bustardblog

Malkin Lies, No Suprise.

1. Even in a correction, Malkin keeps the lies in the word "implies."  Trying to maintain the fiction that her writing is "journalism," not fiction, Malkin  posts a correction, it's still albeit a thoroughly dishonest one. She offering her analysis of incident that an appearance earlier in the week on Fox:

In the segment, I referred to "Students and Scholars for Truth." The accurate name of the group I was referring to is "Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth." (There's a separate group called "Scholars for 9/11 Truth," which I've blogged about previously.) I also stated that Paul appeared on campus with Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth. This is incorrect. The incident I was referring to was an exchange that took place at a campaign house party, not during an on-campus joint appearance, as I mistakenly stated.

Andrew Sullivan has quite correctly called her on her perverted version of the debate held earlier in the week

[She] actually takes it as a premise that Ron Paul stated that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance.

Her "correction" merely muddies; there's no clarification of meaning.  She apologizes for getting the name of the organization wrong. She is sorry that she was wrong in identifying  the location where the "incident" took place.

What she had said on the air was:

I note that Ron Paul has basically allied himself with these people. He appears with Students for Truth on campus

"He appears with Students for Truth on campus" does not sound like a single incident: she  twisted the language to imply a recurring act.  "Has basically allied" is not being the host at one visit to a campaign open house.

Cleverly, Malkin leaves the impression that she has corrected her errors, but has actually stood her ground - still standing far from truth.

(h/t meme orandum)

Still Hurting the Rutgers Team

Clearly Don Imus should be fired, whether or not his good friends like Rudy Giuliani  and McCain forgive him.  It's always easy to forgive insults to another. (McCain says he is "a great believer in redemption.”)

Following in their leader's footsteps, wingnuts are trying to defend the indefensible. (Why they do so is beyond me, but if a Republican wants to shoot himself in the face, I'm all for it.) Logic is far from their side. There are some so stupid and offensive that they are easy to dismiss.

Writing about "B-Bawlers", [sick] Riehl just adds more insult:

Maybe if you weren't so practiced at being victims, you might actually have won the championship. How about thinking on that for a spell?

One of the narratives is that Imus' has always been like that - what's new? Because Jeffrey Dahlmer had already eaten seven, eating the eighth was OK? Wizbang likes this one.

The heavy hitter of course is the inimitable Miss Malkin, who says Imus' remarks are deplorable, but nothing as bad as current Rap music. She then posts a lot of the lyrics. She is outraged that the Rev's Sharpton and Jackson are upset about Imus but never criticize the Rappers. (I don't think she means the rapper named Karl Rove here.) As typical as her outrage is her dishonesty. Both Reverends have repeatedly complained of rap lyrics - Jackson went so far as to say the "N" word should be banned.  (why she feels that it is their special obligation as African-Americans to criticize Rap music is unexamined, but understood.) Atrios makes the point that this is simply an attempt at diversion:

Specifically, the fact that rap contains misogynistic lyrics has nothing to do with what Don Imus said. Absolutely nothing. Zero. Zip... It's about Don Imus calling the Rutgers Women's Basketball Team "nappy-headed hoes."

(please view the nappy-headed hoes courtesy of the General: See for yourself why Imus called them nasty and tattooed, not at all like the "cute" white girls on the other team. Yglesias points out that it's not like a lot of big shot politicians or pundits are hanging out with 50 cent, making any comparison between Rap and Imus even more ridiculous.)

Much of the Wingnut Web liked Malkin's post, but a few of the brighter bulbs realized it was lacking.  Thus Protein Wisdom decides to infer an argument that Malkin never makes. (Kurtz basically does the same) They take Malkin's "evidence" and use it to argue that in fact it was Rap's fault that Imus insulted the players . It's because the African-American community permits Rap to prosper with its horrible lyrics, that a nice guy like Imus would ever think of saying such a thing. (never mind that the biggest consumers of Rap are young white males)

Kurtz:

"what about the rappers! that's where the word ho comes from!" (h/t Atrios)

Jeff Goldstein is, as usual, more pompous about it.  First he has to gratuitously insult the editing skills and the physical size of Oliver Willis, ("who, when he’s not distracted by a box of pudding pops") also complained of Malkin's analysis. After repeating Malkin's lies about the Reverends, and Quoting McWhorter and his local newspaper, Jeff pretentiously posts:

And second, is what we are witnessing here “conservatives” engaging in a big cultural con—trying to take the spotlight off of insidious and largely hidden latent white racism?  Or is the occasion of Imus’ boner sufficient to ask pointed cultural questions like those posed by McWhorter, Malkin, and the Rocky Mountain News editorial writers?

Or to put it another way:  is it possible that Imus is less a racist than he is a product of the culture in which he lives?  Has he been “inscribed” by some “cultural dialogic”?

( It's sort of fun: In order to defend Imus, the right is actually blaming "the culture" that surrounds him - he's actually the victim)

And even that is bogus. It is true that in the 100 lines of lyrics Malkin posted the word "ho" appeared once. But I did not see a single use of "nappy headed" nor of "jiggaboo." These are words that Imus and his sidekick brought from their own hearts.

Imus' words were ugly enough. The efforts of his "friends" to excuse and defend him simply add to the cruelty inflicted on those great young women of Rutgers.

Wing Nuts to Osama: Bomb Schools and Malls,

If you had any doubt that the newly elected forces of reason will have their hands full when they take control of Congress next year, please listen to the voices of the right wing blogosphere. It's really scary to look into the mindset of wing nuts.

A man named Shareef was arrested near Chicago, charged with planning to plant explosives in a local mall. He had made a traded with an undercover cop: two stereo speakers for four grenades and a hand gun. (Hot Air)

His name was clearly Islamic, and he was clearly insane. But to the right:

• "They are here, more are coming, it is just a matter of time, homegrown and/or foreign terrorists are in our cities, neighborhoods, and rural communities. Acting alone or in a terror cell, they are in the thousands, their main focus, goal and wish is to kill us here on our soil... GET READY!!" (Suzie) (How she knows, I don't know, but she knows)

• "And while it doesn't appear that the alleged plot was a serious and imminent threat, it seems that the attack was ideologically motivated." (poli PitBull) {Never mind that the word "plot" implies a conspiracy. A single player does not make up a plot, but a plan. There was no attack.)

• Reports are, of course, quick to stress that accused jihadi Shareef allegedly acted as a "lone wolf."   He is not alone."  (Michelle Malkin) (She too knows all, and as always, does her best to create ever more hysteria.)

• "It was only a matter of time...[security at U.S. malls is abysmal]." As a matter of fact a few weeks ago I walked through a mall here and counted the people with backpacks walking around and commented to my wife, “Too easy!” (macsmind) (pity the poor wife - what a fun guy to go shopping with.)

• [He] is a smarter terrorist than al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden’s group keeps on trying for the spectacular.... Attacking targets with lower security like shopping malls and schools would be easier to implement." (theamericanmind)

• "Any time now, the Left will be claiming that it wasn't a serious plot..." (bluto) (at least this fellow is accurate, I am saying it wasn't a serious plot.)

By the time I get this posted, I'm sure that another dozen right wingers will have added their piece of paranoid prose to the muddle. And why hasn't Dr. Sanity spoken to this issue - it's perfect for her?

Will it be possible to reach such people?

Safety in Baghdad

Powerline, like Malkin and the rest of their sorry tribe, can be so depressing. Not just because I disagree with most of their positions - I do. But their politicization of every fact makes discussion and debate almost impossible.
Once again Assocket is saying that Iraq is really pretty much as safe as cities like Washington DC, Chicago, or Philadelphia.
He knows he's lying.
If he were awarded a prize from the Rotary Club of Chicago or Philadelphia, and an all expenses paid trip  was provided for him to accept the award - he'd be there in a flash. How long would it take him to accept the award if were to be awarded by the Baghdad Rotary Club at the Baghdad Hilton?
He also knows he's lying when it comes to the numbers.
He compares the number of civilian dead to the total Iraqi population, and concludes that there really is no civil war there. Not included are members of the new Iraqi Army who have died, nor even members of the Coalition forces who have been killed. They don't count. It's as if he were to say that there were not many serious casualties in the U.S. Civil War, because we don't count soldiers - only women and children.
Bush has twice paraded down Pennsylvania Avenue in D.C., even though Powerline thinks that it is about as safe as Baghdad. Let's see Assrocket and Bush march down Mutanabi Street in Baghdad some time soon.

Heros

This week, there are a lot of people deserving of thanks. Our greatest gratitude goes to our Vets.

And we're also really grateful to all those who voted and worked for change this week.

But we also have to thank a group whose brilliant analytical skills, willingness to sacrifice, and deep patriotism have done so much for our nation. I for one don't thank them enough.

We must not forget, and we must make sure the media remains focused on this small band of truth-tellers, people who are smart enough to note that:

• What we saw this week was "the death throes of a dying party" The Democratic Party. "So however you cut it, this midterm proves that the Iraq war is at least more popular than Bill Clinton was. (Ann Coulter)
• "But the ideologues aren't to blame. The Republicans are." (Jonah Goldberg, before taking his youngster for a stroll in the park, something a lot of actual soldiers in Iraq would love to be doing as well.)
• "The United States did not reject the agenda of the right tonight...The GOP failed to dupe the American public into a liberal agenda." (the ever-prescient Redstate)
• What the right really requires: "If we're gonna win, we need more Santorum." (The Corner's Any McCarthy)
• Referring to Democrats: "They're in real trouble in '08." (Tom Delay to Alan Colmes on Hannity and Colmes)
• "The GOP lost. Conservatism prevailed." (The incomparable, Miss Michelle Malkin)

As good Americans, we must not let the focus shift from such talent and honesty as those listed above.

Lying about Lebanon

The Prime Minister of Lebanon has announced that over 900 Lebanese civilians have been killed by Israel's invasion of that poor country. Yesterday, Juan Cole reported a number closer to 500. Whatever the actual number, it is far too many, and an utterly inexcusable response to the killing of 8 soldiers and the kidnapping of two.

The right has done its utmost to muddle the facts on this issue, using strategies that could have been lifted directly from the play book of those who deny the Holocaust. It is as if Hutton Gibson, Dad of Mel and Holocaust denier, was issuing marching orders to Michelle Malkin, Allan Dershowitz, et al.

One of the best ways to sow confusion is to sew doubt. You start by making up facts. Lies.  Sites like Little Green Footballs pointed out that in most Islamic terror attacks "the death toll increase[s] over several days" and asks why in Lebanon, "the trend is exactly the opposite." Although stated as if it were fact, it is not. For example, initial reports of 9/11 spoke of deaths in the tens of thousands.  The number that actually died in that attack was thankfully much lower than initially expected. First estimates are always wrong, that's one reason that they are called estimates.  But, like holocaust-deniers, those who want to trivialize death in Lebanon must create confusion about the number of dead.

Elaborate, 'conspiracy' type theories are essential in rewriting history. Michelle Malkin and Jonah Goldberg are great at implying events in Qana were "staged." Goldberg quotes unamed, unsourced reports that "refrigerated trucks were reportedly brought in before the media could visit the site, perhaps delivering corpses." As if Israel would not know if refrigerated trucks were on the road to Qana. Free and Justice made use of the time honored deceipt: "Reports that Hizbullah staged it [Qana] could not be confirmed nor denied."  Of course, as of this writing, reports that Michelle Malkin has been arrested on numerous occassions on charges of spousal abuse, could not be confirmed nor denied either.  Wing Nuts like the Confederate Yankee are so obsessed by the supposed time lapse between the bomb hitting the house in Qana and the collapse of the building, that one wonders what they made of the shorter, but actual, time between the plane hitting the WTC and its collapse.

It is true that the reported number of civilians killed in Qana has been lowered to 28 dead and 13 missing. When gatewaypundit reports this he justifies the deaths by writing that "Leaflets were dropped on the town weeks before the attacks warning people of the likelihood of violence."  This is of a piece with Alan Dershowitz's despicable argument that some cvilians are more like civilians than others.

I mean if Israel tells you to leave your home, failure to comply with their instructions justifies your death.  But as that radical Voice of America reported long before the Qana attacks," People who want to leave are also having trouble finding fuel for the journey."  Israel had blown up the gas stations.  They also blew up bridges and roads. As the  BBC wrote on the 22 of July

"Israel has ordered the civilians of southern Lebanon to leave their homes and thousands of families are heeding that advice - at least they are trying to. 

But the Israeli military onslaught around the southern city of Tyre is so fierce, the trip is too daunting for many inhabitants.

Even if it were physically easy to leave, it is not easy for a farmer to lose his livestock, and probably his harvest. The Lebanese also fear that Israel will decide to occupy the lannex their land as a part of Israel (as it has done in Jerusalem), give their homes and farms to Israeli citizens (as in the West Bank), and because they fled during an uprising, deny them the right of return to their homes and villages (as you can see in Palestine refugee camps). And of course Israel has "accidentally" bombed a convoy of civilian cars leaving the south.

Despite all of this, we all saw that: All over the ruined streets of southern Lebanon, families from border villages that have been cut off by 20 days of Israeli bombardment are desperately trying to flee, using the respite offered by a 48-hour halt to most air strikes.

Strapping white sheets to their cars in an attempt to stave off Israeli strikes, tens of thousands of Lebanese have fled the south, taking side roads to avoid ruined bridges, driving around bomb craters and leaving many villages deserted.

This attempt to distort the reality of the deaths of innocents in Lebanon is morally unconscionable. Blaming the victim also serves to dehumanize the victim, a trick of which the actual perpetrators of the holocaust were also fond.

Please know that I consider myself a friend of Israel, and I know that the situation today in Lebanon is nothing like the Holocaust. But I also know that when any actions of Israel are defended using the same kinds of twisted tricks that were used to both justify and deny the holocaust, the country has completely lost its way.

 

Killings in Lebanon

"Marching in Lock Step, Once Again" should be the headline of an independent media's report on the right's discussion of Lebanon. Sadly, it won't be. Our media is too intimidated to do so.

It's sad for two reasons. The most obvious one is that an ill informed electorate is unable to really weigh the facts and come to good decisions - they simply don't have real information. The public finds itself forced into a position similar to the one Frist volunteered for during the Schiavo case: making a decision or a diagnosis in the complete absence of evidence.  Assertions from the likes of Rick Santorum in recent weeks that WMD have been found in Iraq, despite having been completely debunked by the Bush/Rumsfeld Pentagon, are given undue credence and so almost 50% of the country now believes that Saddam had WMD's.

The second reason, and perhaps the more important one, is the lost opportunity for an independent media to show us a propaganda campaign in full swing - spinning, deceiving and distorting every step of the way.

The first means that they've succeed in tricking us once again, which is bad enough. The second means that we don't learn how they do it, so the odds of our catching them in their next batch of lies are greatly diminished.

As an example, one need only look to Lebanon, and more specifically the killing of 4 U.N. observers by the Israeli Defense Forces, to get a hint as to how the system works.

Step one for the right is to try to control the language. They object strenuously to the use of the word "killing."  Despite the fact that a person from Austria, one from Canada, another from Finland, and one from China, all of whom worked for the U.N., died as a result of a series of bombs dropped on them by Israel does not mean that they were "killed." This is when phrases like "collateral damage" come in handy.

Another key part of the spin-cycle is to obliterate the idea that any real harm was done. Captain's Quarters writes "one might ask what the UNIFIL forces did during this time. Apparently, not a lot. They didn't act as a deterrent, nor did they do much to stop it." In fact UNIFIL forces were never meant to be a deterrent, and they were unarmed, utterly unable "to stop it." In fact, the definition of their mission was supported by the U.S.

The deception is subtle, but undeniable. Michelle Malkin quoted a writer who said that the  presence of the UNIFIL team "makes mockery of the term "peacekeeping."  But UNIFIL were "observers" not 'peacekeepers.' Protein Wisdom takes the lie a step further: "What is worth noting here is that Annan's desire to see international forces step in is part and parcel of his reign of impotence - and is yet another cosmetic attempt (sic) to both paper over the real problems in the middle east and prevent Israel from acting effectively in its own interests."  In fact, the international forces that Annan wants to have step in now would be charged with an entirely different task than the UNIFIL team that was killed two days ago. Somehow, Mr. Goldstein neglects to make this distinction.

"When Kofi Annan was advised of the deaths of four UNIFIL soldiers in Lebanon as the result of Israeli fire, Annan immediately - immediately - announced that Israel had killed them deliberately." Here you have a great example of the third leg of their propaganda - blatant lies.  Here, Sensing lied particularly well.  All the evidence available indicates that it was hours after the deaths, hours in which Annan was informed of how often the UNIFIL people had asked Israel to stop bombing them, that Annan said that that the bombing was "apparently" deliberate. Annan used the word apparently, as in 'appeared' or 'seemed' to be deliberate. He did not announce that it was deliberate. And he did so only after  he ascertained that the "U.N. had warned Israel with at least 10 separate phone calls during six hours." He issued no immediate statement.

Like Sensing, Captains Quarters also omitted the qualifying word "apparently", just as he distorted the conclusion reached by Canadian P.M. Harper. Haper said that he "thought" that the bombing had probably been a mistake, and that he 'doubted' that the attack was intentional. But the headline at Captain Ed's blog reads "Harper says UNIFIL Attack Not Deliberate." This is the kind of distortion that the right uses constantly - removing qualifiers, altering the degree of certainty that held when the statements were made.

Another of their favorite ploys is a way of making the issue seem ridiculous. They argue that no crime was committed, but even if it had been, it's totally justified, becuase the victim deserved it anyway. Malkins is great at this - she keeps on repeating how anti-Semitic the U.N. is. Blackfive takes it up a notch. "It shouldn't have been news to anyone that UN and the terrorists were partners."They  [the U.N.] support, legitimize and then provide cover for evil worldwide." I mean why would you care if employees of such an organization were killed?

And of course, in all matters involving Israel at all times, play the anti-semite card and crank up emotions and outrage.  John Podheretz said Annan was "an anti-semite who sucks up to Arab dictators and presides over and organization choking on its own moral filth." Atlas Shrugs called Annan a "Jew Hater" and "a liar and a murderer."

With all of this intentional static, it is hard to remember that Annan's comment was neither irrational or unfair. In time, we may learn that it was inaccurate, but it is not crazy. What the right wants of course to alter the reality of what happened. In fact the reality is pretty simple.  Four unarmed UN observers are sitting in a long established, well-identified base. Hezbollah has set up shop quite close to them - just how close remains a bit unclear.  Israel initiated repeated aerial and artillery attacks that were landing on or right next to the U.N. post. People from the U.N. repeatedly contacted Israel and asked them to stop.  Each time they agreed to do so, but the assault continued. After hours of bombardment, Israel makes a direct hit and four U.N. employees are dead.

If it was not intentional, it at least displays a complete disregard for the lives of the U.N. workers.

An Irish soldier was involved in the communication. He was one who contacted Israel several times during the day, trying to get them to stop the bombing. He warned Israel that "you have to address this problem or lives may be lost." After the incident the Irish Foreign Minister declared "Evidence we have would suggest this was either an incredible accident or else was in some way directly targeted."

I know, I know - the Irish are anti-Semitic Jew Haters, just like the Finns and the Chinese.

A Token of the Conservatives

As we all know, discussing identity politics is just another of the innumerable liberal failings. The left is always playing the gay card, or the race card, or the whatever card, while  the right is above such issues.  They believe that race should not be a consideration in any decision, which is why affirmative action is so evil. Bloggers like Michelle Malkin and Powerline are firm in their assertion that race is not a factor to them.  Positive comments from both adorn the site of the conservative, African-American female blogger, LaShawn Barber.
After Bush finally spoke at the NAACP conference, I was curious to check out Ms Barber's site.  One thing she had to say was to describe that organization as just a social club of Limousine Liberal Negros. This week she also condemned the concept of reparations, because "blacks already receive reparation with every lowered standard, every welfare check.." Now you see why wing-nuts love her.
In her own comments on Bush's speech, Malkin linked to Barber. Both she and Powerline link to her quite often.
They link to her quite often when she writes about - identity politics. I looked at the last 50 links from Michelle. I divided links into two categories - one I called major, in which the link includes and extensive quote, or a real description. I called links where Barber is just a mention as minor links (the link lists, or the ones that say "More from LaShawnBarber", for example). Eight major links* were to posts where the subject was identity politics; and there was only one major link to a post about a different topic. Twenty minor links went to identity fifteen went to other subjects. Powerline did not link so often, but there is the same pattern. Six major links were to a post about identity politics, one went to a post concerned with another matter.
Malkin and her friends at Powerline agree on many things - one of which is that an African-American woman is really an expert only on being an African-American Woman. The right has decided to embrace her because of her race. Her race enables them to agree with her condemnation of other victims of discrimination without appearing racist or insensitive. The poor woman benefits from a twisted form of  affirmative action, even as she denounces it. 

N.B. Similarity to Justice Clarence ("victim of a high tech lynching") Thomas.

* some examples of such links are here and here

I also analyzed many links from Instapundit to Ms Barber, and I have to say that no such pattern emerged. He linked to her posts on a wide array of topics. Two Points for Mr. Reynolds.

Writing to Michelle Malkin

I just sent the following e-mail to Michelle Malkin:

Ms Malkin,

I am writing to complain of the utterly misleading post of yours of July 3, 9:03 P.M., entitled “Our Homes are not our Castles.” Yesterday I posted a piece on my little site, http://bustardblog.typepad.com, in which I pointed out how faulty was the evidence which you gave to support your argument that lefty bloggers  are hell bent on discovering personal data about conservatives and publishing it. The first two sites to which you link are the same site. So thus far you have evidence of one lefty blogger’s behavior. The fourth site is in fact the site of one of your supporters, and in no way constitutes proof of your assertion. I was not able to determine if the third site was in fact a lefty one. It is ironic that your linking to them spread Rumsfeld’s data, at a level far more detailed than anything published in the Times, to a far larger audience than the relatively unpopular and unknown site to which you linked could ever have hoped for. By feigning outrage that the Times showed a photo of the house, you manage to spread the specifics to an enormous audience, your readers. I can only guess what might be your real motivation for linking to the site. If you truly believe that publishing Mr Rumsfeld’ personal data was wrong and potentially dangerous, you only increased that risk by linking to it. The existence of the site in no way buttresses your argument, since it is a site that specializes in publishing data that was meant to be  secret. . The only reason that I can see that would motivate you to post that link, was that it enabled you to publish the home addresses of Mr Sulzberger and Mr Keller of The Times, without taking any responsibility for doing so. My already low opinion of you, Ms Malkin, has sunk even lower. 

bbbustard

Please respect and protect my anonymity

UPDATE:

Reading Atrios led me to Glenn Greenwald's excellent piece on a similar aspect of this issue.

Lies About the N.Y Times

There is no let up in the right's utterly dishonest attacks on the New York Times. Michelle Malkin posted about it both today and Monday. The lies in her longer piece from Monday are quite shocking. Even by her standard.
Her post focuses on the dastardly publication by the Times of information about the Cheney and Rumsfeld summer homes in Maryland. Michelle Malkin is outraged that the paper would publish a picture of Rummy's house - even after Rummy said it was fine by him, and the secret service said no harm was done. She entitled the post "Our Homes are not Our Castles," as she wanted to sream to her Gods of the left's propensity to publish personal information about political opponents, while the right, the far too nloble right, could nevercommit such evil.

She writes that "Leftists scoff at my observation that there is a concerted effort to dig up and publicize the private home information of prominent conservatives in the media and blogosphere to intimidate them"  To prove her point Malkin lists four links. The first and the second are two posts from one blog. The fourth is in fact a conservative blog who is a supporter of Michelle's. The first and the last links are speaking of posts containing personal data about Michelle herself, which were part of a response to Michelle's publishing personal data about someone on the left. So, in looking at this problem so far, we have found one lefty blog and one righty blog that post personal info on political opponents; the righty one being Michelle herself. (april 19/2006, 8:53 P.M.) The fact that she had posted an opponent's personal info should have surprised anyone who had read the following sentence a few paragraphs earlier in the post: "Conservative readers have asked me to publish the private home addresses of NY Times reporters, editors, and photographers.  My response: NO."

Which brings us to the third link. While this does give out some information about Rumsfeld's personal data; it's unclear to me that it is a "lefty" site. It lists so much foreign data, that I suspect it's not even a site run by Americans. But it provides personal data on at least two more Americans - that would be the addresses of the winter and summer homes of both Mr Sulzberger and Mr Keller. These gentlemen are the publisher and the editor in chief of the New York Times.

So while Michelle thinks it an outrage that the Times named the town in which Rummy has a house, and showed a photo of the house, with Rummy's permission, she herself links to a site that gives the exact street addresses of the homes of two people who run the Times, even though she explicitly said she refused to do so.

This sleazy, reprehensible behavior is not part of the Republican tradition. The party that offered us Goldwater, Rockefeller, would never want us to  waste our vote so that idiots  can conspire to keep a liar in power.