Showing posts with label Andrew Sullivan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Andrew Sullivan. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Andrew Sullivan returns from vacation and immediately takes Sarah Palin to task over her attacks on Hillary Clinton.

As all of you know I posted about Palin's hypocrisy concerning Hillary's health right after she made her clumsy attempt at an attack last week.

Sadly for Andrew Sullivan he was out of the office that week. However now that he is back in front of his laptop, he is ready to take Palin head on.

First Sullivan takes a moment to agree with Palin about the importance of a candidate releasing their medical records when running for office. Then he reminds his readers that he was vilified for doing the exact same thing in regard to Palin in 2008:

When did Palin actually release something about her health? She released a two-page letter from her doctor one hour before polling day. 

No records at all. Was she subjected to a press grilling? I know of no reporter who asked her to verify her Trig stories; there were no questions ever about her weird stories about giving a speech while having contractions or getting on an airplane eight months pregnant and already in labor. The McCain campaign never asked her for verification or explanation of any of these stories. Those of us who did ask were then ridiculed and slimed by the press and the campaign. 

These facts need to be remembered when Palin tries to rewrite history. And one above all: all Hillary Clinton needs to do, if she is to follow Palin’s example, is to wait until an hour before the polls open, and release a brief doctor’s note saying nothing is wrong. Somehow, I don’t think the press will let her get away with that. Which raises the question of why the press let Palin get away with the same thing. And still do.

EXACTLY!

And that is really the crux of the argument put forward by those of us taunted with the "Trig Truther" label.

IF Palin had released comprehensive medical records, or released a verifiable birth certificate for Trig, then I think she could have legitimately mocked those who kept accusing her of faking her pregnancy, or continued questioning the circumstances surrounding it.

However to this day, she has done neither.

Nor are their any pictures of her bare pregnant belly, no testimonials of any friends who felt a baby kick, or any photos of her in the delivery room holding her newborn. (Which by the way is something that I believe EVERY mother has in their possession.)

And let me just say how nice it is to see that Andrew has not stepped away from the babygate controversy. He obviously rarely has need to bring it up, but if Palin gives him an opening he is certainly not shy about taking it.

And isn't Palin an idiot for giving it to him?

Monday, May 12, 2014

Well you knew it was coming, Now that openly gay football player Michael Sam has been drafted by the NFL, here comes the Right Wing outrage.

Courtesy of Christian Post: 

Jack Burkman, head of the Washington, D.C. lobbying firm J.M. Burkman & Assoc. who is seeking to ban gays from the NFL, says he intends to build a national coalition to boycott any football franchise that picks openly gay football player Michael Sam in the NFL Draft, which starts Thursday at Radio City Music Hall in New York City. 

In a release issued Thursday, Burkman said he would "leverage his political clout" to ensure that the franchise that selects the 6-foot-2, 260-pound defensive end from Missouri would get "roughed up financially." 

"We shall exercise our First Amendment rights and shall not stop until the drafting NFL franchise cannot sell a single ticket, jersey or autographed football," said Burkman. "In short, we shall be relentless."

Threatening financial ruin for a football team that drafts a gay player, how Christian of them.

Miami Dolphins safety Don Jones took to Twitter to express his outrage over Sam's recruitment, including the hug and kiss which accompanied it, and has now been fined and forced to undergo "educational training."

Other conservatives are just pissed that Michale Sam is getting all kinds of love, while openly Christian Tim Tebow was mocked for his faith.

Of course the fact that you are born gay, and you choose to be a Christian, seems to be lost on this crowd. As is the that there are tons of openly Christian football players, but most are not as obnoxious at Tebow was about it.

Of course some, like our good friend Andrew Sullivan, had an entirely different take:

Here’s what that embrace and kiss meant to me. It meant that Sam is not afraid, and neither is Vito, his boyfriend. There are no double standards here or special exceptions. If Sam were with a girlfriend, the scene would be utterly banal, if still beautiful. It helps that they are so young – because they are not yet old enough to have their minds clogged with qualifications, warnings, worries. They just respond as two people in love. In that moment, the hug matters more than the kiss; and the faces more than the hug. Look at Vito in the video as he waits for and absorbs the news. The anxiety, the trepidation, the concern for his partner: this is what love looks like.

We must remember that there was a time when the first African American played on a white team. A first time a woman was able to vote in an election. And the first time that a non-Christian was elected to public office in America. There is an ideological thread which connects all of those who spoke out against each of these landmarks.

I am sure you can identify it quite easily.

Monday, April 28, 2014

Sarah Palin's remarks during NRA speech receive conservative backlash. About time.

Courtesy of the American Conservative:  

Palin and all those who cheered her sacrilegious jibe ought to be ashamed of themselves. For us Christians, baptism is the entry into new life. Palin invoked it to celebrate torture. Even if you don’t believe that waterboarding is torture, surely you agree that it should not be compared to baptism, and that such a comparison should be laughed at. What does it say about the character of a person that they could make that joking comparison, and that so many people would cheer for it. Nothing good — and nothing that does honor to the cause of Jesus Christ. 

If I thought that kind of hateful declaration and abuse of the Christian religion was what conservatism stood for, I wouldn’t be able to call myself a conservative. Some conservatives do stand for that. They’re wrong, and they should be called out on it — not because some liberal somewhere is going to be offended, but first and foremost because we Christians who identify as conservatives are appalled by it.

Courtesy of The Federalist:

I’ve long defended Palin against the offensive treatment she’s received at the hands of a blatantly biased media, a media that collectively lost its mind the moment she entered the national stage. But that hardly means she must be defended at all times.

Those were conservatives, who once thought Palin was someone to be admired.

Here was how Andrew Sullivan, not a fan of Palin's but still a conservative, and still a very religious man covered it:  

A Christian who can equate the sacrament of baptism with a barbaric form of torture is not a Christian, whatever self-righteous blather she emits. And a former vice-presidential candidate who talks of “baptizing” Muslim terror suspects through waterboarding is handing al Qaeda a propaganda coup on a platter. She disgusts me. And what disgusts me even more is the rank cowardice of so many sane Republicans who for far too long have failed to take her on.

Ouch! That's going to leave a mark.

Here is how Washington Monthly responded:  

I have a theory that Sarah Palin has the intent to humiliate John McCain as often as possible. Maybe it’s because McCain wouldn’t let her give her own concession speech. Maybe it’s some of the things McCain’s advisers have said about her. Or, maybe, it’s just a joke the gods are playing on McCain for being so stupid in his choice of running mate. 

The best part is that McCain won’t allow himself to react to this because he can’t admit the magnitude of his mistake. 

Of course there are still a number of conservative news outlets who are resisting the urge to call Palin out over her remarks, and are undoubtedly waiting for all of this attention to blow over.

But to what end?

After all it is only a matter of time before she says something equally horrifying, that will embarrass her supporters, thrill her detractors, and shame those who once believed she could actually be a politician worth supporting.

I sometimes get attacked for "lying about Sarah," but the most devastating thing I ever did was simply to post videos, and transcribe her speeches, so that everybody could hear for themselves the level of insanity that issued from her frothing maw.

Wednesday, April 09, 2014

Noticing that it has been a few days without directly attacking the President, or the "liberal" media, Sarah Palin decides to rectify that in the laziest way possible.

The above image showed up on Palin's Facebook page with no written diatribe to accompany it. (I imagine somebody might still be irritated about the whole "has been graduated tonight from" post.)

Of course many have already decried the treatment of Brendan Eich, including Palin favorites Andrew Sullivan and Bill Maher, as well as many others in the "liberal" media.

So Palin's charge of hypocrisy does not really fly in this case.

Add to that the fact that President Obama has done more on behalf the gay community, including refusing to enforce DOMA and  signing into law the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, then any other President before him and you have to recognize how ridiculous of a comparison this is.

As for the Obama quote used in this graphic, it should be noted that it represents only on quote from Obama on the subject of marriage equality and that  if you read them all you can see the inner struggle he had in coming to terms with his traditional views, and the changing opinions in the country.

By the way speaking of that quote, here it is in its entirety:  

“I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about.” 

Kind of changes the meaning when not viewed in its edited version, wouldn't you agree?

So nice try you hoary harridan from the depths of Hades. 

Saturday, April 05, 2014

Andrew Sullivan comes to the defense of a Mozilla CEO who resigned after his negative views on gay marriage came to light, and is applauded for his reasonableness. Well Greta Van Susteren and Sarah Palin cannot allow that to stand.

So some of you may have read how how the CEO of the internet browser Mozzila stepped down from his job after it came to light that he had given a $1,000 contribution on support of the 2008 gay marriage ban in California.

In response Andrew Sullivan wrote a rather thoughtful piece on what he saw as the equivalence of pro-gay lynch mob: 

He did not understand that in order to be a CEO of a company, you have to renounce your heresy! There is only one permissible opinion at Mozilla, and all dissidents must be purged! Yep, that’s left-liberal tolerance in a nut-shell. No, he wasn’t a victim of government censorship or intimidation. He was a victim of the free market in which people can choose to express their opinions by boycotts, free speech and the like. He still has his full First Amendment rights. But what we’re talking about is the obvious and ugly intolerance of parts of the gay movement, who have reacted to years of being subjected to social obloquy by returning the favor. 

This is a repugnantly illiberal sentiment. It is also unbelievably stupid for the gay rights movement. You want to squander the real gains we have made by argument and engagement by becoming just as intolerant of others’ views as the Christianists? You’ve just found a great way to do this. It’s a bad, self-inflicted blow. And all of us will come to regret it.

I have to admit that though I frequently use the Mozilla browser, Firefox, I did not feel compelled to weigh in on this debate one way or the other.

However Greta Van Susteren felt the need to provide her two cents, not so much about what happened to Mozilla CEO and co-founder Brendan Eich, but rather how irritating it was the Sullivan was now being celebrated for his defense of free speech.

Here is her headline:

Andrew Sullivan, is now the Free Speech guy? Free speech should include at least an effort at NO SLANDER yet he felt it was ok, when it advanced his career, to slander a mother by saying obsessively that she should PROVE she is the mother of her special needs child! Yes, a bully! What a world we live in, huh?

Oh yeah, she went there.

And because she went there could the Wasilla Wendigo be far behind?

Aww poor Sarah, bullied by the big bad openly gay blogger, who is now receiving accolades for defending those he feels are being denied their right to free speech.

Oh the humanity.

But exactly what about Sullivan's questioning of the circumstances of Trig's birth would be considered bullying? Here is what he said on June 13, 2011:

It seems to me we have two options. It’s possible that Palin simply made up her drama of labor, or exaggerated it for effect, when in fact it was a routine, if rare, pregnancy, and she had mild warnings that the birth may be premature, and she gussied that up into a tall tale of her pioneer spirit, guided by her doctor, who refused to take the NYT’s calls as soon as Palin hit the big time. I think that’s the likeliest explanation, given the sheer world-historical weirdness of the alternative. 

But it’s also possible that she never had that baby at all. I mean, if you read the emails and independent reports above and were asked if this woman were in labor with a special needs child, and that her water had already broken, would you believe it? Just put all the facts in front of you and ask yourself that question. 

So she is either a self-serving drama queen who didn’t realize her story would imply she put her child – and many others on the planes – at great risk and then winged it to make her story more plausible; or she is a fantastic hoaxer and liar at a world class meshugana level that, at some point, will make Weinergate look like a damp squib. 

To my mind, either option makes her unfit for high office, which is all you need to know really. And the fact that she has never been asked about this by any MSM journalist tells you so so much about what motivates the DC press corps. It’s certainly not curiosity.

That is not bullying, that is simply good reporting.  Something that his fellow journalists completely failed to do.

And, as we all know, he was not at all wrong to pursue this story.

Because only one month later we provided the smoking gun that would demonstrate that Sarah Palin lied about her pregnancy in any court in the land.

So yes, Andrew Sullivan is a defender of free speech. And no, he is NOT a bully.

But I know somebody who is.


Tuesday, March 11, 2014

Andrew Sullivan on the passing of Joe McGinniss.

Courtesy of The Dish:  

Of course, we bonded over the former half-term governor. He reached out to me when I was wildly exposed among journalists for refusing to believe her stories at face value. And what we bonded over was not a mutual revulsion at her politics. What we bonded over was the abject failure of the American press to say what had to be said about this preposterous, delusional maniac plucked from deserved obscurity by John McCain to be a heartbeat away from a potential presidency. 

Her candidacy was a total farce; a disgrace; an outrage to American democracy; an appalling act of cynicism. Joe saw the creation of this media figure as a continuation of the Ailes recipe for optic politics, and he was appalled as so many mainstream outlets nonetheless insisted on taking this joke seriously. 

So he went to do what others wouldn’t: to find the real truth about Palin, and he came closer than almost anyone. 

I don’t see his last book as some kind of aberration, though it was obviously not in the same league as The Selling Of The President or Fatal Vision. I saw them all as a continuing crusade for a journalism that takes a stand, that welcomes obloquy if that’s what it takes to get to the truth, and that cares about our democracy. He would never have aimed for the “view from nowhere” or the facile mantra that one leading Washington journalist gave me when asked to explain why they hadn’t sought any proof for the fantastic Trig story that Palin spun: “Why ask questions when you know you won’t get an answer?” For Joe that was pathetic. As indeed it was.

There were a number of things that surprised me about Joe McGinniss.

His incredible love of Alaska, his love of strong drink, his tenacity, and his ability to befriend all manner of different people.

He was good friends, and I mean really good friends, with people from all walks of life.

At a party I attended in his rented house on Lake Lucille I discussed politics with an oil company spokesman, a mountain guide, an out of town journalist, and a few fellow Alaskans who had met and befriended Joe when he wrote "Going to Extremes."

Yet the friendships that he shared with Roger Ailes and Andrew Sullivan were perhaps the two which really demonstrated his capacity to welcome into his life people of quite extreme differences.

Ailes of course did not like Sarah Palin at all, something which I learned well before the public at large (Though Joe swore me to secrecy.), and only used her to attract viewers and to rake in advertising dollars.

Sullivan, as all of you well know, was the last real journalist standing on the hunt for the truth about Trig's birth.

Joe once told me that he had been hesitant about even approaching that subject, since he knew it would open the book to ridicule, but that he had been very impressed with the reporting by Andrew and myself, and came to realize that he could not write a book about Palin without addressing it.

He would never openly admit that he knew that she lied about the circumstances of the birth, but in conversations and e-mails it was pretty clear that he did not buy her story one little bit.

Sullivan also shared this e-mail that McGinniss sent him: 

My shrink asked me this afternoon if I thought my book was a factor in Palin’s decision not to run. I said, “It might have been. It certainly didn’t tip her toward running. She may well have seen what one lone reporter turned up in four months and realized what teams from MSM outlets might learn in twelve, as they would have done over the next year, if she’d run.” 

She said, “In that case, the people of the United States will be eternally in your debt.”

In that I am in total agreement.

Thank you Joe we owe you so very much.

P.S. For those who want to go on a trip down memory lane, here is a reminder of the e-mail exchange between Joe and I that the Right Wing tried to use to sabotage sales of "The Rogue."

Tuesday, December 03, 2013

Andrew Sullivan responds to Rush Lumbaugh's assertion that Pope Francis is preaching "pure Marxism." Unsurprisingly he doesn't agree.

Courtesy of The Dish: 

Sorry, Rush, but if you think this critique of capitalism is something dreamed up by the current Pope alone, you know nothing about Catholicism, nothing about John Paul II, and nothing about Christianity. But I guess we knew that already, even though the ditto-heads still believe, like that particularly dim bulb Paul Ryan, that Ayn Rand and Jesus Christ are somehow compatible, when they are, in fact, diametrically opposed in every single respect. 

Notice, however, as I noted yesterday, that the Church in no way disputes the fact that market capitalism is by far the least worst means of raising standards of living and ending poverty and generating wealth that can be used to cure disease, feed the hungry, and protect the vulnerable. What the Church is disputing is that, beyond our daily bread, material well-being is a proper criterion for judging human morality or happiness. On a personal level, the Church teaches, as Jesus unambiguously did, that material goods beyond a certain point are actually pernicious and destructive of human flourishing. I hesitate to think, for example, what Limbaugh would have made of Saint Francis, the Pope’s namesake. Francis, after all, spurned the inheritance of his father’s flourishing business to wash the bodies of lepers, sleep in ditches, refuse all money for labor, and use begging as the only morally acceptable form of receiving any money at all. In the Church of Limbaugh, there is no greater heretic than Saint Francis. Francis even believed in the sanctity of the natural world, regarding animals as reflecting the pied beauty of a mysterious divinity. Sarah Palin, in contrast, sees them solely as dinner.

Oooh bringing Palin into it, nice touch.

Then Sullivan goes on:

Limbaugh’s only recourse when faced with actual Christianity is to conspiracy theories about translations of the Pope’s words. Perhaps it’s the commies who have perpetrated a massive lie through their control of the media. That was Sarah Palin’s response to, when confronted with, you know, Christianity for apparently the first time. But you sense that even Rush is beginning to realize there is something more to this, something that could be very destructive to his sealed, cocooned, materialist ideology of one. Hang on a minute, you almost hear him saying to himself … 

Yes, Rush, hang on a minute. Christianity is one of the most powerful critiques of radical market triumphalism. And it’s now coming – more plainly and unmistakably in our lifetimes – to a church near you.

I don't think I can adequately express the glee I feel watching these conservatives and Evangelicals tripping all over themselves trying to reinterpret what the Pope is saying, or suggesting that it must be the work of Commie translators, or even claiming that the Pope does not understand economics, the Bible, or Jesus Christ.

And look I am very appreciative of the new tone put forth by this Pope, but I am still quite aware that he is not actually going to be able to change church doctrine or have any lasting impact on the future of the church.

I mean I wish that the Catholic church and the fundamentalists would start to truly embrace the teachings of Jesus Christ en masse instead of using them as excuses for misogyny and gay bashing, but I have little confidence that anything of the sort is in the offing.

And of course there is this.

Just something to keep in mind while we are all celebrating the infighting among the Right Wing and religious zealots.

Sunday, November 24, 2013

In attempt to slam media for not being outraged sooner over the Martin Bashir comments, Greta brings up Andrew Sullivan's questions about Trig. Uh oh!

Here was the actual headline from Gretawire:

Here is a question: was “MSM” outraged when Andrew Sullivan, member of the media, said Trig Palin was not the Governor’s child?

Oh yes, she did just open Pandora's box, and that box is just chick full of things that Sarah Palin SHOULD by all rights want to be locked up forever.

Here is the rest of the post:

I just spotted this tweet…and yes, I have read the recent outrage…but what took so long? How about Andrew Sullivan’s comments? how come the media silence for him? And that was not someone shaming himself with crude language but picking on a special needs child! or how about the thing David Letterman said about the Palin’s daughter when she was about 14? Any outrage? From MSM or women’s organizations or women role models? 

It is one thing to have substantive and ideological differences, but this Bashir level (the gutter) thing really isn’t that new. So what took the media so long? 


 Gee what was it that Andrew wrote way back when?

It seems to me we have two options. It’s possible that Palin simply made up her drama of labor, or exaggerated it for effect, when in fact it was a routine, if rare, pregnancy, and she had mild warnings that the birth may be premature, and she gussied that up into a tall tale of her pioneer spirit, guided by her doctor, who refused to take the NYT’s calls as soon as Palin hit the big time. I think that’s the likeliest explanation, given the sheer world-historical weirdness of the alternative. 

But it’s also possible that she never had that baby at all. I mean, if you read the emails and independent reports above and were asked if this woman were in labor with a special needs child, and that her water had already broken, would you believe it? Just put all the facts in front of you and ask yourself that question. 

So she is either a self-serving drama queen who didn’t realize her story would imply she put her child – and many others on the planes – at great risk and then winged it to make her story more plausible; or she is a fantastic hoaxer and liar at a world class meshugana level that, at some point, will make Weinergate look like a damp squib. 

To my mind, either option makes her unfit for high office, which is all you need to know really. And the fact that she has never been asked about this by any MSM journalist tells you so so much about what motivates the DC press corps. It’s certainly not curiosity. 

I must really thank Greta for allowing us this trip back through Trig Truther memory lane, I almost forgot how much fun calling Palin out on this obvious deception can be.

And if I may blow my own horn a little, I think that almost immediately following that post by Andrew Sullivan, that I offered the two most compelling posts (One from the same day June 2011 and the other from August of 2011) for the argument that Palin did NOT in fact give birth to Trig Palin. (And of course this one did not hurt at all either.)

Ultimately I believe that we, as a community, have  proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that Palin did not in fact give birth to Trig Paxson Van Palin on April 18th. In fact I remain convinced that if Sarah Palin ever grew the backbone to take me to court over my assertion that she is a liar I would have little trouble proving, beyond reasonable doubt, that I am telling nothing but the truth and that she is in fact a liar of almost epic proportions.


However apparently Palin herself  remains blithely unaware that her web of deception has been untangled, and seems confident that she will never be held accountable for the egregious lies that she told to the American people. As further evidenced by this response on Gretawire to Van Susteren's post:

SHP Private • 4 hours ago − Greta - I appreciate how conscientious you are regarding the bigger picture surrounding issues like this. The public appreciates your fairness & willingness to bring to light more background info. You & John have a great day! - Sarah Palin

Thursday, January 03, 2013

Andrew Sullivan believes he now recognizes President Obama's long game.

Courtesy of the Daily Beast:  

The left often talked of the fiscal cliff as if it were only win-win for Obama. It wasn't, in my view. He faced two dangers: of seeming unable to come up with a compromise (which is integral to his appeal) and of seeing the US economy sink under the weight of an imprudent and drastic reduction in demand. As Josh Marshall has noted, Obama always wanted a deal. No president wants to kick off his second term with a double-dip recession. He got half of a deal that will not have as drastic an effect as the full cliff-divers wanted. 

Does the promised debt-ceiling hostage-taking by the GOP render all this strategy moot? Maybe. But it seems to me that the GOP has hurt itself so far since the election on fiscal matters - appearing, especially last week, as a herd of feral, foam-flecked cats. I don't see their threatening to ruin America's credit unless they get to cut Medicare by $500 billion over a decade as a particularly strong political hand. Any party triggering a self-imposed credit crisis as the economy recovers will not be rewarded politically. On that, especially after 2011, the president has the upper hand. Americans do not like monkeying around with the national credit rating as a way to cut medical care for grandma. 

More to the point, the GOP has yet to even lay out the details of its proposed entitlement cuts (and campaigned in part against them). One way out would be for both parties to focus on cutting the Pentagon bloat - but that's not going to happen any time soon. And so I can see revenue-raising tax reform returning as a way to alleviate some of the political pain on both sides. 

In other words, I can see Obama's logic here. What he's getting - which is a gradual shift toward more fiscal responsibility, with key protections for the working poor and the unemployed in place - is all he really wants right now. Like many of Obama's incremental achievements, you can sometimes miss the forest for the trees. We have the biggest tax hike in decades - without a sudden recession. And we have huge, painful spending cuts looming unless new revenue is found through tax reform. The end result - for all its unseemly messiness right now - may still be a sane, graduated fiscal readjustment as the economy recovers. The sequester can be back-loaded a little to find that elusive sweet spot between structural fiscal rebalancing and economic growth. And we could even clean up the tax code a little. 

It's not great, but it will do. Sometimes, the little advances are preferable under certain circumstances to big breakthroughs. And Obama has to face a rabid Republican House probably for his next four years. They self-destructed on Plan B. They will almost certainly have to swallow hard and vote for big tax increases in the next day or so [and, in fact, now have].

Like most of you I have also been inundated with e-mails and text messages from those on the Left tearing at their hair and rending their clothing in frustration over what they see as Obama's acquiescence in the fiscal cliff deal, but  if I have learned ANYTHING about this President it is that he rarely focuses on short term victories and is usually thinking several moves ahead of his opponents.

That is essentially what Sullivan is pointing out with his article, and I have to say that I agree with his point of view. I firmly believe that in the end Barack Obama will go down in history as one of the greatest President's this country has ever produces, and I also bet that there will be a lot of "aha" moments for most of us looking back at this from the future that we are just too close to the political sausage making to see right now.

Thursday, November 29, 2012

Chart of the Day.

This from Mother Jones:  

The Republican Party may have problems with blacks and Hispanics, but their biggest problem is probably with the young. During the Bush era, the combination of the Iraq War and the resurgence of the Christian right turned off younger voters in increasing numbers, and these young voters began voting in increasing numbers for Democrats. 

In fact, things are probably even worse than this. The Pew study reminds me of a great chart that the New York Times produced back in 2006 showing the effect that presidents have on brand loyalty to their party. Basically, a popular president gains the votes of 20-year-olds, and those voters retain much of their loyalty to the president's party for the rest of their lives. The opposite happens with an unpopular president. So Democrats spent eight years with a president that 20-somethings liked (Clinton), then Republicans suffered through eight years with a president they hated (Bush), and now Democrats have eight years of a president that 20-somethings like again (Obama). That's 24 years worth of 20-year-olds who are likely to retain a fairly strong loyalty to the Democratic Party.

Whenever I think of our future, I get the BIGGEST grin on my face.

If this is the generation that we have raised then I guess we Baby Boomers didn't do such a bad job after all.

(H/T to Andrew Sullivan.)

Saturday, November 10, 2012

Bill Maher's New Rules from last night. Update with link to entire episode.

Courtesy of HuffPo:

 "White people vote for white people like it's going out of style," Maher said during the New Rules segment at the end of his first post-election episode. "And like most things white people do, it's going out of style." In other words, Maher quipped that Republicans have "the same problem as the Beach Boys: Their fans are dying."

This is going to make some racist heads explode.

It was a great show last night with a panel that included Andrew Sullivan,  James Carville, and later Samuel L. Jackson, But it was almost ruined for me by the inclusion of S.E. Cupp, who spent the entire show spreading stupid all over the set.

Though I enjoyed watching Sullivan and Carville shut her down, it all seemed a little unnecessary so soon after the smart people won such a huge victory last Tuesday. (By the way I have NEVER struck a woman, but I REALLY wanted somebody to knock that ignorant bitch on her ass. That was wrong of me right?)

Update: For those who missed the show, here is a link so that you are not left out of the fun.


Friday, September 28, 2012

Romney losing the Catholic vote to President Obama

Courtesy of Andrew Sullivan:

On June 17, Obama held a slight edge over Mitt Romney among Catholics (49 percent to 47 percent), according to the Pew Research Center. Since then, Obama has surged ahead, and now leads 54 percent to 39 percent, according to a Pew poll conducted Sept. 16. Among all registered voters, Obama leads Romney 51 percent to 42 percent, according to Pew. Obama and Romney are essentially tied among white Catholics, which some pollsters call the ultimate swing group. 

But Obama's current even status among white Catholics now is an improvement over 2008, when McCain beat Obama among white Catholics by 52 - 47. Obama's total Catholic vote against McCain was where he is now: 54 percent. But Romney has only 39 percent compared with McCain's 45. 

A small word of thanks to Cardinal Dolan, Robert George and K-Lo for helping shift the Catholic vote massively toward Obama with their summer campaign for religious liberty. And special thanks to Paul Ryan. No actual Catholic could ever find anything but puerile cruelty in the works of Ayn Rand, or rally to the idea that home-care for the elderly should be sacrificed to reduce tax rates for the super-rich. Paul Ryan believes that the basic principles of Rand can be compatible with Catholicism. American Catholics are just not that dumb or confused about their faith.

You know the Republicans were hoping to drive a wedge between the Obama administration and the Catholics over the Affordable Care Act's mandate that employers must provide free contraception to their employees.  But that did not work out as well as they had hoped.

Personally I have always felt that the distrust which a substantial number of Catholics feel toward the Mormon faith, many still see it as a crazy cult (Which of course it is.), would dissuade a large number of practicing Catholics from voting for Mitt Romney despite their frustration with President Obama.

However I am coming to believe that the REAL reason that so many are turning against Romney has little to do with his faith, and everything to do with the fact that he, and of course his running mate Paul "I love Ayn Rand" Ryan,  are douchenozzles.

That's a political term, right?

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Oh THIS is going to piss off the Conservatives!

Courtesy of the Daily Beast:

As the fall has turned crisper, a second term for Barack Obama has gotten likelier. This may, of course, change: the debates, the Middle East, the unemployment numbers could still blow up the race. At this point in 2004, one recalls, George W. Bush was about to see a near eight-point lead shrivel to a one-state nail-biter by Election Day. But one thing that has so far, in my view, been underestimated is the potential impact of a solid Obama win, and perhaps a Democratic retention of the Senate and some progress in the House. This is now a perfectly plausible outcome. It would also be a transformational moment in modern American politics. 

If Obama wins, to put it bluntly, he will become the Democrats’ Reagan. The narrative writes itself. He will emerge as an iconic figure who struggled through a recession and a terrorized world, reshaping the economy within it, passing universal health care, strafing the ranks of al -Qaeda, presiding over a civil-rights revolution, and then enjoying the fruits of the recovery. To be sure, the Obama recovery isn’t likely to have the same oomph as the one associated with Reagan—who benefited from a once-in-a-century cut of top income tax rates (from 70 percent to, at first, 50 percent, and then to 28 percent) as well as a huge jump in defense spending at a time when the national debt was much, much less of a burden. But Obama’s potential for Reagan status (maybe minus the airport-naming) is real. Yes, Bill Clinton won two terms and is a brilliant pol bar none, as he showed in Charlotte in the best speech of both conventions. But the crisis Obama faced on his first day—like the one Reagan faced—was far deeper than anything Clinton confronted, and the future upside therefore is much greater. And unlike Clinton’s constant triangulating improvisation, Obama has been playing a long, strategic game from the very start—a long game that will only truly pay off if he gets eight full years to see it through. That game is not only changing America. It may also bring his opposition, the GOP, back to the center, just as Reagan indelibly moved the Democrats away from the far left.

Well I am far less impressed with Ronald Reagan then the Republican (Or Republican-lites like Sullivan) are, but I recognize the comparison that is being made here.

In fact Obama could likely go down in history as a far more accomplished president than Reagan, simply because the accomplishments he takes credit for are indeed HIS accomplishments. Unlike Reagan who always gets credit of the ending of the Cold War when in fact it was almost entirely due to the bravery and sacrifice of Mikhail Gorbachev, and credit for fixing an economy, though it was not that good and he had virtually nothing to do with it, Obama is the driving force behind virtually all of his numerous accomplishments.

This however is a very good article and I suggest that you click the link at the top to read the whole thing, though I do sort of fear that if Sullivan and others copntinue to make such a conservatively blasphemous statement such as this, that the Republications will do EVERYTHING in their power to undermine Obama before he can usurp their idol's undeserved crown.

In other words they will continue to behave EXACTLY as they have done since the night that President Obama was sworn into office. Which is simply more evidence as to why we need to get them voted out of office as quickly as possible.

Saturday, May 26, 2012

Andrew Sullivan is fed up!

Courtesy of the Daily Dish:

Obama did not have a serious choice; he had a fate. That fate was to pick up the pieces of the most catastrophic presidency in modern times. The final bouquet - after emptying the public coffers with no serious boost to employment, profits or growth - was the financial collapse, which both shrunk the economy, decimated revenues to 50 year lows, and automatically increased spending for the unemployed and poor in desperate need of help. Once you account for that - and the Nutting graph indeed shows that this was baked in the cake by the time Obama was elected - Obama has been, like most modern Democrats, far more fiscally conservative than any modern Republican. 

Now you could argue that Obama should have let the auto industry go fully bankrupt, allow the economy to head into deflation and depression without any fiscal stimulus to counter, cut the unemployed off at the knees - and we would be Greece today, underwater in a deepening and self-reinforcing depression. Can you imagine what Romney would have said about Obama's record then? 

And yes, as Suderman notes, the real criticism should be focused on the absence of any long-term deal on entitlements, defense, taxes and spending - a deal that would do a huge amount for business confidence. But seriously: if one side simply refuses to put any serious revenue increases on the table at all, who's really preventing that effort? 

There are legitimate issues to debate with respect to the future in this election. But the caricature of the last three years, the knowing lies that interweave with this false narrative, the attempt to describe a pragmatic, sane and successful president as somehow unqualified to tackle this mess - when the US economy has fared better in this period than much of the West - are deceptions, exploiting pain. I'm sick of them, and the cynicism they represent. 

 I could NOT have said it better!

Monday, May 14, 2012

"Our First gay President." Upcoming Newsweek cover. Update!

This according to the Huffington Post:

Newsweek is celebrating President Obama's endorsement of same-sex marriage on this week's cover, an image of which it released on Sunday. 

The cover features an image of Obama looking quite angelic with a rainbow-colored halo above his head (or as a HuffPost editor affectionately dubbed it—a "gaylo"). The image accompanies the issue's cover story, written by Andrew Sullivan, titled "The First Gay President." In his cover story, Sullivan argues that Obama's announcement has been years in the making. He also writes that the President has much in common with the gay community. 

“He had to discover his black identity and then reconcile it with his white family, just as gays discover their homosexual identity and then have to reconcile it with their heterosexual family," Sullivan writes.

While I can appreciate Andrew Sullivan's enthusiasm, I have to say I am put off by the declaration that Obama is the first gay president.

It is sort of reminiscent of calling President Clinton "the first black President" which resulted in a bit of awkwardness when Obama was elected, since that title had already been used.

Someday, it may not be anytime soon, but someday, there WILL be an actual "first gay President" and in my opinion this title should be reserved for that individual.

Besides it almost makes it sound, and I KNOW this is not Sullivan's intention, as if the ONLY way that Obama could truly empathize with the gay community is if he were gay himself.

The fact is that this is not so much an issue of gay rights as it is human rights. By saying that he believes that people of the same sex should be able to marry just like he and Michelle have done, he is essentially saying that he recognizes that the differences between himself and the gay community are far less important than are the similarities.

That does not require that a President share their sexuality, only that he shares their humanity.

Update:  Here is Sullivan's actual article which is now available online.

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Andrew Sullivan ponders whether President Obama set a contraception trap for the religious right. (P.S. I think he did.)

Courtesy of the Daily Beast:

The more Machiavellian observer might even suspect this is actually an improved bait and switch by Obama to more firmly identify the religious right with opposition to contraception, its weakest issue by far, and to shore up support among independent women and his more liberal base. I’ve found by observing this president closely for years that what often seem like short-term tactical blunders turn out in the long run to be strategically shrewd. And if this was a trap, the religious right walked right into it. 

Take a look at the polling. Ask Americans if they believe that contraception should be included for free in all health-care plans and you get a 55 percent majority in favor, with 40 percent against. Ask American Catholics, and that majority actually rises above the national average, to 58 percent. A 49 percent plurality of all Americans supported the original Obama rule forcing Catholic institutions to provide contraception coverage. And once again, American Catholics actually support that more controversial position by a slightly higher margin than all Americans, with 52 percent backing it. So on religious-freedom grounds, the country is narrowly divided, but with a small majority on Obama’s side. 

And on the issue of contraception itself, studies have shown that a staggering 98 percent of Catholic women not only believe in birth control but have used it. How is it possible to describe this issue as a violation of individual conscience, when no one is forced to use contraception against their will, and most Catholics have already consulted their conscience, are fine with the pill, and want it covered? This is not like abortion, a far, far graver issue. Even the church hierarchy—in a famous commission set up by Pope John XXIII to study birth control—voted to allow oral contraception under some circumstances, only to be controversially vetoed by Pope Paul VI in 1968. And the truth is, there is no real debate among most actual living, breathing American Catholics on the issue, who tend to be more liberal than most Americans. They long ago dismissed the Vatican’s position on this. And after the sex-abuse scandal, they are even less likely to take the bishops’ moral authority on sexual matters seriously.

I have already gone on record as saying that Obama planned this out, knowing full well that the GOP could not resist rising to the bait, and I stick by that.

Ultimately it has demonstrated just how dismissive the Republicans, and their most rabid base, the Religious Right, are when it comes to the needs and health concerns of American women. Which all of us have always known, but which deserves clarification every now and then.

I expect that this will suddenly make women all over the country wake up to realize that only ONE political party is looking out for their needs.

The other side fantasizes about a time when women were seen and not heard, and when they had no voice in the political arena.

Monday, January 23, 2012

I think the Washington Post nailed this one.

Oh yeah, you can only imagine the pure unadulterated joy the White House felt at the news that Gingrich had won South Carolina, and that now three different primaries had been won by three different GOP candidates.

The news does not get much better than that for President Obama.

(H/T to Andrew Sullivan)

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Following Palin's lead Fox News uses Trig Truther smear to discredit Andrew Sullivan's article in support of President Obama.

This is how Sullivan responded yesterday:

Fox News is now waging war on the essay. I'm not surprised. Megyn Kelly has declared that I am "not a real journalist." She has also just said that I have written that Trig is not Sarah Palin's child. As longtime readers well know, I took great pains never to state that and merely to ask Palin, given her insane story about the birth of her child, to provide some evidence for it, which she said she would but never did. The Beast has asked for a correction. Real journalists do not tell untruths on air without correcting them. 

What I want to know is why they cannot invite the author of an essay to debate it, rather than two random individuals (including Rich "Starbursts" Lowry) to discuss. Surely that's only fair - unless, of course, I am on a blacklist. So this is an open challenge to Fox News. 

If you want to trash my work, have me on to defend it. Any time, Megyn. Any time. What are you afraid of?

I would be very surprised if they had him on, especially since he can easily out talk them, and also reopen that Sarah Palin's birth story in a way that might be too much for the viewers of Fox News to handle.

I am a little surprised that Fox was willing to use Palin's impulsive response to Sullivan as their jumping off point, since it means that many people will start Googling "Sarah Palin's pregnancy" and that will lead them to all kinds of places that Fox may not want to to go. Including here of course.

So personally I would like ot thank Fox News for the increase in traffic.

Dumb-asses!


Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Andrew Sullivan delivers the truth about President Obama that the GOP desperately doesn't want to hear. That he has already outmaneuvered them.

Courtesy of the Daily Beast:


The right’s core case is that Obama has governed as a radical leftist attempting a “fundamental transformation” of the American way of life. Mitt Romney accuses the president of making the recession worse, of wanting to turn America into a European welfare state, of not believing in opportunity or free enterprise, of having no understanding of the real economy, and of apologizing for America and appeasing our enemies. According to Romney, Obama is a mortal threat to “the soul” of America and an empty suit who couldn’t run a business, let alone a country. 

Leave aside the internal incoherence—how could such an incompetent be a threat to anyone? None of this is even faintly connected to reality—and the record proves it. On the economy, the facts are these. When Obama took office, the United States was losing around 750,000 jobs a month. The last quarter of 2008 saw an annualized drop in growth approaching 9 percent. This was the most serious downturn since the 1930s, there was a real chance of a systemic collapse of the entire global financial system, and unemployment and debt—lagging indicators—were about to soar even further. No fair person can blame Obama for the wreckage of the next 12 months, as the financial crisis cut a swath through employment. Economies take time to shift course. 

But Obama did several things at once: he continued the bank bailout begun by George W. Bush, he initiated a bailout of the auto industry, and he worked to pass a huge stimulus package of $787 billion. 

All these decisions deserve scrutiny. And in retrospect, they were far more successful than anyone has yet fully given Obama the credit for. The job collapse bottomed out at the beginning of 2010, as the stimulus took effect. Since then, the U.S. has added 2.4 million jobs. That’s not enough, but it’s far better than what Romney would have you believe, and more than the net jobs created under the entire Bush administration. In 2011 alone, 1.9 million private-sector jobs were created, while a net 280,000 government jobs were lost. Overall government employment has declined 2.6 percent over the past 3 years. (That compares with a drop of 2.2 percent during the early years of the Reagan administration.) To listen to current Republican rhetoric about Obama’s big-government socialist ways, you would imagine that the reverse was true. It isn’t. 

The right claims the stimulus failed because it didn’t bring unemployment down to 8 percent in its first year, as predicted by Obama’s transition economic team. Instead, it peaked at 10.2 percent. But the 8 percent prediction was made before Obama took office and was wrong solely because it relied on statistics that guessed the economy was only shrinking by around 4 percent, not 9. Remove that statistical miscalculation (made by government and private-sector economists alike) and the stimulus did exactly what it was supposed to do. It put a bottom under the free fall. It is not an exaggeration to say it prevented a spiral downward that could have led to the Second Great Depression.

And don't think that Sullivan lets the  Left off the hook either, because he certainly doesn't.

Wednesday, January 04, 2012

Okay well this puts things into some perspective doesn't it?

Whenever human beings start to feel  a little too special, or buy into the idea that everything was created just for them, THIS is what they need to remember.

(H/T to Andrew Sullivan.)