Those awful, obnoxious, hateful right-wing Irish-Americans

By Michael J.W. Stickings

With St. Patrick's Day coming tomorrow, this piece by Salon's Andrew O'Hehir -- "How did Irish-Americans get so disgusting?" -- is definitely worth a read. Key point:

[T]he end of the IRA's guerrilla war had a less salubrious effect on the Irish-American population, and I say that in full awareness that on the surface that's an offensive statement. What I mean is that the last connection between Irish-American identity and genuine history was severed, and all we're left with now is a fading and largely bogus afterlife. On one hand, Irishness is a nonspecific global brand of pseudo-old pubs, watered-down Guinness, "Celtic" tattoos and vague New Age spirituality, designed to make white people feel faintly cool without doing any of the hard work of actually learning anything. On the other, it's Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Pat Buchanan and Rep. Peter King, Long Island's longtime Republican congressman (and IRA supporter), consistently representing the most stereotypical grade of racist, xenophobic, small-minded, right-wing Irish-American intolerance. When you think of the face of white rage in America, it belongs to a red-faced Irish dude on Fox News.

Well, yes. Irishness is certainly more than that, but those two sides of it are rather prominent, to say the least, in Irish-American circles. (I say this not as an Irish-American but as an English-Canadian, though with a fair amount of Irishness in me as well.)

Ireland itself is a beautiful place in many ways, and there is of course much to recommend it, along with its inhabitants. (There is even something to recommend Irish republicanism, if not so much its manifestation in terroristic violence, much of it paid for by Irish-Americans.) But as is so often the case, there is a world of difference between the homeland and the diaspora, and it's certainly fair to point to the elements of Irishness that have become the unfortunate realities of its manifestation in America.

And when it comes to the political stereotype, as represented in right-wingers like O'Reilly, Hannity, and so many others, it's just insane. New Irish immigrants were the targets of vicious discrimination and bigotry, after all. They fled famine back in the homeland but also oppression -- a famine created by oppression, oppression that denied them dignity as well as self-governance. In America, as in so many other parts of the "New" World, they found, at long last, freedom, once the discrimination and bigotry ran their course. And yet now a huge swath of Irish-Americanism is very much what O'Hehir describes: racist, xenophobic, small-minded, intolerant. For the likes of O'Reilly and Hannity, it's like they learned nothing, or perhaps learned that what was done to them could be done to others by them. And so they ban gays from their parades when not so long ago they were denied jobs and treated with contempt by the English majority in America.

The tattoos and spirituality, the outward appearance of some mystic Irishness with nothing to back it up, are mostly just banal and silly. It's the vicious right-wing ideology and partisanism that is so much worse, that impacts so horribly on other people's lives, that is such a stain of hypocrisy on those who practise it, that is the stereotype, rooted in reality, that good and decent Irish-Americans should wish to toss in the dustbin of history.

Quote of the day

By Mustang Bobby

Pat Buchanan, frequent guest on MSNBC, defending accused mass murderer Anders Breivik:

As for a climactic conflict between a once-Christian West and an Islamic world that is growing in numbers and advancing inexorably into Europe for the third time in 14 centuries, on this one, Breivik may be right.

And MSNBC dropped Cenk Uygur because they didn't like his "tone"?

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

It never ends: Racism, Birtherism, and Barack Obama

By Mustang Bobby 

It doesn't matter if it's Winston from Alabama or Donald Trump or Pat Buchanan, there is always going to be a segment of America that will never accept the fact that Barack Obama was born in the United States, grew up and went to college, including Harvard, and then was elected president. They will continue to say that all he has to do is produce the evidence, and they'll be quiet, but the truth is that no amount of facts or proof will satisfy them, and every time more evidence is produced, they'll say it isn't good enough.

There's a very simple reason for this, and we all know what it is, even if Chris Matthews or Mike Signorile is too polite to say it: it's because Barack Obama is black.

That's it. Nothing else. Period. The End. I really don't understand why we keep dancing around it, and although I know that folks like Mr. Trump and Mr. Buchanan have a reputation for, as Howard Cosell use to say, "telling it like it is," they seem reticent to come out and say that they just don't believe that a black man is capable of being admitted to Ivy League colleges or elected to office without some kind of special treatment or affirmative action. They believe so strongly that the system in America is geared towards the white straight man that it is clearly impossible for anyone else to achieve success on their own.

There really isn't any point in arguing with them or trying to prove them wrong. Like Winston from Alabama, nothing you say will convince them. Chris Matthews and all the rest of the pundits are too polite -- and too much entrenched -- to call out Mr. Trump or Mr. Buchanan for their racism, and so they just leave it out there for the rest of us to ponder. And it will never end. If it wasn't Barack Obama, it would be Hillary Clinton, or Colin Powell or even Michael Steele who got where they did by means other than the usual route of working hard and getting into college and getting a job just like the white kid from Westchester.

So clearly Barack Obama had help, either by violating the Temporal Prime Directive and going back to August 1961 and planting false records in the Honolulu newspapers to say he was born there, and then jumping ahead to get him into Columbia and Harvard without anyone knowing him at those schools -- the subtext there is that those places are so lily-white that a black student would garner attention -- or that he brilliantly bought off everyone ever connected with any of those places to plant him in the right place at the right time.

But if he's so smart and rich, there has to be someone else pulling the strings; no black man could come up with such a plan on his own. So who's really in charge? Ah, that's the conspiracy...

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

L'affaire Olbermann

By Michael J.W. Stickings

UPDATED HERE: Olbermann will be back on the air on Tuesday.

**********

I don't really have much to say about MSNBC's suspension of Keith Olbermann for contributing money to Democratic candidates. Obviously, it's ridiculous. Here are a few points:

1) As Think Progress has noted, MSNBC, as part of NBC, may soon be taken over by Comcast. The deal is currently awaiting regulatory approval from the FCC. Comcast's COO, Steve Burke, who will be in charge of MSNBC (along with other NBC companies), was a Bush fundraiser.

2) Olbermann supposed broke NBC rules in doing what he did. As Think Progress has also noted, however:

[C]onservative MSNBC host Joe Scarborough has donated to Republican candidates for Congress while promoting the same candidate on air, but has never been disciplined. Moreover, Gawker notes that MSNBC has been exempt from the formal NBC ethics rules for years. It is still a mystery why MSNBC selectively applied NBC's ethics rules to Olbermann.

3) Scarborough is hardly alone. Another major MSNBC figure, Pat Buchanan, has donated to Republican candidates -- and was, of course, a leading Republican.

4) As Politico has reported, what Olbermann did is pretty common on the cable news networks, whether it's Hannity on Fox News or Begala on CNN. And, of course, Fox News is unabashedly partisan. (Obviously, it behooves MSNBC to hold itself to higher standards than Fox News, but Olbermann is an opinion journalist, a pundit with a TV show, not an anchor or reporter, and we all know where he's coming from politically. We don't expect non-partisanship from him, we don't want non-partisanship from him, so who cares if he donates to political candidates? How does this impact his credibility? (It doesn't, at all.)

5) Suspension -- and, worse, suspension without pay -- seems awfully harsh, not least given what others at the network have done? Why is Olbermann being made an example of? Why is he being treated more harshly than others? One cannot help but suspect some ulterior political motive. As Steve Benen writes, "an indefinite suspension without pay seems way over the top under the circumstances. We are, after all, talking about three checks -- one each for three candidates. As we talked about earlier, the MSNBC host's donations were made in his personal capacity; he disclosed his contributions; and he never encouraged others to support these campaigns." Furthermore, Steve continues, MSNBC claims that such rules are necessary "because political activities may 'jeopardize [employees'] standing as an impartial journalist.' But therein lies the point -- those who watch Olbermann are well aware of his politics. Psst -- no one considers him 'impartial.'" No kidding.

6) MSNBC suspends Olbermann but has no problem putting Buchanan on the air? It's not just that the guy's a crazy pitchfork populist of the far right, it's that he's a WWII/Holocaust revisionist, a racist, a nativist, and a Hitler apologist. How is this acceptable?

7) Even Krazy Bill Kristol thinks MSNBC is in the wrong:

MSNBC's suspension of Keith Olbermann is ludicrous.

First, he donated money to candidates he liked. He didn't take money, or favors, in a way that influenced his reporting.

Second, he's not a reporter. It's an opinion show. If Olbermann wants to put his money where his mouth is, more power to him.

Third, GE, the corporate parent of MSNBC, gives money to political organizations. GE executives and, I'm sure, NBC executives give money. Why can't Olbermann?

Perhaps Olbermann violated NBC News "policy and standards." But NBC doesn't have real news standards for MSNBC -- otherwise the channel wouldn't exist. It's a little strange to get all high and mighty now.

But there's now a Republican House, and perhaps GE is trying to curry favor by dumping Olbermann?

Republicans of the world, show you believe in the free expression of opinion! Tell the crony corporatists at NBC -- keep Keith!

I can't remember the last time I agreed with Kristol -- except for his jab at MSNBC for not having "real news standards." Surely, even as a mostly opinion-oriented network, it can have "real news standards" for some of its programming/content, whatever "real" means. Besides, it is also ludicrous to suggest that there is equivalency between MSNBC and Fox News. Yes, MSNBC is generally liberal in terms of its opinion programming, but it's not nearly as partisan as Fox News, which is effectively an organ of the Republican Party.

Of course, Kristol has a partisan agenda. He always does. As Steve M. of NMMNB explains:

Yeah, right. More like: Republicans of the world, don't let MSNBC actually fire Keith -- what if that starts a media-wide craze for holding political talking heads to higher standards? How do we then keep Karl Rove, whose organization basically replaced the RNC as a fund-raising arm of the GOP, on the air at Fox, not to mention practically all the A-list Republican presidential candidates? How do we justify everything else Fox and its hosts do to enrich the GOP and Republican-linked groups, including the tea party movement (which, last time I looked, was 99% Republican, if not 100%)?

I think Kristol's worried about nothing -- no one ever holds Republicans to standards like this. But I'm sure he's doing this out of group self-interest, not out of any sense of fairness or generosity of spirit.

I agree, but that doesn't make him wrong about Olbermann.

Basically, I have no problem with Olbermann giving money to Democratic candidates, but we should also expose everything Fox News does to support Republican and conservative causes -- remember, for example, when News Corp. gave $1 million to the Republican Governors Association? (As Steve Benen wrote prior to the suspension, "[t]here's a reasonable debate to be had over the propriety of media professionals donating to political candidates," just as there is, I would add, over the partisanization of journalism generally, but let's not start by making Olbermann a scapegoat while this sort of thing goes on all the time, especially at Fox News.)

Anyway, if CNN knew what was good for it, it would try to hire Olbermann and Maddow away from MSNBC as quickly as possible and reinvent itself as a reality-based alternative to Fox News. But it won't, of course, and ultimately, I suspect, Olbermann will be back on Countdown sooner rather than later. This is not just a terrible and hypocritical move, after all, but a possibly suicidal one for MSNBC. Thankfully, there are many voices of reason, including some that are usually so unreasonable, rising up in opposition to the suspension and in support of one of our mow important political commentators.

A station wagon full of nuns

By Distributorcap

You would think by now, most same people wouldn't be surprised by the gems that come out of Pat Buchanan's mouth. Yesterday good old grumpy Uncle Pat proved that he still has one more sparkling commentary in him that is both purely disgusting and insanely moronic at the same time. In his latest piece of "deep thought," Pat (on his blog) writes the following (barf bags supplied upon request):

Indeed, of the last seven justices nominated by Democrats JFK, LBJ, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, one was black, Marshall; one was Puerto Rican, Sonia Sotomayor. The other five were Jews: Arthur Goldberg, Abe Fortas, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.

If Kagan is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than 2 percent of the U.S. population, will have 33 percent of the Supreme Court seats.

Is this the Democrats' idea of diversity?

Pat, your thoughtful words have proven once again you have an uncanny ability to explain the nuances of diversity. Let's put some Pat-math to all your insight. Using a simple algorithm, the above list comes to (excuse me for the language) 5 kikes, a spic and a nigger. With all this hard work Pat, you are being awarded the prestigious James Watt Memorial Medal for Diversity. For not since Mr. Watt uttered the line "...a black, a woman, two Jews and a cripple" as Secretary of the Interior under St. Ronnie, has anyone come close to describing the nuances of "government for the people." Despite the fact that the Democratic choices are one woman over, a little heavy on the Jews and missing the cripple, your foresight into the inner workings of how the Democrats practice diversity are (like hand grenades and horseshoes), close enough for the win.

Pat then drivels on about the religion of the Supreme Court nominations from his hero (and employer, and anti-Semite) Richard Nixon through Bush the Younger.

George W. Bush chose John Roberts, a Catholic; Harriet Miers, the first Evangelical Christian of our era; and Sam Alito, the second Italian Catholic.

Racism has to be hard-wired in some people. Like most other hard-right conservative brainless wonders (Sarah Palin and her belief in the divine right of this as a Christian nation, quickly comes to mind), Pat probably hasn't taken a look at the parts of the Constitution that they want to pretend do not exist - like Article VI:

...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

This wasn't Pat's first step into the dogshit of conservative hate mongering. Earlier in the week Pat was very proud of his knowledge that women who play softball are of a certain ilk.

Women's softball has been associated with lesbians and being gay for a long time. That's sort a signal like two men sunbathing together on a beach or something like that. The immediate implication is that they're gay.

And only last summer, when Sonia Sotomayor was nominated to the bench by Presidnet Obama, Pat brought this previously unknown fact of history to life:

White men were 100% of the people that wrote the Constitution, 100% of the people that signed the Declaration of Independence, 100% of the people who died at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, probably close to 100% of the people who died at Normandy. This has been a country built basically by white folks.

An empty mind is truly the playground for people like Pat.

While Pat is railing on about the Supreme Court now being 33% Jewish (and 33% women, and 33% from New York - two other facts that must make his blood boil), he doesn't seem to care that the other 6 justices are all Catholic. That is 67% of the court in a country that is 25% Catholic. I call that diversity. However Pat should be relieved to know that 44% of the SCOTUS is comprised of scary activist wingnut morons -- Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia -- about the same as the make-up of the country today. (What is very troubling is the fact 100% of the Supreme Court is tied to Harvard or Yale).

Maybe if Congress uses the Kagan hearings as the latest incarnation of the Inquisition, Pat would be a bit less ornery. While it is not for me to say if there are too many Jews, Catholics, softball players, New Yorkers or Coca-Cola drinkers on the Supreme Court, I will say there are way too many people like Pat Buchanan on the planet.

As for the station wagon full of nuns, when Archie Bunker gets into a car accident and "hurts" his back, he thinks he can sue and collect. Archie searches the phone book for the best Jewish lawyer and hires the firm of Rabinowitz, Rabinowitz and Rabinowitz. At first he protests when he gets one of the "gentile" lawyers in the firm. When he finally gets one of the Rabinowitzes, the elderly lawyer refuses the case because but there is a "station wagon full of nuns" that will prove Archie is lying about what happened.

I guess to the right, the Supreme Court needs to be Archie Bunker's station wagon full of nuns.

Lou Dobbs leaves CNN

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Lou Dobbs, nativist xenophobe extraordinaire (if still less noxious than Pat Buchanan), announced tonight that he will be leaving CNN, effective immediately.

As far as I'm concerned, it should have been effective years ago, long before he became an icon of fearmongering, back when he was still a newsman. (He was actually one of CNN's original anchors.)

Not that I care all that much about CNN, as I wrote a couple of weeks ago in a post on how even Geraldo Rivera and John Stossel think Dobbs is crazy, but it has been rather troubling that Dobbs has been able to call a major cable news network, ratings woes aside, his home, and even more troubling that that home, which is supposed to be, or at least claims to be, a news network that actually cares about reporting the news and not just about spewing partisan, ideological spin, that is, something other than Fox News, provided him with such a prominent platform, and with a bullhorn, for so long. Shame on CNN, though we should have learned a long time ago not to expect much from it.

But what does it matter? We haven't heard the last of Dobbs.

This move may boost CNN's credibility, but, in the grand scheme of things, not much will change. Dobbs will just find a new home with a similar platform, a similar bullhorn, and outrageous pay. However much we may wish it were otherwise, after all, his brand of right-wing, protectionist populism with an independent twist still plays well. Where a fascist like Pat Buchanan talks up the Nazis, Dobbs at least seems to care about jobs and the plight of the American working class. Beyond his extremist niche, Buchanan is widely reviled, or at least seen as an insignificant fool not worth paying much attention to. Dobbs holds repugnant views on immigration, but his populism is generally palatable to a wide swathe of the American people, more so than ever given the current economic climate.

Where will he go? Fox News makes the most sense, even if Rivera admirably continues to campaign against him. No, he is neither Christianist theocrat nor Ayn Rand disciple, the two types that rule the right these days, but his populism fits in well there, and there will be an audience for him. If not there, though, somewhere else, for some media outlet will decide that, whether it agrees with him or not, he's worth it.

Regardless, Dobbs went out tonight in a blaze of bullshit:

Over the past six months, it has become increasingly clear that strong winds of change have begun buffeting this country and affecting all of us, and some leaders in media, politics and business have been urging me to go beyond the role here at CNN and to engage in constructive problem-solving as well as to contribute positively to a better understanding of the great issues of our day and to continue to do so in the most honest and direct language possible.

Yes, I suppose there is the possibility that Dobbs will throw his hat into the political arena, and I'm sure he'd find a good deal of support there.

I would only point out that those "strong winds of change" aren't exactly blowing at his back. Dobbs plays to the darker part of America, the part where fear and hatred rule, where nativism is a leading virtue, and where "constructive problem-solving" involves targeting Mexicans and other foreigners and blaming the Other, both internal and external, as the cause of all ills.

Call me a naive optimist, but I just don't think the world is going in that direction. Some of it is, yes, without doubt -- just watch Fox News or listen to the Republican Party -- but as long as Dobbs and those like him continue to be given prominent positions on the media and political landscape, all they'll be are obstacles to progress.

(Photo: MSNBC.)

Traditional Americans

By Mustang Bobby

Pat Buchanan bemoans the plight of White America:

In their lifetimes, they have seen their Christian faith purged from schools their taxes paid for, and mocked in movies and on TV. They have seen their factories shuttered in the thousands and their jobs outsourced in the millions to Mexico and China. They have seen trillions of tax dollars go for Great Society programs, but have seen no Great Society, only rising crime, illegitimacy, drug use and dropout rates.

They watch on cable TV as illegal aliens walk into their country, are rewarded with free educations and health care and take jobs at lower pay than American families can live on – then carry Mexican flags in American cities and demand U.S. citizenship.

They see Wall Street banks bailed out as they sweat their next paycheck, then read that bank profits are soaring, and the big bonuses for the brilliant bankers are back. Neither they nor their kids ever benefited from affirmative action, unlike Barack and Michelle Obama.

They see a government in Washington that cannot balance its books, win our wars or protect our borders. The government shovels out trillions to Fortune 500 corporations and banks to rescue the country from a crisis created by the government and Fortune 500 corporations and banks.

America was once their country. They sense they are losing it. And they are right.

You can't lose what you weren't entitled to think was yours alone. And you really can't lose what wasn't yours to take in the first place.

Having the Christian faith "purged" from schools that were paid for with taxes is a good thing since it shouldn't have been there in the first place, according to the First Amendment of the Constitution. Besides, there are other faiths in America besides the Christian one, and they're not allowed to be preached at the behest of the taxpayer, either. Being mocked on movies and TV is part of life, and if your faith can't take it, then it's your hold on faith that is imperiled, not the faith itself. Shuttered factories and jobs outsourced to Mexico and China were done not by liberals wanting to spread the wealth; it was done by corporations and capitalists who wanted to make more money so they could contribute it to the Republican Party. If anything, the progressives protested the export of labor because of the sweat-shop conditions in places like the Marianas Islands, promoted by Jack Abramoff. The Great Society had its flaws, but it also gave us Medicare, the Voting Rights Act, Fair Housing, and the chance for kids of all backgrounds to get a Head Start in school. And no amount of repeating the urban myth of Welfare Cadillacs can take that away.

The problem with illegal immigration might not be so bad were it not for the small businesses and factories that knowingly hire undocumented workers and pay them pittance wages so they too can give more money to the RNC. And Mr. Buchanan's outrage might have a little more impact if it wasn't for the fact that certain immigrants -- Cubans -- are not only given a free pass if they get their feet on dry land, they get to pass Go and collect their $200. But if you're from anywhere else, like Haiti, it's back on the boat and back to where you came from.

It's nice to carry on about bailing out Wall Street, but I wonder where Mr. Buchanan was when all the laws on securities and bank regulation were being relaxed under Republican administrations. Did he see that it could lead to trouble, or was he standing up and cheering for the virtues of the unfettered and free market?

The assumption that Barack and Michelle Obama got where they are was only by affirmative action confirms Mr. Buchanan's inherent racism: no person of color can get into Columbia or Harvard Law on their own. I wonder if he feels the same way about Colin Powell, Michael Steele, or Bobby Jindal.

This country was built by all of us -- white, black, brown, and the multitudes of those in between; straight, gay, and the many different colors of that spectrum as well. Those are the "traditional" Americans. That's what E pluribus unum is all about, and while it's had its ups and downs, and even if it was started by a bunch of rich white landowners who didn't want to pay taxes, they had the genius and foresight to make room for everyone, and make room for improvement along the way.

America was never "their" country to begin with. It's always been "ours."

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Pat Buchanan, Hitler apologist

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yes, Pat Buchanan, he with the punditocratic platform at MSNBC, who blames Britain for starting WWII and essentially absolves Hitler of any and all responsibility for the war.

He doesn't deny the Holocaust, thankfully, but his history is revisionist fiction, including this:

Hitler wanted to end the war in 1940, almost two years before the trains began to roll to the camps.

In other words, the Holocaust wouldn't have happened -- or at least wouldn't have been as large -- had Hitler gotten his way. The implication, of course, is that not just the war but the Holocaust was Britain's fault.

Hitler only wanted peace, don't you know. He gave the British ample opportunity -- forget his war of imperial conquest everywhere else.

This is appalling, among the worst I've ever heard or read from Buchanan. Why he still has his platform in the MSM is beyond me.

For more, make sure to check out Matt Yglesias's excellent rebuttal. See also Steve Benen (who rightly notes that Buchanan's "status in the media establishment [will go] unaffected"), dday at C&L, and Adam Serwer.

Sarah vs. Sonia

By Mustang Bobby

Following up on this post, Pat Buchanan says that Judge Sonia Sotomayor is getting a free ride because she's a "self-described 'affirmative action baby' from Princeton," whereas Sarah Palin is an up-from-the-sticks conservative who never got a break. "Pundits here gets hoots of appreciation for doing to a white Christian woman what would constitute a hate crime if done to a 'wise Latina woman.'" Conor Clarke notes that there's a difference.

There's absolutely nothing wrong, much less "arch," about criticizing Sarah Palin for being an anti-intellectual demagogue while simultaneously demanding respect for Sonia Sotomayor. Palin's whole shtick is that she's an ordinary American with ordinary American concerns. Which is completely fine. But I'm of the mind that our leaders should be exceptional people -- hard-working Type-A meritocrats with actual expertise -- and I think Sotomayor is one of those people. (Palin, not so much.) That's my preference, of course, and not necessarily the country's. But I like to think it's a perfectly legitimate distinction, not a "hate crime." [Italics in the original.]

I'll go further than that; it should be a requirement that anyone appointed to the Supreme Court or elected to the White House is by far the smartest person in the room. I do not want someone of an average intellect, much less someone who is anti-intellectual, running the country or interpreting the Constitution. We're not talking about a county commission here. (And even if we were, I don't want an incurious boor on the county commission either.)

A couple of other points. First, if Sonia Sotomayor was an affirmative-action admission to Princeton, all that did was get her in the door. After that, she was on her own. It wasn't affirmative-action that got her to the top of her class. (If it was affirmative-action that got her into Yale Law School, she was following in the footsteps of another justice on the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas. Funny, but I don't remember Mr. Buchanan complaining about Mr. Thomas's admissions history.) By the way, what is wrong with affirmative-action anyway? All it does it make it a level admissions playing field for people who were not born with the automatic credentials (white, male, and trust-funded) to get in to a school like Princeton or Yale. It seems that the people who complain the most about people like Sonia Sotomayor getting a leg up have never faced the challenge of getting into a college or getting a job with history and patriarchy stacked against them.

Second, the Republican mantra of being the party of the "common man" is born out of nothing more than a cynical attempt to curry favor with an electorate that they wouldn't dare be associated with if they could avoid it. Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy played on the fear and loathing of white voters who felt assaulted by the civil rights movement in the 1960's and provided a fertile ground for starting the culture wars against reproductive choice, gay rights, and basically anyone who didn't look, act, or have sex like them. It was, and it continues to be, an exploitation of the foolish and the weak, preying on their fears of the unknown and feeding them the pablum of smaller government and lower taxes. It wins elections, but it doesn't run the country very well. What's worse is that the people who master-minded it don't really care.

What it comes down to is that Sonia Sotomayor, even if she had help along the way, has had to work harder for what she achieved than Sarah Palin ever did. It shows in the way they both dealt with the adversity they have both faced in the last month. Judge Sotomayor has faced down an attack machine that questioned everything from her intellect to her choice of clothing, and she has taken it with grace and aplomb. Gov. Palin has dealt with her self-inflicted public mockery festival with all the maturity of a spoiled child. Sarah Palin took it for granted that she was entitled to whatever she wanted because she's believed in the George W. Bush model that anyone can grow up to be president without having to actually, you know, work at it. It's easy for her to quit her job because it doesn't really mean that much to her, and it's easy to give away something you never had to work for. Sonia Sotomayor has never taken anything for granted.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

How to win white votes

By Mustang Bobby

Pat Buchanan has a suggestion for the GOP: go racist.

In 2008, Hispanics, according to the latest figures, were 7.4 percent of the total vote. White folks were 74 percent, 10 times as large. Adding just 1 percent to the white vote is thus the same as adding 10 percent to the candidate's Hispanic vote.

If John McCain, instead of getting 55 percent of the white vote, got the 58 percent George W. Bush got in 2004, that would have had the same impact as lifting his share of the Hispanic vote from 32 percent to 62 percent. [...]

Had McCain been willing to drape Jeremiah Wright around the neck of Barack Obama, as Lee Atwater draped Willie Horton around the neck of Michael Dukakis, the mainstream media might have howled. And McCain might be president.

Mr. Buchanan, the dry cleaner called. Your brown shirts are ready.

H/T to Steve.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Funny man

By Capt. Fogg

One of the apparent characteristics of autism is the inability to pick up on social cues or to be able to judge other people's reactions. I know I'm not being very scientific here, but it seems to me there's another form of this inability that's far more common and perhaps more complex. It's the complete lack of perspective that allows one to tell if a joke is appropriate or funny or insulting or outrageous, coupled with the inability to except any humor whatever at one's own expense.

I think I see it in people who were willing to tear David Letterman's throat out but are unable to see anything wrong with calling President Obama's 11-year-old daughter a whore. I think I see it at its worse in people like Ann Coulter advocating giving a federal judge rat poison, saying people that don't think such things are funny have no sense of humor while accusing all sorts of people of persecuting and stalking her. We saw it when Rush called Chelsea Clinton the "White House dog" and was defended by the "Democrats can't take a joke" crowd. (Although Fox denies it ever happened, I saw it.)

Did we just see it again with former Nixon aide and improbable pundit Pat Buchanan?

Well, first, with regard to Levi, I think First Dude up there in Alaska, Todd Palin, ought to take Levi down to the creek and hold his head underwater until the thrashing stops.

Context means a lot with humor, and this wasn't a bit of late night stand-up, but rather presented in the worst context possible, on national television. Yes, it's a coarser, more sophomoric, and nastier national television culture than once it was. I can't imagine Walter Kronkite for instance giggling on the air with such a "joke." But, once again, I suspect that there's some pathology involved in thinking such mean spirited, aggressive and inflammatory humor would be appropriate for news network programming -- even if it's common in such lowbrow offerings as "Morning Joe." I won't go so far as to call this an exclusively Republican disease. Lord knows we have Jesse "hymie town" Jackson to look to, but in these times I think it almost defines the party.

It used to be easier to dismiss the man as a fringe element kook, but in our new Republican party where yesterday's sludge is today's creme de la creme, Buchanan, the man whose record of anti-Semitism, opposition to every piece of civil rights legislation marks him like Cain and who advocated that Nixon commit felony obstruction of justice, still seems more respectable than his younger brethren in bombast.

Racism first: Pat Buchanan, the Republican Party, and the new (white nationalist) majority

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yes, it's quite amusing that (white nativist) Pat Buchanan and "white nationalist" Peter Brimelow spewed their bigotry and ignorance beneath a banner that misspelled the word "conference" -- it was spelled "conferenece," with an extra 'e' (for eugenics?) -- but what's rather more serious, if not genuinely disturbing, is that this sort of bigotry and ignorance still plays so well on the right and throughout much of America. Indeed, the point of the confereneece (I'll add in an extra 'e' for evil) was to revive racism in the Republican Party in hopes of winning over "working class white Democrats" and "building the new majority." (Of course, there's already more than enough racism both in the GOP and in Buchanan's right-wing nativist circles to feed off and build upon, so I'll assume it's a work-in-progress -- or, rather, a work-in-regress.)

As you might expect, one target of the white-first, English-only bigots was Sonia Sotomayor, whom both men ridiculed, as well as Obama, who supposed will require Americans to speak Spanish -- not that that's true, of course, but the truth hardly matters here, and what's the problem with bilingualism anyway? (Well, it's a huge, huge problem for the bigots, of course, because it threatens their English-only linguistic hegemony, and, what's more, Spanish is spoken by Mexicans, among others, whom they regard, as they regard all "colored" folk, as dirty and less than human.

But who am I to protest? This is the new majority! This is the future of the Republican Party!

If this is what the GOP wants, if this is what the GOP really is, then, sure, by all means, let it show us all its true colors. (So to speak.)

I'm sure Pitchfork Pat will lead his party to the promised land. It's just a matter of time.

Rudy on the radio

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The New York Post is reporting that Rudy Giuliani is in talks to take over Bill O'Reilly's syndicated radio show. I wouldn't listen to Giuliani any more than I would listen to O'Reilly, which isn't at all, but if there's room for a Nazi like Pat Buchanan on a major cable news network, there's surely room for a fascist thug like Giuliani on the radio.

Liberals anywhere to the left of Obama, not to mention progressives, are deemed to be out of the mainstream and therefore extremist, but right-wing blowhards are plastered all over the mainstream media and given plum spots at major networks. Giuliani would just be more of the same.

William Ayers spins back

By Creature

"Symbolic acts of extreme vandalism." True, illegal, maybe necessary, ultimately fruitless, and, all the while, five words sure to make Pat Buchanan's head explode. Awesome.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

Wish list

By Mustang Bobby

Pat Buchanan is out with his predictions of what will happen in the first 100 days of the Obama administration:

* Two or three more liberal activists of the Ruth Bader Ginsberg-John Paul Stevens stripe will be named to the Supreme Court. U.S. district and appellate courts will be stacked with "progressives."

* Special protections for homosexuals will be written into all civil rights laws, and gays and lesbians in the military will be invited to come out of the closet. "Don't ask, don't tell" will be dead.

* The homosexual marriages that state judges have forced California, Massachusetts and Connecticut to recognize, an Obama Congress or Obama court will require all 50 states to recognize.

* A "Freedom of Choice Act" nullifying all state restrictions on abortions will be enacted. America will become the most pro-abortion nation on earth.

* Universal health insurance will be enacted, covering legal and illegal immigrants, providing another powerful magnet for the world to come to America, if necessary by breaching her borders.

Works for me.

Pat Buchanan, Nazi

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Not traditional conservative, or paleo-conservative, or nativist, or even historical revisionist. Or any other such euphemism. No, there's only one word that suits Buchanan now, and that's Nazi.

As TNR's James Kirchick is reporting today:

On June 29th, MSNBC personality and three-time presidential candidate Pat Buchanan appeared on a neo-Nazi radio program to promote his new revisionist history of the Second World War, Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World. James Edwards is the host of the program "Political Cesspool," the stated mission of which is to "represent a philosophy that is pro-White."

In his book Buchanan argues that it was wrong for American to have intervened on the side of the allies in World War II, and that it would have been better if the Germans had won the war (and then acted as a bulwark against Bolshevism). (Not better for the English and the French and the other allies, not better for the Jews, not better for the other peoples being exterminated by the Nazis, but what does Buchanan care? He's a Nazi.)

And the show on which he appeared is not just pro-white but anti-Semitic and pro-Holocaust denial. Of course, that's right up Buchanan's alley. He's a Nazi.

Like Kirchick, I'm both not surprised and appalled that Buchanan is still a regular on MSNBC, still welcomed at the higher levels of the mainstream media. (MSNBC is NBC!) But I guess that tells us a lot about MSNBC, and the mainstream media generally.

As long as they keep putting Buchanan on air, they're providing a high-profile platform for a Nazi.

Rachel Maddow: Hillary Apologist and Obama Basher

By J. Thomas Duffy

"...I see a lot of shades of George Bush as a candidate in what we’re hearing from Obama ... I think that Obama learned a little bit about how to campaign from what George Bush did. I hope that he would be, of course, a better president than Bush has been though ..."

Who's paying Rachel Maddow's salary, MSNBC, Air America Radio, or the Hillary Clinton Campaign?

The Liberal/Progressive's rising media darling was wearing her Hillary on her sleeve last evening, late into the coverage as a panel member on the MSNBC broadcast of the post-Iowa Caucus discussions.

When you Google "Rachel Maddow", you (or at least my search provided) get 192,000 results.

Looking over the first 100, there's nary a negative word about Ms. Maddow, not even from the Freakshow denizens, Dittoheads, or the Sludge Reports' flying monkies.

And if she is a Hillary fan and supporter, God bless her, but was it part of her assignment with MSNBC last evening to bash Dem Iowa Caucus winner Barack Obama?

Rachel Maddow as Obama Basher

From the MSNBC transcript;

OLBERMANN: Rachel Maddow, the subject of strong views. Did not the strong views get us the president we have as well? Is there not fire to be played with in that category.

MADDOW: Well, it’s interesting. I actually feel like although I like Obama a lot more than I like George Bush as a politician and I guess probably as a person, I see a lot of shades of George Bush as a candidate in what we’re hearing from Obama. In that what Obama’s actually offering are fairly liberal policies, but spoken in language and delivered in a style that’s very moderate and that’s actually kind of post partisan in tone.

We don’t think of George Bush’s presidency as having been that way. But as a candidate, that’s exactly what he was. He was proposing very conservative policies, but in a conciliatory, compassionate, post partisan, can’t we all just get along kind of way. And that’s why people I think maybe ended up surprised at the way he governed. I think that Obama learned a little bit about how to campaign from what George Bush did. I hope that he would be, of course, a better president than Bush has been though.

Whoa, there girl!

Obama is Bush?

If fellow panel member Pat Buchanan said it, you would, well, brush it off, knowing what a whack-job Buchanan is.

And even being cautious about over-praise, being it was only one night, one event, but tying Obama to Bush?

Did the Hillary Campaign hack into her earpiece? Was she reading off the next morning's Hillary Campaign Talking Points?

Because, before she bashed Obama, you could see the hair on her neck rising, when host Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and other panel members were talking in tones of Hillary being finished.

Rachel, The Hillary Apologist

MATTHEWS: This country moves in a strange pattern. In 1870, we gave African-Americans, men, the right to vote, at least in the Constitution. Obviously Jim Crowe got in the way of that for 100 years. But it was written down into law, the amendment to our Constitution, African-Americans, former slaves, will be voting citizens of the United States.

Women got to vote, which is always interesting, 50 years later. So there’s something perhaps primordial about the willingness of this country to at least, in theory, extend the franchise, the presidency, even, to an African-American rather than a woman. That is the interesting question mark that this Hillary Clinton campaign raises.

Let’s go to the panel with this hot potato, starting with Rachel Maddow.

Rachel, and then Howard, I want you, and Pat, and, of course, Gene Robinson, all of you from your different perspectives, what is it about America that here we are in 2008, finally picking an African-American with a real shot to be president of the United States, and a woman just got a very bad night in Iowa?

Rachel?

MADDOW: I think that you’re calling this a really bad night for Hillary too early. I think that we need to see how close it’s going to be. And if ultimately the results are a three-way tie or look close to it, or Barack Obama wins tightly, that’s a story. I think it matters.

I don’t see this as a huge rejection of Hillary if she doesn’t come in with a big win, honestly. I know you see it differently.

MATTHEWS: You mean, the fact that two-thirds of the Democratic Party voted against her isn’t a rejection?

MADDOW: Two-thirds of the Democratic Party will have voted against all of the candidates if it comes in as a three-way tie, Chris. That’s the point.

The issue, if it comes out it’s a really close race, it’s going to be close heading into New Hampshire as well. And I think we discount that at our peril.

If Barack Obama, as you guys are projecting is going to be the winner, I think that’s the America we all want to live in. I think it’s an amazing day for the country and it’s great. I don’t know if it means that he gets the nomination ultimately, but it’s an exciting, historic day for the country.

OLBERMANN: Let me throw something in from the decision desk. Edwards and Clinton are in, just apropos what you’re saying, Rachel, a very tight race for second in the race for the state Democratic delegate equivalent. Those are the numbers we’re seeing so far.

And again, NBC News has projected, as you heard, Barack Obama as the winner of this Iowa caucus at 36 percent. Those other numbers are as close as you would suggest they would be, 31 percent and 31 percent.

MATTHEWS: But Howard—well, Rachel, I’ll go back to you so you can have a response here.

From the beginning of this year in the polling we’ve noticed that Hillary has been ahead of Obama all year. So she can’t claim to be somehow a comeback kid or someone who, you know, somehow never had a chance. She had a big chance in Iowa and she’s lucky to get second.

MADDOW: No, I think it may be a more comfortable place for her to be running from, to be able to say, I’m fighting for this, and to maybe play the gender card in a big way, to say we have got to fight in order to get a woman in the White House in a way that she couldn’t have played that way had she been in an inevitable front-runner. So, I mean, I think it’ll be real interesting to see how the Clinton campaign responds to this. They’re going to have to come up with something creative, but it’s not the worst position for her to be in.

Funny, I missed the PR this morning, from the Hillary camp, telling us how thrilled they are, going into New Hampshire in five days, from a third-place finish in Iowa.

And I didn't see Big Bill, on camera, extolling how coming in third-place in Iowa was the best strategic way for his wife to start off on getting the nomination.

It has been reported that Ms. Maddow has received a tryout from MSNBC (she's been appearing on the network with greater frequency the past few months), for a possible show, possibly replacing the He-Man, Tucker Carlson

If that is the case, please, someone at MSNBC, take away the HRC pom-poms before she goes on-air.


















(Cross Posted at The Garlic)