Friday, October 31, 2008

And If You Think I Worry Too Much About This Election...

I've got nothing on author Erica Jong.
It seems that the final days of the presidential campaign have made Erica Jong and her friends more than a little anxious.

A few days ago, Jong, the author and self-described feminist, gave an interview to the Italian daily Corriere della Sera, the choicest bits of which were brought to my attention by the reliably sharp-eyed Christian Rocca, the U.S. correspondent of Il Foglio, who published excerpts on his Camillo blog. Basically, Jong says her fear that Obama might lose the election has developed into an "obsession. A paralyzing terror. An anxious fever that keeps you awake at night." She also says that her friends Jane Fonda and Naomi Wolf are extremely worried that Obama will be sabotaged by Republican dirty tricks, and that if an Obama loss indeed comes to pass, the result will be a second American Civil War.

Gosh I hope not.

Of course, I took Monday through Wednesday off work for a reason...

Here's A Scary Halloween Treat For You

Atrios sez:
I think we're about to get schooled. Again. The torture loving right is dusting off its completely hypocritical "government is full of jack-booted thugs" playbook --- and it's going to drive us all completely crazy.
Indeed. They'll try to bring Obama down on some abuse of power scandal. Should be fun!
I'll go one step further.

If Obama tries to clean up Bush's "unitary Executive" abuses of power by way of signing statement and Executive Order, he'll be accused of being soft on terrorism, and we'll hear William Ayers and Rashid Khalidi and cries of him being SECRET MUSLIM TRAITOR WEAKENING AMERICA FROM THE INSIDE, and the calls will be long and loud for his impeachment.

If he doesn't, as Atrios says, the calls for his impeachment will still be just as long and loud as all the other secret and highly illegal Bush programs that we don't know about are immediately leaked before Obama can do anything with them, with folks coming out of the woodwork to say "Well Obama knew about them as a Senator and didn't stop them then, and he's not stopping them now as President."

Has there ever been calls for a President-Elect to be impeached before taking office? We may set a record.

As I have said time and time again, if you thought they hated Clinton, wait until you see what they do to Obama. Twelve months from now, his approval numbers will look like Bush's, the financial meltdown will be his fault, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran will be his fault, everything will be his fault.

If the Pretty Hate Machine doesn't create the next Timothy McVeigh or Eric Rudolph to "handle the job" the Village Bipartisans and the Palinites will take him down the Clinton way.

I just don't see how Obama makes it through his term without extrordinary luck.

As Digby says about the GOP in her post linked up there:
They leave the rest of us standing on the sidelines looking like fools for ever caring about anything but winning.
And winning means the absolute, total, and complete destruction of Obama and the Democrats by any means necessary.

Do not ever forget that. Yes, I'm assuming Obama actually wins...but assuming Obama wins is, of course, forgetting that, now isn't it?

Vote. Tuesday. And even then, there is a long hard fight ahead for all of us.

Helpful US Attorney Is Helpful

US Attorney Troy Eid is helpful, saving taxpayer money and stuff by refusing to prosecute those three fellows in Denver that allegedly threatened to kill Obama at the DNC Convention a few months ago.
Eid, who was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2006, declined to prosecute the three men on charges of threatening to assassinate Barack Obama during his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, saying that the suspects were "just a bunch of meth heads" and their words failed to meet the legal standard for "true threat."
Nope, not a serious threat. Even though they had weapons. But hey, it's not like Republicans are soft on crime or anything.
Legal experts say that Eid's definition of true threat directly conflicts with the statue covering threats to presidential candidates, 18 U.S.C. 879, which defines the threat as "whoever knowingly and willfully threatens to kill, kidnap, or inflict bodily harm upon a major candidate for the office of President or Vice President, or a member of the immediate family of such candidate."

While noting the statute must be weighed against First Amendment rights, they argued that because voluntary intoxication is not a viable defense the First Amendment does not protect a speaker's threatening speech.

George Fisher, Stanford Law Professor and one of the nation's top scholars of criminal law and evidence, explained, "Certainly when there's a state of mind requirement in a crime, 'knowingly,' for example, you could say as a logical matter that somebody can't do something knowingly while under the influence. But there are these other laws, sometimes in the form of statutes and sometimes in the form of case law, that will say, 'But voluntary intoxication is no defense.' And the Supreme Court many years ago upheld those laws as not being a violation of due process."

Colorado defense attorneys agreed. They said Colorado state law does not differ from the Supreme Court's ruling on voluntary intoxication.

Thus, legal experts agreed that a verbal threat alone, intended by the speaker to be taken seriously, and said willfully and knowingly, is all that is necessary to satisfy the legal requirement for true threat. Contrary to what Eid told the press, a prosecutor in this case would not have to prove a plan existed or the viability of any such plan, only that a threat was made and understood by the speaker and receiver of the words to be said in earnest.
But a Bush appointed US Attorney from the Bush Justice Department (home of a not-too-long-ago scandal involving the mass politicization of the department and ended with former AG Alberto Gonzales resigning in shame) once again taking unusual action that can only really be explained by a refusal to embarass McSame supporters by prosecuting folks threatening to kill Obama say, a few weeks before the election.

That's not political at all.

The Grand Delusion

John McSame once famously said "The media is my base." Sarah Palin on the other hand believes the media is in fact America's number one enemy.

Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama's associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Rather, for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate's free speech rights under the Constitution, Palin said.

"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."

However she feels about the way her story has been told in the press, Palin told WMAL she is not discouraged.

"It's sort of perplexing to me, because I'm a practical person and plainspoken also, but just cutting to the chase and calling things like I see them, just like most Americans. But this has not left a bitter taste in my mouth, the bitter shots taken by the mainstream media and by some of the elitism there in Washington," Palin said.

"What this has left me with is a very energized and positive feeling about America, because there are enough Americans who are desiring the positive change that John McCain's gonna usher in."

Plante then suggested that in her next sit-down interview, Palin should tap the reporter on the knee and ask, "So who you votin' for?"

Palin laughed and said, "Yeah, maybe that just would say it all."

"I'm gonna try that," she said.

I bet she would in fact follow up on that idea as President. After all, Bush did. The current administration's famous "Free Speech Zones" exist to keep protesters away from the President at his events. You can just imagine the wheels turning as she pictures what she'll do to that nasty media that doesn't agree with her.

One of the reasons the GOP base loves Sister Sarah so much is because she's bought into the notion that the "Evil Liberal Media" is out to destroy the GOP talk radio empire. You see this delusional behavior often from folks on that side, that there's a vast conspiracy by American news organizations, television networks, cable channels and newspapers to try to limit what right wing folks say. They complain that the Media is "in the tank for Obama" and

That's laughable on its face considering what the Bush administration really has done to limit free speech in this country. But the right wingers plunge on and vow that anyone who doesn't agree with them is un-American, Socialist, Communist, terrorist, or traitor, while at the same time they "defend their free speech rights" to slander millions of Americans for he crime of dissent.

GOP Rule #1: If they complain that the Democrats are doing something, it's because the GOP is already doing it. Always. What's the GOP complaining about? Socialism, vote fraud, and stifling dissent. What are the GOP currently doing? Giving banks trillions, purging millions of traditionally Democratic voters from the rolls and making voting nearly impossible for those traditionally Democratic voters who ARE still on the rolls, and now of course they are working to harm any outfit that might publish dissenting viewpoints.

Think about that on Tuesday when you vote...those of you who can. We already know what the litmus test for belonging to the GOP post-November 4th is: Where did you stand on Sarah Palin?

Are you ready for her to be your President? Do you think Obama would be a better President then Sarah Palin?

Be honest. Either way, vote.

StupidiNews, Halloween Edition!

Here's some scary news, kids. What's your Halloween costume this year?

Scary stuff, huh kids? Woo!
Related Posts with Thumbnails