The party never ends at National Review; it just gets less viable over time.

MC Byron York busts out the following remix, sampling various tunes from 2004's Now That's What I Call Bullshit Volume 27:

It's common to see mentions in the press these days about some "swiftboating" of Barack Obama that is allegedly in the works, or might someday allegedly be in the works, or might someday be thought to be allegedly in the works.

Ha. Ha. Ha. Silly press. Seriously, who gets "Swiftboated" in a U.S. presidential election? This hasn't happened to a single presidential candidate since 2004.

There has been an interesting claim floating around MyDD lately, that the Barack Obama campaign is Swiftboating Hillary by putting out the following statement in response to her remarks about RFK's assassination:

"Senator Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign."

Let this sink in.  The claim here is that calling such a remark "unfortunate," and pointing out that gratuitous references to assassination have no place in a presidential campaign somehow rises to the level of what Bush/Rove & co. did to John Kerry in 2004.  The most prominent incarnation of this silliness can be found in this diary by linfar (The first half of the diary is actually pretty good, and very moving.  But then it makes a sharp turn to...well, let's say it starts to become less moving).

Swiftboating clearly is not what it used to be.  You no longer need to form a 527. The million dollar ad campaign is no longer required.  Hell, you don't even have to lie anymore.  Now apparently all you need to do is wait for a candidate to say something thoughtless and then respond by expressing a tepid opinion of disapproval.

While we're here chatting amongst ourselves, sipping our latte or kool-aid, or slugging a beer or taking a shot with hard working white people (what's the deal with politics and beverages?), let's examine this tepid response from Obama's campaign.

Anyone who follows politics with any regularity quickly becomes familiar with political-speak, and the rhetorical devices that these fascinating and unusual creatures we elect to public office use.  So I ask those of you who are politically astute, what does it generally signify when a politician uses a soft and tepid term of disapproval like "unfortunate" or "inappropriate?"  Refer to the following example for guidance...

Several days after 9/11, the very Reverend Jerry Falwell and the equally pious Pat Robertson had the following conversation,  

"God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve," said Falwell, appearing yesterday on the Christian Broadcasting Network's "700 Club," hosted by Robertson.

"Jerry, that's my feeling," Robertson responded. "I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror. We haven't even begun to see what they can do to the major population."

Falwell said the American Civil Liberties Union has "got to take a lot of blame for this," again winning Robertson's agreement: "Well, yes."

Interestingly, I don't remember O'Reilly ever grouping either of these two gentlemen in his esteemed "blame America first" crowd. But I digress.

Our dignified and heroic president responded to these outrageous remarks thusly,

A White House official called the remarks "inappropriate" and added, "The president does not share those views."

Inappropriate?  How about irresponsible?  How about despicable?  How about batshit crazy?  But no, Bush decided to call the remarks "Inappropriate."

Inappropriate.  Unfortunate.  These are the kinds of terms that politicians use when one of their political allies say something so completely ridiculously off the wall and provocative that they need to respond with some show of disapproval - just enough to distance themselves from it, but not so much that it pisses off their base (who might agree with aforementioned batshit).

Obama's campaign put out a press release calling Hillary's gratuitous reference to RFK's assassination "unfortunate."  Swiftboating?  Hardly.  Those of us who speak politicseese understand that this is actually closer to an expression of friendship than a hostile rebuke.

So, uh...can't we all just get along? <Donning flame-proof vest and goggles>

Sure, the propaganda media organs have tried to make this Jeremiah Wright thing into a monster. Most people I know just are not concerned about this absurdly overblown Jeremiah Wright frenzy. Most people do not even have much faith in the propaganda media organs anymore. Then there is this:

Alegre's strike against dailyKos got me thinking about the nature of the debate on both sites, about civility and lack thereof, about why well-intentioned writers on both sites sometimes go crazy and vent invective, personal slurs, and curse words on the often undeserving. I started this as a reply in the thread over there, but realized it was turning into a diary, and so it has.

Since this started as a response to Alegre's piece, I suppose a response is still a good thing: I respect Alegre, and then also I don't. I very much respect the personal-experience diaries, her diaries about many worthy causes, even diaries about why she supports Hillary Clinton. I don't respect the "post whatever HillaryClinton.com says, even if it's ridiculous spin" diaries. Someone as smart as she is can see through the spin.

So I won't be joining the strike as she asks, but I do agree with what I think her biggest point is: while civility isn't always justified, there is never a time to take it personal, there is never a time for curse words and invective (with the slight caveat that it's ok, in my opinion, to snarkily call someone the same non-cursing name they just called someone else; if the shoe fits...). Civility is a good thing, even a necessary thing, but there are reasons people go nuts and reasons that crossing some lines over and over demands a firm smackdown -- but not with cursing and invective, and never, ever, with threats and bullying.

In America politics today, pundits and media reward politicians and say how smart they are when the politician uses Bully tactics and an "assualt-like" mentality when they tear their opponents down by smear, distortions and lies --"swift boating", throwing the kitchen sink. The news media and pundits like to Praise the unscrupulous Politician up instead of disavowing them. The pundits like to say how Brilliant they are;  What a Victory they say; what a Comeback Kid; and justify their use of  Negative Ads and reward the worst in us -- this low and base behavior which should be outgrown as a humanitarian society.   How many good and decent men have gone down because they were unfairly swiftboated by their opponents, mischaracaterized by those who have no morals or ethics.  Something is wrong with that picture.

There is nothing brilliant about lies, distortions, peddling fear, swiftboating, and an assassination of one's character, it's not a physical killing but a killing just the same, an emotional theft and mental crime.  There's no Honor in that, because it's slander and distortion of the worse kind and should not be rewarded or esteemed as characteristics we need to emulate within our society.  Do we emulate the school yard bully? Or the thief who steals one's life's earnings?    It's Dirty Politics and should be called what it is, a crime.  If America is to ever become better than what she is and live up to her Destiny, than we must disavow this kind of tactics because it has no place in Democracy's arms, no place in a sane and peaceful society.

Running a country is serious business and it is not a game, it is not acting.  It's the  governing of people and their lives and should be taken as a solemn oath and duty.  Dirty politics should not be looked up to as a virtue and politicians should not be allowed to swiftboat their opponent, for the sake of gain by any means at any cost.  

There is a Right way to Fight and a Wrong way to Fight.  Victory based on lies and cheating should not be condoned.  There should be campaign laws about this kind of unscrupulous politicking.  It should not be rewarded with the highest office in the land. It should be called what it is a Crime.

America is only as good as her politicians and leaders.

We just moved to an area outside of Tucson and, without XM radio, we are limited in our reception.  So I have two choices, "The Jolt" radio (with a line-up that includes Stephanie Miller, Ed Schultz and Dr. Laura (don't get me started!!!), or something called "The Truth", which, the truth be told, I would never be able to bring myself to listen to (it's the furthest thing from the truth with Laura Ingraham and Bill O'Reilly, to name just two of its illustrious line-up.)

The other day, as I was on my way to do chores (anything that takes me away from my new house and wonderful, peaceful, idyllic view is a chore these days), I was subjected to Democratic talk radio....Stephanie Miller.

I listened intently so that I could really understand what she (an Obama supporter) and her callers were saying.  It was mostly negative about Hillary - and after a while, I just turned it off.

After 8 years of mismanagement by the Republican County Executive of Erie County, there is a hotly contested Democratic primary for the right to replace him. One of the Democrats is badly trailing and has now torn a page from the Bush playbook and has turned to a dispicable smear campaign.

I have a huge beef with Maggie North of Claremont, a supposed Obama supporter, who "warned" the Senator Monday:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2007/08/13/AR2007081300912. html?hpid=sec-politics

"you've got to stop -- excuse me for being blunt -- you've got to stop getting involved in the way people are fighting each other, chewing you up a little more."