Patterico's Pontifications


Merry Christmas from the Democrats

Filed under: 2008 Election — DRJ @ 11:45 am

[Guest post by DRJ]

First it’s possible Democratic plants at debates.

Then it’s GOP mug shots at the New York Public Library.

‘Tis the Season for Democratic dirty tricks.


22 Responses to “Merry Christmas from the Democrats”

  1. Conservative meme: Barack Obama is a Muslim trained at a terrorist madrassah.

    Dish it out, but can’t take it.

    Andrew J. Lazarus (7d46f9)

  2. I loved this line in the article:

    This exhibition has no political agenda…

    Of course not. These aren’t the droids you’re looking for. See? It works every time on, oh, morons.

    physics geek (6669a4)

  3. AJ, I’m not sure I understand your point. If there is one.

    steve miller (0dd1f7)

  4. New York. “Artists”.


    mojo (8096f2)

  5. in re: Conservative meme (#1),

    a) Obama’s part of the United Church of Christ – you understand that Islam is a religion, not an ethnicity, right?

    b) Who cares? If you’re going to make an accusation, don’t pussy-foot around: just say it, so we can laugh at you.

    Leviticus (43095b)

  6. Criticize them for the current display. Maybe not so much for their 2004 display.

    Take a look at the books they noted in their censorship protest. Those darn Democrats!

    Voice of Reason (10af7e)

  7. I think AJL is referring to the many sentiments that say because of his name he can’t be trusted OR that Ellison’s allegiance is suspect because he is a practicing Muslim OR the unproven allegations about Hillary’s sexual preference OR the oft quoted but wildly inaccurate docudrama painting them Clintons as in bed with the mob and drug dealers (sold for a time on Falwell’s programs).

    Everyone seems to have a political agenda.. welcome to the real world.

    Voice of Reason (10af7e)

  8. When it comes to the demacraps SCROOGE and THE GRINCH could never hold a candle to them i mean their motto is BAH HUM BUG AND I MUST FIND A WAY TO KEEP CHRISTMAS FROM COMMING their absolutly nasty

    krazy kagu (5b69ac)

  9. Oh My God!!! Al Queida has taken over the New York Public Library!!!!

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  10. Ah. Leviticus, my point was that the conservatives whining about an obviously-fake (although great fantasy) mug shot of GW Bush are at the same time pushing plausible (but completely false) claims about Barack Obama.

    I regret this was not obvious.

    Andrew J. Lazarus (7d46f9)

  11. No, no, no. My bad.

    I looked at the comment, saw the irony you intended (but didn’t initially recognize it as such), and didn’t take the time to look at the name on the post. If I’d seen your handle, I would’ve recognized the sarcasm. As it stands, I didn’t see your handle until now. I actually thought some right-winger was making that accusation.

    My mistake. I’m not a retard. Really.

    Leviticus (43095b)

  12. AJL, the point is that these mug shots, which are political propaganda relating to a current election, are being displayed by a public institution at taxpayer expense. If it were really just about teh art, the library would either have excluded this example or taken care to balance it with a similar set of works of the opposite slant – say a poster showing Barak Hussein Obama in a keffiyeh and holding an AK-47 and a grenade. Or it would have found something from a long-dead campaign; perhaps an anti-Eisenhower caricature from 1956. But public institutions have no business taking part in a current campaign, and by displaying what amounts to a pro-Democrat advertisement without a corresponding pro-Republican one, that is what the NYPL doing. If Giuliani were still mayor he’d pull the funding, and this time I bet he’d win in court.

    Milhouse (027917)

  13. Milhouse,
    I don’t think anyone in the mug shots is running for office. Just saying…..

    voiceofreason (76c594)

  14. VOR,

    Then the Library exhibit should include mug shots of Bill Clinton and Sandy Berger (Hey, how about using his real mug shot?). They aren’t running for office either.

    DRJ (a6fcd2)

  15. DRJ,
    Sure have at it. This pair has been doing stuff for 20 years now. Some exhibits people agree with and some they don’t.
    But political propaganda as Milhouse suggested as well as his suggestion about Obama.. come on.

    voiceofreason (76c594)

  16. For those interested a description of some of the 22 other artists in this collection are at

    These seem apolitical enough.

    voiceofreason (76c594)

  17. VOR: To claim that an attack on the current administration has nothing to do with the current election is simply dishonest. The Bush administration and its record, for good or bad, are the biggest issue in the current campaign, and you know that very well. For that matter, the Clinton administration is an issue in the current campaign because of Hillary’s candidacy, so an attack on Bill Clinton would by definition be Republican propaganda, and not appropriate in a taxpayer funded exhibit unless balanced to show that it’s really about the yart. That’s why to give an example of something that would be acceptable I went all the way back to 1956; Ike is not an issue in this election, for good or bad, so an unbalanced attack on him can be accepted as genuinely about the yart.

    Milhouse (027917)

  18. Milhouse,
    The mug shots are part of a much larger collection as I noted above. Do we outlaw political cartoons next since they tend to criticize and exagerrate the looks of current politicians?

    Things like this start to sound almost paranoid — the vast leftwing conspiracy type stuff…

    voiceofreason (76c594)

  19. Yes, political cartoons commenting on current political controversies, and especially those that are likely to influence the viewer’s vote in a current election, ought not to be displayed by a public entity, or using public money; if their artistic merit is so great that there is a compelling reason to display them, then they should be balanced by similar cartoons bearing the opposite message, so that the net effect on the viewer’s political opinions and likely voting behaviour is neutral.

    This is the same principle that makes it illegal to use government grants for political campaigning or to influence legislation.

    Milhouse (027917)

  20. The old moral equivalency card is being played once again, I see, by those with scant wit, education or intelligence. MY point is that PUBLIC FUNDS financed something that the majority of the PUBLIC would find offensive. Okay? I have the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to object to my tax dollars being used for this crap masquerading as “art”. And you can object to my objection, but that does not remove my right to have and voice the objection. I am really tired of hearing the liberal mantra of the politically correct morons that we must be “sensitive” and we must be “tolerant” – you know what – I DO NOT FREAKING HAVE TO TOLERATE THINGS THAT I FIND OFFENSIVE, NOR DO I HAVE ANY INTENTION OF BEING SENSITIVE TO SOMEONE WHO DEMONSTRATES COMPLETE INSENSITIVITY TO MY FEELINGS. I’m too damned old to put up with this nonsense any longer. At age 65 I am fed up with listening to this kind of drivel but I will defend their right to babble as they please. I will NOT, however, defend their desire to shut up my opposing view!

    Gayle Miller (187b6e)

  21. Meanwhile, you will notice that Christians are not calling for the offending “artist” to be flogged or put to death!

    Gayle Miller (187b6e)

  22. 22
    The exhibit is being funded by a mix of private and public funds. Calling people names with whom you disagree doesn’t make your point well.

    Voice of Reason (10af7e)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3419 secs.