Yes, I understand the race angle that democrats are going to make as much hay with, as possible, but I think it is a reach at best. I have seen worse on Jon Stewart.

3104. Chip Posted: September 04, 2008 at 05:46 PM (#2929394)- And here we go: Georgia Republican House member gets explicit with the "Obama's too elitist" theme - those Negroes are too uppity.

2109. Chip Posted: September 02, 2008 at 12:59 PM (#2925981) - Rick Davis needs to check in with John McCain. He's the one who enshrined the "I was smeared with 'black baby' phone calls" in the historic record when he gave an interview shortly after that election in which he claimed there were "thousands and thousands of calls," and described the "special place in hell" he believed the people behind it would visit someday. The "special place in hell" line has been repeated over and over again in subsequent stories referencing McCain's 2000 campaign.

2185. Chip Posted: September 02, 2008 at 03:22 PM (#2926172)If they wanted to shield the pregnant daughter from undue publicity, they could have just left her at home, and not have her show up in Dayton with her belly bulging but unremarked upon. There's precedent for handling the situation right there in the McCain campaign: while at least a couple McCain children have been regulars at campaign events, and one of them has done some videoblogging on the McCain website, the adopted Bangladeshi daughter - the one who McCain believes was the subject of the "black baby" smear - has been successfully shielded by the family from exposure during this campaign cycle, and the press has left her alone AFAIK.

2788. Chip Posted: September 03, 2008 at 11:00 PM (#2928486)- Has she referred to Obama by name yet? Everything's "the Democratic nominee" and "our opponent." Did she keep making the "Obama/Osama" mistake during rehearsal or something, so they took at all references to "Obama"?

2205. Chip Posted: September 02, 2008 at 03:53 PM (#2926216) -the campaign is putting her family values front and center, especially her decision to have the Down's Syndrome baby. Which they've stuck in Bristol's arms, thus drawing more attention to Bristol.

1550. Chip Posted: August 31, 2008 at 08:49 PM (#2924092) - Well, now we know why the whispers of "Eagleton" have already been making the rounds in St. Paul today: there are rampant rumors in Alaska, which have now made it onto the Internet, that the Down's Syndrome baby may in fact be her grandson, not her son. Andrew Sullivan has more

RJ's post is, as usual, an angry, rambling, ignorant mess.

But the grammar police surely doesn't.

Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

It seems like he thinks that Chip is angry about racist smears on Obama, but that Chip should be angrier about racist smears on McCain that were perpetrated by one of McCain's campaign advisers on behalf of Bush.

Well, the Biden thing is pretty appalling, don't you think?

The former. Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in 2005, and this is how much extra money Joe Biden's check to the Red Cross contained: $0. Terrorists attacked the World Trade Center, and Biden rushed to give an additional $0.00 to the Red Cross. The Tsunami hit Indonesia et al. in 2006, and Biden... did nothing.


EDIT: Of course, what's most important about this is that it shows Obama's poor judgment in failing to vet his vice presidential selection.

The former. Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in 2005, and this is how much extra money Joe Biden's check to the Red Cross contained: $0. Terrorists attacked the World Trade Center, and Biden rushed to give an additional $0.00 to the Red Cross. The Tsunami hit Indonesia et al. in 2006, and Biden... did nothing.

Wouldn't it be neat - and coronary inducing - to see the NYT make something of Biden's "generosity"? Or are they going to continue such newsworthy items as "As Mayor, Palin appointed people she knew, liked, and trusted, getting rid of those she knew less, didn't like, and didn't trust!"?

Actually, you should be relieved that the NYT almost certainly won't. "'Sarah Barracuda' is one of us, one of you, and she is being victimized/patronized by the Elitist Liberal Media and we are going to make them PAY!" is a big part of her narrative right now, and the Repubs are selling it hard from the surrogates to the Punditocracy to the operatives on down--and it's working on some, as Red Juice's heroic trashing of all the mean Liberals here indicates at the netroots level.

I am not judgmental about how much money/time other people give to charity, much less to which charities. Biden may be doing other things on the side that you are not aware of that are more demanding and directly helpful than cutting a check to the Red Cross and writing it off one's taxes. But even if all his money is going on hair plugs, that is a personal choice of Biden's. If Biden paid his taxes, I think the rest is up to him.

Also, as noted earlier, FWIW, Biden has a lot less money than Barack Obama and far less than Cindy McCain.

My guess is that it bothers you because:

a) In your mind, Biden wants to take YOUR money in taxes and not give up his own.

But frankly, this post on your part reminds me of when you lectured Andy about having racist friends. Personal moralizing about what other people do with their own money/time and chest-thumping Libertarianism sit next to each other very uneasily.

But I have seen little from you in this forum that indicates to me you are on higher moral ground than anyone else in terms of your commitment to helping others, giving of oneself, being tolerant of others etc.

Of course, it's Biden's money and he's free to do with it what he wants, and I'd be happy to leave it at that -- except that he's a Democrat and doesn't believe that our money is ours or that we should be free to do with it what we want.

While not being willing to spend his own money. He's very generous with my money but not his own.

But Andy can do what he wants; I was merely tweaking him.

If there are racists out there...We should be shunning them.

I gave nothing to the Katrina Fund, nor the Red Cross.

I don't think it's a good use of my money nor has any long-term impact. I've been in NoLA enough to see how much of the relief money has been deployed, and am not sure that well-meaning general donations have done much good other than to facilitate pissing contest.

This is nothing but chickenshit revisionism. I remember the exchange quite well; your tone was dead serious. Only Andy's bemused tolerance of such things prevented it from getting nasty. There are MANY people here--of all ideologies--who would have blown up at you for saying essentially, that you are better not than them, but their friends, whom you have never met.

If you want to make a one-to-one judgment about your moral character in relation to Biden's based on that, that strikes me as being both extremely simplistic and pathetically self-righteous.

Better, no? More honest and expedient, anyway,

Meanwhile, your self-righteousness about my self-righteousness would be more compelling if you had ever expressed the same view to one of the leftists here who routinely imply or openly state that libertarian/conservative small government/low tax ideology is about greed and selfishness.

I don't really care about Biden's giving, either. I'm no fan, and this just confirms my impression. An interesting related issue, however, is his claim to be a good, mass-attending RC. Part of being a mass-attending RC, however, is giving to your church (which is charitable giving, of course). I simply don't accept that Biden's accounts are so out of order that he doesn't itemize, so I just wonder what, if anything, he's giving to his church?

I don't use hyperbolic metaphors about "guns" to describe my political opponents.

If Biden sees such grave injustice out in the world he should throw some of his own money voluntarily toward it. If he doesn't, it's hard to take him seriously when he talks of needing to help folks.

If Biden sees such grave injustice out in the world he should throw some of his own money voluntarily toward it. If he doesn't, it's hard to take him seriously when he talks of needing to help folks. (I will readily admit that maybe he does and didn't declare it.

Part of being a mass-attending RC, however, is giving to your church (which is charitable giving, of course). I simply don't accept that Biden's accounts are so out of order that he doesn't itemize, so I just wonder what, if anything, he's giving to his church?

Robin, I'm not up on the history of this discussion with David, but Biden's donations do give me pause. It is exactly what I expect from a pol seeking power. They aren't looking out for the public good, they are looking to accrue power. It's the same with Rs and the social issues. Thou shalt not, while they stick their dick in any available nook and cranny.

In what way is this "hyperbolic," given that if you don't pay your taxes, you will eventually find yourself being visited by a person carrying a gun?

But I think that someone who makes far more than the national average, who has a very nice lifestyle, should give at least as high a percentage as the national average. Is 3-4% really too much to ask?

Sure--and around and around we go. Move up to a mountain, build your own house with your own hands, live off the land, make your own road up and down the mountain, then we'll talk.

Until then, we are, as I said to DMN, arguing about cost/benefit.

He doesn't just want to point guns at me; he actually does.

Robin, I know it's the system and you have to deal with reality but...really? That's the argument being made by any candidate? Hey, I'm a sleazeball but then, so are we all? I have to accept that

This is actually true. I am related, via a complex set of arrangments, to a guy who didn't pay taxes for 9 years.

It seems like he thinks that Chip is angry about racist smears on Obama, but that Chip should be angrier about racist smears on McCain that were perpetrated by one of McCain's campaign advisers on behalf of Bush.

This is completely and utterly false, and if the advisor cared what was written on BTF, would be grounds for a defamation lawsuit. He had nothing to do with any rumors related to "racist smears on McCain," if such smears were ever made at all. The attacks on McCain arranged by this advisor were related to McCain's association with Charles Keating.

If Biden sees such grave injustice out in the world he should throw some of his own money voluntarily toward it. If he doesn't, it's hard to take him seriously when he talks of needing to help folks.

Since 1970, Begley has been an environmentalist beginning with his first electric vehicle, a Taylor-Dunn golf cart style vehicle, recycling, and becoming a vegan. He promotes eco-friendly products like the Toyota Prius and Begley's Best Household Cleaner.

The Begley home is a modest 1,585 square feet in size utilizing solar power and also uses wind power via a PacWind vertical-axis wind turbine; an air conditioning unit cooled by Greenway Design Group, LLC., and he pays around $300 a year in electric bills. Though he is noted for riding bicycles or uses public transportation, he owns a 2002 Toyota RAV4 EV electric powered vehicle.

*And, of course, judging the moral character of a man is complicated business. I'm more judging a person's standing to tell others how to live. Very, very few of us can pass muster in this regard. Thus, when an otherwise good man who has his faults like the rest of us starts telling me how to live and what I must do to be worthy, I do question his character.

I'm not sayin' you're right, of course, but what would the penalty be for shooting a stepfather in such a situation?

Ann Banks reported Charlie Condon was behind the smears, and he ran South Carolina for McCain. Tucker Eskew, recently hired by McCain, acknowledged that he was behind other 2000 push-polls against McCain, but I guess he was not involved in any other push-polling or smearing - that would be crazy! Warren Tompkins, who ran the Bush campaign in 2000 for which Eskew and Condon worked, has taken to half-acknowledging his role in the smears.

Obviously no one's come out and claimed responsibility for those smears, but McCain thought Bush was responsible - he said to Bush, "you ought to be ashamed, George" during the last SC debate, in reference to these tactics.

Or, another way of looking at it is that Biden really does believe, as Eraser seems to imply, that government should solve these problems and not private interests. That doesn't leave me feeling morally superior to Biden, but it does leave me in strong disagreement.

Or, another way of looking at it is that Biden really does believe, as Eraser seems to imply, that government should solve these problems and not private interests. That doesn't leave me feeling morally superior to Biden, but it does leave me in strong disagreement.

So, I take #879 as an acknowledgement that you're walking back your claim about a defamation suit? Becuase it was insane?

I guess your theory is that while Bush was happy using surrogates who attacked McCain's war service and push-polled a variety of attacks under the guise of a legitimate poll, the "black baby" smear was perpetrated by people unrelated to the Bush campaign, who were shocked, shocked to find such tactics used against their opponents.

It's hard to construct an argument for the logic, let alone morality, of the proposition, "I see that you're suffering, but I refuse to help you unless I can coerce other people into helping you also."

The claim that Tucker Eskew spread the rumor that McCain fathered a black baby is false, baseless, and defamatory.

The implication in #848 and #875 that the Democrats will tax you more than the Republicans (assuming you are referring to income and payroll taxes, which you may not be) is demonstrably false, if you make less than $250K.

An interesting related issue, however, is his claim to be a good, mass-attending RC.

"McCain has gone in some of his ads -- similarly gone one step too far, and sort of attributing to Obama things that are, you know, beyond the '100 percent truth' test."

Perhaps what you mean is that it's demonstrably false that Obama has proposed taxing people making less than $250K? You can make that argument if you want, but the claim "Obama doesn't announce an intention to hike taxes on people making less than $250K" is clearly different than "Obama won't hike taxes on people making less than $250K."

I think what he meant is that historically the "tax-and-spend" liberals have neither taxed more, nor spent more than the "fiscal conservatives".

The "black baby" thing wasn't a blog post or a rumor. It was a push-poll. So sayeth Rick Davis.) Those require significant funding and planning, and I think can be generally laid at the feet of the campaigns.

He's a Democrat and doesn't believe that our money is ours or that we should be free to do with it what we want.

And Republicans are different how?

Kwame Kilpatrick=Willie Horton

Without looking at the link, I knew you were referring to a 2004 article in the Boston Globe. The problem is that if you go back and read contemporaneous stories, rather than off-the-cuff talking four years later, there's no evidence that more than one or two people received such a call.

Just so we're clear- Rick Davis is a liar?

But frankly, this post on your part reminds me of when you lectured Andy about having racist friends.

This is nothing but chickenshit revisionism. I remember the exchange quite well; your tone was dead serious. Only Andy's bemused tolerance of such things prevented it from getting nasty.

(a) I don't have any recollection of being ragged about having racist friends, which makes sense since I don't have any racist friends. I have friends who sometimes use racist terminology, but that doesn't necessarily make them racists in my book. Perhaps that was what you're referring to.

I am genuinely perplexed by your perceptions most of the time, in a way I'm confused by NOBODY else posting here.

But to succeed, deception needs a receptive audience. It needs the incurious, the unquestioning, the toadying. The effectiveness of the lies, in a year when comatose fleas should capably beat the shrewdest Republican, is telling -- not about the candidates' venality, but about the electorate's want: This isn't an election about change. It's an election about extending the denial that made the last eight years possible. Many Americans, maybe most, want to convince themselves that America's moral authority and example is undiminished despite the last eight years. (And who can blame them? Who doesn't wish it weren't so?) The last thing those brave Americans want is change. They want leadership that validates their delusion. Palin-McCain is their narcotic bridge to nowhere.

BTW that was the 1964 cover story of a curious magazine called Fact, which was published by a thoroughly sane career pornographer named Ralph Ginzburg.

Is it just God Damn America that gets people riled up?

Does anybody listen to the context?

What's wrong with expressing anger about the direction of your supposedly free and democratic country?

Black people aren't supposed to have churches. If they have a pastor that doesn't push white people values, they should immediately run out of the church screaming and head to one of the many other churches available to them.

But in regards to this specific thing, I think that it's like Bonds admitting he used steroids; once the media reports something enough and it becomes conventional wisdom, everyone starts repeating it and believing it, until even the people close to the story don't remember. An even better analogy is those tracers from the James/Neyer books; even the people involved don't know the truth from the embellished version that has been circulating for years.

How well do you really know the world -- indeed how experienced are you -- if you don't invest in anything but insured deposits?

These are, of course, very different things. In the first case, Bonds did take steroids, but has been careful about not quite admitting it, and in the second case, those things usually didn't happen (some did, though).

Your confidence that the people that Bush hired to attack McCain or farm out attacks on McCain through surrogates were not responsible for the significantly-funded attacks that you find beyond the pale, just for the acceptable ones*, seems more like a case of Bonds-denialism than skepticism of an old story from an old ballplayer that futzed up some places and dates.