Yesterday, I mentioned that my opponent Todd Long has concocted a bizarre End-of-Days scenario if I win, which has me removing the Bible from people’s homes, and “kicking Christianity out of the country.”
Long may be a liar, but he’s not an outlier. Because right-wing nuts like him have been flooding the media with paranoid nonsense like that.
Here’s one that gathers all of the sick, twisted memes in one spot. Some group called the “National Republican Victory Fund,” run by the usual bunch of anonymous losers and con artists, put it together. It asks the very pertinent question of what will happen in America if Barack Obama wins reelection, and describes the result this way: “a socialist nightmare hellscape.”
In case you didn’t get the point, the video actually depicts yellow and orange flames, jumping in the air. Dante would be so impressed.
Here is more of what is to come, or so they say:
- Obama will “circumvent” the “checks and balances of the Constitution.”
- Obama will “erode” our “fundamental rights.”
- Obama will “fail[] to protect Americans abroad.”
- “Gun control will be a priority.”
- Obama will “exert[] control over our Nation’s judiciary.”
- “Energy costs will skyrocket.” (Illustrated by . . . a rocket!)
- EPA regulations will “choke energy production.”
- “Obama will demand that tax rates go up.”
They left these out: Cats will sleep with dogs! All of us will be forced to eat broccoli! Gravity will become so strong that we won’t be able to get out of bed! And . . . universal healthcare!!
To try to add some kind of marching band of credibility to this parade of horribles, the NRVF video inserts a spastic, “What was that?” clip of someone-saying-to-someone: “You said that a worldwide recession is in order if Obama is reelected.”
I tracked down the clip. It’s from the August 20, 2012 episode of CNBC’s 6 a.m. show “Squawk Box.” (Motto: “We’re right almost as often as we’re wrong.” Although it’s difficult to be right about anything at 6 a.m.)
But guess who had made this momentous prediction of a worldwide recession? Who was this modern-day Nostradamus? Was it Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve? Was it Warren Buffett, the most successful investor of our lifetimes? Was it Paul Krugman, or perhaps some other winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics? Was it Chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors?
No. It was the owner of the Miami Dolphins. Who immediately added that for big corporations in America, “The balance sheets are as good as they have been for many years.”
Honestly, if we choose the Leader of the Free World based on what the owner of the Miami Dolphins says, then maybe we deserve a worldwide recession.
Here is what it comes down to. The other side is spreading the most dire, ominous prophecies that anyone can imagine, up to and including “a socialist nightmare hellscape,” in order to win votes in their time-honored manner — by scaring the gullible. It’s happening in my race, it’s happening in the President’s race, and it’s happening all over the country. Sometime between now and Tuesday, they’ll say that an Obama victory means the Mayan Apocalypse, 45 days later, and only Mitt Romney/Todd Long/whoever can save us from that. They just keep pushing that big, red PANIC button, over and over and over again.
And me? I know that if we allow ourselves to be ruled by hatred or fear, then this would be a nightmare hellscape. So it just makes me more determined to win. And with your help, we will.
Courage,
Alan Grayson
“The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked. Denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
- Hermann Goering, Nuremberg Diary (1946).



33 Comments

- Obama will “circumvent” the “checks and balances of the Constitution.”
- Obama will “erode” our “fundamental rights.”
Yes, we can.
Yes we did!
Well, of course, Alan. It’s his way of reminding his bigoted base that you’re Jewish — in other words, Not A REAL White Man.
For anyone who is having problems with the background ad and overlays, please send me the following information to dakine at firedoglake dot com:
Operating system and machine
Browser type and version
Source code. (for source code, please see this link, copy the code into a text file and attach to the email. Thank you)
- Obama will “circumvent” the “checks and balances of the Constitution.”
Check
- Obama will “erode” our “fundamental rights.”
Check
- Obama will “fail[] to protect Americans abroad.”
By continuing the GWOT, check
- “Gun control will be a priority.”
Nope
- Obama will “exert[] control over our Nation’s judiciary.”
Via Supreme Court, check
- “Energy costs will skyrocket.” (Illustrated by . . . a rocket!)
?
- EPA regulations will “choke energy production.”
Energy production will choke EPA regulations
- “Obama will demand that tax rates go up.”
Check
5 out of 8 of these should be stated in the past, not future, tense.
With all due respect to Representative Grayson, why the hell is this obviously partisan campaign ad on the front page?
I thought FDL wasn’t going to endorse candidates this cycle.
x2
In all fairness to Mr. Grayson, and despite my post above, I wish him success in winning back his old seat.
Nah. Even wingnuts aren’t that disconnected from reality.
You beat me to it. My post was going to be simpler but similar.
With the exception of gun control…
“Honestly, if we choose the Leader of the Free World based on what the owner of the Miami Dolphins says, then maybe we deserve a worldwide recession.”
We don’t do this already? Then what the hell are all those millions spent on TV ads supposed to be about? Do we imagine that they contain verifiable information presented in a rational way for the benefit of the public good? I have seen campaign ads my whole life and have never seen one aver anything as reality-based as this: “The balance sheets are as good as they have been for many years.”
Of course, Ben Bernanke didn’t see the 2008 worldwide recession coming either.
I stopped expecting honesty from Representative Grayson right around the time that I stopped expecting it from Obama.
All these rightwing SuperPacs & Rush & Glenn Beck & charlatan preachers shout out this crap because it WORKS.
Facts & reality are things of the past, Mr. Grayson, as you probably realize.
My rightwing fundie family members, esp one sibling, as pretty much unhinged, as in: barking *mad* about shit Just. Like. This.
My family members INSIST that Obama is a big fat COMMUNIST & he’s going to inflict Sharia Law!!11!!11 on all of us because he’s a MUSLIM as well.
Blah blah blah
Their lunacy is unbridled. They appear to me to ENJOY ranting, raving & tirading about abso-effen-lutely the most bizarre, ridiculous credulous nonsense.
There’s certainly loads of stuff to worry about with Obama, but many citizens, esp conservatives who indulge themselves in the corp-owned propoganda wurlitzer 24/7/365, simply do not truck in reality.
It’s how the 1% laughs all the way to their off-shore accounts as they rip all of us off, including conservative voters.
duh
Good luck to you, Mr. Grayson. Hope you win and bring some measure of sanity to the process.
Thanks for referencing Bob Dylan’s “Idiot Wind”. If you’ve got an extra 7′ go listen to it. It is among Dylan’s best.
Sorry. :)
I shoot and hunt a lot, so many of my friends are Reps, conservatives, NRA members, and similar. Almost every one of them is convinced that Obama will go after guns if reelected–despite all evidence to the contrary. It is a stunning article of faith.
When gripped in similar fear four years ago, all that resulted was a spike in ammunition prices because all those so afflicted with self-induced fear bought up the market for a product with a very long supply chain. When ammunition got pricey and scarce, for many of them this fact only validated their fear that the government was after their guns. That they had created this turn of events, out of their own baseless fear, was lost on most of them. Such is the blindness of ideology.
x2
I really like Mr. Grayson and hope he wins, but let’s forget all the other nonsense and deal with the most serious accusation: world-wide recession. I doubt that Obama or the Democrats in Congress will implement the necessary measures to avoid it. Of course, Romney and the Republicans would only hasten it and inflict greater pain on the 99.9%. Most of our elected representatives have ensured by their dearth of adequate legal prosecution and regulation that the status quo of financial fraud and corporate exploitation is acceptable and will be allowed to continue. The financial lobby has them pigging-out from the trough. Dodd-Frank will not stop the TBTF banks from speculating off the deep end. Social Security and Medicare benefits will get cut, while the military will continue to grow. Disaster Capitalism’s elites are planning the next assault. More real assets will get siphoned off to engorge the fat cats. Where does that leave us? I just can’t get excited about Obama or the Dems or the whole sham of so-called democratic elections.
No shit. Why am I looking at a campaign ad for Obama and other Progressive candidates here?
Why is FDL taking money for this?
A related issue to “world wide recession” that has almost nothing to do with who gets to be the President for the next four years: http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175496/tomgram%3A_michael_klare%2C_no_exit_in_the_persian_gulf
Hasn’t Grayson heard of Benghazi?
This is one of the few times that I would flag this as inappropriate for being on the frontpage. FDL has been partisan in the past, so that would not be surprising, but this time around the claim is nonpartisanship.
I think turning the attack around to say Alan is a victim of latent anti-Semitism is a deflection. I don’t think being Jewish is an impediment in Florida, is it? Being very pro-Israel does, of course, partially inoculate one against attacks from that quarter also rampant in Florida. Not a very progressive position but, what the hell. I know this apparent defect in Alan’s progressive cred has been argued about and litigated on this forum in the past. But, please, why should he be given a pass simply because he is “good” on most other issues? Isn’t American exceptionalism, extrapolated to Israeli exceptionalism, one of the really significant problems here?
The fact that so many here are attacking Alan Grayson, who was arguably one of the most assertive of liberals in Congress, speaks loudly to the circular firing squad nature of so-called progressives on FDL.
This is why we can’t have nice things.
And really, ackack, without advertising FDL ceases to be.
Do you people ever have any passing contact with reality? Any at all?
Indeed. This post is bullshit on a number of counts, although I don’t think inappropriate–but I don’t think any post is. It is part ironic parody and part partisan advertisement. Using the Goering axiom in support of Obama is delusional. Obama does not operate in opposition to this statement but in accordance with it (e.g. persecution of whistleblowers). And “pushing that big, red panic button”?! Isn’t that precisely the dynamic of the lesser of two evils argument that dominates support for Obama?
“The other side is spreading the most dire, ominous prophecies that anyone can imagine, up to and including “a socialist nightmare hellscape,” in order to win votes in their time-honored manner — by scaring the gullible.”
It is only “the other side,” is it? Apparently, Grayson has not been hearing the ubiquitous Dem fear mongering that insists that a vote for Romney or a third party is akin to national suicide. Meanwhile, Grayson’s response in kind is to scare people into voting for Dems by presenting this image of “the other side” while pretending to try and discourage us from being “ruled by hatred or fear”? This post is hypocritical, uninformative and manipulative.
I don’t think this post is inappropriate. I think it is fucking silly. If I were interested in reading this sort of shallow, partisan nonsense, then I’d read Daily Kos and Free Republic.
Could you BE any more condescending? Who appointed YOU as spokesperson for what is and isn’t acceptable?
The people who have objections against Grayson have just as much right to voice those opinions as you have to castigate them for having them.
But YOU don’t speak for all ‘progressives’.
You see, SOME people would rather vote for the person who BEST represents their beliefs; if someone believes that our unconditional support for Israel is a major source of our foreign policy woes, then it would be ludicrous to expect them to vote for someone who is as heavily invested in that as Grayson is. I guess if you’re a mindless Party supporter, or a rank authoritarian who needs to be told what they believe, maybe not, but thinking adults should THINK about their vote and their support.
Just because your priorities aren’t the same doesn’t mean they’re wrong or you’re right (or that you’re not talking out your ass).
I am in touch with reality enough to know that the lesser of two evils is still evil. I know enough to understand that the Democratic party is no longer the party that best represents what I believe ‘progressive’ means. I’m in touch with reality to the extent that I don’t let internet scolds decide what I believe, what issues I care most about, or who I should or should not vote for.
I’m also in touch with reality enough to know that I don’t speak for anyone but myself, and I’m in touch with reality enough to do my own research and make up my own mind.
Oh, and the “you people” is nice, too. Getting in touch with your inner Ann Romney, are you?
So Grayson, based on his relatively liberal position in Congress, gets a pass for spouting partisan nonsense? He derides fear-mongering while engaging in it here. Several of the bullet points are demonstrably true, yet he suggests that to imagine otherwise is “paranoid.” Ye gods, he presents exactly the same style argument as he pretends to critique. What Grayson is doing in this post is not different from “the other side.” It is the same.
Because Grayson is on the Blue Team all this is OK? If this sort of us-versus-them, hypocritical, fear-addled tactic is what passes for liberalism, I’m not interested. Others may find a fundamental difference between Dems and Reps, but Grayson’s post here suggests to me that they are no more than two sides of the same coin. And for me, reality is not confined by this coin.
Perhaps one can’t have nice things because of the partisan fear-mongering and the mutually exclusive dichotomous thinking that helps keep the whole horror show on the road?
I can be lots more condescending if you’d like. Trust me.
But my point was (and here I am being condescending again because you obviously didn’t get it which, by virtue of my feeling the need to point it out, is also condescending) was taht FDL readers are acting like spoiled children because Jane had the AFFRONTERY to let Grayson post here and it harshed everyone’s “progressive” echo-chamber mellow.
Jesus Christ, you guys, Jane lets pretty much any whack-job bloviating dormroom Marxist/trustafarian or failed ‘revolutionary’ with a thesaurus shoot their rhetorical wad on myFDL since they don’t have the drive or gumption to start their own blog much less their own political party …. and you bitch about Grayson posting here?
On top of that, complaining about the advertising which keeps this blog afloat. Really? Maybe you’d like to go back to mimeographing copies of The Daily Workers Populist Vegan Times and handing them out to people on corners again.
Without FDL most of you would spend your days arguing with the cat and losing 50% of the time so, you know, maybe youn can bite your tongues on occasion and live with a little of that diversity that you all say you like …. as long as it fits 100% within your purity framework, I should add…
You’re Rush Limbaugh with a slightly straighter moral compass and a better vocabulary. Nothing more.
Sheesh.
Oh, and worse reading comprehension skills. There’s that.
I’m hip with diversity as much as the next guy . . . hypocrisy notwithstanding . . . and there really aren’t so many of those diversity-accepting guys around these days.
I have no idea what Jane’s policy is for managing FDL, and I don’t care that much either; just like to comment now and then. I did have my own blog for 5 years or so. I know it’s hard work and I respect those who do it. I absolutely respect Jane’s work.
That said, I’m going to try to say what’s on my mind, not be cowed by some image of liberal, progressive, or super-progressive orthodoxy. Whether it Alan Grayson or anyone else who is the subject. Even if, or especially if there is an election tomorrow.
I can understand if TBogg is feeling somewhat defensive about Jane and expresses it in his ineffable way. And I recognize he is not responding specifically to my comment, though I guess I fall into the group he is disgusted with. Well, I’ve been disgusted with politics since over 50 of my 70 years, with increasing good reason it seems, so I’m not quite sure of what “biting my tongue” at this point would garner. (talk about pot and kettle, eh?)
Acknowledging all the things TBogg said, I am at least as grateful for those who are willing to intelligently stand up for their own version of sincerity. Theirs is “diversity” of opinion as well, which is what I have sensed, not a ““progressive” echo-chamber mellow’”, from the exchanges that have somehow become controversial in these post comments.
Just because someone doesn’t agree with you doesn’t mean that they misunderstand you.
Only one person above said anything about the advertising, and there are as many folks who gave kudos to Grayson as there were who took a swing at him–hardly an echo chamber of spoiled children.
For myself only, I don’t think any post or issue should be verboten. And I don’t have anything personally against Grayson. However, his argument here is weak, contradictory and one-sided to the point of amounting to empty, partisan cheerleading. Even if I agreed with him, I’d think his post was bullshit.
And I don’t have anything personally against Grayson. However, his argument here is weak, contradictory and one-sided to the point of amounting to empty, partisan cheerleading. Even if I agreed with him, I’d think his post was bullshit.
Agreed.
I think Grayson’s post is absolute b.s. At the same time, I think his voice as a congressman was for the most part a good one. At the very least, his grilling of bernanke and the banksters was a good show–though that might be what all it was. Still, he articulated the issues.
There are certainly worse than Grayson. And I’ve enjoyed at other times hearing what he had to say. Plus, I’ve always appreciated his choice in pinstripe suits. Not everyone can pull those off.