"watch whiteness work."

watch whiteness work. https://t.co/wjcVGm4Akq

— deray (@deray) January 21, 2019

(DeRay Mckesson is a Black Lives Matter activist — Wikipedia.)

ADDED: Another we're-not-sorry angle:

“Assertions to the contrary are simply false.”

We’re to believe a 16-year-old wrote this statement. Huh. https://t.co/rKPw0C38VZ

— John Aravosis 🇺🇸 (@aravosis) January 21, 2019

I certainly hope the kid is not all alone. He should have adult counseling! I thought the statement sounded genuine — like a teenager telling a straight story — but I assumed that meant he had a good lawyer. And he should have a good lawyer.

AND: Here's a third approach to digging in:

Cannot be stared enough: Racist boys were there for a rally calling for pregnancy to be used as a weapon to subjugate women. They were wearing hats celebrating a man who bragged about assaulting women.

Their claims not to be bigots are pre-emptively nonsense.

— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) January 21, 2019

"Did Ken Burns 'in' Eleanor Roosevelt?"

Asks John Aravosis.

Talking Points Memo turns 10.

"The post was about Ted Olson making his debut as the chief Bush lawyer in the emerging Florida Recount battle."

Yes, it's also the 10-year anniversary of the big Florida recount. I wish I'd been blogging then! It would have been so much fun to write about that every step of the way. I'd have liked to show you in real time that I really wanted my guy, Al Gore, to win, and I also accepted nearly everything the Supreme Court did in the complicated litigation over the recount. But there are so many missed blogging opportunities in the past. I'd have loved to have blogged the Clinton scandals too. And the Clarence Thomas hearings. The Bork hearings.

Here's that first TPM post:

As if things couldn't get any weirder, did you notice the name of the lawyer who made the Republicans' unsuccessful arguments before that federal judge today? That would be Ted Olson, a man Washingtonians often refer to as a 'Washington super-lawyer.' Who is Ted Olson? Well, that would be the same one knee-deep in the Arkansas Project, which in league with the American Spectator spent a ton of money digging dirt on Bill Clinton in Arkansas....

Well, now, isn't that weird? I just blogged this morning about that Think Progress blogger who confronted Justice Alito and he was going on about the Arkansas Project:

Last night, the American Spectator — a right-wing magazine known for its role in the “Arkansas Project,” a well-funded effort to invent stories with the goal of eventually impeaching President Clinton — held its annual gala fundraising event....

That first TPM post wove Justice Scalia into its conspiracy-ish riff:

Of course, Olson... is also the Olson from Morrison v. Olson, the supreme court case which upheld the constitutinality of the Independent Counsel statute. Olson was against it. Come to think of it, we Dems now think he and Scalia were right. So maybe chalk one up in his favor.

So that's how TPM first talked about law. Yikes. Spelled "constitutionality" wrong too.

I'm going to start reading the lefty blogs more and writing about them, I think. I'm interested in the way they string ideas together, and I think they need some more push back.

Do you want me to write more about lefty blogs?
	No. Don't give them traffic.
	No. I don't care what they say.
	Yes. They need monitoring and criticism.
	Yes. Broaden your view and see what happens.
	Eh. Not sure. Depends on how sharp and funny you make it.
pollcode.com free polls

Are Cindy and John McCain in a serious marital breakdown over Don't Ask Don't Tell?

John Aravosis says:

John McCain is leading the filibuster against the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" "repeal" legislation in the Senate (it's not an actual repeal, but we'll leave that for another time). Today, Cindy McCain joined a number of celebrities in a video about gay youth suicide and bullying. Mrs. McCain's part of the video condemned DADT and then accused our government of sending bullies a message that what they do is okay.

The woman basically accused her husband of sharing the blame for gay kids killing themselves.

I'm astonished. And impressed as hell.

Husband-wife teams work like that sometimes. It's not really evidence of a marital breakdown or even necessarily a real conflict at all. Try this exercise: Begin with the assumption that they are a partnership. Now, explain their behavior. Do you see how it makes sense? I sure do.

"The main focus is going to be going after the Utah brand.We're going to destroy the Utah brand. It is a hate state."

Said blogger John Aravosis, as 3,000 people protesting the Prop 8 vote in California marched in downtown Salt Lake City in Utah.

Church officials are "disturbed" that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was "singled out for speaking up as part of its democratic right in a free election," said LDS spokesman Scott Trotter earlier Friday....

Attacking a religious organization rarely works, said Joe Mathews, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, a political think tank in southern California....

"Mormons are unpopular and the church went a long way in diving into this issue," he said. "But it doesn't make long-term strategic sense. You are appealing to religious bigotry and I don't think that's a good idea. You need to convince people of faith that they're not under attack."

Let's characterize more things as hate and then fight hate with hate. What a terrible idea!

UPDATE: CBN reports:

Several churches have been vandalized by apparent supporters of same-sex marriage since the idea was banned in California last week, local police have reported....

Monday in Utah, home to the Mormon church, the windows of five Latter-day Saints wardhouses were shot out with a BB gun. Police, however, did not openly link the damages to Prop 8 supporters.

"A lot of opinion has generated that this is in connection with Prop 8," Layton Utah Police Lt. Quinn Moyes said. "We aren't making that connection yet."

The Sarah Palin craze continues.

There are already over 350 comments on that last post. It seems as though you're ravenous for Sarah Palin posts. This is just a test. Would you like to talk about her earrings?

What earrings would you choose for visiting a national disaster?

Asks John Aravosis, displaying this picture of Sarah Palin wearing supposedly disrespectful hoop earrings while accompanying John McCain to Mississippi to speak about the approaching Hurricane Gustav.

You know what Aravosis is trying to say: She's too low class to be Vice President. She's... she's... trailer trash.

The McCain response to that Obama video.

Hilarious:



Via John Aravosis. [NOTE: No one could think this video was put out by the McCain campaign. Or so I thought when I titled this post.]

AND: I must add that I find this video hilarious even though I agree with McCain about the Iraq war. And I'm heartened to see that Obama is backing away from any rigid promise to leave Iraq:

"At a time when American casualties are down, at a time when the violence is down, particularly affecting the Iraqi population, is that the right time to try and set time tables for withdrawing all American troops? I mean you talked about…the end of 2009," [Steve] Kroft remarked.

"Yeah, absolutely. I think now is precisely the time. I think that it is very important for us to send a clear signal to the Iraqis that we are not gonna be here permanently. We're not gonna set up permanent bases. That they are going to have to resolve their differences and get their country functioning," Obama said.

"And you pull out according to that time table, regardless of the situation? Even if there’s serious sectarian violence?" Kroft asked.

"No, I always reserve as commander in chief, the right to assess the situation," Obama replied.

"LGBT Americans who know..." and "African American ministers and citizens who believe...."

The LGBT Americans "know that their sexual orientation is an innate and treasured part of their being." They know. That is, they are right. The African American ministers and citizens "believe that their religion prevents them from fully embracing their gay brothers and sisters." They have a belief. That is, we'd like to be respectful and inclusive and simultaneously signal that they are wrong.

These quotes are from a joint letter from Barack Obama's African American Religious and LGBT Leadership Teams, in response to criticism of him for sharing the stage with Donnie McClurkin — a pastor and a popular gospel singer who presents himself as saved from what he believes is the sin of homosexuality.

From the letter:

[A] great many African Americans share Pastor McClurkin’s beliefs. This... cannot be ignored.

[W]e believe that the only way for these two sides to find common ground is to do so together.

Not at arms length. Not in a war of words with press and pundits. Only together.

It is clear that Barack Obama is the only candidate who has made bringing these two often disparate groups together a goal. In gatherings of LGBT Americans and African Americans of faith, Obama has stated that all individuals should be afforded full civil rights regardless of their sexual orientation, and that homophobia must be eradicated in every corner of our nation. If we are to end homophobia and secure full civil rights for gay Americans, then we need an advocate within the Black community like Barack Obama....

We also ask Senator Obama’s critics to consider the alternatives. Would we prefer a candidate who ignores the realities in the African American community and cuts off millions of Blacks who believe things offensive to many Americans? Or a panderer who tells African Americans what they want to hear, at the expense of our gay brothers and sisters? Or would we rather stand with Barack Obama, who speaks truth in love to both sides, pulling no punches but foreclosing no opportunities to engage?

This sounds like to me like a specific example of the general idea that Obama has been purveying all along. Were you excited about the abstraction, but put off by the concrete manifestation?

John Aravosis hates it:

Keep digging, Senator....

I'm aware that some people claim that there's a lot of homophobia in the black community - frankly, I wouldn't know - but Obama is now saying that a great many African-Americans agree with McClurkin? Meaning, they agree that gays are trying to kill our children, that America is at war with the gays, and that homosexuality is a "curse"? I'm willing to believe that we may have to do some educating of a lot of Americans of all races and creeds, but I'm having a hard time believing that a "great many" of them believe the kind of wacky stuff that McClurkin does....

[Are we] to believe Obama would not exclude anti-Semites or racists from his campaign either?...

I simply don't believe that Obama would have the same reaction, be just as welcoming, if we were talking about racists or anti-Semites. He wouldn't say that we're all one big tent. He would kick the racist or the anti-Semite to the curb....

I mean, we're to believe that the fact that Obama, alone among Democratic candidates, is willing to openly welcome bigots into his campaign, and that fact makes him the best candidate for voters concerned about civil rights. And the corollary, the worst candidate for someone who cares about civil rights is the candidate who actually stands up against the bigots. So the best way to promote tolerance is to tolerate and embrace intolerance. And I suppose the best way to tackle the issue of domestic violence is to not exclude wife beaters from your campaign either? That's just wacked.

Obama made his name as a brilliant, inspiring speaker. So why am I reading a verbose letter by his supporters and a rambling rebuttal by an angry blogger?

I want to see Obama, on easily accessible video, putting in words exactly why he's doing the right thing, and I want to hear it and be able to say, yes, that's great.

If that doesn't happen, then the whole premise of Obama's campaign is delusional.

***

And I had a hard time even finding the letter I was looking for on Obama's website. Why don't they have a search function? After wasting time searching for a search function, I decided my only hope was trial and error hitting the buttons along the top of the page to get pull-down menus. The "Issues" button looked like a good bet, but no. I finally found it under "People."

People? "LGBT" appears on that menu. So does "Women." Just as I had to go to "People" to find out about gay rights, I would have to go to "People" to find out about abortion.

When is an issue not an "issue"? When it's associated with a particular interest group? But "Honoring our veterans" gets to be an "issue," as does "Fulfilling our covenant with seniors."

This is not great communication.