allahpundit: Page 1
[SEE 6/17/14 UPDATE BELOW]
"The Kronies" is a series of slick, live action videos that promote a libertarian message. The effort comes complete with not only its own site, but a fake site for the "company" behind the figures, a "Chimera Global Holdings Inc.".
Conservative bloggers who support amnesty (Rubio; Hot Air, Morrissey, Johnsen, Loesch, Moran, Mataconis...) - 01/21/13
This post will maintain a list of those supposed conservative bloggers who support some form of comprehensive immigration reform (aka amnesty), specifically the amnesty proposed by Marco Rubio. This post doesn't list GOP politicians or pundits, just bloggers and other low-level members of the GOP establishment.
Needless to say, there are far too many examples of the incompetence of rightwing bloggers than I could ever cover. However, to pick one out of the hat, take a look at the reaction to "The Puzzle of Black Republicans" by University of Pennsylvania professor Adolph L. Reed Jr (link).
Reason Magazine offers the deceptive video "The Week in Stupid: Cable Pundits on the Gifford Shooting" (below). If you trust anything Reason tells you, keep reading.
Did Pima County Sheriff Dupnik ignore Jared Loughner's warning signs before Gabrielle Giffords shooting? - 01/13/11
Almost immediately after the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and several others by Jared Lee Loughner, Pima County, Arizona Sheriff Clarence Dupnik began politicizing the tragedy . Part of that politicization was justified, part was not. Specifically, considering the role that an overly hostile political environment might have played in the tragedy and urging calm is acceptable, but naming specific persons (Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh) as possible contributing factors is not.
In any case, supporters and enablers of Palin, Limbaugh, and the tea parties movement responded by going on a witch hunt against Dupnik, using his initial claim that Loughner had made death threats  to claim that Dupnik knew about Loughner's issues and had done nothing. In some cases, they claimed that he had done nothing because Loughner's mother worked for Pima County. 
However, the police reports on Loughner's past contacts with the Pima sheriff's office (summary here; in full here) and Pima Community College (read them here; PDF cached) have been released, and neither indicate any death threats. Loughner's negative past contacts with the Sheriffs are on two minor matters; the contacts with the College are more severe however none of them would seem to offer any reasonable person a clue to what was to come.
So, while Dupnik needlessly politicized this, the teaparty enablers' attempts to smear him as incompetent or corrupt strongly appears to be false. Unless he and his office were mindreaders, there's little they could have done to stop the tragedy.
UPDATE: From this:
Jared Loughner's increasingly menacing behavior, what may look like a psychotic spiral in hindsight, likely would not have been enough to have him forced into psychiatric care, much less arrested... mental-health and legal experts say it's likely that no one could have seen a tragedy coming before Saturday... Even with Arizona's broader laws on involuntary psychiatric commitment, it's still a high bar...
ADDED: See also
* FAQ: Is Jared Lee Loughner linked to Tea Party, conservatives, or libertarians? (Gabrielle Giffords shooting)
* Jared Loughner: anti-Bush, pro-small government? Intellectually dishonest Tea Party defenders
* Loughner's "Genocide school" video
* Friend's claim that Loughner wasn't political is two years out of date
* Jared Loughner's AboveTopSecret postings show no clear political slant
* Arizona state Fusion Center uses Giffords shooting to smear American Renaissance)
* Glenn Reynolds denies Tea Party's history of intimidation
* first post on Gabrielle Giffords shooting
 From this, search for more:
Dupnik called Arizona a "mecca for prejudice and bigotry," assigning a measure of blame for the rampage that killed six and wounded 14 others to overheated political "vitriol."
Dupnik said there had been earlier contact between Loughner and law enforcement after he had made death threats, although they had not been against Giffords. He said the authorities believe he may not have been working alone.
 The epicenter of tea party claims was the 1/9/11 post "Jared Loughner is a product of Sheriff Dupnik’s office" (thechollajumps.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/
The sheriff has been editorializing and politicizing the event since he took the podium to report on the incident. His blaming of radio personalities and bloggers is a pre-emptive strike because Mr. Dupnik knows this tragedy lays at his feet and his office. Six people died on his watch and he could have prevented it... Jared Loughner has been making death threats by phone to many people in Pima County including staff of Pima Community College, radio personalities and local bloggers. When Pima County Sheriff’s Office was informed, his deputies assured the victims that he was being well managed by the mental health system. It was also suggested that further pressing of charges would be unnecessary and probably cause more problems than it solved as Jared Loughner has a family member that works for Pima County. Amy Loughner is a Natural Resource specialist for the Pima County Parks and Recreation.
Either that never happened, or the records linked above are incomplete. More than likely, it never happened. "The Cholla Jumps" has a follow-up post (thechollajumps.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/
I had to source the puzzle pieces and vet the information with people who assured me they had first hand information regarding Jared Loughner. I wanted documentation. Unfortunately the mere possesion of the documentation would be a violation of HIPPA laws and the track back would be detrimental to the livelyhoods and lives of the people involved... Anyone in Law Enforcement or Mental Health in Pima County that ever had contact with Mr. Loughner is now in bunker mode. Everyone is afraid of lawsuits down the road. They are evaluating their behavior and checking to make sure they followed all rules governing the care of Jared Loughner... Lawfully some of the people that had knowledge of Mr Loughner could never come forward without subpoena by a lawful authority. Others are just too afraid.
Based on that, it's almost certain that their initial report was just made up.
None of that kept AllahPundit from retransmitting their tale ("Did Clarence Dupnik miss the red flags on Loughner?", hotair.com/archives/2011/01/10/
did-dupnik-miss-the-red-flags-on-loughner), even if he CYAs:
we’re getting lots of e-mails about this post, but I’m unfamiliar with the site and can’t vouch for its credibility. Under those circumstances I’d normally pass on it, but since America’s new standard of journalism requires no supporting evidence whatsoever before tossing an assertion into the news stream, here you go. Maybe it’s true, maybe it isn’t. The important thing is, does it serve your political agenda?
Moe Lane was even less cautious (moelane.com/2011/01/10/
it is not a matter of controversy whether or not Loughner made death threats, or at least it should not be. As was reported by both local sources (via here) and Reuters, Sheriff Dupnik himself revealed that Loughner had made death threats against at least one person who was not Congresswoman Giffords. This happened. What the The Cholla Jumps site is alleging – and which has not yet been confirmed- is the following [claim as above]... The question is, is this true? We don’t know – yet – but it’s certainly plausible. Again, we know that there were death threats made, because Dupnik himself admitted that they had happened (that’s the NPR link). And we also know that Loughner was sufficiently unstable to have been thrown out of college as being, frankly, a menace to the local community. And when I say ‘thrown out’ I want it to be understood that the police were involved, because they were. But it could be that this is not actually a true report: a violent paranoid schizophrenic with a history of erratic behavior might have managed to restrain himself to making death threats to one specific person outside of the jurisdiction of the Pima County Sheriff’s Office – thus making him not specifically the problem of one Clarence Dupnik...
Needless to say, that was linked by Glenn Reynolds (instapundit.com/112919 ).
Note that AllahPundit later admitted "There were no missed red flags as far as I can tell" (hotair.com/archives/2011/01/12/
It's a shame that Harry Reid's opponent is a tea parties type like Sharron Angle. A more mainstream opponent who's willing to highlight immigration issues might have something productive to say about these recent Reid remarks about how he can't find Republicans to support comprehensive immigration reform (link):
"I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, OK," Reid said, speaking to Latino supporters whose votes he needs to win re-election in November. "Do I need to say more?"
Tibi Ellis, chairwoman of the Nevada Republican Hispanic Caucus, responds that both Ronald Reagan and George W Bush pushed amnesty and that Obama hasn't been able to follow through on his amnesty promises. She doesn't point out the downsides to such plans, nor obviously does she note that sentiments like Reid's put us on the road to ethnic conflicts such as to be found in other countries. Smarter, less corrupt GOP leaders might also realize that supporting massive immigration isn't good for their party as long as most coming here are likely Democrats and those who are receptive to such race-baiting.
"Immigration is nothing new," Reid added, speaking to more than 50 mostly activist Hispanics who applauded his anti-GOP remarks. "We are a nation of immigrants. So because the wave of immigrants we have now -- their skin's a tone darker than ours -- doesn't make it any different."
Yes, today's immigration is different; see the immigration tradition fallacy page.
UPDATE: From politico.com/news/stories/0810/40948.html
Angle's campaign seized on the comment, telling POLITICO in an e-mail that “Harry Reid cannot give any good reasons why people should vote for him, so now he is turning to race and ethnicity.”
“Reid is desperate to change the subject from the economy, which he knows is a losing issue for him,” said Angle spokesman Jarrod Agen.
But in a statement Wednesday morning, the Reid campaign doubled down on the line.
“Sen. Reid’s contention was simply that he doesn't understand how anyone, Hispanic or otherwise, would vote for Republican candidates because they oppose saving teachers’ jobs, oppose job-creating tax incentives for small businesses, oppose investments in job-creating clean energy projects, and oppose the help for struggling, unemployed Nevadans to put food on the table and stay in their homes,” read the statement.
As much as I don't like to say it, Allahpundit is right ( peekURL.com/z2wq6jf ):
He’s not doubling down, he’s actually trying to weasel out of it by downplaying the racial aspect of it... Completely inane and demagogic, sure — but race-neutral! Except, of course, that’s not what he meant at all: He’s terrified that Latinos won’t turn out for him in November after he broke his promise to get an amnesty bill through (Democratic betrayal on immigration is a very hot topic these days in Spanish-language media, apparently), so now he’s going to push ye olde authenticity pander. Lest you think there’s any ambiguity about it, follow the link to McCormack and note Reid’s line about modern-day immigrants having skin that’s “a tone darker than ours.” He knew exactly what he was saying, and now that he’s been called on it, he’s inching away.
Ron Paul was right: Federal Reserve had involvement in Watergate, money sent to Saddam Hussein (Ben Bernanke) - 02/25/10
Yesterday, Rep. Ron Paul quizzed Ben Bernanke of the Federal Reserve about that group's involvement in relation to Watergate and to the funding of Saddam Hussein of Iraq (video: peekURL.com/vqxfnme ). Bernanke called that questioning "absolutely bizarre", and several sources (some listed below) joined in.
As it turns out, the Fed in fact did have some sort of involvement with both Watergate and with money that was sent to Saddam, as documented in the book "Deception and Abuse at the Fed: Henry B. Gonzalez Battles Alan Greenspan's Bank" (link). From the blurb:
...Robert Auerbach, a former [U.S. House of Representatives] banking committee investigator, recounts major instances of Fed mismanagement and abuse of power that were exposed by Rep. Gonzalez, including: * Blocking Congress and the public from holding powerful Fed officials accountable by falsely declaring--for 17 years--it had no transcripts of its meetings; * Manipulating the stock and bond markets in 1994 under cover of a preemptive strike against inflation; * Allowing $5.5 billion to be sent to Saddam Hussein from a small Atlanta branch of a foreign bank--the result of faulty bank examination practices by the Fed; * Stonewalling Congressional investigations and misleading the Washington Post about the $6,300 found on the Watergate burglars. Auerbach provides documentation of these and other abuses at the Fed, which confirms Rep. Gonzalez's belief that no government agency should be allowed to operate with the secrecy and independence in which the Federal Reserve has shrouded itself. Auerbach concludes with recommendations for specific, broad-ranging reforms that will make the Fed accountable to the government and the people of the United States.
See also hnn.us/blogs/entries/123737.html and this.
Here are some of those who reflexively supported Bernanke without doing even a little bit of research. The reader is encouraged to add more in comments. Unless otherwise noted, all of the following mock Paul in one way or other, none of them even hint that the Fed was in fact involved in some ways with both issues, and none of them have corrections at post time:
* AllahPundit hotair.com/archives/2010/02/24/ron-paul-grills-bernanke-
wasnt-the-fed-involved-with-saddam-and-in-watergate (no correction at post time)
* NPR npr.org/blogs/money/2010/02/
* Huffington Post huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/24/ben-bernanke-snaps-at-ron_n_474874.html (Note that one of their contributors posted a link to the book at huffingtonpost.com/j-bradley-jansen/bizarre-bernanke_b_475230.html)
Please add more in comments.
UPDATE: Paul has read into the Congressional Record a statement he received from Auerbach (link):
I thank Congressman Ron Paul for bringing to the public’s attention the Federal Reserve coverup of the source of the Watergate burglars’ source of funding and the defective audit by the Federal Reserve of the bank that transferred $5.5 billion from the U.S. government to Saddam Hussein in the 1980s. Congressman Paul directed these comments to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke at the House Financial Services Hearing February 24, 2010. I question Chairman Bernanke’s dismissive response...
"I think the public rightfully is still making it an issue... I don't have a problem with that. I don't know if I would have to bother to make it an issue, because I think that members of the electorate still want answers... I think it's a fair question just like I think past associations and past voting records. All of that is fair game... ...the McCain-Palin campaign didn't do a good enough job in that area. We didn't call out Obama and some of his associates on their records and what their beliefs were, and perhaps what their future plans were, and I don't think that was fair to voters to not have done our job as candidates and a campaign to bring to light a lot of things that now we're seeing manifest in the administration."
UPDATE: She's commented on this on her Facebook page, see .
Meanwhile, her supporters will most likely do things that are ineffective and things that won't strike back at her detractors.
If you're a Palin supporter, here's what you have to do: point out that many of those detractors have lied about the basic, easy-to-understand facts of this matter. You have to work to discredit those detractors. Simply saying they're wrong won't cut it: you have to take steps to discredit them and point out to their audience that they aren't credible. That is the only way to blunt attacks from those detractors: point out to their audience that they can't be trusted. And, you have to do that while only discussing facts, not wild theories.
Note that you don't have to believe that Obama was born outside the U.S. All you have to be able to do is understand what a fact is and how it differs from belief. Believing that Obama was born in Hawaii is perfectly valid, but claiming that he's definitively proved it is not because, while he's provided evidence, he has not provided definitive proof. That doesn't mean he was born outside the U.S. or isn't eligible to be president. I'm not trying to prove he was born outside the U.S. or isn't eligible. My angle on this story involves those who can't get their facts straight. My goal is to discredit those sources in order to improve their coverage of this and a myriad of other issues.
There's a list of those who've lied about the facts in the Obama citizenship issue. What I need Palin supporters to do is to find those listed discussing this issue and then in comments on their posts point out to their readers how they lied about the basic facts of this matter. Please do not engage in wild theories, only facts. Point out to their readers that they lied or misled about the basic facts of this matter and point out to their readers that they aren't credible.
UPDATE 2: Once again, this isn't about "kicking Obama out of office", at least from my perspective. This is about using this issue to discredit MSM and sub-MSM sources who've lied about the basic facts of this issue. Whatever someone's position on this issue, the MSM and others are going to use it against Palin time and time again. And, when they do that, they're going to link to "debunkers" like FactCheck. If people would concentrate on helping me discredit FactCheck using the fact that they've lied about this and other issues, that would blunt their attacks. It would also, for instance, reduce FactCheck's ability to mislead about illegal aliens and healthcare. And, it would send a message to the Beltway establishment that they can't just make things up, which they have done about aspects of this issue. They're going to attack Palin and others over this issue, and her supporters and others aren't fighting back in the right way but are more or less just helping the attackers. I made that point over four months ago, but few others have caught on.
UPDATE 3: Beth Fouhy and Justin Juozapavicius of the Associated Press offer "Sarah Palin's fans push for 2012 presidential run" (link). It shows a) how the MSM will use this issue to try to discredit Palin, and b) how her supporters who aren't trying to discredit the MSM are in effect helping the MSM with their goal. These are the 9th through 11th paragraphs:
"B.O. scares me," said Miki Booth, 59, of the president, adding that Palin "is as American as it gets."... Palin played into that fear on a radio show Thursday, telling host Rusty Humphries that voters "rightfully" have questions about the legitimacy of Obama's birth certificate. The so-called birther conspiracy around Obama's U.S. citizenship has been widely discredited, and state health officials in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed that the president was born there in 1961... Palin later backed off the comment on her Facebook page, saying she had never questioned Obama's citizenship but believes that voters and reporters had a right to ask candidates whatever questions they wish.
Most of those who are undecided on Palin or who could be persuaded will read those paragraphs and probably side with the MSM in thinking she might be a bit "off". And, her supporters can't do anything about it unless they actually take the steps to discredit the MSM. For an example of that, Beth Fouhy and Justin Juozapavicius are lying: there's only been one statement from Hawaiian officials in which they stated he was born there, the one from 7/272009. The first statement, from 10/31/08, only said they had a valid certificate on file and, since Hawaii issues valid certificates for those born outside their state the 2008 statement was ambiguous. Fouhy and Juozapavicius said there were multiple confirmations, when in fact there was only one. If Palin supporters don't like AP articles such as the above, they need to start pointing out lies like that. The AP and the rest of the MSM are extremely vulnerable when it comes to their credibility, but if few are willing to point out their lies they'll just keep on lying.
 On Facebook, Palin has posted the following:
Voters have every right to ask candidates for information if they so choose. I’ve pointed out that it was seemingly fair game during the 2008 election for many on the left to badger my doctor and lawyer for proof that Trig is in fact my child. Conspiracy-minded reporters and voters had a right to ask... which they have repeatedly. But at no point – not during the campaign, and not during recent interviews – have I asked the president to produce his birth certificate or suggested that he was not born in the United States.
That's not going to have much of an impact: the HuffPost, HotAir, the MSM, and all the rest are still going to call her a "Birther", whether her supporters like it or not. The only way to blunt their attacks is using the method discussed above.
Canadian comedian tries to embarrass Sarah Palin; fails; shows abysmal level of debate in U.S. - 11/27/09
Mediaite offers "Canadian Comedian Fails Miserably In Trying To Embarrass Sarah Palin" (link):
During a book signing event in Columbus, Ohio, Canadian Comedian Mary Walsh ambushed (Sarah Palin) with camera crew and microphone to seek her thoughts on the Canadian health care system (and ostensibly embarrass her as well.)
While the event security detail prevented a meaningful interview, Palin did provide some basic comments consistent with her conservative position. While many websites are now presenting this video clip as evidence of her naivete, the video actually acquits Palin quite well, and makes the comedian look far more foolish than her target. Perhaps more stunning is that this clip has received a lot of play on numerous news sites, despite the fact it comes from a comedy show.
However, neither of the above stress that this is yet another marker on the road to Idiocracy. Instead of asking political leaders tough questions about their policies - policies that affect hundreds of millions or billions of people - about all we get is one dumb stunt after the other.
There are a lot of forces working towards the current situation, including: entertainers want to get ratings no matter what; partisan hacks and authoritarians/borderline fascists don't want politicians to be asked questions at all; liberals who think the height of argumentation is asking questions in the style of the sleazy Mike Stark; and conservatives/libertarians who think the height of argumentation is throwing a tantrum in the tea parties style.
In case anyone else realizes how dangerous the path we're on is, help promote the question authority plan.
Peter Wallsten (formerly of the Los Angeles Times, now with the Wall Street Journal) offers "Dobbs Reaches Out to Latinos, With Politics in Mind" (link), which contains this misleading statement (bolding added):
(Lou Dobbs) is working to repair what a spokesman conceded is a glaring flaw: His reputation for antipathy toward Latino immigrants. In a little-noticed interview Friday, Mr. Dobbs told Spanish-language network Telemundo he now supports a plan to legalize millions of undocumented workers, a stance he long lambasted as an unfair "amnesty."
Now, to help illustrate why Wallsten is being misleading, here's what Dobbs said (video here, bolding added):
What I have said from the very beginning... which a lot of people have chosen to ignore: that we need a rational, effective, humane immigration policy in this country... we need the ability to legalize illegal immigrants on certain conditions and we need to be able to influence the direction of the conversation right now toward securing the border because until we can control immigration we cannot meaningfully, subtantively alter immigration law because it would have no point if we cannot establish the basis for the control of the flow of people across that border.
That said, this is not a welcome development, and Dobbs appears to be changing his position from what it was earlier, if the following actually represents his position:
Mr. Dobbs couldn't be reached Tuesday. Spokesman Bob Dilenschneider said Mr. Dobbs draws a distinction between illegal immigrants who have committed crimes since arriving in the U.S. and those who are "living upright, positive and constructive lives" who should be "integrated" into society. He said Mr. Dobbs recognizes the political importance of Latinos and is "smoothing the water and clearing the air."
Now, compare that to what Dobbs said in March 2006 (link):
My position on what the Senate is doing is that it's an amnesty program. It is putting at least 11, as many as 20 million people, to the front of the line. We have a backlog of legal immigrants to this country of three million waiting naturalization and visas... It is an unconscionable act that pits the lowest paid two million Hispanic workers in this country against illegal, predominantly Hispanic illegal aliens, as demonstrated in a study by the Pew Hispanic Center. This is unconscionable. It is a sell-out. Something we're used to seeing on the part of this Congress and this administration, frankly. It's a sell-out to corporate interests and illegal employers who should be being punished not given a free pass, because middle class, hardworking men and women and their families are paying the price for this.
That sounds stronger than his comments above, however what he said after that buttresses the claim that he's in the "secure the border first, then an amnesty" school:
ROBERTS: Does the Sensenbrenner bill which would criminalize all undocumented immigrants in this country and also provide for construction of a 700-mile fence along the border, does that meet your criteria for what an immigration bill -- immigration reform bill does should look like?
DOBBS: Well, frankly no, John, it does not, but it is the best attempt and at least moving toward enforcement of our borders and security at our borders.
Look, we can't reform -- let's be really honest about it. We can't reform immigration in this country if we can't control immigration. And we can only control immigration if we control and secure our borders.
President Clinton putting millions of people who are in this country illegally on a path to citizenship as a first condition is simply amnesty. If we are to be a nation of laws, as you say, how can we possibly put forward as a condition precedent the reward of those illegal aliens with citizenship for breaking our laws and crossing our borders?
I have said for some time, and I would urge you to talk to your wife about this particular idea, Mr. Clinton, we cannot reform our immigration laws if we can't control immigration. And we can't control immigration unless we control our borders and our ports. I invite you to consider that syllogism and show me where it's wrong.
Now, this isn't quite as surprising as it may seem. Dobbs has always been a supporter of mass immigration, it's just illegal immigration that he used to complain about — that was better than anyone else in the MSM, for sure, but if you keep following the string you'll end up supporting either mass immigration, regardless of status, or low immigration, likewise regardless of status. Dobbs's (and many others') approach to immigration of "legal, good/illegal, bad" is logically untenable.
The amusing thing is that his "growth" isn't going to help him in any case - the open-borders crowd won't believe him and immigration hawks will dismiss him as just another McCain-style phony maverick.
He's right about the open (or just loose) borders crowd, but I'd suggest a more nuanced point of view for the other group. Dobbs is, obviously, one of the favorite targets of the loose border crowd and as such defending him can be used to discredit groups such as the National Council of La Raza. Whether he would support amnesty for all illegal aliens or whether he'd seek to limit it remains to be seen; he's not at the John McCain level, and that's easily seen by watching the full video.
On the video, he takes Telemundo anchor Maria Celeste to task for lying about Joe Arpaio; she falsely states that Arpaio has "clearly violated the civil rights of undocumented immigrants". That is false since Arpaio hasn't been charged and is just the target of a Department of Justice fishing expedition conducted by someone who appears to be a bit far-left. Dobbs sticks up for Arpaio and says that the DOJ investigation is "kangaroo court antics". He also objects to her spending several minutes on the leprosy story and then the federal incarceration story, basically spouting Southern Poverty Law Center talking points. He also takes her to task for equating "illegal aliens" with "Hispanic" and for assuming that all Hispanics think alike. McCain would never do any of that. On the minus side, at the beginning of the interview he apologizes for not speaking Spanish, mentions "a bridge to the future in which there is legalization" and refers to "a regulated flow of immigration within the control of U.S. authorities", which is highly similar to the safe legal orderly talking point. However, having watched dozens of those willing to sell out the U.S. - such as McCain - I'm not convinced that Dobbs is in that camp; he's just wrong.
The bottom line is that you take the good with the bad. Those who don't support amnesty under any conditions or who would only support it years from now under very strict conditions should support Dobbs as a way to oppose the unsavory loose borders types at the same time as trying to push him away from any amnesty. Not supporting him or trying to discredit him would be a very big mistake and would help some truly unsavory people.
UPDATE: It's important to differentiate between legitimate criticism of Dobbs (such as Krikorian's) and attempts by interested parties to separate him from his base. Some of those interested parties might be affiliated with or supporters of corrupt businesses that profit from illegal activity. Others might be partisan hacks who put the interests of the Republican Party ahead of the interests of the U.S.
Just imagine Menendez’s attack ads against [Dobbs]; he wouldn’t have to venture outside of Media Matters’s clip vault to gather enough material for the entire campaign.
There's a reason why Dobbs' opponents keep bringing up the leprosy story years after he issued a correction: they don't have that much material to work with. It wouldn't be that difficult to turn attacks against the attackers, and show voters that Media Matters for America and Bob Menendez are far-left supporters of massive illegal activity. If they or journalists outrageously lied, that could be used to discredit them. Their position as supporters of massive illegal activity is invalid, and it wouldn't be that difficult to show how invalid it is. If your goal is to help the U.S. by helping to reduce massive illegal activity, that's what you'd do. Some people have different priorities.
Lindsey Graham: GOP isn't going to be "party of angry white guys" (+more ineffective townhall ranting) - 10/13/09
An often clamorous crowd blasted, grilled and occasionally cheered Republican U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., in a town hall meeting Monday that centered on health care reform but returned repeatedly to his positions on climate change, judicial appointees and immigration.
Graham returned the fire with a grin, at times shouting over his most boisterous critics and telling some who questioned his Christianity and party loyalty that their minority conservative views wouldn't succeed without the political coalitions he said are necessary to serve the majority of Americans and attract enough votes in Congress.
"If you don't like it, you can leave," he said...
...One man told Graham he had "betrayed" conservatism and made a "pact with the devil" by working with Democrats, and asked when Graham would switch parties.
Graham said he's not going anywhere and instead would grow the party, defending his conservative credentials on such issues as abortion and guns, and calling the view of Libertarians who believe President Bush was a war criminal "nuts."
"We're not going to be the party of angry white guys," Graham said to more shouts.
You can see videos of it at peekURL.com/vg48dmi peekURL.com/vacmnj1
There are a couple components of this story:
1. Some of the people doing the heckling were apparently libertarians who support Ron Paul. I only watched the first part of the videos above, but based on that and the story above, I'm going to guess that Graham completely "p0wned" those in attendance. Instead of asking him questions designed to make him look bad, they just ranted, chanted, and in general threw a rolling tantrum. In other words, they were not effective. They just acted out, and Graham won. If any of them had found a couple smart people and had had those smart people ask tough questions, Graham would have ended up looking bad.
2. Someone has to represent non-rich southern whites and other "angry white guys", and obviously it's not going to be Graham. They shouldn't vote for him and they should try to take effective steps to oppose him (once again: throwing tantrums isn't effective). For a video example of Graham's alternative to representing "angry white guys", see peekURL.com/vbqpzid Make sure and stick with that at least until he starts discussing uniforms, even if your skin has already begun crawling long before that point. There's an alternative between Graham's "vision", or just becoming the White Party (link), or just becoming the Pure Conservative Party. That would involve becoming an American alternative to the far-left over-reach of the Democrats when it comes to supporting illegal activity, globalism, and Gramscian concepts.
And, for your dose of stupidity, Allahpundit of HotAir links to the videos (hotair.com/archives/2009/10/13/
video-lindsey-graham-heckled-at-south-carolina-town-hall) and says "So why am I on his side? Watch the first clip and see for yourself who it is that’s heckling him and what they think about, oh, say, George Bush. I’ll take Grahamnesty over these tools [Ron Paul fans] any day of the week." That's a false choice, and - while it's not clear that he means "Grahamnesty" in the amnesty sense - I wouldn't be surprised if Allahpundit now supports or would support in the future amnesty.
And, for even more stupidity, Glenn Reynolds links to the HotAir page (pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/86703) and just says it's "not a surprise" that Graham would be heckled. Yes, it's not a surprise. But, that doesn't make it effective. Both Instapundit and Allahpundit are great with the cutesy quips, but not so great with the thinking.
Even Glenn Beck has turned on the "Birthers", saying that he doesn't believe Obama was born in Kenya, that if it came out that he was born there it would result in "civil war", and that "there are other things that you should concentrate on... Who cares about the birth certificate thing? ...What do you say we pay attention to he's appointing Communists..." (The audio is at mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908040011)
AllahPundit of HotAir posts about CNN's Jon Klein supposedly forbidding Lou Dobbs from covering the Obama citizenship issue (something that Klein has since walked back). In comments he says about this issue:
It’s a useful way for the left to make the right look paranoid. Obama’s shedding no tears seeing it get lots of coverage this week.
He's right about that, but only because I'm one of the few people who's discussing this issue in a completely defensible and fact-based fashion. One of my main goals with my coverage - why I'm spending so much time on it - is in order to discredit the many mainstream media sources that have lied and misled about this issue.
Unfortunately, that's undercut by other "birthers": those who scream "HE WAS BORN IN KENYA!", those who engage in legal arcana that won't be explored unless the MSM is made to explore it, those who engage in speculation without facts to back it up, and so on. That's also undercut by those like Ed Morrissey and AllahPundit who, instead of taking on Media Matters for America and showing how they're wrong, bask in the glow of being declared reasonable by the Beltway establishment.
If AllahPundit were smart, he'd realize this issue for what it is: a golden opportunity to discredit the MSM and force them to improve their coverage. Obviously, he's not able to understand that.
Another thing AllahPundit isn't smart enough to realize is that, no matter how much he, Morrissey, and others try to show how reasonable they are, the Democrats are going to paint the whole Republican Party with the "HE WAS BORN IN KENYA!" brush. The smart way out of that is to undercut those currently leading the campaign against the "birthers" rather than doing as AllahPundit is doing: capitulating to them.
[List below updated 12/11/07]
"People have to understand what we're talking about here. The president of the United States is an internationalist... He is going to do what he can to create a place where the idea of America is just that – it's an idea. It's not an actual place defined by borders. I mean this is where this guy is really going... I know this is dramatic – or maybe somebody would say overly dramatic – but I'm telling you, that everything I see leads me to believe that this whole idea of the North American Union, it's not something that just is written about by right-wing fringe kooks. It is something in the head of the president of the United States, the president of Mexico, I think the prime minister of Canada buys into it... And they would just tell you, 'Well, sure, it's a natural thing. It's part of the great globalization ... of the economy.' They assume it's a natural, evolutionary event that's going to occur here. I hope they're wrong and I'm going to try my best to make sure they're wrong. But I'm telling you the tide is great. The tide is moving in their direction. We have to say that."
This has resulted in various people calling Tancredo names or disputing that such a plan is underway. And, some of them dispute that such a plan exists, but then say that such an idea isn't so bad after all. While it's certainly possible to disagree with Tancredo's assessment, all of the comments I've seen involve some form of name-calling and none of them discuss the issue on its merits. In some cases this might be actual pro-NAU propaganda, in others it might be due to opposition to Tancredo's support for our immigration laws, in others it might be a knee-jerk defense of Bush, and in some it might be due to the fact that many bloggers aren't, shall we say, that good at research and analysis.
* Judd Legum of Think Progress says: "You might think the right would immediately repudiate this kind of conspiracy theory. You'd be wrong." As could be expected from that site, most of the comments are name-calling. Some however support the NAU concept.
* Steve Benen of The Carpetbagger says: "Now, far be it for me to defend the president against an unhinged attack from a far-right lawmaker, but does anyone seriously believe that the Bush White House wants to dissolve U.S. borders altogether?" At least two out of five comments, while calling names, provide facts on the SPP.
* "AllahPundit" says: "Oh Lord... We get e-mails from those people all the time. We... do not publish them... Update: HotAir commenters (most of them) agree: Tancredo’s a prophet whose only crime is seeing too clearly the nefarious machinations towards one-world government that are happening under our very noses!" (HotAir is run by Michelle Malkin; the first post I made to her immigration blog concerned the SPP. Her position on this matter isn't known.)
* "Captain Ed" (who isn't a real captain) says: "Tom Tancredo reminds people today why he will forever remain a fringe element in American politics... This is absurd. George Bush may not have responded very well to immigration concerns from his base, but he's done more than his father, Bill Clinton, and even Ronald Reagan in bolstering border security. Tancredo is engaging in mindless demagoguery with these doomsday descriptions, and moving closer to the realms of paranoia." Most of those commenting disagree.
* John Podhoretz says: "I speculate in my book, Can She Be Stopped?, that Tancredo will run as a third-party candidate in 2008. Sounds like he'd be perfect to top Lyndon LaRouche's ticket. If you are serious about the importance of immigration restriction, you'd best be looking for a leader who hasn't chosen to place himself beyond the political fringe."
* Mark Steyn says: "Chances of an EU-style sovereignty pooling arrangement in North America? Zero per cent – whatever Tom Tancredo and the CFR say."
* SeeDubya from Junkyard Blog mockingly refers to "internationalist conspiracy", "sweet, sweet New World Order", "Illuminati endgame", and pretends that the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board supports U.S. sovereignty.
* MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy calls Tancredo various names such as "barking moonbat".
* Alexander McClure at Wizbang Politics says: "...I hope the White House throws all of its resources into this race to make sure that Tancredo also goes into retirement. He is an embarrasment to the party."
* John Hawkins at Right Wing News had a debate with Jerome Corsi on the topic. While Hawkins is not a Bush apologist in the Captain Ed/RedState/BlogsForBush mold, he is on the wrong side of this issue.
* "Appalacian Scribe" John Norris Brown says: "Why anyone gives this nutcase credibility is beyond me."
* Ragnar Danneskjold at the Jawa Report says: One would think that a U.S. Congressman would realize that any statement that starts with "I know this is dramatic" and proceeds to defend the ideas of "right-wing fringe kooks" is pretty unlikely to go anywhere good.
* Ezra of People for the American Way's Right Wing Watch says, among other things (rightwingwatch.org/2007/03/phyllis_schlafl_2.html):
...the Eagle Forum published a list of questions for its supporters to ask candidates on the trail, ranging from Schlafly's theory of "supremacist judges" to the John Birch-esque "North American Union." She says her plan is working, according to "Swift Vet" co-author and fellow "North American Union" enthusiast Jerome Corsi...
A few links are included in that excerpt, including one linking the first "North American Union" to Wikipedia's entry on "black helicopters".
* Joshua Holland, staff writer for Alternet, joins the list with "Debunking the North American Union Conspiracy Theory" (alternet.org/audits/54184). He can't even get past the second paragraph without violating Godwin's Rule:
The North American Union story is an offspring of the John Birch Society right, with its attendant xenophobia and paranoia. It comes complete with a shadowy international cabal intent on stabbing decent, hard-working Americans in the back -- Dolchstoss!
He mentions the Council of Canadians, without mentioning that they're a leftwing group and thus tend to disprove his contention that the NAU "story" is just a rightwing issue. And, he mentions some of the "dots" making up the NAU "story", but he just can't connect them.
* Chris Hayes of The Nation offers "The NAFTA Superhighway" and says that highway is fictional. Some of the letters say he's full of it, with one claiming that Katrina vanden Heuvel is a member of the CFR [11/05/10 UPDATE: Katrina vanden Heuvel is indeed a member of the CFR].
* Both join Vice President Dick Cheney in claiming there's no such highway.
* In early August 2007, Stephen Colbert had a little bit of "fun": youtube.com/watch?v=Ookak1IQJ3U
* Seattle Times columnist Bruce Ramsey offers "Bet your bottom amero that U.S. sovereignty is safe". He bases his conclusion that there's no plan to create a NAU by asking... "the government's chief negotiator on trade, Susan Schwab". She tells him it's just an "urban legend". And, he believes what she says. The JBS - mentioned in his piece - responds here.
* The Fox News "all stars" (Fred Barnes, Juan Williams, and Charles Krauthammer with host Brit Hume) play the Bush quote and then have a bit of fun here: youtube.com/watch?v=TT4tBvRDy38 Krauthammer whitewashes the Bilderberg conferences, saying that he went to one. He compares those who think the NAU is possible to those who believe that Elvis is still alive. Barnes and Williams join in with the "fun". Just because these three idiots say people aren't pushing for it shouldn't be taken as proof that it is being pushed, but...
11/27/07 UPDATE: Drake Bennett of the Boston Globe offers "The amero conspiracy": ...The NAU may be the quintessential conspiracy theory for our time, according to scholars studying what the historian Richard Hofstadter famously called the "paranoid style" in American politics. The theory elegantly weaves old fears and new realities into one coherent and all-encompassing plan... [etc. etc.]...
12/03/07 UPDATE: Gretel Kovach of Newsweek offers a very weak debunking attempt of the NAFTA Superhighway and the NAU in "Highway To Hell?" (newsweek.com/id/73372). That's linked to by the Washington Post's "Fact Checker", Michael Dobbs (blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/12/a_superhighway_to_nowhere.html), who offers his own weak attempt. And, on 11/30/07, Stephen Braun of the Los Angeles Times offered "Paul believes in threat of North American superhighway" (link). It's similar to the WaPo's "Fact Checker" article, including a Stephen Colbert "joke". And:
Federal and state highway and trade officials and transportation consultants reacted Thursday with befuddlement and amusement. The fearsome secret international highway project Paul described does not exist, they said... ...the Trilateral Commission [is] an enduring bugaboo of conspiracy theorists... As alarms about NAFTA's illusory highway have spread across the Web, the issue's whiff of paranoia has ignited sparks of humor... [Colbert "joke"]
12/09/07 UPDATE: Matt Stearns of McClatchy Newspapers offers his own "debunking".
12/11/07 UPDATE: The SPLC has also tried to cast doubts on these schemes.