I Call On The Troll Paul (Previously Known As Luke & Before That Steve) To Resign From Blogger Immediately Due To Proven Sexual Misconduct

One individual who absolutely deserves to be taken out in this year's pervert purge is a blog troll who calls himself Paul (currently authoring posts on the blog Words and Music). Previously this loathsome degenerate went by the name Luke. Before that he called himself Steve. I know for a FACT that Paul, Luke and Steve are all the same person because the account all these names link/linked to is 11597062711930899788.

Recently this hate-filled POS had the NERVE to write (on his blog) that Al Franken resigned, "rightfully so" and that I am a "scum bag" because I wrote that (IMO) it wasn't a good thing that Al Franken resigned.

He also repeated the Rusty Shackelford lie that I "supported the scum bag Rep. Weiner and his sexual perversions". According to Paul/Luke, it is "no surprise he would support this sexual pervert".

Paul/Luke's conclusion is that "these liberals are definitely deplorable". "These Liberals" being those who quoted, agreed with and "praised" Newt Gingrich, who said "comedians often do weird things. He was in the entertainment business. He was doing the kind of things people in the entertainment business do". This was on the 12/7/2017 airing Fox News. Laura Ingraham, to whom Gingrich was speaking, agreed, saying "I think it's minor stuff".

The reason these two are downplaying Al Franken's case is because (IMO) their guys (Trump, Moore, others) are MUCH worse. They can't criticize Franken and demand he leave while an admitted sexual assaulter occupies the White House. A number of Congressional Democrats, following Franken's resignation, called for Trump to resign FOR THE SAME REASON. That reason being credible accusers, that is, and NOT due to the accusations being similar. Which they OBVIOUSLY are not. Franken's "crimes" did amount to "minor stuff". So Gingrich and Ingraham are correct, although I surely would not "praise" them for admitting it. Let them admit that Trump is an admitted sexual assaulter and likely rapist. Then they might get some praise from me.

"The liberal hate is so thick they now quote and praise Newt Gingrich" according to Paul/Luke (aka "Puke"). I don't know what Liberals he refers to. My guess is that there aren't any "praising" Gingrich. Maybe I'm wrong. Puke didn't cite any. He just threw the claim out there as an excuse to accuse Liberals of "hate" again, which is his thing. Puke previously wrote about "Liberal hate" using his "TOM" ID (different account) when he wrote on a blog called Stay A While (that "TOM" is an ID belonging to Puke is a fact I've proven here).

Note that, as TOM, Puke wrote about how he had surgery for his "brain cancer". It was back in June of 2010 that Puke (writing as "TOM") reported that "prognosis is not good". Yet he's still alive more than 7 years later. I guess he was "cured" after all. Although he vehemently denies that TOM was his account or that he ever wrote at the blog "Stay A While" .

This is a lie. They (Paul/Luke and TOM) are/were both obsessed with what they call "Liberal hate", a catchphrase that allows Puke to blame Liberals for whatever bad things Republicans do. In one of his latest posts, for example, he blames Democrats for the Republican tax deform. According to this idiot, that the Senate passed the bill is because "Liberal Hate Loses Again".

But, in regards to the reason I'm calling for Paul/Luke to "resign" from Blogger... if this moron thinks Al Franken should resign, "rightfully so", from Congress, then I say Puke should resign/quit blogger for his sexual misconduct. Sexual misconduct (or Sexual bullying*) that took the form of MANY homophobic, as well as sexually explicit and graphic, comments he submitted to my blog. I'm talking about many similar comments I received from ALL of this sick pervert's IDs/non de plumes. TOM, Steve, Luke and Paul.

An example of one such comment would be the one where he wrote, "I wish I could get a Jew hating, fag boy, liar to comment on my blog! I guess I have to learn how to suck dick as good as you do to get such greats to comment at my blog! Enjoy sucking his dick Nazi Boy!". Note that I did NOT publish this comment (although I did catalogue it here).

The comment I just mentioned is in regards to me and another blogger Puke hates. The same one he referenced in an earlier comment in which he wrote, "go get butt fucked by your boyfriend RN Trump Dervish". I'm "Trump Dervish" because (Puke says) I lie as much as Trump does.

Is this sexual harassment? The comments surely are sexually charged. As well as extremely homophobic. While comments from a person I've never met (and will never meet) aren't the same as in-person sexual harassment, the comments were UNWANTED and definitely qualify as trolling, which is a form of harassment. This kind of behavior is certainly not within the realm of what most people would consider acceptable.

Subsequently, I feel that, given Puke's belief that Franken should resign (and naming me a "scum bag" for disagreeing), it is appropriate that Paul/Luke resign from Blogger. By which I mean he should quit. Actually, I thought he had. It was back around May 2017 that I noticed he had removed (reverted to draft) all his posts. If you went to his blog before 12/2/2017 (but before May of 2017) all you see is "no posts" (and he also, for some reason, renamed his blog "A Nation"). Now, as of 12/2/2017 all his posts are back. Along with two new ones (Liberal Hate Loses Again and Franken Quits).

The "Franken Quits" post is the one where he (in a comment) calls Al Franken a "sexual pervert", lies about me supporting Anthony Weiner "and his sexual perversions", then speaks of how "liberal hate is so thick". Me, as well as people who are friendly to me (comment on my blog, allow me to comment on their blogs) are "evil hypocrites" (as per his post Christmas Was Fun). And he claims (over and over) that *I* send him "vile comments".

Sure. In addition to the two examples I gave of Puke's VILE homophobic (and sexually explicit) comments I quote in this post, there are MANY more. Comments you can view here (his comments as Luke) and here (his comments as Steve). If you look you'll see that, in addition to the homophobia, this sicko also writes that I'm also a "Jew hater". An accusation with no proof whatsoever to validate it.

For these reasons I am calling for Paul/Luke/Steve (whoever is actually the owner of this account) to RESIGN from Blogger. Quit. Delete your account. Or not. I doubt you will, hypocrite. But don't think FOR ONE SECOND that I'm going to take any advice, insults or lecturing from you seriously, given the FACT that you have absolutely ZERO moral authority to express outrage/disapproval of anyone. Due to the fact that Puke is a hypocrite, a blog troll/submitter of sexually explicit/harassing comments.

I've also read that he submitted similar comments other blogs (in addition to mine). Progressive Eruptions, Rational Nation USA, The Swash Zone, Dog Report and The Oracular Opinion being the ones that I am aware of.

*Note: Puke's actions could probably be more accurately described as Sexual bullying. As per Wikipedia, "Sexual bullying is a type of bullying and harassment that occurs in connection with a person's sex, body, sexual orientation or with sexual activity. It can be physical, verbal, or emotional". "Verbal", I think, would include the written word, given the fact that people have been prosecuted for cyberbullying. Sexual bullying, btw, includes "any bullying behaviour, whether physical or nonphysical".

12/25/2017 Update: Puke responded to this post with a 12/24/2017 comment, writing "It's amazing how evil and deluded Dervish is; he calls himself a Christian, yet... A few of his favorite things is calling his perceived enemies sexual perverts and sending death threats". [Note: "sending death threats" is a link inserted by me].

SWTD #397

Al Franken Latest Man Held Accountable In "This Year's Pervert Purge"

If baking a cake for a homosexual is an endorsement of homosexuality, then voting for a pedophile is an endorsement of pedophilia ~ Chris LaVoie (formerly of The Stephanie Miller Show) via Twitter, 12/5/2017.

The "pervert purge" is a line from an article by Tina Dupuy, "I Believe Franken's Accusers Because He Groped Me, Too".

It happened at a Media Matters party during the first Obama inauguration. ... Then I saw Al Franken... I asked to get a picture with him. We posed for the shot. He immediately put his hand on my waist, grabbing a handful of flesh. I froze. Then he squeezed. At least twice. I'd been married for two years at the time; I don't let my husband touch me like that in public because I believe it diminishes me as a professional woman. Al Franken's familiarity was inappropriate and unwanted... he knew exactly what he was doing. (Excerpt from a 12/6/2017 Atlantic article).

As per the article subtitle "the Democratic Party needs to stand with women who have been harassed - and not defend the politicians who abused them". The "pervert purge" re politicians is DEMOCRATS ONLY. As Franken, who resigned today said, "I of all people am aware that there is some irony in the fact that I am leaving, while a man who has bragged on tape about his history of sexual assault sits in the Oval Office and a man who has repeatedly preyed on young girls campaigns for the Senate with the full support of his party".

Franken refers to the sexual predators Donald Trump and Roy Moore. Their Party warmly embraces them. Or initially decries their perverts, then walk back that sentiment and say it's "for the voters to decide". The trumpanzee Roy-Moore-defending blogger FreeThinke sez "I believe we are entering an age of neo-puritanism".

Now, for as long as I can remember, we've been in the midst of something called the "culture war". This is an argument put forward by Conservatives that says the sexual permissiveness and acceptance of sexual deviance by the Left has caused a decades long moral decay that will eventually destroy the family and thus civilization as we know it. "Secular-Progressives" are the enemy, as per the disgraced and fired sexual predator Bill O'Reilly 2006 treatise culture warrior.

So Democrats are, apparently (according to FreeThinke) both the Party of Secular Progressivism, as well as the Party of "puritanism", which is an "extreme strictness in moral or religious matters, often to excess". Secular Progressives being hostile to Christianity and traditional American values. I don't know about you, but these two ideologies seem to be diametrically opposed. How can one be a "neo-puritan" and a "secular progressive"?

Mr Thinke, I'd like to note, is a big believer in a paranoid and racist conspiracy theory known as Cultural Marxism that says the "decay" of Western Civilization (rock'n'roll, the Sixties counterculture, the civil rights movement, Affirmative Action, the anti-war movement, homosexuality and modern feminists aka feminazis) can be blamed on Jews, Communists and their useful idiots.

This Thinke guy is clearly a moron. At least his argument (that "far Left" is responsible for a Neo-Puritanical movement, while, at the same time, their Cultural Marxist agenda demands they destroy all that traditionalists like FT hold dear) is moronic. What FT holds dear being (apparently) that older men dating young teens be perfectly acceptable. That he acknowledges happened (I think). That Roy Moore groped any of these girls is an outright lie. "You can repeat allegations over and over again, but it doesn't make them true" Roy Moore spokeswoman Janet Porter told Anderson Cooper on 12/6/2017.

"How these gals came up with this, I don't know. They must have had some sweet dreams somewhere down the line" sez Roy Moore supporter Pastor Earl Wise. Trump's accusers are also all liars, which is how the Right is justifying standing by these scumbags. Trump and Moore claim their accusers are liars, while Al Franken has "admitted" what he's done. Because there was photographic proof. Although it was clearly intended as a "joke". Though an unfunny one (and he only mimed groping Tweeden).

I do, however, believe Tina Dupuy's account of what happened to her. The other women; I don't know them. Dupuy, I am familiar with from her appearances on The Stephanie Miller Show (SMS). So Franken apparently occasionally gropes women's asses. And, if you hug him and his hand is near your breast, he'll cup it. Or he did so at least once. Although I'm not convinced he tried to kiss a woman and, when she resisted, insisted it was his "right as an entertainer". Mostly because that is such an ridiculously absurd thing to say (if he said it).

But Franken had to go because enough of his fellow Congressional Dems decided he should resign. "Enough is enough" NY Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand declared. That is what happened with Anthony Weiner (his House colleagues teamed up and forced him out). But, as it turned out, what Weiner did was a lot worse (got him a prison sentence). Franken's "crimes" obviously do not rise to the level of a Wiener. Weiner resigned and he absolutely should have. Even though I admit that I did not want to believe that he'd be stupid enough to be tweeting pics of his junk to women he'd never met.

I still think Franken is a good, though flawed, man. While I concede now that Weiner is a scumbag (that tipping point came for me after it was revealed that he was engaged in inappropriate tweeting after leaving the House). But they are both OUT. While Roy Moore will likely be sent to the Senate by the voters of Alabama. And the orange-anus-lipped admitted sexual assaulter in the White House supports Moore. And the RNC restored financial support for his campaign. "All you have to do is deny it and be a Republican and you get off scot free" a caller to the SMS pointed out.

So the Democrats are unilaterally disarming; purging our Party of "pervs", while the Republicans are embracing their pervs. The head Republican perv currently occupying the White House (though hopefully not for much longer).

Stephanie Miller & Caller discuss Al Franken resignation on the SMS Show, 12/7/2017. Sue in Rockville: Sexual misconduct is bad, but the false equivalency of equating Tina Dupy (who I admire and respect) getting grabbed by her waist, versus pedophilia and sexual assault of children is a vast difference. Stephanie Miller: I agree. And I love Tina. I said the same thing. As she described it [was a lesser "crime" than sexual assault].

The Fox Nooz sexual assaulting hypocrite Bill O'Reilly specifically calls out Al Franken in his "Culture Warrior" book. As a member of the "secular-progressive movement". These horrible people who are out to destroy our country are (as per Bill-o) "a minority left wing group of Americans" who have non-traditional ideals. They aren't "good Christians" (who elected an admitted sexual assaulter and who will likely send a sexual assaulter of teens to the Senate).

The "neo-puritanism" tactic, btw, has been a total flop. Or so I'd say if it was real. As opposed to the delusion of trumpy fools and tools like FreeThinke and Newt Gingrich. What with Democrats only succeeding in "eating their own". A phrase I've seen a number of gleeful trumpanzees use in regards to who has been taken out by the #meetoo movement thus far. Not that I believe that THE MAJORITY of those who've lost their jobs didn't deserve to lose them. John Conyers is retiring and that is a good thing, imo (he announced he would not seek re-election). Franken resigning is not so good, imo.

As per Mckay Coppins on the 12/7/2017 airing of MTP Daily, "I've talked to Democrats who... will say, I think he [Franken] had to be sacrificed; both for the sake this argument, which is important in this cultural tipping point we've reached, but also, frankly, there is a political calculus there. As much as Democrats don't want to talk about it now. They're looking at Roy Moore. They're looking at 2018...".

Image: panel from uber Trump supporting hypocrite cartoonist Ben Garrison. So this Garrison scumbag thinks Franken committed a "crime" for a pic in which his hands hover over Leeann Tweeden's boobs (a mimed groping), but Trump, who has been accused of rape and attempted rape 3 times, shouldn't have the cuffs slapped on him? This hypocrisy reminds me of when the trumpy Roy-Moore-supporting blogger Rusty Shackelford went after me for (initially) defending Anthony Weiner. The a-hole wrote "WD, you yourself seem a tad creepy... are you perhaps on some sort of list yourself?".

See Also: Roger and #MeeToo. 12/10/2017 Swash Zone post by Octopus.

SWTD #396

Predator-In-Chief Trump Tweets About Leeann Tweeden Groping Ass Of Mark Wills

According to Democratic Underground poster groundloop, country music artist Mark Wills (during a 2006 USO performance in Iraq) "was playing a song when she [Tweeden] started rubbing her butt on him, looks like he was trying to gently push her away. She moved on, but grabbed his ass as she walked away" (comment #83 in the thread).

This widely disseminated picture of Wills being groped by Tweeden (unwelcomed ass grab) was surprisingly commented on by predator-in-chief Trump. The predisent implies that Tweeden goes on to grab Willis by his junk, perhaps slipping her hand down his pants first? At least he wonders if that might be what happened (or, so this tweet implies to me, at least).

But I think it unlikely that Tweeden's assault of Wills went any further, as I think this is something we would have heard about. Just as I think it's as unlikely that Al Franken did anything other than mime groping Tweeden's boobs while she slept. You'd have to ask Mark Wills if he felt violated, though. We already know that Tweeden felt violated by Franken's actions (kissing her in a rehearsal for a skit and posing for a picture in which he pretends to grab her breasts as she sleeps).

For the record, while the picture is real, the tweet by the hypocrite-in-chief was photoshopped by me. "Tweedenstien" was actually "Frankenstien" (which should be "Frankenstein"). And Trump, the sexual predator who admitted on tape that he grabs (or has grabbed) women by their privates, wondered if Al Franken further groped Tweeden after the first picture was snapped.

Over on Democratic Underground commenters are theorizing that Franken called for an investigation into his actions because he can't disclose all the facts without looking bad. Those facts being the fact that everyone involved in the tour was engaging in sexually suggestive behavior.

Or Tweeden was, at least. As per another commenter, Tweeden (during an earlier 2005 USO tour), "introduces Robin Williams, humps him, then he pretends to zip up his pants after. It's just the nature of these shows for the troops, they get rowdy" (comment #8 in the thread by BevMarie).

Now, I'm absolutely not saying that (if Tweeden's description of the kiss is what really happened) that gave license to Franken to unexpectedly stick his tongue in her mouth (gross) when the pretense was to rehearse a pretend/stage kiss. Franken apologized, as he should have. And he should have been able to figure out that the picture might not be a good idea. Because it wasn't funny and could come back to haunt him at a latter date (as we know it has).

But I think there are some questions to be answered here. Like (as Shaw Kenawe of Progressive Eruptions noted) "political operative Roger Stone knew about the Weeden accusation and tweeted about it before it became public". Leeann Tweeden is a Conservative Trump supporter who has appeared on Sean Hannity's program.

Additionally, as twitter-er Puesto Loco points out, in the picture of Franken "groping" a sleeping Tweeden's breasts, she is seated in military "jump seats" and military planes that transport civilians have regular seats for such passengers. Puesto Loco's conjecture is that the photo is a joke that Tweeden was in on (she posed for the picture and wasn't sleeping).

Now, you'd think that Franken, if Tweeden had posed for that picture, would have said so. Or maybe he thought "a picture is worth a thousand words", nobody would believe him, and decided that he'd call for an investigation in which the truth would come out. I have no idea, although I'm inclined to believe that Tweeden is recounting the events as she remembers them.

As least as far as the unwanted kiss is concerned. That picture, while she might find it humiliating (and to humiliate her and show his dominance might be why he mugged for it), there clearly was no "groping". As Conservative blogger Silverfiddle points out on FreeThinke's blog "you cannot feel a woman's boobs through kevlar body armor. You'll just have to trust me on that one".

Although the trumpy Silverfiddle goes on to say (in a later comment) that "Al Franken calling for himself to be investigated by the senate ethics committee is a pander. It's a scared man [offering an] apology so he can hold on to his power". A comment to which my response would be "bullshit". But I might be wrong. Either Franken knows (or hopes) the truth will exonerate/allow him to hold on to his Senate seat and/or contriteness will. Certainly running for a Senate seat is a lot of work and he doesn't want to see that flushed away.

SNL alum Jane Curtin said "If he did that, that's really stupid, but I have never seen him in a situation where he has been sexually aggressive with anybody". Larine Newman tweeted in support of Franken, one tweet pointing out that "former female staffers of Franken... issued a statement in support of the senator that noted he treated us with the utmost respect" (WaPo article says "the statement is co-signed by eight former [female] Franken staffers who have worked for him since he was elected to the Senate in 2008").

My opinion thus far is that Franken absolutely should not resign. Certainly when the Republicans just sent a serial sexual assaulter with more than a dozen accusers to the White House AND when it looks like the Republican voters of Alabama are going to send a dater and assaulter of underage girls to the Senate.

Surely when Franken himself has said there should be an Ethics Committee investigation into his digressions and who knows how that might turn out (as per my commentary above). I say this knowing that a 2nd accuser has come forward, btw. Some woman who says Franken grabbed her buttocks in 2010 when she posed for a picture with him (taken by her husband). Lindsay Menz, a Trump voter (as per the NYP) "wasn't sure if she voted for Franken in Minnesota". Yeahhh... she doesn't remember if she voted for Franken and then for Trump.

Franken says he doesn't remember. Grabbing the butt of a constituent, that is. Maybe she's just mistaken? I say this as a Franken fan. Scratch that, make that a SUPER fan. I'd watched him on SNL, read his books and listened to his Air America radio program prior to him being elected to the Senate. Perhaps it's a conspiracy concocted by the Right to turn the #metoo movement against the Left. That is surely not outside the realm of whats possible.

Roger Stone, the "dandified dirty trickster" (as per Vanity Fair), is about to have HIS time in the barrel. Although it is in regards to his time with the Trump campaign and what he knows about Russia collusion and being questioned by the House Intelligence committee. How he knew ahead of time that Leeann Tweeden was going to "tell her story" about Franken likely won't come up.

Gloria Allred representing Roy Moore accuser Beverly Young Nelson is enough to convince trumpanzees Freethinke and Lisa of WYD (with 100% certainty) that the GOP Alabama Senate candidate is being framed. Silverfiddle (whose quoted comment on Franken I agreed with) writes that "Roy Moore got rolled by a well-planned attack" (it was just "creepy" that Moore dated teens and that he doesn't consider any of them victims).

So, Roger Stone being involved (info shared by Stone-associated and now suspended twitter account Enter the Stone Zone), as well as Tweeden's association with slimebag Trump sycophant Sean Hannity (and the other woman being a Trump voter), does give me PAUSE. I'm not saying I know AT ALL that this is a conspiracy against Franken, but I think it warrants looking into. And, yeah, I'm a Democrat who'd have voted for Franken if I live in MN, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

Roy Moore (a hate-filled "good Christian man" who has been twice removed from the AL Supreme Court and is supportive of laws to make homosexuality illegal) is obviously guilty, what with his multiple accusers (accusing him of a LOT worse, btw).

(Image: Tweeden and Franken kissing on stage during the performance of his skit. Note that Tweeden has her arm around Franken's neck. She is not turning her head, or placing her hand over her mouth to avoid the kiss as she says was her plan. Does this pic exonerate Franken re her rehersal kiss story?).

Youtube Videos

USO Show 2006 Part One, Camp Phoenix Afghanistan (12:41) Leeann Tweeden rubs her butt against the leg of Mark Willis (5:50). Now that I watch the video I'm thinking Mark Wills probably wouldn't describe it as a "sexual assault". But you can judge for yourself. This video proves, contrary to what I write above, that Tweeden does not next grab Wills by his ding-a-ling.

Leeann Tweeden republican evidence of lies revealed! (3:26) This is a video that says Leeann Tweeden's body language says she is lying about Al Franken. While I don't place much stock in novice body language analysis, Lisa of WYD put up a photo on her blog that, according to her, proves that when Obama cried re the Sandy Hook shootings he was faking it because he's a psychopath. And his body language gave him away. But behavior analyst Lillian Glass says her quote "when people cry genuine tears they cry with both eyes, and so tend to wipe both eyes at once" being applied to this meme is "unequivocally false" (pic is of Obama wiping one eye. See SWTD #370).

Melanie Morgan: Al Franken harassed me after TV appearance (11:13) Laura Ingraham covers Tweeden revelations, interviews Melanie Morgan (2:59) who says Al Franken "stalked and harassed her" and is "not surprised at all" by the Tweeden allegations. Brian Maloney of MediaEqualizer says he warned that Dems would be sorry that they brought him forward as a political candidate. "So much of what he's done hasn't even been mentioned today". Laura and guests laugh at predisent's "where does his hands go" tweet. Laura calls it "humorous commentary", totally ignoring the fact that Trump himself has over a dozen accusers.

SWTD #394

Angry John McCain Shameful Benghazi Lies Due To Republican Sore Loserness

The biases the media has are much bigger than conservative or liberal. They're about getting ratings, about making money, about doing stories that are easy to cover ~ Al Franken the junior Senator from Minnesota, serving since 2009. Prior to serving in the Senate, he was an acclaimed writer and performer for the popular television show Saturday Night Live. After SNL Franken acted in TV and movies, hosted a nationally syndicated political radio talk show and authored six books.

I've previously given my take on an article by Sean Hannity butt kisser Dylan Stableford of Yahoo! News, and this is going to be another one. Although, I did not notice that Mr. Stableford was the author until I finished reading. I was not all that surprised, however, as it gives just the Republican perspective on the Benghazi so-called cover-up. In his Republican-version-of-events-only article Stableford reports on what former (and still angry about losing) presidential contender John McCain has to say dissemble about the tragic events that took place in Benghazi.

Following are some excerpts from the Stableford story (which concerns how the Republicans are spinning Benghazi for political advantage Democrats are covering up their lying after Benghazi so they wouldn't lose the presidential election) and my commentary regarding said excerpts...

Dylan Stableford Reports: Sen. John McCain continued his criticism of the White House's handling of the Sept. 11 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, calling for a select committee to investigate what he called the Obama administration's "cover-up".

My Commentary: There was no cover-up. There have already been 3 investigations! Is that not enough to get all the facts out? Answer - YES it is! The only reason to drag this out further is for political advantage. McCain (along with all the other Republicans) want to use this for political advantage in the 2014 midterms and for political advantage in 2015 if Hillary Clinton decides to run.

DS Reports: McCain [says] "We are in the midst of a presidential campaign. The narrative by the Obama campaign is that bin Laden is dead, that al Qaeda is on the run, not to worry about anything, and here comes this attack on Benghazi.

My Commentary: Obama did get bin Laden. Clearly that chafes McCain's hide - and he realizes that YES, it did help Obama in the election - and that really makes McCain mad, as he remembers it was the bush financial crisis that helped Obama defeat him. McCain just can't believe Obama's luck. And this time Obama stole the mantle of "strong on national security" from the Republicans! No wonder McCain is so enraged.

But, yes, it appears as though the Obama administration did downplay the Benghazi attack for political reasons. However, as we all know, the Republicans would have used did use Benghazi to try and help Mitt Romney win. So what if the Obama administration downplayed the events at Benghazi for political reasons to head off an attack by the Republicans done for political reasons? It turned out to be the wrong decision, but I don't blame them too much for their (totally justified) concern that Republicans would play dirty. And, MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT, they are playing very dirty.

DS Reports: James Inhofe suggested President Obama could be impeached for his role in the case [saying] "of all the great cover-ups in history - we're talking about the Pentagon Papers, the Iran-Contra, Watergate [blah, blah, blah]".

My Commentary: This bullplop from Inhofe is about as credible as his "global warming is a hoax" conspiracy theories. The voters of Oklahoma should be embarrassed that they've been sending this nut back to Congress since 1987!

DS Reports: "The president didn't call it an act of terror... In fact, two weeks later, before the U.N., he was talking about hateful videos and spontaneous demonstrations. What he did say the day after was he condemned acts of terrorism, but then that night... and throughout the next two weeks, he kept saying that it was caused by a spontaneous demonstration sparked by a hateful video. [blah, blah, blah, "cover-up"]. McCain said he'd like to see former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton... testify again.

My Commentary: Translation... I'm so mad that Obama kicked my ass in 2012! Remember when I said I'd follow bin Laden to the gates of hell? That should have been ME that killed him. Obama stole the mantle of national security from the Republicans and we want it back. We'll go on and on about this fake "cover-up" for as long as it takes. I missed my turn, and Hillary sure as hell isn't going to get another shot on my watch!

Remember when McCain skipped a hearing on Benghazi (11/14/2012) to hold a press conference expressing his outrage over Benghazi? I think that proves his "outrage" is political in nature, and has nothing to do with the Americans who died (including ambassador Christopher Stevens). This is about McCain being a sore loser. What he's outraged about is that Obama won a first term (thumping him) and then a second (thumping Romney).

Also, as reported by Think Progress, Obama did refer to Benghazi as an act of terror. Not just in that Rose Garden speech, but multiple times after that.

Stableford also mentions that "McCain did not invoke the i-word [impeachment], although he still strongly believes that "we need a select committee". No, we don't. Three hearings are more than enough. Obviously the Republicans think they can just keep holding hearings until they get the result they want. But McCain knows Obama isn't going to be impeached (he's smarter than Inhofe in that regard)... he just wants to inflict as much damage on Obama as he possibly can.

Finally, in regards to the author of the referenced article... good job getting the Republican talking points out on this Dylan! Your article was very "fair and balanced" in that, NOT ONCE, did you mention how the Democrats are responding to these bogus "cover-up" charges. Instead he lets McCain and Inhofe's allegations go unchallenged.

ABC News does a slightly better job (thanks "Liberal Media") by including a quote from the Democratic Senator of Rhode Island, Jack Reed, who said "absolutely not" to the cover-up allegation; then blamed all the revising of the talking points on "efforts to form a consensus document that avoided all of the difficult issues"... which does NOT amount to any kind of cover-up, just a careful consideration of what was said before an investigation had even begun (with the results of the upcoming presidential election in mind... sure).

Dylan concludes with a quote from McCain about maybe not impeaching Obama... McCain said, "I don't know what level of scandal this rises to". Then McCain again calls for a "select committee" because "the American people deserve it". Let me guess... "Select" means the Republicans select the members who will conclude there was a cover-up? And by "deserve" he means the American people deserved a Republican in the White House, but in consolation they'll settle for exacting revenge on Obama for stealing the mantle of national security from the Republicans AND mopping the floor with the last two candidates they ran for president?

SWTD #148

Welcome to My Shrine to Keith Olbermann

Are we so heartless that we let the rich live and the poor die and everybody in between become wracked with fear - fear not of disease but of Deductibles? ... What, on the eternal list of priorities, precedes health? What more obvious role could government have than the defense of the life of each citizen? ...Government's essential role [should be to] facilitate it, reduce its cost, broaden its availability, improve my health and yours... ~ Keith Olbermann in an program-length special comment, "Health Care Reform: Saving American Lives", Countdown 10/7/2009.

Even if you aren't a huge Keith Olbermann like I am, you may have heard that Keith abruptly parted ways with MSNBC on 1/21/2011, ending his highly rated news-commentary program for unspecified reasons. From what I've heard differences of opinion with management were to blame.

When Keith and MSNBC agreed on 2/16/2007 that Countdown would continue to air through the 2012 presidential election - MSNBC president Phil Griffin proclaimed, "Countdown is our signature program" and that, "Keith Olbermann is at the core of MSNBC's current success". With this statement Phil Griffin appeared to acknowledge the fact that MSNBC would be nothing without Olbermann. Before Countdown MSNBC had settled on the idea that they should try to be another CNN. It wasn't until after Keith's program proved so successful that MSNBC decided they should become a Left-leaning alternative to Fox.

Given the fact that the success and growth of MSNBC can be directly attributed to Keith Olbermann, I think Mr. Griffin exhibited extremely poor judgment and total lack of appreciation for everything Keith has done for the network. According to Nielsen, Countdown was the network's top-rated program (with 1.1 million viewers). But, instead of doing whatever it took to keep his star happy, Mr. Griffin was apparently looking for an excuse to jettison Keith. Things came to a head after Keith was suspended for making campaign contributions to several Democrats. Phil Griffin told Keith's manager that they were "at war".

Personally I didn't have a problem with Olbermann's donations. Mr. Olbermann isn't, nor does he pretend to be, a non-partial facts-sans-opinion political reporter. Countdown was a political-commentary/opinion program. Phil Griffin realized that the success of Countdown was due to Keith's decidedly Left-leaning opinions, which is why MSNBC added Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz to their lineup. It is also why they replaced Keith with Lawrence O'Donnell - a self-described "practical European socialist" who reportedly said, "I am a socialist. I live to the extreme left, the extreme left of you mere liberals".

One of the rumors regarding Keith's departure was that the "Comcast honchos did not like Keith's defiance and the way he played in the sandbox" (TMZ 1/22/2011). Comcast purchased a controlling share (51%) in NBC/Universal (MSNBC's parent company) on 1/28/2011. An LA Time Business article from 1/21/2011 says, "conspiracy theorists [are] speculating that Olbermann jumped before he was pushed by his new bosses".

The Comcast/NBC-Universal merger needed approval from the FCC due to the huge media monopoly the union created. The lone FCC dissenter, Democrat Michael Copps said he thought the deal was "damaging and potentially dangerous" because it "opens the door to the cable-ization of the open Internet [and creates] the potential for walled gardens, toll booths, content prioritization, [and] access fees to reach end users". His conclusion was that, "a stake in the heart of independent content production is now very real".

Given the fact that the MSNBC lineup is still very much Left-leaning, I'm going to conclude that Keith did not leave MSNBC because the Comcast bigwigs wanted him gone. That said, I oppose monopolies and am very disappointed that the FCC approved this merger. I believe this merger threatens Net Neutrality and that Mr. Copps' fears will prove to be accurate.

Some of the haters have stated that the reason they dislike Olbermann was because he has a "big ego". According to what I've read so does Phil Griffin, which is why they clashed. It's my opinion that Phil Griffin (for this reason) was a poor choice to lead MSNBC. Whether or not Keith has a "big ego" - I frankly do not care. The only thing that mattered to me was that I found his program highly enjoyable. When I watched Countdown I was convinced that Keith is a very principled, moral and humble person.

I based this conclusion on a number of observations, the primary one being his strong advocating for government intervention in making sure all Americans have access to quality health care. Keith shared with his viewers his dismay that the only reason he was able to pay for his father's health care needs was because of his good fortune. He made it clear he is truly concerned that so many Americans go bankrupt or die for purely financial reasons, and how wrong it is that health care insurance is a for-profit industry (when, in every other industrialized nation health care insurance is not-for profit). This is why Keith used his MSNBC platform to raise money for free health clinics.

Keith Olbermann is a man with deeply held convictions regarding right and wrong. Like myself, he has sided with the political party that best represents his worldview. The Republican Party opposed (and continues to oppose) the social safety net programs championed by (a majority of) the Democratic Party. The Republican Party hates Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and any flavor of health care insurance reform (as illustrated by the Paul Ryan budget).

Because these things require that the wealthy elites whom they represent pay slightly more in taxes. European socialism, which has worked so well for our friends across the Atlantic (citizens of those countries don't go bankrupt due to medical bills) is somehow "evil". I categorically reject the notion that a higher standard of living for everybody is "evil". Over the years (of watching Countdown) Keith has made it clear to me that we are on the same team. This is the team that opposes oligarchy and is working to build a "we" society, not a "me" society.

This brings me to the reason why I composed this post and put up my webpage dedicated to all things Keith. The "Moderate Independent" blogger Willis Hart is one of the Olbermann haters I mentioned earlier. It appears as though one of the primary objectives of this blogger is to relentlessly bash Keith Olbermann. According to this individual, "Countdown with Keith Olbermann is the most biased news program in television history". Biased in favor of a government that acts in the interest of a majority of it citizens and not just the wealthy elites, I say. Which, in my mind, is a good thing.

I did a Google site search and counted a total of 32 anti-Olbermann posts on his blog. The first was on 02/14/2008 and the latest (but undoubtedly not the last) was posted on 05/15/2011. Also, after examining the 32 posts Google returned, I counted a total of 26 unique insults Mr. Hart hurled at Mr. Olbermann (see list below). Is it just me, or does anyone else find the shear volume of disparaging posts and insults more than a little odd? Especially given that many of the posts reference events on specific episodes? Clearly Hart is (or was before it stopped airing on MSNBC) a regular viewer. There are a number of Fox News pundits which I do not like - which is why I don't watch them (not very often, in any case). So why is William obsessed with Keith Olbermann?

He watches, and criticizes Fox pundits like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, but to nowhere near the extent he criticizes Mr. Olbermann. In fact, early on (back when I did not realize the exact extent to which he loathed Mr. Olbermann) I made some comments defending Keith. That resulted in a post critical of both Keith AND myself (8/27/2010). William accused me of not being a free thinker, and asserted that I was a part of "the problem" due to the fact that I only listened to Olbermann - because he reaffirms what I already believe.

To these accusations I say, baloney! While it is true that like Olbermann because I agree with him (or he agrees with me), I also watch and listen to other commentators who invite guests on their programs who disagree with them. People like Thom Hartmann (who Willis has also bashed). I believe discussion, debate and independent investigation are all valuable methods of arriving at the truth. And I also agree that it is a "big part of our problem these days" that some people only listen to political commentators they agree with - and never consider alternate points of view. Especially given the fact that a lot of these pundits are lying to them (Fox Nooze scumbags).

By the way, the "shrine" to Keith is partially tongue-in-cheek. I don't actually "worship" him. Also, the reference to my "man-crush" comes from a comment made by a rabid Liberal-hating Conservative that frequents Hart's blog (a particularly fulsome individual who calls himself "Rusty S"). He accused me of having a "man-crush" on Keith Olbermann (which I do not). I simply admire Keith (for the previously mentioned reasons) and look forward to his return on Al Gore's Current TV on Monday June 20th 7pm Central time.

After Keith was "fired" I'm sure many on the Right rejoiced. On 1/21/2011 Rusty commented, "Looks like Olbermann Leaned Foward and fell out of the building. Comcast takes over NBC, next day Keithie is gone" (and then he added, "Is fat Ed next?"). Well, now "Keithie" is BACK, so in your face! Not only that, but I heard MSNBC paid him his full salary of 7 million dollars for each of the two years remaining on his contract. If MSNBC had a legitimate reason to "fire" Keith, would they have paid him 14 million to NOT do his show?

Regarding his move to Current TV Mr. Olbermann has said, "I wanted to go to a place where journalistic integrity and analytical honesty would never be compromised by corporate synergy. A place where no one would ever proclaim the ultimate dishonesty: that balancing a lie for every truth was somehow fair. I found that place in Current TV. And even though they told me I'd be in charge, and they gave me a title and an equity stake... I have still been delightfully startled at the free hand I've been given to assemble the finest staff ... in television news".

So, mark your calendars for an event you most surely will not want to miss. You can tape Lawrence O'Donnell's program. The new program will still be called "Countdown with Keith Olbermann". According to Keith the show will "retain it's edge and the pointedness of it's commentary". This sounds like a program that Willis will "love to hate" even more (I suspect he'll be riveted to his set every weeknight at 8pm Eastern time). In the meantime, please enjoy my shrine to Keith Olbermann. Please feel free to share your thoughts regarding this post and my shrine. To return to the shrine in the future please click on the picture of Keith Olbermann on my sidebar.

Insults hurled at Keith Olbermann by Willis Hart
1. Blankety-blank (10/22/2009)
2. Blowhard (10/02/2009)
3. Bush derangement syndrome, sufferer of (01/16/2009)
4. Coward, Flat-out (06/14/2010)
5. Cowardly (08/17/2010)
6. Creep, Total (5/31/2009)
7. Creepy (10/22/2009)
8. Dishonest (08/17/2010)
9. Douche-Bag (9/26/2014)
10. Full of shit (09/13/2010)
11. Guttersnipe (10/18/2010)
12. Ideologue (05/31/2009)
13. Mean-spirited (01/16/2009, 08/17/2010)
14. Nasty (08/17/2010)
15. Numb-nuts (04/17/2009)
16. Paranoid (10/22/2009)
17. Partisan Hack (4/17/2009)
18. Partisan, Over the top (12/28/2010)
19. Partisan Stooge (4/19/2009, 09/26/2010)
20. Sanctimonious (12/28/2010)
21. Self-righteous (12/28/2010)
22. Shameless (11/15/2010)
23. SOB (11/5/2009)
24. Son of a bitch (5/31/2009, 6/13/2009)
25. Stooge (3/06/2009)
26. Thin-skinned, Increasingly (11/15/2010)
27. Thin-skinned lunatic (10/22/2009)

See Also
[1] Keith Olbermann's Special Comment: The Republican Response (a work of satire) by TribeApologist, The Daily Kos 10/8/2009
[2] Health care reform: Saving American lives - An extended special comment by Keith Olbermann, Transcript from the 10/07/2009 airing of "Coundown".
[3] Books authored by Keith Olbermann on Amazon.

Video: Senator Al Franken opposed the NBC/Comcast Merger; warns that the merger will lead to higher bills for consumers.

SWTD #79, wDel #4, KO #1.

Republicans Warn: We Will Politicize Senator Kennedy's Death

It was the Republicans that tried to cheapen Paul Wellstone's life by dishonoring his death. It was the right-wing media, not the friends and family who spoke at the memorial or the people who came to it, that seized an opportunity to use a tragedy for political gain ~ Senator Al Franken in his book "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" (pub. 2003)

A news story sighted on the Yahoo home page today, with the decidedly not innocuous title "Wellstone effect for Kennedy?" states that "Key conservative voices have begun to charge in the day after Sen. Ted Kennedy's death that Democrats are inappropriately politicizing the senator's death, his memorial and his legacy".

What they are really warning us of is that we should expect false charges and feigned indignation from their side of the aisle in the coming weeks as Democrats continue to push healthcare reform.

They did the same thing in 2002 when Paul Wellstone (D-MN) tragically died, and it netted them a Senate seat. Why wouldn't they use the same vile underhanded tactics again?

Certainly no one should be surprised that the man is dead one day and they are laying the groundwork for the partisan attacks to come. The question is what can the Democrats do to head off this pre-announced smear campaign? It won't make a bit of difference whether or not Democrats decide to name the bill in honor of Senator Kennedy (as Senator Byrd has suggested).

And it won't matter whether or not we withdraw our calls for Governor Patrick to sign a bill changing state law so that an interim Senator can be appointed to fill the vacant MA seat (which would be a horrific tactical mistake). We must not give in. We must not back down. The Republicans will attack regardless.

I don't know what strategy can be used by the Democrats to deflect these charges - aside from simply calling them out on it - but Democratic strategists need to get proactive on this immediately. We can't let them get away with using Senator Kennedy's death to derail healthcare reform. They politicized Paul Wellstone's death and Minnesota was stuck with Norm Coleman for 6 years. How many more years will reform be delayed if the Democrats don't push back aggressively against Republican fabrications?

SWTD #15

Congratulations President-elect Barack Obama!

I will say that your candidate in Minnesota, Al Franken, is going to be an important part of a coalition that brings about change. He's really, I think, in this to fight for working families. I'm looking forward to seeing him serve in the Senate. And if people are looking for fundamental change over the next eight years, then I think an Obama-Biden ticket, Al Franken in the Senate, is going to be the best answer for working families all across the state ~ Barack Obama on WCCO's Don Shelby Show (11/3/2008).

The election is over, and despite the Republican's best efforts, they were unable to steal the presidency a 3rd time. Thank goodness! This blog has been dormant for some time, but now I'm back! Well, probably not. The reason I stopped blogging was because my posts failed to generate any discussions, or very many responses at all.

In any case, although my last two posts (now over a year old) were in support of John Edwards, I did, eventually, get onboard with Barack Obama (who will be inaugurated on 1/20/2009 as our nation's 44th president). I have to say that I would have voted for Hillary without any reservations, but I am glad that things worked out the way they did. I think the best contestant won -- that's including all the Democrats, all the Republicans, and all the 3rd party candidates who threw their hat in the ring.

The topic I've chosen to return with concerns Barack Obama's "troubling associations" that were brought up during the campaign by McCain, Palin, and right wing pundits. This choice of topics may confuse my readers (if any) due to the fact that the election is over. What does it matter now? Barack Obama took the high road and steered clear of taking the bait put forth by the radical right. He addressed these "associations" when pressed, calmly explaining them. His strategy of not going negative worked and he won the election. Americans are tired of the politics of divisiveness.

However, while writing that post I realized that first I needed to congratulate President-elect Obama, so the post mentioned above will be my second post. Hopefully the Republicans plan to rebuild goes nowhere, and their party fails to reclaim the White House, or any of the congressional seats they lost, anytime soon. Has America finally realized that conservative economic policies, namely "supply side economics" don't work? I truly wish that were the case.

However, I think most Americans were simply fed-up with the direction the current (and outgoing) administration has taken us. What they fail to realize is that we've been on this road ever since the election of Ronald Reagan -- with a brief respite during the Clinton years - although Clinton drank the kool-aid to a certain extent (with the passage of NAFTA and declaring the "end of welfare as we know it", among other things).

In addition to congratulating Mr. Obama, I'd also like to congratulate Mark Begich, who narrowly defeated his corrupt opponent, convicted felon Ted Stevens. And proffer my well wishes to Al Franken and Jim Martin. If Mr. Franken comes out ahead in the Minnesota recount, and Mr. Martin prevails in the Georgia runoff, the Democrats will have secured a filibuster-proof majority. Then we can get down to work rebuilding our economy without having to fear Republican obstructionism.

Further Reading
1. Minnesotans Find Voting For Al Franken or Norm Coleman Very Difficult by Alex Carnevale, Gawker. 11/22/2008. (Reason to read: Find out who voted for the Lizard People).
2. Franken's Odds of Winning Recount May Be Long - or Short by Nate Silver, FiveThirtyEight. 11/10/2008. (Reason to read: Odds of Franken winning the recount may be very good. Find out why).
3. Progressive Eruptions Posts -- Well Done, Senator Obama! 6/3/2008, Happy Obama Day! 1/19/2009, President Barack H. Obama 1/20/2009.

 swtd-013