Billmon: x 3 – Moon of Alabama

September 4, 2008

Billmon: x 3

To cut right to the nasty, they were using "community organizer" as a euphemism for "poverty pimp."

And, as a special bonus, to a GOP audience (country club division, at least) organizer = union. What could be worse than a black, radical activist union organizer from the South Side of the Chicago?

…
I gotta admit, I’m impressed in spite of myself. When it comes to playing the dog whistle, these guys are Mozarts.
Billmon: Why the repeated attacks on "community organizers"?

—

9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! …
Billmon: Rush Transcript of Rudy’s Speech

—

In the middle of the biggest media shitstorm of the campaign so far, with reporters baying at her heels on a host of personal and political issues, and her career on the line, Palin makes time to meet with the entire board of AIPAC?
…
.. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if an old video or audiotape surfaces that would not wear well at the next B’nai B’rith meeting. Maybe Sarah’s meeting with "the lobby" was a preemptive strike against the next wave of media hysteria.

I’ve absolutely no evidence of this, mind you – it’s just a hunch. (Or, if you prefer, another vicious smear from the "angry left". ANGRY, ANGRY ANGRY!)
Billmon: Does Palin Have an Israel Problem?

Posted by b on September 4, 2008 at 04:56 UTC | Permalink

Comments

A true fundamentalist Christian supports the existence of the State of Israel, but for the reason of being able to see it destroyed in order to kick-start the rapture.
Sarah was chosen to pose as a person who personifies this point of view without actually mentioning it, because it really is outright embarassing to the GOP power-mongers, and absolutely repulsive to a lot people, Christians and non-Christians alike.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Sep 4 2008 8:23 utc | 1

As I’m watching Rudy’s speech, it sickens me to my very core to see loving scenes of Lady McCain cradling baby Palin being juxtaposed with hateful scenes of Christians from the hard right acting all bloodthirsty for war.
And I understand that Republicans, as a rule, have a pretty poor grasp of American history, especially in terms of geopolitics. Watching this crowd at the GOP convention, though, one could easily believe that Republicans truly think Israel and Georgia aren’t foreign countries, but are the 51th and 52th states of America, respectively.
Giuliani speech

Posted by: Cynthia | Sep 4 2008 13:24 utc | 2

oops — 51st, not 51th

Posted by: Cynthia | Sep 4 2008 13:29 utc | 3

Let me be the first to stick my hand in the boiling fat and say that Palin’s speech was brilliant.
She’s hyper-normal, sort of a flavour-enhanced Everymom. I’d bet there isn’t a community – beyond the metropoli – where a good 75% at a minimum didn’t think, and won’t think after today’s media frenzy, that ‘OhmiGod, she’s JUST LIKE US.’ You could smell the political MSG through the tv screen. But she was good.
A workmate of my wife’s asked her yesterday what she thought of “our next VP.” Wife responded with ‘she’s only been mayor of a town of 8000 people.’ ‘Yes, but she’s REAL.’ ‘But she’s only had a passport since last year.’ ‘Uh huh. She’s REAL.’
I’ve a horrible feeling that the GOP just engineered our reality again.

Posted by: Tantalus | Sep 4 2008 13:41 utc | 4

“OhmiGod, she’s JUST LIKE US”
This is precisely why Bush was elected in 2000 (well, that he was pretty close to Gore, at least). And this is also why, as H Mencken once noticed, democracies ultimately fail.

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Sep 4 2008 13:58 utc | 5

Clueless: agreed, but ultimately Bush wasn’t like ‘us’ at all (except those of us who are Billionaire’s sons, Ivy League fratboys, fake Texans etc etc etc). Palin, G*d help us, is.

Posted by: Tantalus | Sep 4 2008 14:08 utc | 6

‘Yes, but she’s REAL.’
yep we all know her, from high school
Fuck me gently with a chainsaw
doesn’t mean we like her.

Posted by: annie | Sep 4 2008 14:25 utc | 7

Palin: Iraq war ‘a task that is from God’
(In a speech to ministry students last June.)

Posted by: plushtown | Sep 4 2008 14:34 utc | 8

Bloody hell, Annie! Wasn’t quite prepared for that mental image. Thank god the clip was only ‘Heathers…’
I don’t get the impression that Palin was the privileged type, though. Or, not being American-bred, am I missing something?

Posted by: Tantalus | Sep 4 2008 14:40 utc | 9

privilege wasn’t their primary calling card wiki

The girls—three of whom are named “Heather”—rule the school through intimidation, contempt, and sex appeal…..
These mean-spirited girls play croquet with each other, use their own unique slang, and even purge together. Even though they are adored by most other students, the Heathers despise everyone outside their clique and continuously bully socially awkward classmates…..
vanity, peer pressure, and a desire to dominate instead of being dominated.

Posted by: annie | Sep 4 2008 14:53 utc | 10

Got to follow things through, to their logical conclusion, to know them in their budding stage.
With politicians and preachers, one must take the time to consider what would be? What would be on the morning a particular savior of our souls or our bacon gets their whole program enacted here on earth?
What would we see?
As for Governor Pailin, we would see the reincarnation of Annie Oakley, when she used to shoot buffalo from steam trains crossing the prairies of young America. All the wolves, polar bears, and liberals would long since be most sincerely dead.
Governor Pailin would be President of the Whole World, and her prey on every continent would be any slob who, like the Jews, hadn’t accepted her Messiah, openly and publicly, right down to the last detail.
President Pailin would count to three before she sent them to Hell. That’s only fair. Code of the West, and all that.
When, at last, she could no longer locate someone who hadn’t accepted her Messiah, by God, she would set out to find any slacker who hadn’t accepted her Messiah hard enough.
I mean really hard.
I mean today. Since breakfast.
She would totally rule the universe.

Posted by: Antifa | Sep 4 2008 15:02 utc | 11

Palin is a Bush II redux, for women, and a hottie for anyone who likes women, ie beer swilling beer guts who votes.
Obama must be fucking his choice not to pick Clinton.
The Repugs are home and dry come December.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Sep 4 2008 15:38 utc | 12

It’s pretty obvious that Palin was handpicked by the Religious Right so that our country can be dragged into a culture war between secular progressives and backwards fundamentalists, in hopes that the latter warriors will win, thereby freeing them to drag us deeper in a holy war between Islam and Christianity!!!

Posted by: Cynthia | Sep 4 2008 15:42 utc | 13

But then Palin would not have been a pick if Clinton won, or came second.
Soaps don’t match American politics, meanwhile who’s running the show?

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 4 2008 15:45 utc | 14

Let me be the first to stick my hand in the boiling fat and say that Palin’s speech was brilliant.
For a Repub convention that wanted red meat, yes.
To win independents? To win over Hillary voters? To win disgruntled border-Bush voters?
Was it truthful? No. Was it bipartisan? No. Was it conciliatory? No. Did it say anything about the biggest problems people currently have, the economy? No.
It was pure Rove ‘to the base’. I doubt that will be enough to get McPalin elected.

Posted by: b | Sep 4 2008 15:49 utc | 15

I doubt that will be enough to get McPalin elected.
Possibly not, but there’s always diebold…

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Sep 4 2008 16:09 utc | 16

I prefer Billmon´s on Economy.
On American Politics is very sectarian. I dont like the sectarism.

Posted by: timidcurious | Sep 4 2008 16:14 utc | 17

b: Repub. red meat, Rove – exactly. And to the base – but the base will be expanding even as we type, millions of minivans about to get a new McCain/Palin bumper sticker.
I think bipartisanship is a massive red herring, meanwhile. The Republicans know exactly what they’re doing – same game plan as before. Whine about lack of bipartisanship in the enemy camp and then unleash the partisan dogs on them. Personally I think its more honest and I wish the Dems would start going for the throat as well, but that’s because I’m used to parliamentary politics, I suppose…
@ timidcurious: sectarian? Which great big happy family are you part of?

Posted by: Tantalus | Sep 4 2008 16:22 utc | 18

To win independents? To win over Hillary voters? To win disgruntled border-Bush voters?
b, you keep assuming the rethug MO is to win voters, it isn’t. the objective is to throw up an image the opponent imagines as their worst adversary able to rally the other side. they only have to APPEAR to be gaining momentum, remember as uncle #16 reminds us , they own the apparatus that tallies the votes. they don’t have to do it everywhere, and we don’t know which state’s voters they will attack.
it would be very hard to convince the world (not just US voters) someone as charismatic as obama could be knocked over by a pruned old facelifted mcCain. the rnc show was a real spectacle but these are the uber base so of course they are going to go apeshit however they would have voted for mcain anyway. to fully appreciate the gist of their propaganda turn to the gop’s favorite london bounce back propaganda..
remember, this is exactly what we are supposed to hear, what the world is supposed to hear
timesonline
‘She’s like a moose going after a cabbage’

“Not bad, eh?[John] McCain needed her real bad. I wasn’t even gonna vote for McCain until he picked Palin. Before that, conservatives didn’t have a voice.”
Others were similarly impressed.
Overheard comments included: “I was on the fence and now I’m blazing the McCain trail” (a middle-aged woman) and “I wasn’t excited until this, now I’m all fired up” (a grey-haired man).

really? from her hometown? one would think merely her nomination would have gotten them revved up, this is supposedly the reaction to her speech.
the problem for the gop is lots of them have never been in the least impressed w/mcain. they need to fire up lots more than just their base. (this is why hilary would not have been a good choice for obama, then or now). but i am not so sure, not at all, palin is good for this. a large segment of society, not just dems, are going to recoil from this type of woman, she does not seem to transmit empathy. she appeals to the blood and guts gop, but those types are already going to the polls. she is meant to strike fear in the opponent and to create the IMPRESSION she can flip the election, which is very different than pulling in more votes. altho she may get some fundies to the polls, even fundies will have a problem w/her kind of mothering.
#17 timid?? curious?? oh please. what kind of idiot do you take us for.

Posted by: annie | Sep 4 2008 17:01 utc | 19

b, i shouldn’t have framed as ‘you keep assuming’.
all in all i agree w/your assessment.
It was pure Rove ‘to the base’. I doubt that will be enough to get McPalin elected.
not enough to get her elected, but maybe enough to get her in office.

Posted by: annie | Sep 4 2008 17:05 utc | 20

Same old rebub bull shit…..spin, outright lies, and more misdirection. Obama better get angry enough to ATTACK the lies and the repub record, or he’s finished. They own the process(the repubs), and most of the media, so it won’t be easy. Christ, I’d love to see a democrat that cares enough about his or her policies to get angry. People don’t respect anyone who can’t get into their policies enough to get angry once in a while. That’s the Dems in a nut shell. God forbid you actually call a spade a spade. Having said all this, I believe the Dems will NOT step up, so get ready for more corporate rule in the form of McCain and Palin

Posted by: Ben | Sep 4 2008 18:31 utc | 21

That voice! Jeezus! She must have a double sized sinus cavity We’ve got to figure out what she’s allergic to, and we’ll have her ass in a sling. And what is that accent – canadian gone rustic or something. I thought I was watching fargo. Did McCain want to evoke Frances McDormand? Somebody hide the wood chippers..

Posted by: aumana | Sep 4 2008 19:02 utc | 22

virginia is a battleground state
Warning for College Student Voters

Last week, Virginia’s Montgomery County, home to Virginia Tech, issued a press release regarding proper protocol for college students registering to vote. In interviews with Inside Higher Ed Tuesday, it was described by turns as “unsubstantiated,” “chilling,” and (more generously) as not “incredibly encouraging or friendly.”
It reads, in part: “The Code of Virginia states that a student must declare a legal residence in order to register. A legal residence can be either a student’s permanent address from home or their current college residence. By making Montgomery County your permanent residence, you have declared your independence from your parents and can no longer be claimed as a dependent on their income tax filings — check with your tax professional. If you have a scholarship attached to your former residence, you could lose this funding. And, if you change your registration to Montgomery County, Virginia Code requires you to change your driver’s license and car registration to your present address within 30 days.”
…
And, in a year in which historic youth voter turnout is anticipated, and the Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has been propelled by college students’ support, this case in the battleground state of Virginia is “not an isolated incident,” said Sujatha Jahagirdar, program director for the Student Public Interest Research Group’s nonpartisan New Voters Project.
“For a county registrar to issue what really are in our experience unsubstantiated warnings for a particular demographic is alarming,” said Jahagirdar. “It’s upsetting that this is coming up in Virginia. But it’s even more upsetting that the ability of young people to vote is questioned in many other states too.”
She added: “In 25 years of registering young voters around the country, none of the staff has ever heard of a single incident where a student has lost their tax status or their scholarship because of where they’ve registered to vote.”

they’re scared of the youth vote.
the times they are a changin’

Posted by: annie | Sep 4 2008 20:24 utc | 23

Holy Shit, she was a huge hit with the Evangelicals. Check out this puke inducing insanity from Rapture Ready.
Here’s a taste:
I can’t help but think that the Lord has brought McCain and Palin together for the very purpose of leading our country. Just listening to McCains story…he escaped death how many times? It seems like satan has been trying to take that man out for a very long time, and the Lord has kept him alive and has used his unbelievable challenges perhaps for an unprecedented time in history for a US President.
I have always sorta believed that obama would win the election because this nation, unfortunately, is becoming more and more libera…but after hearing McCain’s story in detail, I could not help but sense the hand of God upon him.
why?????
Perhaps to lead this nation in the most horrific period of time in the history of the world? Just a thought.
She’s rallying the base and bringing the disillusioned back into the fold. Masterful. It’s all over, I hate to say.

Posted by: I Am Who Isn’t | Sep 5 2008 1:24 utc | 24

Cynthia,
we cannot underestimate the role of the Religious Right in this campaign. They felt terribly let down by Reagan: he talked conservative Christian values while nancy consulted an astrologist, and quickly abandonded them once he was established in power.
Since then, they have been working another tack: getting their people in key positions in government. Under Bush they had the perfect candidate, he even seems to believe in most of what they stand for.
Now the leverage they exhibited in getting SP onto the ticket shows that they are in a position to really propel America into the Culture War that they have been looking forward to as a run-up to the Rapture.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Sep 5 2008 7:54 utc | 25

Tantalus, annie: I only want to belong to the big family of people of good will. The sectarian can lie for deffending its ideas.
I can´t .

Posted by: timidcurious | Sep 5 2008 10:31 utc | 26

it would be very hard to convince the world (not just US voters) someone as charismatic as obama could be knocked over by a pruned old facelifted mcCain. annie wrote. Uncle recalls Diebold. All that is of course what happened with Bush – his win was explained by the appeal to the base and his hand to the Xtians.
There is a danger to this kind of palinesque (sic) radicalization, polarization. The opposite side can either itself also radicalize, or it can sit back and say ‘behold the kooks.’ B. O. is smart enough to lie low. He will have expected something like this, as he could not pick a woman. (A replacement for Hill being hors question.)
A sea change … While before B.O might have been seen as too new, different, unpredictable, too ‘radical’, suspiciously appealing to some (..dem base, hope and change..), as well as too ‘vapid’, ‘populist’, etc., all those tags now go to the other side.
This contest is now shaping up as a fight between Conservative Amerika and a good part of the establishment combined with the ‘richer’ strata.
Obama is supported by wall street, by corporations (see Biden, as well), by business, by science, by parts of the old guard, all want a return to normalcy after the horrendous Bush years. He is respectable: harvard, barely ‘left’ – he is a social conservative – paternalistic, not averse to war – and has shown he will toe the line. Obama is the ultimate anti-Bush candidate! Now, finally, he has to position himself against McPal.
So who controls Diebold?

Posted by: Tangerine | Sep 5 2008 11:52 utc | 27

It was also hard for McCain, a millionaire admiral’s son to get away with labelling Obama as “elitist”, but SP can get away with it, and obviously plans to make it the central point of her message.
The rest of her message is to remain outside the level of open discourse: she is there to embody those classical Republican values of God, guns and family.
But now there is a bit of a menacing though looming behind that image: she is someone whi is going to force her non-abstinent daughter carry her little white-trash brat to term, and if she has her way, she will come along and force all of America’s daughters to do the same!
And at least her daughter does not have to face the prospect of a life at or below the poverty line for keeping her child, as is the case with most teenagers who face the same decision.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Sep 5 2008 12:14 utc | 28

Palin is, in essence, the anti-Biden. What effect this will have on those voters whose growing disenchantment with Obama’s brisk hike to the ‘safe’ ground previously occupied by Kerry and the other Democrat risk-averse will be interesting to see. In terms of change, McCain and Palin are in fact quite different. Unusual. He the ‘maveric,’ she the hockey mom who destroyed the Republican party machine in Alaska and speaks warmly of unions. In terms of God-bothering there really isn’t much between McPalin and Obama – there’s an interesting article in the New Yorker this week about how O is winning over the Catholics and Evangelicals, and there’s a chance that the God-Bothering vote could be split down the middle.
I’m not sure that the fact that Palin is someone whi is going to force her non-abstinent daughter carry her little white-trash brat to term will seem menacing to a majority of Americans. It’s Family Values writ large. As for the poverty line: so far, appeals to patriotism and xenophobia have trumped poverty and quality of life issues hands down. If you mention the poverty line, you’re a whiner. Country First – ie don’t complain, just support the troops.
It’s starting to get interesting, in a car-wreck, rubbernecking sort of way…

Posted by: Tantalus | Sep 5 2008 13:11 utc | 29

Tantalus,
I happen to believe that the family-values thing is a bit of a problem for the Republicans: on one hand, they have a base that is soundly anti-abortion.
But the consensus among the rest of the voters seems to be that they oppose abortion in principle, but in practice, they want to have another option open just in case their daughter is not 100% abstinent.
And it should be easy enough to outmaneouver Palin on the abortion issue by simplay stating: We support her choice and her daughters choice – and every other woman’s right to choose.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Sep 5 2008 13:44 utc | 30

“force her non-abstinent daughter carry her little white-trash brat to term”
WTF? There is no way I believe that Palin thinks ill of or wishes ill upon her future grandhcild. The hatred against Palin is the worst I have witnessed against anyone person or entity here at Moon of Alabama ever.

Posted by: Rick | Sep 5 2008 14:34 utc | 31

curious The sectarian can lie for deffending its ideas.
I can´t .
what are your ideas you cannot lie about?
The hatred against Palin is the worst I have witnessed against anyone person or entity here at Moon of Alabama ever.
if you can’t stand the heat get out of the fire. as for your assertion there has certainly been equal disdain for a whole slew of war criminals, along w/an abundance of evidence at this site expressing much worse than anything since her anointing. so how is it for you to feel so protective for this self defined pitbull thrust into our political arena?

Posted by: annie | Sep 5 2008 14:55 utc | 32

There is no way I believe that Palin thinks ill of or wishes ill upon her future grandhcild.
Excellent strawman.

Posted by: Got Your Number | Sep 5 2008 14:57 utc | 33

thanks I Am Who Isn’t for link @#24, very informative, lots of promising to pray. My favorite comments on first few pages:
#18

She has been called inept and unknown by the liberal media….but there is no way possible that you can be both. If she is unknown…how can she be labeled “inept?”
She liberals are afraid of this lady because she’s completely ept!!

To which I can only say, well I’m unknown and I’m inept.
#28

The full text of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s remarks, as prepared for delivery.

Long ago, a young farmer and habber-dasher from Missouri followed an unlikely path to the vice presidency.

Be nice if she’d mentioned Truman rose by attacking over-billing war contractors as traitors, but of course she had to read what she was given. And I’ll bet the writer (one of Bush’s) can spell haberdasher.
Rick #31: Means she’s doing her job.

Posted by: plushtown | Sep 5 2008 15:07 utc | 34

See? I put a “snip” in #34, foolishly between “<" and ">“. Inept again.

Posted by: plushtown | Sep 5 2008 15:11 utc | 35

but of course she had to read what she was given
my sentiments exactly. wonder how many times that thread will be used as ‘proof’? me neither. besides the msm hasn’t called her inept. these message boards drive their message which ward has graced us with.
will say this, her speech last night has really charged up the disenchanted, and they are now going to vote for McCain.
not to overshadow our introduction to the link.
Holy Shit, she was a huge hit with the Evangelicals

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 5 2008 15:34 utc | 36

@Rick – calm down and look how that line developed:
Ralphyboy in 28 wrote:
The rest of her message is to remain outside the level of open discourse: she is there to embody those classical Republican values of God, guns and family.
But now there is a bit of a menacing though looming behind that image: she is someone whi is going to force her non-abstinent daughter carry her little white-trash brat to term, and if she has her way, she will come along and force all of America’s daughters to do the same!
He pointed out
a. This is how Republicans will see her: blah blah extreme
b. This is how others will see here: blah blah extreme
That wasn’t ralphieboy saying that it is so, but ralphieboy using a crass example for one of two divergent worldviews.
tantalus in @29 repeated that line, in italics, and said he doesn’t think that’s the way the majority will see this.
Rick, I don’t think there is anyone here who has that personal view on SP as it was worded in that line.
It was used as an example for a certain thought.

Posted by: b | Sep 5 2008 16:17 utc | 37

Back to Main