Jobber of the Week

Well, I guess I could also mention a recent ad from some conservative group (the RNC denied having anything to do with it, maybe it was a think tank or something) that compared Tom Daschle to Saddam Hussein.

That stuff actually came from some raving Republican I used to read, describing Clinton and the military. And I thought Hannity's comment was harsh.

Really? A lot of conservatives I know support gay unions. A lot of conservative politicians I've read don't, but you have to keep in mind they need approval of both those who do and don't support unions, and not supporting unions is playing it safe in some states, and less likely to anger than the other positions in the other states. The SF Chron really pushed and harassed Dean into trying to get him to support gay marraige a few weeks ago, and it didn't work. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file...MNGLP3E5LH1.DTL

Now, is Sean Hannity a Republican or not?

We're going to have to agree to disagree, I guess. I think Dean can't be some kind of super-liberal, but I don't think going centerist is going to win this election. If you have to say anything about Bush, it's that he's not afraid to state his conservative opinions out loud to the public. In most elections, I'd agree, but against a Bush-style politician who talks loud and proud, a centerist is going to look weak. Ann Coulter says that centerists are people who are too simple-minded to be able to make an opinion. I don't agree with her, but I think Dean will appear as such if he tries to jump to the center. I believe he needs to be left, but not far left. In the end, it won't matter. Whether the candidate is Dean, Edwards, Kerry, even Clark or Lieberman, the Rove gang will portray Bush's opponent as a wild-eyed liberal who wants to disarm all our missiles, open up the possibilities for a new 9/11, drown our troops in "sensitivity training" classes, and fill the silos with flags that read "POW!"

Does this count? "Did Clinton gut the military because there was no evidence that countries like Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and an increasingly aggressive communist China would represent serious future threats to America and our friends and allies? No, rather it was because he loathed the military." --Sean Hannity

Well, I knew the Dems' Arnold/Hitler shitflinging was going to come back and bite them in the ass.

I went to Drudge and downloaded it yesterday, and it came from rnc.org.

Hey, did you know where the only place to get that Hitler ad was? The RNC web site. The rules state all the ads hadd to be suitable for television, but the RNC got ahold of it and put it on their site.

RANDY ORTON IS MORE MARKETABLE THAN THE ROCK? *shoots self*

$15 million < $200 million. Damn, I knew they should have used puppies.

With the Hitler ads, yes. I think the idea of BushIn30 is to try and bring about some of the mudflinging loudmouth politics that the Democrats don't have on a national level. You guys have Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, our side has generally been too spineless to get dirty. I think airing, say, this ad would have great sucess. The Hitler ad, no. The Bush Mask & Peter Pan mockup commercial, no. Regardless, all this does is give the contests and ads more visibility, like when everyone complained in the 60s about that ad that showed a girl pulling petels off a daisy suddently switching into a video of a nuclear explosion going off.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...INGPQ40MB81.DTL Now, I thought at the point where he started talking about the Homeland Security Dept memo, the author of this opinion piece started going way too into Chicken Little mode. I also understand and respect that the Secret Service could be afraid of terrorists approaching the motorcade and blowing themselves up, letting loose a chemical, or some other danger. But letting supporters to the front of the line while keeping protesters farther off? Excuse me, Mr. President. This is the US, not Tiananmen Square. I know you've been kind of paranoid since your limo had to shoot through a bunch of "Hail to the Thief" signs at the speed limit the morning you were inaugurated, but we're starting to take that a little far.

It's a good thing you caught me on the week when I'm reading the Franken book. From chapter 19 ("Who Created The Tone?") Soros has spent $15 million.

This is awesome news. Fuck Goldberg.

Oh please. Soros doesn't have nearly the record that Scaife does. Unless you want to correct me, I don't think he funds media outlets like the American Spectator. I mean, sure, if you want, you can try to paint Soros out as a Scaife wannabe. But his record has been clean, donating to humanitarian causes, until he recently said that defeating Bush is his mission in life. Scaife's been playing the game for decades.

No, but if it makes you feel better, I'll join in:

You're changing the subject. This isn't about whether the media wants to paint a picture that everyone hates the US, this is about whether the constant practice of these seperate zones simply for those expressing dissent are unconstitutional.

That's pretty common online, actually. I dub thee, "Bill Gates syndrome."

Yes, but it's not Tom "Simon 2.0" McClintock, Cruz "Why, yes, I *AM* showing favoritism to Indian casinos" Bustamante, Peter "Why do we call these people 'Illegal Immigrants'" Camejo, or Arianna "*unintelligable ranting*" Huffington.

His celebrity gave him a bunch of attention and some sucker votes by people who thought it was cute to have a movie star for Governor or were disenfranchised by the ludicrous ballot (Gary Coleman? Larry Flynt?) Dean is getting the attention, Bush is going to consume all the sucker votes because he has the macho cowboy rhetoric and the soundbytes.

The amount of people at the British protests gives me doubts about it. Besides, such a well known political figure does draw out the crowds, positive and negative. It's not like the 50 people here who were protesting the recall or whatever after the swearing-in.

Again, it depends on where you live. California is a late state, so there's no advertising from any candidates here. All we're fed is what the media is telling us, which is Dean All The Time, although I'm afraid he'll get portrayed as a hippie if they focus on his Anti-Iraq stuff for much longer. It's not like he's Dennis Kucinich proposing a Department Of Peace or anything. As for what I was talking about on CNN, here's the transcript. From the December 4th episode of InsidePolitics:

I'm a Dean supporter in a sense that I'm an Arnold supporter. When it comes to the ballot being shoved in my face, Dean is going to agree more with my opinions, though I don't agree with his. I voted as I did in the recall because Arnold's interviews made me think "Hey, I agree with this guy more than the other guys." I still needed a drink when I was done voting and when the results came in I actually felt sad for a few minutes that the guy I voted for was the winner. When I got over the party bullshit and realized that illegal immigrants weren't going to get driver's licenses and a pro-choice, pro-gay-union Republican was elected to a position of prominence, I got over it. There's another connection between Arnold and Dean I wish to make, too. The state Registrar of Voters reported a huge upturn in new reigstrations, which the analysts pinned on Arnold's campaign against politics as usual. People who didn't even bother to vote were showing an interest in a political race because Arnold was challenging the establishment (the Republican party in this state has big fundie backers and breaks down in bickering whenever someone disagrees with it, accomplishing nothing) and running a campaign that was considered positive, though still fueled by anger ("We're mad as hell, and we are not going to take it anymore.") This is what I point people to when they say Dean's anger is creating a campaign of negativity. I think it also somewhat represents where all of Dean's support is coming from. Dean's verbal gaffes are akin to Arnold's groping allegations, although Dean's problem will kill him if he suffers foot-in-mouth in a debate with Bush. If he can restrain himself and not try and reach too far out there like he did in that statement that was supposed to pander to the South, it won't happen.

Normally, I'd agree with you. People usually vote on issues, but in the past five years issues and parties have suddently gone hand in hand.