This is the response I sent to an editorial that appeared in my local Newspaper, The La Crosse Tribune. Hopefully it will be published but I fear it is too long to make it. None the less I submitted it for consideration.
===================================================================
A little fact finding goes a long way!
After reading Faith Blum's, "The truth about Obama" - I came to one conclusion - Faith Blum doesn't know much about doing research and nothing about fact checking. ---------- For the purposes of this rebuttal FB wrote: will refer to Faith Blum's supposed facts, RE: will refer to my rebuttal.
FB wrote: I’ll start with his buzz word, "change."FB wrote: Dr. Jerome Corsi’s book, "The Obama Nation," and specifically Saul Alinsky, the father of community organizing, for the definition of the word "change".
RE: According to www.factcheck.org (Jerome Corsi's "The Obama Nation" is a mishmash of unsupported conjecture, half-truths, logical fallacies and outright falsehoods.)
RE: Additionally, in March 2008 Corsi reported in WorldNetDaily that a "Muslim terrorist group with ties to criminal drug networks and "al-Qaida" has given "strong support" to John McCain. (This guy is a total crackpot!)
RE: However, in this case Corsi is correct that Saul Alinsky, the father of community organizing, did use the word "change' in describing the political practice of organizing communities to act in their own common self-interest. Alinsky is sometimes said to have coined the term "think Globally, act locally."
RE: As to whether Saul Alinsky was a radical or taught radicalism is wholly a matter of perspective. Saul Alinsky was the labor (union) organizer that fought for worker rights during the 1930s in the Chicago meat packing district and stock yards. The horrific working conditions of those people were made famous in the Upton Sinclair novel, "The Jungle." I am sure the meat packing industry that was forced to pay a fair working wage and limit child labor among other things considered Alinsky to be very much a radical reformer, but I doubt the many workers whose lives he saved or made drastically better would agree..
I believe we are being manipulated by those with a right-wing, conservative agenda and the main stream media. When I say we, I refer to Democrats as a whole, not one campaign or the other. This manipulation, although proffered for different reasons, political gain by the first and audience/monetary gain by the later, can only work if we allow them to succeed.
If we accept this proposition as true, we must then realize that it is more important than ever that we, the members of both candidacies, turn away from attacking each other and instead focus on debunking the notion that our internal problems are insurmountable.
Certainly, both candidates will at times say things that anger the other’s constituency, this is called politics after all, but it is a wholly different matter to have these differences dredged-up, piled, sorted, rescattered and rehashed over and over and over.
Additionally, we must not allow innuendo and guilt by association to become the direction of our political discourse. The Republicans have taken us down that road before and it served no one well. If you doubt this, search for the term "McCarthyism" on any search engine and learn a lesson from history.
We, today, are in the midst of our own historical renaissance. Either nominee for the Democratic party will bring about an abrupt and everlasting change to this nation’s political psyche.
It is my belief, because of Barack Obama’s stance on unity, on agreeing to disagree without being disagreeable, that he offers our nation the most prophetic and uplifting change.
(Prophetic: We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal...)
Obama ‘08
Yes We Can... and We Must!
We must stand unified in our support of Obama, that is how we will win - not by disparaging comments, not by becoming hostile toward party officials, not by threatening to vote outside the party, but by making it clear - that we will support Obama and no one else - then the super-delegates will understand what they are risking if they overturn the pledged delegates.This is more than a movement of hope, despite the Naysayer's allegations. This is a movement of understanding, an understanding that a better America, the America of our dreams, can only be achieved through the application of ethical and moral conduct, through the acceptance of our diversity and a willingness to use that diversity for the improvement of us all.But, it is also about the Democratic party. A party which will inherit a new generation of voters that possess a passion, a drive and a belief in the future, that it has long been lacking.The super-delegates risk much with a wrong decision here and they should know it.We must stand vigilant.We must stand together.Yes We Can! and We Will!Go Obama! '08
We need to fight the conservative radio talk show hosts - their envolvement in the Democratic primary elections is historic and unamerican.
If anyone deserves boycotting its the advertisers that support the Rush Limbaugh show. He has taken the position of having caused HRC to win the Primary in TX and of extending the lead in Ohio.
This may well be true - people in voting lines throughout both states report hearing Republicans joking and talking about how they were voting for HRC to keep this battle going.
Rush thinks its funny to corrupt the democratic process - isn't it fair for us to retaliate against those that support his show?
I am not suggesting that we spend mass amounts of time or money on this process, but a few e-mails from each of our members to his advertisers in indignation threatening to no longer participate in or purchase their product might make him change his position?
These conservative radio talk show hosts have overstepped their place in society and need to be put back in their place.
Yes We Can!
I believe a few of those advertisers are:LifelockZicamQuickbooks.comSelect Comfort BedsThermal Massuer (spelling unsure)There may be others - The radio stations and local advertisers as well.
I was just watching MSNBC and couldn't help but notice that every time they speak about the republican primary, they also make reference to the upcoming battle between McCain and Clinton.
Now I realize that the republicans would prefer to go up against Hillary Clinton in the election for obvious reasons. Primarily that she has more baggage in tow, including: scandals, dirty dealings and of course, Bill Clinton. But why does the media want Hillary - do they feel thier revenues will be higher because the campaign will likely be more devisive or is there some other reason?
If Super Tuesday proved anything, it most certainly proved that the Clinton machine isn't running as well as the media expected. Unfortunately, it also proved something else. That being, that the media has chosen Hillary over Obama. I say this because there has been nearly no press coverage of the disenfranchised independent voting in the Los Angeles area.
Are they (the media) afraid that if they cover this unfortunate story, that they might actually help Obama gain the votes needed to win in California? My guess is yes!
