Voting Rants and Raves

RAVE: Paper ballots! Major Cool! Hey Diebold: De-program THIS! Kentucky introduced the old lever voting machines just before I turned 18, so I've never voted on a paper ballot before. Wow, they even provide the pens. Optical scan machine reads the filled-in squares (what, no ovals?) This is SO cool. Makes me feel a connection to my grandmother, who turned 21 in 1919, and so was among the first women in the country who voted in the 1920 presidential election after the passage of the 19th Amendment.

RANT: Paper ballots? Hmmm. What if you accidentally fill in the wrong square and want to change your vote? At least with the machines you have a chance to review your votes and change them. And the scanning machine just ate my ballot and then waved a flag at me. How about a receipt?

RAVE: Line moved pretty quick - 15 people in front of me at 11:30 a.m. and I voted in 15 minutes. First time I ever saw a poster of "Voting Rights and Responsibilities." Somebody feeling some heat, maybe?

RANT: I TOLD you last year that if you elected a repug Secretary of State you'd regret it. After Attorney General Jack Conway posted "Election Rumor Control" that specifically said you could vote while wearing campaign clothes and buttons, I wore my Obama shirt and one large and three small buttons. And right on cue the precinct worker showing me the paper ballot took one look at my shirt and froze. I should have waited to hear what kind of racist, ignorant, repug stupidity she was about to spout, but instead I whipped out the copy of Conway's Rumor Control that I had brought with me and pointed to "... the wearing of campaign apparel such as hats, buttons, or shirts will not prevent a voter from voting." She started making excuses and I said it was HER responsibility to know the law, and shame on her for challenging me.

RAVE: I got challenged! Too bad she caved so quick; I had the Obama campaign's fast-response legal team on speed dial.

RANT: Middle-aged guy was there with two kids looking about 12 years old. White boy and biracial girl. Stupid fucker made them stand off to the side while he voted instead of letting them be a part of this once-in-a-lifetime election. PLEASE, if you have access to children, take them with you to vote! Let them push the button or fill in the square. Give them something to tell their great-grandchildren about.

Cross-posted at They Gave Us A Republic ....

There's more: "Voting Rants and Raves" >>

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid: The Right-Wing Lunatic Fringe Loves Palin

What was your reaction to John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his VP pick? Curiosity? Indifference? Bafflement?

The more one learns about Palin, the more afraid we progressives ought to be.

After all, a quick scan of the lunatic fringe blogosphere reveals that the wingnuts adore Palin. And anything that these nutcases cherish should be something that the rest of us fear and dread. (Remember, these are the same people who also love torture, illegal wars, and Constitution-shredding).

Palin's selection on Friday was predictably greeted with raves by the lunatic right-wing fringe.

On Friday, Michelle Malkin was among the wingnut bloggers cheering Palin's selection. And Malkin is about as crazy as they come on the right-wing fringe these days. As Glenn Greenwald noted, Malkin once wrote a book "defending the ethnicity-based imprisonment of innocent American citizens in internment camps."

Of Palin, Malkin wrote, "Yes, I’m impressed. Very impressed." Malkin also linked to a YouTube video showing Palin firing a military rifle. (Apparently that alone gets these wingnuts excited these days---which is curious, as most of them are chickenhawks who have never served).

Meanwhile, the wingnuts who run RightWingNews.com took time out from their busy schedule of bashing Obama and claiming global warming is a "hoax," to cheer Palin's selection. As one writer there noted, "I watched Sarah Palin's roll-out today and it was real home run. She has a great family, a great resume, and for the first time in more than a year, the crowd at a John McCain event seemed genuinely excited."

Hugh Hewitt over at Townhall.com was similarly enthused, as he raved about Palin in a piece titled, "An Extraordinary Choice." Reading his piece, one might think Palin was nothing less than the Second Coming of Ronald Reagan.

It's all rather interesting: the vast majority of America had never heard of Palin before Friday (and I'd suspect most wingnuts had never heard of her either). But now, they're suddenly falling all over themselves to assure us that she's a solid pick and has the credentials to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

There's more: "Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid: The Right-Wing Lunatic Fringe Loves Palin" >>

Whatever Happened to the Anger On the Left?

The past three decades have been a Right-Wing wet dream for America. The Republicans have gotten their way on virtually every single issue while the Democrats have meekly rolled over.

Which raises a question. Why are the Republicans so angry these days? And why are the Democrats so goddamn happy?

What do the Republicans have to be angry about, anyway? During most of the past three decades, they've controlled all the levers of power. And even when they didn't control the White House, they might as well as have, with Bill Clinton's "Republican Lite" policies.

The Republicans have gotten pretty much everything they've wanted: their tax cuts for the rich, their sweeping deregulation, their dismantling of the social safety net, their gutting of labor unions, their blood-for-oil wars, their shredding of the Constitution: you name it.

What's more, they blatantly stole the past two elections (and got away with it). And they're the one who are seething with anger these days?

And yet if you tune into Fox News or talk radio or the Right-Wing blogs these days, you encounter the most incredible seething anger and passion. Tune into just the first five minutes of unhinged Right-Wing nutcase Mark Levin's radio program sometime and you'll encounter more anger than a year's worth of reading Mother Jones or The Nation.

All I've got to say is: where can we on the Left get some of that anger to fire up our base?

After being screwed for 30 years by the New Right, you'd think the Left in this country would finally have built up some anger and passion. But instead, there seems to be way too much humor, fun and frivolity on our side these days. Even Mike Malloy's once incendiary radio program has mellowed out in recent months.

The Left could really use a few lessons from the the Republicans these days. The GOP is a master of rallying the troops by adopting a "take-no-prisoners" hard-line approach to politics. They're also good at rallying the base with a constant "siege mentality" that would have their supporters believe that the Left is on the verge of destroying America (ironic, when you consider who's really done all the damage to our nation in recent decades).

Democrats ought to enter a street fight with the GOP with the appropriate tools: a switchblade, a .38-caliber pistol, and a pair of brass knuckles. Instead, they bring nothing to the fight but good manners and a promise to fight fairly and by the rules. In a street fight, that approach loses every f*cking time---but the Dems appear to be incapable of grasping this basic fact.

Take Obama's current campaign strategy. He's vowed to take the high road and run a polite, dignified, no-slime campaign. McCain, on the other hand, is throwing everything he has at Obama. Day after day, McCain essentially calls Obama a traitor.

And McCain's slime is working. Obama's lead in the polls is now dangerously thin. And if recent U.S. election history repeats itself, Obama looks to be in real trouble by November.

Aren't any Democrats angry about all this? Nope. While the GOP is using angry fire-and-brimstone "All Liberals Are Traitors" rhetoric to fire up the troops, we're once again acting polite, sipping our tea, and minding our manners, smug in the belief that the nation couldn't possibly be so stupid as to vote for a third term of George W. Bush.

One thing I will give the Republicans credit for: they are angry, passionate and willing to fight tooth-and-claw for what they believe in. They fight dirty and even steal elections if they have to. And do you think they lose one second's worth of sleep over it? Don't bet on it.

And meanwhile, the Dems are smug, arrogant, and way, way too goddamn polite these days. We need to get angry for a change and start fighting fire with fire.

There's more: "Whatever Happened to the Anger On the Left?" >>

Right-Wing Web Embraces "N" Word In Attacking Obama

If anyone is under the delusion that America is a colorblind society, consider this: the Right-Wing Web has embraced the "N" word in its attacks on Barack Obama.

It's true: a lot of the major right-wing players, like Rush Limbaugh, have been careful to avoid the "N" word over the years. They've had to be creative in the way they dance around overtly racist language.

But a big part of the Right-Wing Web has no such qualms about embracing the "N" word in attacking Obama.

To see evidence of this, all you've got to do is Google the keywords: Nigger Obama. Google returns an astonishing 744,000 results. What's even more amazing about that number is that many Web hosters specifically forbid hate speech in their terms of service.

Among those Google results, one sees sites like NiggerObama.com, a site proclaims that itself aimed at "anyone who feels Obama would be a horrible choice for president of the United States."

The site features message boards like "Reparations For Slavery," which are full of posts like Picking up welfare check, not cotton, and Send 'em back to Africa.

Other sites include TheDailyNigger.com, a site with the slogan: "Liberal Media Dogs, Run For Cover!" The site bizarrely claims it is not an "anti-ethnic African site." But it features rambling posts and attacks on Obama, which include such observations as "Black American culture today is rampant with criminals, gangsters, prostitutes and cocaine."

If anyone is surprised by the Right Wing's embrace of the "N" word in attacking Obama, they really shouldn't be.

After all, racism in America has clearly been on the rise in the era of George W. Bush. It's hard to pinpoint exactly where this latest wave of bigotry emerged from----but I think one ominous sign occurred when Bush was campaigning for president in 2000.

If you recall, during the campaign, Bush made it a point to stop by Bob Jones University, where he praised the officials at that school (which incredibly still had a ban on interracial dating). This, no doubt, played real well to the "I don't want my white daughter dating a Negro" racist crowd---but the rest of us were shocked and appalled.

And although we were dismayed, we really weren't surprised. After all, anyone who has followed Bush's career certainly wasn't surprised by the Bob Jones University episode.

Those of us here in Texas remembered all too well the shocking 1998 lynching of James Byrd, Jr. which occurred when Bush was governor here.

In 1998, Byrd, a black man, was chained to a pickup by three white supremacists and dragged to his death in the town of Jasper, Texas.

In the aftermath of the Jasper lynching, a grass-roots effort in Texas urged the state to pass a hate crimes act to help prevent future atrocities. However, the bill failed to pass in the Texas Legislature after Bush refused to support the bill.

Since the Supreme Court appointed Bush to the White House in 2000, he has presided over a rising wave of bigotry and racism in America. (Indeed, in the 2000 election, one million black votes didn't count, as Greg Palast has documented).

Indeed, Bush and the rest of the NeoCons have exploited the issue of racism and turned it into a valuable wedge issue to capture the votes of millions of angry, frustrated white males in our society who feel victimized by affirmative action and "political correctness."

The fact is, bigotry sells in America today. It's the reason talk radio's Neal Boortz can have a lucrative career after saying that Rep. Cynthia McKinney "looks like a ghetto slut." It's the reason that CNN's Glenn Beck can get away with calling the predominately African-American victims of Hurricane Katrina "scumbags."

In Bush's America, African-Americans are incarcerated at vastly higher rates than whites. Studies show that black people get much harsher prison sentences than white people for doing identical crimes. Blatant racism permeates our justice system, our legal system, our schools---in fact, every American institution.

The appalling plight of poor black people in Bush's America was briefly brought to white, middle-class America's attention during the Hurricane Katrina crisis (but I doubt it came as much of a surprise to black people across America).

Given Bush's track record on race issues over the past seven years, we really shouldn't be surprised that the Right-Wing Web has embraced the "N" word in attacking Obama.

There's more: "Right-Wing Web Embraces "N" Word In Attacking Obama" >>

The answer to the Clinton and Obama nomination issue

[x-posted on The 2 Dollar Bill]

The round table discussion threw out the obvious solution on Meet the Press this morning when they suggested the following:

1. this is the history-shattering ticket, either singularly or combined.
   


2. both candidates have now received more primary votes than any other democratic candidate ever.
   


3. however, the votes are so close that it means only half the party (despite record numbers) has chosen either candidate. (Why does it seem like we've been through this before?). That is a lot of votes to lose if half of the democratic-leaning electorate isn't happy.
   


4. Glen Ifill mentioned that the Clinton campaign thinks that Clinton supporters are more likely to support Obama... than Obama supporters backing Clinton... pointing toward a stronger reason for Hillary to get the nod of last minute deciding super delegates.
   


5. if you drop Hillary from the ticket, what happens to the older generation female voters that are backing Clinton in large numbers? Do they go to McCain rather than Obama?
   


6. if you drop Obama from the ticket, what happens to the younger generation or independent voters who were exciting about a fresh start in government (the change voters)? Do they even vote at all?
   


7. Sam Brownstein said during an interview on the National Review Radio Show, Governor Ed Rendell (D-PA) suggested that the race
   
   

"is so close that whoever wins should have to offer the Vice-Presidency to the loser and the Party should pressure the loser to take it."

Here's my $2 worth:

this is the obvious answer. To maintain stability and progressive solutions in the Democratic party, the Party MUST combine the ticket.

The Party MUST pressure the runner-up to take the Vice Presidential nomination.

And the runner-up MUST play ball and take the consolation prize.

Besides, doesn't that set the stage... not just for 4 or 8 years of Democratic leadership... but perhaps 8, 12 or 16? Seems like a smart move either way.

There can be no mistakes with this ticket. Or else it will be back to square one if McCain takes the Oval Office.

You can watch the very interesting and thoughful conversation between Governor Rendell and Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD) below:

There's more: "The answer to the Clinton and Obama nomination issue" >>

About This Term "Bitch"

[x-posted on Corner of the Sky]

I am totally fed up with the gender bias in this country. Though many feel that women exaggerate when they complain about gender bias, our common language says otherwise. The current election is once again bringing this ugly bias to the forefront.

I am taking exception with this word, "bitch."

Recently on Saturday Night Live, Tina Fey made a brilliant pass at trying to put a positive spin on a hateful term. In her endorsement of Hillary Clinton, she coined the phrases "bitches get stuff done" and "bitch is the new black." She was referring to the criticism that Hillary is a bitch.

Folks, if you don't think calling a presidential candidate a "bitch" is a nasty little piece of gender bias, you need to wake up and smell the doggy doo. We have become a culture where it is acceptable to call a strong, assertive, definitive woman who knows what she wants and how to get it done a term that is synonymous with a female dog. A dog! For those that want to argue that in some contexts, "bitch" is not an insult, please answer some of the following questions. When have you ever told your female pastor that you really admire what a bitch she is? What about the last time you thanked your mother for raising you so well by being such an admirable bitch? No? Why not?

The truth is that when a man is strong, assertive, and definitive we call him powerful. We call him confident. We call him "Sir" and "Senator." When a woman is the same, we call her by her first name, we call her "Mrs." and we label her a bitch. Language is powerful. It conveys hidden attitudes and agendas that might not otherwise be revealed. This is true whether one is talking about hidden gender bias, racial bias, or a plethora of other things. Language is one of the most important communicators of attitude in the world.

In a world where we accept that racial slurs are not socially acceptable, we still relegate women to a role in which gender slurs are regularly condoned.

Powerful men are accused of corporate scandals and breaking the law. They get a slap on the wrist. Martha Stewart is accused of breaking the law, and she's a bitch. She goes to jail.

Let's call it like it is. Hillary Clinton is intelligent, articulate, assertive, confident, and capable. As much as I like dogs, this woman is no bitch.

--Sky Girl

There's more: "About This Term "Bitch"" >>

Iraq War Foes Should Take Heart: Hillary Clinton's New Hampshire Win Isn't End Of the World

In a shocker that all the highly paid political pundits missed by a mile, Hillary Clinton achieved a stunning upset in New Hampshire's Democratic primary Tuesday night.

To my fellow progressives: I'd like to remind everyone, Clinton's win is not the end of the world.

Don't get me wrong: Clinton is a sorry corporate sell-out and she did vote for the fiasco in Iraq. And if I had it my way, Michael Moore would be our next president (with Al Franken as vice president).

But let's be real, people: after eight horrifying years of George W. Bush in the White House, ANYONE new will be an improvement by a trillion light years. Hell, I'd even welcome back Dick Nixon with open arms, if it meant getting Bush out of the White House.


To the anti-war base on the Left, I say this: take heart. Sure, it'd be nice to have a strongly outspoken anti-war candidate in the White House, like John Edwards.

But look at it this way: the Iraq fiasco simply can't drag on much longer, no matter what our corrupt politicians in Washington want. The fact is, America is a bankrupt nation, with the biggest deficits of any country in history.

America can only "afford" the Iraq War's eye-popping $12 billion/month cost because China and Japan are loaning us the money. But it's unsustainable. History has shown time and again that bankrupt empires must eventually stop their wars of conquest.

Let's look at the bright side of things, people. One of the things I would enjoy the most about having Hillary Clinton in the White House is that it would drive the nutcase right-wing absolutely batshit.

Can you imagine the likes of Rush OxyMoron and that crazy Nazi nutcase Mark Levin in the aftermath of a Clinton victory? That alone would make a Clinton victory a pure pleasure.

I've heard some pundits argue that the GOP would really secretly prefer Hillary, if they had to have a Dem in the White House, simply because she's so pro-corporate and business-friendly. But these pundits are over-estimating the wisdom and depth of the Republicans. Talk to a wingnut sometime: these people really do despise Hillary with every fiber of their being.

And let's face it, we're not really ever going to get significant change in our rotten-to-the-core, corrupt political system, outside of armed revolt. When the People's Revolution comes, I'll be waiting on the barricades, ready to fight, along with millions of other fed-up working-class people. Until then, though, at least I can enjoy the spectacle of seeing the wingnuts have a heart attack over having Hillary in the White House.

At the end of the day, what's the most important lesson Dems can take from New Hampshire? It's this: nothing is set in stone in the 2008 election. I see too many Democrats who seem smug about re-taking the White House in 2008, simply because Bush has been such a disaster for America. But New Hampshire ought to show all of us that anything can happen and that nothing should be taken for granted in 2008.

By Marc McDonald of the progressive blog, BeggarsCanBeChoosers.com

There's more: "Iraq War Foes Should Take Heart: Hillary Clinton's New Hampshire Win Isn't End Of the World" >>