Posts tagged Election 2008

“Fair and Balanced” indeed.

In one of FoxNews.com’s latest columns, Greg Gutfield demonstrates a remarkable ability to be a gigantic assclown. I’ll quote some of the most offensive sections:

Any moron who remembers Eddy Murphy’s stand-up routine knows that blacks haven’t always warmed to gay causes. They probably also don’t enjoy comparisons between their civil rights struggle and gays not being allowed to marry. Yeah, I know gays have been treated like crap over the years, but they were never slaves, unless it was requested on Craigslist

I’m not arguing that gay people have been more oppressed in the United States than blacks have (though internationally is another matter), but this paragraph was nonetheless pretty offensive.

Furthermore, while this guy wonders why gay people have been “venting their rage at white churches, but oddly, not the black ones,” he totally ignores the possibility that there might be gay black people.

He then goes on to say:

And remember, it was David Geffen who helped picked Obama and it was Obama’s main supporters who voted for Prop 8. So blame Geffen, not the Mormons.

Why shouldn’t I blame the Mormons? These are the same people who didn’t believe that black people have souls until 1978. More topical, these are the people who donated 22.8 million dollars to Yes on Prop 8. They mobilized their members to travel to California to campaign against it. They had statements made in every single one of their churches. So why shouldn’t I be pissed at them?

Did the minority votes put the yes on prop 8 vote over the top? Yes, they did. But if it hadn’t been for the rampant douchebaggery perpetrated by the Mormon Church, they — and millions of older white voters — wouldn’t have been duped into voting in favor of it.

Leave a comment »

In New Jersey, Not Much in the Way of Choice

This article ran on the Commentariat, the opinion blog of the Columbia Spectator.

I decided to come home this weekend to spend some time with my family, see some friends from home, and vote. When I arrived last night, I saw my sample ballot waiting for me. I eagerly opened it up, but only to be disappointed.

This election day, I intended, with the exception of President and Congress (my congressman is pretty awesome), to vote a straight Green Party ticket. But I ran into a problem. The only Green candidate running was Cynthia McKinney, for President. For Sheriff and Board of Chosen Freeholders, the only candidates were Democrats and Republicans. In fact, for one of the Freeholder races (there are three), the Republicans didn’t even run a candidate.

I found this all profoundly disturbing, but I was not to be deterred. This morning, I began to research the various candidates, starting with those for US Senate.

Read the rest of this entry »

Comments (4) »

Ron Paul, Douchebag Extraordinaire

Since I heard about him, I have disliked Ron Paul. His past — not even that long ago — indicates that he is homophobic, wildy racist, and anti-Semitic. His claims of libertarianism are belied by his opposition to abortion, same-sex marriage, and gay rights generally.

EDIT: While Ron Paul claims that he doesn’t know who wrote those articles, they were published under his name, in his publication. Just as a magazine or a newspaper would have to take responsibility for the articles of those who write for it, so too is Ron Paul responsible for allowing the spread of hateful rhetoric and ignorance.

In fact, he says that he would have voted for the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act and proposed the Marriage Protection Act (scroll to the end) which would have prohibited litigation pertaining to either the Defense of Marriage Act or itself. I maintain that his douchebaggery is not lessened by his opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment, because he did so on the basis that it was too hard (“passing a constitutional amendment is a long,drawn-out process”) and that “liberal social engineers who wish to…redefine marriage will be able to point to the…amendment as proof that the definition of marriage is indeed a federal matter”.

In a Republican primary debate he sidestepped the issue of the injustice inherent in the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, saying that it’s a “decent policy”.

Lastly, he calls himself “strongly pro-life” and, in a sentence for which the term “logical clusterfuck” would be generous, he claims that “abortion leads to euthanasia”.

It should be no surprise, then, that he recently endorsed Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate, a nutjob probably a step to the right of Strom Thurmond, and certified assclown. For those of you who don’t know, the Constitution Party claimsit wants to “uphold the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States” by returning American to its its “original Biblical common-law foundations”, persecuting gays, and making everyone believe in Jesus. (These are all quotes from their mission statement.)

This, sadly, only vindicates by original belief that Ron Paul is, was, and always will be an unrepentant racist, homophobic, hatemonger.

EDIT: For those who are unable to find the quotations to which I refer in the sources provided at first glance, please peruse the articles and speeches carefully and you will discover exactly that to which I refer. Thank you.

Note: both edits were done at 6:45 PM EST on Oct 26.

Comments (8) »

Beyond the Issues

This piece ran in the Commentariat, the Spectator opinion blog.

Over this past weekend, Sarah Palin released the following statement:

I am, in my own, state, I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that that’s where we would go because I don’t support gay marriage

For those of you who weren’t able to make out quite what she was trying to say — I couldn’t, at first — she is declaring her support for a Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Needless to say, I disagree with her on a fundamental level for a variety of reasons — every amendment has been thus far designed to expand freedoms, not restrict them; I believe that marriage is a fundamental human and Constitutional right (see the 9th and 14th amendments); and, quite frankly, there’s really no non-religious argument against same-sex marriage (and even the religious argument is debatable). But, you know, I’m friends with all sorts of people, some of whom don’t believe in same-sex marriage and we get along just fine as long as we don’t talk about politics. But the one thing that I can’t accept is blatant hypocrisy. Sort of like the hypocrisy that Sarah Palin demonstrated in the following statement:

I’m not going to be out there judging individuals, sitting in a seat of judgment telling what they can and can’t do, should and should not do, but I certainly can express my own opinion here and take actions that I believe would be best for traditional marriage and that’s casting my votes and speaking up for traditional marriage that, that instrument that it’s the foundation of our society is that strong family and that’s based on that traditional definition of marriage, so I do support that.

Well, we’re all educated people here. Can anyone else tell me what’s wrong with this? There are a lot of things wrong with it, such as what she did to the English language, which, honestly, ought to be criminalized, but that’s not quite what I’m going for. My point was that, first, by supporting a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage she is by definition “judging individuals, sitting in a seat of judgment”. In fact, her statement about “strong families” directly implies that same-sex couples cannot foster strong families (which, incidentally, they can. Oops.) — this is, again, a moral judgment. Secondly, again, by definition of supporting an amendment, she is “telling [individuals] what they can and can’t do, should and should not do”.

The prospect of giving Sarah Palin any more power or influence than she already has is, quite frankly, terrifying. In fact, I find it profoundly disturbing that any educated person who has been exposed to her statements could vote for John McCain, who has a one in three chance of dying in office.

Beyond any policy differences I might have with John McCain and Sarah Palin (and believe me, there are very many) the sheer number of personality flaws which make both of them unfit to lead is staggering.

John McCain’s well-documented and well known anger issues, his mysogyny (he tells unfunny rape jokes involving gorillas and called his wife both “a trollop” and “a cunt” in front of a group of reporters), his old age and poor health (the fact that he couldn’t remember that Iraq shares a border with Iran, not Afghanistan, and that he couldn’t remember the number of houses he has demonstrates a failure of memory, not necessarily a disconnect from Joe the Plumber), and his evidently poor judgment (he picked Sarah Palin) all combine into a terrifying prospect of a McCain presidency.

And, if, for some reason, John McCain were to die in office and Sarah Palin were to take charge, I would be even more horrified. Sarah Palin’s ignorance of American and legal history (she could only name one Supreme Court case: Roe v. Wade), her inability to form a coherent sentence (see above, or any interview with Couric), her belief that some parts of this country are more “pro-America” than others, and her ethical questionability (she attempted to ban books at the Wasilla library, fired the police chief for personal reasons, and charged victims for rape kits) all paint a very, very dim prospect for America under a Palin administration.

Comments (1) »

More on Pro-America

I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America, or anti-America. I tihnk people would love to see an expose like that.

- Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN)

I forgot to mention, in my last post about this, this comment from Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota. This comment, from a woman who banned Aladdin from being shown in a charter school in Minnesota because she thought it promoted “paganism and witchcraft”, is reminiscent of the McCarthy era, when the civil liberties of Americans were ignored in a pathetic, frantic, and — in the end — entirely fabricated search for “un-American Communists”.

There is currently a petition underway to censure her. I’d encourage people to sign it.

Leave a comment »

The Real America

Ever since Sarah Palin’s comments about the “real America” and the “pro-America” parts of America, I started paying more attention to these sorts of utterings from the GOP. I had been hoping that it would be limited to Sarah Palin, or perhaps even a few on the fringes of the party, but, of course, I was disappointed.

On Monday I went to see the Daily Show live. That show was glorious, both because it was hilarious and because it was filled with with righteous fury about Palin’s recent comments. What really surprised me, however, was a comment from one of McCain’s staff members which referred to the “real Virginia”, as opposed to the fake, Democratic, part of Virginia.

Then one of my friends pointed me towards an apology that had to be made by a North Carolina Republican congressman. At a McCain rally he said to the crowd:

…liberals hate real Americans that work and accomplish and achieve and believe in God.

Of course, this is even more offensive than the remarks made by Sarah Palin. I suppose he was at least more upfront about what he meant, however. In his apology remarks he said this:

there is no doubt that it came out completely the wrong way.

Quite honestly, it doesn’t matter how it “came out”. What matters is the sentiment behind the words, and his sentiments were this:

1. Liberals are not “real Americans”

2. Liberals do not believe in God

3. Liberals do not work or accomplish things

4. Liberals hate people who believe in God

I don’t really consider myself a liberal, but I have no doubt that I fit into his ignorant definition of one, and, quite frankly, none of these implied or explicit statements apply to me. I believe in God and attend religious services weekly, I work hard and have accomplished any number of things of meaning to myself and those around men, I have a great apprecation for people who believe in God (as well as for those who don’t believe in God), and I am a real American.

The fact that this theme has crept up in the past few days is, quite frankly, terrifying.

I have a lot more to say about this, but I have a midterm tomorrow/later today for which I haven’t finished studying quite yet.

Comments (1) »

Falling Numbers and Dying Hope

So in the past week Obama’s lead has fallen by 3.4 points (8.2% to 4.8%). I’ve found this both extremely disturbing (McCain’s attack ads have been both despicable and nonsensical) and baffling. At first I thought that the boost as a result of Obama’s above-average performance in the last debate, combined with the spin from his nailing all three debates, would land him some extra points in the polls. Unfortunate, the requisate number of days have passed and there has been no such boost.

Then, two nights ago, Obama receieved an endorsement from Colin Powell. But not only was this an endorsement — it was an unequivocal endorsement. An unequivocal endorsement from a former member of the Bush administration, a highly regarded former military official, and someone with 80+% approval ratings.  According to polling data, around 12% said that they would be more likely to vote for whomever he endorses.

There’s also this evidence that Powell’s endorsement should matter:

In a survey in February, Powell’s endorsement was the only one out of a list of 15 different public figures, publications, national associations and politicians that would have a significant net positive impact on voters. Twenty-eight percent (28%) said a Powell endorsement would make voters more likely to vote for a candidate versus 19% who would be less likely to vote for that candidate.

(Taken from Rasmussen Reports)

My guess is that the 19% who would be less likely to vote for Powell’s endorsee are liberal Democrats who were still upset about his lies to the UN which enabled the Bush administration to make war on Iraq (oopsies) and who were expecting him to endorse McCain. This would make the actual number who would be turned off by his endorsement far lower.

Lastly, there was Obama’s $150 million of fundraising in September. This should have provided him with enough cash to stave of a McCain comeback, even though campaigns are supposed to tighten in the last few weeks.

Essentially, the point of this post was to express my dismay that Americans are so easily duped into voting for someone: 1. so creepy; 2. who looks like a naked molerat; 3. with such horribly misguided policies; 4. with terrible anger control problems; and 5. who makes rape jokes involving gorillas (as if he weren’t anti-woman enough already)

Leave a comment »

Pro-America America

“We believe that the best of America is not all in Washington, D.C. We believe” — here the audience interrupted Palin with applause and cheers — “We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation.”

- from the Washington Post, on Sarah Palin’s comments about “Pro-America” areas of America.

These comments are, quite frankly, offensive. The notion that, just because I don’t own a gun (or five), because I don’t hate gay people (or because I am gay), that because I live in a city — or because I live above the Mason-Dixon line, because I don’t plan on voting Republican or for the Constitution Party, the thought that these things make me “Anti-American” or even simply not “Pro-American” is quite frankly disgusting and disturbing on a fundamental level.

I’m sure these sentiments have been echoed by many, many other people (at least, I hope so), but I feel compelled to respond to these comments as well. The problem is that these sentiments echo the feelings of many parts of the mid-west and South as well many in the Republican Party. I find all of this interesting because, apparently, being married to someone who is a member of and affiliated with a secessionist movement (Sarah Palin) is more pro-American than living in New York City. Apparently, flying the flag of a secessionist movement that made war on United States, causing the deaths of over 600,000 people, is more pro-American than my possible vote for Ralph Nader.

I’m sorry, Sarah Palin, but, fuck you. Seriously, fuck you. I don’t care about your “explanation” — your true intentions were pretty obvious. It was clear to me — and every other conscious person in this country — that you meant that the “pro-American” areas of this country were the areas that vote Republican and the implied “anti-American” areas of this country are the Democratic ones.

The fact of the matter is that Palin’s statements expose a fundamental contempt for the liberal areas of this country held by the vast majority of Republicans. Here’s a newsflash, guys. The year is 2008, not 1863. The Civil War is over. Oh, also, someone should tell the Nebraskans and folks in Kansas that, actually, in 1863, they hated the South with a passion because they were filthy, slave-owning secessionists who, get this, hated America (though now they drive around with Confederate flags painted onto their pick-up trucks). But, yeah, that’s right. The Confederates hated America, even more, than, say, Michael Moore and his fat, liberal ass. You know why? Because, unlike Michael Moore’s ass, the Confederates killed around 300,000 of their countrymen.

It’s really a tragedy that someone as anti-American as Colin Powell endorsed the vast I-Hate-America conspiracy a couple of nights ago. Not only was this an endorsement — it was an unequivocal endorsement. It seems that just everyone is anti-America these days.

But in all seriousness, how dare she? Who is she to declare me anti-American and the vast swathes of ex-Confederates to whom she panders “pro-America”?

I am, quite frankly, sick of hearing how “un-American” I am and how much I “hate my country” because I support my own fundamental right to get married, the right of Americans not to starve on the streets, and the right of Americans to decent healthcare.

Comments (2) »

Joe the Plumber and His Precious Autistic Children

Last night’s debate was, quite frankly, the most interesting of the presidential debates thusfar.

This was not because Obama was particularly passionate, not was it because he excelled in any particular area. Rather, the reason was that, quite frankly, John McCain came pretty close to a meltdown.

Throughout the debate, Obama remained calm and relaxed — to use the words of someone else (I can’t remember who at the moment), “cool and professional”. Though Obama has consistently kept his cool during the debates, McCain seemed to get angrier not only from debate to debate, but, last night, moment to moment. At times, his panting and sighing was audible. Even his attempts at smiling seemed mean-spirited (a friend said he “looked like a shark” when he smiled).

Most of the material of the debate was old hat — in fact, some of the exact same lines were used in the last debate — but there was some new material. McCain brought in Ayers and the ACORN scandal, something he avoided last time (perhaps in a failed attempt not to seem like a dick?), but it wasn’t a major theme of the debate, and Obama dealt with both issues deftly and calmly. Overall, there wasn’t really any new, interesting material to be uncovered. So that brings us to style and rhetoric.

Here is where it gets interesting. John McCain was trying to capitalize on Sarah Palin’s folksiness, apparently, but failed miserably. Where he tried to be folsky, he was condescending. An undecided voter interviewed by CNN afterwards said that she found McCain’s storytime — a power so well-used by Reagan (too bad he used it for evil) — while touching the first time around, to be “gimmicky” by the third or fourth time. When McCain brought out “Joe the Plumber” my friends, with whom I was watching the debate, all started yelling at the TV.

One friend mentioned something that I hadn’t thought of, however: McCain was being male-normative. “What the fuck, John?! I’m not Joe!” she shouted. This, of course, was true. The Mac, who — according to CNN live-ratings — was pretty much despised by undecided women throughout the debate, most likely did not benefit from this. This is an age in which Americans need to feel “connected” to their president, and McCain failed horribly at this.

Working-class people, as well, I’m sure, didn’t appreciate John McCain’s discussion of Joe the Quarter-Million-Dollar-Plumber, either.

And speaking of condescension, let’s talk about the “precious autistic children”. Actually…that wasn’t really condescending, that was just creepy. Am I right, or am I right?

In fact, to prove my point, here’s a quote from an article about a CBS poll:

Debate watchers who thought Obama won the debate thought he was a better communicator and has a better grasp of the problems the country has to face. Some used words like “eloquent” and “confident” to describe him. In contrast, some said McCain was defensive and spent too much time attacking Obama – using words like “rude,” “mean,” and “caustic” to describe McCain’s performance in the debate.

By contrast, it seems that most people who thought that McCain won did not have problems with Obama’s character but were either “impressed by [McCain's] experience” or “concerned that Obama’s solutions all required spending money”. This indicates — to me at least — a less fundamental problem for Obama.

Sorry if this post is a little less than coherent at the moment, I just got back from (yet another) midterm, and I’m a little dazed.

Anyway, overall I’d call the debate a tie, if not a marginal win for Obama. But really, all Obama had to do in this debate was tie it, given the lead he’s already established. On the other hand, I’m beginning to be a little concerned with his dipping poll numbers: two days ago, RealClearPolitics had him with an 8.2% lead, yesterday it was 7-something, and today it’s down to 6.9%. If the Democrats want a Senate that can actually do something, they need to reach 60, and the only feasible way for them to do that is to get new senators coming in on Obama’s coattails. It’s now or never, really, because — if he wins — I doubt he’ll have the same power come re-election.

EDIT: Just some quick polls regarding the debate: CBS has a poll of uncommitted voters which has Obama winning the debate with 53% to McCain’s 22%. (25% said it was a draw.) According to this poll, both candidates gained favor among voters, but Obama simply gained by larger margins (overall, that is). Another website has already gathered the polling data for me. A CNN poll has Obama winning with 58%, John McCain winning at 31%. It also has McCain’s favorability rating dropping from 51% to 49%. However, Politic/Insider Advantage gives a much narrower lead to Obama with a 49%-46% split, so there’s clearly some wiggle-room here. We’ll see what happens, I suppose.

Comments (1) »

LIVEBLAGGING NAO

Just to let everyone know, I started liveblogging the debate a few minutes ago. One of my friends tells me that he can’t see it, if it’s not working, press RSS, which should be up.

Leave a comment »