The GOP Deals In Monopoly Money

Hmm...it looks like there's something fishy going on over at the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), and it smells like a big fillet o' liar.

Back on June 18th the Republicans made a big deal out of the $13.5 million that they raised for the NRSC at their annual fundraising dinner with Bush. They boasted that this was the most they've raised from the dinner in the last five years. They put a lot of emphasis on this money, for example this statement:

The $13.5 million we raised for the dinner shows people understand that Democrats are going to do more than just increase the price of gas.

Yet when they released their June fundraising numbers to the FEC, it turns out they only barely raised $6 million for the entire month of June. Hmmmmmmm...isn't that interesting. They try to make a big deal to the press about all their money and the "huge interest" in fighting the Democrats, and yet it turns out that this supposed $13.5 million, plus whatever they raised in the other 29 days in June, equals about $6 million. Sounds like the NRSC were lying through their teeth and talking a big game, when all along their fundraising numbers were nothing short of embarrassing, a good reflection of Bush's rock-bottom approval ratings and the 8 years of misery the Republicans have put this country through (yes, including high gas prices).

Negative Consequence Of War #844: Broken Families

You know, a good way to support the troops is to not keep sending them into the war zone over and over and over again until their personal lives fall apart around them. You know, divorce, domestic violence, infidelity, PTSD, kids having nightmares, not to mention the worst-case scenario, suicide, or rather, murder-suicide. Yeah, it's just great what the Republicans are doing for the troops, heckuva job!

Fight Offshore Drilling

Read my blog on the Republican lies about offshore drilling, which would take decades to reap any benefits, and even then wouldn't do anything to lower prices, and would only make oil companies richer.

Then sign Sen. Barbara Boxer's petition to the Democratic Congressional leadership urging them to maintain the offshore drilling moratorium.

The bottom line is that offshore drilling is a false solution, one that will put the environment at risk, and only exacerbate global warming. The only people offshore drilling would help are rich oil CEO's, which is why the Republicans are trying so hard to exploit high gas prices (which they created) to fool Americans into letting oil companies drill the hell out of our coastal waters.

So like I said, read my past blog on offshore drilling, and sign the petition. Gracias!

The Corporate Welfare State

It is ironic that conservatives have demonized terms like "socialism" and "welfare state" for decades, turning the philosophy that the state should look out for the welfare of its citizens, especially those less fortunate, into some fiery source of evil. Yet instead of socialism, they promote unbridled greed, pure capitalism without bounds (if they had their way, luckily the Democratic Party has prevented them from giving corporations 100% free reign, instead they are stuck at maybe 90% free reign), and no matter how much damage that does to the planet, to society, to all the values Americans profess to hold sacred, somehow they've managed to keep up the charade that the private sector is the answer to everything, and the public sector is the worst thing since Saddam, you know, after we were done supporting him and giving him chemical weapons.

What is even more ironic though as they can parade their market fundamentalism around, and condemn anything even remotely aimed at promoting social good as "socialism", yet the second big corporations need any help (and often times even when they don't need any help), you can count on the Republicans to come running to their aid. Somehow it is weak, "bleeding heart", and horrible when liberals want to help out people who can't pay for gas, or pay their rent, or their bills or for food or education. God forbid we raise the minimum wage. Yet when Republicans dump billions of dollars in corporate welfare into the private sector, that is OK. Somehow helping people is an attack on the sacred rules of market fundamentalism, yet when the government subsidizes failed corporations (which they do constantly), that is somehow just. The best part is, the CEO's and shareholders of these corporations get to keep their profits and giant paydays, while their loses are "socialized", meaning taxpayers get stuck with the bill.

Now I'm a firm believer in Democratic Socialism, and I think it is a great thing for taxpayers to pool their resources to lift everyone up, to provide great benefits for the society as a whole. In other countries they may pay a bit more in taxes, but they get free universal health care, they get free college education, they get taken care of, and the government makes sure no one gets neglected. THAT is worth it. In that system everyone gives some, and everyone gets back a lot in return. In the conservative "corporate welfare state", everyone gives some, and corporations get to pocket it, whether it be in the form of corporate bailouts for irresponsible lenders, subsidies for corporations that shouldn't be subsidized, or the ever-popular hugely wasteful no-bid contracts to defense contractors like Halliburton that actually make more profit the more taxpayer money they waste.

Isn't it ironic that they have fooled us into believing that the government helping us is "evil socialism", while the government bending over backwards to give our money to the already rich and powerful is macho capitalism at its finest? I think much in this country would change if people had a deeper understanding of the economy, and how screwed up our national priorities really are when we have a disintegrating middle class, and ever-expanding lower class, while the rich get richer and corporations enjoy record profits, all while they ignore (and profit from) huge crises like global warming. It is just amazing that they have done such a great job at convincing so many voters to vote against their own best interest. This is of course where wedge issues like abortion (even though Republican policies actually increase abortions), gay marriage, and immigration. And that is also why John McCain won't focus on the issues, because the issues are against him, and indefensible, so you'll continue to see him attacking Obama's patriotism, and his wife, and his faith, and his race, and anything else that will distract voters from how the Republican Party has been playing them for fools for decades.

Let's hope it doesn't work this time, but it won't be easy, because the corporate-owned media would love nothing better than to see the status quo continue, so they hype up the non-stories, they focus on the wedge issues, they focus on everything but real issues like the fundamental flaws in our economy, or the environment, or any of that.

Anyway, read Robert Borosage's piece on "Wall Street Socialism".

The Know-Nothing Party

Check out this excellent diary about what the recent right-wing "outrage" about Obama's belief that we should encourage our children to learn at least one foreign language says about the Republican Party and the anti-intellectualism at its core:

GOP, the Know-Nothing Party
by smintheus, Daily Kos

McCain's Top Economic Advisor: Americans Are Whiners

A couple days ago McCain's top economic advisor (and likely pick for Treasury Secretary) former Sen. Phil Gramm said:

"You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession," he said, noting that growth has held up at about 1 percent despite all the publicity over losing jobs to India, China, illegal immigration, housing and credit problems and record oil prices. "We may have a recession; we haven't had one yet."

"We have sort of become a nation of whiners," he said. "You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline" despite a major export boom that is the primary reason that growth continues in the economy, he said.

"We've never been more dominant; we've never had more natural advantages than we have today," he said. "We have benefited greatly" from the globalization of the economy in the last 30 years. ...

"Misery sells newspapers," Mr. Gramm said. "Thank God the economy is not as bad as you read in the newspaper every day."

Wow. Really? McCain's top economic advisor is telling Americans that all of the problems they are facing are psychological?? It's all in their heads? They aren't actually having trouble making ends meet, it's a figment of their imaginations? They aren't really paying over $4/gal for gas while oil companies make record profits? And the record number of home foreclosures is just imaginary! Yeah, it's just like The Matrix, you think your home is about to be taken away, but that's just because you believe that's what is happening (probably because the bank told you), but if you really just realized that it was all fake and in your head, the foreclosure process would just stop, and gas would cost $1.50/gal again, and we wouldn't be losing millions of jobs, and you could fly, and know kung-fu, and you could stop bullets with your mind! Woah. Isn't life wonderful when reality is just all in your head?? It must be great to live in a fantasy world where Americans aren't saving the lowest amount since the Great Depression (next to nothing). It's all in our heads! But hell, don't take my word for it, or the economic data, or all the Americans that are just trying to hang on, let's hear it from an expert:

The United States has already slipped into a deep recession that could be the most serious since World War II, said Martin Feldstein, president of the Cambridge group that is considered the official word on economic cycles.

"The situation is bad, it's getting worse, and the risks are that the situation could be very bad," Feldstein said in a speech yesterday at a financial industry conference in Boca Raton, Fla.

Feldstein, president of the National Bureau of Economic Research and a professor of economics at Harvard University, said the chief causes of the shrinking economy are sinking housing prices, months of job losses, and turmoil in the financial markets.

Yeah, and that was back in March. The DNC responds:

What John McCain, George Bush and Phil Gramm just don't understand is that the American people aren't whining about the state of the economy, they are suffering under the weight of it -- the weight of eight years of Bush-enomics that John McCain and Phil Gramm have vowed to continue. How dare John McCain and his advisers so callously dismiss the challenges the American people face. No wonder voters feel John McCain is out of touch, he and his campaign don't even understand the everyday issues Americans are dealing with.

And Obama:



And this from his campaign:

One of Senator McCain's top economic advisors may think that when people are struggling with lost jobs, stagnant wages, and the rising costs of everything from gas to groceries, it's merely a 'mental recession'. And Senator McCain may think it's sufficient to offer energy proposals that he admits will have mainly 'psychological' benefits. But the American people know that our economic problems aren't just in their heads. They don't need psychological relief - they need real relief - and that's what Barack Obama will provide as President.

And McCain's response:

Phil Gramm's comments are not representative of John McCain's views. John McCain travels the country every day talking to Americans who are hurting, feeling pain at the pump and worrying about how they'll pay their mortgage. That's why he has a realistic plan to deliver immediate relief at the gas pump, grow our economy and put Americans back to work.

And that response is weird, because earlier McCain's own campaign said that Gramm was speaking on behalf of McCain on his economic policy:

The McCain campaign is working hard to distance itself from statements made by economic adviser Phil Gramm describing the current economic downturn as a "mental recession" and saying America had "sort of become a nation of whiners."

But in an initial statement published by Politico and then, seemingly, removed from its site, a McCain campaign aide actually stood by Gramm's remarks, saying the interview as a whole was merely meant as a preview of the Senator's economic agenda.

"Mr. Gramm was simply saying that we are laying out the economic plan this week," the piece quoted a "McCain official" as saying. "The plan is comprehensive, providing immediate near-term relief for Americans hurting today as well as longer-term solutions to get our economy back on track, secure our energy future and deliver jobs, prosperity and opportunity for the next generation. We're laying out that plan this week with an emphasis on the critical importance of job creation, and it's been a great success so far."

Only after the fallout from Gramm's statement did the McCain campaign fully backtrack.

And then the Washington Post:

Speaking today from New York, where he was meeting with the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board on McCain's economic policies, Gramm said the nation's economy was initially thought to have grown by an anemic 0.6 percent in the first three months of the year.

What is funny is that McCain can even claim that the views of his top economic advisor, who drafts McCain's economic policy (in addition to Bush of course), and speaks for McCain on the economy, wasn't providing McCain's view of the status of the economy. In fact....:



And that's the thing that the media doesn't seem to understand (or want to report), that these comments are directly in line with not only McCain's views, but the views of all conservatives. It is shocking how out of touch Republicans are with the American people, and how indifferent they are to their suffering. But how is this a surprise coming from the party that through administration after administration cuts taxes for the rich, while cutting social services for the not-rich. Almost every single choice they make can be broken down to "Does this help the rich while screwing the poor?", and if the answer is yes, you can be sure that the Republicans support it. And the sad thing is, I'm not even exaggerating. The problem is we never have a honest discussion of the policies and ideology of the Republican Party, even after it has devastated our economy and the lives of so many Americans for the last 8 years, and then decades before that. Don't expect that discussion to come from the media, it is owned by rich Republicans.

And that's the sick part about the Gramm thing, the media briefly picked it up, but not because his insistence that the recession was all in our heads, but because he inartfully called Americans "a nation of whiners". That is why it got a little bit of coverage, not because of how messed up and out of touch Gramm, McCain, Bush and all Republicans are, or how horrible their policies have been for this country.

Why can't we have that candid discussion in this country? If people woke up and just had some basic understanding of politics, current events, and the economy the Republican Party would be dust, because a party with such greedy and worthless (for everyone but the rich) policies and priorities could not survive if it weren't for extreme ignorance and apathy, which are the only renewable resources we have a limitless supply of in this country.

Update: I should also note that the "nation of whiners" comment was a thousand times more offensive than Obama's "bitter" comment, which was actually the exact opposite, as Obama was actually acknowledging that people are hurting financially, and are sick of being left behind by Washington year after year. Obama caught hell for weeks over those empathetic comments. Yet McCain's repeated comments showing how completely, callously out of touch he is with the plight of everyday Americans results in next to no coverage.

For The Republicans And War Profiteers

♫
Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build the big bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks

You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly

Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain

You fasten the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud

You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins

How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
Even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do

Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul

And I hope that you die
And your death'll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand o'er your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead.

— Bob Dylan - Masters of War (1963)

Can't Wait Til November

November 4th is going to be a beautiful day. The Republicans lost big in 2006. They lost 30 seats in the House, 6 seats in the Senate, and 6 governorships. For the first time in US history no Republican captured any House, Senate or Gubernatorial seat previously held by a Democrat. And everyone at the time figured this was the peak, and the goal was just to keep those seats in 2008. Yet this year the wave is continuing, possibly even picking up speed. The Republicans have lowered the bar to the point where they are hoping they don't lose 8 seats, thus giving the Democrats a filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate (so they can no longer grind everything to a halt by record-breaking use of filibusters). In this election the Republicans are defending 23 Senate seats, the Democrats are only defending 12, and pretty much all of those are safe, which is more than can be said for the Republican side. Republicans could also potentially lose 30 or more house seats this time around as well.

Karen Hanretty, communications director for the NRCC, was blunt about their upcoming asskicking:

This is a challenging environment. Any Republican running for office has to run basically on an independent platform, localize the race and not take anything for granted. There are no safe Republican seats in this election.

Basically, if you want to save your skin as a Republican, you have to pretend you aren't a Republican. That's how tarnished the reputation of the Republicans is now, after 8 years of miserable failures, basically screwing up everything nationally and globally that they could get their hands on. The only thing that has gotten "better" in the last 8 years is corporate profit and the bank accounts of the rich. I honestly can't think of a single other thing that has improved, and I wouldn't called making the rich richer an improvement.

Yes, fired up! Ready to go!

McCain's Tax Plan Gives Top Corporations $45 Billion In Tax Cuts

You can tell a lot about a society by its taxes, and how it allocates money. Our society throws an incredible amount of money into sustaining our ability to kill people, while putting very little into education.

Our society also used to have a much more progressive tax code, yet the tax burden has shifted from the rich to the middle and lower classes over the last couple decades. At the end of World War II the top tax bracket was 94%. Then from 1964 until Reagan took office the rate was in the 70-80% range. Then Reagan came into office, bringing with him the new Republican philosophy of helping the rich and screwing the rest. In 1982 the top tax bracket was cut to 50%. In 1987 it was 38.5%. In 1988 it was cut again to 28%. Today it is at 35%. Over the years corporate taxes have been cut as well, to say nothing of the countless loopholes that let corporations evade the vast majority of their taxes. Taxes are about giving back to society, they are about the common good. When we cut taxes for the rich, we aren't just saying we think the rich aren't rich enough, we are saying that the rich being richer is more important than society having that money to invest in education, or health care, or alleviating poverty, or program that money had supported before. The modern Republican Party is about three things, helping the rich get richer, leaving the poor to fight for survival against the market, and cutting government revenue to the point where the government can't function properly. They achieve most of this through taxation, and the rest they achieve through stuffing the only part of government they care about, the part that kills people, with as much money as possible (which then gets transferred to corporations like Halliburton and Lockheed Martin, to make them and their CEOs/shareholders wealthier--do you see a pattern here?).

You can also tell a lot about a politician by their priorities.

John McCain is no exception. He wants to double Bush's tax cuts for the rich, which have contributed to the largest budget deficit in history (also began with Reagan) and led to a starving of public services (you may recall the bridge collapse in Minneapolis, this is a direct result of this conservative pro-rich, anti-government ideology). Think Progress exposes McCain's warm embrace of Bush's corporate-loving policies that have done so much to screw up the country for the last 8 years:

If you’re a CEO of one of America’s largest corporations and have enjoyed the Presidency of George W. Bush, a contribution to the McCain campaign is looking like a pretty good investment.

A new report from the Center For American Progress Action Fund finds that a key piece of John McCain’s tax plan — cutting the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% — would cut taxes by almost $45 billion every year for America’s 200 largest corporations as identified by Fortune Magazine.

Eight companies — Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Exxon Mobil Corp., ConocoPhillips Co., Bank ƒƒof America Corp., AT&T, Berkshire Hathaway Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., and Microsoft Corp. — would each receive over $1 billion a year.

The following table shows the tax savings to America’s five largest firms. See a full list of all 200 companies and their savings under McCain here:



These giveaways are just one part of McCain’s doubling of the Bush tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy which would create the largest deficits in 25 years and drive the United States into the deepest deficits since World War II.

A recent analysis by the Public Campaign Action Fund found that John McCain’s campaign has received $5.6 million from the PACs and executives of the Fortune 200.

Over the past eight years, under George W. Bush, American workers have seen their wages stagnate as corporate profits have skyrocketed. John McCain’s misguided priorities show he’s more of the same: the same $45 billion in tax cuts for America’s 200 largest companies could be used to lift over 9 million Americans out of poverty.

How exactly does McCain intend to fool Americans into believing that he isn't planning 4-8 more years of Bush's failed greedy conservative policies? You also have to realize what this means for our country. We have a record budget deficit, we waste over $400 billion on paying interest on our national debt every single year, and McCain wants to take more money from the government and give it to rich corporations and their rich CEOs. And which public programs are going to be cut because of McCain's $45 billion corporate tax gift? Is it going to be Head Start? Medicare? Investment in alternative energy? All of the above? McCain also voted against raising the minimum wage, and a bill that would have increased educational benefits for veterans. McCain opposed health care for children because he said it cost too much ($35 billion over 5 years, or just about 15% of his tax cut to the rich). Now what does that say about John McCain's priorities? We have enough money for a $45 billion dollar a year tax cut for the richest corporations, yet we can't spare 15% of that for uninsured children to get health care. It is disgusting. But that is John McCain, and that is Bush, and that is the Republican Party.

It's all about priorities.

And clearly McCain doesn't care about the national debt or programs that help millions of people, especially those who weren't born with a whole dining set of silver spoons in their mouthes. He is just like Bush. All his talk to the contrary is nothing but more lying to voters, also just like Bush.

Update: Oh yes, and that GI Bill McCain opposed? He is now taking credit for it on the campaign trail, isn't that interesting?:

I'm happy to tell you that we probably (probably? does he not know?) agreed to an increase in educational benefits for our veterans that not only gives them increase in their educational benefits, but if they stay in for a certain period of time than they can transfer those educational benefits to their spouses and or children. That's a very important aspect I think of incentivizing people of staying in the military.

Yes, a bill he actively spoke out against. How shameless.

Osama Bin Laden As Emmanuel Goldstein?

So here's an interesting theory I just came up with. You remember how McCain campaign advisor and superlobbyist Charlie Black recently said that another terrorist attack, like the one on 9/11, would be a "big advantage" for McCain? Well McCain has also made a similar comment right before the 2004 election about a tape from Osama bin Laden that had just been released:

But as McCain greets two breakfast-eating business partners, one from Stamford and the other from Bridgeport, the topic turns to the presidential race. The two men tell the senator they support President George W. Bush, and to that end, McCain says, "(Osama) Bin Laden may have just given us a little boost. Amazing, huh?"....

The two men, who requested anonymity, nod their heads in agreement. Later, while riding with Shays on an RV to a rally at the Stamford Government Center, McCain further explains, "(The video) is helpful to President Bush because it puts the focus on the war on terrorism."

(Read: It makes people afraid, and Republicans benefit when people are afraid)

Alright, so it is pretty obvious that Republicans believe terrorist attacks and threats, and anything that can scare Americans into voting against their own self-interest benefit Republicans. One could say they welcome such events, from the perspective of political strategizing. Do they welcome them enough to "accidentally" let a terrorist attack "slip" right before an election when it looks like their party is heading for their second landslide defeat in a row? Perhaps. Personally, I think you would have to have been living under a rock for the last 8 years to dismiss the possibility outright.

But here is something else I thought up, in light of this 2004 quote from McCain, what if they don't want to catch bin Laden? Does it serve the Republican interest to have him always lurking in the periphery of the voters' consciousness? Does he play the role of Emmanuel Goldstein of Orwell's 1984, the omnipresent evil, the target of the Three Minute Hate, the ready propaganda tool to overwhelm citizens with fear? We know the Republicans created this idea of the War on Terror, the war without bounds, without objectives, without an end, an infinite war against a tactic, an emotion, so that they can perpetually exploit this fear of terror to justify extraordinary violations of civil liberties, and an extraordinary expansion of the military-industrial complex which pumps the likes of Halliburton and DynCorp with floods of taxpayer money for their own profits.

But if we actually caught or killed bin Laden, wouldn't that make it much harder to keep the public fearful of the omnipresent War on Terror? It seems to me that politically, capturing bin Laden would be the worst thing for the Republicans, which may explain why they haven't done it in the 7 years since he killed nearly 3,000 Americans. Or it could just be appalling incompetence, as they clearly have more than enough of that to go around. It could be that they really just can't hunt down a single person despite the most powerful military and most advanced intelligence service in the history of the world, and it could be that needlessly dumping resources into Iraq, which had nothing to do with the War on Terror, contributed to our failure to ever capture our public enemy number one.

Or maybe they just want you to be afraid.

Maybe they want to play political games with American lives, so they keep the terrorist mastermind alive and well so he can do to Americans what he does best: terrorize.

Put CEOs On Trial

Finally, someone who gets it:

James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.

[...]

"When you are in that kind of position, as the CEO of one the primary players who have been putting out misinformation even via organisations that affect what gets into school textbooks, then I think that's a crime."

[...]

"The problem is not political will, it's the alligator shoes - the lobbyists. It's the fact that money talks in Washington, and that democracy is not working the way it's intended to work."

It is shocking how many problems in the world can be traced directly back to corporate greed. The war in Iraq was in large part a direct result of corporate greed. Skyrocketing cancer rates are almost certainly a direct result of corporate greed (filling our food, environment, bodies full of toxic chemicals free from regulation). The tainted food and toys, corporate greed (and again, corporations fighting against government regulation, with Republican help). Our broken health care system? Corporate greed. The crippling poverty in the third world, and the billion people in the world who are slowly (or quickly) starving to death, greed greed greed. Do you think there isn't enough food in the world? There is enough food in the world for every person on the planet to eat over 2,700 calories per day, that is enough for everyone in the world to be overweight. And yet we have a large percentage of the world starving. Greed, and in large part corporations are responsible when you really look at the way food is distributed globally. And virtually every single environmental problem on the planet can be traced back to corporate greed--deforestation, pollution, waste, global warming, all of it. And yes, just like tobacco companies knowingly made a ton of money while slowly killing millions with products they knew were dangerous and addictive, corporations like Exxon are complicit, criminally negligent, responsible for global warming denial and for stonewalling every single attempt to combat global warming. When big species like polar bears go extinct because their habitat has been destroyed, it will be the oil companies and climate change deniers (including the politicians who fought against the solutions) who will bear responsibility. When sea levels rise and the billions of people in the world who live in coastal areas are displaced and disease and overcrowding cause a global crisis, it will be these people and their greed that let it happen. When more Katrina-like hurricanes and unprecedented extreme flooding and droughts occur due to the changes global warming produces in our weather, it will be the corporations who profited off the death and destruction.

So hell yes, these people are criminals. If stealing a car is a felony, I'd say covering up and exacerbating climate change for decades all for corporate profit is a crime to say the least. Yes, it is a crime against humanity. Sure, it isn't as directly evil as what Hitler, Stalin, Suharto or Bush have done, and it effects our felt much more subtly, but the end result is still death, the end result it still destruction, poverty, pain and ruined lives. And the motivation is greed, these CEO's and lobbyists knowingly advocating against critical changes that would reverse global warming and spare us all of its grave impacts, speeding us toward the point of no return, all to pad their pockets with cash they don't even need.

That's criminal. That's theft of lives. That's a silent slaughter. They shouldn't be allowed to do this for decades and then retire comfortably with their millions keeping them safe and happy while billions upon billions of less-fortunate people around the world suffer for their greed.

Update: Check this out for more of Hansen's take on the immediate necessity of action to combat global warming.

Why Does McCain Hate America?

Hypocrisy is a funny thing, and the Republicans have always been well endowed with it. I've written before about the right-wing's attempts to smear Michelle Obama and paint her to be some America-hating black panther or terrorist. The accusations are ridiculous and predictable, but that doesn't stop a lot of right-wing viewers/listeners of idiots like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity from actually eating it all up like it is real.

The most prolific smear against her has been the Republicans taking her comments that, as a result of the outpouring of democratic activity, energy, and America's acceptance, for the first time in history, of a minority presidential candidate, she was for the first time in her adult life, proud of this country. And literally for months now the Republicans have been screaming about this on TV, radio and on the internet, saying that Michelle Obama is racist, and hates America, blah blah blah. It has been insanity. It is beyond ridiculous that they have grabbed on to what was really a very positive comment about her really being proud of this moment in American history (Laura Bush even came out and said this is what Michelle meant), and tried to twist it into something bad to use to demonize her (Cindy McCain even jumped on the bandwagon repeatedly proclaiming that she has always been proud of this country). But like I said, it is absolutely predictable, because we know the Republicans can't win on the issues, because they are defending policies that have been horrible failures and have screwed this country up for the last 8 years. So they have to resort to ridiculous personal attacks like this.

Last night, Dan Abrams exposed some past comments from John McCain, in which he repeatedly stated the following:

"I didn't really love America until I was deprived of her company."

Woah now, McCain actually admitted, on multiple occasions, that he didn't really love America until he was taken prisoner in Vietnam?? He was 31 years old when that happened. He didn't love America for 31 years...? OH. MY. GOD. And of course the right-wing talk show hosts and pundits are jumping all over this screaming "Why does John McCain hate America?!", right? After all, they've been doing this for months now against Michelle, for comments that we arguably less "offensive" (if you want to call this offensive). Let's stop for a second and compare the comments:

• John McCain said he didn't love his country for 31 years.
• Michelle Obama said for the first time in her adult life, she was proud of her country. Michelle has been an adult for 26 years, and she just said "proud", she never said she didn't love America. And also, you have to realize who has been controlling the country for her entire adult life, the Republicans (and Bill Clinton who was Reagan-lite when it came to economic issues), and they have been screwing up everything for that time. All of these problems we are seeing now, none of them started with Bush, Bush just sent them over the edge, but they were all started with Nixon and Reagan. (See my comments below on idiots pretending the US can do no wrong)

So I submit to the most jingoistic, ultra-patriotic, red-blooded, beef-eating, flag-waving Americans out there, which is worse, not loving your country, or not being proud of it? Something tells me if you didn't tell them who said which, they'd point to the person who didn't love their country for over three decades as the anti-American terrorist-hugger. Yet somehow when it turns out that a white Republican male said it, it is OK, and suddenly the black woman Democrat is the American hater, while the Republican is just a hero. Do you see the hypocrisy? Do you see the double-standards? That happens because it isn't really about love for country or patriotism or any of that, it is about politics, it is about exploiting patriotism, and it is probably mixed in with a fair amount of bigotry and racial double-standards.

Dan Abrams, to his credit, actually made a point of calling the Republicans on their double-standards, he challenged his Republican guests, the same people who have taken part in the smears against Michelle, and asked what if she had admitted to not loving America until some event (let's say this election)? Would they be making excuses for the comments like they are with McCain? Or would they be screaming bloody murder and calling her an America-hater and a racist? We all know the answer, it is obvious, they would be demonizing her and raising hell about it coast to coast. Yet with McCain, they don't care, and they just praise him as being an American hero. Shameless.

The first part of the video shows McCain repeatedly making the "I didn't really love America" comments, and then Abrams and the guests fight it out for the rest of the clip. If you watch the rest of it, you'll hear the Republican guests make some ridiculous comments. For instance one of the guests says:

• Michelle said America is "mean". I have never heard of Michelle Obama saying that America is mean, a meanie-face, or any variation on the "mean" theme.
• Michelle said that average people can't make it in America. Where the hell has this guy been? This is just like those idiots who tried to say that Obama was wrong and people aren't bitter about being ignored by Washington and left behind economically. The middle class in America is wilting away. Unemployment is going up, prices of everything from food to gas are soaring. The price of education is soaring out of reach. Foreclosures and bankruptcies are happening left and right. We have BIG issues in this country, and average people are being shut out of opportunity. To say they aren't just exposes either how disingenuous the lying Republican hack who is making the comment is, or how completely out of touch and truly elitist they are. Just like those idiots who try to say that people making over $200,000 that would possibly have their taxes raised by Obama are "average people", if you really think that the top 3.5% of Americans who make $200,000+ a year are "average" or "middle class", you have been sipping champaign and cruising on yachts for far too long.
• Michelle said the country does horrible things. Again, I never remember her saying that the country does horrible things, but if she did she would be absolutely correct. Take an easy example: Iraq. We have done horrible things there, our invasion has lead to the deaths of over a million people and over 4.5 million refugees, to say nothing of the terror, the wounded people, the psychological trauma, or the ethnic cleansing. Our government has tortured people, I'd put that in the "horrible things" category. We have fought efforts and curbing global warming even though the consequences of inaction are enormous. I'd call that negligent, and horrible. Our country has a long long history of doing horrible things, going all the way back to before we were even a country, when we came to this land and started an ethnic cleansing campaign against the indigenous population. If that happened today we'd call it genocide. Our country has done some good here and abroad, but we've also done a lot of very bad things, to ignore that, and to attack someone who simply acknowledges that we aren't (or haven't been) angels, is insane, and intellectually bankrupt. This Republican hack, and anyone who repeats these ridiculous attacks just expose themselves as complete idiots.
• Michelle is "friends with terrorists" (William Ayers). First, I'm unaware of Michelle even ever meeting William Ayers. Second, William Ayers was never charged with any terrorist acts, and was never imprisoned. Third, all of the questionable things he was involved with happened in the 60s, back when Michelle and Barack Obama were still riding bikes with training wheels. Today Ayers is a college professor and active in the community, he is not a radical, not a terrorist, and a simply knowing the guy doesn't make anyone else guilty of anything. Like I said, he is a teacher, does this mean that every student that takes a course from him is suddenly enrolled in a terrorist training camp and comes out a suicide bomber? Of course not. These attempts to connect Michelle and Barack Obama to terrorists is RIDICULOUS. Ayers is a prominent member of the community that Obama represented in the state legislature. Obama's predecessor introduced him to Ayers and they've spoken on a few occasions. Ayers also happened to be on a board that Obama was also on. Does that mean they had slumber parties and painted each other's toenails? No. Obama was cordial, as any normal person would be. Yet here we have it again, the right-wing's transparent attempts to demonize people and link them to their opponents through guilt-by-association tricks because they can't win on the issues, so they have to play voters for fools. And to think, they try to make Ayers out to be some psycho mass murderer, while they embrace Bush, who has the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent people on his hands. How's that for a double standard?

Later, another Republican guest (or maybe the same one) also makes the ridiculous comment that Michelle has it all, and doesn't see America as the land of opportunity, this despite her humble upbringing in the South Side of Chicago, and despite the fact she continually praises America as the land of opportunity where the American dream is possible by using her own life as an example. She has never forgotten the wonderful opportunities she has had, and she uses that experience to call for us to fix America and make it greater so that everyone will have the same opportunities that she had. She wasn't born with a silver spoon in her mouth, and you won't find a more down-to-earth first lady. She doesn't take anything for granted, and these idiots who try to demonize her know absolutely nothing about her, and as Dan Abrams and his more rational guests quite effectively pointed out, the Republicans cynically take her comments out of context to smear her, while they would never do the same to McCain or any of their own. And there you have it, like I said before, it has nothing to do with America or patriotism or her comments or his comments or anything of the sort, it is all about hypocritically and cynically distorting their opponents (or their family and anyone they ever met) for political gain, so they can once again distract voters from the real issues, playing them for fools, so they can be voted back into power so they can continue to whore themselves out for the wealthy while screwing over average, everyday Americans.



I should just note that I agree wholeheartedly with Dan Abrams, and I find nothing wrong with McCain's comments. I don't think anyone should be required to "love" their country, or even necessarily be proud of it, especially in light of all that is wrong with it. I expect people to be realistic about their country's history and what it stands for, and I expect that they want to make it better, which is the ultimate expression of love for country. I can't respect people who blindly profess love for something, essentially giving it a blanket endorsement, while completely overlooking reality. You can't love something or be proud of something you don't even know. It isn't love, it is lust, and not even for America, but for power and for yourself.

The US Supreme Court Restores The Constitution And Basic Human Rights, McCain Can't Hide His Contempt

Habeas Corpus, also known as "The Great Writ", lies at the foundation of justice in the "civilized world". It goes back hundreds upon hundreds of years, even back before the Magna Carta was written in 1215, which stated in no uncertain terms that no ruler was above the law, and certain rights cannot be taken away from citizens. The Great Writ states that authoritarian rulers--monarchs, dictators and the like--cannot arbitrarily imprison individuals. It enshrines the inherent right of due process under the law. It is a concept held by any society that even pretends to be fair or just. In short, habeas corpus is what separates free and just societies from ruthless dictatorships. Without it, no one can be safe from the terror of government oppression, and there can be no law, no legitimate government, no safety. It isn't about a law in a single country, it is about fundamental human rights, the kind inalienable liberties and protections the Founding Fathers built into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. No other single element is more central to the principles this country was founded on.

On November 13, 2001, George W. Bush signed an executive order giving himself the (unconstitutional) authority to violate habeas corpus, whenever he sees fit, simply by declaring the victim an "unlawful combatant". This applied to American citizens and foreign nationals alike. In this one decision Bush took it upon himself to overturn the most fundamental protection of freedom that was born nearly a millennium before, and gave himself the powers coveted by the most savage dictators throughout history. To many observers it was an absolute violation of the most sacrosanct values of free society, and our very own Constitution.

For nearly seven years Bush used these dictatorial powers to deny hundreds, if not thousands of human beings any right to so much as question their indefinite detention, to say nothing of their torture. Essentially Bush claimed the extralegal authority to snatch up any person, on a whim, for any reason or no reason at all, and hold them and do whatever he wants with them for as long as he sees fit, without even accusing the person of a crime or letting them know why they have been abducted, and that person has absolutely no legal recourse. For all intents and purposes, that person it no longer human, they are an animal or an object, and there is absolutely nothing they can do to stop the detention and torture. Just try to imagine that absolute, horrifying, soul crushing desperation that would cause in a person. Bush claimed that as long as these people were held off US territory they have absolutely no rights before the US Constitution. As long as they were held in a foreign country, or on land owned or leased by the US government but not part of the official United States, the US government could act just as a ruthless dictator, denying the most basic and fundamental human rights (including the protections of the Geneva Conventions) and values of our society to human beings, based on a territorial technicality. For seven years this went on, and while legal challenges were raised by groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, the administration continued to operate as if they were above the law, and morality. To read more about the legal challenges to Bush's suspension of rights, read here.

However after seven years, just a few days ago, the US Supreme Court finally unequivocally ruled that Bush's suspension of the basic human and legal right of habeas corpus was unconstitutional. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion for Boumediene v. Bush, stated in unambiguous:

The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law. The Framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, a part of that law.

This also means that the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which was strongly supported by John McCain and almost all Republicans in Congress, was an unconstitutional law, a violation of the Constitution and of the fundamentals of every free society. While this court decision is an enormous victory for the voiceless victims of state oppression, it is also a huge indictment of everyone who supported Bush's violation of the Constitution and basic human rights. McCain is chief among these ardent supporters, and now he is running for Bush's third term, complete with the very same dictatorial view of executive power, no matter how illegal or how immoral. It is about absolute, unchecked authoritarian power.

On the other hand, Barack Obama opposed this 7 year unconstitutional travesty from the beginning, perhaps because he taught constitutional law for over 10 years, or perhaps because he actually believes in justice, freedom, and human rights, or perhaps because he actually has morals. I'd suspect it is a mix of all of the above. Sadly enough, Bush, McCain and virtually every Republican in Congress had none of those beliefs, values or knowledge to keep them from supporting such horrific policies and legislation for seven years. Never one to rest on his failures, McCain doubled down by blasting the Supreme Court's defense of the Constitution and human rights:

The United States Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country. Sen. Graham and Sen. Lieberman and I had worked very hard to make sure that we didn't torture any prisoners, that we didn't mistreat them, that we abided by the Geneva Conventions, which applies to all prisoners. But we also made it perfectly clear, and I won't go through all the legislation we passed, and the prohibition against torture, but we made it very clear that these are enemy combatants, these are people who are not citizens, they do not and never have been given the rights that citizens of this country have. And my friends there are some bad people down there. There are some bad people. So now what are we going to do. We are now going to have the courts flooded with so-called, quote, Habeas Corpus suits against the government, whether it be about the diet, whether it be about the reading material.

This shows multiple things:

• McCain lies. McCain used to be against torture, but he has since flip-flopped on that to come into line with Bush's view that torture is OK. Bush and the Republicans have also been consistent in their belief that detainees are not protected by the Geneva Conventions, and while McCain has given lip service in the past to the idea that the Geneva Conventions applied to detainees, in practice he supported policies that violated the Conventions, including torture (post flip-flop), "affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples" (in other words suspension of habeas corpus and unconstitutional sentencing by military tribunals), and a denial of the "right of return", which says that POWs must be allowed to return home after the cessation of hostilities. Of course the "war on terror" will never end, so in effect there is no right of return, or right of ever being released, which is a blatant violation of the Conventions.
• He also doesn't seem to realize that basic human rights and protections of inalienable rights like habeas corpus has nothing to do with citizenship, it is about HUMAN RIGHTS. These are values held by all free societies, they are fundamental to justice, freedom and democracy (which used to be more than just slogans for Republicans to distort). These are values enshrined in the Constitution. These rights can't be taken away arbitrarily based on technicalities, they are fundamental values to civilized societies. I can't make this clear enough, to think that only US citizens have protection from human rights violations by the US government is appalling, shocking, and despicable. McCain, Bush and the Republicans lack even the most basic understanding that "formal constructs like 'sovereignty' do not and cannot dictate the presence or absence of constitutional rights because they are 'subject to manipulation by those whose power it is designed to restrain.'"
• And lastly McCain shows either an inability to talk honestly about these gravely important issues, or complete ignorance of what habeas corpus is: "We are now going to have the courts flooded with so-called, quote, Habeas Corpus suits against the government, whether it be about the diet, whether it be about the reading material." Does McCain actually think that habeas corpus suits are about dietary or reading preferences?? Habeas corpus suits are designed to challenge the legality of imprisonment without due cause or due process. It is a right fundamental to our justice system, and McCain thinks, or has the audacity to suggest, that it is about petty complaints about the menu or entertainment? No, I'm sorry, I think the menu or reading material are a little lower on their priority list than, I don't know, actual being accused of a crime and given a fair trial?! But no, of course McCain can't have an honest debate over these issues, instead he has to completely distort what the issue is all about and continue to dismiss fundamental rights as luxuries. Or, maybe he just doesn't know any better, who knows with him, every day he shows up new levels of astounding ignorance about basic issues, so he really may be a complete idiot and really have no idea how the legal system works in this country. Either way, he shouldn't be a Senator, let alone President of the United States.
• And he actually called this reinstatement of the Constitution, and human rights "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country", wow. It takes quite a tyrant to see a triumph of justice like we just saw to call it "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country." Apparently he thinks allowing POWs the right to challenge their indefinite and possibly arbitrary detention and torture in a court of law is up there with past Supreme Court decisions like the one that declared black people property, instead of humans. It is shocking, and yet after almost 8 years of Bush's violations of the Constitution and morality the majority of Americans don't even realize how appalling McCain's comment was. Upholding the basic values of justice and rights that our Founding Fathers built into the very heart of our country, ranks among the "the worst decisions in the history of this country." And he says he isn't running to continue Bush's policies.

And as this diary points out, all that stands in the way of people like Bush and McCain hijacking the government with dictatorial impunity is ONE vote on the Supreme Court. One vote represents all that is holding these people back, on issues of basic human rights, as well as issues like warrantless spying on Americans or taking away a women's right to make choices about her own body and her own life. I'd like anyone who is still bitter about their candidate not winning the nomination to consider what is really at stake in this next election, and reconsider spiting themselves and anyone who may find their rights taken away by a government gone out of control, all for a unjustified grudge. Think about it.

Read more reactions to the Supreme Court decision here, here and here.

McCain's Lies Are Exposed, By McCain!

You will recall that during John McCain's now infamous "cottage cheese in a lime jello salad" speech he tried to interrupt the historic end of the Democratic primary by interjecting some of his patented low-energy attacks against Obama, and claiming that he does not represent a third term of Bush, no matter what all the facts seem to indicate:

You will hear from my opponent's campaign in every speech, every interview, every press release that I'm running for President Bush's third term. You will hear every policy of the president described as the Bush-McCain policy. Why does Senator Obama believe it's so important to repeat that idea over and over again? Because he knows it's very difficult to get Americans to believe something they know is false.

Yesss, why on Earth would anyone think that McCain and Bush embraced the same failed conservative policies?? That's just crazy talk. So what if McCain supported the Iraq war just like Bush? So what if McCain opposed raising the minimum wage just like Bush? So what if McCain opposed expanding health care to children just like Bush? So what if McCain wanted to privatize Social Security just like Bush? So what if McCain was against giving US veterans educational benefits just like Bush? So what if McCain has the same policies towards Iran as Bush? So what if McCain wants Dick Cheney to be a key part of his administration just like Bush? So what if McCain has lobbyists making his decisions for him just like Bush? I could go on and on and on. But hey, all that is just crazy stuff, Americans know that despite all that McCain is somehow not like Bush, because he said so, right?

Oh, wait...

RUSSERT: The fact is you are different than George Bush.

SEN. McCAIN: No. No. I-the fact is that I'm different but the fact is that I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed. And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I've been totally in agreement and support of President Bush.

[...]

But, I will argue my conservative record voting with anyone's, and I will also submit that my support for President Bush has been active and very impassioned on issues that are important to the American people. And I'm particularly talking about the war on terror, the war in Iraq, national security, national defense, support of men and women in the military, fiscal discipline, a number of other issues. So I strongly disagree with any assertion that I've been more at odds with the president of the United States than I have been in agreement with him.

In the middle there he also argued that he disagreed with Bush on a few domestic issues, primarily global warming (McCain acknowledges that global warming exists, but still opposes real efforts to combat global warming). And in fact, on most issues where he disagreed with Bush in the past, like torture and taxes, McCain now completely agrees with Bush now that he wants to Republican base to like him. McCain has shown, time and time again, that he has no principles, that he will bend his positions and "values" to reflect whatever is politically expedient at the time, even on something as supposedly important to him as torture. And now he is arguing his impeccable "conservative record", which kind of contradicts his claims of independence, considering Bush's policies ARE conservative policies. And McCain screws himself even more by rattling off a list of areas where Bush has completely failed the country, and says he would do the same thing. These are areas like:

• The War on Terror - McCain will continue to not find bin Laden, allow al-Qaeda to grow stronger than ever, and actually make Americans less safe, just like Bush.
• The War in Iraq - McCain will continue to put American lives in the middle of the chaos in Iraq even though our presence their puts us in more danger, helps recruit more terrorists, stretches our military to the breaking point, makes us less able to deal with disaster response at home, and isn't moving us any closer to any measure of "success" in Iraq, just like Bush.
• National Security - Once again, McCain will not make the US any safer because he supports the failed policies that have stretched our military to the breaking point, has failed to destroy al-Qaeda or kill Osama bin Laden, and has only been successful in making more people hate us, and helping terrorists bring in more recruits. Oh yeah, and "national security" is code for torture, violating the Geneva Conventions, and illegally spying on Americans.
• National Defense - See "National Security" above.
• Support for men and women in the military - Like Bush, McCain believes that the best way to support the troops isn’t to take them out of harms way and reward they service with veterans benefits and a free education, they support the troops by extending their tours of duty, sending them on repeated tours of duty, not giving them enough armor and resources, making a mess out of our veterans hospitals, lying to them about why they are risking their lives, and using them as political tools.
• Fiscal Discipline - Like Bush, McCain apparently thinks that "fiscal discipline" means cutting social services for the poor while giving huge tax cuts to the rich and dumping huge amounts of money into the war machine, giving us the biggest deficits in our nation’s history (I'm not even sure who he is pandering to here because all real fiscal conservatives have been disgusted with Bush's enormous deficits).

Yes, McCain has actively and passionately supported Bush on all of those things above, and on many many more things he failed to mention, according to his own confession.

But don’t be fooled, its those evil Democrats who are trying to distort McCain’s image to make him look like he walks in lockstep with Bush on nearly every issue. Yes, those evil Democrats apparently include McCain himself.

You were right about one thing John, it is very difficult to get Americans to believe something they know is false, which is probably why 2/3 of Americans see right through your spin, and correctly see you as an extension of George W Bush.

Update: You can add immigration to the list of issues that McCain has shown no principle on. He used to be in favor of comprehensive immigration reform, like Bush, and now he is against reform, and now MORE conservative and anti-immigrant than Bush on the issue. One of Congress's most influential Latino members, Sen. Robert Menendez had this to say about McCain's flip flop on immigration:

In my mind, he has dramatically shifted. He has really taken a Republican tact. It seems to me, and it is out there in the community, that he walked away at a critical time. And when you take that view, which shows that he is not the person of principle that he would like to show himself being, and you wear the Republican mantle that is so negative and anti-immigrant... I think it is very hard for John McCain to make hay with Latinos at the end of the day.

Update: The Jed Report provides a nice mashup of 2005 McCain debating 2008 McCain:

Desperate Republicans (And Fox News) Give Shameless A Whole New Meaning

We already know that John McCain and the Republicans can't win elections on the issues, at least not honestly. In order to win they have to scare people into voting for them, or they have to construct wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage to play on people's prejudices so they forget about the issues, or they resort to character assassination, swiftboating and smears. As I noted yesterday, Robert Borosage, like many, sees this as inevitable give the Republicans' untenable position on the issues:

In this exchange [the economy], McCain is in trouble. Here, as on Iraq, he is arguing for carrying the Bush agenda forward, while three-quarters of Americans think we're on the wrong course. As Obama puts it, "We have tried it their way for eight long years and it has failed. It is time to try something new. It is time for a change."

We haven't witnessed this clear an ideological division since the 1964 Johnson-Goldwater faceoff. For those who feared Obama couldn't throw a punch, he showed both a good jab and a decent left hook in pounding McCain on the economy. That's why the Republican posse is likely to scorn sparring about policy and turn this election into an alley fight, taking out the knives around patriotism, pastors and race.

There is, in fact, nothing more predictable and despicable than Republicans trying to win elections. Every election year we see the same formula, and this election is no different; if anything it is super-charged. We saw the Obama-is-a-secret-radical-Muslim-cleric-terrorist-islamofascist-Iraqi-Saddam-9/11-9/11-9/11! emails first, full of their ridiculous lies, yet forwarded to nearly every email address in the country, and people are dumb enough to believe that crap. The emails couldn't get any more asinine unless they ended with "Forward this to at least 20 friends in the next 5 minutes or you will suffer 14 years of bad luck and your genitalia will turn black and fall off!" And even then, these same idiots would probably believe it and forward it along, fearing for their genitalia, or perhaps just the prospect of part of them turning negro. Variations of the Obama-is-Muslim or Obama-isn't-American smears, both transparent code for Obama-is-a-nigger-but-that-isn't-okay-to-say-anymore, have flourished on the internet and on fake news channels like Fox, even though the vast majority of Americans know it is nothing but bigoted right-wing smears.

And yet Obama has overcome a year and a half of these smears and innuendo, and won the Democratic primary. But now it is on to the general, and the general population, especially on the conservative side, is much more susceptible to being played for fools than most Democrats, and the stakes are higher than ever. Yet having not been able to find any dirt on Obama, or successfully smear him in any meaningful way, despite a concerted effort by the MSM (orchestrated by Fox News) to conflate Obama with the words of his former pastor for a full two months, even though those comments had absolutely nothing to do with him, the Republicans are going to have to try out new angles.

And so yesterday the LA Times and Maureen Dowd warned of the GOP's next cynical target: Michelle Obama. And as Dowd points out, the smear machine is already pumping:

Now Republicans can turn their full attention to demonizing Michelle Obama. Mrs. Obama is the new, unwilling contestant in Round Two of the sulfurous national game of "Kill the witch."

There are some who think it will be harder for America to accept a black first lady — the national hostess who serenely presides over the White House Christmas festivities and the Easter egg roll — than a black president.

There are creepy Web sites, like TheObamaFile.com, dedicated to painting Michelle as a female version of Jeremiah Wright, an angry black woman, the disgruntled, lecturing "Mrs. Grievance" depicted on the cover of National Review.

On that site and others around the Internet, the seamy rumors still slither that there’s a tape of Michelle denouncing "whitey," a rumor that Barack Obama disdained last week as "scurrilous."

E.D. Hill, the Fox anchor who said that the celebrated fist pump between Michelle and her husband the night he snagged the nomination could be called a "terrorist fist jab," apologized Tuesday.

Back in May the GOP (yes, the official Republican Party) was trying to smear Michelle, and Obama wasn't having any of it:



And I have to agree, attacking Obama's family is definitely not something that will help the GOP, it will undoubtedly backfire completely.

In response to these continuing attacks against Michelle, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin had this to say about people who try to smear and demonize Michelle to score cheap political points on Obama:

Well, I know Michelle. She has been my friend and a friend of my wife for many, many years. She can take it. She can handle herself. She is a very accomplished person. But I will tell you this: the hottest ring in Hell is reserved for those in politics who attack their opponents' families. And if there are some Republican strategists that think that's the way to win the election, I think they are wrong.

I couldn't agree more. But, of course, that hot hot ring of hell is already pretty well stocked with Fox News reporters, as we saw the very same day:




Yeah, that's right, throughout the day they referred to Michelle Obama, the wife of a US Senator, and likely future first lady as Obama's "baby mama". Now, for a little slang lesson from Urban Dictionary (courtesy of Stroszek):

"the mother of a man's child when the parents are not married"

"The mother of one's child. The connotation is that mother and father do not and never did have any relationship beyond being sex partners. Contrast: ex-wife, ex-girlfriend."

"The mother of your child(ren), whom you did not marry and with whom you are not currently involved."

"A term used to define an unmarried young woman (but can be a woman of any age) who has had a child. As mentioned before in another definition, most of the time it is used for when it was simply a sexual relationship, compared to ex-wife or girlfriend. Usually this has a negative connotation, a lot of baby mamas are seen as desperate, gold digging, emotionally starved, shady women who had a baby out of spite or to keep a man. Sometimes they may act like this because of missed child support payments, unfulfilled promises by the father, or convenient sex by the father."

Alright, so Fox News thought it was appropriate to essentially call Michelle Obama (and Barack Obama) a whore. Apparently the people at Fox think Michelle is nothing but the woman Obama accidentally knocked up before moving on. Not only is that horribly sexist (I'd say a hell of a lot more sexist, disrespectful and offensive than anything the media threw at Hillary), but it is racist as hell. Fox News was willfully playing into racial stereotypes of promiscuous African American men and single mothers by disparaging the kind, hard working, good mother and wife of a respectable Senator down to nothing more than some knocked up tramp. Funny that Hillary Clinton was never Bill's "baby mama", or Cindy McCain was never John McCain's "baby mama", or ANY OTHER WIFE COUPLE WITH CHILDREN, yet we have the couple that will most likely be the first black president and first black first lady, and all the sudden she is Obama's baby mama. It is outrageous, shameful, despicable, completely fucked up, for lack of a more appropriate term.

But that's Fox News for you, nothing but sexist, bigoted pieces of shit (so glad Hillary's "feminist" supporters hail Fox News as the best network on TV).

So, in response to all of these smears, Obama's campaign has launched a new website, FightTheSmears.com, which will debunk all of the various smears out there attacking Obama, Michelle, and hell, probably eventually their two daughters, Malia and Sasha.



[And to be clear, as I think we always should be, there is nothing wrong with being Muslim. For better or worse, being a Muslim is no better or worse than being a Christian. You can bitch about them for not believ