PDA

View Full Version : 58% of Republicans are Birthers


TwinSwords
07-31-2009, 05:07 PM
The Data (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_07/019306.php): "Among Republicans only 42% ... say Obama was born in the U.S., with 28% saying he was not, with a very high undecided number of 30%."

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/5306/birthers.png

Some may spin this to say only a quarter of Republicans are birthers, but, I'm sorry, if you say you don't know whether the President of the United States was born in this country after he has released his birth certificate, you're a birther. Here's a typical example of the undecideds. Remember: This wack job is part of the 30%, not the 28%.

http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/5207/birther.png (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kci7QUEbY8Y)

"I'm not saying this whole birther thing is true. I honestly am not sure about this whole birth certificate thing. But if you are the President of the United States, and you're asked to show your birth certificate ... why doesn't he do it? I'm not sure. I don't know. It just seems like a logical guess that he wasn't born here. I mean, his dad was born in Kenya, his brother lives in Kenya now. There's just a lot of things. Why won't he show it? Mr. President, why won't you show it?"

The problem is especially severe in Old Dixie, where fewer than half of all citizens believe the president was born in the United States.


The Question:
The question is what are the implications for our political system if fewer than half of the opposition party respects the legitimacy of the government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political_science))? Legitimacy is the cornerstone of a stable social order. Should we be casual in dismissing the significance of this growing trend, the growing refusal of tens of millions of Americans to acknowledge the legitimacy of American government?




Links:
— Washington Monthly (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_07/019306.php)
— Birther Wacko (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kci7QUEbY8Y)
— Legitimacy as "the foundation of ... governmental power." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political_science))

cragger
07-31-2009, 05:58 PM
Well ...

The specifics of the birther thing combine dishonesty and silliness in dramatic fashion, but may represent more a case of sour grapes over their party unaccustomedly losing an election than any serious question of legitimacy.

On the other hand, quite a few folks question(ed) the legitimacy of the first four years of George II, at least to the same extent of whatever point people are making in responding to a poll. Other folks question just how much legitimate significance is left in a democracy in which they get to pick one of two candidates who, were they required to wear the logos of every corporation, industry, or interest group that owns a piece of them would resemble NASCAR vehicles.

JonIrenicus
07-31-2009, 08:22 PM
Yes, and Glenn Beck is completely for real and not an act

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yF5jhmjTu0


And 911 was an inside job, and there are no gays in Iran, I don't know who told you this.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yF5jhmjTu0#t=3m26s

not an act


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yF5jhmjTu0#t=3m31s

NOT AN ACT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!@@@@@@@@@@!!!!!@@@!@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !

pampl
07-31-2009, 09:59 PM
On the other hand, quite a few folks question(ed) the legitimacy of the first four years of George II, at least to the same extent of whatever point people are making in responding to a poll. Other folks question just how much legitimate significance is left in a democracy in which they get to pick one of two candidates who, were they required to wear the logos of every corporation, industry, or interest group that owns a piece of them would resemble NASCAR vehicles.
Yeah, but you have to admit there was much more justification for questioning the legitimacy of Bush's 2000 victory. It involved arcane laws and decisions that appeared highly partisan. I'm not trying to argue that it was illegitimate, just that there's more of a case there than in an undisputed win that was a landslide both in electoral votes and the popular vote.

I think the campaign finance reform types are misguided but I don't think that's comparable to conspiracy theorizing. So far as I know, they don't rely on a set of facts that are easily disproven and/or lack any real evidence

Lyle
07-31-2009, 11:28 PM
Isn't your question the same question being asked about the Americans who didn't think George W. Bush wasn't actually elected as President. Both sides of the political spectrum are filled to the brim with baboons, nothing new here... nothing to worry about.

bjkeefe
08-01-2009, 12:16 AM
Isn't your question the same question being asked about the Americans who didn't think George W. Bush wasn't actually elected as President. Both sides of the political spectrum are filled to the brim with baboons, nothing new here... nothing to worry about.

You think viewing:

1. A stopped recount and a toss of the election to a Republican-controlled Supreme Court, who were so embarrassed by their reasoning that they directed that their decision not be used as precedent, and

2. Accusing the president of not being an American citizen -- after more than a year of debunking, and after a decade of his serving as an elected official

really amounts to the same level of craziness?

nikkibong
08-01-2009, 12:52 AM
The great Mark Kleiman has an excellent post on the issue:

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/race_related_isms_/2009/07/birtherism_in_the_white_south.php

claymisher
08-01-2009, 01:14 AM
The great Mark Kleiman has an excellent post on the issue:

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/race_related_isms_/2009/07/birtherism_in_the_white_south.php

I think Mark's riffing on some old segregationist language for laughs. As in:

The central question that emerges--and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by meerely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal--is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes--the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced ace. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the median cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists. The question, as far as the White community is concerned, is whether the claims of civilization supersede those of universal suffrage. The British believe they do, and acted accordingly, in Kenya, where the choice was dramatically one between civilization and barbarism, and elsewhere; the South, where the conflict is byno means dramatic, as in Kenya, nevertheless perceives important qualitative differences between its culture and the Negroes', and intends to assert its own.

National Review believes that the South's premises are correct. If the majority wills what is socially atavistic, then to thwart the majority may be, though undemocratic, enlightened. It is more important for any community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority. Sometimes it becomes impossible to assert the will of a minority, in which case it must give way, and the society will regress; sometimes the numberical minority cannot prevail except by violence: then it must determine whether the prevalence of its will is worth the terrible price of violence.

-- http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2005-3_archives/001467.html

TwinSwords
08-01-2009, 01:48 AM
Thanks for that. The last half line is great. He says we must make sure that "insane [Southerners] are never allowed to influence national policy in any way."

I know a lot of liberals are in thrall to some of their own completely crazy ideas, like the one about the Democrats having a permanent majority or the one about the Republican Party being dead and America being, effectively, a one party state. That one never gets old. Republicans used to tell it about Democrats just four years ago.

But these really are dangerous delusions on our part. If we go on auto-pilot and coast through the next four years, we stand a good chance of a rude awakening on election day, 2012. Republican doldrums are a thing of the past. They are energized, enraged, and activated. And we're only six months in. What do you think they're going to be like in four more years? (Hint: Worse.)

There's no such thing as a one party state in a two party system. Two party systems have a natural, inherent, and inexorable tendency to produce equilibrium between the two viable political parties. It's built into the mechanics of 2 party systems. Republicans are not going to get replaced by some figment of Bruce Lindsey's imagination or some magical new moderate version of conservatism that omits 2/3rds of conservatives - the rabid, fanatical, and deranged base. Republicans will always be a viable political party, and the rabid, demented base will always be a factor in its constitution. We need to deal with it, and as Kleiman says, "never allow[ them] to influence national policy in any way," ever again.

bjkeefe
08-01-2009, 03:02 AM
But these really are dangerous delusions on our part. If we go on auto-pilot and coast through the next four years, we stand a good chance of a rude awakening on election day, 2011. Republican doldrums are a thing of the past. They are energized, enraged, and activated. And we're only six months in. What do you think they're going to be like in four more years? (Hint: Worse.)

2011? Are we holding the elections a year early, because Obama only deserves to have 3/5 of a term??? ;^)

I'm not saying we should be on autopilot, but let's not get carried away with worries. Note the last paragraph from Weigel (http://washingtonindependent.com/53396/how-many-southern-whites-believe-obama-was-born-in-america) (from the link from Kleiman's post):

One thing to keep in mind, if only a quarter or a fifth of white Southerners believe Obama was born in the United States, that’s more than voted for him last year in some states. Obama won 14 percent of the white vote in Louisiana, 14 percent in Mississippi, and 10 percent in Alabama.

In other words, being a Birther is just the latest thing to be for people who were/are never going to like Obama (or liberals, or most real Dems) anyway. This is the deadender 20% of the country, and we've had them since forever. They only stand out now because their (ostensible) party is out of power, which means they don't have the hope that they're going to get taken care of (or the belief that they have to be loyal supporters of their preznit), which means they can be complaining full-time. And the media always loves to cover loudmouths and trainwrecks.

nikkibong
08-01-2009, 03:09 AM
Yes, it's a beaut' of a post from Rabbi Kleiman.

Attention bhtv commenters: if you are not reading Kleiman's blog, the Reality Based Community (www.samefacts.com) . . . wait, why aren't you reading the Reality Based Community????

It's the cure for anyone who still thinks that Andrew Sullivan is a competent blogger...

pampl
08-01-2009, 05:36 AM
There's no such thing as a one party state in a two party system. Two party systems have a natural, inherent, and inexorable tendency to produce equilibrium between the two viable political parties.

As an empirical matter that isn't really true. Japan spent sixty years with two major parties and for all but eleven months one party has been in charge. I don't think that's likely to happen here but it's not impossible.

stephanie
08-01-2009, 11:57 AM
The Data (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_07/019306.php): "Among Republicans only 42% ... say Obama was born in the U.S., with 28% saying he was not, with a very high undecided number of 30%."

Kleiman discussed this far more cleverly, but as I said in the other thread where it came up, the most interesting aspect is how regional the answer is.

That is, I don't think it's really fair to say that 28% of Republicans are birthers and 30% are birther-sympathizers or whatever. Republicans in most regions of the country seem to be within the normal range (not that different than Dems and Independents) on the question. But if you look at both the numbers in the South and adjust for the fact that African Americans (who have on average a higher percentage in the South than elsewhere) don't buy into the birther thing at all, you get some insanely high percentage of all white Southerners being birthers. And, again, very few people in the rest of the country are.

TwinSwords
08-01-2009, 01:53 PM
As an empirical matter that isn't really true. Japan spent sixty years with two major parties and for all but eleven months one party has been in charge. I don't think that's likely to happen here but it's not impossible.
I don't know enough about Japan's system to comment on it, but I maintain that as a general matter, two party systems have a built in tendency to produce equilibrium between the two viable parties. It would be a mistake, however, to interpret this to mean that one party cannot dominate for long periods of time. Clearly, one can, and this has happened in the US, too, with the Democrats in a dominant position in Congress for decades, from the 1930s to 1990s. This tendency is even more exaggerated when you get down to the regional level: e.g., the South was dominated by the Democrats for many decades, and other parts of the country have been, or are still, under control of one of the two parties for long periods of time. Matt Lewis briefly alluded to this yesterday (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/21487?in=09:30&out=09:52), and he's not alone. Take the district I was born into, for example: MI-15 has not only been held by a single party for decades, but a single individual. John Dingell was elected to the seat in 1955, and holds it still. That's over half a century. What kind of democracy is that?

This is actually another one of the major flaws, I think, with our current system: while the two party system produces competition as things play out at the national level, within regions, most voters typically only have a choice of candidates from one party.

Still: at the national level, across the whole spectrum of American politics, it would be a mistake to declare the Republicans dead. The rewards and structural incentives are too great for the minority party to NOT find a way to accommodate itself to the center and start winning elections. It may take several cycles for the process to play out, but it will inevitably play out over time.

The only other thing is that the presidency is always a special case because of the unique nature of presidential elections, where the outcome often depends on the personal charm / charisma of the candidates and other factors unique to a particular match up.

claymisher
08-01-2009, 02:06 PM
I don't know enough about Japan's system to comment on it, but I maintain that as a general matter, two party systems have a built in tendency to produce equilibrium between the two viable parties. It would be a mistake, however, to interpret this to mean that one party cannot dominate for long periods of time. Clearly, one can, and this has happened in the US, too, with the Democrats in a dominant position in Congress for decades, from the 1930s to 1990s. This tendency is even more exaggerated when you get down to the regional level: e.g., the South was dominated by the Democrats for many decades, and other parts of the country have been, or are still, under control of one of the two parties for long periods of time. Matt Lewis briefly alluded to this yesterday (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/21487?in=09:30&out=09:52), and he's not alone. Take the district I was born into, for example: MI-15 has not only been held by a single party for decades, but a single individual. John Dingell was elected to the seat in 1955, and holds it still. That's over half a century. What kind of democracy is that?

This is actually another one of the major flaws, I think, with our current system: while the two party system produces competition as things play out at the national level, within regions, most voters typically only have a choice of candidates from one party.

Still: at the national level, across the whole spectrum of American politics, it would be a mistake to declare the Republicans dead. The rewards and structural incentives are too great for the minority party to NOT find a way to accommodate itself to the center and start winning elections. It may take several cycles for the process to play out, but it will inevitably play out over time.

The only other thing is that the presidency is always a special case because of the unique nature of presidential elections, where the outcome often depends on the personal charm / charisma of the candidates and other factors unique to a particular match up.

Not only has Dingell been there forever, his dad had his seat before him! MI-15 has been held by a Dingell since 1933!

Yeah, given our first-past-the-post elections you're pretty much guaranteed a two-party system (that other party doesn't have to be the Republican Party though). Don't ask me how the Liberal Democrats in the UK persist though. Regional differences I guess.

TwinSwords
08-01-2009, 02:18 PM
2011? Are we holding the elections a year early, because Obama only deserves to have 3/5 of a term??? ;^)
LOL! That's what I get for typing when I've been up for 21 hours.


I'm not saying we should be on autopilot, but let's not get carried away with worries.
No, I'm not recommending worry. This isn't about anxiety. It's a caution against complacency. If you succeed in convincing enough people that we have a lock on elections for as far as the eye can see, some people might not make donations, volunteer their time, or even turn out to vote. We are only going to continue winning elections if we remain engaged. FWIW, being engaged also means waging the daily battle against wingnut talking points, as you do on your blog and in this forum. This is another essential element to beating back the Republicans, and it's possible that fewer Democrats are bothering with these activities, now, because we defeated the bad guys in 2008. I think we both believe that the Democratic comeback in 2006 and 2008 was due, in no small part, to the energized and activist Democratic base, people who were determined to turn the R's out of office.

Now that the R's are out of power, there will be a similar groundswell of activism on the right. Here's TimF, again, from his Peak Wingnut post of last Fall:

Movements thrive as oppressed minorities; in power they infight and splinter. To illustrate the point, look at how Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi energized rightwing blogs. In what conceivable way are Reid and Pelosi remarkable in any way? Remember that Reid is pro-life. They bend over backward to give the GOP a fair shake, even more so when you compare them to the clusterfuck that came before. There’s nothing particularly exceptional about either of the two, but by putting a name and face on the Other/Enemy they give the Movement something to hate and fear. The flip side is also true: Republican power wrecked America but it gave the online left a common enemy and an organizing focus. I think that single point best explains why the rightwing internet went from its Clinton-era juggernaut to the sad shadow of the leftosphere that it is today.



Note the last paragraph from Weigel (http://washingtonindependent.com/53396/how-many-southern-whites-believe-obama-was-born-in-america) (from the link from Kleiman's post):
I'll briefly commnet on the regional aspect of this phenomenon in my response to Stephanie.


In other words, being a Birther is just the latest thing to be for people who were/are never going to like Obama (or liberals, or most real Dems) anyway.
I agree with this completely, and have said so to you in PMs. Quoting myself, "a lot of [birthers] go along with [the birther conspiracy theory just] because they like seeing our eyes bulge. Another large contingent is willing to simply stipulate it uncritically, because they are rage- and hate-filled towards Obama [and, more broadly, the Democrats], and when it comes to criticism of our most hated enemies, there are no standards of evidence. Any cudgel will do for smashing in one's enemy's teeth."

So, yeah, it's important to break out the true conspiracy believers from those who adhere to the theory for other reasons: pissing off liberals, or using whatever weapons are at their disposal to damage our side.

In fact, it was pretty clearly several months ago that birtherism would grow if only because there was a Pavlovian reward for wingnuts who deployed birther arguments: they got to see people on our side flip out with indignation. They enjoy that. It's rewarding, so they will keep doing it.

Note: This dynamic is why, I think, birtherism will only grow, now that we know there is a huge "market" for it. What the poll did was it told Republicans there are tens of millions of Americans who will "buy" birtherism. Markets abhore a vacuum, and the poll's message to all political opportunists is that there is a huge market waiting to be tapped by the entrepreneurial conspiracy monger.


This is the deadender 20% of the country, and we've had them since forever.
Yeah, they suck, and they are idiots. We've never disagreed about that. What's important to electoral outcomes is what happens to that strange voter who's in the middle - the 5% of moderate swing voters. They're the ones we're all fighting for. Any meme that threatens to erode that mushy middle needs to be vigorously opposed.


They only stand out now because their (ostensible) party is out of power, which means they don't have the hope that they're going to get taken care of (or the belief that they have to be loyal supporters of their preznit), which means they can be complaining full-time. And the media always loves to cover loudmouths and trainwrecks.
Heh. Now you sound like Matt Lewis (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/21487?in=16:51&out=17:04), blaming it on the media. ;=)

TwinSwords
08-01-2009, 02:28 PM
Not only has Dingell been there forever, his dad had his seat before him! MI-15 has been held by a Dingell since 1933!
Exactly! I was going to mention that - and this problem is even more common in the Senate, where seats are often handed down from father to son.


Yeah, given our first-past-the-post elections you're pretty much guaranteed a two-party system (that other party doesn't have to be the Republican Party though). Don't ask me how the Liberal Democrats in the UK persist though. Regional differences I guess.
You're one of the few people I've ever encountered who seems to really understand two party dynamics. I was going to start a thread about it, because I would bet 99% of Americans could not tell you why the US is a two party system.



that other party doesn't have to be the Republican Party though
True. It could be replaced. But as students of history, we know that dominant parties aren't replaced often, and there is no reason currently to believe the Republcans are in any danger of extinction. There was a massive push by Ross Perot to establish a conservative party free of wingnuts/lunatics, but unfortunately for him, that meant excluding most conservatives. http://www.spartantailgate.com/forums/images/smilies/lol.gif

As Brendan said, that 20% or so of the country that adheres to extreme conservatism has always been a prominent feature of the American political landscape, and I do not believe there is any way to formulate a replacement party for the Republicans that excludes them.

Where I think we all agree is that to the extent we can define the R's by this 20%, we may be able to marginalize their entire party. No guarantees, of course, and I detect way too much confidence on our side that this will be the case, but it's a worthwhile strategy.

TwinSwords
08-01-2009, 02:32 PM
Yes, it's a beaut' of a post from Rabbi Kleiman.

Attention bhtv commenters: if you are not reading Kleiman's blog, the Reality Based Community (www.samefacts.com) . . . wait, why aren't you reading the Reality Based Community????

Seconded.

TwinSwords
08-01-2009, 03:03 PM
That is, I don't think it's really fair to say that 28% of Republicans are birthers and 30% are birther-sympathizers or whatever.
Very quickly, I wish there was a way, too, to separate out those who pay lip service to birtherism because it gives them a little thrill to take a dig at our side, and those who are truly deranged enough to believe it. To go back to the original question of this thread - what are the implications for the stability or cohesiveness of a social order when a substantial part of the electoral won't acknowledge the legitimacy of the government - we can't really know the answer without knowing the breakdown of that 58%. If, as many here suspect, the 58% is mostly adherents to a fad who are mostly motivated by a desire to taunt Democrats, it's probably not a big concern. If, on the other hand, there is a massive portion of the nation that feels the country has been taken over by a foreign usurper bent on destroying the country from within - and don't laugh, this is the rhetoric employed by a great many - then concerns for the stability of our system are justifiably greater.

Speaking strictly for myself, I'd guess that 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 of the 58% are birthers in the purest sense of the term. But these are fluid dynamics, too, and birtherism is not a stable, static phenomenon. Furthermore, birtherism as a social movement can either be mitigated or exacerbated by outside events, e.g., the economy. If the economy falls off a cliff and unemployment reaches 35%, birtherism and the general tendency of conservatives to reject Democratic legitimacy could become a bigger threat to the stability of our political system. If we get back to positive GDP by the middle of next year, on the other hand, the psychological pressures on base republicans may recede enough for these concerns to be diminished.


Republicans in most regions of the country seem to be within the normal range (not that different than Dems and Independents) on the question.
I'd like to see some actual data. So far, the only thing i've seen that comes close is this:

— The birth of a regional rump party (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/31/760258/-The-birth-of-a-regional-rump-party)

But it doesn't specify what percent of R's in the other 3 regions are birthers. However, clearly, they are closer to the normal range, if not within it.



But if you look at both the numbers in the South and adjust for the fact that African Americans (who have on average a higher percentage in the South than elsewhere) don't buy into the birther thing at all, you get some insanely high percentage of all white Southerners being birthers. And, again, very few people in the rest of the country are.
The regional nature of the phenomenon -- and let's step back for a minute and stipulate that this phenomenon is not just birtherism, but a whole suite of attitudes and opinions that place Southern Republicans far out of the mainstream of American political thought -- may actually be greater cause for concern, rather than less. There could be destabilizing effects if a region of the country feels as though it is being subject to an illegitimate, tyrannical authority.

TwinSwords
08-01-2009, 03:11 PM
Well ...

The specifics of the birther thing combine dishonesty and silliness in dramatic fashion, but may represent more a case of sour grapes over their party unaccustomedly losing an election than any serious question of legitimacy.
Yeah. We don't have data to separate out the whackos from the whiners, but I think your assumptions are probably correct. But I don't know it.

As far as what I "know" and "suspect," I will tell you this: Until the DKos poll came out, I would not have suspected that 58% of Republicans are birthers of ANY form, even the "merely whining" kind. So, let's not count too much on our own intuition and guesses.


On the other hand, quite a few folks question(ed) the legitimacy of the first four years of George II, at least to the same extent of whatever point people are making in responding to a poll.
They disagreed with the decision in Bush v. Gore, but I don't think it's fair to say they questioned the legitimacy of his presidency. We're a nation of laws, a constutional republic (i.e., a state based on rule of law), and whlie we object to some decisons of courts or legislatures, we adhere to them. That's what a belief in the rule of law is: we don't have to accept every outcome, but we are committed to the processes by which those outcomes are determined.


Other folks question just how much legitimate significance is left in a democracy in which they get to pick one of two candidates
When you say "left in a democracy" where there are only two choices, as if we have somehow evolved into a two party system over time. Is this your belief?

Lyle
08-01-2009, 03:12 PM
Yep, bjkeefe, crazy is crazy. There will be liberals going to their graves believing Bush and the Republicans "stole" the election and were not the legitimate American government.

Like I've said before, both sides of the political spectrum do crazy.

claymisher
08-01-2009, 03:13 PM
True. It could be replaced. But as students of history, we know that dominant parties aren't replaced often, and there is no reason currently to believe the Republcans are in any danger of extinction. There was a massive push by Ross Perot to establish a conservative party free of wingnuts/lunatics, but unfortunately for him, that meant excluding most conservatives. http://www.spartantailgate.com/forums/images/smilies/lol.gif

As Brendan said, that 20% or so of the country that adheres to extreme conservatism has always been a prominent feature of the American political landscape, and I do not believe there is any way to formulate a replacement party for the Republicans that excludes them.

Where I think we all agree is that to the extent we can define the R's by this 20%, we may be able to marginalize their entire party. No guarantees, of course, and I detect way too much confidence on our side that this will be the case, but it's a worthwhile strategy.

Way back when, after the 2000 election, I remember telling friends not to worry because Bush Jr was the perfect combination of bible-beater, big business tool, and name-brand recognition, and they just got lucky with him. I said the same thing in 2004. :( In 2008 McCain added war hero, had the name-brand recognition, mostly had the big business tool thing down, but lacked the bible-beating, and lost. The rest of the Republicans in the primary only had only one of the three: Giuliani had the famous name, Huckabee was the bible-beater, and Romney was the big business tool. Unless I'm forgetting someone, in 2012 they'll have pretty much the same sad line-up. Then figure in that Florida and Texas are trending blue for the same reasons VA and NC are. I know TX seems like a stretch, but when it gets closer Democrats will start fighting for it, and it could flip faster than you'd think. When TX is a blue state the Republican are completely screwed, and will either have to change their stripes.

I'm sure the siren song of lower taxes and no spending cuts ("Reagan proved deficits don't matter") will bring the Republicans back into power sooner or later though, but by the time it happens let's hope they will have dropped the white nationalism and antigay stuff.

TwinSwords
08-01-2009, 03:13 PM
Yep, bjkeefe, crazy is crazy. There will be liberals going to their graves believing Bush and the Republicans "stole" the election and were not the legitimate American government.

Like I've said before, both sides of the political spectrum do crazy.

When wingnuts are willing to concede that "both sides" have crazies, to me that reads as an admission that there are far more crazies on the right than on the left.

Lyle
08-01-2009, 03:16 PM
You also seem to forget why the Supreme Court inserted itself into the process, which was because they didn't want the Democrat controlled Florida Supreme Court deciding a national election (which that court was trying to do with zeal).

... and if the SCOTUS would have made the right call and given the election over to the House of Representatives, George W. Bush would have still prevailed.

So after all that, if you still thought Bush wasn't truly elected and not to be respected, yep, you were a proto-birther of the liberal, anti-Bush kind.

TwinSwords
08-01-2009, 03:25 PM
You also seem to forget why the Supreme Court inserted itself into the process, which was because they didn't want the Democrat controlled Florida Supreme Court deciding a national election (which that court was trying to do with zeal).

... and if the SCOTUS would have made the right call and given the election over to the House of Representatives, George W. Bush would have still prevailed.

So after all that, if you still thought Bush wasn't truly elected and not to be respected, yep, you were a proto-birther of the liberal, anti-Bush kind.

Lyle,
Disagreeing with court opinions is not the same as belief in demonstrably false conspiracy theories.

You do get that, don't you?

Lyle
08-01-2009, 03:34 PM
Twin,

And you don't get that your question was not about birth certificates, but about people seeing President Obama as the legitimate POTUS.

bjkeefe
08-01-2009, 04:38 PM
When wingnuts are willing to concede that "both sides" have crazies, to mean that reads as an admission that there are far more crazies on the right than on the left.

Exactly what I would have said. Conservatives only go for (false) equivalence arguments when even they know they can't use Deny, Deny, Deny any longer.

TwinSwords
08-01-2009, 04:42 PM
Exactly what I would have said. Conservatives only go for (false) equivalence arguments when even they know they can't use Deny, Deny, Deny any longer.

You hit the nail on the head.

JonIrenicus
08-02-2009, 03:37 AM
Maher comments on birthers


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7A-ohu8bHoo

bjkeefe
08-02-2009, 05:00 AM
Maher comments on birthers


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7A-ohu8bHoo

Thanks for that.

Less funny, but well worth watching, is a segment from earlier in the same show, where Bill Maher interviews Jeff Sharlet (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nq20THy7Hbk)about "The Family." Jeff, it may be recalled, was on Bh.tv to discuss his book with Will Wilkinson (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11164) last year. Anyone who hasn't watched that diavlog and read Jeff's articles (linked in the sidebar on the video page): don't miss them.

Starwatcher162536
08-02-2009, 07:44 AM
He is awfully smug for a guy that doesn't seem to believe in germs.

JonIrenicus
08-02-2009, 11:57 AM
He is awfully smug for a guy that doesn't seem to believe in germs.

I think he was born smug. And yes, Bill is off on SEVERAL beliefs of his, inlcuding his notion that if you take care of your body, you are microbial superman.

Ocean
08-02-2009, 12:14 PM
Less funny, but well worth watching, is a segment from earlier in the same show, where Bill Maher interviews Jeff Sharlet (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nq20THy7Hbk)about "The Family." Jeff, it may be recalled, was on Bh.tv to discuss his book with Will Wilkinson (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11164) last year. Anyone who hasn't watched that diavlog and read Jeff's articles (linked in the sidebar on the video page): don't miss them.

I hadn't been paying much attention to this. But, boy, it's sick! Are these people for real? Why is Jeff Sharlett the only one denouncing it?

bjkeefe
08-02-2009, 03:16 PM
He is awfully smug for a guy that doesn't seem to believe in germs.

I'm not sure that's a fair characterization, but I do acknowledge Maher's got some misapprehensions.

Did you read what PZ and others had to say (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/07/defense-by-pz.html) about this shortcoming of his?

bjkeefe
08-02-2009, 03:35 PM
I hadn't been paying much attention to this. But, boy, it's sick! Are these people for real? Why is Jeff Sharlett the only one denouncing it?

I have seen The Family/The Fellowship mentioned by a few other people since Jeff was on Bh.tv, especially once Mark Sanford started on his True Confessions Tour. Since former Republican member of Congress Chip Pickering's dirty laundry started getting aired out by his wife, there has been a bit more attention paid to it, too. Lately, it's more often referred to using the euphemisms "the C Street House" or "the C Street Complex" or "the C Street Group." (e.g. (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/07/c_street_on_the_skidz.php), e.g. (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/17/thefellowship-pickering-scandal/))

I think the reasons we haven't seen more reporting from others, though, is twofold: First, Jeff Sharlet scored a real scoop originally, by getting himself invited to stay with The Family for a prolonged time while they spoke frankly to him. Generally, when these people are asked about by some random reporter about their connections and beliefs that have to do with The Family, they tend to speak in bland superficialities and non-answers. It is, after all (if you believe Sharlet), a secret organization. Or more precisely, perhaps, an organization that prefers to work secretly.

Second, you have to admit, it does sound uncomfortably like a conspiracy theory. I think the inclination on the part of most people upon first hearing of this is to raise their eyebrows and give a small half-smile. Even I, as predisposed to believe the worst about the sinister agenda of Christianist Republicans as is anybody, sometimes feel a little silly talking about them.

BTW, another nice article from Sharlet here (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/07/21/c_street/), if you haven't already seen it.

Ocean
08-02-2009, 03:48 PM
The problem with conspiracy theories is that sometimes they are true.

I would imagine that there are enough politically dangerous claims being raised that someone is investigating.

Thank you for the additional information.

kezboard
08-02-2009, 04:32 PM
When you say "left in a democracy" where there are only two choices, as if we have somehow evolved into a two party system over time. Is this your belief?

Maybe he just hates the American system (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/21487?in=04:04&out=11:29)!

TwinSwords
08-02-2009, 08:30 PM
Causing renewed frenzy in the wingnutosphere. From Wingnut Daily:

Is this really smoking gun of Obama's Kenyan birth?
Attorney files motion for authentication of alleged 1960s certificate from Africa

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

WASHINGTON – California attorney Orly Taitz, who has filed a number of lawsuits demanding proof of Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as president, has released a copy of what purports to be a Kenyan certification of birth and has filed a new motion in U.S. District Court for its authentication.

http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/kenyandocument.jpg
"This document purports to be a Kenyan certification of birth for Barack Obama, allegedly born in Mombasa, Kenya, in 1961" — WND

http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/kenyandocument-top.jpg
"Document enlarged to show detail alleges Barack Obama was born at Coast General Hospital in Mombasa on Aug. 4, 1961" — WND

http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/kenyandocument-bottom.jpg
"An enlarged view of the bottom of the document" — WND

(Source (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105764))

TwinSwords
08-02-2009, 08:31 PM
The was no Republic of Kenya in February of 1964.

nikkibong
08-02-2009, 09:05 PM
Is Dan Rather behind this?

TwinSwords
08-02-2009, 09:31 PM
Is Dan Rather behind this?

It does seem vaguely reminiscent of his work, doesn't it? ;-)

bjkeefe
08-02-2009, 11:55 PM
The was no Republic of Kenya in February of 1964.

Except that Barack HUSSEIN Obama was born in 1961!!!!!!!eleven!!!

Therefore, he must resign, and Sarah Palin is now Preznit for life!!!

I'd call this a BIG PROBLEM FOR YOU, LIBTARD!!!1! LOL!!! (fap, fap, fap)

bjkeefe
08-02-2009, 11:59 PM
Causing renewed frenzy in the wingnutosphere. From Wingnut Daily:

Hadda love this part (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105764):

Taitz told WND that the document came from an anonymous source who doesn't want his name known because "he's afraid for his life."

And:

[Taitz said:] "In fact, I have posted on the Internet more than Obama has."

Welp, that's the ballgame. I don't see how "President" Barry Soreto responds to that. Case closed.

bjkeefe
08-03-2009, 12:23 AM
THIS IS MUCH WORSE (http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2009/08/obama-penis-of-scandal-atlas-shrugs.html).

Black penis, white woman? Stick a fork in him: he's done.

Lyle
08-03-2009, 04:47 AM
It is not a false equivalency argument though, because reporting proved the election wasn't stolen after the fact. So anybody believing the Republicans were up to no good and physically stole the election is just as obtuse as people who don't believe that Obama is an American citizen or born in the States.

Hanky panky in Florida didn't happen and the election was not stolen, yet lots of people on the Left like to still bring it up and will die thinking such nonsense happened.

Or just think of all the lefties the world over who think George W. Bush staged 9/11. Some people are just obtuse and in to conspiracy theories.

Are the Republicans even trying to impeach Obama over this nonsense? Have they stopped working with him yet? No and no.

bjkeefe
08-03-2009, 05:28 AM
Hanky panky in Florida didn't happen and the election was not stolen ...

Whatever you say, Lyle.

Or just think of all the lefties the world over who think George W. Bush staged 9/11.

Such as? Please list, for example, all Democratic members of the US Congress or state legislatures, or pundits significant enough to have their own TV shows, who believe this or who have ever said it.

Are the Republicans even trying to impeach Obama over this nonsense?

Yes. (http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=obama+impeach+birth+certificate&btnG=Google+Search)

Have they stopped working with him yet?

Excuse me. When did they ever start?

No and no.

Wrong and wrong.

TwinSwords
08-03-2009, 06:48 AM
Here's the reaction so far from a couple wingnuts on YouTube.

Notice that they are already dealing with the problem that there was no Republic of Kenya in February of 1964.

Notice, too, that these are part of the 30% "I don't know" group, rather than the 28% who affirmatively state that Obama was not born in the US.

Wingnut from Tennessee: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkMDg2kFQjA
Wingnut from Texas: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMu86aW-rpE




.

cognitive madisonian
08-03-2009, 09:26 AM
Yeah, we have nothing of that sort on the other side...

except the one third of democrats who think George Bush was responsible for 9/11
except the democrats who still cling to the belief that the white house exerted political force on intelligence agencies to report Iraqi WMD activity, when no evidence of the such exists
except the democrats who think that gerald walpin was actually fired for the reasons given
except the democrats who think that barack obama grew up working class
etc.

cragger
08-03-2009, 11:35 AM
When you say "left in a democracy" where there are only two choices, as if we have somehow evolved into a two party system over time. Is this your belief?

I'm guessing, perhaps incorrectly, in parsing this text that the meaning is such as would be implied without the leading word "when", and that it is not just a sentance fragment representing an incompleted thought. If this is the correct interpretation, well, I am not really much interested here in the evolution of our modern parties from Whigs or whatever. If your interest is in a side issue of whether I think we have a two-party system at the national level - every President and 99.some percent of the national legislature have been from those two parties for the last 75 years. Various minor candidates from the Green party, Libertarian party, organic gardening party, or Martian Space party may get onto the ballots in various places but in terms of who actually holds power and runs things, I think calling it a two-party system is both common practice and fair usage.

If on the other hand you are trying to get at what I was actually attempting to say in my first post, the somewhat run-on sentance and ordering of phrasing may have confused you. It's not Hemingway. The meaning requires consideration of the entire sentance, not just the phrase you excerpted.

pampl
08-03-2009, 12:07 PM
Yeah, we have nothing of that sort on the other side...

except the one third of democrats who think George Bush was responsible for 9/11
except the democrats who still cling to the belief that the white house exerted political force on intelligence agencies to report Iraqi WMD activity, when no evidence of the such exists
except the democrats who think that gerald walpin was actually fired for the reasons given
except the democrats who think that barack obama grew up working class
etc.

You forgot "except the democrats who think Obama was born in America"

stephanie
08-03-2009, 12:19 PM
To go back to the original question of this thread - what are the implications for the stability or cohesiveness of a social order when a substantial part of the electoral won't acknowledge the legitimacy of the government - we can't really know the answer without knowing the breakdown of that 58%.

We'd also have to compare it to prior administrations. So far, it doesn't feel all that different from the significant minorities who felt like Clinton and Bush were in some ways illegitimate, except that it does seem to be located in a specific region of the country.

If, on the other hand, there is a massive portion of the nation that feels the country has been taken over by a foreign usurper bent on destroying the country from within - and don't laugh, this is the rhetoric employed by a great many - then concerns for the stability of our system are justifiably greater.

How do you perceive the instability coming about? Admittedly, it's so crazy that I have trouble taking it seriously, which may well mean I'm operating with blinders. But so far the extremity of the rhetoric plus the fact that in most parts of the country and among swing groups and so on it seems to be seen an nutty suggests to me that this actually undermines the Republicans. (I realize others have made this argument already.)

Furthermore, birtherism as a social movement can either be mitigated or exacerbated by outside events, e.g., the economy. If the economy falls off a cliff and unemployment reaches 35%, birtherism and the general tendency of conservatives to reject Democratic legitimacy could become a bigger threat to the stability of our political system.

True, though if it weren't birtherism, it would be something else, should things reach such a state.

The regional nature of the phenomenon -- and let's step back for a minute and stipulate that this phenomenon is not just birtherism, but a whole suite of attitudes and opinions that place Southern Republicans far out of the mainstream of American political thought -- may actually be greater cause for concern, rather than less. There could be destabilizing effects if a region of the country feels as though it is being subject to an illegitimate, tyrannical authority.

What we have is a region which is (and has been) enormously polarized in voting behavior between black and white voters, where the white voters probably not only didn't vote for Obama (or Kerry or Gore, so on), but could well not know any white people who did or anyone who questions the weird stuff spread about the Dem candidates generally and Obama in particular. So, yeah, I can see them feeling disaffected and nervous about what is happening to their country (although it's still rather nuts, the things people believe). Electorally, though, it seems not to matter, so the question is what, precisely, is the worry? You mean a concern about militias and such?

bjkeefe
08-03-2009, 04:37 PM
Dave Weigel (http://washingtonindependent.com/53494/birthers-latch-onto-forged-kenyan-birth-certificate) (via Wonkette (http://wonkette.com/410264/birthers-unveil-hilarious-new-forged-kenyan-birth-certificate)) has some observations on this latest "Kenyan birth certificate."

Still unanswered: Where's the "Whitey" tape?

TwinSwords
08-03-2009, 07:49 PM
http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/6024/taitz2.png (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUaca8wP9w)

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUaca8wP9w

Lyle
08-03-2009, 10:18 PM
Picayune nonsense and you know it. The Left is full of ignoramuses.

bjkeefe
08-03-2009, 11:07 PM
Picayune nonsense and you know it. The Left is full of ignoramuses.

To the latter sentence: be that as it may. To the former: I'm hard-pressed to think of a less robust rebuttal that you could have come up with. I interpret that as your tacit agreement that the Republican leadership is driven by the crazies on their own side, and that the Democratic leadership is not.

claymisher
08-03-2009, 11:12 PM
Picayune nonsense and you know it. The Left is full of ignoramuses.

I realize that adolescence is a hard time, and it's normal to test boundaries as you struggle with your burgeoning autonomy, but really, that kind of talk is beneath you.

bjkeefe
08-03-2009, 11:15 PM
http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/6024/taitz2.png (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUaca8wP9w)

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUaca8wP9w

Move over, Rush Limbaugh. Orly Taitz is the new leader of the Republican Party.

I look forward to having her on TV every night between now and Nov 2010.

claymisher
08-03-2009, 11:19 PM
Move over, Rush Limbaugh. Orly Taitz is the new leader of the Republican Party.

I look forward to having her on TV every night between now and Nov 2010.

I don't know how you could even parody Orly Taitz. It's like she's already sketch comedy character. Please, let's have her testify in Congress.

TwinSwords
08-03-2009, 11:37 PM
Move over, Rush Limbaugh. Orly Taitz is the new leader of the Republican Party.

I look forward to having her on TV every night between now and Nov 2010.

ROFL!

No doubt.

TwinSwords
08-03-2009, 11:43 PM
I don't know how you could even parody Orly Taitz. It's like she's already sketch comedy character.

http://www.spartantailgate.com/forums/images/smilies/lol.gif It's so true.

You do have to wonder, sometimes, if the whole birther thing isn't being deliberately fueled by some genius Democrat somewhere.

I often wondered if Rove or some Republican was behind the TANG documents that ended Dan Rather's career. It would be so easy: make some forgeries, tempt someone in the media with them, and as soon as they run with them, BAM!, expose them as counterfeits. (Note: This is wild, fact-free speculation, not even a theory.)

Still, if the Kenya forgery IS a Democratic dirty trick, I think it's very ill advised. I still maintain that there is something potentially destabilizing about a large portion of the population believing that the US government has been taken over by The Enemy - especially when that population is concentrated into a particular region, and ESPECIALLY when that region has a history of recalcitrance and, frankly, rebellion. Whoever is behind this Birth Certificate movement is playing with fire.

cognitive madisonian
08-04-2009, 12:34 AM
http://www.spartantailgate.com/forums/images/smilies/lol.gif It's so true.

You do have to wonder, sometimes, if the whole birther thing isn't being deliberately fueled by some genius Democrat somewhere.

I often wondered if Rove or some Republican was behind the TANG documents that ended Dan Rather's career. It would be so easy: make some forgeries, tempt someone in the media with them, and as soon as they run with them, BAM!, expose them as counterfeits. (Note: This is wild, fact-free speculation, not even a theory.)

Still, if the Kenya forgery IS a Democratic dirty trick, I think it's very ill advised. I still maintain that there is something potentially destabilizing about a large portion of the population believing that the US government has been taken over by The Enemy - especially when that population is concentrated into a particular region, and ESPECIALLY when that region has a history of recalcitrance and, frankly, rebellion. Whoever is behind this Birth Certificate movement is playing with fire.

That's quite a silly stereotype. Have you ever been south of the Mason Dixon line?

TwinSwords
08-04-2009, 12:39 AM
That's quite a silly stereotype. Have you ever been south of the Mason Dixon line?

For years I lived in Cincinnati, Ohio, and in Louisville, Kentucky. I've spent a lot of time in Atlanta. I dated a girl from Texas for 3 years, and during that same period, my best friend was from Oklahoma.

Lyle
08-04-2009, 07:18 AM
Somewhat true, I think. Somewhat true. Politicians will do and say whatever to hold on to power or acquire it. If the masses all think Elvis is still alive, politicians won't really push back too hard to tell them otherwise.

Democrats are less driven by their crazies at the moment, because they're lead by Barack Obama, a sane and intelligent man. For the time being he keeps the crazies on the Left tied to a chair with a sock in their mouth. Soon enough you guys will get free, scare the bejesus out of America, and the Republicans will be back in power in Congress or in the Presidency.

bjkeefe
08-04-2009, 07:45 AM
Somewhat true, I think. Somewhat true. Politicians will do and say whatever to hold on to power or acquire it. If the masses all think Elvis is still alive, politicians won't really push back too hard to tell them otherwise.

Democrats are less driven by their crazies at the moment, because they're lead by Barack Obama, a sane and intelligent man. For the time being he keeps the crazies on the Left tied to a chair with a sock in their mouth. Soon enough you guys will get free, scare the bejesus out of America, and the Republicans will be back in power in Congress or in the Presidency.

Well, thanks for that, at least.

However, I don't think you're right about it only being Barack Obama that keeps the Dems from being driven by their crazies, because it's not as though they were until he came along. Look at the last few Democratic presidents and the viable candidates for nomination over the last bunch of election cycles. Indeed, one of the biggest complaints about the Dems, from my point of view at least, is that they have spent considerable time and effort trying to run away from their left (let alone their crazies) as much as possible, for about as long as we have had the sort of modern far left and far right to deal with.

I'd challenge you to name some craziness that Democratic politicians have indulged their constituents in over the past few decades that is in any way comparable to a belief that Elvis is still alive. Or, more to the point, that is comparable to the beliefs that the current president was born in Kenya, wants to confiscate everyone's guns, set up FEMA reeducation camps, surrender to Hugo Chavez or the Saudis, and turn the country into a totalitarian state or a socialist worker's paradise -- all of which it is easy to find state and/or national Republican officials at least alluding to, on the record.

[Added] Okay, I can think of one: there was a little hat-tipping to the anti-vaccine kooks this last campaign. However, as much as it appalled me to hear hillary Clinton and Obama going there, it has to be admitted it was about a one-off for both of them, and there was enough reaction that it was never heard about again.

Lyle
08-04-2009, 08:41 AM
keefe,

What have any Republican politicians gone and done with the whole "birther" issue? Nothing. Even seriously conservative ones are like he was born in Hawaii. They're just politicians who don't want to upset their flock.

I haven't watched Matt Welsh's diavlog, but from the title of one part, he's right. It's a boon for Obama and the Democrats.

Cynthia McKinney what party is she in? What's her name black representative from California is crazy too. There are others on the left who can be just as unserious in the head as any crazy Republican can. A dissertation on the matter need not be written.

bjkeefe
08-04-2009, 08:57 AM
keefe,

What have any Republican politicians gone and done with the whole "birther" issue? Nothing. Even seriously conservative ones are like he was born in Hawaii. They're just politicians who don't want to upset their flock.

Sadly, as they say, no. Please try to keep up -- I've already addressed this (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=122822&highlight=seventeen#post122822).

Cynthia McKinney what party is she in?

I am inclined to ask what's so crazy about Cynthia McKinney, but I sense you'd like nothing better than to change the subject, rather than acknowledge that I'm right about the GOP being driven by their crazies much more than the Dems are. So let's stipulate that you, at least, find her crazy. I would then say that there's a difference between a crazy person who happens to be able to get elected and a sane person (for a politician, at least) who indulges a group of crazies. (The Republicans have plenty of both.)

What's her name black representative from California is crazy too.

Names don't matter -- since she's just another Negro, she must be crazy -- is that what you're saying?

There are others on the left who can be just as unserious in the head as any crazy Republican can. A dissertation on the matter need not be written.

Let's be honest and say first that you could not.

Let's also remember, again, that we're not talking about individual crazy people. The issue at hand is how much more the GOP leadership and elected officials are driven by groups of crazies in their party, compared to the Dems.

I'm getting the strong sense that you're at a point now where you have admitted to yourself that you have no answers for this, and so rather than just be honest and acknowledge the truth, you're going to keep going farther off on tangents to try to obfuscate. If I don't answer your next reply, you'll know that's how I scored it.

Lyle
08-04-2009, 09:16 AM
You and I actually aren't talking about the same thing. You're talking about what you want to talk about and I'm just pointing out that people on either sides of the political spectrum can be believe stupid things.

I'm not going to engage your every wim or comment bj. There's not enough time to waste for me to do it. No apologies.

bjkeefe
08-04-2009, 09:20 AM
You and I actually aren't talking about the same thing. You're talking about what you want to talk about and I'm just pointing out that people on either sides of the political spectrum can be believe stupid things.

I'm not going to engage your every wim or comment bj. There's not enough time to waste for me to do it. No apologies.

That's some weak-ass shit, Lial.

Time to start ignoring you again.

bjkeefe
08-04-2009, 04:46 PM
http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/245/flashinglightdr4.gif http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/245/flashinglightdr4.gif http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/245/flashinglightdr4.gif http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/245/flashinglightdr4.gif

... now we have definitive proof that Barack Obama is actually a 50-year-old (presumably?) white man from Australia. (http://wonkette.com/410274/is-barack-obama-a-secret-australian-from-the-1950s)

!!!!

OR IS HE??? (http://washingtonindependent.com/53658/is-this-the-source-of-the-forged-kenyan-birth-certificate)

claymisher
08-04-2009, 05:36 PM
http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/245/flashinglightdr4.gif http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/245/flashinglightdr4.gif http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/245/flashinglightdr4.gif http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/245/flashinglightdr4.gif



!!!!

OR IS HE??? (http://washingtonindependent.com/53658/is-this-the-source-of-the-forged-kenyan-birth-certificate)

I'd give that SEVEN flashing lights.

bjkeefe
08-04-2009, 05:55 PM
I'd give that SEVEN flashing lights.

It deserves it, but I didn't want to strain Bob's servers.

cognitive madisonian
08-04-2009, 09:31 PM
And you really believe in that crass generalization?

Saying that is little different than someone saying "blacks have a history of violence and a culture of violence, don't stir them up."

AemJeff
08-04-2009, 11:37 PM
Orly Taitz, [link removed] earlier today:

WHat happened when I clicked on that link:

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_5Yv6WXb2dFg/Snj-NsE0ypI/AAAAAAAAALU/IVu-PLiqdG0/orlywarn.jpg

TwinSwords
08-04-2009, 11:44 PM
Sure, it's a generalization. It's not true of every Republican. It's particularly less true of the ordinary Republican citizen, but more true of the professional class of Republicans: the politicians, pundits, and paid operatives.

But, to be clear, it's true of an awful lot of both groups. Just look at the book titles your most popular conservative authors write. People on my side of the political spectrum have been called traitors and treasonous by people on your side of the political spectrum at least going back to the 1930s.

Look at those mobs that are now disrupting democracy at Town Hall events all over the nation. Look at the Tea Parties. Rhetoric about Democrats being "the enemy" and secretly planning to destroy America are the norm, not the exception.

You guys even went so far as to impeach Clinton. You tried to remove the duly elected president of the country because you were opposed to his political platform. And if given the chance, you will impeach Obama, too. Because at bottom, Republicans (generally) think that Democratic governance is illegitimate.

TwinSwords
08-04-2009, 11:45 PM
WHat happened when I clicked on that link:

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_5Yv6WXb2dFg/Snj-NsE0ypI/AAAAAAAAALU/IVu-PLiqdG0/orlywarn.jpg

Thanks for letting me know. I'll remove the links. BTW: your picture isn't showing up. I was able to see it by going directly to the URL (http://lh3.ggpht.com/_5Yv6WXb2dFg/Snj-NsE0ypI/AAAAAAAAALU/IVu-PLiqdG0/orlywarn.jpg). Not sure why I can view it that way, but not via your embed.

AemJeff
08-04-2009, 11:49 PM
Thanks for letting me know. I'll remove the links. BTW: your picture isn't showing up. I was able to see it by going directly to the URL (http://lh3.ggpht.com/_5Yv6WXb2dFg/Snj-NsE0ypI/AAAAAAAAALU/IVu-PLiqdG0/orlywarn.jpg). Not sure why I can view it that way, but not via your embed.

Thanks, I have more problems with embedded pictures here than I should.

TwinSwords
08-04-2009, 11:54 PM
And you really believe in that crass generalization?

Saying that is little different than someone saying "blacks have a history of violence and a culture of violence, don't stir them up."

Here's a good report just broadcast tonight that highlights nicely the lengths to which Republicans will go to protect America from Democratic government — even if it means interfering with democracy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9yaqPFnUpo

bjkeefe
08-05-2009, 01:32 AM
Sheesh -- how many places was this guy born (http://wonkette.com/410299/happy-birthday-fake-president-obama-we-found-yr-bird-certificate), anyway?

bjkeefe
08-05-2009, 01:33 AM
And you really believe in that crass generalization?

Saying that is little different than someone saying "blacks have a history of violence and a culture of violence, don't stir them up."

I love the new wingnut tactic of denying their racism by trying to call everyone else racists first.

bjkeefe
08-05-2009, 03:10 AM
The latest from Roy Edroso, covering the wingnuts' latest spin on The Birf Cirtifikit: Intro here (http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2009/08/new-voice-column-up-about-state-of.html) and full column here (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2009/08/birther_or_not.php). Go!

==========

Afterthought

Among Roy's as-always delightful collection of links to Wingnuttia is one pointing to a signed piece by James Taranto (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574320190095246658.html). When the editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page is dying of embarrassment due to something other conservatives are doing, it is really nothing short of delicious.

Here's an excerpt of some relevance to this site, regarding the droolers who think they sound smart by claiming not to be Birthers themselves, but parroting that this is all the President's fault for not releasing "the long form" (e.g. (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=121908&highlight=long+form#post121908), e.g. (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=122926&highlight=long+form#post122926)).

The release of the obsolete birth certificate would not “resolve the issue” to those for whom it is not already resolved. They claim without basis that today’s birth certificate is a fake; there is nothing to stop them from claiming without basis that yesterday’s is as well.

The president would gain nothing politically for his trouble. By acknowledging the birthers’ demands, he would lend them a modicum of credibility. By ignoring them, he actually reaps political benefits from their efforts. His critics, even those who are not birthers, end up looking like cranks by association. His supporters use the birthers to paint Obama foes as racist--which is probably unfair even to the birthers, as we argued Tuesday (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB10001424052970203609204574316472642745120.html), but that doesn’t mean it isn’t effective.


(I see from that link that this is not the first time Taranto has sobbed into his hankie, "Oh, what have we wrought?")

Taranto's closing lament says it all:

The birthers are likely to be with us for as long as Obama is president--and because of them, it is more likely that this will be for the next 7˝ rather than just 3˝ years.

I note with amusement that the subhead for Taranto's piece is "The last word on President Obama’s place of birth."

He wishes.

TwinSwords
08-05-2009, 04:54 AM
Turns out the forger was mimicking an Australian birth certificate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIFSesnxtN4

The Birthers are already busy debunking the Australian BC.

bjkeefe
08-05-2009, 05:04 AM
Turns out the forger was mimicking an Australian birth certificate:

Sheesh. If flashing lights (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=123595#post123595) won't get your attention, what will?

;^)

Actually, that video is great for the side-by-side displays, so thanks.

bjkeefe
08-05-2009, 05:23 AM
Turns out the forger was mimicking an Australian birth certificate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIFSesnxtN4

The Birthers are already busy debunking the Australian BC.

I read right past that last line before, but then I came across a post that made me come back: "Supercalifreeperlisticexpialidocious (http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/23684.html)." This is a close-up look at how anything, anything can be explained away once you're determined to believe in a conspiracy.

One variation:

Although some of the Freepers are having a troubling encounter with the fact that they’ve been duped by an elaborately transparent fake, the truly insane among them have concocted an awesome explanation: the real Kenyan birth certificate of Obama was used to Photoshop the fake Australian birth certificate of David Bomford and then inserted on the Bomford family genealogy site by Obama’s team of expert hackers.

cognitive madisonian
08-05-2009, 09:03 AM
Sure, it's a generalization. It's not true of every Republican. It's particularly less true of the ordinary Republican citizen, but more true of the professional class of Republicans: the politicians, pundits, and paid operatives.

But, to be clear, it's true of an awful lot of both groups. Just look at the book titles your most popular conservative authors write. People on my side of the political spectrum have been called traitors and treasonous by people on your side of the political spectrum at least going back to the 1930s.

Look at those mobs that are now disrupting democracy at Town Hall events all over the nation. Look at the Tea Parties. Rhetoric about Democrats being "the enemy" and secretly planning to destroy America are the norm, not the exception.

You guys even went so far as to impeach Clinton. You tried to remove the duly elected president of the country because you were opposed to his political platform. And if given the chance, you will impeach Obama, too. Because at bottom, Republicans (generally) think that Democratic governance is illegitimate.

I wasn't in favor of the impeachment of Clinton but he was impeached for the same offense for which Scooter Libby was sent to prison. I didn't hear too many liberals reiterating their objection to prosecuting for perjury...

The Obama DOJ dropped a case against the New Black Panthers in Philadelphia when they had committed blatant voter intimidation. A gay rights group put out personal information of individuals who supported Proposition 8 in California. Democratic operatives spread vicious smears about Sarah Palin's children, tried to ruin Joe the Plumber's life (not a fan of the guy, but this was even before he became a blatant attention seeker), etc.

So you can talk about GOP thuggery, but I can cite plenty of examples of Dem thuggery. And I'm not even beginning to bring up Code Pink, which is the real equivalent of the birther fringe.

As for the tea parties, I don't see the objection to them. It's citizens getting together and expressing concern over the direction Obama is taking the nation, and it's very legitimate concern. Obama is a Machiavellian type, imo, and I am absolutely concerned about his expansion of federal powers, his dreadful economic ideas, and his utterly insane appointments--a health czar who proposed forcibly sterilizing women, having forced abortions, etc.

left wing mob rule:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/08/04/this-is-what-mob-rule-looks-like/

TwinSwords
08-05-2009, 10:57 AM
Sheesh. If flashing lights (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=123595#post123595) won't get your attention, what will?

D'oh! I snuck a peek at your Drudgey post yesterday from work (and literally LOLed), but didn't actually follow the link since I was working and only had a minute.

I suck at the internet (http://bachelortodd.com/uploaded_images/suck_at_internet-772194.jpg). http://www.spartantailgate.com/forums/images/smilies/cry.gif

bjkeefe
08-07-2009, 04:04 AM
Turns out the forger was mimicking an Australian birth certificate:

It gets better. (http://washingtonindependent.com/54104/punkin-the-birthers-priceless)

(h/t: Jim Newell (http://wonkette.com/410351/sell-out-your-friends-and-lovers-to-the-white-house-enemies-list#more-410351))

TwinSwords
08-08-2009, 03:14 PM
Below is a note one of Andrew Sullivan's readers sent in to him. This person really gets it. This is just about the perfect summary of the American right, and it goes back to the original question posted at the start of this thread, about the danger of conservative refusal to recognize the legitimacy of government when they are not in charge.

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/3607/wingnuts.png

08 Aug 2009 02:27 pm

"Is Your Bubble Bursting?"

A reader writes:

"Your obvious shock and dismay at the sheer angry ignorance of the health care teabaggers reiterates my largest problem with your rosy immigrant's view of America. You have often underestimated just how poisonously dangerous the American populist right is.

"I don't blame you. You came to America after the rise of Reagan. Most of your life in America, you have lived under different Republican presidents who placated these folks with platitudes and campaign rhetoric. The one period when the populist right didn't feel they had a fellow traveler in charge was when Bill Clinton was elected (thanks to the reactionaries splitting their votes). You remember, no doubt, the level of crazy Clinton had to defuse and dodge, and this was a man who had the advantage of being a Southern bubba who has dealt which such people all his life.

"For most of your time in America, this insanity has been muted by the success of conservative politics. Since you live in Washington, you probably saw daily the face of the successful conservative political establishment that milked the populist right, and by milking them kept their bitterness at a manageable level. That safety valve was stuffed up by George Bush's failed presidency.

"So now, these people are facing their worst fears; actual change. A political and demographic re-alignment is happening before their eyes, and they are reaching back into their old bag of tricks of intimidation, violence, and apocalyptic fearmongering. You are British, Andrew. You love this country, and we love you for it. But you didn't grow up around these folks, and you don't realize what a permanent and potent part of the American political landscape they are.

"They have always been with us, the people who believed in manifest destiny, who delighted in the slaughter of this land's original inhabitants, who cheered a nation into a civil war to support an economic system of slavery that didn't even benefit them. They are the people who bashed the unions and cheered on the anti-sedition laws, who joined the Pinkertons and the No Nothing Party, who beat up Catholic immigrants and occasionally torched the black part of town. They rode through the Southern pine forests at night, they banned non-European immigration, they burned John Rockefeller Jr. in effigy for proposing the Grand Tetons National Park.

"These are the folks who drove Teddy Roosevelt out of the Republican Party and called his cousin Franklin a communist, shut their town's borders to the Okies and played the protectionist card right up til Pearl Harbor, when they suddenly had a new foreign enemy to hate. They are with us, the John Birchers, the anti-flouride and black helicopter nuts, the squirrly commie-hating hysterics who always loved the loyalty oath, the forced confession, the auto-de-fe. Those who await with baited breath the race war, the nuclear holocaust, the cultural jihad, the second coming, they make up much more of America then you would care to think.

"I'm always optimistic about America. We're a naturally rich and beautiful place. Every generation we renew ourselves with a watering of immigrants committed to the American dream, immigrants like you. But please, Andrew, do not for a second underestimate the price in blood and tears we've always paid here for progress.

"I voted for Obama with my fingers crossed, because I knew that as the populist right lost power, they would become more extreme, more concentrated, and more violent. As to dismissing them as only a quarter or so of America, please remember that it only took a quarter or so of Americans to actively support the Confederacy."


________________________________________________

(Source (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/08/is-your-bubble-bursting.html#more))

Lyle
08-08-2009, 04:28 PM
Exactly what is this person talking about when they say violence and intimidation.

Do they mean like this doctor asking his Congressman some serious questions on health care reform?

http://www.11alive.com/video/?maven_playerId=immersiveplayer3&maven_referralObject=1208541313

bjkeefe
08-09-2009, 12:16 AM
Below is a note one of Andrew Sullivan's readers sent in to him. This person really gets it. This is just about the perfect summary of the American right, and it goes back to the original question posted at the start of this thread, about the danger of conservative refusal to recognize the legitimacy of government when they are not in charge.

Spot on. And a good letter, too -- thanks for reposting it.

bjkeefe
08-09-2009, 12:18 AM
Exactly what is this person talking about when they say violence and intimidation.

Do they mean like this doctor asking his Congressman some serious questions on health care reform?

http://www.11alive.com/video/?maven_playerId=immersiveplayer3&maven_referralObject=1208541313

The video wouldn't play for me, but I'm going to guess, and say this applies:

Shorter Lyle:

Here, look. I found one video of a reasonable-sounding person. Therefore, there are no rightwing crazies.

cognitive madisonian
08-09-2009, 07:50 PM
The video wouldn't play for me, but I'm going to guess, and say this applies:

Shorter Lyle:

Coming from the person whose contention appears to be:
"Look, I can point to one or two fringe people on the right. Therefor, all people on the right are fringe."

A majority of Americans disapprove of Obama's handling of health care. People overwhelmingly approve of the current system. And in return they are called Nazis, a mob, extremists, etc. by the president, Nancy Pelosi etc.

Well, that's not the way democracy works. When people object to something, they have every right to voice it, and should enjoy the liberty to do so without having their character infringed by the left wing base of the Democrat party.

Starwatcher162536
08-09-2009, 08:01 PM
Well, that's not the way democracy works. When people object to something, they have every right to voice it, and should enjoy the liberty to do so without having their character infringed by the left wing base of the Democrat party.

Yes, they should have the right to raise their objections, but part of the price in participating in the public sphere is knowing you are putting you yourself out there for criticism. If I think your objections are moronic, I have the right to say so.

P.S.
I am not saying that in this case, as I do not know much about the healthcare systems that are currently in place.

cognitive madisonian
08-09-2009, 08:03 PM
Yes, they should have the right to raise their objections, but part of the price in participating in the public sphere is knowing you are putting you yourself out there for criticism. If I think your objections are moronic, I have the right to say so.

P.S.
I am not saying that in this case, as I do not know much about the healthcare systems that are currently in place.

Ah but you see there's the difference--
"I think your positions are moronic--
Argument A
Argument B
Argument C"

is great, in keeping with the idea behind public discourse.

"they're Nazis! They're astroturfed! They should shut up and get out of the way!" on the other hand, is not.

pampl
08-09-2009, 08:42 PM
Ah but you see there's the difference--
"I think your positions are moronic--
Argument A
Argument B
Argument C"

is great, in keeping with the idea behind public discourse.

"they're Nazis! They're astroturfed! They should shut up and get out of the way!" on the other hand, is not.

Uh, yeah, it is. Ignoring the stupid "Nazis" thing you just made up, if the argument people are making for the legitimacy of their opposition is that it's a grassroots movement then any public disagreement would, by definition, be accusing them of "astroturfing" i.e. denying their claim of being grassroots. The idea that there was any public discourse, in the history of everything ever, that didn't have some strain of "stop talking already and let's do this" is just laughable.

cognitive madisonian
08-09-2009, 10:47 PM
Uh, yeah, it is. Ignoring the stupid "Nazis" thing you just made up,

Actually, Nancy Pelosi made it up. The Left hasn't even kept its talking points straight--one day they're ideological extremists, grrr. The next they're corporate astroturfed frauds. Then it's back to extremists.

The DNC put out an ad calling citizens who disagree with them angry extremists and a mob. That's rather disrespectful and insulting.


if the argument people are making for the legitimacy of their opposition is that it's a grassroots movement then any public disagreement would, by definition, be accusing them of "astroturfing" i.e. denying their claim of being grassroots. The idea that there was any public discourse, in the history of everything ever, that didn't have some strain of "stop talking already and let's do this" is just laughable.

Some strain of vs. entirety. Obama doesn't want a debate, he wants to steamroll over everyone who disagrees. Obama has not been remotely honest about the cost of his proposal, and has not once acknowledged the opposition in any way that didn't involve some version of "this is your fault, shut up, go away." And now, collecting the email addresses of people who dissent. Meanwhile, the SEIU is apparently taking it upon themselves to push around, quite literally, those who disagree with Obama.

bjkeefe
08-10-2009, 01:44 AM
And now, collecting the email addresses of people who dissent.

Ouch. Or, more properly: wow.

Sadly, cog.mad., there was a time when I considered you a representative of the "reasonable right," such as that polite fiction may be said to exist in our polite imagination.

But really ... repeating this Palin/Bachmann/Limbaugh-level nonsense? Srsly?

You do know -- I sincerely hope -- that this talking point comes solely from the White House asking for people (from the left) to send in examples of the stupidest lies that the wingnuts are mindlessly repeating, that the real people have observed, just so the WH can debunk them, right?

Or have you drunk so much of the Kool-Aid (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/08/my-new-favorite-whine.html) that you can't even conceive of that aspect of reality, and instead think it's Big Boner Time, and that you've found something else you can use against your own president?

Have the right really sunk this low?

cognitive madisonian
08-10-2009, 08:39 AM
Ouch. Or, more properly: wow.

Sadly, cog.mad., there was a time when I considered you a representative of the "reasonable right," such as that polite fiction may be said to exist in our polite imagination.

But really ... repeating this Palin/Bachmann/Limbaugh-level nonsense? Srsly?

You do know -- I sincerely hope -- that this talking point comes solely from the White House asking for people (from the left) to send in examples of the stupidest lies that the wingnuts are mindlessly repeating, that the real people have observed, just so the WH can debunk them, right?

Or have you drunk so much of the Kool-Aid (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/08/my-new-favorite-whine.html) that you can't even conceive of that aspect of reality, and instead think it's Big Boner Time, and that you've found something else you can use against your own president?

The White House wants people to forward emails (thus containing email addresses, which will be archived), not just email in talking points. They're not looking for "lies"--they're looking for opposition. A "lie" to Barack Obama is anything that disagrees with him. It's Orwellian to collect the email addresses of people who disagree with you, and typical of a Machiavellian White House whose only competence is in the most bare knuckle of politics.

graz
08-10-2009, 08:49 AM
...
Sadly, cog.mad., there was a time when I considered you a representative of the "reasonable right,"...

Sadly, no... he isn't even thinking for himself. As evidenced by his fact free assertion:
A "lie" to Barack Obama is anything that disagrees with him. It's Orwellian to collect the email addresses of people who disagree with you, and typical of a Machiavellian White House whose only competence is in the most bare knuckle of politics.

A spoon fed regurgitation of Jonah proportions.

cognitive madisonian
08-10-2009, 08:54 AM
A spoon fed regurgitation of Jonah proportions.

It's 3 statements each of which is true. Obama has not acknowledged legitimate opposition, while at the same time lying about the cost of his plan, and has put out classless ads attacking citizens who dare to disagree with him. Obama basically desires tyranny.

pampl
08-10-2009, 02:57 PM
Actually, Nancy Pelosi made it up. The Left hasn't even kept its talking points straight--one day they're ideological extremists, grrr. The next they're corporate astroturfed frauds. Then it's back to extremists.

No, she didn't. Even the liars you listen to who brainwash you into obsequiousness aren't dishonest enough to claim that. They have to hedge their language and just note that she mentioned (accurately) swastikas.

Some strain of vs. entirety. Obama doesn't want a debate, he wants to steamroll over everyone who disagrees. Obama has not been remotely honest about the cost of his proposal, and has not once acknowledged the opposition in any way that didn't involve some version of "this is your fault, shut up, go away." And now, collecting the email addresses of people who dissent. Meanwhile, the SEIU is apparently taking it upon themselves to push around, quite literally, those who disagree with Obama.

This is completely self-serving BS. I don't think you could be any more of a 2-dimensional wingnut if you triedd.

TwinSwords
08-11-2009, 05:38 PM
Glenn Beck: Completely out of his mind (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYbqZf53hHk).

Or is it an act?

I can't tell. I'm leaning towards act, if only because the fake tears are so perfectly timed to fit his narrative.

AemJeff
08-11-2009, 05:41 PM
Glenn Beck: Completely out of his mind (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYbqZf53hHk).

Or is it an act?

I can't tell. I'm leaning towards act, if only because the fake tears are so perfectly timed to fit his narrative.

Completely, utterly cynical.

TwinSwords
08-11-2009, 05:50 PM
Definitely. My first draft of that post contained a little aspersion casting that I edited out, but I could not agree more.

bjkeefe
08-11-2009, 05:51 PM
Completely, utterly cynical.

I vote that way, too. He's a complete phony.

bjkeefe
08-12-2009, 03:52 AM
Move over, Rush Limbaugh. Orly Taitz is the new leader of the Republican Party.

I look forward to having her on TV every night between now and Nov 2010.

Here are some (other) things the new leader of the Republican Party believes, according to John H. Richardson of Esquire:

Goldman Sachs runs the treasury.

Obama is a puppet.

There's a cemetery somewhere in Arizona where they just dug 30,000 fresh graves, which wait now for the revolution.

Baxter International — a major Obama contributor — developed a vaccine for bird flu that actually kills people.

Google Congressman Alcee Hastings and House Bill 684 and you'll see that they're planning at least six civilian labor camps.

Google an article in the San Francisco Chronicle about train cars with shackles.

The communist dictator Hugo Chavez way back in 2004 purchased the Sequoia software that runs our voting machines and the mainstream media won't report any of it — not even Fox because Saudi Arabia bought a percentage of Fox in 2007.

This is the stuff that the media never gives Taitz a chance to say because it's so focused on the news hook of the "birther" issue. (And, believe me, this has been merely a tiny sample of what I saw on my road trip this spring.) But this is the stuff that reveals who she really is, and what this movement really is. It's no coincidence, for example, that when Bernard Goldberg told Bill O'Reilly that the real force pushing the birth certificate controversy was Obama, he used the exact same language as Taitz:

The above is from Part 2 of his series on the Birther movement: {Part 1 (http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richardson-report/obama-birthers-movement-part-one-080409) | Part 2 (http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richardson-report/obama-birth-certificate-update-081109)}

(h/t: John Cole (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=25274))

==========
* Try 645 instead (http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en#hl=en&q=Alcee+Hastings+%22House+Bill+645%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&fp=pBEVNRsPIgM) of 684. When you've had enough of the raving, visit here for the actual bill text (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-645) and other info.

And you're right, this does sound oddly familiar (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=108038#post108038), doesn't it?

bjkeefe
08-12-2009, 04:20 AM
Uh-oh. Now we're really doomed: Chuck Norris is a Birther (http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/23897.html) (first link).

bjkeefe
08-12-2009, 05:01 PM
Here's TimF, again, from his Peak Wingnut post of last Fall ...

Deep thought: Which claim will take longer to live down, John Cole's "Peak Wingnut" or Investor's Business Daily's "Stephen Hawking (http://wonkette.com/410415/important-editorial-if-stephen-hawking-lived-in-the-uk-he-would-be-dead) would (http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/08/10/it-doesnt-take-stephen-hawking-to-figure-this-one-out/) be dead (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/08/how_stehpen_hawking_proves_tha.html) if he (http://wonkette.com/410441/410441) lived (http://wonkette.com/410442/stephen-hawking-has-groupies-and-leon-panetta-spoons-with-congress) in the UK (http://wonkette.com/410461/410461)"?

claymisher
08-12-2009, 05:07 PM
Deep thought: Which claim will take longer to live down, John Cole's "Peak Wingnut" or Investor's Business Daily's "Stephen Hawking (http://wonkette.com/410415/important-editorial-if-stephen-hawking-lived-in-the-uk-he-would-be-dead) would (http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/08/10/it-doesnt-take-stephen-hawking-to-figure-this-one-out/) be dead (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/08/how_stehpen_hawking_proves_tha.html) if he (http://wonkette.com/410441/410441) lived (http://wonkette.com/410442/stephen-hawking-has-groupies-and-leon-panetta-spoons-with-congress) in the UK (http://wonkette.com/410461/410461)"?

At the time I thought JC was on to something. Wishful thinking, I know. Now I think we've got a long way to go before we hit Peak Wingnut. My guess is that it won't peak until the wingnuts go to their limit with another one of these:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Oklahomacitybombing-DF-ST-98-01356.jpg/408px-Oklahomacitybombing-DF-ST-98-01356.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing)

Killing Tiller was just the opening act.

bjkeefe
08-12-2009, 05:19 PM
At the time I thought JC was on to something. Wishful thinking, I know. Now I think we've got a long way to go before we hit Peak Wingnut. My guess is that it won't peak until the wingnuts go to their limit with another one of these:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Oklahomacitybombing-DF-ST-98-01356.jpg/408px-Oklahomacitybombing-DF-ST-98-01356.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing)

Killing Tiller was just the opening act.

Sadly, I think you're right. And the worst part about it is that it will actually have to happen, because if a similar plot were hatched but uncovered and prevented from happening, it would just double the frenzy in the "minds" of the fringe, because it would "prove" that Obama's totalitarian police state was already here, JUST LIKE THEY WARNED US.

bjkeefe
08-12-2009, 06:42 PM
Deep thought: Which claim will take longer to live down, John Cole's "Peak Wingnut" or Investor's Business Daily's "Stephen Hawking (http://wonkette.com/410415/important-editorial-if-stephen-hawking-lived-in-the-uk-he-would-be-dead) would (http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/08/10/it-doesnt-take-stephen-hawking-to-figure-this-one-out/) be dead (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/08/how_stehpen_hawking_proves_tha.html) if he (http://wonkette.com/410441/410441) lived (http://wonkette.com/410442/stephen-hawking-has-groupies-and-leon-panetta-spoons-with-congress) in the UK (http://wonkette.com/410461/410461)"?

Also. (http://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/3272473354)

bjkeefe
08-12-2009, 07:19 PM
Oh, yeah, it gets worse (http://www.dependablerenegade.com/dependable_renegade/2009/08/fifty-stars-there-are-fifty-stars-on-the-american-flag.html).

TwinSwords
08-13-2009, 06:42 AM
Report on the murderous turn American conservativism is taking, from Rachel Maddow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr86F9rsihU

It's going to get worse.

claymisher
08-13-2009, 12:03 PM
There was a story about health care town hall freakouts on NPR. I just about lost it listening to it. It was so obvious that their complaints have nothing to do with health care. The people aren't talking about health care at all. It's all "What happened to America?!?!!??!?!" "We want our country back!" "It's time for the people to stand up" What?

Anyway, at least the fuckers are dying out. Good riddance.

TwinSwords
08-13-2009, 12:30 PM
There was a story about health care town hall freakouts on NPR. I just about lost it listening to it. It was so obvious that their complaints have nothing to do with health care. The people aren't talking about health care at all. It's all "What happened to America?!?!!??!?!" "We want our country back!" "It's time for the people to stand up" What?
You're so right. It's rather galling that they think this is "their" country.

They don't think anyone else has a right to govern. And if anyone else wins election, they think the country has been taken over by an enemy. They don't talk about us as political opponents; they talk about as as enemies. And if you listen to them, they believe that we should be dealt with by force, the way you deal with ... enemies. And it's going to get worse and worse and worse the longer the Democrats are in power. It happened that way during the 1990s, the last time they lost control of the White House, and it's happening again, now, except much sooner, with much greater intensit, and on a much larger scale. People need to recognize that there are millions upon millons of conservatives who do not recognize the right of Democrats to govern the country.



Anyway, at least the fuckers are dying out. Good riddance.
Why do you believe this? I think the opposite is true, that they are growing rapidly (http://gawker.com/5335580/violent-militia-groups-spreading-rapidly).

I have been watching a vast number of conservatives on YouTube for the last year - the basic Tea Party type. And for the first 11 of those past 12 months, they have unanimously been in a state of extreme distress and panic about the direction of the country, believing that a Marxist dictatorship was imminent, that Obama was going to unleash a civilian security force on the model of the Nazi Youth to enforce Obama's martial law, guns would all be confiscated, dissidents rounded up en masse and executed.

But in the last month, their attitude has completely shifted. Now, they are almost jubilent and feel that they have successfully turned the tide against Obama and the Democrats. They are positively thrilled about the Town Halls. Of course, they continue to stockpile weapons and food and prepare for all out war against the government, but it's rather chilling to see this crowd of people suddenly delighted by the recent course of national politics.

claymisher
08-13-2009, 12:47 PM
You're so right. It's rather galling that they think this is "their" country.

They don't think anyone else has a right to govern. And if anyone else wins election, they think the country has been taken over by an enemy. They don't talk about us as political opponents; they talk about as as enemies. And if you listen to them, they believe that we should be dealt with by force, the way you deal with ... enemies. And it's going to get worse and worse and worse the longer the Democrats are in power. It happened that way during the 1990s, the last time they lost control of the White House, and it's happening again, now, except much sooner, with much greater intensit, and on a much larger scale. People need to recognize that there are millions upon millons of conservatives who do not recognize the right of Democrats to govern the country.

When they lose they freak out. They don't believe in democracy.


Why do you believe this? I think the opposite is true, that they are growing rapidly (http://gawker.com/5335580/violent-militia-groups-spreading-rapidly).

I meant conservative old white people in general. The militia thing, good lord, it's too depressing to think about. I guess 9/11 was long enough ago that terrorism is cool again. It'll be fascinating to watch Fox News deal with the big one when it comes. Judging from the Tiller assassination I'm sure they'll find a way to celebrate the authentic expression of white power rage and still blame liberals for its smoking crater.

Francoamerican
08-13-2009, 12:51 PM
Report on the murderous turn American conservativism is taking, from Rachel Maddow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr86F9rsihU

It's going to get worse.

I have followed this thread with increasing disbelief and horror. My knowledge of American history is too limited to judge whether contemporary Republicans are mere freaks, or the heirs of a long tradition of hatred and paranoia. My impression, though, is that Republicans were once a little more civilized.

Thanks....I feel sorry for you guys. And I am glad I no longer live in a country that is incapable of carrying on rational debate.

TwinSwords
08-13-2009, 12:56 PM
When they lose they freak out. They don't believe in democracy.

Indeed. And they won't deny it. One of the points they make most vehemently is that the United States is "not a democracy, but a Republic (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us%3AIE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7GGIT_en&q=%22not+a+democracy%22+%22a+republic%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=)." They will rail for hours about how the Founding Fathers never intended this to be a democracy.

You know a political movement is pure poison when one of it's central tenets is opposition to democracy.

TwinSwords
08-13-2009, 12:58 PM
I have followed this thread with increasing disbelief and horror. My knowledge of American history is too limited to judge whether contemporary Republicans are mere freaks, or the heirs of a long tradition of hatred and paranoia. My impression, though, is that Republicans were once a little more civilized.

Thanks....I feel sorry for you guys. And I am glad I no longer live in a country that is incapable of carrying on rational debate.

I imagined that Europeans must be looking at America, these days, with an increasing mixture of disbelief and horror. At least you can feel better about yourselves by comparison!

The future of the human race is in Europe. We're doomed, over here. The ultraconservative extremists have us by the balls and they aren't going to let go. Maybe in a couple of decades, y'all can come liberate us from the government we are heading towards.

TwinSwords
08-13-2009, 01:05 PM
My knowledge of American history is too limited to judge whether contemporary Republicans are mere freaks, or the heirs of a long tradition of hatred and paranoia. My impression, though, is that Republicans were once a little more civilized.

Here's the definitive account (http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/the_paranoid_style.html). Well, a famous account, if not defnitive.

I assume you've seen it before, but just in case....

There have always been some civilized Republicans, but there has always been a strain that is quite virulent. There is a direct line from the millions who were willing to murder hundreds of thousands and see their homes burned to the ground to defend their right to own humans as property and the people who, today, are agitating for revoltution and looking for a way to take the country "back" by force (aka "The Republican Party).

claymisher
08-13-2009, 01:21 PM
I have followed this thread with increasing disbelief and horror. My knowledge of American history is too limited to judge whether contemporary Republicans are mere freaks, or the heirs of a long tradition of hatred and paranoia. My impression, though, is that Republicans were once a little more civilized.

Thanks....I feel sorry for you guys. And I am glad I no longer live in a country that is incapable of carrying on rational debate.

Hey, it's your revolution they want.

https://jspivey.wikispaces.com/file/view/RT.gif

Of course, they'll just wind up killing each other in the end.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/powerofart/images/popups/david.jpg

Francoamerican
08-13-2009, 01:25 PM
Here's the definitive account (http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/the_paranoid_style.html). Well, a famous account, if not defnitive.

I assume you've seen it before, but just in case....

There have always been some civilized Republicans, but there has always been a strain that is quite virulent. There is a direct line from the millions who were willing to murder hundreds of thousands and see their homes burned to the ground to defend their right to own humans as property and the people who, today, are agitating for revoltution and looking for a way to take the country "back" by force (aka "The Republican Party).

I am familiar with Hofstadter. But just remember: Richard Nixon was the first American president to talk of universal health care!

claymisher
08-13-2009, 01:28 PM
Here's the definitive account (http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/the_paranoid_style.html). Well, a famous account, if not defnitive.

I assume you've seen it before, but just in case....

There have always been some civilized Republicans, but there has always been a strain that is quite virulent. There is a direct line from the millions who were willing to murder hundreds of thousands and see their homes burned to the ground to defend their right to own humans as property and the people who, today, are agitating for revoltution and looking for a way to take the country "back" by force (aka "The Republican Party).

It guess it comes down to whether the Republicans will continue their insane freakout, completely alienate independents, and collapse into an extremist death spiral (the scenario Frum fears); or if they'll sweep up independents with them and wingnuttery will become ascendent.

2010 should be interesting. My hope is that the right doesn't realize how crazy they've been talking, and that Democrats will attack them viciously for blowing it on health care, bank reform, etc. It didn't seem like it a month ago but now it's clear that the Sotomayor nomination has sure hurt the Republicans (adios Latinos!). Maybe when the dust settles health care will too.

claymisher
08-13-2009, 01:28 PM
I am familiar with Hofstadter. But just remember: Richard Nixon was the first American president to talk of universal health care!

You might want to check that one.

Francoamerican
08-13-2009, 01:32 PM
Hey, it's your revolution they want.

https://jspivey.wikispaces.com/file/view/RT.gif

Of course, they'll just wind up killing each other in the end.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/powerofart/images/popups/david.jpg

Whatever one may think of the French Revolution, and I agree it was a mixed bag, its slogan--- Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité---has been truncated by contemporary American "Republicans."

Francoamerican
08-13-2009, 01:35 PM
You might want to check that one.

True, I don't know if he was the first. But I am fairly certain that he did talk about it. Just can't remember where I read it.

claymisher
08-13-2009, 01:38 PM
Whatever one may think of the French Revolution, and I agree it was a mixed bag, its slogan--- Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité---has been truncated by contemporary American "Republicans."

They always forget about the last two.

FA, I was just teasing. I know in France people have complicated feelings about the revolution.

Starwatcher162536
08-13-2009, 02:02 PM
Meh, I doubt the majority of either party could ever get to bad, it's only the .005 you need to worry about.

I find most political events alot like I find small town churches, most don't really believe in the majority of the stuff they spout, or even have strong feelings about any of it. They just pretend to because the institutions/events fulfill a needed social role.

This whole health care debate is alot like the Global Warming debate, most have nor real opinion on the technical questions that should determine what actions we take, its just most people get into their tribalism mode and automatically take whatever side their tribe has (Do you really think most people that went on about that South Oscillation Index, had any idea what it was?).

Personally, I find how politicized the major news outlets are to be one of the most damaging things happening in this country. It's like Democrats and Republicans are living in completely different worlds, as both sides news sources spin everything so much.

Still, I do have to agree, Glenn, Rush and Hannity are pushing things to far.

Starwatcher162536
08-13-2009, 02:05 PM
Perhaps I should have been more clear. If I am saying your objections are moronic, I am implying that you would have to be an idiot to believe those objections.

If I feel it is a reasonable, but wrong, point you bring up, I would simply say you are misinformed, or possibly deluded. (deluded, for me, does not have negative connotations about a persons intelligence/character)

TwinSwords
08-13-2009, 06:42 PM
A recently retired Army NCO tells his viewers how to murder American police and military personnel when the time comes to "take the country back" from Barack Obama and the Democrats.

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/9943/sappernco1.jpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-UxkjP7qgM&feature=channel_page)

— Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-UxkjP7qgM&feature=channel_page)

This is pretty typical of the tea bagger set. Feel free to engage him if you have a YouTube account.

Ask him how a patriot teaches others how to murder Americans.

Ask him how he can proclaim his love for the "rule of law" and the US Constitution while advocating the overthrow of the government.

claymisher
08-13-2009, 07:23 PM
A recently retired Army NCO tells his viewers how to murder American police and military personnel when the time comes to "take the country back" from Barack Obama and the Democrats.

This is pretty typical of the tea bagger set. Feel free to engage him if you have a YouTube account.

Ask him how a patriot teaches others how to murder Americans.

Ask him how he can proclaim his love for the "rule of law" and the US Constitution while advocating the overthrow of the government.

No way am I clicking on that! I wanna keep my brain unscrambled.

bjkeefe
08-13-2009, 08:54 PM
A recently retired Army NCO tells his viewers how to murder American police and military personnel when the time comes to "take the country back" from Barack Obama and the Democrats.

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/9943/sappernco1.jpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-UxkjP7qgM&feature=channel_page)

— Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-UxkjP7qgM&feature=channel_page)

This is pretty typical of the tea bagger set. Feel free to engage him if you have a YouTube account.

Ask him how a patriot teaches others how to murder Americans.

Ask him how he can proclaim his love for the "rule of law" and the US Constitution while advocating the overthrow of the government.

Haven't you heard? This guy and everyone else like him is clearly just a Democratic plant (http://wonkette.com/410466/larouchies-now-considered-democratunion-plants). Ask any REAL Republican or REAL Conservative.

TwinSwords
08-14-2009, 02:25 AM
No way am I clicking on that! I wanna keep my brain unscrambled.

Oh Jesus, dude. Your brain will be fine. The most important and amazing thing about these people is how neatly their crtique fits into the mainstream Republican critique. You hear many of the exact same arguments and same kind of reasoning. It's important to understand how standard Republican Party talking points feed directly into the extremisim we see in people like this Army NCO.

When the cable news networks did some coverage recently of the rising militia movement, they featured a completley alien looking militia member in full camoflage and a mask, with his voice distorted. It makes them seem very marginal and abnormal -- like you could recognize these dangerous people on sight.

But you can't. This NCO is perfectly normal looking. He sounds perfectly normal. If you met him in line at the bank, you'd have no idea how extreme he is.

And that's the whole point: ultraconservative extremism is mainstream within the Republican Party and especially the South. We need to break the illusion that it's a tiny subset of scary, costume wearing militia types. These are every day Republicans we're talking about.

TwinSwords
08-14-2009, 02:38 AM
It guess it comes down to whether the Republicans will continue their insane freakout, completely alienate independents, and collapse into an extremist death spiral (the scenario Frum fears); or if they'll sweep up independents with them and wingnuttery will become ascendent.
I expect the latter: they will sweep up voters in the middle and take back the government. I doubt they can win enough seats to take back Congress in 2010, but they are almost certain to make major gains.

Republican victories at the polls may be the only thing that can prevent much worse violence, or even open rebellion. Electing an ultraconservative like Bush in 2000 was a major factor in tamping down the rising revolutionary movement on the right after the Clinton years. The Rightwing terrorist movement continued to grow after the 1994 Republican blowout, because Clinton was still in the White House. Likewise, even if Republicans make major gains in 2010, the Republican terrorist movement will continue to expand and grow for at least four more years - as long as Obama is president.

The remarkable thing is the speed and intensity with which Republican extremism is growing. We're already way past what we saw in the Clinton years - after just six months.

The cause for the rise in extremism is Democratic government. When that "problem" is solved, the conservative revolutionaries will fade away again - until the next time a Democrat wins the White House.


2010 should be interesting. My hope is that the right doesn't realize how crazy they've been talking, and that Democrats will attack them viciously for blowing it on health care, bank reform, etc. It didn't seem like it a month ago but now it's clear that the Sotomayor nomination has sure hurt the Republicans (adios Latinos!). Maybe when the dust settles health care will too.
Good point. It may be that we can survive as a party on the strength of the non-white vote. As the Republicans become more extreme, they alienate larger segments of the non-white and non-Christian populations. But Democrats already win those groups overwhelmingly, so I'm not sure how much there is to gain from increasing our margins among them. Still, it will be what saves us, if we survive 2010 and 2012.

TwinSwords
08-14-2009, 02:41 AM
Haven't you heard? This guy and everyone else like him is clearly just a Democratic plant (http://wonkette.com/410466/larouchies-now-considered-democratunion-plants). Ask any REAL Republican or REAL Conservative.

LOL!

That has been one of the interesting things about the last year: the return of the Larouchies. They are a small but vocal presence on YouTube, and move in the same circles as the Alex Jones / Ron Paul / FEMA camp / Lunatic crowd.

TwinSwords
08-14-2009, 02:51 AM
CG,
I never had time to post a proper response to your comments above. But let me throw up this, which is the direction I think the base of your party is not just going, but being deliberately led by your party's and the conservative movements' leaders.

Dem Congressman's Office: His Life Has Been Threatened Over Health Care Bill (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/dem-congressmans-office-his-life-has-been-threatened-over-health-care-bill.php?ref=fpblg)
By Eric Kleefeld - August 5, 2009, 5:54PM

Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC) will not be hosting any town hall events this August—instead, he’s making himself available to constituents for one-on-one meetings about health care reform—and at least part of the reason is this: His offices have received threatening phone calls, including at least one direct threat against his life.

It's quite clear that for many conservatives (nothing like a majority, or even a large minority, but a disturbingly significant number, neverthelesss), it would be better to plunge America into flames than to tolerate the tyranny of (big D) Democratic government. After all, if you really believe the rhetoric of Glenn Beck and others (that the US is now government by fascistic despotism) or Lou Dobbs (that the leader of the country is an illegal alien who obtained his position through fraud) or most other conservatives (that Obama is a radical Marxist who is trying to change the very fabric of the nation in fundamentally un-American ways) what is the patriotic response?

Why should a patriot allow these things to stand? They've convinced themselves that any recourse to alien or enemy occupation of American government is justified. The only thing that holds them in check is law enforcement. If you listen to Republicans talk about the problem of the enemy occupation of our government, one of their leading frustrations is the lack of a spark that would allow them to enter into a state of open rebellion, a shooting war from which they could proceed to "take the country back." They want a revolution; they just don't know how to start it. Be assured: many smart conservative minds are working hard on solving this problem.

Those of us who have been paying attention to the emerging insanity on the right, the rising rage, knew this was coming -- and know it is going to get worse. It was obvious from those first Sarah Palin rallies last summer, when massive crowds of rage-filled ultraconservative extremists made clear that electing a Democrat president would considered by them to be a kind of tyranny. Too, anyone who lived through the 1990s knows that this is conservatism in the modern age. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of you who believe that the proper response to losing elections is to stockpile ammunition, buy and train up on firearms, and prepare to murder the leaders of the government. I'll grant that I probably sound quite strident to you, but gun sales have skyrocketed to an unprecidented degree since last November, and militias did grow exponentially during the Clinton years — and are on the rise again, since the election. There was a sharp rise in rightwing domestic terrorism during the 1990s (most famously in Oklahoma City), and there have already been three acts of conservative terrrorism in the few short months since the Department of Homeland Security released its threat assessment warning of the rising threat of conservative terror directed against the United States, her people, and her government. All one needs to do is read the signs at the hundreds of tea parties from coast to coast, with their frank calls for revolution. Even the official logos warned of an extra-constitutional response to Republican losses a the polls:

http://r3publican.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/d3n2or1.jpg

Harmless hyperbole? A clever tea metaphor? For the some of tea partiers, perhaps. For many others? A clear call to arms, and an expression of their deepest wish: to kill liberals.

Let's not ignore the date on that poster: Febrary 27, 2009. Just 5 weeks after Obama's inauguration and the conservative movement was already calling for violent revolution.

Sure, a lot of Democrats were unhappy with the decision in Bush v. Gore. A lot of Democrats were unhappy that Republicans played many tricks to rig the outcome of the elections in Ohio and Florida in 2000 and 2004. But you never saw a liberal movement directed from the very top of the Democratic party or liberal establishment toying with the suggestion that the proper response was extraconstitutional and violent.

Ultimately, where the movement to which you have attached yourself leads this nation will be determined by what happens at the polls. If Republicans appear to be poised for a comeback in 2010, if they pick up the governor's offices in New Jersey and Virgina, some of the more unhinged in your party may (litearlly) hold their fire and see if they can achieve at the ballot box what otherwise they intend to achieve through force. But every time your party suffers a setback or loses another election cycle, the madness, hysteria, and tendency towards violence will grow.

Ultimately, the best hope we have for the continued propserity of this nation is that your party kills (or seriously injures) itself, much the way the Democratic Party was damaged by the radical left four decades ago. While Americans, back then, may have been sympathetic to the causes of the Democratic Party, they were deeply disturbed by what the growth of a virulent form of radical leftwing extremism. If we've very lucky, the American public will react the same way to the growing extremism on the right, fleeing the ranks of the Republican Party and the conservative movement out of disgust with its tactics and threats.

TwinSwords
08-14-2009, 02:56 AM
left wing mob rule:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/08/04/this-is-what-mob-rule-looks-like/

Okay, some college students shut down a speech at a university. Happened a few times. I won't defend their actions. They can be condemned in the same terms that we condemn the conservatives who are shutting down town halls.

Oh, wait, did I said "we?" You haven't actually condemned the conservatives shutting down town halls, have you?

You know how weak your case is. The college kids acting out was wrong, but never encouraged or directed by the Democratic Party and major liberal figures. The same cannot be said about the extremists in your party, who are cultivated and encouraged by the Republican Party and your major leaders.

You know this is true. I know you wish it wasn't, but you can't ignore reality.

claymisher
08-14-2009, 02:57 AM
...

Epic post.

If Obama was talking about reforming mattress labels the wingnuts would be ranting about that. Health care is just the pretext.

bjkeefe
08-14-2009, 01:37 PM
Okay, some college students shut down a speech at a university. Happened a few times. I won't defend their actions. They can be condemned in the same terms that we condemn the conservatives who are shutting down town halls.

Oh, wait, did I said "we?" You haven't actually condemned the conservatives shutting down town halls, have you?

Oh, snap.

You know how weak your case is. The college kids acting out was wrong, but never encouraged or directed by the Democratic Party and major liberal figures. The same cannot be said about the extremists in your party, who are cultivated and encouraged by the Republican Party and your major leaders.

You know this is true. I know you wish it wasn't, but you can't ignore reality.

Right on.

Also: what clay (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=124840#post124840) said.

popcorn_karate
08-14-2009, 02:32 PM
but you can't ignore reality.

if only that were true.

popcorn_karate
08-14-2009, 02:37 PM
It may be that we can survive as a party on the strength of the non-white vote.

weren't the majority of votes cast for Obama "white votes"?

TwinSwords
08-14-2009, 03:22 PM
weren't the majority of votes cast for Obama "white votes"?

Yes. And he'll get a lot of white votes in 2012, including mine. I'm just saying that if he loses some ground among whites in 2012, he may survive on the strength of gains among non-whites, although there is less room for gain there because those groups are smaller, and already overwhelmingly for Obama.

TwinSwords
08-14-2009, 03:24 PM
if only that were true.

Yeah. Unfortunately the Republican Party is dedicated to the proposition that reality can be ignored at will.

The classic recent example is how both Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich were on the record in favor of end of life counseling, but now both are denying their very recent past and claiming Obama wants to put the elderly to death.

And the media just goes along with it.

claymisher
08-14-2009, 03:42 PM
Yeah. Unfortunately the Republican Party is dedicated to the proposition that reality can be ignored at will.

The classic recent example is how both Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich were on the record in favor of end of life counseling, but now both are denying their very recent past and claiming Obama wants to put the elderly to death.

And the media just goes along with it.

They were talking about the town hall freakouts on NPR this morning and neglected to mention any of the facts. It was all about "why can't the Democrats control their message?" The answer is right in front of them but they're too chicken to say it. Wouldn't be balanced!

It's a weird dynamic. You can win the news cycle with lies and smears and hissy fits. You can win elections sometimes. What you can't do is develop policy or govern effectively with it. All that unreality based thinking doomed the Bush administration. At the time the Republicans thought they had everybody on the run with the Schiavo ruckus, but it backfired on them pretty hard. Oh, and lying about Iraq and 9/11! So maybe in a month the media will turn on the death panel lies. Maybe the Republicans will suddenly find themselves with zero credibility on health care issues and just get streamrolled, like they were in 2006 and 2008.

bjkeefe
08-14-2009, 04:28 PM
Yeah. Unfortunately the Republican Party is dedicated to the proposition that reality can be ignored at will.

Indeed. Let us not forget that the phrase "reality-based community" was coined by a high official in the Bush Administration, and was intended as a pejorative. (cf. (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html))

The classic recent example is how both Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich were on the record in favor of end of life counseling, but now both are denying their very recent past and claiming Obama wants to put the elderly to death.

And the media just goes along with it.

Excellent point, and one that can't be said often enough. This really is a measure of how well-deserved is the so-called in so-called liberal media. If a Democratic politician of equal stature did anything close to what Newt and Palin did here, there would be six thousand chin-strokers out the next day, on the WaPo op-ed page and on the cable yak shows, asking, at minimum, "Is it fair to call X a flip-flopper? Should we be worried about X's consistency? Can we even trust X's word on anything anymore?"

Compare, just to name one, how quickly and how extensively the MSM ran with the FF tag in 2004 when applied to Kerry -- for exactly one statement -- with how little attention they paid to McCain in 2008, when the amount of documented examples (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/flipflops) was staggering.

About the only person on TV who will say anything about Republicans telling you, without any shame at all, the exact opposite of what they told you the day before, is Jon Stewart. And the MSM wonders why so many young people trust The Daily Show more than any other news program.

bjkeefe
08-14-2009, 04:31 PM
They were talking about the town hall freakouts on NPR this morning and neglected to mention any of the facts. It was all about "why can't the Democrats control their message?" The answer is right in front of them but they're too chicken to say it. Wouldn't be balanced!

NPR = Nice Polite Republicans

It's a weird dynamic. You can win the news cycle with lies and smears and hissy fits. You can win elections sometimes. What you can't do is develop policy or govern effectively with it. All that unreality based thinking doomed the Bush administration. At the time the Republicans thought they had everybody on the run with the Schiavo ruckus, but it backfired on them pretty hard. Oh, and lying about Iraq and 9/11! So maybe in a month the media will turn on the death panel lies. Maybe the Republicans will suddenly find themselves with zero credibility on health care issues and just get streamrolled, like they were in 2006 and 2008.

Good observations, with a prediction I can only hope you're right about.

bjkeefe
08-14-2009, 04:35 PM
Yes. And he'll get a lot of white votes in 2012, including mine. I'm just saying that if he loses some ground among whites in 2012, he may survive on the strength of gains among non-whites, although there is less room for gain there because those groups are smaller, and already overwhelmingly for Obama.

Long term, though, the non-white groups will become ever larger, assuming current trends hold. If you're worried about trying to get gains from a demographic group that's already strongly in your camp, be glad you're not getting most of your support from older white Southern voters, and be doubly glad all of the senior people in your party hadn't spent the last few months shooting themselves in the feet with "wise Latina" remarks, thereby alienating an even larger fraction of the fastest growing demographic group.

[Added] See also the graphics here (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2008/04/kids-are-all-right.html) and here (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2008/11/map-of-day.html).

claymisher
08-15-2009, 07:20 PM
Everybody is linking to "In America, Crazy Is a Preexisting Condition (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/14/AR2009081401495.html)"

In the early 1950s, Republicans referred to the presidencies of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman as "20 years of treason" and accused the men who led the fight against fascism of deliberately surrendering the free world to communism. Mainline Protestants published a new translation of the Bible in the 1950s that properly rendered the Greek as connoting a more ambiguous theological status for the Virgin Mary; right-wingers attributed that to, yes, the hand of Soviet agents. And Vice President Richard Nixon claimed that the new Republicans arriving in the White House "found in the files a blueprint for socializing America."

When John F. Kennedy entered the White House, his proposals to anchor America's nuclear defense in intercontinental ballistic missiles -- instead of long-range bombers -- and form closer ties with Eastern Bloc outliers such as Yugoslavia were taken as evidence that the young president was secretly disarming the United States. Thousands of delegates from 90 cities packed a National Indignation Convention in Dallas, a 1961 version of today's tea parties; a keynote speaker turned to the master of ceremonies after his introduction and remarked as the audience roared: "Tom Anderson here has turned moderate! All he wants to do is impeach [Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl] Warren. I'm for hanging him!"

Before the "black helicopters" of the 1990s, there were right-wingers claiming access to secret documents from the 1920s proving that the entire concept of a "civil rights movement" had been hatched in the Soviet Union; when the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act was introduced, one frequently read in the South that it would "enslave" whites. And back before there were Bolsheviks to blame, paranoids didn't lack for subversives -- anti-Catholic conspiracy theorists even had their own powerful political party in the 1840s and '50s.

bjkeefe
08-15-2009, 08:00 PM
Everybody is linking to "In America, Crazy Is a Preexisting Condition (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/14/AR2009081401495.html)"

Hadn't seen this one yet. Thanks for passing it along -- a great read.

[Added] Good follow-up post on one aspect of the problem -- the media complicity -- from Steve Benen (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_08/019503.php), via DougJ (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=25465), who adds more thoughts. Note who Benen is quoting: "... Bruce Bartlett, a veteran of the Reagan and H.W. Bush administrations."

bjkeefe
08-15-2009, 08:59 PM
Everybody is linking to "In America, Crazy Is a Preexisting Condition (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/14/AR2009081401495.html)"

On a related note, here's [ARGH: here are] some thoughts from the President, from his weekly address, passed along by Steve Benen (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_08/019500.php) (full video at link, full transcript here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Weekly-Address-President-Obama-Says-Health-Reform-Will-Put-Patients-Interests-Ahead-of-Insurance-Company-Profits/)):

"[W]hen folks with a stake in the status quo keep inventing these boogeymen in an effort to scare people, it's disappointing, but it's not surprising," the president said. "We've seen it before. When President Roosevelt was working to create Social Security, opponents warned it would open the door to 'federal snooping' and force Americans to wear dog tags. When President Kennedy and President Johnson were working to create Medicare, opponents warned of 'socialized medicine.' Sound familiar? Not only were those fears never realized, but more importantly, those programs have saved the lives of tens of millions of seniors, the disabled, and the disadvantaged."

Clearly, Obama is part of Journolist!!!1!

claymisher
08-15-2009, 09:26 PM
On a related note, here's some thoughts from the President, from his weekly address, passed along by Steve Benen (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_08/019500.php) (full video at link, full transcript here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Weekly-Address-President-Obama-Says-Health-Reform-Will-Put-Patients-Interests-Ahead-of-Insurance-Company-Profits/)):



Clearly, Obama is part of Journolist!!!1!

Yeah, I thought that was word for word from a Krugman column. Good writers borrow, great writers ...

bjkeefe
08-16-2009, 02:39 AM
... outs himself as a Birther. Or, at least, a Birther-Enabler/Dog-Whistler.

This time, it's Rep. Patrick McHenry (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/mchenry-i-havent-seen-enough-evidence-whether-obama-is-a-citizen.php) (R-Obvs.) of North Carolina. (via (http://www.oliverwillis.com/2009/08/13/patrick-mchenry-joins-the-birthers/))

He did back-pedal when the news started getting around. Thank the FSM for lefty blogs!

bjkeefe
08-16-2009, 05:32 PM
58% of Republicans are Birthers

And what percentage of them are Deathers?

Count "America's Mayor" in! (http://www.dependablerenegade.com/dependable_renegade/2009/08/sarah-palins-kamikaze-club-just-added-another-member.html)

TwinSwords
08-16-2009, 05:51 PM
Hadn't seen this one yet. Thanks for passing it along -- a great read.

[Added] Good follow-up post on one aspect of the problem -- the media complicity -- from Steve Benen (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_08/019503.php), via DougJ (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=25465), who adds more thoughts. Note who Benen is quoting: "... Bruce Bartlett, a veteran of the Reagan and H.W. Bush administrations."

More from the conservative Republican Bruce Bartlett, posted today at Washington Monthly:

— The penance has not been paid, Part II (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_08/019508.php)





.

TwinSwords
08-16-2009, 08:48 PM
Some recent reports documenting the rise of dangerous rightwing extremism:

— "The Second Wave: Return of the Militias (http://www.splcenter.org/news/item.jsp?aid=392)," just published by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

— The Department of Homeland Security report on Rightwing Extremism (http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf).

— "The Modern Militia Movement (http://www.scribd.com/doc/13290698/The-Modern-Militia-MovementMissouri-MIAC-Strategic-Report-20Feb09)," published in March 2009 by the State of Missouri law enforcement agencies.

— The 2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment (http://www.infowars.com/media/vafusioncenterterrorassessment.pdf) published by the State of Virgina Fusion Center, combining the resources of federal, state, and local law enforcement, which includes an extensive section on homegrown, rightwing terrorism.


If anyone is aware of any other reports on the increasing conservative threat to America, please post them.

bjkeefe
08-16-2009, 08:52 PM
Some recent reports documenting the rise of dangerous rightwing extremism:

Thanks for the links. I'll try to remember to add your list if I come across anything else.

Lyle
08-16-2009, 11:43 PM
Paranoid.

There's definitely some crazies on the right, and occasionally they lose it and murder people, but the Left has anarchists, cultists, Charles Manson, the Black Panthers, ELF, and a whole host of other crazy, sometimes dangerous people.

AemJeff
08-16-2009, 11:52 PM
Paranoid.

There's definitely some crazies on the right, and occasionally they lose it and murder people, but the Left has anarchists, cultists, Charles Manson, the Black Panthers, ELF, and a whole host of other crazy, sometimes dangerous people.

But we don't have Lyle.

TwinSwords
08-17-2009, 07:25 PM
Associated Press (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/17/man-carrying-semi-automat_n_261279.html):

UPDATE: About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with an AR-15 assault rifle, milled among protesters outside an event where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Monday in Phoenix.

It's the latest incident of gun-rights advocates visibly displaying firearms near the president.

Phoenix police say the people with guns, including a man carrying the assault rifle, didn't need permits. No crimes were committed, and no one was arrested.

The man carrying the assault rifle declined to be identified, but told The Arizona Republic that he was carrying the weapon because he could, adding that he still has some freedoms.

Last week, during Obama's town hall meeting in Portsmouth, N.H., a man stood outside with a gun strapped to his leg.

Is this a problem? Is it going to get worse? One gun last week became a dozen a few days later. Will we next see 100 people showing up with guns?

Just saw a Republican on MSNBC's Hardball encouraging more people to come to Obama events with guns.

claymisher
08-17-2009, 07:50 PM
Associated Press (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/17/man-carrying-semi-automat_n_261279.html):



Is this a problem? Is it going to get worse? One gun last week became a dozen a few days later. Will we next see 100 people showing up with guns?

Just saw a Republican on MSNBC's Hardball encouraging more people to come to Obama events with guns.

Good lord, these people are assholes. What a dick move.

TwinSwords
08-17-2009, 08:22 PM
Good lord, these people are assholes. What a dick move.

It will be interesting to see where it goes from here. Evidently the brandishing of weapons by militant, anti-government conservatives is going to be a permanent feature of all future public appearances by Obama. It's really a problem. It's a hell of a country we live in.

bjkeefe
08-17-2009, 08:24 PM
Just saw a Republican on MSNBC's Hardball encouraging more people to come to Obama events with guns.

I'd appreciate it if you could come up with the name. Said person deserves shaming.

BTW, I think it's time to start a new thread or two, where we can post other instances of right-wing craziness. I have a feeling the conservatives on this board are just cold ignoring this thread, and I'd like to get some discussion from some of them.

AemJeff
08-17-2009, 08:27 PM
It will be interesting to see where it goes from here. Evidently the brandishing of weapons by militant, anti-government conservatives is going to be a permanent feature of all future public appearances by Obama. It's really a problem. It's a hell of a country we live in.

This could be a public relations gift for people who favor rational gun policy. These idiots need to be depicted as dangerous assholes and the NRA as an enabling force for stupidity.

bjkeefe
08-17-2009, 08:48 PM
This could be a public relations gift for people who favor rational gun policy. These idiots need to be depicted as dangerous assholes and the NRA as an enabling force for stupidity.

Well said.

There's a scene in Hannibal (the sequel to Silence of the Lambs) where Thomas Harris describes a gun show. It should be noted, first, that TH is from Mississippi and likes guns as much as anybody.

Anyway, he goes on to describe the sort of people at the gun show whom one would imagine would be motivated to show up at a place where the President is due to speak, while brandishing their surrogate phalluses ... uh, I mean ... their 2nd Amendment rights. He says of such people (p. 330 (http://www.amazon.com/Hannibal-Thomas-Harris/dp/0440224675#reader)):

Few genuine outdoorsmen come to gun shows, as a matter of taste. Guns are black now, and gun shows are bleak, colorless, as joyless as the inner landscape of many who attend them.

Look at this crowd: scruffy, squinty, angry, egg-bound, truly of the resinous heart. They are the main danger to the right of a private citizen to own a firearm.

TwinSwords
08-17-2009, 08:53 PM
I'd appreciate it if you could come up with the name. Said person deserves shaming.

I might be able to catch it at the rebroadcast at midnight, or we could look through the transcripts. I have the TV on in the other room, and was half-listening as I sat here reading, but if I understood what I was hearing, Matthews asked the guy what his message was to the protestors, and he said something like "I think they should exercise their 2nd amendment rights," which I translated as encouraging more people to show up with guns. In any event, I'll either watch for the rebroadcast or try to find a trascript. I believe it was about 17 minutes after the hour when he said it.


BTW, I think it's time to start a new thread or two, where we can post other instances of right-wing craziness. I have a feeling the conservatives on this board are just cold ignoring this thread, and I'd like to get some discussion from some of them.

Good ideas (starting a new thread, and getting some of the conservatives to join the conversation). If you want to go ahead, please do. Or I will sometime in the next day or two or three. If I do it, I'll need a good story to start it out with; I hate "generic" threads, e.g., "right wing extremism discussion here." I prefer to have threads tied to a specific news item or event, e.g., the poll showing 58% of Republicans are birthers.

Just by way of explanation: Birtherism is just one aspect of the militant wingnut mind, so it seemed appropriate to let conversation in this thread expand beyond the narrow topic of birtherism. But I agree, (1) the subject on the thread is more narrow than the actual subject matter, and (2) the thread has grown to be fairly unwieldy and is not something a new follower of this topic could easily jump in to.

BTW: I did a google search for something about birthers the other day and this thread came up as the 2nd result. Kind of cool.

TwinSwords
08-17-2009, 08:56 PM
This could be a public relations gift for people who favor rational gun policy. These idiots need to be depicted as dangerous assholes and the NRA as an enabling force for stupidity.

Good points. Someone on TV today (maybe Matthews) said that we need a 2nd Amendment equivilent of the 1st Amendments "shouting fire in a crowded theater."

Unfotunately, the militant gun nuts consider any infringement of their right to bear arms to be intolerable tyranny.

We'll see where it goes.

Ultimately,

(1) We have to hope that the rise of an armed, militant wing of the Republican Party will harm them in the very near term (2010), and

(2) We have to hang the militants and birthers around the necks of every Republican in the country. We have to use these incidents and events to ruin their party. Doing so is the only way we can get Republicans to disavow this dangerous and destabilizing element.

bjkeefe
08-17-2009, 09:01 PM
BTW: I did a google search for something about birthers the other day and this thread came up as the 2nd result. Kind of cool.


Nice, and congratulations. I was thinking a day or two ago that you had started the most popular "Life, the Universe ..." thread, and though that's not (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=15&daysprune=-1&order=desc&sort=replycount) precisely true, you still get a strong silver. (Pus, the leader got there thanks to lots of conservative input, which speaks to my earlier recommendation.)

claymisher
08-17-2009, 09:02 PM
(1) We have to hope that the rise of an armed, militant wing of the Republican Party will harm them in the very near term (2010), and

(2) We have to hang the militants and birthers around the necks of every Republican in the country. We have to use these incidents and events to ruin their party. Doing so is the only way we can get Republicans to disavow this dangerous and destabilizing element.

Now if only there were some liberals on tv to confront the Republicans on the militias.

TwinSwords
08-17-2009, 09:03 PM
BTW, I think it's time to start a new thread or two, where we can post other instances of right-wing craziness.

One idea I've been kicking around for a while is a thread titled "Meet the Republicans," which would feature multiple examples (as we can accumulate them) of dangerous, unhinged, lunatic Republicans. I ultimately did go ahead and use the subject for a post in this thread (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=125371#post125371), with the same intent: to start a series of posts highlighting what the armed wing of the Republican Party looks like today.

Here's a key point: A lot of Americans who hear about the dozen armed lunatics at today's even in Phoenix will STILL not fully appreciate the seriousness, because they have no idea of the underlying beliefs motivating them. The article calls them "guns rights advocates," but that's not a very good description. They are really intensely militant anti-government types who are deep into fantasy about murdering American leaders and overthrowing the government. Anyone who has followed this movement for any period of time knows this.

A good example of the obliviousness of the average American was Mark Kleiman's response to Brink Lindsey, when Lindsey began to list some of the crazy beliefs of Orly Taitz. Kleiman looked surprised and said something to the effect of "you've been following this more closely than me."

I think it's important for people to realize what is motivating this extremist element, because there are a hell of a lot of them, and they are dangerous.

bjkeefe
08-17-2009, 11:11 PM
One idea I've been kicking around for a while is a thread titled "Meet the Republicans," which would feature multiple examples (as we can accumulate them) of dangerous, unhinged, lunatic Republicans. I ultimately did go ahead and use the subject for a post in this thread (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=125371#post125371), with the same intent: to start a series of posts highlighting what the armed wing of the Republican Party looks like today.

Here's a key point: A lot of Americans who hear about the dozen armed lunatics at today's even in Phoenix will STILL not fully appreciate the seriousness, because they have no idea of the underlying beliefs motivating them. The article calls them "guns rights advocates," but that's not a very good description. They are really intensely militant anti-government types who are deep into fantasy about murdering American leaders and overthrowing the government. Anyone who has followed this movement for any period of time knows this.

A good example of the obliviousness of the average American was Mark Kleiman's response to Brink Lindsey, when Lindsey began to list some of the crazy beliefs of Orly Taitz. Kleiman looked surprised and said something to the effect of "you've been following this more closely than me."

I think it's important for people to realize what is motivating this extremist element, because there are a hell of a lot of them, and they are dangerous.

I'm not yet convinced of the magnitude of the problem, but I do agree it bears watching. Good on you for doing so.

TwinSwords
08-18-2009, 12:30 AM
Just saw a Republican on MSNBC's Hardball encouraging more people to come to Obama events with guns.

I'd appreciate it if you could come up with the name. Said person deserves shaming.

Here's video (http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/?id=3219644&ref=fpblg).

We can all imagine what would be happening if the parties were reversed.

Lyle
08-18-2009, 12:47 AM
If it is legal to carry guns in public and to protest peacefully in public with said gun, what exactly is shameful? Its their constitutional right, so what's the problem?

TwinSwords
08-18-2009, 12:57 AM
Ann Althouse: Dishonest, malicious, and now ... a birther (http://www.ginandtacos.com/2009/08/17/a-letter-to-the-dean-of-the-university-of-wisconsin-law-school/).

claymisher
08-18-2009, 01:24 AM
Ann Althouse: Dishonest, malicious, and now ... a birther (http://www.ginandtacos.com/2009/08/17/a-letter-to-the-dean-of-the-university-of-wisconsin-law-school/).

Oh no, she's not. You're thinking of "Ann Althouse." Ann Althouse doesn't agree with "Ann Althouse." Or she does. Whatever. You have no sense of humor. Shut up or I'll cry!!!!!!!!

bjkeefe
08-18-2009, 02:10 AM
Oh no, she's not. You're thinking of "Ann Althouse." Ann Althouse doesn't agree with "Ann Althouse." Or she does. Whatever. You have no sense of humor. Shut up or I'll cry!!!!!!!!

I'LL HANG UP THIS PHONE RIGHT NOW!!!1!

WOLVERINES!!!1!

I MEAN, ONION RINGS!!!1!

bjkeefe
08-18-2009, 02:16 AM
Here's video (http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/?id=3219644&ref=fpblg).

We can all imagine what would be happening if the parties were reversed.

Thanks much. Also, "rough transcript" here (http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2009/08/17/phil-gingrey-on-guns-at-health-care-debates/?cxntfid=blogs_political_insider_jim_galloway).

Let the shaming of Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Georgia) begin.

bjkeefe
08-18-2009, 02:19 AM
If it is legal to carry guns in public and to protest peacefully in public with said gun, what exactly is shameful? Its their constitutional right, so what's the problem?

For someone who put up something like a hundred posts in one thread protesting that a citizen in his own house used poor judgment, and showed disrespect for authority (and who knows how many other things you criticized), when he exercised his Constitutional (and not even a potentially lethal one, I might add) right, this is hilariously obtuse, even coming from you, Lyle.

How I wish you could be at one of these meetings, and that one of those guns would go off, by accident, while you were in line with the barrel. Does that answer your question about "what's the problem?"

Also, I can't wait till the Black Panthers start exercising their 2nd Amendment rights again, say, right outside some place where you plan to go to do something innocuous. (Note to self: buy Depends stock.)

Lyle
08-18-2009, 03:11 AM
The Black Panthers and Nation of Islam do exercise their right and carry guns to public events. I don't have a problem with it.

The Gates race fiasco just doesn't apply to this black guy carrying a semi-automatic machine gun to a health care event/rally/ protest. The man (were their other men there as well carrying?) was just there protesting peacefully and carrying a gun in public which AZ state law and the Federal Constitution allow him to do. Apparently he said he was making the point he could be there with his gun. Good for him, I say.

It wasn't like someone called in and said hey, there's some black guy here with a machine gun and he looks scary. Looks like he's about to shoot someone. You might want to check it out. You forget this part of the Gates saga.

kezboard
08-18-2009, 08:42 AM
What are these guys actually trying to prove by carrying these guns around? If it's anything more than intimidation, I'm not really seeing it. It may be their right under Arizona law, but Jesus, how twisted does our understanding of "rights" have to be when these Phoenix guys are lauded for exercising their constitutional right to bring guns to a meeting with the president while others find that their constitutional rights to, say, not get kicked off a plane while being an Arab and having a violin, or not be listened in on while being an officer in Iraq and talking dirty on the phone with your wife, must be relinquished in the name of national security?

claymisher
08-18-2009, 12:49 PM
Josh Marshall http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Talking-Points-Memo/~3/9KQHxD2rnbE/troubled_history.php

As we track the escalating number of incidents of right-wing fringers bringing guns to Obama events or other health create town hall events, we are, unsurprisingly, seeing various conservative websites mocking the public concern. "Oh, those Dems, they go all wobbly just because a few upstanding citizens show up with legal firearms." Call it the new girly-manism, it's a sign that Democrats are so many political panty-waists because they've never seen the gun culture up close or just get easily rattled.

It's true that there are some regional divergences at work here. Weapons just don't get carried around in public in say New Jersey or Connecticut the way they do in the South or especially the west.

But let's be honest about what this is about. The right -- the modern American right -- has a very troubled history with political violence. A simple review of the 1990s, particularly 1993, 1994, culminating in many respects in the tragic 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal building in April 1995. Mix in the militias, the thankfully inept attempt on President Clinton's life a few months before Oklahoma City (see Francisco Duran) and it's all really not a pretty picture.

One moment stands out clearly in my mind. Back in the early days of the Bush administration, Mickey Kaus had a typically contrarian post in which he suggested that with the rising tide of animosity on the left toward President Bush it was only a matter of time before we saw the outcropping of political violence on the left, to parallel what we'd seen from the right with the Clinton-hatred of the mid-1990s. (Perhaps someone can dig up the post? Late Update: Found.) It was a typically Kausian post, not only for its strained contrarianism but more for its complete failure of predictive value. And the failure of anything in parallel to arise was even more telling because antipathy toward President Bush really did become entrenched, inflamed and profound. Far more than I would have imagined at the outset.

Now, I know we'll likely get emails from right-wingers pointing out some animal rights activists who freed a bunch of gerbils, another fellow whose tires got slashed and no doubt a host of people with backwards Bs scrawled on their cheeks. But I think we all know the story here.

This isn't a matter of fear, though like all patriotic Americans we react strongly to veiled threats against our legitimately elected president. It's really more in the mode of the concern you show an old -- perhaps estranged -- friend or relative with a chronic alcohol problem or maybe one who just can't kick the crack pipe and always has it hovering in the background -- a threat to their well-being in moments of stress but also a constant temptation.

In a way you want to help. But mainly -- and at the end of the day -- you don't want to let their personal demons drag the whole family down.

Let's be honest with ourselves: the American right has a deep-seated problem with political violence. It's deep-seated; it's recurrent and it's real. And it endangers the country. It just makes sense to say something the first time they hit the sauce and not wait for things to get really out of hand.

TwinSwords
08-18-2009, 12:55 PM
LOL, I was just reading that. Did you see the "we will forcefully resist (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/08/armed_protestor_we_will_forcefully_resist.php)" post (and related video) from TPM earlier this morning?

I hate the damn QUOTE tag on this forum. I hate that green background, the fact that you can't do multiple levels of indenting without getting multiple nested boxes, and the fact that the fonts inside the green box are italizicized if you define a name being quoted (i.e., if you use =SomeName in the QUOTE tag.

I would pay money to get the forum admins to restore the INDENT tag, which was disabled soon after the forum was launched. http://www.spartantailgate.com/forums/images/smilies/rant.gif

Lyle
08-18-2009, 01:30 PM
Why exactly does it have to be some other reason than to prove the point that they can publicly carry a gun to an outdoors public event?

I also don't follow the idea that they were trying to intimidate someone. Who was even intimidated at this event?

bjkeefe
08-18-2009, 01:54 PM
The Black Panthers and Nation of Islam do exercise their right and carry guns to public events. I don't have a problem with it.

Examples that at all match this event of a dozen wingnuts carrying guns at a place where the president was supposed to appear?

The Gates race fiasco just doesn't apply to this black guy carrying a semi-automatic machine gun to a health care event/rally/ protest. The man (were their other men there as well carrying?) was just there protesting peacefully and carrying a gun in public which AZ state law and the Federal Constitution allow him to do. Apparently he said he was making the point he could be there with his gun. Good for him, I say.

I could see the point if this was a rally to protest a looming new law restricting gun ownership. But it had nothing to do with that -- this was a town hall meeting to discuss health care reform. Also, wingnut hysteria about OBAMA IS GOING TO TAKE AWAY YORE GUNZZZ!!!1! to the contrary, there are currently no plans afoot to push such a law.

It wasn't like someone called in and said hey, there's some black guy here with a machine gun and he looks scary. Looks like he's about to shoot someone. You might want to check it out. You forget this part of the Gates saga.

Gates looked like he was about to shoot someone? Excuse me, but I don't remember any report of him even having a weapon, much less brandishing one in a threatening manner. You might want to check that out.

bjkeefe
08-18-2009, 01:55 PM
What are these guys actually trying to prove by carrying these guns around? If it's anything more than intimidation, I'm not really seeing it. It may be their right under Arizona law, but Jesus, how twisted does our understanding of "rights" have to be when these Phoenix guys are lauded for exercising their constitutional right to bring guns to a meeting with the president while others find that their constitutional rights to, say, not get kicked off a plane while being an Arab and having a violin, or not be listened in on while being an officer in Iraq and talking dirty on the phone with your wife, must be relinquished in the name of national security?

Exactly right. This is a classic example of "Just because you can doesn't mean you should."

And you're also spot-on about the inconsistency of people like this asserting (and defending others') rights.

bjkeefe
08-18-2009, 02:01 PM
Did you see the "we will forcefully resist (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/08/armed_protestor_we_will_forcefully_resist.php)" post (and related video) from TPM earlier this morning?

What a moran.

Lyle
08-18-2009, 02:25 PM
Haha... I wasn't saying that Gates had a gun. The point was the guys with the gun were not called for doing anything potentially criminal, like Gates was. No one called in to say hey, there's a black dude with a machine gun at the Obama event, you might want to check it out. I was fooling around with words and the two events. Lordy mercy keefe.

bjkeefe
08-18-2009, 04:09 PM
... I was fooling around with words and the two events. ...

Thanks for acknowledging that, at least. Lets me know that this is another topic where it's not worth the time or energy to engage with you.

claymisher
08-18-2009, 05:11 PM
Originally Posted by Lyle
The Black Panthers and Nation of Islam do exercise their right and carry guns to public events. I don't have a problem with it.

Good lord, that is terrible logic. It's okay if some other awful group you disagree with does it too? Let's all race to the bottom!

bjkeefe
08-18-2009, 08:27 PM
I guess "Joe" the "Plumber" still has a lot of books to move out of his garage. Can't think of any other reason why he'd repeatedly be advocating physical violence against the Speaker of the House of Representatives (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/17/joe-the-plumber-rightonline/), can you?

I'd say, "Stay classy, Sam!", but he's never shown the slightest sign that he knows the meaning of the word.

[Added] More coverage here (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/142012/joe_the_plumber_on_pelosi%3A_i_would_%26quot%3Bbea t_the_livin%27_tar%26quot%3B_out_of_her/) (via (http://wonkette.com/410552/joe-the-plumber-was-so-violent-at-some-conference)).

bjkeefe
08-18-2009, 08:41 PM
And what percentage of them are Deathers?

Hey, is Jim Newell (http://wonkette.com/410581/410581) reading this forum? (Note first sentence.)

TwinSwords
08-18-2009, 09:23 PM
And Eric Kleefeld! (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/birthers-and-deathers----the-same-people.php)

TwinSwords
08-18-2009, 09:38 PM
If it is legal to carry guns in public and to protest peacefully in public with said gun, what exactly is shameful? Its their constitutional right, so what's the problem?

Lyle,
You don't understand why these people are bringing guns to these events. They are implicit threats against the president, and the government of the United States.

Headline tonight:

Man behind guns at Obama event tied to '90s-era militia that plotted to bomb federal buildings (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/)

(Permalink (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/ernest_hancock_viper_militia_gun_obama_event.php?r ef=fpa) — Use this link after August 18, 2009, as the headline at the link above will rotate off TPM in a few hours.)

This is typical. I suspect you don't know anything about the people who have been bringing these guns to these events, or you would not be so unconcerned.

Here's William Kostric (http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/politics/2009/08/12/william_kostric/).

Here's video of the militant Republican who came to the Obama event yesterday (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/08/armed_protestor_we_will_forcefully_resist.php?ref= fpblg).

Do these facts change your opinion of what these people are doing?

bjkeefe
08-18-2009, 09:57 PM
And Eric Kleefeld! (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/birthers-and-deathers----the-same-people.php)

Those bastards!

Lyle
08-19-2009, 03:50 AM
How is stating the obvious out beneath anyone?

TwinSwords
08-19-2009, 06:23 PM
Until a couple of years ago, Tom DeLay was one of the top 2 or 3 most powerful and influential Republicans in America.

And he's a birther (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwRLC66hrJ8).

This is just getting boring. I guess we have to accept that by 2012, the terms Republican and Birther will be effectively interchangable.

TwinSwords
08-19-2009, 06:25 PM
A new national poll released today finds that 62% of Americans think Obama was born here, while 24% think he was not and 14% are unsure (http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/08/deeper-look-at-birthers.html).

It was just a couple of months ago that his approval rating was above 62%.

bjkeefe
08-19-2009, 11:38 PM
Until a couple of years ago, Tom DeLay was one of the top 2 or 3 most powerful and influential Republicans in America.

And he's a birther (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwRLC66hrJ8).

Oh, it gets worse (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/08/sadly-following-headline-is-not-from.html).

claymisher
08-19-2009, 11:43 PM
A new national poll released today finds that 62% of Americans think Obama was born here, while 24% think he was not and 14% are unsure (http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/08/deeper-look-at-birthers.html).

It was just a couple of months ago that his approval rating was above 62%.

Lots of successful Presidents have their ups and downs. If he does a good job it'll stay high.

bjkeefe
08-20-2009, 05:52 PM
Until a couple of years ago, Tom DeLay was one of the top 2 or 3 most powerful and influential Republicans in America.

And he's a birther (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwRLC66hrJ8).

The new Tom DeLay lies (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/did_delays_angry_quadriplegic_protesters_tale_add. php) just keep growing. (via (http://wonkette.com/410629/tom-delay-tells-amazing-story-which-is-probably-a-lie-but-still))

If I keep saying "dumped quadriplegics on the floor in front of me" over the next few days, you'll know why.

bjkeefe
08-22-2009, 11:58 PM
Those bastards!

Add No More Mister Nice Blog (http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2009/08/no-wait-i-know-this-one-answer-to-who.html) to the term-users list.

bjkeefe
08-23-2009, 03:29 AM
From TPM (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/poll-palin-winning-the-birther-primary-romney-way-behind.php), via watertiger (http://www.dependablerenegade.com/dependable_renegade/2009/08/batshit-crazy-now-in-pennysaving-concentrated-form.html):

A new analysis by Public Policy Polling (D) (http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/08/who-do-birthers-love.html) finds that Sarah Palin is especially popular with a key Republican demographic: The Birthers.

Among those respondents in PPP's latest national poll who either said that President Obama was not born in the United States or were undecided, Palin had a 66% favorability rating. Of the other three Republicans that were tested in the poll, Mike Huckabee was in second place at 58%, then Newt Gingrich with 46%, and Mitt Romney was last with only 43% favorability.

From PPP communications director Tom Jensen: "I mean this with all sincerity -- Romney's lack of popularity with the birther wing of the GOP really could scuttle his chances at the nomination in three years."

claymisher
08-23-2009, 04:33 AM
From TPM (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/poll-palin-winning-the-birther-primary-romney-way-behind.php), via watertiger (http://www.dependablerenegade.com/dependable_renegade/2009/08/batshit-crazy-now-in-pennysaving-concentrated-form.html):

Am I the only person who watched the Republican primary debates? Barring some miracle, like lucking out and finding another elderly war hero who hates the base, it's going to be completely fucking insane in 2012.

I don't think Palin will be able to raise much cash. She won't get far. But 2012 will be a big year for Palinism.

bjkeefe
08-23-2009, 02:23 PM
Am I the only person who watched the Republican primary debates? Barring some miracle, like lucking out and finding another elderly war hero who hates the base, it's going to be completely fucking insane in 2012.

Agreed. Plus, unless Obama's approval ratings are really, really low, I expect that some of the more plausible/reasonable candidates will sit 2012 out and wait until 2016.

I don't think Palin will be able to raise much cash. She won't get far. But 2012 will be a big year for Palinism.

Hmmm. I'd hate to bet on this. My guess now is that she'll be able to get lots of small contributions, but no real big money support. However, if she gets enough grassroots support, I could imagine that guys like Kristol would start trying to sell her to their cronies all over again.

Ordinarily, I'd think that there's no way she has a chance, and won't get past the stage of "exploring" a run before declaring, "I can do more for the American people another way" or some other face-saving drop-out. But given how little any of the other candidates has to offer and how they tend to cancel each other out, I could see her doing no worse than anyone else who's on the radar now and lasting for a while.

As to Palinism, I agree -- I think where 2008 was all about trying to claim the mantle of Reagan, the 2012 GOP primaries will be a lot about the various candidates trying to emulate the appeal-to-the-basest-emotions approach that Palin dines out on.

TwinSwords
08-24-2009, 07:54 PM
Now the Birthers are demanding to know: Was Obama circumcised? (http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/now-birthers-are-demanding-know-was)

bjkeefe
08-24-2009, 07:56 PM
Now the Birthers are demanding to know: Was Obama circumcised? (http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/now-birthers-are-demanding-know-was)

No fair Freeper-mining.

bjkeefe
08-25-2009, 01:12 AM
Doesn't fool us, or Roy Edroso, either: Rep. Trent Franks (http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2009/08/rise-of-birther-with-explanation.html) (R-Obvs.) back-pedals and sputters, but he's still a Birther.

AemJeff
08-25-2009, 07:46 AM
No fair Freeper-mining.

How about RedState mining? Erick doesn't actually mention Obama in this direct context, but he sure managed to find a way to shoehorn an irrelevant use of the word "Foreskin" right into the headline. Coincidence?

Barack Obama Wants to Eradicate Death Panels: Where Death Panel is a Euphemism for Foreskin (http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/08/24/barack-obama-wants-to-eradicate-death-panels-where-death-panel-is-a-euphemism-for-foreskin/)

bjkeefe
08-25-2009, 12:29 PM
How about RedState mining? Erick doesn't actually mention Obama in this direct context, but he sure managed to find a way to shoehorn an irrelevant use of the word "Foreskin" right into the headline. Coincidence?

Barack Obama Wants to Eradicate Death Panels: Where Death Panel is a Euphemism for Foreskin (http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/08/24/barack-obama-wants-to-eradicate-death-panels-where-death-panel-is-a-euphemism-for-foreskin/)

Erick, Son of Erick, is always fair game. He is after all, "the sixty-ninth most influential conservative in the United States (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/04/troublemaking-fat-kid-making-trouble.html)."

That post was hilarious -- a marvel of incoherence. Erick calls circumcision "the God ordained act," argues that the procedure make sense "health wise," bashes Andrew Sullivan for being opposed to it, reminds any of his readers who have forgotten that Sully is gay and HIV-positive, tries to cover it with "... let’s just not go there," makes up stuff about mandatory diets, careens into some ill-focused grumble about taxes, etc., etc., etc., but when he takes a breath, it becomes apparent that he's opposed to it after all, and all this smoke was laid down to hide the fact that he lied in his very first sentence. In the face of a passage he himself blockquoted!

As someone said about Goldfarb recently, is it possible he thinks his readers are really that stupid? In Erick's case, though, I think it's equally possible that he's that stupid. Or at least, so deranged with Obama-hate that he can't think straight. Never before have I see "considering promoting" equated with mandatory behavior before. Well, of course, except for free end-of-life planning services being portrayed as "death panels."

As to whether the Grand High Exalted Mystic Ruler of the RedState Trike Force was driven to put up this post by overhearing the screaming about circumcision from the basement over at the Freepers' house, who can say? I wouldn't be surprised if the two were connected, you should pardon the expression.

AemJeff
08-25-2009, 01:21 PM
Erick, Son of Erick, is always fair game. He is after all, "the sixty-ninth most influential conservative in the United States (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/04/troublemaking-fat-kid-making-trouble.html)."

That post was hilarious -- a marvel of incoherence. Erick calls circumcision "the God ordained act," argues that the procedure make sense "health wise," bashes Andrew Sullivan for being opposed to it, reminds any of his readers who have forgotten that Sully is gay and HIV-positive, tries to cover it with "... let’s just not go there," makes up stuff about mandatory diets, careens into some ill-focused grumble about taxes, etc., etc., etc., but when he takes a breath, it becomes apparent that he's opposed to it after all, and all this smoke was laid down to hide the fact that he lied in his very first sentence. In the face of a passage he himself blockquoted!

As someone said about Goldfarb recently, is it possible he thinks his readers are really that stupid? In Erick's case, though, I think it's equally possible that he's that stupid. Or at least, so deranged with Obama-hate that he can't think straight. Never before have I see "considering promoting" equated with mandatory behavior before. Well, of course, except for free end-of-life planning services being portrayed as "death panels."

As to whether the Grand High Exalted Mystic Ruler of the RedState Trike Force was driven to put up this post by overhearing the screaming about circumcision from the basement over at the Freepers' house, who can say? I wouldn't be surprised if the two were connected, you should pardon the expression.

I'm certain (based on no evidence) that it was a deliberate attempt at hit-whoring - if the freepers are posting about the presidential pee-pee (again!) then let's put an appropriate word into a headline and mine the hits. The whole confused article was, I think, just a post-facto justification for the article.

bjkeefe
08-25-2009, 01:55 PM
I'm certain (based on no evidence) that it was a deliberate attempt at hit-whoring - if the freepers are posting about the presidential pee-pee (again!) then let's put an appropriate word into a headline and mine the hits. The whole confused article was, I think, just a post-facto justification for the article.

I wouldn't bet against that explanation by any means, although I'd stop a short of certainty. Erickson strikes me as one of those people who is so obsessed with his hatred for Obama that he'll throw any and every thing that appears close at hand, no matter how he has to twist it to turn it into an attack on Obama and/or a call to arms to his audience.

In other words, though I believe he cares deeply about site traffic, I also don't see him as quite as rational and calculating as your scenario describes. I think he's more driven by the idea that, as General of the RedState Trike Force, every day he gets up, he has to have something else to hurl at Obama, until he finds something that will stick. He's basically another Malkin.

bjkeefe
08-25-2009, 06:32 PM
Or, to make this term less unwieldy, let's use TPM's formulation: "birther-curious (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/08/serious_question_to_consider.php?ref=fpblg)."

Which we could just as well shorten to bi-curious, because they would like to be called that almost as much as they like being called teabaggers.

Oh, all right. Bir-curious.

bjkeefe
08-25-2009, 10:26 PM
I'm certain (based on no evidence) that it was a deliberate attempt at hit-whoring - if the freepers are posting about the presidential pee-pee (again!) then let's put an appropriate word into a headline and mine the hits. The whole confused article was, I think, just a post-facto justification for the article.

On second thought, maybe you're right (http://www.bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2009/08/creepy_quote_of.html).

kezboard
08-26-2009, 01:27 AM
Wait wait wait. So you're saying that Sarah Palin appeals to the crazy and the credulous?

bjkeefe
08-26-2009, 05:12 PM
Wait wait wait. So you're saying that Sarah Palin appeals to the crazy and the credulous?

And vice versa, it appears (http://www.rumproast.com/index.php/site/comments/glenn_becks_newest_pr_flack_sarah_palin/).

Whatfur
08-27-2009, 11:00 PM
Pony up the Placenta Aloha boy! (http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/afterbirthers_demand_to_see?utm_source=onion_rss_d aily)

skolapper
09-04-2009, 05:09 AM
rnIts just like how there are some people on the left who oppose AA so therefore both sides equally oppose it, or how some people on the right want to raise taxes therefore both sides are equally pro-tax. There are white people in Africa so dont pretend its any blacker than America. Facile equivalences are right some times therefore theyre just as good as thinking a position through.rn

bjkeefe
09-09-2009, 12:44 PM
This time, it's Rep. Jean Schmidt of Ohio (http://wonkette.com/410968/congresslady-jean-schmidt-secretly-agress-with-the-birthers-except-this-one-time-by-mistake-she-publicly-agreed-with-the-birthers), caught on camera.

[Added] More here. (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/08/jean-schmidt-birther/) And why do Republicans hate freedom of the press so much?

[Added2] You might remember Schmidt from her last display of classiness (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/18/schmidt-shame/).

TwinSwords
09-09-2009, 06:46 PM
The latest development (http://www.examiner.com/x-10317-San-Diego-County-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m9d9-Birthers-get-their-day-in-court--Obama-must-now-prove-his-citizenship) making news among the wingnut / lunatic crowd. Not sure how credible this report is; I haven't seen the story repeated in anything more credible than Examiner.com or WorldNetDaily.


Birthers get their day in court – Obama must now prove his citizenship

Americans’ who do not believe President Obama is a U.S. citizen won a huge decision in California as a judge set three court dates, one of which will require the President to prove his citizenship.

The case will be heard by U.S. District Judge David Carter in Southern California, it is the first time the merits of the President’s citizenship will be argued in open court.

The first obstacle the plaintiffs will have to overcome is an October 5 motion to dismiss as well as the arguments on the issue of discovery. From there the plaintiffs will have to navigate a pretrial hearing before Judge Carter will hear the case tentatively set for January 26, 2010.

According to Jeff Schwilk, who was in the courtroom, the judge was solid as a rock. “The audience of about 45 was nodding and giving thumbs up to each other on almost all of his decisions.”

“He (the judge) is determined to get Obama to prove he is eligible,” Schwilk explained. “Things are going to move very fast.”

However, Judge Carter hasn’t ruled on the discovery motion, which is the right to see the President’s still-concealed records. Judge Carter didn’t rule on the motion to dismiss either.

The next few weeks will tell if the California plaintiffs will actually be able to challenge President Obama in open court.

The lawsuit claims President Obama is actually a citizen of Indonesia or Kenya. This would violate the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, it says, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of the President.”

The records put forth by the President show that President Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth took place in Hawaii.

“It’s pretty close to check mate, but of course the Obama team will try to come up with something to get their way,” Schwilk finished.

claymisher
09-09-2009, 07:12 PM
The latest development (http://www.examiner.com/x-10317-San-Diego-County-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m9d9-Birthers-get-their-day-in-court--Obama-must-now-prove-his-citizenship) making news among the wingnut / lunatic crowd. Not sure how credible this report is; I haven't seen the story repeated in anything more credible than Examiner.com or WorldNetDaily.

Wasn't Obama's mom a citizen? That automatically makes Obama a citizen. Do the birthers think he was adopted or something? I don't get it.

TwinSwords
09-09-2009, 07:27 PM
Wasn't Obama's mom a citizen? That automatically makes Obama a citizen. Do the birthers think he was adopted or something? I don't get it.

LOL, you would think so. However, the Birthers claim that if a child has only one Ameican citizen parent, that parent must have been a citizen for longer than 7 years after the age of 14 (or something like that). Which, if it's true, would mean that Obama's mother was ineligible to pass down her citizenship to Obama if he was born overseas. (If he was born in the US, he's automatically a citizen, as we all know. But even then, the Birthers claim, he would still not be a natural born citizen.)

kezboard
09-11-2009, 04:04 AM
The issue is that you have to be a "natural-born citizen" to be president, not just a "citizen" -- and there's an argument about whether this means you have to be born IN the US or just born to American parents. In my opinion, this is pretty stupid, and any citizen, naturalized, natural-born, or not should be eligible. I've heard that originally the point of this clause was to make sure no European monarchy tries to get a member of their royal families elected president so they can incorporate the US into their empire again, but this may or may not be true.

TwinSwords
10-13-2009, 10:30 PM
This woman is a national treasure (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/birther_orly_taitz_responds_to_judges_20k_fine_sho .php?ref=mblt).

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/assets_c/2009/10/orly-taiz-ca-dentist-cropped-proto-custom_2.jpg

Orly Taitz Responds To Judge's $20k Fine: Shove It!

bjkeefe
10-24-2009, 12:40 AM
Oh, yeah? Well, 57% of the population (http://firedoglake.com/2009/10/20/new-wapoabc-poll-public-option-nearly-three-times-more-popular-than-gop/) believes in a public option! Which is nearly three times as many as those who identify themselves as Republicans!

So there!

uncle ebeneezer
10-24-2009, 01:39 AM
And while we're talking numbers... (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/10/ufo-conspiracy-theories-more-popular-than-congressional-gop.php)

bjkeefe
10-24-2009, 01:52 AM
And while we're talking numbers... (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/10/ufo-conspiracy-theories-more-popular-than-congressional-gop.php)

The key question left unanswered: how many of those 37% believe that's how Obama got here?

;^)

claymisher
10-26-2009, 08:33 PM
Me in July:I think Obama's been playing this really well so far. He's doing weekly health care town halls. They're hitting the local media. They're refining the message and organizing (I've got three calls from Obama's Organizing for America in the last two weeks about organizing for health care). They're doing "call your congressperson" email blasts. It's happening.

Man do I get tired of journalists types carping on about, "Why isn't X saying Y!!!!1!!!1 He's so stupid!!!!" when all the action is happening off-camera. Like if it's not on CNN it doesn't exist. People need to remember how well he ran his campaign. Or in case you forgot:
Me in August: They were talking about the town hall freakouts on NPR this morning and neglected to mention any of the facts. It was all about "why can't the Democrats control their message?" The answer is right in front of them but they're too chicken to say it. Wouldn't be balanced!

It's a weird dynamic. You can win the news cycle with lies and smears and hissy fits. You can win elections sometimes. What you can't do is develop policy or govern effectively with it. All that unreality based thinking doomed the Bush administration. At the time the Republicans thought they had everybody on the run with the Schiavo ruckus, but it backfired on them pretty hard. Oh, and lying about Iraq and 9/11! So maybe in a month the media will turn on the death panel lies. Maybe the Republicans will suddenly find themselves with zero credibility on health care issues and just get streamrolled, like they were in 2006 and 2008.

Tea partiers: fail! FOX News: fail! Republicans: fail!

Health care reform's looking good. It's cleared the committees, it's on track in the Senate, and the major players are all backing the public option. It ain't done yet, but I'm pretty sure Obama's going to score a W on this one.

bjkeefe
10-26-2009, 08:48 PM
Good post, but ...

... I'm pretty sure Obama's going to score a W on this one.

... there may be a better way of saying what I think you're trying to say here.

;^)

TwinSwords
10-26-2009, 09:15 PM
Me in July:
Me in August:

Tea partiers: fail! FOX News: fail! Republicans: fail!

Health care reform's looking good. It's cleared the committees, it's on track in the Senate, and the major players are all backing the public option. It ain't done yet, but I'm pretty sure Obama's going to score a W on this one.

Congratulations on prognostigatory prowess! This is exactly what I was thinking about the other day when I said your political antenna has proven to be well tuned. Back in August when I was fretting the whole thing was going up in smoke, you were, like, "Meh. They'll fix it in conference (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=123846#post123846)."

Now let's just hope you're right about Blue Texas. :-D

BTW: Someone else whose prognostications have proven reliable is "Booman" of the Booman Tribune. Here's an example (http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2009/10/2/112414/704) of the kind of thing he's been writing about HC Reform.

bjkeefe
10-26-2009, 09:20 PM
Congratulations on prognostigatory prowess! This is exactly what I was thinking about the other day when I said your political antenna has proven to be well tuned. Back in August when I was fretting the whole thing was going up in smoke, you were, like, "Meh. They'll fix it in conference (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=123846#post123846)."

Now let's just hope you're right about Blue Texas. :-D

BTW: Someone else whose prognostications have proven reliable is "Booman" of the Booman Tribune. Here's an example (http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2009/10/2/112414/704) of the kind of thing he's been writing about HC Reform.

Yeah, Booman's pretty sharp.

More HCR happiness from Anne Laurie (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=28745). (PK's whole column is worth a read, too.)

[Added] And an interesting observation on "opting out" from Bob Cesca (http://www.bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2009/10/the_optout_dare.html).

claymisher
10-26-2009, 11:37 PM
Good post, but ...



... there may be a better way of saying what I think you're trying to say here.

;^)

W as WIN! As opposed to fail.

bjkeefe
10-26-2009, 11:44 PM
W as WIN! As opposed to fail.

Sure ... I knew what you meant. I just wonder about all those others (http://www.google.com/cse?cx=007432832765683203066%3Azj_ist-lct4&ie=UTF-8&q=%22just+like+bush%22&sa=Search) ...

;^)

claymisher
10-27-2009, 12:13 AM
Yeah, Booman's pretty sharp.

More HCR happiness from Anne Laurie (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=28745). (PK's whole column is worth a read, too.)

[Added] And an interesting observation on "opting out" from Bob Cesca (http://www.bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2009/10/the_optout_dare.html).

Great links TS and bjk.

This is going to be a victory for developing good policy, making the case, and just grinding it out. Obama campaigned on health care (well, minus the mandate). He organized around it all year, culminating in 345,000 calls to Congress in one day (http://advocacy.barackobama.com/healthcare/campaigns/13/call_scripts/33/call_sessions/new) last week. He made the case and won the argument. HCR is popular. The public option is popular. It's the audacity of patience (http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_audacity_of_patience) in action.

(I'd be happier if Ron Wyden's Free Choice Act (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/opinion/17wyden.html) passed. Who knows, maybe it'll pick up some Republican votes? The exchange used to be a right-wing idea after all.)

Next, global warming/energy!

bjkeefe
10-27-2009, 12:38 AM
Great links TS and bjk.

This is going to be a victory for developing good policy, making the case, and just grinding it out. Obama campaigned on health care (well, minus the mandate). He organized around it all year, culminating in 345,000 calls to Congress in one day (http://advocacy.barackobama.com/healthcare/campaigns/13/call_scripts/33/call_sessions/new) last week. He made the case and won the argument. HCR is popular. The public option is popular. It's the audacity of patience (http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_audacity_of_patience) in action.

Sure hope you're right. It does seem to be looking good at the moment, and if it plays out as we hope, then probably in a couple of years, people will have forgotten how horrifying an up-close look at the sausage-making was, and they'll be happy it's done.

(I'd be happier if Ron Wyden's Free Choice Act (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/opinion/17wyden.html) passed. Who knows, maybe it'll pick up some Republican votes? The exchange used to be a right-wing idea after all.)

Sounds interesting. A little too wonky for me to consider seriously at the moment, though.

Next, global warming/energy!

Wow, did you ever just cause some heads to explode. ;^)

bjkeefe
11-19-2009, 05:28 PM
Good news! A full six percent have regained a grip, on sanity!

A new poll shows that 52 percent of Republicans think ACORN stole the 2008 election for Obama. (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=11&year=2009&base_name=the_fruitcake_based_community)

And from the same post:

Hoffman workers in NY-23 mistook one of their own African-American volunteers for a member of ACORN, which wasn't even active in the district.

Still not racist, though!

[Added] Related. (http://twitter.com/bjkeefe/status/5865604196)

TwinSwords
12-04-2009, 02:06 PM
Sarah Palin .... birther nut (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1209/Palin_Obama_birth_certificate_a_fair_question.html ):

"I think the public rightfully is still making it an issue. I don't have a problem with that. I don't know if I would have to bother to make it an issue, because I think that members of the electorate still want answers," [Palin] replied.

"Do you think it's a fair question to be looking at?" Humphries persisted.

"I think it's a fair question, just like I think past association and past voting records -- all of that is fair game," Palin said. "The McCain-Palin campaign didn't do a good enough job in that area."

While this will make a small number of Republicans lose respect for Palin, it will, I am sure, help to swell the ranks of the birthers. It's a celebrity endorsement of a lunatic conspiracy theory.

bjkeefe
12-04-2009, 02:18 PM
Sarah Palin .... birther nut (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1209/Palin_Obama_birth_certificate_a_fair_question.html ):



While this will make a small number of Republicans lose respect for Palin, it will, I am sure, help to swell the ranks of the birthers. It's a celebrity endorsement of a lunatic conspiracy theory.

Be interesting to see if someone does another poll, both about the Birf Cirtifikit and Palin. I'd expect the first number to be unchanged, however -- those who still think Obama is not a "natural born citizen" will believe that for life and/or will keep telling pollsters they believe that, as a way of saying FU to Obama, and those who have accepted that despite the funny color of his skin, he actually was born here in the US are not, at this point, going to be swayed by Bible Spice's empty-headed attempts to make more trouble. This is just "pallin' around with the terrorists," v2.0.

Come to think of it, I don't think this will change Palin's numbers much, either. Anyone who still thinks she's qualified to be preznit is either already a Birther or is so starburst-addled that this isn't going to change anything. (For the vast majority who already think she's a clown, of course, this latest moment comes as little surprise, and probably will be written off as more pandering to her cult and/or another pay-attention-to-me moment.)

Thanks for passing the link along, though. Nice to know this part about her, too, along with all of her other warts.

TwinSwords
08-04-2010, 06:30 PM
Progress! (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/04/cnn-poll-quarter-doubt-president-was-born-in-u-s/)

"Twenty-seven percent of Republicans say he was probably not born here, and another 14 percent of Republicans say he was definitely not born in the U.S."

chiwhisoxx
08-04-2010, 09:10 PM
Swords, you realize this thread is about a poll from a discredited polling organization that Markos kicked to the curb for fucking up, right?

bjkeefe
08-04-2010, 10:27 PM
Swords, you realize this thread is about a poll from a discredited polling organization that Markos kicked to the curb for fucking up, right?

Every time I think, "No, it's not possible that chiwhi could say something stupider ..."

Welp, learn something new every day, I guess.

Whatfur
08-05-2010, 11:10 AM
Every time I think, "No, it's not possible that chiwhi could say something stupider ..."

Welp, learn something new every day, I guess.

A truthful question is stupid?

bjkeefe
08-05-2010, 11:33 AM
A truthful question is stupid?

Sure, it can be. As in this case, where it completely ignores the larger point, and tries to pretend if it focuses on just one aspect, that's the whole story. What chiwhi said was the equivalent of, "But didn't Hitler like dogs?"

C'mon, 'fur, even you're not that thick. Give your tribalism a rest.

Whatfur
08-05-2010, 10:28 PM
Sure, it can be. As in this case, where it completely ignores the larger point, and tries to pretend if it focuses on just one aspect, that's the whole story. What chiwhi said was the equivalent of, "But didn't Hitler like dogs?"

C'mon, 'fur, even you're not that thick. Give your tribalism a rest.

I'm sorry... I saw it being more about your tribe. TS was using information produced by one of your tribe and later being discredited by one of your tribe. The league leading Sox fan was just calling him on his dubious choice.

bjkeefe
08-05-2010, 10:48 PM
I'm sorry...

Apology accepted.

graz
08-05-2010, 10:50 PM
Apology accepted.

Civility rules.