Friday, October 02, 2009
Boehner Said He's Never Heard from a Supporter of Public Option - 202-225-6205
From Jon Ponder, at Pensito Review:
House GOP Leader John Boehner (Ohio) told reporters yesterday that, based entirely on his empirical experience, there aren't any supporters of an optional government-run health-insurance plan. He said the government option is as "unpopular as a garlic milkshake." He also acknowledged that by making this claim, he was "inviting" the plan’s supporters to call him:
"I'm still trying to find the first American to talk to who’s in favor of the public option, other than a member of Congress or the administration. I've not talked to one, and I get to a lot of places and I've not had anyone come up to me — I know I'm inviting it — and lobby for the public option," Boehner said.
"This thing (the public option) is about as unpopular as a garlic milkshake," Boehner added, noting that he had not consumed such a milkshake.
As is usual for Bush-era Republicans, Boehner is either clueless or lying. Surely someone his staff has informed him that a Quinnipiac poll in Ohio two weeks ago found that Boehner’s home-staters are in favor of an optional government insurance plan, 57 percent to 35 percent.
Nationwide, the latest CBS News/New York Times poll found that 72 percent of Americans favor the government plan, while just 26 percent oppose it.
A SurveyUSA poll in late August found that 77 percent of Americans supported the government option.
If you're a supporter of the government plan, Leader Boehner needs to hear from you:
- Washington: 202-225-6205
- Butler County: 513-779-5400
- Miami County: 937-339-1524
From Pensito Review.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
With Misleading Obama Photo, Drudge Again Shows He's A Lying Sack of Sh*t
Yesterday, I was browsing a message board when I noticed that a lot of the wingnut participants were abuzz about a photo of President Obama at the G8 summit. At first glance, the photo appears to show Obama leering at the backside of a passing woman.
Immediately, I suspected there was more to the story. And one thing was definitely clear: I knew this photo must be the featured item at the Drudge Report. Any time the wingnuts are abuzz about the latest supposed Democratic "outrage" you can be sure where the story is generating buzz: Drudge, the online sewer pit that spews GOP lies and propaganda 24/7.
And, (as is the case with so much of what Drudge peddles as "news") it turns out this "story" is complete and utter bullsh*t. If you look at the video of the incident, as opposed to the misleading single photo Drudge peddled, it's clear that Obama wasn't leering at the woman at all. Instead, he's briefly glancing down at the steps, watching his footing, at he assists another woman who is descending the steps. To view the video, go here.
Although this "Obama-Leering-At-A-Woman's-Butt" photo has been debunked by ABC News, among others, Drudge continues to peddle this bullsh*t. As of 2:20 a.m. July 11, the misleading photo was still prominently featured as the lead "news item" at the top of the Drudge Report site, with accompanying news stories that offered sensational angles like "She's young enough to be his daughter." True, eventually, a small text link appeared with the headline: "ABCNEWS: No he didn't ..."
No doubt, all of Drudge's millions of visitors saw the prominent photo. It's unclear how many bothered to click the ABC story, which eventually appeared and which debunked this news "story."
And once again, Drudge has revealed himself to be a right-wing-propaganda-peddling, sack-of-shit liar.
Day after day (like right-wing talk radio), Drudge spews out the latest GOP talking points and propaganda. He is truly a sick, detestable, and evil man. If there is a God, then someday, people like him will roast in the flames of the deepest depths of hell.
Incidentally, the reason I despise people like Drudge has nothing to do with his wingnut, Bush-supporting, GOP politics. Instead, it everything to do with the fact that Drudge, like Limbaugh, is a fucking liar.
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Why Is The MSM Afraid Of Scrutinizing Rush Limbaugh?
The New York Times Magazine's recent ridiculous puff piece on Rush Limbaugh continues a trend in which the mainstream media has shied away from any serious scrutiny of the nation's top-rated talk radio host.
It's a courtesy that Limbaugh has never reciprocated. After all, Limbaugh spends day after day on his radio program, demonizing The New York Times in the harshest language imaginable. After listening to Limbaugh's ramblings, you might well be under the impression that the Times is working closely with Al-Qaeda.
But the Times is hardly alone in treating Limbaugh with kid gloves. For such a major celebrity, Limbaugh has never faced any sort of real scrutiny from the mainstream media in his two decades as a national radio star.
It wasn't the MSM, for example, that broke the 2003 story of how Limbaugh was being investigated in connection with illegally obtaining OxyContin. It was the tabloid media (specifically, the National Enquirer).
Amazingly, in 20 years, there has really only been one in-depth look at Limbaugh (and it didn't come from the MSM). It came from author Al Franken's 1996 book, Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot.
Franken's best-selling book exposed Limbaugh for the fraud he is. For the first time ever, the book brought to light Limbaugh's astonishing hypocrisy (such as the fact that he once collected government jobless benefits and the fact he never voted for GOP hero Ronald Reagan) as well as his crude, vicious hate speech (such as calling then 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton a "dog").
Big Fat Idiot also revealed how Limbaugh's program peddles outright lies and misinformation on a daily basis. Until Franken's book appeared, little of this information had ever been revealed to a broad audience, thanks to the MSM's silence.
Frankly, if the MSM had been doing its job, there would never have been a need for Franken's book in the first place. Readers appreciated Franken's job in exposing Limbaugh (sending Big Fat Idiot soaring to the top of the best-seller lists).
The MSM has always given Limbaugh a pass. To this day, he serves up a daily helping of outright lies, GOP propaganda and misinformation to his Ditto-Head audience of 14 million.
And Limbaugh isn't the only Right-Wing Hate Spewer treated with kid gloves by the MSM.
Recall how in 2005, Time magazine did a puff piece on Ann Coulter. The article's author, John Cloud, stunned many readers with his cover-story valentine to Coulter, as well as his contention that he "didn't find many outright Coulter errors" in her unhinged, rambling books. (In reality, watchdog sites like Media Matters have documented loads of outrageous lies in Coulter's shoddily researched writings).
And radio host Glenn Beck is yet another nutcase fringe right-wing extremist who gets a free pass from the MSM. In fact, in Beck's case, the MSM rewarded this hate-spewer with his own daily hour-long program on CNN's "Headline News." This, for a right-wing talk show host who once called Cindy Sheehan a "slut."
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Bush Has Been Selling Iraq War For 6 Years, But Americans Still Aren't Buying
Like a relentless salesman who won't take no for an answer, George W. Bush has been peddling the Iraq War for six years now. And the American people are still steadfastly refusing to buy Bush's case for war.
Bush and his Kool-Aid drinking followers seem genuinely baffled and hurt that the American people want the war ended now.
After all, they argue, in increasingly shrill tones, if we leave Iraq, then Al Qaeda will "win," and America will surely be hit with another 9/11 terrorist attack.
Pretty strong words. And yet they fail to sway the American people.
In fact, the American people simply don't believe Bush's bullsh*t about Iraq. They want the war ended now. They want the troops brought home. They're deeply unhappy with Bush's handling of the war. And Bush's approval ratings remain in the toilet.
Bush and his followers point the finger at countless suspects in trying to explain why the Iraq War remains so deeply unpopular with the American people.
It's the media's fault, they say. It's the liberal bloggers' fault. It's the Democrats' fault. It's the fault of the American people (who clearly don't see the threat the nation faces).
Bush has had enormous help in selling his war over the years. The mainstream media, which helped Bush sell the case for invading Iraq in the first place, has now gone to bat for Bush to sell the idea that the surge is a success (despite strong evidence that it's a failure). And even the military (which is supposed to be non-partisan) has stepped up to the plate to help Bush sell the surge.
What Bush and his followers have never grasped is that necessary wars don't have to be sold at all.
If a war is really essential, the American people have shown time and again that they will not only support it, but they will make whatever sacrifices are needed to achieve victory. They'll accept rationing. They'll accept higher taxes. They'll even line up to buy war bonds.
FDR never had to sell the war against the Axis Powers. The American people understood the necessity of World War II.
Back in 2003, Americans briefly were swayed by Bush's argument that we needed to invade Iraq. With the help of the corporate media, Bush hammered away the idea that Iraq had terrifying Weapons of Mass Destruction that posed a mortal threat to America.
At the time, a few rational voices were disputing Bush's case for war. We rejected the silly idea that a small, isolated Third World desert nation with no industry could somehow pose a threat to America. We even rejected the term "Weapons of Mass Destruction," which is a term that belongs in comic books, not in the real world.
Indeed, in the build-up to war, some of us were arguing that the real question wasn't whether the nation should invade Iraq. Instead, we were wondering what, exactly, American taxpayers had been getting in return for the trillions of dollars we'd sunk into the Pentagon money pit over the decades.
The Pentagon, apparently, couldn't protect America even though our nation spent more on defense than the rest of the world combined. What was wrong with this picture?
Fast-forward five years later and America is totally sick and tired of Bush's Iraq disaster. Not only is the Bush legacy in the toilet, but the Republican Party itself has been seriously wounded by the fiasco of the Bush years.
At this point, the only people who want the Iraq War to continue are Bush and his followers, and Al Qaeda. Although the MSM has done a poor job of reporting it, the fact is that U.S. intelligence has long believed that Al Qaeda wants the U.S. military to remain in Iraq.
It's no mystery why Al Qaeda wants the war to continue. After all, the Iraq War has been a fantastic boon to Al Qaeda. The photos from Abu Ghraib alone have done wonders for Al Qaeda recruitment. Countless young Muslim men have been radicalized by their anger over the bloodshed in Iraq.
Before the Iraq War, Bin Laden was regarded as an embarrassment to many moderate Muslims around the world. But since 2003, Bin Laden's stature and prestige has risen sharply in much of the Muslim world.
Bush's original reason for invading Iraq (the non-existent WMDs) turned out to be a fraud. Since then, Bush has tried to retroactively justify his war by coming up with numerous other reasons why the war was necessary.
The most contemptible and blatant lie Bush has peddled has been his insistence that the Iraq War is somehow connected to the 9/11 attacks and that U.S. withdrawal will lead to more such attacks.
Given such fear-mongering, it's quite remarkable that the American people continue to hold Bush in such low esteem. In effect, we the people are calling Bush a liar.
If the Iraq War was really necessary, Bush wouldn't need to lift a finger to sell it. Instead, selling the war has consumed his presidency.
If there's a silver lining to all this, it's that Iraq so consumed Bush that he was unable to spend as much time foisting his extreme radical right corporatist agenda on the American people.
Friday, February 08, 2008
Romney: U.S. Will "Surrender To Terror" If Dems Win White House
Mitt Romney's bid for the White House is over. And in his announcement that he was quitting, Romney gave us a glimpse of what certainly be the GOP's game plan in the run-up to November.
In a nutshell, it boils down to this: if Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama win, then the U.S. will "surrender to terror."
"Frankly, I'd be making it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win" if he stayed in the race, Romney said. "I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."
George W. Bush has spent the past 6 years trying to convince America that Iraq was somehow connected to the 9/11 terror attacks. And it's clear that the GOP will continue this theme, in increasingly alarmist tones, as it seeks to retain the White House.
During his bid for the White House, Romney deflected criticism over the fact that none of his five sons was serving in Iraq by saying that they still were serving the nation by supporting his campaign.
Now Romney's campaign is over. So when will any of his sons serve in Iraq? Romney ought to sit down and talk to his sons about the real meaning of patriotism, instead of engaging in fear-mongering and lying to the nation that a Dem win in November will somehow lead to a "surrender to terror."
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Now That Obama Has Praised Reagan, Will GOP Ever Have Any Kind Words For Clinton?
Barack Obama's recent words of praise for Ronald Reagan surprised a lot of progressives.
Some believe Obama was just being diplomatic. Others wonder if outraged progressives are simply over-reacting to Obama's remarks.
As for me, I just have one question: when will the Republicans reciprocate and have some kind words to say about Bill Clinton?
Of course, you know the answer as well as I do: When hell freezes over.
The fact is, the Republicans and their henchmen viciously attacked Bill Clinton every single day he was in office. And they have continued to relentlessly attack him every day since then. Indeed, Clinton is blamed by many Republicans for things that didn't even happen on his watch (such as 9/11).
And we're not just talking about personal attacks (like when GOP Rep. Dan Burton called Clinton a "scumbag" in 1998).
We're talking about whole series of vicious attacks, lies, distortions (and even threats) for which no Republican has ever retracted or apologized for. And a lot of these attacks ("Bill Clinton murdered Vince Foster!" "Bill Clinton is a rapist!" "Bill Clinton murdered Ron Brown!") have been repeated so many times that a lot of Republicans fervently believe them to this day.
In fact, in viewing a right-wing hatchet job like the infamous video, The Clinton Chronicles one would be under the impression that Clinton has a lot of blood on his hands, murdering anyone who got in his way.
One might think that such baseless, crazy charges against Clinton would have been limited to the nutcase right-wing fringe. But that, of course, wasn't the case. These wild charges were eagerly embraced by the likes of The Wall Street Journal which promoted The Clinton Chronicles on its editorial page and ran over 60 editorials discussing Foster's "mysterious" death.
And here, we are, a decade later and all of the crazy right-wing charges against Bill Clinton have been thoroughly debunked and exposed as bullsh*t lies.
And yet, has any Republican ever apologized for these hatchet jobs on Clinton? And what's more, has any Republican EVER had any kind words, whatsoever, to say about Bill Clinton?
Of course not. The Republicans continue to viciously attack Clinton, even as they tune up the Great GOP Slime Machine to go after Hillary.
When Obama had kind words to say about Reagan, it was clear that he was being diplomatic. But if he (or any Democrat) is ever expecting the Republicans to reciprocate in any way, they will be in for a long, long wait.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Wingnut Blogs Claim Black Voter Disenfranchisement In 2000 Election Never Happened
Wingnut blog Flopping Aces, among others, is disputing the Democrats' "false accusations" that the Bush campaign tried to disenfranchise black voters in Florida in 2000.
The Kool-Aid-drinking wingnuts have been working overtime the past few years, trying to rewrite history, as they claim that the GOP theft of the 2000 election never happened.
But as the ace investigative reporter Greg Palast has documented, an incredible 1 million black votes didn't count in the 2000 presidential election.
Now, I don't know about you, but if I'm seeking The Truth and I have a choice, I'm going to go with a widely acclaimed, world-class investigative journalist with a stellar track record before I'm going to rely on a hack, partisan, Bush-ass-kissing blog. But that's just me.
As Palast points out:
The U.S. Civil Rights Commission looked into the smelly pile of spoiled ballots and concluded that, of the 179,855 ballots invalidated by Florida officials, 53 percent were cast by black voters. In Florida, a black citizen was 10 times as likely to have a vote rejected as a white voter.
Remember, Bush "defeated" Gore in Florida by razor-thin 537 votes.
In case anyone is wondering if the Bush Crime Family really had anything to do with all this, keep this in mind: Palast notes that he "discovered that technicians had warned Gov. Jeb Bush's office well in advance of November 2000 of the racial bend in the vote-count procedures."
Palast continues, "It's not surprising that the First Brother's team, informed of impending rejection of black ballots, looked away and whistled."
But now wingnut sites like Flopping Aces are trying to rewrite history.
I have no doubt that the GOP and its allies will once again try to steal the vote in 2008. We need to do everything in our power to prevent this from happening---and if it does happen, we need to take to the streets and remove this illegitimate government by force.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]