Conservatives and Jerome Corsi

Kimball's a jackass - Rush Limbaugh with white gloves and a finger bowl, Michelle Malkin with a bowtie and a set of tooled-Naugahyde Dickens from The Franklin Mint. His poorly-written and illogical rant reeks of the accustomed rancid neocon groupthink and bad faith.

All Aboard the GOP 5 O’Clock Shadow, now leaving on Track 1972:

tinyurl.com/6zlo2f

McCain has been in the public square for 30 years. I believe he has also released his medical records. The potential insanity question and the Manchurian Candidate scenario have both been raised.

Obama? He can't / won't even produce his birth certificate. I haven't read any anti-Obama books. I don't need to. He's a proud enabler of child murder. What's more to need to know?

Don: "Obama? ... He's a proud enabler of child murder. What's more to need to know?"

Perhaps, for starters, that there's no indication that McCain would be any less of an "enabler of child murder" if elected:

"I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary," McCain told the Chronicle in an article published Friday. "But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations." ...

He added that while he ultimately favors repeal of Roe, "we all know, and it's obvious, that if we repeal Roe v. Wade tomorrow, thousands of young American women would be performing illegal and dangerous operations."

McCain has a long antiabortion record in his 17-year congressional career. He has said he opposes abortion with the exceptions of rape, incest and to prevent a woman's death. In a National Right to Life Committee questionnaire last year, he answered "yes" when asked if he supported the complete reversal of Roe v. Wade. He also voted to override President Clinton's veto of the ban on a late-term procedure called "partial birth" abortion by its opponents and in favor of continuing the ban on Medicaid funding for abortions, with exceptions for rape, incest and life of the woman.

His latest remarks took some conservatives by surprise. They said it appeared to contradict his record, what he told the National Right to Life Committee and a letter to Roman Catholic bishops last year in which he said he was a "life-long, ardent supporter of unborn children's right to life."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/mccain082499.htm

Don Wiley, you are a liar.

...but only if Mr. Wiley knew that the birth certificate had been produced on Sen. Obama's website. I reckon he doesn't spend much time there, however.

Sounds like Jerome Corsi has been talking to Ann Coulter.

On the war, environment, food and consumer issues, advantage Obama. On abortion, affirmative action and family issues, advantage McCain.

I think this crystalizes my reasons for supporting Obama, despite the fact that I am somewhat more socially conservative than my party and the fact that I am rather disillusioned with both parties at the current time. Consider the above advantages of McCain (in stands on issues):

1. Abortion. Republicans have had the presidency all but eight years out of the last twenty-seven and a half; all but three (I think) of the current SCOTUS justices were appointed by Republicans; the Republicans have also controlled Congress for the last several years until '06; and abortion rates and laws have not changed in any significant way in this country; Roe still stands. I think it is crystal clear that given the ambivalent (and admittedly paradoxical) views of most Americans (who say they think abortion is wrong, but say it should stay legal), and given the Republican track record, to say nothing of his recent flip-floppery, McCain will do nothing substantive to change things. Unless, that is, he appoints SCOTUS justices that will destroy what's left of the Bill of Rights and still not touch Roe.

2. Affirmative action. An extremely complicated issue that neither party really wants to look at with any nuance and complexity: usually the discourse boils down to "I'm for it," or "I'm agin' it." Anyway, anything affirmative-action-related would probably end up in the SCOTUS (regarding which, see 1. above).

3. Family issues. This is rather nebulous as stated and could cover lots of ground. I would argue that McCain probably does have better ideas on some "family issues". On the other hand, the Republican party has been notably reluctant to support many "family issues" e.g. it has failed to support all of the following: funding education more, giving more generous family leave provisions, passing a higher minimum wage, working with unions (who have often helped families secure many necessary rights), providing universal health care (a family issue if there ever was one!) and many others. Many of these areas are places where reasonable people might disagree; nevertheless, by my lights, I wouldn't give McCain more than half on this item as an "advantage".

So, while tending to agree with the list of advantages to each side, I'd say that the advantages on the McCain side are weaker or less relevant than they seem. Thus, while being aware that the choices this year are far from ideal, and wishing we had a viable third party in this country, I will (barring the unforseen) vote for Obama.

After citing as a source Corsi's own rag, the 3:39 poster goes on to imply that God will have some sharp words for the Americans should they be so perfidious as to turn their back to Him in electing a dark-skinned president.

"Parody is disarmed before such candor." - Dwight Macdonald

Yes, God does indeed have a Trumpet Call: it's called "Taps", and some of our commenters, I suspect, won't need amplifiers to hear it, if I have anything to do with it.

Two things:

1) Don't call Don Wiley or anybody else a liar. Ad hominem attacks against other people posting on this board aren't tolerated. If his information is wrong, attack the information. But don't attack the person.

2) I am not going to tolerate posts from trolls who claim black people cannot be elected president of the US without violating the "Curse of Ham," or any such thing. Go talk to crazypants Leonard Jeffries about his theories regarding ice people and sun people. Y'all should have a lot to discuss. But don't do it here on this board.

wendigo is referring to the fact that her wholly inoffensive dig regarding chickens coming home to roost among the right-wing celebrati, strangely appeared before noon, only to vanish. Also round noon EDT, my first comment ("DSL." is my *halter hego*) under my Real Name (tm) turned fishbone in BeliefNet throats, held pending moderator approval. Rod takes pains to explain that software glitches over which he has no control, which I take have afflicted most regulars hither and yon, lie behind such whack-a-molar tooth-pullings. Unless, like a certain divine brass clarion since removed, you've crossed the line in content, in which case you know who you are, and may the sting find you better for it.

Bill: "At this point, Obama and McCain score pretty much the same on my list of key policy positions. On the war, environment, food and consumer issues, advantage Obama. On abortion, affirmative action and family issues, advantage McCain. But the emerging tone of the McCain campaign and McCain supporters is beginning to push me in Obama's direction."

I'll second that.

Bless,
Doug

I've every intention of voting for Obama, but I have to say that I hear racial commentary just a little shy of the "curse of Ham" variety all the time. My barber, the guy I sit next to at the diner for breakfast once or twice a week, people in the little country town where I grew up. Some of them I can have a conversation with, most I can't.

In the 1950's, my grandfather actually cited those verses as a reason my parents were in danger of hellfire for having Black people over for dinner and letting a Mexican family (we happen to be white) stay with us. Now it's more de rigeur to cite an Islamic connection, I suppose. But the new Corsi schlock is no better than the old twisting of the passage in Genesis.

I'm always grateful for the chance for further education afforded by the political use of scripture, and not least for the chance to test my body's no-U-turn policy with a given day's rations.

Type "curse of Ham" at Google sometime, and have a look at the Wikipedia entry, the Straight Dope, and especially, if you can take it, the comment thread at the Brownbackophile Wordpress blog near the top. Posters there make Rod's worst combox nightmares seem like hail-fellows-well-met. I can't imagine agreeing to babysit for such people, or sharing a beer or backyard barbeque. That doesn't make me an elitist - just a human being whose tolerance in one direction finds itself strained somewhat less, I hope, than that shown in another by people whose equality at the ballot box has helped copperplate my allergy to democracy all my adult life...

There is nothing wrong with attacking the personal integrity and patriotism of a candidate; the problem comes in when the messenger has no personal integrity. If we support Corsi, how long will it be before the Obama supporters start throwing back his "research" about McCain in our face? Corsi's a buffoon, who only got noted because he helped John O'Neill edit Unfit for Command. The guy is a regular on Coast To Coast AM, and Alex Jones; in fact he is supposedly going to be reporting for Alex Jones on the Republican National Convention.

Knowing the origin of a piece of information is an important part of how we assess its reliability, whether it is a historical document, a piece of academic research, or a political attack.

Jerome Corsi is anti-semitic, anti-Catholic, anti-Muslim, anti-Hispanic, homophobic, misogynistic, etc., etc. Nothing but poison spews from his mouth, and he pollutes conservative campaigns. Corsi is toxic, and conservatives need to keep well away from him, however much some GOP operatives love to use his work.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/573429/posts?page=10#10
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1090654/posts#17
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/925436/posts?page=424#424

However, it is very easy to criticize the "facts" which he parades in his attack on Obama, because he is unable to avoid lying through his teeth, as in everything else he has ever written. Knowing the answer before he reads, he does not need to comprehend the words before him. Like some other polemicists, he expects no one to check his footnotes against the original material.

One can perhaps gain some insight into Corsi's motives for his current campaign, which deviates from his recent anti-Hispanic nativism, by looking at the company he keeps. He has appeared on a white supremacist talk show and a conspiracy theory talk show to promote his book.

http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/blog/2008/08/08/political-cesspool-to-host-new-york-times-1-author-on-sunday-august-10/
http://www.infowars.com/?p=3973

However, I'm not sure that anyone paid him to link McCain to "Mexico First" policies, George Soros, organized crime, and support from al-Qaeda, stopping only when McCain clinched the nomination.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=45737
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56177
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=57354
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57678

I was going to run through my copies of Obama's autobiography and Corsi's book, providing examples that I had noticed, but I find that there are many detailed analyses on the Web. Here's a very full one from the Obama campaign and a shorter one from Media Matters.

http://obama.3cdn.net/a74586f9067028c40a_5km6vrqwa.pdf
http://mediamatters.org/items/200808040005

It may be hard to criticize an attack on Obama that's No.4 in the amazon.com non-fiction list. It must be done. If an election cannot be won honestly, it's not worth winning.