Liberal & Media Hatefest Of Hysterical Hypocrisy: The Mommy Wars

The Unbearable Class Snobbery of Privileged Elite, White Women in the Media and Democrat Party

SANDRA TSING LOH has an opinion piece in the NYTimes yesterday entitled "The Rantings of a P.T.A. Mom" asking why the other candidates couldn't send their kids to a public school like Sarah Palin did.

...it is with huge grief-filled disappointment that I discovered that the Obamas send their children to the University of Chicago Laboratory School (by 5th grade, tuition equals $20,286 a year). The school’s Web site quotes all that ridiculous John Dewey nonsense about developing character while, of course, isolating your children from the poor. A pox on them and, while we’re at it, a pox on John Dewey! I’m sick to death of those inspirational Dewey quotes littering the Web sites of $20,000-plus-a-year private schools, all those gentle duo-tone-photographed murmurings about “building critical thinking and fostering democratic citizenship” in their cherished students, living large on their $20,000-a-year island.

Meanwhile, Joseph Biden, the Amtrak senator, standing up boldly for the right to be a Roman Catholic, appears to have sent all three children to the lovely looking Archmere Academy in Delaware. Archmere’s Web site notes some public school districts allow Archmere students to use public school buses. Well, isn’t that great — your tax dollars at work in the great state of Delaware because with $18,000 a year in tuition, they can’t afford their own buses.


We should be asking:"How can we support and make policies and safety nets stronger and better for ALL moms, dads, parents, children and their families?"


Then again, a spot of happy news for the Democrats: not only did John McCain’s four children attend elite private schools in Arizona, but collective donations to their children’s private schools between 2001 and 2006, totaled $500,000.

And yes, I know I appear to be ranting on like a pit bull without lipstick, which brings me to the final nail in the coffin in this sorry election year. As a Democrat I am horrified that Sarah Palin is the one who snagged the deeply profound — and absolutely ignored by professional smart people — emotional real estate of “P.T.A. mother.” I too am, in fact, not just “my kids’ mom” but their Title I Los Angeles public school P.T.A. secretary. This unheard female howl is, for better or worse, what Ms. Palin has set out to tap into; it is real, and I am sick that we’ve let the Republicans charge this ground.

Sarah Palin’s children went to what looks like a humble little public school: Iditarod Elementary on Wasilla Fishhook Road. The school’s score on www.greatschools.net is a 4. That’s a lot of street cred, for a gun-totin’, snow-mobilin’ creationist-lovin’ lady.

Oh, I’m such a depressed, Democrat P.T.A. mother.

Amen. Thank you Sandra. Sending you healing, supportive energy on your journey. Thanks for bringing this touchy subject up. I'm no longer a democrat. I dumped them too and am now an independent.

While we're at it, the main reason for this entry: I'm totally disgusted with the progressives, leftists, self-described feminists and democrats who — with the blessings and instigations of the media and democrap party — immediately launched the mommy wars, attacking Palin for NOT staying home, for having the audacity to be ambitious and answer the call for the #2 slot in the WORLD, not just the nation.

HUH? !!!! WTF have we all been fighting for all these decades if not for women to make their own decisions, be able to SUPPORT their families as well develop our own professional, personal, creative and intellectual talents whether at home with the kids, volunteering in the community or out in the work-world.

It is hypocrisy of the WORST most disgusting kind; truly infuriating. The writers of the New York Times, Washington Post among the WORST. Sally Quinn (OMG is there a pointier, snootier more hypocritical nose in the D.C. arena? A complete joke. She pooh-poohed Hillary and Bill for not fitting in when they arrived in Washington to begin his first term. Did she do anything to HELP Hillary pass health care reform? HELL NO! She acted like the privileged, rich, adulterous, sniveling hypocrite she still is. Ruth Marcus -- Give Me A BREAK. Shame on you. All the poseurs at the Huffington Post? God has there ever been a more useless, reactive, narcissistic group (other than Daily Kos)? Nancy Pelosi? Nothing like putting party over principles.

And that Dowd woman: puhlease — all women are her enemies and competition. She's the ultimate male-identified college girl who won't grow up. All those democrats who riled against what happened to Hillary and are now making excuses for it because it's directed at Palin (who may be a republican, but she's also a Woman and Working Mom.

All those ridiculous 'liberal democrats' (faux feminists) showing that it is actually their social and class sensibilities — not feminist principles — that have been mortally wounded by a working class woman from Alaska who has enraptured the nation. I seem to remember a black dude politician who captured the imagination of millions not too long ago. Hysterical hypocrisy seems to fit pretty well.

Not only does Palin have a lot of street cred, but also tremendous natural potlical talent. Her entry into the campaign with her amazing story should have offered the perfect launching pad for a national discussion about STRENGTHENING family support systems, child care, family leave, living wages, health care, etc.

Instead, the elite, entitled WOMEN in the media acted (and the obamabots of both genders in the blogosphere) -- not out of feminism -- but out of snobbery and classism.

And it's the classic patriarchal trap and set up: Women destroying other women so that the patriarchal system can claim innocence. Males, male systems, dehumanizing thugs who hold the power and make policies that harm women, children and families once again escape unscathed. They get to stand at a distance, say and pretend: "This is not about us, it's all you silly women. See. We told you that women can't handle power."

Economic power, equality, equal opportunity for ALL women -- ESPECIALLY working class and poor women -- support for all women and their children REGARDLESS of political affiliation or belief system. That's what feminism is supposed to be about.

We should be asking: "How can we support this amazing and talented woman and helping her be the best she can be—as a mother, leader, woman, role-model? How can we encourage HER to be an advocate for all working mothers (the old saying: all mothers are working mothers) and their families (regardless of their political affiliation, etc). How can we support and make policies and safety nets stronger and better for ALL moms, dads, parents, children and their families?" (in all the many forms including foster and grandparents raising their grandchildren)

Why aren't those questions being posed, much less discussed?

The fact that the media owners/publishers have given so much print/page/digital/air time to the HYPOCRITICAL voices attacking Palin very much betrays their superficial reactive, non-grasp of the real issues affecting women, children and their families. They surely don't give a flip about what's best for women, children, families (which by the way, includes men/male relatives of some type in the overwhelming majority of them) or they would not have instigated and fueled this ridiculous bullshit in the first place.

I can't believe how quickly the leftists, democrats, feminists and others who are SUPPOSED to be advocates for women's rights so quickly and easily trashed their own street cred and descended into complete and utter hypocrisy.

Among the few women in the media whom I've heard refuse to jump in to the fray and who also defended Palin: Mika Brezenski of Morning Joe, Andrea Mitchell of NBC, Hillary Rosen (a democrat analyst who supported Hillary), Gail Collins of the New York Times, Joan Walsh of Salon.com and the always annoying but sometimes brilliant Camille Paglia, who has a recent piece in which she proclaims "the charismatic Sarah Palin, a powerful new feminist."

The only national feminist LEADER so far that I know of who hasn't joined the hatefest of hysterical hypocrisy: Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Sandra's complete piece is here.

Desperately Seeking ... intellectual honesty and internal consistency?

Samantha Bee and Comedy Central visit the Republican Convention

What's that word I'm Looking for?
Bristol Palin has made the decision to have her baby, but Samantha Bee tries to remember another word for it.

More republican right-wing hypocrisy on choice, privacy, personal decisions: do as I say, not as I do. It's my choice but I'll take away your right to make your own decisions.

Reminder: Some of the Lies of Conservatism, McCain, Republicans

I couldn't help but post this memorable quote from a Washington Post Politics online chat discussing working class voter issues (Who is the Working Class, Anyway?):

Misconceptions: Bush before he became president had less money budgeted for the military and military families than did either Gore or, subsequently, Kerry -- both of whom actually served in a combat zone. Yet military folks voted overwhelmingly for Bush. I bring this up because more and more we see that the reality of what the candidates do flies in the face of what people believe.

Hardly a day goes by that a conservative doesn't say "I'm here to show that the liberals are wrong about there being class warfare between the rich and the poor." Yet, through each Republican administration, the gap between those with wealth and those without widens.

Republicans use every bit of evidence of wealth on the liberal side to say: "They are wealthy. We're just like you, we're not the intellectually elitist. Wouldn't you rather sit down to a beer and barbecue with us?"

Having been born and raised in the country in both the public and private school system, I have been troubled by one question: Since when did stupidity become a virtue in the U.S.?

It pairs very well with this Prescott, Ariz. chatter's reminder of John McCain's actual history of lies, flip-flopping, hypocrisy and unethical behaviors instead of his mythological persona promulgated by the mainstream and right-wing press:

• Left his ill first wife after multiple affairs; [must have given advice to Newt 'scumbag' Gingrich]
• participated in the "Keating 5" scandal;
• gotten so friendly with a young and blonde lobbyist that his staffers felt they had to intervene;
• [does] legislative favors for the clients of said lobbyist;
• voted against the "Bush tax cuts" then later supported them;
• actively courted the support, and made campaign appearances of a man who calls the Catholic Church the "great whore" [personal note: it should actually be called One More Woman-Hating Church of Child Rapists and Pedophiles];
• constantly blurred the difference between Shia and Sunni Muslims even while claiming that foreign policy is his strong suit;
• admitted he didn't know much about economics.

Timothy Noah: You forgot, "Gave a speech this week about what he was going to do for the working class and then announced tax cuts that benefit almost exclusively the rich."

Here is the full transcript of chat with Timothy Noah of Slate's Chatterbox' and here's his online article .

Technorati Tags:
Church of Child Rapists and Pedophiles

Cult of Personality + American Sexism + Media Bias + Groupthink = ???

Racism, misogyny and character assassination are all ways of distracting voters from the issues.

Hate Springs Eternal

By PAUL KRUGMAN
OP-ED COLUMNIST
February 11, 2008

In 1956 Adlai Stevenson, running against Dwight Eisenhower, tried to make the political style of his opponent’s vice president, a man by the name of Richard Nixon, an issue. The nation, he warned, was in danger of becoming “a land of slander and scare; the land of sly innuendo, the poison pen, the anonymous phone call and hustling, pushing, shoving; the land of smash and grab and anything to win. This is Nixonland.”

Krugman: Even the Democratic Party seems to be turning into Nixonland: the land of slander and scare, the politics of hatred.

Most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration.

The quote comes from “Nixonland,” a soon-to-be-published political history of the years from 1964 to 1972 written by Rick Perlstein, the author of “Before the Storm.” As Mr. Perlstein shows, Stevenson warned in vain: during those years America did indeed become the land of slander and scare, of the politics of hatred.

And it still is. In fact, these days even the Democratic Party seems to be turning into Nixonland.

The bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination is, on the face of it, bizarre. Both candidates still standing are smart and appealing. Both have progressive agendas (although I believe that Hillary Clinton is more serious about achieving universal health care, and that Barack Obama has staked out positions that will undermine his own efforts). Both have broad support among the party’s grass roots and are favorably viewed by Democratic voters.

Supporters of each candidate should have no trouble rallying behind the other if he or she gets the nod.

Why, then, is there so much venom out there?

I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again.

What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules” — the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.

The prime example of Clinton rules in the 1990s was the way the press covered Whitewater. A small, failed land deal became the basis of a multiyear, multimillion-dollar investigation, which never found any evidence of wrongdoing on the Clintons’ part, yet the “scandal” became a symbol of the Clinton administration’s alleged corruption.

During the current campaign, Mrs. Clinton’s entirely reasonable remark that it took L.B.J.’s political courage and skills to bring Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to fruition was cast as some kind of outrageous denigration of Dr. King.

And the latest prominent example came when David Shuster of MSNBC, after pointing out that Chelsea Clinton was working for her mother’s campaign — as adult children of presidential aspirants often do — asked, “doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?” Mr. Shuster has been suspended, but as the Clinton campaign rightly points out, his remark was part of a broader pattern at the network.

I call it Clinton rules, but it’s a pattern that goes well beyond the Clintons. For example, Al Gore was subjected to Clinton rules during the 2000 campaign: anything he said, and some things he didn’t say (no, he never claimed to have invented the Internet), was held up as proof of his alleged character flaws.

For now, Clinton rules are working in Mr. Obama’s favor. But his supporters should not take comfort in that fact.

For one thing, Mrs. Clinton may yet be the nominee — and if Obama supporters care about anything beyond hero worship, they should want to see her win in November.

For another, if history is any guide, if Mr. Obama wins the nomination, he will quickly find himself being subjected to Clinton rules. Democrats always do.

But most of all, progressives should realize that Nixonland is not the country we want to be. Racism, misogyny and character assassination are all ways of distracting voters from the issues, and people who care about the issues have a shared interest in making the politics of hatred unacceptable.

One of the most hopeful moments of this presidential campaign came last month, when a number of Jewish leaders signed a letter condemning the smear campaign claiming that Mr. Obama was a secret Muslim. It’s a good guess that some of those leaders would prefer that Mr. Obama not become president; nonetheless, they understood that there are principles that matter more than short-term political advantage.

I’d like to see more moments like that, perhaps starting with strong assurances from both Democratic candidates that they respect their opponents and would support them in the general election.

Krugman could've also mentioned the phenomenon of GroupThink (Irving Janis), which also infected the Kennedy administration, and certainly every republican one since then. And don't forget the Republicans are still pining for the Cult of Personality and pure fantasy surrounding Ronald Reagan.

Krugman's online column here.

............................................................

Donate to Hillary Clinton Online

(and any way you can). Fast. Easy. Secure.
............................................................

Technorati Tags:
Before the Storm, Adlai Stevenson, Dwight Eisenhower, Rick Perlstein, Nixonland, racism, Reagan, Cult of Personality

Kudos to David Shuster's B.S. Detector

Bless David Shuster's keen laser-like eye for hypocrisy.

GOP hypocrisy? Click image above or direct Video Link: http://video.msn.com/v/us/fv/msnbc/fv.htm??f=00&g=2df39653-2eb2-4b19-a4bc-bee20666e4df&rf=buzzzed.blogspot.com

Hat-tip to Daily Kos

David moved in for the jugular. He asked her, what is the name of the last soldier from her district killed in Iraq. Congresswoman Blackburn was forced to admit that she didn't know. David then told her. He was 18 years old (will check for this on C&L so I can get his name). He then reiterated his puzzlement about why it is that Congresswoman Blackburn knows so much about MoveOn.org, yet doesn't know the names of KIA from her own district--this was after she claimed that she and her staff "keep in touch every day" about what is going on with service people from her district.

THIS is how you respond to the Repubs about The Ad. David, you the man!!!

.....

Finally, and the heart of what this is really about:

The soldier from Ms. Blackburn's district was named Jeremy Bohannon. He was killed in Iraq on August 9, 2007 and was just 18 years old. Our prayers for him and the loved ones he left behind.

Technorati Tags:
GOP hypocrisy, David Shuster, dailykos, video, moveon ad, blackburn

LARRY CRAIG: Another Self-Hating Homo Who'd Rather Be Powerful Among His Torturers than Honest

poor whiney hypocrite-victims .... boo hoo hoo...

They're virulent hatemongers, hypocrites and homophobes. Craig is a self-hating denier who deserves to be outed, abandoned and to go down in FLAMES, as it were.

good riddance. don't let the stall door hit you in the @ss on the way out.

be sure to check out the latest installments on one of the evangelical republican rightwing's other poster boys for homophobic hatemongering hypocrisy --TED "i only got a massage" HAGGARD

his latest antics: joining forces with a REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER to ask for money from their dull headed sheeplike lemming followers
http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/08/families_with_a_mission

more stories in the archives
http://www.google.com/custom?sitesearch=thestranger.com&domains=thestranger.com&q=haggard

New York Times Editorial: End the War Now, Leave Iraq ASAP

This Editorial calls for a reasoned strategy and draw-down, not immediate withdrawal leaving an already bloody and chaotic situation in even worse chaos. But it is past time to stop the charade, lies and demagoguery. Past Time to SHOUT Truth to Power!

"

Bush and Cheney have used demagoguery and fear to quell Americans’ demands for an end to this war. They say withdrawing will create bloodshed and chaos and encourage terrorists. Actually, all of that has already happened — the result of this unnecessary invasion and the incompetent management of this war.

This country faces a choice. We can go on allowing Mr. Bush to drag out this war without end or purpose. Or we can insist that American troops are withdrawn as quickly and safely as we can manage — with as much effort as possible to stop the chaos from spreading.

"



July 8, 2007
Editorial

The Road Home

It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.

•

Like many Americans, we have put off that conclusion, waiting for a sign that President Bush was seriously trying to dig the United States out of the disaster he created by invading Iraq without sufficient cause, in the face of global opposition, and without a plan to stabilize the country afterward.

At first, we believed that after destroying Iraq’s government, army, police and economic structures, the United States was obliged to try to accomplish some of the goals Mr. Bush claimed to be pursuing, chiefly building a stable, unified Iraq. When it became clear that the president had neither the vision nor the means to do that, we argued against setting a withdrawal date while there was still some chance to mitigate the chaos that would most likely follow.

While Mr. Bush scorns deadlines, he kept promising breakthroughs — after elections, after a constitution, after sending in thousands more troops. But those milestones came and went without any progress toward a stable, democratic Iraq or a path for withdrawal. It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush’s plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor. Whatever his cause was, it is lost.

The political leaders Washington has backed are incapable of putting national interests ahead of sectarian score settling. The security forces Washington has trained behave more like partisan militias. Additional military forces poured into the Baghdad region have failed to change anything.

Continuing to sacrifice the lives and limbs of American soldiers is wrong. The war is sapping the strength of the nation’s alliances and its military forces. It is a dangerous diversion from the life-and-death struggle against terrorists. It is an increasing burden on American taxpayers, and it is a betrayal of a world that needs the wise application of American power and principles.

A majority of Americans reached these conclusions months ago. Even in politically polarized Washington, positions on the war no longer divide entirely on party lines. When Congress returns this week, extricating American troops from the war should be at the top of its agenda.

That conversation must be candid and focused. Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from which terrorist activity could proliferate.

The administration, the Democratic-controlled Congress, the United Nations and America’s allies must try to mitigate those outcomes — and they may fail. But Americans must be equally honest about the fact that keeping troops in Iraq will only make things worse. The nation needs a serious discussion, now, about how to accomplish a withdrawal and meet some of the big challenges that will arise.

The Mechanics of Withdrawal

The United States has about 160,000 troops and millions of tons of military gear inside Iraq. Getting that force out safely will be a formidable challenge. The main road south to Kuwait is notoriously vulnerable to roadside bomb attacks. Soldiers, weapons and vehicles will need to be deployed to secure bases while airlift and sealift operations are organized. Withdrawal routes will have to be guarded. The exit must be everything the invasion was not: based on reality and backed by adequate resources.

The United States should explore using Kurdish territory in the north of Iraq as a secure staging area. Being able to use bases and ports in Turkey would also make withdrawal faster and safer. Turkey has been an inconsistent ally in this war, but like other nations, it should realize that shouldering part of the burden of the aftermath is in its own interest.

Accomplishing all of this in less than six months is probably unrealistic. The political decision should be made, and the target date set, now.

The Fight Against Terrorists

Despite President Bush’s repeated claims, Al Qaeda had no significant foothold in Iraq before the invasion, which gave it new base camps, new recruits and new prestige.

This war diverted Pentagon resources from Afghanistan, where the military had a real chance to hunt down Al Qaeda’s leaders. It alienated essential allies in the war against terrorism. It drained the strength and readiness of American troops.

And it created a new front where the United States will have to continue to battle terrorist forces and enlist local allies who reject the idea of an Iraq hijacked by international terrorists. The military will need resources and bases to stanch this self- inflicted wound for the foreseeable future.

The Question of Bases

The United States could strike an agreement with the Kurds to create those bases in northeastern Iraq. Or, the Pentagon could use its bases in countries like Kuwait and Qatar, and its large naval presence in the Persian Gulf, as staging points.

There are arguments for, and against, both options. Leaving troops in Iraq might make it too easy — and too tempting — to get drawn back into the civil war and confirm suspicions that Washington’s real goal was to secure permanent bases in Iraq. Mounting attacks from other countries could endanger those nations’ governments.

The White House should make this choice after consultation with Congress and the other countries in the region, whose opinions the Bush administration has essentially ignored. The bottom line: the Pentagon needs enough force to stage effective raids and airstrikes against terrorist forces in Iraq, but not enough to resume large-scale combat.

The Civil War

One of Mr. Bush’s arguments against withdrawal is that it would lead to civil war. That war is raging, right now, and it may take years to burn out. Iraq may fragment into separate Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite republics, and American troops are not going to stop that from happening.

It is possible, we suppose, that announcing a firm withdrawal date might finally focus Iraq’s political leaders and neighboring governments on reality. Ideally, it could spur Iraqi politicians to take the steps toward national reconciliation that they have endlessly discussed but refused to act on.

But it is foolish to count on that, as some Democratic proponents of withdrawal have done. The administration should use whatever leverage it gains from withdrawing to press its allies and Iraq’s neighbors to help achieve a negotiated solution.

Iraq’s leaders — knowing that they can no longer rely on the Americans to guarantee their survival — might be more open to compromise, perhaps to a Bosnian-style partition, with economic resources fairly shared but with millions of Iraqis forced to relocate. That would be better than the slow-motion ethnic and religious cleansing that has contributed to driving one in seven Iraqis from their homes.

The United States military cannot solve the problem. Congress and the White House must lead an international attempt at a negotiated outcome. To start, Washington must turn to the United Nations, which Mr. Bush spurned and ridiculed as a preface to war.

The Human Crisis

There are already nearly two million Iraqi refugees, mostly in Syria and Jordan, and nearly two million more Iraqis who have been displaced within their country. Without the active cooperation of all six countries bordering Iraq — Turkey, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria — and the help of other nations, this disaster could get worse. Beyond the suffering, massive flows of refugees — some with ethnic and political resentments — could spread Iraq’s conflict far beyond Iraq’s borders.

Kuwait and Saudi Arabia must share the burden of hosting refugees. Jordan and Syria, now nearly overwhelmed with refugees, need more international help. That, of course, means money. The nations of Europe and Asia have a stake and should contribute. The United States will have to pay a large share of the costs, but should also lead international efforts, perhaps a donors’ conference, to raise money for the refugee crisis.

Washington also has to mend fences with allies. There are new governments in Britain, France and Germany that did not participate in the fight over starting this war and are eager to get beyond it. But that will still require a measure of humility and a commitment to multilateral action that this administration has never shown. And, however angry they were with President Bush for creating this mess, those nations should see that they cannot walk away from the consequences. To put it baldly, terrorism and oil make it impossible to ignore.

The United States has the greatest responsibilities, including the admission of many more refugees for permanent resettlement. The most compelling obligation is to the tens of thousands of Iraqis of courage and good will — translators, embassy employees, reconstruction workers — whose lives will be in danger because they believed the promises and cooperated with the Americans.

The Neighbors

One of the trickiest tasks will be avoiding excessive meddling in Iraq by its neighbors — America’s friends as well as its adversaries.

Just as Iran should come under international pressure to allow Shiites in southern Iraq to develop their own independent future, Washington must help persuade Sunni powers like Syria not to intervene on behalf of Sunni Iraqis. Turkey must be kept from sending troops into Kurdish territories.

For this effort to have any remote chance, Mr. Bush must drop his resistance to talking with both Iran and Syria. Britain, France, Russia, China and other nations with influence have a responsibility to help. Civil war in Iraq is a threat to everyone, especially if it spills across Iraq’s borders.

•

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have used demagoguery and fear to quell Americans’ demands for an end to this war. They say withdrawing will create bloodshed and chaos and encourage terrorists. Actually, all of that has already happened — the result of this unnecessary invasion and the incompetent management of this war.

This country faces a choice. We can go on allowing Mr. Bush to drag out this war without end or purpose. Or we can insist that American troops are withdrawn as quickly and safely as we can manage — with as much effort as possible to stop the chaos from spreading.

GOP ManDate (get it Man-Date?)

Equality: What a Quaint Concept!
True Brilliance by Matt Wuerker of Politco.com

Regarding the Repugnacon GOP Presidential Debates and Field of Candidates:

Not only does he blatantly skewer the claims, contradictions (as in contradicted by REALITY) and the unrelenting Hypocrisy of the Republican Big Tent -- it's still really the same 'Old Boys Club' where women are not allowed, not welcome and in fact are FEARED. Further, by employing an indeterminate Janitor of Color, Wuerker effectively evokes today's invisible, (usually silent) racism and still harkens us back to then-very-visible racist labels of the 50s on bathrooms, water fountains, restaurants indicating "Whites Only" and "Colored" -- labels and divisions which the southern conservatives, fundamentalists and true believers of the Reagan-forward-through-Bush Repug Party dearly wish still existed today.

He also addresses the underlying issue (growing gap) of "Haves and Have Nots" not only by the Janitor but by the 'Wealthy Privileged Moneyed Business MAN' entering the White Male Boys Club, a domain off-limits to anyone not in the frat-boy in-group; the source, origins and purveyors of truly disgusting, vile, dirty, racist, homophobic, misogynistic, xenophobic, hypocritical, power-privilege-and- greed-above-all-else in-the-sewer, gutter politics.

Republicans, right wingers, theocrats, fundamentalists and conservatives who believe in white male power, privilege and entitlement (as opposed to fairness, equality and justice) have made a cottage industry of scripting spin and talking points, unceasingly portraying themselves as perpetual, pitiful victims of 'Affirmative Action', the Civil Rights, Women's and Gay Rights movements of the 60s and 70s all the while for the past hundreds of years maintaining and extending their power, privilege and control in the Halls of Power, the Economy, Wall Street and everywhere they deem 'important' to control.

A truly brilliant political cartoon. One of the best ever.