If Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin have ties to some scary people you should be afraid, very afraid. You need to parse every word they have ever uttered to ensure that they are not using dog whistles. You need to monitor evangelicals for words of praise for either Hillary or Sarah, because if a scary person says something nice about either of them it is proof--proof!--that those two scary women want to incorporate a dangerous religious doctrine into the public sphere.
Obama, on the other hand doesn't need to rely on subtle dog-whistles that most ignorant people won't "recognize". He can launch something called "The Joshua Project". You know, the same Joshua who took the "chosen people" into the "promise land"? No subtlety there at all, but you need not be afraid of this because we like Obama. Nor should you be afraid that Obama is parading around a person trying to pass the latest California anti-gay marriage initiative to amend their constitution and who says this:
The California ballot initiative intended to set aside the state Supreme Court's judicial invention of same-sex marriage deserves public support. Maybe it is enough to say, as many do in conversation, that it merely re-secures a millennia of tradition and common sense. The initiative will restore to the people what was wrongfully taken from them: the right of self-governance and respect for the marital institution.
Yup, preventing same sex marriage is just good ol' fashion "common sense". Its perfectly fine for a Democrat to legitimize this point of view under the guise of "sitting down with those who disagree with us". Its even OK to legitimize "ex-gays" while pushing aside their "still-gay"* peers. That's acceptable because we like Obama. It doesn't matter that he is personally interjecting out of date religious views into his campaign and by extension, the state. Because he does it in broad daylight without dog whistles its fine.
Its all well and good to embark on a Mulder-esque search for something, but in looking at all these little, subtle ties to extremists, you can miss the blatantly obvious hitting you in the freakin' face. The blatancy of Obama's actions, with such little comment should be of concern, no? If someone has to hide their ties and send crazy dogwhistles that only some will "get" are they more dangerous than someone who flaunts the crashing down of the Jericho walls that separate church and state?
* I put "ex-gay" and "still gay" in quotes for a reason for the same reason I'd put "ex-heterosexual" and "still heterosexual" in quotes.
NOTE: I'm not discrediting the danger of certain religious groups. I just find certain attempts to link any and everything to either Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin because we oppose the two to be counterproductive and a bit off the mark. You can find "hidden dog whistles" in anything your heart desires.
- gqmartinez's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
there's far more evidence of him acting
in accordance with his own and his Christian supporters' beliefs than Palin doing so. We've seen it over and over and over during the campaign.
McCain and Palin haven't used "Committed to Christ" mailers everywhere. They haven't sponsored gospel tours and ex-gay emcees and asses like Kmiec, etc...
gqm...
If you look at dogemperor's oeuvre you'll see he is, to coin a phrase, party invariant on this matter. As am I.
And yes, "Joshua generation" gives me the creeps, even as verbiage. Shouldn't it?
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Nebulous ties
are nebulous ties, IMO. If your premise is that Sarah Palin is scary, you'll find stuff to prove your point.
The point of the posts you reference seems to me to be aimed at taking down specific political opponents, rather than a strict educational piece on dominionism. That is the antithesis of party invariance. This same person tried to tarnish Hillary with these same types of posts. There appears to be a pattern here.
Well, when the fastball comes right over the middle of the plate
... if you want to argue against "nebulous ties," then the way to do that is probably not with "appears to be a pattern," eh?
Not sure I understand party invariance, from your comment: Should no individual ever be mentioned? How would we talk about Republican animal abuse, which I have documented extensively, without ever getting down to cases? Or is any material that gets down to cases ruled out, and if so, why? (Serious
question.)
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
"called to Christ" --
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsm...
Party Invariate
Would include Obama's kissing the ring at Saddleback, who advised he do it and what it portends. Since Obama is the Democratic selectee as Presidential candidate and strongly favored to win, we should be closely examining his dominionist ties as well, if not more so than Sarah Palin who is not favored to win and is merely a vice presidential candidate, no?
-----------------------------
Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites
-----------------------------
Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites
Examine all ties.
yes.
But also: don't build cases around a pre-set narrative with the sole purpose of helping Obama win. That may not be the goal, but the weak arguments put forth to paint Palin as a scary dominionist (notice how we *have* to say she is in the closet because their strategy is to have "stealth" candidates, something that cannot really be refuted) seem more pro-Obama driven than anything else. That is not what I would consider party invariance.
Sure there were attacks against both Hillary and Palin, but the common denominator is that the lame evidence put forth to scare us is to the benefit of Barack Obama. The point of my post wasn't really to go after Obama, it was to challenge the weak 2nd, 3rd degree associations that "tie" Hillary or Palin to dominionist take-overs. The fact that Hillary and Palin have to be "stealth" dominionists while Obama is free to flaunt whatever he wants is a double standard that I'm critiquing. There are crazies who have "proven" George Soros is on some evil plot, along with Obama, to take over the world that I don't find convincing either.
Cog Dis pt. 2
Who could ever forget this scary picture/story?
Scary, scary, scary, scary!!!!!
Dogemporer, get on this story! Do we really want this person to have their finger on "The Button"?
Vote your fear!
-----------------------------
Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites
-----------------------------
Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites
stealth candidates
takes a little patience and persistence on the part of the reader, but dogemperor links to actual sources quoting the dominionists themselves talking about using a stealth strategy to keep the rest of us from realizing what they're up to.
i deeply resent obama's focus on religion and expanding its role in politics and government, but 2 things --
-- i'm guessing his joshua project is aimed at wooing moderate [non-dominionist] evangelicals. once upon a time, they were democrats;
-- for basically all the time that black folks have been here on the north american continent, their only source of social cohesion and welfare has been the church; it's not like they've ever been given a lot of reason to trust the government.
don't know about where you live, but most of the black churches i've been to are rather conservative on matters of sex. they don't approve of abortion, homosexuality, sex outside of marriage, you name it, so kmeic, much as i wish he'd stfu, is in tune with them.
I've Asked This Before...
But how is this any different from the "Obama is a secret (fill in name of scary religious organization)?" I think we are owed an answer to that. That was trash 'researching' and this is equally trash 'researching.'
No, it isn't
How is quoting the Dominionist sources themselves "trash research?"
This is how these guys communicate. This is their language. If we want to be aware of them, we have to learn it. This is not at all the same as the "Hussein" emails.
The comment's weak, and the post is weak. Here's the nub:
And so what? Here's the logic.
1. Some dog whistles are the result of projection.
2. There are no real dogwhistles.
If you want to take down dogemperor's work, you're going to need stronger reasoning than that.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
That's not the logic and you know it
I'm pointing out that much of the dogwhistles come from people other than Palin (or Hillary). These dog whistles may or may not be real, but that's not the point. The point is that the evidence is unconvincing that *Palin* is this stealth candidate, much as the evidence leveled against Hillary (by the the same person, mind you) was unconvincing. I use Obama because he is directly responsible for his actions and, er, dog whistles (?) While Palin *and* Hillary are mostly being judged by others' actions and comments.
I raise a question about why these scare pieces from this *same person*, using the *same tactics* seem to benefit Obama.
If you want to strawman that, feel free to do so. But from my vantage point, the *possibility* that Palin (or Hillary) is a dominionist and the fear that causes is leading to subpar posting. *Possible* connections are used in place of actual influencing connections or evidence of guilt.
"seem" to benefit obama?
i suppose you could always ask outright -- "yo, dog-e, i notice your posts, while casting aspersions on hillary clinton and sarah palin, seem to benefit obama. do you see obama as a dominionist? why or why not?"
Proliferating straw men
I'm with hipparchia; some of the information is useful. And the detractors seem unwilling to ever confront and take down the actual posts with actual analysis; rather, the focus is on stylistics -- this post is "like" LJ in some vaguely asserted fashion. Or the focus is on the purported effect (benefit Obama).
As for the logic, no, that's exactly my understanding. I may be wrong, but I do not "know it."
And I certainly can't make head or tail of this:
I don't know. What's the answer?
And speaking of straw men, you write:
Well, here's the thesis of the current post:
Obviously, "being used by" is not at all the same as "stealth candidate" (which was my initial characterization; perhaps wrong.)
If you want to do the takedown, do the takedown. But the endless kvetching? Feh.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Have you read the No Quarter 'research'?
...on the whole Obama's a secret ________? It's sourced and cited in the same way. How is this different? I only question this, because this blog was much better than this type of stuff. This is reputation-degrading stuff, but maybe I'll save my concern for someone who cares. If you're not going to worry about it, than I won't, publically, but things are really starting to take a downward curve, here. I don't really care what dogemporer has to post; I do care that you seemed unconcerned with what it's doing to the place (i.e. not adding anything of value).
Then I suggest you do the work and add the value
by making the comparison and doing the takedown. "Sourced and cited" "in the same way" doesn't cut it.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
no quarter 'research' -- *barf*
yeah, i've read it, even spent some time elsewhere on the web debunking some of it.
i don't know about where you live, but where i live, the dominionists are pretty numerous, and becoming more active. while i don't agree with all of dogemperor's analyses, i've found a number of the quoted sources to be quite useful.
We Shouldn't Have To.
You're the ruler, here, with the judgement. Good judgement would have stopped this at the gate, or at least stopped it once it got into the gate.
I'm no one, here. It's obvious that my concerns and feedback, whether right here on the blog of via email, don't mean a lick. I know that. I am worried about all of the other great contributors, here, who've provided for a great, informative blog, though. Answering the likes of Kos and No Quarter with Kos and No Quater-styled material is not the answer and reflects badly on all
I was drawn, here, because of the rather high-quality of discourse, a relatively low tolerance for bullshit (like this), and a leadership who seemed to display rather good judgement. No, we shouldn't have to offer up take-downs for obvious trash, even though many have offered just that. I am bitterly disappointed in your moderation, specifically. Fortunately for the blog, you've got a lot of great contributors, here, who are worth coming back for.
Then the remedy is simple
1. Give me up as a lost cause, and then you will no longer be disappointed.
2. "Take what you like and leave the rest" (i.e., skip posts by authors you don't like, and read posts by authors that you do like).
It's 1:00AM in the morning here, so with that, I am going to bed.
NOTE Of course the filter doesn't catch Fuck
. We say that all the time. But no time for meta.
UPDATE Whatever I am here, it's not a ruler.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Fuck
I know very well that the filter doesn't catch 'fuck', or else I wouldn't have typed it.
EDIT: Obviously, not.
I thought obama supported of same sex marriage in CA
Isn't this a change from his previous position?
no--he doesn't.
he only believes there shouldn't be amendments about it--he believes marriage should only be between a man and a woman--just like McCain.
Proving Negatives
.
If you are not the ruler
then why do you act like one?
When you banned myiq2xu and I complained you said that was your arbitrary right, and if I didn't like it I could fuck off. And that I was flirting with getting banned too.
I found out you banned other people, too. I asked for a general discussion about who and why anyone would be banned and you said that required a meta discussion and since the country was currently in its death throes, you weren't going there.
Well, I guess we've all died and gone to heaven, because we're still here. So I say it again...how can you silence a voice that is reasoned, rational, articulate, well sourced...and even progressive, and then turn around and feed us dogfood? Yecchhh. (FYI - that's worse than feh.)
I came in with the same freshman class as DamonMI so what he said about himself goes for me (though I've probably managed to offend more people than he). I'm no one here, too. But before I get banned myself I will say OUT LOUD: when you start banning people arbitrarily, everyone here from the lowliest creature right up to the Senior Fellows of The Mighty Corrente Building, are done a profound disservice. And you descend to the level of the cheetoh and wkjm.
I say invite them back in and stop banning people arbitrarily (even if you have to change the rules around here), or let everyone participate in the decision. In my opinion, banning should be outright banned. It is rude and egotistical and anything but a Progressive thing to do. It cheats everyone here.
And what the fuck is party invariance?
note: I still love you Lambert. Even though you're a despot.
The Problem
Isn't that he bans, he can do that for whatever reason he chooses, but that he wants to play a passive, lowly character when he runs the site, but is anything but. You can't be "everbody's friend" and a harsh ruler, too, or else he looses all types of credibility. He tolerates pure, unadulterated bullshit from the worst of us, here, and offers them dignified responses (when no such thing are deserved by the bullshitters), but passively dismisses the legitimate feedback from his base, his constructive (as opposed to destructive) members.
There is something wrong when the consummate bullshitters are given more deference than the constructive members of the blog. Really, he can ban to his hearts content. In fact, if he had the balls to do it, he'd ban me for calling him on the carpet (and I hope he regrets greenlighting my account, now). But, if he is going to ban people like myiq2xu and passively accept the resignation of constructive members like FrenchDoc while the consummate bullshitters get tersely-worded, but dignified rebuttals, I don't think he is who I thought he was, and hopefully, brilliant minds like VastLeft can pick up where he is obviously so deficient and absent in true leadership.
If your leadership consists of decisions such as banning myiq2xu, but allowing to continue without so much as a love-tap the consummate bullshitters (and you know who you all are), than you're judgement is crap. It's a good thing this is a collaborative effort, otherwise this would be an utterly lost cause. Progressive Blogosphere, my @ss. In order to have such a thing, you need sound leadership and judgement. I don't ever want to here anyone else rail against the leadership at Kos or anywhere else; not ever.
Those of you able to start threads would be wise to start filling in where there are deficiencies in leadership, and I thank gqmartinez for this post doing just that.
Hell, yes, posters. I'm asking you to get in where you fit in, if you know what I'm talking about. You know how you deal with passive-aggressiveness? You roll it the fuck back with assertiveness.
I disagree brother Damon
banning is ridiculous on a progressive site, with the sole exception being obvious troublemakers who are only trying to disrupt the discussion. Unless you want to name your site The Hypocritical Progressive, in which case banning would be appropriate; but then you could call yourself KOSII, also. The squirrely point is then who decides what's disruptive. A set of standards should be developed by majority assent.
When you consider those who were banned (like myiq2xu) and those who were forced to leave (like Frenchdoc) - hugely outstanding contributors both - how can anyone here who cares about this site and PB 2.0, remain sanguine?
THIS IS A BIG PROBLEM, PEOPLE. UNLESS DOING A CIRCLE JERK IS YOUR IDEA OF PB 2.0, in which case you'll have your own sticky fingers to blame for PB 2.0's failure to achieve any relevance or magnitude at all.
Note, I have another point of disagreement with my brother from the Wolverine State. Regardless of what goes down here, railing against Kos remains appropriate. The dick head's candidate is going to win and be in office for at least 4 years. He is already an insufferable asshole. (...choose whichever 'he' you want here. Or both for that matter.) Criticism of his views and methods will remain both appropriate and necessary because someones somewhere at all times have to reflect the greater truth...that ends do not ever justify the means. If we lose our humanity in the process, Progressives can 'win' ad infinitum and still 'lose.' And false gods and profits (spelling intentional) will not lead us to the promised land.
Note: my calling another an insufferable asshole might be considered a classic case of "throwing stones...and glass houses, etc." The one distinction being, however, that he influences many and I influence few (I may be overstating my own influence, but cut me some slack).
I couldn't agree with you more
on "... the exception being obvious troublemakers who are only trying to disrupt the discussion" (and I would add "... and then play innocent with the moderator").
Maybe when the new site is up (shortly) and I have installed better tools, I can turn site moderation over to a group, so I don't have to invest so much time in it. Volunteers for doing some work?
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Banning
I don't expect websites to be democratic, in general, to be honest, which is why I'm under no illusions about that aspect of moderating. However, I would expect that if he's to treat the truly constructive members, here, like crap, he'd at least show some of the same to the oh-so-obvious shit-stirring trolls (YES, T R O L L S) the same kind of business. To treat a troll better than a constructive member is unconscionable, and warrants something more passionate than a "hmmm...maybe, I should see about creating a moderation staff and rules." That's studying to assess whether there is a problem, when their clearly is one. It's yet another passive, dare I say Obamic, move. We're pouring it out, here, and laying everything on the line and we still get an anemic, dispassionate response.
Again, the problem is not being honest about one's role, and not accepting responsibility for the actions on your website. If you don't want to lead, then close this shit down, already. Game over. It's about playing the lowly manager (i.e. always playing the self-deprication game), and then playing the evil genius behind the curtain. He needs to pick a damned side, already.
As for Kos, my reaction was pure frustration. It was a reaction to the bitter criticism of Daily Kos' leadership and moderating all the while playing at the equally damaging end of the moderation spectrum. No, I really don't want to hear leadership/fellow members bitch about Kos if their going to allow this board's trolls run roughshod over its positively constructive members. No, I'm not going to be outraged at process when it comes to the Democratic primaries, but then lose the outrage over process when it comes to the effective running of this blog. No, I'm not going to sit back and watch while constructive members are tossed or effectively forced out, and the trolls given undeserved deference.
This Laissez-faire leadership style is killing this blog, and there are too many excellent contributors to let it fail.
As for dogemperor, my problem is the hit-and-run shit he/she is allowed to get away with. dogemperor very rarely comes back to his/her threads. That is the very definition of hit-and-run trolling, and it continues to be condoned and endorsed. Given that I don't want to vote, this year, anyway, this is the kind of shit that will push me towards voting for the Republican. I need a reason to vote, this year, and this shit 'research' is a motivation.
An obvious troublemaker
isn't someone who just disagrees with you, Lambert. And you might tend to play innocent with the moderator if:
1. you ARE innocent
2. the moderator plays innocent with YOU.
You are so fucking judgmental in that statement. Who are you - fucking god? Yeah, yeah, yeah - here you ARE god. Right? If you say right - you're a prick, and I don't mind saying it. An egotistical one. A lot like Moulitsas. Or maybe you're trying to emulate the haughty one himself? - BTD. Don't go there. Remember he's an A and you're a C. He can afford to lose 'em. You can't.
Here, either we're all Gods, or no one is. Or this place isn't worth shit. Call it Lambert's blog, then OK, it's yours. But this place depends on its commentors to be engaged and passionate for its life's breath. If you want to attract excellent discourse and brilliant thinkers, if you want to ASSOCIATE with them, you're going to have to give up the god thing. and especially for the sake of PB 2.0.
Just for tits and giggles let's try defining what kind of person does get banned... someone who throws gratuitous wrenches into the gears, or a conservative or Republican whose only purpose is to throw mud and acid into everyone else's eyes so nothing constructive gets discussed. myiq2xu simply had a difference of opinion with you, and kept pushing it. And it happened to be that Obama's association with Bill Ayers (or Willie, as his close friends and CNN call him) was a significant factor and should be brought to light. And you had a disagreement of opinion. But it turns out - he was right. And that issue should have been brought to light sooner than it has.
If you can continue forcing dogemperor's poo down everyone's throat here, you got a lot to answer for for banning myiq2xu, who is an obviously bright and caring progressive mind. Can you state publicly - what was your rationale? For the life of me, having read a whole shitload of his writings, I can't imagine that you of all people would have have tried to shut him down. Why'd you do it? I'm willing to bet that, unlike a god, you were very human. And it came down to egos. Honestly brother. Get over it. You're way bigger than that. Way.
Damon - vote Republican. This bullshit that your hands will be dirtied for life if you cross over is a crock. I voted Republican once before for John Lindsey when he ran for Mayor of NY, because the Democrat he ran against was an absolute total asshole. I hated him. Lindsey was a great mayor, and I lived to vote straight Democratic for several decades hence. Long enough to live to vote Republican at least one more time. I don't know where this party is going, but it's been straight downhill (overtly at least, perhaps longer covertly) since 2006. Anyone who votes Democratic this year, knowing what they know about the methods and character of the ticket, are justifying their actions, and voting for more in the future. That's exactly what you're voting for - more of the same. And you will get it - and deserve it. The one dimensional omigodmccain's the devil bullshit is, well -- bullshit. He's got more and higher character than Obama and that's undeniable. And he will cross over to do the right thing. The HOLC thing is just one example. If he just got into office (it ain't a gonna happen, I know) and no longer had to kowtow to the Republican fucking asshole base, he'd really break out in ways we haven't seen him do since 2001. But one thing is for sure - the right thing will never ever sully the oh so pensive brow of Mr. Obamacrat. Never.
Just to be clear...
At this moment, neither Obama nor McCain will be getting my vote. That's where we're really going to have to split ways. For as underserving as Obama is of my vote for oh-so-obvious reasons past, presetn, and future, McCain's two-bit, all-over-the-map campaign is far from deserving, itself. And, all of this nativist-tinged bullshit from Palin on the stump in the last few days is utterly gag-worthy. I am through with those talking points molded around small town mythology and people like 'us' (hockey moms and snowmobilers). If they were really mavericks they'd plan a rally or two in downtown Detroit or San Francisco and reach outside their comfort zones. They'd really have to be two exceptional Republicans to get my vote, and even if one or both of them are, they are running away from winning my vote.