Big political news. Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) became the most prominent member of the GOP caucus to come out. In favor of same-sex marriage, that is. Portman, who was on Mitt Romney’s short list of possible vice-presidential running mates attributed his change of heart to his son coming out as a gay man.
I have come to believe that if two people are prepared to make a lifetime commitment to love and care for each other in good times and in bad, the government shouldn’t deny them the opportunity to get married.
That isn’t how I’ve always felt. As a congressman, and more recently as a senator, I opposed marriage for same-sex couples. Then something happened that led me to think through my position in a much deeper way.
Two years ago, my son Will, then a college freshman, told my wife, Jane, and me that he is gay. He said he’d known for some time, and that his sexual orientation wasn’t something he chose; it was simply a part of who he is. Jane and I were proud of him for his honesty and courage. We were surprised to learn he is gay but knew he was still the same person he’d always been. The only difference was that now we had a more complete picture of the son we love.
So let’s review: it’s okay to previously be on record as opposing gay rights and same-sex marriage just so long as your positions “evolve” once you learn your son or daughter is one of those people you’ve actively discriminated against.
It has to become personal. Oh, and you have to be a Republican too.
I was blind but now I see. Go forth and sin no more. Hallelujah!
Portman remained a religious-based, anti-equality, bigot throughout his entire career prior to his sonny-boy coming out only to be “transformed” and “evolve” when his previously held beliefs suddenly became personal for him.
Until it did he was fine with discriminating against someone else’s child.
- Let the military decide on don’t-ask-don’t-tell
- Supports Amendment to prevent same sex marriage
- Supports banning homosexuals in the military
- YES on banning gay adoptions in DC.
- YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage
As recently as 2011, Portman was a typical Republican homophobe actively opposing same-sex marriage and not apologizing for it. I’m not nearly as impressed by my home state Senator’s partial-reversal as some folks are. It’s nice. It’s late, but it’s still nice. I’m sure those gays and lesbians Portman happily discriminated against will be glad he’s getting off their backs.
Hooray, and so what if Rob Portman goes forth and sins no more? Just because you got religion doesn’t mean you’re not a sinner anymore.
Everyone was wondering why Romney chose Paul Ryan over Portman as his vice-president when it was obvious Portman could have helped Romney in the critical state of Ohio (you know, that place that when it was declared for Obama and ended Election Night sent Karl Rove into such a frenzy he tried to eat his own foot).
Now we know why. Ryan didn’t have a gay son.
Esquire’s Charles P. Pierce shares my skepticism about Portman’s epiphany.
If Will hadn’t come out, or if he’d been as straight as Nebraska highway, Portman wouldn’t have cared about the sons and daughters and brothers and sisters of all the other Dads who love them and want them to have the same opportunities? It’s not just the implied notion that discrimination is OK unless it inconveniences Sunday dinner with the Portmans. It’s also the relentless banality through which even “decent” Republicans struggle to come to simple humanity. Does any group of people have dark nights of the soul that are so endlessly boring and transparently insincere?
It’s like listening to Kierkegaard sell flatware. I’m glad there’s another vote for marriage equality here. I’m also glad I didn’t have to listen to the full explanation behind it.
Me too and frankly I don’t get why I should give Portman credit for doing what he’s supposed to do.
It’s wonderful and terrific that Rob has decided to stop discriminating against a group of people. But am I supposed to bake him some cookies too?
- Senator Rob Portman reveals he has a gay son, now supports same-sex marriage (thesunnews.typepad.com)
- Does Senator Rob Portman Still Believe Businesses Should Be Able to Fire His Son for Being Gay? – VIDEO (towleroad.com)
- Ohio Senator Rob Portman Announces Support For Marriage Equality (buzzfeed.com)
I’ve blogged three days in a row and I was going to take today off, but I’ve been reading about all these fools melting down because they can’t handle one more day of the next four years with Obama back in the White House. I don’t care so much about racist teenagers making racist tweets. They’re too young and dumb to take seriously. These fools who are circulating and signing petitions to secede from the United States are grown-ass adults even if they aren’t acting like it.
It’s always a bad idea to indulge bratty children and whiny losers throwing tantrums because they can’t handle losing.
You don’t get to run off and start your own idealized of a White, right-wing American homeland. That’s what the Aryan Brotherhood and other separatist groups are for. Trot on off to Idaho and hang out with those Hitler-slurping assholes if that’s the crowd you’re down for.
If the prospect of four more years of a Black President in the White House and growing political clout by people of color, women and young people is so terrifying then please follow the advice of Bluto Blutarsky and start drinking heavily.
The rest of us have a country we love and don’t intend to leave. If Romney had won, you know where I’d be? Right here.
And that’s where the majority of real conservatives and Republicans are going to be too. They may not be happy about how the election turned out, but the smart ones, the ones that aren’t driving over their husbands for not voting or killing themselves after writing “fuck Obama” on their last will, know they only have four more years to deal with him.
The smart ones know there’s another election in two years and a chance to get well. The smart ones know they have a very strong bench of potential candidates waiting for 2016 including some they actually want to vote for next time.
The smart ones know the Republicans control the House where the power to turn off the financial spigot lies. The smart ones know there are even more Republican governors now than there were two weeks ago. The smart ones know better than to listen gibbering idiots like Limbaugh or Fox News because they’re often wrong and as off-target as their predictions were going into the election, not even close to being right.
The smart ones know they need to stop listening to fools like Dick Morris, overrated hustlers like Karl Rove and a Conservative Entertainment Media that tells them what they wish the facts were, not what the facts are.
I don’t give a shit what the stupid ones do. Let them secede. Let them leave the country. Let them wallow in their misery. Let them wail “the fucking nigger won again.” The election is over. You lost. Suck it up. There’s work to be done. No time to waste consoling a buncha crybabies and sore losers.
Sorry haters. Pack yo’ shit and get to stepping if you want, but the country stays. The rest of us are still using it.
- Good News Everybody! Letting Red States Secede Would Help Balance Budget (addictinginfo.org)
- Let’s Be Honest, Red States Want to Secede Because the White Guy Didn’t Win (politicususa.com)
- Secessionists Need To Stop Veiled Racism Talk And Secede From Earth (newstalkcleveland.com)
Okay, that’s enough. Your prolonged temper tantrum has been quite amusing, disappointed Republicans, but it’s time to cut the crap.
It’s sad and tragic that some people are having such a hard time waking up to the realization that Obama is still president, but you’ve had a week to let that sink in. After a respectable amount of time to give you time to accept you’ve got four more years to suffer through, I don’t haven even one more minute to waste waiting on Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, Ted Nugent, Sarah Palin, Mary Matalin, Victoria Jackson, Fox News and pissed off wives that run down their husbands for not voting to get over their Obama Derangement Syndrome.
Some of us are pretty pleased with how last Tuesday turned out. Rachel Maddow is one of the smartest news personalities we have. Watching her makes me smarter than I was before I tuned in.
Maddow ran down a list of what wasn’t going to happen with Barack Obama safely back in the White House. It was quite a list and if anyone missed it, it bears repeating.
(1) “We are not going to have a Supreme Court that will overturn Roe vs. Wade. There will be no more Antonin Scalias and Samuel Alitos added to this court.”
(2) “We’re not going to repeal health reform. Nobody’s going to kill Medicare and make old people in this generation — or any other generation — fight it out on the open market to try to get themselves health insurance. We’re not going to do that.”
(3) “We’re not going to give the 20% tax cut to millionaires and billionaires, and expect [cutting] programs like food stamps and kids’ health insurance to cover that tax cut.”
(4) “We’re not going to make you clear it with your boss if you want to get birth control with the insurance plan that you’re on.”
(5) “We are not going to redefine rape.”
(6) “We are not going to amend the constitution to stop gay people from getting married.”
(7) We’re not going to double down on Guantanamo.
(8) “We’re not eliminating the Department of Energy, the Department of Education, or Housing at the Federal level.”
(9) “We are not going to spend two trillion dollars on the military, that the military does not want.”
(10) “We are not scaling back on student loans because the country’s NEW plan is that you should borrow money from your parents.”
(11) “We are not vetoing the Dream Act, we are not ‘self-deporting.’”
(12) “We are not letting Detroit go bankrupt.”
(13) “We are not starting a trade war with China on Inauguration Day in January.”
(14) “We are not going to have — as a president — a man who once led a mob of friends to run down a scared gay kid to hold him down and forcibly cut his hair off with a pair of scissors while that kid cried and screamed for help. (And there was NO apology, not EVER.)”
(15) “We are not going to have a Secretary of State John Bolton. We are not going to bring Dick Cheney Back. We are not going to have a foreign policy shop stocked with architects of the Iraqi war, we are not going to do it … We had the choice to do that if we wanted to do that, as a country, and we said no, last night, loudly.”
Ah, Rachel, if television is the idiot box, it’s no wonder the idiots hate you for refusing to dumb down your show to make stupid people (like this moron in Cincinnati) feel better about themselves.
- Donald Trump, Victoria Jackson and Ted Nugent rant on Twitter after Obama victory (ontheredcarpet.com)
- Looking Forward: Rachel Maddow’s 15 Sucky Things Prevented By Obama Winning His 2nd Term (addictinginfo.org)
- “Is this just math that you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better or is this real?” (althouse.blogspot.com)
- What we won (bluejaysway.wordpress.com)
MORRIS: Look, I believe that — and I’ve said this before and everybody either gives a sigh of a relief or a cynical laugh — there is no chance that Obama will get re-elected.
HANNITY: I don’t agree that’s true. I think it’s possible.
MORRIS: Zilch, none, zip, nada.
Dick Morris is a bullshit artist supreme. He’s been so wrong on so many things for so long he’s about as authentic as a porn queen’s orgasm, but he’s got job security.
After all he works for Fox News. Have you ever heard of anyone getting fired from Fox for being wrong? In conservative media it matters less if you don’t know what you’re talking about as long as who you’re talking about is someone conservatives don’t like. This is why Morris can say Obama stands no chance of being reelected and Mitt Romney would beat him in a “landslide.”
If Dick Morris were a weatherman in Des Moines he would have been fired by now for constantly forecasting snowstorms in the middle of August.
Ever wonder why someone who supposedly knows so much about political strategy is showing up on The O’Reilly Factor and Hannity instead of advising Mitt Romney or some other Republican candidate? Because they know Morris is a bug-fuck nuts prostitute toe sucker who has shit for brains, hasn’t been right about anything for years and whatever expertise he had evaporated right after Bill Clinton got rid of his prostitute toe sucking ass.
The only people who still take Morris seriously are Fox News viewers. Everybody else knows he’s a joke and not a good one.
Before rank-and-file conservatives ask, “What went wrong?”, they should ask themselves a question every bit as important: “Why were we the last to realize that things were going wrong for us?”
Barack Obama just trounced a Republican opponent for the second time. But unlike four years ago, when most conservatives saw it coming, Tuesday’s result was, for them, an unpleasant surprise. So many on the right had predicted a Mitt Romney victory, or even a blowout — Dick Morris, George Will, and Michael Barone all predicted the GOP would break 300 electoral votes. Joe Scarborough scoffed at the notion that the election was anything other than a toss-up. Peggy Noonan insisted that those predicting an Obama victory were ignoring the world around them. Even Karl Rove, supposed political genius, missed the bulls-eye. These voices drove the coverage on Fox News, talk radio, the Drudge Report, and conservative blogs.
Those audiences were misinformed.
Outside the conservative media, the narrative was completely different. Its driving force was Nate Silver, whose performance forecasting Election ’08 gave him credibility as he daily explained why his model showed that President Obama enjoyed a very good chance of being reelected. Other experts echoed his findings. Readers of The New York Times, The Atlantic, and other “mainstream media” sites besides knew the expert predictions, which have been largely born out. The conclusions of experts are not sacrosanct. But Silver’s expertise was always a better bet than relying on ideological hacks like Morris or the anecdotal impressions of Noonan.
It doesn’t take a degree in Political Science to tell you why hucksters like Morris should be ignored or on the odd occasions they actually get something right why it should be shrugged off as merely the sun shining on a dog’s ass.
Beware any “expert” who can no longer find employment in their chosen profession that always tells you exactly what you want to hear and nothing you don’t. That is a classic warning sign you are being bullshitted.
Most conservatives can handle the truth. By now they should have scoped out Morris as a sleazy, prostitute toe sucking snake oil salesman but it seems some of them have swallowed his swill for so long they can’t quit it even though they know it’s no good for them.
Morris isn’t going anywhere. Not so long as he continues to be a useful idiot spreading the manure for Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes.
- Go Away, Dick Morris. For Good. (andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com)
- Good Omen for Obama: Dick Morris Predicts Romney Landslide (crooksandliars.com)
- It’s Official: Dick Morris Is “Through” (mediamatters.org)
Here’s a question without an easy answer. If Mitt Romney beats Barack Obama in November, who will be the next President of the United States?
Logically, it should be Romney, but as beholden as he will be to Karl Rove, Sheldon Adelson, the Koch Brothers and all the other rich men and special interests with one hand on his shoulder and the other up his ass, who will really be president if Romney wins?
There are trade-offs you have to accept with Obama. Steady and mature decision-making instead of boldly ambitious plans. The Republicans are not going to give the president a dime to do anything remotely grandiose. If Obama achieves anything of significance in a second term, it will be in spite of the GOP, not because of them.
How do you govern when the legislative branch refuses to work with the executive? There is a natural friction between the two that the Founding Fathers not only anticipated, they designed the Constitution to promote, but open hostilities wasn’t what they had in mind. It is what it is, and even if Obama wins in a squeaker or a landslide, he can expect nothing more from a Republican-controlled Congress (if the GOP holds the House and takes the Senate) than the coldest of cold shoulders for the next four years. If a second term emboldens Obama to pursue loftier goals than his first, it will also motivate Congress to give him absolutely zip.
Cornel West might say otherwise, but with Obama it’s a little harder to know who it is exactly who has the tightest grip on his balls. With Romney you have to count all the hands stuffed in his pants.
Mitt’s other biggest problem is he doesn’t seem to like people very much or at least people not like him. Wealthy. White. Conservative. Mormon. In a story at Salon a psychologist put Mittens on the couch and concluded:
He is anxious about revealing who he is and about interacting with people he doesn’t know. He appears to have much less experience than Obama in interacting with people from all walks of life. Basically, he is uncomfortable except within his own family and in the presence of those who share his wealthy background and Mormon faith.
Romney wouldn’t be the first rich guy who was painfully awkward and awfully comfortable rubbing elbows with the people he purports to want to lead. It is not required that the president relate to the citizens, but the prospect of a Chief Executive that has no empathy for the middle and working classes is a worrisome prospect.
In 1965, Romney was attending a private high school he was outraged by the appearance of one John Lauber, a quiet fellow student who had bleached d his hair blonde with one long lock falling over his eyes. Lauber was not simply a nonconformist, but gay as well. An incensed Romney told classmates, “He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!”
Romney led his gang of bullies in assaulting and pinning Lauber down as Romney cut off his hair. When asked about the incident Romney shrugged it off saying, “I participated in a lot of hijinks and pranks in high school and some of them might have gone too far, and I apologize.”
Romney claims Lauber being gay had nothing to do with hassling him. “I certainly don’t believe that I thought the fellow was homosexual,” Romney told a Fox News radio host. “That was the furthest thing from our minds back in the 1960s.”
As “hijinks and pranks” go, giving crap to the kid who didn’t fit in is a harsh rite of passage in high school. But it says something about Romney that he didn’t recall Lauber and how he had abused a fellow student who was only minding his business. To Romney, Lauber was a weirdo who didn’t fit in. How someone forgets their part in humiliating another kid in such a demeaning way says to me if Mitt doesn’t have a dark side, he’s cursed by a sadistic, mean streak.
Forbes contributor Josh Brasso wondered where is Mitt’s empathy? “…There is a difference between learning to treat others respectfully and having empathy for them. It seems like teenage Mitt Romney fell down on both of those counts, and I’m confident that adult Mitt Romney has figured the respect thing out. But does Romney have empathy for people who are different from him?
No. Not really. When Romney appeared at the NAACP convention in July, much was made of the raucous booing he received for saying he would repeal Obamacare. What was overlooked was his later claim he had met with Black leaders who supported him, but were afraid to do so publicly.
The NAACP’s Hillary Shelton told Ed Schultz, “Quite frankly, the campaign actually gave me a list of African-American VIPs that they brought into the NAACP meeting. So we were aware that they had people brought in specifically for the campaign. So I’m sure those were the ones they sat down with, because quite frankly none of the rank-and-file NAACPers met with him.”
“They’re bringing people in that they know will support his agenda from other places, that aren’t active with the NAACP. These are people who are brought in to actually provide the cheering for him, so there will be some support along those lines,” Shelton said.
Romney was praised for being willing to go before a hostile audience and not pander to the NAACP, but he tried to stack the deck by busing in his own Black cheerleaders. This illustrates not only how uncomfortable Romney is around people he doesn’t relate to, but how he will to shape and manipulate events to make himself comfortable.
Ultimately, it doesn’t matter. If Mittens gets five percent of the Black vote it would be a minor miracle. Anyone duplicitous enough to bus in ringers to applaud for him like trained monkeys (and I do mean that insult in the most racial sense of the word) has already disrespected the intelligence of African-Americans.
I’m quite aware of President Obama’s shortcomings. I don’t need a 30-second attack ad to tell me his flaws. There are things about Obama that make me mad and/or drive me crazy. I wish he fought harder for what he believes is best for America. Often it seems he won’t if it might interfere with his natural inclination to reach out to the other side.
Some very intelligent people say Romney, once elected, will be free to govern from more moderate positions than the Tea Party-dominated GOP presently holds. But what if he doesn’t? What if he is simply a rubber stamp in the Oval Office? That’s a chance not worth taking.
The likelihood Romney being captured by the right-wing of his party increased this week in Texas when Ted Cruz, a Tea Party endorsed challenger defeated the favorite of the party, David Dewhurst for the U.S. Senate vacated by Kay Bailey Hutchinson’s retirement. Cruz’s win wasn’t bad news for Obama because Democrats had no chance of picking up Hutchinson’s seat, but it was awful news for Romney because the GOP just got dragged a little further away from the political center.
“If we can elect a really conservative House and Senate that will force Romney to go along with our bold conservative agenda,” a spokesperson for Freedom Works said. “He’s going to have to really, really go to the right. He’ll be working with guys in the House and Senate. He won’t be able to get away with too many middle of the road policies, especially on things like the deficit.”
That dear reader, is the final reason a Romney presidency would be a disaster. He would be an impotent figurehead. A sock puppet for the wealthy elites that poured millions into the presidential campaign on his behalf and unable to lead from the center with the G.O.Tea Party dragging him far on the fringes to the Right.
Obama earns the contempt of Republicans but Romney would be expected to kneel and grovel before the yahoos of the party. Is there any reason to expect Mitt would tell the Tea Party “Screw off. I’m the president?”
We need four more years for President Obama because four years of a figurehead on the job would be a catastrophe and stakes are too high to leave the future of the nation to Mitt Romney…and John Boehner…and Eric Cantor…and Paul Ryan…and Mitch McConnell…and Jim De Mint…and Sheldon Adelson…and David Koch….and Karl Rove…
America can’t afford a president who takes orders from a shadow Cabinet and that’s what we will have with Romney in the White House and someone else in charge.
- NAACP Official: Romney ‘Flew In’ His Own Blacks to Cheer NAACP Speech (atlantablackstar.com)
- Mitt Romney: Empty suit, empty mind (capitolhillblue.com)
- Even Republicans say Romney wasn’t prepared to handle his overseas trip (dailykos.com)
If you work for Mitt Romney presidential campaign or the Republican National Committee, you’ve got a friend at Fox News.
Any question that the “fair and balanced” network is anything but ended this week after the Fox and Friends morning program aired a four-minute anti-Obama attack ad that looks like something Karl Rove and Ted Nugent would have dreamed up during a mutual masturbation session.
Media critic Howard Kurtz was flabbergasted by how brazenly Fox went scorched earth on the president.
The thing has to be seen to be believed. It is a classic piece of negative propaganda, scary music and all.
The piece starts off with Barack Obama promising change, and then, banging the viewer over the head: A bag of money, labeled a $15.7-trillion deficit. Footage of begging homeless people. The jobless rate ticking up to 8.3 percent (though it’s down from 9.9). Shots of people using food stamps as Nancy Pelosi favorably mentions the program and the unbiased Newt Gingrich rips Obama as a food-stamp president. Rising gas prices. Rising food prices. Foreclosure signs. A pink piggy bank tumbling down the stairs. Speeded-up snippets of unseen voices delivering bad news.
And how did Fox & Friends react to this assault on the senses? “Hats off to Chris White,” said co-host Steve Doocy, crediting the associate producer who made the video.
I’m telling you, Mitt Romney’s campaign wouldn’t have produced this. The RNC wouldn’t have produced this. Karl Rove’s group wouldn’t have produced this. It is a parody of an attack spot and would have been laughed out of the political arena.
Fox reacted by yanking the video from its website and issuing a tepid statement from executive vice president Bill Shine: “The package that aired on Fox & Friends was created by an associate producer and was not authorized at the senior executive level of the network. This has been addressed with the show’s producers.”
Not authorized”? No denunciation of the video? No apology? No disciplinary action?
The fact that the hosts were happy with this latest video assault on the president is nothing short of revealing.
This is a moment of truth heading into the general election. Roger Ailes should denounce the video and criticize his network’s handling of it. He should make clear that such partisan garbage has no place on Fox News. Otherwise people will assume that Fox’s worst critics are right.
Newflash for Little Howie Kurtz: Fox’s worst critics are right and always have been. You can’t slide a piece of paper between the Republican Party and their official network, Fox News.
Fox and Friends isn’t like The Today Show or Good Morning America. Their primary interest has never been happy talk with celebrities or Jungle Jack Hanna sitting on the couch with a cockatoo perched on his shoulder. It’s always been a morning program wearing its political views on its shoulder.
A four-minute attack ad is coming from a much different place than an segment on how to make delicious low-cholesterol meals. Fox and Friends is a program on the Fox News channel and despite that obnoxious lie that Fox is “fair and balanced” there is no wall of separation between the network’s news, opinion and entertainment programming. It’s all designed to flow Fox’s right-wing agenda. Unless they produce a four-minute attack ad with Mitt Romney as the target Fox have proven themselves unfair and unbalanced.
Even a lousy program like F&F has to keep up some semblance of journalistic standards. It can’t engage in slander, it has to ensure they have checked their facts and when it runs a hit piece like this, it can’t hide behind the flimsy excuse it’s not a news or opinion program.
Any pretense F&F doesn’t have a political slant went “bye-bye” when they aired that segment and gave the associate producer a big wet kiss.
Not everybody wants a heavy-handed dosage of anti-Obama propaganda first thing in the morning with their corn flakes.
The surprise for wimps like Kurtz is Fox’s total abandonment of any semblance of impartiality and objectivity. Those of us whom have witnessed Fox’s rise to the ratings juggernaut it is, picked up a long time ago the secret to their success was to offer “news” in the most negative and polarizing way possible by demonizing Democrats and the Left in general and President Obama specifically. The three stooges who make up the Fox and Friends morning crew couldn’t have been more obvious with their support of Romney if they had worn, “We Like Mitt” T-shirts.
You call that what it is when you see it: media bias. It’s not just for liberals anymore.
- Fox News cuts Obama attack ad (salon.com)
- Fox News Is Now Producing Its Own Anti-Obama Attack Ads [Video] (gawker.com)
- Fox & Friends create and run ‘fair and balanced’ anti-Obama attack video (dailykos.com)
Between Madonna’s creaky dancing, M.I.A. flipping off millions of viewers, the Giants sending Tom Brady and Bill Belicheat home for a loser’s lunch, there were quite a few commercials broadcast during the Super Bowl trying to get people to buy, eat, drink, watch or do something.
Only one has pissed off Bush’s Brain, Karl Rove. This one.
For a multitude of reasons, some Republicans are crying foul. One, because many of them (like Mitt Romney) were opposed to the auto industry bailouts that saved Chrysler and GM from collapsing.
Two, because they also fear the beneficiary of Eastwood’s commercial is President Obama.
You can almost hear Karl Rove panicking.
“This is a sign of what happens when you have government getting in bed with big business like the bailout of the auto companies,” Rove complained. “The leadership of the auto companies feel they need to do something to repay their political patrons.”
“I was, frankly, offended by it,” he added. “I’m a huge fan of Clint Eastwood. I thought it was an extremely well-done ad, but it is a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics. And the president of the United States and his political minions are, in essence, using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising.”
Although Obama did sign off on $85 billion in aid to the auto industry after taking office, Rove’s former boss, President George W. Bush, also provided over $17 billions in loans in 2008.
Rove’s objection to the commercial is a clear sign that Republicans are worried that the auto bailout will benefit the president’s re-election effort.
Eastwood says politics has nothing to do with it.
Clint Eastwood is setting the record straight about his improbably controversial Chrysler ad that aired on Sunday’s Super Bowl.
The “Gran Torino” director went on the defensive Monday, dismissing suggestions that the ad is a partisan love letter to President Obama.
Speaking to Ron Mitchell, a producer at Fox News Channel’s “The O’Reilly Factor,” Eastwood asserted, “I am certainly not politically affiliated with Mr. Obama. It was meant to be a message … just about job growth and the spirit of America. I think all politicians will agree with it.”
Eastwood, who served as mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, in the 1980s, added that he is “not supporting any politician at this time” but noted that, if Obama or any other politician “want to run with the spirit of that ad, go for it.”
Eastwood’s manager, Leonard Hirshan, was also dismissive of Rove and company’s claim, telling New York magazine, “He rewrote it to make it suit his needs … People have to understand that what he was doing was saying to America, ‘Get yourselves together – all of you – and make this a second half.’ It’s not a political thing.”
The most offensive thing about Rove being offended is his own boss started the ball rolling with the bail-outs for the auto industry. For Rove, the master of down n’ dirty Texas-style politics, to sneer at “Chicago-style politics” is the ultimate example of the pot calling the kettle black.
Apparently, Rove would prefer Chrysler and GM fail so the blame could be placed on Obama and the Democrats than for the two automakers to stay afloat and any credit be given to the president.
You don’t need a degree in political science to figure out why Rove is pissed at Eastwood. Lending his iconic image and considerable credible to a recovering Chrysler was a masterstroke on the part of whomever reached out to Eastwood for his participation. For the Turd Blossom to think he can now talk smack about Eastwood reeks of a case of Obama Derangement Syndrome so advanced Rove is beside himself with frustration.
Peddling negativity, fear, gloom and doom can take you only so far. Americans are at heart relentlessly optimistic about their country and prefer to look forward with hope than back with dread.
Karl Rove is not in the optimism business. He’s in the electing Republicans and demonizing Democrats business.
Perhaps the question should be put to Rove: “Why do you hate America?”
Personally, I thought it was a terrific ad and everyone I’ve asked about it agreed it embodied the spirit of Americans coming together in a common purpose. It’s a novel experience for a prominent conservative to say something nice about Detroit and the auto industry.
Rove doesn’t want to pick a fight with Eastwood. He’s way out of his weight class. But if Rove wants to throw down with Eastwood, I’d recommend against it, but it would be a short fight with two hits; Clint hits Karl and Karl hits the ground.
America can’t be knocked out by one punch, but you can’t say the same for Rove. I’d put down my money for a chance to see Rove get cold-cocked and laid flat out on his ass.
- A follow-up to Clint Eastwood’s view of America (the can opener story) (viewfrommiddleclass.wordpress.com)
- Unforgiven: Rove Denounces Eastwood Super Bowl Commercial (jonathanturley.org)
- Karl Rove’s hissy fit: “Offended” by Chrysler ad (kaystreet.wordpress.com)
The (im)plausible defense of the typical Paulinista when faced with Ron Paul’s racist newsletters is to say, “He didn’t write them. He didn’t even read them. He definitely doesn’t agree with them. He only published them.”
The hardcore true believers in St. Paul’s divinity are living life in 3-D: Denial, deflection and dismissal. They see conspiracies everywhere and blame everywhere but where it belongs–with Ron Paul.
Nothing will shake the faith of the faithful in Paul and that is fine by me. I hope he wins Iowa and causes Karl Rove and Sean Hannity’s heads to explode and the GOP establishment to commit ritual seppuku. That would give me great pleasure and much joy.
Paul’s rap won’t translate far beyond Iowa, but he would throw a severe monkey wrench into the Mitt Romney Coronation. Paul might even be emboldened enough to go the independent route and send GOP hopes of ousting President Obama crashing and burning.
I’d like that.
The New Republic posted excerpts from some of Ron Paul’s newsletters from the Nineties.
“A Special Issue on Racial Terrorism” analyzes the Los Angeles riots of 1992: “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. … What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided.”
This December 1990 newsletter describes Martin Luther King Jr. as “a world-class adulterer” who “seduced underage girls and boys” and “replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.”
A February 1991 newsletter attacks “The X-Rated Martin Luther King.”
An October 1990 edition of the Political Report ridicules black activists, led by Al Sharpton, for demonstrating at the Statue of Liberty in favor of renaming New York City after Martin Luther King. The newsletter suggests that “Welfaria,” “Zooville,” “Rapetown,” “Dirtburg,”and “Lazyopolis ” would be better alternatives—and says, “Next time, hold that demonstration at a food stamp bureau or a crack house.”
A May 1990 issue of the Ron Paul Political Reportcites Jared Taylor, who six months later would go onto found the eugenicist and white supremacist periodical American Renaissance.
The January 1993 issue of the Survival Report worries about America’s “disappearing white majority.”
The July 1992 Ron Paul Political Reportdeclares, “Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems,” and defends David Duke. The author of the newsletter—presumably Paul—writes, “My youngest son is starting his fourth year in medical school. He tells me there would be no way to persuade his fellow students of the case for economic liberty.”
A March 1993 Survival Reportdescribes Bill Clinton’s supposedly “illegitimate children, black and white: ‘woods colts’ in backwoods slang.”
The further we go into the depths of Paul’s past in peddling prejudice the more examples there emerge indicating perhaps Paul was not as unsympathetic to the sentiments expressed in his newsletters as he says now.
A newly unearthed subscription pitch circa 1993, this time bearing the signature of Paul himself. It reads like a caricature of the conspiratorial, unhinged, early ’90s militia movement, the kind of thing that would make the John Birch Society blush. Written in the first person, it warns of threats from the “demonic fraternity” we know of as Yale’s Skull and Bones society, the Trilateral Commission, the “perverted, pagan” rituals at Bohemian Grove, a global government, “the coming race war,” the Council on Foreign Relation, and FEMA. Paul (or his ghostwriter, at least) carefully explains that you can trust his view that the federal government is behind AIDS, because he’s a doctor:
Paul’s newsletters weren’t just a form of political expression or “educational” (as he bragged in a 1995 C-Span interview)—they were a highly lucrative endeavor. In 1993 alone, Paul’s publishing company brought in a million dollars. The newsletter was published for decades, which suggests that Paul stood to make a lot of money from it. Paul has attempted to laugh that charge away, but that’s a lot different than refuting it. And from the pitch letter sent out under Paul’s name, his was a hard sell, perfectly calibrated to cash in on fears. “[B]ad times offer the greatest profit opportunities,” he writes. The government’s plans will “chill your blood.” “Help me help you survive.” “The holocaust of the underground economy.” “You may not have much time left.” By imparting this information, Paul claimed he might be placing his life at risk: “I’ve been told not to talk, but these stooges don’t scare me.” The letter concludes with these stirring words: “There’s no time to waste. The new money may not come until next year. Or it may be imposed tomorrow. You should subscribe today.”
If the Ron Paul Survival Report wasn’t a sincere expression of the congressman’s views, it was nonetheless a scheme to profit by stirring up the worst fears of a small group of the population. Which is why as long as Paul continues to duck and weave rather than address the very real questions posed by his newsletters, the controversy will not go away.
Remember in 2008 when Obama had to give his speech in Philadelphia distancing himself from Reverend Wright and publicly rebuking him? That’s the sort of speech Ron Paul needs to give. NOW.
It won’t change my mind about him. That ship has sailed. But for others who like some of Paul’s positions but are troubled by the way the supposed straight shooter keeps changing his explanations and won’t address the matter directly and forthrightly it could be the difference between victory and obscurity.
Paul would have you think he’s not your garden variety Republican. His willingness to pander to racial fears and to profiteer from that fear places him squarely in the GOP mainstream. He wants Americans to think only he has the moral fiber and courage to be president.
As it stands, he’s just a coward.
- Ron Paul: Yea I Wrote The Newsletters, But Not Those Icky Parts (outsidethebeltway.com)
- Editorial: Mr. Paul’s Discredited Campaign (nytimes.com)
- ‘Racist newsletter’ timeline: What Ron Paul has said (csmonitor.com)
- Ron Paul Denial Watch: Only ‘Eight To Ten Sentences’ Were Offensive (littlegreenfootballs.com)