The country / leader divide in right-wing rhetoric

I try to avoid exposing myself to Rush Limbaugh too much because he tends to make my brain eat itself in a desperate attempt to get the hell away from the information I’m throwing at it. By and large I consider him less of a “political pundit” and more of a “brain-dead semi-comedian”. The problem isn’t Rush though, it’s his listeners.

So when he goes on this giant diatribe about a reporter asking Barack Obama if he’d investigate the US military over torture, I get genuinely concerned that idiotic listeners will take statements like this seriously.

After the administration’s left office, to pursue an investigation that might lead to criminal indictments for war crimes and other things. We used to do that to the Nazis. We did do that to the Nazis, the Nuremberg Trials and so forth. This is who today’s modern liberals are. Now, Obama’s got this wacko reporter for the Philadelphia Daily News who’s obviously not a reporter. He is a leftist who happens to have secured a job in journalism, and he’s got an agenda, and the agenda is right out of the cliched story line of the Drive-By Media, that we are a murderous, raping, torturing nation and that Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Powell have to pay. This is all about creating the notion in as many people’s minds that our country is criminal, is in a constant state of decline, and we are not worth our reputation as the world’s greatest superpower.

First of all, look at his first sentence there. An investigation “after the administration” has left. He says this as though “the administration” were America and another isn’t taking its place. He then goes on with his boilerplate “the left wants to act like America is evil” diatribe.

Only there’s a gigantic, glaring flaw with his “logic”. Ignoring the fact that all the reporter did was ask a simple question, what Limbaugh (and his dittoheads) seem incapable of wrapping their brains around is that Bush is not America. The United States is not the same as who leads it for these few years.

Iraq to US: how about “no”?

Y’know I used to tear into Maliki for being a puppet of the US, but damned if he didn’t find a set of balls and is using them to smack the US in the face. Check this out, where he basically says he won’t accept any of the United States’s military demands, which might result in troops being forced out via a non-extension of their UN mandated presence.

Check out these bombs:

“We have reached a dead end, because when we started the talks, we found that the US demands hugely infringe on the sovereignty of Iraq, and this we can never accept,” al-Maliki said during a visit to Jordan on Friday.

“We can’t extend the US forces permission to arrest Iraqis or to undertake terror fighting in an independent way, or to keep Iraqi skies and waters open for themselves whenever they want,” al-Maliki said.

“One of the important issues that the US is asking for is immunity for its soldiers and those contracting with it. We reject this totally.”

I’m starting to like this guy. All the crap us liberals have been arguing for, and suddenly the leader of the supposedly sovereign Iraq. I’m not exactly anticipating Iraq nudging the US out because, if you pay attention to the rhetoric, the Iraq fiasco really isn’t about Iraq so much as it’s about the US. The right is championing “victory” not out of a concern for Iraqis (here’s an indication: check out which side is more racist toward Arabs), but because they really want a W in America’s column when all is said and done.

It’s sorta like when your car breaks down and there’s that one guy who wants to help, but even after he’s screwed it up worse and you’re calling AAA over he still won’t give up. It’s not that he wants your car to be fixed, it’s that he wants to get credit for fixing it.

However, what cracks me up is this:

“Your question may be, ‘well, what if you aren’t finished by then?’ We believe this is do-able by the end of July, so does the Iraqi side.”

This is how our government does business. Absolutely zero contingency plans because, dammit, we believe we can accomplish all of our goals. What happens if we aren’t greeted as liberators? Not an issue, we really really believe that we will be. What if reconstruction costs more than $1.7bil? You just shut up, that’s all it’ll cost.

So when things all go ass-up in July because a deal hasn’t been reached, expect a complete implosion on the part of the administration and a particularly renewed effort on the GOP’s part to explain that this is EXACTLY why we need to put John McCain in office because HE’LL know what to do.

Tim Russert: 1950-2008

Tim Russert died of a heart attack today. 58 years old.

We on the left liked to poke fun at Russert for being less-than-probing in his interviews (Al Franken would always refer to him as the “wide-eyed Tim Russert” or “gullible Tim Russert”), but the fact remains that he was a staple in political news.

Not much to say, other than I hope he gets the respect he deserves in death.

(thanks to Paul and a few others for tipping me off to this while I was writing the last article)

On voting with party, voting with the President

I don’t pimp FactCheck.org as much as I should, because it’s a great site. Oh sure, not nearly as entertaining and opinionated as other sites such as, say, this one. Still, if you want an honest assessment of claims made, they’re the go-to guys.

Barack Obama has recently been claiming that John McCain has voted with the president 95% of the time, so FC checked it out. Was it true? Well, yes.

The claim is true. According to Congressional Quarterly’s Voting Studies, in 2007 McCain voted in line with the president’s position 95 percent of the time – the highest percentage rate for McCain since Bush took office – and voted in line with his party 90 percent of the time. However, McCain’s support of President Bush’s position has been as low as 77 percent (in 2005), and his support for his party’s position has been as low as 67 percent (2001).

Democrats are, of course, attempting to make the case that a vote for McCain is a vote to continue the policies of Bush, whose approval ratings are, to put it charitably, not a political asset for McCain.

Now there’s one big lesson to be taken from this: McCain is pandering, shamelessly so, to the Republican base in order to aid his presidential career. When it suits him to be a “Maverick” (such as, oh, a Senate race), then suddenly he’ll drift more centrist. But now that it’s time to really appeal to the right, off we go.

However, FC makes a “rebuttal” of sorts that kinda goes off the reservation.

Also, Obama voted in line with fellow Senate Democrats 97 percent of the time in 2007 and 2005, and 96 percent of the time in 2006, according to CQ.

The problem, as I’ve said before, is that “voting with the party” is a hazy way of looking at things. It’s one thing to say Obama is very similar to Clinton because they vote together, but to say “votes with the party” is rough, particularly in a very divided Senate. Each side votes with its own kind in a show of party strength. But even that means nothing.

McCain voting with the president most of the time isn’t that meaningful anyway any more than Obama voting with Clinton is. Sure it’s a nice thing to look at in order to sling arrows at the opponent, but in the end when we’re talking about who votes with who, when we’re talking the same party in an especially partisan political climate, party unity isn’t surprising.

What is worth looking at, however, is that McCain shifted. It isn’t like Bush’s policies have changed vastly over the last three years, but in 2005 he wasn’t gunning for the presidential race. He could still play “maverick”. As the nomination grew closer and closer, his pandering to his base grew more and more apparent. That, my friends, is what matters and that is what we need to expose.

Olbermann eviscerates McCain

I haven’t watched as much Countdown as I’d like to. I’m used to skipping the 8pm showing and catching it again at midnight, but for some reason the reruns are just an hour after the normal showing ends, so I don’t always catch it.

Last night I did, and it’s a good thing, too, because Olbermann absolutely annihilated John McCain over his “not that important” comment.

You have attested to: a fairly easy success; an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time; in which we would be welcomed as liberators; which you assured us would not require our troops stay for decades but merely for years; from which we could bring them all home, since you noted many Iraqis resent American military presence; in which all those troops coming home will also stay there, not being injured, for a hundred years; but most will be back by 2013; and the timing of their return, is not that important.

That, Sen. McCain, is context.

McCain is lynched with his own quotes, his own statements given in full context.

The hallmark of right-wing guilt is when they claim they were taken out of context. Unlike instances where context actually is important (see: Wright’s “god damn America” moment), these people tend to say “that was taken out of context” as though “context” is just some ethereal concept that magically makes everything okay.

It’s also funny, the conservative ire toward Olbermann. Unlike O’Reilly or Hannity, Keith never gets a guest on and ambushes them. He doesn’t devote huge chunks of time to whatever right-wing blowhard is insulting him and he doesn’t just out and out insult his targets. No, they hate Olbermann simply for being a liberal who doesn’t shy away from being a liberal. Odd how that works.

I say keep on keepin’ on, Keith-O. You’re beating O’Reilly in the ratings for a good reason.