Ross Perot's 1992 Reform Party movement got more independent votes
(19%) than any third-party candidacy since Teddy Roosevelt's 1912 Bull
Moose Party run. But, it's interesting to see where
he got his support. Perot did exceedingly well in New Hampshire and
Maine (he came in second place in Maine). He got 24% in Minnesota,
which pre-saged the governorship of Jesse Ventura. He got 27% in Idaho,
almost beating out Clinton for second place. In fact, Perot topped 20%
in California, Oregon, and Washington, and in every state (except New
Mexico) all the way from the left coast to the Missouri River. However,
nowhere in the Old Confederacy did he do better than 14%, and he
generally tallied 9-11% in the Deep South.

In other words, while Perot didn't run an explicitly libertarian
campaign (far from it), his main appeal was to the libertarian wing of
the Republican Party. New Hampshire's motto of 'Live Free or Die' is
the motto for much of the West. And these are the areas where Barack
Obama has had the most success with attracting white voters. In West
Virginia, Perot only received 16% of the vote, and in Kentucky only
14%.

It will be interesting to see how Bob Barr's
independent run on the Libertarian ticket will affect the outcomes in
the West. He certainly offers a Perot-like protest vote for hordes of
disaffected Republicans in states like Idaho, Colorado, Nevada, and the
Dakotas. Barr hails from Georgia, which along with Mississippi, is one
of the states where a strong right-leaning third party vote, combined
with record black turnout, could put a Deep Southern state in play for
Obama. But, Barr's appeal is likely to catch fire, if it does at all,
in the states where Perot ran strongest.

read more

Simplistic euphemisms aren’t always the best means of analysis and taking political tactics personally is not the best way to weigh their importance.

Here’s what Obama said to WV voters today:

One of the saddest episodes in our history was the degree to which returning vets from Vietnam were shunned, demonized and neglected by some because they served in an unpopular war. Too many of those who opposed the war in Vietnam chose to blame not only the leaders who ordered the mission, but the young men who simply answered their country?s call. Four decades later, the sting of that injustice is a wound that has never fully healed, and one that should never be repeated.

The first sentence can’t be disputed. It was also a sad episode that saw our government continue to kill the North Vietnamese till 1 or 2 million succumbed to our superior firepower and military. Exactly what were the Vietnamese fighting for? Liberation from colonial powers. And yet they never posed an actual threat to any US resident except those who went to Vietnam to kill them.

It was sad that our veterans were shunned, demonized and neglected, yes. It was one of many sadnesses. Like the sadness of the 58,000 who did not return alive.

read more

The essence of the problem with our superficial media’s political discourse.
The Cult of the Offhand Comment

Phrase coined by Somerby via Digby

Quoted from a movie you are not supposed to see.

A movie we will never see in the US: (video access gone from Cannablog, It Must Be The Vapors, and other places. Found in caches.)

The World According to Monsanto 1 of 4 27min

On March 11 a new documentary was aired on French television (ARTE ? French-German cultural tv channel) by French journalist and film maker Marie-Monique Robin, entitled ‘The World According to Monsanto’ (Le Monde selon Monsanto[1]). Starting from the Internet over a period of three years Robin has collected material for her documentary, going on to numerous interviews with people of very different backgrounds. She traveled widely, from Latin America, to Asia, through Europe and the United States, to personally interview farmers and people in influential positions.

read more

?If anything,” said Rush Limbaugh, “my impact will increase
with a McCain presidency.? And, by God, it did.

In the latest Hayden/Doh! poll conducted between now and 5 minutes ago by asking my invisible friends, Hillary is likely to win West Virginia’s primary by elebenty bazillion points tomorrow. Which will gain her 3/4ths of a delegate but will bolster her argument to superdelegates that Obama can’t connect with eighth grade dropouts who marry their cousins and flirt with sheep unless they find out he’s really half-white and has a crush on Mrs. O’Leary’s cow.

The poll also found that:

52% of West Virginians don’t understand why Mexicans aren’t trying to steal their jobs in the coal mines.

63% say the Hatfields had it coming to them.

98% have heard their university has a monorail and 97% think it’s a vaginal cream.

2% think Obama’s 49-state strategy is to coast past West Virginia and try to reduce the Clinton margin in Kentucky so he can declare victory after winning Oregon by 12%, after which, he’ll expend more effort in Puerto Rico just because Yes He Can.

And 38% think bologna sammiches will do just fine for lunch, after which they’ll kick some tofu-eating college hippie elitist ass.

Local rap musician Cleminem summed up West Virginian attitudes as “fuck man, they don’t even get the jokes, so why bother insulting them? They only use the internets for nekkid pictures of well-sheared lesbian lambs and Shari Lewis’ swinging udders.”

Update: What does it mean when it’s titled ‘Clinton Creaming Obama in Kentucky’ ? I mean, ewwwwwwww! It sure sounds sexyist to me, if Obama’s into that sort of thing.

I guess the party of spend and spend and rob your kid’s inheritance is having some second thoughts about a third term McBush.

The only question is, who will do the most damage, Barr or the Paul sleeper cells or the al-Huckabee Earth Flat! insurgency?

Answer: McCain. Running against his former selves is a losing proposition. When he snaps at an October debate and slaps himself silly, he’ll lose 1.5% of Republican support, just enough to hand Obama a clearcut victory.

The only way he can avoid that is if Cindy distributes enough beer to everyone in Pennsylvania AND Ohio, then shows them her tits.

Air America Radio welcomes back Marc Maron for his 2nd day this week in the guest host chair.  Lots to talk about today from this week’s primaries and the question of when or if should Hillary Clinton drop out and back Barack Obama to high gas prices and how we are all dealing with it.  Maron will be taking your calls in HOUR ONE on all the above topics.

Maron’s guest in HOUR TWO will be Matt Taibbi.  Taibbi is a journalist and political writer. He currently works at Rolling Stone where he authors a column called "Road Rage" for the print version, and an additional weekly online-only column called "The Low Post". He is best known for his coverage of the 2004 US presidential election, and for his former editorial positions at newspapers the eXile, the New York Press, and the Beast. Recently, Taibbi has been a regular contributor to Real Time with Bill Maher.

read more

WEB EXCLUSIVE: Sam Seder interviews Sen. Feingold on secret law hearings

A front page headline in Saturday's Washington Post read "For Bush in Last Year, It's the Principle".  The article discussed Bush's plan to push ahead "with proposals that appear to have last chance of passage".  What caught my attention was this passage, considered in light of the article's headline:

Presidential aides characterize Bush as intent on pursuing matters of principle, regardless of the polls.  Democrats accuse him of needless stubbornness at the expense of improving a battered economy and addressing other problems.

Standard "media balance"–Republicans say one thing, Democrats say another, you sort it out.  What caught my attention, though, was that the Republican talking point became the article's headline.  Someone reading the headline would think "wow, Bush is acting on principle."  In fact, that's only Bush's take on what he is doing–Democrats strongly disagree.  It's just that the Post accepted Bush's version as truth.

Given that Bush is a president who has approved torture and has offered constantly changng reasons for going to war in Iraq, I'm not sure why the Post chose to credit the administration's vision of Bush as a man f principle.  Here are some other ways they could have written the headline, without lending the administration's spin the aura of objective truth:

• "Bush Calls it "Principle", Democrats Say It's Stubbornness"
• "Bush and Democrats Clash as Administration Comes to a Close"

I might have gone with this:

read more