Tom Tomorrow has completed his highly deceptive review of the year 2008. My response is to the left.Here are a few things that Tommikins (whose real name is Dannikins) left out:
1. The "progressive" blogosphere's fake outrage over Hillary's perfectly justified RFK remark.
2. The prog-blog embrace of the anti-Hillary "darkened video" smear.
3. The left's repetition of every demented anti-Clinton smear ever leveled by the right-wing press during the 1990s. ("Vince Foster! Vince Foster! Vince Foster!")
4. The left's utter refusal to read Evelyn Pringle's exposes of Chicago corruption, which prove that nearly every time Blagojevich received a "pay to play" bribe, Obama -- by a strange coincidence -- got money too.
5. The prog-bloggers descent into sub-Limbaugh depths in order to smear Sarah Palin, her daughter and her baby.
6. Lefties wearing "Sarah Palin is a CUNT" t-shirts. (And yeah, Obama did call her a "pig." He really is that trashy, thuggish and low.)
7. Obama's NAFTA lie. (For more info, click on ad at top right.)
8. Obama's "funny money" campaign funding.
9. The non-stop insults directed against the Clinton voters ("Get out of the party!") which led to widespread disaffection and the PUMA movement -- which, in turn, would have led to an Obama defeat, had the economic meltdown occurred a month later. Even so, Obama received only 52% in a year that should have resulted in a landslide win.
10. Obama's choice of (mostly) libertarian economic advisers to get us out of our current mess. Goolsbee? Volcker? Summers? Oh, these guys are poised to make a fine mess of it.
Younger folk may need some explanation of the cartoon seen above.
In the year 2000, Tom Tomorrow -- addled by Clinton Derangement Syndrome and addicted to the lies then being told about Al Gore -- supported Ralph Nader for president. At the time, Tom did a disingenuous riff in which he argued that a mere cartoon strip could not possibly affect the outcome.
And what was that outcome? It all came down to Florida, where these were the numbers:
Number of people who voted for Ralph Nader in Florida in 2000: 97,421
Official difference between the Bush vote and the Gore vote in 2000: 537.
537 is roughly one-two hundredth of 97,421. I believe that at least 1/200th of the Florida Nader vote was swayable. If leading progressives such as Bill Maher, Michael Moore and Tom Tomorrow had not spread lies about Al Gore, Bush and Cheney would never have had the chance to destroy the United States.
Yes, I really do believe that Sparky could have made a difference. I think that Maher, Moore, Tom and all the other "progressive" Gore/Clinton haters are personally responsible for everything that has happened over the past eight years. They are every bit as responsible as Bush and Cheney are.
(And perhaps we should consult the shade of Boss Tweed on the question of whether cartoons can affect the way people vote.)
So much for Sparky the Penguin's record as a political consultant.
I maintain that Barack Obama was never a true liberal; he merely plays one on TV. His Mao-like cult of personality was created by "progressive" bloggers such as Arianna Huffington and Markos Moulitsas -- who are actually libertarians. I maintain that the day will come, and will come soon, when Democrats will regret dissing the Clinton wing of the party. I predict that Barack Obama will one day be seen as the worst thing ever to happen to the Democratic party.
In 2012, match my record against Sparky's 2000 record. I can't possibly be worse.
20 comments:
TT is one of many people I respected and admired when it was us vs. G-Dub and the GOP.
Sadly, the list of people I respect and admire is much smaller than it was a year ago.
You're still on the list, Joe.
For now.
Greg Palast at Bush family finances: Best Democracy Money Can Buy (archives):
"Vice-President Al Gore would have strolled to victory in Florida if the state hadn't kicked up to 56,000 citizens off the voters' registers five month ago as former felons.
"In fact, only a fraction were ex-cons. Most were simply guilty of being African-American."
Hee!
I enjoyed this post. Tom Tomorrow and other CDS sufferers in the media are a HUGE reason why we got our "compassionate conservative" in 2000.
I'm sure your record will be a lot more accurate than that penguin's. If only being right were respected in America anymore. Instead, the only pundits who appear to get any attention at all are the ones who get everything wrong. You know, like Bill Kristol and his whole "Sectarianism in Iraq is a myth" assertion. Yeah, how's that working out for you, Bill?
Oy vey.
So which is it, Bush co stole the election or Nader caused Gores defeat.
Great post. I agree with everything you've said. I forgave some of these fools for the 2000 debacle but this year was it for me. I unsubscribed myself from Moore, MoveOn, and about a hundred other progressive email lists after they dissed Hillary Clinton while accepting the bullshit, lies, and sexism from the Obama campaign and the msm. And I think it's safe for us to predict that Obama's presidency will be a huge disappointment for the fauxgressives. They are already disappointed and Obama hasn't even been sworn in yet.
"So which is it, Bush co stole the election or Nader caused Gores defeat." -- Clayton
Clayton, I recommend a look at the recent death, by plane crash, of information technology expert Michael Connell as well as an article at OPED News entitled Check out all these unexpected deaths of people involved with elections.
Another great post, Joseph. Like demnomore I agree 100%, especially as regards Nader and the FL vote. Thanks for telling that one EXACTLY as it is. I try to do the same periodically with folks I know who voted Nader but always get told, 'No that is nor true.'
Last year at this time I had such high hopes for the 2008 elections. By the end of January those hopes began to fade and at the end of Super Tuesday the hopes were DOA and I stopped watching the MSM and, again like demnomore, had unsubscribed to all the usual fauxprog sites and stopped listening to Air America.
I am better off without them. It took some time, but I found better sites, such as this one, to get my news.
Next year will be interesting to say the least.
bert in Ohio
Well said, Joseph!
Clayton, both are true.
If the Republicans in Florida had not knocked Democratic voters off the roll, Gore would have won.
If liberals had not allowed Ralph Nader to get away with blatant lies such as Gore is the same as Bush, Gore would have won. I note that Nader said he was not going to campaign in swing states but he focused his campaign in such states. I lost all respect for him in 2000.
djmm
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I cannot stand Nader voters who use vote fraud as a catch-all excuse for for living with Bush's wins in 2000 and 2008.
Vote fraud is possible only if the results are close. The results were damned close n Florida in 2000, and only because of the Nader factor. A vote for Nader was a vote for Bush and you damned well know it, so stop kidding yourselves.
I voted for McCain because I honestly thought and think that Barack Obama is corrupt and will one day serve up a whole mess of trouble to the Democratic Party and to the nation as a whole. I don't like many of McCain's policies, but he's not corrupt -- he was in fact the most decent Republican I've seen in decades.
Joe, your post really hits a nerve. As I am a long-time Nader supporter (as I've previously stated in your comments section), I am often frustrated by the blame-Nader mathematics that place responsibility on him. There were a veritable cornucopia of reasons why the vote count came out as it did: illegally (or at the least unethically) purged voter rolls, the so-called "butterfly ballots" which gave Pat Buchanan an inordinate amounts of votes in certain precincts (see John Nichols' book "Jews for Buchanan"), the Gore team's initial strategy of seeking recounts in specific counties rather than state-wide, and the disgusting Supreme Court decision which enshrined the presidency (What do you say about a SC decision which is not to be used a a precedent?), the failure of Gore to campaign with Clinton (didn't he still have positive approval #s?), the reluctance on Gore's part to emphasize his work, and it's merit, on global warming.... the list goes on and on. I am tired of hearing Nader being blamed for a 500-odd vote discrepency in a 100-million vote election.
Nader makes a valid point when he speaks about the 'spoiler' effect of 3rd party of independent candidates. Is the lesson to be learned for the US voting citizenry that we are simply resigned to a two-party system, and that anything else is a "wasted" vote? Must we always "work through the system" as it currently stands? This mentality negates any opportunity for any 'revolutionary'-type change, which is what I feel has been needed since I first voted for Nader (in my 20th year) in 2000, be it in financial regulations, protections for labor, 'free trade' policies, inequalities in wealth and income, an end to the war on drugs, being an even-handed broker in the Israel/Palestinian conflict, and any number of other subjects on which Nader shares my views more than any mainstream democrat EVER has in my adult life. How dare somebody ridicule me for voting upon the courage of my convictions, if that person claims themselves as a supporter of the principles of democracy? In a well-functioning democracy, should we not, all of us, vote for the individual we feel would be best suited for the job, regardless of popular opinion? Perhaps if there was not a candidate that I felt strongly about, I would simply not show up at the polls AT ALL. Would that be better? Is 1 vote for Nader and 0 votes for Gore better than 0 votes for both?
Regarding the line "progressives such as Bill Maher, Michael Moore and Tom Tomorrow had not spread lies about Al Gore..." - could you please elaborate on the specific lies? I ask not only as a challenge to the premise of your post, but for my own education - included in your lists are those who I at least 'hear out' when they state their views. I want to know who I'm reading.
Lastly, you have repeatedly shared your views regarding Obama and his shortcomings. Granted, your criticism have largely focused on his mis-representations (kindness) on various issues and the related Rorschach-test quality he maintains in the so-called progressive world. As you might expect, I do not disagree. With hindsight, I *MAY* have voted for Kerry, and would have voted for Gore if I had it to do over again. But at the time, even Gore did not represent a fundamental shift away from most if not all of my central concerns with the state of American hegemony/empire/whatever-you-prefer. In our time (and as I felt, and can still remember, in 2000) I am a strong proponent of a fundamental, philosophical change. Everything else is treating the symptom rather than the disease.
And in closing... How do you promote voting for McCain because of your issues with Obama, when there's still others who likely come closer to your own political principles?
People who let polls tell them who are "electable" are simply letting the 'powers that be' dictate their choices to them.
I'll vote for no-chance-at-winning candidates any damn time I choose, provided they share my views, and simply put: Fuck anyone who has a problem with that. 1 man, 1 vote. Suck it.
I maintain that Barack Obama was never a true liberal; he merely plays one on TV. His Mao-like cult of personality was created by "progressive" bloggers such as Arianna Huffington and Markos Moulitsas -- who are actually libertarians.
Aren't they former Republicans? Not that it's impossible to have a change of heart, but...just sayin'
Hello again - I know I just sent you an e-mail but I decided to follow up with a Comment Post (my first time on your blog, btw;)
Joseph I think there are actually 2 major strands of Clinton Derangement Syndrome (CDS):
1. Repub/Con/RightWing CDS - Clinton was evil incarnate (see the Monica Lewinsky and Vince Foster tales as usual) and brought shame upon America because of his "shady" backroom-all-consuming-lust-for-power/blah-blah-blah (which was all just a smoke screen for the GOP's lust for power and awful policies.)
2. Liberal/Prog/Dem CDS - Clinton was just too Conservative and kissed too much Repub/Con ass and would never EVER lead us into the Liberal/Progressive &/or Democratic paradise that America so desperately needs and wants (however most of these types don't happily tout whatever Nader was up to back in the 1990's to make America an open minded "shining city on the hill" either. All they can say is Clinton did nothing for us but they just DON'T want to hear that Nader didn't do much for us either huh?)
And of course I believe that most Nader supporters (and supposed Lib/Prog &/or Dem "socially aware" celebs like Tomorrow, Moore and Maher) had (or still have?) SERIOUS cases of #2 rather than #1. Most Lib/Prog people and Nader supporters I knew back then and during the early part of the
00's could care less about Monica Lewinsky &/or Vince Foster (would you believe most of them were even MORE apathetic about Clinton's handling of Rwanda?)
But they REALLY felt betrayed by NAFTA and the Cable De-Regulation bill and other things that Bill Clinton just should NOT have signed into law. As Hillary will forever have to live with her AUMF vote so will Bill have to live with NAFTA and the Cable De-Reg bills for eternity.
I'm not a Nader supporter but it's kind of hard to argue with them there. Until Clinton supporters can seriously defeat them on those points they'll still carry weight with those who supposedly want REAL Lib/Prog &/or Dem solutions to America's problems.
In other words Clinton supporters will forever have to answer this question - what did Bill Clinton actually do to make people's lives better and to make America a better, more open minded, compassionate, intelligent (and yes Liberal/Progressive and/or Democratic) place?
Is CDS #2 worse than CDS #1? No #1 is by far the absolute worst but the Clinton hate in #2 does seem more (dare I say it?) reasonable?
And unfortunately with Obama and the Dem leadership backing awful things like the recent billion dollar corporate bailout I can only picture Nader gaining more support during Barack's time in office.
BTW, has anybody seen the documentary on Nader called "An Unreasonable Man"? Is it worth renting?
So which is it, Bush co stole the election or Nader caused Gores defeat.
# posted by Clayton : 12:19 PM
Bush & Co. did everything they could to steal the election, but had Nader not broken his promise to not campaign in any swing state - said original promise proving that even he knew that Gore was better than Bush - for no stated or even apparent good reason , they wouldn't have succeeded.
Hoarseface said...
In a well-functioning democracy, should we not, all of us, vote for the individual we feel would be best suited for the job
True enough, but as far as I have seen, he doesn't do any political work - such as building party infrastructure, working to get candidates who share his beliefs elected to lower offices, establishing and strengthening connections with and among people whom he would have to caucus with should he get in office, etc. - between elections, but simply pops up every four years to run, which is a strong indication that his reason for doing so is something so negative - ego, a pathological need for admiration, deliberately wanting to make things worse, malicious mischievousness, or what have you - that it automatically makes him unsuitable for the job.
Sergei Rostov
In 2000, Nader said he would not campaign in swing states and he did...end of story and guilty as charged. If Hillary was the Dem nominee, Nader would have run early and hard in 08 . But she wasn't and the GOP WANTED Barry ,so no payday for Ralph,who is,IMO, a spoiler for hire.
I noticed on another blog supporting Sen. Clinton that a vehement and unapologetic Naderite left when she couldn't gain any traction with her exhortation to support solely Obama because he looked (to her) most likely to win.
She sure did wax eloquent about the consequences of a Republican victory if all us Hillaryites voted our conscience. I believe she left when the irony got to be too much.
BonneyAnne
Fantastic post!
Only one small qualm: Gore did win Florida anyway.
Still, considering that Nader took GOP money and spent the last days of the campaign attacking Gore - well deserved critique - of him and his followers.
so. @Clayton
Bush stole, Nader helped any way he could.
That's why I could never take TT seriously, even when I did like his anti-Bush work (kinda like MoDo)
"Clinton supporters will forever have to answer this question - what did Bill Clinton actually do to make people's lives better...?"
A sampling:
the Largest expansion of college opportunity since the GI Bill
the longest economic expansion in American history--a record 115 months of economic expansion
Connected 95 percent of schools to the Internet
Lowest crime rate in 26 years.
Family and Medical Leave Act for 20 million Americans
Deactivated more than 1,700 nuclear warheads from the former Soviet Union
Paid off $360 billion of the national debt
Most New Jobs Ever Created Under a Single Administration
stopped cold the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots.
Approved strong new clean air standards for soot and smog that could prevent up to 15,000 premature deaths a year
Accelerating Toxic Waste Cleanups. Completed cleanup at 515 Superfund sites,
Expanded Safe Drinking Water Act protections to protect 40 million additional Americans in small communitie
Led the world in calling for a global ban on ocean dumping of low-level radioactive waste.
Made the Federal government smaller—a feat matched only by Harry Truman
Violent crime rate went down for eight straight years.
The child poverty rate declined more than 25 percent
The poverty rate for single mothers was the lowest ever
The African American and elderly poverty rates dropped to their lowest level on record
The Hispanic poverty rate dropped to its lowest level since 1979
Lowest Poverty Rate for Single Mothers on Record
federal funding for child care more than doubled
Putting More Police on the Streets.
The President signed into law the Kennedy-Kassebaum Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which helps individuals keep health insurance when they change jobs, guarantees renewability of coverage, and ensures access to health insurance for small businesses.
And so on.
Great post!
Bill Maher spread lies about Al Gore? I’m one of the younger folks :o)
“I predict that Barack Obama will one day be seen as the worst thing ever to happen to the Democratic party.”
I can’t predict it since it never happened but I’m certain that Hillary, if given the chance, would have turned out to be one of the greatest presidents of all time, it’s enough to look at her track record to make such pretentious claim. Maybe Hillary will run in 2012, but the chances are slim, Obama is doing everything he can to cripple such possibility.
Nader's presence in the race in 2000 caused Gore to lose Florida. (And yes, I'm aware of the "butterfly ballots," which even Pat Buchanan admitted gave him an unrealistic number of votes.) But that doesn't change the fact that Gore was also a lousy candidate: Donna Brazile ran a terrible campaign, and they refused Bill Clinton's help until it was too late. (Clinton had higher approval ratings than Gore.) Gore lost his own home state! And Gore was savaged by the press, including by progressives/liberals. For all the Gore-worship happening now - Gore was constantly attacked by the press (right and left) at the time. So I think the 2000 race needs to be seen from two sides (it's the same coin): Florida and the other 49 states. A better performance in one of these would have given us a Gore presidency.
Which does not explain Bush's reelection, no matter how lousy Kerry was in 2004.
I think the Democratic party has destroyed itself in the long-run with its backing of Obama and the destruction of the Clintons and their supporters. There are a lot of formerly loyal Democrats - the ones who would vote for any D, who gave money and time to any D - who have been unceremoniously dismissed. Donna Brazile said they weren't necessary anymore. So they left. The new recruits Obama brought in don't give a rat's ass about the D. They only love and worship Obama. Which is why he managed to raise and spend three-quarters of a billion dollars, while the DNC is in debt, and downticket Democrats had problems raising money, and local DNC chapters are also in debt. Those new Obama supporters don't give a crap about other Democrats. So once Obama is out of the picture - in 4 or 8 years - what will the Democratic party do? Who's going to give them money, campaign for their candidates, and vote for them? There's a lot of Democrats who this year cast their first votes for a Republican (myself included.) And these people will not dismiss other Republicans in the future. But I wonder if every new Obama recruit will still go to the polls when Obama is no longer on the ballot. I wouldn't count on it.
I maintain that the day will come, and will come soon, when Democrats will regret dissing the Clinton wing of the party. I predict that Barack Obama will one day be seen as the worst thing ever to happen to the Democratic party.
Sadly gays are already beginning to see how bad this decision was. Yet some, like Etheridge are still in denial. I think it's just that they can't admit to being fooled by this schmuck.
Post a Comment