The incomparable Somerby writes:
LIBERALS MARCH TO WAR: In the Post, Shailagh Murray writes about Obama’s pledge to fight back hard. But honest to God. You just have to shake your heads at the way the liberal world plays this game. Our side is simply astounding:
MURRAY (8/19/08): Writing for the online Democratic Strategist, party communications consultant James Vega outlined a character attack that Obama could pick up. He said McCain has become "a pale, diminished shadow" of his former self, so desperate to win the election that he has sacrificed "his deepest principles and his personal honor" and allowed "men he once despised . . . to manipulate him."
"McCain is actually profoundly vulnerable to a powerful, aggressive and damaging attack on his character," Vega concluded.
It’s just stunning. On our side, we start defining the other guy in mid-August, right before the election.
Here on planet Earth, McCain’s character has been getting defined quite relentlessly over the past nine years. Starting in the fall of 1999, major journalists turned him into a sanctified saint—a moral sun god returned to the earth. The sheer absurdity of their pandering was surely apparent to all. But so what? On our side, we start addressing this matter in 2008, less than three months before an election!
What's "stunning" about it? Isn't this the incompetence dodge? It's like the idea that when you're four, you've got the face you were born with, but when you're forty, you've got the face you've earned.
In other words, at some point, doesn't it make sense to think that the Democrats are the way they are because they prefer to be that way?
It's exactly like Reid, Pelosi, and Obama's FISA abomination. I don't see that vote as a "cave" at all, because so far as I can tell, there's no reason to cave to Mr. 28% and everybody who's ever dealt with a phone bill hates the telcos. The Democratic Party leadership is voting affirmatively for -- is actively choosing -- a vision of the country that doesn't include Constitutional government or the rule of law.
So, if the Dems win the Presidency and majorities in both houses of Congress by being exactly what they want to be, how is that "incompetent"? From their perspective, everything's jake with the angels. Sure, the new war in Afghanistan Obama's pushing is going to cost a boatload, but the money will go to the right people, and anyhow, how many Afghanis know how to fly airplanes into buildings? And sure, a clutch of little people are going to suffer and die without universal health care, but hey, they're all "old coalition" losers and whiners that got thrown under the bus ages ago. And hey, Charlie, a Republican crossed -- heck, erased -- the aisle yesterday and underwrote the Democratic National Convention with a million dollar check. How's that for "incompetence"?
What could go wrong?
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
The difference...
between Democrats and Republicans is that Republicans don't talk about the opposition being "being vulnerable to attacks on his character", they attack his character and expose the vulnerability.
Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence
The third time it's enemy action.
------------------------------------------------
“When someone engages in divisive behavior, any resulting division is their responsibility” - Melissa McEwan
x
------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers
Wow.
This is a heart-stoppingly stunning post.
(PS: Which Republican wrote a million dollar check for what? I totally missed that story)
The million dollar check
Here. In the Times's regional section, which is why I almost missed 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
It sounds like this guy
defines "post-partisanship" all by himself.
I'd like to meet one politician who wouldn't reach across the aisle for a million bucks.
Pick either door, it's the same result
always the tiger, never the lady.
------------------------------------------------
“When someone engages in divisive behavior, any resulting division is their responsibility” - Melissa McEwan
x
------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers
Golisano's just protecting his interests--
we have no more statewide --or national-- NY Republicans in charge and pulling strings anymore. He was big with D'Amato and his puppet Pataki in the past, but they're all gone.
Afghan expansion=more billions for contractors --
Record number of US contractors in Iraq -- http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080818/ts_...
"... But the scale of the use of contractors in Iraq is unprecedented in US history, according to a new congressional report that may be the most thorough official account yet of the practice.
As of early 2008, at least 190,000 private personnel were working on US-funded projects in the Iraq theater, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) survey found. That means that for each uniformed member of the US military in the region, there was also a contract employee – a ratio of 1 to 1.
...The CBO estimates the total cost of these military contractor operations from 2003 through 2008 to be $100 billion. That's about 20 percent of all US funding for operations in Iraq.
Most of this money went for logistics support – food-service operation, fuel distribution, equipment maintenance, and procurement and property management.
Roughly $12 billion of the $100 billion total paid for private security contractors – the gun-toting guards of Blackwater and other paramilitary personnel providers.
..."
What Hillary ought to do with this...
... is a Truman Commission. Since she's placed at the Armed Services Committee, she's in a position to do so.
I love the idea of spending billions so Republican contractors can take a cut for trucking the Krispy-Kremes through a war zone (unless they're aidropped, of course).
[ ] 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
FInding info: I was googling for Obama's reported comment that
"Blackwater is getting a bad rap," and came across this apparently documented proof that some Denial of Service attacks came from 3 IP's assigned to Obama.
I have no idea who Pat Dollard is (seems to be from right blogistan somewhere), but came across this:
Does this add anything to the questions being asked a few weeks ago?
I don't think it adds a thing
It's a winger site (not that that means a whole lot these days) but there's no evidence for any of it. The originator says law enforcement was notified, but there's no evidence of that and no followup. The whole IP thing is a hall of mirrors thing anyhow, starting from the fact that the logs in the post could be faked, moving through the idea that the IP addresses could themselves have been hacked by a third party, moving on the the idea that they could have done the hacking themselves. Get verifiable quotes either from law enforcement or even the unnamed server company, and I'll listen. Otherwise, it's just standard winger mighty wurlitzer self-amplification, with the usual admixture of bully's martyrdom.
[ ] 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