Bush v Gore, Birther/Truther statistics

In reply to: Divided We Stand United We Fall: Racism increases 67% since January
---
I don't know, mw...

As far as the birthers=truthers theory, I have problems with both the question--There's a difference between believing that the Bush administration had prior warning about the fact that AQ was likely to try something sometime soon that they should've paid more attention to, and believing that Bush left DC on 9/11/01 because he knew the planes were coming. I have a feeling that there's a whole lot more of the former than the latter, although both qualify as "Bush knew...".--and the fact that Rassmussen tends to skew conservative (almost as bad as Luntz, these days.) All one need do is compare Rassmussen results with the results of other polls on the same subject to see that Rassmussen tends to lean right a bit more than the others. ((Yeah, I know you didn't cite the rassmussen poll, but there aren't that many selling that 1/3 of democrats = truthers result.)

Second, even accepting that one third of each party is extreme enough to accept one or the other of these theories, there is also the amount of positive attention that the elected officials of each party are willing to bestow on each theory. How many elected "truther" Democrats can one name? (The only elected "truther" I can find is Ron Paul, and he never said/suggested they were right, just that investigations in the name of truth were a good thing. And of course, he's a registered Republican.) How about elected "birther" Republicans? (How many Republicans signed onto that unnecessary bill saying that candidates must show their birth certificates--like the one Obama released, one assumes? 12, is it? How many more have made statements questioning Obama's birth?)

As for Bush 2000, all one need do is read the consortium report, and skip all the scenarios--(Bush wanted only these counties recounted, Gore wanted only those counties recounted, only over-votes, only two or fewer-corner chads)--except the most important one; when all the votes in which voter intent could be discerned were counted (the standard under law, at the time) in each precinct, who won?
Gore won, but shit happens... At this point, it's old news.

Anyway... Carter & whoever else is making the argument--(Is there much of anyone else?)--is wrong. There's some racism out there among those who don't like/agree with Obama, but most of it is about policy (or partisan political, at least) disagreement. (Personally, I'm more worried about those who echo their political "teammates" rather than thinkin' for themselves... ...and yes, that happens left and right, & probably in about the same proportion...)
---
Submitted for approal 9/19/09, 11:23 AM (DWS blog time)

Wingnut Racism: it isn't an all or nothing proposition

(And yeah, the same goes for "moonbat racism," "black racism," "white racism," "racism among the young," "the old," "christians," "muslims," "straight folks," "gay folks," "men," "women," "???" ...)

In reply to: Divided We Stand United We Fall: Racism increases 67% since January (post and comments)
---

There's a certain all or nothing mentality to much of this "the right are/are not racists" argument around the internet.

As far as I can tell, most of the criticism isn't racially motivated (or is racially motivated, but cleverly disguised behind an arguably valid point). On the other hand, some of the criticism of Obama clearly is racially motivated (or isn't really racially motivated, but is stupidly (or ignorantly) expressed as though it is.)

Joe "the scream" Wilson - xenophobia maybe, and the manners of a barn animal, but not racism.

Obama as witchdoctor, watermelon farm on the White House lawn, - Yeah, there's some racism, there.

The NY Post cartoon with the cop shooting the monkey - That was one of those "stupid or ignorant" situations. The guy didn't mean to refer to Obama as a monkey (and an assassinated monkey, taboot). He just didn't think it through. (The ObamaJoka pic falls into this category, too... While it's more'n'likely not intended that way, there is something vaguely racially insensitive about putting a black man in whiteface and accentuating his lips.)

The Obama birther thing has a "fear of other" aspect to it that I just don't think would be as strong if his black father was from (& Obama himself spent a few years in) England or Portugal. To reach this level, Obama has to be African, (or Arab) Muslim (or both, according to the birthers), or South American hispanic (&/or socialist... I mean REALLY socialist), or maybe Russian/eastern bloc communist. It's not racist, exactly, but the same kinda fear that underlies racism is there...

The bottom line is, it's neither "ALL rightwing attacks on Obama are racist." or "NO rightwing attacks on Obama are racist."

Some (most, if ya ask me) ain't, and some (a few) are.
---

Submitted for approval 9/18/09, 5:32 PM (IM blog time)

Sometimes a banana is just a banana...

In reply to: theblogprof: Video: White Student Beaten On School Bus To Cheering Crowd
---

Sebastian wins the prize.

According to the latest news reports, a 16 year old witness on the bus, as well as the police--including the officer who initially said it looked like it was a racially motivated incident, to him--are telling folks that it was an incident of bullying over seating on the bus, and not a racial incident.

--
Submitted September 15, 2009 7:49 PM (blogprof time)

Rules matter, except when they don't, I guess...

In reply to: Emily's September 14, 2009 11:09 AM comment to American Power: Democrats Interrupt 2006 Bush Speech, Cheer Obstructionism on Entitlement Reform

Emily:

As you're not a member of the House, speaking in the chamber, you can say such things without breaking REPUBLICAN House rules.

Representative Wilson, on the other hand, did not have that luxury when he heckled the President.

The fact that you share his sentiments--or that I do not--doesn't change that rule or the fact that Mr. Wilson broke it.

Booing (or applauding) the President is not covered by these rules.
---
Submitted for approval 9/14/09, 7:17pm (AmPow Blog Time)

Undaunted by facts, theblogprof keeps spinnin'

In reply to: theblogprof: 6 Hours After Tiller Murder, Obama Released A Statement Condemning The Act, 24 Hours After Anti-Abort Activist Gunned Down, Crickets Chirping
---

Explain again why this run of the mill anti-abortion protester *deserves* a mention by the President of the US...

Tiller survived a previous attempt on his life, was a nationally known figure for several years before his murder (thanks, in part, to anti-abortion outfits and media figures), and risked his life to help the women who needed his legal abortion services.

While Pouillon was passionate about his cause, few people even knew his name before today. (Even many in his hometown called him "the sign guy.") I know you believe he deserves the same (or more) recognition as Tiller, the facts are not on your side.

(And, as an aside... considering the fact that the motive was reported at about 7:30 pm eastern, shouldn't your countdown start as of then, or did you expect the president to jump up and denounce this as a hate crime before it even *was* a hate crime, like you and a few of your fellow rightwing bloggers did?)

Just somethin' to consider...
---
Submitted for approval September 11, 2009 9:52 PM

"The ends don't justify the means" post #1002

In reply to theblogprof: CONFIRMED! Anti-Abortion Activist James Pouillon Murdered In Owosso Because Killer Was "was 'offended' by Pouillon’s anti-abortion messages"
---


The fact that the motive is confirmed as of 7:30 PM does not justify those blog posts (including your own) who claimed that Pouillon was "martyred" for the anti-abortion cause hours earlier. Up to now, you were speculating & spinning based on your political views, and those in the media who refused to run with your spin, as well as those who actively called you & yours on your lack of facts in blog posts & comments up to now, were right to do so.

As for whether he'll get the heroes welcome that Tiller got, more'n'likely not. While I'm sure you'll see it as political & nothing more, the facts concerning the two men is very different...

Tiller risked his life for his beliefs and his legal practices as an abortion provider, having survived a previous shooting and many many threats at his home & place of employment.

Aside having a piece of fruit hurled at him and a barrage of "free speech" verbal assaults, I see no evidence that Pouillon risked his life in support of his views. (In fact, he's accused of a few minor infractions against law or good taste, such as interrupting a high school graduation with his signage.)

Chances are slim the president (or much of anyone else outside of the pro-life community) is going to give this man the same degree of coverage they gave Tiller, who was nationally known for coming in to help the women who chose legal abortion services that other doctors refused to provide. Which isn't to say that those of you who believe he deserves such honors cannot provide him the recognition that you believe he deserves, yourselves. For the rest of us, though, his death is no more or less tragic than is the owner of the gravel pit, who was murdered by the same man.
---

Submitted for approval September 11, 2009 8:05 PM

Anti-Pavement Wholesaler Shot And Killed In Owosso, MI.

(Anti-abortion protester killed, also.)

Reply to: theblogprof: BREAKING: Anti-Abortion Activist Shot And Killed In Owosso, MI. Will He Get The Air Time That Tiller Got? UPDATED with Video
---------

Yep... So far, it makes just about as much sense to say the killer preferred paved driveways to gravel ones, and killed the Fuoss brothers in the name of *those* beliefs.

I'm not sayin' the murderer wasn't opposed to the anti-abortion guy's views or tactics or something, but given the other killings, there's nothing to substantiate the spin this post (& the ones linking to/from it, offering the exact same unsubstantiated spin) are putting on the story.

It's terrible when anyone is murdered, regardless of what the victim's political views are, or whether or not you agree with 'em. But it's also kinda cold to create a particular spin about the death that supports your side, particularly before the facts of the case are reported or confirmed from an unbiased source.
--------

Submitted for approval 9/11/09, 7:30 pm (or so, IM blog time)

Sorry Donald, but that's not an emoticon...

Comment submitted and posted to American Power, and subsequently deleted by Donald Douglas, for reasons that remain unclear:
----

Anonymous has left a new comment on the post : "Adolf Hitler AIDS Awareness Advert: Latest in Glob...":

Um, no...

This ---> 8>) is an emoticon. (Look it up, if you don't believe me.)

That green thing in your sidebar is a picture, and because it's "selling" a point of view, whether via satire or any other literary device, it is kind of an advertisement. And because it's Hitler you're employing to do the selling (just like the Hitler "selling" AIDS awareness that you're complaining about)... well, you already know...

As for which Hitler is more "real," well, one of 'em is a picture of the actual guy. The other is portrayed by an actor... So tell me again which is "the real thing."

I won't call you names, because, as usual, I prefer to let the readers decide for themselves who/what you're showing yourself to be, based on your last comment.

- repsac3 (who is using someone else's computer, and doesn't want to sign out of her blogger account, just in case.)
--------

Posted by Anonymous to American Power at September 5, 2009 1:09 PM (Eastern Time)

Donald's dirty tricks: One person screws up, blame everyone who shares his politics... if he's a lib, anyway

In reply to this comment: American Power: DDB Brasil Submitted WWF's 9/11-Tsunami Video to Cannes:
---

No, no sock puppets here, Dr Douglas...

And you know, you can stop anonymous comments anytime you want, just by changing a blogger setting... (Unfortunately, you'd also lose the anons who support you, and judging by one recent post anyway, they make up the majority of your commentership.)

Funny how you quote that line about smearing everyone with a given viewpoint if anyone misbehaves (from another post) and then proceed to prove my point by doing that very thing.

I have no link to WWF, the ad agency, or the ad. I thought it was in poor taste, just like pretty much everyone else here in America, including the Americans at the WWF. You're barkin' up a tree that just isn't there, mon frere.

Like I said though, good job on correcting the posts... even if you did so by erasing the evidence...
-----
Submitted for approval 9/4/09, 1:55 AM (IM blog time)

Donald makes & then corrects an error... right down the memory hole.

In reply to this: American Power: DDB Brasil Submitted WWF's 9/11-Tsunami Video to Cannes, and in particular, Donald's correction to the post (& two others):
----

If you "correct" the sentence by taking out the acronym "BBC," you might as well take out the whole sentence.

I didn't ask for evidence about anyone's pulling the Merit award from the ad; I asked for evidence that the British Broadcasting Company was involved with the One Show advertising awards.

(Updated to remove snarky comment about Dr. Douglas' history of admitting/correcting errors. While I still think this one was a little shabby, his correction at the other two posts that mentioned the BBC made it clear that his original reporting was in error, and he even acknowledged my help in pointing out the truth of the matter.)

-- Of course, he MADE his corrections by dumping the original text down the memory hole, making it appear as though he never made the error(s) at all, rather than leaving the original text and appending an update with the correct info, or changing the original erroneous language to strike through text, which seem to be the preferred methods for changing the text of a post if more than 5 minutes or so have passed from the original publishing date/time--but still, Donald did far more than I expected he would, and I probably shouldn't push my luck by asking too much of him.)
---
Submitted for approval 1:50 (Immoderate Monk blog time)