Tuesday, July 08, 2008

PUMA VISION

The anti-Obama explosion on the Internet since May 31 is amazing. A new and powerful movement is being born in our midst - on our watch. In the last 3 months this blog has trippled its traffic - and we are still small by any standard. Gaining huge audiences since the Dean lead debacle of the Spring are No Quarter, PUMA, Write Hillary In, Hireheels, Just Say No Deal, River Daughter , Cannonfire, and countless others. All are organizing and/or telling it like it is. It is wonder to behold.

Why has this happened? I repeat - NOT BECAUSE OF HILLARY. Though, her brave campaign primed the pump. The anti-Obama eruption from former Democrats is because of Obama. We do not want him. We do not want Dean. We do not want government by George Soros, for George Soros. We do not want "leadership" from Backtrack Obama. We do not want strident socialism disguised as progress. We do not want sexism rewarded and race baiting appeased. We do not want the nightmare of a Carter second term combined with a Bush 3rd term - and that, my friends, is what an Obama 1st term would be. Lies from the Left replacing lies from the Right.

So what will the PUMA movement add up to? Hard to say on July 8.

Best case scenario: The down ticket Dems feel the wrath of the PUMAs before Denver, choose the candidate who won the majority of votes, and send Barry and Michelle back to the Democratic Socialists of America tea party from which they emerged.

2nd best scenario: Obama is routed in the Fall. Dean and Brazille's offices are locked down. They are thrown out the back door, and driven to Ariana Huffy's Brentwood mansion to lick their over sized egos and the Democrats reemerge as a party dedicated to working men and women and its basic premise of respect and decency is reborn.

Worst case - but still not a bad scenario - Obama pulls off a win. Then the PUMA PARTY ( a party is being born here, ladies and gentlemen) acts as the conscience of a divided nation. For divided we will be. Backtrack Obama has fumbled his chance at healing the rift created by his vicious, sexist campaign and his vicious, sexist followers. He could have been a man and acknowledged and apologized for the sexism. He chose not to be a man, but to be a whiny weasel.

In short order it will be time for the PUMAs to decide where to focus our energy in the Fall. Actively reminding the voters of Obama's deceits is a good and empowering response. As is refuting the Obama Pod scare tactics.
(We have to OWN that Roe V Wade is in trouble regardless who is President - and work to ensure a sane post Roe v Wade world. This is forward looking feminism. Not back ward looking scare mongering. The options are plentiful - getting the E.R.A. passed once and for all, claiming the high ground on a women's right to choose and no longer hiding behind a 35 year old weak court decision, preparing to do battle for women in states that restrict abortion. This last option is something many are doing already. Abortions are near impossible to obtain in some states now.)

Some will actively work for McCain. For me, this depends on his choice for V.P.

There are many ways to engage. The years 2008-2010 are where all our futures rest. Two years with Obama, Reid, and Pelosi in charge of the government will destroy any chance for a true moderate/progressive party to reemerge - for a generation. If McCain wins we can force Pelosi and Reid to be a moderating force. If Obama wins they will be his lapdogs.

So PUMAs - keep fighting. Against all odds, we've gone from few to many in an instant. Focus your energies, decide how you can help, and put on your hardhats. There is work to do.

Labels: , ,

posted by John: south of Melrose at Tuesday, July 08, 2008 PERMALINK  

Sunday, May 25, 2008

The Angriest Millionaire in America

Thanks to Scott in Jupiter for this image. I suppose now some Obama Pod will tell me what a prick I am for picking on a candidate's spouse...cuz, ya know, THEY never attack a candidate's spouse....
or anything.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

posted by John: south of Melrose at Sunday, May 25, 2008 PERMALINK  

Friday, May 23, 2008

Obama's Coalition of Change

A slightly edited list of Obama's coalition from L.R. regular JMK.

Obama has the exciting ability to bring together a new coalition to bring about change in our country. check out:

Obama's Coalition of Change

Domestic terrorists

Middle east money launderers

Nation of Islam

The new Black Panther Party

Anyone who finally became proud of America a few weeks ago.

Movie stars

Star Fu*k#rs - (see Huffington below)

College Students

HAMAS

HEZBOLLAH

Corporate Media

Major Newspapers and their columnists - owned by corporate media

Wall Street.

The Chicago Mob.

Foreign lenders.

Black separatist theology ministers

Lobbyists.

Arugula Shoppers of America.

A. Huffington, but only when not getting a pedicure on David Geffen's yacht, and only as long as Obama remains "cool".

Daily Kos, (known as the Cheetos Blog around here) and other assorted hate groups and closet Stalinists.

TV drugged suburbanites.

Bribed Superdelegates.

Anyone looking for something for nothing

Anyone wanting to take control of others

Anyone unwilling to be responsible for their life

Anyone unable to think for themselves at all

Entitled overindulged eighteen year olds who like big "rallies" in which the crowds are inflated with free concerts by popular bands. (including bands who open shows with the Soviet National Anthem.)

Hate mongers in all varieties

Maoists and other communists.

Union bosses who ignore their members.

Kool Aid drinkers.

Anyone who resents having to pay back student loans.

Anyone who views them self as a victim of "the man"

Women haters.

Dead Voters in North Carolina

Deranged anchor men across America.

Voters in 7 new states.

The Oregon Great Lakes Boating society.


Finally a NEW politcs is sweeping the land!

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

posted by John: south of Melrose at Friday, May 23, 2008 PERMALINK  

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Real leaders inspire FAITH, not hope.

At the core of Obama's current problems is a fundamental lack of true faith. We are witnessing the downside of leadership based on "hope." Odd as it may sound "hope" can never lead to real change. If one hopes for change, and does nothing to affect change one has, by definition, a false hope.

Change takes faith and action. By having faith and taking action the result will be a sense of hope. But hope can never be in the lead and is never at the core of true leadership.

False Hope is Not Change. I repeat what I have said here before: Real leaders inspire FAITH, not hope. FDR inspired faith in people which gave them hope. He did not hope the Depression would go away. He poetically told the country to be fearless. JFK put it squarely in our laps, Ask not what your country can do for you - hope - Ask what you can do for your country - faith. In one transcendent line in one speech he put forth the difference between faith and hope. Even Reagan, who I did not support, lead with an unwavering faith. Reagan did not present himself to the nation as a man who hoped the West would prevail over the Soviets. He presented himself as a man who knew we would. Carter is the counter point. A man who ran on change and hope, was elected, and as President was never able to inspire faith.

I know I am a skipping record but, especially this year, it bears repeating: Hope is a result of faith, not the other way around. Leaders who ditch their past when it is convenient or claim an ignorance so broad it defies rational sensibilities can never inspire faith. In fact, they are not leaders. The center of our culture is not a tribe, or a specific geography, but is our collective idea about of how people should govern themselves. This country, more than most, needs leaders that inspire faith.

Hope is an idol worshipped by the foolish. It is the refuge of the thoughtless and the lost.

Labels: , ,

posted by John: south of Melrose at Tuesday, April 29, 2008 PERMALINK  

Thursday, April 10, 2008

The Xanax Candidate.

A number of factors have driven this blog toward its harsh criticism of Obama and his campaign.
1. His supporters. 2. The Candidate. 3. The media bias. 4. The stupidity of Howard Dean and the DNC.

Tonight I will write about the first reason:

His supporters

I have been upset by his supporters for a good, long while. In the olden days - before Keith Olbermann blew a cog and it became clear the media was going to massage Obama and attack Hillary shamelessly - it was, in fact, only his supporters who bothered me. I was still open to the man and what everyone kept repeating was his "transformational" message.

It was his supporters that began the end of any romance I might have had with Obama. As early as last spring any good words for Hillary on message boards at places like the Huffington Post were quickly and viciously attacked by swarms of Obama fans. Often they amounted to "our guy is better" and "it's time for a change" - both are fair enough assessments if you feel that way. Then -with ample coaching from the writers on these blogs - the comments turned overtly hateful toward Clinton. Again - if one must come up with reasons - this too seems within bounds for blogs. They are the Left's answer to Talk Radio - and the "callers" had much pent up frustration with the war and everything else. If you can't stand being hated you had better not get into politics. I still believe the comments then were contextualized by an overriding desire for a clean break. This is another sentiment I don't adhere to (there are no clean breaks in history, believing there are or can be is a delusion) but it is a legitimate impulse. Every leader is a reaction, in some measure, to the one before. Besides, Obama has proven he will not be a "clean break" with his wavering on the war and support for its funding as a Senator. So the "clean break" Obama seems to represent is another amorphous illusion based entirely on - wait for it - HIS RACE. The honest answer would be: If he wins I won't be embarrassed by our President anymore. That is what they were saying.

Then Obama fans became a mob. I am not sure exactly when. For me it may have been one night not long ago that I posted this on a large liberal blog: Can anyone tell me why they think Obama would be a better Democratic President than Clinton? The comment conversation was flying that night but I got no bites - so I wrote it again. Soon the roof fell in. I used my last name (Smart) so the obvious insults were first. Then the long knives came out on Hillary. It was no longer dislike or even hate - it had solidified into mindless fury. "Bitch" "Liar" "Murderer" and the cute, yet smug as shit, "Billary". Bitch and Billary are insults based squarely in sexism. Sexism exists in America. Everyone with a brain knows this. What was startling is the glee and unconsciousness these liberals - men and women - indulged in rampant gender hatred. One person did write a long list of BHO's "accomplishments" - fine - but even if true (many were not) they simply were no comparison to Clinton's, so it hardly answered the question. I was, of course, told I was a Republican ("troll" in the Americablog vernacular)so I should go directly to hell. I am not a Republican - but even if I was I asked a legitimate question. The nastiness kept up. I have done this on other blogs at other times and the result is the same. No answers, just bile. Insane, baseless attacks. The cognitive dissonance between the "message of hope" these Obama supporters said they adhered to and the crap being thrown on the walls of liberal blogs was obvious to anyone who could reason. Thank God, a backlash began. The Daily Kos was boycotted by pro Clinton writers. Taylor Marsh said, in essence, hold on a minute! No Quarter USA is doing fine work on the Obama cabal and its deceits.

Still, the Pro Obama wing of the "Democratic" party became nastier and more strident. ( I use quotes here because I have come to believe that except for African Americans, Obama's support among rank and file Democrats is clearly a "Deanite" rump minority and does not represent the Democratic Party's values and voters. Final voting tallies will support this.) Again, "nasty" and "strident" are not deal breakers for me. This became the deal breaker: beyond the amorphous slogan "hope" and the fallback slogan "change" there is STILL no intelligent rational for Obama's support. No centering issue. No "New Deal". Nothing. The speeches are not part of the campaign. THEY ARE THE CAMPAIGN. The "uplifing" race speech has inspired us indeed- to stop talking about race and by default stop talking about Wright and his influence on Obama. But that's where that "major" speech ended.

The more strident the Obamites become, the more this lack of policy ballast becomes clear. Which is why attacking Clinton is the rational for supporting Obama. Arianna Huffington was first out of the gate here. She began the slow, smug burn of Clinton in 2006 - or before - for reasons I strongly suspect are about her psychological make up. I saw her on the campaign trail for her ex husband in 1994 when he ran against Diane Feinstein. The contempt for any strong women beside herself was evident then as it is now.


But for me the show stopper and final straw was Olbermann's idiotic rant about Fererro. More than Chris Matthews smarmy sexism, it defined the lack of reason, fairness, decency and proportionality that are the Obama supporters currency. That "special comment" was the moment I realized that Obama fever was a sickness that had spread far and wide. The fact that the Wright tapes broke the next day and Keith busied himself with excuses for BHO drove the point home.

As Lynne wrote about this morning: The Obama sickness's main symptom is an utter and complete inability to see reality clearly. Whether it be an obvious, and harmless, observation about race to a small newspaper, or the snide dismissal of the last Democratic President, or even the disconnect between Obama's statements about Iraq and his actions regarding the war as a U.S. Senator. Reality DOES NOT MATTER to Obama's supporters. The clear antecedent here is Cheney/Bush and WMD's.

Thought experiment:
Compare what they said about Ferarro with the excuses they fling about BHO's 20 year tenure in his church. I think Obama can and should go to any church he wants to for 20 or 200 years. I also WILL NOT BE TOLD THAT IT DOES NOT MATTER what went on in that congregation. I will not check my brains at the door for Obama's or Olbermann's convenience.

Or try this: Randi Rhodes verbal vomitting is being excused under the banner of "freedom of speech" - as if anyone said she did not have the RIGHT to say what she said. She does. Now imagine this: Rush Limbaugh is speaking to a crowd of the like minded and says "Obama and Jesse Jackson are a couple of lazy spooks." Would anyone DARE make excuses for this based on "freedom of speech"? Of course not. There would be hell to pay.

Yet the Obamites march on - calling themselves "liberals".

And before anyone screams "unfair!" I say bullshit. THEY ARE THE SAME REMARKS in spirit and intent.
Calling 2 women "fucking whores" and calling 2 black men "lazy spooks" is directly analogous in this society given its history. To say that the long fight for women's equality is less important in this election year than the long march away from chatel slavery based on race is bullshit. On a stick. If you think not it is because sexism is more deeply imbedded than racism. Period. "Whore" and "Bitch" still get thrown around with ease. This is not because they are less hateful - they are simply still acceptable.

So the beat goes on.

Say this to an Obamite: Rezko - the answer is "does not matter"

Say: He lied about his law teaching resume: Does not matter.

Say: He lied about the Kennedy family and the Selma march: Does not matter.

William Ayres: Does not matter.

Race baiting in South Carolina: Doesn't matter, she deserved it.

20 years in that church: Get over it! We have to get past it. We're not going there. He made a speech...etc, etc.. (again the SPEECH is what is held up as absolution. Not the reality of 20 years in that church and overtly lying about his presence there.)

Bosnia: OH MY GOD SHE'S A LIAR!!! She has problems with the truth. Usually ending with "controlling" which is code for bitch.

Xanax is a marvoulous drug. It directly obliterates one thing and nothing else: anxiety. There are a few side effects: drowsiness, and memory problems. Obama is the Xanax candidate. He relieves his supporters of their fears and all they have to do is take a dose. But once the drug wears off nothing has changed. The problems that caused the anxiety remain.

Finally, I can only assume that Obama's supporters cannot answer the simplest question - why him? - because they cannot afford to. They know, and we all know now, there is no answer. He's not better on the issues, he loses on the leadership front (he has shown no ability to lead without a large crowd and a teleprompter. There simple is no comparison between the 2 candidates on leadership. ) there is no contest when it comes to work ethic, and there is nothing in his history, once vetted, that indicates an ability to follow through and achieve stated goals. His experience - and there is some - adds up to mayor not President.

He can't win a campaign based on reality. His supporters know it so they avoid it.

One PS: whether it is now or in the fall - Rev. Wright and his connection to Obama will not go away. This is the defining event in this campaign. It defines him. He even says so. In print. The media has put up a protection shield around Obama and Wright- but it will be broken. If anything proves the unfairness of the media and the free ride Obama has gotten it is the Wright tapes.

Labels: , , , , , ,

posted by John: south of Melrose at Thursday, April 10, 2008 PERMALINK