• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on They just really hate Dem…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on They just really hate Dem…
    riverdaughter on They just really hate Dem…
    riverdaughter on They just really hate Dem…
    William on They just really hate Dem…
    lililam on They just really hate Dem…
    lililam on They just really hate Dem…
    Lucyk on They just really hate Dem…
    Lucyk on They just really hate Dem…
    riverdaughter on They just really hate Dem…
    jmac on They just really hate Dem…
    Beata on Arrows Up
    Beata on Arrows Up
    William on Arrows Up
    Beata on Arrows Up
  • Categories

  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    January 2010
    S M T W T F S
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • The Law of Equal Treatment
      Last Friday I wrote an article on the idea that if a society has a rule or duty, it must apply to everyone in the applicable situation, no matter who they are, even if it’s someone you love. It was interesting to me that most of the commenters disagreed. Perhaps this is my fault in choosing the famous example of a German general executing his own son for aba […]
  • Top Posts

Scott Brown slurs Obama with the truth!

(I decided to elevate this to the front page)

This story originates from Blue Mass Group. Over at Salon Joan Walsh posted the above clip under the heading:

Smiling Scott Brown slurs Obama
Watch the “moderate” GOP leader backed by teabaggers and Birthers suggest the president was born out of wedlock

Joan goes on to say:

Brown poses as a reasonable Republican, but told a reporter during the Republican National Convention that he wasn’t sure President Obama was born within wedlock. In the interview he looks like the same smarmy dude who’s now backed by the right wing but posed for a Cosmopolitan centerfold.

Let’s leave aside the slut-shaming of Mr. Brown and deal with the allegation he was slurring our president. First of all, Barack Obama WAS born out of wedlock.

Barack Obama Sr. was already married to Kezia Aoka and had two children when he met Stanley Ann Dunham, and he never divorced his first wife. That means BHO Sr. was not legally married to BHO Jr.’s mother. To be fair, Ms. Dunham may not have known this, but it doesn’t change the facts. Nor does this have anything to do with Barack Jr.’s qualifications for President.

This commenter at Salon makes an excellent point:

Out-of-wedlock birth is a slur on the child? Is this 1510 or 2010?

I’m curious. Is Ms. Walsh a time-traveling refugee from the days when “bastardy” was held to reflect badly on the child born out of wedlock?

“Barack saw his mother, who was very young and very single when she had him, and he saw her work hard to complete her education and try to raise he and his sister.” (Michelle Obama speaking in Kansas City in 2008 as quoted at http://blog.showmeprogress.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1297 .)

Was his wife slurring her husband when she said this?

But there’s another important point here. Brown’s statement was made during the 2008 GOP convention. That clip is pretty short, but if you’ll think back to that event you may recall that a certain female governor was the big story there, and part of that story concerned her pregnant and unmarried teenage daughter.

I’m guessing a longer version of the clip would show that the reason he brought up Stanley Ann Dunham in the first place had to do with a question about Bristol Palin. Just a hunch.

But wait! There’s more:

Now Obama himself is forced to come to the Bay State to campaign for Coakley, in a race that shouldn’t be close. Smart political observers say Obama only decided to show because he knows Coakley can and should win. But even if she does win, this race shouldn’t have been close. What should this tight race tell us?

First and foremost, it tells us that the overconfident, undercharismatic Coakley has botched the race since she won the primary. Every political reporter I’ve talked to has stories about how she and her campaign thought they were just going to walk into Kennedy’s office. This was Massachussetts, after all, and some of their confidence was understandable. But a certain kind of hubris wasn’t. Asked by the Boston Globe why she was running such a disengaged campaign, she joked, “As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?’’

If Coakley loses, that will go down as one of the worst political lines in history. And if she does fall, party leaders will be blaming it only on the candidate. They’ll be wrong: DNC chair Tim Kaine as well as the DSCC should have to answer for the party’s terrible overconfidence in Massachusetts, too.

If she wins, though, Democrats can’t take for granted that their message was validated. This party is in trouble: Nobody understands its complicated health care reform plan; the economy is still pinching many people, and too many voters don’t know if Obama and the Dems are on the side of the overdogs or the underdogs. Like most Americans, and most Democrats, I have better things to do this weekend than pay attention to a race that shouldn’t be one. Let’s hope this is a wakeup call to the party that just a year ago was celebrating what seemed like a glorious realignment.

We’ve been covering the special election in Massachusetts pretty closely, and the key issues seem to be Obamacare and Obama himself. Unfortunately for Martha Coakley, Tuesday’s special election has turned into a referendum on the leadership of the Democratic party. In parliamentary terms Obama and the Democrats are losing a vote of no-confidence.

If they’ve lost “bluest of the blue” Massachusetts, November will be really ugly for the donkey party.


Below is the mailer the Massachusetts Democratic Party sent out:

According to Greg Sargent:

The mailer — paid for by the Massachusetts Democratic Party — says the claim is based on “a law to let emergency hospitals turn away rape victims in need of emergency contraception.” That appears to be a reference to a Brown-sponsored 2005 amendment that would have exempted hospital personnel, on religious grounds, to inform victims of the availability of the morning after pill.

As Coakley’s own Web site says, after Brown’s amendment was rejected, he voted in favor of the bill to require emergency rooms to provide rape victims with emergency contraceptives, and the whole debate seems to be more nuanced than the mailer suggests.

The old Democratic party might have lost most elections, but they weren’t so sleazy they made me feel like I needed a shower.


Here’s a longer version of the Brown comment you can compare to the original:

55 Responses

  1. Joan Walsh responds:

    From Joan Walsh

    I’m really not going to call out any particular posters, except to say: Obama’s parents were married. I continue to be sad about people who jump into comments threads uninformed.

    Yeah, I just dreamed up that part about BHO Sr.’s first wife.

  2. This is lamer than Mark Penn’s Obama wanted to be president in kindergarten thing.

    • (at least that was in response to a double standard being applied to Hillary for daring to have ambition)

      This is just Democrats pouring through stuff to find something where they can play the raycist birther card.

      • Problem with that is, they’ve used it so much all americans know that by definition they’re all r@cists simply because they do not acknowledge Obama as the one true God. And if everyone is a r@cist already, calling them that again kind of rings hollow.

        Joan: “If you don’t want Obamacare you’re a r@cist.”
        Random Person: “But you called me that when I didn’t like my house being taken away.”
        Joan: “If you vote for Brown or you’re a r@cist.”
        Random Person: “You’re going to call me a r@cist for anything I do or think.”
        Joan: “Well yes, but if you don’t vote for Brown I won’t call you that for an hour or two.”

  3. Great post. I’m sorry but I cannot stand Joan Walsh and this is a perfect example why. I love your take on the “longer version” of the clip and I’m sure you are right.

    •  During (or maybe shortly after) the 2008 Republican convention, Brown was on a panel discussion (aired on the now-defunct CN8 cable news channel) about Sarah Palin.  He defended her pretty strongly, as you’d expect.

      • Sorry, I screwed that up. It continues,

        But then, in the course of discussing Bristol Palin, Scott comes up with this:

        • Simply amazing. They found he defended a slanderous lie by saying something that was the truth. And that’s what they’re going to run with. Hmm, wonder why they’re loosing….

  4. “the economy is still pinching many people”!?!?!?

    “pinching”, Joan? I think we cruised past “pinching” over a year ago. We’ve moved on to “devastating.”

    “I have better things to do this weekend than pay attention to a race that shouldn’t be one”

    oh my…so sorry to inconvenience you!

    The OFB are dreaming if they think they’re going to be able to rile up support over Brown’s statement. No one cares about their fauxrage anymore. They care that the economy s*cks, they don’t have jobs, they don’t have access to health care, and Obama can’t be bothered to worry about that because he’s so busy creating new ways to scr*w them over even more with the health insurance giveaway bill.

  5. The democratic party seems to be trying the same tactics in the MA race that they did for backtrack.
    They did not work. backtrack did not win the primary, he was dragged over the line by cheating and threats.
    They are blaming Martha Coakley for their mistakes. Yes she has made some real dillys, Curt Shilling, Fenway Park, backtracking on her postiion of the hc mess.. But their tactics are not winners either.



  6. the other thing that bothers me is what OFB are passing around as evidence of Coakley’s bad campaign — that quote about being out in the cold. Whenever it’s put forward for fauxrage, no one quotes the question she was answering, only her answer (and that part’s always in quotes). I can’t even find the question she was asked anywhere.

    • Have you seen the DSCC ad? It mentions Obama 54 times, I swear I think there’s a giant picture of Obama and the announcer intones something like “Scott Brown will go to DC to stop President Obama’s HCP” while the words flash on the screen next to Obama’s giant picture, and then they cut to Brown saying I will be the 41st Senator and vote to stop the bill. Big help, DSCC.

  7. The is a double whammy. Not only is it not a slur because it’s true. But it was also Brown trying to defend Palin against slurs that were lies. So what have we learned from the “new” Democratic party?

    • Exactly! And by the time people catch up with the BS, they’ve moved on. And this misinformation becomes the new truth. We sure do live in interesting times.

      • Ron Suskind:

        The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” … “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

        The aide is believed to be Karl Rove, Donna Brazile’s BFF

        • OK, that’s it. I’m going to start dropping acid again. I think maybe things will make more sense if I do.

        • That reminds me of what Krauthammer said:

          What Fox did is not just create a venue for alternative opinion. It created an alternate reality.

          A few years ago, I was on a radio show with a well-known political reporter who lamented the loss of a pristine past in which the whole country could agree on what the facts were, even if they disagreed on how to interpret and act upon them. All that was gone now. The country had become so fractured we couldn’t even agree on what reality was. What she meant was that the day in which the front page of The New York Times was given scriptural authority everywhere was gone, shattered by the rise of Fox News.

          What left me slack-jawed was the fact that she, like the cohort of mainstream journalists she represented so perfectly, was so ideologically blinkered that she could not fathom the plain fact that the liberal media were presenting the news and the world through a particular lens. The idea that it was particular, and that there might be competing ones, perhaps even superior ones, was beyond her ken.

          That’s why Fox News is so resented. It altered the intellectual and ideological landscape of America. It gave not only voice but also legitimacy to a worldview that had been utterly excluded from the mainstream media.

          I’m proud to be part of this televised apostasy. And particularly proud to be part of the single best news program on American television, the six-o’clock news — first with Brit Hume, now with Bret Baier. How good is “Special Report”? So good that even if I weren’t on it, my mother would watch it — and she spent 50 years as a Democrat.

          The DC media doesn’t think it’s their job to report anymore, let alone report facts. It’s their job to create alternate realities.

          And, the response to Faux was Olbermann, etc.

          See how well this alternate realities experiment is going.

    • We have learned that no good deed goes unpunished and instead of running on our own record of good policy and against the GOP’s bad ideas and stupid comments it’s better to imagine racism where Scott Brown was actually defending a young teenage woman from sexism.

    • We learned that Joan got her talking points from the very desperate powers-that-be, and promptly did her job, as defined by her string pullers.

      Facts or reality didn’t matter to Joan.

  8. The truth just doesn’t seem to matter any more.

  9. I support Martha Coakley, but the Democrats are making it harder and harder. The stuff that showed up in my mailbox today was shameful.

  10. Wbz.com:

    [Biden] sent an e-mail to Obama supporters assailing Republican Scott Brown for opposing the president’s plan to tax large Wall Street firms to recoup money from the bailout. The vice president says in the e-mail that Coakley would be a strong ally of Obama.

    They certainly seem determined to brand this thing with Obama, Obama, Obama. I wonder if “Obama supporters” means Democrats.

    • The fact that a senator can be “a strong ally” also contradicts the Obot meme that the President doesn’t make legislation! His hands are tied!! He has no influence whatsoever on HCR and the bailouts!! He’s at the mercy of all of Washington!!!

  11. ..Joan really, slur, racial code I guess, so the intent is that the reader jumps to Brown being a racist casting a racial slur….

    have you no pride left?

  12. Dems are the elitist snobs. Repubs are the mainstreet populists. Both sides are passing out their own brand of acid. Crazy times. Btw, is Rove saying, anything you say or do in the present can be rationalized by “analysis” later. That’s a warm thought. What matters is which side can lie more effectively

  13. Obama, himself, hints that his father and mother’s wedding may not have been properly documented. “How and when the marriage occurred remains a bit murky, a bill of particulars that I have never quite had the courage to explore. There’s no record of a real wedding, a cake, a ring, a giving away of the bride. No families were in attendance; it’s not even clear that people back in Kansas were informed.” Obama writes in his memoir.

    • Oh my! Looks like President Obama had slurred himself!

      Of course, birth outside of wedlock should never be considered a slur — on either the child or the parents. There may be good reasons for not marrying, even with a child on the way.

      Now a parent who fails to support a child or find other good parents for the child is another matter entirely.


    • From the fact that she filed for and obtained a legal divorce, rather than an annulment, I think it’s probable that Ann Dunham believed she was legally married. We don’t know when or how she found out that Obama Sr. wasn’t just pondscum but bigamous pondscum.

    • Oh, so it’s only “real” if someone has enough money to have all the trappings, and it only counts if the bride has a male relative who can claim ownership???


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: