Tree and Sky Bliss wallpaper. For those of us looking forward to Spring.
Reading the conservative blogs about the Senate race in Massachusetts reminds me of the drooling wolf in the old Looney Tunes cartoons. The polls have been odd, but the important question is, does anyone know the real Scott Brown,
Just like George Bush, he claims to be a compassionate centrist but is in fact a ferociously partisan Republican. “I have a history of working as an independent thinker and voter having over 6,000 votes and working across Party lines …” he told WGBH’s Emily Rooney in 2009 . Rooney swallowed the claim in the interview, but the Coakley campaign checked the facts and found that Brown has voted with the Republican leadership 96 percent of the time. Last week, true to form, he announced that if elected he will be the “41st Senator”.
More of Borwn’s platform ( antics) at the link. He wants to be the Senator that makes sure health care costs continue to sky rocket. The Senator that makes sure insurance companies can continue to charge much higher premiums for women than men. He wants to be the Senator that makes sure your insurance company can cancel your insurance as soon as you get sick and really need it. In other words he is a far right tea smoker running as a “compassionate conservative”. Martha Coakley may and may not be the great legislator that Ted Kennedy was, but if the positives cannot get Democrats motivated, maybe learning about Brown’s negative can,
Turnout Will Matter — The big spread in results among the polls, and differences apparent within two of them, are all consistent in supporting one finding: The lower the turnout, the better the odds for Scott Brown. These differences indicate that the voters most interested and most likely to vote are Republican, while Democrats are more blase.
So Democrats in Massachusetts can be cynical or disinterested and stay home. Then we’ll have two years of a Senate that accomplishes nothing. Those that are pissed off about whatever – the public option, Afghanistan or – think things suck now. Go ahead let Brown take Ted Kennedy’s seat.
CNN is aflutter. Bloggers are calling it a “big-time” mistake. Newspapers describe the “racially tinged” remarks as “sensational.” What is this “juicy revelation”? Apparently, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid privately told two journalists in 2008 that Obama was more electable because he’s “light-skinned” and lacked a “Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”
….Lost in all the handwringing and shock, however, is any clear explanation of what’s wrong with Reid’s comment. Clearly, using “Negro dialect” is about half-a-century behind the times, but does anyone think Reid meant ill by his anachronism? Moreover, as the recent kerfuffle about the 2010 Census revealed, “Negro” is still used by a non-trivial number of older black folks. In 2000, for example, more than 50,000 people went the extra effort of writing-in that they identified themselves as “Negro” (over-and-above the millions who checked the box for “Black, African-Am., or Negro”).
And what term would you use? Ebonics, a neologism coined in 1975 from ebony and phonics, is now laughably dated. Linguists currently refer to “black or African-American vernacular English,” but that hardly rolls off the tongue. Yes, Reid (and the Census) should get with the times, but using dated language with no bad intent should hardly be grounds for days of media analysis, conscience-stricken mea culpas or organized damage control.
Conservatives, always one to hold an unfounded grudge, want desperately to get revenge for Trent Lott. Swearing the Reid and Lott incidents are alike. That dog will not only not run it won’t leave the dog house. Lott had established his racist credentials long before the defense of Throm Thurmond, Trent Lott: Repeat Offender
Most notable has been Senator Lott’s close ties to the Conservative Citizen’ s Council, an openly racist and anti-semitic group which grew out of the terrorist White Citizen’s Councils, and which today, among other unpalatable positions, calls interracial marriage “white genocide.”
In 1992, Lott was keynote speaker at the Council’s national board meeting, ending his speech by enthusing that “the people in this room stand for the right principles and the right philosophy.” Throughout the 1990s, Lott maintained his intimate relations with the CCC, hosting a private meeting with Council leaders in 1997, writing a column for the CCC magazine Citizen’s Informer for eight years, and attending at least two CCC banquets in his honor.
The wing-nut does not fall far from the wing-nut tree, Liz Cheney Airs Hypocritical Attack Ad On Obama For Waiting ‘100 Hours’ To Respond To Terror Plot
On ABC’s This Week, host George Stephanopoulos confronted Cheney about her hypocritical attack. “As many Democrats and others have pointed out, President Bush waited I think six days before doing much about Richard Reid, the shoe bomber,” he noted. Cheney evaded the question entirely, pretending not to hear it. “The point of that ad,” she said, “was this notion that you cannot win a war if you’re treating it as sort of an inconvenient sidelight.”
Deflecting reality and making up one’s own was, and remains, a specialty of the Cheney clan.