U.S. Election Extravaganza 2013

By Michael J.W. Stickings 

Maybe.

So here we are. A huge, historic day for the greatest country that has ever graced the face of the earth.

Actually, that's not true. None of it.

But it is Election Day in America, and there are some important, interesting races around the country, and there are already results coming in, with votes in...

Virginia... and New Jersey... and New York City... and... and... Alabama?

Yes, the (great?) state of Alabama, where one-quarter of my family is from, including my wonderful, sadly now-deceased maternal grandfather, a WWII hero and, later, baseball broadcaster. There's a House race in that state's first district, with, predictably, two right-wing Republicans on the ballot. So whatever.

(There are also a lot of other local elections taking place, and I'm sure many of them are important and interesting, but we're going to stick to the national stories here.)

Does any of this matter, though? I mean, is there any larger narrative? Will the results tonight tell us anything about the political state of the country, about where the country may be going headed into 2014, with the midterms coming up a year from now, with President Obama's approval ratings low, though not nearly as low as Congress's, with the Affordable Care Act struggling to get going and of course under a constant barrage of dishonestly from Republicans?

I would say no, not really.

Gov. Chris Christie has won re-election in New Jersey. I believe that was called weeks ago, no? It might as well have been. He's a bully and a blowhard, but there's no denying his popularity, and he certainly qualifies as the GOP superstar du jour, with all signs pointing to a 2016 presidential run, with the media salivating over his prospects, even if in reality he stands zero chance of winning the Republican nomination because he's just so out of line with mainstream right-wing Republicanism these days (though he'd likely be a formidable national candidate, just as he might have been the best choice as Romney's running mate last year). Sure, it says a lot that he can win in a blue state, and he's certainly no ideological extremist, but Republicans have a long history of winning state-wide races in my former home state and it's not like Democrats put up a truly viable alternative. Sorry, but Barbara Buono is no Cory Booker.

So, again, whatever.

The more interesting race by far has been in Virginia, where centrist (and corrupt) Clintonite Dem Terry McAuliffe has been ahead of Tea Party social conservative extremist Ken Cuccinelli, he who hates blow jobs, in the polls and appears to be on track to win in that oh-so-purple state. Last night on The Daily Show, a somewhat funny bit suggested that it's a race between two equal evils, two equally unlikeable candidates. That's Jon Stewart's independent shtick, but it's anything but true in this case. I'm hardly a fan of McAuliffe, who has spent much of his political career wallowing in the deep underbelly of the Clinton machine, but he's an opportunistic, self-aggrandizing centrist. He's not nearly as progressive as I would like, but he's at least on the right side of the issue when it comes to, say, women's health, the environment (more or less), and poverty, while The Cooch is a far-right extremist and ideologue who represents the nefarious fusion of anti-government Tea Party radicalism and socially moralistic Christianist theocratism. There's the choice. And the choice is clear. That's what Virginia voters are saying.

As for The Big Apple, well... after years and years of Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg, two right-leaning law-and-order types who were tough on crime, minorities, and Big Gulp drinkers, it's obviously time for someone who represents the city's more progressive aspirations for a better life, not just a "safer" life, and that someone is Democrat Bill de Blasio, whose toughest competition was in the Democratic primary and who will beat Republican (and former Giuliani lieutanant) Joe Lhota by, what, 40 points? More? Let's just agree it'll be a landslide. It remains to be seen how de Blasio performs as mayor, and perhaps there are questions about how effectively he'll manage the city and be something more than an aspirational figure, but there's no denying his broad support among the city's various demographic groups and the fact that he's generated a good deal of excitement during the campaign.

By the way, it's still too early to call in Virginia. Not surprising. The early votes from the more rural parts of the state tend to go Republican, while the Democratic votes from the denser northern parts of the state come later, and so The Cooch will continue to lead until, hopefully, those urban, suburban, and exurban votes turn the tide in McAuliffe's favor. But it'll take time. This is purely anecdotal, but Virginia vote-counting and reporting always seems to be a slow, slow process.

Alright, a short break... be back soon.

**********

Okay.

At 9:30 pm, it's a really tight race in Virginia, but McAuliffe has closed the gap significantly. It's now 878,515 to 875,160, or 47-46, for The Cooch, with 87% of precincts reporting.

Christie's up 59-39. Yes, yes, a big win. Let the media kick their stupid "Christie 2016" narrative into an even higher gear. Perspective, people, perspective.

In New York, the race has been called for de Blasio even though, as of right now, CNN has no votes reported. There you go.

**********

By the way, make sure to read the comments. One of our co-bloggers, Frank Moraes, is weighing in as well.

**********

McAuliffe has taken the lead. It's now 911,726 to 906,841, or 47-46, with 91% reporting. I was going to say it's hard to believe that many people actually voted for The Cooch, but, no, it's not surprising at all. It's Virginia, after all, with large parts of the state deeply rooted in the Confederacy, and of course this purple state, like the country generally, remains deeply divided along partisan lines regardless of candidate.

**********

And CNN -- and probably others, but that's what I've got up on the screen at the moment -- has called it for McAuliffe.

It's still 47-46, and so a closer election than expected (and than the polls were suggesting was likely to be the case), though the final numbers will likely show a larger McAuliffe victory, with votes still coming in from populous Democratic areas.

Why is that, this closer-than-expected race? Republican vote suppression efforts, anyone?

**********

At 11:19 pm, it's McAuliffe over Cooch 45-45.

Meanwhile, Christie won big and de Blasio is crushing it. And, for what it's worth, Bradley Byrne beat Dean Young in AL-1.

Oh, what an extravaganza it's been.

Good night, everyone.

Chris Christie's moment

By Mustang Bobby

Charles S. Pierce bear-hugs Chris Christie:

In case you missed it, no matter who wins next Tuesday, Chris Christie almost guaranteed his inauguration on January 20, 2017. From his tough-guy outburst at that dough-brained mayor of Atlantic City, to his outburst of genuine grace regarding the president and the federal response to the deluge that swamped his state, to his fundamental acceptance of the reality that we need a national government to solve national problems, to the way he slapped around the denizens of the Fox News Couch of Stupid, you have to give it to the man. He's been a genuine star over the last 48 hours.

I have a great deal of respect for Charlie Pierce, but I don't think this moment is going to cement anything for Gov. Christie. First, people tend to forget how their politicians reacted to a natural disaster unless they completely screw it up, and trying to capitalize on one event, even one this size, doesn't have a long shelf life. As Steve M notes, "President Guiliani." Or, for that matter, Romney running mate Bobby Jindal.

No matter how much the gruff lug from Joisey makes Maureen Dowd's heart go pitty-pat, Mr. Christie would be a hard sell to the true believers in the GOP base. He obviously did not get the memo that no Republican can ever say anything nice about Barack Obama. Ever.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

The continuing "meh" of Mitt Romney's "friends"

By Richard K. Barry 

It should have been me!

In the grand scheme of things, the fact that Mitt Romney can't seem to inspire a decent endorsement from fellow Republicans is probably not going to be, on its own, that important in November. But it's become such a joke that the Romney campaign really ought to consider changing their slogan to: "Yeah, Well, At Least I'm Not Barack Obama." That would appear to be what the opinion leaders in the GOP eventually get around to saying when they offer their support to the former governor of Massachusetts.

Another example is a recent interview between former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and CNN's Candy Crowley. On the one hand, Giuliani told Crowley that Romney is "the perfect choice," at a time when the economy needs reviving. And then this:

"Well, I mean, there's a certain amount of personal ego in that — at that point, I was probably comparing his record to my record," he said about his dings at Romney. "And maybe it was circumstances or whatever, but I had massive reductions in unemployment. He had a reduction in unemployment of about 8,10 percent — I think it was 15 percent. I had a reduction of unemployment of 50 percent. He had a growth of jobs of about 40,000; we had a growth of jobs of about 500,000. So I was comparing what I thought was my far superior record to his otherwise decent record. ... That's all part of campaigning."

Giuliani then added, as if on cue, that Romney is much better than Barack Obama and that he has a better chance of winning as long as the economy doesn't improve too much, in which case, Giuliani said that "it's anyone's ballgame."

Politico called Rudy's comments a "Cory Booker performance" and that's fair. Booker, as a surrogate for Obama, said he thought the Obama attacks on Bain Capital were disgusting, which is a bit of a problem when that is to be the centrepiece of characterizing Romney as a bad choice for the White House.

But how is it not equally damaging when America's Republican mayor states that Romney isn't very good at the one thing, job creation, around which Romney is building his campaign? Maybe we're so used to Republicans trashing Romney or damning him with faint praise that we aren't paying any attention anymore.

And there's the point. The bar is that low for Romney. No one, not even those who are supposed to, can muster any enthusiasm.

Is that going to matter? I don't know. I think political campaigns can be seen as countless individual moments involving supporters and would-be supporters. Enthusiasm for a candidate, or lack thereof, has a cumulative effect on the outcome. It's in those hallway conversations, telephone calls, cocktail party discussions, coffee shop chats, water cooler philosophizing, etc. In politics as in life, enthusiasm counts and Romney's founding myth, story, resume, personality, demeanour don't inspire affection, just the opposite. And whatever respect there is is grudging.

One can look back on the history of the presidency and surely find instances where this kind of thing has not mattered. I'm simply wondering if the super-charged cult of personality that now defines the presidency, the 24-hour news cycle, new media, and politics-as-reality-show assumptions have changed the rules of the game.

We may have become used to Romney's friends trashing him with faint praise. Now we have to figure out what it might mean.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

James Inhofe, like others on the right, slams Obama's Afghanistan trip, provides yet more evidence he's a relentless idiot, a shameless hyper-partisan hack, or some combination thereof

By Michael J.W. Stickings

So, as you may know, President Obama is in Afghanistan -- or was, I'm not sure of his schedule, and he may very well have left already.

On the one-year anniversary of the remarkable mission that resulted in Obama bin Laden's death, which he himself ordered and for which he deserves enormous credit despite all the hypocritical whining from conservatives, he met with U.S. troops at Bagram air base, telling them that "when we see our homeland violated, when we see our fellow citizens killed, then we understand what we have to do," and also that, alas, "the battle's not yet over."

He also addressed the American people, and the world, saying that "we've traveled through more than a decade under the dark cloud of war. Yet here, in the pre-dawn darkness of Afghanistan, we can see the light of new day on the horizon," a message of hope in a place where there isn't much of it -- and where he himself has continued a war seemingly without purpose, even if he is also ending it.

He also met with President Karzai and signed a partnership agreement with the Afghan government for the post-withdrawal period.

The trip was unannounced but certainly made a lot of sense. It's something any U.S. president would have done, and the anniversary of the death of bin Laden provided an obvious opportunity.

But of course conservatives refuse to give Obama credit for anything, including bin Laden's killing, and criticize him for everything. It's what they've done throughout his first teram and they're doing just that over this trip, saying that he's politicizing -- that is, trying to score political points off, bin Laden's death. (As if Romney appearing with 9/11 self-mythologizer Giuliani at a fire station in New York is somehow... not political? Yes, Republicans' political posturing really is breathtakingly inconsistent.)

You can find countless examples of conservatives huffing and puffing -- and, really, just whining over Obama's massive success (like here) -- or you can just read what Republican Sen. James Infofe said, which in its grotesque idiocy pretty much sums it all up:

We've seen recently that President Obama has visited college campuses in an attempt to win back the support of that age group since he has lost it over the last three years," Inhofe said in a statement. "Similarly, this trip to Afghanistan is an attempt to shore up his national security credentials, because he has spent the past three years gutting our military."

*****

"The security improvements and the killing of Osama bin Laden a year ago are great American victories that should not be politicized," he said.

So, basically, Obama shouldn't be allowed to campaign anywhere, shouldn't talk national security at all, and shouldn't even mention the killing of bin Laden. Not because these things are inherently wrong, mind you, but simply because he's a Democrat. You think Inhofe, or any of these other Republicans, would be criticizing a Republican president for doing any of this? Please. Did they criticize President Bush for his relentless politicizing of 9/11 and the "war on terror"? Of course not.

They're fucking hypocrites. And so transparently partisan, and in such a desperate way, as to be utterly ridiculous.

As usual.

Thuggery united: Rudy endorses Newt

By Michael J.W. Stickings (@mjwstickings)

From twitter: 

"Gingrich gets Giuliani's endorsement, guy who palled around w/ Bernie Kerik. Do character/ethics-challenged folks just like 2 hang together?"

-- Katrina vandenHeuvel (@KatrinaNation)

Next up... Sandusky endorsement!

(Too soon?)

**********

Oh, remember when Giuliani used to be considered a moderate, and even something of a liberal -- and when he would never have endorsed someone like Gingrich?

Looks like his inner neo-fascist thug has permanently won out.

In that sense, Newt's perfect for him.

Buddy Roemer, baby! The incredible 2012 Republican presidential field is about to get a whole lot more incredible!

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Romney... and Pawlenty... and maybe Gingrich... and maybe Santorum... and maybe, oh, uh... Barbour... and, er, oh... Huckabee possibly... and maybe Giuliani... and, um, Karger, can't forget Karger... and, well, Daniels... and Huntsman, you never know... and Paul, Ron Paul, CPAC star... and The Donald... Trump, that is... and, of course, Palin... or not.

Is that about it? For the big names (Karger excluded), yes, though I highly doubt Barbour will run and I'm highly skeptical Gingrich is serious and even Giuliani isn't that delusional, right? Karger's a gay rights activist and hardly anyone knows who he is, Huckabee's got some right-wing cred but seems less interested than four years ago, and Daniels and Huntsman, the latter Obama's ambassador to China, are just way too reasonable for the GOP, however solidly conservative they may be. Ron Paul has the crazy libertarians behind him, but he's way too anti-establishment, and Trump is a loud-mouthed buffoon who can get a lot of press but who would never win (and will never run -- this is all about generating buzz). And, as for Palin... please. She's tantalizing us, but there's no way she gives up her cushy, absolutely-no-responsibility position as brightest Republican star for what would be an utter disaster, unless she really believes in her own "god"-given greatness and decides that she's an unstoppable force. Which is possible, I admit.

Anyway, what are Republicans to do? Well, maybe they can look to Louisiana.

To Gov. Bobby Jindal, an Indian-American who's relatively sane for the GOP? Er, no.

To Ex-Gov. Buddy Roemer. Who? Exactly.

The GOP's white-bread presidential primary is about to get a dash of Tabasco.

Former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer will announce Thursday in Baton Rouge that he is forming an exploratory committee, he told POLITICO.

"I should be president or somebody better than I should be," Roemer said in an interview. "And the only way to make sure of that is to make [my opponents] go around me, through me or over me in the primaries."

First, through him or over him? For some reason I don't see that as a huge challenge.

Second, somebody better than him? It's a pretty crappy (potential) field, but he's not exactly a superstar. (And he was actually a Democrat until he switched during his one term as governor.)

And third -- to Politico -- "a dash of Tabasco"? No, he's pretty darn white. Saying that he'd bring some Tabasco (i.e., flavour, or maybe even colour) to the field, because he's from Louisiana, is just plain stupid.

The only possible major contender -- so I'm not counting Tea Party fave Herman Cain -- who isn't as white as they come is Giuliani, who presumably would bring some much-needed arrabbiata to an otherwise bland and largely tasteless Republican primary.

Pence passes on presidential pursuit

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Right-wing Republican Rep. Mike Pence, trickle-down conservative, theocratic authoritarian, Tea Party fave, and one of the GOP's craziest and most outspoken leaders in the House, announced last night -- to the sort of triumphal fanfare usually reserved for ticker-taped astronauts (no, not really) -- that he will not (repeat: not) be running for president in 2012 and instead may run for governor of Indiana:

Pence's decision not to seek national office in favor of a likely run for governor of Indiana is a major blow to conservative activists and tea party leaders, who saw Pence as someone who could unite the traditional GOP base -- evangelical and social conservatives -- with the tea party's fiscal hawks.

And it's left a major opening for someone in a heavily crowded GOP presidential field: At the Value Voters Summit last year, Pence won the straw poll for both president and vice president, beating better-known candidates like Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin.

Pence has a fair amount of support on the right, that is, in the mainstream of an increasingly far-right GOP, and his departure from a race that hasn't even started yet does indeed open the door for a Huckabee or a Gingrich (not likely) or a Palin (also not likely) to carry the conservative banner against Romney (trying so hard to be a conservative but not succeeding), Giuliani (a conservative on national security but with far too much moderate baggage from his New York past), and Pawlenty (presenting himself as a conservative but more midwestern pragmatist than right-wing ideologue).

But I look at it another way. I didn't think he could win, but his departure means we're that much closer to what is undeniably the dream Republican ticket for 2012:

Barbour-Bachmann!

It's just so perfect. And more Republicans wannabes who drop out, the more likely it'll be the reality we all want.

Rendell, Giuliani call for "early detection system" for mental illness and guns

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The Hill:

Two high-profile politicians [yesterday] called for sweeping reforms to the nation's mental health system that would prevent individuals deemed ill from legally purchasing firearms.

Had numerous concerns about alleged gunman Jared Lee Loughner’s mental status placed him on a list restricting his ability to buy a gun, his Jan. 8 rampage might have been prevented, said former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Republican, and Pennsylvania Gov. Edward Rendell, a Democrat.

During a "Face the Nation" appearance, Rendell called for an "early detection system" designed to keep mentally unstable individuals from buying guns. 

Basically, if you've attended more than one Tea Party event (because you could have attended one just by accident) or if you're a Tea Party-backed candidate for the GOP, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun. Period.

I'm kidding... of course. (Ahem.)

Actually, in a country that refuses to do anything about guns and gun violence, this was an admirable display of bipartisan support for a rational response to the Arizona shooting. Giuliani, once something of a moderate but now a Republican hard-liner, even talked about the country's "inability to deal with mental illness."

I would just note that while there does need to be a "rational debate" on gun control, as Rendell said, as well as a serious effort to address mental illness, the Arizona shooting -- an assassination attempt on a politician -- wasn't just about some lone crazy guy getting hold of a semi-automatic pistol with a high-capacity ammunition clip. It was also about the right's culture of violence, both in rhetoric and in ideology, and about the extent to which that culture has come to shape American politics and define conservatism.

As I wrote last week, while it certainly appears to be the case that the (alleged) killer, Jared Lee Loughner, is "deranged" (to use a loaded and hardly clinical term), as well as that he was not a card-carrying member of the Tea Party or GOP, it is wrong, I think to treat him as a detached loner who acted in a vacuum of his own derangement. To do that is to ignore context, to ignore the bigger picture, the "national climate."

In other words, there may be no direct connection between conservatism and the shooting, but that does not necessarily mean that what Loughner did (or, rather, is charged with doing) may be detached entirely from the broader, right-wing political context that may very well have informed his thinking, or his derangement, to some degree.

Giuliani in 2012?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

This is getting better and better.

Rudy Giuliani isn't nearly as perfect a Republican as, say, Haley Barbour or Michele Bachmann, but he'd be a fine addition to what is shaping up to be a hopeless GOP presidential field.

Yes, he's gearing up for another run, says the New York Post, and while I suppose he'd be a moderate in an overwhelmingly right-wing field, at least on social issues, he's very much the sort of national security extremist and 9/11 fetishist Republicans go for these days.

Rudy Giuliani: shameless exploiter of 9/11, would-be torturer-in-chief, neo-fascist thug, and police-state enthusiast, not to mention presidential campaign failure.

And of course, for grassroots Republicans, completely unelectable. 

Run, Rudy, run! If only to make the GOP that much more ridiculous.

Know-nothing Rudy, media darling

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Greg Sargent makes a great point about Giuliani and the media:

Someone needs to tell the bookers at the networks that the fact that Rudy Giuliani happened to get photographed walking through the smoke and dust on 9/11 does not give him any authority or credibility on foreign policy and national security issues.

That's Rudy Giuliani, of course, shameless exploiter of 9/11, would-be torturer-in-chief, and neo-fascist thug, not to mention presidential campaign failure.

Sargent has made the point before, as have many of us -- for example, see my June 2008 post, "The smears of Rudy Giuliani, 'a man with zero national security and foreign policy experience,'" which quotes Sargent.

But it bears repeating, because major media outlets like CNN and MSNBC continue to trot him out as a top Republican national security expert (with obvious personal and partisan agendas):

Again: Rudy has no basis whastoever for being granted authority or credibility on these issues. Unlike, say, John McCain, who is the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rudy does not hold public office. His resume boasts no meaningful national security experience of any kind. His last foray into politics was two years ago, when he ran a comically inept presidential campaign. He last held public office nine years ago.

And yet the media can't get enough of him. Which says a lot, and nothing good, about the media.

Something in the water

By Capt. Fogg

New York City water tastes like turpentine
Lord, Lord
And I ain't gonna drink it any more

-- from an old blues song

There must be something in the water if former New York Mayor Ed Koch is insisting that "hundreds of millions" of Muslims are terrorists, but that we're all too afraid to mention it for fear of offending. I don't think it's turpentine.

He didn't give Foxman Neil Cavuto any source for this magic number yesterday or for any other part of his assertion or did he attempt to explain why anyone would feel we're afraid to offend countries we're bombing, maintaining sanctions on, or already occupying. Is it true what they say about New Yorkers if not blowing someone to bits is considered timidity or perhaps an excess of politeness?

And then there's Rudy "9/11" Giuliani who announced to ABC's George Stephanopoulos today that there were no domestic terrorist attacks on George W. Bush's watch:

[W]e had no domestic attacks under Bush; we had one under Obama.

There must be a lot of something in the water. Between 9/11 and the Anthrax bio-attack, there were over 3000 victims of domestic terrorism. To think there were people who wanted to elect this putz president!

The real agenda of course, is to find fault with the president for not running down the street screaming "terror - terror" which the victims of Republimentia feel is the best way to deal with an unsuccessful suicide bombing. He needs to be more theatrical, to talk more of fear than of courage, to scream and yell and look for bogey men rather than calmly to get on with the business of improving our defenses. Sadly it's not just ex-mayors of New York drinking from this well. They're hardly alone in their hatred of Democrats of color and they're hardly alone in their desire to make the government so dysfunctional that they can slither back into control amidst the chaos. There are millions of them, you know.

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

No Senate run for Rudy Giuliani

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Looks like Rudy Giuliani will announce today he's not running for Senate "or anything else," according to the Daily News, in 2010.

And why should he? He makes boatloads of cash profiteering off 9/11, his charade of heroism, and the false myth he has built up around himself, and if he ran he'd have the lid blown off his whole sordid past.

And, given what a horrible presidential candidate he was in '08, there's hardly any guarantee he'd win. More likely, he'd embarrass himself.

Besides, he's going to be far too busy kicking the shit out of Rio's poor in 2016.

The man has his priorities.

Rudy Giuliani to be security consultant for 2016 Rio Olympics

By Michael J.W. Stickings

According to the Daily News, Rudy Giuliani has signed on as a "security consultant" for the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro:

"He's going to help us in day-to-day security and, especially, with an eye toward... the Olympic Games," said Sergio Cabral, the governor of the state of Rio de Janeiro, after eating lunch with Giuliani [on Thursday].

This reminded me of a post by Suzy Khimm I read at TNR's The Plank a while ago: "Could the Olympics Mean More Misery for Rio's Poor?"

The answer, clearly, is yes:

Security crackdowns in Rio de Janeiro have often amounted to police raids on the sprawling shantytowns, home to a third of the city's population, where drug traffickers have ensconced themselves. The resulting gun battles have killed scores of innocent bystanders -- predominately poor and working-class residents of the favelas -- thus contributing to the stunning 2,069 murders that happened in Rio last year. Yes, the traffickers themselves are ruthless, exerting a mafia-like control over the shantytowns they occupy and burning buses full of civilians to retaliate against police pushback. But Brazilian police have fed the cycle of violence by acting outside the law, committing extrajudicial killings and massacres that human rights groups and the U.N. itself have denounced. (Off-duty police officers have even taken to forming their own gang-like militias, which now control some 15 percent of Rio's slums.) It's a legacy of Brazil's oft-forgotten military dictatorship, whose worst atrocities were often carried out by the country's division of "military police" and who were never held accountable for their crimes. As a result, certain divisions of the military police have continued to act with impunity in an otherwise burgeoning democracy -- and the favela crackdowns bring out their worst instincts.

Such police "occupations" -- as Brazilian authorities call them -- have continued under Rio's new mayor, Eduardo Paes, a centrist elected on a law-and-order platform. Having clinched the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Olympics, Paes will likely have carte blanche to do what he wants on the security front.

Any surprise Rudy took the job? Aside from the money for him and his firm, Giuliani Security & Safety, he'll fit right in, what with his preference for police crackdowns at the expense of the poor and other undesirables. At least he was held accountable in New York -- or at least what he did was generally known. (It's true that crime rates dropped during Giuliani's terms as mayor, but it's not clear that they did so because of Giuliani -- rates were dropping nationally already. Regardless, with the police unleashed, Giuliani certainly put security before civil rights, and he'll bring that to Rio.) There'll be no such transparency in Rio, where he'll be able to get away with advocating however much brutality he likes.

More misery for Rio's poor? You betcha.

And with Rudy there, what with his penchant for fascist thuggery, it'll only be worse.

Rudy Giuliani set to run for U.S. Senate -- maybe

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Rudy Giuliani has apparently decided not to run for governor of New York and may instead seek the GOP nomination to run against Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand next year. (Giuliani's people are denying this.)

Rudy Giuliani, shameless exploiter of 9/11, would-be torturer-in-chief, and neo-fascist thug, not to mention presidential campaign failure, a man with no national security or foreign policy experience, a dishonest and dishonourable partisan attack dog.

If he wants to get back into politics, all I can say is: Bring it on!

(I called Gillibrand "a horrible, horrible pick" when she was appointed by Gov. David Paterson earlier this year, but, while I don't follow her all that closely, she seems to be doing fairly well. She doesn't seem to be anything like the quasi-Republican some of us thought she was. Against Giuliani, though, it's an easy choice. I'd be for Gillibrand all the way, without question.)

Rudy Giuliani, fearmonger

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It's just Rudy being Rudy, the anti-FDR*, playing to the culture of fear like he has throughout his political career:

Raising the specter of a return to higher crime and greater anxiety, former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani warned on Sunday that New York could become a more dangerous city if Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is not re-elected in November.

Mr. Giuliani did not mention Mr. Bloomberg's Democratic challenger, William C. Thompson Jr., by name. But during the first of two campaign events alongside Mr. Bloomberg, he said that not long ago many parts of the city were gripped by "the fear of going out at night and walking the streets."

He "cleaned up" New York by turning it into his own police state, he ran for the Republican nomination last year as a quasi-fascist authoritarian, and he has milked 9/11 to serve his own right-wing agenda (including a penchant for torture), not to mention his own personal, political, and profiteering ambitions.

Obviously, he's still at it.

* Instead of "we have nothing to fear but fear itself," it's "we have everything to fear, because there is terror everywhere, and so we should all be very afraid and vote Republican." So classy, so uplifting, the so-called "Mayor of America.")

Welcome to the Palin wing of the right-wing insanitarium, Rudy Giuliani

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yes, like the ex-Speaker of the House, the ex-mayor of New York has backed the ex-governor of Alaska on "death panels," providing yet more high-profile support to one of the key planks of the Republican propaganda effort.

Meanwhile, Palin is still pushing the lie herself.

It'd all be quite funny if so many people weren't actually buying this bullshit.

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.

Ugliest Republican of the Day: Rudy Giuliani

By Michael J.W. Stickings

For robocalling on behalf of McCain-Palin:

Hi, this is Rudy Giuliani, and I'm calling for John McCain and the Republican National Committee because you need to know that Barack Obama opposes mandatory prison sentences for sex offenders, drug dealers, and murderers.

That's right, kids, it's 1988 all over again, and that foreign-looking liberal wants to let liberal judges release all that scum onto your streets and into your homes.

This is despicable fearmongering, of course, and yet more vilification of Obama as the dangerous, untrustworthy Other.

Who better to spread the slime than a fascist thug like Giuliani?

**********

As the National Association of Police Organizations responded:

This is one of the most dishonest attacks yet from an increasingly dishonest, dishonorable campaign. It is a fact that Senator McCain voted against putting more police on the street, outlawing cop killer bullets, voted against Justice Department grants that would help local police keep our nation's neighborhoods safe and he even voted against the Violence Against Women Act, while Senator Obama voted to crack down on crime, target gangs, put rapists away and was endorsed by the National Association of Police Organizations. It's clear that Senator McCain and his agents would rather distort facts and scare people than talk about his disastrous public safety and economic policies that offer no change from the last eight years.

Right on.

Community organizers

By Creature

I really don't get a political party that enjoys mocking community organizers. I know they want to belittle Obama in any way possible, but to hit him (and, in turn, a whole host of caring people) for doing good is despicable. Not very Jesus of them.

If the GOP did anything last night, they showed their true colors. They don't care about people, they care about power.

Here's CNN's Roland Martin on the mocking of community.



I've had enough. How about you?

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

Whatever happened to summer vacation?

By Carl

Wow. I mean, wow. When did you start reading about a political campaign in earnest before Labor Day?

Items in the news today:

Obama heads to Iraq - Well, you sort of knew this was coming. I mean, McCain is going to hammer Obama on his Iraq votes and his lack of experience, so why not inoculate yourself a bit?

Giuliani and McCain attend Yankees game - Speculation is rife that Rudy is on the short list. This ticket would be a dream come true for Obama. Imagine Rudy being forced to answer questions regarding racism in New York (Amadou Diallou, Patrick Dorismond and Abner Louima happened on his watch) in the context of running against a black candidate.

James Dobson to endorse McCain? - Certified wingnut & living room gibbon James Dobson, who once famously said "I cannot, and will not, vote for Sen. John McCain, as a matter of conscience," has apparently sold his conscience off.

In a related story, McCain and Obama agree to meet in megachurch forum - It's not so much a debate as sequential interviews with the minister, but it's close enough to the first debate you'll see between the two.

Netroots Nation (aka YearlyKos, aka Don't Bother Attending This Circlejerk) was shunned by Obama This Year - Again, a sign that Obama is abandoning his faux-liberal stance and his faux-liberal buddies at the Great Orange Satan. Hell, even Nancy Pelosi had the cojones to show up!

No more Electoral College? - Not quite, but there is a movement afoot by states to have their electoral college votes endorse the national popular vote winner. There's nothing unconstitutional about it, either, as the states clearly have the right to apportion their electoral votes as they see fit.

This last one might make for some intriguing possibilities come November 4...

(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)