By Hanlon, on October 13th, 2008 at 10:32 PM
 The amount of a hack someone is is inversely proportionate to how much their arguments make sense. This is why the likes of a Buckley or (occasionally) Scarborough may anger me for their viewpoints, they aren’t hacks. When they make their points, you can follow them. Not so for this idiot over on CNN who is, no joke, trying to draw a line between Bush and Obama. Really.
The items on the list are sometimes legitimate (of which there are very few):
10. Gay marriage: Both Obama and Bush agree that marriage is and should remain between one man and one woman. As far back as 2004, Obama said: “Gays … should not marry.” And in a 2007 Senate debate, he said: “I agree with most Americans, with Democrats and Republicans, with Vice President Cheney, with over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage, as they always have, should be left to the states. … Personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.”
This just pisses me off, frankly, but as we’re still in a culture that has people insisting religion be a part of government I suppose I’m going to have to bite the bullet on it. Ideally it wouldn’t matter if a million religious leaders thought something, their opinion is worthless in terms of governance.
Read More ->
The amount of a hack someone is is inversely proportionate to how much their arguments make sense. This is why the likes of a Buckley or (occasionally) Scarborough may anger me for their viewpoints, they aren’t hacks. When they make their points, you can follow them. Not so for this idiot over on CNN who is, no joke, trying to draw a line between Bush and Obama. Really.
The items on the list are sometimes legitimate (of which there are very few):
10. Gay marriage: Both Obama and Bush agree that marriage is and should remain between one man and one woman. As far back as 2004, Obama said: “Gays … should not marry.” And in a 2007 Senate debate, he said: “I agree with most Americans, with Democrats and Republicans, with Vice President Cheney, with over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage, as they always have, should be left to the states. … Personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.”
This just pisses me off, frankly, but as we’re still in a culture that has people insisting religion be a part of government I suppose I’m going to have to bite the bullet on it. Ideally it wouldn’t matter if a million religious leaders thought something, their opinion is worthless in terms of governance.
Read More ->
By Hanlon, on October 13th, 2008 at 07:07 PM
Que sorpresa.
The beleaguered Democratic-leaning community group Acorn sends over this photograph: John McCain, in March of 2006, sitting beside Florida Rep. Kendrick Meek at an event Acorn co-sponsored in Florida.
The immigration event, which other photos show was packed with red-shirted Acorn member, was co-sponsored by the local Catholic Archdiocese, the SEIU, and other groups.
McCain, still spiting much of his party on immigration at the time, was the headliner.
Bertha Lewis, Acorn’s chief organizer, said in a statement that came with the photo, “It has deeply saddened us to see Senator McCain abandon his historic support for ACORN and our efforts to support the goals of low-income Americans.”
”We are sure that the extremists he is trying to get into a froth will be even more excited to learn that John McCain stood shoulder to shoulder with ACORN, at an ACORN co-sponsored event, to promote immigration reform,” she said.
By Hanlon, on October 13th, 2008 at 06:13 PM
 The rule of thumb is that no one cares about the crazy priest when we’re talking the Republican party, so I’m sure tomorrow this story will vanish, but really. This guy fails at life in about ten different directions. Check this out from a recent McCain rally from Rev. Arnold Conrad.
I would also pray Lord that your reputation is involved in all that happens between now and November, because there are millions of people around this world praying to their God — whether it’s Hindu, Buddha, Allah — that his [McCain’s] opponent wins for a variety of reasons.
And Lord I pray that you would guard your own reputation, because they’re going to think that their god is bigger than you, if that happens. So I pray that you would step forward and honor your own name in all that happens between now and Election Day.
Oh Lord, we just commit this time to you, move among us, make your presence very well felt as we are gathered here today in Jesus’s name I pray.
First off, I didn’t know “Hindu” was a deity like Buddha and Allah. So watch out, there’s a lot of people praying to Hindu for Obama to win, and there’s like eighty billion of those people.
Secondly, this is why prayer is stupid. This guy is asking the Lord God Himself to intervene in the election to protect his reputation. I’m assuming he thinks God doesn’t care about democracy, but the real noodle-scratcher is what happens when Obama wins. Is Rev. Conrad going to think God wasn’t able to “guard his reputation”, or that he chose not to?
Finally, it really cracks me up that his reasoning isn’t that McCain would be more godly or that Obama is in any way un-godly, no. He’s just having a theological dick-waving contest and seems to think God was upstairs playing Medal of Honor and didn’t realize some people don’t worship him, and if this brown dude wins it means people won’t like him or something. I don’t know, sometimes it’s hard to wade through the river of stupid these people spill.
By Hanlon, on October 13th, 2008 at 03:13 PM
Best nugget of wisdom I’ve heard in a while.
“We’ve got them right where we want ‘em. WINNING. Because Republicans always put country first!”
That is how damn selfless McCain is. He really will sacrifice his campaign if it means saving the country.
By Hanlon, on October 13th, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Eschewing his announced discussion on the economy, McCain decided to just hammer on Obama some more. Excerpt from the speech:
“The national media has written us off.,” McCain says in excerpts released by the campaign. “Sen. Obama is measuring the drapes and planning with Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Reid to raise taxes, increase spending, take away your right to vote by secret ballot in labor elections and concede defeat in Iraq. But they forgot to let you decide. My friends, we’ve got them just where we want them.”
Sound familiar? Well here’s Dubya in October of 2006:
“The Democrats have made a lot of predictions. Matter of fact, I think they may be measuring the drapes,” Bush said yesterday to laughs at a Sarasota, Fla., fund-raiser for GOP House hopeful Vern Buchanan.
I’ll tell ya, I just can’t imagine why people keep insisting that there’s any similarity between these two guys…
Oh and what the hell does “we’ve got them just where we want them” mean in this context? McCain is behind in every national tracker and the electoral college is shaping up to be a 1984-style landslide. Does he actually think anyone will believe that he purposefully fell this far behind for some reason? Talk about going into panic mode.
By Hanlon, on October 13th, 2008 at 11:14 AM
 Overnight, the group the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now became a household word, mostly as the acronym ACORN. Out of nowhere, Obama’s association with the group and their “dirty tricks” has been distracting people by making them think they suddenly know the scoop on Obama.
ACORN, tired of this crap, finally hits back with a handy-dandy list of why these attacks hold no water. Now, it’s always the case that a group being put in a negative light will defend itself and when we’re talking about whether or not they did anything wrong, you can’t just take their claims at face value. But I’d like to appeal to logic by pointing out this part:
2. Any large voter registration operation will have a small percentage of workers who turn in bogus registration forms, Their goal clearly is not to cast a fraudulent vote. It is simply to defraud their employer, ACORN, by getting a paycheck without earning it. ACORN is the victim of this fraud – not the perpetrator.
…
4. This has nothing to do with “voter fraud” – nothing at all to do with anyone trying to cast an extra vote. There has never been a single reported instance in which bogus registration forms have led to anyone voting improperly. To do that, they would have to show up at the polls, prove their identity as all first-time registrants must, and risk jail. The people who turned in these forms did so not because they wanted an extra vote, but because they didn’t care enough to make sure eligible people got to vote at all.
That is the key. Michelle Malkin has taken the ACORN thing and run like a maniac with it, linking to a video of some kid saying he registered to vote over 70 times and got paid each time. Apparently this is proof of something or other.
Problem with the accusation: he’s not gonna vote 70+ times. It’s hard enough to get people to vote once, let alone a few dozen times. You gotta get in line each time, present your ID, and hope that the electronic machine doesn’t toss your ballot out the window. Think about how much of a pain it is to vote, now try and imagine doing it 2, 5, or 50 times. Would it happen? No way.
ACORN has 13,000 employees and there’s always the possibility of a few street agents doing something stupid. The take home though is that any multi-registrants simply won’t be voting more than once. That kind of voter fraud has never, never been recorded. You can’t find evidence of people trying to vote multiple times because there’s just no way to do it unless you have a handful of fake IDs and somehow each of them got registered.
At worst, some ACORN employees convinced people to register multiple times so they could tell the people back at the office that “I registered 500 people today”. To make the claim that ACORN is trying to get people registered multiple times in order to commit voter fraud is just absurd and frankly assumes a level of determination that anyone who needs ACORN to pay them to register just isn’t going to have.
By Hanlon, on October 13th, 2008 at 10:43 AM
 I like timelines. They help organize things. So let’s go over this one piece by piece.
October 6-10: At varying rallies, supporters of McCain and Palin shout things like “kill him”, “bomb Obama”, and “terrorist” when either of the candidates bring up the Democratic Senator.
October 10: Obama responds not by blaming the people, but chastising McCain for fostering that attitude amongst his supporters, saying “it’s not hard to rile up a crowd by stoking anger and division.”
Slightly later on October 10: Defending their acidic supporters, McCain’s senior advisor Nicole Wallace made the claim that he was attacking their supporters, saying “Barack Obama’s assault on our supporters is insulting and unsurprising,” and bringing up the ‘bitter’ comments again.
October 12: In an odd reversal, McCain campaign manager Rick Davis now distances the camp from the racist supporters, even suggesting that they aren’t real supporters at all, and that they were sent to disrupt the rallies, further saying that “if you compared the rhetoric of Barack Obama on a daily basis with the rhetoric of John McCain and Sarah Palin, you’ll find that our rhetoric pales in comparison to what Barack Obama says about John McCain every day.”
So first it’s an insult to the supports, then maybe they aren’t supporters at all and it can’t be McCain’s fault because Obama’s rhetoric is way worse.
This is absolute BS. There hasn’t been a single attack on McCain or Palin uttered by anyone involved with the Obama campaign that even comes close to “Obama pals around with terrorists”. There’s not one Obama ad nearly as dishonest and vicious as McCain’s ad asserting that Obama wanted to teach sex ed to kindergarteners. McCain’s campaign has become so dishonest and mean-spirited even Republicans are turning away, while the worst Obama can be accused of is “talking about the Keating Five.”
Tip: when you continually say your opponent is friends with domestic terrorists and that he wants to teach five year olds about condoms, it indeed is your fault when your supporters go off the deep end.
By Hanlon, on October 13th, 2008 at 12:45 AM
Damn.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMegXF5UJW8
This is what we call the classic wingnut ideologue response to failure. Notice how in the midst of calling the campaign “stupid”, accusing them of “flailing”, he makes sure to point out that the failure has nothing to do with people not liking McCain, but rather he’s just campaigning poorly.
There’s truth in that, but it’s not like Obama’s gone around making things up about McCain. At worst you can say he’s bending the truth about tax proposals. That’s about the best ya got. The fact is McCain is angry, he’s erratic, he’s a loyal Bushie who’s sold his soul to get elected, he’s been a champion for deregulation that resulted in two financial crisises, and people aren’t responding favorably to it.
And Kristol’s comment about “why is Rick Davis on TV and not Palin?” is amusing coming from his side. If he’s paid attention, he’d have figured out that Palin’s numbers tank with every interview she does. The question of “why doesn’t Sarah Palin get on TV more?” is something us libs say to poke fun at the fact that the McCain camp knows she sounds like a bumbling idiot every time she gets asked a question harder than “how does it feel to be running for Vice President?”
|
|
|
