* STILL: HE GOT A BIGGER CROWD IN BERLIN THAN IN ST. LOUIS. WHY!?
* WAS THERE A ROCK BAND IN ST. LOUIS, TOO?
* WHO BUSSED THESE HORDES OF MORONS INTO ST LOUIS? WHICH UNIONS?
JUST ASKING…
So all those decent, hard-working citizens of St. Louis who came out today, hoisting their kids on their shoulders to see the candidate, are “hordes of morons.” The Right spits on you, St. Louis.
However, I disagree with Ambinder. I don’t think unreality is expanding. I think the Right’s fantasy world is imploding. They aren’t used to having to deal with the real world. No wonder they’re confused.
While the Democrat-leaning media continues to scare undecided voters with bedtime stories about some mythical angry McCain supporter whom nobody has seen, here is a real district attorney’s complaint documenting an unprovoked assault by an enraged Democrat against a McCain volunteer in midtown Manhattan: “Defendant grabbed the sign [informant] was holding, broke the wood stick that was attached to it, and then struck informant in informant’s face thereby causing informant to sustain redness, swelling, and bruising to informant’s face and further causing informant to sustain substantial pain.â€
I make no excuses for the assailant, and I sincerely hope he is punished to the full extent of the law.
BTW, here are some of the “mythical angry McCain supporter whom nobody has seen.”
The distinction between angry McCain supporters and the one assailant in New York, beside numbers, is in the word incite. The Palin-McCain campaign is inciting rage. It’s stoking rage as hard as it can stoke. Veep candidate Palin insinuated that entire parts of America are anti-American.
Palin also made a point of mentioning that she loved to visit the “pro-America” areas of the country, of which North Carolina is one. No word on which states she views as unpatriotic.
The Obama-Biden campaign is not inciting rage. There are enraged Obama supporters, but the Obama campaign is not demonizing McCain as un-American or a traitor or someone otherwise outside the mainstream of American politics.
See, righties, that’s why one of these things is not like the other.
For example:
This woman is not some random whackjob off the streets like the New York assailant. She’s an elected whackjob in the U.S. Congress who is speaking on behalf of the McCain Administration. She’s ready to reconstitute the House Un-American Activities Committee.
I’m sure if one looked hard enough one could equally crazy Obama supporters. But in Congress? or in a paid position with the Obama campaign or the Democratic Party? Not so likely.
Yesterday I linked to a blog post that accused “the Left” of totalitarianism because the news media had the nerve to publish unflattering stories about Joe the Plumber. Apparently someone reminded the blogger of the Right’s rabid hyena attacks on the parents of SCHIP poster child Graeme Frost. Not the same thing, the blogger argues. The Frosts were acting as spokespersons for the Democratic Party. All Joe did was ask a question.
Well, no. Nobody gave a bleep about Joe until John McCain made him the centerpiece of his election campaign. It was McCain, not the question, that made Joe a news item. If Joe decides the media attention has been detrimental, I hope he sues McCain and the GOP out of its socks. And I think a case could be made that using a private citizen like that without the citizen’s permission ought to be criminal.
However, it appears the Joe the Plumber ruse is coming back to bite McCain. After explaining why Joe the Plumber is not, in fact, Joe, or a plumber, Joe Queenan writes (emphasis added),
There is nothing wrong with being as phony as a three-dollar bill. It is, in fact, a rich American tradition. But there is something unnerving about a supposedly sophisticated political organisation that trumpets the dodgy virtues of grassroots phonies when millions of authentic working-class people could have handled the mythological chores perfectly well. All across America, there are plumbers named Joe and Jim and Jack and Mike and Dan and Dave and Ed and Fred whom the McCain campaign could have recruited to be their mascot.
In my own family, there was Joe the truck driver, Joe the postman, Bill the typewriter salesman, and Johnny the jack-of-all trades. Right here in my own neighborhood, I can point to Tony the deliveryman, Vinny the postman, Charley the cook, Tony the token collector. Any one of these guys qualifies as a real-life working class hero. Instead of them, McCain’s people went out and corralled themselves a 24-carat phony. What’s more, they found themselves a phony who doesn’t even pay his taxes on time. This strongly suggests that nobody in the McCain camp has ever met a working-class person before; they think anybody with a shaved head and a hoody must be “authentic”.
Barack Obama’s legal team wants a special prosecutor to determine whether partisan politics is at play in a reported though unconfirmed Justice Department investigation of a voter registration effort which has been the target of numerous complaints of late, including one in Michigan.
With the election just over two weeks away, Bob Bauer, Obama’s chief lawyer, said in a conference call with reporters this afternoon that he is asking U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey to to hand over to special prosecutor Nora Dannehy any probe into what Bauer called “bogus claims of vote fraud†that mirror concerns raised by Republicans two years ago.
According to a recent Justice Department report, those issues played a role in the controversy over the forced resignations of nine former federal prosecutors.
Bob Bauer was just on Olbermann’s program saying that there was an appearance of collusion between the McCain campaign and the White House. The Justice Department is engaged in “investigations” to bolster the McCain campaign’s claim that ACORN is destroying democracy as we know it.
During the debate every time McCain repeated the remark, with a “gotcha” smirk on his face, I think most viewers must have wondered what planet he was from. I realize just about any use of the word “wealth” by a liberal sets of alarm bells on the ideological Right. But most working people are getting tired of a system that keeps them shut out of “the wealth,” even though their labor is creating it.
Most of us are fine with capitalism as long as it is kept fair. And, frankly, a capitalist system in which wealth is “spread around” — where workers are paid well and can buy stuff, so that wealth is kept in broad circulation instead of being hoarded by a minority — is a healthy capitalist system that benefits everyone, including the very wealthy.
But the wages and standard of living of working people have been flat for some time. Indeed, most working class folks are worse off than they were eight years ago. And the rot has reached the middle class as well.
Yet, until very recently, we were assured America’s wealth is going up and up and up.
I don’t know if John McCain understands the unfairness that increasing numbers of Americans are feeling. If you think about it, aside from his POW experience (which I do not belittle) he has led a relatively sheltered life, and a life very far apart from most working and middle-class people. As far as I can tell he has no personal experience of how working people in America actually live. Possibly he has no clue how he is coming across when he makes fun of “spread the wealth around.”
John McCain often expresses admiration for Theodore Roosevelt. Like nearly all dead white guys, TR was a mixed bag. He had many of the standard white guy views of his time that are repugnant to us now — “white man’s burden” stuff. But he got one thing right — Americans need a square deal.
So what did TR say about spreading wealth around?
“The essence of any struggle for healthy liberty has always been, and must always be, to take from some one man or class of men the right to enjoy power, or wealth, or position, or immunity, which has not been earned by service to his or their fellows.”
“At many stages in the advance of humanity, this conflict between the men who possess more than they have earned and the men who have earned more than they possess is the central condition of progress.”
“The absence of effective State, and, especially, national, restraint upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power. The prime need is to change the conditions which enable these men to accumulate power which is not for the general welfare that they should hold or exercise. We grudge no man a fortune which represents his own power and sagacity, when exercised with entire regard to the welfare of his fellows. … We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary.”
“The right to regulate the use of wealth in the public interest is universally admitted.”
“Here in this city of the State of Lincoln I can set forth the principles for which we stand to-day in the words which Lincoln used fifty-four years ago, when in speaking of the then phase of the eternal struggles between privilege and justice, between the rights of the many and the special interest of the few, he said:
“That is the real issue. That is the issue which will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between two principles-right and wrong-throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time. The one is the common right of humanity, the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says: ‘You toil and work and earn bread, and I will eat it.’ No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who bestrides the people of his own nation and lives from the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.”
“Were Lincoln alive to-day he would add that it is also the same principle which is now at stake when we fight on behalf of the many against the oppressor in modern industry whether the abuse of special privilege be by a man whose wealth is great or is little, whether by the multimillionaire owner of railways and mines and factories who forgets his duties to those who earn his bread while earning their own, or by the owner of the foul little sweat-shop who coins dollars from the excessive and underpaid labor of haggard women. We who stand for the cause of progress are fighting to make this country a better place to live in for those who have been harshly treated by fate; and if we succeed it will also really be a better place for those who are already well off. None of us can really prosper permanently if masses of our fellows are debased and degraded, if they are ground down and forced to live starved and sordid lives, so that their souls are crippled like their bodies and the fine edge of their every feeling blunted. We ask that those of our people to whom fate has been kind shall remember that each is his brother’s keeper, and that all of us whose veins thrill with abounding vigor shall feel our obligation to the less fortunate who work wearily beside us in the strain and stress of our eager modern life.”
I keep hearing pundits say that McCain won the three debates “on points” but that Obama won “on style.” I think these guys were watching a different sports event from the one I watched.
The “on points” pundits were scoring a boxing match. McCain was more aggressive. He landed punches. He got in zingers. Last night Pat Buchanan compared Obama to a boxer in the late rounds who was sitting on a lead (doesn’t that mean he was ahead “on points”?) and was dancing around to avoid being knocked out while he ran out the clock.
What I watched was more like kung fu. In the martial arts, aggression for the sake of aggression is more likely to work against you than with you. The master knows how to use his opponent’s energy against him. He lets the more unskilled fighter beat himself.
Martial arts masters employ the principle of wu wei — the action of non-action. This sounds like passivity — it often looks like passivity — but it is the art of channeling the flow of energy around you to accomplish a task or defeat an opponent. Put another way, it is the art of letting action act itself, or letting movement move itself, while you go with the flow.
It’s also the art of knowing when not to act. If your opponent is beating himself up, don’t get in his way.
Those who think Barack Obama should have been more aggressive in his debates with McCain are, IMO, entirely wrong. If Obama had been more aggressive, he risked seeming angry or mean and giving McCain sympathy points. Instead, Obama masterfully let McCain beat himself and didn’t get in the way.
McCain, IMO, lost the debate when he got stuck in whiny, petulant mode and wouldn’t let go of statements by Congressman John Lewis — which were not spelled out in the debate, and I doubt most viewers had any idea what McCain was talking about — and Bill Ayers. Obama actually gave McCain several opportunities to drop the subject, and McCain would not. For that entire sequence McCain was, in effect, punching himself in the face, while Obama stood aside and let him do it.
This was skillful. It also took discipline — a lesser debater would have interrupted McCain to defend himself more forcefully, and I’m sure that’s what Pat Buchanan et al. thought Obama was supposed to do. But Buchanan and McCain are old-style Irish pugilists who stand straight up and punch away. Obama was in crouching tiger, hidden dragon mode.
______
I was struck by the pundits’ reactions to the abortion section of the debate. Granted, I was mostly watching MSNBC — sometimes flipping over to CNN — and I realize reactions may have been different elsewhere. But pundits I saw were shaking their heads over this part of McCain’s argument:
MCCAIN: Just again, the example of the eloquence of Senator Obama. He’s health for the mother. You know, that’s been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything.
That’s the extreme pro-abortion position, quote, “health.” But, look, Cindy and I are adoptive parents. We know what a treasure and joy it is to have an adopted child in our lives. We’ll do everything we can to improve adoption in this country.
McCain spoke of women’s health with a sneer on his face. He made “air quotation marks” around the word “health,” as if the mother’s health concerns were some kind of joke. He can’t stop whining about what John Lewis said about him, but women facing health complications in their pregnancies are just supposed to suck it up.
I realize the “criminalize abortion” movement routinely argues that “health of the mother” can mean a bad hair day, but in the real world pregnancies — including planned and wanted pregnancies — don’t always go well. I think most adults understand that. And most of the post-debate commentary I saw criticized McCain for the “health” comment.
Four years ago, in the Kerry-Bush debates, Bush had a simple message on abortion — he was against it. Poor Kerry had to put together more than two sentences to explain his position — that he opposed it personally but didn’t intend to impose his views on others. The post-debate commenters — including Andrea Mitchell, as I recall — said of this that Kerry doesn’t know how to talk about abortion. (What the hell was he supposed to say? “I’m for it”?)
But now it’s the Republican who doesn’t know how to talk about abortion. Times, I believe, have changed.
And I’m sure you enjoyed this bit —
MCCAIN: I would consider anyone in their qualifications. I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications. But I certainly would not impose any litmus test
First off, let’s stop thinking about a landslide. The remaining “undecided” voters are mostly older, less educated and white, I understand. It’s like a majority of them will move to McCain and tighten up the race in the last three weeks. No complacency.
Here we go.
Jeez, McCain is being friendly to Obama. The nice and calm McCain showed up tonight.
So far we haven’t heard anything new, except that McCain apparently has decided to be soothing rather than angry.
OK, McCain is back to taxes.
McCain indeed is planning to cut corporate taxes.
Class warfare! Yes! Grumpy McCain is coming back!
Why increase taxes? Because we’ve got a kajillion dollar deficit, you creep.
McCain the asshole is coming back. You can’t keep him down for long.
Does McCain understand what “spread the wealth around” means?
Invest in America. Yes! Obama said “Invest in America.” This should be a campaign slogan.
Wow, the moderator wants McCain to answer the question that was asked. That’s new.
John, we owe China a lot more than half a trillion dollars.
He can save billions by eliminating the tarrif on sugar from Brazil? I think I missed part of that.
Earmarks! Pork! boogaboogaboogabooga
Balance the budget in four years? That’s insane.
We’re going to balance the budget by job creation and energy independence?
I mean, is it me, or is McCain an asshole?
Here we go … say it to his face.
Town hall meetings? The negative campaigns are Obama’s fault for not doing town hall meetings?
Whine whine whine. Oh, McCain has not repudiated nasty remarks. He repeats them.
He’s not bringing up Ayers. Coward.
Yes. The American people are not interested in our hurt feelings. Perfect.
Comment about Chico and the Man — LOL! Chico and the Man in the Twilight Zone.
Yes, John, keep whining.
John is angry.
Oh, Obama brought up the “pal around with terrorists” line.
McCain didn’t take the Ayers bait.
Oh, yes, Ayers, ACORN, the whole thing. I think McCain is giving in to his temper. I wonder if this was the plan.
McCain is losing this debate worse than the other two. People don’t give a bleep about Ayers and ACORN.
I forgot about CNN’s squiggly lines. I just flipped to CNN.
At the name “Sarah Palin” the squiggly lines dropped like a rock. Flatline, folks. Oh, the “men” line is up just a tad. Well, men. You know.
Iraqis united? People are being killed for returning to their homes.
I swear, McCain is losing this one worse than the other two.
Three Mile Island. Chernobyl. Very safe.
Easily eliminate dependence on foreign oil?
Obama is being realistic. Talking to the camera.
Does John think NAFTA is popular?
Community colleges have what to do with free trade?
I think McCain is right on the edge of blowing a gasket.
Oh, I love the split screen. McCain’s inner asshole is there for all the world to see.
Here Obama is presenting a clear and sensible plan for health care, even though it doesn’t go nearly as far as I’d like. Now McCain will lie about his plan.
Yeah, John, blame it on fat people.
He’s going to repeat the lie about fining small business again.
I mean, is McCain is an asshole or what? He’s not even making sense. The fine again.
That mean old Obama is going to make employers provide health benefits. For shame.
Oh, the gold-plated insurance that no one has. Yes, John, show us how out of touch with reality you are.
Senator Obama wants government to do a job. Well, yes.
Roe v. Wade. Somebody finally brings it up.
“Strict adherence to Constitution” = anti-choice.
“We have to change the culture of America.”
The “present” vote is a procedural thing in the Illinois Senate. It sounds weird but is no big deal, I understand.
Keep smirking and smiling, John.
We can’t have healthy mothers. “Health of the mother” is an extreme position, according to John.
“We have to work together” for John means abortion gets banned.
Make college affordable. It is a disgrace that there is such a barrier for people to get an education.
McCain begins to speak, the squiggly lines drop. “School choice” has not been “proven” in New Orleans, John.
“Competition” doesn’t help schools, John. Now he’s repeating the old right-wing canard that some of the best schools cost the least money. Those are the exceptions, not the rule.
Vouchers = yesterday’s issue. Even the wingnuts are abandoning it.
Sarah Palin has an autistic child?
Vouchers have not been proven. Where they’ve been in place a long time they haven’t done squat.
Almost over.
John, I don’t trust you as far as I can throw you.
Invest in the American people. I like it.
Sacrifice, service responsibility. We can do it. Work for you.
_______
I sincerely think McCain sucked at least as bad, if not worse, than he has in the other two debates.
David Gergen is saying that McCain got over-emotional and angry in the middle of the debate. Obama won the last half hour, he said.
I agree with Gergen. I think that when McCain would not let go of his personal hurt feelings about being insulted, he was losing big time.
I’m going to guess that this debate won’t change the trajectory of the opinion polls. I think the polls will tighten up at the end for reasons explained at the top of the post, but this debate won’t change the polls.
Just picked this up at Huffington Post:
Watch the eye roll.
I also am not sure the “I am not George Bush” line will help McCain much. Right now his biggest problem is that he is John McCain.
What can I do for my country? you ask. You can email this chart to everyone you know.
Accompanying text:
Since 1929, Republicans and Democrats have each controlled the presidency for nearly 40 years. So which party has been better for American pocketbooks and capitalism as a whole? Well, here’s an experiment: imagine that during these years you had to invest exclusively under either Democratic or Republican administrations. How would you have fared?
As of Friday, a $10,000 investment in the S.& P. stock market index* would have grown to $11,733 if invested under Republican presidents only, although that would be $51,211 if we exclude Herbert Hoover’s presidency during the Great Depression. Invested under Democratic presidents only, $10,000 would have grown to $300,671 at a compound rate of 8.9 percent over nearly 40 years.
[Update: The email function for the above article seems to be busted. You can email this post instead; see “Email This” link at the end of the post.]
So why is it so many people believe Republicans are better for the economy? Because Republicans say they are. Over and over and over. With great conviction. I’m sure they believe it. But they are nuts.
For that reason, I think Harold Meyerson is jumping the gun a bit in his column “The God That Failed.”
Today, conservative intellectuals might want to consider writing a tome on the failure of their own beloved deity, unregulated capitalism. The fall of the financial system has been so fast and far-reaching that there’s been no time to fully consider its implications for the reigning economic theology of the past 30 years. But with the most right-wing administration in modern American history scurrying to nationalize the banks, the question cannot be elided indefinitely.
What exactly do economic conservatives believe now that their god is dead? What’s become of the glories of privatized Social Security? Of the merits of 401(k)s vs. defined-benefit pensions?
Meyerson assumes the ideologues pay attention to the real world. Although I think the True Believers will have a harder time pushing their unregulated capitalism privatization is best trickle down supply side swill in the near future, they will not lose faith in it. They’ll blame George Bush for this little glitch of a global financial crisis somehow, but say their theories are still correct, and Bush simply didn’t adhere to them faithfully enough.
Meanwhile, nearly 70 percent of Americans now want stricter regulation of the financial sector. From the Los Angeles Times:
“I always thought the least amount of government in people’s lives, the better,” said Bagley, 29, a poll respondent who was contacted in a follow-up interview. “But now you see what happens when you take it to the extreme.”
Exactly. The problem with wingnuts is that they can think only in extremes. Judging by their rhetoric, they think there are only two kinds of government — totalitarian communism or laissez-faire libertarianism. And they apply something like a one-drop rule to judge which is which — even one drop of un-laissez-faire libertarian policy renders a nation into a Stalinist gulag. For this reason, they cannot be worked with. Either vanquish them, or surrender.
So they cannot be educated. But, apparently nearly 70 percent of the American people can be educated, which is no bad thing. Now is the time for progressives like us to do everything we can to educate our fellow citizens about economic reality. It’s what we can do for our country.
At the risk of destroying space and time as we know it, I have to say Bill Kristol had some good advice for the McCain campaign today. Go back to what you do best, Kristol says to McCain. Drop the negative ads and be the happy warrior from 2000. Never mind that Kristol gave the opposite advice just seven days ago.
Let’s be frank; the silvery-haired white guy came into the contest with a built-in advantage — being a silvery-haired white guy. I suspect a whole lot of voters wanted to support him over Obama. The erratic, hateful, nearly substance-free campaign McCain has waged has driven people to Obama, however. And with just three weeks to go, isn’t it a bit late for a complete re-tool of the campaign?
It’s way early to begin the victory party, but if McCain loses in the landslide it’s shaping up to be, gonna be a whole lotta finger-pointing going on. At least, I hope it finally puts to rest the myth of Karl Rove’s political genius, as I believe Rove more than McCain is the one calling the shots in the Campaign to Nowhere.
But what’s really fascinating, in a morbid way, is watching the McCain campaign fire back at Kristol for similar criticism elsewhere — “he has bought into the Obama campaign’s party line.”
McCain debuted his “rebooted” campaign today. The Word of the Day is fight. Apparently in a speech today McCain used the word fight nearly 20 times. Here’s a bit:
I know what hopelessness feels like. It’s an enemy who defeats your will. I felt those things once before. I will never let them in again. I’m an American. And I choose to fight. Don’t give up hope. Be strong. Have courage. And fight. Fight for a new direction for our country. Fight for what’s right for America. Fight to clean up the mess of corruption, infighting and selfishness in Washington. Fight to get our economy out of the ditch and back in the lead. Fight for the ideals and character of a free people. Fight for our children’s future. Fight for justice and opportunity for all. Stand up to defend our country from its enemies. Stand up, stand up, stand up and fight. America is worth fighting for. Nothing is inevitable here. We never give up. We never quit. We never hide from history. We make history.
This new pitch doesn’t even qualify as a Hail Mary. It seems not substantial enough to rate as a real play. It’s as if McCain’s handlers did a focus group and found that the one word undecided voters associate positively with McCain is “fighter.” And that’s all McCain’s strategist have to work with.
And didn’t Hillary Clinton run with “I’m a fighter” for awhile? See where it got her.
The thing is, I believe most Americans feel they’ve already been fighting for quite some time. They’ve been fighting stagnant wages, rising prices, precarious health care, job losses, and in too many cases bankruptcies and foreclosures. They don’t need a leader who is going to lead them into a fight, because they’re already in it. And they’re tired of it. I think they want someone to bring back stability and put an end to the fighting. And it that’s a skinny black guy, so be it.
Why is John McCain wasting time campaigning in Iowa? And why in eastern Iowa, which is next to Illinois, which you know is in the tank for Obama? John Deeth writes for the Iowa Independent:
So, with pundits rapidly moving Iowa into the Safe Democratic column, why is McCain making his third visit to the state? The pollsters “aren’t talking to true Iowans,†said Janice Levsen of Muscatine. “He needs to show us he cares about us, because we care about him.â€
So what makes an Iowan a “true” Iowan? As opposed to someone who was born and lives in Iowa but is not, you know, “true”? Is there a secret True Iowan Society?
And then there’s the matter of what’s real.
Mark Gardner of Colona, Ill. says Republicans are frustrated. “People want him to go after the real Obama.†Is the campaign getting too personal? “Only if you’re a Democrat,†says a friend of Gardner’s, who moves ahead in line before I get his name.
OK, but is Mr. Gardner a true Illini? Just askin’.
Questions are flying — who is the real Barack Obama? Who is the real Sarah Palin? Who is the real John McCain? One wonders if the candidates might shed their skins and turn into that giant bug thing from Men in Black.
The McCain campaign wants you to believe the “real” Barack Obama is a Muslim planning to put the U.S. under Shariah law. Uh, sure. You try to make Michelle Obama wear a burqa. I dare you.
Real Americans wonder why so many of us don’t see that Barack Obama is a wild-eyed radical. Well, I don’t see it because I’m in the tank for Obama. This means little nano-thingies crawled into my ear when I was sleeping and implanted an Obama microchip in my brain. Hillary Clinton tried to warn us, but it was too late for me.
Real Americans know that the real Barack Obama was programmed as a small child to enable the Soviet takeover of America. Too bad the Soviet Union collapsed before Obama was old enough to run for President and carry out the plan. Or maybe the real Soviet Union is alive and well and hiding under the ice in Siberia, ready to sweep across the Bering Strait and into Alaska as soon as it gets the radio signal?
At the same time, Sarah Palin has been lured out of Alaska, where she might have been watching Russia from her house. John McCain chose her to be veep. Is McCain in on the conspiracy, too?
It’s all starting to fit. But why is McCain in Iowa? Hmmm.
Update: More real true stuff — documented proof that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, and even if he was born in Hawaii and not Kenya, he lost his natural-born citizenship status because his stepfather moved to Indonesia and … OK, I can’t follow it after that. But it’s truthy as hell.
BTW, is the video producer pulling our leg with this?
“The essence of any struggle for healthy liberty has always been, and must always be, to take from some one man or class of men the right to enjoy power, or wealth, or position, or immunity, which has not been earned by service to his or their fellows.”