Saturday, January 05, 2008

PLEASE Read Glenn Greenwald Today

If you need to get a day pass, or better yet, a Salon subscription, do it. No commentator in America is doing battle more effectively with the right wing media and the right wing authoritarian government this country is under the control of. Glenn's subject today is the utterly racist notion being propagated by the right that if Obama doesn't win, those uppity, trouble-making Negroes will riot and generally cause trouble. He then shows us which side has REALLY been rioting and using violence to win elections in the past 15 years--the conservatives. From his column:
The last time I can recall a "certain segment of American political life" becoming "completely unhinged" and causing "social unraveling" in connection with a national election was this episode in Miami, during the 2000 recount:

The "bourgeois riot" celebrated by Wall Street Journal columnist Paul Gigot helped stop the announced manual recount of the 10,750 undervote in Miami-Dade County. Instigated by an order from New York congressman John Sweeney to "shut it down," dozens of screaming GOP demonstrators pounded on doors and a picture window at elections headquarters. The canvassing board, which had already found a net Al Gore gain of 168 votes, reversed a decision it had made a couple of hours earlier to begin a tally of the undervote.

The mob gang-rushed a local Democrat carrying a blank sample ballot. They threatened that a thousand Cubans were on their way to the headquarters to stop the count. Several people were "trampled, punched or kicked," according to The New York Times. The canvassing board chair at first conceded that mob pressures played a role in the shutdown -- which cost Gore the 168 votes as well -- but later reversed his position. . . . .

Instead of condemning the Dade tactics, W. himself called the victory party that night to praise them, and Republicans invoked the specter of Jesse Jackson, who'd merely led peaceful protests outside election offices.The "certain segment" creating "social unraveling" and blocking vote-counting in 2000 with their thug tactics wasn't quite the same as the "certain segment" which Goldberg and Reynolds are ominously warning will riot in the event of an Obama loss: Most of those fist-waiving, threatening protesters were actually aides to GOP establishment figures, including Fred Thompson, Tom DeLay, Jim DeMint, and the NRCC, shipped to Miami to create a climate of intimidation and thus prevent pro-Gore votes from being counted. [End excerpt]
Yes, this was part the coup d' etat that put the most dangerous, dishonest, and corrupt government in our history in office. Republican vote suppression, Republican intimidation in the recount, and Republican Supreme Court justices, handing down a ruling that they specifically said could not be used as a precedent in any other case, delivered us into the disaster we are facing now.
Greenwald goes on to give us a preview of the kind of vicious, hideous ugliness we will face if Obama is indeed our nominee. He quotes a thread on Free Republic:
Is Hussein Obama the weakest Dem for the General election?

By sending forth Hussein Osama out of Iowa, Democrats have unwittingly weakened their general election prospects.

Hussein's exotic mixture of radical liberalism, Kwanzaa Socialism, antipathy towards the unborn, and weakness against his jihadi brethren will all come back to destroy him against almost any Republican opponent, even the snake-grope from Hope. . . .

As defenders of this great Republic, and of the pinnacle of Western civilization that it represents, we should all come together tonight and agree on a common strategy that will keep the White House from becoming a madrassa.
Folks, I've agreed for a long time with the view that the Republican strategy this year can be summed up as FNB, depending on whether we nominate Edwards, Obama, or Clinton: Fa**0t, Ni**er, Bi**h. (I refuse to use these obscenities unedited.) If Obama is nominated, the Republicans will use a variation called the Radical Islamo-Fascist Ni**er, and you will see every vile racist weapon short of burning crosses used to beat him. (And the radical religious right will convert Obama into a fire-breathing Bin Laden supporter and an enemy of Christ.) And if Obama is elected the 44th president, I think we know which side will explode in violence.
Obama is a wonderful man, but if he's nominated, he's going to need his friends in the Netroots to fight for him harder than they have ever fought before for anyone. It will be our job to get down into the trenches and wage war with the Republican slime machine. The right will use the methods of hatred, fear, and lies to a degree never seen in our history. They will do ANYTHING--including the use of violence--to prevent a progressive African-American from occupying the White House. We must allow Barack to stick to the high road, to be the quarterback with the clean uniform, while we grunts on the offensive line take the hits and get down and dirty.
Don't kid yourself--the radical right will not surrender power peacefully. It will have to be torn out of their hands. Are you ready? I mean, are you REALLY ready for how nasty this thing is really going to get? (Oh, and by the way: $10 a month from 10 million Democrats=victory in 2008.) Get ready for war, people--it's already here.

3 comments:

Ava said...

Mr. Miller-

I watched the debates last night on both sides because I wanted to get a better grasp on what was going on with the election. I've been trying my best to not vote along party lines (something I don't agree with) with the hopes that a good candidate would possibly emerge from the republican side, thus proving that republican party isn't entirely corrupt (haha) and that there is hope for the future if a republican president holds office after the 2008 election. I can say, however, that I was not impressed with the republicans.

For a while I considered voting for Hilary because I feel like she does a good job of womaning like a man and that she has the cojones to deal with the job. Then I watched the debate last night and decided that she talks a lot without actually saying anything and that she has no real ideas, only a lot of fancy words.

I like Edwards the best out of both parties. What do you think of him?

-Ava

Ava said...

Mr. Miller-

I watched the debates last night on both sides because I wanted to get a better grasp on what was going on with the election. I've been trying my best to not vote along party lines (something I don't agree with) with the hopes that a good candidate would possibly emerge from the republican side, thus proving that republican party isn't entirely corrupt (haha) and that there is hope for the future if a republican president holds office after the 2008 election. I can say, however, that I was not impressed with the republicans.

For a while I considered voting for Hilary because I feel like she does a good job of womaning like a man and that she has the cojones to deal with the job. Then I watched the debate last night and decided that she talks a lot without actually saying anything and that she has no real ideas, only a lot of fancy words.

I like Edwards the best out of both parties. What do you think of him?

Joseph said...

Ava, I think John Edwards is the most authentic Democrat running. I'm for him, although I don't think he'll edge out Obama or Clinton. Glad to see you're not impressed with the Republicans. As you can tell, neither am I. :-)