Sunday, October 12, 2008

New Obama/Media Attack Strategy: 'Angry Mob' Meme

After 8 years of watching while Democrats personally savage President Bush and conservatives with epiteths like "dictator" and "fascist," while seeing the rage on people's faces contorting in anger and hate, the press has discovered that this is not a good thing. At least when Republicans do it:
With McCain passing up the opportunity to level any tough personal shots in his first two debates and the very real prospect of an Obama presidency setting in, the sort of hard-core partisan activists who turn out for campaign events are venting in unusually personal terms.

"Terrorist!" one man screamed Monday at a New Mexico rally after McCain voiced the campaign's new rhetorical staple aimed at raising doubts about the Illinois senator: "Who is the real Barack Obama?"

"He's a damn liar!" yelled a woman Wednesday in Pennsylvania. "Get him. He's bad for our country."

At both stops, there were cries of, "Nobama," picking up on a phrase that has appeared on yard signs, T-shirts and bumper stickers. And Thursday, at a campaign town hall in Wisconsin, one Republican brought the crowd to its feet when he used his turn at the microphone to offer a soliloquy so impassioned it made the network news and earned extended play on Rush Limbaugh's program.

"I'm mad; I'm really mad!" the voter bellowed. "And what's going to surprise ya, is it's not the economy - it's the socialists taking over our country."

The above, from Jonathan Martin of Politico, is noteworthy in this respect; examples of how unhinged the crowd at these events are center on one, lone individual shouting out something idiotic? "Terrorist, screamed ONE man." Or "He's a liar yelled A woman."

And Oh my God! Bumper stickers and chants of "NoBama." Quick, call the Secret Service before it's too late.

There doesn't appear to be chanting and screaming for Obama's head. There aren't calls to round up Democrats and throw them in a concentration camp. There are no racial insults being thrown. This entire issue is a mirage .
Some McCain campaign officials are becoming concerned about the hostility that attacks against Sen. Obama are whipping up among Republican supporters. During an internal conference call Thursday, campaign officials discussed how the tenor of the crowds has turned on the media and on Sen. Obama.

Someone yelled "Off with his head" at a rally Wednesday for Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin in Pennsylvania. Later that day in Ohio, a man stood outside a rally holding a sign that said "Obama, Osama." At a rally in Jacksonville, Fla., on Tuesday, someone in the crowd wore a T-shirt depicting Sen. Obama wearing a devil mask.

Again, "SOMEONE yelled" off with his head. I didn't realize that one person quoting the Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland meant that the GOP was committing a crime against humanity. And one idiot holding a sign that connected our messiah with a terrorist? Yes, there are some GOP nincompoops out there. Does anyone wonder what kind of ignoramuses are on the fringes of Obama rallies?

And would someone please arrest that "someone" in the crowd who dared depict Obama in a devil mask? A capital crime, it is.

Funny that when the President of the United States is burned in effigy. Or when his advisors are depicted as evil in any number of ways. Or conservatives in general are mocked, demonized, routinely referred to as fascists or authoritarian lovers, or mindless robots - or it is even suggested that Bush, Cheney, and conservatives be rounded up and shot - none of this seems to make quite the same impression on our Guardians of Civility in Politics in the press.

This is absolutely shameless. ALL Americans are mad at the moment. But to characterize crowds that attend McCain/Palin rallies as "mobs" by taking something that one or two fools shout out totally out of context is a deliberate attempt to scare undecided and swing voters into rejecting the GOP candidate. It is a despicable tactic and they should be called out on it.

Where have these people been for the last 8 years? Any kind of hatefilled rant against conservatives or the president appears to be perfectly acceptable to the press. All one need do is listen to Nancy Pelosi's floor speech immediately prior to the first bailout vote. She was accusing the president and Republicans of deliberately starting the economic crisis to satisfy their greed. I don't recall the press getting upset about that little performance.

Nor do I recall reading what one person might have shouted out at a Kerry or Obama rally about Bush or McCain. All sorts of shouts go up at political rallies. And yet all of a sudden - just in time to counter McCain's attack on Obama for his Ayers association - we get this grossly exaggerated, unfair, wildly selective attack on McCain hiding behind crocodile tears being shed because some people are mean to The One.

What a crock.


How Much Of This Anger Is The Media's Fault?

Is it really a surprise that individuals prone to support McCain that have been following the election closely enough to read alternative, or new media are outraged right now?

It's certainly no surprise to me that the lop-sided coverage breeding so much frustration among so many would now attempt to turn that frustration into yet another negative against John McCain and his supporters. As always, the media is being self-serving and short-sighted as to how this might all play out.
"I'm mad; I'm really mad!" the voter bellowed. "And what's going to surprise ya, is it's not the economy - it's the socialists taking over our country."

After the crowd settled down he was back at it. "When you have an Obama, Pelosi and the rest of the hooligans up there gonna run this country, we gotta have our head examined!"

Obama's friend Bill Ayres had his start with Chicago's Days of Rage. The economy is in a meltdown, so much so that a Republican president is dangerously flirting with socialist principles. Now, thanks in large part to a media that won't fairly report all the news, or investigate both candidates equally, a potential president aligned with the likes of a Pelosi who talked of nationalizing the oil companies even before there was a financial crisis may end up in the White House next year.

In the end, the likes of Ayres and his bunch and the Leftists Obama has courted at each stage of his career are little more than a blemish on the backside of the real American middle class, which manages to work, pay it's taxes and always muddle through somehow in a capitalist system.

If this charade continues through to election day, Chicago's Days of Rage demonstrations will end up looking like an episode of The New Zoo Revue. Imagine a hard working, mostly white middle class marching on Washington wondering how this inept government destroyed the American dream, while an empty suit that happens to be black thinks he can simply take to a microphone and everything will be just fine. Face it, he has absolutely no experience of accomplishing anything significant beyond that.

There may indeed be blood in the streets before the current political and economic issues before the nation are resolved. But it won't have much of anything to do with Race, it'll be about the fundamental principles of this Republic a great many Americans are not prepared to give up without a serious fight.

And the rage won't just last days ... it could be a battle fought for years and not always without its victims. Can you imagine the look on the faces of the Obama-loving Ayres apologists at the New York Times when the bombs start exploding in their lobby, instead of the Pentagon?

I'm not advocating it, but I do fear some Americans probably can imagine it at this point. In fact, I have little doubt of it. And I can understand that rage, even if I wouldn't support such an action. We are living in truly interesting times.


Rich vs. Poor

Obama crushes McCain with his wallet

As the election heads into its home stretch, Barack Obama is deploying the financial muscle he gained from opting out of the general election public financing system that John McCain is locked into.

In key swing states, Mr. Obama is flooding the airwaves with commercials. Last week alone, he spent $17.4 million on ads in those states versus only $10.9 million for the combined efforts of Mr. McCain and the Republican Party. In Wisconsin, local political observers report they see fewer McCain ads than ever while ads urging people to "vote early for Obama" are ubiquitous.

In Florida, a state that used to favor Mr. McCain in polls, Team Obama spent $2.2 million in ads last week, while Mr. McCain made do with an ad buy of less than $700,000. In Ohio, Mr. Obama spent $2.2 million to Mr. McCain's $1.7 million.

Ad money isn't everything in politics, but this is the first presidential election in recent memory where Democrats have a significant financial edge over Republicans. Other than the debates, ads are the biggest single source of information that many voters receive about the candidates. The Obama edge could prove crucial in several states -- which is precisely why he ditched the public financing system he once so fervently supported.


Guest Post from Ben Shapiro: "The Jewish Case Against Barack Obama"

I'm an Orthodox Jew -- my wife hails from Israel, where we were just married in July. So the issue of Israel is very near and dear to me, as it is to most other Jews. With Israel in mind, this is an enormous election season for American Jewry. It pits a consistently strong defender of Israel in John McCain against a man who is at best an enigma on the issue of Israel. At worst, Barack Obama is far more dangerous. His advisors are largely anti-Israel. His friends are consistently anti-Israel. His running mate, Joe Biden, says all of the right things but has a questionable record on the Jewish State. And the candidate himself is ambivalent on his defense of Israel -- he reversed himself on a united Jerusalem over the course of 24 hours, and states that he will meet with Hitler-lite Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions.

And yet most American Jews are convinced that Obama is a less threatening version of Bill Clinton. They believe that Obama loves the State of Israel, will stand up for Israel's interests, and only wants to see the Israelis come to a quick and just agreement with Palestinian Arabs that protects Israel's long-term safety and security.

There is no evidence to that effect. In fact, all the evidence points in the opposite direction.

To the end of educating American Jews on Israel -- as well as Israel's non-Jewish American supporters -- I've produced a three-part YouTube video entitled "The Jewish Case Against Barack Obama. The trailer for the video (1 minute, 40 seconds) can be found here. Part I, which introduces the subject and discusses Obama's advisors, who have ranged from the virulently pro-Palestinian Samantha Power to the Carter-style anti-Israel advocate Zbigniew Brzezinski, can be found here. Part II discusses two of Obama's friends: Reverend Wright, who associates with Louis Farrakhan and believes that America's Israeli policy is responsible for 9/11; and Rashid Khalidi, a former spokesman for the Palestine Liberation Organization. Part II can be found here. Part III examines Joe Biden and Obama himself, and concludes that the Democratic nominee for president cannot be trusted with the future of Israel. Part III can be found here.

For fifty years, Jews have been gratefully voting for Harry Truman. Truman, unfortunately, is gone, and his party has largely become a respository of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel sentiment. Jews cannot live in the past when it comes to 2008. They must make a choice between McCain and Obama. When it comes to Israel, the choice is clear.


Mickey Mouse For Obama

Obamist "Mickey Mouse" election insurance program hits a snag as multiple law enforcement agencies investigate allegations of widespread ACORN voter registration fraud. Could look bad, given Obama's deep ties with ACORN. Even deeper than his (known) ties with unrepentent ex-terrorist Ayers.

No worries. Just report it as a McCain smear. And dismiss it with a disparagement of poor people and some exasperation about the notion anyone would let "Mickey Mouse" vote. ACORN roundup starts with AP's "giant mud ball."
Accusations of voter fraud have hurled a giant mud ball into an already messy presidential campaign, with Republicans alleging that Democrat Barack Obama has close ties to an activist group accused of compiling fake registration forms, including ones for the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys - submitted in Nevada.

Let me get this straight. That's a Republican mud ball?
But two hours after the McCain campaign teleconference Friday afternoon, ACORN held one of its own and accused Republicans of playing dirty politics and of trying to keep America's less fortunate voters, who tend to be Democrats, from the polls on Nov. 4.

"If you can't stop the 1.3 million people from getting on the rolls, at least shoot the messenger," said ACORN spokesman Brian Kettenring. "There is absolutely no doubt in our minds that the attention being paid by the right is tremendously disproportionate to the problem."

That might be a good place to note that in recent presidential and congressional elections, a few thousand votes here or there . AP doesn't go there. Back to the Republican mudball.
Obama and two other lawyers in 1995 represented ACORN in a lawsuit against the state of Illinois to make voter registration easier. During this year's primary, Obama hired a firm with ties to the group for a massive get-out-the-vote effort.

In response to salvos from the McCain campaign, Obama's team shot right back, calling the attacks "false claims (that) are nothing more than another dishonorable, shameful attempt to divert voters' attention from the unprecedented challenges facing their families and our nation," spokesman Tommy Vietor said.

OK, so we've established that he does have ties to the people who are acccused of widespread voter fraud. Here's NY Post on the nature of the get-out-the-vote effort, by the way.
CLEVELAND - A man at the center of a voter-registration scandal told The Post yesterday he was given cash and cigarettes by aggressive ACORN activists in exchange for registering an astonishing 72 times, in apparent violation of Ohio laws.

"Sometimes, they come up and bribe me with a cigarette, or they'll give me a dollar to sign up," said Freddie Johnson, 19, who filled out 72 separate voter-registration cards over an 18-month period at the behest of the left-leaning Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

"The ACORN people are everywhere, looking to sign people up. I tell them I am already registered. The girl said, `You are?' I say, `Yup,' and then they say, `Can you just sign up again?' " he said.

It's OK, Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo has prepared some talking points:
The Republican party is grasping on to the ACORN story as a way to delegitimize what now looks like the probable outcome of the November election. It is also a way to stoke the paranoia of their base, lay the groundwork for legal challenges of close outcomes in various states and promote new legal restrictions on legitimate voting by lower income voters and minorities.

Wow. He makes it sound like hundreds, even thousands of bogus registrations in key states might be used by Republicans to support a claim that, in the event of an Obama win, the election was stolen. I'm a little surprised, a month ahead of a critical election, he has such a cavalier attitude toward efforts to . steal an American election. But it turns out ACORN is not at fault. They weren't trying to steal the election, They wanted to buy it, and got sold a false bill of goods....

More here

The judicial peril from Obama/Biden

Joe Biden stepped into a huge pothole of his own making in last week's debate when he bragged that he now takes "ideology" into account when deciding whether to confirm a judicial nominee.

Biden's riff on judges was politically damaging for three reasons. First, because the public does not think judges should impose their own ideologies. Second, because the public particularly disagrees with the judicial ideology that Biden favors. Third, because Biden flat-out lied about why and when he took the position that ideology ought to matter.

Here's exactly what Biden said in the debate (the ellipses do maintain the proper context): "When I got to the United States Senate and went on the Judiciary Committee as a young lawyer, I was of the view and had been trained in the view that the only thing that mattered was whether or not a nominee appointed, suggested by the president had a judicial temperament, had not committed a crime of moral turpitude. ...

"It didn't take me long, but it took about five years for me to realize that the ideology of that judge makes a big difference. ... And that's why I was the first chairman of the Judiciary Committee to forthrightly state that it matters what your judicial philosophy is."

Biden came to the Senate in 1973. Five years after that would have been 1978. But Manny Miranda, president of the conservative Third Branch Conference, dug up quote after quote from Biden all the way to 2002 showing that he rejected ideology as an acceptable consideration.

As late as May 23, 2002, Biden said this in explaining why he would vote to approve circuit court nominee Brooks Smith: "If I had believed that the lower court nominee would abide by the precedents of the Supreme Court and their circuit, even though I knew I disagree with them philosophically, I would vote for them."

It was not until the next year when Senate Democrats, including Biden, began almost uniformly following the lead of New York Sen. Chuck Schumer in openly applying an ideological litmus test to lower court nominees. It was a radical departure from the wise tradition of considering only the nominee's qualifications, competence and temperament. It was used to justify obstruction of nominees, via unprecedented filibusters if need be, on a scale and with a viciousness never before seen in American history.

This particular derailment of tradition is largely responsible for the deterioration of the political "tone" in Washington that so many voters complain about. And the derailment came as a result of a purely partisan, political strategy by the entire Democratic caucus. That's why the lie about the timing is important: It mis-portrays this use of political hardball as some sort of principled, personal decision or revelation that Biden made or experienced on his own.

What's particularly odd about Biden volunteering the story of his epiphany on this issue is that when ideology is taken into account, the public clearly opposes the philosophies of the liberal judges Biden prefers. Biden's favored judges tend overwhelmingly toward overabundant sympathy for the rights of accused criminals, toward support for racial preferences in hiring and school admissions, toward extreme pro-abortion decisions (example: finding a constitutional "right" even for partial birth abortions and against parental notification), and against property rights versus government regulators and urban planners. Suffice it to say that none of these positions is popular.

Dig deeper, though, and Biden's position is more unpopular still. While Americans tend to prefer results reached by conservative judges of the very sort Biden has helped block, the public is even more consistently clear that it prefers that judges not allow ideology to enter their deliberations at all.

Just last month, a Rasmussen poll reported that 60 percent of the public "says the Supreme Court should make decisions based on what is written in the Constitution, while 30 percent say rulings should be guided on the judge's sense of fairness and justice." That result, of course, runs directly counter to Biden's debate position.

The public is right on this issue. Except in utterly unusual circumstances, the ideology of a nominee should play no role in Senate deliberations. John McCain will be missing an opportunity, therefore, if he doesn't campaign against the Biden-Obama embrace of ideological intrusion into the judiciary.


(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . For readers in China or for when is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)


Merge Divide said...

You should just be relieved that the McCain/Palin ticket is sticking to their original plan.

"We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

-George W. Bush, September 20, 2001 address to the United States Congress.

I think that all political observers that accused Sarah Palin of not knowing about the Bush Doctrine need to reassess their beliefs. She may not have been able to communicate the principles intelligibly, but she has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt, that she has internalized an understanding of the tactics that the approach involves. The McCain/Palin ticket are simply applying the Bush Doctrine to its political opponent. The accusations that Palin and McCain are making by insinuation have very real consequences, and they need to be held accountable for them.


Obama - The Dange said...

OIL! POWER! What If it wasn't ARAB - MUSLIM BIGOTS who suck us to the bones at the pump

The Arab Muslim Control of the World

July 2008

A simple question, What if it was not the Arabs, not the Muslims (OPEC) that control the world's energy?

What if the oil tycoons were of a different background, say Irish Catholic or Jewish?

Could you imagine how they would be lynched [in the media and all tools of public opinion]?

But it's "only" Arabs, Muslims, and they can do whatever they want, limit or extend production of oil.

Worst is of course the immense unlimited power they enjoy in being permitted to continue "business" as usual... in the "field" of crimes against humanity... No one ever dares speaks out against the racist Arab mass-murder of the Africans in Darfur, slavery in Mauritania, or how they continuously demonize Jews, or cries out against the mainstream Muslim media that always finds the "victimhood" among 'Palestinian' thugs or 'seeing freedom fighting' in Al Qaeda in Iraq or potraying "heroes" out of the Hezbollah's criminals' lowlife acts of murder (via using Arab kids as shields) on Lebanese, all to facilitate in justifying the killing of infidels mainly Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc., Don't think all of the above is not related, it's still about their unlimited "freedom" to oppress everyone else... no one ever dare says, acts against the Islamo Arab GOLIATH.

Now, you tell me who really is in control of 'world affairs'?