Or, call the Congressional switchboard at (202) 225-3121 to get contact information for your federal legislators.
Support & contribute to Progressive, Democratic candidates in '12 and beyond. Help increase Democratic margins in Congress, which we need to help Obama implement his policies. We can, we must, we will - "despair and defeat" is not an option.
Speak your liberal/progressive values with your wallet.
Once you've subscribed using the box above (thanks!), to make sure you receive the feed via e-mail, add rj photo 71 at gee mail dot com (all together & one word) to your safe list.
32,000,000The number of people who will now be covered by healthcare by PRIVATE insurance companies if the new healthcare bill passes the House.
Wow - that's some socialist takeover of our healthcare system!
QUOTES OF THE WEEK
"If ObamaCare passes, that free insurance card that's in people's pockets is gonna be as worthless as a Confederate dollar after the War Between The States — the Great War of Yankee Aggression."--Congressman Paul Broun (R-GA) on March 19.
Another moron Republican from the south, demonstration once again the coherence and intelligent alternatives to President Obama's healthcare proposals.
*****
Facts & Quotes are updated weekly, or as close as I can get.
LAWYERLY LINGO
Fair Use Disclaimer:
17 U.S.C. § 107 states, "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." This site is strictly noncommercial in nature. Any work reproduced is done in an attempt to encourage scholarly public debate, an allowable use under the fair use doctrine.
As if I need another reason to admire Dave Matthews, my favorite musician ever, here's another one. Matthews has been openly backing and campaigning for Obama for months and months now, which makes me proud to be such a huge fan.
Many people, specifically those on the right, criticize celebrities who back political candidates. I understand a large part of their resentment, because when people pay good money, they are paying to be entertained, not preached to. But that's now what Matthews does at his shows. How do I know? Because I've been to close to 20 of his concerts. And just because someone is famous doesn't mean that he loses his right to have a political opinion.
During an interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson the other night, Obama openly talked about having a "bi-partisan cabinet," which would be a very refreshing departure from the Bush administration.
It doesn't sound like Obama is "measuring the drapes" to me, although you'd never know it by listening to McCain or the right-wing noise machine that passes for our corporate media.
I know this might sound a little corny, but I'm proud of the Obama supporters who confronted Charles David Ficken, the jackass in the video above who carried a sign at an Obama campaign event imploring people to "wake up" and blubbering about how Obama's a "Muslim." As one of the confronting Obama supporters so sagely put it, "What difference does it make if he is a Muslim?" to which Ficken replied, "If that was true, I would campaign twice as hard." I really got a kick out of his contradicting himself.
I found this on Politico, and I think it's neat. It's from Ben Smith's column:
Reader Steve Rawson of Raleigh, N.C., sends in this photo; he says his wife, Casey, a teacher, carved the pumpkin on the left, and though he tried to explain, I still don't quite get how. Something involving pumpkin websites and shaving bits of pumpkin halfway.
Good stuff. Let's hope Obama is carving up someone else, in an electoral vote sense, in four days.
Please check back today, I have much, much more to bring you. And this weekend will be my bloggiest ever - I have about 15 pieces in various stages of completion that I've been trying to find the time to finish. Oh yea, and that doesn't include anything else that might happen this weekend, and we all know that there will be plenty of new developments on the campaign trail.
This is some pretty funny footage - evidently, McCain's advance team didn't do a very good job of making sure Joe the Plumber was actually in attendance before McDrilly called on him to be recognized at a campaign rally yesterday.
What's more, it's an indication of just how far McCain's political fortunes have fallen and how clueless his campaign is that McCain is even still referring to him in the first place; after all, it's been widely reported that Joe isn't actually a licensed plumber, he doesn't even earn enough money to buy the business (he was looking for a loan), and that he was all over the right-wing blogosphere spewing right-wing talking points before McCain mentioned him during the third debate.
But, you keep pimping Joe, Senator - I'm sure it's resonating with undecided voters. I love it that McCain tried to recover by saying, "You're all Joe the Plumber!" I don't think you want to be telling your political audiences that they are dumb demagogues, Senator.
It gets even better - reportedly, the McCain campaign had to bus in thousands of school children just to fill the audience:
A local school district official confirmed after the event that of the 6,000 people estimated by the fire marshal to be in attendance this morning, more than 4,000 were bused in from schools in the area. The entire 2,500-student Defiance School District was in attendance, the official said, in addition to at least three other schools from neighboring districts, one of which sent 14 buses.
Wow, the wheels continue to fall off the McCain campaign. It just keeps getting better and better. But, I still think this will be a close election, but for reasons that should scare all of us. More on that in a bit - I'm just finishing up a very long piece about election fraud, and what you can do about it, that I will post a bit later in the day today.
As post-script, take a listen and read to a Joe the Plumber interview on Fox News from a few days ago with Sheppard Smith, when "the Plumber" gets so thoroughly embarrassed, you would think he was on Keith Olbermann's show. Note to the McCain camp: this happened on Fox News!
The audience doesn't get much friendlier than this. Joe sounds so bad in this interview, it's entirely appropriate to call him Sarah Palin... With a Stem.
A rough transcript:
Sheppard: Why specifically is a vote for Obama a vote for the death of Israel?
Joe: Well specifically, look at his record. Obama's agreed to meet with Israel's enemies with no uncertain terms.. In fact he's letting them dictate terms to him and then look at his past associations, people he talks to...
Sheppard: Like who?
Joe: Quite honestly, you know, the gentleman that approached me with that question I agreed to with what I know...
Sheppard: What I can't figure our is why, let's listen to this clip from earlier.
Q: A vote for Obama is a vote for the death to Israel. I'll guarantee you that.
Joe: Well, you know what? I'll actually agree with you on that one. I agree with you. I really think that would be a problem.
Sheppard: Joe, do you know Barack Obama's positions on Israel?
Joe: Ahhh, listen, I know you want to really get some answers on this one, I'm just not going to help you out here Sheppard. Let people go out and find out why I would say something like that. Let people go out and find out the issues....
Sheppard: Do you think John McCain agrees with you?
Joe: No, it's just my personal opinion that I've come up with looking at different facts. Listen, you don't want my opinion on foreign policy. I know just enough to probably be dangerous.
Sheppard: Well that's what I was kind of wondering. I wonder if you think it's dangerous at all for people to say a vote for Barack Obama is the same as a vote for Israel. If you think that's something dangerous for people to start believing because what happens if the polls are right and he becomes the President of the US and people start thinking this means the death of Israel. Are you worried what people might do if they actually believed something like that?
Joe: Well again, that goes back again to what I've been saying.
Sheppard: I just want to make this 100% perfectly clear. Barack Obama has said repeatedly and demonstrated repeatedly that Israel will always be a friend to the United States no matter what happens once he becomes President, his words.
It can now be safely said - Joe the Plumber has become Joe the Dumber for the McCain campaign, and he'll go down as one of the biggest missteps in an otherwise badly run campaign by McCain's people. That's saying something.
Major hat tip to Crooks & Liars for the video and transcript
For the life of me, I will never, ever understand why right wingnuts like Tom DeLay, Newt Gingrich and the rest of former GOP "leaders" in Congress are continually invited on political talk shows to subject America to their brand of bullshit. It's beyond annoying.
On Hardball the other night, Tom DeLay took the opportunity to remind America what a vile, contemptuous piece of filth he is. During the broadcast, DeLay actually insinuated that the McCain campaign hasn't been sleazy enough in its portrayal of Barack Obama. As if his contention needed further explanation, he proceeded to tick off a shopping list of Obama's, ahem, attributes in his sick, twisted mind - that Obama's a Marxist, a radical, a black-liberation theologist, terrorist sympathizer and Constitution-hater, etc.
People like DeLay that make me weep for America. Thank God this guy is out of Congress. Too bad the Bush-appointed federal prosecutor in Texas didn't have the balls to take him to trial following his multiple indictments.
I wish Matthews would have taken it to him, as he's wont to do with gas-bag politicians, but he was notably meek and mild during this interview, which is inexcusable.
Actually, what's really inexcusable is that these talk shows keep giving DeLay air time. Funny how I don't see former Democratic Congressional leaders giving any interviews, save a few by Sen. Tom Daschle.
Also, notice the not-so-cleverly-disguised code phrases that DeLay uses, too, i.e. - "I think that when people go into the voting booth, they won't be able to bring themselves to vote for a radical." Why not just say "black man," you dirt bag?
I also find it amazing how Obama's 2001 interview has had the right-wingnuts hysterical this week. I also wonder how many people have actually taken the time to listen to what Obama actually said.
DeLay's meme that Obama called the Constitution "a charter of negative rights," as some sort of anti-American rant doesn't hold up either. It is, and if you actually look it up, it's a legal term. To wit:
In the Bill of Rights...
In the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...
In the Second Amendment: ...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
In the Third Amendment: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner...
In the Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...
Those are examples of what is meant by "negative rights," yet despicable people like DeLay oversimplify and twist Obama's words, hoping that people won't do any homework to discover the meaning behind them. Sadly, there are a number of willfully uninformed voters who will take DeLay at face value, but happily, that number is shrinking. Perhaps some day people like Chris Matthews will realize that we really don't want to hear from people like DeLay anymore. (And most of us never did in the first place.)
Below is what Obama actually said about the Constitution in an interview seven years ago:
Differs pretty wildly from how the right has been portraying it during the last few weeks, doesn't it?
This one absolutely speaks for itself - it's beyond imagination what the McCain campaign has done and said about Barack Obama. McCain has dishonored himself, his party, and his country.
I seriously wish I could live in California right now so I could vote against Prop 8, conceived by the scum of the Earth, all in the name of hate religion.
Yesterday at a rally in Sacramento, Brad Dacus, an official Prop 8 spokesperson (in the video above) went there, reasoning that defeating gays is like defeating Hitler. He is the President of the Pacific Justice Institute, a religious-right lawyers 501c3 organization.
There was another time in history when people, when the bell tolled. And the question was whether or not they were going to hear it. The time was during Nazi Germany with Adolf Hitler. You see he brought crowds of clergy together to assure them that he was going to look after the church.
And one of the members, bold and courageous, Reverend Martin Niemöller, made his way to the front and (inaudible) said, "Hitler, we are not concerned about the church. Jesus Christ will take care of the church. We are concerned about the soul of Germany."
Embarrassed and chagrined, his peers quickly shuffled him to the back.
And as they did Adolf Hitler said, "The soul of Germany, you can leave that to me." And they did, and because they did bombs did not only fall upon the nation of Germany, but also upon the church and their testimony to this very day.
Let us not make that mistake folks. Let us hear the bell! Vote on Proposition 8!
What a despicable human being. Care to tell Brad just that yourself? Drop him an e-mail at: pji@pacificjustice.org, or call the organization at (916) 857-6900. Please, be courteous, but that aside, let the wonderful, warm-hearted folks at the Pacific Justice Institute just how you feel about their brand of hate.
Incidentally, there ought to be some sort of law that you cannot invoke Hitler and the Nazis during any political discussion. I'm sure there are instances where doing so is perfectly valid, but seriously, Hitler and the Nazis are quickly joining the Titanic and We can send a man to the moon, but we can't _______ clichés.
By the way, Niemöller was the author of the famous First They Came... poem.
It's finally here for Philadelphia - the Phillies have captured their second World Series title. I'm not a huge fan of baseball, and the Phils aren't my favorite team, but I have to admit that it's pretty cool to be living in the city right now - there are fireworks going off all over the city, and I can hear people honking their horns & hooting and hollering outside of our condo. It is a pretty cool experience - Philly's fans have waited a long, long time, and they certainly deserve it.
And it will be interesting to see how Philly's other sports teams respond. History is on their side, that's for sure. In 1980, the last time the Phillies won the World Series, the Eagles went to the Super Bowl, the Flyers went to the Stanley Cup Finals, and the Sixers went to the NBA Finals. (What a year it must have been to be a Philly sports fan.) Those other three teams lost in '80, but it is a good omen, especially considering how competitive the Eagles and Flyers are (and look to be) in their respective postseasons.
Well, that didn't take long - in one of literally dozens of examples of the Obama campaign being on-point with the Web - the full video of Obama's prime-time speech was online within an hour of its conclusion. (It may have been on sooner, but I didn't check - I didn't think they would get it online this quickly.)
I don't have too much to add to this one, other than to say that I was impressed. It's too bad about the timing, though - the potential deciding game of the World Series began just as his speech did. Of course, there's not much he could have done to control that, but it's a safe bet that the ratings for his half hour were next to nothing here in Philly, and most definitely in Tampa, too.
I can only guess how many millions it cost Obama to do this prime-time appearance for an entire half hour. Surely it was into the tens of millions, considering it was aired on multiple networks. CNN reportedly declined to air the ad, which sort of surprised me. I'm wondering how CNN will proceed with its programming moving forward - its half-baked attempts to capture State TV's viewers with the insipid Glenn Beck have proved fruitless. Actually, I don't really care, since I so rarely watch the once-great network anymore.
Of course, McCain is doing his best to try and paint Obama's half hour as a "premature victory lap," but he's been trying to say that about Obama all summer and fall, and it hasn't stuck. Just because McCain, like a cheap, skipping record player, continues to repeat over and over that "Obama is measuring the drapes," doesn't make it so.
Titled "His Choice," the spot begins with quotes from McCain admitting his lack of economic know-how. The last one has McCain declaring, "I might have to rely on a vice president that I select" for expertise on economic issues.
"His choice?" the script (no narration) asks -- before cutting to footage of Palin winking at the vice presidential debate. "On November 4th, You Get to Make Yours."
It is considered politically taboo for a presidential candidate to go after a vice presidential candidate. To be sure, much of the ad focuses on McCain's record on the economy. But the inclusion of Palin is indicative of just how large a liability the Obama folks -- indeed, the political community at large -- thinks she has become for the GOP ticket.
It might be considered taboo, but I think the underlying theme here is McCain's age. (And this is likely as close as the Obama campaign will ever get to discussing it.) I've been saying and writing this for months now - McCain's choice of Palin disqualifies both, and what's more, it offers us a glimpse of how he would select the people who surround him - his cabinet, advisers, etc.
I love this - John McCain is surely ruing the day that he ever selected Sara-cuda - she's been a disaster in just about every way. In recent days, there have been numerous reports that the Palin and McCain camps are increasingly acrimonious toward each other about how she's being used on the campaign trail. I've also read some reports that she's been striking out on her own in her stump speeches and straying off message vis-à-vis what the campaign wants her to say..
Hmm - self-destruct much? I'm certainly not, in Obama's own words, "counting chickens before they're hatched," but as of right now, it's looking pretty good for Obama. And I love being a spectator to the finger pointing that has already started. Unfortunately for the supporters of McCain and Palin, all of the finger pointing in the world won't change one thing - that McCain has sold his soul in hopes of capturing the presidency. Think I'm being unfair? Do a YouTube search and see for yourself - when I look back at footage of McCain during the 2000 Republican Primaries, I see and hear a guy I hardly recognize, and I don't mean physically. I laughed out loud when McCain defiantly challenged people to name one issue that he has switched positions on. And yes, he was serious.
Anyway, here's a transcript of the video above, and it's pretty damning about Palin's striking out on her own, and talking about her future before the election.
From CNN:
BLITZER: And this just coming into the "Situation Room," the Republican Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin now speaking out openly about her intentions in 2012 if, if she and John McCain were to lose this contest next Tuesday. In an interview with ABC News, Sarah Palin is now saying, she would be interested in remaining a serious national political figure, going ahead to 2012. She was asked what happens in 2012 if you lose on Tuesday, would you simply go back to Alaska? Elizabeth Vargas of ABC News asked her and Palin said this, and I will read it to you verbatim according to an ABC News transcript: "Absolutely not," Sarah Palin says. "I think that, if I were to give up and wave a white flag of surrender against some of the political shots that we've taken, that ... that would ... bring this whole ... I'm not doin' this for naught," and that is a direct quote from Sarah Palin. Clearly, leaving open the possibility that she would be interested in leading the Republican Party in 2012 if she and John McCain were to lose this presidential contest right now. Let's go to Dana Bash. She has been covering the McCain campaign reaction from the rather blunt statement from Sarah Palin that she would in fact be interested in leading the Republican Party going forward after Tuesday if they lose?
BASH: I just got off of the phone, Wolf, with a senior McCain adviser and I read this person the quote and I think it is fair to say that this person was speechless. There was a long pause and I just heard a "huh" on the other end of the phone. This is certainly not a surprise to anybody who has watched Sarah Palin that she is interested in potentially future national runs, and she is being urged to by a lot of people inside of the Republican Party if they do lose, but it is an "if" and people inside of the McCain campaign do not want any discussion that has an "if" in front of it six days before the election, they don't want any discussion at all, any kind of hypothetical talk about running for the next time around. So certainly, this is not at least initially being received well inside of the McCain campaign.
BLITZER: I am not surprised, not surprised at all. It is one of those "wow, she is talking about 2012 if we lose," that is not supposed to be something that you say. You are supposed to say, "well, I'm not looking ahead, I'm not looking ahead only to Tuesday," and those are the talking points she's supposed to be saying, but she is obviously blunt and she is looking ahead if something were to happen on Tuesday that she wouldn't be happy with.
That last point about how Palin should have responded is spot-on by Blitzer, and it's another illustration of how much of a political neophyte Palin is (lucky for Obama & his supporters). She's very naïve when it comes to how she should handle herself in a national campaign. Her manner, annoying accent and gaffes may play well in Alaska (and in many cases might be viewed as quaint), but her appeal has worn off with undecided and independent voters. And her lack of depth and knowledge on the most basic of issues, in my estimation, has been the most damning and damaging of all.
Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) is becoming increasingly desperate in her bid for reelection in North Carolina. So desperate, in fact, that she recently released an ad accusing her opponent, State Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC), of accepting "Godless money" and consorting with "Godless" groups. Talk about desperate, pathetic and beyond the pale - Dole knows she's up against it in a year that will likely wash a wave of Democrats into Congress. Right now, polls show her trailing Hagan by anywhere from 2-4 points.
Dole's nickname is Liddy, but perhaps it should be Dip-Shiddy after approving an attack ad like this. (You'll notice that her voice appears at the very beginning of the ad, which is no coincidence, because she wouldn't want it at the end of the ad, when the pathetic "There is no God!" voice is heard, which intentionally is made to sound like Hagan's voice. Amid a sea of offensive political ads year after year, this one stands out amongst the worst of the worst.)
In fact, the ad is so offensive that even GOP operatives and pundits are speaking out against it. Alex Castellanos, a noted GOP operative and pundit, spoke out against the ad earlier today on CNN's Situation Room.
It's about time Dole gets bounced from the Senate. On a personal note, she's gotten on my nerves for years. In 2006, the Sunday before the mid-term elections, she appeared on Meet the Press and accused Democrats of being "content with losing" in Iraq. That year, Dole did a magnificently bad job as chairwoman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee; the GOP was routed and Democrats took control of the Senate.
Here's hoping that the polls bear out what will happen in six days - that Hagan will beat Dole and become one of the new Democratic senators in 2009. Click Here to donate to Hagan's campaign - even if you only have $5 to give - every bit will help in the final days of the campaign.
This ad is yet another reason why I will never run for political office - I would have an extremely hard time controlling myself in the face of such a despicable attack ad.
I love this video - I found it on Crooks & Liars this morning, and it really is very illustrative of the mindset that I hope every Obama supporter has today.
The Obama campaign has articulated pretty clearly lately how it feels about Fersatz News, our State TV Network. On Monday, Matt Drudge, who functions as the assignment editor for our right-wing corporate media, ran with another phony news story - this time it's about what Barack Obama allegedly said about the Supreme Court during a 2001 interview. First, what he actually said:
You know if you look at the victories and the failures of the Civil Rights movement and its litigation strategy in the Court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I would be okay.
But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical, it didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and the Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf and that hasn't shifted.
And one of the I think the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court focused I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change and in some ways we still suffer from that.
This is a far cry from how the right, led by Drudge and the McCain campaign, has been spinning what Obama said. Fortunately, the Obama campaign isn't letting the lies and smears go unanswered; they are responding swiftly and firmly, just as they should. Bill Burton, an Obama spokesman, appeared on Fox on Monday to talk about the allegations:
This is a fake news controversy drummed up by the all-too-common alliance of Fox News, the Drudge Report and John McCain, who apparently decided to close out his campaign with the same false, desperate attacks that have failed for months. In this seven-year old interview, Senator Obama did not say that the courts should get into the business of redistributing wealth at all. Americans know that the real choice in this election is between four more years of Bush-McCain policies that redistribute billions to billionaires and big corporations and Barack Obama's plan to help the middle class by giving tax relief to 95 percent of workers and companies that create new jobs here in America. That's the change we need, and no amount of eleventh-hour distractions from the McCain campaign will change that.
Very well said - this is one of the many last- gasp, pathetic attempts to distract voters from the real issues by McDrilly's dying campaign, but it certainly won't be the last; McCain's handlers no doubt have plenty more tricks, misinformation and lies up their sleeves.
Honestly, every time I hear McCain or Palin talk about "spreading the wealth around" or "wealth redistribution" or "class warfare," I can't help but hope that Obama throws this right back in his face. What he really needs to do is force McCain to defend wealth concentration, which has risen to new heights under the Bush administration. Obama should go on the attack and force both of these economical morons to defend how the top one percent of wealthy Americans control 90 percent of the wealth in this country. Good God, would I love to hear their answers.
Wow - I have to give credit where credit is due - Tom Brokaw certainly asked some very pointed, tough questions of McCain on Meet the Press on Sunday. To be clear, I think that tough questions should be asked of all the candidates; questions like these and the answers that candidates give are in short supply during most elections.
McCain has given some pretty "out there" answers to some questions over the course of the campaign, but having said that, this interview stands out so much, it's hard to know where to begin.
First, let's begin with the very end of the clip, when McCain says, with a straight face, "I'd be glad to review the Reagan record, but the Reagan record was one that reigned in spending..." [Emphasis Mine] Now I know the video cuts off, but regardless of context, saying something inherently inaccurate like that is pretty breathtaking. The "Reagan record" is anything but one of "reigning in spending" - far from it.
I got a pretty big kick out of McCain's deer in the headlights look after Brokaw showed the clips from 2004 and 2000 that demonstrate McCain's very, very uneven record (and I'm being kind) regarding taxes. I have to confess, as I look at the 2000 footage of McCain talking about taxes, I do so with a bit of longing. I really very well might have voted for that version of McCain, but this version? Never.
Anyway, I think what we can conclude is obvious - McCain's current stance on taxes is borne out of his desire to be president, and to appeal to the GOP "cut taxes at all costs camp - consequences be damned.
Even more telling is McCain's babbling response after Brokaw plays the video - something about flat taxes and different brackets - I really had no idea what he was saying. Like a record that skips, he even calls Brokaw "my friend," which at this point is starting to sound like a punchline.
Even better - during the interview he can't remember the names of the five secretaries of state who have supposedly endorsed him - take a listen...
Just wondering how many more "senior moments" McCain will have if he's elected to lead this country for four years, much less eight? It's not a comforting thought, especially considering his selection as Sarah Palin as his running mate. (Note: I'll have a whole lot more about McCain's age, and his lack of transparency regarding his medical records, a bit later tonight or tomorrow.)
I firmly believe that endorsements don't make too much of a difference in whom one decides to vote for, and I'm not really convinced that Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama will make all that much of a difference, but it does give Obama's foreign policy positions more credibility - this coming from a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Secretary of State and General. By the way, it's always pathetic and sad to hear Limbaugh's race baiting, no matter how many times I listen to it.
And those former secretaries of state? Big deal - all from Republican administrations. And Obama has a few of his own, including Warren Christopher, Madeline Albright, and of course, Colin Powell - and not all Democrats, either.
Funny to hear McCain mention Kissinger, who recently said about America's talking to Iran: "Any direct talks between the U.S. and Iran on issues such as the nuclear dispute would be most likely to succeed if they first involved only diplomatic staff and progressed to the level of secretary of state before the heads of state meet." Oops! That was and is an embarrassment to McCain, who has been babbling about Obama's "meeting without preconditions" statement for months. And don't look now, but even the Bush administration, an administration that has a startlingly low appreciation for diplomacy, has begun low-level talks with the Iranians.
It's a safe bet to say that McCain did himself no favors on Meet the Press this past Sunday.
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) was been convicted by a jury yesterday on seven counts of trying to hide more than $250,000 in free home renovations and other gifts that he received from a wealthy oil contractor. Stevens has asked his Senate colleagues to stand by him as he appeals the convictions, but its likely he'll be expelled from the Senate, even if he's reelected. However, considering the conviction, it seems pretty unlikely that he'll win his closely contested race with Mark Begich.
And, there's a scenario that Sarah Palin could actually end up in the U.S. Senate. If Obama wins the presidency, and Stevens wins relection and gets expelled from the Senate, there would be a run-off election, which Palin, if she's not vice president, would certainly be very tempted to run in. You got all that? *Smirk*
It's unlikely to happen, though.
As for Stevens, I'm not shedding any tears - another corrupt Republican, and soon-to-be-ex-Senator, at least if the Senate has the political courage to do the right thing. And that's not a given - traditionally and historically, senators are very, very reluctant to discipline their own. Only time will tell.
...Not the economy, not consumer confidence (which, it was reported this morning, is at its lowest since post-Watergate December 1974), not Bush's approval ratings, and not, it appears, McDrilly's chances at winning one week from today.
We'll soon see.
Anyway, I love the video above - tragic, ironic, etc. all rolled into a very well-produced two-minute piece.
I've got lots more to bring you later today and this evening, so please check back. In the meantime, I have to drive through some pretty horrific weather to get back to Philly. Wish me luck.
For a brief, fleeting moment, sometime after Bush stole his second election, I actually thought that Newt Gingrich had actually turned into a reasonable, former politician. Wow, talk about your all-time miscalculations.
Quite frankly, he's the same guy he's always been - a partisan operative who will do and say anything to promote and advance his neocon agenda. His latest amusing rant concerns Sarah Palin and her portrayal on SNL by Tina Fey. Get this...
"This is a kind of deliberate, vicious, dishonest, total distortion of who Governor Palin is, including, by the way, the Saturday Night Live skits, some of which I think were slander and worthy of a lawsuit," the former Speaker of the House said. "I think the America people should realize that the elite media on the left is so desperate to elect Barack Obama that the view they're giving you of Sarah Palin is fundamentally a falsehood."
I think Gingrich is fit for a straight jacket. He really needs to take a basic media law course, too, or at the very least looking up the word parody in the dictionary would be a terrific idea.
Color him as just another Republican who has no sense of humor. If he really does feel this way, he has no understanding of the law, or at the very least, he must think that Fersatz News viewers don't. It wasn't long ago that Fox News tried suing Al Franken for using the term Fair and Balanced on the cover of his book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right Of course, Bill O'Reilly was behind the suit - his temper fueled by the fact that Franken was doing his best to get under his skin in the book (and even on the cover). In short, Franken did a magnificent job.
Oh, how I hope Gingrich is dumb enough to run for president someday.
Over the weekend, Sarah Palin lamely tried to defend the McCain campaign's expenditures for her clothes, and she sounded about as genuine as I'd expect any politician to sound when he or she is on shaky ground, or maybe as genuine as she sounded when she says repeatedly on the campaign trail that she never supported the Bridge to Nowhere.
Palin really is the most superficial, phony candidate that has been on a presidential ticket in my lifetime. Who would have thought that in 2008, 20 years after Mr. Superficial, Dan Quayle, we would have someone who makes him look like a policy wonk?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I don't believe a word she says about the $150k tab, or McCain's defense, for that matter. Yea sure, it was all going to charity before that damn lib-rul media found out about it. Dry that one out, you could fertilize the lawn.
Palin is probably delighted that the issue of her clothes was raised in the media, because she now gets to spend less time talking about policy and answering questions, two things that she has proven more than reluctant to do.
I know, I know, there are, ahem, 150,000 other things the media could be and should be focusing on, a little more than a week before the election. But, it goes to character, Your Honor.
This certainly makes John Edwards' alleged $400 haircuts seem trivial by nature, doesn't it?
What's more, the McCain camp has got to explain it - after all, McCain has to keep the river of campaign cash flowing, a mere eight days before the election.
A few more notes from the absurd hoax from late last week in Western Pennsylvania...
Above is a pretty funny parody of the whole incident. (Like it wasn't predictable that the parodies were quickly going to follow.)
I'm not sure if watching the footage of how State TV reacted to the "attack" of Ashley Todd is hilarious, or frightening. Probably some sort of mixture of both.
From Fox & Friends:
GRETCHEN CARLSON: Police departments around the country are beefing up in advance of Election Day. Police chiefs say with the first black on the ballot for president and the first woman on the ballot for - that's not true. But anyway, the second woman on the ballot for vice president - they want to be ready if anger over the results pours into the streets.
This is something we haven't talked about much yet. Some worry there will be rioting if Barack Obama loses and somebody starts talking fraud. There could be a lot of unhappiness also if polling places are unprepared for the very large turnout.
BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): Well, what about people that just like to celebrate big victories -
STEVE DOOCY (co-host): Sure.
KILMEADE: -- like at every Super Bowl? That's why as a pre-emptive strike, I'm turning over my car. No matter who wins, I'm turning over my car so they leave me alone.
Well, it's pleasing to hear that no one's overreacting to stories before the veracity of them is even looked into. I wonder how many more of these "fear monger now, ask questions later" incidents will happen prior to and during election day?
It will happen again - bank on it. Wait, maybe that's not the best verb to use these days.
This is a pretty interesting piece of vid from MSNBC last week, when Peggy Noonan (of Ronald Reagan sycophant fame) appeared on Morning Joe. The reason for her appearance is inconsequential (talented actor David Strathairn was promoting something), but her comments were pretty telling. (Strathairn narrated the video that introduced Barack Obama in Denver during the Democratic National Convention.)
First, she's not so sure that 18-year olds should have the same right to vote as a 70-year old businessman who has been paying taxes and running a business for years? Welcome to Democracy, Peggy. I'd like to know what she would like to do to "adjudicate" this "problem." And of course Noonan had to bitch and complain about the supposed "liberal bias" in higher education - more red meat for the neocon base. Whatever.
Also pretty telling that she's not one of those "you must vote people," coming from a career politico. That was borderline elitist. If I had to guess, I'd say she's referring to the people who are allegedly voting for Obama just because he's black. As a progressive liberal, I could have the same point of view about people who want to vote for McCain just because he was a POW, or people who want to vote against Obama just because he's black. But, I don't feel that way - everyone citizen has the right to vote in this country who is of age, and our democracy should do all it can to make it easy to vote. Tragically, there are much too many roadblocks being thrown in the way of people who simply want to vote.
I've heard and written about probably hundreds of interviews of all of the presidential candidates since the primaries began nearly two years ago, but the one in the video above has got to be one of the more outrageous ones I've heard during this election cycle. During an interview with WFTV Channel 9's Barbara West in Orlando, Florida, Biden did a pretty good job of keeping his cool - better than I could have.
Biden fielded a litany of absurd questions ranging from the Obama campaign's alleged influence over ACORN (including an inquiry asking if Biden was "embarrassed" by his campaign's alleged association with the group); whether Obama is a "socialist"; and then West wondered about Sen. Barack Obama's comment, to Joe the Plumber, about spreading the wealth. She quoted Karl Marx and asked how Obama isn't being a Marxist with his "spreading the wealth" comment. Following those queries, a clearly frustrated Biden asked, "I don't know who's writing your questions."
To be clear, I have absolutely no problem with tough questions being asked of any of the four candidates - too often, they all attempt to set up interviews with fluff, feel-good questions that inform voters of nothing. Some terrific examples of just this are Sarah Palin's interviews with Katie Couric & Charlie Gibson, which she bombed anyway. Biden answered more tough questions during the five-minute interview in the video above than Palin has since she joined the ticket.
Following the interview, the Obama campaign canceled a Jill Biden interview for the following day. Of course, the right-wingnuts decried this "censorship" of the media, but doesn't even hold up for a nanosecond.
A few weeks ago, McCain kicked New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd off his campaign plane for questions he didn't like, and there are numerous other occasions of media censorship during the Bush years justified by media treatment it wasn't thrilled with. Anyone remember Bush saying to Dick Cheney during the '00 campaign, "There's Adam Clymer, major league asshole from the New York Times"? Or how about Jeff Gannon, the conservative plant from Talon News, who Bush called on in 2005 during a press conference when the questions got tough? (He wasn't even smart enough to be low key, asking Bush a question that included a comment that the Democrats are "divorced from reality") Or how about the Bush administration signing conservative pundits to lucrative contracts using TAXPAYER MONEY to push its agenda in 2005? (Are you listening, Armstrong Williams?)
Getting back to the interview with Biden, for those of you who think that Channel 9's Barbara West is some impartial, tough journalist, watch how she handled an interview with John McCain on Oct. 14. I heard more softballs tossed at McCain during that tongue bath than I've heard tossed at Obama in the last six months.
Pretty hilarious that the very same media that McCain more than once has called "his base" is now the mortal enemy, totally in the tank for Obama.
I'm behind on my Daily Shows, but I saw this a night or two ago, and I got a pretty big kick out of it - a not-so-subtle commentary on just how the 24-hour cable news networks fill up their time. It's to the point now that just about anyone can be a pundit or an expert on something.
And who's that guy? As Stewart tells us, he's Ed Rogers, a lobbyist and former protégé of Lee Atwater, the architect behind President George H.W. Bush's 1988 presidential campaign, one of the dirtiest in modern history. (On his death bed, Atwater expressed remorse for all of the tearing down and smearing he'd done over his political career.) In short, Atwater was Karl Rove before Karl Rove. So, it's a pretty safe bet that Ed Rogers is another intolerant Repube who's more than willing to spread lies, slander and defamation about Obama, all in the name of winning an election.
By now, you no doubt have heard/read/watched the fallout (or I'd argue, the noted lack of fallout) from the race-baiting story on Friday - the story that McCain supporter was beaten and branded with a "B" on her cheek for having the temerity to have a McCain/Palin sticker on her car.
There was a whiff of b.s. about this story right from the start. (At right, this is how I felt about it - call the cops!) To begin with, would any reasonable person, sans the pain tolerance of a Navy SEAL, refuse medical treatment after having her face carved up/branded with a "B" on it? Please.
Well, fortunately, it didn't take long for the media to sniff out the truth behind this story. My favorite part about the whole thing (and I use that term pretty loosely, because this is a pretty sad chapter in American politics) is the fact that it makes the right-wing media and the McCain look like complete and utter jackasses. Without even finding out the real story, the right-wing nutjobs and their TV network, Faux News, practically condemned all things Obama after the story broke.
A few samples...
From the College Republican Website:
First, what the hell is wrong with you people at the Daily Kos? A women reports being robbed and assaulted and your first reaction is shes a liar and a racist? You have absolutely no reason to doubt her. [Really? How about the fact that if that "B" really was carved in her face, it would hurt like hell? That's a pretty good start.]
And what were you thinking Ace (and, to a lesser extent, Ap)? [Two blogs the site linked to, who evidently called b.s. right away on the story.] You really think every mugging and assault is caught on tape? and whose to say this preliminary report is even correct that it wasn’t caught on tape? Plus, do you really think the police would pass along fallacies about cuts on a persons face (they may well file a report by they would also note that there were no visible marks on her face if that was, in fact, the case)? and how does refusing medical attention somehow mean that she wasn't hurt?
I am disgusted by initial reactions to this story… from all sides it seems. There was no reason to legitimately doubt this story and now that there is obvious photographic evidence that this woman was indeed attacked I hope all those who instantly doubted her claims feel some shame for the crap they pulled...
Whoops!
And then, there was the chief insipid GOP mouthpiece of our time, Matt Drudge, who didn't hesitate to put the story in big, red, screaming headlines across the top of his site. It just underscores the fact that he'll spin just about anything he can find to a perceived advantage for the Republicans. This is a guy who has said publicly in the past that "he's not a journalist." (He certainly has that right.) Of course, he's a blogger, and he can publish whatever he wants, but common sense says that the should have done at least a little fact checking before running with this story. Well, common sense if he had any.
I would think even the likes of Drudge would have the decency to think for a minute before running a story with major racial implications just days before a presidential election. But, when you're dealing with someone of his ilk, I guess that really is too much to ask.
I do feel bad for the girl (at left), and I hope she gets the help she needs. Having said that, I think her doing this is at least in small part due to the hatred and fear that the right-wing media is stoking over this election. Often, the hate purveyors on the right don't even try very hard (if at all) to mask the racial and religious overtones of their hate speech. A few examples, if you will...
• Rush Limbaugh's frequent references to Obama as "Halfrican-American."
• The now infamous "Madrassa" story, perpetuated by Fox News, until it was debunked by CNN, among other media outlets.
• The pseudo-scandal about where Obama was born, and how he won't "produce a birth certificate" - the right's been pimping this story for months now, implying that he was born in Kenya, which would disqualify him from running for president. Nah, no racial implications in those allegations.
• The whispering campaign that Obama's a Muslim. No one has put it better than Colin Powell did last weekend on Meet the Press - "The correct answer to is Barack Obama a Muslim should be, why does it matter?" Just a thought - we wonder why most of the Muslim world hates us? This doesn't help. But wait - I guess because I raise this inconvenient fact, I "hate America," right? Unreal.
• Sarah Palin's "Obama palls around with terrorists" meme that was pimped over and over and over again at her campaign appearances, until she was called on it. After a little while, even she realized that this was doing much more harm than good to the McCain campaign.
• On Oct. 8, Michael Savage had this to say about Obama, as documented by Media Matters: "I fear that Obama will stir up a race war ... in order to seize absolute power." Click the link to read more, and also to listen to actual audio of Savage saying just that.
And of course, no right winger never misses an opportunity to say "Barack HUSSEIN Obama" in a deliberate attempt to stir up stereotypes and racial hatred.
My point in bringing up all of this is that the above language panders to the worst elements of society - stereotyping, racism, hatred and intolerance.
This is just a guess, and I won't try to diagnose someone from thousands of miles away, a la former Sen. Bill Frist, but maybe, just maybe, this sort of language stoked Ashley Todd's worst fears and pushed her over the edge, toward committing a shameless and desperate political hoax, out of fear of an Obama presidency. It's a fair question.
Oh, how I get a kick out of listening to Sean Goebbels Hannity getting more and more desperate as the election draws neigh. One of his latest distortions outright lies is saying that Barack Obama would cut "billions of dollars" from the defense budget (see the video above), when in fact, he has stated on numerous occasions that he will "cut billions in wasteful spending."
As a cherry on the Hannity sundae of vomit, he mentions Obama "waving the white flag of surrender." What's a discussion about Obama's Iraq strategy without a mention about his wanting America to surrender? I'm almost tired (almost) of writing it, but it bears repeating - we cannot win in Iraq. I really wish that candidates Obama & Biden would frame this issue correctly, but I'm yet to hear it. If I were Obama, I would say it this way - we already did win the conflict, but we are losing the occupation. What's more, we will never, ever "win" the occupation, because no country in modern human history has ever won one of those. Even if at the present moment, we aren't losing it militarily, we sure are losing it financially. Actually, the two are linked.
How so? Well, the reason that many of our enemies are taking a break from shooting at us is because we are paying them not to. Yes, you read that right - in Anbar Province, we are paying our would-be enemies $300 per month to not shoot at us (it may even be per week - I have to go check, but I know we are paying them). That's no way to "win" a war, or occupation, or whatever our corporate media and the right-wing hacks choose to call it.
Oh, and I've love to see footage of Obama calling Iran "a small country and not a serious threat" and exactly in what context this supposed statement was said. What a load of b.s.
It also amuses me to no end that Hillary Clinton is now a credible argument to not electing Barack Obama, when for the last 20 years, hacks like Hannity have torn the Clintons down at every available opportunity, but now we are to believe him that Hillary is a sparkling testament to Obama's character? I have no problems with Hillary Clinton, especially what she said about Obama during a heated primary campaign, and no one else should, either. Anyway, this is what Hannity had to say about Hillary during the same clip above:
[To former Clinton White House special counsel Lanny Davis] Now, there's a very famous person, a good friend of yours, her name is Hillary, and she said that his positions on national security issues, quote, "are naive, dangerous, and irresponsible." I actually agree with her. I agree with your friend. She was right. Why - convince me why she's wrong.
You never have to dig very far to find an effective contradiction to Hannity's propaganda. In 1980, George H.W. Bush called Ronald Reagan's economic proposals "Voo Doo Economics," yet he accepted Reagan's invitation to join him on the ticket. Bush went on to serve Reagan for eight years. Primary punches should be viewed for what they are - slug fests to get the nomination, where hyperbole rules and candidates often play fast and loose with the truth at worst, or ratchet up the rhetoric at best, in order to get their party's nomination.
To Obama's credit, he hasn't used all of the crap thrown by Mitt Romney, Rudy 9iu1ian1 and and Mike Huckabee about McCain during the GOP primaries. Why? Because primary rhetoric often has very little street cred during the general election.
I came across some pretty interesting signs of the times this week. The one above, via the Consumerist, was taken at a McDonald's drive-thru. It's not bad enough that the food puts you in the grave early if you eat enough of it, or that I feel horrible for days after eating it, but now I can't even get extra sauce to cover up the nasty taste of just about everything on the menu? Great - thanks for some recession love, ya bastards.
Of course, if McDonald's really wants to make things right, it would provide a crucifix (or, thinking cheaply, a prayer card) with each burger. And all food should be garnished with two Imodium™ tablets. Thus, short-term and long-term implications would be covered. Ahh, it never hurts to dream. Perhaps my expectations are unrealistic - after all, what can we expect for a 99¢ burger?
More seriously, I'm sure you have all noticed a welcome trend leading up to the election...
I snapped this picture with my Blackberry™ Curve™ the other day on Kelly Dr. in Philadelphia. Pretty amazing that fuel prices have been plummeting leading up to election day. Gas prices have been steadily falling since late August, and in September they reached near free-fall status. They've been falling so far, in fact, that in some parts of Pennsylvania, including Berks County, where I work. On Friday, I noticed that a gallon was going for $2.75 in Kutztown, Pa., which would have been unthinkable even three months ago.
Heck, I was pleasantly surprised to see the price at left at a service plaza along the Pennsylvania Turnpike about a week ago, so my happiness has been spiking as the prices have been falling, especially since I commute 750 miles per week to my higher education job outside the Philadelphia 'burbs.
However, my point - I don't think the timing of falling gas prices is entirely coincidental. In fact, I think it's outright manipulation. It doesn't take a political scientist or pol to realize that Big Oil has big, BIG stakes in this election, and it's also pretty obvious which candidate Big Oil wants to see in the White House.
No matter who wins, I think we're going to see fuel prices rising exponentially after the election. The proof is already there to see, too; even energy groups are predicting rising heating oil costs this winter. Funny - gas prices are falling through the floor, as is the price of a barrel of oil, yet industry experts are predicting very high fuel oil prices. Do the math.
Something happened a few days ago that, in my mind, is a total manipulation of the government for political purposes -- the Social Security Administration announced a whopping increase of SS benefits.
Social Security benefits for 50 million people will go up 5.8 percent next year, the largest increase in more than a quarter century. The increase, which will start in January, was announced by the Social Security Administration. It will mean an additional $63 a month for the average retiree, whose check will grow to $1,153 from $1,090. The increase is the largest since a 7.4 percent jump in 1982 and is more than double the 2.3 percent rise in January 2008. [Emphasis Mine]
First, I don't believe for a second that the Bush administration would ever enthusiastically give such an increase to retirees, unless it had plenty to gain politically from such a move. Conveniently, the announcement was timed to be 17 days from the Nov. 4 election.
The Bush administration, and most within the Republican Party, openly despise Social Security and have shown a propensity to do all it can to weaken the program, with the goal of ultimately eliminating it. Now, 17 days before the election, the biggest increase in benefits in 26 years is announced? I'm sure it's all just a coincidence.
Don't get me wrong - I'm totally for retirees getting a much-needed increase in their monthly checks. I'm just questioning the timing. Of course, if anyone in the White House press corps even had the temerity to question the timing, Dana Perino would scoff, saying, "the timing is totally coincidental." Yea, right. If Bush felt he could have gotten away with it, the increase would have been announced the Sunday morning before the election.
Just like the announcement of the verdict of Saddam Hussein was moved up weeks earlier than planned to the week before the '06 mid-term elections. When the then-White House press secretary, the late Tony Snow, was asked about it, he looked into the camera and said, with a straight face, that the administration "would never time such an announcement to interfere with an election."
There are other ways to manipulate the Social Security Administration, too, and the Bush administration is proceeding with full force. More on that a bit later.
This is a pretty good piece of footage from this past week that I had to share - a woman attempting to do a citizen's arrest on Karl Rove at an event in California. Of course, it's obvious that it was a publicity stunt, but I love it. I really do hope that protesters make his life miserable for the rest of his life, or at least as long as he's capable of giving public speeches. He deserves nothing less.
Kudos to former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell for chastising Rove on negative campaigning, too - something that Rove probably hears far too little of, at least to his face.
Speaking of robo calls, listen to this piece of garbage, courtesy of Joe Amato at Crooks and Liars. Among other things, it alleges that Barack Obama and Democrats would cut off funds for the military, that they've accused American troops of "war crimes," and that they pose a threat to national security.
The worst part about this is that the McCain camp has certainly not hit bottom, yet. With 9 days to go, there's little telling how low they'll go to try and turn the tide against Obama.
Oh, and this whole pseudo controversy about "Obama getting tested?" It's claptrap - all new presidents get tested early. Going all the way back to President Kennedy, to use modern examples, every one has been tested early on in their presidencies, and that includes President Bush. Everyone mentions 9-11, but Bush was tested before that. In the spring of 2001, the Chinese clipped a U.S. spy plane that had wondered too close to Chinese airspace, and it had to make an emergency landing in Chinese territory. Sure, in hindsight it pales in comparison to 9-11, but at the time, it was an international incident. It was resolved successfully and the pilots returned home safely, but it was a very early test of Bush.
And that Biden comment, where he mentioned that Obama "would be tested" early in his presidency? It's been manipulated and cut off by the media (surprise). His entire quote also included the phrase that he feels that Obama will respond accordingly and that he'll have a spine of steel.
Listen to the ultra-annoying and stupid robo-calls that Rudy Giuliani, America's Profiteer, is doing on behalf of the McCain campaign. I have a hard time believing that robo-calls on either side of the campaign make much of, if not any, difference in the minds of voters. The only reason I can even think of why 9iu1ian1 would partake in such dumb activity is because he's looking for a plum assignment in a would-be McCain administration.
By the way, Rudy's voice makes me want to stick my head in an oven. I wish during one of his robo calls he would say "sufferin' succotash."
However, the stupidity isn't stopping there. On the Thom Hartmann Show last week, a caller from the Carolinas called in to tell a story about how he received a robo-call at 3 a.m. with some blatantly leading, GOP-leaning questions asked by a voice that lamely sounded like Barack Obama. After about 10 minutes, the call was finally identified as coming from the Republican Party. It's not a stretch to say that after 10 minutes that was mentioned just so the party could cover itself legally.
This is just another lame attempt to hoodwink voters. I firmly believe, as long as there isn't wholesale election fraud in selected states, that the American public truly isn't going to buy it on election day and that Barack Obama will be our next president.
Having said that, I sure hope that the Obama campaign, as well as Democratic voters, aren't even remotely getting complacent about his chances, because I still believe that this is going to be a remarkably close election.
This is a pretty good video, and if anything, it's a little conservative on the statistics it offers, too - the Obama campaign and the Democratic Party have both successfully registered millions of voters, even though there have been a few isolated instances of "Mickey Mouse" and "Tony Romo" registrations being submitted. (I'll have much more on ACORN, porn for Republicans, a bit later.)
Other than that, this video holds up and is an effective, stinging rebuke against how the press has been covering Obama vs. how it has been covering Palin.
I'm pleased that McCain's adultery is mentioned, as well as Obama's record on sex education. A very good friend of mine, who shall remain nameless, called me up all breathless a few weeks ago, outraged that Obama would support a bill that would allow sex education for first graders, which, according to U.S. News & World Report, is a gross distortion of the truth.
From the Fact Check section of the Voter's Guide in the Oct. 27, 2008 issue of U.S. News:
THE CLAIM: A McCain campaign ad claims Obama's sole accomplishment on education was introducing legislation as an Illinois state senator "to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergartners."
THE REALITY: This ad has been roundly attacked as a gross distortion and singled out as perhaps the worst of this election season. The portion of the sex-ed bill geared toward youngsters was aimed at teaching them hot to protect themselves from predators.
I also think it's a very good indication of how favorable the press has treated Palin but how little press coverage has been devoted to her husband's membership in a group until 2002 that wants Alaska to secede from the United States (and also a group that Palin addressed, as governor of Alaska). Talk about putting "Country First." (Which we all know is an empty, b.s. faux patriotic statement to begin with.)
This week, The Daily Show's Jon Stewart took aim at the McCain campaign's use of the word socialist in characterizing Obama's economic and tax proposals. For the love of God, I'm happy that someone took these two to task for doing so, because most media simply parrots the McCain talking point about Obama's economic and tax proposals as being "socialist," sans any meaty commentary.
I was discussing the myth of Obama's socialism the other day online with a few friends, and I really did begin to get fired up, essentially for this reason - we already have "socialism," but in reverse! How so? Wall Street firms, greedy traditional and investment banks and insurance companies have all successfully raped the working men and women in this country, and when these companies went belly-up (AIG, Bear Sterns, Goldman-Sachs, Countrywide, etc.), who is bailing them out? The American taxpayer, that's who. But, Republicans don't want to talk about that. And I'm willing to bet everything I'm worth (which seems to be less and less every day) that when these bailed out companies return to profitability, the American taxpayer won't be paid back (enter the corporate lobbyists).
It's simply amazing to me how willing people in our society are to attack the disadvantaged among us, yet most willfully turn the other cheek (or are grossly misinformed) about corporate welfare in this country.
Of course, the party of big business, the GOP, is doing all it can to scare the living shit out of Americans, saying over and over and over again that "we must cut taxes so corporations will hire more people!" What a sham and a fraud. Millions of jobs have been lost on President Bush's watch, and off shoring is the new corporate MO - there are literally thousands of companies who are guilty of sending jobs to Asia, China and India this decade, yet now we must cut their taxes? Please. I really hope that people would wake up to this crippling, debilitating problem, before it's too late.
However, don't get me wrong, I'm not so sure that we should hike the American corporate tax rate, but I don't think we should give these greedy, selfish corporations, who see no problem doling out millions, and in some cases, billions of dollars in compensation packages to company execs and CEOs any more tax breaks. What we MUST do is close the tax loopholes that corporations are taking advantage of by off shoring jobs and operating offshore tax shelters. Barack Obama has proposed giving companies tax breaks for creating jobs and building factories here, and penalizing companies that offshore jobs. It's about time, and I sure hope it comes to pass.
Under Bush, the IRS has more than doubled its workforce to audit individual tax returns. Just wondering, what has the IRS done to combat corporate tax cheating? I don't even need to look that one up.
I digress, I know, but my point is that Repubes love to talk about lazy workers and not wanting to give them their hard-earned money, and to be honest, I agree with them. But, where's the outrage about giving companies billions in tax breaks, so they can enrich their execs and offshore the jobs?
Oh wait, maybe I've got it - big business helps keep the GOP in power.
So, when I hear Obama say that we should "spread the wealth around," I cringe, because it probably allows Rush Göring to shelve his Viagra for a few days. It's not the best way to say it, but it's about time we reverse the trend of the rich getting richer, and the working class in this country getting screwed at every turn.
Some stats that you may or may not know about the concentrated wealth in this country. ...
• The top 1% of income earners in this country currently own 90% of the wealth in this country, and 50% of the income. This was exactly the same in 1929, after three consecutive Republican administrations.
• 59% of the capital gains in this country are paid by people who earn over $1 million per year, and fewer than 2% of capital gains are paid by people who earn under $50,000 per year. Why does this matter? Investors who sit around the pool and wait for the dividend check to arrive pay 15% taxes (the top capital gains rate). So, these investors pay less taxes than I do. Outrageous.
• Among the developed countries in the world, only two industrialized nations have a larger gap among the richest and the poorest: Turkey and Mexico. Yes, you read that correctly.
• According to the General Accounting Office (the non-partisan accounting office of Congress), 68 percent of corporations in this country don't pay taxes. Yes, 68 percent! What's wrong with this picture?!?
• Under President Bush, there are now over 400 billionaires in the United States, more than any other time in this nation's history, by far. And what's more, where is the Dow now compared to when Bush took office? Even before the most recent free fall in the markets, the Dow has actually realized very little growth under eight years of Bush and mostly Republican rule in Congress. Yet the rich have continued to get richer and richer. If that's not a big, fat neon sign that the rich have gotten much richer under the Bush tax cuts, than I really don't know what is.
~~
It's this simple - Obama will save you money if you earn under $250,000 per year. And I find it outrageously offensive that people who make more than that are bitching and complaining that they will have to pay a little more. If I were making that kind of money, I would gladly pay a little more to the government. Why? Because I've had a pretty damn good year!
Republicans have so denigrated paying taxes in this country that it's gotten way out of control. As a progressive, very liberal Democrat, I'm not at all happy to pay taxes (who is?), but we have to pay for things in this country.
That military that Bush loves to use unilaterally? It only eats up about $650 billion per year out of the federal budget. Our police, firefighters, roads, government, infrastructure, national parks, state and federal governments, etc. all cost money, and it has to come from somewhere.
The greedy and selfish among the rich in this country want to keep all they make, thinking, "it's mine - why should I give it back?" (It's important to note that I don't think everyone in this country who is wealthy is greedy and selfish - in fact, there are plenty of examples of millionaires and billionaires who are not - Bill Gates, Ted Turner, the Annenbergs, the Kimmels [two local, Pennsylvania examples], etc.)
The argument for giving it back? You're using the commons! The country's infrastructure, military, economy, government, police, postal service, etc. all make it possible for innovative, successful business people to earn, keep and grow their wealth. And all of these things cost money.
If fact, ever since Reagan, we've devoted appallingly little to our infrastructure. So much, in fact, that it's beginning to fall apart. Remember the bridge that collapsed in Minnesota last year, killing 35 people? Bush's answer was to "use funds already allocated" to fix items in urgent need of repair. Wow, thanks for the help, Mr. President. Or, how about the steam line that exploded in New York City a few summers ago, maiming and even killing people? Get used to these types of incidents, because they are going to get more and more frequent unless we act, now.
But, the minute any candidate talks about fighting the fiscal fight for the common working men and women in this country, it's "socialism," or my personal favorite, "class warfare."
It's all one big, tragic joke. More like a nightmare, really. My response to it all is this - They only call it "class warfare" when we fight back. Well, it's time to fight back, because ever since Reagan, war has been declared on the middle class, and it's continued unabated. (And I'm including President Clinton in this assessment, who behaved very much like a Republican on fiscal matters.)
The time has come to take back and fight for what's rightfully ours - a chance at a decent wage and a little money at the end of the line - retirement, which, unless things change, is only going to be a pipe dream for Generation Xers and successive generations. That is, unless you're a corporate CEO. Those lucky few have been getting golden parachutes for years, and they've ramped up to epidemic proportions under Bush.
As for the rest of us? We're just getting golden showers.
I found this on Facebook this morning, and I thought it was pretty interesting to share with all of you. Take a look and try it out. There is a lot of misinformation out there about how exactly the Obama tax plan will affect people with various incomes. Psst - if you make over $250k per year, two things: 1. You can afford to pay a ltitle more in taxes because you've had a good YEAR, and 2. Obama's plan will whack you. Relax - you can afford it.
The reactions by many on the right to Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama this past Sunday on Meet the Press have been both shocking and appalling this week, and considering the level of discourse in our country, I'm not a person easily shocked.
A few nights ago, Olbermann did a pretty nice round-up of the ridiculous statements that have been babbled by the likes of Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and Sarah Palin, and I can't even begin to get my hands around how breathtakingly mindless both of these women are (and I'm being quite kind).
I'm just wondering exactly where these "pockets of pro-America areas" are? We'll have our answer in 10 days - whichever states vote go for the McCain/Palin ticket I guess are the pro-America. Pretty pathetic.
Even more pathetic is Bachmann's assessment that we should have what would equate to loyalty oaths in Congress, which I'm guessing even her own Republican Party disagrees with. As frightening and reactionary as the current edition of the GOP can be, I'd like to think that we'll never return to the age of McCarthyism. Fortunately, Bachmann's idiotic statements have been a financial boon to her opponent, El Tinkenberg, who has raised over $1 million since her stupid comments last weekend. The best part about Bachmann's fiasco is that she almost certainly would have won reelection had she kept her mouth shut, but she couldn't help herself. Hopefully her stupidity will be Tinkenberg's gain. Right now, El Tink's got a slim two-point lead on Bachmann. Please, if you have the means, go to Tinkenberg's Website and contribute $5 or $10 to help out his campaign; every little bit will help him kick an intolerant, asinine Republican out of Congress.
Just in case you missed it, below is the video of Powell's endorsement. I found his words to be powerful, heartfelt and spot on. This past week, I was asked by many people how I felt Powell's endorsement would affect the election, and my initial reaction was, "Not much." However, upon further reflection, I'm not so sure. His support for Obama certainly does shatter some misconceptions about how Obama would lead and use the military. Naturally, right-wing hate radio had a field day with the endorsement (see Olbermann clip above).
I was very happy to hear Olbermann slam the likes of the hate mongers mentioned above, and specifically Rush Limbaugh for his mindless hate speech. I don't always agree with Keith, but this is one of his best Special Comments I've heard in quite some time. For all of the people who rip Olbermann for being so partisan, my question would be, were it not for Olbermann and a select few others, who else in our corporate media would be echoing these thoughts? Damn few, and I'm happy Olbermann is doing what he does on a nightly basis.
This past week, both campaigns swapped gaffes - Biden on how Obama, if elected will be tested (but, to be fair, his quote did get cut off by the corporate media); McCain had too many to mention here (but I'll talk about a few individually); and most notably, Sarah Palin showed her rank ignorance about the job that she's campaigning for.
A few nights ago, Keith Olbermann did a pretty nice round-up of Palin's outrageously (and tragically) funny misstatements about the vice presidency. Whether you like Olbermann or not, Palin's remarks are there for all to see and hear, and they are not comforting. We all know that McCain will be the oldest president in history on inauguration day if he's elected, and he's been less than forthright about his medical history (more on that in a separate post as well). To have this woman sitting in the chair of power in the Oval Office is truly a terrifying thought.
It is pretty remarkable that she's so clueless about what the vice president's responsibilities are. I'm probably insulting a few people as I write this, and I don't care - it's pretty clear to me by now that most of the people who support her fall into two categories:
1. Rabidly pro-life, who will vote for anyone who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, and
2. People who support her based on her appearance and her breathtakingly dumb soundbites and attack lines on Obama
Either way, superficiality seems to be the name of the game, in most instances. I don't think either group is going to carry the day for McCain and Palin.
Even her "hockey mom" persona isn't genuine - not after it was revealed that $150,000 in campaign cash was spent on clothes for her during the campaign. Zoinks! Another Repube politician who doesn't mind spending other people's money - clearly the McCain campaign is embarrassed by this revelation. Of course, almost immediately after this story hit the wires, the McCain campaign released a statement saying that "the clothes will be donated to charity," with the implication that that was the plan all along. If you believe that one, I've got some preferred stock in Enron you might be interested in purchasing.
