more the engrish!

AS IF RECENT NOTORIOUS ATTEMPTS BY THE GOP TO DISENFRANCHISE WOULD-BE VOTERS BASED ON TRIVIAL ISSUES AS MORTGAGE FORECLOSURES and mismatching information between the voter-registry card and official databanks weren't getting all the attention, another black mark for the GOP's devious leetle game was handed in Wisconsin earlier today, though you may be unaware of it.

As The Capital Times (cyberspace, via Madison, WI) is reporting:

Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle today lauded a Dane County judge's decision to throw out a lawsuit by Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen that would have required municipal clerks to cross-check voter registrations of about 1 million newly registered voters across the state.

"Wisconsin has a strong progressive tradition of protecting our right to vote," Doyle, a Democrat, said in front of the steps of the state Capitol, speaking from a podium bearing a Democratic Party of Wisconsin placard.

In dismissing the lawsuit, Judge Maryann Sumi Thursday ruled that no federal or state law exists that makes cross-checking voter registrations necessary for a citizen to vote. Van Hollen sought to force state election officials to verify before the Nov. 4 election the eligibility of voters registered since Jan. 1, 2006, when federal law required states to compile voter lists as part of the Help America Vote Act.

Van Hollen filed the lawsuit on Sept. 10 seeking to have the court order the state's Government Accountability Board to cross-check voter registration information with Department of Transportation, death and felony records dating back to Jan. 1, 2006, when the federal Help America Vote Act went into effect. The Government Accountability Board ordered the checks to be done for those who registered since Aug. 6 of this year, when the statewide voter registration database was up and running.

The Government Accountability Board has said the lawsuit could have required municipal clerks around the state, already busy with election issues, to check as many as 1 million voter registrations.

The lawsuit drew stark lines between the state political parties. Van Hollen, co-chair of the state Republican presidential campaign, was supported in the lawsuit by the state Republican Party, which has sought a number of voter identification measures, including requiring the heavily Democratic Milwaukee area to show IDs at the polls.

Democrats opposed the lawsuit, saying it was a partisan attempt to disenfranchise voters.

Doyle wouldn't say outright that Van Hollen's lawsuit was politically motivated. But he said the lawsuit mirrored other Republican efforts around the country to verify newly registered voters against other state databases, including an effort struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court last week in Ohio.

"The Government Accountability Board, not the Republican Attorney General, has the responsibility to supervise elections," he said.

Van Hollen, in a prepared statement, maintained that his goal was to provide "an accurate statewide voter list" that complies with state and federal laws.

"I believe today's decision was an erroneous interpretation of the law," he said. "When a lower court gets the law wrong, parties appeal to a higher court, and that's what I will do."

With only 12 days until the election, there is little time for the appeal. Van Hollen spokesman Kevin St. John said the AG's office will try to "move the process along as quickly as we can."

Sumi ruled that nothing in state or federal law requires that voter registration information be checked against other state records.

"Nothing in state or federal law requires that there be a data match as a prerequisite for a citizen's right to vote," she said in dismissing Van Hollen's lawsuit.

Therefore, she said, "The court is without the authority to create such a requirement."

She also said he had no standing to file the suit because the U.S. attorney general is charged with enforcing the Help America Vote Act.

Had Van Hollen's lawsuit moved ahead, clerks could have been required to follow up on mismatches, sending letters or making phone calls to try to resolve the discrepancies. Initial checks have numbered in excess of 20 percent, mostly due to typographical errors in names or mismatches in driver's license and Social Security numbers.

Sumi also faulted Van Hollen for bringing case to court without exhausting other means of remedy. The state has devised a process to address voting complaints, she said, which consists of filing a complaint with the GAB, which would then hold a trial-type hearing on the merits of the complaint. Van Hollen, instead, took the case straight to court.

"He did not use the process," she said.

State law, she said, allows the state discretion on how to set up the complaint process. She also said that the laws require only that the state keep and maintain a voter list, but doesn't specify how that should be done.

The ruling validates the contention by Government Accountability Board attorney Lester Pines, who said in court Thursday that Van Hollen was seeking to decide election rules, a power that state law has handed the GAB.

"This is a breathtaking assertion of power," he said of Van Hollen's attempt to force the registration checks.

State Democratic Party Chairman Joe Wineke said the ruling takes away Republican poll watchers' ability to challenge voters at the polls.

Republicans, he said, "played their card. They lost."

[***]

Sumi's decision comes on the heels of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion last week lifting a restraining order awarded by a lower court to the Ohio Republican Party that ordered the Ohio secretary of state to provide a list of all newly registered voters whose driver's license and Social Security numbers didn't match their names.

Sumi said the decision had implications to Van Hollen's lawsuit, and she said it caused the state GOP to "change its focus" in arguments Thursday.

=============

ALSO FROM THE CAPITAL TIMES COMES THIS LETTER TO THE EDITOR, as wonders if conditions may be emerging for some class of a coup d'êtat in America in case Indecision 2008 deteriorates thanks to GOP designs of treachery:

Dear Editor:

Confidence has been lost in the financial markets, is spreading to the wider markets, and to government to manage any of our affairs. If markets and governments cannot be trusted, where do the people turn to find help? Now we are hearing that voting is corrupted by improperly kept voting records and, even, the machines used for recording our ballots.

Will our votes be counted and, if they are, can we trust the count? The last two elections are held in disrespect by many, believing that Bush was selected by the Supreme Court, not the people.

John McCain has accused Barack Obama of collusion with ACORN, a voter registration group. And Homeland Security has received the promise of three brigades of army special forces troops to help in case of civil disorder. Add that to the outcry of police excess in the cities where the nominating conventions were held and we get the feeling of an emerging police-military ideology in the U.S.

With trust and confidence almost zero are we ripe for a takeover, a coup d'etat by an executive branch of government able to utilize a militarized homeland security, in the name of restoring faith in our elected government and our free markets?

The promise of unrest is growing and offers an invitation to unscrupulous powers to try and exploit this condition. Watch out!

Daniel J. Guilfoil

Monona

One should not rule out the possibilities by especially weird and unwholesome elements acting as much from within as from without to undermine public confidence and trust. Especially so such claiming to act in the name of G-d, Country and Family to promote what turns out being a Neofascist regime as could be the undoing of Our Antient and Pecuilar Soverignty and Soverign Identity as a Nation.

=============

MEANWHILE, YOU HAVE TO WONDER WHAT THE NEOCONSERVATIVES REALLY HAVE IN MIND NOW FOR SCARING THE LOWER CLASSES INTO HOME OWNERSHIP based on fear and intimidation, and especially so with tightened and more stringent lending requirements brought about by their own deluded pipe dreams about sub-prime mortgage lending based on trick and deception collapsing in scandal.

Subject, of course, to the belief that free-market capitalism with American characteristics is the Great White Father of All, any and all profit therefrom restricted exclusively to an "elect***entitled as of right," the argument based on "unwritten tradition" expected in this line of thought to take natural precedence over statute law. (Come to think of it, are there any instances known in which "unwritten tradition" was struck down in the courts ... or, for that matter, statute law being struck down as incompatible with "unwritten tradition"?)

Might I offer this suggestion: The classical Building Society concept, reinforced by reserve fund associations based on the model of The Cooperative Central Bank in Massachusetts to help affiliated societies provide funds by which to provide mortgage loans. Which fits in rather nicely with the mutual self-help ideal conservatives love promoting, does it not? 

more animals

YOUR CORRESPONDENT, FOR ONE, HAPPENS TO BE OF THE VIEW THAT SO-CALLED "VOTER FRAUD" WHICH THE GOP AND THEIR COMPLIANT MEDIA DROOKIES are continuing to bellyache about in the electoral homestretch is really nothing short of a cheap, manufactured distraction--a "side issue," in the Karl Rove stylee, as it were--to divert public attention and notice from The Big Picture.

As in the emerging exposure of failings in the socioeconomic status quo, brought on all the more by a hard-wired complacency in the delusion that self-regulated free-market capitalism--a "pure" capitalism, as it were--is the Great White Father of the Lower Classes, the Last and Only Hope and Salvation they have for empowerment and self-reliance after years of "helpless enslavement to failed and failing models of State welfare tending to socalism," as the propaganda would put it.

*************

THE LOBSTER-FISHING CENTRE OF ROCKLAND, MAINE, AS A SHOW OF SOLIDARITY WITH LOBSTER FISHERMEN FACING DIFFICULT TIMES SOCIOECONOMICALLY, will be seeing local businesses try to attract business this weekend by giving away free lobsters to shoppers.

This would be like Audubon, Iowa (as in the statue of Albert the Bull, a tribute to local cattlemen) having its businessmen give away boxes of steaks as a show of solidarity for local cattlemen. Iced and in polystyrene foam boxes.

*************

LET'S JUST HOPE THE RELATIONSHIP THAT'S THE TALK OF AUSTRIA WAS MERELY PLATONIC AND NOT RUNNING INTO OUT-AND-OUT HOMOSEXUALITY, methinks--as the BBC explains:

The new leader of the party previously headed by Austrian far-right politician Joerg Haider has admitted the two men had a "special relationship".

Stefan Petzner told Austrian radio that Mr Haider, whom he met five years ago, was "the man of my life".

Mr Haider, 58, died in a high-speed car crash earlier this month. He had a high blood alcohol level.

His party, the Alliance for Austria's Future, insisted on Thursday that Mr Petzner "wasn't his lover".

"He was a very good friend, it wasn't love," party spokesman Heimo Lepuschitz told the BBC, commenting on Mr Petzner's remarks.

The Alliance for Austria's Future is best known for taking a tough line on immigration and EU policies.

Mr Petzner took over as head of the party following his leader's sudden death.

Mr Haider had said frequently that he would like his 27-year-old protege, and party deputy to take his place one day.

But Mr Petzner, while remaining overall party leader, is now deputy to hotelier Josef Bucher in the party's parliamentary group.

[***]

It has been widely reported in Austria that on the night of his death, Mr Haider left a bar where he had been drinking with Mr Petzner after they had argued.

' I loved him'

Mr Petzner has described feeling a magnetic attraction to Mr Haider.

"We had a special relationship that went far beyond friendship," Mr Petzner said in an emotional interview on Austrian national radio.

"Joerg and I were connected by something truly special. He was the man of my life," he added. "I loved him as a best friend."

There has been no comment from the Haider family. He was married with two children.

Joerg Haider became a potent force in Austria in the 1980s and 90s, championing what he called traditional family values and an end to immigration.

More recently his Alliance for Austria's Future enjoyed success at the polls, gaining more than 10% of the votes in September's general election.

*************

BECAUSE "THE WEED OF CRIME BEARS BITTER FRUIT," AS THE SHADOW FOREVER WARNED US ALL @ THE END OF HIS SHOW ON RADIO all those years ago:

Thanks in large measure to the warped, misguided and ego-driven Realpolitik of Zimbabwean majordomo Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe has seen what may be its worst-ever grain harvest in modern history, in turn translating into food shortages and wholesale danger of famine and starvation whereby the United Nations World Food Programme may have to be called in to provide relief from hunger among especially the poorest and most vulnerable.

The prospect of foreign food aid being sent to Zimbabwe is no doubt likely to send Herr Mugabe cringing about the prospect of "colonialism" making its Ugly Return (shades of "New World Order" paranoia among so-called "patriots" here in the "morally superior" United States, no?)--and, perhaps, Herr Mugabe suffering a Fatal Heart Attack.   

more the engrish!

HAT TIP TO POLITICAL ANIMAL (SUCCESSOR TO THE CARPETBAGGER REPORT) FOR BRINGING NOTE TO THE FOLLOWING VIDEO from Eschaton, showing GOP goons assualting a Democratic observer seeking to record the proceedings @ a Missouri rally the other day:

Could this speak volumes for the excesses of GOP depravity in the face of an especially crucial election where Our Antient and Pecuilar Soverignty and Soverign Identity lies in the balance? (I say this in view of previously-discussed revelations that an al-Qaeda-affiliated website is calling for John McCain's election all the more, to further weaken the Nation socioeconomically.)

=============

NOW WE KNOW WHO'S TO BLAME FOR THE "OBAMA IS A CLOSET MUSLIM" MEME IN THE "DIVIDE-AND-CONQUER" STYLEE as has prevailed for much of the campaign--let Steven Waldman of Beliefnet discuss in the following for The Wall Street Journal Online:

One of the most striking parts of Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama was his accusation that Republicans have helped spread the rumor that Sen. Obama is Muslim, and turned the word into a smear. “I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion he’s Muslim and he might be associated with terrorists,” he said.

Some Republicans took umbrage at the comment, saying John McCain and Republicans haven’t directly made such an accusation. Jonah Goldberg, a writer for The National Review, said it was a “low and dishonest blow,” and asked: “Is there really much evidence that the GOP or the McCain campaign have had anything to do with the stories that Obama is a Muslim?”

It’s an important question, worth a detailed look.

First, Gen. Powell noted that Sen. McCain himself has never intimated that Sen. Obama is Muslim. And he’s right about that. Neither McCain nor his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin have suggested such a thing, or even referred to their opponent by his full name, Barack Hussein Obama. At one point, the campaign fired a volunteer who had told voters that Sen. Obama is Muslim, and a recent video showed rank-and-file McCain supporters chastising an anti-Muslim McCainian.

Stoking the Rumor

Hillary Clinton arguably stoked the rumor more directly than McCain when she said during the primary that Sen. Obama wasn’t Muslim “as far as I know.”

What about the Republican Party itself? There’s no evidence that the national Republican Party has driven, coordinated or even overtly encouraged the Obama-is-a-Muslim line.

Yet the idea has been widely embraced, and not just by a few conservative extremists. A recent Pew Research Center poll found that a staggering 16% of McCain supporters believe Sen. Obama is Muslim – and only 47% of Republicans say he’s Christian (the balance is unsure).

There are some instances of Republican Party officials stoking the idea. The Tennessee Republican Party issued a press release about “Barack Hussein Obama” that included a picture of Sen. Obama in “Muslim garb.” The Clark County, Washington, Republican Party declared on its Web site that “Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background. It is reported that Obama swore his oath of office using the Koran….This is chilling information about a candidate for the highest office in the Country especially given the radical Muslim claims that they will destroy American from the inside.”

The Web site of the National Black Republican Association featured an article analyzing “Obama’s Muslim Connections,” which declared, “It’s important to scrutinize Obama’s Muslim background to determine if his Islamic past influences his decisions and actions toward America, including his decision to select an anti-American pastor as his spiritual adviser.”

Marcia Stirman, chairman of Otero County Republican Women in New Mexico, said of Obama in a letter to the local newspaper: “He’s a Muslim socialist.”

Mainstream Conservative Media

Most important, the idea has been spread by mainstream conservative media – not just a few lonely conservative bloggers in their basement but major conservative publications or figures with large followings:
A popular conservative Web site, Newsmax.com, ran a story this week called, “Was Obama a Muslim?” and another one, “Obama ‘Lying’ About Muslim Past, Expert Says.”

Another popular conservative Web site, wnd.com, ran a piece called “’Muslim’ photo raises Obama connection questions.”

Human Events, a conservative publication that John McCain just granted an interview , also published an essay entitled, “Our First Muslim President?”

Conservative talk show host and bestselling author Michael Savage repeated a common myth that Sen. Obama attended a “Madrassa,” a radical Muslim school.

Floyd Brown, a conservative activist who created the Willie Horton ad against Michael Dukakis in 1988, issued a new ad, asking “Was Barack Obama ever a Muslim?”

Conservative talk shows – and some cable TV shows, it should be said – gave air time to Jerome Corsi, whose book “The Obama Nation” argued that Sen. Obama has “extensive connections to Islam.” He appeared on Hannity & Colmes to publicize his book and on Sean Hannity’s radio show to argue that Sen. Obama has a close connection to a radical Muslim politician in Kenya. Hannity also gave substantial TV time to Andy Martin, a free-lance activist, who helped originate one of the Internet emails arguing that Obama was Muslim.

Rush Limbaugh more recently added a new wrinkle by arguing that Sen. Obama is not African American but rather “an Arab.” Limbaugh did not say Sen. Obama is Muslim but many Americans believe that all Arabs are Muslim.

Finally, there’s the matter of the middle name. Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin have made a point of never referring to their opponent as Barack Hussein Obama, apparently viewing that as an unfair attempt to imply Sen. Obama is Muslim or shady in some way. “I absolutely repudiate such comments,” Sen. McCain said, after someone introducing him used Sen. Obama’s full name. “It will never happen again.”

Using Obama’s Middle Name

But many prominent Republicans and conservatives have, including Mr. Limbaugh, Tucker Carlson, Ann Coulter (she has called him “B. Hussein Obama” and “President Hussein”), Mike Gallagher, and Bill Cunningham. And on two different occasions, Sen. McCain or Gov. Palin were introduced at rallies by men who used the formulation.

With schoolboy innocence, many conservative commentators say they were merely raising questions or stating facts. And you know what? That’s largely true.

Many stuck to the points about Sen. Obama that were accurate: His middle name is, after all, Hussein. He was listed as a Muslim as a boy when he attended school [in] Indonesia. His stepfather was Muslim.

One could merely repeat those facts and it would lead many to believe Sen. Obama was Muslim – especially if one didn’t mention that Sen. Obama has been a practicing Christian for 17 years and was in Indonesia only until age 10 or 11.

Did the McCain campaign intentionally allow the rumor to spread while having Sen. McCain personally take the high ground? It wouldn’t be the first time a presidential candidate took that approach, but there’s no evidence so far that Sen. McCain or anyone in his campaign opted for that as a strategy.

More likely, something else was at play. For Sen. McCain to have really stopped the rumor, he would have had to confront the Conservative Media Establishment, which has always been suspicious of Sen. McCain and which he desperately needs to get elected.

It’s nearly impossible to know exactly how we ended up with less than half of Republicans believing Sen. Obama when he says he’s Christian and one in five McCain supporters affirmatively believing that Sen. Obama is Muslim. Tellingly, Colin Powell’s complaint was not only that activists said made the Obama-is-a-Muslim claim but that “it is permitted to be said” by “members of the party.” In all likelihood, it was the establishment conservatives who made the ground fertile for the rumors and the more extreme players who then planted the seeds. Once the poisonous plant began to grow, those in the conservative establishment did little to uproot it and sometimes gave it water.

And how do we know that those behind the "Obama-is-a-closet-Muslim" meme are "only following orders," to use the Nuremburg Patsy if and when asked?

=============

RETURNING FOR THE MOMENT TO THE POLITICAL ANIMAL, Your Correspondent calls your attentiont to the following item as suggests where John McCain may be as guilty as Barack Obama of being closet Socialists (the latter being another popular GOP meme of paranoia and desperation):

WE'RE ALL SOCIALISTS NOW.... To hear John McCain and Sarah Palin tell it, Barack Obama's plan to cut taxes on middle-class families, and raise taxes on the very wealthy, is not only a bad idea, it's socialism. As 11th-hour, desperation attacks go, it's pretty weak, especially when a conservative Republican president is nationalizing banks and the financial industry.

But McCain's error is actually worse than most of his more routine mistakes. For one thing, progressive taxation is as American as apple pie. For another, McCain's take on progressive taxation seems to have "evolved" over time.

On the first point, the AP's Charles Babbington has a very good piece today, explaining "the nation's long tradition of redistributing huge amounts of wealth through tax-and-spending policies." Babbington noted, "Placing a heavier burden on the wealthy has been a cornerstone of the federal income tax since its inception in 1913."

McClatchy's David Lightman and William Douglas had a similar item last night, noting, "Favoring higher tax rates for the wealthy than for the less fortunate isn't socialism, and if it is, then the U.S. has been a socialist country for nearly a century, under both Democrats and Republicans."

But the amusing part of all of this is the hypocrisy. McCain now seems to believe Obama's tax policies were crafted by Karl Marx, but it was just a couple of personas ago when McCain thought Obama's approach was the right one.

It's well documented that McCain's full-throated support of cuts for those in the top tax brackets represents something of a reversal since 2001, when he voted against Bush-backed tax slashes for top earners. "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief," he wrote in a statement at the time.

But archived MSNBC videotape from 2000 further demonstrates how McCain's tone has shifted on taxes and what constitutes socialism since the end of his last presidential race. Answering questions during a Hardball College Tour show in October 2000, McCain defended the progressive tax system when questioned by a town hall participant who warned that the high tax bracket of her father -- a doctor -- smacked of an inching towards "socialism and stuff." McCain said that progressive tax systems are based on the fact that "we feel, obviously, that wealthy people can afford more." He spelled out this response: "Here's what I really believe, that when you are -- reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more."

I guess McCain was for socialism before he was against it.

How will The Terrible-Tempered Mr. Bang explain this one after calling Barack Obama a "Marxist" and "Socialist" all this time, let alone the "lame duck" President himself nationalising "essential" banking and financial-services companies sub rosa?

more animals

YOU MAY RECALL WHERE JEROME CORSI MADE, AMONG OTHER HIGHLY INCREDIBLE CLAIMS ON WORLDNETDAILY, ONE SUGGESTING WHERE JOHN McCAIN was being "endorsed" by al-Qaeda-affiliated groups during the primaries season; the better to discredit the Traditional Two-Party System and "win the hearts and minds of voters" over to the Constitution Party's candidate, Chuck Baldwin, to Save America From Herself.

Well, it looks as if Mr. Corsi may be spot-on right, notwithstanding where Your Correspondent doesn't take much stock in conservative-leaning blogs or websites; The Associated Press is reporting (via Google News):

Al-Qaida-linked Web site backs McCain as president

By PAMELA HESS

WASHINGTON (AP) — Al-Qaida supporters suggested in a Web site message this week they would welcome a pre-election terror attack on the U.S. as a way to usher in a McCain presidency.

The message, posted Monday on the password-protected al-Hesbah Web site, said if al-Qaida wants to exhaust the United States militarily and economically, "impetuous" Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain is the better choice because he is more likely to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"This requires presence of an impetuous American leader such as McCain, who pledged to continue the war till the last American soldier," the message said. "Then, al-Qaida will have to support McCain in the coming elections so that he continues the failing march of his predecessor, Bush."

SITE Intelligence Group, based in Bethesda, Md., monitors the Web site and translated the message.

"If al-Qaida carries out a big operation against American interests," the message said, "this act will be support of McCain because it will push the Americans deliberately to vote for McCain so that he takes revenge for them against al-Qaida. Al-Qaida then will succeed in exhausting America till its last year in it."

Mark Salter, a senior McCain adviser, said he had heard about the Web site chatter but had no immediate comment.

The message is credited to a frequent and apparently respected contributor named Muhammad Haafid. However, Haafid is not believed to have a direct affiliation with al-Qaida plans or knowledge of its operations, according to SITE.

SITE senior analyst Adam Raisman said this message caught SITE's attention because there has been little other chatter on the forums about the U.S. election.

SITE was struck by the message's detailed analysis — and apparent jubilation — about American financial woes.

"What we try to do is get the pulse of the jihadist community," Raisman said. "And it's about the financial crisis."

Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden issued a videotape just four days before the 2004 U.S. presidential election directly addressing the American people.

But then again, there's easily the likelihood for the al-Hesbah website to be a super-secretive CIA project designed (and deliberately) to keep the American People scared and in line for the sake of the ur-RAHOWA Against Terrorism, and in much the same vein as the "bin-Laden Tape" issued ahead of the 2004 elections (some, in fact, suggesting that same may have been forged by CIA operatives for scaremongering purposes).

Think Progress adds to this story:

The McCain campaign swiftly disavowed the statements, arranging a conference call with top national security advisers Randy Scheunemann and James Woolsey. Woolsey declared that the post was not an endorsement but was in fact clearly intended to boost McCain’s opponent, by providing a “kiss of death” to McCain’s campaign:

WOOLSEY: This individual knows that the endorsement of people like him is a kiss of death, figuratively and literally. So it seems to me it’s pretty clear that, by making this statement, that he wants — it would be a good thing for McCain to be president, he’s clearly trying to damage John McCain, not speaking from his heart.

However, just minutes earlier in the call, Scheunemann went through a laundry list of “bad guys” who support of Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), cited dubious quotes from Hamas, Iranian President Ahmadinejad, and Muammar al-Gaddafi of Libya. In fact, the McCain campaign pounced on Hamas’s endorsement of Obama in March. “If Senator Obama is favored by Hamas, I think people can make judgments accordingly,” McCain declared ominously.

When a reporter pointed out the contradiction, Woolsey replied that the difference was that McCain’s endorsement came from “simply an individual blogger,” saying that this extremist’s true concern about a McCain presidency “seems very clear to me, frankly.” So when a terrorist supports McCain, it’s a head fake, but when one supports Obama it’s a legitimate issue voters should “make judgments” on?

*************

THE OLD MAXIM ABOUT "CLOWNS GETTING AWAY WITH THE TRUTH" MAY BE AS TRUE AS EVER IN THE CAMPAIGN FOR INDECISION 2008, as has been well-documented in this and other blogs proudly Secular-Progressive.

Witness what Steven Colbert had to say in suggesting where John McCain may have only ruined his own Presidential campaign, and is all the more desperate to try and save face and credibility:

So what stands in the way of The Terrible-Tempered Mr. Bang of Indecision 2008 acknowledging as much?

*************

REPRESENTATIVE MICHELLE BACHMANN (GOP/MN) IS TRYING DESPERARELY TO SPIN HER WAY OUT OF SOME RATHER NOTORIOUS REMARKS MADE LAST WEEK when she called for Congress to investigate its own for suspicion of "un-American tendencies" or general "disloyalty" among the ranks (as if the GOP insisted that only conservatives were capable of showing True Patriot Love in All Thy Sons Command).

In other words, essentially denying what she said with her own lips when the record exists that she said as much; Think Progress explains (emphasis supplied):

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is still on the defensive from an appearance last Friday on MSNBC’s Hardball, in which she called for the media to conduct a “penetrating exposé” into anti-American views of members of Congress.

Speaking with the St. Cloud Times on Tuesday, Bachmann said she regretted suggesting that Barack Obama held “anti-American” views. Referencing Chris Matthews by name 12 times in a 6 minute interview, Bachmann portrayed herself as the victim of a clever ploy devised by the MSNBC host:

Chris Matthews laid a trap, and I walked into it. […]

Chris Matthews was using the term over and over, and I should not have used it. […]

This was Chris Matthews. I made a big mistake by going on the show. I never should have. […]

I just didn’t recognize — I never watched the Chris Matthews show before. I should have before I went on. I didn’t recognize that he would lay a trap the way that he did.

Bachmann concluded the interview by circling back to where she began: “I didn’t bring the word choice up. That was Chris Matthews who brought the word choice up. Unfortunately, like I said, I walked into a trap.”

In a subsequent update, Think Progress adds:

Bachmann made similar comments in a speech to the St. Cloud, MN Rotary Club. Bachmann said, "I do believe firmly that a trap was laid and I stepped into it."

GRAND JURY
IT'S THE LAW!
WHY NOT? WHO FEARS
THE EVIDENCE?

SUCH WAS A SIGN POSTED OUTSIDE THE MONTANA FREEMEN COMPOUND DURING THE NOTORIOUS 1996 STANDOFF WITH JOHN LAW as was reinforced by Old Glory's inapproriate display in distress-signal stylee (upside down), calling for a so-called "common-law court" proceeding against The Establishment based on flawed and devious readings of the Constitution and the Uniform Commercial Code which, among other things, held that only gold and silver coin were lawful tender.

I bring this up in light of the following video from Brave New Films as makes note of where supporters @ several recent McCain/Palin rallies were being "instructed" not to answer media questions:

As for the "why and wherefore" of such a mindset, the contributor of this video quoted thus from Huffington Post (emphasis added):

THIS JUST IN Press kept under a watchful eye

CLEARWATER -- Constantly under the watchful eyes of security, the media wasn't permitted to wander around inside Coachman Park to talk to Sarah Palin supporters. When reporters tried to leave the designated press area and head toward the bleachers where the crowd was seated, an escort would dart out of nowhere and confront him or her and say, "Can I help you?'' and turn the person around. When one reporter asked an escort, who would not give her name, why the press wasn't allowed to mingle, she said that in the past, negative things had been written. The campaign wanted to avoid that possibility Monday.

As seconded by this item from blogs.tampabay.com:

What is the McCain Camp trying to hide? Perhaps all the negativity has awakened the large Lunatic Fringe inside the republican base and The McCain Campaign does not want the rest of us to see their ignorance. A youtube member got around the restrictions and was able to capture some of these pathetic souls in all their ignorance.

Your Correspondent, then, has to wonder if the McCain/Palin campaign's article of faith for the media covering their "rallies" in this the final fortnight before elections is one with the Oceanic police state of Nineteen Eighty Four advising that we "reject all evidence of eyes and ears."

In other words, act stoopid, and if asked why, deny everything. Which, in and of itself, could raise alarm bells of possible brainwashing, mind control or other devious acts, deeds and exploits crossing into the worst and most depraved forms of Scientology.

=============

THE ELMER GANTRY INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED RELIGIO-POLITICAL THEOLOGY SEEMS TO BE RAMPING UP THE PARANOIA bordering on a subtle endorsement of the McCain/Palin ticket pro Deo, patria et familia in the final fortnight to elections, if Right Wing Watch has anything to say about it.

Witness, for starters, the following atrocity propaganda video from Coral Ridge Ministries warning that Bible-Believing Christians face Clear and Present Danger of Persecution, Afrikaner-stylee, if an Obama Administration successfully pushes through hate-crimes legislation:

Also from Right Wing Watch, see how the Elmer Gantry crowd loves to deploy logical fallacies for "winning of hearts and minds" across Sarah Palin's sham ideal of "Real America," where Grit and Capper's Weekly are preferred to the "elitist" Time and Newsweek:

One of the Right’s standard reasons for opposing gay marriage is that it somehow harms “traditional” marriage, as if gay couples making a commitment to one another de-legitimizes the commitment that straight couples have made to one another.

Now, via Rick Scarborough, it seems as if that sort of tortured logic is working it way into all of their arguments … or at least the ones concerning ACORN and “voter fraud”:

Every American should be demanding that full disclosure be made of the methods and tactics used by ACORN. Record numbers of registrations have been recorded by ACORN, and American’s have a right to be assured that their vote not be canceled out by an ineligible voter … Every corrupted record is a cancellation of one vote of a legitimate voter who played by the rules.

Scarborough never bothers to explain how an illegitimate voter registration manages to “cancel out” someone else’s vote, but the Right seems committed to screaming “voter fraud” at every opportunity, so that is what they are going to do.

Of course, as Chris Hayes points out, none of this is true anyway:

Just to get this out of the way: in the real world, there is no such thing as voter fraud. There will be roughly as many fraudulent votes cast in this election as there were stockpiles of biological weapons in Iraq. That is to say, none. (See Dahlia Lithwick for more on this). But what about all those duplicate and obviously fake voter registration cards submitted by ACORN? you ask. They were required by law to submit them. (See Rick Hertzberg for more on this). In order to prevent tampering, state law in many places requires groups like ACORN to submit all the forms they collect, whether obviously erroneous or not.

Come to think of it, to paraphrase Mr. Scarborough, might I suggest that every American should be demanding of the Religiopolitical Right (and, for that matter, the GOP) what their ideal voting requirement would be, and whether such should be based on high pass scores in certain tests--especially so such as are racial, religious, income- and means-tested, and suchlike.

*************

AND COULD IT BE THAT IRAN'S PARANOIA AND FEARMONGERING ABOUT "WIPING ISRAEL OFF THE MAP" WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS may have just been nothing short of bully-boy-stylee bluff and posturing (and, for all we know, could still be)?

@ least the Israeli daily Ha'aretz thinks so, judging by this analysis:

Even though the senior Iranian official was speaking to a closed forum, it would not be at all surprising if his words were actually intended for an Israeli audience. Alongside the public diplomatic struggle - and Israel's secret military preparations - against the Iranian nuclear projects, there is also a war of threats and oratory going on between the two nations.

The announcements of Ayatollah Seyed G. Safavi look to be another stage in the Iranian attempt to create a balance of fear and deterrence with Israel.

The past two years, whether because of Iranian progress toward acquiring nuclear capability, or because of the absence of Ariel Sharon from the political helm, have seen a gradual escalation in Israeli pronouncements about Iran. The end of the primary season in Kadima may have reined in slightly the enthusiasm for public declarations, but even responsible Israeli statesmen such as Defense Minister Ehud Barak, speaking most recently on the matter last Sunday, take care to emphasize that the military option, as a last resort, is still on the table.

Last week MK [Member of the Knesset] Isaac Ben-Israel (Kadima), a former major general and someone very close to prime minister-designate Tzipi Livni, said Israel will not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, but that there was still time to prevent that eventuality. "It's not like we're going to bomb them in another three months," said Ben-Israel.

When Iranian experts dissect the Israeli declarations, the question is what do they emphasize, the threat ("We will not permit"), or the reservation ("Not now"). The reasonable assumption is that Safawi, similar to the Israeli and international media, does not really know what Israel is planning in the short term. But Teheran is interested in warning Jerusalem that as far as it is concerned, all options are open.

This was not the first such report: Two days ago the press in Teheran reported on a huge exercise of Iran's air force, including claims of a practice air attack on Israel. About 100 warplanes, it was claimed, flew 1,200 kilometers and demonstrated their capabilities - something that can be seen as a counter to the reports in June that the Israel Air Force had conducted a similar exercise, which included the simulated bombing of Iran.

The problem with Safawi's statements on a preemptive attack on Israel, and even more so with the reports of the Iranian air force exercise, is that they are not based on any proven capability.

A cautious estimate would be that the damage Iran could cause to Israel today is very limited. The Iranians would have to rely on their local representatives in the region, Hezbollah and Hamas, or to wait until they obtain nuclear weapons - two or three years down the road, even according to the most pessimistic estimates in the West.

Most Iranian warplanes are remnants from the days of the Shah, obsolete American planes. Prof. Anthony Cordesman, a senior U.S. strategic analyst, said in a lecture here last July that only a few of the 300 warplanes the Iranians have are capable of flying at all, and that they lack advanced aeronautical systems. It is highly unlikely that a significant number of such planes could penetrate Israeli defenses.

The second possibility for an Iranian attack is with long-range ground to ground missiles. But Cordesman, like other military experts, claims the Iranian missile program is less advanced than it may appear to be. He estimates the Iranians have a few dozen - and no more than a hundred - missiles with a range capable of reaching Israel. The launch capabilities of Iran's missiles have been tested only a few times and it is very hard to estimate their accuracy.

For now, without the ability to mount nuclear warheads on these missiles, an attack would consist of only conventional weapons. In other words, the damage they could cause would be similar to the destruction left by the Iraqi Scud missiles during the 1991 Gulf War.

It's hard to imagine what good such an attack would do for Iran in the near future. After all, this would be the best way to guarantee an Israeli counter-attack, as well as firm international intervention to halt the Iranian nuclear program, a program that constitutes such an important goal of the Iranian government.

And yet John McCain wants the "morally superior" United States to "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran" in the name of G-d and Country?