Vote Your Pocketbook, Vote Obama
The three great stock market crashes (1929, 1987 and 2008) have happened at the end of long periods of Republican presidencies. 1929 happened at the end of eight, 1987 after six, and 2008 after seven years of Republican rule. So it’s hard to argue that Republicans have some magical touch when it comes to the economy.
The problem, as former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan acknowledged recently to Congress, is that banks and investment houses don’t automatically act to ensure the safety of their investors. So, with regulation loosened or missing as it has been during several Republican presidencies, some financial institutions exploited public trust with greedy and fiscally unsound schemes that worked only for salespeople and corporate officers—like, oh, say, $516 TRILLION dollars in outstanding derivatives worldwide.
On the other hand, since WWII, Democratic Presidents have presided over the greatest increases in Gross Domestic Product, jobs, personal disposable income, industrial production, and hourly wages. Democrats also achieved the lowest misery Index (lowest inflation + unemployment.), lowest inflation and the greatest reduction in the Federal Budget Deficit-- as political economist Arthur Blaustein recently pointed out in an article in Investment News.
http://www.investmentnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081026/REG/310279972/1017&ht=blaustein%20blaustein%20blaustein
Democrats are also much better for workers and wages. Princeton’s Larry Bartels points out that from the late 1940s onward, unemployment has been almost one-third higher under Republican Presidents--6.3 percent to the Democrats’ 4.8 percent. A final dagger in the myth of Republican economic superiority is that Middle Class incomes have grown almost twice as fast under Democrats during that time, and, for lower income Americans, incomes have grown almost six times as fast under Democrats as Republicans. http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1021/p09s01-coop.html
So, on Tuesday, if you’re voting to protect the economy, vote Democratic.
During the primary, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton got 2.5 million new voters to register to vote Democratic--and another 1 million registered to vote Republican. Sounds pretty impressive doesn't it? However, because of the new voter roll purge regulations enforced under the requirements of the Help America (De)Vote Act, between 4 and 6 million citizens who have previously voted will be unable to vote in November. Beyond that, up to 21 million voters may not show up or will be turned away because they don't have the proper ID to be allowed to vote. In the face of 25 to 27 million Americans who may want to vote but can't, the 3.5 million new registrations in this election cycle are a pittance.
http://votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2866&Itemid=26 and: http://www.gregpalast.com/the-razorcake-interviewinvestigating-vote-theft/#more-2061
So how can Obama campaign workers help ensure we return to a functional democracy in 2008?
cross posted at: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/19/14250/3338/295/518377
In an article in Slate.com, entititled, "How will Barack Obama get to 270?," Democratic Pollster Paul Maslin continues the tired, ineffective seventeen-state argument that the only way for Barack Obama to win this fall is for him to pull out victories in a handful of key Purple states. The implication is that somehow that means that we need to focus all our resources on those states—as the Kerry campaign so disastrously tried in 2004.
Here’s the problem: In an ever more communicative and mobile society, what Maslin and John Kerry’s entire election staff ignored, and what the Republicans and right-wing radio clearly understand, is that the path to those crucial 17 states is through the 50 states.
It’s all about influence leaders, and many of them are rural and live in Red States. So, Uncle Harry in Wyoming listens to Rush Limbaugh every morning without any refutation from progressive radio or from Democratic advertising, and then advises his three beloved nieces in Colorado and Iowa to vote for McCain on Election Day. Or farmer Sarah sends out a daily email blast spreading Obama rumors from the mountains of Tennessee to 400 of her internet friends throughout America—including many in some very blue and purple states.
This snippet of a diary on DailyKos.com offers a very simple way to effectively reply to the smear emails and to help counteract their effect--and all the tools are already on the BarackObama.com website.
Best,
Steve
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/3/202426/9750/972/508563
<<Guess Who's Spreading the Smear Emails?
<<by newyorknewyork Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:29:01 PM PDT
<<Though it's hard to believe, especially after the seemingly endless coverage about Obama's CHURCH, the Muslim smear emails are STILL circulating. I just got another one today. While I have no way of knowing where the first emails came from, I can tell you who is responsible for spreading them. I'll tell you how I know after the fold...
<<• Obama's website has some easy ways to help fight back if you get smear emails. http://my.barackobama.com /...
<<I followed the steps on his website, which are:
<<1. Forward the email to watchdog@barackobama.com (probably so they can try to trace it and keep tabs).
<<2. Hit "reply all" and fight back with the facts (www.factcheck.barackobama.com ) They have copy already written on topics such as religion, his church, patriotism, that you can just copy and paste in your reply- so that makes it easy. Anyway, I have gotten several smear emails.>>
(This way you reply to everyone the smear email went to, which challenges the original sender's motivation--and may stop him or her from doing it again.)
Steve Corrick
This 2002 speech by Barack Obama puts an end to the notion that opposing a war is unpatriotic, and that the only way one can fight for the greater good of one's country is to blindly put on its uniform and follow a misguided leader down a path of destruction and financial ruin. Many of you may have read or heard this speech already, but if you haven't or your friends haven't, then it is well worth reading again. This version is printed on Blue Meme but is reprinted from Ameriblog.
Reading it, you can understand why Hillary Clinton is so afraid of this speech and why she has taken it on as her personal mission to mock it day in and day out--because if people actually read the speech, then she's even toastier than she already is, and this could even include Pennsylvania.
http://www.americablog.com/2008/03/2002-speech-that-hillary-is-afraid-of.html Speech on Possible Iraq War by Barack Obama, October 2, 2002 "Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not -- we will not -- travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain."
http://www.americablog.com/2008/03/2002-speech-that-hillary-is-afraid-of.html
Speech on Possible Iraq War by Barack Obama, October 2, 2002
"Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not -- we will not -- travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain."
--
Send this speech to your friends and colleagues. Remember, in 2002 at a time when he was running for the US Senate and was very vulnerable to charges of being anti-American, Barack Obama stood up and gave a great and brave speech that Hillary Clinton--and a now far sadder and poorer America--would have been far, far wiser to have heeded then.
Barack's incredible surge in Texas and all over the US offers the opportunity for Democratic candidates in Texas to surf the resurgence of Democratic values in Texas. One of those candidates, is Dennis C. Burns, who is running for Congress on the Democratic ticket in Dallas's 32nd Congressional District. Please come down for wine and cheese and to meet Dennis after work or after canvassing tonight, Feb. 25, from 7 to 9 PM, and on Monday Mar. 3 from 7-9 PM. Both events will be held at Stoney's Wind and Gifts, 2804 Greenville Ave., Dallas 75206, phone (214) 953-3067.
For more information see: http://www.burns4texas.com
