Llama School

The persecuted Black Republican meme

One of the current right-wing memes is that black Republicans are persecuted by Democrats or liberals or the "progressive left", solely for being black and Republican.  This meme has popped up again based on a recent Wall Street Journal editorial by Ted Hayes, a black Republican who runs a homeless shelter in downtown Los Angeles.  He alleges that his landlord is shutting the shelter down because his landlord recently found out he was a black Republican.  It's difficult to tell if the story is true or not, since there are discrepancies on both sides of the story.  Hayes claims that the landlord found out two days before the rent increase that he was a Republican.  However, Hayes was a public Republican, featured in the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, California Republican Party press releases, and on his own webpage well before early December.  The landlord claims that raising the rent has nothing to do with politics, but another worker at the Dome Village also notes the landlord making similar statements about Hayes being a Republican.  It's difficult to say whether Hayes' story has any merit or not, and I'm not about to speculate one way or another.

But what I will do is note how this story fits well into current claims about persecution of black Republicans, and how the claims take bogus and or isolated incidents and try and turn them into a general meme of "Black Republicans are persecuted because Democrats can't engage them on the issues". The claims re: persecution of black Republicans are laid out here in this statement by Ted Hayes:

Yet, there is a segment of American society that chooses not to accept this fundamental freedom. They use a mix of racial manipulations against American Blacks who choose to become part of an opposing political party. One such example of this manipulation is the use of vicious public attacks, especially against prominent Blacks actively participating in the Republican Party.

When a Black Democrat discovers that a fellow Black citizen is indeed Republican, they launch derogatory slurs at them, such as: Uncle Tom; sell-out; idiot, Oreo. It is as though being a Black Republican is anathema!

Some, as in the case of the Honorable Lt. Governor of Maryland, Michael Steele who is a candidate for his State US Senatorial seat, Blacks have shamefully hurled Oreo cookies at him in an attempt to say that he is "Black" (whatever that means) on the outside, but "White" (whatever that means) on the inside.

White and Black Democrats seem to encourage each other to denigrate Blacks who are Republicans without hearing their political beliefs as to whether they are valid or not.

....

It is my opinion that most Black people in the United States are politically and philosophically conservative. Many choose to be "closet" Republicans for fear of persecution from their friends, business or work associates, society clubs, school mates, and even churches, etc.

They are in favor of a strong family, (unless they are on welfare), a strong military, (they more than any 7th generation people of this country know what it is like to live under the whip of tyranny), and finally a strong desire to create their own destiny guided by the equality of the rule of law.

The fear of these "closet" Black Republicans and conservatives is justified when you consider the persecution that they would suffer should they be "found out" or "outed". It is a reverse McCarthyism as perceived by the liberal rewriting of history.

In short, Democrats won't engage black Republicans in a discussion of their beliefs, and instead resort to namecalling and racism because Democratic ideals won't hold up to Republican ideals.  The "evidence" for these claims can be put into two general categories.  The first category includes bogus stories of black Democrats engaging in this kind of rhetoric.

The two biggest stories in support of the "persecuted black Republicans" thesis are the Michael Steele/Oreo story and the Washington Times story entitled "Party trumps race" for Steele foes.  In the Oreo story, Steele and other claimed at Oreos were thrown at Steele sometime around a debate, with one aide saying they were "thick in the air like locusts".  But a deeper examination of the story shows that there is no film evidence of the Oreo incident (even though the event was televised), no evidence of the incident in news reports after the debate, and that the Oreo story only pops up weeks after the incident happened.  The Washington Times story, mentioned approvingly by a series of conservative bloggers was shown to be a partisan hack piece, with the Washington Times even issuing a retraction for one of their misquotes.  Clearly these supposed instances of "persecuted black Republicans" are simply trumped up stories positioned to take advantage of the current persecution angle.  (Also, it's interesting to note that very few bloggers that trumpeted the Oreo story or the Washington Times story even addressed the problems with either story.  If you only read a selection of right-wing blogs, you probably wouldn't know that there were major issues with either story.)

The second category of "evidence" for the "persecuted black Republicans" meme are the actions of a few individuals that do engage in racially tinged rhetoric.  Are these actions bad?  For the most part, yes.  However, when people do engage in this kind of rhetoric, they are quickly rebuked by the Democratic community.  I'll present a few examples.

Steve Gilliard referred to Michael Steele as "Simple Sambo" on his website.  After the post went public, the Maryland Democratic Party immediately denounced Gilliard's statements, saying that Gilliard's depiction of Steele was "extremely offensive and distasteful and has no place in politics or in any other aspect of public discourse".

In a different story, a Daily Kos diarist called Colin Powell an Uncle Tom and was immediately rebuked for using racially tinged terminology. And if the Hayes/landlord story turns out to be true, only the most insane liberal would defend those actions.  It's clear that the vast majority of Democrats/liberals don't support racially tinged name calling.

But this isnt' addressed in right wing blog coverage of these stories, as members of the right-wing blogosphere link note that these actions are the work of "liberals", "Democrats", and the "progressive left".  Now if this kind of behavior is truly supported by the Democratic party, then why do Democrats immediately denounce it when it happens?  Maybe it's because most Democrats and/or liberals are against this kind of behavior.  But that doesn't stop commentators from saying that this kind of behavior is indicative of the core of the Democratic party.

This general strategy (take the actions of extremists and say they reflect a larger group) has also been used against academics (see the publicity for people like Ward Churchill and Kamao Kambon, where they were presented as examples of the true heart of mainstream academia).  This kind of criticism masquerades as some sort of insight into the true nature of liberals/Democrats/academics/etc.  Unfortunately, it should be called out for what it truly is: simplistic stereotyping based on false stories and anecdotal evidence.

Today's Manufactured Outrage: Dean and Defeat

Major news outlets and right-wing blogs have jumped on Howard Dean's response to a question about getting Iraq better prepared to defend itself.  However, examining Dean's full response shows that these comments were likely taken out of context, just like Bush's comments regarding the war on terror last September. 

Most of the headlines on Dean's comments to a San Antonio radio show focused on the following quote:  "The idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong."  Predictably, these comments have started a firestorm of criticism starting with various right wing bloggers, and even meriting a mention from President Bush.  However, none have commented on the question that led to this response and the context of Dean's statement.
Below is Dean's full response to a question from a WOAI anchor:

WOAI:  Governor Dean, the key to eventually getting the US forces out of Iraq is going to have the Iraqis doing a better job of defending themselves and taking a greater role.  Are we on the right track to achieve that role?

Dean:  Well, I think our military is working very hard to do that.  But let's not forget, this was ultimately what America had to do in Vietnam.  Ultimately they said we're gonna turn this over to the Vietnamese, and of course, the South Vietnamese couldn't manage to take care of their own country.  And I, as I said, I supported the first President Bush's war in Iraq,  I supported this president's war in Afghanistan, but I do not believe in making the same mistake twice and America appears to have made the same mistake twice.  I wish the President had paid more attention to the history of Iraq before we had gotten in there.  The idea that we're going to win this war is an idea that is, unfortunately, just plain wrong, and I've seen this before in my life, and it cost us 25,000 brave American soldiers in Vietnam, and I don't want to go down that road again.  Stay out of there and take the targets off our troops backs.  We need to maintain the presence in the area so we can deal with terrorism, but not in Iraq.

The outrage is over the statement "The idea that we're going to win this war is an idea that is...just plain wrong."  However, what was the context in which this statement was made?  It was in response to a question about  getting Iraqis to be better at self-defense and self-government in order to pull troops out of Iraq.  Dean leads off the question by discussing how in Vietnam, we were planning on turning things over to the South Vietnamese, but the South Vietnamese couldn't were unable to take care of themselves.  This situation led to a protracted war in Vietnam, and our eventual defeat.  Note that the whole point of Dean's statements (and the question) is about the involvement of Iraqis (or the Vietnamese) in self-defense and self-government.

So in line with the context of the question, who is the "we" can Dean is referring to in his statement?  The "we" here likely refers to the United States without a strong Iraqi army and government.  Dean is saying that the United States can't win the war without their strength and support...without it, we'll end up in another Vietnam-like situation. 

This story is similar to the feigned outrage by some Democrats when Bush said "I don't think you can win" the war on terror in an interview with Matt Lauer.  Reading the entire statement, it's clear that Bush was commenting about how terrorism can be minimized but not eradicated.  But that didn't stop people from using this sound bite to score political points.  Unfortunately, the same thing is happening to Dean today. 

Why Think When You Can Google?

A new meme for countering claims of Bush deception re: pre-war intelligence is  "Just Google It".  It's a pathetic dodge,  since showing that Clinton supported military action against Hussein's WMDs does not counter any points regarding Bush misleading the country into war.  Clinton's comments were made based on intelligence estimates of Iraq's WMD capabilities in 1998.  Then Clinton started Operation Desert Fox, which was designed to "degrade Saddam Hussein's ability to make and to use weapons of mass destruction".  In Operation Desert Fox, US and British forces struck over 100 targets, weakening Hussein's ability to manufacture WMDs.  After the attack, Hussein's ability to produce WMDs was diminished. 

So Hussein's capacity to create WMDs changed after Operation Desert Fox.  Now did Hussein reconstitute his WMD programs enough to be a grave threat by 2003?  Clinton's commentary and actions in 1998, before Operation Desert Fox, isn't relevant to this question.  That's where the intelligence in 2003 comes in.  And, as we now know, the Bush administration failed to report many claims that downplayed Hussein's threat in 2003 while trumping up questionable evidence.

Taking quotes from Clinton's WMD assessments in 1998, before military action taking Hussein's WMDs out, and then using them to defend Bush's assessments in 2003 is just another desperate attempt to deflect attention from the legitimate question regarding manipulation of pre-war intelligence. 

UPDATE: I didn't notice the Tech Central Station article by Bryan Preston on the same subject.  Here's a passage from the article:

For the "Bush Lied" mantra to have any logical or factual force, one must believe that Desert Fox not only destroyed every single WMD Saddam had, but also cowed him sufficiently that he never built a single WMD or lab in the five years that remained of his rule. And that knowing all of this, Bush took us to war anyway. No serious person believes that.

No.  This is completely irrelevant.  Hussein may or may not have developed WMDs by 2003.  That's where examining intelligence to see if Hussein has successfully reconstituted WMD programs comes in.  And when the Bush administration did this, they selectively pushed intelligence (some knowingly flawed) that supported their claims while downplaying intelligence against it.  If the Bush administration exaggerated Hussein's threat with access to contrary evidence, then the administration misled the American people.

Washington Times Hack Piece Still Being Pushed

The Washington Times wrote an article last week where they claimed that Maryland Democrats believed that "racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican."  This article was subsequently shown to be a hack piece.  Joe Trippi was completely misquoted in the article.  Trippi said that attacks against Steele based on race “were dispicable and have no place in American politics — that such attacks were repugnant”.  This was omitted, and instead a quote about differences between "stating the obvious and calling someone names" was taken completely out of context.  Trippi responded to this smear and the Times subsequently posted a retraction.

Both Kweisi Mfume and Salimi Siler Marriott also went on WBAL to counter clear distortions of their viewpoint in the Washington Times article.  I wrote Del. Marriott to clarify her supposed position in the Times article, and her response is below:

The racially insensitive characterizations of Michael Steele were not my words, but the words of the reporter from the Washington Times describing other people's response to Michael Steele.    Thus, your analysis is absolutely correct.  However, it is my  perspective that the conservative political ideology of Michael Steele is not in the best interest of the masses of African Americans that I serve .  It is that conservative ideology of minimizing the role of the federal government at the state level that contributed to the devastation caused by Katrina.

So the Washington Times article is clearly a hack piece.  I don't necessarily expect retractions from bloggers that originally pushed the Washington Times article.  But I would expect that these folk wouldn't still be pushing these bogus claims.  From Captain's Quarters today:

Instead and especially with the black community for the past four decades, the Democrats have relied on racial politics and smear campaigns to keep a lockgrip on that constituency. The Democrats in Maryland argued just last week that such attacks on Steele would continue in this campaign.

Another solution would be to nominate Kweisi Mfume as the Democratic contender, but his campaign has severely lagged due to disinterest and prior ethical baggage. That might be good news for Steele but not for Maryland Democrats. Mfume could remove race from the campaign altogether -- he was one of the few who came out strongly against the "Simple Sambo" tactics of the Maryland Left against Steele last week -- and return the election to an honest debate on issues, if he chose to do so.

No one interviewed in that article supports racial smear tactics against Steele.  Hopefully, someone will pass a memo around the right side of the blogosphere to let them know that this article is a pile of bull.

 

Some administrations never learn...

President Bush gave a speech on Veterans Day where he criticized those that claim the administration "manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war."  Most of this criticism is based on the administration pushing suspect "evidence" for Iraq WMD programs, such as the forged Niger documents, aluminum tubes, etc.

So it's a bit ironic that this same speech highlights a letter, supposedly written by Al Qaeda #2 Ayman al- Zawahiri, that many believe is a forgery.  Furthermore, the contents of this letter were discussed at length in the speech.  From the transcript:

Last month, the world learned of a letter written by al Qaeda's number two leader, a guy named Zawahiri. And he wrote this letter to his chief deputy in Iraq — the terrorist Zarqawi. In it, Zawahiri points to the Vietnam War as a model for al Qaeda. This is what he said: "The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam — and how they ran and left their agents — is noteworthy." The terrorists witnessed a similar response after the attacks on American troops in Beirut in 1983 and Mogadishu in 1993. They believe that America can be made to run again — only this time on a larger scale, with greater consequences.

Second, the militant network wants to use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country — a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against non-radical Muslim governments. Over the past few decades, radicals have specifically targeted Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Jordan for potential takeover. They achieved their goal, for a time, in Afghanistan. And now they've set their sights on Iraq. In his recent letter, Zawahiri writes that al Qaeda views Iraq as, "the place for the greatest battle." The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity. We must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war against the terrorists. (Applause.)

....

Some might be tempted to dismiss these goals as fanatical or extreme. They are fanatical and extreme — but they should not be dismissed. Our enemy is utterly committed. As Zarqawi has vowed, "We will either achieve victory over the human race or we will pass to the eternal life." (Applause.)

Well, here are some of the claims regarding the letter's veracity:

Ken Katzman, a terrorism expert with the Congressional Research Service -- the in-house think-tank of the U.S. Congress -- said the letter contained elements that raised doubts about its authenticity.

"The purported letter has Zawahri admitting to certain things that it's not realistic for him to admit, because he would know there's a potential this letter might be intercepted," Katzman said.

He said they included a request for money from Zarqawi, an admission that Pakistan's army is hunting for al Qaeda and how the arrest of a top operative affected the network.

Juan Cole chimes in:

On the other hand, a number of knowledgeable observers have agreed that it is strange for al-Zawahiri and his circle to call the Prophet's grandson, Husayn, an "Imam." There are other odd things about the letter that I will discuss on Saturday.

Later he refers to Husain, the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad, as al-Imam al-sibt, "the Imam, the grandson". I do not believe that a hard line Sunni such as Zawahiri would call Husain an Imam. That is Shiite terminology.

The letter then says how much Zawahiri misses meeting with Zarqawi. Zarqawi was not part of al-Qaeda when he was in Afghanistan. He had a rivalry with it. And when he went back to Jordan he did not allow the Jordanian and German chapters of his Tawhid wa Jihad group to send money to Bin Laden. If Zawahiri was going to bring up old times, he would have had to find a way to get past this troubled history, not just pretend that the two used to pal around.

My gut tells me that the letter is a forgery.

And CNN:

Mohannad Hage Ali of the London-based Arabic-language newspaper Al-Hayat, cites the tone of the letter as a reason he doubts its authenticity.

In the letter, al-Zawahiri urges al-Zarqawi to stop the beheadings that were carried out by his group and to downplay his vicious attacks on Iraq's Shiite majority because "we are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds" of the Sunnis.

However, Ali says: "The writer, who is supposed to be Zawahiri, sounds like a moderate with pragmatic views. The most recent tape of Zawahiri shows this is not the case. He is as adamant as ever."

Still, the al-Zawahiri of the recent letter sounds remarkably like the al-Zawahiri from 2001, in both cases saying the jihad could go only so far, and that popular support was crucial.

Others cite instances of bad grammar, a plea for money by the author to send 100,000 (it doesn't say what), and the almost-chatty mention that he is the father of a new daughter named Nawwar, as out of character for al-Zawahiri.

And even though the letter is supposed to be addressed to al-Zarqawi, the last line says, "By God, if by chance you're going to Fallujah, send greetings to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi," another puzzling inconsistency.

At least one skeptical analyst says clues that one would use to verify the letter -- including al-Zawahiri's mention of how his son, daughter and one of his wives were killed by a U.S. bomb in Afghanistan -- were almost too obvious.

Reuters also picked up on the inconsistency of having a letter to al-Zarqawi:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. intelligence officials who released a letter purporting to be from an al Qaeda leader to Iraq insurgency leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi this week said on Friday they could not account for a passage that has raised doubts about the document's authenticity.

The July 9 dated letter, which U.S. officials say was written by al Qaeda's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahri, appears near its close to urge the Iraq insurgent leader to send greetings to himself if visiting the Iraqi city of Falluja.

Now I'm no Arabic expert, but there do seem to be a lot of inconsistencies with the letter.  One could be fair and say that it's questionable that this letter is legitimate.

So what we have are Democrats questioning the Bush administration for using shaky evidence to support his case for the war in Iraq.  And so Bush crticizes Democrats who believe this.  And in the same speech, he uses more shaky evidence to support his case for the war in Iraq.

My head hurts.

Another bubble burst...

Last blogger tournament I played in, I got 42nd out of 1500+ players, 10 away from the IPod.  This time in the latest Wil Wheaton Invitational, I got knocked out in 21st out of 127, with 18th and up in the money.  I was fortunate to get some pretty good cards early and play aggressive enough to steal a few pots and say around the top.  A serious run of cold cards and a few thwarted steals dropped me back towards the middle/bottom of the pack.  But then I took a good sized pot w/KK  on a QQ8 flop to move up to 9900.  A few hands later I got QQ and forced a raiser to fold.  Then calamity.

PokerStars Game #2974485698: Tournament #14391236, Hold'em No Limit - Level IX (300/600) - 2005/11/04 - 21:19:57 (ET)
Table '14391236 6' Seat #8 is the button
Seat 2: me (11700 in chips)
Seat 3: BoomerHawk (6700 in chips)
Seat 4: PhoebusX (13203 in chips)
Seat 5: xkm1245 (9183 in chips)
Seat 6: Toby039 (6074 in chips)
Seat 7: Boobie Lover (2030 in chips)
Seat 8: Guinness (5290 in chips)

*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to me [Ah Ac]
PhoebusX: folds
xkm1245: folds
Toby039: raises 5424 to 6024 and is all-in
Boobie Lover: folds
Guinness: folds
me: raises 5424 to 11448
BoomerHawk: folds
*** FLOP *** [6c 8d Js]
*** TURN *** [6c 8d Js] [9s]
PhoebusX said, "ouch"
*** RIVER *** [6c 8d Js 9s] [3h]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
me: shows [Ah Ac] (a pair of Aces)
Toby039: shows [Jh Jc] (three of a kind, Jacks)
xkm1245 said, "craaaaaaaack"
Toby039 collected 12998 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 12998 | Rake 0
Board [6c 8d Js 9s 3h]
Seat 2: me (small blind) showed [Ah Ac] and lost with a pair of Aces
Seat 3: BoomerHawk (big blind) folded before Flop
Seat 4: PhoebusX folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 5: xkm1245 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: Toby039 showed [Jh Jc] and won (12998) with three of a kind, Jacks
Seat 7: Boobie Lover folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 8: Guinness (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)

Had a chance to be one of the chip leaders, but took a serious hit.  Shortly after I got KK two off the button, raised to 1800, and got one caller.  Flop came A74 rainbow and I was fairly sure that he had the A....but I wasn't positive and didn't want to be left w/5 BB.  I pushed, he had AT, and I was out.

But it was fun and I'll definitely have to play again.  And I learned that there are only two cities of Goteborg/Gothenborg in the entire world.  One is in Sweden, and the other is in Nebraska.  Yup, founded by Olof Bergstrom, native of Hassela, Sweden in 1882.  And now you know.

Words of Wisdom from Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton gave the keynote address at this year's Texas Book Festival.  C-Span 2 covered the event, and has a video of his speech on their website.  In his talk and Q/A session, Clinton talks about books, his book, keeping a journal, Walmart, the deficit, and the current state of political discourse.   I transcribed an excerpt on political writing that is extremely applicable to blogging today.

Final point I want to make is...too much writing on modern politics is about this argument and assertion and ideology and not enough about evidence and old-fashioned reasoning.  One reason I recommend John Hope Franklin's book to you is that if he ever says something you don't agree with in this book, you will feel like you are in a martial-arts wrestling match that you can not win unless you have similar rigor in your response.  You know, most of what's written about modern politics is "Well the Democrats say this and the Republicans say that and what do you expect."  As if there were no underlying facts, no arguments to be made, no rules of reason.

So that while we have access to more information and more words than ever before, we may understand less if we're just throwing around assertions.  A little bit of this, a little bit of that.  That's the sort of argument that's like on this intelligent design deal.  Well there's one PhD somewhere who believes that the human eye is so sophisticated that it couldn't have evolved from a monkey so there's another theory, and since the theory of evolution is just a theory, why not just throw all the theories in and teach them all in science class.  A little of this, a little of that... that's kind of the way we write about politics.

There are actually...you know, I was educated by the Jesuits and grew up in an age when, you know, there were certain rules that organized our thinking and our argument and everybody had to play by them in discourse, and that made it possible, I think, to have honest dialogue.  And so I'd like to see some of that again. 

...

But I really do believe that the absence of rigor in the statement of facts in making a case and argument in so much political writing today is a big mistake.

Exposing Conservatives Gone WILD!!!

I haven't read Michelle Malkin's new book, so I can't make any comments on its veracity.  But if this post  is any indication, her book sounds like it will be filled with inaccuracies and simple stereotyping.  For example, she states that there are no Republicans/conservatives doing a wide variety of "unhinged" acts.  However, there is ample evidence of people on the right doing these things.   She states:

It’s not Republicans taking chainsaws to Democrat campaign signs and running down political opponents with their cars. It’s not conservatives burning Democrats in effigy, defacing war memorials, and supporting the fragging of American troops. And it’s not conservatives producing a bullet-riddled bumper crop of assassination-themed musicals, books and collectible stamps.

She's obviously attacking the lunatic fringe of the Democratic party here.  But the examples that she states that Republicans/conservatives aren't doing are wrong.

It’s not Republicans taking chainsaws to Democrat campaign signs

Chainsaws, no.  But there are multiple reports of vandalism and theft of Kerry-Edwards signs during the 2004 campaign.  For example:

Indeed, Travis Co. Democratic Party Chairman Chris Elliott said that he and his neighbors have seen the vandalism firsthand. Elliott said that the Kerry/Edwards signs in his yard (and in his neighbors' yard) have twice been shredded and strewn across his lawn – the second time it happened, Elliott said, the vandals stacked the wooden stakes on his front porch. And Elliott's car, on which he'd posted a Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker, was egged in his driveway.

It’s not Republicans...running down political opponents with their cars.

First off, the person in question didn't run down anyone, although he did try to scare Katherine Harris with his car (a despicable act).  Now if we want examples of Republicans and violence against opponents, we could then bring up the College Republican that murdered his opponent* back in 1996.  Or we have Byron Looper, Republican state senate candidate in Tennessee that murdered his Democratic opponent (hat tip to Throatwobbler in the comments).

It’s not conservatives burning Democrats in effigy

Am I the only person who was stunned to read the Associated Press article about Kentuckians burning Hilary Clinton in effigy at a political rally attended by a congressman and a Kentucky gubernatorial candidtate?( For those who might not have seen the article in question, I'm talking about "Kentuckians Burn First Lady in Effigy" in the August 30 _Washington Post_ [p. A2]." I just know that when I got to the line, "'Burn, baby, burn,' chanted Stan Arachikavitz, president of the Kentucky Association of Tobacco Supporters", chills ran up and down my spine.

It's not conservatives....defacing war memorials

CRAWFORD, Texas - A pickup truck ran over wooden crosses erected at antiwar protester Cindy Sheehan's campsite on Monday night in the latest sign of tension over the peace vigil outside vacationing President Bush's Texas ranch.

Larry Northern, 46, of nearby Waco, Texas, was arrested and charged with criminal mischief in connection with the incident, Crawford Police Chief Donnie Tidmore said.

It's not conservatives....supporting the fragging of American troops

No...although this is a lunatic position that nearly no one would take.  However, there is a conservative on record supporting fragging Al Franken:

Okay, be honest with yourself here.  If you were in an active combat zone, and had a chance to accidentally shoot Al Franken, would you do it?

...

“I don’t know what happened!  I was standing there, watching the show, and the pin just fell out of the grenade!  Then, somehow, the grenade flew off my belt and spontaneously ended up wedged down Franken’s throat!  It was the damnedest thing I ever saw.”

And it’s not conservatives producing a bullet-riddled bumper crop of assassination-themed musicals, books and collectible stamps.

Well if we browse Right Wing Stuff, a conservative t-shirt site, we'll find quite a few shirts with the theme of killing liberals.  There's Save the Seals: Club a Liberal, Club Liberals: Not Sandwiches, Got Ammo (w/a donkey in the crosshairs), and the Liberal Hunting License.

And with regards to assassination, Ann Coulter stated that the focus of enquiry re: Clinton and Lewinsky shouldn't be on whether he did it, but should be "about whether to impeach or assassinate".

***

And that's just the first paragraph.  These are all things that conservatives supposedly don't do, yet there is ample evidence that some conservatives do engage in this type of behavior.

Now some basic points that I shouldn't have to clarify but will.  I am anti-political sign destruction, anti-scaring political opponents with moving vehicles, anti-memorial defacing, anti-fragging, and anti-assassination.  I'm sure that most liberals and conservatives are in the same boat here.

But you will have lunatics on both sides that do stupid things in the name of politics.  There are "unhinged" Republicans and "unhinged" Democrats.  I could take these examples (and many others) and write a book about "Exposing Conservatives Gone Wild", but that would be idiotic.  The actions of a few on the lunatic fringe should not be taken as a blanket description of a much larger group.

* - Note that the 1996 incident is of a College Republican murdering another College Republican.  I'm sure some will complain that this example doesn't count, he murdered a fellow Republican, he was obviously crazy, etc.  And that's my point.  I could generalize from this single incident and say that Republicans are bloodthirsty powerhounds that will even kill their own kind in order to get ahead.  But that would be a moronic stereotype.  Instead, it's clear that this fellow (and others that do similar things) has problems and is not reflective of his political affiliation.

Sometimes a Kick in the Nads is Just a Kick in the Nads

It's amazing how Michelle Malkin can take a simple faux-kick to the 'nads and turn it into a rant on how Franken (and by proxy, "the Left") needs professional help.  But she does it with deception and dishonesty, largely by failing to provide any context for the skit and culling up other bits of dubious evidence supporting Franken's so-called "derangement".

Amazon.com has a skit up by Franken promoting his new book, The Truth: With Jokes.  In the skit, three people act as Amazon.com reviewers.  The first two gave Franken's book five stars, and say so enthusiastically.  The acting in the skit is clearly and purposely uber-hokey, with an unnatural delivery that one would usually see in infomercials.  The third reviewer then says that he didn't read the book and gave it one star because he's a right-wing jerk.  So Franken then kicks him in the gonads, breaks a chair over his head, and then a reviewer breaks a bottle over his head. 

The stilted, info-mercial delivery of the start of the skit is meant to contrast with the cartoon violence at the end of the skit (in a hey, that's funny because it's unexpected sort of way).  It would be different if Franken and the other reviewers seemed completely serious before the violence.  But the infomercial-style delivery makes it clear that the ad is a farce, setting up the cartoon violence as the punch line. 

Also note that he wasn't kicked in the nads for being a conservative.  He was kicked in the 'nads for not reading the book and giving it one star, obviously an attack on people that criticize Franken's books without actually reading them.  It's not like the third reviewer found a major factual inaccuracy on page 57 and then Franken decided to rip his limbs off.  That would be a little much.

Now personally, the commercial wasn't that funny (as it would have worked better with a little more absurdity and better timing).  But only someone that either has no grasp of a joke or is deliberately obscuring the context in order to push an anti-Franken agenda could say that this skit "blurs truth and fiction" or that Franken "needs professional help". 

Malkin continues with the "Franken needs help" theme by incorrectly stating that Franken attempted to deflect questions about Air America's finances on the David Letterman show (he answered the question fully), and failed to provide any context regarding jokes about executing GOP officials (it was a series of jokes based on George H.W. Bush's comments that anyone who outs a CIA agent is guilty of treason, where he specifically states that he's against the death penalty and is against executing presidents). 

These omissions are clearly done to paint Franken as some sort of deranged lunatic.  But Malkin can only do this by omitting context and evidence repeatedly.  It's dishonest, deceptive, and far worse than any faux kick to the gonads could ever be.

Oh so close to the I-Pod

I got 46th place out of 1400+ entrants in the Inaugural PokerStars Blogger Championship.  Ten spots short of the I-Pod mini.  Sigh.  Details on the tournament later.