they can.
I simply don’t accept this platitude. In order to believe that the Democrats play ‘dirty’ as much as the republicans you’d need to believe that Karl Rove was an unremarkable strategist, and that he had/has equals on the democrat side. You’d have to believe that McCain’s “who is Obama” crap is equalled in its ’smear-worthiness’ by something in Obama’s campaign.
It’s not. The Republicans are vastly worse than the Democrats when it comes to dirty, tricky and dishonest electoral campaigning.
29 October, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Mondo,
I’ll take your word for the fact that historically the Republicans are worse than the Democrats when it comes to smear campaigns — to be honest I have never really paid much attention — and yes, they have seemed to be far more aggressive in this campaign, but surely you don’t expect anyone to believe that Hollis, a Democrat senator, didn’t deliberately set the release date for this report as October 31 ?
“McCain’s running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, stopped cooperating with lawmakers investigating her firing of the state’s public safety commissioner after one joked that the findings could amount to an “October surprise” for the vice presidential nominee. Sen. Hollis French, a Democrat, later apologized for the remark.” http://cbs4denver.com/national/election.october.surprise.2.830735.html
The fact that he made this comment, (in September), in my opinion shows that he knew what the findings in the report were going to be, (before it was released), and that he very much intended to use it for political purposes.
It’s also interesting to note that although Branchflower conducted the investigation, and was supposedly in control of the subpoena list, he stated when questioned about why a certain person was removed from the list, that he would have to defer that question to French — that suggests to me that French may have been interfering in the investigations. http://www.allamericanblogger.com/4001/the-results-of-the-troopergate-investigation-and-the-men-who-investigated-republican-sarah-palin/
That’s not by any means a neutral blog, but the quotes and exerpts seem reasonable…
Anyway, of course all that doesn’t change the fact that Palin did the wrong thing, but I think it does show that both sides practice dirty politics when they get the opportunity.
29 October, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Also,
Why is it that no-one here seems to want to talk about the activities of ACORN ? Just wondering…
This is an interesting report on ACORN’s activities regarding the CRA and Congress’ attempts to modify the Bill. http://web.archive.org/web/20010418192832/www.acorn.org/acorn-reports/acornrep1999.12.html
29 October, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Why is it that no-one here seems to want to talk about the activities of ACORN ?
I don’t know anything about what they’re doing, and completely distrust anything coming from right-wing sources in this regard.
But I’ve read through much of the page you linked to Gavin, particularly the CRA stuff, and I’m unsure of exactly what ‘activities’ you believe require discussion?
29 October, 2008 at 7:02 pm
“Why is it that no-one here seems to want to talk about the activities of ACORN ? ”
because most of what has been reported is a good ol fashion fox news beat up attempt to smear the democrates.
29 October, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Remember, RadPipper had a great education.
29 October, 2008 at 8:15 pm
The folks at Nike have found their new ad campaign:
30 October, 2008 at 5:52 am
At lease smike was good for a laugh!
Electoral kleptocracy?…….LOL
30 October, 2008 at 5:59 am
Off topic here. From Bolts’ blog yesterday, apparently we have won the war in Iraq. How many times have we won now?
I think Andy isn’t a bad person but he is a fool, what he writes sometimes….and the flock love it.
30 October, 2008 at 6:41 am
“I think Andy isn’t a bad person but he is a fool, what he writes sometimes….and the flock love it.”
Bad people dog whistle the stupid racists, Andrew Bolt does this regularly, I’d call him a rude name but I got taken to task for doing that sort of thing to the fundamentalist VP candidate who mocks useful research (that will help find cures for conditions she wants cured) and cajoles teenagers into marriage as well as believing that rape victims should be denied the right to an abortion.
Summing up, in my opinion Andrew Bolt is a bad person, he constantly misrepresents to suit his dog whistling agenda.
If he believes half the stuff he writes then I’d contend that he’s stupid too!
30 October, 2008 at 7:11 am
Hello Confessions and Mondo
I’m not sure you can call it a beat up or just coming from right-wing sources — it seems pretty easy to find plenty of examples of court cases finding ACORN workers guilty of vote fraud, and yes, if it was just a couple of isolated cases I could accept that these were just the actions of individuals working on their own, but the number of cases implies to me that it is more systemic than that.
The activities I’m referring to in the ACORN report are those surrounding the banks’ attempts to change the conditions of the CRA which ACORN then lobbied Democrat senators to prevent. Given that the CRA has been blamed for at least significantly contributing to the current financial crisis, I reckon its worth discussing ACORN’s involvement.
I have to admit I’d never heard of ACORN before this campaign, but it seems to be a fairly significant part of Obama’s political support base so I think it’s useful to find out more about it, hence my comment about discussing it, I’m hoping someone here might know a little more about it.
30 October, 2008 at 7:52 am
Gavin, did you read the link about the ACORN smear in the post itself?
30 October, 2008 at 8:10 am
Jeremy,
That link is garbage. ACORN established the mechanism for large scale voter registration fraud by setting up their reward structure in such a way that encouraged people to sign up fake people, or register people falsely. Maybe they never intended these false registrations to be ever used by anyone, maybe they did.
Even if they flag ever single fake (which I seriously doubt), it still ties up public resources trying to go through every single one of their voter registration cards.
It’s a clear example of extreme dodginess – I’m amazed that people on the left in Australia would attempt to excuse it. If ACORN was associated with the Republicans, the left would be all over it – and rightly so.
30 October, 2008 at 8:14 am
Your argument is that ACORN is in a conspiracy to “tie up public resources”?!
The fact of the matter is that a voter registration marked “Mickey Mouse” can never be used for an actual vote. You need to provide ID. There’s no prospect of actual fraud.
The Republicans’ real problem with ACORN is that they’re signing up poor people and minorities who the Republicans would rather didn’t vote.
(This sort of thing is of course just one of the many problems that arises from optional voting.)
30 October, 2008 at 8:19 am
“The Republicans’ real problem with ACORN is that they’re signing up poor people and minorities who the Republicans would rather didn’t vote.”
And would move to disenfranchise them in a moment. I understand that in the last election many black voters were disenfranchised merely because they had the same name as convicted felons.. In a country of 300 million people this probably affected many voters.
Anyway what’s with the convicted felons losing their right to participate in democracy? I could live with losing your vote whilst serving time in prison but once you’ve done your time your rights should be restored. Especially if you’re a tax payer. Does anyone know if convicted felons have their right to vote reinstated once they’re paroled?
30 October, 2008 at 8:29 am
Hi Jeremy,
I have read the link, it seems to be saying that the vote fraud in every case was committed on ACORN by rogue canvassers and the organisation itself notified the authorities.
Given that the link is to a blog that is supportive of Obama it doesn’t really solve the question of how complicit ACORN really is — if they are at all — in the voter fraud cases that have been tried. I know as an organisation it hasn’t been found guilty of doing so, but that’s not too surprising, it’s fairly easy for such an organisation to claim individual liability.
I’ve been trying to find a truly neutral link to read about ACORN, but so far no luck…All I’ve found are McCain supporters condemning it and Obama supporters defending it.
Anyway, since yesterday’s post, the only activity that Obama performed for ACORN that I’ve been able to find anywhere near concrete evidence for is that he represented them as a lawyer in a case that involved the banks lending money to low-income white people but not to black people in the same economic circumstances, certainly nothing untoward on his part there.
I haven’t been able to find any neutral links to the stuff about him training organisers for ACORN.
30 October, 2008 at 8:34 am
Hmm interesting…one of my replies to Mondo yesterday is still in the hands of the moderators…Never had that on this site before, is it because I put 2 links in it ?
30 October, 2008 at 8:36 am
Jeremy, RobJ
The one and only problem with ACORN is that they are paying people money to sign up fake voters. That is a major and inexecusable flaw. It is not a small thing, registration fraud leads to voting fraud.
The article alleges that it is no problem, because you’d have to provide ID. That is not strictly the case, see here:
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/misc/faq.php#faq27
For instance, you can provide the last 4 social security numbers. Some people have alleged to have been signed up under 20 different addresses (without their knowledge). These are real people and have real social security numbers. If even one of their fake registrations get through, some one could register a fraudulent vote under their name.
Surely you can see that if this was a Republican orientated organisation signing up fake names, you would be outraged.
30 October, 2008 at 8:41 am
RobJ – voting rights in the US are a State matter. You’d have to check each State to see what rights convicted felons had. In California, once a felon comes off parole, they can vote:
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_vr.htm
I think that is fairly standard.
30 October, 2008 at 8:43 am
Yes, that’s another flat-out retarded thing about the US political system that they call “democracy” – the different voting rights and systems that apply depending on in what state you live. How is that equality for all citizens? How is that “one person one vote”?
30 October, 2008 at 8:47 am
Given that the CRA has been blamed for at least significantly contributing to the current financial crisis, I reckon its worth discussing ACORN’s involvement.
Gavin – there is quite literally nothing in the link you provided that could be construed as relevant to the current election. The information provided in relation to ACORN’s attempts to ensure that banks (and bank-like entities) were required to re-invest in social projects within the communities from which they are deriving profit, can only possibly be relevant to the insane wingnut smearing of Obama if you’re willing to make several monumental assumptions:
1. The financial crisis was not significantly driven by a surge in risky derivatives trading (which is what most financial analysts agree it was) but instead by banks being forced into uncommercial transactions due to the CRA.
2. That ACORNs role in pushing for the CRA was integral to its adoption.
3. That ACORN did so either knowing there was significant economic risk or with reckless indifference to that risk, and
4. That Obama’s involvement with ACORN is such that he can be held responsible for its actions, or at least be criticised for knowingly associating with their recklessness.
NONE of the above is even close to being established anywhere but within the most fevered of wingnut minds – and thus we see these snide references to ACORN that are quite clearly designed to imply severe improrpiety without ever having to come up with more than half-baked conspiracy theories to support that implication.
That’s why Jeremy referred to right-wing ‘code’ in his original piece (a reference that smike quite spectacularly failed to grasp) – the wingnut-o-sphere simply bleat “ACORN!” at each other, knowing that it has a special, sinister meaning that the rest of the world simply doesn’t accept.
As confessions quite succinctly put it above – ACORN isn’t something that Obama needs to answer for, its just another desperate fox-wingnut-GOP generated smear with no substance that is being thrown around in a transparent and desperate attempt to discredit him.
30 October, 2008 at 8:49 am
It’s in their Constitution. In ours too:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s41.html
It was generally considered at the time that being a federation of States, each State should retain the right to determine who was an elector.
Of course if they were re-doing the system now, I’m sure both the US and Australia would specify single voter requirements across all States. But you have to live with what you have got.
I had another post replying to the ACORN arguments, but it seems to have gone into Moderation too.
30 October, 2008 at 8:52 am
Thanks Nic
30 October, 2008 at 9:01 am
Geoff,
The ‘war’ in Iraq was won quite some time ago, unfortuneately what hasn’t been won is the peace…That’s where the US in particular stuffed up…
The anachronism for winning the peace used to be ‘WHAM’ — Winning Hearts and Minds — due to incompetence and corporate greed we failed to do this.
30 October, 2008 at 9:19 am
Hi Mondo,
Yes, as I’ve said above, I can’t find any evidence on any neutral site that shows Obama has done anything that could be construed as improper in relation to ACORN.
I don’t know how long ACORN has been around for so I’m not sure if they had anything to do with the CRA’s adoption, but they do seem, from the report, to have some influence on it’s continued existence.
I’m not suggesting that the CRA alone, was responsible for the economic meltdown, this was obviously caused by more than one factor, but lending to low-income customers who have little or no hope of re-paying the loan really isn’t too bright an idea.
I agree entirely with what you’re saying, I’m just trying to get a proper understanding of ACORN and it’s operations…In many ways I’m probably trying to do so at the wrong time, there’s way too much election hysteria over it going on.
30 October, 2008 at 11:49 am
but lending to low-income customers who have little or no hope of re-paying the loan really isn’t too bright an idea.
Don’t buy into the right-wing bullshit Gavin. Above you make the rather bold assertion that the CRA contributed “significantly” to the current crises – despite what Blair would have you believe this claim is extremely dubious. I haven’t seen a single serious economist or analyst suggest that the claim has any merit at all. It is widely agreed, from what I can see, that the collapse was caused by risky and unregulated derivatives creation and trading.
Do you really think that the CRA forced banks to lend money to people who had little or no hope of repaying the loan? Do you really believe that the banks would knowingly enter into uncommercial loss-creating transactions?
Just run your “bullshit” filter over the claims being made about the CRA and I think you will find that they’re not even sensible, let alone established.
30 October, 2008 at 1:23 pm
From Tim’s site:
“Yet another lefty blogfool trying to act big and talk trash in a superstitious attempt to forestall the inevitable devastating disappointment. Which will happen, even if Obamamess wins. And if Obama loses, look for a lot of dysfunctional wailing and secret bathroom razor-cuttings.
RebeccaH of The Intarwebs (Reply)
Thu 30 Oct 08 (12:10pm)”
It’s too funny. It can’t be real.
30 October, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Has anyone noticed that right-wing jokes depend solely on you hating the ‘opposition’, and assuming they’re all a bunch of “lefty blogfools”.
Left wing jokes, on the other hand, just make everyone either fall into agreement or the right rear its ugly head in outrage.
30 October, 2008 at 1:51 pm
This article on the impact of the CRA on the current financial meltdown is interesting, I’m not sure which side of the political fence Westover sits on, but his points about government interference in selected areas of the economy seem reasonable:
http://www.minnpost.com/craigwestover/2008/09/26/3663/whos_really_to_blame_for_the_financial_meltdown
As the article says, the CRA itself isn’t directly responsible for the meltdown, but it may have helped to create the environment in which the dodgy trading was able to be practised by lending corporations.
All this economics stuff makes my head hurt — I always hated maths. Time to talk of other things, and as I said somewhere above, I can’t find any evidence anywhere credible that accuses Obama of any wrongdoing in regards to ACORN.
30 October, 2008 at 1:59 pm
“It’s too funny. It can’t be real.”
but it is real. from bolt’s blog:
“lethal replied to andrew of pearce
Thu 30 Oct 08 (12:47pm)
I have a degree in Medical Science and Mensa level IQ. I too believe the earth is around 6,000 years old and Jesus will return to earth soon. My intelligence and beliefs are not incompatable and I am not stupid.”
but wait there is more:
“lethal replied to Culture Vulture
Thu 30 Oct 08 (12:40pm)
I am a fundamentalist Christian evangelical. I believe that Adam and Eve walked with dinosaurs too.”
somebody hand me those razorblades.
30 October, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Says a lot about IQ testing, doesn’t it?
30 October, 2008 at 2:06 pm
the CRA itself isn’t directly responsible for the meltdown, but it may have helped to create the environment in which the dodgy trading was able to be practised by lending corporations.
Indeed – this is a description of the potential ‘involvement’ of the CRA that actually makes sense. You won’t see anything close to it on the right-wing sites though.
30 October, 2008 at 2:30 pm
“Says a lot about IQ testing, doesn’t it?”
Now I understand why people agree with Bolt’s whacky stances – They’re already NUTS!
I know a few Christians, indeed I have family members who are Christian, one of them is a high ranking priest in the UK (Anglican) NONE of them believe that sort of rubbish.
As per yesterday Mondo, If Palin beleives that rubbish then she’s nuts too and I stand by my original slagging of her, if this makes me as bad as those calling Obama a terrorist then so be it (I’m quite convinced that it isn’t the same though because Obama has as far as I know has never committed an act of terrorism whereas Palin subscribes to crazy fundamentalist views).
Maybe I just touched a nerve considering you think for some strange reason that Palin is a “perfectly nice lady”, Mondo, I hate to break it to you but she wasn’t actually winking at you…
30 October, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Hi Rob,
I think you’re being a little harsh on Mondo, if Palin believes that the Earth is 6000 years old — and I haven’t actually seen anything that suggests she does — it doesn’t mean she can’t still be a nice lady.
I don’t think all fundies believe the 6000 year old earth story…I wonder if Fielding does.
I’m sure it’s possible for someone to believe in whacky things but still be a pleasant person…Just means that their belief system is a bit screwy, then again, I guess that’s what all religion is about — blind Faith.
I could use a bit of a laugh though…Think I’ll check out that blog of Bolt’s.
BTW Mondo,
You’re right about not being able to find a description like that on the right-wing sites — I’ve spent hours trying to find neutral assessments, they really are few and far between.
30 October, 2008 at 3:55 pm
As per yesterday Mondo, If Palin beleives that rubbish then she’s nuts too and I stand by my original slagging of her
I have no problem with you calling her “nuts” or a “crazy fundamentalist” – both are subjective but supportable descriprions of her policy views.
But you called her a “sick bitch”. That’s quite different – it’s a term of personal abuse. I wouldn’t try to equate it with calling Obama a terrorist, but I nonetheless don’t think it is a particularly valid or appropriate assessment of a politician like Palin.
30 October, 2008 at 4:51 pm
“But you called her a “sick bitch”. That’s quite different – it’s a term of personal abuse. I wouldn’t try to equate it with calling Obama a terrorist,”
Sorry Mondo but the way I read your post I thought that was exactly what you did. But, I concede, sick might be a little harsh. No way do I consider her a perfectly nice lady” though, we’re poles apart on that one. ;o)
“I’m sure it’s possible for someone to believe in whacky things but still be a pleasant person…”
No doubt on a one on one basis GW Bush would be a pretty nice bloke, better to have a beer with than say Al Gore. However I guess I can see where you and Mondo are coming from.
30 October, 2008 at 8:22 pm
hilarious stuff from the Boltist blog Confessions. I think Chris Moltisanti from the Sopranos best summed up the whole concept of Adam and Eve living with the dinosaurs when he said something along the lines of “No way. T. Rex in the Garden of Eden? Adam and Eve would be runnin’ all the time, scared shitless, it was supposed to be paradise.”
31 October, 2008 at 8:24 am
http://harpers.org/archive/2008/10/hbc-90003779
Anyone interested in a rebuttal of the ridiculous smears of both Khalidi and Obama should visit the above link.
The far right really are a totally corrupted bunch of liers who will stoop to anything during their electioneering.
31 October, 2008 at 9:29 am
None of you understands … don’t you see:
It’s a given – after the election next Tuesday, the USA will have a Republican President in the White House.
31 October, 2008 at 10:37 am
OT:
I think Andy’s discovered the term “cognitive dissonance”:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_thinking_hot_feeling_cold/
The hypocrisy of him, using it to describe someone else’s thinking!
31 October, 2008 at 11:09 am
Seriously, it’s just lightweight piffle. I know if everyone stopped reading it it would undermine this site’s raison d’etre, but why would you bother? I remember when I was teaching years ago being told that the Hun was written at a 12-year-old’s reading level, and that piece DeanL linked to shows that nothing has changed. When Bolt talks about “elites” he means people with a reading age of 13 or above.
31 October, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Andy won’t stand for criticism or dislike of Palin by anyone. So what’s his stunningly witty and funny response and retort? Post a picture of the critic claiming they show boogers up her nose:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/palins_not_funny/
What can ya say?
31 October, 2008 at 12:15 pm
What you can say is, leave it alone and spend your time doing something more edifying and inspiring, e.g. having a poo or trimming your toenails.
31 October, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Bless ‘em, the poor things are struggling to support the unsupportable. Bolt might as well advocate for cannibalism in the school curriculum.
31 October, 2008 at 12:23 pm
“I think Andy’s discovered the term “cognitive dissonance””
Its a scream isn’t it, when Andy engages in this sort of stuff, he is beyond parody
The funny thing being that for Andy to label other’s as being affected by cognitive dissonance, takes a huge dose of cognitive dissonance to avoid confronting the realities of his own monumental contortions and lack of self-honesty.
All the pseudo-quack attempts Andy engages in with all the second-guessing and labelling of the thought processes and inclinations of those he disagrees with, are just an outward projection of his own. It occurs to him how he would think in a given situation, projects it on to others, and his cognitive dissonance allows him too ignore
the source of his theory.
So when he goes around bleating some dribble and making some offensive and idiotic insinuation like “the left are really happy to see more devastation in Iraq just to affirm their original position”, its just a reflection on himself and the level that alterior motives affect his stated positions.
31 October, 2008 at 12:24 pm
I enjoy the amused outrage, BB. What’s your excuse or reason for being here then?
31 October, 2008 at 12:25 pm
“It occurs to him how he would think in a given situation, projects it on to others, and his cognitive dissonance allows him to ignore
the source of his theory.”
That’s good Chris.
31 October, 2008 at 12:28 pm
” DeanL
31 October, 2008 at 12:24 pm
I enjoy the amused outrage, BB. What’s your excuse or reason for being here then?”
Boredom mostly, when my clients don’t show up for their appointments. Also the footy forums are very quiet at the moment.
31 October, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Also I’m quite fond of some of the posters here, and I like watching Mighty Matt’s attempts to prove he’s not Mighty Matt. But when it gets too concerned about taking issue with Bolt and his dopey followers, it loses me a bit. They just don’t seem worth it. It’s more fun just to laugh at them, and probably more effective in limiting their influence (which is probably minimal anyway).
31 October, 2008 at 12:34 pm
“Reuben van Bemmel
31 October, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Bless ‘em, the poor things are struggling to support the unsupportable. Bolt might as well advocate for cannibalism in the school curriculum.”
Don’t even suggest it. He’s bound to get support for it.
31 October, 2008 at 12:45 pm
They’re going to have to cut their losses on this whole Palin thing. The women is a peanut that shouldn’t be within a million miles of the Presidency. The stalwart but sensible republicans can see this too.
McCain was always going to find it difficult to win this election and in many ways he is a respectable guy, but as one rusted on Republican on Dateline succinctly articulated the other night, how dare he select Palin as his running mate and potential successor for the Presidency, particularly given his age and health issues. The Republican power brokers behind this decision have ignored the fact that their ultimate responsibility should be about presenting a candidate that would be healthy for the nation, not too simply winning an election for their team. The also need to think about their responsibility to the world as well.
31 October, 2008 at 12:47 pm
“They just don’t seem worth it. It’s more fun just to laugh at them, and probably more effective in limiting their influence (which is probably minimal anyway).”
That’s probably true.
31 October, 2008 at 12:48 pm
“They also need to think about their responsibility to the world as well.”
Heresy!
31 October, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Here’s an interesting quote from a former friend/colleague of Palin’s that I think Tim Blair would find interesting:
“The animosity became public last January, when Palin turned up on an Anchorage shock-jock radio program, ‘The Bob and Mark Show.’ Bob Lester said that he knew Palin believed Green was ‘a bitch’ and ‘a cancer.’ Palin laughed at the comments. ‘Sarah can be heard in the background tittering, hee-heeing,’ Green said, ‘never saying, ‘That’s not appropriate, let’s not talk like that, let’s change the subject,’ or anything.’ Green was devastated. ‘I worked through it,’ she said. ‘The difficult thing about it was when my children read about it online. They were dumbfounded, because they had known Sarah. I had breast cancer in ’97 and had a radical mastectomy. Sarah certainly knew I had breast cancer, because she sent me flowers when I was ill.
The comments relate to Alaskan State Senate President Lyda Green (a fellow Wasilla conservative who made the error of deciding not to endorse Palin in her 2006 gubernatorial primary).
Given Tim’s newfound sensitivity to any jokes made about cancer – particularly those made at the expense of a cancer sufferer – I wonder if he will condemn Palin as a vile hater for her behaviour in this episode?
I’m thinking not . . .
31 October, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Great find Mondo.
Let’s hope Jeremy can ask Timmeh his thoughts on it. The Werribee Labourer seems to only like replying to his archnemesis…
31 October, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Maybe if Tim gets wind of this it will be a watershed moment too see if he really has grown up at all and gotten more circumspect since his own experience. And condemn what ought to be condemned regardless of ideological allegiances.
Although I don’t like to resort to insults of those with whom I disagree politically, behaviour like this from Palin probably makes me lean more towards Rob J’s description of her, rather than one which sees her as simply a good, but ignorant and misguided woman.
The moose-killer looks worse and worse as every day passes.
31 October, 2008 at 1:05 pm
I wonder if he will condemn Palin as a vile hater for her behaviour in this episode?
I think not too. But, more because he’d be making a very tenuous link by doing so. For one, she didn’t make the comment; and, secondly, it’s decidedly unclear whether the “a cancer” comment is linked to *the* cancer.
Whatever Palin is, I doubt she’s the type to mock anyone or take advantage of someone’s having had cancer, even for revenge – and I’m not suggesting that you’re saying she is, Mondo.
As I’ve said before, I hate this type of politicking whichever side it comes from.
31 October, 2008 at 1:13 pm
But, more because he’d be making a very tenuous link by doing so.
Funny – he was perfectly willing to make that tenuous link in relation to the extremely analogous ‘Grodscast’ episode.
If, instead of Palin, the report revealed that Obama had laughed at a cancer sufferer being referred to as ‘a cancer’ do you think Tim would consider it too ‘tenuous’ to comment?
31 October, 2008 at 1:17 pm
I understood you were making a point about TB’s hypocrisy, Mondo. And the point is taken. And therefore the answer to the last question is clearly: no.
31 October, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Whatever Palin is, I doubt she’s the type to mock anyone or take advantage of someone’s having had cancer, even for revenge
The above quote doesn’t suggest either of those things – it suggests that Palin was happy to laugh at a cancer surviving former friend being described as “a cancer”. All this episode shows, in my view, is that Palin is immature.
31 October, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Well, if being happy to laugh at a cancer surviving former friend being described as “a cancer”. doesn’t fall into the category of mockery, I don’t know what does.
The only point I’m making is that, it’s easy to twist an event like this into something that it never was for political point-scoring. I suspect Palin was actually sniggering at what was probably a reference to their falling out and the bitchiness between them.
31 October, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Well, if being happy to laugh at a cancer surviving former friend being described as “a cancer”. doesn’t fall into the category of mockery, I don’t know what does.
If you really believe that Dean then how can you argue that Palin is not “the type to mock anyone or take advantage of someone’s having had cancer”?
Unless you think the report is factually innacurate (which I freely admit it very well could be) then your own reasoning must conclude that Palin was doing exactly what you claim she’s unlikely to have done.
If you’re doubting the accuracy of the report then what are you basing your doubts on – your knowledge of Sarah Palin’s character? Just general skepticism of reporting during an election?
31 October, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Mondo,
My scepticism is based on the fact that there is another conclusion that might be reached other than that Palin was laughing at a cancer surviving former friend being described as “a cancer”.
As I said, one could equally draw the conclusion that Palin was actually sniggering at what was probably a reference to their falling out and the bitchiness between them.
It could certainly be argued that she was insensitive for not recognising that the use of such a phrase could be hurtful but you can’t say for sure that Palin herself was purposely indulging in such insenstivity…or mockery.
I haven’t looked into it further. I’m just saying, on the strength of your excerpt alone, there’s not enough to determine one way or the other.
31 October, 2008 at 2:53 pm
I know if everyone stopped reading it it would undermine this site’s raison d’etre, but why would you bother?
Bad Bob, I’d be more than happy to abandon this site if that happened. With no regrets whatsoever.
31 October, 2008 at 2:57 pm
If you did, Jezza, then I’d have nowhere to blog during work hours!!
Which would probably be a good thing actually . . .
31 October, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Yeah, wouldn’t it be great if those guys would just wither and die from lack of attention? I do worry, though, that they thrive on our attention, not just that of their fans.
31 October, 2008 at 3:44 pm
That’s why it’s important to keep referring to them with pertinent titles like‘The Professional Idiot’ in the very slim chance of bruising their gargantuan egos…
31 October, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Perish the thought Jeremy, it might mean that I would actually have to do some work…
I know we haven’t always agreed on things, but surely you wouldn’t wish that on me….
31 October, 2008 at 5:51 pm
“The Professional Idiot” is an appropriate title for Bolt. Sums up what he is and what he does nicely.
Basically anybody with half a brain could do Bolt’s job.
He just serves up the lowest common denominator stuff that his loyal audience wants to hear, and if he didn’t exist, somebody else would just do what he does.
Opinionists like Bolt will always exist in out society because the type of people who want to hear the sort of stuff that he produces will always exist within our society.
Blair doesn’t really seem to have any relevance at all now, probably because his audience, typically more extreme versions of Boltists, aren’t really allowed to unleash their vile racism, threats of violence and bigotry anymore.
1 November, 2008 at 12:02 am
DeanL, I think you’re absolutely right in condemning the “politicking” that is happening within this Presidential contest.
However, I can’t possibly understand how it is that there is almost no consideration given to the actual political history of the Republican candidates.
We have all kinds of info about how Obama, wisely or unwisely, innocently or purposefully, associated with radicals in the youth of his career, yet we hear nothing of the historical and recent determined association of Palin with fundamentalist Alaskan seperatists.
(Big props to Dave Neiwert, a fair and principled journalist, who appears in the video link.)
These people hate America so much they want to secede from it , and yet they form the power base of the ersatz President of the USA.
Equally, we have John McCain who is happy to “bomb, bomb Iran” in an effort to ‘democratise’ the Middle East, yet is more than happy to have cordial meetings (declassified PDF.) with the most notorious dictator in Latin American history.
Indeed, we should forget about politicking and concentrate on the politics.
But, unfortunately, that’s not America and that’s not part of the American Political Roadshow.
Cheers.
1 November, 2008 at 9:27 am
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/31/palin-first-amendment/
The above link is Palin whingeing about the media coverage of her:
““then I don’t know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media.””
Does she not realise that the first amendment is allowing her to say what she wants and allowing the media to correctly call her out for doing so?
Is she an idiot or totally dishonest? I pick both…
1 November, 2008 at 10:20 am
my 2 cents on the “sick bitch”. palin used her baby as a campaign prop to show she against abortion. that’s sick. when she was mayor in wassilla she demanded an opponent provide a marriage certificate because the woman didn’t use her husband surname and therefore palin didn’t believe she was really married. palin immaturely targetted people on council for not toeing her line. if the cancer giggling is true then she’s a vindictive, spiteful person. in other words a bitch.
1 November, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Bloody good stuff Marek.
Some more details available on ‘crooks and liar’s’ with links to transcripts of meetings and such.
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/what-palins-radical-right-dalliances
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/palins-fringe-elements
1 November, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Yeah sod it, It wasn’t too harsh, I mean what if I said Pol Pot* was a sick bastard, one could easily counter with, he’s wasn’t sick, he was wrong but believed in what he was doing.
* Pol Pot used as an example for fear of invoking Godwin’s Law.
Palin apparently opposes freedom of speech to add to all the other things that make her an utterly inappropriate candidate for VP…
1 November, 2008 at 7:46 pm
You think they guys are spouting hilarious bollocks now, wait until Obama becomes President.
Their likely criticisms during his initial days in office will be:
– His inaugeration speech was 7 minutes long, he loves being on T.V more than Kevin Rudd.
– He’s been the president for an entire day now and the world is still in a financial crisis. Those gullible lefties thought he would save them!
– He’s spoken to the leaders of Pakistan, China, Russia and a bunch of south American countries. He has stopped fighting the ‘axis of evil’ and now their boats will land on the shoreline of any westernised nation any day now.
– He ate Spagetti Bolognase for his first presidential dinner, … He obviously sympathises with those anti-american Europeans. He could have chosen something more American like Hot Dogs.
1 November, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Correction: “You think these guys…”
2 November, 2008 at 8:03 am
“You think they guys are spouting hilarious bollocks now, wait until Obama becomes President.”
You’re right, they’re idiots, I’m starting to think that posting about them here is an exercise in utter futility, they are so idiotic (many of them) it’s not like they’re ever going to be persuaded that Bolt is a clown ( a nasty clown at that).
I think I’ll have to find myself a blog where current issues can be discussed/debated.
I guess it’s back to the Soap Box for me, pitty though, that requires a subscription… But it might be worth it. I’ve got opinions and I love spouting them… I enjoy having my opinions and beliefs challenged, sometimes they change as a result. Boltards fail miserably in challenging my views/posts.
3 November, 2008 at 10:31 am
Hello Marek,
I’m not sure that there’s much mileage in trying to criticise McCain for meeting Pinochet, it’s normal practice for a Government to send representatives to meet other leaders in it’s region – it’s part of a congressman’s job.
I read the PDF, and it doesn’t seem to me that McCain was particularly impressed by Pinochet and there’s nothing in it to suggest that he gave him any promises of support.
All in all, I reckon there’s plenty of things to criticise McCain for, but a meeting with Pinochet 22 years ago is not one of them.
Palin’s husband’s political activities and her position on them, are however, very interesting…I’d love to get an honest answer on her thoughts on Alaska’s secession.
3 November, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Hey GavinM,
Yeah, you’re right.
I was just trying to play the neo-con game of smear by association with that Pinochet thingy.
Though, how hysterical would the Repubs be if Senator Obama had visited Mugabe or Ahmedinejad?
Speaking of hysterical.
Some bigots are so absorbed by their own hatred that they’ll clutch at any straw available in order to smear Obama, including the assertion that he paid for his house using Saddam Hussein’s money.
I think somebody forgot to take their tablets!
5 November, 2008 at 10:53 am
Hi Marek,
Some of the stuff that’s going on re Obama is just so far over the scale of looney that I don’t even know what to call it any more….It’s just unbelievable…
Stay tuned, I reckon he’s going to be blamed for 9/11 next…
Comments are closed.