Lies, Damnable Lies, and Political Commentary

“A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”

V.I. Lenin

Are there any limits to what can be said about political opponents? Should there be any limits? Does anything go, no matter who is the target? Are we all no better now than Karl Rove?

The moral reason we ought not to lie is because it damages others without justification, and that is as basic a human wrong as there is. The practical reason we ought not to lie is because it damages us; when we are caught, and liars always get caught, our credibility suffers and we can no longer participate in a conversation from a position of authority or respect. Telling political lies, as well as uncritically spreading them, is anti-progressive, un-liberal, and eventually ineffective in support of any agenda intended to improve the lot of humankind. It is an indefensible practice in political dialogue, and I have no patience for it.

What constitutes ethical reportage and discussion in the blogosphere? Are there standards? Should there be standards? What would those standards look like? Do they apply equitably, or can we employ baseless trashing of our perceived enemies while whimpering like little babies when it happens to those we support? If we employ a double standard, demanding that those who argue against us are despicable creeps when they make stuff up but insist that we can do it ourselves against those we oppose, do we really do ourselves and our cause any favors? Or do we so undermine our own credibility that no intelligent discussion can occur? If the latter, and I cannot see any plausible argument against it, who benefits? Not the downtrodden or the oppressed, that’s for damn sure.

When every crass lie and foundationless rumor is repeated and discussed as though it were real, on an equal basis with rational and logical positions, then every topic becomes suspect; when all sides are spreading baseless rumor and lies, then every commentator is seen as equally unreliable. When meaningful conversation is no longer possible, organized opposition to the established order also becomes impossible. I may be seen by some as old-fashioned with my rigid bottom-line morality and insistence on the societal value of gentlemanly ways, but I am absolutely certain that there is a depth to which we must not sink or all hope of progress is lost.

From the Clintons and Vince Foster to John McCain and his secret illegitimate black baby to Al Gore and the internet and Love Story to John Kerry and the Swiftboaters to every single public word that has ever come out of the mouth of George W. Bush, the VRWC lies as it breathes, without heed or concern for the consequence beyond the destruction of others and their own immediate gratification. The only long term plan is more and bigger lies.

For the rest of us, in trying to disarm and defeat the forces of tyranny and oppression, the most powerful weapon we can wield is the truth. If you don’t subscribe to that principle, you will be my enemy – just so we’re all clear with each other. If we allow ourselves to sink to the level of those we despise, we cannot win anything; we will defeat ourselves.

So how is that battle with our own better selves going? Lately, not so well.

Larry Johnson, Michelle Obama, and a great big pile of nothing

Johnson, for reasons that remain opaque but in my experience is probably due to his being a self-serving moron, chose to spread around a rumor about Michelle Obama. Why anyone would ever spread such vile rumor about any other human being is beyond me. Why someone who holds themselves out as a supporter of freedom chooses to employ the tools of tyranny cannot otherwise be explained except by the basest and most venal of self-interest and greed. There is no “good” explanation.

And he has gotten what he wanted. Based on nothing at all, he has become the recipient of a seemingly endless stream of attention and discussion. The number of search engine hits are extraordinary, for any topic, but one based on the rumor of a rumor? Here’s a recent comment here at Corrente, assessing Johnson and his methods:

I’m convinced that Larry is convinced there is such a tape. It’s entirely possible he’s the victim of a hoax, but I don’t think he’s lying.

And that, apparently, is all it takes. For myself, I would want more evidence than that for a report of a new sale at WalMart. Third or fourth or fifth hand or whatever it is by the time it got here shouldn’t be good enough for anyone about anything. All that has happened in the Johnson affair is a pre-existing anti-Obama bias has been supported by a rumor spread by someone else whose pre-existing anti-Obama biases and selfish desires are in turn being supported by the unsubstantiated rumor mongering and/or lies of unknown others, anonymous sources whose own agendas and motives remain secret and carefully hidden away. But hey, it’s fun! Pass it on.

Is it lying? Oh, hell no; innocent victim, that’s our Larry; dumb as a stump he is, wholly unable to see that anyone who would claim to have a devastating tape of the wife of the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee but who also is not going to release it until some later, more devastating time, is an agent of the VRWC; so is anyone who would lie about the existence of such a tape in the hopes that someone gullible and selfish and dumb as a stump would spread it around. That’s a tough one to figure out, for sure. That Larry, less sense than God gave a cabbage or he would have been able to suss that out. Or wait; maybe he isn’t so dumb; maybe he does know all of that and he’s spreading the rumor anyway. Maybe he is a liar. Or maybe he’s lying and greedy and dumb as a stump all at the same time, and only appeared to be smart and liberal because he’s been critical of Bush - in retrospect, not all that much of a challenge.

What is the cost for spreading VRWC propaganda? Diminishment of an innocent woman, no small thing in and of itself, not to mention untold damage to the political prospects of the only human being standing between the whole wide world and the unfathomable damage that will unfold from another four years of the Nixon/Reagan/Bush/Bush/VRWC. Surely a cheap price to pay for those website hits. Great work, Larry; nicely done.

In Re: Steve Diamond

I know his work, quite well. He’s very smart, well educated, and for a teacher he is soundly grounded in real-world experience. It is on balance good to have him in academia. On corporate, labor and international finance law, he’s very rigorous and relentlessly logical. With labor practices and labor negotiations, he is well-meaning and more than decent in his intention but inclined to take a harder partisan tone than is sometimes beneficial – forgivable, if occasionally irritating.

But like so many people, people other than me, he has a flaw; once settled on a position, he will go to any lengths to promote and defend it. This is fine, even admirable for a courtroom advocate and useful sometimes for a labor negotiator, but as a political analyst it leads to behaviors that in my mind are not defensible. That’s what has occurred here; he has crossed the line from hard criticism to baseless, unprincipled trumpery.

To understand what has happened and why it cannot be allowed to stand, we should take a couple of steps back up the narrative get the bigger picture. As Sarah has suitably exposed here, this cycle will give us more of the same character assassination tactics from the VRWC and they will be spread by the corporatist controlled M$M as they so recently did to Hillary Clinton. The base units for these smear campaigns are again the “independent” 527s and 501(c)3s and the like, providing plausible deniability for the candidate who is in fact using the technique.

One of those VRWC front groups has exhumed the body and what is left of the congenitally deranged mind of an old acquaintance: Herb Romerstein. In his teens, Herb was an ardent Stalinist but he soon turned away and by the time he got back from service in the Korean War he was as fanatical an anticommunist as ever existed. He made his bones as a staffer for a New York State legislature committee investigating the Great Communist Conspiracy, eventually denouncing as Communist agents his high school teachers, summer camp councilors, family friends and assorted acquaintances; essentially everyone he had ever known who had ever uttered a kind word about any progressive policy, dozens of innocent lives ruined.

His zeal was great enough to catch the attention of national figures, and he moved up the Commie Hunt foodchain in the 60s to become Chief Investigator on the Republican side for the US House Committee on Internal Security – the renamed successor to the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC). More than anything Herb wanted to be the next Joe McCarthy, and he was every bit as loathsome a character. For his final VRWC reward, he was appointed by Reagan to be Head of the deliberately misnamed Office to Counter Soviet Disinformation, part of the United States Information Agency. Herb’s job there was actually to produce disinformation, with the intent to destroy the reputations of everyone seen as an enemy of the VRWC.

[One often repeated trope is that the current ideological struggle we are urged to “get over” by Obama and his supporters if that of the 60s; this is incorrect. The struggle is as it ever was, between Them As Have Got and Them As Have Naught. The objective of the VRWC is to roll back all progressive policies and return America to the pre-FDR glory days of financial domination by a 1% elite. The framing of the attack today is in the same terms used by the Plutocracy to attack the progressive policies of FDR, just substituting the conjured enemy’s name over time from Commie to DFH to Liberal and now back again to Commie.

[In one of the more interesting political twists of all time, it was fear of Communism taking hold in America during the Great Depression that drove FDR and his allies to institute the New Deal programs; FDR co-opted the very social changes being advocated by the American Communist Party and used them to promote and eventually stabilize a new American Middle Class as the dominant socioeconomic structure, the first time in history that was ever achieved. One could say, without any exaggeration, that the publically-voiced political deceits of the Communist Party (in private truth they were of course terrible totalitarians) saved American democracy – but that isn’t the way history is taught, is it?

[More on Herb and the great struggle is here, in a 1999 analysis written back when the New York Times actually employed journalists instead of VRWC hacks.]

Herb is one of those articulate, persuasive, socially functional paranoid delusionals who see Commie Sympathizers everywhere. He truly believes, and has spoken and written extensively about it, that Harry Hopkins, FDR’s closest aide and advisor, was a Soviet spy who controlled FDR as an unwitting Soviet dupe; other Soviet spies he has helped “uncover” were J. Robert Oppenheimer, the brilliant scientist and compassionate human being whose career was destroyed and health ruined by the false accusations, and the great and good liberal journalist and author I.F. Stone. Herb Romerstein is a very sick and very, very dangerous man.

Which makes him the perfect choice for participation in a new disinformation campaign from an outfit called America's Survival Inc., originally funded by the Sarah Scaife Foundation and the Armstrong Foundation but supported exclusively from 2001 through 2006 by the Carthage Foundation – to the tune of $325,000. They’re big fans of Ron Paul (and David Vitter!) so plenty of badmouthing against Romney and McCain, but since April Fool’s Day they’ve swung their full attention to Obama. Every baseless screed you can think of they’ve posted on, but most of the emphasis is on Obama’s status as a tool of international Communism and the UN-mediated One World Order. For 325 large you can buy a lot of tinfoil.

This tiny, clearly fringe group consisting of a couple of flakes and a cadaver-in-waiting announced a press conference in DC for May 22, to be held in the basement of a DC coffee house. Not to disparage, but these kinds of little events go on all the time without notice from the press. (Go ahead; hold a basement press conference without a big name speaker on global warming or universal health care or the criminal conduct of Bush and Cheney and see what coverage you can get.) At best, some free-lance stringer might stop by to see if they can scrape together enough dregs for a spec piece to peddle to the Village Voice or McClatchy; no way would anyone of importance lower themselves to deal with this kind of trivia. The Washington Post sent Dana Milbank.

Soft-voiced, gentle, affable, charming, androgynously-named Dana, with his non-threatening big doe eyes and his please-don’t-punch-me glasses and his oft-repeated (see Lenin on lies) reputation as a trustworthy “liberal” and harsh establishment critic, had absolutely nothing better to do on May 22 of 2008 than to sit in a coffee shop basement and listen to a bunch of whackjobs – and nothing better to do that night but write about them. He delivered a full column’s worth the next day, as his bosses wanted him to, because in the whole wide world nothing more important was happening. Nothing mattered as much as making sure the message of the VRWC got the widest possible coverage.

And boy, did Dana deliver. Not a point-by-point takedown of scurrilous VRWC lies and trash-talking, no, and not a thoughtful explique on the sad consequence of cutbacks on out-patient mental health programs, oh no, not that either. What he did is what he does best, a full regurgitation of the VRWC talking points under the guise of criticism. Witness his lede, what the casual reader skimming through will assimilate and what the VRWC will be able to cut and paste as evidence that the Washington Post and even its Liberal Columnist Dana Milbank are seriously discussing:

Obama as You've Never Known Him!
By Dana Milbank
Friday, May 23, 2008; Page A03

Here are some things we can look forward to learning about Barack Obama:

• That he was mentored in high school by a member of the Soviet-controlled Communist Party.

• That he launched his Illinois state Senate campaign in the home of a terrorist and a killer.

• That while serving as a state senator, he was a member of a socialist front group.

• That his affiliations are so dodgy that he would have trouble getting a government security clearance.

• That there is reason to doubt his "loyalty to the United States."

There follows in the rest of the column a pretense at dismissal of these claims, all the while carefully repeating them along with a whole host of others; Milbank made very sure to give every one of the America’s Survival-VRWC talking points plenty of room to breathe. (Well done, Dana! Here’s another wad of cash to tuck in your pocket, along with a coupon for free eats at the next McCain BBQ. Enjoy!)

Which brings us directly to Steven Diamond.

Diamond, for reasons he best expresses himself, wrote an essay two days later on May 25 entitled Believe me, Barack is no Communist, But.... because:

Since I have been a critic here of some of the policies the Senator appears to support and people that he appears to be close to - and precisely because of their potential authoritarian implications - I thought I should address this issue.

Sure, of course. Never mind that the original source is a two-bit fringe group holding a meeting in the basement of a coffee shop, the Very Important and Well-Respected Dana Milbank is writing about it so I should write about it too because my opinions are also Very Important and Well-Respected. (Ego problems much these days, Steve?)

But wait; first thing, is there any substance to the claims about Obama and communism? Diamond says not, right in the title, and then offers more detail:

There are some indications that Obama brushed up against CP [Communist Party] members or fellow travelers in Hawaii (apparently Frank Marshall Davis, the black CP poet and journalist was friends with the Obama family in Hawaii) or in that Berkeley-lite, Hyde Park, over the years and these people may have influenced him to be more on the left side of the spectrum rather than the right. But that is a far cry from becoming a CP member or even a sympathizer. Believe me, the American CP had long stopped attracting young people to its cause by the time Obama was a teen-ager.

[Editorial aside; Hyde Park is “Berkeley-lite”? I like that; very much.]

OK, then; Obama is not a communist or a communist dupe. There is, however, that lingering “But” to deal with. Diamond has, as he says, written in the past about ties between Obama and Bill Ayers and through him to some “authoritarian Left” as Diamond would have it. Is there a real danger that the “authoritarian Left” controls or dictates or guides the policies and thinking of the next President of the United States? Here’s Diamond again:

But does this new "left" authoritarianism have the ability to control a presidential candidate, manchurian-style? Hardly, even if some in this movement had an interest in doing so.

Well, I feel better; no ability to control Obama, and no interest in trying. Even better, there apparently isn’t even an actual entity to worry about, no central organization and no discipline:

This new movement is very diverse in form and structure and plays in a variety of arenas, but has no central organizational structure or discipline.

Which would be even more of a relief to me, but Diamond senses their interconnectedness in more ephemeral ways:

There is, instead, a kind of shared, almost cultural or instinctual, identity with each other. This accounts, in part, for what is broadly known as "politcal [sic] correctness."

Oh, damn, the PC police; probably the same sort of people who natter on about my devotion to being a gentleman. So annoying, Steve; I know just what you mean. He almost has my sympathy, but then he lets slip his true self:

But the reality is that you can find these new authoritarian types all over the place: in higher education…Schools of Education…the labor movement...the Chicago anti-war movement….

OH NO! They’re everywhere! They’re everywhere! Grab the children, Ma, and head for the hills! In a darkened coffee shop basement somewhere, Herb Romerstein is smiling and nodding, gently nodding his approval.

Having dismissed claims of an Obama-communist link as well as saying that whatever sort of “authoritarian Left” there might be has no controlling effect either, Diamond still goes on to speculate. Within what looks to be some 2000 words or so, he scatters an endless stream of little rat droppings: the totalitarian regimes of Tito’s Yugoslavia and China, Che Guevara, the murderous cowards Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn and their erstwhile Weather Underground associates and convicted terrorists Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert, the Nicaraguan Sandinistas, Mexican Zapatistas, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. Even the benign SDS and the perfectly fine and upright Carl Davidson (called by Diamond a “Fidelista” for opposing the continued Cuban trade sanctions) and Marilyn Katz, both of whom broke early and unequivocally from Ayers and Dohrn over using violence for political action, are seen as part of some dark design.

It is a tangled web that Diamond weaves; reminds me very much of those generated by spiders under the influence of caffeine; oddly beautiful and intriguing, but functionally useless. He’s been at this “authoritarian Left” business hot and heavy for a while now; his 2007 PhD thesis, 500 pages worth about the Sandanista Movement and associated influences, is surely much on his mind and his passion for finding some more contemporary relevance is understandable.

Still; when after 2000 words the conclusion is that

It is hard to believe that Obama really supports the full politics of Ayers and Dohrn (does he really believe, as they do, that living in the U.S. is "living in the belly of the beast"?) or Katz and Davidson.

what you’ve got is pretty thin gruel. It might be that Obama shares some views with Davidson and Katz, who are pretty unremarkable if solidly leftist, but I just can’t see Barry sitting around the kitchen table with Michelle and Bill and Bernie plotting to go blow up the Pentagon; he just doesn’t appear to have the temperament for explosives.

But hey; maybe with a little creative thinking there is a thread to pull here:

Nonetheless, Obama has been unwilling to explain his relationship to them;

And there ya go; Obama has failed to deny unfounded accusations – Gotcha now, you slippery bastard! Nothing happened, therefore it must mean something; it would be irresponsible not to speculate.

Plus, there’s this stark evidentiary trail of philosophical collusion:

…his [Obama’s]education advisor advocates one of Ayers' key policies: repaying the "education debt" - race based reparations in the form of dumping more money into a broken school system; and Obama himself has spoken sympathetically of the same idea.

Damn; really nailed Obama there. As Diamond more thoroughly documents in earlier postings , Obama’s education advisor Linda Darling-Hammond co-authored a report from the Forum for Education and Democracy advocating an aggressive Federal push for improvement in public education with particular emphasis on the disaster that is entrapping our poorest children in a lifetime of ignorance and continued impoverishment. Obama has suggested, as have many others including myself, that the issue of slavery “reparations” can be addressed through collective investment in social benefit programs such as public education for both rural and inner-city poor, and jobs training and higher education assistance for poor adults.

Diamond sees this, the salvaging of public education and the providing of economic opportunity to the downtrodden, as evidence of “authoritarianism of the Left.” I say Diamond’s claim is bullshit.

But wait, there’s more. Let’s give Diamond his full due on this topic. He has also penned an article on April 22, now with several updates, entitled Who “sent” Obama? which attempts to tie Obama tightly to both the Chicago political corruption machine and the violent authoritarianism of Ayers. It fails at both, but this time it takes him 4500 words – the thing about bullshit is the higher you try to pile it, the more work it takes.

These are Diamond’s linkage words in the critical accusation (para # 25, m/l), dissected like bones from the covering fleshy text so we can see the strength of what he has to offer as proof:

I can only speculate…it is possible…That might have happened if…if…might have…My best guess….

That’s it. That’s all that Diamond has; speculation, ifs on top of ifs, capped by a guess. Very impressive though in its own malicious way, impressive enough to generate radio talk show appearances for Diamond

What is the influence of Bill Ayers on the Obama campaign? I will be discussing that question this Sunday (June 16) at approximately 11:30 PM West Coast time (8:30 East Coast) in part II of my chat with John Batchelor. Click here to listen live on the web on KFI-640 AM (LA).

Hot damn again! A real honest-to-goodness two-part radio interview! Respect! Fame! Knowing what it feels like to be a Very Important Person, just like Dana Milbank! Mission Accomplished!

And like all good demagogues, Diamond has now declared victory over the horrific influence of the “authoritarian Left” that he conjured but failed to document. In a column today, June 10, titled Obama's retreat from Bill Ayers begins - is there room under that bus?, Diamond writes:

Finally understanding that the links between Obama and former Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers are toxic, the Obama campaign has begun a strategic retreat from Comrade Ayers. Now they are hiding behind the petticoat of Hizzoner Mayor Richie Daley as explained today at Hot Air.

If you’re into Ed Morrissey - and I will unhesitatingly and proudly state that I am not - by all means go and read, but again there is no there, there. No retreat from anything, in any way at all, except in the minds of Morrissey and Diamond and those who think like them.

Recap and Conclusion

In both cases discussed above, we see the same pattern. Some VRWC operative, known in one case and unknown in another, starts an unfounded rumor designed to damage Barack Obama’s chances for the Presidency. In Larry Johnson’s case he was approached by the VRWC operatives covertly, perhaps directly but probably through trusted intermediaries, and Johnson was used to spread the deceit through the blogosphere and eventually into the M$S. In Steve Diamond’s case, the overt VWRC operatives were first facilitated by the M$M tool Milbank, whose work was picked up not only by other M$M operatives but the blogger Diamond from whence it spread again like an infection throughout the web community.

The time course is terrifying; from a VRWC presser on May 22 to the MSM on May 23 to a colluding attack by a blogger on May 25. It couldn’t be infecting faster if it were Ebola. Clickety-click, the lies are spread about Obama just as they were about Hillary and Kerry and Gore and Bill Clinton and Dukakis and Carter and on backwards as far as anyone cares to look. This cycle, however, was a big step upwards in complexity for the VRWC with a very great many of the supposedly progressive blogs joining the M$M to destroy Hillary Clinton, the stronger of the two dominant Democratic candidates.

With her apparently out of the way the M$M is now beginning to follow the lead of the VRWC and turn on Obama, again aided by foundationless attacks from supposedly progressive bloggers. I am not alone in seeing this as cause for serious concern. Anglachel, concisely and stoutly, describes the magnitude of the hazard smartly here and again more recently here. I don’t always see eye-to-eye with her, but in these two posts she is spot-on. The progressive blogosphere is systematically destroying any chance of defeating John McCain and thereby enabling the continued horrific destruction of the Plutocratic Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

The question, of course, is why. Is it just the seemingly endless inability of the Left to get along, the apparently inevitable in-fighting that has allowed the VRWC to control the presidency or the Congress or both for such a large percentage of the last 40 years? Or is there something more going on here?

Since we’re all into speculation and supposition and connecting the dots, because it is so much fun, let’s have a go at it right here. It seems to me, looking at the above, that the migration of bloggers from the Right to what was widely seen as at least semi-progressive political positions was not what it appeared to be. Instead of being rejectionists of Bush and the Republican Party, these bloggers including Huffington and Sullivan and Kos and so many others were in actuality trained and funded operatives of the VRWC. They were sent to take over the blogosphere and allowed to establish a cover by attacking Bush et al because the VRWC powers knew that it wouldn’t matter; Bush/Cheney would just keep doing whatever they wanted anyway.

In this most perilous time, when the VRWC is on the one hand close to a full takeover of the Federal government by co-opting the courts while on the other hand teetering on the brink of possible real investigations and even criminal convictions should a Democrat gain the White House, the agents were turned loose along with the M$M to exclude Edwards and the other white males by ignoring them (Step 1) so they could focus on attacking Hillary Clinton. The Republicans knew that she would be a real threat in the general election, so she had to be shut down in the primary. It was touch and go, but with a level of virulent sexism and misogyny exceeding any plausible bounds of justifiable political discourse, they achieved Step 2.

Now, with the weaker national candidate chosen for the Democrats, the job of the VRWC is to damage him so completely that even with the American public completely disenchanted with Republican policies they will still elect John McCain (Step 3). Long buried secret agents like Steve Diamond have been activated to echo the VRWC anti-Obama talking points, so that he can seen to be under attack from both the Right and the Left for being an un-American secret tool of some kind of authoritarian conspiracy to sell out American freedom. If everyone is saying it, it must be true.

“A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”

V.I. Lenin

Now these lies and baseless character assassinations have been brought to Corrente, by anonymous posters who are either paid operatives for or agents of the VRWC – or, possibly, their unwitting dupes. If this scurrilous behavior, this concerted effort to destroy any chance of a Democratic victory, this full-out effort to ensure that the Republican McCain will be victorious, this unrelenting drive to make certain that the crimes and destruction of the past 40 years by one Republican after another will stay protected, continues here at Corrente it will have me as an implacable foe.

One more Presidential victory is all they need; after four more years the courts will be completely overrun by VRWC agents, from Federal District Courts to the whole of the SCOTUS. The operational branches of the Executive will have been totally restructured as tools of corporatist expansion, the social safety net and public education will be destroyed beyond rescue, American Empire will squat across the Middle East at whatever cost in blood and treasure is demanded, and the broader American public will be so demoralized and subservient that extraction of capital wealth for the benefit of the upper socioeconomic 1% can continue unabated. The Plutocrats will have won.

If this despicable, destructive movement cannot be stopped here, then where? If it cannot be stopped now, then when? I will not tolerate the spreading of falsehoods that benefit the cause of the VRWC. I will not tolerate the spreading of lies about the only remaining individual who stands in the way of the destruction of my country.

I Will Not Tolerate It.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Come ahead, prove me wrong

Bring It On.

damn your eyes

i go out to spend part of the not-yet-here economic stimulus check on something completely frivolous and come back home to find --

But like so many people, people other than me, he has a flaw

dude! you owe me a new keyboard.

lj and enablers: damnable lies and lie-mongering indeed. also, creepy, spot-on.

dana milbank: you read dana milbank so i don't have to, and for that you have my undying gratitude.

steve diamond: i agree with your assessment of him on corporate, labor and international finance law, not because i know much about any of them or about steve diamond, but because his writings that i've read in those areas [thanks to the michelle obama whiteyfest] seem sane and logical and and fact-based and well-reasoned.

caffeinated spider webs: nice analogy, and i can't argue for or against them based on reason or logic, or even willingness to do more reading than i already have, but i just gotta say, based on my years of hanging out with marxists, neo-marxists, anarchists of various stripes, and commie pinko red diaper babies all grown up, i don't for a minute believe they've been able to recruit obama to be their mole, the one they've been waiting for, who finally takes down the man. in fact, it looks to me more like he's co-opting real leftists to dress up his centrism with some much-needed street cred.

strictly anecdotal evidence [and meta, at that] and irresponsible speculation that i'm offering, i realize that, but i'm not seeing any left authoritarian control here. i could always be wrong, there are politicians with remarkable acting talents out there, and i hear obama has been playing poker for years now, so i suppose he and his handlers have me bamboozled.

oh, and i'm feeling left out, not being to run youtube videos at dialup speeds.

I'm grateful

for this post.

You are right, bringiton. Thank you for this.

And while I have less faith than you that Obama stands in the way of destruction, the ends do not justify the means. We must not become like them.

Quick question

Without commenting on the rest of your post, which makes excellent sense: You quote from a comment of mine concerning my opinion of Johnson's veracity, then write, "And that, apparently, is all it takes."

Is all what takes? I don't understand the disdain you obviously have for that comment. I didn't make it in a vacuum; others in the comment thread had said they believed Johnson was lying, but that hasn't been my impression. What's wrong with my saying so? I haven't been spreading the rumor, just watching it spread, as have you. And I did not say I thought the rumor was true--to the contrary. Nor was I praising him for making it public.

Seems to me if Johnson is lying, if he himself made up the rumor, you can't make a case for the rumor originating with the VRWC, so the issue of his veracity or lack thereof is important.

Help me out here! What's the problem?

he was fed it--he didn't originate

it...i think he's made that clear.

he's like the Milbanks and Dowds who dutifully repeat and spread this stuff, i think.

BIO: would Obama be the nominee if

he was actually unacceptable to all various powers-that-be? (and that includes many rightwing figures and conservatives -- Mr. Right? )

And do you actually think these kinds of "he's a commie" slurs accomplish things beyond ensuring that he'll move even further right to counter them? (and isn't that in fact one important goal/result of the eternal painting of all Dems as radical and outside the mainstream?)

And when even Maureen Dowd--the uber-Heather and propagator of oh-so-many smears of Dems--is talking about that video rumor-- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/opinio...

, don't you think that anyone else (without her platform, or Drudge's or Politico's, etc) mentioning it pales in comparison to the most important thing about all smears: How the candidate deals with them?

As opposed to the muslim emails, which have already done their permanent damage, this is flowering now--in real time--and is important for a host of reasons. These things are expected--and we'd all think that someone who accomplished their own versions of them against the Clintons would have been ready, no?

It's not about truth or lies, but about what happens every cycle. And about what goals are achieved by these things--every time.

oh, also--

countering these things with the truth is often really really damaging for those of us who actually are liberals and believe in things--

Obama's for school vouchers, which hurt public schools--for just one example on something you listed.

And for a commie, backtracking on letting Bush's tax cuts expire (which he's done already--subject to "if they advise it'll hurt growth", he said) is a weird way to make this a worker's paradise, no?

...

The problem, as I see it

is giving any slack to this kind of behavior at all. It needs to be called out for what it is, either a lie or damn foolishness, on the spot.

As I read your comment, it appeared to me to read that you were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, that he's earnestly repeating what he's been told, and that this earnestness somehow mitigates the perfidy. If I'm mistaken in that interpretation, please explain to me what else you might have meant.

The internet is an incredible force; for good or ill, depending on how it is used. When people like Johnson use it as he has in this case, for no beneficial good at all for anyone but himself, I say he needs to be condemned. Whether he is honestly propagating the truth, honestly propagating a lie, or knowingly being part of a deceit does not to me matter one whit. The damage comes from propagation of an unsourced, unproven claim that damages others. Too damn much of that going around.

Nothing against you as a person; kind, well-intentioned people often make undeserved allowances for the unacceptable behavior of others.

i don't believe he had good intentions, but

i also saw it for what it was--and this is politics, where it's expected.

i see Johnson and others on all sides as doing the same things that candidates, rightwing groups, leftwing ones, professional ppl like Stone/Atwater/Rove/etc, all do--smearing their opponents.

Blogactive and others who have outed ppl are a good comparison too--they've spread rumors and unproven assertions too--to stop closeted GOP officials from hurting us. I applaud those guys, but you wouldn't, i guess.

(i'm up too late--to be continued tom'w...)

Degrees of perfidy

it appeared to me to read that you were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, that he’s earnestly repeating what he’s been told, and that this earnestness somehow mitigates the perfidy.

I do think there are degrees of perfidy, yes, and that it's important to elucidate them. Granted, it makes appropriate condemnation more difficult; it's so much easier just to kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out.

But as I noted--and you haven't addressed--we can't lay the rumor about the tape at the feet of the VRWC if Johnson made it up. If we just blame Johnson and assume he was lying, and in fact he was telling the truth about what he was told, then the real perps escape condemnation altogether.

So Johnson's perfidy in spreading the rumor at all, even if he believed it to be true, even if it is true, is a separate issue, one I was not addressing at all. (Although I did point out that I was not a Johnson fan, so that might have given you a clue that I wasn't happy about what he was doing.)

I might also note that when you originally referenced my comment via a link in the thread on your "Sack of Pus" post, and orionATL objected, you claimed you had "copied and pasted a link to the wrong screen" and that you only wanted to link back to your original post. Turns out that wasn't true. You said you weren't attacking me, but you've now made it clear that you were most certainly attacking my judgment.

Nothing against you as a person; kind, well-intentioned people often make undeserved allowances for the unacceptable behavior of others.

Ironically, here you've mitigated my "perfidy": my judgment may be terrible, but that doesn't mean I'm not kind and well intentioned.

In any case, my original comment asked why Johnson was being charged with racism for publicizing the rumor--a whole 'nother degree-of-perfidy issue. I'm still interested in that one.

Feh

I think the default setting here needs to be that anybody's arguments can be attacked at any time, because bad arguments deserve to die, and the only way to kill them is to kill them (because bad arugments, ignored, spread). Further, attacking somebody's arguments isn't the same thing as attacked the person.

I really have less than no interest in who said what to whom when. It's a tiresome tangle and who wants to take the time to sort it out? Not me.

[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

I thought Larry Johnson had an excellent and urgent reason -

which was to get the tape out in order to save Hillary as the nominee, while there is still time.
He has been told that the Repubs are only postponing releasing it until Barack has the nomination sewn up. In other words, if you are afraid of Pres. McCain, you should be very anxious for this tape, and all other devastating info on Obama to come out, toute suite.
I believe Johnson sees Hillary as the strong and competent candidate, and sees Obama as a disaster in the general election. He was hoping (vainly, as many of us) that the outing of the tape now would deliver Hillary as Dem candidate, our only chance for Dem president. The same thing you want.
It was the opposite of stupid or selfish reasons.

The rest of your post looks interesting, too, but I've only had time to skim it tonight.
It deals with an issue that seems very important and paradoxical - who is Obama, and why do some people think he is lefty communist and others (like me) see him as right-wing, no policy, New Deal killer, Republican corporate shill.
The fact that MSCM sells him 24/7 is kind of a clue. Oh, I forgot, they're all liberals. Including GE, Viacom. Of course they are.
Definitely deserves further discussion. Other question is what is it about Obama that encourages such diverse speculation and projection? Who is that masked man? And what will he do for (to) our country?

amber, there are a whole host of real issues

that need sorting out. It is impossible to do that, for you or I or Obama, in the midst of a constant rain of lies and misdirections coming from all sides. The VRWC will try to muddy the water as much as they can. Obama will have to deal with it. My complaining here, let me be clear, is with the portion of the blogosphere that calls itself progressive - or liberal or at least earnestly antiestablishment - that is also propagating lies and malicious half-truths against Obama. It is the wrong thing to do, just as it was wrong to do it against Hillary.

Discuss, attack if you must, on the real basis of where you see deficiencies in Obama's policies. No problem there from me.

But claims that Obama is an endorser of or is influenced by authoritarians and terrorists? That Michelle Obama is a raging racist? Either cough up the proof - real proof - or STFU.

what about the lies that are for him tho?

are those better? worse? just as bad?

and the lies candidates themselves tell us--both about themselves and against opponents? and when they themselves use those rightwing smears to stop opponents but end up killing possibilities for progress (like using Harry and Louise on healthcare)?

isn't there a "live by the sword, die by the sword" thing operating?

and is "truth" really a good principle to use given the realities of our systems (of politics/govt and information/news/media) when the actual goals and policies and actions desired seem to only be attained thru winning by any means--the destruction of opponents and silencing/discrediting of opposition being proven widely successful?

Live by the sword, indeed...

When Axelrod was shopping around his slimy assassin-Hillary "golf" when she pointed to a memorable primary event in June in her response to WWTSBQ ...well, now! again, now, ok now! geez! NOW, its gottabe NOW!

However, that said, I will not stoop to rumourmong, like them.

I will counter absurd lies from now on, even though it is too late for the main threat to the oiligarchy to win, at least till 2012.

I bitterly regret that the exile blogosphere was not organised in a way to stand up to the unreal lies kos spread about HRC. Or maybe you were, I only discovered these other political blogs recently as a refugee.

Aside from the moral correctness, as the tiny surviving vestige of the reality-based counter-media, we must retain our dispassionate coverage or all our heads WILL EXPLODE!

but when the candidates themselves are wallowing in it,

what benefit do you get to avoiding gossip and rumors and smears besides feeling superior ?

What impact does your truth have when that's not what gets spread, and is in fact not wanted at all by your candidate? When it's not going to affect the things any candidate does in office -- especially this cycle? Or the goals you want achieved? When neither candidate is running on issues and they're both using lies and smears to get elected?

It's like one sapling falling in a forest when all around they're clearcutting the whole thing for grazing land for McDonalds beef.

He was fed it?

Pretty passive, that. Did somebody make him chew and swallow and regurgitate too?

No excuse for Johnson; he's responsible for what he did, not some mystery person. If he knows for certain that the tape exists, he should out whoeverhas it so we can all see for ourselves what it is. If it doesn't actually exist, then we can all move on. What he's done, tell about it but leave it hanging like a sword over Obama and the Democratic Party, is purely damaging with no good acomplished.

Everybody else does it is also no excuse. If Milbank and Dowd are the standards for acceptable behavior in the progressive world, all is lost.

Booman deserves blame too then--

he posted pushback of some transcript or something, which further spread it.

And the bigger media did not simply get it from Johnson--whoever told him told many others, and Novak teased damaging video that Clinton refused to use ages ago, for instance...the stage was set for this not by Johnson--he was simply one person who ran with it for his own reasons--others are running with it for their own reasons too.

Hipparchia, be grateful

could have been the CPU.

Don't eat much at Taco Bell, but every time I see one I think of Demolition Man; highly recommended.

i'm going through withdrawal

i don't know what drug they put in their salsa [the one of chopped-up tomatoes and onions and cilantro, not that liquidy sauce stuff] but what with killer tomatoes and all, i had to settle for less.

i'll check that one out.

is “truth” really a good principle to use?

Ah, yes.

Otherwise, all is lost. If we don't strive to defend and employ some reasonable semblance of "truth" then we are no better than scavangers squabbling over a corpse. Without the aspiration of, the struggling towards, a set of "truths" there really is no point to civilization at all. I'm a civilized person, and I have no patience for anarchy.

What about other people who lie? They need to be condemned. Just like I'm doing here. That lots of people lie a lot of the time does not justify anyone else doing it.

That rigidity aside, for the sake of your argument, please explain to me exactly how progressive/liberal/ antiestablishment interests are furthered by promoting lies about Obama? Any way at all.

how progressive/liberal/ antiestablishment interests are ....

I'd say that because he isn't progressive or liberal or antiestablishment in reality, and is actually to the right of even Hillary in many ways, spreading any and all rumors and/or lies about him--ones that are intended to hurt him or to help him, btw--are all part of the usual election noise.

Facts are not being spread by him, his campaign staff, his supporters -- or his opponents -- not about him, people around him or the guy he is running against. And of course the media is almost never spreading facts either, but constructing drama, narratives, and following scripts, etc.

Truth is not involved in any aspect of it--except when it comes to factchecking statements (which includes rumors and lies and exaggerations both pro and con). If that was a priority months ago, i'd see a case for it continuing--unfortunately, i won't defend those who gleefully used lies and smears to demean and smear good Democrats--and to tar all the many millions who didn't vote for the nominee.

And the standards can't all of a sudden start now--that's closing the barn door long after all sides have been benefited --and hurt-- by all the lies--after months of savaging one candidate to favor another. Calling for truth now is very convenient and will be ignored as usual. It also is both hypocritical and hobbling--especially when the candidates themselves lie every day in multiple ways.

plus, anyone who runs

should be a big enough boy or girl to deal with all this--it's not like any of it is new or a surprise.

Plenty of people to blame; damn them all to hell and gone

Whatever integrity the Left may have had is fast slipping away. The more we behave like Rove, the more difficult it is to condemn him. If there is no separation from your enemy, why bother with the struggle? Why bother with morality at all? Why not just raid and pillage and steal and kill and rape and lie? Other people do it.

Because doing right is its own reward.

Regardless of what others do, I want to do what's right to the best of my ability. Otherwise I'd be just like them, and I don't want that at all.

Can I still enjoy a little Schadenfreude

watching the OFB heads exploding in amazement when it hits their guy, though?

Other people do....

Sure --- if a pie is thrown...

You can still follow Thomas Friedman's example and enjoy a few licks.

gaining power in politics demands winning--

if you can win with truth, you do. If you can win with destroying opposition, you do. If you can win with lies, you do. If you can win running on issues, you do.

You can't implement any goals without first gaining power and winning--If we had a candidate who cared about the issues and goals, he'd run on those things--he's not, so why should anyone else?

Why should anyone act honestly when the person they're supposed to support doesn't? When you can't use the truth of them ? (their resume, accomplishments, or even their vaunted "judgment")

And when the other party wins with smears, rumors, and lies every single time?

This has been the precise argument used

to justify every every evil act in history.

except that we're not talkin about evil acts, but about

politics and elections and what happens in them--every single time for more than 100 years if not 200.

Invading Iraq was evil, but it wasn't about "winning an election" or "winning a contest" so that you could use government to help people (or to help your friends only, if you're GOP).
There were people in power who either planned on doing it all along or decided to do it after 9/11--there was no comparison to an election---but the key thing was that they had already won and were able to do it because of that previous win.

DialUp

Ah well. I love my cable.

Pat Benatar - Hit me with your best shot

cable

i'm seriously considering it. pat benatar rocks. thanks.

I find Larry Johnson far less odious than the MSM and OFB

he may be a dupe, but he was straightforward as to what he knew and didn't know.

The MSM/OFB knew damn well the truth about the RFK/"as far as I know"/"fairy tale" fauxrages and they kept repeating the dishonest versions.

------------------------------------------------
“Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are.”
- Franklin D. Roosevelt

x

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

"I" statements, MyIQ

My standards, my condemnation; your tolerance may vary.

I have no use for the behavior, nor do I find the excuse persuasive that some other people are somehow worse. Damn them all.

that's what both Obama and McCain are running on--entirely.

that the other is and will be worse.

If you can handle the costs, cable is the cat's meow

Had DSL, but cable is better in my experience. From dialup it is the difference between walking and flying. A whole new world opens up.

Benatar can be good; as a package, I'm more about Joan Jett.

cat's meows

i has them

joan jett: pioneering grrrl rocker extraordinaire
pat benatar: wider range of musical styles
i have to choose? just shoot me now.

used to have dsl. minor tiff with isp. holding off on any extra expenses, saving up for family reunion later this summer.

i'll probably go with cable this fall.

This is a corollary to Anglachel's point

That when the netroots use the tactics of mainstream and right-wing faux journalism, our power is vanquished.

Larry surely began as more well-intentioned. But unfair smears cannot be rationalized by "but theirs was worse." And yes, their smears against Clinton and us were worse. Much, much worse. But we must not give up our moral authority so that we can no longer call it out.

The answer must be to clean it up, not to give up and surrounder to the nihilism, as bringiton points out eloquently and passionately.

It is my hope that those who feel criticized by bringiton's post can try to move past perhaps an understandable defensiveness and swiftly into more of a "yeah, point taken, ok now what's to be done?" mode.

Thanks.

I don't have either the experience or the talent to discuss the authoritarian left in any context related to Obama's past, and electing him instead of McCain is too important to risk.

There is no such thing as leverage.

"It couldn’t be infecting faster if it were Ebola."

Indeed. Not everything is equally infectious though, for some odd reason.

I'd like to think that the battle is between truth and truthiness, but unfortunately things aren't that simple.

What a dispiriting post, bringiton. Great, but dispiriting.

[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

Good Gravy.

Why not just raid and pillage and steal and kill and rape and lie?

I'll just bring this all back to reality and point out that all Larry said originally was "Heads Up".

The rest is history.

Now if you want to call Larry a "liar", I could care less.

But I don't think we really want to get into a discussion about "ethical reportage and discussion in the blogosphere" lest some A-listers get their feelings hurt.

Interesting that your ire was directed towards Larry though.

I'll steal from Lambert (no ethics!)

Not everything is equally infectious though, for some odd reason.

Pffff.

PB 2.0 might be stillborn.

PB 2.0 will be stillborn, unless

we can muster enough fortitude to love the truth more than we love "our side".

There's been plenty of criticism directed at the A-listers, by name, and there should be more. I don't know the extent of the damage they've caused with their unbridled hate-fest. I've never seen anything like it.

But I have seen the like of the damage that can be done by the conspiracy-mongers touting Obama's "connections" to Communists, etc. I saw it in the drug-induced fantasies of my lefty peers in the late sixties and early seventies. It's stupid, it's evil, it should be called out wherever it rears its ugly body parts of any kind.

Thanks are due to BIO for bothering to analyze this idiotic stuff, so transparently malicious and idiotic that it made me roll my eyes so fast they practically fell out after one paragraph. Oh yeah, and for having a great sense of humor.

Policy not party!

PB 2.0 will not be stillborn....

... if Corrente has anything to do with it.

[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

It's already headed that way, dear sir

I make a big stink about setting up an infrastructure because we seem to be piecing things together in a very ad hoc manner which, to me, doesn't seem stable.

Personally, I think something like PUMA is a good idea. But it seems mostly based on anti-Obama sentiment. Not to toot my own horn too much, but I've been skeptical of the whole online progressive movement for years and years.

The reactionary nature of PB1.0 should have made the abandoning of principles vis a vis Hillary Hating obvious. There were no fundamental principles discussed or debated. It was all about reacting. The right will talk about Milton Friedman or Nozick or Buckley or whoever. I almost never hear about Rawls or Hobbes or Kant or Mill in liberal political discussions. The left seems to be stuck in a Platonic "philosopher king" mindset without any balance by ideas from Isaiah Berlin or [insert name here]. There are bright people on the left, but we seem stuck in an adolescent intellectualism when it comes to political philosophy. Winning should be about more than elections. The Right shifted the entire political spectrum while the Left just wants to win by electing Dems who are part of the shifted political spectrum. Look at Big Tent Dem at TalkLeft, good guy but chose his candidate based off "electability"--adolescent intellectualism at its finest. We won't get far that way.

Sorry for the rant (but not really).

Excellent rant, gq, much appreciated

This is worth a post of its own. Not to make assignments, but it would be well worthwhile right at this time and better served by being at the top of a discussion rather than down here in the cellar.

Tough choices, sometimes, in electoral politics, between the electable yet flawed candidate and one who is policy excellent but unelectable.

"The Truth"

The great Terry Pratchett wrote a terrific novel of that title about, oddly enough, a newspaper of that name. In the book, the following cliche is oft repeated:

A lie can run round the world before the truth has got its boots on.

And so, apparently, this primary season. And we have a paradigmatic, classic example. The Howler has (yet another) must read post on this very topic:

THE PROBLEM WITH TELLING/NOT TELLING THE TRUTH: For our money, the problem with telling/not telling the truth came home in Monday’s New York Times. John Broder and Robin Toner were being truthful—or, perhaps, were being un-truthful—in this part of their report on “the complicated Clinton legacy:”

BRODER/TONER (6/9/08): Allies of the Clintons and neutral observers alike said Mrs. Clinton had much to be proud of in this campaign. ...

But she also made comments that divided voters along racial lines, stretched the facts and last month raised the specter of assassination as a justification for remaining in the race to the bitter end despite a mathematical near-certainty that she had lost weeks earlier.

Wow! According to Broder and Toner, Clinton “raised the specter of assassination as a justification for remaining in the race to the bitter end.”

Quick note: That statement by Broder is so opaque that you’d have no real idea what it meant if you hadn’t been following the story. But if you have been following the story, you’d know exactly what it meant. According to John Broder and Robin Toner, Clinton said she was staying in the race in case Barack Obama was murdered. Of course, for people able to read and write English, it was always clear that Clinton hadn’t said that—and for people who are able to reason, it was always clear that such a “strategy” wouldn’t really make sense. But so what? Clinton was slimed—savagely slimed—by many journalists. They proclaimed that she had made that remarkable statement.

Which brings us to the current problem—the problem of telling/not telling the truth. Do Broder and Toner believe that Clinton made that statement?

So it would seem that we really do have a litmus test here for people who are FITH or not. If, with the Obama campaign, you originally propagated the baseless RFK assassination smear, and haven't stopped propagating it -- and, ideally, have retracted -- then you're FITH, like Broder and Toner.

And it's important to be able to sort out who's FITH and who's not, as Eric Boehlert pointed out at Eschacon, oddly, or not, to applause from about half the room:

What’s happening online now is potentially dangerous: HRC has gotten dreadful press, not fair, “gotcha,” and so on — there’s a portion of the blogosphere that has ignored that and there’s a portion that has encouraged that.

It’s dangerous because the media criticism has to be consistent and relentless, and we can’t very well say, “You can’t go after our candidates … except this one.” I get nervous about pushback regarding disingenuous coverage - our response needs to be, “You can’t treat Democrats this way.” When people in the left blogosphere are quoting an anonymous Matt Drudge source, it makes me nervous.

And bringiton is indeed being "consistent and relentless" here.

The problem here -- and I'm not being tendentious, this is really causing my head to explode -- appears in bringiton's closing peroration:

If this despicable, destructive movement cannot be stopped here, then where? If it cannot be stopped now, then when? I will not tolerate the spreading of falsehoods that benefit the cause of the VRWC. I will not tolerate the spreading of lies about the only remaining individual who stands in the way of the destruction of my country.

I Will Not Tolerate It.

The problem here is that the Obama campaign, and much of the A list propagated the RFK smear. They're FITH in the worst way. The methods and the result are exactly the same as the methods and the result of what the VRWC does. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.

So, truth is more important than electing a candidate? Or not? If it's not more important, then what relevance does the truth have to what LJ is doing? If it is more important, then what is the difference between the VWRC and the Obama Movement except new faces and the passage of time?

UPDATE Further, the sheer quantity of lies is vast. How to categorize which lies to attack first, and which to let go under pressure of time? Personally, I feel that by the side of the press, the campaigns, the A list, and the OFB, that LJ and Diamond are pretty small beer. But maybe I'm wrong. Is there a taxonomy or hierarchy of lies, such that some should be attacked first? I suppose I'd go for "the lies told by my enemies" if I were the nly actor in the system but I'm not. "Lies told by my enemies that others are not dealing with capably" might be more appropriate, but even that leaves a lot of lies to be dealt with.

[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

Bringing a knife to a gun fight works, if truth is on our side?

Obama -- yes him, not his subordinates or his handlers -- allowed the RFK smear to continue until it stopped serving his purpose. It was a lie, he knew it, and he allowed it to be spread through his organization's deliberate actions.

When we told the truth, provided tape, quoted Clinton's interviewers who endorsed her after their talk, what changed?

If lies are more powerful, more filled with meaning, than the truth, and we have lost again and again and again through telling the truth -- hell, what's the latest impeachment posturing about except putting that truth one more time into the public record -- then how do we fight?

If lies are nuclear, do we stick with unilateral disarmament, when the conventional wisdom is M.A.D.?

And, if the people who oppose (not dismiss, but actively oppose) the necessary difficult reforms to restore representative democracy to this country -- through purging of civil servants who were hired in violation of the Hatch Act, the war profiteers in government and in the defense industry, or through investigation of the agencies that have sacrificed truth for profit (that's what 'non-partisanship' boils down to, a lack of opposition to this present administration's crimes) -- do so with a (D) after their names, and I am told I must vote for them else the crimes they really aren't opposed to will continue -- won't they, after all, turn out to be the authoritarian left?

they might be, but that's not the case with this candidate--

and getting our checks and balances restored and true opposition reborn in Congress outweighs any possible worry about authoritarians on the left--there never really are any people who are on the left in the Exec Branch--ever--especially Presidents. It's not a realistic worry--especially now that we have a candidate who refuses ALL MANDATES for everything good and progressive, and only has tepid proposals that won't withstand the GOP anyway.

(i personally would lie like the devil to get a true liberal

in the WH--even a weird and deeply flawed one like LBJ)

Oh, Lambert...

...you nailed it yet again:

If [truth] is more important [than electing a candidate], then what is the difference between the VWRC and the Obama Movement except new faces and the passage of time?

My head has been wanting to explode; you just gave it permission to do so by articulating the problem so clearly.

I hope to Goddess my state isn't in contention come election day, because the lesser of the two evils just isn't lesser enough for me. I'm afraid I'll walk into the voting booth and stand there paralyzed, and they'll have to drag me out on a stretcher, babbling incoherently.