Indecision 08 Wingnut thread

[Iason Ouabache]

 

People are only voting for Obama because of "Negrophilia"

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78065

Yes, America is a racist nation - but not in the way Democrat presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama and his cohorts Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, Otis Moss III and James Meeks would have us believe. Many of those whites who will cast votes for Obama on Nov. 4 are suffering from negrophilia, an inordinate affinity for blacks (as opposed to antipathy toward them).

The next 4/8 years of WND are going to be hilarious. 

[Cain]

Speaking of which, a highly pertinent post over at Balloon-Juice:

You might be excused if you said placing Obama's face on a $10 food stamp with a bucket of fried chicken, watermelon, ribs, and Kool-Aid was an isolated act.

When a major right-wing network calls Michelle Obama, "Obama's Baby Mama," you could dismiss it as as an overzealous producer who just thought it was funny and didn't mean it to say that black women are just baby machines for black men. You could, I suppose.

You might even get a pass if you thought a Web site that depicted Obama and the word "Waterboard Him" was just created by an obscure group that didn't represent all Republicans – although you would be wrong.

If a picture of Obama was Photoshopped to make him look a little bit like Osama Bin Laden, you could pass it off as the work of a few idiots on the right. It could be, right?

Supporters who carry racist Obama Monkey Dolls to your rallys are people who don't represent your campaign. You could argue that.

Of course, this is just a moron on the fringe, right?

What about when a high-level Republican fundraiser sends out an email that includes a joke with the punchline, if an airplane carrying Obama and his wife were blown up "it certainly wouldn't be a great loss, and it probably wouldn't be an accident either."? Sure, you could pass it off as the act of a random dumbass.

If, in response to your question, "Who is Barack Obama?" someone yelled "Terrorist!" you could say that was just one idiot in the crowd and was not indicative of the general sentiment. It's plausible.

In fact, you could cite dozens of examples of these racist, divisive, dillusiuonal attacks on Barack Obama and conclude that they are just elements of the fringe and don't represent mainstream Republicans.

Sooner or later though, you will have to acknowledge that this "fringe" is very widespread. You'll have to come to grips, eventually, with the fact that this "fringe" has become the very definition of the your party.

[fomenter]

did you notice that article" negrophilia' was written by a black man?

[Iason Ouabache]

did you notice that article" negrophilia' was written by a black man?

"Allegedly" written by a black man.  I wouldn't put it past WND to use a ghost writer to deflect outrage.

[Cain]

WND has as its South Africa correspondent an apartheid supporting white supremacist who has trained with rightwing paramilities in the country.

Or it did, at least.  Anyway, that gives you an idea of its vision of unbiased reporting.

[Iason Ouabache]

WND always reminds me of The New Frontiersman magazine in Watchmen.  Just a little website run out of a small office that will publish any old crank (SOY MAKES YOUR KIDS GAY!) and takes money from any advertiser (FLOOR HUMPER FTW!).  They've got a cult following of both True Believers and Trainwreck Watchers.  It's a weird little dicotomy.

[fomenter]

WND is awesome, no   

[Iason Ouabache]

The only reason left to vote for McCain: fear of a completely Democratic Washington.

http://www.acandidworld.net/2008/10/18/the-nameless-fear-a-democratic-washington/

If Barack Obama wins - as remains likely, despite the Republican media empire's remarkable yet dishonest attempts at denialism - he will take power with, for the first time since the Democrats "lost" America by enacting sweeping civil rights legislation (a worthy trade-off), a Congress willing to reinforce his power, rather than fight against it. The media may take pains to estimate the size of the wave of anti-Republican backlash that fuels the possible creation of a united Democratic Washington, but none deny its likelihood.

While McCain and Palin have yet to catch on to the spin potential behind what is quickly becoming a political fact, the right-wing pundits are way ahead of them.  In the grand Republican tradition of whipping up fear rather than generating new ideas, web pundits across the series of tubes are starting to use the prospect of a Democratic Washington to terrify voters with terms like "liberal supermajority." Sure, you can't trust us Republicans, the narrative goes - after all, we've rampantly abused power for nearly eight years - but the Devil you know, right?

Yet there's cause to doubt this strategy's efficacy. Our Democratic Party has managed, over the past year, to pull a stunt worthy of a 1996 Tony Blair (I still love you, Tony): we've managed to reinvent our party by moderating our hard-line policies and accentuating our electoral strengths, all the while somehow preserving what makes us essentially "Democrats." Insofar as Buchanan & co. hearken back to an outdated image of the far-left Democratic Party, one dispelled by the moderate Barack Obama and even-tempered Senators like Claire McCaskill, the strategy is likely to simply reinforce the radical right's hatred of all things Democratic, and go amiss with the target demographic (swing voters). For Buchanan to try to sway swing voters by yelling to his readers at "Human Events," after all, is the pundit's equivalent of navel-gazing. Ditto for the WSJ editorial board and its, uh, vast cross-spectrum appeal to America's inner "Plumber Joe." As for the swing voters reading this blog - yes, both of you - I'm confident in my ability to "draw the sting" of Buchanan's point.

Note: above link is to a "moonbat" and not a "wingnut".

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Never underestimate the power of Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
          --Barack Obama

I predict the next 3 weeks are going to be filled with all kinds of people at all points on the political spectrum generating lots and lots of noise about Barack Obama being the inevitable President-elect, which will prompt Democrats will assume they have it in the bag by such a large margin that no one will notice if they don't actually go out and vote, resulting in a McCain victory.

The next four years will be full of Democrats bitching about Republicans stealing this election, a disaster or three on Wall Street, skyrocketing unemployment, bread lines, food rationing, and maybe Martial Law in some places.  In 2012, the Democrats will nominate Hillary Clinton, who will also lose (if elections are still legal).

Also, since this America, there will be a race war.

[Cain]

Comparing yourself to Tony Blair is nothing to be proud of.

No, really.  Only the scumscuckers in the DLC could see that being a complete and utter whore to...oh, the same interests that the other side are beholden to as a good thing.  Because they are inherently good people, and as such will not be tempted to act in exactly the same way as the people before them.

Also, it may just be the sort of people I read online, but none of them are very happy with the Democratic Congress "moderating" themselves.  They've become a second chorus of yes-men, unable to stand up to even a lame duck President like Bush, not even on the issue they got elected on (Iraq).  That's probably why Congress is about as popular as the second-least popular President of all time.

Pro-tip: the problem is not "partisanship".  Never was.  If you believe that, you've already bought into the framing methods of the Republicans, and everything you do from there on in will be dictated by their moves and initiative.  Republicans call the Democrats partisan left wing loonies not because they are, or to merely insult them, but to move them further to the right, policy wise, to avoid being tarred with the "socialist" brush (as if anyone within Congress with a D next to their name has even read a book by Marx).  They move the Overton window so far to the right that the Democrats start acting like Republicans to stay in the game, instead of fucking that media narrative to death and reframing events in a more realistic fashion (the country got hijacked by a bunch of second-rate wannabe Machiavellians, using religious loons and fascists as their foot soldiers, and browbeat and intimidated anyone who dared disagree).

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm registered Republican, so I get all kinds of amusing emails from them. Today I got one from a city commissioner saying that "Joe the Plumber speaks for all of us". 

Does he speak for all of us when he says he wishes the Republican party would stop speaking for him?

[Iason Ouabache]

Holy shit, they were right!  Colin Powell does endorse Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LbLxja4UHY

[Jasper]

Self fulfilling prophecy, much?

[Cain]

Holy shit, they were right!  Colin Powell does endorse Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LbLxja4UHY

But only because he is a black man hanging around with other black people, doing black things with them.

[Iason Ouabache]

I think that the reasons he gave for support Obama were pretty well laid out.  The Republicans are the ones trying to divide the country by questioning the patriotism of anyone who isn't a jingoistic robot like them.

All the stuff he said about Iraq was pure bullshit though. "The president and I didn't want to go to war."  How can he say that with a straight face?