Skip navigation

Category Archives: RIGHT AND LEFT

DAKOTA VOICE

RAPID CITY SD

YouTube Cooking the Books on Obama Worship Video?

By Bob Ellis on September 24th, 2009

If you’ve been around the internet for long, you know that Google is like most major media organizations today: liberal to the core.  They ignore patriotic holidays with their rotating search engine logos, conservative websites seem to have an unusually hard time getting good coverage in search rankings, and so on.

Maybe you also heard about the video of schoolchildren being led in a worshipful song about Barack Obama that was reminiscent of “Jesus Loves the Little Children.”  That video disappeared from YouTube earlier this morning…only to be replaced by someone who had the foresight to download a copy of it before it disappeared.

Now comes word from Selwyn Duke at RenewAmerica of some funny business with the viewership stats on this video at YouTube.

Duke said he checked the video himself and saw only 363 hits at 1:04 pm…while it had 2,279 comments.  What’s wrong with this picture?  Even touchy-feely liberal self-esteem-friendly math can’t seem to account for this.

So he tracked it further…

I tracked the video a bit myself. Now, remember that it had 363 hits at 1:04 p.m. Here’s what I found.

  • Approximately 1:25 p.m.: the video still supposedly had only 363 hits but had 2,500 comments.
  • 1:39 p.m.: still only 363 hits but 2,668 comments.
  • 2:16 p.m.: 363 hits but 3,018 comments.

You get the idea.

Yes, we do get the idea.

Is it just a glitch at YouTube? Or is it a clumsy but deliberate attempt by Leftist Google to keep the hit ranking of this video low so that it doesn’t make “Top Video” listings which would give it even more exposure?

Liberals feel a virtually irresistible compulsion to protect their Obamessiah from blasphemy or other negative comments, so it seems quite credible that Google doesn’t want the Obamessiah receiving any more negative exposure than he already is through this video.

It ain’t easy being a truth-teller in an age of liberal dominance…but it’s worth it all the same!

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

Subscribe to this feedDiscuss on NewsvineAdd to Mixx!Email thisTwit This!CrossFeed ThisSphere: Related ContentTechnorati LinksSave to del.icio.usDigg This! (3 Diggs)Share on FacebookStumble It!1 comment on this itemAdd to Windows Live FavoritesSubmit to RedditGoogle Bookmark ThisFark ItAdd to Yahoo MyWeb2Buzz Up!

Related Posts

WXRGina Today 05:58 PM

HA! Last night when I saw this video linked off of Drudge, I noticed the number of hits on it was very low, though I can’t remember the actual number, it was only a few hundred. I was thinking this video is on DRUDGE, and this hit-count can’t be right! I thought the same thing then that you and Selwyn are saying. I knew this would “hit the fan” today, and I’m not surprised You Tube tried to bury it. These evil maniacs on the left are unbridled in their fervor to protect Obamination’s image. But, it ain’t workin’! The horse is out of the barn!

Advertisements

sophia_sadek ([info]sophia_sadek) wrote,
@ 20081207 15:04:00

Break Time: Climbing the Conservative Ladder of Thought
The “conservative” intellect in America can be rated on a ladder of initiation. At the lowest rungs of the ladder, we find the people who are least initiated. As we go higher up the ladder, we find greater levels of initiation until we reach the top rungs of the ladder. There is value in considering some of the ways these dark energy luminaries operate.

At the base of the ladder, we encounter Ann Coulter who heaps coals on the heads of her less mature detractors by recounting their childish antics. One cannot help but sympathize with the poor creature’s plight and feel pity for the way she has been treated by her adversaries.

Conservatives at the top rung of the ladder would take umbrage at being associated with the princess of bigotry. She couldn’t possibly share the same values as they do. It is true that she embarrasses fellow travelers, but the infantile reaction against her does no justice to the anti-bigotry crowd.

Above her level, we come to the rungs occupied by the Jonah Goldbergs of conservative thought. Their level of initiation is greater because they tap into a wider body of evidence in order to promote hate and violence.

The next tier of rungs on the ladder have been established by Dinesh D’Souza. He taps into higher level conservative thinkers without making the mistake of understanding them. He serves as an intellectual filter for those below his level, shielding the lesser initiates from the brilliance at the top.

D’Souza’s alien childhood and his passage from the liberal side of the aisle to the conservative side, lends him an air of multicultural legitimacy. He exposes the imperfections of the liberal academy in a way that almost makes him seem to be the genuine article. One must sympathize with his struggle against bias. On the other hand, his self-contradiction on the support of both human rights and gay bashing make him an icon of vicious bigotry.

Above D’Souza, we encounter Sam Harris. His level of initiation takes him out of the morass of religious bigotry exemplified by D’Souza. He earns a spot on the “conservative” ladder because he advocates violence in reaction to the violent. He fails to see the irony in this standard self-contradiction.

In Defense of “The Rich”
Larry Elder
Thursday, October 09, 2008

So, what do “the rich” pay in federal income taxes? Nothing, right? That, at least, is what most people think. And Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama wants to raise the top marginal rate for “the rich” — known in some quarters as “job creators.”

A recent poll commissioned by Investor’s Business Daily asked, in effect, “What share do you think the rich pay?” Their findings? Most people are completely clueless about the amount the rich actually do pay.

First, the data. The top 5 percent (those making more than $153,542 — the group whose taxes Obama seeks to raise) pay 60 percent of all federal income taxes. The rich (aka the top 1 percent of income earners, those making more than $388,806 a year), according to the IRS, pay 40 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 1 percent’s taxes comprise 17 percent of the federal government’s revenue from all sources, including corporate taxes, excise taxes, social insurance and retirement receipts.

Now, what do people think the rich pay? The IBD/TIPP poll found that 36 percent of those polled thought the rich contribute 10 percent or less of all federal income taxes. Another 15 percent thought the rich pay between 10 and 20 percent, while another 10 percent thought the rich’s share is between 20 and 30 percent. In other words, most people thought the rich pay less — far less — than they actually do. Only 12 percent of those polled thought the rich pay more than 40 percent.

Let’s try this another way. A U.S. News & World Report blogger went to the Democratic National Convention in Denver and conducted an informal poll of 24 DNC delegates. He asked them, “What should ‘the rich’ pay in income taxes?” Half the respondents said “25 percent”; 25 percent said “20 percent”; 12 percent said “30 percent”; and another 12 percent said “35 percent.” The average DNC delegate wanted the rich to pay 25.6 percent, which is lower than what the rich pay now — both by share of taxes and by tax rate!

Thirty percent of American voters pay nothing — zero, zip, nada — in federal income taxes. And, not too surprisingly, compared with taxpaying voters, they are more likely to support spending that benefits them. The majority of the 30 percent who don’t pay federal income taxes agree with Obama’s $65 billion plan to institute taxpayer-funded universal health coverage. But the majority of the 70 percent who pay federal income taxes are opposed to Obama’s health care plan.

Non-taxpayers support Obama’s plans for increased tax deductions for lower-income Americans, along with higher overall tax rates levied against middle- and upper-income households. The majority of non-taxpayers (57 percent) also favor raising the individual income-tax rate for those in the highest bracket from 35 percent to 54 percent. And the majority (59 percent) favors raising Social Security taxes by 4 percent for any individual or business that makes at least $250,000.

Obama calls increasing taxes and giving them to the needy a matter of “neighborliness.” Vice presidential running mate Joe Biden calls it a matter of “patriotism.”

Yet when it comes to charitable giving, neither Obama (until recently) nor Biden feels sufficiently neighborly or patriotic to donate as much as does the average American household: 2 percent of their adjusted gross income.

Liberal families earn about 6 percent more than conservative families, yet conservative households donate about 30 percent more to charity than do liberal households. And conservatives give more than just to their own churches and other houses of worship. Conservatives, especially religious conservatives, give far more money and donate more of their time to nonreligious charitable causes than do liberals — especially secular liberals.

In 2007, President George W. Bush and his wife had an adjusted gross income of $923,807. They paid $221,635 in taxes, and donated $165,660 to charity — or 18 percent of their income. Vice President and Mrs. Cheney, in 2007, had a taxable income of $3.04 million. And they paid $602,651 in taxes, and donated $166,547 to charity — or 5.5 percent of their income.

Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, earned between $200,000 and $300,000 a year between 2000 and 2004, and they donated less than 1 percent to charity. When their income soared to $4.2 million in 2007, their charitable contributions went up to 5 percent.

Joe and Jill Biden, by contrast, made $319,853 and gave $995 to charity in 2007, or 0.3 percent of their income. And that was during the year Biden was running for president. Over the past 10 years, the Bidens earned $2,450,042 and gave $3,690 to charity — or 0.1 percent of their income.

So let’s sum up. The “compassionate” liberals — at least based on charitable giving — show less compassion than “hardhearted” conservatives. The rich pay more in income taxes than people think. Voters, clueless about the facts, want the rich to pay still more.

Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.


Return to the Article

Camp Followers

By Patrick Buchanan

Perhaps the only institution in America whose approval rating is beneath that of Congress is the media.

Both have won their reputations the hard way. They earned them.

Consider the fawning indulgence shown insider Joe Biden with the dripping contempt visited on outsider Sarah Palin.

Twice last weekend, Biden grimly warned at closed-door meetings that a great crisis is coming early in the term of President Obama:

“Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. … Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said … we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

A “generated crisis”? By whom? Moscow? Beijing? Teheran?

This is an astonishing statement from a chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee who has access to the same intelligence as George Bush. Joe was warning of a crisis like the Berlin Wall of July 1961, where JFK called for a tripling of the draft and ordered a call-up of reserves, or the missile crisis where U.S. pilots like John McCain were minutes away from bombing nuclear missile sites in Cuba and killing the Russians manning them.

Is Russia about to move on the Crimea? Is Israel about to launch air strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites? What is Joe talking about?

If one assumes Joe is a serious man, we have a right to know.

Instead, what we got was Obama’s airy dismissal of Joe’s words as a “rhetorical flourish” and a media — rather than demanding that Joe hold a press conference — acting as Obama surrogates parroting the talking points that Joe was just saying that new presidents always face tests.

Had John McCain made that hair-raising statement, he would have been accused of fear mongering about a new 9/11. The media would have run with the story rather than have smothered it.

Contrasting McCain with his hero, Joe declared a few weeks back, “When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and … said, ‘Look, here’s what happened.'”

Nice historical reference. Except when the market crashed in 1929, Hoover was president, and there was no television.

Can one imagine what the press would have done to Sarah Palin had she exhibited such ignorance of history. Or Dan Quayle?

Joe gets a pass because everybody likes Joe.

Fine. But Joe also has a record of 36 years in the Senate.

Has anyone ever asked Joe about his own and his party’s role in cutting off aid to South Vietnam, leading to the greatest strategic defeat in U.S. history and the Cambodian holocaust? Has anyone ever asked Joe about the role he and his party played in working to block Reagan’s deployment of Pershing missiles in Europe, and SDI, which Gorbachev concedes broke the Soviets and won the Cold War?

In the most crucial vote he ever cast — to give Bush a blank check for war in Iraq — Joe concedes he got it wrong.

Is Joe’s record of having been wrong on Vietnam, wrong in the Cold War, wrong on the Iraq War, less important than whether Sarah Palin tried to get fired a rogue-cop brother-in-law who Tasered her 10-year old nephew to “teach him a lesson”?

“I’ve forgotten more about foreign policy than most of my colleagues know,” says Joe humbly. Given his record, it is understandable Joe has forgotten so much of it.

Saturday, the New York Times did a takeout on Cindy McCain that delved back into her problem with prescription pills. Yet when Hillary’s campaign manager, Mark Penn, brought up Obama’s cocaine use on “Hardball,” he was savaged by folks for whom the Times is the gold standard.

The people apparently had a “right to know” of Bush’s old DUI arrest a week before the 2000 election, but no right to know about how and when Obama was engaged in the criminal use of cocaine.

The media cannot get enough of the “Saturday Night Live” impersonations of Palin as a bubblehead. News shows pick up the Tina Fey clips and run them and run them to the merriment of all.

Can one imagine “Saturday Night Live” doing weekly send-ups of Michelle Obama and her “I’ve never been proud” of my country, this “just downright mean” America, using a black comedienne to mimic and mock her voice and accent?

“Saturday Night Live” would be facing hate crime charges.

How do we know? When the New Yorker ran a cartoon of Michelle in an Angela-Davis afro with an AK-47 slung over her shoulder, New Yorker editors had to go on national television to swear they were not mocking Michelle, but the conservatives who have so caricatured Michelle and The Messiah.

Is there a media double standard? You betcha.

Copyright 2008, Creators Syndicate Inc.

Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/camp_followers.html at October 27, 2008 – 08:24:43 AM PDT

_uacct = “UA-31527-1”;
urchinTracker();

– Boycott The New York Times – http://boycottnyt.com

NY Times Attacks Border Security

By donfeder
October 22, 2008 <!– In Articles | No Comments –>

In a [1] story in today’s New York Times, the paper once again goes to bat for illegal immigration – this time by attacking a border fence in Friendship Park near San Diego.

Formerly, the Park “stood out as a spot where international neighbors [i.e., Mexicans in Mexico and Mexicans residing in the United States] can chat easily over the fence,” The Times gushes.

But now, the once-tattered chain-link fence is being replaced with a more formidable barrier, making it harder for cross-border socializing – a tragedy of unparalleled proportions, from The Times’ perspective. Read More »

“Angry,” Hostile Whites May Cost Democrats in “Racially Polarized” Mississippi
Southern-based reporter Adam Nossiter unloads his racial baggage on the state’s U.S. Senate race: “The numbers in this state — which has perhaps the most racially polarized electorate in the nation — do not favor the Democrat: whites, the majority, overwhelmingly vote Republican, and 85 percent of them voted for President Bush in 2004.”

Posted by: Clay Waters
10/17/2008 4:25:57 PM

On Friday afternoon, Southern-based reporter Adam Nossiter filed from Jackson, Mississippi (Times Watch’s hometown) on the trail of the U.S. Senate race between Democratic challenger Ronnie Musgrove and Republican incumbent Roger Wicker. Nossiter didn’t forget to pack his racial baggage for the trip:

As a Democrat running for the Senate in the Republican stronghold of Mississippi, Ronnie Musgrove faces a challenge that was summed up in the angry words of a middle-aged white voter doing business at the courthouse here this week.

“I wouldn’t vote for him if he was the last man on earth,” said Roger Case, an employee of a fire-extinguisher company, as Mr. Musgrove campaigned a few yards away. Blacks in the courthouse beamed at Mr. Musgrove, a lanky former governor; whites, mostly, looked the other way.

Mississippi has not elected a Democrat to an open Senate seat since 1947, but that is not stopping the Democratic Party from heavily financing a major effort here, one of a handful of states — including North Carolina, Minnesota and possibly Oregon — it thinks it can pull from Republicans this fall in a reach for the filibuster-proof 60-vote majority.

Nossiter stacked the deck of race cards by not breaking down the percentage of blacks that vote Democrat, only the percentage of whites that vote Republican.

The odds for a Democratic pickup, however, out of all the states in play, may be longest in Mississippi.

The numbers in this state — which has perhaps the most racially polarized electorate in the nation — do not favor the Democrat: whites, the majority, overwhelmingly vote Republican, and 85 percent of them voted for President Bush in 2004. Even if there is a record black turnout, Mr. Musgrove would have to get about 30 percent of the white vote to win. Nonetheless, analysts give Mr. Musgrove, a hill-country populist who championed education during his terms as governor and lieutenant governor, a better-than-passing chance, particularly as the credit squeeze penetrates even here.

And look at the sneaky way Nossiter conflated the now-disreputable Confederate flag with the state and U.S. flag.

Mr. Wicker is making sure the flag issue stays on voters’ minds, running a ubiquitous television advertisement this week saying Mr. Musgrove “tried to kill our state flag.” At the fish-fry rally for the Republican, an outsized flag, Confederate heraldry intact, presided over the room. On the highway into Jackson, billowing, gargantuan Mississippi and American flags fly over a giant banner promoting the McCain-Palin ticket.

Mr. Wicker is identifying himself with all three banners, a strategy to compensate for his unknown status outside his home precincts in the northern part of Mississippi, though he represented it over seven terms in Congress.

Later, Nossiter assumed that “liberal” is a toothless scare word that has no real meaning, (although he’s never had a problem using “conservative” to mean something specific and kind of nasty).

Privately some Democratic insiders still give the edge to Mr. Wicker, in a state where the word “liberal” is still the most potent scarecrow of all.

Larry Rohter Takes a Wrench to “Joe the Plumber”
Don’t cross our favorite candidate or this may happen to you: “As it turns out, Joe the Plumber…may work in the plumbing business, but he is not a licensed plumber….His full name is Samuel J. Wurzelbacher. And he owes back taxes, too, public records show.”

Posted by: Clay Waters
10/17/2008 5:04:44 PM

Embarrass Obama, and expect the liberal media to go after you, no matter who you are: That’s what National Review journalist Byron York warned early Thursday afternoon.

He was quickly proven right by a story from reporter Larry Rohter in Friday’s Times, “Real Deal On Plumber Reveals New Slant,” in which Rohter took a wrench to Joe Wurzelbacher (aka “Joe the Plumber”), the citizen who dared to question Obama on his tax plan as the Democrat campaigned in his neighborhood in Toledo, Ohio. Obama responded with a classic paleo-liberal cliche: “I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

That insight into Obama’s mindset was politically fascinating, but Rohter buried it in the 11th paragraph of his story, focusing his investigation on such vital matters as “Joe’s” actual first name (Samuel) and whether or not he has a plumber’s license.

The story was teased with an over-the-fold front-page photo of Wurzelbacher talking to the press. The caption sneered: “Joe Wurzelbacher, a national figure after Wednesday’s presidential debate, learned Thursday that fame has two sides.” As if Wurzelbacher intended to become famous when he had the temerity to ask the media’s favored candidate a challenging question.

One week ago, Joe Wurzelbacher was just another working man living in a modest house outside Toledo, Ohio, and thinking about how to buy the plumbing business where he works. But when he stopped Senator Barack Obama during a visit to his block last weekend to complain about taxes, he set himself on a path to becoming America’s newest media celebrity — and as such suddenly found himself facing celebrity-level scrutiny.

Besides digging up other grievous scandals such as Wurzelbacher allegedly committing acts of plumbing without government permission, Rohter found a local union official (whose union endorsed Obama) to hammer him.

As it turns out, Joe the Plumber, as he became nationally known when Senator John McCain made him a theme at Wednesday’s final presidential debate, may work in the plumbing business, but he is not a licensed plumber.

Thomas Joseph, the business manager of Local 50 of the United Association of Plumbers, Steamfitters and Service Mechanics, based in Toledo, said Thursday that Mr. Wurzelbacher had never held a plumber’s license, which is required in Toledo and several surrounding municipalities. He also never completed an apprenticeship and does not belong to the plumber’s union, which has endorsed Mr. Obama. On Thursday, he acknowledged that he does plumbing work even though he does not have a license.

His full name is Samuel J. Wurzelbacher. And he owes back taxes, too, public records show. The premise of his complaint to Mr. Obama about taxes may also be flawed, according to tax analysts. Contrary to what Mr. Wurzelbacher asserted and Mr. McCain echoed, neither his personal taxes nor those of the business where he works are likely to rise if Mr. Obama’s tax plan were to go into effect, they said.

Why would the Times go after an ordinary Joe asking a presidential candidate a question at a campaign stop? Oh, right:

But he became the hero of conservatives and Republicans when he stopped Mr. Obama, who was campaigning on his street, and asked whether he believed in the American dream. Mr. Wurzelbacher said he was concerned about having to pay higher taxes as an owner of a small business.

“I’m getting ready to buy a company that makes $250,000 to $280,000 a year,” he told Mr. Obama. “Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?”

That encounter wound up on YouTube and led to appearances on the Fox News Channel, interviews with conservative bloggers and a New York Post editorial, all of whom seized on a small part of Mr. Obama’s long reply. “I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody,” Mr. Obama had said.

….

According to public records, Mr. Wurzelbacher has been subject to two liens, each over $1,100. One, with a hospital, has been settled, but a tax lien with the State of Ohio is still outstanding.

The Times has already shown far more avid curiosity about Wurzelbacher’s personal life than it ever displayed regarding Obama’s domestic terrorist supporter, Bill Ayers.

There’s a double standard at work at the Times regarding the private affairs of public citizens thrust into the political spotlight. Back in October 2007, Democrats paraded 12-year old Baltimore resident Graeme Frost as its poster boy for expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, a government program to assist families without health insurance. The program helped Graeme after a car accident left him in comatose for a week. The Democratic Party pushed him into the spotlight to deliver the Democratic radio address on September 29, 2007 (hat tip K. Daniel Glover at Eyeblast.tv).

When conservatives pointed out that the Frost family was hardly destitute and could have easily afforded health insurance on its own, the Times and the rest of the media were aghast at conservatives for prying into the Frost’s family finances. Times reporter David Herszenhorn went after bloggers for “attacking a family with injured children.”

But go after the media messiah and you are fair game for pro-Obama reporters like Rohter.

Vicki Iseman Suggests Libel Suit vs. NYT Over McCain Affair Allegations
Edward Pound interviewed Iseman for National Journal: “Iseman says she answered every question put to her by The Times, but that the newspaper ‘chose to disregard’ many of her answers.”

Posted by: Clay Waters
10/17/2008 11:23:39 AM

Telecommunications lobbyist Vicki Iseman, who the Times suggested had an affair with John McCain in a tabloid-style story back in February, is still steamed and is considering a libel suit against the paper. She sat down with National Journal’s Edward Pound for an exclusive interview in “Lobbyist Speaks: Rumor Of McCain Affair False, Damaging,” where she accused the Times of disregarding her answers and being “wrong on all counts.”

What did Iseman, whose blond good looks helped to drive the story, have to say about the explosive allegations? She refused to be interviewed by The Times , but in e-mail exchanges with the paper’s reporters, she denied ever having a romantic relationship with McCain and disputed key assertions made by The Times ‘ unnamed sources.

She denies an affair, saying her relationship with McCain was “strictly professional” and cordial and that she had never been alone with him

Iseman says she answered every question put to her by The Times, but that the newspaper “chose to disregard” many of her answers. “The New York Times set out to write a story about a ‘romantic relationship’ in exchange for legislative favors….Make the lobbyist a prostitute — pretty heady stuff. The only problem was, they were wrong on all counts.”

Iseman alleged career blowback:

Strangers, she says, sometimes blame her for damaging McCain. “While waiting in the ladies room line, [a woman] told me that I should be ashamed of myself for what I did to ‘that man, Senator McCain,’ ” Iseman recalls. “To this day, I will be typing on my computer and will get an e-mail calling me the worst of the worst names.” She also says that three clients dropped her after The Times ‘ story.

Kevin Williamson at National Review’s Media Blog pointed to the National Journal’s headline and sees possible litigation in the future: “I hope Iseman has hired a very hungry lawyer.” Indeed, Pound wrote that Iseman is considering filing a libel suit against the Times:

The fallout from the story, Iseman says, has been costly. She has retained Rodney Smolla, a First Amendment scholar and the dean of the Washington and Lee University School of Law, as part of a legal team and is considering filing a libel suit against The Times. She believes she has lost three major clients as a result, she says, although she can’t prove that. She recounted how one longtime client terminated its arrangement with her firm shortly after The Times story hit

Daily Kos

The New Stabbed In the Back Myth

Sat Oct 18, 2008 at 02:35:37 PM PDT

(From the diaries. Susan)

Germans had been shaken to their roots by defeat in 1918. The emotional impact was all the more severe because German leaders had been trumpeting victory until a few weeks before. So unbelievable a calamity was easily blamed on traitors.

Robert Paxton
The Anatomy of Fascism
2005

With the prospect of a bone-crushing election defeat staring them full in the face, the diehard rump of the conservative movement is already busy fashioning a narrative to explain the dissolution of its world — the one that Ronald Reagan built and that George W. Bush (with an assist from Wall Street) has thoroughly trashed.

And the emerging story line appears to be, roughly, that ACORN did it.

Given the underlying proclivities of the modern conservative movement (Sarah Palin division) we should have understood that sooner or later it would come to something as absurd as this. Failed authoritarian movements needs scapegoats the way fecal coliform bacteria need a steady supply of raw sewage, and this one has a lot of failures that need explaining.

The remarkable thing, of course, is the right’s effort to make the ACORN boogie man do double duty: responsible not only for the looming “theft” of American democracy (per John McCain) but also for bringing the US and global financial system to its knees (per any number of conservative quacks economists and cranks pundits).

You have to admit: That’s a damned impressive revolutionary track record for an obscure group of community organizers operating on a shoestring budget. I mean, who needs the Red Army when you’ve got ACORN and the Community Reinvestment Act?

It would be easy to dismiss this lunacy as a manifestation of what the social scientist Richard Hofstader called the “paranoid style” in American politics. And some liberals have already made the connection. As far as the grassroots hysterics are concerned(i.e. the sort of people who are obsessed with the kerning and font size on Barack Obama’s “alleged” birth certificate) this is no doubt true.

But I think by now it’s also very clear that the GOP high commmand — as far back as the Twin Cities white power rally, if not before — deliberately adopted the demonization of ACORN/community organizers/the poor as a proxy for the hatred that no longer dares to speak its real name (except at the occasional Sarah Palin rally).

I think this strategy serves two purposes. One is obvious: to play upon traditional racial and class resentments to try to win back middle-class and working-class voters who might otherwise be waivering as they watch their jobs, their homes and their already inadequate retirement savings go spinning around the hole in the bottom of the economic toilet bowl.

We can take a page from John Lewis and call this the George Wallace gambit — not the Wallace of the stand in the schoolhouse door or the bridge at Selma, but rather the Wallace who ran for president in 1968, ’72 and ’76 and managed to attract quite a few Northern Democratic votes with his attacks on school busing, affirmative action, fair housing laws and other examples of “social engineering” foisted upon Regular Joe (Joe Sixpack’s dad and Joe the Plumber’s granddad) by Ivy League professors and pointy-headed government bureaucrats.

Exactly who was supposed to benefit from all that social engineerin’ was left unsaid, just as it is today.

Students of American politics know that Wallace’s populist rabble rousing was quickly expropriated by the GOP and — watered down for respectable middle-class consumption — became one of the weapons used by Richard Nixon and his pit bull of a running mate, Spiro Agnew (Sarah Palin with jowls) to crack open the New Deal coalition.

The ACORN monster, in other words, is a stock character out of a play the Republicans have been performing with mind-numbing efficiency for the past 40 years — making it the political equivalent of what The Fantasticks is for suburban dinner theater.

Given that the same attacks have been used, in some form or another, against a long line of lily white Democratic candidates, it would be unfair to characterize them as coded attempts to make an issue of Obama’s race per se. That’s a line the GOP high command apparently is still not willing to cross, even as coded attacks on Obama’s alleged “foreignness” (i.e. his middle name) have become the order of the day. It is, however, an obvious coded attack (and very lightly coded at that) on the inner-city poor. And in American political slang, “inner-city poor” is simply a five-syllable substitute for “black”.

However, as the McCain campaign descends into bitter futility (clinging to its guns and its religion all the way) and the band of the USS Republican Party assembles on deck to strike up “Near My God to Thee,” the anti-ACORN hysteria is starting to look less like a coherent campaign attack and more like a post-defeat rationalization. Clearly, conservatives are preparing themselves to take a knockout punch. Unfortunately it appears a big part of this psychological armouring will be convincing themselves the election was stolen, not lost. Even worse: stolen by the same “socialist” extremists who destroyed the American economy by forcing the banks to give loans to the n——.

This, of course, is not how the new stabbed-in-the-back myth will be expressed in polite conservative company (i.e. among the David Brooks and Ross Douthats of the world). But anyone who doubts that is the way it will be internalized among the many new members of the Sarah Palin Fan Club simply hasn’t been paying attention.

Choosing ACORN (and/or its constituents) as the scapegoat for the implosion of the biggest credit bubble in American history and, simultaneously, a wholly fictional attempt to steal a presidential election, may seem like a bit much. Why not pick on someone a bit more believable — like, say, the demon id from Forbidden Planet?

The GOP at times has tried to do this — citing, variously, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Democrats in Congress (i.e., the demon id from Forbidden Planet) and greed and corruption on Wall Street as the prime villains. But for various reasons (such as the fact that Rick Davis, McCain’s campaign manager, was a Fannie Mae lobbyist, or that Wall Street is the ideological Vatican of the same militant free market doctrine that modern conservatism has sworn to defend) none of these have proven very satisfactory. As I once noted of the effort to blame the nearly invisible anti-war movement for the debacle in Iraq:

The best scapegoat is one that is both blameless and weak. Blameless, because it relieves the truly guilty parties of the need to decide who among them must take the fall. Weak, because the guilty themselves have been weakened by defeat, and even a modest defense might enable a truly blameless set of scapegoats to convince the country of their innocence.

Given the fratricidal war brewing on the right over which faction (neo, paleo or psycho) is responsible for conservativism’s 1918, that comment appears particularly relevant now.

We don’t need to hark back to the unfortunate history of a certain Central European country in the 1930s to understand how poisonous this kind of political myth making can become. Powerful elements of the Republican Party and the conservative “movement” aren’t just preparing themselves to go into opposition, they’re preparing themselves to dispute the legitimacy of an Obama presidency — in ways that could, if taken to extreme, lead to another Oklahoma City.

It’s hard to tell to what degree the GOP high command fully understands or is trying to feed these dynamics (indeed, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to even tell who the GOP high command is these days). The last thing I want to do is get into an arms race with the wingnut right when it comes to paranoid conspiracy theories. (That’s one race the left will always lose). Still, the recent statements of John McCain and his Bircher-influenced running mate aren’t exactly reassuring:

My opponent’s answer showed that economic recovery isn’t even his top priority. His goal, as Senator Obama put it, is to “spread the wealth around.”

You see, he believes in redistributing wealth, not in policies that help us all make more of it. Joe, in his plainspoken way, said this sounded a lot like socialism.

I’ve been following politics for going on 35 years now, and I don’t think I’ve ever heard a Republican candidate publicly refer to his Democratic opponent as a “socialist” — not even while hiding behind a cardboard cutout like “Joe the Plumber”. This from a man who told the entire nation on Wednesday night that believes an obscure nonprofit group is “perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy.”

Likewise, I don’t think there’s ever been an American vice presidential candidate who explicitly referred to entire regions of the United States as “pro-American” — with the clear implication that other regions are something less than “pro-American.” Not since the Civil War, anyway.

We’ve crossed some more lines, in other words — in a long series of lines that have made it increasingly difficult to distinguish between the ultraconservative wing of the Republican Party and an explicitly fascist political movement. And John McCain and his political handlers appear to have no moral compunctions whatsoever about whipping this movement into a frenzy and providing it with scapegoats for all that hatred, simply to try to shave a few points off Barack Obama’s lead in the polls.

To call this “country first” only works if you assume your opponents (and scapegoats) are not really part of that same country. And we all know where that leads.

It may lead us there yet, or to something like it. Middle class America has clearly entered a prolonged period of economic pain — on top of the existing climate of cultural disorientation and rapid demographic change. Conventional assumptions (401k plans are an adequate substitute for company pensions; black men can’t be elected president) are toppling left and right. Scapegoats that seem remotely plausible only to the most deranged partisans may appear less fantastic to the apolitical majority by and by. And even a party that has nothing left to offer America but fear itself may eventually find itself in a seller’s mar


Action Alert! Action Alert!

Here’s Your Chance to Walk On Barack Obama’s Flip-Flops

When Barack Obama takes a stand he sticks to it…
Until he changes his mind!

*NAFTA *Guns *Tax Cuts *Off Shore Drilling

Barack – you can’t have it both ways!

Now here’s your chance to call him on it and send him a message – actually, it’s a chance to send him his own flip-flops!

The American Policy Center (APC) has teamed up with a new website called www.obamaflipflops.org. On the site you can order a special pair of flip-flop sandals. For every pair you order for yourself, Obamaflipflops.org will also send Obama a pair – free of charge.

Each pair of flip-flops is printed with Barack’s positions of “change” (well, they change every day). Read the list of his positions of change here (http://obamaflipflops.org/flipflops/list). The beach sandals make a useful reference right on his feet, in case he forgets where he stands as he stumps the country.

Our goal is to send thousands of pairs of flip-flops to Obama’s campaign headquarters just to keep him on his toes.

And you can wear your own pair of Obama Flip-Flops to the next Obama rally. Let everyone know how you stand on Obama’s changing positions!

This isn’t for profit – it’s for America!

ACTION TO TAKE

Go to www.obamaflipflops.org.

  • Check out their website.
  • Order your own Obama Flip-Flops today! (And they will send Obama a pair for every pair your order).
  • Send this Action Alert to your friends and family so they can join the campaign to send some flip-flops to Obama.

Help us spread Senator Obama’s “changing” message: Change You Can Believe In… Until I Change My Mind Again.

Get Your Obama Flip-Flops Today!

SEND THIS MESSAGE TO AT LEAST TEN MORE PEOPLE! APC is now offering you a quick and easy way to multiply your efforts and help win more battles! Simply click here to send this APC Action Alert to up to TEN of your friends! It’s fast, it’s easy and most of all, it’s extremely effective in KILLING OPPRESSIVE POLICIES!

Times Blares Bad Poll News for McCain, Says Ayers-Obama Tie Just an “Allegation”
The Obama-Ayers association is merely an “allegation” being made by McCain: “How much have you heard or read about the allegation by the McCain campaign that Barack Obama was associated with Bill Ayers, a former member of the radical domestic group called the Weathermen…?”

Ready to Blame Racism If Obama Loses
Adam Nossiter: “The McCain campaign’s depiction of Barack Obama as a mysterious ‘other’ with an impenetrable background may not be resonating in the national polls, but it has found a receptive audience with many white Southern voters….Other voters swept past such ambiguities into old-fashioned racist gibes.”

Snickering at Palin’s Simplistic Patriotism
Patrick Healy thinks Sarah Palin’s “partisan zeal” and “with-us-or-against-us message” could “repel some independent voters,” and her speeches have “holes in logic.” Does the gaffe machine Joe Biden ever get this treatment from the Times?

Paul Krugman, Respected Economist Turned Left-Wing Hack, Wins Nobel Prize
In honor of his Nobel, here are some of Bush-bashing columnist Paul Krugman’s greatest misses, including: “I predict that in the years ahead Enron, not Sept. 11, will come to be seen as the greater turning point in U.S. society.”


ABC’s investigative unit

A small silver lining amid the dark clouds looming over the House GOP.

Recall it was ABC that broke the news in the fall of 2006 about Mark Foley.

Now that same seat may flip back:

West Palm Beach Congressman Tim Mahoney (D-FL), whose predecessor resigned in the wake of a sex scandal, agreed to a $121,000 payment to a former mistress who worked on his staff and was threatening to sue him, according to current and former members of his staff who have been briefed on the settlement, which involved Mahoney and his campaign committee.

Mahoney, who is married, also promised the woman, Patricia Allen, a $50,000 a year job for two years at the agency that handles his campaign advertising, the staffers said.

A Mahoney spokesperson would not answer questions about the alleged affair or the settlement, but said Allen resigned of her own accord and “has not received any special payment from campaign funds.”

Senior Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives, including Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), the chair of the Democratic Caucus, have been working with Mahoney to keep the matter from hurting his re-election campaign, the Mahoney staffers said.

By Jonathan Martin 12:48 PM