I don’t know how many of you have been paying attention to foreign affairs in the wake of all this news on the economy, but Mamoud Ahmadinejad is in New York today addressing the United Nations.  Naturally, it’s become a point of contention between the McCain and Obama campaigns.  Bullshit detectors: ON.  Full Power in 3… 2… 1…

It seems fascist Republican sideshow freak Sarah Palin has managed to be portrayed as the victim yet again.

The facts surrounding this event are scattered, but here’s what I’ve been able to deduce:

In response to this visit, a number of organizations planned a joint protest and invited Hillary Clinton to speak.  Unbeknownst to the Clinton and her staff, Sarah Palin was also invited.  Clinton, who was not informed about the joint appearance, withdrew from the event.  The primary reason cited was to avoid the “woman-on-woman showdown” between the two that many in the media have been rooting for.

I first read about the incident at AOL News.  The article is critical of the Obama campaign, claiming they hijacked the event.

“Sen. Hillary Clinton was originally scheduled to appear at the rally as well, but canceled at the behest of the Obama campaign upon learning that Palin was going to appear.”

 ”At the behest of the Obama campaign.”  That’s funny, when you click on the article linked to the word “canceled,” there’s not a single mention of a request by the Obama campaign to cancel the event.  In fact, it seems to suggest Clinton withdrew of her own volition.  An AFP article seems to suggest the same thing.  No innacuracies here, that was a blatant lie.  What the hell is going on?

Next, they say the Obama campaign threatened the organizing groups tax-exempt status if they didn’t disinvite Palin:

“Several leading Democratic politicians, including Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) then prevailed upon the sponsoring organizations to dis-invite Palin, on the grounds that the event would be viewed as political in nature if she appeared. Reportedly, Democrats threatened the tax-exempt status of the sponsoring groups if Palin were allowed to speak at the rally.”

Cornell University Law professor Menachem Rosensaft sets the record straight:

It seemed fairly clever at first — perhaps a bit too clever. Every even semi-competent head of a tax exempt 501(c)(3) organization knows that featuring the Republican vice presidential candidate six weeks before Election Day without at least offering equal time to the Democratic ticket could seriously jeopardize the group’s tax-exempt status. But Senator Hillary Clinton had already agreed to speak at the rally back in August, and the organizers must have felt that this gave them the necessary cover to include Governor Palin without having to ask anyone from the Obama-Biden campaign. (Incidentally, one of Governor Palin’s advisers, Mark Wallace, just happens to be both the executive director of United Against Nuclear Iran and the husband of McCain campaign Communications Director Nicole Wallace; and if you believe this is a mere coincidence, I know of lots of subprime mortgages you might want to add to your portfolio.)

When Senator Clinton found out that the Republican Vice Presidential nominee had been invited, she understood that she was being set up. There was every likelihood that Governor Palin would have attacked Senator Obama, and contrasted Senator Clinton’s presence at the rally with the fact that Senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden were not there. It was equally foreseeable that no one would have bothered to point out that neither Obama nor Biden had been invited. The Obama campaign’s explanation and legitimately outraged reaction would then have been lost in the next news cycle. Senator Clinton was having none of this, and promptly withdrew from the demonstration.

 Scandalous!

Finally, the article goes on to state the Republican reaction:

The McCain campaign has criticized Obama’s decision to effectively censor Palin by puling out of the anti-Iran rally as choosing politics over the national interest. The campaign claims that it tried to get the Obama campaign to send a representative to the rally and make the event a bi-partisan stand against Iranian aggression. But the Obama campaign would only commit to sending Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) to appear alongside Palin. Wexler is a fiercely liberal partisan who has called Palin, “a far right, pro-life zealot,” and has denigrated her experience as a small town mayor. The McCain camp took that as a signal that the Obama campaign had no intention of engaging in a serious effort at bi-partisanship.

Besides already being a horribly imbalanced article (What was the Obama campaign’s reaction, huh?), the little descriptor of Robert Wexler as “a fiercely liberal partisan” is an obvious attempt at painting the Obama campaign as unreasonable.  “Well, they’d only send in this guy!  See how partisan they are?”

Let’s get something straight:  Sarah Palin is a far-right fringe conservative.  She may represent the mainstream of Republican politics, but she is inarguably on the outskirts of the ideology.  Robert Wexler is an activist liberal. If an extremist like Palin is going to be invited,  Wexler is a pretty tame offering by comparison.  The Republicans are crying about it by saying the Democrats are going overboard, which means they’re obviously looking for the advantage.  The Obama campaign is trying to fit a square peg into a square hole, that’s all:

It was only after Senator Clinton had pulled out that the rally’s organizers first contacted the Obama campaign and asked them to participate in the event. This was on Wednesday, September 17th, five days before the rally. The Obama campaign accepted the invitation and said that it would send Representative Robert Wexler, a prominent Jewish Member of Congress from Florida who sits on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs (he is chairman of its Sub-Committee on Europe) as its surrogate. The following day, the organizers decided that the rally had suddenly become too political and disinvited Governor Palin and all other “American political personalities.”

Let’s be perfectly clear. The organizers had initially invited Governor Palin without ever contacting, let alone inviting, anyone from the Obama campaign. When they finally issued a belated invitation to the Obama side, it was accepted, and a prominent Democratic Member of Congress was going to speak at the rally. The organizers then disinvited both Governor Palin and Representative Wexler. And whom does the GOP hold responsible for this fiasco? Barack Obama, of course.

Scum.  Bags.  Honestly, wingnuts, how do you keep falling for this shit?

After reading the article and spotting so much bullshit I felt it necessary to scour the web in search of the facts behind it, I decided to click on the author’s name to read his profile:

Mark Impomeni is neither a journalist, nor a pundit. He is a citizen with a keen interest in politics and national issues. He brings an everyman’s perspective to political happenings and strives to find the subtleties of political strategy behind even the most conventional political plays. Mark is an ideological conservative, although not a member of any political party.

Skeptical, argumentative, and in need of an outlet, Mark began writing political blogs as a diarist at RedState.com in the fall of 2005. After a year as a frequently recommended and promoted diarist there, Mark was invited to become a contributing editor in December 2006. He continues to post and edit at RedState. Mark also writes a column on the state of the 2008 presidential race for Political-Buzz.com.

Suddenly, the world makes sense again.  This guy isn’t a journalist, he’s a conservative dipshit.  I do like the vain attempt at neutrality in that first paragraph,”an ideological conservative, although not a member of any political party.”  Kiss my ass.  Nobody is fooled into thinking this guy votes anything but Republican on a regular basis.

——-

So what was Palin going to say at the rally anyway?

What am I saying?!

I can tell you what she’ll say about Iran and Ahmadinejad without even reading it.  This dolt is only capable of parroting Republican talking points.  So let’s see…

1)  She mentions state-sponsored terrorism, and the sending of Iranian troops into Iraq to fight Americans, something which the Bush administration has been claiming for awhile now, yet hasn’t substantiated it despite their supposed mountains of evidence.  Iran also denies the allegations.

2) She mentions Iranian nuclear ambitions.  She’ll say they have, had, or can make nukes, despite the NIE report which says the program was stopped back in 2003 due to international pressure–*GASP* that’s diplomacy–for them to suspend it.

3) She mentions threatening Israel and the Holocaust denying.  In the same breath, she will threaten Iran and/or Ahmedinejad with extermination, forget that we’ve systematically denied atrocities such as the Armenian genocide.  In essense, she’s going to make it look like we’re the aggressors to the Iranians, because she’s a tactless twit.

4) She’s going to put on her Dubya hat and claim that Iran is the gravest danger we’ve ever faced and that we must take action now or else the whole of Western civilization and our Democracy™ will be threatened.  I’ll bet a thousand bucks she doesn’t mention the American-backed CIA-incited coups that led to the overthrow of their democratically-elected leaders.  Any takers?

*reads the speech*

UGH!!!  Here’s the tally:

1. Dubya hat: “They must be stopped.”  (what have they done, exactly?)   Check.
2. Holocaust denial:  “Ahmadinejad denies that the Holocaust ever took place.” Check.
3. Destroying Israel:  “He has called Israel a “stinking corpse” that is “on its way to annihilation.”"  Check.
4. Nukes: “The Iranian government wants nuclear weapons.” (then lists all the NIE-debunked bullshit)  Check.
5. Iranians killing Americans in Iraq:  “Iran has armed and trained terrorists who have killed our soldiers in Iraq…”  Check.
6. State-Sponsored Terrorism:  “It is the no. 1 state sponsor of terrorism.” Check.
7. Threatening for War:  Surprisingly, no.  She instead danced around the issue and vaguely said we need to stop it, impose sanctions or otherwise discourage it.  Fail.

Six out of seven.  Not too shabby.  There were a few of other things I should have predicted but didn’t, such as making yet another hollow sales pitch for staying in Iraq.  I was reading along, checking things off my list when I found something that did surprise me:  an uncharacteristically long (for a Republican) mention of women’s rights in Iran.  Since when have wingnuts given a shit about womens’ rights in this country, let alone in the world?

Then I recognized it for what it was:  a setup.

Earlier this year, Senator Clinton said that “Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is in the forefront of that” effort. Senator Clinton argued that part of our response must include stronger sanctions, including the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization. John McCain and I could not agree more.

Senator Clinton understands the nature of this threat and what we must do to confront it. This is an issue that should unite all Americans. Iran should not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. Period. And in a single voice, we must be loud enough for the whole world to hear: Stop Iran!

So what the release of this speech does:  completely and unequivocally justifies Senator Clinton’s withdrawal from the event, while showing Republicans to be the shady, sleazy scumbags we thought they were.  Way to accuse the other side of partisan politics while planning to pull cheap shit like this.

Of course, this isn’t the only time in the past week they’ve done it.  In the proud tradition of misusing 9/11 for political gain, McCain throws in a presidential sales pitch at the end of his phony consolation concerning the terrorist attacks in Pakistan.  Hell, he didn’t even release a statement concerning the attacks in Yemen.  Compare that with Obama’s press releases available on his site.  Yet again, Obama shows class while McCain does not.

If you were watching Larry King tonight, I’m sorry and I feel your pain.   Just about every one of the McCain campaign’s lies came up and instead of simply admitting “yeah, these aren’t true,” the Republican bottom-feeders on the program defended it and changed the subject every single time.

Ollie, you’re right–the gloves are coming off.  Jesus F. Christ, where do I begin?

Claim:  Barack Obama called Sarah Palin a pig - FALSE

What did Obama say?

“Let’s just list this for a second. John McCain says he’s about change, too. Except — and so I guess his whole angle is, “Watch out, George Bush, except for economic policy, health-care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy, and Karl Rove-style politics. We’re really gonna shake things up in Washington.” That’s not change. That’s just calling some — the same thing, something different. But you know, you can — you know, you can put lipstick on a pig; it’s still a pig.”

“Lipstick on a pig.”

A 2004 entry on urbandictionary.com describes the phrase as:

A term used by many, generally in reference to someone who may be trying to make something or someone look appealing or attractive when it quite clearly will not work, or will only deceive the dumbest of people. Car salesmen are generally good at “putting lipstick on a pig” because they are always selling unroadworthy buckets of shit and try and hide their shitfulness by tarting them up.   The dude in that car yard just put a body kit on that piece of shit. Talk about putting lipstick on a pig

Gee whiz, this phrase was around in 2004?  Somebody tell Sean Hannity’s fans!

Actually, the phrase is much, much older.  Older than anyone running, that’s for sure.  The only reason Republicans are pretending to be offended is because Sarah Palin described herself as a “pit bull with lipstick,” and, being Republicans and therefor ignorant of the world outside of their narrow, delusional vision of reality, were immediately certain the remark meant Obama is a sexist and was calling her a pig.  Mind you, that’s from the “how do we beat the bitch” party.

Claim:  Sarah Palin is a reformer who is tough on wasteful spending - FALSE

Palin isn’t a pig, she’s a lying idiot.  There’s an interesting article in USA Today about pork barrel spending.  To Senator McCain’s credit, Arizona ranks last on the list.  According to the same article, Alaska ranks first:

Arizona, the second fastest growing state in the nation, will receive just $18.70 per capita in federal earmarks this fiscal year. By comparison, Alaska — with roughly a tenth of Arizona’s population — is set to receive $506.34 per capita, the highest in the nation, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group which tracks earmarks.

Holy shit!  For being the 47th most populous state, they sure are receiving the big bucks, aren’t they?  This completely debunks the claims that A) as governor, Sarah Palin was responsible about this type of spending and actively fought against it (if at all); and B) Senator Obama is corrupt and irresponsible when it comes to earmarks.  Speaking of that, why don’t we check to see what Illinois’ per-capita spending is?

Per the Associated Press:

Obama hasn’t asked for any earmarks this year. Last year, he asked for $311 million worth, about $25 for every Illinois resident.

In my neck of the woods, we’d call her a lying sack of shit.  Republicans, before you say it, the USA Today article wasn’t a Palin hit-piece.  Look at the date:  March, 2008.  This has been known for awhile, and in today’s world, with all our means of getting information, you have absolutely no excuse to remain this ignorant.

Claim:  Obama’s only accomplishment is making schools teach comprehensive sex-ed to kindergarteners - FALSE.

This is what pissed me off on Larry King tonight.  Like the others, this isn’t even open to interpretation:  it’s a flat-out lie.  CBS News has the truth:

The bill, introduced in the Illinois legislature, never became law. It called for non-mandatory sex education for grades K-12 that was “age and developmentally appropriate.” For kindergarteners, that included, among other things, “how to say no to unwanted sexual advances.”

Obama voted for the bill in committee and says he supports similar laws in other states. He said the point was to help parents teach their children how to deal with sexual predators.

Apparently, the pederast lobby is very influential in the Republican party.

The ad itself pisses me off, sure, but the Republicans on the show wouldn’t even concede on principle.  They just kept repeating “it’s not factually incorrect.”  Yes, you fucking lowlife, it is.

As I mentioned on a previous post, the Republicans would be so much more respectable if they’d just admit when they’re being shady bastards.

——-

The new McCain line of reasoning seems to be,”John McCain is the best candidate because he was bold and chose this bumpkin from Alaska who happens to be popular with our lowest common denominator (the Republican voting base), whereas Barack Obama is a typical politician who chose a seasoned statesman as his running mate.”  That was what one amazingly dull apologist said on Anderson Cooper tonight.  I turned off the TV afterwards because I was about to karate chop it into two half-televisions.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:  being a viable political maneuver does not make one qualified to be the Vice President of the United States.   How tacky.

——-

EDIT–I just checked Ollie’s blog, and he apparently hit two of these points already.  Even used the same CBS link, it looks like.  Whoops.