You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘politics’ tag.
Do I detest it? Yes, ever since the nineties when I became aware of it. The right wing was ratcheting it against Bill Clinton then.
I would very much want for it to stop.
But is there any connection between hate speech and the recent tragedy?
Apparently not. The shooter was a mentally ill man with a fixation on Gifford dating since 2007. It was more the celebrity element that led to the killing of John Lennon than any political coherent thought.
I tend to agree with this point of view from Slate which considers
The awesome stupidity of the calls to tamp down political speech in the wake of the Giffords shooting.
The article goes to tackle the inflammatory pronouncements of the sheriff in the case
Embedded in Sheriff Dupnik’s ad hoc wisdom were several assumptions. First, that strident, anti-government political views can be easily categorized as vitriolic, bigoted, and prejudicial. Second, that those voicing strident political views are guilty of issuing Manchurian Candidate-style instructions to commit murder and mayhem to the “unbalanced.” Third, that the Tucson shooter was inspired to kill by political debate or by Sarah Palin’s “target” map or other inflammatory outbursts. Fourth, that we should calibrate our political speech in such a manner that we do not awaken the Manchurian candidates among us.
And, fifth, that it’s a cop’s role to set the proper dimensions of our political debate. Hey, Dupnik, if you’ve got spare time on your hands, go write somebody a ticket.
Indeed, it was what sent this in the stratosphere of recriminations and excitement over political opportunity to score points.
Hardly the right response to this tragedy.
Again, a madman shot into a crowd – aiming at a woman he was obsessed with. She happened to be a Congresswoman.
One can take it in as the tragedy that it is, or use it to escalate the atmosphere of vitriol in politics today.
I say, look at the facts. It was not about politics.
Now go home put the pitchforks and torches down and chill out.
Appropriatedly named Talking point memo is issuing a new meme based on a Quinnipiac poll
Poll: Tea Party Is The Home Of The Angry White Woman
Just in time to counteract headlines such as
Obama To Host Pro-Life Dems For Abortion Executive Order Signing
There’s a recount of th long history of this Romneycare passing in WaPo. A small passage about Stupak caught my attention
The women became furious. Voices were raised. Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (D-N.Y.), a close friend of Pelosi’s, lamented about “all the women we were just throwing under the bus” and called it “a betrayal of all the women that had fought for this for so long.” Pelosi, according to two participants, had tears in her eyes. But she got the votes — that time.
The ladies quickly got over it though and sold the rest of us. Now we have a Supak EO and everyone is happy.
And now, that the women Democrats have been silenced (it’s just symbolic, ya know), the tea party is blamed on women because
55% are women, while just 45% are men.
and only later we get told that this is the usual percentage for all political parties
As for the gender breakdown, the 55% female majority puts the tea party movement in line with other political parties, with the exception of independents. That group is more male than female by a margin of 54-46.
But the opportunity presents itself to nail the bitches, so why not?
I don’t know how many PUMAs joined the tea party – I know some did and that’s when I removed my own affiliation with PUMA to avoid confusion.
I do however see an ugly backlash in this headline, a return to the misogynistic days of the 2008 elections.
Be careful what you wish for. I had just written a fer days ago that being ignored is even worse than being maligned in the last election.
In fact, they talk about it in B0botland and all old slurs are back
. Angry (and I would bet, extremely uneducated) OLDER white women
I would love to see the educational level correlates. I am betting that this is a consequence of many decades of diminishing high school graduation rates during these older women’s lives (and increasing divorce rates) with the accompanying decimation of future opportunities.
Just my hunch, but a good one, I think
9. Shouldn’t that be OLD angry white woman?
Yeah. The gut hatred is back. That coupled with the hint of race bait in the “White” shall drive the November elections. At least from the B0bots POV.
Only a few days later, here comes a Gallup poll demolishing that factoid
Tea Party supporters are decidedly Republican and conservative in their leanings. Also, compared with average Americans, supporters are slightly more likely to be male and less likely to be lower-income.
Gallup has the numbers reversed from Quinnipiac: (second row represents percentages of US adults)
55% men, 45 women.
But then again, all polls are manufactured reality. Gallup just wanted to make a different point than Quinnipiac.
Somehow this protest continues to impact the presidential race.
According to Commentary
oe Biden was invited to the event in the wake of Hillary Clinton’s refusal to appear on the same stage as Palin — and he declined. In an e-mail to me, Biden spokesman David Wade said that “we’ve had longstanding commitment to speak at National Guard Convention on Monday in Maryland.”
That refusal led to
The appearance that the non-partisan group was aligning with the Republican ticket put the group and its president, Malcolm Hoenlein, under heavy pressure from Jewish Democrats, including members of the conference, members of Congress, and the liberal group J Street, not to give Palin a platform, sources said
which makes Cometary conclude
The question is: Was Hoenlein put in this position because of a decision by the Obama team and its supporters to treat Sarah Palin as though she were not a legitimate political figure with whom major Democratic politicians can or should share the stage.
and this is from McCain’s statement:
reventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons should be a shared goal of every American, not another occasion for partisan posturing.
Governor Palin was pleased to accept an invitation to address this rally and show her resolve on this grave national security issue, regrettably that invitation has since been withdrawn under pressure from Democratic partisans. We stand shoulder to shoulder with Republicans, Democrats and independents alike to oppose Ahmadinejad’s goal of a nuclear armed Iran. Senator Obama’s campaign had the opportunity to join us. Senator Obama chose politics rather than the national interest.
Who can argue with that?
John Bachelor has more details on the Obama campaign role in this
So, more to come.
BLAINE, Minn. – Sarah Palin told supporters Friday that “Democrat partisans” had pressured organizers of an anti-Iran rally in New York next week to withdraw an invitation for her to appear.
Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor batted away the suggestion, saying they had planned to send, D-Fla., to attend the rally on the campaign’s behalf and did nothing to discourage Palin’s attendance.
Update September 21
New information on the Dem pressure to uninvite Palin
BS 2 spoke to Assemblyman Dov Hikind, Democrat from Brooklyn, who said, “This is insulting. This is embarrassing, especially to Gov. Palin, to me and I think it should be to every single New Yorker.”
Hikind goes on to to declare, “It’s an absolute shame that this has happened. To threaten organizations … to threaten the Conference of Presidents that if you don’t withdraw the invitation to Gov. Palin we’re going to look into your tax exempt status … that’s McCarthyism.”
Update of September 24 (post rally)
In 2006, the anti-Ahmadinejad Rally at the United Nations drew 40,000 People. Last year’s rally drew 25,000 people. This week’s rally drew 2,000 people. This week’s rally was the most successful of the three.
This week, the supporters of Israel and, most especially, the Jewish People told the world that we will not be bullied. We will not allow our leadership to our leadership to continue their practice of blindly following the Democratic party without any regard for the issues.
Hillary’s withdrawal was a clear shot at Obama. And while it may have seemed to have backfired because folks were so disappointed with her, I am not so sure it was a failure. Palin, in the speech she would have given, quoted statements that Clinton has made against the Iranian regime. Palin never mentioned Obama, but spoke of Clinton most admiringly. The Jews in America cannot rest easy knowing Obama did not think the existential threat to Israel and the free world important enough to address.
Clinton could not have known that Jewish lay leadership would cave to their left wing activists, but that was of little import to her. Her action was taken to shine the spotlight on Obama’s complete failure on Iran, and she accomplished this
In spite of high expectations this is as close as it got to relevant
Good Morning Senator Clinton:
Thank you for taking time to chat with your supporters. Is there any possibility of your name being placed in nomination for President at the convention? This would at least give your supporters a voice in the choice for the party’s nominee.
by alrd1950 at 8/7/2008 12:07:51 PM
Answer: I know that there have been a lot of questions on this subject. Senator Obama and I share the goal of ensuring that the voices of everyone who participated in this historic process are respected. I want to assure everyone we are working together with Senator Obama’s campaign and the DNC, and I am confident we will have a successful and unified Convention in Denver.
by Senator Clinton at 8/7/2008 1:21:17 PM
The only thing I am confident of, is that PUMAs will keep foghting as this is bigger than candidates and their little deals.
There’s one comment I need to bring up
The media had Obama standing on his plane ready for a Rapid Response to anything HIllary said. There was a response team ready to go on FOX… So what does that tell ya?
They’re listening to our BLOG RADIO TALK Show!!!!!
and the write-up
In the Web chat, one person asked Clinton directly: “Are you truly supporting Sen. Obama and encouraging your supporters to do the same or are you just saying what you have to?” Clinton insisted she was sincerely behind Obama.
with Obama balking on the roll call:
Obama said. One such issue is whether there will be a convention roll call on Clinton’s nomination, he said.
Maybe he learned from the last one that it will not be put up with
Here’s McCain’s ad
and here’s the response
“It’s downright sad that on a day when we learned that 51,000 Americans lost their jobs, a candidate for the presidency is spending all of his time and the powerful platform he has on these sorts of juvenile antics,” said spokesman Hari Sevugan. “Senator McCain can keep telling everyone how ‘proud’ he is of these political stunts which even his Republican friends and advisors have called ‘childish’, but Barack Obama will continue talking about his plan to jumpstart our economy by giving working families $1,000 of immediate relief.”
Somehow, I think McCain will get a kick out of “juvenile”
Now the racist accusation is withdrawn from the “Celerity” response as well – will B0bots follow?
“Let me be clear. In no way do I think that John McCain’s campaign was being racist. I think they are cynical. I think they want to distract people from talking about the real issues,” Obama said.
I remember seing this movie before…Surrogates will still pound the meme – like they did in the primary. or not?