Multi Medium

Keep This Quote In Mind…

If Sarah Palin and/or Team McCain start complaining about Obama/Biden’s sexist attacks:

“She does herself a disservice to even mention it, really,” Palin said. “When I hear a statement like that coming from a woman candidate with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism, or maybe a sharper microscope put on her, I think, ‘Man, that doesn’t do us any good, women in politics, or women in general, trying to progress this country,’” Palin said. “I don’t think it bodes well for her.”

Wait, did I say “if”?  I meant “when.”

The campaign just blasted out an op-ed by adviser Nancy Pfotenhauer under the heading “Ignore the Chauvinists. Palin Has Real Experience.”

Said McCain adviser Carly Fiorina: “Because of Hillary Clinton’s historic run for the presidency and the treatment she received, American women are more highly tuned than ever to recognize and decry sexism in all its forms. They will not tolerate sexist treatment of Gov. Palin.”

Also, Lindsey Graham:

“Would a man be asked this question? Probably not,” the South Carolina Republican said in an interview with Politico.

This surprises… no-one.

(h/t ArchPundit)

Add comment September 3rd, 2008 at 06:58am Posted by Eli

Presidential Campaign Etiquette

Now, admittedly, I’m no expert, but I’m pretty sure that repeatedly checking out your running mate’s ass is bad form.

The nervous swallowing and fidgeting with the wedding ring are also nice touches, as is the way McCain clumsily advances on her at the end while she edges nervously away.

It gives a whole new meaning to his claim that he saw Palin as “a partner and a soulmate” the first time they met, doesn’t it?  I wonder if McCain fidgeted with his wedding ring before he started chasing Cindy around the table those many years ago…

3 comments August 31st, 2008 at 12:52pm Posted by Eli

John McCain Is A Caring Nurturer

Jesus’ General has put all the pieces together, and revealed John McCain for the compassionate, stand-up guy he truly is:

Remember that incident when Sen. McCain called his wife a cunt? I’ve had a very hard time justifying it to people. Indeed, my attempts to do so usually end with me getting kicked in the grenades so hard I vomit.

Well, last week, I heard something on CNN that should help me explain that incident a little better. It was one of those things where the anchor gives one of their star reporters a few minutes to regurgitate a campaign’s latest talking points, raw, unedited, and without the clutter of analysis. In this case the reporter, John King, related a rather heartwarming story about Sen. McCain’s relationship with his old Naval Academy roommate, Frank Gamboa.

Gamboa was one of the first Mexican-Americans allowed to attend the Naval Academy. Being the first isn’t easy and he became the target of some pretty vicious race-inspired hazing. Sen. McCain was one of his most enthusiastic persecutors, calling him “Mex” and giving him a very hard time. But he did so out of love, later explaining that he was simply preparing Gamboa for the racial discrimination he’d face as an officer in the fleet.

I’d like to think that’s the same reasoning he employed when he called his wife a cunt. He was simply toughening her up for the hardship she’d face as a beer heiress and wife of a US Senator.

So you see, calling her a cunt wasn’t the the act of uncontrolled misogynistic rage it appeared to be; it was an expression of the kind of love and respect a man should have for his wife.

The same holds true for all the “Obama is after our white women” ads the McCain campaign has been running. He’s simply helping Barack Obama prepare for all the racial bigotry he’ll face for the rest of his career.

What a relief!  It’s good to know that even if our candidate loses, we’ll still end up with a president who cares deeply about racial and sexual equality and common decency.  He’s like a teacher, really, the way he helps people come to grips with the adversity they’ll face in life.

Add comment August 26th, 2008 at 07:15am Posted by Eli

The False Metric Strikes Again

If your movement’s credibility depended on your ability to come up with a yeah-but that makes you sound somehow morally superior to your opposition despite the dishonesty and near-omnidirectional hate that drips from your every word, what would you choose?

What may be surprising, however, is to what degree profanity seems to be a feature more common to left-leaning blogs than to right-leaning ones.

Which side of the online aisle is more likely to use profanity, though? For answers, I turned to the search engine Google to see how common swearing is in the right and left blog universes by looking up the late stand-up comic George Carlin’s “seven dirty words” in the most popular blog communities.

The results showed that online liberals tend to use profanity a lot more than online conservatives.

(…)

Dividing the number of instances of profanity by the number of pages of the sites on which they appear, then multiplying the result by 100 yields what might be called a “profanity quotient.”

The top 10 liberal sites (Daily Kos, Huffington Post, Democratic Underground, Talking Points Memo, Crooks and Liars, Think Progress, Atrios, Greenwald, MyDD and Firedoglake) have a profanity quotient of 14.6.

The top 10 conservative sites (Free Republic, Hot Air, Little Green Footballs, Townhall, News Busters, Lucianne.com, Wizbang, Ace of Spades, Red State and Volokh Conspiracy) have a quotient of 1.17.

This means that 14.6 percent of all pages on the most popular liberal sites have profanity on them, compared to 1.17 percent of all pages on the conservative sites.

That’s quite a disparity.

(…)

Notable also in these stats are the liberal blogs Eschaton, Crooks and Liars, and Firedoglake, where profanity is so common you basically cannot take part in the discussion without running into it.

On the flip side, the popular conservative community Lucianne.com, run by literary agent Lucianne Goldberg, seems to have no profanity at all.

Why such a disparity between the right and left online?

Some on the right may take this as a sign of their superior intelligence. [HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!] Others may theorize that it’s simply because liberals are angry at President Bush.

More than likely, it is a reflection of how things are offline. Conservatives, especially those who are more religious, are less likely to use profanity in their daily conversation.

All well and good, I suppose.  But tell me: Have you calculated an eliminationism quotient?  Or a racism/sexism/homophobia quotient?  Or a dishonesty quotient?  Or a harassing-12-year-old-kids quotient?

I would much rather read the occasional swear word than wade through a sewer of hate and lies - not to mention personal viciousness (outing liberal bloggers, publishing people’s addresses and phone numbers to encourage harassment and threats).  Oh well, different strokes for different folks, as they say.  But please, do not mistake the right’s lack of profanity for civility or decency.  It’s quite easy to be hateful without swearing, and vice versa.

(h/t Jane)

1 comment August 7th, 2008 at 07:40am Posted by Eli

Bush Administration Objectively Pro-Rape

This is utterly disgusting, yet so true to form for the Bush administration.  Apparently “support our troops” only applies to male ones - or perhaps this is a passive-aggressive Republican strategy to get women out of the military:

There was quite a struggle in Congress this week. The Department of Defense refused to allow the senior civilian in charge of its Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO) to testify in Thursday’s hearing on sexual assault in the military. Rep. John Tierney, chair of the House Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, angrily dismissed Principal Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Michael Dominguez from the hearing when Dominguez said that he, the DoD chief of legislative affairs and the chief of public affairs, had ordered Dr. Kaye Whitley, chief of SAPRO, to refuse to honor the subpoena issued by the subcommittee for her appearance.

Full committee Chairman Henry Waxman called the DoD’s decision to prevent Whitley from testifying “ridiculous and indicating DoD is covering something up.” It could also place Whitley in contempt of Congress. Rep. Christopher Shays said the DoD’s decision was “foolish.”

One of the questions that would have been put to Whitley was why DoD had taken three years to name a 15-person civilian task force to look into allegations of sexual assault of military personnel. The panel was finally named early in 2008 but has yet to meet. She would have also been queried on the SAPRO program’s failure to require key information from the military in order to evaluate the effectiveness of sexual assault prevention and response programs.

(…)

Rep. Jane Harman cited Veterans Administration statistics that one in three women in the military has been sexually assaulted. She said the prosecution rate of those accused of raping fellow military service members is abysmally low. Of the 2,212 reported rapes in the military in 2007, only 8 percent of the cases ended in court-martial of the perpetrator, while the rate of prosecution in civilian courts is 40 percent.

(…)

Rep. Shays said he had no confidence in DoD or the military services and their policies of prevention of sexual assault, and asked how recruiting will fare when young women learn that one in three women is sexually assaulted and when young men find out that one in 10 men is raped while in the military.

Recruitment of rapists would certainly improve…

VetVoice wants to know where Bob Gates is:

Now, granted, Gates is a busy man with competing priorities–and two ongoing wars.  So maybe this hasn’t crossed his desk yet.  Maybe this is an issue that hasn’t risen above the Undersecretary level yet.  But if it hasn’t, it needs to.

This type of conduct by the Defense Department is despicable, and it’s indicative of a Presidential administration that has no respect for the American people or their elected Representatives.  Congressmen Tierney and Waxman should not only hold Deputy Undersecretary Dominguez in contempt, but they should subpoena Secretary Gates on this one.  As Congressman Waxman said, this is “ridiculous.”

(…)

With three female troops having been murdered this year stateside, and with the long list of rapes and suspected murders in theater, it’s clear that something needs to be done.  And what the Defense Department is doing now is far worse than simply ignoring the problem: They’re actively attempting to obstruct Congress from investigating it.

Many of us have been pleased with the moderate (non-neo-con) stances Secretary Gates has taken since he assumed the role from Rumsfeld over a year and a half ago.  But now he must step up and show the leadership that the troops and their families expect of him.  He needs to rectify this situation.  And quickly.

If he doesn’t, he will show that the Defense Department has no respect for its female troops, and, more importantly, that he’s going to allow murderers and rapists to sully the name and reputation of America’s Armed Forces. And no one wants to join an organization like that.

Here’s what I said about Gates during his confirmation hearing:

The thing is, while yes, Rummy was incompetent and awful, most of what went wrong with Iraq was dictated from above. If we venture for a moment into Magical Sugarplum Fantasyland and imagine that The Donald was the smartest, most competent SecDef in the history of all the universes, and told Dubya that his plan was Teh Suck, and refused to invade without a better plan, our clueless leader would have immediately shitcanned him and replaced him with Harriet Miers, or Joe Lieberman, or Jeff “Bulldog” Gannon, or Ryan Seacrest DSV.

In other words, the Defense Secretary does not set the Iraq policy; he merely executes it (or tortures it, as the circumstances require). It really doesn’t matter whether Gates has a plan for Iraq or not. Bush will do What Bush Wants To Do, which will inevitably be the most foolhardy and disastrous course possible.

Replacing the SecDef is all well and good, but we won’t have any chance of a least-bad outcome until we replace his boss.

In other words, I’m not convinced that Gates is responsible for this disgraceful rape-and-murder-enabling coverup - I would not be at all surprised if he were just following orders from the most secretive and amoral administration in American history.  Still, Gates isn’t resigning in protest, so his hands are not exactly clean either.

3 comments August 4th, 2008 at 10:19pm Posted by Eli

Subpoena Shrinkage

The BushCo. rationales for defying subpoenas and blocking oversight just keep getting weaker and weaker.  First they used executive privilege to shield conversations with the president (or vice president, as with the secret energy task force), because he needs to be able to receive “unvarnished” advice.

Next they used executive privilege to shield conversations by anyone who worked for the president, even if the president was not involved in said conversations.

Next they breezily claimed “absolute immunity” on the grounds of, well, no-one seems to be sure what, exactly. (And how’s that working out?)

But now, apparently, BushCo. has been so emboldened by their ability to stonewall congressional subpoenas with no consequences that they don’t even feel obligated to give any reason at all:

Subcommittee Chairman Tierney and Full Committee Chairman Waxman threaten Michael Dominguez, Principal Deputy Undersecretary for Defense, with contempt after he reveals that he has ordered Dr. Kaye Whitley of the DOD Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office to defy a subpoena to appear:

Chairman Waxman: “Do we have to subpoena the Secretary to get people in the Department to come before us? We subpoenaed her, you’ve denied her the opportunity to come and testify and put her in a situation where we have to contemplate putting her in contempt. I don’t even know if we can hold you in contempt because you haven’t been issued a subpoena. Mr. Chairman, the Department of Defense has a history of covering up sexual offense problems….. I don’t know if we need to subpoena the Secretary and then hold him in contempt… Those are better options to me than to hold her in contempt when she’s put in this untenable position when her line of command instructs her not to comply with a subpoena of the United States Congress. I don’t know who you think elected you to defy the Congress of the United States, we’re an independent branch of government…”

Wouldn’t Whitley be required to refuse an unlawful order, which this certainly was?  Or does that obligation only apply to uniformed personnel?

In any case, it’s telling that this Dominguez asshat thinks that a subpoena is some kind of optional thing that you can just order someone to ignore.  Monkey see, monkey do, I guess.

1 comment July 31st, 2008 at 08:55pm Posted by Eli

More Of The Comedy Stylings Of Senator John McCain

Think Progress has a golden oldie for those of you who are getting a little tired of jokes about killing Iranians:

The blog Rum, Romanism and Rebellion pulls out a 1986 Tucson Citizen article recounting a joke about rape told by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). Speaking to the National League of Cities and Towns in Washington, DC, McCain allegedly said:

Did you hear the one about the woman who is attacked on the street by a gorilla, beaten senseless, raped repeatedly and left to die? When she finally regains consciousness and tries to speak, her doctor leans over to hear her sigh contently and to feebly ask, “Where is that marvelous ape?”

You know, I’m actually not entirely sure whether that even qualifies as a joke.  It’s certainly more clever than “At least I don’t plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt,” but probably not quite as clever as “Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?  Because her father is Janet Reno.”

So, um, any Hillary supporters who were taken in by McCain’s outreach after Obama clinched the nomination?  You, ah, might want to rethink that.

Add comment July 15th, 2008 at 07:44pm Posted by Eli

Stay Classy, Republicans!

Anti-Obama button being sold at the Republican convention in Texas:

Rush Limbaugh plays compare-and-contrast:

I look at Iowa, I look at Illinois—I want to see the murders. I want to see the looting. I want to see all the stuff that happened in New Orleans. I see devastation in Iowa and Illinois that dwarfs what happened in New Orleans.  I see people working together. I see people trying to save their property…I don’t see a bunch of people running around waving guns at helicopters, I don’t see a bunch of people running shooting cops. I don’t see a bunch of people raping people on the street. I don’t see a bunch of people doing everything they can…whining and moaning—where’s FEMA, where’s BUSH. I see the heartland of America. When I look at Iowa and when I look at Illinois, I see the backbone of America.

And finally, a Republican Congressional candidate shows his appreciation for high school girls’ sports:

The state champion girls volleyball team of Mercy High School in Cincinnati was in the Senate chamber recently to receive a resolution recognizing their accomplishment.

They had gathered around State Sen. Eric Kearney, D-Cincinnati, causing fellow Sen. Steve Stivers, R-Columbus, to comment that Kearney “attracts all the attractive women.”

Reminded that he had just returned from his honeymoon after marrying the former Karen Tabor two weeks earlier, Stivers backpedaled.

“I’m allowed to window shop, just not buy,” he said.

Awesome.  I don’t know we ever win any elections from the Family Values Party.

1 comment June 17th, 2008 at 11:14pm Posted by Eli

Profiles Incompetence: The McCain Campaign Strikes Again

Oh, come on.  You can’t tell me these people aren’t deliberately trying to sabotage him:

ABC’s Rick Klein reports: Sen. John McCain on Friday  abruptly cancelled a Monday fundraiser that had been scheduled at the home of a Texas oilman, after ABC News contacted the campaign inquiring about a verbal blunder the Texan made during an unsuccessful 1990 campaign for governor.

Clayton Williams stirred controversy during his 1990 campaign for governor of Texas with a botched attempt at humor in which he compared rape to weather. Within earshot of a reporter, Williams said: “As long as it’s inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it.”

His Democratic opponent at the time, the late Ann Richards… highlighted the comments in a TV ad during that 1990 campaign. View the ad HERE.

McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers said the Monday event was being cancelled, given the offensive comments. He said he could not yet say what McCain would do with donations brought into the campaign by Williams.

“These were obviously incredibly offensive remarks that the campaign was unaware of at the time this event was scheduled,” Rogers said. He added that Williams apologized for the comments back in 1990, but he said that does not excuse them.

Williams told the Midland Reporter-Telegram recently that he had already raised more than $300,000 for McCain and the fundraiser to be held at his home in Midland. Williams said that he needed to help McCain raise money to stop an Obama campaign that would enact “socialist” policies if elected to office.

Can someone explain to me how absolutely no-one on McCain’s team, or in the Texas GOP, heard Clayton Williams’ name and didn’t immediately think, “Oh yeah, the lie-back-and-enjoy-it guy - maybe we don’t want McCain associated with him, especially when he’s trying to sucker woo disgruntled Hillary supporters”?

I can only hope that the McCain campaign excercises this same kind of diligence and attention to detail when they’re vetting potential running mates.  I think David Duke and Mark Foley are available…

Add comment June 14th, 2008 at 12:39pm Posted by Eli

You Keep Using That Word…

I do not think it means what you think it means.

Wanker Of The Day, “feminist” Marc Rudov on The O’Reilly Factor:

O’REILLY: I believe the reason women go to see [the Sex & The City] movie… are because of the clothes, the shoes, the gossiping about men and the overall tone of dish, D-I-S-H. That’s why they go. I don’t think very many American women identify with these four.

RUDOV: Oh, come on, Bill. You have to be kidding. That’s exactly what women do, and that’s why they would see themselves in this movie. And that’s exactly why men would not go see it, because paying to hear women whine is as stupid as paying for cobwebs, because you can get them both at home for free….

(…)

I don’t tolerate this. This movie is the cinematic equivalent to ipecac. It’s Woodstock for entitled princesses.

(…)

O’REILLY: Look, most American women are not entitled princesses. They’re not.

RUDOV: Oh, yes they are, Bill.

O’REILLY: This is — no, no, no. This is an ur–

RUDOV: Oh, yes they are.

(…)

O’REILLY: You believe that most American women are as shallow as those four?

HOOVER: No, no, no.

RUDOV: I do.

Okay, Marc, I think you may be a little bit confused about the word “feminist” - it’s not like “sexist” or “racist,” you know that, right?  It actually means someone who’s pro-women, someone who believes women are the equals of men, and entitled to all the same rights, privileges and respect.

It’s an easy mistake to make, I suppose.

Add comment June 2nd, 2008 at 09:40pm Posted by Eli

The Republican He-Man Woman-Haters Club

First the Republicans voted against Mother’s Day, and now we get this handy little reminder of how they feel about women:

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., faces enormous pressure from social conservatives to ignore his repeated commitment to change the GOP’s platform on abortion.

“If he were to change the party platform,” to account for exceptions such as rape, incest or risk to the mother’s life, “I think that would be political suicide,” said Tony Perkins, the president of the conservative Family Research Council, to ABC News. “I think he would be aborting his own campaign because that is such a critical issue to so many Republican voters and the Republican brand is already in trouble.”

A senior Republican close to McCain told ABC News that building a more inclusive GOP is a top priority for the Arizona senator.

But this adviser does not see changing the party platform to include exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother as necessary for achieving that vision.

The problem for McCain, however, is that he excoriated then-Gov. George W. Bush during a 2000 debate for not being willing to make this change to the platform, and Democrats are salivating at the prospect of arguing, in the words of one strategist, “that another four years of Bush begins with another four years of Bush’s platform.”

(…)

While McCain has not addressed the abortion platform since becoming the presumed Republican nominee, he reaffirmed his desire to change the GOP’s official abortion stance following a multicandidate forum that took place in Des Moines, Iowa, April 14, 2007.

(…)

While leaving the platform untouched would please many in the GOP’s socially conservative base, it could alienate some of the more moderate voters that McCain hopes to woo.

“If he doesn’t change the platform, then he’s being the same kind of hypocrite that he accused Bush of being in 2000,” said Jennifer Blei Stockman, the co-chairwoman of Republican Majority for Choice. “To not accept abortion in cases of rape and incest, give me a break. That’s sick. That’s inhumane.”

“And the life of the mother?” she added. “These are things that we can’t even put our arms around because they are so inhumane.”

(…)

Stockman said that McCain’s team is ignoring his previous commitments on this issue and is intentionally downplaying his clout.

“If McCain chooses not to revise the platform, I think he will say it’s ‘the system’ and he will try to distance himself from it,” said Stockman. “But he absolutely has the power to change it.”

“Many people think of him as a moderate,” she said. “But when it comes out that he doesn’t want to change this extreme, right-wing Republican platform, the word ‘moderate’ is going to disappear from any description of McCain.”

It’s hard to say for sure just what position McCain is going to take, if any.  But it’s incredible that the religious right/social conservative wing of the GOP is so totally adamant about allowing exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother.  And far from being on the fringes of the party, that stance is the official GOP platform on abortion.

So if you get raped, the GOP says, Tough shit, you still have to have the baby - even if the rapist is your own father.  If the pregnancy or the birth will KILL YOU, the GOP says, Hey, sucks for you - but isn’t Life a wonderful thing?

I thought the Republicans were supposed to be the party that keeps Americans safe, but I guess that only applies to men.

(h/t Twolf)

2 comments May 10th, 2008 at 03:00pm Posted by Eli

Johnny FairPay

I forgot to comment on this the first time around, but since Gail Collins has been helpful enough to comment on it, I figured I get another chance…

McCain’s special It’s Time for Action Tour was in the impoverished Kentucky town of Inez on Wednesday, so he was unable to make it to Washington to vote on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. This is the bill that would restore workers’ ability to go to court in cases of pay discrimination.

But McCain was not ducking the issue. After all, this is a man who told the folks in Youngstown, Ohio — where most of the working single mothers cannot make it above the poverty line — that the answer to their problems is larger tax deductions. He is fearless when it comes to delivering unpleasant news to people who are probably not going to vote for him anyway.

So McCain made it clear that if he had been in Washington, he would have voted no because the bill “opens us up for lawsuits, for all kinds of problems and difficulties.”

How much straighter can talk get? True, this is pretty much like saying that you’re voting against the federal budget because it involves spending. Still, there is no denying that a bill making it possible for people who have been discriminated against to go to court for redress would open somebody up to the possibility of a lawsuit.

See, that’s the problem with laws.  The more laws you have, the more opportunities there are for lawsuits, and those damn trial lawyers all get rich.  Better to just get rid of laws completely.  Sure, we’d end up like Darfur or Afghanistan, but at least we wouldn’t have to worry about lawsuits.

2 comments April 26th, 2008 at 01:55pm Posted by Eli

Black Privilege

Rush Limbaugh, 6/28/03:

I think what we’ve had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn’t deserve. The defense carried this team.

Chris Matthews, 1/9/08:

Let’s not forget — and I’ll be brutal — the reason she’s a U.S. senator, the reason she’s a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around. That’s how she got to be senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn’t win there on her merit. She won because everybody felt, “My God, this woman stood up under humiliation,” right? That’s what happened.

Geraldine Ferraro, 3/7/08:

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.

What the hell is wrong with these people??? How can anyone honestly believe that the world is just handed to minorities or women? Any preferential treatment at all (i.e., affirmative action) is far outweighed by the prejudices and disadvantages that it’s supposed to (ineffectually) counter. Can you really look me in the eye and tell me that if you were an unborn spirit floating in the void, and you wanted to be President Of The United States, or attain some other prestigious (okay, formerly prestigious) position, that your first choice would be to be born as a black man, or a woman who gets very publicly cheated on?

I sure as hell don’t think so. This kind of bullshit doesn’t surprise me coming from Rush or Matthews - as well-paid and well-fed white guys, the system’s worked out just great for them, and they don�t want to see it change one bit. At least not in a direction that might eventually result in Rachel Maddow or D.L. Hughley taking their jobs (wistful sigh).

But Ferraro should know better. She’s fought through irrational discrimination and hostility all her life, she knows what it’s like. Why on earth would she think that a black politician like Obama hasn’t had to do the same? I’m nowhere near qualified to compare the relative evilness of sexism and racism, but I know enough to recognize that they’re both Very Large Evils, and that neither one trumps the other.

I genuinely do not have a preference in this race (I’m pretty underwhelmed by both candidates), but this shit is just stupid. And while I admit I have not been keeping rigorous score, my gut impression is that there’s been a lot more aggravating crap coming from the Clinton campaign and Clinton surrogates than there is coming from Obama or his surrogates. Not necessarily racial, just aggravating, like her charming comment about how she and McCain are qualified to be commander-in-chief and Obama isn’t. I actually think she probably would be a marginally better president than Obama, but saying that the Republican candidate would be too is just beyond the pale.

Am I saying Obama didn’t say nice things about Reagan, or that one of his advisers didn’t call Hillary a monster, or that he doesn’t exploit the enthusiasm of the netroots while offering them little in return, or that he’s been some kind of courageous progressive crusader in the Senate? Hell no. I’m just saying that on balance, his campaign doesn’t gross me out nearly as much as Hillary’s does. Mark Penn? Terry McAuliffe? Eurgh.

2 comments March 12th, 2008 at 08:15pm Posted by Eli

…And George W. Bush Was The First Psychopathic President.

Frank Luntz continues to be a truly repulsive human being:

From the March 5 edition of Fox News’ Fox & Friends [of course]:

LUNTZ: You guys — how many of you saw Saturday Night Live? Did it humanize Hillary Clinton to you, or did it ridicule her?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don’t think it ridiculed her at all. I think that, you know, she is who she is, and that’s, you know, how she stands for, so –

LUNTZ: Do you think she’s electable?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think she’s very electable. You know, a lot of the hot stuff about Hillary is, you know, people — since she’s a woman running for the highest position in the world, she has to, you know, position herself in a place where she can be electable, and I think that she is. She has come out hard against a lot of issues, and as we just saw in this clip, you know, it’s easy to see that she really is sincere in everything that she says.

LUNTZ: Andrew?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right, but sound bites and tears or not, there’s one person qualified to be the commander in chief, and that’s John McCain. You know, the other candidates have this myth of experience, and McCain is the one with real experience.

LUNTZ: And by the way, Hillary Clinton would not be the first female president. Jimmy Carter was the first female president.

ALISYN CAMEROTA (co-host): Hey. All right, we have so much more with all the students from Ohio University. We’ll be right back.

Blech. What a pig. Remember this the next time he tries to portray himself as some kind of respectable authority on language and human nature.

Add comment March 5th, 2008 at 08:14pm Posted by Eli

They Keep Going Missing, For One Thing.

More from the ever-charming and gallant Bill Kristol:

Look the only people for Hillary Clinton are the Democratic establishment and white women… it would be crazy for the Democratic party to follow the establishment that’s led them to defeat year after year… White Women are a problem - but, you know… we all live with that…

Stoopit white women don’t appreciate how important neverending war is.

8 comments February 4th, 2008 at 11:14am Posted by Eli

Civility

So… tell me again how we progressives are the horrible uncivil people?

What is this guy, thirteen?

(h/t Caro Kay)

Add comment January 24th, 2008 at 08:51pm Posted by Eli

Hell’s Getting A Bit Nippy…

Chris Matthews actually apologized for saying that Hillary was only elected to the Senate because Bill messed around. Not so much for all the other terrible things he’s said about her and other women, though - which is why the firepits are still bubbling and churning away.

Now, if Rush were to get fired for his repulsive “spade” and “hoe” digs at Obama, then Hell’d be looking a lot like Lambeau Field this weekend.

Add comment January 17th, 2008 at 07:54pm Posted by Eli

Ironing Is Not Dead

Sigh.

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign stop was interrupted Monday when two men stood in the crowd and began screaming, “Iron my shirt!” during one of her final appearances before the New Hampshire primary.

Clinton, a former first lady running to become the nation’s first female president, laughed at the seemingly sexist protest that suggested a woman’s place is doing the laundry and not running the country.

“Ah, the remnants of sexism - alive and well,” Clinton said to applause in a school auditorium.

The two men were removed from the hall after raising a pair of signs that said, “Iron my shirt!” They also shouted the same slogan.

“Can we turn the lights on? It’s awfully dark,” Clinton said, cueing the lights to come and police to come forward to take the men away.

The overflow crowd burst into applause and some began shouting, “Iron my shirt” as the two were taken from the hall.

“As I think has been abundantly demonstrated, I am also running to break through the highest and hardest glass ceiling,” she said.

Clinton later joked about the incident as she invited questions.

“If there’s anyone left in the auditorium who wants to learn how to iron a shirt, I’ll talk about that,” she said with a smile.

I am not a huge Hillary fan, by any means, but this crap is just disgusting. If you want to heckle Hillary, there’s plenty of actual issues you can use, like Iraq and Iran. But if your argument is that she can’t be president because a woman’s place is in the home, then please just go back to your cave and wait for evolution to visit.

Stoopit evolution. Work faster, dammit!

(h/t Twolf)

2 comments January 8th, 2008 at 07:40am Posted by Eli

Kellogg, Brown and Rape

It’s not just the military contractors you have to worry about in Iraq:

A Houston, Texas woman says she was gang-raped by Halliburton/KBR coworkers in Baghdad, and the company and the U.S. government are covering up the incident.

Jamie Leigh Jones, now 22, says that after she was raped by multiple men at a KBR camp in the Green Zone, the company put her under guard in a shipping container with a bed and warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job.

“Don’t plan on working back in Iraq. There won’t be a position here, and there won’t be a position in Houston,” Jones says she was told.

In a lawsuit filed in federal court against Halliburton and its then-subsidiary KBR, Jones says she was held in the shipping container for at least 24 hours without food or water by KBR, which posted armed security guards outside her door, who would not let her leave.

(…)

Jones told ABCNews.com that an examination by Army doctors showed she had been raped “both vaginally and anally,” but that the rape kit disappeared after it was handed over to KBR security officers.

(…)

Over two years later, the Justice Department has brought no criminal charges in the matter. In fact, ABC News could not confirm any federal agency was investigating the case.

Legal experts say Jones’ alleged assailants will likely never face a judge and jury, due to an enormous loophole that has effectively left contractors in Iraq beyond the reach of United States law.

No word on whether Ms. Jones was also sentenced to 200 lashes.

1 comment December 10th, 2007 at 07:47pm Posted by Eli

Halftime Is Not Mardi Gras

I prefer the Giants over the Jets, but this is still mortifying:

At halftime of the Jets’ home game against the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday, several hundred men lined one of Giants Stadium’s two pedestrian ramps at Gate D. Three deep in some areas, they whistled and jumped up and down. Then they began an obscenity-laced chant, demanding that the few women in the gathering expose their breasts.

When one woman appeared to be on the verge of obliging, the hooting and hollering intensified. But then she walked away, and plastic beer bottles and spit went flying. Boos swept through the crowd of unsatisfied men.

(…)

The mood of previous Gate D crowds - captured on video clips posted on YouTube - sometimes bordered on hostile, not unlike the spirit of infamously aggressive European soccer hooligans. One clip online shows a woman being groped by a man standing next to her.

(…)

Throughout halftime, about 10 security guards in yellow jackets stood near the bottom of the circular, multilevel ramp, located beyond the stadium’s concourse of concession stands and restrooms. One of the guards was smoking a cigarette; many fans do the same during halftime on the giant ramps, which are located at each corner of the stadium. Another guard later said they were not permitted to do anything about the chants at Gate D because of free speech laws. Yet when a reporter tried to interview two security guards after halftime, he was detained in a holding room, threatened with arrest and asked to hand over his tape recorder.

Wonderful. I’m so proud.

1 comment November 20th, 2007 at 07:07am Posted by Eli

Creepiest. Mayor. Ever.

Almost forgot to blog Bob Herbert’s column today. Vegas mayor Oscar Goodman is quite a piece of work:

There is probably no city in America where women are treated worse than in Las Vegas.

The tone of systematic, institutionalized degradation is set by the mayor, Oscar Goodman, who told me in an interview that the city would reap “tremendous” benefits if a series of “magnificent brothels” could be established to cater to johns from across the country and around the world.

“I’ve said there should be the beginning of a discussion of that,” said Mr. Goodman, a former defense lawyer for mobsters who unabashedly describes his city as an adult playground where “anything goes — as long as you don’t go over the line.”

Most of the lines in Vegas have long since been erased. It is without a doubt, as the psychologist and researcher Melissa Farley, says, “the epicenter of North American prostitution and sex trafficking.”

Vegas is a place where women and girls by the tens of thousands are chewed up by the vast and astonishingly open sex trade. You can be sitting at a traffic light and a huge mobile billboard will drive past, promising, “Hot Babes — Direct to Your Room.”

I was drawn to this story by an advance copy of Ms. Farley’s book-length report, “Prostitution and Trafficking in Nevada: Making the Connections.” It’s being published online today.

The report explores what Oscar Goodman doesn’t appear to understand: the horrendous toll that prostitution, legal or illegal, takes on the women and girls involved. If you peel back the thin, supposedly sexy veneer of the commercial sex trade, you’ll quickly see the rotten inside, where females are bought, sold, raped, beaten, shamed and in many, many cases, physically and emotionally wrecked.

(…)

“We did surveys of people on the street,” said Ms. Farley, “and nearly half thought prostitution was legal in Las Vegas. Guess why that is? Massive advertising.”

There are more than 150 pages of ads in the Las Vegas yellow pages for “college teens,” “mature women,” “mothers and daughters,” “petite Japanese women,” “Chinese teens in short skirts” and every other variation imaginable. I asked Mayor Goodman about that, and he said: “We’ve changed that a little bit. They used to have pictures.”

(…)

Mayor Goodman said that he is no fan of illegal prostitution, but is convinced the legal variety could be a boon. He is proud of his city’s tourist slogan: “What happens here, stays here.”

Back in the ’90s, Las Vegas tried hard to promote a family-friendly image.

“That ended when I became mayor,” said Mr. Goodman.

Oscar Goodman: American hero.

Add comment September 5th, 2007 at 12:25am Posted by Eli

Just A Spoonful Of Racism Helps The Medicine Go Down…

Krugman is full of sweetness and light today, as usual:

So now Mitt Romney is trying to Willie Hortonize Rudy Giuliani. And thereby hangs a tale — the tale, in fact, of American politics past and future, and the ultimate reason Karl Rove’s vision of a permanent Republican majority was a foolish fantasy.

(…)

[S]ome Republicans are trying to make similar use of the recent murder of three college students in Newark, a crime in which two of the suspects are Hispanic illegal immigrants. Tom Tancredo flew into Newark to accuse the city’s leaders of inviting the crime by failing to enforce immigration laws, while Newt Gingrich declared that the “war here at home” against illegal immigrants is “even more deadly than the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

And Mr. Romney, who pretends to be whatever he thinks the G.O.P. base wants him to be, is running a radio ad denouncing New York as a “sanctuary city” for illegal immigrants, an implicit attack on Mr. Giuliani.

Strangely, nobody seems to be trying to make a national political issue out of other horrifying crimes, like the Connecticut home invasion in which two paroled convicts, both white, are accused of killing a mother and her two daughters. Oh, and by the way: over all, Hispanic immigrants appear to commit relatively few crimes — in fact, their incarceration rate is actually lower than that of native-born non-Hispanic whites.

To appreciate what’s going on here you need to understand the difference between the goals of the modern Republican Party and the strategy it uses to win elections.

The people who run the G.O.P. are concerned, above all, with making America safe for the rich. Their ultimate goal, as Grover Norquist once put it, is to get America back to the way it was “up until Teddy Roosevelt, when the socialists took over,” getting rid of “the income tax, the death tax, regulation, all that.”

But right-wing economic ideology has never been a vote-winner. Instead, the party’s electoral strategy has depended largely on exploiting racial fear and animosity.

Ronald Reagan didn’t become governor of California by preaching the wonders of free enterprise; he did it by attacking the state’s fair housing law, denouncing welfare cheats and associating liberals with urban riots. Reagan didn’t begin his 1980 campaign with a speech on supply-side economics, he began it — at the urging of a young Trent Lott — with a speech supporting states’ rights delivered just outside Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers were murdered in 1964.

And if you look at the political successes of the G.O.P. since it was taken over by movement conservatives, they had very little to do with public opposition to taxes, moral values, perceived strength on national security, or any of the other explanations usually offered. To an almost embarrassing extent, they all come down to just five words: southern whites starting voting Republican.

(…)

But Republicans have a problem: demographic changes are making their race-based electoral strategy decreasingly effective. Quite simply, America is becoming less white, mainly because of immigration. Hispanic and Asian voters were only 4 percent of the electorate in 1980, but they were 11 percent of voters in 2004 — and that number will keep rising for the foreseeable future.

Those numbers are the reason Karl Rove was so eager to reach out to Hispanic voters. But the whites the G.O.P. has counted on to vote their color, not their economic interests, are having none of it. From their point of view, it’s us versus them — and everyone who looks different is one of them.

So now we have the spectacle of Republicans competing over who can be most convincingly anti-Hispanic. I know, officially they’re not hostile to Hispanics in general, only to illegal immigrants, but that’s a distinction neither the G.O.P. base nor Hispanic voters takes seriously.

Today’s G.O.P., in short, is trapped by its history of cynicism. For decades it has exploited racial animosity to win over white voters — and now, when Republican politicians need to reach out to an increasingly diverse country, the base won’t let them.

Well, there’s a happy ending, at least. But how sad is it that racism (and sexism, and homophobia) are the sugarcoating to make the Republican agenda more appealing? I’m picturing something like this:

PROSPECTIVE REPUBLICAN VOTER: I don’t see how any of these tax cuts benefit me - I don’t make that kind of money. And it looks like you’re always taking my employer’s side instead of mine.

REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: We hate blacks, Mexicans, women, and gays.

PROSPECTIVE REPUBLICAN VOTER: Okay, I’m in.

(Also, you will be relieved to know that Rudy is not taking this threat lying down. He’s hired Scott Howell & Company to do his media - they’re the folks responsible for the racist “Harold, call me” ad in Tennessee.)

6 comments August 24th, 2007 at 07:58pm Posted by Eli

This Just In

Shock jocks still pigs:

Still recovering from the Don Imus scandal, CBS Radio suspended two local shock jocks after they twice broadcast a racially charged prank call to employees at a Chinese restaurant.

The hosts of the daily morning show, WFNY-FM’s ”The Dog House With JV and Elvis,” have been suspended indefinitely without pay, CBS Radio spokeswoman Karen Mateo told The New York Times in an e-mail Monday. One of the hosts, Jeff Vandergrift, apologized on Monday’s show, she said.

(…)

In the segment, broadcast on April 5 — a day after the infamous Imus comment on CBS — and again last week, a caller to a Chinese restaurant intersperses an order for takeout with lewd language.

The caller tells one female employee he wants to come to the restaurant to see her naked and refers to a part of her body as ”hot, Asian, spicy.” The caller also attempts to order ‘’shrimp flied lice.”

The show’s hosts, Vandergrift and Dan Lay, have been campaigning online and on the air in support of Imus since his firing for calling the Rutgers University women’s basketball team ”nappy-headed hos” on April 4.

(…)

Community advocates pushed for CBS to fire the hosts of the show, which can be heard only in the New York City area and on the Internet.

“If they don’t fire the DJ’s, it will be a double standard,” said Vicki Shu Smolin, president of the New York City chapter of the Organization of Chinese Americans.

Vicki Shu Smolin is absolutely right. Just like Imus, these wankers combine racism and sexism with impressive efficiency - there’s hardly any wasted motion at all.

The other common elements are the fact that they’re aiming down instead of up (although their perch is nowhere near as lofty as Imus’s was), and the same employer. If it was someone other than CBS, they could just say they have different (i.e., lower) standards, although that’s not exactly great PR.

I guess they could make the argument that racism and sexism is somehow okay when it’s directed at Asians, but I sure wouldn’t want to be the one trying to defend that. I’m also curious to see what Asian cultural scapegoat/red herring will take the place of rap music - I sure can’t think of anything.

In happier pig news:

Blowing his nose and wiping away tears, the multimillionaire founder of the ”Girls Gone Wild” video empire pleaded guilty to contempt of court Monday and was sentenced to 35 days in jail.

Joe Francis, who was sued by seven women who were minors when filmed, apologized to the judge for yelling at the plaintiffs during settlement talks.

”I am sorry for my behavior. It was wrong. I had heard about appeals and things and I was confused. I am sorry, I really am,” said Francis, 34.

Mr. Macho Woman-Exploiting He-Man is blubbering about 35 days in jail? Pathetic.

Add comment April 24th, 2007 at 11:51am Posted by Eli

Dances With Masks

The Edwards fiasco, and Glenn Greenwald’s recent echoing of my observation that the Republicans do not appear to be very serious about what they claim to be serious about both highlight something that I’m very frustrated about. What’s bugging me is that, with a few exceptions, the Democrats always take everything the Republicans say at face value, rather than as cynical political manipulation.

Bill Donohue accuses John Edwards’ new blogger hires of anti-catholic bigotry, and Edwards basically says, “Yeah, that kinda bothers me too” instead of pointing out that Donohue’s own long history of anti-semitism and homophobia disqualifies him from accusing anyone else of bigotry, or calling attention to the obscene and un-Christian rape and death threats that Bill Donohue’s and Michelle Malkin’s minions directed at his employees until they resigned.

Republicans and their pundits/operatives regularly accuse Democrats of being weak on terror, and Democrats respond by defensively trying to look tough instead of pointing out that the Republicans are the ones opposing enhanced port security and chem/nuke plant security. Republicans accuse Democrats of not supporting the troops, and the Democrats soft-pedal their war criticisms and back away from defunding the war, instead of pointing out that it’s the Republicans who are dragging their feet on giving the troops more/better armor and equipment, who are shortchanging them on their rotations home, who are forcing them to return to combat long after their service obligations should have expired, and who are treating veterans benefits as an afterthought or an unsustainable burden.

The problem is, the Democrats seem to have an operating assumption that Republicans are honest, or that they need to at least pretend to believe that Republicans are honest, in the interests of “civility”, or else risk offending the All-Powerful Swing Voter. They need to get over this, and fast. Yes, there will be times when a Republican makes an honest and sincere critique of Democratic policies, and the Democrats should respond on the merits. But they need to learn to distinguish between honest criticism and smears, then respond accordingly. Some common-sense tips on how to do that:

1) Consider the source. Do they have a long history of attacking Democrats with accusations that turned out to be false? Do they have a long history of doing the exact same thing they’re accusing you of? If so, make that the centerpiece of your response: They are not credible, and this is just another smear from a professional liar. NOTE: Some oppo research capabilities would be very useful here. At a bare minimum, you should have some web-savvy staffers looking for blog entries about the accuser(s). Most slime leaves a lengthy and pungent trail.

2) Trust your gut. If your immediate reaction is that the accusation is completely ridiculous, bordering on fantasy, chances are the accuser doesn’t even believe it themselves. Let your incredulity shine through in your response.

3) Don’t trust the media. Do not allow the media to confer legitimacy on bullshit: They are in on it. If they’re propagating right-wing memes that you know to be untrue, call them on it and question their journalistic integrity for reporting lies as fact, or even as “one side of the story.” Lies do not deserve to be reported on as anything other than lies.

4) Fuck civility. No, you probably shouldn’t actually swear, but neither should you worry about being likable or nice. Attack. Hit hard. Be outraged. Don’t apologize unless you’ve made a factual error. Don’t worry about alienating voters; if anything, their respect for you will grow if you aggressively defend yourself. Be more like Paul Hackett or Jim Webb. Look at yourself in the mirror each morning and say, “I said it, I meant it, I stand behind it” five times.

5) You are not above the fray. Unless it’s Gary Busey accusing you of conspiring with the Venusians to steal Earth’s greenhouse gases, never assume that it’s obvious that an attack is bogus. Respond, and quickly.

6) (UPDATE) Put your process-talking skills to use. Instead of talking about what other Democrats are doing, and how they “need to do a better job of talking about” religion/terrorism/Iraq/Mars, bitches, talk about what the Republicans are doing, how their entire strategy is based on dishonest attacks, spreading fear, and suppressing dissent. Make it clear that their fake outrage is a cynical tactic that cheapens our discourse and perverts our democracy.

I’m sure I’m forgetting a lot more, but that should be a good start.

12 comments February 17th, 2007 at 02:42pm Posted by Eli

Missed Opportunity

Now Melissa’s resigned too, and I’ll use the same excerpt Echidne chose:

There will be some who clamor to claim victory for my resignation, but I caution them that in doing so, they are tacitly accepting responsibility for those who have deluged my blog and my inbox with vitriol and veiled threats. It is not right-wing bloggers, nor people like Bill Donohue or Bill O’Reilly, who prompted nor deserve credit for my resignation, no matter how much they want it, but individuals who used public criticisms of me as an excuse to unleash frightening ugliness, the likes of which anyone with a modicum of respect for responsible discourse would denounce without hesitation.

This is a win for no one.

Sigh. I know I’m being insensitive to how hard this was for Amanda and Melissa to go through, but I can’t help but think what a huge missed opportunity this was in terms of narrative.

Instead of “Liberal bloggers cave to conservative/religious pressure”, the narrative should have been, “Liberal bloggers subjected to threats and vulgar attacks by out-of-control right-wing pseudo-religious hatemongers.” Yes, Amanda and Melissa will tell the sordid tale on their blogs, but that’s just not the same kind of platform as Edwards himself would have had if he angrily denounced the hypocrites attacking his staffers, and demanded to know where their sense of Christian decency is. It could have been a “teachable moment” about the Republicans’ amoral slash-and-burn approach to politics. Edwards would be a hero, and Donohue would be exposed for the villain he is.

I know, it’s just Not The Way Things Are Done in Civilityworld, but until you reveal what these people are and make them pay a price for crawling out from under their rocks, they’re just going to keep coming back again, and again, and again, and they’ll be taken seriously Every. Single. Time.

7 comments February 13th, 2007 at 07:40pm Posted by Eli

Houhaha

No way:

ATLANTIC BEACH, Fla. — A modified marquee in Atlantic Beach has been drawing some attention. “Hoohaa” replaced a word in the title of a play after a driver complained about finding the previous wording offensive.

The marquis for Atlantic Theaters advertises a number of plays including, the Masquerade Ball, Band Jam, and now The Hoohaa Monologues.

(…)

“We got a complaint about this play The Vagina Monologues,” said Bryce Pfanenstiel, of the Atlantic Theater.

The Hoohah Monologues is a replacement title for The Vagina Monologues — a well-known play about that part of the female body.”We decided we would just use child slang for it. That’s how we decided on Hoohah Monologues,” Pfanenstiel said.They did this after a driver who saw it complained to the theater, saying she was upset that her niece saw it.

Oy.

By way of Lawyers, Guns and Money and Feministing, who both have good feminist takes on this inanity. Me, I can’t get past the wall of burning stupid.

Add comment February 9th, 2007 at 01:09am Posted by Eli

Token Up

This post by TRex at firedoglake a couple of nights ago, and the angry comments about stereotyping that it inspired, reminded me of something I have long suspected but have only blogged about briefly (I think).

TRex and the commenters circled around this, but I don’t think anyone said it directly: It is not a coincidence that the women and minorities who are prominent conservatives are unusually vile and unqualified - it is by design.

I believe that the conservatives actively seek out, recruit, and cultivate these people, not just to apply a thin layer of I-Can’t-Believe-It’s-Not-Diversity on top of their Wonderbread movement, but to provide endless opportunities to accuse their opposition of the very hatefulness that is their stock in trade.

Some examples:

Democrats opposing Clarence Thomas for being a sleazy sexual harasser? A lynch mob.

Liberals/Democrats pointing out, repeatedly, that Condi Rice is criminally incompetent? Racist, sexist, and possibly homophobic.

Liberals jumping all over Michelle Maglalang (or something) for her hypocrisy about Teresa Heinz Kerry’s “professional name” when she uses one herself? Racist and sexist.

Liberal outrage at Ann Coulter over… jeez, who can keep track? Yeah, definitely sexist, yeah.

Liberals making a fuss about a gay prostitute in the White House press corps (possibly sleeping over as well)? Homophobic.

Liberals bashing Israel’s increasingly sadistic Palestinian policy, neocons, or Joe Lieberman (and don’t try to tell me he hasn’t been cultivated by the Republicans)? Anti-semitic (I’m Jewish, by the way - but perhaps I’m self-hating).

Even the failed nomination of the laughably unqualified Harriet Miers to the SCOTUS (that really happened - I didn’t just dream it, right?) was used as an example of liberal sexism, even though it was Republicans who ultimately shot her down.

To some extent, we play into the Republicans’ hands every time we so much as mention their race, sex, or orientation while attacking them (although it’s kinda the whole point in Gannon’s case). However, the sad fact is that even if we scrupulously referred to, say, Ramesh Ponnuru or John Yoo as snivelling, sadistic little cockroaches without ever once mentioning their race, we would still be accused of racism, even if that is precisely what we are attacking them for. Such is the opportunistic illogic of the Republicans and their captive media.

Believe me, I am no civility advocate, even if I don’t swear much on this blog (what can I say, my Dad reads it). If you want to curse these fuckers out, feel free. But just remember that they are trying to bait you. They want to collect and display as many samples of liberal “intolerance” as they can, the higher-profile the better. Don’t make it easy for them. Besides, it’s not like there isn’t a wealth of material to work with - why waste time on cheap shots that are beside the point, which is not that Coulter and Malkin are women, but that they are evil.

One additional recommendation: Keep a bunch of minority, women’s, and gay rights issues in your back pocket to wave at the conservative flying monkeys whenever they start insincerely protesting their compassion for the oppressed. Surely they should be willing to go on record with their support of gay marriage to prove that they’re the tolerant ones, right? Or at least to condemn the Right’s shabby treatment of women like Cindy Sheehan and Valerie Plame. Or ask them how the glorious liberation of the women of Afghanistan and Iraq is coming along.

7 comments July 7th, 2006 at 12:06pm Posted by Eli

Asshole Projection

I’m seconding Atrios seconding Yglesias.

The problem with the ports deal is not the “A” in “UAE”, it’s the “OBL BFF” in “UAE”.

For those of you who don’t speak Abbrevish, this is not about “you can’t trust the Arabs,” at least not from our side of the spectrum. It’s about “you can’t trust a country whose royal family diplomatically recognized the Taliban, and hung out with Osama bin Laden, and generally seems to be a pretty cozy staging ground for terrorists.” Any attempts to paint our objections as xenophobic are disingenuous and dishonest.

But this sort of thing is one of the Republicans’ favorite tricks. Democrats are “racist” for opposing the judicial nominations of Clarence Thomas and Janice Rogers Brown, or for pointing out that Condi is an incompetent liar, or for “dishonoring” Coretta Scott King’s memorial service by being mean to our poor resolute president.

Or “sexist” for opposing Harriet Miers (who was sunk by Republicans, by the way).

Or “homophobic” for saying that a male prostitute with a fake name and no journalistic credentials has no place in the White House press corps.

For the Republicans, “projection” isn’t a psychological condition; it’s a deliberate strategy.

2 comments February 24th, 2006 at 05:44pm Posted by Eli