I don’t think the subhead to Goldberg’s latest parrot droppings in the LA Times is intended as satire, but it’s such a wickedly accurate summation that any “shorter Jonah” would seem redundant. He really does just come right out and say that the Republican party is a courtly gentleman of the old school, and will not stoop to striking women, cripples, or Negroes, no matter how badly their behavior may cry out for the chastening sting of the horsewhip.
McCain has done nothing to fuel racism.
True. The old racism was ecologically and politically unsustainable. And McCain and Palin’s cleaner-burning “code words” are just the first of many new alternative fuels for racism we can look forward to in the 21st century.
Or, put another way, the McCain campaign has done as much to promote prejudice as the Obama campaign has to inflame the vile passions behind the “Abort Sarah Palin” bumper sticker…
Seriously, Jonah? I had to Google that. Are you really implying that Obama and Biden wave that bumpersticker aloft at campaign rallies, or is that just another gob of sputum coughed up by Michelle Malkin*after a day spent trolling Cafe Press for poutrage material?
…Madonna’s stage video lumping McCain in with Hitler…
As an official campaign spokesperson and likely pick for Secretary of State, its incumbent upon Madonna to convey her political views in a measured, respectful way while dancing around in her underwear.
…the eugenic snobbery aimed at Palin’s son with Down syndrome…
Okay, now he’s just making stuff up. But in Jonah’s defense, “eugenic” did just pop up on his Word-A-Day desk calendar, and the only way to remember it is to use it in a sentence.
Beinart recounts how Palin said at one rally, “I am just so fearful that this is not a man who sees America the way that you and I see America.” Beinart makes it sound as if she said this through a Klan hood. Please. Every single presidential campaign boils down to an argument about how the candidates “see America.” Suddenly that question is out of bounds because Obama is black?
No, it’s probably because she added that Obama, “is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.” Hey Jonah, I have a question, and with all due respect: is this some sort of long con you’re pulling on the Times-Mirror Corporation, or do you actually think you’re fooling anyone? I don’t mean to pry, I just want to know who I should be feeling sorrier for.
According to the liberal history books…
BZZZZZRRRRT! Judges? No, I’m sorry, we can’t accept that, I’m afraid you used your last “liberal” lifeline in the title of your “book.”
…in 1988 the GOP cast Michael Dukakis as too elitist, cosmopolitan and not American enough. In 1992, it ran a similar attack against Bill Clinton — remember the hullabaloo about draft dodging and that trip to Russia? In 2000, ditto with Al Gore, though the emphasis was less on foreignness and more on extraterrestrialness. And in 2004, there was John Kerry’s “global test” for U.S. national security. Lack of originality notwithstanding, why is it suddenly racist to treat Obama just like the four white guys who preceded him? Talk about racial double standards.
Life is so unfair. Stupid black skin.
Obama holds mega-campaign rallies in Berlin, touts his global appeal and says a top foreign policy goal is to get other countries to like us. But it’s racist to call him cosmopolitan?
If only he was a Jew instead of African-American, then you could call him a “rootless cosmopolitan.” I understand the modifier really sells it.
If Obama were a white Democratic nominee named Barry O’Malley, the GOP would be going after him twice as hard.
See?! We’re losing because we’re nice! NICE!!
*”[A]lluringly human-like,” according to the Colbert Report.Posted by scott on October 14th, 2008