"This is absurd"

Webb trying to pretend his campaign has nothing to do with the jew-labeling or other things that "distract" from the real issues.

Meanwhile, Raising Kaine has gone into stealth mode, getting their "unpaid" bloggers to front stories for them for a while on the subject, so Lowell's name doesn't appear on them. Go check it out, suddenly every lead diary about Allen is from the unhired help. It's funny.

Watch the video on MSNBC's Hardball.

Now that's funny. Webb's having to answer questions about whether he is running an anti-semitic campaign.

Question: Do you have paid bloggers? And, are the pushing this story about Allen's Jewish Grandparent?

Webb: "Well, yes Chris, I pay two people to spread propaganda on the blogs, and yes they have posted lots stuff about Allen's jewishness. Before that they were on macaca duty"

Oh, wait. That would have been the HONEST answer. Webb's actual answer was:

Webb: "Look, Chris, first of all, I did not know that this would even be the subject of a discussion with you when I agreed to come on your show."

That pesky Matthews, asking an unexpected question of the candidate. At least he didn't ask him when his family stopped being jewish.

Webb: "Dick Wadhams is part of the Carl Rove method of conducting political campaigns, he worked for carl rove for several years, this is clearly an attempt to turn something around onto us, that has nothing to do with what we are doing in this campaign."

When you watch the video, notice how upset and angry Webb is at this question, as he answers it. By the end, he's had enough:

Webb: "This is absurd! "

Matthew's asked some more about Allen's jewishness and honesty, but Webb brushes him off. Webb thinks talking about Allen is distracting to the real issues, but apparently had no problem launching a personal attack on Allen's campaign manager.

Maybe Matthews should have asked if he agrees with his campaign calling Allen's manager a "dick-wad(hams)".

There was also an interesting back-track by Webb on the subject of 3-party talks between Iraq, Iran, and Syria. If you remember in Sunday's MTP debate, Webb said this:

But secondly, that we have to get these other countries involved, the other countries tangential to Iraq, the countries that have cultural and historical interests in Iraq, involved in an overt way to move toward a diplomatic process.
...
They’re not talking to Syria, they’re not talking to Iran.
...
And we need to convene an international conference with the countries in, in tangential and the countries that have cultural and historic ties to Iraq in order to have them move forward with us and, and assume some responsibility for the future of Iraq.

When asked on monday night, Webb repeated that we needed to have talks with Syria and Iran, even after Allen questioned involving Iran in Iraq's immediate future.

But when Matthew's asks the question, things seem to have changed in the Webb strategy. Having again said we had to bring some of the countries in the region together, he adds something new:

Part of the process is to begin talking specifically with Syria to break up the alliance between Syria and Iran, and also to start working toward a situation where we can bring Iran into the international community...

Apparently the "Get Iraq, Syria, and Iran together" idea didn't sound so good after Monday night's debate.

Again, listen to the entire interview. Matthews is a good liberal, and against the war, and a perfect place for Webb to get his ideas out. But given a national platform, he says very little about what he thinks we should do differently.

In fact, even his "get nations together to talk more"(which isn't a solution, it's hoping someone else might think up a solution if they have a meeting), isn't "different" from what we are working to now (although even the State Department isn't keen on involving Iran).

Webb said his campaign was about three issues:

Webb: "I have positions that I have taken. I've been running on 3 basic themes ever since february, they haven't changed, they are reorient our national defense, they are trying to do something about economic inequality in this country that has come about as a result of the internationalization of corporate america, the outsourcing of jobs, and the impact of immigration, and I've been talking about how we need to step up to administration abuses in the wake of 9/11. Those are the issues."

His third item was about 9/11, wasn't it?

But it's not about stopping another 9/11, or fighting the terrorists, or preparing for another terrorist attack.

No, Webb's most important issue regarding 9/11 is NOT stopping the terrorists -- it's stopping "administration abuses". Whatever abuses he means (NSA easedropping of Al Qaeda? Successful interrogation of terrorists which has stopped attacks on our soil? The Patriot Act?) he thinks stopping the "administration abuses" related to 9/11 is a top 3 item, while terrorism itself is NOT ON HIS LIST.

I went to his web site to see these three basic themes, the ones he is campaigning on consistently:

Jim believes that solutions will be found using a progressive approach to policy that prioritizes fairness and justice, focused on four major themes:

• Refocusing America's foreign and defense policies in a way that truly protects our national interests and seeks harmony where they are not threatened.
• Repairing the country's basic infrastructure, which has eroded badly over the past decade, and developing more creative ways to assist disaster-stricken areas such as those in New Orleans and along the Gulf coast.
• Reinstituting notions of true fairness in American society, including issues of race, class, and economic advantage; and
• Restoring the Constitutional role of the Congress as an equal partner, reining in the unbridled power of the Presidency.

Three, Four, whose can count? If a foolish consistancy is the hobgoblin of little minds, I wonder what a glaring inconsistancy is?

Webb's stormtroopers stand down, look for new issue

With Allen's revelation that in fact the webbies have no shame, and no idea what they are talking about when attacking his mother and his family and questioning their heritage, the webbie stormtroopers have read the tea leaves and are beating the path of retreat.

Raising Kaine pulled down their big yellow Star of David -- I can't imagine why they ever thought that was a good thing, given that Allen has talked about his grandfather being imprisoned by the Nazi's, who used those stars to mark jews for extermination.

Ben takes a parting shot, summoning up the last bit of spin in his arsenal, along with some more jew-labeling. Ben doesn't think that people should be allowed to decide for themselves what their heritage means to them, so he still insists that Allen MUST BE "a jew", even though there is still no clcear evidence that Allen's MOTHER was a jew either by his definition, or by the more sane definition of practicing the jewish faith.

What kind of people try to label others based on their ancestry? Democrats. Martin Luther King looked forward to the day when we would be judged by the content of our character, not the color of our skin. The Webbies aren't looking to good in the character department right now, having spent the day trying to pin racial labels on their opposition.

Allen has asserted his right to be who he is, without regard to ancestry. He's not embarrased or shamed by his heritage, he simply was raised to see that what's inside a man that's important. We know what is inside the Webb supporters -- the soul of people who want to force the "jew" label on a candidate because of his ancestry, and to label his mother a racist, anti-american jew.

One day they may understand the error of their ways, but it is not today. Ben closes with THIS piece of classless commentary:

I can't imagine those people that survived the concentration camps would be proud of George for moving to Virginia and intimidating others through his use of confederate flags, nooses and racial slurs.

Remember, Allen's grandfather is one of those who survived incarceration by the Nazis. I have a feeling the common bond is a little stronger than to be harmed by the likes of Ben, Lowell, et. al. and their smears about Allen's character.

Webb Supporters attacks on Mrs. Allen beyond the pale.

As I've been suggesting, since I didn't know it for sure until now, Allen's reticence at discussing his mother's heritage was NOT about any bizarre claim of "shame", but because the issue is painful to her.

I've oftened wondered why, if so many people wanted to know about Allen's mother's "racism", or whether she was a jew, why didn't they just ask her? Why be cowardly and ask HIM about her? And why didn't he tell them to ask her?

Well, now he has had to reveal a very private thought, just because the Webbies have no shame, and think nothing of attacking a person's family for their own political pleasure. Shame on you all, and you know who you are.

It was clear Allen was not embarrased by his heritage. It is disgusting that he has to explain himself to people who actually could care LESS about the answer, but who just want to bring him pain and suffering, and hope to derail his campaign so their own candidate can squeak by.

Also, I was right that he had no idea about the connection to a jewish family until it was brought to his attention. But now with his mother's blessing, he is talking about it -- but he shouldn't have had to.

He certainly doesn't sound like a man "embarrased" by having some jewish history. Do the Webbies think he SHOULD be embarrassed, and maybe are projecting?

Here is Allen's official response to those who think they have a right to know everything about his mother's life:

Statement from Senator George Allen

ARLINGTON, VA – U.S. Senator George Allen released the following statement this afternoon:

“Yesterday, I found it especially reprehensible that a reporter would impugn the attitudes of my mother, as Ms. Peggy Fox did in her first question at the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce Senate debate. My mother and father both taught me to abhor bigotry, and Ms. Fox’s suggestion to the contrary was deeply offensive.“

The notion peddled by the Webb campaign that I am somehow embarrassed by my heritage is equally offensive, and also absurd.

“I was raised as a Christian and my mother was raised as a Christian. And I embrace and take great pride in every aspect of my diverse heritage, including my Lumbroso family line’s Jewish heritage, which I learned about from a recent magazine article and my mother confirmed.

“On several occasions through the years, I have mentioned publicly that my mother's father was incarcerated by the Nazis. I have never known whether he was persecuted by the Nazis because of his nationality, his religious faith, his role as a community leader, or his part in the anti-Nazi resistance.“

What I do know is that my grandfather’s imprisonment by the Nazis had a profound impact on my mother. It was a subject she found painful to discuss and so we almost never discussed it.

“Some may find it odd that I have not probed deeply into the details of my family history, but it’s a fact. We in the Allen household were simply taught that what matters is a person’s character, integrity, effort, and performance – not race, gender, ethnicity or religion. And so whenever we would ask my mother through the years about our family background on her side, the answer always was, ‘Who cares about that?’

“My mother has lived a long and full life, and I hope and pray she will enjoy many more years. She deserves respect and she also deserves privacy, especially where painful memories are concerned. I sincerely hope that simple decency will be respected.”

Unfortunately, Senator Allen, your opponents don't seem to know the meaning of "simple decency".

I call on James Webb to apologize publicly for the part his paid bloggers have played in this offensive attack on Allen's mother. It's time Webb stood up for something, anything, beside "I hate Bush". Be the man your supporters claim you are, Mr. Webb, and get rid of that punk Lowell Feld, who has no place in civilized discourse.

Shame, Shame, Shame.

I fell for the Webb Campaign Spin Machine

Why is the webb campaign pushing this rediculous story about Allen "recoiling" from a question about his mother, or trying to hide his "jewishness"? I assumed it was more of their fixation on the jewishness of their opponents, or just a way to find SOMETHING in the debate they could say that would keep them from having to discuss their candidates ANSWERS.

But having watched the Wonkette video several times, I now know why -- it's because that video shows a powerful Allen standing up for a real principle, while Webb sat mutely. And because the news media was covering the story as an inappropriate question and a good answer.

Even Virginia Centrist started with that view, and in fact made serious posts (which I agreed with) that we shouldn't be blaming democrats for the reporter's question.

But then the Webb team got Dana Milbank on their side, and off they went, accusing Allen of hiding his mother's heritage -- when he in fact ANSWERED about his mother's heritage as it could actually APPLY in the real world. He made it clear it was none of the reporter's business, but he answered based on how HE understood his mother's heritage, likely based on his being her son and having lived with her for so many years.

Fox's question was inappropriate, and not just because it was asking about Allen's mother, but because the entire context of the question was derisive, and actually continued the implication that Allen's mother was a racist who taught him Macaca. (her first words were "Following the macaca incident". Oh, and those of us who are familiar with Lowell didn't miss the reference in Fox's question to Allen's middle name being "Felix".

And remember, so far as we know, Allen's mother is NOT jewish. The article cited was just speculating, and had no proof -- she apparently never claimed a jewish heritage, and her daughter's book doesn't mention it. There's nothing wrong with being a mormon, but if someone called me one I would deny it.

Allen's blog has the video up, so people can judge for themselves about this silly "recoil" comment. It doesn't appear as if they believe the hype about the video.

Anyway, having fallen for their tricks, I overreacted in my post below and in comments in NLS, because I'm really getting sick and tired of this race and religion-baiting. But that's what they want, us to get mad instead of focusing on the issues.

Because the LAST thing the Webb camp wants is for us to actually examine the ISSUES from this debate.

Update: The Washington Post has an actual NEWS story about the debate, in addition to the opinion piece by Dana Milbank that they published on page A2. This one is in the Metro section, here's the official news take on this silly story:

At times the candidates' responses got heated. One of the journalists who asked questions forced Allen to defend his mother, while Webb again was dogged by charges that he is insensitive to women in the military. The candidates also argued over how best to fight the war in Iraq and whether the United States should involve Iran in Iraq's future.
...
A panelist asked Allen, who says the word was made up, if he might have learned "macaca" from his mother, who is part French Tunisian. The panelist also asked whether his mother was Jewish.

"I hope you are not bringing my mother into this," Allen said.

In other words, Allen had to defend his mother against charges that she taught him racist words.

Read this article, it actually discusses the issues of the debate.

Ben's (NLS) idea of intelligent comment

(UPDATE: As I mention above, I feel I was too harsh in my criticisms in this post, and so I have modified it to remove the most "challenging" of my comments. They were my visceral reaction to this absurd charge, but I should not have responded in kind, and I apologize). I have marked each place where I removed stuff with the word (UPDATED).

George Allen is Jewish?

Like the question mark. The Daily Show explained how you can smear people any way you want so long as you add a "question mark" at the end. After all, we're just "asking".
(UPDATED)

But seriously, this is the 2nd opponent of Webb that his supporters had gone nuts to make sure everybody knew they were Jewish. Apparently, they think it helps Webb if his opponent is one of those jews.

The religion-baiters are going for a two-fer here. Commenting on Allen's correct response to an inappropriate question, they are now suggesting that Allen must be ashamed to admit he is a jew. (UPDATED)

A debate was held today, with real issues of importance discussed. And apparently Webb did so bad at the debate, that all the Webbies can talk about is how half the debate was about Allen being a racist (he's not) and whether Allen is a jew. (Updated)

Given the strong anti-semitic sentiment in the anti-war left, you have to ask, are the local Webb supporters in agreement with the national organizations that support Webb, and that believe that Jews and the pro-Isreali lobby are responsible for the middle east conflict, and that the "neo-conservatives" (read jews) are responsible for the Iraq war? The same group that went after Lieberman with their hate-filled rhetoric?

I'm just asking.

BTW, if you (UPDATED) go to NLS's site, be sure to go read his "source article". It doesn't actually KNOW that Allen's mother was ever jewish, it just speculates about it based on some anecdotes from Allen's sister's book. Allen's sister never says anything about her mother being jewish, but that doesn't stop the speculation.

They don't even know if allen's mother HAD two jewish parents. Nor do they know if she was raised jewish. We know she married a catholic, and there is no indication she EVER practiced judaism after she was married.

So, what possible difference can it make what her ancestry is? The webbites already went after her as some racist woman teaching her son foreign racial slurs that weren't actually slurs and that he didn't actually say. Now they are going after her heritage, and suggesting that if Allen won't answer questions about it, he's "ducking the issue".

(UPDATED - took out personal rebuke of ben, which included a quote that was not actually his - My apologies to Ben).

And this is right AFTER a debate on substantive issues, which apparently their candidate did so bad at that they HAVE to find something else to talk about.

One thought about Fairfax Debate.

From This week, the decidedly left-leaning anti-Bush Telegraph, this paragraph, about Iraq:

"We stopped the fight against the Americans and now we are fighting against the terrorists because they are killing the Shia," he said. "We want to defend the Shia."

Nahid al Gertani, a former officer in the Republican Guard and one of the leaders of the Sunni fighters in southern Baghdad, said his forces were defending the Sunnis against the Shia militias. "Our first target is the Shia militia," he said. "We made an agreement with the American army four months ago to stop the fight."

Iraqi civilians say they had recently been surprised to see American troops in parts of the city where they would previously have been attacked had they ventured out. US forces are also reported to have intervened to keep the warring parties apart, placing guards on the Alkubasey mosque — a known base for Sunni fighters — to protect it from Shia militia attack.

OK, now that we have the facts, let's look at an answer from Webb in today's debate, when asked about Iraq:

Webb: They're blowing up pipelines right now. THe insurgency is active largely because they resent the American presence. You don't get to talk to a full range of people when you go on these Congressional visits. The real difficulty is to get American combat forces out of the way.

Meanwhile, reports have Iraqi citizens thanking the Americans for protecting them from the sectarian violence, while attacks against our troops are dropping. We are working closely with the Iraqi police, and with the Iraqi people:

In the Adhamiyah neighborhood – where agriculturally-minded residents grow everything from date palm trees to garden vegetables - the neighbors appear pleased with the progress they’ve witnessed.

“Most of the residents we have spoken with are farmers,” said Page. “They are good people who have been living in the area for quite a while and just trying to make a living for themselves.”

Until recently, violence had touched even the most innocuous of sites. During their patrols, U.S. and Iraqi Soldiers came across a kindergarten school that had in recent weeks come under fire from terrorist mortars.

The terrorists were aiming at the Iraqi National Police station nearby, explained the head security guard for the kindergarten. “If (these patrols) happen more times, maybe the terrorists would leave.”

The guard said he has lived in the neighborhood for seven years, and has watched the area change for the worse. Now he said he feels the security operations underway will be good for the neighborhood.

“Even my babies, they see Americans and Iraqi forces and they feel safe because they think this will give security to them,” said the guard.

“A lot of the residents I have spoken with said as soon as we rolled in, the terrorists, or whoever was taking over this area, rolled out,” added Page. “Violence has gone down and it seems pretty peaceful.”

But Webb thinks the difficulty is getting our troops out, because they are upsetting the Iraqis.

He may or may not have been right 6 months ago, but this isn't 6 months ago, and the American Military is NOT the problem.

One thought about MTP Debate

I'm more interested in the Redskins game than the debate (I'm not sure why). But I did want to watch the two men answer the question about defining interrogation techniques.

Allen's answer wasn't nearly as "weasely" as Lowell claimed, but that was hardly a surprise, as Lowell can't be trusted to say anything other than what the people who pay him want him to say.

In fact, Allen gave the answer I wanted him to give -- that he had the same concerns Warner has, but that he wants to make sure we don't shut down interrogations. Allen was very careful not to "agree" that his position was like ANY body else's -- this is a typical Russert technique, and I'm glad Allen rejected it, because I'm certain his position is not exactly like Warner's, just as I'm certain he doesn't completely agree with Powell.

I note that just saying "yes" or "no" to Russert is a lot easier, but Allen actually expressed his OWN opinion, fully fleshed out, so Russert had no reason to ask if that happened to coincide with someone else's view.

Webb said his position was just like Warner's position, and he took a swipe at Allen for not being a military person. Still, Webb also said he wanted to continue interrogations, he simply didn't want to redefine the geneva convention.

But here is where Webb said something that was just wrong -- and I presume it's because he had some talking points he had to get to. Webb was talking about how torture can get you untrustworthy information -- and he said that's what happened that got us into the Iraq War.

I'm sorry, you can be upset about our bad intelligence, but it wasn't because we used torture to get information. The democrats have a remarkably poor grasp of the reality of time (for example, Lowell saying Allen in 1996 should have know that a group he posed with in a picture would be found in 1998 to be racist). One place this is clear is the democrats using evidence we have from Iraq now that we have free access to records to argue that we should have known before the war that our intelligence was faulty.

Webb's comment was designed to tie the current argument over interrogation techniques to bad intelligence before the war, and there is no tie.

UPDATE: Here's the transcript, and the relevant portions for this post:

MR. RUSSERT: All right. Then let me move on to a different issue. Senator Allen, this week you have to cast a vote. Senator John Warner, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, but your senior colleague in Virginia, John Warner, has a view about interrogating and prosecuting enemy combatants. It is different than George W. Bush. Will you vote for Senator Warner or for President Bush?

Note the binary choice. Allen chooses to tell Russert what he actually thinks, rather than simply tying himself to either person (there are negotiations now, so there likely will not be a vote on either of these two choices).

SEN. ALLEN: I’m going to make a determination once I get some more facts. There, there are three key differences in this, but there’s one that matters the most to me, and it’s not all the evidentiary aspects which I think we can do a better job than various proposals on that, and that has to do with the—some of the evidentiary aspects. The key—the two key points for people to understand as this debate goes forward, and whether we vote this week or next week, I will vote on it, you’ll know where I stand, but I want to let you know what I’m going to look at.
Number one, these interrogations have helped protect American lives and not just here at home but also in the battlefield. Secondly, the Geneva Convention is very important, and I don’t want to set a precedent that we change the Geneva Convention and then other countries will change theirs, and if one of our troops or one of our CIA agents is, is caught...
MR. RUSSERT: In Iran.
SEN. ALLEN: ...or captured—in Iran or Cuba or Venezuela...
MR. RUSSERT: Well, that’s Senator Warner’s view.
SEN. ALLEN: Right. Now, the key in all of this is I don’t want to stop these interrogations. I’m not for torture, I’m not for waterboarding, but some of these techniques have been very helpful to us, whether, whether they are sleep deprivation, or whether there’s loud music. And I need to be absolutely certain that what the interrogations—interrogators are doing now—which is completely fine as far as I’m concerned, protecting Americans—will not be harmed by the proposal.
MR. RUSSERT: You know, your critics say that you voted with George Bush 96 percent of the time your five years in the Senate. This time, would you vote for Senator Warner, or President Bush?
SEN. ALLEN: I’m going to vote for what’s in the best interests of protecting this country, and making sure that our people here at home, as well as our troops abroad and, and undercover agents for our country are protected. I believe it can be done. I think there can be changes. I actually look forward to taking action, to be a bridge—a bridge between these two proposals, which all have as the same purpose protecting America, and upholding our values. But they, but, but...
MR. RUSSERT: Colin Powell, Colin Powell, who’s a constituent of yours, said, “The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3” of the Geneva Convention “would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.” Do you agree with Secretary Powell that the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism?
SEN. ALLEN: I, I don’t believe that the world is doubting our commitment and our resolve to fight these maniacal terrorists. I think...
MR. RUSSERT: No, the moral basis of our fight, is his quote.
SEN. ALLEN: The moral, the moral basis of our fight against terror, and these maniacal deviants...
MR. RUSSERT: So you disagree with Secretary Powell?
SEN. ALLEN: I’m not saying I disagree, I’d just use a different point of view. And our point of view is we, we need to win against these, these terrorist organizations.
MR. RUSSERT: Where do you come down on this? Are you with the Senator Warner-McCain version, or President Bush’s version of dealing with interrogating and prosecuting enemy combatants?

As I said, Russert keeps trying to make Allen agree or disagree with someone's position, when it's hard to know what that person's position really is.

And Webb's comment about coercive interrogation:

MR. WEBB: But you have to worry about one thing also here, that tainted evidence often comes from torture, and I think John McCain has made that point very well. If we’re coercing...
SEN. ALLEN: Well, we’re, we’re not for torture.
MR. WEBB: ...coercing information—not all—you don’t always have the right information. That’s how we ended up in Iraq.

THIS is the image the public gets of Virginia Blogs?

If it's true that there is no such thing as bad publicity, then Extreme Mortman's congratulations to some Virginia blogs is well-founded.

I have my doubts though.

Worse, the Washington Post, in it's coverage of Virginia Blogs, points out the worst of what blogging has to offer, rather than the best. Many people already have an image of bloggers as crazed people sitting around in their pajamas, hopped up on caffiene, suffering from sleep deprivation, spewing vile commentary and hatred.

The Post provides little reason for people to change their minds. And if a few hearty souls decide to check out Raising Kaine, one blog prominently mentioned in the article, their worst fears of the blogosphere will be confirmed.

The cause of blogging as a tool for real enlightenment was dealt a heavy blow today, for those few of us who are apparently ignorant or idealistic enough to imagine such a thing.

Anyway, here's a little of what the Washington Post had to say today in their front-page article titled Paid Bloggers Stoke Senate Battle in Va.:

RICHMOND -- Virginia's U.S. Senate race has catapulted bloggers into the middle of electioneering and controversy as campaign supporters use their online forums to connect with voters, raise money and spread gossip.
...
The goal of the paid bloggers, both campaigns say, is to deluge online political journals with positive tidbits about their candidate and draw attention to the most negative news about their opponent. The campaign bloggers sometimes write their own bits. Other times, they spread gossip generated by others.
...
Bloggers were all over last week's campaign developments as the two sides traded accusations about the candidates' views on women. The bloggers' posts often are over the top. One entry on the A-Team blog offered the following quote: "Who is more modern in their attitude towards women: the Taliban, or . . . Webb? Tough call."
...
In recent posts, Feld has referred to Republicans as "rightwing crazies" and has changed the name of Allen's campaign manager, Dick Wadhams, to a locker room epithet.

Recently, Feld wrote about a picture that shows Allen standing next to a group of white men who allegedly belonged to a white supremacist group.

"Finally! I mean, seriously, how long does it take the supposedly 'mainstream media' to pick up on evidence that a man who wants to be President is a racist?" Feld wrote.

Not a very pretty picture for people who might otherwise be drawn to a medium that would support real discussions about important issues. But it is a pretty fair representation of what is happening throughout the blogosphere, as the political campaigns transform the landscape.

For example, NotLarrySabato used to be a place where people from all parts of the political spectrum gathered to discuss the political implications of events, as well as the underlying issues. But recently, it has become little more than a place for webb supporters to launch vitriolic personal attacks at anybody who dares to suggest a discussion can be had on anything.

It's not just NLS though, personal attacks are springing up in response to posts on both sides of the political aisle, as we seem to be racing to the bottom of the barrel of political discourse.

For example, I personally complained about the "which is worse" question that was mentioned in the article, but drew no supporters to what seemed to be a rational position that, say what you will about Webb, he's no Taliban.

I can't end without commenting on the most outrageous comment cited in the report -- but this wasn't from a blog:

"Blogging is evolving," Feld said. "You are moving into the point where bloggers who before were making no money are starting to become more like professionals, like journalists and other campaign people."

I'm sorry, Lowell. You are NOTHING like a professional, except possibly a "professional hit man". I'm convinced the Post reporters put this at the end precisely because, after reading the article, no sane person can read this assertion without falling off their chair laughing.

I think there are bloggers who are professional (in the true meaning of the word), who approach the craft with seriousness, who actually care about the truth rather than simply getting the people who pay them elected. But this article gives no indication of that.

ADDENDUM (2:20pm): Since RKaine is still pushing their silly m-word stuff, even in the discussion of the debate today, I thought this reference is particularly appropriate:

and has changed the name of Allen's campaign manager, Dick Wadhams, to a locker room epithet.

Why doesn't the post tell us what that epithet is? Because it is offensive to their readers, and the Post won't publish offensive words.

Which should tell you something about the m-word, as the Post published that word probably HUNDREDS of times, even including it in headlines.

So when the Post later admitted that nobody knew what the word meant, they weren't just blowing smoke. The ombudsman apparently has NOT been inundated with complaints of outrage over publishing an "offensive racial slur", because nobody who reads the Post is actually offended by seeing the m-word in print -- because it just isn't upsetting, unless it's said by a political opponent and can be used to make false charges of racism.

Throughout this whole contrived controversy, James Martin is about the only person who has been consistant and appears to actually be offended by the word.

A word that, so far as I can tell, only republicans are calling "the m-word". Because we are afraid of the racism police deciding to target us for spelling it out.

Do democrats have a plan for our security?

A look at the democrats plan for making us safe from terrorists:

First, the democrats are going to pull our troops out of Iraq. After all, when we went INTO Iraq the terrorists were not there, so we had no business going there. Sure, Al Qaeda is there now, and consider it the central battle in their war on our way of life. Obviously that's where the terrorists are now. But they weren't there when we started, so we need to get out of there.

We are then to apologize to the world for invading a sovereign country without the world's approval and support. After that we will take all of those troops, and invade our ally Pakistan, because a while ago Al Qaeda was there, before they all came to Iraq. The democrat will not ask for permission or seek a UN resolution, it's not their style (see Clinton/Kosovo).

We will not seek support from our allies before we invade Pakistan, a country with nuclear weapons, with our overwhelming force. Oh, and remember, that force is spent, worn out, and totally unprepared to fight anymore, according to John Murtha. And they won't actually launch this attack any time soon, because they will wait until every one of our 1.2 million troops have their own personal multi-million-dollar armored vehicle, because it would be unconscionable to send a single troop into battle without the absolute best protection, regardless of the cost.

Our goal in Pakistan is to capture Osama Bin Laden, no matter what the cost. Although the democrat leader Pelosi believes that capturing Osama won't do a thing to make us safer, it will be the war they are willing to have our troops die for. When we get Osama, we will be sure he has a good team of lawyers, access to the media, and all of the classified information we have collected about his network over the last 5 years. He will have all the freedoms our constitution grants -- except we won't let him have a gun. Even terrorists don't get 2nd amendment rights.

On the home front, they want to redirect the entire homeland security budget (because that's what it would cost) to inspect every single package that comes into the country, in our own ports. As a side effect, this should help our trade balance because imported goods will be so expensive nobody will buy them.

Lastly, they want to build some sort of imaginary fence to make sure all the illegal immigrants enter the country through their new illegal immigrant voter program and get registered as democrats.

Oh, and because they know who the REAL threat to our country is, they will continue their all-out assault on the major force of evil in the world -- Walmart. Also Coca Cola. And the Bush administration. And George Allen. And Ric Santorum. And Linc Chafee. And Joe Leiberman. And anybody with an "R" after their name.

Why voters question democrat's commitment to national security

A good reason for questioning the Democrat's commitment to national security can be found in a Washington Post article covering the party's latest attempt to come up with some theme for the upcoming elections other than "We Hate Bush".

From the Washington Post, Democrats Meander in a New Direction:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, the woman who will become speaker of the House if Democrats get lucky in November, began her weekly news conference yesterday holding up a red-white-and-blue brochure.
"I hope you all received 'A New Direction for America,' " she said.
...
Her opening statement covered a full range of Democratic issues: fiscal responsibility. The minimum wage. The trade deficit. Student loans. Health care. Energy independence. Social Security. Medicare.

hmm. Something's missing there.

A third questioner pointed out that Republicans have regained the lead on national security. "This is what, I guess, campaigns will be about," Pelosi conceded with some reluctance. "It shouldn't be about national security."

The election should NOT be about national security? Nancy Pelosi, who would be speaker of the house and third in line for the Presidency (which would be hers if the democrats got their way and impeached Bush and Cheney), thinks that National Security is not an issue for the election.

But wait, there's more. Again, from the article:

The California Democrat has been the focus of the GOP attack since her remark last week that capturing Osama bin Laden wouldn't make us safer.
...
Pelosi was defensive. "I have five children," she said. "Five grandchildren, going on six. And I consider myself the ultimate security mom." By way of clarification, she felt compelled to add: "Democrats are committed to hunting down Osama bin Laden."

So, Possible President Pelosi believes that capturing Osama Bin Laden would do nothing to make us safer. But even so, she wants to commit time, and money, and our troops, to capture him.

Get it -- The democrat leader wants to put our troops in harm's way, and spend valuable tax dollars, and valuable time, for a goal (capturing Bin Laden) that she doesn't think will do ANYTHING to make us safer.

If it won't make us safer, why will democrats waste time, money, and our troops to capture him? Why not use our time, money, and troops to do something that will actually MAKE us safer, like, say, killing terrorists in Iraq where they are all fighting now?

So, given that the leader of the democrats thinks national security shouldn't be an issue, and wants to waste her time capturing Osama when she doesn't think it will make us safer, it appears voters are showing wisdom in doubting whether the democrats truly understand and are committed to our nation's security.

Are democrats more concerned for protecting terrorists than our security?

It seems an incendiary question. House Majority Leader Boehner said Tuesday that "looking at their votes, I wonder if they're more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people." (I should note that most media reports leave out the context of "their votes").

Democrats were indignant, and jumped all over Boehner. Representative Obey was particularly incensed:

"I come from the state of Joe McCarthy," said Obey, a Democrat from Wausau. "I know a first-rate McCarthy when I see one. And I also know a third-rate McCarthy when I see one. And we saw one yesterday."

But now consider this piece of news from the washington post, Secrecy Dispute Snarls Nomination:

Six months after President Bush chose him to lead a new anti-terrorism arm of the Justice Department, Kenneth L. Wainstein is still U.S. attorney for the District -- his nomination stalled by squabbling in the Senate.

Wainstein, a longtime prosecutor and former FBI official, had seemed on track to become the assistant attorney general for national security. Two Senate committees -- Judiciary and Intelligence -- endorsed his nomination. But for more than two months, he has awaited a vote by the full Senate.

What? The HEAD of the new 9/11-commission-blessed anti-terrorism department of justice, still vacant? That can't be good for our domestic security, can it? And what is it that is hurting our domestic security, holding up this nomination that cleared committee months ago? What could be more important than our security?

Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) has blocked a vote because the Justice Department has not turned over to him several FBI documents that are connected to the abuse of detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.

A democrat is blocking the nominee, and hurting our domestic security, because he wants papers about abuse of terrorists? Why, that sounds a little like a democrat more concerned about the protecting the terorrists at Gitmo than our security. How could that be? Maybe I'm wrong about what this office does:

The national security division, created this year as part of the revision of the Patriot Act, will consolidate into one operation three branches of the Justice Department: counterterrorism, counterespionage and the office that oversees applications to the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court.

No, it's domestic security all right. Maybe these documents aren't what I think:

At issue are several documents that were sent to or from Wainstein or his deputy after FBI agents at Guantanamo reported witnessing sometimes abusive interrogations of detainees.

Nope, that's not it. But maybe there's something about the nominee himself:

Levin's position has frustrated even some allies, who have urged the Senate to move forward with a vote. Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, the chairman and vice chairman of the 9/11 commission, have written in support of Wainstein. Charles S. Robb, a Democrat and former senator from Virginia whose commission on weapons of mass destruction recommended the restructuring of national security operations, wrote as well in support of Wainstein.
...
"He's an innocent hostage in what is a pretty typical congressional response," said Norman J. Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute

OK, let's try one more time. Is Carl Levin, a DEMOCRAT, threatening our domestic security by keeping the administration from filling the leadership position of an important new agency tasked to protect us?:

Because it is a newly created position, the national security job cannot be filled by a recess appointment, as the president has done in other instances in which a nominee has been blocked.
If the Senate does not act on Wainstein's nomination before it adjourns at the end of the year, Wainstein would have to be nominated once again.

Yes, nobody can run the new agency until Levin lets them. And is he harming our domestic security out of concern for protecting terrorists?:

Levin, a lawyer, has been pressing hard for answers about Guantanamo, and Wainstein's nomination offered the senator perhaps his best opportunity to pressure the administration.

Yep. Levin wants to pressure the administration about how terrorists have been treated at Gitmo, and to do so he's blocking the appointment of the lead of a major new agency tasked with our domestic security.

So tell me again, why is it wrong to say that it APPEARS that democrats are more concerned with protecting terrorists than our security?

When Webbies Attack

I just picked NLS because it's a good place to hear from what some consider the more sane people on the Webb team. But as I predicted a short time ago, Senator Lambert is already being attacked, often by anonymous commenters.

But I'll have to say they've actually been pretty good there. Over at Raising Kaine, they've decided to pretend this didn't happen, but I imagine they'll get their talking points eventually

The truth is, Lambert supports Allen because he knows that Allen is good for the African-American community, and he obviously doesn't buy the lie that Allen is a racist, having known and worked with him for years.

Obviously, they don't agree on a lot of policy. But with real endorsements, that's not what matters, unlike fake endorsements of dead people.

Anyway, Here's a few things I grabbed to show how it goes with the left:

• So is he an Uncle Tom?
• What does 40 pieces of silver net you when adjusted for inflation?
• F*CK YOU BENNY LAMBERT

Then there are the "substantive" attacks on his character (and to be fair, some of these were refuted by other posters, it's only some posters going on the attack):

• Over the course of several weeks in 2003, this candidate repeatedly refused requests by citizens in the candidate's own state, leaders of both major political parties, major news organizations and Project Vote Smart staff to provide voters with essential issue information in the 2003 National Political Awareness Test.
  This candidate would not provide this information to citizens in the candidate's own state - no matter who asked them, when they were asked or how they were asked.
• Its all about the Benjamins, in this case Lambert's pet project is money for schools. Its nice to know that Democrats too can be bought off for the right price. Thank you Benny Lambert, for having no more principles then the all-mighty dollar.
• I don't really care about what Benny Lambert thinks, he's a democrat supporting a republican who's been shown to be somewhat of a racist, and it would appear he did it for some money for schools...

And of course, the questioning of his personal/political motives as well:

• I don't know if it's as much support for Allen as opposition to Webb, Roanoker. Remember, Lambert also endorsed Harris Miller. What does Lambert have against Jim Webb?
• One word:Revenge Two more words:Donald McEachin
• A little bit of history. In 2003 McEachin a friend of Wilders was going to primary Lambert because he did not support the Richmond strong mayor form of government. It caused a division in the black democratic community in Richmond. Now that McEachin is supporting Webb, with Wilder following shortly and the likelyhood that McEachin will primary Lambert in 2007 he has made a political calculation to support Allen.

Some though decided to just go for Allen instead:

• Maybe Allen threatened to drop the noose off at Benny's house.

Some big Allen endorsement anouncement at the A-team

Big endorsement, yada yada, blockbuster name, yada yada.

I've received my marching orders, and dutifully point you to the A-team for the latest.

I reserve judgment, despite my "speculation" that it's Jim Webb. I doubt Allen is getting endorsements from Dead people like the Webb campaign, but it would be ironic if James Webb himself "endorsed" Allen the way Webb's camp claimed Reagan "endorsed" Webb.

Update: wow, not bad: Senior Democratic State Senator Benjamin Lambert

I feel sorry for him. I can't imagine what dirt the webbies are going to throw his way. Actually, having watched them in the primary, I CAN imgine, and it won't matter to them that he's African-American, only that he is a 'traitor' to his party's blind lust for power.

Maybe my pointing that out will pre-empt their attacks, but I doubt it.

Update: Riley points out that while I might have seen a link at his site, the post is at the A-team. I've corrected the name on my link.

AFA calls for fines, I say let it go.

I appreciate and support much of what the American Family Association does. But sometimes I think they go overboard. In this case, they decided to go after CBS for a 9/11 documentary that was filmed by a crew following rescue workers when the first plane hit.

The documentary shows the actual people having actual conversations, and included a LOT of salty language, as you might imagine (I remember using some salty language on that day, but I am caught using such language fairly often).

Anyway, this offended the AFA, which wanted CBS to either censor the show or bleep out the offending words.

I would be behind them 100% if this was a "docudrama", because the writers could easily choose other language which got the message across.

But this was real life, and in real life people say things, and sometimes it's important for us to see what exactly happened, and that means hearing the foul language. CBS had the appropriate rating on the show, and included disclaimers about the language (as if the topic itself wasn't enough to scare off parents of young children).

So I do not support the call for fines requested by the AFA in their latest mailing, which I reproduce in part here:

File a complaint with the FCC against CBS for airing multiple uses the "f" and "s" words.

Dear Charles,
This past Sunday evening (Sept. 10), some CBS network broadcast stations aired the "9/11" documentary. During the course of the program, CBS affiliates chose to broadcast multiple obscenities over the public airwaves at a time they knew children would be watching.

CBS had been warned about allowing the "f" and "s" words on the air. The network could have easily muted the obscenities. But they chose not to. The network stations purposely chose to violate Federal and FCC law by airing the program.

Sorry, but this isn't the Janet Jackson incident. An 'offensive' show wasn't thrust upon an unsuspecting public. I'm not happy with the FCC rules anyway, and I certainly hope they are not enforced in some legalistic and absurd fashion.

Monkey-boys show up to mock ethnic minorities

Or something like that. Chad reports that the RK monkey-shines people DID show up at the ethnic rally yesterday, which was well-attended. Pictures in the paper show many people of color, but the paper I read didn't mention people in monkey suits.

And with that, I end any political commenting for a day.

The A Team

I wasn't invited, but a few bloggers I know got together and created a new blog specifically to deal with the upcoming Senate Race. They call themselves the "A-team", and their blog is HERE.

I added them to my blog list, and did some minor re-arranging, making a new list I called the "doghouse". A blog is in the dog house if I still frequent it, but I don't want to suggest my readers should bother.

I bumped NLS and TC to that list, NLS because he's been overrun by sycophants for the Webb camp, and because they have too much profanity. TC's there because they hardly post anything of interest anymore, so I might not even bother going there much.

I've added "i'm not emeril". As I explained a long time ago, my "blog list" is not really a "recommendation", nor is it a quid pro quo. At this time, it's all the blogs I read regularly, in one place so I can just click to them when I want to read them.

I've been working on joining the blog alliance, but I haven't done what I'm supposed to do yet, mostly because I am a terribly good procrastinator.

Webb Campaign claims Reagan Endorsement

The Webbies have been out in force arguing that only an idiot could think that the Webb campaign is using Reagan in their commercials to imply an endorsement.

Well, as Riley was kind enough to find, it appears we have found the idiot -- and he's a Webb Campaign Staffer. From the Roanoke times:

"There's one thing Ronald Reagan and I have in common," Saunders said. "We both endorse Jim Webb."

Not even "would have endorsed", but actually "endorse". Webbies said nobody would be stupid enough to think Reagan would endorse Webb, since Reagan is dead.

Maybe Saunders is channeling Reagan's spirit.

What is Sean Connaughton Up To?

Did he resign, or not? VirginiaVirtucon is certain he has, because federal law requires it, and they have a source which claims he did it. NovaScout even made a snide comment claiming Sean resigned Tuesday Night.

But the Potomac News reported nothing, and people were wondering. James Young expressed reservations, and noted that Sean could really mess things up by not doing the right thing. However, he sited Riley's assurances that Sean had indeed resigned.

Ben at NotLarrySabato also wondered what was happening, and clearly spelled out why it would be very bad for all of Prince William if Sean didn't get his resignation in properly before September 8.

The TooConservative site, where Vincent had previously asserted that Sean would serve out his term, has ignored the entire question, apparently living in an alternative universe where Sean hasn't taken a new position and left his post.

But in a comment at NotLarrySabato, Vincent made a cryptic comment that "It's Sean's decision, and he will do what's right for PWC. I have complete faith in him, and know that he will resign when the time is right for the citizens to benefit." That sounded like a threat of some subterfuge, and I asked TC about it but he failed to respond.

But still, even while wondering what was happening, I was certain Sean would do the right thing and resign in time to have the election on November 7th.

So I was shocked to get THIS letter from the PWC Republican committee, which I have to type in because it was a PDF:

Prince William BOCS Chairman Special Election

The Prince William County Board of Elections informed us today that the special election for the position of the Chairman of the Prince William County Board of Supervisors would not occur on November 7, 2006. Therefore, another date will have to be determined for the Prince William County residents to vote for a new Chairman.

Today, September 8, 2006 was the deadline set by the Prince William County Board of Elections to place the name of the Candidates for the Special Election on the ballot. The Prince William County Government has not received the resignation from the current holder of this office, Sean Connaughton.

When a vacancy occurs or even a letter stating a future resignation date (per Virginia Code 24.2-228.1A) is submitted, a Judge has up to fifteen days to issue the Writ of Election, which sets the date of the Special Election. The Election must be held between forty-five to sixty days after the Writ (per Virginia Code 15.2-502C).

According to the following website: http://www.marad.dot.gov/, Sean Connaughton was sworn in to his new position on Wednesday, September 6, 2006. Several attempts had been made to contact Mr. Connaughton to ask when he would be sworn into this new position and when his resignation letter would be received. As of this time, Mr. Connaughton has not responded.

We will keep you informed of any new information regarding this special election.

If true, and I can't imagine why they would make this up, Sean has indeed screwed the people of Prince William County, and for what reason I cannot fathom. Why would he not informed the appropriate people of his resignation? If NovaScout knew about it on Tuesday night, why wouldn't the county elections board know about it two days later? What game is Sean playing here?

I am VERY VERY dissappointed in Sean right now, so much so that I can't express it. I still hope it is wrong, that someone has made a mistake.

I note that a judge has up to 15 days to make a decision, but could make the decision much earlier. So while we can't get names on the ballot, the election law still suggests that a judge could order the election on the same day, maybe with different ballots, or maybe a judge will order the county to re-print and re-send ballots, or something.

Like I said, it's hard to think clearly about this, and I can't understand why Sean put the county in this position. I just don't get it. Sean, can you come here and explain? Anybody know what is happening?

UPDATE: BVBL as usually is on top of the news as well, and has a comment thread over here about it.

Democrats Hypocritical and Prescient

With all the comparisons between the Democrats attacks against ABC with the acts of the RNC against CBS for the Reagan miniseries, it's helpful to remember what the democrats said at the time about THAT incident. Fortunately, Powerline has it in the archives:

"CBS has decided to pull its miniseries about Ronald Reagan after a Republican National Committee-organized campaign complaining that it didn't lionize their favorite president enough.

"CBS's decision is — to put it mildly — disturbing. Essentially the network has given the ruling party veto power over the content it puts on the air.

"No, there are no First Amendment violations here. The RNC protested the content of a program, which is its right, and CBS voluntarily pulled that program off the air, which is its right.

"But the decision makes it very easy to imagine a future where representatives for the Bush administration have the power to disapprove of any content that touches politics, policy, or history — including news programs."

Now the democrats are trying to do the same thing against ABC. Except they aren't just protesting the content -- they are using their power as elected representatives to disapprove of content that touches politics.

In other words, three years ago they acknowledged that the RNC approach was appropriate -- protesting content. But they objected because of a fear that elected officials would take it too far. And now, here they are, fulfilling their own prophesy, taking it too far, rather than taking the appropriate action of publicising their complaints and simply protesting the show.

It is shocking that ANY blogger regardless of their position on politics OR this show, could support elected government officials using the threat of government intervention to attempt to control the political content of a broadcast TV show.

Webb raise ire of Nancy Reagan

The Washington Post reported earlier about Webb's "interesting" campaign ad, featuring Ronald Reagan:

RICHMOND, Aug. 7 -- Democratic Senate candidate James Webb will launch his first television ad Monday, a 30-second tribute by former President Ronald Reagan, for whom Webb once served as Navy secretary.
...
"It's an unusual ad for a Democrat, but in this state it'll sell," said state Sen. Richard L. Saslaw (D-Fairfax), the chamber's minority leader.

Showing that you still have to be a republican to win in Virginia, or at least pretend to be one.

When asked about objections to using Reagan's name, the Webb campaign is reported to have responded:

Todd responded: "Let's let Reagan speak for Reagan."

Well, now Reagan (Nancy) has weighed in to speak for Reagan (her husband). From WDBJ, Channel 7 Virginia:

RICHMOND, Va. Nancy Reagan has ordered Democratic Senate candidate Jim Webb -- a former Reagan White House military aide -- NOT to use video of her husband praising Webb in an upcoming campaign ad.

A three-paragraph letter from the former first lady's office says the use of footage of President Reagan is ... quote ... "neither authorized nor appropriate."

I don't know about "authorization", I suppose someone might control the footage and if it isn't public there might be a copyright issue. In the story, Edwin Meese alludes to this:

Former Attorney General Edwin Meese was a Reagan adviser. He calls the ad ... quote ... "improper, unethical and very possibly illegal."

I don't know about illegal. But certainly using a dead man who can't speak for himself to pretend you are getting an endorsement from him for something that happened years ago when you had different beliefs is disingenous and misleading, if not downright false. And obviously they did so without regard to how his surviving widow would feel about the misuse of her husband's good name.

But the funniest line in the story was this:

Webb was NOT immediately available for comment

No surprise there, has he been available to comment on ANYTHING his campaign has been up to the past couple of weeks?