dubyaD40.com - Guest Blog

dubyaD40.com's Guest Blog

Obama Waffles
Monday, September 15, 2008

Joan Lowy of The Huffington Post recently wrote of the Values Voters Summit, a right wing political shindig sponsored by such organizations as the Family Research Council, American Values and Focus on the Family Action. Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich were two of the featured speakers.

During the course of said summit, boxes of Obama Waffles waffle mix flew off the shelves at $10 a pop. Obama Waffles - I get it. The party who brings us the candidate with more flip flops than a college sorority is trying to tell us Barack Obama is a flipper himself. Frankly, it's a clever pun and an inspired move, even if it's not true. It's even enough to elicit a few chuckles and make a Democratic campaign manager wish he thought of it first.

But the concept is where it stops being funny. It gets offensive when it includes a caricature of Obama with stereotypical bug eyes and big lips. And that's just the front of the box. The top flap shows him in Arab headgear, pushing the false notion that he's really a Muslim instead of a Christian (implying that Obama isn't what he says he is AND that it's bad to be Muslim, so... double score!). On the back he wears a Mexican sombrero alongside a recipe for Open Border Fiesta Waffles, which serves "4 or more illegal aliens."

To quote Daffy Duck: "Ha, ha. Very funny. It is to laugh."

The creators of this gimmick (who won't be mentioned here because they don't deserve the publicity) shrug off any suggestion of impropriety by comparing it to Paul Newman using a picture of himself wearing a mustache to sell Italian dressing. It seems to have escaped them that their chosen model was not a willing participant and the pictures have nothing to do with the product. (I'm also reasonably certain they can be sued for using his image without his permission, but Obama's the lawyer so I'll let him worry about that one.)

What bugs me most is that these organizations do what they do under the guise of "family values". This was a "Values Voters Summit," after all. How is it a family value to disparage people who have different ideas and opinions? What exactly are these people teaching their children once they get home? Do they give explicit, rigorous lessons on how to offend and marginalize people or is it more subtle? Is there perhaps a cartoon video series for the younger kids?

Thirty years ago, having values included being polite, having a certain level of tolerance, and being kind to those less fortunate. At least that's what I was taught. I don't think that's really changed. The only thing that's changed is that the word "values" has been hijacked for political gain. It's being used by slick hucksters to sell a political brand that bears no real resemblance to its advertising. What kind of value is it to separate immigrant families, deporting the parents and leaving the children to languish in US custody (often in prisons)? What kind of value is it to tell a rape victim she can't have an abortion because it violates the sanctity of life, but attack a sovereign nation, killing thousands of mothers and children?

These people are guilty of false advertising on all fronts. Not just when they try to spread false claims about Obama, but when they try to paint a picture of themselves as benevolent and values-driven. You can call something "sugar free," but if there's high fructose corn syrup in there, it'll still make you fat. You can say someone has "values," but if they continually destroy people for their own gain, they still suck.

Permalink

Special Comment by Bob Kincaid of the H.O.R.N
Friday, May 9, 2008

Because of what I do (talk radio or, as we like to call it at The H.O.R.N., America's Liberal Voice, "Conversation Radio"), I spend a good deal of time (probably more than is healthy, really) thinking about the media in our country.

We liberals/progressives/decent human beings have been mostly disgusted with the media's behavior for almost my entire adult life (N.B.: I'm 45). It's worsened to a degree almost unimaginable in the last eight years and, since March of 2007 has managed to inflame both the partisans of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, as well as the rest of us liberals/progressives/decent human beings.

With the rise of the internets and particularly blogging, a new phrase entered the lexicon: "Mainstream Media." It has hung on like white on rice, like a dog on a bone-wagon, like a duck on a junebug, like stink on, well, never mind. You get the point.Some folks have periodically noted that the media are anything BUT "mainstream." The media in this country are largely owned by a consortium or perhaps sextumvirate of some six major corporations. That gave rise to the term "corporate media," which is accurate as far as it goes.What it doesn't do, however, is go all the way to the vile, bilious, throbbing heart of the problem.

Now, I think I've found the moniker many of us have been looking for. It dawned on me last night during "The H.O.R.N. Section," when Peter Godbold, Jon Fox and I get together for an hour on the air and sort of free-form ideas, stories and even occasional outright silliness. You can hear the archives of the H.O.R.N. Section and every other H.O.R.N. program at www.whiterosesociety.org . The live streams are always available at http://www.headonradionetwork.com , among other places.

This idea, however, struck me as anything but silly. It came from my thoughts about Dennis Kucinich's entirely accurate description of our healthcare crisis stemming from what he called "For-profit healthcare."

And there it was: jiggling like an overburdened toxic waste dump glistening under a blistering sun: "The For-profit Media."

It really encapsulates everything that's wrong with the Timmehs and Tweetys and Becks and O'Reillys and Humes and Scarboroughs and Phlegmballs and SavageWeiners and "BUYGOLDNOW and spend it on our herbal erection concocktion! Use it while sleeping on a Swedish mattress developed by NASA and clean up the mess with a vacuum cleaner that picks up bowling balls" ads that litter the Fourth Estate. At the end of the day, in the final analysis, it's the profit motive that drives everything we loathe about American media behavior. It's behind Fox's incessant, obsessive use of titillating imagery. It's what drove CBS to hire Katie Couric for FIFTEEN MILLION DOLLARS a year (anybody know what Murrow made at the height of his career?). It's what jams BritneyLindsayParis Shark Attacks on Missing White Girls onto our screens nightafternightafternightafternightafternight. It's what keeps America dumbed-down and hyped-up.

So there you have it. Make free use of it. Beat 'em over the head with it.

The For-Profit Media.

With any luck, we can make Timmeh and Tweety start hallucinating it in their AlphaBits every morning.

Permalink

No Fun Being A Republican
Friday, October 5, 2007

From: Stephen Crockett
Date: October 5, 2007

BB King said it best when he sang "the thrill is gone." It certainly is no fun trying to defend Bush Republicanism going into the 2008 elections. Bush has simultaneously radicalized and corrupted the modern Republican Party. Unfortunately, the blight is bigger than the individuals running the Bush White House. The corruption and resulting incompetence has become institutionalized in the mechanics of the Republican political machine.

Recently, this writer held a discussion with Paul Tucker, Editor & Publisher of The Union News. He stated during that conversation that "Bush inherited a dynamic, strong and growing Republican Party and drove it over a cliff."

Surveying the wreckage, we can see a record number of Republican Congressional leaders announcing retirements. In the Senate, Democrats are likely to gain between 7 to 12 additional seats. Most polls predict fewer safe Republican seats in the House. Trends are all pointing towards a devastating defeat for Republicans in 2008 at all levels.

Some Republicans have been trying to distance themselves from Bush on a few key issues but are locked in a political death dance with their radicalized primary voters and severely corrupted corporate donor base. Republican candidates cannot win primaries without supporting Bush on Iraq. Candidates who support Bush on Iraq are going to get slaughtered nationally in the general election.

On trade policy, tax cuts for the wealthy, healthcare for children, no-bid contracts, torture, privacy, national health insurance, guaranteeing voting rights, punishing Republican politicians who are apparently lawbreakers (like Scooter Libby), expanding Presidential powers and many other issues, the Republican leadership and activist base hold views that large majorities of Americans oppose. Basically, the Republicans on most important issues are opposed to the views of the American people. It seems like a poor approach to winning elections for any political party.

Minority rule can only be imposed by the use of political tactics that offend ever growing majorities of voters. You can stop people from voting using various dirty tricks and illegal actions. You can corrupt the vote counts and obstruct recounts in contested elections. You can abuse your public office to serve partisan goals. You can corrupt law enforcement, prosecutions and trials for political gains. You can lie and lie and lie about everything.

You can smear your opponents. You can use fear, intimidation and character assassination. You can play parliamentary tricks like using filibusters to block overrides of vetoes. You can hide information about abuses using fake national security or executive privilege claims. You can engage in endless propaganda designed to prevent honest debate on the merits of policy. You can do many thing that might give your minority faction temporary victories. You can obstruct justice in many different ways.

Under Bush, the Republicans have used all of these offensive tactics and many more. The Bush era was born from these tactics in 2000. They have used them relentlessly, and fairly effectively, for the past 7 years but the results appear to have backfired. Moderates and fair-minded Republicans are leaving their Party in ever growing numbers. Democratic activism is growing. Independents are leaning very heavily toward the Democrats in all the polls on issue after issue.

Dirty tactics and poor policy positions have turned the Republicans into a shrinking minority. The more they shrink, the more they are reliant on dirty tactics and trapped by the radical, corrupt policy positions of those few who remain.

Right Wing Radicalism, cronyism, corruption and incompetence seem to dominate when Republicans rule. It is not much fun defending that kind of record or agenda. It is no fun being a Republican these days. It is not much fun being ruled by them, for the rest of us, either.

Stephen Crockett is co-host of Democratic Talk Radio

Permalink

What The Pundits Are Not Saying About Vitter
Friday, July 20, 2007

Stephen Crockett
July 19, 2007

This writer is surprised that the mainstream media seem to be controlling the political dialogue in America and (this is the surprising part) the political class is simply going along. The questions not being asked, the ideas not being reported and the serious problems not being addressed are much more important than those frequently available from the corporate controlled, mainstream media. The Vitter Sex Scandal is just one interesting example with a degree of sex appeal.

Why are politicians and media pundits not calling for the resignation of Senator Vitter? From the limited facts published in the corporate media, it looks like Vitter may be a criminal and a repeat offender. If the Republican Senator from Louisiana is truly a frequent consumer of the sexual services of prostitutes, he has violated laws.

Of course, Vitter may have sexual or emotional problems that explain his behavior. On the other hand, he may not be lying about his sexual behavior. It is slightly possible that all the others admitting to their sex for money relationships with Vitter are all liars. The DC Madam case just might be only a non-sexual escort service. The police and prosecutors might be wrong. Vitter might be innocent and everyone else guilty or wrong. For the official Vitter talking points to be valid, a large number of other individual must all be wrong.

Vitter is widely known as a morality crusader with his political base in the Christian Right. Vitter was a bitter critic of President Clinton during the impeachment process. Senator Vitter questioned Clinton's morality. Along with almost all the Republican leadership, he cited "breaking the law" over alleged perjury as the reason Clinton should be driven from public office.

Senator Vitter broke the law if he hired prostitutes. It is reported that Vitter did so often in different locations and with different prostitutes. If the details are correct, hiring prostitutes for sex is illegal in those jurisdictions. Using Vitter's own logic, he should be forced from office.

The sheer hypocrisy makes the Vitter Sex Scandal much worse. Vitter betrayed his wife. Vitter betrayed his oath of office. Vitter betrayed his supporters. He appears to be a liar along with being a hypocrite. Media pundits and politicians should be talking about this issue in these terms.

It might be worth exploring the legality of prostitution as a larger issue. The nation is long overdue for a new political dialogue on victimless crime issues like the legalization, regulation and taxation of marijuana. Even Republican politicians might approach these social issues with more open minds, as a result of their repeated involvement in recent sex and drug scandals.

These larger issues involve crowded prisons, racial bias in the jailing of citizens, judicial equity, voting rights, future employment opportunities and spending tax dollars. The mainstream media would do the nation a favor by discussing Vitter and enlarging the scope of public debate on the issues raised.

Stephen Crockett is co-host of Democratic Talk Radio

Permalink