The media and John McCain are finally starting to turn against poor Barack Obama.  Even Obama admits it, warning that, what Bush and McCain “[are] going to try to do is make you scared of me,” Obama said.  “You know, `he’s not patriotic enough, he’s got a funny name,’ you know, `he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.‘”

McCain and ABC’s Jake Trapper have rightly pointed out that this is Obama playing the race card.  No person speaking on behalf of Senator McCain or President Bush has even remotely mocked or referred to Obama’s appearance, skin color, the phonetics of his name or his racial history.  What they have done is criticized his woeful lack of experience.

Not one to ever stick to a statement, when questioned, the Obama campaigned feigned surprise, claiming, incredulously, that Obama was not saying anything about race:

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said “What Barack Obama was talking about was that he didn’t get here after spending decades in Washington,” Gibbs said. “There is nothing more to this than the fact that he was describing that he was new to the political scene. He was referring to the fact that he didn’t come into the race with the history of others. It is not about race.”

Really? There are 8 U.S. presidents on currently circulated currency.  Only two of them have more than 10 years of political experience in washington (and only then if you count Jefferson’s Ambassadorship to France as time he spent as a “Washington insider”):

Arguably, the $2 bill and the silver half dollar are not even in common circulation.  I have excluded military service, as I don’t think anyone could reasonably call Washington, Ike, Grant (or their equivalent in General Patreaus) “Washington insiders” simply because they commanded the military in war time.

Of course, the flip side of the coin is that, if Obama (God forbid), is elected president, he will have served 4 years in the Senate, making him more of a Washington insider than any president on currency (other than JFK and Thomas Jefferson).

With apologies to Adam Sandler (and for outing anyone)

Conservatism is
The defense of states’ rights,
Instead of one massive federal program,
We want our tax bill to be light!

When you feel like the only kid in town
Who’s in the G-O-P;
Here’s a list of celebrity Neocons,
Just like you and me…

Frasier’s Kelsey Grammar
Is a red-state voter,
So is Paul Sorvino, Pat Sajak
and rich kid Ricky Schroeder.

Guess who supports Bush’s tax cuts
And thinks Code Pink is scary?
Catherine Bell from JAG
And San Francisco’s Dirty Harry!

Tom Selleck is a Conservative,
Heather Locklear is one too,
Put them both together,
And there’s nothing we can’t do!

You don’t need to pay high taxes,
Or turn over your beloved Glock.
You can lobby Congress with
Regis Philbin and The Rock!

[Chorus]
Pull out the superlatives,
Here come the Conservatives
Fiscal plans that’re preserve-ative
When you’re a Conservative!

Hanoi Jane Fonda [not a GOPper]
But guess who is? Easy Rider Dennis Hopper [He converted]

Guess who thinks the Democrats
Take advantage of taxpayers?
Don McLean, Meat Loaf, Bo Derek
And Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

So many Righties are in the show biz
Barbara Streisand isn’t
But I bet her accountant is.

[Chorus]
Pull out the superlatives,
Here come the Conservatives
Fiscal plans that’re preserve-ative
When you’re a Conservative!

There’s a real hubbub brewing about a tape that allegedly shows Michelle Obama at the pulpit at Trinity United Church of Christ railing against “whitey”. The rumor, started by Hillary Clinton supporter Larry Johnson. It goes without saying, of course, that the Obama campaign and the mainstream media are unfairly blaming this rumor mongering on the “vast-Right Wing conspiracy” and the “Republican attack machine” that is the source of so much ill will in this country. (Like the time we made Slick Willy play hide the cigar with an intern).

I sincerely doubt this rumor is true. If it were, Hillary would have aired it long before now to save her chance at the nomination. As far as Mr. Johnson is concerned, if you want to check out his credibility and track record, you might want to start here, his NY Times article entitled “The Declining Terrorist Threat.” Note the date.

In October, 1974, Willie Horton and two other upstanding community leaders in Lawrence, Mass, robbed a 17-year old gas station attendant, stabbed the boy 19 times, and left him to bleed to death in a trash can. Horton was convicted of murder by a jury of his “peers” and sentenced to life in prison.

After being in prison for a little over 10 years, the governor of Massachusetts, believing that even prisoners deserve a vacation, allowed Mr. Horton out on a weekend furlough. Mr. Horton, never the one to let bleeding heart good deeds go unpunished, neglected to return from said furlough. He remained at large for almost a year until, in April, 1987, he robbed a couple in Maryland, stabbing (old habits die hard), pistol whipping, binding and gagging the man so that he could, not once, but twice, rape the woman in front of her boyfriend. In sentencing Horton for his crimes in Maryland, the judge refused to return Horton to Massachusetts saying, “I’m not prepared to take the chance that Mr. Horton might again be furloughed or otherwise released,” by the liberal Mecca on the Bay.

All of this may have been a sad (pathetic, perhaps) footnote in the anals of liberal idiocy, except for the fact that the governor who furloughed Willie Horton, and allowed him to rape and brutalize the population at large, was Michael Dukakis, and Michael Dukakis ran for President in 1988.

During the Democratic primaries (sorry to let the cat out of the bag, but, yes, it was a democrat who came up with the idea of giving people with lifetime prison sentences a “break”), one of Dukakis’s opponents (none other than Al Gore) raised the issue during a debate, without naming Willie Horton. Notwithstanding the soft-on-crime liability (and the fact that Senator Gore had just recently invented the internet), the Democrats nominated Mr. Dukakis as their candidate for president against then Vice President George H. W. Bush.

Here is where the saga takes a turn that could only be explained by a firm understanding of race and the media in America. A Republican group ran an ad informing the public of Dukakis’s disgusting history with Mr. Horton. The ad, which named Horton, included a photo of him. He’s Black. This, of course, means that Republicans are racists.

Wait, what? Republicans didn’t hand pick Willie Horton. Out of all the furloughed prisoners, his story was the worst. Republicans didn’t make him Black. Republicans didn’t encourage Dukakis to only release violent Black criminals. Republicans had absolutely nothing to do with (i) Willie Horton being Black; (ii) Willie Horton killing, raping and brutalizing three people or (iii) Willie Horton being released from prison. This entire episode was hand crafted by Mike Dukakis, not some Republican attack machine. All that the Republican ad did was to tell the story. Is that racist?

So why, then, do Republicans not cry foul when some dim witted political operative (by the way Susan, “escapade” is not the proper term when describing the violent rape of a woman and the beating and stabbing of her boyfriend) blames the Republicans for “negative” ads like “Willie Horton?”

What, exactly, is racist about showing the face of Willie Horton, or even mentioning him by name? Visual aids are key to advertising (whether they are political or otherwise). Are Republicans required to forgo visual aids because Willie Horton is Black? What’s more, isn’t it more racist to assume that showing the photo is racist? The liberal’s objection is that, by showing Willie Horton, the ad plays on America’s fear of Black men. Come again? Who says America is afraid of all Black men? I’m not. I am, however, wary of anyone who has stabbed a 17-year old 19 times, pistol-whipped, stabbed, bound and gagged another man while he rapes (twice) that man’s girlfriend. I don’t care if he’s Black, White, red, orange, blue or green, I give the fucker a wide berth.

The point here is that Democrats are able, because Republicans are scared of being called racists (or greedy, or polluters, etc.), to reframe the issue from one of cause and effect of bad policies to one of politics-as-usual, Republican-attack-machine, negative campaigning. We can no longer allow them to do this. We have to take back the dialogue from the scare-mongers and race-baiters. Willie Horton was a clean ad on the failed liberal policies of Mike Dukakis.

Liberals in the media and in Congress have made many ill-rationed arguments against the war in Iraq. Among them is the contention that our presence in Iraq foments anti-Americanism and breeds more terrorists than it destroys. Not true says, of all sources, the New York Times: “After almost five years of war, many young people in Iraq, exhausted by constant firsthand exposure to the violence of religious extremism, say they have grown disillusioned with religious leaders and skeptical of the faith that they preach.”

Let that sink in for a minute. Not only do young Iraqi’s not want to join al Qaeda in Iraq (that’s the group’s own name, mind you) or any other militant Islamic terrorist group, they blame the clerics for the violence in Iraq.

The article goes on to frame the debate in terms of religious participation rather than what is, in my view, a rejection not of Islam, but of Wahabiism. The article does not report the kind of pro-American flag-waving gratitude you might expect to see from a liberated people, but we are talking about the New York Times reportage. They have rules about displaying American flags when they are not on fire.

The article does, however, expose as untrue one of the primary arguments liberals have for “getting us out of Iraq now.” If young Iraqis are turning away from violent Islam, we are decreasing the popularity of al Qaeda and Islamofascism, not increasing it. Yes, it is true that there is violence in Iraq, and it is true that our military personnel are still at risk, but as this blog has often noted that it took us almost four years of combat in Iraq to lose as many Americans as we did in one day of terror in America. Where is the acknowledgment that our efforts in Iraq are reaping rewards?

We are creating a democracy in a part of the world that has never seen one. We are attracting and killing foreign terrorists by the thousands. We are preventing attacks on American civilians by focusing the battle in Iraq. And, to top it all off, we are exposing Muslims to the realities of Wahabism and they are clearly rejecting it.

Where, exactly is the downside?

Barack Obama, fresh on the heels of his well-received speech on race, has spoken out again today in Pennsylvania. Mr. Obama, in prepared remarks, addressed another religious leader, whose Anti-Catholic and Anti-American rhetoric has shocked many. “I vigorously disagree with the Muslim Cleric, Osama bin Laden, and his remarks involving Western democracy and theology,” said the madrasah-educated Senator from Illinois. “But I can no more disown him than I can my white Uncle Jedediah who still lives in Hawaii. Uncle Jeb, not unlike Mr. bin Laden, is a raving lunatic and racist, who once said the Japanese should be damned to the fires of Hell.” Barack Obama’s aging uncle, Jeb Dunham, a Pearl Harbor survivor who lives in Honolulu, could not be reached for comment.

Senator Obama continued, “I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Mr. bin Laden that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.”

“Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals,” continued the freshman Senator, “there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough….Like other predominantly Muslim churches across the world, Wahabism embodies the Muslim community in its entirety – the arms dealer and the suicide bomber mother, the model student and the former capitalist. Like other Muslim churches, Wahabism services may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the Muslim experience in the world.”

Several news outlets were quick to call this second address “worthy of [President] Lincoln.” George Stephanopoulos said Obama’s refusal to renounce this highly controversial man was, “in many ways an act of honor.” And on CNN, Campbell Brown called the speech “striking” and “daring,” asserting that Obama had, quote, “walked the listener through a remarkable exploration of religion from both sides of the beheading divide, from both sides of himself.”

I’ve been off for a week, in the words of a liberal friend, “gleefully” enjoying the Spitzer ordeal.  I try not to take joy from the misery of others, but in Eliot Spitzer’s case I will make an exception.  Mr. Sptizer built his career on overzealous prosecution.  he used tactics more fit for totalitarian states, personally threatening those who had the audacity to challenge him or his politically motivated prosecutions.  His holier than thou attitude should never be condoned in government service, but because he attacked those evil corporations, the media “gleefully” allowed it to pass without challenge.

The fact that Mr. Spitzer’s downfall involved prostitution comes as a surprise.  In fact, it demeans the oldest profession.  As part of the libertarian wing of the Republican party, I have no moral conviction against prostitution.  It is illegal, but as Michael Barone points out, not really illegal.  It is only illegal around election time when politicians need to justify their over inflated budgets.  Anyone who has spent more than 5 minutes on Craigslist knows how to get hold of a prostitute.  If it were really illegal, why is it so easy to find?  Of course, sometimes the best you can do is charge Capone with tax evasion.

As for Mrs. Spitzer and her children, I have nothing but the greatest of sympathy for them.  I would assume that they feel more betrayed than anyone, though the NY Times has reported that Mrs. Spitzer encouraged her husband to stay governor.  That is a curious bit of trivia as most people in her shoes would be perfecting their Lorena Bobbit impression, not engaging in career counseling.

Also interesting is the fact that it was the New York Times that broke the story in the first place.  Is it completely coincidental that this exposé comes only a few weeks after a botched hit job on Mr. McCain?  As one commentator noted, Republicans must beware the ides of March.  Surely the media will not let a Democratic scandal go without a Republican one of equal or greater value.  In fact, most mainstream media are not even mentioning the fact that Mr. Spitzer is a Demorcat, or even a Hillary supporter.  (In fact, one news agency even called him a Republican).  This labelling campaign is one of the most subtle and damaging forms of media bias.  If you listen carefully, you will notice that only Republicans and “independents” do bad things in the media.

The irony in this case is, just by itself, delightful.  Apparently, Mr. Spitzer had created shell bank accounts and had been making large cash deposits and withdrawals.  That raised suspicions with his bank, who filed suspicious activity reports with the IRS and FBI, as required by laws that, ironically, Mr. Spitzer championed.  Following his lead, though with far less fanfare, federal prosecutors followed the money all the way to Kristen.   There are two important differences between the prosecutors who brought down Mr. Spitzer and the former governor himself: (1) they didn’t need a media smear campaign to coerce a confession; and (2) their criminal charges will stick.

As I said, I don’t believe prostitution should be illegal.  I don’t believe anyone should go to jail for what is really a moral issue and a victimless crime.  But, in Mr. Spitzer’s case, we should make an exception.  He built his career on prosecuting businessmen for practices that were not only legal (as evidenced by his stunning 0-fer conviction record), but also commonplace.  Mr. Spitzer should be made to live up to his own standards.  Especially after the unremorseful speech he gave.  Al qeada operatives have appeared more contrite.

Finally, I can’t let this go without repeating a the funiest Spitzer comment I’ve heard.  As you probably have heard, Spitzer allegedly asks his prostitutes to “do something that most people might not think is safe.”  As one Fark commentator put it, “yeah baby, run an under-capitalized hedge fund for me!”  Alas, Spitzer is revealed to the world for what he is, a bad joke that you need a law degree to fully appreciate.

June 8, 2009

President Barack Obama, speaking at a press conference in the Presidential underground bunker, recently expressed regret over invading Pakistan and generally causing the nuclear exchange last week that eradicated 95% of human civilization.   “Let me, let me, let me, let me just be absolutely clear what happened,” Obama answered, “it was a boneheaded move.”  The President was responding to questions from the three remaining journalists, several military personnel and a handful of the civilians that were spared the nuclear holocaust.

President Obama was clearly irritated by the prolonged questioning regarding the escalation of military exchanges that lead to the devastation.  “These requests, I think, could just go on forever,” the president said, before rushing off the broken crate serving as a podium.  “Come on! I just answered, like, eight questions.”

[Dispatches from the future, where the media and "intellectual" bias has been reversed in full]
February 23, 2034

The star-studded Republican presidential field met today with Professor Eric Rudolph, a right of passage for those seeking public office. Dr. Rudolph, Dean of the University of Illinois Law School, is seen as the standard bearer for the party. Jack Rodham, the Republican front-runner, was an intern for the defense and observed Dr. Rudolph’s 2005 political trial. “He’s one of my personal heroes,” noted the charismatic Senator Rodham. “It was a perfect day, the day I bombed the abortion clinic in Birmingham,” Dr. Rudolph said of his Fetus Freedom Fighting days. “I don’t regret setting bombs” and “I feel we didn’t do enough.”

Tomorrow, the Republican candidates, one of whom will likely be the next president, will attend a debate at the Strom Thurmon Segretarium, moderated by Rush Limbaugh Jr., Ronald Reagan III, and former president George W. Bush.

Separately, Democratic presidential front-runner Chelsea Clinton (D-Manitoba), daughter of the disgraced William Jefferson Clinton, has been forced to answer questions about her affiliations to radical Left-Wing groups yet again today. The Fox New York Post Today is reporting that Clinton’s holography site includes mental ad images from “far left wing groups” such as the Teacher’s Union and the ACLU. Mrs. Clinton has denied these claims. This is the third controversy in as many days for Mrs. Clinton, who hopes to also overcome charges she has hired minorities without government approval, as well as another inflammatory charge that she has made private comments questioning supply-side economics.

—————————————————————————————–

[If you think this post glorifies abortion bombers, anti-minority sentiments or segregation, you're reading it wrong.]

The New York Times has declared Arizona Senator John McCain not only the Republican front-runner, but a bonafide Conservative. In an attack piece worthy of the Democratic party opperatives that staff its newsroom, the New York Times questioned Senator McCain’s ethics and his marital fidelity.

“This is clearly a nod to McCain that, as far as the New York Times is concerned, he’s a conservative,” notes one Republican political operative who asked to remain nameless. “If the Times thought he was ‘mainstream’ or even left of center, there’s no way they would run such an attack dog piece,” agreed another anonymous pundit. “I mean, there aren’t any quote facts unquote in that piece that are alleged to have happened this decade. In fact, didn’t they mention the Keating Five? Wasn’t Obama in a madrassa back then?”

According to sources within the Democratic party, the next step will be to flip the alleged lobbyist/mistress by bribing her or her client, or destroying her personal career. “After that blows over, they’ll start calling McCain stupid or old or both. If that doesn’t make him a Conservative in the Times’ eyes, I don’t know what does.”

Asked if such libelous attacks will hurt McCain’s chances in November, most political commentators agree: “Not at all.  First off, an 80 year old having an affair is not the kind of slander likely to stick.  Second, having your ethics questioned by the Times is like having Kim Jong Il question your human rights record. “