Barack is the new blonde

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE   TODAY SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN ACCUSED SENATOR "SWEETIE" BARACK OBAMA OF PUSHING SOCIALISM.   WHEN REACHED FOR COMMENT, BARACK INSISTED, "I DID NOT PUSH IT.  FRANK WAS JUST AS INTERESTED IN IT AS I WAS.  IT STARTED OUT NORMALLY ENOUGH WITH THE USUAL, 'YOU SHOW ME YOURS, I'LL SHOW YOU MINE' TALK.  AFTER THAT, IT GOT A LITTLE HEATED.  BUT FRANK WANTED IT AS MUCH AS I DID.  SOMETIMES CRIES OF 'NO!' ARE JUST PART OF THE FOREPLAY, YOU KNOW?  I DID NOT PUSH IT."   AFTER THESE REPORTERS PICKED THEIR JAWS UP FROM THE FLOOR, WE ASKED SENATOR SWEETIE WHAT HE THOUGHT SOCIALISM WAS?   "HUH?  HEY SMART DUDES, YOU ALWAYS KNOW SO MUCH, WHY DON'T YOU TELL ME!" HE SNAPPED.   THESE REPORTERS EXPLAINED SOCIALISM TO BARACK WHO SCRUNCHED UP HIS BROW, ABSORBED IT AND NODDED, "OKAY, YEAH, I CAN GET ON BOARD THAT.  FORGET WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT BEFORE, OKAY?  LET'S JUST LEAVE THAT OUT OF IT."     FROM THE TCI WIRE:     Turning to the US presidential race.  Yesterday's snapshot mentions a debate at Columbia. Maria Recio's "Third-party debate's only confirmed participant: the moderator" (McClatchy Newspapers) informs that it's iffy with Cynthia McKinney saying she's doing another debate, Ralph Nader hedging and apparently no real desire for it. Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate, Matt Gonzalez is his running mate.  Today Nader writes "In the Public Interest: Closing the Courthouse Door:"   "Real change comes from the bottom up, not the top down. The genius of the American system has been to let that change flow upward, from neighborhoods to cities to states and then to the federal government." George W. Bush February 26, 2001.  Unfortunately, the difference between words and deeds in Washington is often shocking even to those who think they have seen it all. Alicia Mundy in the October 15, 2008 edition of the Wall Street Journal reports: "Bush administration officials, in their last weeks in office, are pushing to rewrite a wide array of federal rules with changes or additions that could block product-safety lawsuits by consumers and states."  What President George W. Bush should have said is that he believes in states rights when they are in the interest of Big Business and their lobbyists in Washington. Mr. Bush and his cronies would like to forget about those harmed by dangerous products or reckless conduct. Indeed, Bush & Company seem to regard the civil justice system as a nuisance that threatens to destroy our economy and way of life. In reality, America's civil justice system plays an indispensable role in our democracy. When the rights of injured consumers are vindicated in court, our society benefits in countless ways: compensating victims and their families for shattering losses (with the cost borne by the wrongdoers rather than taxpayers); preventing future injuries by deterring dangerous products and practices and spurring safety innovation; stimulating enforceable safety standards; educating the public to risks associated with certain products and services; and providing society with its moral and ethical fiber by defining appropriate norms of conduct. The Center for Progressive Reform has in painstaking detail chronicled the attack on the civil Justice system by the Bush Administration. In "The Truth about Torts: Using Agency Preemption to Undercut Consumer Health and Safety" legal scholars William Funk, Sidney Shapiro, David Vladeck and Karen Sokol write: "In recent years, the Bush administration has launched an unprecedented aggressive campaign to persuade the courts to preempt state tort actions…. Widespread preemption of state tort law would significantly undermine, if not eliminate, the rights of individuals to seek redress for injuries caused by irresponsible and dangerous business practices and to hold manufacturers and others accountable for such socially unreasonable conduct."  (See: http://www.progressiveregulation.org)   And, Les Weisbrod, the President of the American Association for Justice (formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America) hit the nail on the head when he said: "In effect the Bush administration made the safety of Americans secondary to corporate profits." Mr. Weisbrod added: "Big business lobbyists have been on a crusade to destroy state consumer protection laws, and further stack the deck against American consumers." The American Association for Justice has just published a report titled: "Get Out of Jail Free: A Historical Perspective of How the Bush Administration Helps Corporations Escape Accountability" – this report is available at: www.justice.org/getoutofjailfree.   Tort deform comes in many shapes and sizes – but the common theme is that tort deform severely damages Americans' cherished constitutional right to trial by jury. It ties the hands of jurors, preventing them from doing justice as the case before them requires. Only the judges and juries see, hear, and evaluate the evidence in these cases. But it is the politicians, absent from the courtrooms, who push bills greased by campaign cash that send a perverse message to judge and jury.   Tort law has produced decades of slow but steady progress in state after state respecting the physical integrity of human beings against harm and recognition that even the weak and defenseless deserve justice. Instead of seeing this evolution as a source of national and global pride, a coalition of insurance companies, corporate defendants' lobbies, and craven politicians, led by George W. Bush, want to destroy our civil justice system. When Georgetown Law School Professor David Vladeck testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 12, 2007, he noted that the Bush Administration has "seized on regulatory preemption as a way to cut back dramatically on State law remedies for those injured by products and services Americans depend on every day for their health and well-being: medicines, medical devices, motor vehicles, the mattress on which we and our children sleep, and the commuter trains millions of us take to work every day."  Let us hope that Congress and the Supreme Court stop Mr. Bush from once again trampling the Constitutional rights of citizens throughout the land and preventing victims of corporate violence from obtaining justice in a court of law.   Cynthia McKinney is the Green Party presidential candidate and Rosa Clemente is her running mate.   Green Party presidential nominee Cynthia McKinney will participate in a webcast forum for presidential candidates on Sunday, October 19, to be aired 7 to 9 pm on BreakTheMatrix.com. Cynthia McKinney will join other candidates who've been invited to the online forum, which has been organized by ThirdPartyTicket.com's Trevor Lyman. Ms. McKinney will not appear at a candidates' forum at Columbia University on the evening of October 19. The news of Ms. McKinney's participation in the Columbia event was released to the media in error by persons who are unassociated with the McKinney campaign, and who had not confirmed such an appearance with Ms. McKinney or her staff. "We invite everyone to go online, tune in to BreakTheMatrix.com, and listen to Cynthia McKinney and the other candidates debate real issues. We'll hear Ms. McKinney offer ideas that have been censored from the McCain-Obama debates -- ideas that most Americans support, like bringing our troops home now, health care for everyone, and help for working Americans facing financial difficulty instead of a $700 billion bailout package for Wall Street," said John Judge, media secretary for the McKinney/Clemente Power to the People Committee. Cynthia McKinney and running mate Rosa Clemente were nominated by the Green Party at the Green National Convention in Chicago this past July. "A vote for Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente is an investment in a growing progressive antiwar party that accepts no corporate contributions. No other candidate in the 2008 election offers the hope of a permanent alternative to the Democrats and Republicans and the corporate interests that the two established parties serve. The Green Party isn't an alternative, it's an imperative," said Ms. Clemente.  Greens and other Americans have objected to the format of the McCain-Obama debates, which were sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), and which excluded all candidates except the Democratic and Republican nominee.  The CPD, which sets rules for candidate participation, is owned and run by the Democratic and Republican parties, which have an interest in excluding all candidates except their own. Greens noted that the CPD is funded through contributions from corporations, which have their own interests in limiting the candidates who participate in the debates.   Democracy Now! -- no link to trash -- had Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney on yesterday. Cynthia is the Green Party presidential candidate and wisely refused to take part in defending a White man who instigated more serious acts of violence than have the still persecuted Black Panthers (much to Goody's regret, Cynthia refused to rush to defend Bill Ayers). Ignoring Goody's need to for White privilege, McKinney responded: CYNTHIA McKINNEY: First of all, I think I should say that I believe that the people in this country need a political party and a movement that places our values on the political agenda. Obviously, with that exchange, that's not the case.  There's something else that's a bit more troubling. I've also been talking about election integrity as I've gone across this country. But, you know, I really don't like the idea that the face of election fraud, given the past two presidential elections, is now a face of color and one of poor people.  In 2000, when people went to the polls, when the voters went to the polls, they were met with confusing ballots, manipulation of the voter lists, electronic voting machines that didn't work, inappropriately or ineffectively or poorly trained officials who weren't familiar with the workings of those machines, and we know what the problems with those machines have been and are. We still have those problems that have been with us since 2000.  In 2004, they added to these problems with the electronic poll books, the sleepovers that were discovered, where the machines weren't even secured, even intensifying the failures of the machines with the vote flipping, and usually in only one direction. The battery freezes in the midst of voters actually trying to cast their votes.  And now we've got voter ID laws across the country, and we've got voter caging, which is a fancy way of purging people from the voter files.  So, now, what kind of election is it when neither of the political parties is addressing the issue, the fundamental issue, of whether or not our votes are even going to be counted?  McKinney's running mate is Rosa Clemente. Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate. Ralph took the bait so we won't note his exchange on that issue. Instead, we'll note this from him:  RALPH NADER: There's no such thing as free trade with dictators and oligarchs in these countries, because the market doesn't determine the costs. There's no free collective bargaining for workers. That's a crime, de facto, in many countries, to try to form an independent trade union. There's no rule of law, bribery. These companies can go there and pollute at will. There's no judicial independence to make these companies accountable, and they abuse workers and consumers and communities, as the oil companies and the timber companies have on many occasions.  Second, these-NAFTA and WTO have to be scrapped. Under those treaties, we can withdraw in six months and give notice of withdrawal and renegotiate these agreements for the following purpose: no more trade agreements that subordinate consumer, union, worker and environmental rights. These are pull-down trade agreements that are allowing fascist and corporate dictators to pull down our standards of living, because they know how to keep their workers in their place at fifty cents an hour. So, any new trade agreements should stick to trade. Any other treaty should be labor, environment and consumer on a level playing field. These trade agreements also have to be open, democratic. They cannot undermine our courts, our regulatory agencies and our legislature.  That's what we've got to do. And our website, votenader.org, has ample information on this process.  If you're in the mood to wade through garbage, you know where to go find the audio and video. Cynthia McKinney has the transcript posted at her campaign website. Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate, Matt Gonzalez is his running mate. In terms of the 'questions' Goody came up with, Ava and I will address that garbage on Sunday at Third. Meghan McCain (McCainBlogette.com) offers her evaluation today on the debate Wednesday between her father, GOP presidential candidate John McCain, and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama: "My father nothing short of ROCKED Wednesday night's debate and I have never been more proud.  He got up and showed this country why he is the right person to lead it into the future, and open the door to reinvention of the Republican Party.  I am always proud of my Dad but even more so when he lets his maverick tendencies show so clearly.  Eighteen more days to go and this election is nowhere near over!!!"  McCain's running mate is Governor Sarah Palin.  The McCain-Palin campaign has issued a press release that there's not room for in full.  We'll quote from the top and include as much as possible (ues the link to read in full):   OBAMA MEDICARE MALPRACTICE #1: The Very Same Reforms That Barack Obama Calls "Cuts" Under John McCain, He Says Will "Strengthen" Medicare Under His Program  THE MALPRACTICE: While Saying Today That John McCain's Reforms Will "Cut" Medicare Spending, Barack Obama Says He Will "Strengthen" Medicare With His Reforms. OBAMA: "So what would Senator McCain's cuts mean for Medicare at a time when more and more Americans are relying on it? It would mean a cut of more than 20 percent in Medicare benefits next year. ... I think every single American has a right to affordable accessible health care. We can strengthen Medicare by eliminating wasteful subsidies to big HMOs in Medicare, and making sure seniors can access home-based care, and letting Medicare negotiate with drug companies for better prices. That's the kind of change we need." (Barack Obama, Remarks As Prepared For Delivery, Roanoke, VA, 10/17/08) THE TRUTH: Just Two Days Ago, Barack Obama Highlighted His Own "Cut" To Medicare Spending. OBAMA: "And some of the cuts, just to give you an example, we spend $15 billion a year on subsidies to insurance companies. It doesn't -- under the Medicare plan -- it doesn't help seniors get any better. It's not improving our health care system. It's just a giveaway." (CNN, Presidential Candidate Debate, Hempstead, NY, 10/15/08) THE TRUTH: One Such "Cut" That John McCain Must Support Under Barack Obama's Logic Is A Reform That Today, Barack Obama Said Would "Strengthen" Medicare. MCCAIN: "Government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid should lead the way in health care reforms that improve quality and lower costs. Medicare reimbursement now rewards institutions and clinicians who provide more and more complex services. We need to change the way providers are paid to focus their attention more on chronic disease and managing their treatment. This is the most important care for an aging population. There have been a variety of state-based experiments such as Cash and Counseling or The Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly, called PACE, that are different from the inflexible approaches for delivering care to people in the home setting. Seniors are given a monthly allowance that they can use to hire workers and purchase care- related services and goods. They can get help managing their care by designating representatives, such as relatives or friends, to help make decisions. It also offers counseling and bookkeeping services to assist consumers in handling their programmatic responsibilities. In these approaches, participants were much more likely to have their needs met and be satisfied with their care. Moreover, any concerns about consumers' safety appeared to be misplaced. For every age group in every state, participants were no more likely to suffer care-related health problems." (John McCain, Remarks, Tampa, FL, 4/29/08)    RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot" "Iraqi Christians" "The treaty" "I Hate The War" "The Party From Hell" "Mushroom Green Beans in the Kitchen" "around the web" "nader, joe cannon" " The campaigns" "Nader's influence" "Blah and music" "One more truth teller: P. Jerome" "Good Friday!" "ACORN" "Barack cultist beats up woman" "Interview with C.I." "Censorship at Dissident Voice" "Now he's concerned? Now?" "THIS JUST IN! BARACK WARNS AGAINST . . . HIMSELF!" "The Common Ills"

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Now he's concerned? Now?

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE   TODAY SENATOR 'SWEETIE' BARACK OBAMA WARNED AGAINST "OVER CONFIDENCE" THEREBY PRODUCING HOWLS OF LAUGHTER FROM MANY.   IF IT WEREN'T FOR OVER CONFIDENCE, THE STILL-IN-THE-MIDDLE-OF-HIS-FIRST-SENATE-TERM BARACK WOULDN'T BE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, NOW WOULD HE?     IN OTHER NEWS THE WASHINGTON POST ENDORSED BARACK OBAMA.  THAT WOULD BE THE SAME PAPER THAT ENDORSED THE IRAQ WAR IN 2003 ("The Post, which mistakenly supported an invasion of Iraq as a means to protect U.S. national security . . .").      FROM THE TCI WIRE:     Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Corps - Iraq Soldier died of non-battle related causes at approximately 10 p.m. Oct. 15 in Baghdad." And they announced, "A Coalition force Soldier was killed in an indirect fire attack Oct. 16 in Diyala."  The announcements bring to 4185 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war.   Yesterday the Republican and the Democratic presidential candidate were invited to a debate that barred all other presidential candidates.  Barack Obama, Democratic candidate, and John McCain took part in a debate hosted by CBS News' Bob Schieffer -- here for transcript (and video), here for Katherine Q. Seelye's live blogging at the New York Times.  Among the issues Schieffer probed was abortion.  For those who've forgotten, Barack always knew he could use sexism throughout the primary because he had the club of "What will happen to Roe!"  He knew -- or thought he did -- that women would have to flock to him -- like a battered wife to an abuser? -- because they had no where else to go.  Mike caught the moment, "Mainly we got to see Barack was even more right-wing than we knew as he talked about 'partial-birth abortions' and said he wanted to end late-term abortions (except for health!). Except for health? He's already made clear what he thinks about that. So he's going to chip away at abortion rights the same way the Supreme Court has. Barack's apparently pro-life on the installment plan. He'll do away with Roe bit by bit if elected. There's no Democrat in the presidential race, sadly."  Madamab (The Confluence) also points to Barack's embarrassing answer, "Didja catch that, ladies? First the veiled threat about Roe v. Wade, which events in the past eight years have proven to be fearmongering of the most despicable type. Then, Obama assumes that before making a decision about our own bodies and our own babies, we naturally "consult with" an entire committee of people. Does he actually know anyone who's had to deal with this choice? (At least he has finally realized that some women are not Christian! Mr. Sensitivity has substituted the words 'religious advisers' for the more exclusive word 'pastors.') It never occurs to Senator Obama that women can make these decisions without "consulting with" anyone. It never occurs to Senator Obama that some women would not dream of going to any religious figures to ask whether or not to get an abortion, because some women are atheists or agnostic, or know that their 'religious advisors' would not support them in their decision. (DUUUUHHHH.) And it never occurs to Senator Obama that some women are pregnant BY members of their families, and that going to their families would be the LAST thing they would do in that case. Anyone who is at all familiar with the attempts by the religious right to try to force women to get the consent of their parents before getting an abortion, would be aware of that fact. (Double DUUUUUHHHHHH.)"  Heidi Li (Heidi Li's Potpourri) wonders why Barack refuses to make support for Roe v. Wade a litmus test when appointing Supreme Court justices if he's elected: "What does matter is that Senator Obama, whose party is committed to upholding Roe, refused to commit to treating that as a make or break issue when it would come to his judicial appointments.  And another thing: why does Senator Obama think that women need to consult with doctors, families, and religious advisers when deciding what to do with their own bodies?  I have no objection to anybody consulting with anybody about any decision, but Senator Obama's committee of consultants approach suggests that once again he misses the point when it comes to women's empowerment."  Lambert (Corrente) explains, "Either the woman is in the 'best position,' or a sort of committee, composed of the woman (indeed, we've come a long way), her family, and various religious and medical experts is in the 'best position.'  Why would Obama believe that a committee is in the 'best position' instead of the woman herself?"   Another exchange was focused on by Cedric and Wally (joint-post) and by Kat.  This was when Barack refused to call out his supporters wearing t-shirts proclaiming Governor Sarah Palin was a c**nt or yelling to "stone her, old style."  Instead Barack elected to lie.  In fact, it was the Tawana Brawley campaign tactic.  Play Barack as the victim and drive up the sympathy factor.  Barack yammered on in that annoying uh way of uh his and at some point declared "all the Republican reports indicated were shouting, when my name came up, things like 'terrorist' and 'kill him' . . ."  As Ava and I noted Sunday, " Based on one report (in The Washington Post), Goody tried to tease out a story of Governor Sarah Palin speaking to a crowd that yelled 'Kill him!' about Barack Obama. That didn't happen and your first clue is that only one outlet covering the speech mentioned it. Your second clue came when the Secret Service investigated the paper's allegation and found no evidence to support it."  Eileen Sullivan's "Secret Service looking into Obama threat at rally" (Associated Press) reported yesterday, "Last week, The Washington Post reported a similar incident during a Palin rally in Clearwater, Fla. The Secret service investigated that allegation and found no indication that 'kill him' was ever said, or if it was said, that the remark was directed at Obama.  Listening to tapes of that rally, the Secret Service heard 'tell him' or 'tell them,' but agents never heard 'kill him,' Secret Service spokesman Eric Zahren told The Associated Press on Wednesday."  Sullivan also noted a media claim that it had taken place in Scranton and that the Secret Service was now investigating.  Gqmartinez (Corrente) wonders, "Are we going to trivialize death threats the same way we trivialized racism? If Obama does win and we disagree with his policies, are we going to be called racists or, worse, be implicated in plots against him? Death threats are real and, in my view, very serious. Throwing out unfounded allegations to tarnish the opposition is not only a disgusting tactics, but it takes away focus from the real threats that may be out there."  And Gqmartinez highlights Andrew M. Seder's "Secret Service says 'Kill him' allegation unfounded" (Scranton Times-Leader).  Seder advises that the Scranton Times-Tribune reported that 'kill him' was cried "while congressional candidate Chris Hackett was addressing the crowd"; however, "[t]he agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton said allegations that someone yelled 'kill him' when presidential hopeful Barack Obama's name was mentioned during Tuesday's Sarah Palin rally are unfounded."  Seder goes not to note the way various outlets began 'reporting' it after the Times-Tribune's error. (Language Warning) Joseph (Cannonfire) also notes the Times-Leader article and compiles the threats against Hillary Clinton before wondering, "The disgusting behavior of the Obama culstists should have been an issue of national discussion -- and would have been, had the media deigned to cover the story. Why didn't they?"  So let's review.  Two published reports of one person yelling "kill him" and two investigations that found no proof of the claim.  But it sure was a nice talking point for Barack last night.  Ruth pointed out the best moment in the debate, when John McCain declared, "Senator Obama, I am not President Bush.  If you want to run against President Bush, you should have done it four years ago." Elaine focused on Barack's refusal to answer the question regarding mandates (a mandate does mean those not in compliance will be penalized and that's generally a fine but maybe it's jail time as well?  Barack was happy to insist to Tim Russert that Hillary would fine because she had a mandate but he never wants anyone pointing out that his health care for children is mandated as well).  Rebecca called the debate for McCain and noted how the forum was not to Barack's benefit.  (For the perfect example of that, watch or read The CBS Evening News with Katie Couric's "Candidates Discuss Why Politicians Cheat" -- and those dependent upon the transcript should know it is very kind to Barack, leaving out all his uh-uh-uhs.)   Still on the topic of the debates, Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate and his campaign issued the following which provides perspective on Barack's claims during last night's debate:   Donate $3 to Nader/Gonzalez now. Why? Well, on three key issues last night -- energy, health insurance, corporate crime -- Obama stood with the corporations against the interests of the American people.  Compare Nader to Obama.  Last night, McCain challenged Obama.  Tell me one time you have stood up to the leaders of your party, McCain said.  Obama couldn't name one time when he stood up to the corporations that control his party.  So, instead he named a couple of times when he stood with the corporations.  And against the interests of the American people.  I voted for tort reform, Obama said.   Wow!  Brave of you Barack.   You stood with the National Association of Manufacturers against injured people.  I support clean coal technology, Obama said.  Wow Barack, you stood with the polluting coal industry against people who suffer the consequences.  When McCain accused Obama of supporting a single payer, Canadian style national health insurance system, Obama said he didn't.   And he doesn't.  Despite the fact that a majority of doctors, nurses and the American people want it. On national health insurance, Obama stands with the insurance industry and against the American people who are demanding single payer.   Over 5,000 U.S. physicians have signed an open letter calling on the candidates for president and Congress "to stand up for the health of the American people and implement a nonprofit, single-payer national health insurance system." (Here's the ad that ran in the New Yorker magazine.)  Obama says no.  McCain says no.  Nader/Gonzalez says yes.  Yes to single payer.  Yes to solar and no to coal.  Yes to protecting the American people from corporate recklessness and crime, no to tort deform.  So, donate $3 to the candidacy that is not on the debate stage.  But that is right on the issues.  Nader/Gonzalez.  Today, while Obama fronts for his corporate donors, Ralph Nader, Matt Gonzalez and the Nader Team will be on Wall Street protesting corporate America's sustained orgy of excess and reckless behavior.  Nader/Gonzalez continues to stand with the people.  Against the corporate criminals and their candidates in the two major parties. Onward to November.    Shorter version, via Mike, "There's no Democrat in the presidential race, sadly."  . . .  Commenting on the exclusion of Cynthia McKinney (the only female presidential candidate this year), Kimberly Wilder (On The Wilder Side) noted, "This year, one of the pre-debate educational events at Hofstra University in Long Island will include a historical re-enactment presentation entitled 'Women's Rights: Conflicts and Schisms', which will include the character of Victoria Woodhull.  Though, would Victoria Victoria Woodhull, a third party presidential candidate, have been allowed to participate in the Presidential Debates at Hofstra?  If Victoria Woodhull was excluded -- as modern, woman presidnetial candidate Cynthia McKinney is slated to be -- what would Victoria Woodhull have done?"  And, of course, Cynthia was excluded last night.  File it under hypocrisy and see Marcia's post on hypocrisy in the 2008 election.   McCain-Palin Communications Director Jill Hazelbaker weighs in on last night's debate:   "John McCain won tonight's debate with strong, clear straight talk about setting a new direction for our country and fighting for working families. He outlined a specific, bold plan for creating jobs, helping those near retirement, keeping people in their homes, curbing spending, lowering health care costs and achieving energy independence. He vowed to fight for 'Joe the Plumber' every day he is President and he affirmed his belief that we shouldn't raise taxes just to 'spread the wealth.' While Barack Obama is measuring the drapes and campaigning against a man not even on the ballot, John McCain demonstrated that he has the experience, judgment, independence and courage to fight for every American."     RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot" "Abeer and other items" "Security pact and no security still for Iraqi Christians" "debate (mccain won)" "John McCain had the best line in the debate" "Barack ignores the infamous t-shirt" ""Highlights" (Third)" "The hypocrites" "The mandate?" "The debate" "Barack doesn't call out t-shirt" "THIS JUST IN! BARACK'S 'ISSUES'!" "The Common Ills"

Barack doesn't call out t-shirt

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE   EXCLUSION 2008 CONTINUED TONIGHT AS JOHN MCCAIN AND BARACK OBAMA MADE IT ON STAGE FOR THE THIRD TIME AS ALL OTHER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES WERE SHUT OUT.   IN ONE EXCHANGE, BARACK REFUSED TO APOLOGIZE FOR ANY OF HIS CULT MEMBERS.   McCain: Let me just say categorically I'm proud of the people that come to our rallies. Whenever you get a large rally of 10,000, 15,000, 20,000 people, you're going to have some fringe peoples. You know that. And I've -- and we've always said that that's not appropriate. But to somehow say that group of young women who said "Military wives for McCain" are somehow saying anything derogatory about you, but anything -- and those veterans that wear those hats that say "World War II, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq," I'm not going to stand for people saying that the people that come to my rallies are anything but the most dedicated, patriotic men and women that are in this nation and they're great citizens. And I'm not going to stand for somebody saying that because someone yelled something at a rally -- there's a lot of things that have been yelled at your rallies, Sen. Obama, that I'm not happy about either. In fact, some T-shirts that are very... Obama: John, I... McCain: ... unacceptable. So the point is -- the point is that I have repudiated every time someone's been out of line, whether they've been part of my campaign or not, and I will continue to do that. But the fact is that we need to absolutely not stand for the kind of things that have been going on. I haven't. Obama: Well, look, Bob, as I said... Schieffer: I mean, do you take issue with that? Obama: You know, here's what I would say. I mean, we can have a debate back and forth about the merits of each other's campaigns. I suspect we won't agree here tonight.   THE INFAMOUS "SARAH PALIN IS A C**T" T-SHIRT WHICH SPELLS THE WORD OUT AND BARACK COULDN'T APOLOGIZE.   HE WANTS TO TALK ABOUT ISSUES, HE INSISTED.  WHAT ISSUE COULD BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN CHILDREN?  EVEN BARACK AGREED WITH THAT DURING THE DEBATE BUT APPARENTLY GIRLS DON'T MATTER FOR OUR MYTHICAL PETER PAN.  OFFERED THE CHANCE TO REPUDIATE THE T-SHIRTS HIS SUPPORTERS HAVE BEEN WEARING, BARACK CHOSE TO IGNORE IT AND THEN RUB SALT IN THE WOUND BY DECLARING IT WASN'T A REAL ISSUE.   REACHED FOR COMMENT, SENATOR SWEETIE SAID, "I LOVE THOSE T-SHIRTS.  I WEAR ONE MYSELF."  THAT DID EXPLAIN HIS NON-STOP USE OF SEXISM AGAINST HILLARY.   FROM THE TCI WIRE:     As noted already Ralph Nader was on The NewsHour yesterday.  Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate. Today, Ralph Nader will speak at Cooper Union (NYC) at six p.m. and the following day the independent presidential candidate at noon "Ralph will take to the street in front of the NYSE to protest the bailout at Federal Hall, 26 Wall St. NYC."  Ray Suarez asked Ralph about the bail-out last night.   RAY SUAREZ: Well, we've just come through these remarkable weeks, where the Treasury, the Fed, and Congress have been working to cobble together a plan. The presidential candidates, the Republican and Democrat in the race, say they reluctantly went along with these bailout packages because of the urgency of the situation. What did you make of the bailout plans? RALPH NADER: The right word is "cobble." It's the wrong kind of plan, and they have to readjust now with injections into the banks. But what they should have done, because Washington had Wall Street over the barrel, Wall Street wanted a $700 billion bailout. And what Congress should have done is add to Bush's blank check with comprehensive regulation to prevent this; criminal prosecution resources for the culprits on Wall Street; more power to the shareholders to control their company and restrain their bosses' excesses, real taxpayer equity, with good conditions and, finally, making them pay for it. If you make the speculators pay for their own bailout, then there's a relief throughout America that there's some fairness coming out of Washington. A 0.1 percent tax on security derivative transactions in one year -- it's going to be $500 trillion of transactions in one year -- is $500 billion. So that alone would make a sense of equity. And you wouldn't put it on the backs of the taxpayer. England has that kind of tax, by the way, for years. FDR had it. We helped finance the Civil War with it. But after World War II, it was scrapped. So people go into a store in all your areas where your show shows, and they buy necessities of life, and they pay 6 percent or 7 percent sales tax. Tomorrow, someone in Wall Street can buy a billion dollars of Exxon derivatives, pay no sales tax. That's where the fairness has to go.   John McCain is the Republican presidential candidate and Sarah Palin is his running mate.  McCain-Palin '08 announces:   ARLINGTON, VA -- Tuesday in the Oval Office, U.S. Senator John Warner was privileged to join with other members of Congress, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as the president signed the annual $542 billion dollar defense bill into law. The National Defense Authorization Bill annually fulfills the constitutional responsibility to provide for our nation's armed forces. This was the 30th consecutive defense bill Senator Warner has worked on with other senators. Subsequently, in response to press inquiries, Senator Warner praised John McCain's leadership on defense issues and stressed the importance of his contributions, as the committee's ranking member, in structuring this bill. "Having worked with John McCain for more than 20 years on the Senate Armed Services Committee, I know that, as President of the United States and commander in chief, he will continue working with Congress to ensure that the annual defense bills will adequately provide for our men and women in uniform the best equipment and training in order to protect America's freedom around the world." Senator Warner also pointed out the importance of this bill to Virginia's overall economy. Virginia is home to 31 military installations, approximately 130,000 active-duty personnel and some 80,000 Department of Defense civilian employees. (Source: Department of Defense) The Department of Defense Authorization Bill signed today invests more than $50 billion in direct defense spending in Virginia, which translates into jobs, added research and development, procurement and acquisition of new equipment, and maintenance and upgrading of military installations. Of particular interest is the continuation of a strong naval shipbuilding and repair program. (Source: Department of Defense) Senator Warner continued, "As a former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I know how critical defense spending is for Virginia's economy. "Virginia is proud to be home to 814,000 veterans, whose past service helped build the foundation for today's U.S. military serving in Virginia and worldwide. There are provisions in this bill which continue to recognize military retirees' service to country, particularly in the field of health care. "As I retire after 30 years in the Senate, I am absolutely confident that John McCain, as our next president, will continue his leadership and dedication to the needs of today's men and women in uniform, and to those of future generations."   And they note that the New Hampshire Union Leader has just endorsed John McCain for president with an editorial which opens, "In this time of great uncertainty, America needs an experienced, decisive leader with clear vision and a steady hand to guide us through.  That man is Sen. John McCain."   Tonight, McCain debates Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.  No other presidential candidates will be allowed on the stage because democracy is just too gosh darn important to actually practice it.  It's like good china.  You hide it away for very special occasions. Otherwise, someone might break it!   (You can, however, watch The New Adventures of Old Christine every Wednesday night on CBS' first half-hour of prime time.)  Team Nader notes:     Donate $10 to Nader/Gonzalez now.   Why?  Well, Ralph Nader appeared on the PBS NewsHour last night for ten minutes.         Which was better than nothing.      Nothing is what Ralph got from PBS this year up until now.  No Jim Lehrer.  No Diane Rehm.  No Terry Gross.    But thanks to thousands of your phone calls and e-mails, the NewsHour relented.  And Ralph was given a chance last night.  To make the argument -- Jail Time for Corporate Crime.  Of course, when Americans think of crime, they think first of street crime.  Gangsters.  The mob.  But that's a bit unfair, don't you think? Given the wave of corporate crime that has swamped Wall Street and tanked the economy?  So, today we launch a new fundraising widget. And to open up the fundraising drive, we're making this offer to you -- our loyal supporters. If you donate $100 now to Nader/Gonazalez, we will ship to you our corporate crime package -- two great books on how big business is robbing you blind -- plus a DVD featuring tomorrow's Nader/Gonzalez Rally on Wall Street.   First we have the 260 page book -- Gangster Capitalism by Michael Woodiwiss.  Woodiwiss makes the argument that the lethal tenets of organized crime have worked their way into the operating models of corporations and governments.  And that the politicians, businessmen and bureaucrats are actually beating the wise guys at their own game -- shifting the rules to broaden and legitimize criminal behavior in a far more dangerous and sinister manner.  The other book is the 302-page hardcover classic The Cheating of America by Charles Lewis, Bill Allison and the Center for Public Integrity. This book is about how corporations and the super-rich don't pay their fair share of taxes.  So, donate $100 now, and we'll ship you these two eye-opening books -- Gangster Capitalism and The Cheating of America -- plus the Wall Street Rally DVD.  (This offer ends October 24, 2008 at 11:59 p.m.)  Understand Gangster Capitalism.  Then organize to control it. By the way, in the event you missed Ralph's appearance on the PBS NewsHour last night, check it out here.  Onward to November     RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot" "Nouri al-Maliki declares Kirkuk "belongs to the federal government"" "Ralph Nader explains the basics of peace" "The Mosul assault continues" "women don't work (he said it)" "Why the 'one' will not get my vote" "The failure of 'feminist' 'leadership'" "New Adventures of Old Christine and politics" "Brief" "Tuesday and before I type another word . . . ..." "Barack's imitation-rock concert" "THIS JUST IN! BARACK'S SHLOCK ROCK!"

Barack's imitation-rock concert

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE   THE 'GRATEFUL DEAD' PERFOMRED A BENEFIT FOR SENATOR 'SWEETIE' BARACK OBAMA.   IT WAS A 'SUCCESS' IF YOU DON'T EXPECT JERRY GARCIA.  THE GRATEFUL DEAD WITHOUT GARCIA IS LIKE HANDING SOMEONE A PINT OF CREAM AND A FEW CHERRIES AND TELLING THEM IT IS CHERRY GARCIA.   NEXT UP, BIG BROTHER & THE HOLDING COMPANY (MINUS JANIS) 'STORMS' THE STAGE FOLLOWED BY THE SEX PISTOLS MINUS SYD.   IF ELEVATOR MUSIC IS WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, BARACK PROMISES TO DELIVER.   FROM THE TCI WIRE:   Turning to the US presidential race.  The first three links are dealing with a topic that is offenisve.  You've been warned.  Members of the Cult of Barack have a new uniform they sported over the weekend.  A t-shirt proclaiming Governor Sarah Palin is a c**t.  With a photo of the t-shirt, Joseph (Cannonfire) explains, "The left has turned into an emetic morass of human sewage. When you go into the voting booth, picture the faces of the smug, haughty young creeps pictured in the photo above.  They represent the new Democratic party.  They are the reason why this lifelong Dem left the party.  If you reward the Obots with your vote, you are saying: 'I want the Democratic party to keep acting like that'." Jake Tapper (ABC News -- in the safest version) covers the story and asks, "Why would these four think this is acceptable discourse?"  BIG WARNING on Ben Smith because an innocent looking link in his piece will take you to nudity. He quotes Barack Cultist Rhiannon Volpe who declares, "I personally am a register Liberatrian, supporting Obama this year."  She thinks those shirts are acceptable (and she designed and sold them) because, hey, in Cult of Barack, anything goes.  The ones wearing those shirts in Philadelphia?  That crowd included a man calling for Palin to be stoned.  That never worried Amy Goodman or the beyond-pathetic Robert Parry.  Mari A. Schaefer and Amy S. Rosenberg (Philadelphia Inquirer) report the threat was, "Let's stone her, old style."  Meanwhile social worker and pro-life feminist Angela Kays-Burden (Christian Science Monitor) expresses her opinion, "The White House Project, a nonprofit organization, states that support from other women is critical to increasing the number of women in politics.  But, in general, feminists have led attacks on one of their own who is close to shattering the ceiling.  To them, Palin's pro-life position alone is proof that she is not fit to lead."  At The Confluence, Riverdaughter addresses where she stands regarding the bullying from the Cult of Barack:     Many of us PUMAs are perfectly comfortable in our own skin with our own decisions.  We don't want others pestering us about Obama anymore.  We aren't interested in poll results.  Obama supporters who come here to try to depress turnout or convert us are wasting their time.  We simply do not care what you think of us.  We have been called stupid, old, uneducated, ridiculous females, a shrieking horde of paranoid holdouts, racists, traitors and Republicans.  Oddly enough, this has not made us want to vote for Obama.  The world will go on, no matter what we're called.  And if Obama loses on Nov. 4, I will be the first to say, "Good!"  You can blame me, scream at me, jump up and down throw a fit, ostracize me, I really don't give a flying fig.  I will live through it and so will the others on the many dozens of blogs like this one.  It is regrettable that we have grown apart but I'm sure we will both survive.  And the next time the party tries to pull this $#%^, I hope they will think twice as to whether it was worth it.  Now, masslib and people who gave in to peer pressure can say that Obama is going to win but I have enough emails from the party that suggest that plans to launch a full out attack to pressure us into voting for Obama.  If he were doing that well, the upcoming psychological warfare would be unneccesary.  So, please stop the annoying pro-Obama blather.  We aren't buying it and we don't care.    Klownhaus adds, "We Conflucians may indeed be the last paranoid band of shrieking hold-outs, but we damn sure ain't gonna quit now."  On the polling, Jake Tapper (ABC News) observed yesterday, "That's not what lots of smart folks in the Obama campaign think. They believe Obama's poll numbers are artificially high, McCain's are artificially low, this race will come down to two or three points, and anything could happen." As Ava and I explained Sunday: Polling is not an exact science and the only poll that matters is the election vote. Polling works as an indicator (when it works) and not for who's going to win the election but for where campaigns should and should not invest time.   But it does not work when an egg head class has repeatedly told the American people that those who will not vote for Barack are racists. We've tried to figure out why idiots push that nonsense? Maybe they think it will intimidate on election day? Most likely, it won't. Most likely, people will say, "I voted for Barack" and won't vote for him. How many? No one knows. But when so many idiots have pushed to make a vote for anyone other than Barack a vote for racism, you can't expect to get honest answers in the polling.   Someone should have called them out on it a long time ago. We're told (by friends with the Barack campaign) that they're aware of the problem and it's created a huge issue for the campaign. They're trying to figure out what's the magic number to lead by. They have no clue -- not because they're idiots but because Idiot Rothschild, Idiot Herbert and so many others have made it impossible to get an honest answer from the most basic polling question of whom are you going to vote for?   Smart observers have already grasped that even exit polls on election day will now be in question due to idiots turning "who are you going to vote for?" into a loaded question. If Barack loses (we have no idea who will win), some of the harsh words should be aimed at the people who repeatedly attempted to make it vote-for-Barack-or-be-a-racist. It was stupid. And it never should be allowed to happen again. If Barack loses (and he may win, we're not saying he's going to lose), a large part of the blame will have to go to those who so poisoned the well that his campaign was denied accurate polling numbers. (That's not arguing that the problems in the primaries don't matter. In this, we're speaking of the general election phase and how the polling is damaged -- a fact that became very clear as the primary process wrapped up.)    Today the McCain-Palin campaign announced the endorsement of Latino business leaders:   ARLINGTON, VA -- McCain-Palin 2008 today announced the support of more than 50 influential Hispanic business leaders from across the country. They will work to communicate John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin's economic plan which will create jobs, ensure energy security, reform government spending and bring relief to American consumers.   "I am supporting John McCain because he has always done what is right for all Americans," said Mary Jean Duran of California, "He will continue to give Hispanic-American-owned small businesses the opportunity to compete in the global markets, while Barack Obama proposes billions in higher taxes, more spending and isolationism from global economy."  Jerry Natividad from Colorado added, "John McCain will fight to ensure the American dream is still achievable for us and for our children. He has a plan to get our economy back on track, create jobs, and keep people in their homes. He understands that small businesses are the job engine of America. Our economy simply cannot afford Barack Obama's plans for trade, health care, taxes, and energy."   HISPANIC BUSINESS LEADERS FOR MCCAIN  Frank C. Rivera, Arizona Ruben Alvarez, Arizona Claudia Bermudez, California Donald C. Garcia, California Fred Armendariz, California Issac Barcelona, California  Jarryd Rudolph, California Josh Valdez, California  Mario Rodriguez, California Mary Jean Duran, California Matthew Venegas, California  Pablo Wong, California Solomon D. Trujillo, California  Tom Garcia, California  William Jerry Silva, California Willie Wulff, California  Jerry Natividad, Colorado Eric Rojo, Washington, D.C.  Jose A. Fuentes, Washington, D.C.  Juan Carlos Benitez, Washington, D.C. Roberto Jose Coquis, Washington, D.C.  Al Cardenas, Florida Roberto Espin, Florida  David Hernandez, Florida  Eric Carson, Hawaii Gloria M. Campos, Illinois  Vinicio E. Madrigal, Louisiana Jose Nino, Maryland  David Olivencia, Michigan Richard Aguilar, Minnesota  Jeannette Hernandez Prenger, Missouri Fernando Romero, Nevada Tibi Ellis, Nevada  Dr. Horatio Villareal, New Mexico  Ramon Tallaj, New York  Dr. Cynthia Lama, New York Dr. Carlos Aviles, New York  Alfredo Gutierrez, New Jersey  John Regis, Puerto Rico Ignacio Veloz, Puerto Rico Maria Taxman, Missouri   Jeannette Hernandez Pranger, Missouri F.H. Guzman, Tennessee Raul Lopez, Tennessee Sylvia Marcela Gomez, Tennessee Adryana Boyne, Texas  Jacob Monty, Texas  Jenny De La Rosa, Texas Jose Cuevas, Texas Rick Jaramillo, Texas  Rolando Pablos, Texas  Massey Villareal, Texas Nina Vaca, Texas  Ted Cruz, Texas  Tom Covino, Texas Sylvia Haro, Utah  Jacqueline Krick, Virginia  Jo- Ann Chase, Virginia Luis Quinonez, Virginia   Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate and Matt Gonzalez is his running mate. Wednesday October 15, Ralph Nader will speak at Cooper Union (NYC) at six p.m. and the following day the independent presidential candidate at noon "Ralph will take to the street in front of the NYSE to protest the bailout at Federal Hall, 26 Wall St. NYC."  Team Nader notes the blackout on the campaign by some outlets (blackout and distortions):     While local AP bureaus have done an excellent job in many states covering the Nader/Gonzalez campaign, we have noticed what can only be described as a 'lights out' policy from AP's Washington, DC national political desk. After waiting six months for a national AP news story, we get a third party story that is really about Barr ("Bailout angst provides a push for Libertarian Barr.") You couldn't even dedicate resources inside AP to research our campaign and write up the story, though given the present state of repair, Mr Runyan was probably less biased than what you would have offered from in house. We are running third place, polling 100% higher than Barr according to Ipsos, have been warning on the financial crisis for two decades, and have a thoughtful alternative proposal to the bailout that would work for Americans. Nader is also polling 4-8 per cent in six swing states and has raised almost $4 million dollars--about four times as much as Barr. And for that, we get a squib marginalized by a headline. The AP's treatment of this campaign to date will go down in history as a blight on your professionalism--allowing personal animosity to black out your role of informing people of the important things that are happening. Your sports writers did a considerably better job in Beijing than your politics desk is doing this election in Washington, DC. There were ample reports about Americans who won bronze medals, coming in third place, exactly where Nader is sitting right now. To add insult to injury, the Olympics is only 2.5 weeks, and we have been in this contest for over six months. When did it become the role of the press to only write about winning candidates, winning corporations, and winning sports teams, completely blacking out everything else no matter how thoughtful, interesting, or relevant to the discourse and development of the nation? It is simply unbelievable that you have done nothing on Nader's bailout plan. As the most relied upon news organization for print media in the world, one would expect a shred of professionalism for the third-highest ranked Presidential candidate. Every day, we hear from people that say they did not even know Nader was running. When he pulls in more than a million votes on November 4th, and many more people see his name on the ballot for the first time in print (as his name will be before roughly twice as many voters this time), they will wonder what in the heck the news media was doing for them to have not yet heard he was running. One national story all campaign does not a newswire make. I hope you take the opportunity to return to your proud traditions which are quickly turning into receding laurels. As the government continues to do a new multi-billion dollar bailout each week, the least you could do is a story on Nader's alternative plan to the bailouts. See below a release detailing it. http://www.votenader.org/media/2008/09/16/meltdown/ Not a happy camper, Toby Heaps National Media Coordinator 202 471 5833 Feel free to reach out to Donna, and ask why she hasn't done one national story on us since launch, a story on the bailout, and Nader's alternative plan, dcassata@ap.org, 202-641-9421  If Donna is not responsive, try the Washington Bureau chief, Ron Fournier, rfournier@ap.org, 202-641-9402    In addition, Team Nader is launching a "What's your breaking point?" series where you are invited to share your stories with the campaign (via Communications Director Loralynne Krobetzky -- loralynne@votenader.org).     RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot" "Treaty?" "Kurds, Yazidis, Christians" "ms. magazine gets punked by donna brazile" "This and that" "Isaiah, Nader, more" "Election thoughts" "Monday's feminist post" "Chuck, Nader, Isaiah, Third" "The Common Ills" "Tossing words around doesn't make them true" "THIS JUST IN! THEY'RE NUTS!"

Tossing words around doesn't make them true

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE   IN THE UPSIDE DOWN WORLD OF 2008, WEATHER UNDERGROUND, A DOMESTIC TERRORIST GROUP THAT DECLARED WAR ON THE UNITED STATES AND BOMBED MULTIPLE U.S. BUILDINGS, IS NOT TO BE SPOKEN OF.   NAN FREUND DELCARES OF MENTIONING WEATHER UNDERGROUND'S BILL AYERS AND BERNARDINE DOHRN'S CONNECTIONS TO SENATOR SWEETIE BARACK OBAMA, "THIS IS RED-BAITING LIKE WE HAVEN'T SEEN SINCE THE MCCARTHY IN THE FIFTIES."  TO WHICH THE REALITY BASED COMMUNITY RESPONDS, "GET REAL!"  RED-BAITING WAS TARRING AND FEATHERING ALLEGED COMMUNISTS AND COMMUNISTS FOR THEIR ALLEGED BELIEFS AND BELIEFS.    HAD THEY BROKEN THE LAW, IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RED-BAITING.    BILL AYERS AND BERNARDINE DOHRN BROKE THE LAW.  REPEATEDLY.  BIG TOM AYERS WAS ABLE TO BUY THEIR WAY TO FREEDOM VIA THE CHICAGO AND ILLINOIS POLITICAL MACHINE.  THAT'S WHY THEY WERE NOT TRIED.    SOME IDIOTS SAY "PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT."  THAT'S A LIE.  IT WAS MISCONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE F.B.I.  BUT THAT APPLIED TO THEIR UNDERGROUND DAYS.  THEY COULD HAVE BEEN TRIED FOR THE DAYS OF RAGE IN CHICAGO (ACTIVITIES BEFORE THEY WENT UNDERGROUND); HOWEVER, ILLINOIS MADE CLEAR THEY WEREN'T INTERESTED IN DOING THAT.  THEY COULD ACTUALLY STILL BE CHARGED FOR THE DAYS OF RAGE BUT TOM AYERS HAS BOUGHT THEIR FREEDOM.   THE SAME TWO WHO DECRIED WHITE PRIVELAGE IN THE 1970S TURNED AROUND AND USED IT TO SAVE THEIR OWN (WHITE) ASSES.  This is Red-baiting like we haven't seen since McCarthy in the Fifties," declared Nan Freund, Mr Ayers' neighbour for 25 years. "He's done a lot of good for education and for kids. They are wonderful neighbours. It's a ploy and it's going to get dirtier and dirtier as [the Republicans] fall farther behind." "If you're new in politics and someone agrees to host a 'coffee' in their house so the candidate can meet people, get some volunteers and maybe some money it's very rare you'd refuse," said Toni Preckwinkle, a black Democratic alderman [city councillor] for Hyde Park, who in other respects is quite critical of her party's nominee.   FROM THE TCI WIRE:   Turning to the US presidential race.  Chris Hedges (via Information Clearing House) expresses this thought: "This is a defining moment in American history.  The next few weeks and months will see us stabilize and weather this crisis or descend into a terrifying dystopia.  I place no hope in Obama or the Democratic Party.  The Democratic Party is a pathetic example of liberal, bourgeois impotence, hypocrisy and complacency.  It has been bought off.  I will vote, if only as a form of protest against our corporate state and an homage to Polanyi's brilliance, for Ralph Nader.  I would like to offer hope, but it is more important to be a realist.  No ethic or act of resistance is worthy anything if it is not based on the real.  And the real, I am afraid, does not look good."  If you're asking "Polanyi?" -- Team Nader is already on it:   Fascism, like socialism, is rooted in a market society that refused to function. A financial system always devolves, without heavy government control, into a Mafia capitalism -- and a Mafia political system. A self-regulating market turns human beings and the natural environment into commodities, a situation that ensures the destruction of both society and the natural environment.  Who is this speaking? It is the Hungarian intellectual Karl Polanyi, author of the influential book The Great Transformation (1944). Polanyi fled fascist Europe in 1933 and eventually taught at Columbia University. Remembering Polanyi, former New York Times reporter Chris Hedges writes today: "I place no hope in Obama or the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is a pathetic example of liberal, bourgeois impotence, hypocrisy and complacency. It has been bought off. I will vote, if only as a form of protest against our corporate state and an homage to Polanyi's brilliance, for Ralph Nader. I would like to offer hope, but it is more important to be a realist. No ethic or act of resistance is worth anything if it is not based on the real. And the real, I am afraid, does not look good." We live in difficult times. But one man has shown the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the corporate state -- Ralph Nader. For most of this year, Ralph has been barnstorming across the country -- bringing a message of hope and resilience to a troubled America. And now it's time to step up and support Ralph Nader and the shift the power platform he has gifted to the American people. Today, thanks to your help, we are within striking range of meeting our October Surprise Fund goal of $250,000 by midnight tonight. We are less than $17,000 away. Please, give $10, $50, $100 now -- whatever you can afford -- up to the legal limit of $2,300. And if you donate $100 or more now, we will send you an autographed copy of Ralph's classic -- The Seventeen Traditions (HarperCollins 2007). This 150-page hardcover book details the seventeen traditions that Ralph grew up with and is the closest thing so far to a Ralph Nader autobiography. So, don't miss out on this limited edition offer. (This offer expires tonight at midnight.) We need 170 of you -- our loyal supporters -- to step up and snap up The Seventeen Traditions. And we will meet our goal. So let's crank it up today. And get it done. After you have contributed, check out Hedges' article here. Onward to November The Nader Team   Wednesday October 15, Ralph Nader will speak at Cooper Union (NYC) at six p.m. and the following day the independent presidential candidate at noon "Ralph will take to the street in front of the NYSE to protest the bailout at Federal Hall, 26 Wall St. NYC."   Ralph's running mate is Matt Gonzalez.  John McCain is the Republican presidential nominee and his running mate is Sarah Palin.  The McCain-Palin '08 campaign notes (link has video):   U.S. Senator John McCain delivered the following remarks at the McCain-Palin 2008 rally in Virginia Beach, VA:  Three weeks from now, you will choose a new President. Choose well. There is much at stake. These are hard times. Our economy is in crisis. Financial markets are collapsing. Credit is drying up. Your savings are in danger. Your retirement is at risk. Jobs are disappearing. The cost of health care, your children's college, gasoline and groceries are rising all the time with no end in sight. While your most important asset -- your home -- is losing value every day. Americans are fighting in two wars. We face many enemies in this dangerous world, and they are waiting to see if our current troubles will permanently weaken us.  The next President won't have time to get used to the office. He won't have the luxury of studying up on the issues before he acts. He will have to act immediately. And to do that, he will need experience, courage, judgment and a bold plan of action to take this country in a new direction. We cannot spend the next four years as we have spent much of the last eight: waiting for our luck to change. The hour is late; our troubles are getting worse; our enemies watch. We have to act immediately. We have to change direction now. We have to fight. I've been fighting for this country since I was seventeen years old, and I have the scars to prove it. If I'm elected President, I will fight to take America in a new direction from my first day in office until my last. I'm not afraid of the fight, I'm ready for it.  I'm not going to spend $700 billion dollars of your money just bailing out the Wall Street bankers and brokers who got us into this mess. I'm going to make sure we take care of the people who were devastated by the excesses of Wall Street and Washington. I'm going to spend a lot of that money to bring relief to you, and I'm not going to wait sixty days to start doing it.  I have a plan to protect the value of your home and get it rising again by buying up bad mortgages and refinancing them so if your neighbor defaults he doesn't bring down the value of your house with him.  I have a plan to let retirees and people nearing retirement keep their money in their retirement accounts longer so they can rebuild their savings. I have a plan to rebuild the retirement savings of every worker.  I have a plan to hold the line on taxes and cut them to make America more competitive and create jobs here at home.  Raising taxes makes a bad economy much worse. Keeping taxes low creates jobs, keeps money in your hands and strengthens our economy.  The explosion of government spending over the last eight years has put us deeper in debt to foreign countries that don't have our best interests at heart. It weakened the dollar and made everything you buy more expensive.  If I'm elected President, I won't spend nearly a trillion dollars more of your money, on top of the $700 billion we just gave the Treasury Secretary, as Senator Obama proposes. Because he can't do that without raising your taxes or digging us further into debt. I'm going to make government live on a budget just like you do. I will freeze government spending on all but the most important programs like defense, veterans care, Social Security and health care until we scrub every single government program and get rid of the ones that aren't working for the American people. And I will veto every single pork barrel bill Congresses passes. If I'm elected President, I won't fine small businesses and families with children, as Senator Obama proposes, to force them into a new huge government run health care program, while I keep the cost of the fine a secret until I hit you with it. I will bring down the skyrocketing cost of health care with competition and choice to lower your premiums, and make it more available to more Americans. I'll make sure you can keep the same health plan if you change jobs or leave a job to stay home.  I will provide every single American family with a $5000 refundable tax credit to help them purchase insurance. Workers who already have health care insurance from their employers will keep it and have more money to cover costs. Workers who don't have health insurance can use it to find a policy anywhere in this country to meet their basic needs.   If I'm elected President, I won't raise taxes on small businesses, as Senator Obama proposes, and force them to cut jobs. I will keep small business taxes where they are, help them keep their costs low, and let them spend their earnings to create more jobs.  If I'm elected President, I won't make it harder to sell our goods overseas and kill more jobs as Senator Obama proposes. I will open new markets to goods made in America and make sure our trade is free and fair. And I'll make sure we help workers who've lost a job that won't come back find a new one that won't go away.  The last President to raise taxes and restrict trade in a bad economy as Senator Obama proposes was Herbert Hoover. That didn't turn out too well. They say those who don't learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. Well, my friends, I know my history lessons, and I sure won't make the mistakes Senator Obama will.  If I'm elected President, we're going to stop sending $700 billion to countries that don't like us very much. I won't argue to delay drilling for more oil and gas and building new nuclear power plants in America, as Senator Obama does. We will start new drilling now. We will invest in all energy alternatives -- nuclear, wind, solar, and tide. We will encourage the manufacture of hybrid, flex fuel and electric automobiles. We will invest in clean coal technology. We will lower the cost of energy within months, and we will create millions of new jobs. Let me give you the state of the race today. We have 22 days to go. We're 6 points down. The national media has written us off. Senator Obama is measuring the drapes, and planning with Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid to raise taxes, increase spending, take away your right to vote by secret ballot in labor elections, and concede defeat in Iraq. But they forgot to let you decide. My friends, we've got them just where we want them.  What America needs in this hour is a fighter; someone who puts all his cards on the table and trusts the judgment of the American people. I come from a long line of McCains who believed that to love America is to fight for her. I have fought for you most of my life. There are other ways to love this country, but I've never been the kind to do it from the sidelines.   I know you're worried. America is a great country, but we are at a moment of national crisis that will determine our future. Will we continue to lead the world's economies or will we be overtaken? Will the world become safer or more dangerous? Will our military remain the strongest in the world? Will our children and grandchildren's future be brighter than ours?  My answer to you is yes. Yes, we will lead. Yes, we will prosper. Yes, we will be safer. Yes, we will pass on to our children a stronger, better country. But we must be prepared to act swiftly, boldly, with courage and wisdom.  I know what fear feels like. It's a thief in the night who robs your strength.  I know what hopelessness feels like. It's an enemy who defeats your will.  I felt those things once before. I will never let them in again. I'm an American. And I choose to fight.  Don't give up hope. Be strong. Have courage. And fight.  Fight for a new direction for our country.  Fight for what's right for America.  Fight to clean up the mess of corruption, infighting and selfishness in Washington. Fight to get our economy out of the ditch and back in the lead.  Fight for the ideals and character of a free people.  Fight for our children's future.  Fight for justice and opportunity for all.  Stand up to defend our country from its enemies.  Stand up, stand up, stand up and fight. America is worth fighting for. Nothing is inevitable here. We never give up. We never quit. We never hide from history. We make history.  Now, let's go win this election and get this country moving again.     RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot" "Iraq and Turkey" "Iraqi Christians under assault" Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Private Dancer Bambi" "And the war drags on . . ." "Violence continues, press moves on" Truest statement of the week Truest statement of the week II A note to our readers Editorial: Precious Time TV: Some moments should stay undercover Roundtable Rehabilitated The winner and top ten runner ups Bombing of the Pentagon doesn't bother Barack? Spectacular Dumb Ass Moments from Dumb Asses Highlights "The Common Ills" "Team Obama insists it's the new McCarthyism" "THIS JUST IN! BARACK AND DAVIS CRY RACISM!"