BARACK'S AUNT ZEITUNI WAS IN THE U.S. DESPITE ORDERS FOR HER TO BE DEPORTED AS A NON-CITIZEN, SHE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO CONTRIBUTE TO BARACK'S CAMPAIGN.
SINCE ZEITUNI ONYANGO HAS ON CONGREGATION IN CHICAGO, BARACK WASTED NO TIME IN IMMEDIATELY DISOWNING ZEITUNI.
NOTING THAT AUNT ZEITUNI'S MONEY HAD BEEN RETURNED, BARACK INSISTED, "SHE'S ONE OF AN ESTIMATED 1 MILLION ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN DONORS, I KNOW HER ABOUT AS WELL AS I KNOW THE REST."
Turning to the US presidential race and starting with Ruben Navarrette Jr. (San Diego Union-Tribune):
After defending Sarah Palin, I heard from a member of the angry left who wrote: "Your (sic) from a Third World country, or your family is, stop trying to be white." I also heard from baby boomer activists who regret -- as they see it -- yanking me off that landscaping crew and sending me to the Ivy League. Or as one put it: "Unbelievable that you can sit there and defend Sarah Palin. I broke down doors for you to have a foot into the society you now participate in."
When I praised McCain, a liberal asked: "What are you, the Uncle Tom of Latinos?" She advised, "Make your people proud because you are shaming them."
When trying to assert control over freethinking Latinos and African-Americans, the liberal catchword is "disappointed." Lately, I've received dozens of e-mails from readers who use that word to describe how they feel about me. In the liberal tradition, most of the missives are condescending. Like this: "At one time, your articles were interesting to read but ... it seems you have lost your way." Or this: "You are feeding the ignorant and twisting truths so badly they become lies ...One day my words will resonate, sorry you lost your way in the meantime."
To read their complaints, it seems the last time I had my bearings was -- coincidentally -- the last time I wrote something with which they agreed. It's part of how broken our political discourse has become. We're not allowed to say that we think either Obama or McCain would make a fine president. We can't agree to disagree; we have to destroy the other side. We're trapped in an all-or-nothing paradigm where partisans demand complete agreement and undying allegiance.
It would probably be very wise for certain White Anglo 'helpers' to grasp that they do not control the world or anyone else. That's a point Marcia makes regularly at her site (including this week with White Tim Wise attempting to tell the African-American community what their lives are like). It is offensive and it needs to stop. Something else that needs to stop is Robin Morgan's public tantrums. It's an election, Robin, and you are not ruler of the universe. Robin's back with more nonsense at (Democratic) Women's Media Center and the latest garbage is entitled "Moose, Mousse, and Spalinism". No surprise, there's no attempt by Robin to apologize for her GROSS FACTUAL ERRORS (also known as LIES) in her previous writing on Palin. It's just more scattered, bitchy comments from a woman who truly should know better but apparently will bow and scrape before any man until her dying day. Wally and Cedric grabbed the previous crap from (Democratic) Women's Media Center this week [see their "Women's Media Center -- fact free for most of 2008..." and "THIS JUST IN! KEEP HER AWAY FROM A KEYBOARD!"] because I was too enraged to tackle that 'historian.' Now Robin shows up for one last cat-fight. It's all so damn pathetic.
But if any actual feminists are concerned about the effect on Women's Movement institutions and energy of this clutch of "formers" (a former chapter official of a national feminist organization, a former editor of a feminist publication, former Democratic funders, former Hillary supporters, and so forth), let me reassure you. The "trust date" had already long expired on these women, who'd been voted off feminist leadership posts, or fired, or quietly asked to resign. Some are confessed consultants to the campaign whose candidates they now--surprise!--endorse. I never imagined I'd see a "feminist" mercenary. But then I never heard of rats climbing onto a sinking ship, either.
I think Joni Mitchell best dealt with crap like Robin's churning out when noting of Rickie Lee Jones, that Rickie thought she could own jazz and it was her own private sidewalk. Robin writes as if feminism belongs just to her but she will dole it out in morsels to whomever she deems worthy. That's not how it works. Robin's got to have a screaming tantrum again because things aren't working out the way she wants. Someone needs to correct her on her sense of entitlement. She does not own feminism.
There will never be an excuse for Robin's actions in the last three months. She has chosen to attack Sarah Palin repeatedly and she's done so with lies. There's no excuse for her shameful behavior. Certainly not 'an election.' And love Joe Biden though I do, let's stop building him into "feminism salvation." But possibly when you're as frail and pathetic as Robin's become, you need a man to save you.
I'm not voting for McCain - Palin. That's been stated before Palin was on the ticket but, unlike Robin, I at least have enough ethics not to try to tear Sarah apart with lies. Unlike Robin, I have enough sense not to join in Bash the Bitch and, unlike Robin, I realize that actions like Robin's aren't about feminism or empowerment (they're about whoring yourself
out to the patriarchy). All week, numerous strong women (many I know) have stepped foward and I've kept it out of the snapshot but let's bring it in since Robin wants to have her tantrum. Elaine Lafferty is one of the unnamed women Robin's hissing at. Yes, Robin is hissing at Elaine. In public. That's how pathetic Robin's become. That's how decreipt and useless Robin's become. Elaine wrote "Sarah Palin's a Brainiac" (The Daily Beast):
For the sin of being a Christian personally opposed to abortion, Palin is being pilloried by the inside-the-Beltway Democrat feminist establishment. (Yes, she is anti-abortion. And yes, instead of buying organic New Zealand lamb at Whole Foods, she joins other Alaskans in hunting for food. That's it. She is not a right-wing nut, and all the rest of the Internet drivel--the book banning at the Library, the rape kits decision--is nonsense. I digress.) Palin's role in this campaign was to energize "the Republican base," which she has inarguably done. She also was expected to reach out to Hillary Clinton "moderates." (Right. Only a woman would get both those jobs in either party.) Look, I am obviously personally pro-choice, and I disagree with McCain and Palin on that and a few other issues. But like many other Democrats, including Lynn Rothschild, I'm tired of the Democratic Party taking women for granted. I also happen to believe Sarah Palin supports women's rights, deeply and passionately.
That's Elaine's 'crime.' (It's a well written piece.) I know Elaine, I know Lynn Forester de Rothschild (The Daily Beast):
First, although I disagree with several of her positions on social issues, I do not fear that she is a threat to the rights we have as Americans. As Governor of Alaska she vetoed a bill that would have denied hospital rights to gay couples because the bill violated the Alaska constitution. In her debate with Joe Biden, she clearly stated her tolerance, with the same position on gay couples as her opponent.
Although she is personally pro-life, Palin has proven she will uphold the law of the land. Like McCain, she will work with a Democratic Congress on acceptable judicial appointments. It is time to stop allowing the Democratic Party to scare voters into believing only they can protect a woman's right to choose.
Second, the attack on Palin's qualifications is sexist, a bias abetted by the media. On CNN, Obama contrasted Palin's experience to his own by saying Wasilla has only 50 employees and a budget of $12 million a year while his campaign has 2,500 employees and a budget of $36 million per month.
Excuse me, but she is Governor of a State with 29,000 employees and a budget of $11 billion. She has actually reduced taxes and cut spending.
Staying with Tina Brown's The Daily Beast, this is Wendy Button:
The party I believed in wouldn't look down on working people under any circumstance. And Joe the Plumber is right. This is the absolutely worst time to raise taxes on anyone: the rich, the middle class, the poor, small businesses and corporations.
Our economy is in the tank for many complicated reasons, especially because people don't have enough money. So let them keep it. Let businesses keep it so they can create jobs and stay here and weather this storm. And yet, the Democratic ideology remains the same. Our approach to problems--big government solutions paid for by taxing the rich and big and smaller companies--is just as tired and out of date as trickle down economics. How about a novel approach that simply finds a sane way to stop the bleeding?
That's not exactly the philosophy of a Democrat. Not only has this party belittled working people in this campaign from Joe the Plumber to the bitter comments, it has also been part of tearing down two female candidates. At first, certain Democrats and the press called Senator Clinton "dishonest." They went after her cleavage. They said her experience as First Lady consisted of having tea parties. There was no outrage over "Bros before Hoes" or "Iron My Shirt." Did Senator Clinton make mistakes? Of course. She's human.
But here we are about a week out and it's déjà vu all over again. Really, front-page news is how the Republican National Committee paid for Governor Sarah Palin's wardrobe? Where's the op-ed about how Obama tucks in his shirt when he plays basketball or how Senator Biden buttons the top button on his golf shirt?
Or take Helen McCaffrey's insightful column for the Philadelphia Inquirer that begins with her encountering a male student wearing a t-shirt on campus proclaiming Palin is a c-word:
First, with the candidacy of Sen. Hillary Clinton, who won 18 million popular votes from the people of the United States and was ridiculed, marginalized, and put in her place when she wasn't even offered the vice presidency slot.
But the really big attack on women occurred when John McCain selected only the second woman in history to be on a major-party ticket. He chose a governor of a state critical to our energy crisis. She is a very popular governor with an 80-percent approval rate. She was elected on her own merit without previous political ties. She is her own political creation, not the wife, daughter, sister or mistress of a politician.
I thought Americans would be proud of her nomination, whether we agreed or disagreed with her on the issues. Was I in for a shock.
The sexism that I believed had been eradicated was lurking, like some creature from the black lagoon, just below the surface. Suddenly it erupted and in some unexpected places.
Instead of engaging Palin on the issues, critics attacked attributes that are specifically female. It is Hillary's pantsuit drama to the power of 10. Palin's hair, her voice, her motherhood, and her personal hygiene were substituted for substance. That's when it was nice.
The hatred escalated to performers advocating Palin be "gang raped," to suggestions that her husband had had sex with their young daughters, and reports that her Down syndrome child really was that of her teenage daughter. One columnist even called for her to submit to DNA testing to prove her virtue. Smells a little like Salem to me. I was present at an Obama rally at which the mention of Palin's name drew shouts of "stone her."
"Stone her"? How biblical.
Or take the one and only Linda Bloodworth-Thomason. From Reuters:
Bloodworth-Thomason and others seemed especially critical of the way MSNBC -- and other media -- has attacked Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin while demeaning her supporters.
"We should stop the demonizing," she said, adding that Democrats have been worse than Republicans as far as personal attacks on candidates are concerned. "It diminishes us," she said of her fellow Democrats.
Bloodworth-Thomason even suggested a defense of Palin and her supporters should be written into TV programing, just as she went out of her way to portray Southern women as smart in her hit TV show "Designing Women."
Now grasp that all these women and more are "wrong" and only Robin is right. In Robn's mind that's how it works. She really needs to stop embarrassing herself in public. Instead of scraping and bowing before a man, WomenCount is calling on action: The next president, whomever he or she may be, should "create, withint the first 100 days, a presidential commission on women that will bring together the best thinkers from all backgrounds, sectors, and political parties, to impact the future of women in our nation." Or let's take The New Agenda where Cynthia Ruccia writes:
As women, we have several positions that we fall back on. One is exhaustion, which is where I believe many find themselves now. How can we not be tired when everywhere we turn these days there is one heinous example after another of our national disease: Misogyny. Unlike racism, which we are growing to tolerate less and less in America, sexism is absolutely acceptable. If this campaign year has proven anything, it is that Americans not only tolerate discrimination against women, in many instances they revel in it.
Another position we women take is denial. And why not deny? Who wants to spend a lifetime screaming about this inequity? It's exhausting, and let's face it, joy is a much more pleasant way to live.
But our best position by far is when we decide we are all in this together and we rise up against this injustice. Believe it or not, we have so much to be grateful for having watched these two courageous women, Hillary and Sarah, buck the system. By going where no woman has gone before, they have been human targets, willing to take the incoming fire. Although what Hillary withstood has receded a little in our memories, we have the spectacle of Sarah being eviscerated with glee by the Democrats. They are taking her apart with great creativity and total impunity. Why? Because as a society, we still permit the exercise of sexism without shame.
I could list many examples of what Governor Palin has endured--the ridiculous clothing flap (who cares?), the trashing of her family (after all, women must pay for their sins of the family—Geraldine Ferraro did and Hillary paid for the sins of her husband), the c**t t-shirts that the creators wore with glee (they got more "attaboys" for having the courage to do it than shame for having done it), the constant minimizing of her accomplishments, since, after all, she's only a woman. The list goes on, day after day, on and on and on. And on.
At first we're mad, then we can't stand it and hide, and then we realize that since NO ONE is stopping it, we must make that step ourselves. But once again I note how lucky we have been to have two brave women, Governor Palin and Senator Clinton, who have shown us what courage is. And if they can summon this courage, so can we.
Imagine that, the notion that women matter. A notion Robin no longer subscribes to which is why she hisses and snarls from (Democratic) Women's Media Center in attempts to bully the (small number of) readers into voting her way. She doesn't respect women. We're stupid -- in Robin's eyes. If it weren't for Robin, we wouldn't know how to vote. Or that's what she likes to kid herself. The failed child star who's hold on reality has become increasing fragile (never a good thing for a writer or non-fiction) is going out in one of the most embarrassing slow fades. Robin's hardly the only one embarrassing herself. Kim Gandy's doing a delightful job, such an 'amazing' job that she may be responsible for NOW losing its tax status since NOW's not allowed to endorse a candidate. (NOW PAC is, NOW is not.) As Mike pointed out last night, Kim Gandy's latest scribble promotes a 'scary' theme at NOW's website: dressing like McCain and Palin. This follows, as Elaine pointed out last month, Gandy using NOW's mailing list and official NOW stationaiy to promote Barack Obama's campaign.
Turning to Kim and Robin's crush Barack Obama, Jake Tapper (Political Punch, ABC News) reports: "The Obama campaign has told three reporters they have to drop off the campaign plane this weekend. All three work for papers that endorsed Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.: the New York Post, the Washington Times, and the Dallas Morning News." Tapper explains St. Barack got a little snitty over the fact that the editorial boards of all three papers endorsed McCain. Tapper explains the Post and Times importance but skips Dallas. The Dallas Morning News is the paper with the largest circulation in Texas. Not only that, pay attention Cult of Barack, it (actually Belo) also owns cable and broadcast channels in the area -- including WFAA Channel Eight (which also reaches as far north as into Oklahoma). The reporters for the Dallas Morning News are expected not only to file text reports, they also provide reports for the TV channels. In addition, they supply to the the paper's Spanish language paper as well as to the freebies (such as Quick). To the north of Dallas county, to the south of Dallas county and to the east of Dallas county, the broadcast channels and the paper are widely available. As far to the east as Smith County, the Dallas Morning News is the dominant paper (Tyler has one paper under two names, it is not the dominant paper in Smith County -- under either name). (The Dallas Morning News' reach to the west is non-existant due to the understanding it and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram worked out to avoid another paper war -- the sort that allowed the Morning News to take out the Dallas Times Herald.) So this was a vanity move on the part of the Cult of Barack that effects a huge number of people. If the Cult wants to reduce it to 'voters,' no Barack's most likely not going to carry Texas (no Democrat has since Jimmy Carter in 1976) but for a candidate who claims to stand for reaching out, it was a really petty and juvenile move.
Scott Conroy (CBS News) reports Mike Ditka of Chicago Bears fame campaigned in Pennsylvania with Governor Palin today and explained, "I'm not here because I'm a Republican, which I am, and I'm not here because I'm a conservative, which I am. I'm here because I am an American. It's time in this country you put party lines on the backburner and you put your country first." Meanwhile, the Latino vote was never Barack's -- not in the primary and not in the general. But he didn't really want to compete for it and his Cult in Panhandle Media was too busy ignoring Latinos. Point, the campaign is freaking out about the new numbers (which don't just include Florida where Barack's own polling says he's losing the Latino vote). This as McCain-Palin '08 announces:
Today the McCain-Palin campaign announced the endorsement of Maria Conchita Alonso, a Latin American actress who has starred in television and film for three decades. Alonso, who was born in Cuba and raised in Venezuela, recently appeared on CSI: Miami and Desperate Housewives and starred alongside Arnold Schwarzenegger in The Running Man.
"As a Latina and a new American citizen, I believe in this country and its people, and I believe that we need more than just 'change.' We need a leader who can bring about the right kind of change, and John McCain has the experience and judgment necessary to lead us in these uncertain times," Alonso said. "I grew up in Cuba and Venezuela, and I am appalled that Barack Obama apparently wants to emulate the "spread the wealth" economic policies of those countries and negotiate with their leaders. For me the choice is clear, and I believe it is my duty to share my views even though it might not make me popular in Hollywood."
After a successful career in Venezuela as a beauty queen, telenovela star, film actress and singer, Alonso emigrated to the United States from Caracas, Venezuela in 1982. She has appeared in dozens of films and television shows since then and was the first South American star to star on Broadway.
Apparently Marica Conchita Alonso, like many women, do not take their marching orders from Robin Morgan. Someone help Robin off the floor. Let's see Robin's insulted all religious people, she's insulted Ralph Nader specifically and all third-party candidates and she's insulted a lot of women. At some point, in a functioning feminist movement, she would have been pulled aside and told to cool her damn jets. She would have been informed just how ridiculous she looked and just how much damage she was doing to the movement. Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate and Robin Morgan thinks you're an idiot and an awful person if you vote for him too. So reject Robin Morgan, make it clear to her that she is not in charge of America's vote. Declare your independence from Robin Morgan -- a declaration that's necessary only because her ego is greater than her intelligence (or her reach). Matt Gonzalez is Ralph's running mate and Team Nader notes: Onward to November and beyond.
Onward to November and beyond.
Public TV notes. On most PBS stations, NOW on PBS begins airing tonight but check local listings. The topic for the latest broadcast is:
What Women Voters Want
[Streaming video of this program will be available online after broadcast]
Election 2008: Tough decisions for undecided women voters in the swing states.
There are roughly eight million more female voters than male, and more women than men say they are still undecided. Senator Hillary Clinton and Governor Sarah Palin have undoubtedly changed the debate for many women voters, but the question is: how will they ultimately respond in the booth?
This week, NOW on PBS travels to the swing state of Colorado to get insight from a diverse group of women. These pro-choice, pro-gun women don't fit into neat categories, but they do respond to issues built around working moms: pay equity, family leave, and child care. On the show, NOW also interviews former Vice Presidential Candidate Geraldine Ferraro for her take on the role of women in this election.
Will the women's vote decide the election?
Also on PBS (begins airing Friday on many stations, check local listings) Washington Week where Gwen sits down for a ghoulish chat and chew with Doyle McManus (Los Angeles Times), David Broder (Washington Post), a mystery guest who shows up costumed as a Bobbsey Twin and, as a special treat, Time's Karen Tumulty offers up her impression of Bette Davis from Beyond The Forest. Watch in wonder as she really digs into the line, "What a dump." Marvel as truer words were never spoken. Oooh. Scary. That's the trick, the treat comes Monday, on commercial TV: Cher makes her first appearance on The Ellen DeGeneres Show.
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Syria, Iraqi Christians"
"I Hate The War"
"What's on the carpet and in the head"
"Easy Fudge in the Kitchen"
"The horse race, the never ending horse race"
"Batman supports Ralph Nader"
"Cher, Ralph Nader, Halloween"
"Iraq and a boring train-wreck"
"Late night thoughts"
"Nader, Honkey 'helpers' and more"
"Robin Morgan embarrasing herself in public again"
"Take away NOW's tax status since they endorse"
"Produce the certificate if you have nothing to hide"
"THIS JUST IN! WHAT IS HE HIDING?"
Saturday, November 01, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
WHERE THE HELL WAS BARACK OBAMA BORN?
NO ONE KNOWS.
BARACK'S BEING SUED AND INSTEAD OF PRODUCING A BIRTH CERTIFICATE, HE'S REFUSING.
WHICH IS WHY PEOPLE THINK HE'S HIDING SOMETHING.
FANNING THE FLAMES FURTHER ARE LIES BEING PUT FORWARD BY OUTLETS LIKE THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE WHICH INSISTS THAT BARACK PRODUCED A BIRTH CERTIFICATE.
HE DID NOT. THERE IS ALSO THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS ADOPTED BY HIS STEP-FATHER AND, IF HE WAS, HIS ACTUAL RECORD WOULD SHOW THAT.
IF BARACK'S GOT NOTHING TO HIDE, HE SHOULD PRODUCE HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND CLEAR THE MATTER UP.
IF THE PRESS SEEMS A TAD TOUCHY IT'S JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE YET AGAIN EXPOSED TO THE PUBLIC AS THE STORY DEMONSTRATES HOW THEY'VE REFUSED TO DO THEIR JOB.
Moving to the US presidential race, Margaret Kimberley (Black Agenda Report) zooms in on Democratic vice presidential Joe Biden's bizarre words about the crisis 'a coming:
There is likely some truth behind Biden's seemingly bizarre words. Bush has authorized the establishment of the Presidential Transition Coordinating Council at an earlier date than in any other election year. High level staffers from the Obama and McCain campaigns have been engaged in security briefings with the Bush administration and are also in the process of obtaining FBI security clearances, the first time that has happened prior to election day. Bush doesn't want to head back to Texas without insuring that his doctrine remains firmly in place after January 21st.
The plans for continued American military aggression are already underway and Biden can't keep quiet about it. Biden made his statements during a Seattle fundraising trip that took in a cool million dollars. Yet he wasn't just making a plea for cash, he made a plea for support of whatever action the Obama administration may take.
"Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going 'oh my God, why are they there in the polls, why is the polling so down, why is this thing so tough?' We're gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I'm asking you now, I'm asking you now, be prepared to stick with us." The Obama/Biden doctrine must be truly awful. If Big Mouth Joe is already pleading for patience from the faithful we are looking at Bush/Cheney the Sequel.
Meanwhile Susan (Random Notes) takes on a bad scribble from a bad outlet and offers her thoughts on the Obama 'strategy':
The problem with that explanation, of course, is the slanted coverage in favor of Obama has happened since the day he announced close to two years ago. It was slanted in favor of him and Hillary Clinton, while far more electable candidates such as Edwards (before the successful blackmailing him out of political life--how convenient) were shoved aside in favor of the identity politics narrative. And THEN, when it became a two-person contest in the primaries, it was open season on both Bill and Hillary Clinton. Not a word of protest by the mainstream media for the 24/7 shitting upon them because they were not run out of the Beltway in the 1990s for refusing to kiss the Beltway Slut's ass. Hell, no, they were right in there with the Obama campaign with the "racist" filth, the RFK filth, the NAFTA filth, the caucus filth and so forth, but never, ever seriously vetting Obama despite his numerous problems. Criticisms were brushed aside or tagged as racist, and believe me, the race card is about all Obama had to get as far as he did. Nobody DARED to criticize him then, and nobody dares to do it now for fear of being tagged racist.
John McCain is the Republican presidential nominee, Sarah Palin is his running mate. Scott Conroy (CBS News) notes that yesterday in Ohio, Governor Palin made a "funny observation" : "Someone I'd like you to meet--he didn't come out on stage with me. I'll have to find him, but it's my husband, Alaska's First Dude. I know he looks like one of the Secret Service guys, and so if you read any gossip about any spotting of me holding hands with a Secret Service guy, it's my husband Todd." The Democratic vice presidential nominee, Joe Biden, was in Missouri today and Jake Tapper and Matthew Jaffe (ABC News) observe, "Ever since the Ohio arrest remarks and Seattle fundraiser comments that the world would soon test a young President Obama and his reaction wouldn't obviously be the correct one (in some way responsible, perhaps, for Obama's loss in the polls in who Americans trust to handle an unexpected crisis), Biden seems much more toned down, much more under wraps. "
James Petras (Information Clearing House) reminds that it's not a two ticket race and comes up with 12 reasons why people should be supporting indepent presidential candidate Ralph Nader or Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney. We'll focus on Iraq:
Obama opposes the withdrawal of US troops in Iraq in favor of redeployment; the relocation of US troops from combat zones to training and logistical positions, contingent on the military capability of the Iraqi Army to defeat the resistance. Obama opposes a clearly defined deadline to withdraw US forces from Iraq because US troops in Iraq are essential to pursuing his overall policies in the Middle East, which include military confrontations with Iran, Syria and Southern Lebanon.
In the final 100 hours before the election, we need your help to implement our get out the vote (GOTV) plan.
To make tens of thousands of phone calls, knock on doors in hundreds of communities, and pass out thousands of flyers and leaflets.
To remind voters that Nader/Gonzalez is the independent choice on November 4th.
It's a simple five step process.
Here's what you need to do:
Step One: Vote for Nader/Gonzalez. Get your friends and family to vote for Nader/Gonzalez. Vote early. Vote on election day. But vote independent. Vote Nader/Gonzalez.
Step Two: Connect with Nader Supporters in Your State. Go to our state-by-state map. Connect with your state, regional, community, and campus coordinators to find out how you can help.
Step Three: Spread the Word. Great Nader/Gonzalez literature is available in every state. Click here to see the location of the campaign literature nearest you. You can download GOTV flyers to help pass out in your local community. You can knock on your neighbors' doors. Canvass door to door, telling your neighbors why you're voting for Nader/Gonzalez. Urge them to do the same.
Step Four: Create Visibility. Help us distribute Nader/Gonzalez buttons, window signs and more. We've unloaded all of our materials to our coordinators around the country. Click here for people with campaign materials in your state. To find a state or local coordinator with bumperstickers and other Nader/Gonzalez merchandise, click here.
Step Five: Join our Nationwide Phone Bank. Are you willing to help phone bank supporters and independents across the country? If yes, please contact email@example.com to sign up for our national GOTV phone bank effort. Over the next 24 hours we'll be sending them information on how to vote for Nader/Gonzalez in your state and sharing with them a GOTV video from Ralph that he shot last night on why they should join the GOTV effort.
That's five simple steps.
History will look back on this effort as the end of the two party domination in this country and the beginning of a new era of citizen politics.
We can't make that happen unless you help us get millions of votes for Nader/Gonzalez on November 4th.
Onward to November.
Meanwhile, Barack couldn't keep it in his pants. He's put out a sexist ad against Sarah Palin (Ruth noted it last night) and today the McCain - Palin '08 campaign issued these responses:
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"US military announces another death"
"US Embassy closed and protested"
"sexism, 1 panhandle fool and more"
"Barack in hot water so Barack attacks"
"Get back, Tim Wise Honkey Cat"
"Matt Gonzalez, Howard Zinn, Jake Tapper"
"Bond, Halloween, horse race"
"Women's Media Center -- fact free for most of 2008..."
"THIS JUST IN! KEEP HER AWAY FROM A KEYBOARD!"
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
IN 2008, DEMOCRATIC WOMEN'S MEDIA CENTER DECIDES TO EXPLORE JOHN MCCAIN'S VIETNAM SERVICE AND THEY DECIDE TO TURN IT OVER TO A 'HISTORIAN.' OH THOSE SO-CALLED HISTORIANS. [SEE YESTERDAY'S REPORTS: "Warn Them Willie Boy is Here" AND "THIS JUST IN! WILLIE LOREN KATZ PISS!"]
DEMOCRATIC WOMEN'S MEDIA CENTER RUNS WITH THE BUTT HOLA FROM ANGOLA, MARY HERSHBERGER.
LIAR MARY, COME ON DOWN!
MARY LIES IN A REALLY BAD BOOK ON JANE FONDA -- A BOOK HOWARD ZINN IDIOTICALLY PRAISED AND THEN FORGOT HE HAD PRAISED IT. THIS ISN'T ABOUT FONDA, IT'S ABOUT JEAN SEBERG AND, AS OUTLINED HERE, MARY HERSHBERGER, THE IDIOTIC, LYING COWARD, PREFERRED TO LIE ABOUT A DEAD GOSSIP COLUMNIST AND COVER FOR NEWSWEEK MAGAZINE.
JEAN SEBERG WAS DESTROYED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND 'HISTORIAN' HERSY BURGER DECIDED TO REMOVE SEVERAL LAYERS OF TRUTH FROM THE PUBLIC RECORD.
JOYCE HARBER'S BLIND ITEM (NO NAME MENTIONED) ON AN ACTRESS RAN IN MAY OF 1970. IN AUGUST OF THAT YEAR, NEWSWEEK IDENTIFIED SEBERG IN PRINT AND WROTE: "SHE AND FRENCH AUTHOR ROMAIN GARY, 56, ARE REPORTEDLY ABOUT TO REMARRY EVEN THOUGH THE BABY JEAN EXPECTS IN OCTOBER IS BY ANOTHER MAN -- A BLACK ACTIVIST SHE MET IN CALIFORNIA." THAT WAS A LIE AND THAT IS WHAT RESULTED IN HER LOSING THE BABY.
NEWSWEEK. NOT JOYCE HARBER. BUT COWARD MARY HERSHBERGER CAN'T TAKE ON BIG NEWSWEEK. SHE CAN'T EVEN TELL READERS THAT HARBER WAS GIVEN THE ITEM BY BILL THOMAS. MARY'S TRASH.
JEAN SEBERG WAS DESTROYED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. ROMAIN GARY PUBLICLY CALLED OUT NEWSWEEK AND HE SUED THEM. LIARS LIKE MARY HERSHBERGER ALLOW NEWSWEEK TO CONTINUE TO AVOID ANSWERING HOW A FRENCH CORRESPONDENT FOR THE WEEKLY ENDED UP WITH FALSE GOSSIP THAT THE FBI AND CIA WERE CIRCULATING.
IT'S NOT HISTORY, MARY, IT'S F**KING LIES. AND YOU'RE A F**KING LIAR.
Turning to the US presidential race. Julia Preston (New York Times) reports Democratic presidential nominee Barack "Obama embraces new law-and-order language adopted in the Democratic Party platform at the convention. Although Americans are 'welcoming and generous,' the platform states, 'those who enter our country's borders illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of law.' Instead of the Democrats' emphasis, as recently as last year on integrating illegal immigrants into society, the platform says, 'We must require them to come out of the shadows and get right with the law.' Heather Higginbottom, the Obama campaign's director for policy, said Mr. Obama had not altered his basic views. If elected, Mr. Obama would insist that illegal immigrants pay back taxes and fines, learn English and go to the back of the immigration line to become legal." That is so offensive but not at all surprising. Latinos didn't favor Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Party primary a 'little,' they favored her overwhelmingly and it was because there was a relationship and a record. It was ignored by the liars of Panhandle Media but Latinos can always be discarded and trashed by the likes of Amy Goodman, Laura Flanders, et al. (Phillip Rodriguez' Latinos '08 documentary told the truth the liars of Panhandle Media refused to.) So it's no surprise that the vindictive Obama political machine would create one of the most offensive party planks regarding undocumented workers as a form of punishment. Independent journalist David Bacon has long covered the challenges immigrants to the US face and his latest written report is "Silence on Immigration" (Foreign Policy In Focus) which notes of the next president, whomever he or she is, "Something is clearly wrong with the priorities of immigration enforcement. Hungry and desperate workers go to jail and get deported. The government protects employers and seeks to turn a family-based immigration system into a managed labor supply for business. Yet national political campaigns say less and less about it. Immigrant Latino and Asian communities feel increasingly afraid and frustrated. Politicians want their votes, but avoid talking about the rising wave of arrests, imprisonment, and deportations." Bacon's latest book is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press) and it was published last month. Yesterday Dissident Voice featured Lance Selfa calling out PDA (Pathetic Democrats of America). Today Joshua Frank offers "Note to Progressives for Obama: What Happens After Election Day?" which includes the following:
Does [Norman] Solomon even understand what it means to "put up a fight"? And what's with the notion that progressives will "apply pressure" once Obama wins? They have no cash and he's already going to receive most of their votes. What are they going to do to pressure him, poke him in his ribs? Cause a stink by farting through the halls of Congress? Obama may actually listen to us if he thought progressives were considering to vote for a guy like Ralph Nader, which is the point Nader seems to be making by campaigning in swing states this week. Nader knows how to put up a real fight, one not mired in hypotheticals and fear-mongering, so he's pressuring Obama where it matters most.
Of course, such a direct confrontation to Obama's backward policies ruffles the slacks of many devout liberals. But that is the point. Progressives are not flush with cash and as we all should know, flashing the almighty buck is usually the best way to grab a politician's attention. But the only thing we have at our immediate disposal now is votes. These crooks need us to get elected. Obama already has the majority of left-wing support shored up despite his resistance to embrace our concerns. Imagine if he had to earn our votes instead of receiving our support without having to do a thing for it?
So let's prepare for what's ahead. Obama may win next Tuesday, but what will happen to the movements that have been sidelined in order to help get the Democrats elected? What will become of the environmental movement after January 20? Will it step up to oppose Obama's quest for nuclear power and clean coal? Will the antiwar movement work to force Obama to take a softer approach toward Iran? Will they stop the troop increase in Afghanistan?
These are but a few of the questions I'd like progressive supporters of Obama to answer. I've yet to hear exactly how they will pressure an Obama administration. In fact, I don't think they will. George W. Bush will be gone and that will be enough for most. Progressives faced a similar confrontation in 1992 when Bill Clinton took office, but without much of a fight we saw neoliberalism take hold in the form of NAFTA and we endured the Telecommunications Act, Welfare Reform, a forest plan written by the logging industry, the dismantling of Glass-Steagall, the Iraq Liberation Act, and much much more.
What makes the Democrats believe that they even deserve our support now? President Bush has indeed been bad, but his most egregious policies were upheld and supported by the majority of Democrats. They gave Bush the green light to whack Saddam while they controlled the Senate. They supported the PATRIOT Act (Obama voted for its reconfirmation), the War on Terror, Bush's increased Pentagon budget, a no-strings Wall Street bailout and two awful Supreme Court confirmations. You may also remember that two years ago we ushered Democrats back into office with the belief that they might actually fight Bush on Iraq. Instead we've had nothing but complicity, with Democrats time and again supporting increased war funds.
Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate and Matt Gonzalez is his running mate. Staying on a the topic of the foolish such as Norman Solomon, we'll note this from Team Nader:
Three is the number of principled journalists who this week recognized the long term benefit behind Ralph's run for President. (That's a big number for the week before the election -- trust us.)
Before we get to the three, check out one Norman Solomon, who again this week makes the tired old argument that Obama is the least worst of the two major party candidates.
And therefore educated citizens should not risk a vote for Nader/Gonzalez.
Compare this lily-livered Norman Solomon approach to the three principled ones who weighed in on the Nader/Obama/McCain contest.
Number one, we have Alexander Cockburn, writing in this week's issue of The Nation magazine.
Cockburn has been looking this month for one positive reason to vote for Obama. He's still looking.
In an article titled "Against Obama," Cockburn makes the point that:
"Abroad, Obama stands for imperial renaissance. He has groveled before the Israel lobby and pandered to the sourest reflexes of the cold war era. At home he has crooked the knee to bankers and Wall Street, to the oil companies, the coal companies, the nuclear lobby, the big agricultural combines. He has been fearless in offending progressives, constant in appeasing the powerful."
Number two, we have William Greider.
Greider wrote an article, also in The Nation this week, titled "Nader's Stubborn Idealism."
In it, Greider argues that Ralph is "a man of political substance trapped in an era of easy lies."
Greider quotes Ralph as saying "So long as progressives are willing to settle for the least worst alternative, they will remain ignored and excluded from power."
And number three, we have Allison Kilkenny who makes a similar point in the Huffington Post this week, in an article titled "The Least Worst Trap."
So, you have your three principled journalists.
And your Norman Solomon style unprincipled ones.
The principled ones will join with us -- the Nader/Gonzalez campaign and you, our loyal supporters -- on the winning side of history.
With the end of corrupt political party domination of our soci ety.
When Obama/Biden engage in another risky foreign war.
When a Democratic Congress rubber stamps their rightward drift.
But to build toward victory, we need your help now.
And to send a message to corporate Washington -- we're here, we're organized, we're not going away.
So, donate your $3 today.
Join Nader/Gonzalez on the winning side of history.
Onward to November
Meanwhile Jake Tapper (ABC News) covers the Los Angeles Times refusal to release the videotape of Barack partying with unsavory types. John Bentley (CBS News) notes Republican presidential candidate John McCain has called for the paper to release the 2003 videotape which includes Barack with that man he barely knows Bill Ayers as well as Bernardine Dohrn: "We should know about their relationship, including, apparently information that is held by the Los Angeles Times concerning an event that Mr. Ayers attended with a PLO spokesman. The Los Angeles Times refuses to make that videotape public." Scott Conroy (CBS News) reports Governor Sarah Palin, McCain's running mate, raised the issue:
"What we don't know is how Barack Obama responded to these slurs on a country that he now professes to support," Palin said.
Over the chorus of loud boos from the crowd, Palin pointed out that the Los Angeles Times has refused to release the videotape of the banquet, which was explained in detail in the story that the newspaper published over six months ago.
"Maybe some politicians would love to have a pet newspaper of their very own," she said. "In this case, we have a newspaper willing to throw aside even the public's right to know in order to protect a candidate that its own editorial board has endorsed."
This comes as McCain-Palin releases a new advertisement. At the campaign's official blog, Matt Lira explains (link also has the video for the ad): "Today, McCain-Palin 2008 released its latest web ad, entitled "Preconditions." The ad highlights that while Barack Obama has pledged to meet with Iran and other state sponsors of terror without preconditions, Iran has outlined several preconditions of their own. For a meeting, Iran is demanding that the United States cease its support of Israel and that all American forces must leave the Middle East. The question is what will Barack Obama do?" Meanwhile the Christ-child climbed back on the cross today. Jake Tapper reports Barack whined that John McCain has "been spending these last few days calling me every name in the book." He went on to claim that McCain will next call him "a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten!" McCain spokesperson Tucker Bonds responded, "No one cares what Barack Obama does with his toys, but Americans do care that he wants to raise taxes, add a trillion dollars in new spending and redistribute your hard-earned paycheck as he sees fit." On the plus, it should be noted that -- unlike MSNBC stooge Rachel Maddow -- Barack grasps that there is a difference between a Socialist and a Communist.
Palin gave a speech on energy today in Toledo Ohio and Julie Bosman (New York Times) is one of the few reporting on that:
Standing on a riser above a concrete floor, under the glare of fluorescent lighting, Ms. Palin addressed fewer than 200 people, mostly employees of Xunlight Corporation, a spin-off from the University of Toledo that manufactures solar energy implements.
She called for greater energy independence, blaming decades of presidents and legislators for failing to achieve it.
"It's been 30 years' worth of failed energy policies in Washington, 30 years where we've had opportunities to become less reliant on foreign sources, and 30 years of failure in that area," Ms. Palin said. "We must steer far clear of the errors and false assumptions that have marked the energy policies of nearly 20 Congresses and seven presidents."
Ms. Palin also laid the blame at the feet of her Democratic counterpart, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., who has opposed offshore drilling. Mr. Biden was overheard telling a supporter on the campaign trail that he did not support clean-coal technology in the United States.
AP states she "called for a 'clean-break' from Bush energy policies, which she said have relied too much on imported oil." CNN reports that McCain will appear on Larry King Live tonight.
Meanwhile, Ralph's running mate Matt Gonzalez issues his own important statements:
Watching the Democrats in the final weeks of the presidential election has been a lesson in revisionist history. While they lament the terrible crimes perpetrated against the American people by George Bush and vow to keep fighting for our rights, they conveniently gloss over the fact that they have no standing to make such claims. Indeed, the Democrats, including Senator Barack Obama, have actually voted with President Bush's agenda, making them complicit in his acts, not valiant opponents defending our liberties.
PELOSI'S PROMISE TO END THE WAR
Democratic Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi said that if she became the speaker of the House of Representatives she would end the war in Iraq. Remember that? The Boston Globe noted, "Pelosi vows no 'blank check' on Iraq funds." (1/8/07). In her own words: "If the president wants to add to this mission, he is going to have to justify it. And this is new to him, because up until now the Republican Congress has given him a blank check with no oversight, no standards, no conditions." Rick Klein of the Globe noted "Pelosi's comments mark the first suggestion by a Democratic congressional leader that Congress could use its authority over the nation's finances to hasten an end to the war. Her remarks point toward an aggressive stance on Iraq from Congressional Democrats in their opening days of control of the House and Senate."
Yet after she became the speaker of the House in Jan 2007, war appropriations actually went up by $50 billion, with no strings attached and no date for the withdrawal of troops. This year, 2008, they've gone up by another $25 billion for a two-year total of $350 billion, with no end in sight. So what happened to the promise of "no blank check?"
REID'S FILIBUSTER RULE
Sen. Harry Reid, the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, has complained that the Republicans have filibustered (a procedure used by the minority party to delay voting on legislation) more times in the last two years than in the entire history of the United States to explain why he can't move forward a progressive agenda. First he said it was over 70 times, then adjusted it by saying it was 65 times (Las Vegas Sun 3/6/08); yet still the highest for any two-year period (the previous record was 57 filibusters) (Politico, 3/6/08; Gov.Track.us 4/15/08). But Sen. Reid's frustration has proven to be a red-herring. Did you know that Reid lets the Republicans filibuster telephonically, meaning that he doesn't require that they physically present themselves on the floor of the Senate? Why is he making it easy on them? Is this what an opposition party looks like?
REPUBLICAN CLASS ACTION REFORM
Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic Party nominee for president, has a long history of voting against the interest of the American people, and specifically, the working class. Before entering the presidential contest, he supported the Republican Class Action Reform Bill, which made it harder for class-action lawsuits to be brought in the state courts. State courts are exactly where consumer protection lawsuits and recent wage and hour claims have succeeded in improving the lives of workers and helped them obtain better wages and breaks during work hours have succeeded.
Progressive commentators at the time called it a thinly veiled special-interest extravaganza. Journalist David Sirota noted "Opposed by most major civil rights and consumer watchdog groups, this Big Business-backed legislation was sold to the public as a way to stop 'frivolous' lawsuits. But everyone in Washington knew the bill's real objective was to protect corporate abusers." (The Nation, 6/26/06). So why did Obama vote for it?
PATRIOT ACT & FISA AMENDMENT
Sen. Obama supported one of the worst attacks on civil liberties in recent history, the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, which extended an earlier law granting law enforcement expanded powers to search telephone, e-mail, and financial and medical records, in addition to granting the federal government a host of other powers to combat so-called domestic terrorism. After saying he would oppose it if elected to the U.S. Senate (NOW questionnaire, 9/10/03), in July 2005, Obama voted for it.
But this wasn't enough. After entering the presidential race and running on a "change" message, Obama vowed in February of 2008 to vote against—and filibuster if necessary--the FISA bill amendment (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) that gave immunities to telecommunications corporations that cooperated with the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program. This eavesdropping program clearly violated the privacy of law-abiding Americans at the behest of the president, and made the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover seem tame by comparison. Those voting in favor of the bill didn't even first require full disclosure to see how deep the illegal conduct extended and agreed to apply the law retroactively.
Despite his promises to the contrary, and despite the vehement protests of many of his supporters, when the FISA bill came to the Senate for a vote this past July, Sen. Obama voted for it without explaining how this vote fit in with his change message or reconciled with his repeated claims he was going to protect the American people from repeated assaults on civil liberties by President Bush. Here was his chance to lead and make good on his promise, and what did he do?
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) called the FISA bill "an unconstitutional domestic spying bill that violates the Fourth Amendment and eliminates any meaningful role for judicial oversight of government surveillance" (ACLU press release, 7/9/08). Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office called the bill "a Constitutional nightmare" and noted "with one vote, Congress has strengthened the executive branch, weakened the judiciary and rendered itself irrelevant."
Obama even voted to stop debate on the bill so he could get back to the campaign trail. How ironic is it that he was in a hurry to give more speeches about change and hope but couldn't find the time or integrity to convert these ideas into action?
On the eve of the vote MSNBC's Rachel Maddow noted "I'm betting that [Pres. Bush's] wildest dreams did not include the prospect that Congress -- a Democratic-led Congress -- would help him cover up his rimes. Yet that is exactly what the US Senate is poised to do." (Countdown with Keith Olbermann, 7/8/08).
As Sen. John McCain started to call for domestic drilling to ease our dependence on foreign oil, rather than debate the scientific and economic illogic of the position, Sen. Obama announced that he agreed with McCain. Reversing a 25-year ban on off-shore oil drilling, Sen. Obama led his party's reversal, offering no explanation for how this would ease oil prices, particularly as experts noted that drilling would likely have an almost imperceptible impact on oil prices in the near future.
As Lester Brown and Jonathan Dorn of the Earth Policy Institute noted in "Drilling For Oil Is Not The Answer" (9/30/08) "The U.S. Department of Energy projects that lifting the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) moratorium [of the lower 48 states] would not increase production before 2017 and that by 2030 production would only amount to 0.2 million barrels per day--less than 1 percent of current consumption."
Furthermore "The U.S. Department of Energy projects that opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) would lower gasoline prices at the pump by a mere 2 cents per gallon." Even if we combined the two regions in question, it wouldn't amount to much of an impact on oil prices: "Lifting the moratoria on drilling in ANWR and the OCS would reduce the price of a gallon of gasoline by at most 6 cents--and this would not be seen for at least another decade."
Proponents of drilling have also exaggerated the
environmental safety of current off-shore drilling and oil production technology in general. There is widespread evidence that current drilling in the Gulf of Mexico is already leading to serious pollution and spills. After reviewing data from the National Response Center, the Houston Chronicle found there had been 595 oil spills across four state coastlines, totaling roughly 9 million gallons spilled in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita ("Spills from hurricanes staining the coast" by Dina Cappiello, 11/13/05). So why is Sen. Obama, who claims to care about the environment, now advocating off-shore drilling?
In June of 2008, the conservative Supreme Court struck down the use of the death penalty in cases of child rape (Kennedy v. Louisiana held that states may not impose the death penalty for the commission of a crime that did not result in the death of the victim), a decision that surprised even death penalty opponents who hailed it as an important step toward full abolition of the death penalty. Sen. Obama's response? He quickly called a press conference to denounce the decision. Obama stated that he agreed with the extreme conservative minority, comprised of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Scalia and Thomas. Despite the many known racial and class inequities inherent in the death penalty, a practice abolished and abhorred in most of the rest of the world, Obama celebrates that he has always been a supporter of it.
On the campaign trail, Sen. Obama likes to highlight death penalty legislation that he sponsored while a member of the Illinois legislature, to show his commitment to reform. But let's be clear, he didn't work on laws to address the disproportionate rate of death penalty convictions of African-Americans, but rather a law to require videotaped interrogations of death penalty suspects. Yes, something we can applaud, but something many critics have noted merely greases the wheels of this injustice.
Most disquieting of all, as a state legislator, Obama voted "to expand the list of death-eligible crimes" (Chicago Tribune, 5/2/07), despite admitting in his own allegedly soul-searching memoir that the death penalty "does little to deter crime." (The Audacity of Hope, 2006).
There is more, that's all that will fit into the snapshot.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
IT TAKES AN IDIOT. IN FACT IT TAKES A VILLAGE OF IDIOTS. SO TODAY AND TOMORROW THESE REPORTERS ARE HIGHLIGHTING THE BIGGEST IDIOTS OF ALL: "HISTORIANS."
NOT REAL HISTORIANS AND NOT PEOPLE WHO DEAL IN FACTS. TAKE WILLIAM LOREN KATZ WHO LIES -- WHERE ELSE? -- AT ROBERT PARRY'S FAILING CONSTORTIUM "NEWS." TRUTH MOLESTOR KATZ SCRIBBLES "THE A-WORD INSTRUDES ON CAMPAIGN 'O8" AND IF THE "A-WORD" REFERRED TO "ASSHOLE," KITTY KATZ WOULD HAVE WRITTEN AN AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL PIECE.
INSTEAD 'HISTORIAN' KATZY HAS JUST MADE UP THINGS AND REPEATED LIES.
BECAUSE ROBERT PARRY HAS BECOME THE NIGHTMARE CRACKPOT SO MANY KNEW HE WOULD BE (THERE'S A REASON HE WAS DUMPED BY NEWSWEEK), KITTY KATZ CAN PUBLISH HIS LIES AT CONSORTIUM "NEWS."
DID WE MENTION NEWSWEEK?
LET'S QUOTE JUST ONE OF LOREN KATZ' LIES: "SOME PEOPLE IN MCCAIN/PALIN AUDIENCES HAVE GREETED REFERENCES TO BARACK OBAMA WITH RACIAL SLURS, EPITHETS AND SHOUTS OF 'KILL HIM!'"
LITTLE WILLIE LOREN JERKS HIS TINY NOODLE (PROBABLY FOR ROBERT PARRY'S AMUSEMENT) OFF IN HIS LUSTY DELUSIONS.
THERE IS NO PROOF TO ANY CLAIM WILLIE KATZ MAKES AND, IN FACT, THE "KILL HIM" LIE HAS BEEN PROVED FALSE.
HERE'S MARK HOSENBALL, "THE DEATH-THREAT DEBATE:"
"All the public reports suggested," Obama said, that people shouted "things like 'terrorist' and 'kill him'." Making a death threat against a presidential candidate can be a crime. But even before Obama cited "reports" of the threats at the debate, the U.S. Secret Service had told media outlets, including NEWSWEEK, that it was unable to corroborate accounts of the "kill him" remarks--and according to a law-enforcement official, who asked for anonymity when discussing a political matter, the Obama campaign knew as much. Now some officials are disgruntled that Obama gave added credence to the threat by mentioning it in front of 60 million viewers. At this point in the campaign, said one, candidates will "say anything to make a particular point."
AND THAT APPEARED IN THE WEEKLY MAGAZINE THAT HAS NO USE FOR ROBERT PARRY. ROBERT PARRY, THE MAN WHO CLAIMS HE TELLS THE TRUTH BUT PRINTS LIES WILLING AND INTENTIONALLY. WHATEVER HAPPENED TO ROBERT PARRY'S ETHICS? JUDGING BY HIS EVER EXPANDING WAISTLINE, HE ATE THEM.
TOMORROW WE TAKE ON "THE BUTT HOLA FROM ANGOLA."
Next week the US elects a new president. The Republican presidential candidate is John McCain, Sarah Palin is his running mate. Brian Montopoli (CBS News) reports that Joe Wurzelbacher -- better known as "Joe the Plumber" -- has made his endorsement: "Wurzelbacher campaigned for McCain in Columbus, Ohio this morning. He said Barack Obama wants to redistribute wealth and would make America a socialist nation, according to the Associated Press. He also said he believes Obama will raise taxes on the middle class, despite Obama's promises to cut their taxes." Jake Tapper and Matthew Jaffe (ABC News' Political Punch) report that Joe Biden introduced himself in Florida stating, "I'm Joe -- not the plumber -- Joe the Biden." Tapper and Jaffe also note a polling setback for Barack and wonder how that . . . "Oh, right …his running mate said the world would test the mettle of a young President Obama with an international crisis and it wouldn't be apparent initially that the Obama response was the correct one." Scott Conroy (CBS News) reports weather and bus breakdowns on the road with the Palin camp. Conroy also notes that Governor "Palin will deliver a policy speech on energy security Wednesday morning in Toledo, Ohio". Will that get coverage? Her speech Friday on special-needs children didn't. And let's be really clear that the press refusal to cover that and instead focus on a woman's clothes said much more about their own bias and immaturity.
The McCain - Palin campaign has released a new ad:
McCain-Palin 2008 Launches New Television Ad: "Compare"
ARLINGTON, VA -- Today, McCain-Palin 2008 released its latest television ad, entitled "Compare." The ad highlights the clear choice Americans have at the polls this year. For higher taxes, policies that spread the wealth around, increased government spending and pain for small business, Barack Obama is the clear choice in this election. For policies that promote economic growth, help working Americans, lower taxes and eliminates government waste, the choice is John McCain. The ad will be televised in key states.
In other political advertisement news, Ralph Nader's independent presidential campaign announces their own media buy:
Today is a big day for Nader/Gonzalez.
Thanks to you, beginning today -- our radio ads will air in 22 markets in 12 states.
Click here to listen to the 30 second version and 60 second version of the radio ads.
Today through election day -- the ads will run six times a day on radio stations in the following areas:
Please forward these radio ads to your address book, friends and family.
Also, we'd like to move these ads into as many markets as possible.
We can make it happen.
But we'd need to raise a boatload of money.
So, if you haven't given yet, please donate whatever you can to Nader/Gonzalez today.
Our goal is to hit $4 million by election day.
We're about $190,000 away.
So, let's crank it up.
Onward to November.
We need your videos.
And we need them now.
With one week to go, we need your help to convince undecided voters to vote for Nader/Gonzalez.
Over the last seven months, we've received countless stories and written testimonials from you -- our loyal supporters -- about why you plan to vote for Nader/Gonzalez.
Now, we need you to help us show the country the full spectrum of Nader/Gonzalez supporters -- among them Independents, Republicans, Democrats and Greens.
So, we've come up with a video contest.
You send us your video testimonial telling us why you are voting for Nader/Gonzalez.
We'll pick our favorite ones and post them to our official Nader/Gonzalez YouTube channel.
And then we'll send them to our supporters to forward to their friends.
So, here is how it's going to work:
In your video, tell us your name, where you live, a little bit about yourself and your family, and most importantly, why you are voting for Nader/Gonzalez.
Your video testimonial should be 60 seconds or less.
Make the video.
You can do it from your webcam on your computer, from your videocam, high quality, low quality -- it's the message, not the quality, that we're looking for.
We need your video testimonials to convince America that it's time to break away from the corrupt two political parties.
So, send along your "Why I'm Voting for Nader/Gonzalez" videos now.
And we'll post the best ones later this week.
Ralph's running mate is Matt Gonzalez. Ralph gets some attention at CBS News' website via a reposting of William Greider from The Nation, "Why Ralph Nader Runs:"
Nader stood at the podium and read from a lengthy speech describing the corporate dominance of politics, the stranglehold exercised on dissent by the two-party system, the presidential candidates packaged like soap and cars, the failure of left-liberal progressives (including The Nation) to demand conditions on their support for the Democratic candidate.
"The hypocrisy of liberals, which may in some ways be unconscious, is empowering the forces that are destroying our nation," Nader asserted in an even-tempered voice. "The left in this country has been successfully cowed by the Democratic Party," he continued. "The votes of progressives are taken for granted by Democrats.... By allowing ourselves to be manipulated, we have demonstrated that we have no moral substance. We have no line that can be never be crossed, no stance so sacred and important that we are willing to stand up and fight back."
So long as progressives are willing to settle for the "least worst" alternative, they will remain ignored and excluded from power, he suggested.
This kind of talk from Nader drives some people to rage against him. He returns the favor by discussing "the rage that many in our nation feel towards liberals." Barack Obama, he insists, does not intend to alter anything fundamental about the causes. "This rage is a legitimate expression of very real betrayal," Nader explained. "The working class, most of whom do not vote, watch Democratic candidate after Democratic candidate run for office promising to support labor and protect jobs and then, once elected, trot off to Washington to pass the corporate-friendly legislation drawn up by the 35,000 lobbyists who work for our shadow government."
Meanwhile Lance Selfa (Socialist Worker via Dissident Voice) calls out the 'progressives' insisting upon providing non-stop cover for Barack:
What has unfolded is a two-pronged approach. On the one hand, minimize or ignore Obama's gestures or actions that fly in the face of progressive values. On the other, accentuate the differences between him and McCain, no matter how small they might be on particular issues.
A good example of the former was the reaction of Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) to the recent Wall Street bailout bill and Obama's support for it.
To its credit, PDA opposed the legislation as a "sellout to greedy fat cats," as PDA National Director Tim Carpenter called it in an October 2 press release. Carpenter pointed out that Senate changes to the bill (what he called "lipstick") and renaming it a "rescue plan" didn't change its essence as a "blank check bailout."
Yet two days later, Congress passed that blank-check bailout. The administration's efforts to round up support got a boost from Obama, who campaigned for the bill and persuaded leading members of the Congressional Black Caucus to switch from "no" to "yes."
In many ways, Obama and the congressional Democratic leadership led the way to the bill's passage. And what did PDA say about that? Nothing. Its next official press release, dated October 10, quoted Carpenter as saying, "We're stepping up our efforts during these closing weeks to elect Obama and a more progressive Congress. We've already started. New-voter registration coordinator Bruce Taub and a team of Massachusetts volunteers just returned from a four-day trip to Pennsylvania."
Given that PDA and other progressive Democrats are invested in an Obama win and substantial Democratic coattails, it's unlikely they would have taken the opportunity to denounce Obama or the Democrats.
But then, that's not their modus operandi anyway. Progressives for Obama initiator Tom Hayden even explained: "I have no problem with Barack Obama supporting the bailout package as long as it keeps him on track to the presidency. He needs to be critical, to offer amendments, and to promise to return to the crisis the day after November 4."
[. . .]
This is the way "progressive" politics oriented on the Democratic Party is played -- because when all is said and done, it is no more than liberal gloss on the politics of the "lesser of two evils."