Civil Libertarians for Obama

Gates & Crowley Both Right & Both Wrong

Dr Linda Shelton — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 19:56:12 EDT

Prof. Henry Louis Gates Jr. & Sgt. James Crowley are RIGHT in my opinion! President Obama’s comment that whole situation is “Stupid” is also right, but the laws and police training should change so this doesn’t happen again.

When the "racism fart" appears and "curls your hair" don't dwell on it like dwelling on your grandpa's farts, "crack the window", "cover it up with potpourri" ("change the subject"). - Thoughts by Stephen Colbert on 7-30-09 on the Colbert Report

Apparently the officer found it acceptable to arrest someone for asking for his name and a badge number. Their stories differ as to whether there was racial issues involved. Both Prof. Henry Louis Gates Jr. & Sgt. James Crowley are RIGHT in my opinion! I also fully agree that the whole situation was stupid and should never happen in that fashion. The blame however, is NOT with Gates or Crowley.

The problem is overly vague, over-used and abused, and unconstitutional Disorderly Conduct laws, as well as improper or inadequate training of officers. Under the present DC laws in America, even if you yell in an upset voice in your own home or on your own porch when DEFENDING your civil rights, the police can unbelievably state you are disorderly.

Sgt. Crowley was wrongfully taught, like all officers, that if they say anything to a citizen and the citizen doesn’t instantly comply he is disorderly or resisting arrest. Resisting arrest is also abused by the police. A natural instinct is to resist handcuffing as this really is an assault. The law should be changed and narrowed so that if one twitches one will not be charged with resisting arrest, and verbal tirades against the officer should not be considered resisting arrest. Officers are supposed to be professional, despite verbal abuse.

The Sgt. is taught to lure loud persons, even if they are simply loudly protesting violation of the law and their civil rights, out into a public area so they can claim the person is disorderly. Prof. Gates should realize that officers have the most rudimentary understanding and training in the law. This is why they over-reach and abuse DC, trespass, and resisting arrest laws. They really don’t know what they mean in detail and the laws are too over-reaching and/or vague, making them ripe for abuse.

There is a concept of “void for vagueness” in law that a criminal statute is unconstitutional because it is impermissably vague. The US Supreme Court needs to hear a case like that of Prof. Gates if he should sue for unlawful arrest, malicious prosecution, and violation of civil rights. They need to clarify these laws and narrow and define them better so the public knows what they can and cannot do and police will no longer be able to abuse these DC, trespass, and resisting arrest laws by arresting anyone who disagrees with them, twitches, or claims harassment or false arrest.

Prof. Gates is right that African-Americans are still profiled and abused by the police. However, I do not think this was Sgt. Crowley’s main issue. His main issue appears to be the fact that he is an omnipotent, all-powerful, officer with unlimited power, who has been given an inch of power and taught to take a mile of power, who must be instantly obeyed no matter what he says.

I don’t say this to criticize Sgt. Crowley – this is what he was taught and as an officer, this is constantly re-enforced in his training. He is not at fault. His training and the vague and easily abused law is at fault. This is his understanding of his DUTY under the law. He should be taught that people have rights and one can de-escalate a situation by backing off and shutting up, instead of being in a persons face and challenging them when they are upset by the wrongful or mistaken actions of others.

We should also be pleased that the police responded to the call of someone breaking in the house. Sgt. Crowley appropriately asked Gates to initially step outside because he was there alone, needed to protect himself in the open, didn’[t know if Gates was the burgler or the homeowner and if homeowner, didn’t know if a burglar was still inside. However, we should insist they receive more training so that when they come on a situation and find out it is different than what they were told, they don’t act like robots and proceed to act as if the information was true or lure someone into an arrest just because they are being verbally challenged. This is the part I consider stupid. The whole thing would have been different if the law was clarified and Crowley would have backed off and not considered Gates “disorderly.”

I urge Prof. Gates, Sgt. Crowley, and President Obama to acknowledge these facts. I would like the three of them to meet and discuss these issues and come up with a plan to solve the problem. AG Eric Holder should be part of this meeting. If Obama is truly a mediator – HE SHOULD DO THIS! I am very happy that the Pres. has decided to keep this on the front burner as a "teaching moment' and invite both gentlemen to the White House for a pow wow.

For a range of opinions on this matter see: http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/24/evening-buzz-the-president-the-professor-the-cop/

Actual copy of arrest reports (Sgt. Crowley’s story) see:

http://cnnac360.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/20120754.pdf

Prof. Gate’s story at:

http://archpundit.com/blog/2009/07/22/if-hed-just-obeyed-the-police-officer/

Swine Flu or Mexican Flu - What to Do?

Dr Linda Shelton — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 10:04:34 EDT

Don't panic - it may even turn out to be only a moderate flu season. Don't believe all the hype. For factual information and recommendations see the following for my opinion - if questions ask your doctor:

http://drlindashelton.wordpress.com/2009/04/29/2008-mexican-flu-swine-flu-what-to-do/

Free Debra Gindorf ! Post-Partum Psychosis is an Illness not a Crime

Dr Linda Shelton — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 08:49:23 EDT

This is a national disgrace and another embarassment for Illinois. Please read this link -

http://illinoiscorruption.blogspot.com/2009/04/gov-quinn-please-pardon-debra-gindorf.html

Contact Gov. Pat Quinn at:

Quinn, Pat 217-782-6830
Agency:GOVERNOR, OFFICE OF THE Address:
CAPITOL BLDG RM 207 SPRINGFIELD IL 62706 - 1150

How to Decrease Teen Pregnancies, Decrease Crime, and Improve our Economy

Dr Linda Shelton — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 09:49:15 EDT

Idol young people who have delayed educations, inadequate educations, and difficulty finding jobs are expected to delay marrying and having families. This fights biology as a persons most fertile period is in their late teens and early 20s. We need to analyze and deal with these facts.

Personally as a pediatrician, I found the highest teen birth rates in three groups. 1. Teens in distressed families (drug addict or absent parents [not single moms], poverty where parents are working 2-3 jobs, overextended and therefore technically absent and rich parents with unsupervised kids); 2. Teens in very religious families relying on abstinence, that wouldn't talk about sex, leaving kids to figure it out on their own (these kids constantly were super rebellious); and 3. idol teens who had no hobbies except hanging out with friends and who had self-esteem problems such that they would do anything to appear popular.

The saddest case that is a commentary on how we talk but don't help distressed teens and families was an eighth grade girl who told me she purposely got pregnant because she wanted someone to "love her." She had lived mainly on the streets taking care of herself in South Carolina (the bible belt) where social services were inadequate to help her. Her parents were unavailable. The churches, schools, and social services viewed her as important and worthwhile as a dead dog. What do you expect! Three girls in her class were pregnant that year.

Until we promote individual worth; provide adequate eduation so that kids are motivated to learn and therefore kept busy with self motivation(our high school education is like a junior high education in most civilized countries - teachers are in general miserably undertrained); teach kids the value of being involved with others and with activities such as the arts, volunteering, involvement with government and social services, gardening, sports without a goal of being a major leager; teach that community and family is more important than self and instant gratification or material goods; promote a village atmosphere where people in one small neighborhood or a few blocks in a city know each other, meet regularly with each other (difficult with two jobs and long commutes) and help each other (70 % of Americans don't know their neighbors); make real job training and jobs available to young men and women; reform laws so that like in Europe women can stay home with a child the first two years of life and still have a job available and career available when they return to work, we will make no progress in regards to teen births or abortions.

We need to shift our priorities and donations to the REAL problems that result in teen pregnancies and abortions. If we simply fight about ideology nothing will be accomplished. United We Stand, Divided We Fall. Perhaps it is time to agree to disagree on ideology and work together on issues that we all agree upon!

The benefits would be enormous. We would not just deal with teen pregnancies and reduce abortions, we would reduce crime and increase our countries productivity saving huge amounts of money and rebuilding our economy.

Libertarian Ideals that Obama is committed to

Libertarians for Obama — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 09:21:17 EDT

Granted, President Barack Obama is not completely "Libertarian" but who really is? Yet if you look at the Obama Agenda at: www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/ and look at Libertarian Party motto: Smaller Government, Less Taxes, More Freedom and LP issues at: www.lp.org/issues there are many areas of common interest. Below are some of the top Libertarian Party issues that Obama has some agreement with.

Libertarian Party motto: "Smaller Government, Less Taxes, More Freedom"

"Lower Taxes"
..."working families struggle to pay their taxes" www.lp.org/issues/taxes

PRESIDENT OBAMA: "I'll Cut Taxes for 95% of "Working Families"

Obama’s Comprehensive Tax Policy Plan for America will:
Cut taxes for 95 percent of "workers" and their "families" with a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples.
Provide generous tax cuts for low- and middle-income seniors, homeowners, the uninsured, and families sending a child to college or looking to save and accumulate wealth.
Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses, cut corporate taxes for firms that invest and create jobs in the United States, and provide tax credits to reduce the cost of healthcare and to reward investments in innovation.
Eliminating the need for millions of senior citizens to file tax forms

Libertarian Party: How Can We Cut Taxes?

... politicians spend millions to subsidize tobacco farmers...

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Goes After Farm Subsidies President-elect Obama gave an example of one piece of wasteful government spending: farm subsidies.
Obama cited a GAO report that said from 2003 to 2006, "millionaire farmers" got $49 million in farm subsidies despite earning more than the $2.5 million cutoff in annual income. "If it's true," Obama said, "it's a prime example of waste."

"More Freedom"

Libertarian Party: Freedom of Speech, Against Censorship"We defend the rights of individuals to unrestricted freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the right of individuals to dissent from government itself....
We oppose any abridgment of the freedom of speech through government censorship, regulation or control of communications media."

http://www.lp.org/issues/freedom-of-speech

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Freedom of Speech, Against Censorship

President Obama is committed to creating the most open and accessible administration in American history. To send questions, comments, concerns, or well-wishes to the President or his staff, please go to website: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/Contact/

Change the Culture of Secrecy: Obama will institute a National Declassification Center to make declassification secure but routine, efficient, and cost-effective.
Everyone can participate and inform the work of the President through the online front door of the White House at the Office of Public Liaison & Intergovernmental Affairs (OPL-IGA). OPL-IGA will bring new voices to the table, build relationships with constituents and seeks to embody the essence of the President's movement for change through the meaningful engagement of citizens and their elected officials by the federal government.
Engaging the American People on Foreign Policy: Obama and Biden will bring foreign policy decisions directly to the people by requiring their national security officials to have periodic national broadband town hall meetings to discuss foreign policy. Obama will personally deliver Your Weekly Address via webcast.

"Removing the troops from Iraq"

Libertarian Party: We established years ago that the war in Iraq had little to do with national security, if it ever did. Even those that initially supported the war in Iraq have come around to recognize that the longer we keep our troops in the region, the more lives we lose and the more money is wasted. It is time to bring the troops home. http://www.lp.org/issues/current-issues
"We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression." - Libertarian Party Platform, Section 3.1 (adopted: May 2008)

PRESIDENT OBAMA: to remove all of our troops from Iraq.

"Immigration" http://www.lp.org/issues/immigration

Libertarian Party: "For those workers already in the United States illegally, we can avoid "amnesty" and still offer a pathway out of the underground economy. Newly legalized workers can be assessed fines and back taxes and serve probation befitting the misdemeanor they've committed. They can be required to take their place at the back of the line should they eventually apply for permanent residency."

President Obama: http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/immigration/

Bring People Out of the Shadows: Support a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens.

online petition for a truth commission

Ann — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:47:58 EDT

If you haven't already, please add your name to this online petition for a Truth Commission. What you are signing on to:

I hereby join Senator Patrick Leahy's call for the establishment of a truth and reconciliation commission, to investigate the Bush-Cheney Administration's constitutional abuses so we make sure they never happen again. These abuses may include the use of torture, warrantless wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, and executive override of laws.

A truth and reconciliation commission should be tasked with seeking answers so that we can develop a shared understanding of the failures of the recent past. Rather than vengeance, we need a fair-minded pursuit of what actually happened. The best way to move forward is getting to the truth and finding out what happened -- so we can make sure it does not happen again.
Signed by:
[Your name]

Thanks--we are close to 100,000 signatures! :)

this is probably absurd

Ann — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 02:19:43 EST

i was watching chris matthews and he asked wrt gitmo/rendition et al, what do we do with people we know are dangerous but can't prove? what do we do with people who haven't done anything but we know will?

what about a ticket out of gitmo and into witness protection? it's certainly more humane and just than indefinte detention. it's likely less costly than full-out incarceration, whether it's taxpayer expense or foreign relations. and it's a heck of a lot safer than sending them back into circulation--at least with witness protection we'd know where they are and what they're doing.

thoughts? please be kind.

i'll dig into this more tomorrow and perhaps log back in and rip my own arse to shreds after acquiring more information. right now i have GOT to get my brain shut down and try to sleep.

Democrats need to take the lead on common sense liability reform

Mike Serfas — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 01:20:04 EST

The recent editorial by George Will should serve as a shot across the bow for those of us who have been wondering how the Republican Party will try to sell itself in the future, and it makes some valid points. Anyone who has followed the news sometime in the past few decades knows that liability judgments in this country can get out of control.

What George Will doesn't need to say is that in the past few years, with substantial political control, the Republicans have appeared to put themselves into the lead in trying to do something about it. Left to their own devices, the Republicans will say that liability is driving health care costs out of control and making American business uncompetitive, and that only their party has the common sense and anti-government rebelliousness to bring it under control. For this reason it is crucial that Democrats get out ahead of this issue.

Let's start by pointing out that the prevalent Republican idea of capping damages at a fixed dollar amount is really aimed at helping large organizations and wealthy people. It doesn't improve the way in which the damages and the theory of liability is determined. If someone slips on your steps or takes exception to something you said in a town meeting, a $500,000 cap on noneconomic damages isn't going to help you.

Besides which, some of the worst routine injustices involve economic damages - especially, wild theories of lost pay. A person is fired by a school and two years later the taxpayers are told they need to pay two years' back salary for work never done. Or a group of lunatics takes down the World Trade Center and while the theory of liability is that "you can't put a price on life", it immediately proceeds to do so - provided that the price on life is different for different people according to guesswork about what they might have made in salary. I think that in general it can't be justice to assess full compensatory payment to people for work not done. Instead we should recognize the reality of noneconomic damages - real pain and suffering and death - and we should not be shy to set statuatory values on them that are the same for all people, rich and poor. The rich can afford extra life insurance. We should not compensate for "lost wages" except for the reasonably expected length of the temporary disruption in a person's life from a wrongful dismissal, or the lingering marginal effect of a blacklist.

We also should focus on abolishing theories that demand people to treat one another like fools, or to be responsible for preventing one another from acting stupidly. We should demand that victims shoulder the full risk of interacting with the natural environment when they are outside, and that they can't hold building and business owners to blame who have complied with all the vast number of building codes and ordinances that might be relevant to a risky situation. Even if it is a good idea to demand that employers insure workers against injuries suffered on the job without the employer violating any laws or standards, it surely would be far more efficient to mandate this through good medical coverage than by arguing each case in court.

I may well have committed errors of judment in the above discussion - even in theory, it will by no means easy to truly fix America's liability system rather than just using caps and date limits to keep it corraled. It will probably require many separate, detailed pieces of legislation that could easily be corrupted by special interests. But if the Democrats can do it then they will make a saner, more efficient America, and as reward they will be ready to win one of the ideological battlegrounds of the next election.

Mexican mayhem: why we need smart, moderate drug decriminalization

Mike Serfas — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:55:26 EST

Today's news from Mexico is grimmer than ever: in the past two months gangs of thugs have gunned down 50 people in Tijuana, apparently in random terrorist attacks. This should remind us of the rampant violence in Nuevo Laredo in which at least 21 Americans were among those missing or were eventually found dead, thanks to a different drug cartel. Recent statistics credit as many as 5,400 deaths annually to the Mexican drug cartels, whose activities are primarily aimed at smuggling drugs into the U.S.

If we leave this issue to the traditional right wing, we know what they will offer us: higher walls, more border patrols, more money to Mexican anti-drug efforts. Never mind that the smugglers dig tunnels and many of the elite anti-narcotics officers trained at Fort Bennett are now called "Los Zetas", the vicious group responsible for the Nuevo Laredo trouble. The more money we throw at the problem the more violence and mayhem will ensue, but as long as those in power can tell their constituents that they are doing something, as long as they tell themselves that they are reassuring the public.

Unfortunately, wishing doesn't make good policy. Look at the history of China, which for millennia was the greatest empire on Earth. In 1729 the Emperor was annoyed by a few nobles smoking opium at court. By 1840 he was signing Unequal Treaties giving power to the drug smugglers. The harder the Chinese fought to ban drugs, the more profitable it became for the British to smuggle them in. The only thing that ended the nightmare was that the British, apparently no wiser than the Chinese, demanded after the second Opium War that the Chinese legalize the drug. About 40 years later the Chinese were producing all the opium they wanted, their opium usage began to decline, and other countries around the world started passing laws to prohibit the importation of opium... at which point, drug crimes began to plague the rest of the world.

After ninety years of Prohibition, groups like the Zetas have advanced military weapons and are beginning to pose a real threat to the U.S. that local police departments are hard-pressed to fight. Where will things go from here? Will we wait until they are crossing our borders and devastating whole towns, then copy the "security zone" policy Israel used in Lebanon and invade parts of Mexico? Will we wait until they have subverted branches of the government and have full use of weapons of mass destruction? Will we see the day when our country suffers the same national humiliation as the Chinese?

There is a better way. Though I think we should, we don't even have to legalize drugs. All we need to do is recognize a basic symmetry that is as clear as day to the source countries plagued by drug violence: in the international community, it is as irresponsible for a nation to be a net drug consumer as it is to be a drug producer. We should recognize that the extremely tough measures taken against people who grow or manufacture drugs in the U.S. have an effect on our neighbors to the south - a hill of corpses of innocent people from Tijuana and Laredo. We don't need to declare a full legalization to end this - just dial down enforcement against small scale domestic production of whatever people currently smuggle over the border from Mexico.

According to a 2007 San Francisco Chronicle article, smugglers buy marijuana in Mexico for $500 per kilogram and sell it for a little more than double that price in the U.S. All we have to do to put a complete stop to the smuggling is allow enough domestic production to lower the price here to $500 per kilogram. That isn't like a border interdiction policy where you stop 5% and 95% gets through - if the price is too low, no one can make a living by smuggling. All of these vicious gangs will be left with nothing to fight over. Smugglers also bring in methamphetamine, thanks to restrictive legislation that forces common cold medications to be sold behind the counter in the U.S. Since Mexico can't control precursors so carefully, a market has been created. Let's roll back those restrictions. I'm not saying that local "meth cooks" in American communities aren't a nuisance and a fire hazard, but according to an interview on A&E one of the more diligent drug makers was making $800 per week selling to 20 customers. That's not even a very good salary, let alone a threat to national security!

On the other end, we need to make sure that well-meaning efforts to be more compassionate on drug issues do not lead to increases in demand. However sensible it may be to allow drug users to get by with little or no penalty, it is not sensible to set this up while maintaining draconian penalties for those who fill this demand. Such a shortsighted approach can only lead to more crime and a backlash against "legalization". We must also speak out against cheerleaders for drug use, who are apt to turn up in the strangest places. For example, there has been an ongoing discussion of "neuroenhancement" at the leading scientific journal Nature, in which survey respondents and editorialists alike have been claiming that taking amphetamines like Adderall and Ritalin is a harmless way for college students to enhance their academic performance. I've added my comments to oppose this wild excess of misplaced enthusiasm - it's not easy to improve on evolution - but this cheerleading for amphetamine and related drugs has shown up in many news reports. Eventually this kind of glowing optimism will wind up in random shootings over trade routes to bring crude methamphetamine to people who have gotten addicted, unless we do something.

Obama, please: declare a goal of "no net import/export" for all drug contraband through moderate relaxation of prohibitions on domestic manufacture for drugs that are imported, or consumption for drugs that are exported.

The change.gov agenda

Mike Serfas — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 21:39:39 EST

Everyone here should know about the www.change.gov president-elect website. I was looking over the agenda again, and it is nice to see besides all of the more familiar ideas, a number of really nice, surprising ideas that stand out.

* We should know that during Clinton's administration the national rate of violent crime was cut in half. But could Obama possibly do that again? Well, with proposals like "Reduce Crime Recidivism by Providing Ex-Offender Support", maybe. Instead of leaving parolees to sink or swim, do more to give them a chance to transition to an honest living.

* We should know that mercury in the environment is a problem, but this surprised even me: "More than five million women of childbearing age have high levels of toxic mercury in their blood and more than 630,000 newborns are born every year at risk. The EPA estimates that every year, more than one child in six could be at risk for developmental disorders because of mercury exposure in the mother's womb. Since the primary sources of mercury in fish are power plant emissions that contaminate our water, regulation of utility emissions is essential to protecting the health of our children." And I still can't get used to the idea that now we could have someone in charge who could do something about it.

* When we read the civil rights agenda, white folks may be tempted to let our attention wander. But look at this: "Obama and Biden will fight job discrimination for aging employees by strengthening the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and empowering the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to prevent all forms of discrimination." This is something we all might benefit from. The additional proposal for expanding adult job retraining reinforces it.

* Though I briefly mentioned it in email on the "Scientists and engineers for Obama" group, I never even tried to propose the need for patent reform for the party platform, thinking it was too obscure a problem to attract attention. Yet here it is in the agenda! This will help pull American companies out of the tar pit - more research, less legal wrangling.

* My home state of Pennsylvania should benefit four-fold from the proposal to create millions of green jobs in developing and deploying clean coal technology: once from the jobs; once from cleaner local air that won't kill people with asthma; once from a reduction of continuing acid rain from the Midwest allowing forests and fisheries to recover; and at last from the reliable supply of alternative oil-free fuel from the coal-to-fuel refineries that Obama, governor Rendell and other Democrats have proposed.

On the other hand, there are a handful of proposals that may need a little more time in the oven.

* A proposal to "shut down the mechanisms used to transmit criminal profits by shutting down untraceable Internet payment schemes" makes me worry about what rights could be infringed. Besides, I'm not convinced it can be done. For example, if I bury a gold coin on public land, I could send the location as an untraceable payment - how could that be stopped?

* The plan to "set a goal that all middle and high school students do 50 hours of community service" yearly seems perhaps a poor reward for many of the young volunteers who turned out so enthusiastically to support us. While I think that educating kids about volunteering can be a good thing, this would ask them to do what would amount to $2,000 worth of community service at college student rates. Is it really fair to impose this much community service on all kids every year, rather than giving them nearly another two weeks of actual instruction? Let's plead this down to a misdemeanor.

* The phrase "Protect American Intellectual Property at Home" is potentially worrisome, though also an opportunity. In the past we have seen controversies where communication without surveillance, or even writing a program that allows communication without surveillance, has been presented as something illicit to be sacrificed to an archaic copyright system, rather than a right of free speech. This trend must not be allowed to continue.

Despite a few problematic terms, this agenda deserves credit for avoiding the most unappealing liberal issues, such as gun control, animal rights, and late-term abortions. We should all try to do the best we can with it, knowing how drastic an improvement it really is over what we faced so recently.

Note: After losing the my last version to it, here is the fix to the Firefox "feature" that pressing backspace is interpreted as a back arrow and an invitation to delete all your text: 1) type about:config as your URL; 2) select option "browser.backspace_action" and set its value to 2.

Libertarianism as tactic and goal

Mike Serfas — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:53:40 EST

It was a great feeling last night to join the cheering and applauding as we listened to the best speech John McCain has ever made. McCain changed his views on many, many issues to align with Bush, and in the end, he shared Bush's fate. But the next Republican assault will not come from this direction.

When we think of when the Republican Party was last increasing in power and prestige, it was in the time of Newt Gingrich, a candidate of great libertarian pretensions who spoke of free markets, balanced budgets and even a national referendum on drug legalization. One need only look to the lingering Ron Paul yard signs to recognize that this still carries a resonance with some Republicans. Of course, the Republicans never made any attempt to deliver on such rhetoric, and I don't believe they will in the future either, but I expect them to put on this masquerade and run a candidate who seeks to give this impression. (Note: I have since encountered http://ideas.rebuildtheparty.com/ - the prevalence of such ideas on that site even surpasses my expectations)

It isn't just to defeat the Republicans that Obama needs to seek libertarian input, but that certainly is a good reason on its own. He has said that he would reach across the aisle; but if he would contemplate appointing or seeking advice from any Republican he should consider the same for a Libertarian. (I should also note that the Green Party, despite its very different economics, also garners support from a libertarian stance on drug policy). I see three ways in which Obama and libertarians can work together to forestall the next Republican offensive.

I. Select sound libertarian proposals that Democrats are ready to hear right away. For example, we should emphasize the importance of allowing American companies free reign to experiment with low-THC industrial hemp beside Miscanthus and switch grass, because when one of these renewable biofuels reaches maturation we don't want to find out that all the crucial patents are held in China. Also, we should adopt the stance that a person suffering an addiction should be able to walk into a hospital and be assigned for treatment as easily as he could walk into a police station with his paraphernalia and be assigned to a cell.

II. Make the effort to describe traditional Democratic proposals in a more libertarian light. Don't say that we're "spending" money on a school; say that we are "investing" money in a school. Then make "quarterly reports" of how much classroom performance has improved, how many more kids are expected to make it to college, how their expected lifetime earnings potential has been increased, and how much estimated increase in tax return this should provide, so that you can actually tell the taxpayer that his investment is delivering a certain percent expected yield.

III. Outpace the Libertarians in libertarian theory. This is easier to do than you think. The Libertarian Party platform does not say one word about copyrights or patents. I have no idea what they think about Napster or Gnutella, YouTube or thumbnail images on a Google image search. But some individual Libertarians I've encountered have seemed unpleasantly dedicated to the maintenance of intellectual property rights even in preference to free speech rights. Ultimately, I think that easy trading of information online is forcing authorities to make a choice either to give up on the copyright mechanism of compensating authors or to give up on the idea of unmonitored free communications. I believe that in that choice the former option is by far the most preferable, since copyright can easily be replaced by other financial mechanisms with a strong free-market component. For example, people could be required to pay a tax equivalent on average to the sum of their current copyright royalty payments (such as on books, CDs, and movies) - then be given the choice to direct that money as they see fit to various organizations that compensate authors. By leading the Libertarians (and Republicans) in theory, the Democrats can gain control of how such issues are framed and debated.

I very much hope that Barack Obama will reach out to libertarian ideals, proposals, and voters before the Republicans do.

Sign Your Mail-in Ballot otherwise your vote won't be counted

Libertarians for Obama — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 06:33:31 EDT

Voters beware! please sign your absentee ballots or they will not count.

Supervisors of Elections across Florida are warning those with absentee ballots to sign the ballots themselves.

Many ballots canvassed today were rejected because they had no signature.

103 Hillsborough County FL absentee ballots flagged so far

Libertarians for Obama — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 06:21:49 EDT

http://www.abcactionnews.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoid=11171@wfts.dayport.com

Reported by: Don Germaise
Email: dgermaise@abcactionnews.com

TAMPA, FL -- 103 absentee ballots out of 10,000 filed so far in Hillsborough County have been flagged for irregularities. The Hillsborough County Canvassing Board rejected 91 of those, saying they will not count in the November 4th General Election.

Canvassing Board member Kevin White told ABCActionNews.com that 51 of 103 ballots canvassed today were rejected because they had no signature.

White, who is a Hillsborough County Commissioner, is warning those with absentee ballots to sign the ballots themselves, or they will not count.

Other problems with the ballots were signatures that didn't match what was on file and signatures that didn't match the name on the ballot.

Concerns in Pinellas County FL about Early Voting Suppression, Long Lines

Libertarians for Obama — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 05:58:35 EDT

http://www.ercpinellas.org/newsblog.htm?blogentryid=4174770

Watch Video at YouTube

Concern in Pinellas County about early voting sites

Video

Reported by: Keith Baker
Email: kbaker@abcactionnews.com

Voters wait in line at a Largo early voting location

PINELLAS COUNTY, FL -- Some voters in Pinellas County are concerned about the number of locations for early voting with only three sites. As a result of the robust turnout, voters are upset, saying they feel their right to vote early is being suppressed.

More than 600,000 are registered to vote in Pinellas County, with many voters opting to vote early creating lines in some cases.

One voter says a woman in a wheelchair couldn't wait for the hour it was taking to move through so she left the line and was joined by two others.

A Democratic National Committee leader is calling for a Grand Jury to investigate Pinellas and Manatee Counties to find out why so few voting locations were assigned for early voting.

The Pinellas County Supervisor of Elections said she didn't feel there was any merit to the need for an investigation and is confident that the current early voting program is in the best interest of Pinellas County.

Manatee County has one early voting location. The other counties with the number of designated early voting locations in the Tampa Bay Region are:

Hillsborough 13

Sarasota 7

Pasco 7

Polk 6

Even Conservative Republicans are favoring Obama

Libertarians for Obama — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 22:52:50 EDT

The rise of the Obamacons

Oct 23rd 2008
From The Economist print edition

A striking number of conservatives are planning to vote for Obama

Illustration by KAL

IN “W.”, his biopic about his Yale classmate, Oliver Stone details Colin Powell’s agonies during George Bush’s first term. Throughout the film Mr Powell repeatedly raises doubts about the invasion of Iraq—and is repeatedly overruled by the ghoulish trio of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Karl Rove. In one of the final scenes, with his direst warnings proving correct, Mr Powell turns to Mr Cheney and delivers a heartfelt “F*** You”.

The real Colin Powell used more diplomatic language in endorsing Barack Obama on October 19th, but the impact was much the same. Mr Obama is a “transformational figure”, he mildly said, and his old friend John McCain had erred in choosing a neophyte as a running-mate. But you would have to be naive not to see the endorsement as a verdict on the Bush years.

Mr Powell is now a four-star general in America’s most surprising new army: the Obamacons. The army includes other big names such as Susan Eisenhower, Dwight’s granddaughter, who introduced Mr Obama at the Democratic National Convention and Christopher Buckley, the son of the conservative icon William Buckley, who complains that he has not left the Republican Party: the Republican Party has left him. Chuck Hagel, a Republican senator from Nebraska and one-time bosom buddy of Mr McCain has also flirted heavily with the movement, though he has refrained from issuing an official endorsement.

The biggest brigade in the Obamacon army consists of libertarians, furious with Mr Bush’s big-government conservatism, worried about his commitment to an open-ended “war on terror”, and disgusted by his cavalier way with civil rights. There are two competing “libertarians for Obama” web sites. CaféPress is even offering a “libertarian for Obama” lawn sign for $19.95. Larry Hunter, who helped to devise Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America in 1994, thinks that Mr Obama can free America from the grip of the “zombies” who now run the Republican Party.

But the army has many other brigades, too: repentant neocons such as Francis Fukuyama, legal scholars such as Douglas Kmiec, and conservative talk-show hosts such as Michael Smerconish. And it is picking up unexpected new recruits as the campaign approaches its denouement. Many disillusioned Republicans hoped that Mr McCain would provide a compass for a party that has lost its way, but now feel that the compass has gone haywire. Kenneth Adelman, who once described the invasion of Iraq as a “cakewalk”, decided this week to vote for Mr Obama mainly because he regards Sarah Palin as “not close to being acceptable in high office”.

The rise of the Obamacons is more than a reaction against Mr Bush’s remodelling of the Republican Party and Mr McCain’s desperation: there were plenty of disillusioned Republicans in 2004 who did not warm to John Kerry. It is also a positive verdict on Mr Obama. For many conservatives, Mr Obama embodies qualities that their party has abandoned: pragmatism, competence and respect for the head rather than the heart. Mr Obama’s calm and collected response to the turmoil on Wall Street contrasted sharply with Mr McCain’s grandstanding.

Much of Mr Obama’s rhetoric is strikingly conservative, even Reaganesque. He preaches the virtues of personal responsibility and family values, and practises them too. He talks in uplifting terms about the promise of American life. His story also appeals to conservatives: it holds the possibility of freeing America from its racial demons, proving that the country is a race-blind meritocracy and, in the process, bankrupting a race-grievance industry that has produced the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

How much do these Obamacons matter? More than Mr McCain would like to think. The Obamacons are manifestations of a deeper turmoil in the Republican rank-and-file, as the old coalition of small-government activists, social conservatives and business Republicans falls apart. They also influence opinion. This is obvious in the case of Mr Powell: Mr Obama is making liberal use of his endorsement to refute the latest Republican criticism that he is a “socialist”. But it is also true of lesser-known scribblers. At least 27 newspapers that backed Mr Bush in 2004 have endorsed Mr Obama.

Moreover, the revolt of the intellectuals is coinciding with a migration of culturally conservative voters—particularly white working-class voters—into Obamaland. Mr Obama is now level-pegging or leading among swing-groups such as Catholics and working-class whites. A recent Washington Post-ABC poll shows him winning 22% of self-described conservatives, a higher proportion than any Democratic nominee since 1980.

Don’t blame the rats

The more tantalising question is whether the rise of the Obamacons signals a lasting political realignment. In 1980 the rise of the neocons—liberal intellectuals who abandoned a spineless Democratic Party—was reinforced by the birth of working class “Reagan Democrats”. Is the Reagan revolution now going into reverse? There are reasons for scepticism. Will libertarians really stick with “Senator Government”, as Mr McCain labelled Mr Obama in the best slip of the tongue of the campaign? Will economic conservatives cleave to a president who believes in “spreading the wealth around”?

Much depends on how Mr Obama governs if he wins, and how the Republicans behave if they lose. Mr Obama talks about creating an administration of all the talents. He promises to take the cultural anxieties of Reagan Democrats seriously. For their part, hard-core Republicans are handling their party’s travails abysmally, retreating into elite-bashing populism and denouncing the Obamacons as “rats” who are deserting a sinking ship. If the Republican Party continues to think that the problem lies with the rats, rather than the seaworthiness of the ship, then the Obamacons are here to stay.

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12470555

Why Libertarians (in swing states) should vote for Obama

Libertarians for Obama — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 21:36:45 EDT

Why Libertarians (in swing states) should vote for Obama as the lesser evil.

Article by Vaughn (Libertarian)
Tuesday, October 21, 2008

http://www.nolanchart.com/article5264.html

Why Lovers of Liberty* Should Support Barack Obama

* In Swing States

Florida
Georgia
Michigan
Missouri
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Colorado
New Mexico
Virginia

I want to begin my first column for Nolanchart.com with a little personal history. In eight presidential elections since 1976, I've voted for one party Libertarian. In cases where a Libertarian wasn't available, I would usually vote for the Republican, considering that the lesser of the two evils. No longer. In the 2006 Congressional elections, I voted Democratic.

Why? In short, because George W. Bush and the Karl-Rove-dominated GOP has betrayed every ideal that Republicans and Libertarians have in common. They lied us into two unnecessary wars. They've busted the budget and bankrupted our country. They've gutted the Bill of Rights and spied on Americans, with the excuse of a hugely-exaggerated terrorist threat. And- this is probably most unforgivable - they've been complicit in the confiscations of guns in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

So it's my opinion that the GOP needs to be rebuked, strongly and decisively, even if it means voting for "the enemy." Now in my case, I may still vote Libertarian (despite my utter dislike of Bob Barr ) because I live in Arizona and I think it's quite unlikely that McCain will lose in his home state. The same goes in other states that are decisively for McCain or Obama . By all means, show your displeasure by voting third party, any third party.

But what about those states where the race is still up for grabs? In those states, I believe we should support the clear lesser evil: Barack Obama.

By now, all my Republican friends and colleagues are shouting "heresy!" (At the moment, I'm registered Republican myself- which I did so I could vote for Ron Paul in the primary, naturally.) But I think I can list ten good reasons why libertarians and even conservatives should hold their noses and vote for Barack.

1. Much of the stuff going around about Obama on the internet is total nonsense. "He's a Muslim, he supports terrorism, he hates the flag." As Colonel Potter would say, "Horse-hockey!" I'll admit there's plenty to dislike about Obama's politics without resorting to lies. The man isn't THAT bad.

2.Obama has a more sane, even-tempered personality than McCain. McCain was a hot-head to begin with, then he spent five years in a POW camp, which will mess anyone up psychologically. I don't want John McCain's finger anywhere near the nuclear button.

3.Likewise, despite my strong dislike of Joe Biden, at least he's not Sarah Palin. The woman is unqualified to be dogcatcher, much less Vice President. She has indicated a willingness to go to war with Russia in support for Saakashvili's Georgia, a despotic regime in a small country with absolutely no strategic importance to the US.

4.The right-wingers say that despite Obama's flip-flops on the "war on terror" and US support for Israel, that he still holds to his radical anti-military views, and will immediately pull out of Iraq and end our "special relationship" with Israel. We can only hope! Look, we've got a presence in over a hundred countries, and we spend almost as much on our military as all other countries combined. Isn't that a little overkill?

5.Speaking of the Welfare Queen of the Mideast, if you've ever checked out the Israeli press online, the candidate who received the most vitriol was Ron Paul. The second most hated man was Barack Obama. Anyone who's that despised by the Israeli right wing can't be all bad. Look, I've got nothing against Israel, I'm just tired of supporting its government, which is influenced out of all proportion by the fanatical loud-mouthed Arab-hating settler community.

6.I'll admit it- either Obama or McCain could conceivably try to become dictator, but Obama is less likely to succeed. That's because the Right already hates him, and they're the ones with the guns. Anything McCain does, they're likely to accept like bleating sheep, because he's a "war hero" who will invoke patriotic rhetoric to justify his actions. His biggest foes would likely be in the Peace Movement. As much as I respect them, most of them are liberals who are far too wimpy to stage a revolution, should one (God forbid) become necessary.

7.With the public uproar over the bailout of Wall Street, it's likely we'll have a backlash against the Democrats in the House, the majority of whom supported that fiasco. So Congress could easily go to the Republicans. And a divided government is good for freedom =checks and balances and all that.

8.The American free enterprise system may not survive another corrupt big-government conservative administration. George W Bush has done more damage to capitalism than any president since FDR. His Social Security privatization plan was so flawed that it may be a generation or more before we have another crack at it. And the mortgage meltdown ? Forget the propaganda about the Community Reinvestment Act. The major cause was the Fed's super-easy money policy, enacted with Bush's support, to try to fix the economic damage caused by the Tech Bubble and the 9/11 attacks (which were in turn enabled by the criminal negligence of You Know Who.)

9.Obama is just plain smarter than McCain. Obama graduated from Harvard Law School in the top ten percent of his class. McCain graduated from Annapolis near the bottom of his class. Voting for McCain is like telling your kids, "Don't study, do nothing but party in college, and you too can become President."

10.Our first Black President, how cool would that be? I'd rather it be Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell or even Colin Powell- but still, it would say to the world that we're finally putting this racism stuff behind us.

-VT

"Real Libertarians" see Obama as a more "libertarian" choice than John McCain or Bob Barr

Libertarians for Obama — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 13:26:10 EDT

When intelligent Libertarians examine Barack Obama they see his high intelligence and intellect as an asset for rational thinking. Combined this with his background as a civil rights lawyer and constitutional law professor who's favorable to voluntary, free community organization, and who as a Senator, took a daring stand against the Iraq War -- it becomes easy to see that Barack Obama is more "libertarian" than not.

A general definition of a libertarian is: "A libertarian is a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty, smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom."

Barack Obama's background favors many principles held by libertarians and Libertarian Party members.

Obama has the "libertarian" advantage over McCain (or Bob Barr for that matter):

-OBAMA Upholds the principals of individual liberty:

Advantage, Obama. For libertarians, Obama's heart seems to be in the right place overall.
Here are some of the principals of individual liberty which Obama supports and John McCain does NOT:

a ban on torture
gay rights
separation of church and state
privacy
free speech

-OBAMA Wants smaller government:

Advantage, Obama. Obama's favorable to withdrawl and ending the Iraq [war] occupation saving taxpayers $100 billion+ in war spending. McCain talks a good game on against earmarks and other wasteful spending. But, as Bleeding Heartland points out, the cost of earmarks in 2007 was about $17 billion. The cost of the Iraq war, which McCain wants to both continue and expand, is about $165 billion. And earmarks don't breed new government programs that destroy our civil liberties.

-OBAMA Supports lower taxes:

Advantage, Obama wants to lower taxes for MORE people (about 90-95% of taxpayers) that is everyone making less than $200,000 but raise taxes for those making over $250,000. McCain wants to lower taxes for the rich, and lower them less than Obama for the middle class. A hybrid plan would be nice, but unless you are in the "millonaire bracket" Obama's tax plan favors more people overall than McCain and one of McCain's top advisers recently said that, if elected, McCain plans to raise taxes too. (Historical Reminder: Republican George Bush Sr. said, "Read my Lips - No New Taxes" but eventually raised taxes after he was elected.)

-OBAMA Wants more personal freedom:

Advantage, Obama. Only one major candidate is pro-choice, against a ban on flag burning and wants to soften drug laws and reduce the use of mandatory minimum sentences.

McRobin Hood - The Anti-Social Socialist

Amunaor — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 18:09:27 EDT

Thanks to the artifice of 'Fractional Reserve Banking' debt has become money, hence a commodity, which value is then speculated upon as it is bundled, bought and sold by wall-street casinos. The bankers wealth, is the borrowers debt; whose burden is multiplied by usury. Cycles of inflation-deflation (adding/subtracting value; saturation-de-saturation of fiat paper) exponentially exacerbates that burden upon the borrower, until the borrower's entire material being is that as a harness, for he has become as a mule in that harness and a debt-slave to the magicians of wealth creation.

On a globalised, electronic scale, in which "money" (value added digits) is traded as a commodity is a very different story in which the conglomerates as well as the individual are harnessed by a system of perpetual debt money to the private banking sector; in other words, one half of the community lives off the toil of the other half simply for the privilege of creating, supplying and handling its "money".

When McCain utilizes the term 'Spread the Wealth Around' in conjunction with the term 'Socialist', its intent is that of a psychological barb; tipped with a dark-poison coloration, stigmatized of a bygone era in which McCain, obviously, still lives. The hope is of rousing sentiment within like minds of a gullible flock. McCain's rhetoric is only a psychological projection of his own crime onto the victim; whose cronies, having gutted the life savings and retirement accounts of the worker bees, certainly do not wish to share the proceeds of their loot. In other words, when McCain accuses Barack of spreading the wealth around, McThief is only deflecting attention away from the reality of his own egregious crime, who has already divvied up the looted booty at the top, while deceptively 'Spreading the Debt Around' at the bottom, with the added blessing from the Grand Plunderer, 'you're on your own', trust me, 'it's the American Way'.

Through exotic, algorithmic, scamming mechanisms such as Enron - Keating S&L - Wall Street Casino Bailout; McRobin-Hood has consistently looted the public trust and is not about to dethrone His Friends in DC - the good old boy network - which he just can't wait to introduce, Plain-Clothes, Palin to.

I guess this would qualify McCain/Palin as Socialist Financial Criminals with psychotic Anti-Social tendencies.

If you continue to beat your head against a brick wall; it's bleeding, and it starts to hurt; don't you think that its time to stop beating your head against the wall!? (Barack Obama)

Peace, Best Wishes and Hope

When is a Surge not a Surge? When an Invasion/Occupation is NOT a War!

Colin Powell endorsed Obama/Biden!!

James — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 09:22:48 EDT

Another Obamican!!

Yes We Can!!!!

Civic Duty

Tammy — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 04:05:05 EDT

Great advice from Eugene Jarecki of the Huffington Post on how to get more involved...

I recommend everyone take a few moments and choose to make a difference in your own sphere of influence.

Letters to NEXT President of USA

anatolant — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 03:05:52 EDT

The elections are over in IMHO. Obama is the president.

More important what will be done in 2009...

I continue mynote on my webpages -- filmplus.org/politics

+ my nonfiction project pages -- Theology of Technology

Folks, who signed up to tthis group, you are welcome to my blog @ myspace.com/anatolant [which I plan to keep for my Personal Poltics notes ].

The conflict between Individual and Society of Communism [our future] is very libertarian, and importnat for me no less than for President Obama, who will have the issues with Citizen Barack.

I do not plan to keep up this blog [cpommander-in-chief].

Congradulations and best of luck.

Anatoly

Help Barack Win Wisconsin

Lakefront Democrats for Obama — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 12:09:45 EDT

GET ON THE BUS with volunteers from the 42nd Ward to help Barack win Wisconsin.

We have been reassigned to Wisconsin. We will get back to everyone with new details ASAP but I'm told that our canvassing location will be in Southeast Wisconsin (Milwaukee, Racine or Kenosha).

I would like to invite you to AGAIN join me in traveling to a battleground state to campaign for Barack Obama on Saturday, October 25 through Sunday, October 26.

Since Gov. Sarah Palin started scaremongering against Barack Obama last weekend, John McCain's rallies have turned into surreal displays of open bigotry. In Minnesota this weekend, McCain finally tried to tamp down some of the hate—before continuing his attempt to associate Obama with Bill Ayers in the same gathering. The following three links are videos of his angry and hate-filled supporters, including a disraught woman who tells McCain she is scared of Obama because he is an "Arab."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf6YKOkfFsE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiESklGDuH4&feature=user

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjxzmaXAg9E&feature=related

We need you on ground now more than ever in the battleground state of Wisconsin to show these hate filled McCain supporters that no candidate can win the White House by utilizing racism and fear to motivate voters.

We are still renting a bus for the trip this time - and SEATS ARE ON A FIRST COME FIRST SERVED BASIS. The bus will leave at 6:30 am from a location in the 42nd Ward to be determined. Otherwise, volunteers can travel on their own or car caravan with the group to our office destination.

We will canvas in Wisconsin from 11AM to 4PM on Saturday and Sunday and then return to Illinois Sunday evening.
IF YOU ARE PLANNING ON ATTENDING PLEASE FILL OUT THE FOLLOWING SIGN-UP FORM AND EMAIL IT BACK TO michigan.obama.volunteers@gmail.com or fax to 312-278-0001.

You can also call Jacqui de Leon at (773) 661 - 9349 or (949) 292 - 5119 should you have any questions.

DATES:
( ) Saturday, October 25 - Sunday, October 26
( ) I can travel Saturday only

CONTACT INFO:
First Name:
Last Name:
Phone: ( ) - ( ) cell ( ) home ( ) business Preferred Email:

TRANSPORTATION:
Do you need transportation? Y/N
Do you have a car you can drive? Y/N
If yes, would you be able to drive other volunteers in your car? Y/N
If so, how many? ___

LODGING:
Do you need information on local hotels? Y/N
Do you need information on shared housing? Y/N

Military Deployment Inside America???

Tammy — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:05:23 EDT

Regardless of your party affiliation, I am asking everyone to stop a moment and think about the things you love that make this country great. I bet after you think a while, it all boils down to being able to live your live making your own choices and live what we think of as a normal life free of fear for making those choices: whether to be religious and how, having any kind of conversation with anyone, whether or not to own a gun, what kind of job you want, where you want to live, the kind of job or career you have, etc.

Let freedom ring again thoughout our great United States! For the last several years, we have been ruled by an administration that has instilled fear in us in order to rule us, an administration that has degraded the liberties guaranteed in our Constitution. Living in fear is not a free life and is instead a weakening of our great democratic republic. I ask you to contact your representatives and add your voice to mine. Say to them we want freedom, not fear, and demand they act to protect our freedoms. I share the below with you not to inspire fear, but instead to inspire patriotism.

I have recently heard some very disturbing news. On October 1st, what is sometimes called the Bush Brigade (brigade = 3000 - 4000 soldiers) was deployed somewhere inside the United States. this brigade reports directly to the president. In any other administration, I would give this action the benefit of the doubt. But our current president has shown that he has repeatedly been willing to lie to us and take illegal actions. Below is an excerpt from Naomi Wolfe's article on Huffington Post yesterday:

"First, the founding generation set a bright line to keep military from policing our streets in 1807 because they knew from their own experience how easily military forces -- King George's -- could subdue civilian society. The First Brigade is Bush's force: they are not answerable to Congress or to the Governors of states: they are answerable to the Commander in Chief. In an Alternet posting, I interviewed Air Force Colonel (retired) David Antoon who noted that the troops must obey the president, even if he asks them to arrest Congress or fire on civilians or attack media outlets. If they do not obey orders, he notes, they face five years in
prison.

We should not have to remind ourselves that these scenarios are unlikely to understand that this power is dangerous. Antoon himself calls the deployment 'ominous.' Troops on our streets makes us something less than a democracy: one definition of a police state is when a leader sends his own military units into civilian streets. Meanwhile the civilian policing of citizens is becoming more brutal. Hundreds of preemptive arrests took place in St Paul, dozens of journalists were arrested."

It is supposed to be illegal for these troops to enforce civil laws, but the president put a signing statement on the law that basically says he's going to ignore that portion of the law (found what I think is a conspiracy site after following a few links in the articles above, but the text quoted is directly from law documents). I'm not saying he has already used these troops, but the potential is there based on his disregard for personal liberties thus far:

"The use of U.S. troops in law enforcment duties is a complete violation of the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act, which substantially limit the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement unless under precise and extreme circumstances.

Section 1385 of the Posse Comitatus Act states, “Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”

Under the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, signed by President Bush on October 17, 2006, the law was changed to state, “The President may employ the armed forces to restore public order in any State of the United States the President determines hinders the execution of laws or deprives people of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.”

However, these changes were repealed in their entirety by HR 4986: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, reverting back to the original state of the Insurrection Act of 1807. Despite this repeal, President Bush attached a signing statement saying that he did not feel bound by the repeal.

The original text of the Insurrection Act severely limits the power of the President to deploy troops within the United States.

For troops to be deployed, a condition has to exist that, '(1) So hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or (2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.'”

Again, I share this information not to cause panic or fear. I have faith in our people and our democracy, and we can choose to make a difference. Please support our lawful government, and contact your representatives.

McCain campaign tactics In a single word: Contrafalsy

Tammy — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 21:18:02 EDT

Contrafalsy: a false controversy created to distract people from the more important issues at hand.

With the smears being laid thicker than usual by the McCain/Palin campaign in recent days, I had to coin a new term for them. And it's something that sadly, the McCain campaign might even proud of... Their VP candidate has become an expert at contrafalsy in record time.

The Libertarian Case for Obama - 7 potential upsides to a hope-monger presidency

Libertarians for Obama — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 15:25:51 EDT

The Libertarian Case for Obama - Seven potential upsides to a hope-monger presidency

Terry Michael | September 19, 2008

For those who recognize that "libertarian Democrat" is no more oxymoronic than "libertarian Republican," a solid case can be made for Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) as a Leader of the Free World who won't take that American Exceptionalism conceit as seriously as "Country First" Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Sure, we'll have to endure four or even eight years of warbling by Barbra Streisand at White House dinners. And I am under no illusions: Obama has more Populist-Progressive than Madisonian inclinations. But, guys and gals, Ms. Wasilla is no less stomach-churning than Babs. And the actual Republican presidential candidate is even more authoritarian than his Progressive hero, Teddy Roosevelt. John McCain is no friend of Friedman.

Thus, seven reasons libertarians can hope for the best from Obama.

1. Sen. Obama has met at least one war he doesn't love. His early pronouncements against the criminal enterprise in Iraq are enough reason, in themselves, to vote his way on November 4. Anyone paying the least attention must conclude that Lt. McCain's "cause greater than self" always involves the Army, the Navy, and the United States Marines (not necessarily in that order.)

2. The election of an African-American will end liberal racism as we know it. If an overwhelmingly white nation chooses a black leader, the Jesse Jacksons and other Mau Mauers for identity-based group preferences will be put out of business, as I explained here.

3. One word: Osmosis. You couldn't live in Hyde Park or teach at the University of Chicago with the intellectual curiosity of a Barack Obama without gaining at least some understanding of libertarian economics. That can't be said for most of the reactionary left-liberal wing of the Democratic Party dominating Capitol Hill. But I believe Obama is educable on free markets and I'm convinced that Democrats are ripe for a return in the next decade to the liberalism of our party's founder, Thomas Jefferson (I made this case two years ago in my libertarian Democrat manifesto.)

4. Obama is the best hope for keeping government out of your bedroom and away from your body. As would any Democratic standard-bearer, the senator from Illinois represents the pro-choice, pro-gay rights side of the cultural divide. And he has at least made interesting soundings about reducing America's status as the world's number one jailer, much of which is tied to drug offenses and other crimes without victims. No libertarian can feel comfortable with a Republican candidate who doesn't echo the personal choices demanded by his supposed hero, Barry Goldwater.

5. The hidden hand did well this month punishing stupidity. But libertarians committed to free markets, not corporate oligarchs, must pause to consider the need for field-leveling regulation. More precisely, we should ask whether there was sufficient enforcement of reasonable restraints already in place. We need Republicans to stand against excessive tinkering in markets, of course. But my modest retirement fund may be safer with Democratic regulators in charge than rogue elephants.

6. R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Yes, we need to restore America's reputation around the world. Anybody who's traveled beyond the Atlantic and Pacific in the past eight years knows America needs a makeover. Whatever you think of Barack Obama—unless, like the mindless U!S!A! crowd, you don't care what the world thinks—he will restore much of the goodwill we have lost when he raises his hand on January 20, 2009. That's significant for libertarians who believe in the importance of the nation most committed to free markets and free minds—ours—leading by example. More-of-the-McSame in foreign policy is something we can't afford.

7. Finally, Barack Obama is smart enough to follow the aspirations of the Gen Y, Millenials, and Echo Boomers next up on the American political stage. They want choices in both their bank accounts and their bedrooms. I don't have much empirical evidence for that, though the college students I teach suggest that such libertarian leanings are on the rise. After all, a generation growing up with an explosion of mega-data-informed choices literally at its keyboard fingertips will resemble the self-sufficient, liberty-loving founders of the Agrarian Age more than they'll resemble the social welfare liberals of the Industrial Era who gave us one-size-fits-all central authority mandates.

The oldest candidate in American history won't inspire such potentially libertarian change—but the senator from Illinois can. It's change in which you and I can believe, whether or not we believe in any candidate, including Barack Obama.

Terry Michael is Director of the non-partisan Washington Center for Politics & Journalism and former press secretary for the Democratic National Committee. He blogs at www.terrymichael.net.

Discuss this article online.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/128902.html

Biden v. Palin: Who Won the Debate?

Lakefront Democrats for Obama — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 22:11:44 EDT

Vote in our Online Poll: Who won the Vice Presidential Debate?

Click here to vote:

http://survey.constantcontact.com/survey/a07e2dfypegfltaz13u/start

The Language of Leadership

Tammy — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 03:16:39 EDT

Deanie Mills makes some interesting observations about the qualities of fictional and factual leaders Huggington Post today:

"The seriousness of our situation has forced the media narrative to reflect reality for the first time, maybe, in a decade or more. The language of leadership is changing in a way that expresses that.

This is a moment in our history that will tell the true tale of our national character. Will we continue to indulge our weakness for mythology, or will we step up to who we really are as a people? We are made of much sterner stuff than it has seemed in recent years. Our politics has been dominated by the silly and the surreal, but those days are over.

That is not, as Obama says, who we are.

We are still the same people who struggled to settle a brutal new land, who fought against an occupying army for our independence, who bled and died to preserve the union and end slavery, who rode to the rescue of our allies in two terrible world wars, and who led the world in space-age innovation and crackling creativity.

We don't need fake heroes anymore. We are our own heroes. We've had enough drama and theatrics, and we know it. We're ready for a real leader, and we're ready to do our part to help save ourselves.

That is who we are. Not who the myth-makers pretend we are."

Right on Poway! From across the 15

Ron Paul Patriot — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:43:14 EDT

Post from POWAY for OBAMA!!!: Why you should hate the treasury bailoutBy Poway for Obama - Sep 21st, 2008 at 2:34 pm EDT Also listed in: 10 groups Comments | Mail to a Friend | Report Objectionable Content naked capitalism: Why You Should Hate the Treasury Bailout Proposal September 21st, 2008

I urge everyone to call your congress creatures and let them know this bailout plan is absolutely unacceptable. Paulson is nuts if he thinks anyone with a brain is going to agree to this. We need reasoned, rational, LEGAL control over this banking crisis, not a Treasury Secretary who thinks he is above the law. This entire Bush administration seems to be guilty of this, and I for one am damned sick of it. PLease go to the link and read the entire post — well worth it.

naked capitalism: Why You Should Hate the Treasury Bailout Proposal

A mere two weeks ago, the Fannie/Freddie rescue was called the mother of all bailouts by some commentators. If the plans of the Administration come to fruition, it will shortly be surpassed by the $700 billion mortgage rescue plan proposed by Hank Paulson late last week.

The increase of the request from the initial $500 billion and the release of the shockingly short, sweeping text of the proposed legislation has lead to reactions of consternation among the knowledgeable, but whether this translates into enough popular ire fast enough to restrain this freight train remains to be seen.

First, let s focus on the aspect that should get the proposal dinged or renegotiated regardless of any possible merit, namely, that it gives the Treasury imperial power with respect to a simply huge amount of funds. $700 billion is comparable to the hard cost of the Iraq war, bigger than the annual Pentagon budget. And mind you, $700 billion is not the maximum that the Treasury may spend, it s the ceiling on the outstandings at any one time. It s a balance sheet number, not an expenditure limit.

But here is the truly offensive section of an overreaching piece of legislation:

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

This puts the Treasury’s actions beyond the rule of law. This is a financial coup d etat, with the only limitation the $700 billion balance sheet figure. The measure already gives the Treasury the authority not simply to buy dud mortgage paper but other assets as it deems fit. There is no accountability beyond a report contents undefined to Congress three months into the program and semiannually thereafter. The Treasury could via incompetence or venality grossly overpay for assets and advisory services, and fail to exclude consultants with conflicts of interest, and there would be no recourse. Given the truly appalling track record of this Administration in its outsourcing, this is not an idle worry.

But far worse is the precedent it sets. This Administration has worked hard to escape any constraints on its actions, not to pursue noble causes, but to curtail civil liberties: Guantanamo, rendition, torture, warrantless wiretaps. It has used the threat of unseen terrorists and a seemingly perpetual war on radical Muslim to justify gutting the Constitution. The Supreme Court, which has been supine on many fronts, has finally started to push back, but would it challenge a bill that sweeps aside judicial review? Informed readers are encouraged to speak up.

Richard Saunder has a good plan!

Ron Paul Patriot — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:27:14 EDT

Community Blogs Welcome, david.
Manage | Logout | Search Blogs Post from Richard Saunder's blog: Re. Richard Saunder's proposed alternative to the bailoutBy John from Conroe, TX - Sep 29th, 2008 at 7:34 pm EDT Comments | Mail to a Friend | Report Objectionable Content

Richard, I like your proposal to solve the current crisis. Seems like it would be much less costly than the bailout, without bailing anyone out:

Richard Saunders’ Alternative to the bailout

The current crisis is that the banks won't handle commercial paper because someone "broke the buck"- meaning they lost money on commercial paper. This commercial paper works like a lubricant in the engine of commerce. It's really not the fuel-or the spark- but is needed to keep the engine from seizing up.

The current plan is for the US to invest in bundled bad mortgages and hope that banks will provide liquidity. It is presented as the “only” option. physician. This is an expensive and rushed potential solution to a bad problem, and risky in four senses:

(1) It is very expensive, even in the best of scenarios

(2) It might not work

(3) It puts all of our eggs in one basket.

(4) It does not address the critical problem.

1. There are those who think we might get some of our money back; and staging the bailout in three phases might limit the cost. On the other hand, it still is an enormous initial outlay.

2. It might not work because it doesn't address the critical problem. It is a bit like telling a diabetic going into a coma they need a radical and expensive change in diet. In fact, while fixing the diet is important, in the short run they need a quick infusion of sugar.

3. It is unlikely that this is the only option. To present it as such creates the appearance of a rush to judgment.

4. The critical problem is the shortage of commercial paper. This current plan deals with what is one of the plausible antecedent causes of this shortage, but there are likely to be others. But the solution actually does not supply commercial paper, but deal with the plausible antecedent.

5. Richard Saunder’s Solution:

We should create a federal entity (“C-Fed”) to provide the lubricant for the engine of commerce. The C-Fed could issue short term “commercial paper” ("C-notes"). The C-Fed could charge for this service, and rates could be adjusted by the C-Fed just as the Fed adjusts the rates on T bills. The maximum cost to the taxpayers would be modest, the equivalent of the maximum outlay for a given day. The C-Fed could charge different rates based on how willing different users are to abide to certain rules. For example, one could give more favorable rates to smaller firms, or to domestic firms, or to firms that hire US workers, etc.

Under this plan, the involvement of the US government could float. For example, in good times, the entity could retract, letting Wall Street handle commercial paper. In bad times, such as the current crisis, the C-Fed would open the gates and let more flow. The key point is that the flow is more like a tide- in and out- rather than an "investment".

Advantages over the current proposal

1.: it is a nearly-zero-sum game. This is the function of an ideal friction-less lubricant. The C-fed isn't really trying to make money on the deal. It works more like the postmaster-making enough to pay for itself. It can't get too powerful because Wall Street can always use normal commericial paper if it wants to, and it is available. There is huge outlay.

2 It addresses the liquidity problem directly.

3. It could be adjusted to allow "monetary policy" to be implemented.

3) It isn't necessarily the only solution. Congress could decide to purchase some bad bundles, if it wanted to help "Wall Street". Or it could try a variety of tricks, none of which are all-or-nothing.

Comments:

No-one is "bailed out". Banks that were stupid pay for their stupidity, but the widget makers don't have to pay for that stupidity. No-one will be rewarded for greed, or stupidity.

There are certain problems with won't address. For example, investors whose life savings are tied up bad bundles, will still suffer. But that can be handled separately, through other governmental programs, if necessary.

Political advantages. We can get away from the term "bail-out". We can avoid a huge and obviously bad investment that will cripple the budget in the short term and might not even work in the long run. We avoid "nationalization". We keep a pile of money out of the hands of the executive branch. Instead of a huge one-time thing, we allow Congress or a C-Fed to make adjustments as needed. Philosophically, it is "merely" a modification of the cash system which no-one, seems to complain about. The C-Fed addresses the critical problem directly, rather than trying indirectly to solve the problem by solving a different problem. It thus is more transparent to everyone. Since there are no actual purchases of property, we don't have to wonder whose pockets are being lined in the process (???). We could have the chairman of the C-Fed be different from the chairman of the T-Fed, so power is better distributed.

Other advantages: it seems both "old" (in the sense of being an extension of the cash system, or of the Fed), and "new" (in the sense of not being on the table at present). It might allow Congress to use it to gain points on all sides.

Some liberals complain this doesn’t deal with the root causes of the problem. Surely it does not. Again, that is like saying that supplying sugar at the right time to a diabetic doesn’t deal with the root cause of diabetes. It does solve the critical problem of insufficient sugar in the brain. Some conservatives complain that this solution will nationalize a process properly given over to private enterprise. That is not identical to, but similar to, saying the federal government should not issue cash or T-bills. However, it should be emphasized that Saunder’s solution is a fix to a crisis, and should prevent similar crises in the future. Most importantly, no bank is nationalized.

GOP Motto: 'County' Club First - People Last

Amunaor — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:37:04 EDT

                   McThief-McLawless-McKeating-McEnron-McBush/Cheney
                                       Mc$ame As It Ever Was

GOP (Grand Oil Party)                 Motto: 'County' Club First - People Last
Peace, Best Wishes and Hope

What The People Are Searching For

Tammy — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:54:39 EDT

My hat's off to Carrie Dan of NBC and National Journal for an article that explored an angle of politics I hadn't thought to wonder about... what are people really searching for about the candidates? Carrie Dan was emulating Russert in her let the facts tell the tale approach to this article. Thank you, Carrie Dann, for such a refreshingly professional piece of journalism!

The facts she reports present a very interesting narrative of the recent campaign season. See below for an excerpt...

"Fact versus Fiction
Yet web users' sometimes perverse pursuits provide an unfair picture of the legitimate issues and even bold questions sometimes asked of search engines' sophisticated logarithms.

During the week of September 13, for example, as America's economic underpinnings were starting to become un-pinned, the term "Obama view on economy" clocked in as one of the "fastest moving" (aka increasingly popular) searches driving traffic to Obama's website.

Last week, "John McCain Spain" debuted at number 10 on the list of "John McCain" search terms after the senator offered an unexpected answer to a Spanish-language radio host who asked if he would agree to meet with Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero. (McCain's unusually cool response led some to wonder if the candidate confused Zapatero with the leader of another country.)

The vast majority of searches for each candidate's name appear to be exploratory in nature, with general terms like "John McCain issues" or "Joe Biden info" acting as portals for information for users starting from scratch to learn more about the White House nominees.

Biographical information is also in high demand, particularly for Barack Obama, whose mother, father, sister, and wife are also all popular subjects for searches. Almost 20% of the top 100 search terms for Obama in the past month were ones seeking information on his age, family, and upbringing.

But interestingly, Obama is the only one of the four nominees for whom "affair" is not a popular search.

Hitwise data for the same time period showed that web users wondered feverishly about the extramarital exploits of Palin (rank No. 7 on her search term list), McCain (No. 29), and to a lesser extent Biden (No. 294). Web users also appear to be fascinated with McCain's first wife, whom he divorced after an overlapping courtship of the much younger Cindy McCain."

McBush 911 Financial Meltdown Threat

Amunaor — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 00:15:22 EDT

Wall-Street Casino Owners Hold Public Wallets (Fundamentals) Hostage

Wall-Street Casino Operators got drunk......Wall-Street should stop their whining and get over their self induced mental recession. Beware of Confidence Men! Remember - Fraud is Fraud; no matter how you slice it or dice it, a pig with lipstick, is still a pig!

In Los Vegas, not unlike Wall-Street, the house is rigged to always come out on top. This is not a solution, only a sturdier yoke...a new and improved mousetrap, if you will!

Please read book review at link: Secrets of the Federal Reserve

Step Up Barack, Stop the 2 Trillion $ Bailout!

Ron Paul Patriot — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 10:20:28 EDT

Liberals, Conservatives, Independents and Libertarians all recognize that the most important issue in this election is the Bailout and Barack must lead the nation to realize that the Bailout is a DISASTER AND MUST BE STOPPED!

62% of Americans are already against the bailout! http://efinancedirectory.com/articles/62_Percent_of_Americans_Against_Subprime_Mortgage_Bailout.html

Liberals would like to help distressed homeowners. This takes appropriations. Where are you going to find the money for your plans? THE BAILOUT WILL BANKRUPT THE NATION!

Conservatives would like new healthy banks to replace the corrupt rotting banks. THE BAILOUT WILL KEEP THE FAILED BANKS ALIVE FOR PLENTY OF TIME, preventing new ones that are solvent from financing the recovery. THE BAILOUT WILL BANKRUPT THE NATION!

Independents want new blood in Washington. Those failed and corrupt banks kept alive by the bailout will spend their govt largesse on lobbyists to keep their favorite corrupt congressmen on the take! THE BAILOUT WILL BANKRUPT THE NATION!

Libertarians know that the bailout will complete the dismemberment and destruction of our Constitution.

Barack, please speak out against this bill before McCain takes full credit for destroying it. SPEAK OUT NOW!

Ron Paul Patriot

The real reason for the debate gambit?

Tammy — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 10:05:45 EDT

Just saw this posted:

Breaking News from Big Eddie:
McCain Camp insiders say Palin "clueless"
Capitol Hill sources are telling me that senior McCain people
are more than concerned about Palin. The campaign has held
a mock debate and a mock press conference; both are being described as "disastrous." One senior McCain aide was quoted as saying, "What are we going to do?" The McCain people want to move this first debate to some later, undetermined date, possibly never. People on the inside are saying the Alaska Governor is "clueless."

Here's the site: http://www.bigeddieradio.com/

I don't know about you, but I've thought for a while that Palin didn't have near the experience even in campaigning to be vice president. As a woman, I'm insulted that McCain chose Palin when there were ever so many more experienced Republican women that could have been selected.

So, if what I've shown above is true, the McCain debate gambit seems to make much more sense... pospone the first presidential debate to the time for the vp debate, and then whoops... so sorry we can't find a date that works for the VP debate and Palin gets her get out of debate free card.

Your thoughts?

VIDEO THE VOTE We need you help to save American democracy

WANOBLICK SSGT USAF (Retired) Disabled Vietnam era veteran — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 19:21:15 EDT

Video the Vote is calling on you to help us document issues of voter
suppression and disenfranchisement on Election Day 2008 in Your
Community!!

We need strong leaders to serve as: Local Producers, Shooters and Team
Leaders on Election Day to protect the vote and ensure our civil
liberties!
We can stop vote suppression in it's tracks. I am member of Video the vote. The republicans are still very active in vote suppression. Also we can report problems with voting devices and to document any activity. We need your help to prevent another Florida in 2000 or Ohio in 2004. We will have the time before the elctorial college votes to show the senate any irregularities during this election.

Video The Vote (www.videothevote.org) is a nonpartisan Voter
Protection project, which aims to protect the vote by being the eyes
and ears where ballots are cast and counted on Election Day 2008. With
the help of our partners (Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, Common
Cause, Voter Action, People for the American Way, Color of Change,
Rock the Vote, Working Assets, many more), and an army of nation-wide
citizen dispatchers, videographers and reporters, we will document and
report any irregularities that occur at polling places and boards of
elections while they are happening, enabling the media and public to
watch-dog the electoral process and document issues of
voter-suppression across our country. Like any grassroots effort, this
campaign depends on the participation of as many people as possible.

Do MORE than vote on November 4, 2008! Video the Vote! Help protect
the vote! Protect your community! Visit www.videothevote.org or email
danie@videothevote.org to get involved today!!!

Vote NO to Palin on Bill Moyers Web Link

bpalmer28 - President, St. Charles Democratic Alliance — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 07:06:44 EDT

Keeping the chain going. http://www.pbs.org/now/polls/poll-435.html. Bill Moyer's show, NOW, is taking a poll of Americans to determine if we think Palin is ready to be VP of this country. The repubs have an email chain to get their people to vote in her favor. I'm asking you to go to the link and vote the TRUTH and then send the link to 25 friends and Barack supporters asking them to vote NO too. DO IT NOW! http://www.pbs.org/now/polls/poll-435.html

Faith and Politics

Bill W — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 16:40:21 EDT

WWJD? Do you remember those buttons and bumperstickers from a few years ago? Or going back to the '70s there were the Wanted posters of Jesus for associating with sinners, etc. In politics it seems that the conservatives are the only ones that believe they speak for Jesus, or God. In many cases it seems that the media and especially progressive bloggers and commentators, and in some cases, even progressive politicians are more than willing to allow them to grab that claim. It seems that too often they want to prove that we progressives are more intelligent than that and we don't need a God. It isn't sophisticated or intelligent to speak of God. Or at least that is what they seem to want to be showing.

I enjoy listening to Bill Press, Stephanie Miller, Thom Hartmann, Ed Schultz, and Randi Rhodes and reading the Huffington Post but many of them want to be critical or question any religious belief or at least not give it much credit; even when it is a caller that does express how they agree with the more progessive stance on issues but they are also Christian. I think Thom Hartmann may be the biggest exception. He has expressed on many occasions that he does consider himself a Christian also.

I have heard and read much criticism of Sarah Palon, John McCain's vice president nominee, on her beliefs. I don't agree with many of her beliefs but there are many people that want to criticize her for praying to God for the pipeline and to become Alaskan governor and other issues. I don't like praying to God for trivial issues and am not sure that God is really all that concerned about small issues. The media was tough on Obama about comments by his pastor and even with some of the religoius associates that McCain has/had. I think in some of those instances they were wrong. I do believe that some of the beliefs that have come out of her and her church are newsworthy such as our involvement in Iraq being a Holy war and I question the belief that Alaska being some type of holy land where the last saved people with gather for God. The idea that somehow all of the problems Israel faces is because they don't believe in Jesus being the Son of God is quite troubling and offensive. It should be newsworthy. It is newsworthy that John McCain picked Palin mainly for her religious beliefs.

It is wrong for the media and progressive commentators to be so concerned about candidate's beliefs unless it truly affects the general public. The media should alert the public when conservatives seek to blur the lines between state and religion. It is important that people learn to be more willing to allow others to hold their beliefs without being criticized.

Conservatives could also remember that Jesus was critical of those that made such a big public display of their beliefs. Jesus was critical of those that challenged him on his beliefs. There are many people today that are equal to the Pharisees of that time. The only time that Christ really got angry was when the money changers were using the synagouge; there are many individuals within the Republican Party that could equate to today.

I think if Jesus came back today he would be persecuted more by the James Dobsons and Pat Robertsons then He would be by the liberal media and Democrats.Faith is important to many people. No one should believe that only they know what God wants.

We can't take the low road

Tammy — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 09:35:03 EDT

I just wrote a letter to the Obama campaign thanking them for their hard work on behalf of our candidate but asking them to be careful with their choices in advertising during the rest of the campaign.

What prompted this was an inaccurate Spanish language advertisement that I saw today. In the ad, it equated Rush Limbaugh's immigration policy with John McCain's. Now I'm not at all a John McCain fan, but I have to speak the truth here: Their policies are completely different, so different that it was why Limbaugh didn't initially support John McCain. To equate the two is a distortion of the facts, and honestly, I'm disappointed to see this tactic used by our campaign.

John McCain and his campaign have made too many blunders, lies and memory lapses for our campaign to need to use McCain's tactics of lies, distortion and taking things out of context. For once, the mainstream media has finally started calling McCain on his lies and distortions, so I asked the Obama campaign to please make sure the media don't have a reason to call us on the same carpet.

I am a passionate supporter of Barack Obama in part because of his promise to run a different kind of campaign, and I think the general public is beginning to see that Barack is focused on the issues, while McCain is focused on saying whatever he can that he thinks will get him elected.

So Obama campaign, let's continue what Barack has been doing this week on the campaign trail: staying focused on the important issues to all Americans and at the same time calling McCain on his lies or lapses. As you see, we have plenty to choose from: fundamentals of the economy are strong, Palin and her earmarks, Sunni/Shia confusion, Obama raising taxes, againat AIG bailout then for it, etc. These and the very many others are the reason John McCain doesn't have the judgment to be a good president.

We don't need to use John McCain's tactics against him... His own words will work just fine.

If you feel as I do, please contact our Obama campaign and share your views with them and ask your friends to do the same. Thanks and have a wonderful day!

If this election were not so critical It would be laughable

WANOBLICK SSGT USAF (Retired) Disabled Vietnam era veteran — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 12:45:17 EDT

You are The Boss... which team would you hire?

With America facing historic debt, multiple war fronts, stumbling health care, a weakened dollar, all-time high prison population, skyrocketing Federal spending, mortgage crises, bank foreclosures, Republican adminstration nationalizing public traded financial institutions and threatening war with Russia, etc. etc., all in all this is an unusually critical election year.

Let's look at the educational background of your two options:

Obama:
Occidental College - Two years.
Columbia University - B.A. political science with a specialization in international relations.
Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude

& Biden:
University of Delaware - B.A. in history and B.A. in political science.
Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)

vs.

McCain:
United States Naval Academy - Class rank 894 of 899

& Palin:
Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester
North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study
University of Idaho - 2 semesters - journalism
Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester
University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in journalism
I'm a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight.....
* If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're "exotic, different." But.... * Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, yours is a quintessential American story.

* If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.
* Name your kids Willow, Trig, Bristol and Track, you're a maverick.
* Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.
* Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well grounded.
* If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.
* If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become
the country's second highest ranking executive.

* If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian.
* If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a Christian.

* If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.
* If , while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state's school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant , you're very responsible.

* If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America's.
* If your husband is nicknamed "First Dude", with at least one DUI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your
family is extremely admirable.

OK, much clearer now.

You are The Boss... which team would you hire?

With America facing historic debt, multiple war fronts, stumbling health care, a weakened dollar, all-time high prison population, skyrocketing Federal spending, mortgage crises, bank foreclosures, Republican adminstration nationalizing public traded financial institutions and threatening war with Russia, etc. etc., all in all this is an unusually critical election year.

Let's look at the educational background of your two options:

Obama:
Occidental College - Two years.
Columbia University - B.A. political science with a specialization in international relations.
Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude

& Biden:
University of Delaware - B.A. in history and B.A. in political science.
Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)

vs.

McCain:
United States Naval Academy - Class rank 894 of 899

& Palin:
Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester
North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study
University of Idaho - 2 semesters - journalism
Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester
University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in journalism

* If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're "exotic, different." But.... * Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, yours is a quintessential American story.

* If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.
* Name your kids Willow, Trig, Bristol and Track, you're a maverick.
* Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.
* Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well grounded.
* If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.
* If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become
the country's second highest ranking executive.

* If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian.
* If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a Christian.

* If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.
* If , while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state's school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant , you're very responsible.

* If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America's.
* If your husband is nicknamed "First Dude", with at least one DUI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your
family is extremely admirable.

OK, much clearer now.

1 single statement to correct people about Obama

Suhail from Alpharetta, GA — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:29:27 EDT

There's a popular theme going around that Barack Obama never stood up against the Democratic party. This is wrong, on the most important issue of our generation, men such as Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinch, and Barack Obama stood up against EVERYONE who supported the invasion of Iraq. When nearly everyone was wrong, we have people who had the judgement on what was right. Make sure to counter all those rediculus claims that Barack never stood up against Democrats on anything important... nothing could be more important then standing up against the Iraq war. John McCain voted for the Iraq War. He voted for the Iraq war, but he was against the "way it was handled". Sorry big mac, you should have put more thought into that vote... I refuse to vote for an impulsive and emotional person like John McCain.

This is Your Nation on White Privilege

Deb — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:59:00 EDT

This is Your Nation on White Privilege

September 13, 2008, 2:01 pm

This is Your Nation on White Privilege

By Tim Wise

For those who still can’t grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are constantly looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.

White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because “every family has challenges,” even as black and Latino families with similar “challenges” are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.

White privilege is when you can call yourself a “fuckin’ redneck,” like Bristol Palin’s boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll “kick their fuckin' ass,” and talk about how you like to “shoot shit” for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.

White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.

White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don’t all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you’re “untested.” 

White privilege is being able to say that you support the words “under God” in the pledge of allegiance because “if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it’s good enough for me,” and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the “under God” part wasn’t added until the 1950s--while believing that reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals. 

White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you. 

White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto was “Alaska first,” and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she’s being disrespectful. 

White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you’re being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college--you’re somehow being mean, or even sexist. 

White privilege is being able to convince white women who don’t even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a “second look.” 

White privilege is being able to fire people who didn’t support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt. 

White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God’s punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you’re just a good church-going Christian, but if you’re black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you’re an extremist who probably hates America. 

White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a “trick question,” while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O’Reilly means you’re dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced. 

White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism is, as Sarah Palin has referred to it a “light” burden. 

And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren’t sure about that whole “change” thing. Ya know, it’s just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain… 

White privilege is, in short, the problem.

McCain's solution to Wall Street lol

Suhail from Alpharetta, GA — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:00:36 EDT

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/mccain-calls-for-commission-to-study-wall-street-woes/

McCain suggests we need to make a commission to study the problems on wall street and then report to congress. How about McCain recall a question posed to him from Dr. Ron Paul:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUZwL9GPcNw

This answer provided by John McCain clearly illustrates how McCain knows JACK SHIT about economic policies... when will the Obama camp bring this point up? He calls for a commission to investigate wall street when there's already a very influential group of experts reporting to the president.

I think Barack Obama should state that should he be president, he'll have weekly meetings with this group and allow this group to file a monthly report to congress and at least 1 day where members of congress can offiicially meet with these people and addressed their concerns on the record after reviewing their monthly reports.

HOT-Virginia GOP ex-Governor to Campaign for Obama

Deb — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 09:49:06 EDT

HOT-Virginia GOP ex-Governor to Campaign for Obama by tassojunior Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 05:49:39 PM PDT

Former GOP governor Linwood Holton today endorsed a Democrat for president for the first time and is going to stump critical areas of the state for him.

Linwood Holton is the hero of moderate Republicans in Virginia. He defeated the segregationist Democrat for governor and fought GOP rightwingers. Holton is widely regarded as the father of the Republican party in Virginia. When Richmond public schools were ordered integrated Holton enrolled his children in the AA school close to the governor's mansion and walked them to school.

He supported his son-in-law Tim Kaine for governor but has never supported a Democratic presidential candidate.

tassojunior's diary :: ::

Not only endorsing Obama but campaigning heavily:

Holton and his daughter, Anne, will campaign Monday and Tuesday in Southwest Virginia. The tour will be a homecoming for Holton, who was born in Big Stone Gap.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/...

The Holtons will hold community forums in Wise, Abingdon and Galax tomorrow, and in Wytheville, Christiansburg and Roanoke on Tuesday, the Obama campaign said yesterday.

http://www.inrich.com/...

Don't underestimate Holton's influence with independents and moderate Republicans in Virginia. Public buildings and schools all over the state, and especially in southwest Virginia, are named for him. Not only endorsing but actually stumping the state for Obama is a very big plus.

Wikipedia on Holton:

Abner Linwood Holton, Jr. (born September 21, 1923) was the first Republican Governor of Virginia since Reconstruction. He was governor from 1970 to 1974. He was the Republican candidate for governor in 1965 but was defeated by Democrat Mills E. Godwin, Jr. He later unsuccessfully sought the Republican nomination for the US Senate in 1978, having finished third in a field of Richard D. Obenshain, John Warner, and Nathan H. Miller.

Holton was a member of the mountain-valley Republican Party (GOP) that fought the Byrd Organization and was not in favor of welcoming conservative Democrats into the Virginia Republican Party. In 1970, when forced busing was an issue in Virginia, Holton voluntarily placed his children (including future First Lady of Virginia Anne Holton) in the mostly African-American Richmond public schools garnering much publicity. The Republican party, in response, turned their back on him and supported Godwin in 1974, a former conservative Democrat who had turned Republican and who supported "massive resistance" to desegregation.[1][2]

As governor he pushed hard to field Republican candidates in all statewide races instead of endorsing conservative alternatives. This led to weak moderate GOP candidates who ran third in the Virginia US Senate election in 1970 and the special election in 1971 to choose a successor for the deceased J. Sargeant Reynolds.

As the Virginia Republican Party became more conservative, he found himself more in line with the state Democratic Party, ultimately endorsing several Democrats for statewide office, including his son-in-law, Governor Tim Kaine (he has in the past supported moderate Republicans, including John Warner).

http://en.wikipedia.org/...

Great tribute to Holton:
"Sorensen Institute Honors Linwood Holton"
http://www.sorenseninstitute.org/...

More on McCain's Lies

Tammy — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:17:57 EDT

I stumbled upon this post at The Seferm Post that is also calling out McCain on his lies:

"If McCain were a blogger, he would have had to retract by now. But he's running for president of the United States, so he can say anything, lie about anything and not have to answer for it. Yesterday, John McCain lied on national television about something that no one disputes in the public record.

He was challenged by the only serious journalists on television right now - the hosts of 'The View' - about the large number of pork barrel earmarks Sarah Palin sought and secured as governor of Alaska, including the "Bridge to Nowhere" that Palin and McCain lied about and are still lying about in public. Here was his clear and irrefutable statement:

Palin's comments came after McCain sat for a feisty grilling on ABC's "The View," where he claimed erroneously that his running mate hadn't sought money for such pet projects. "Not as governor she didn't," McCain said, ignoring the record.

It has now been a day since McCain lied this explicitly in public. And he hasn't yet retracted his lie. This AP piece is dated as of this afternoon. Why not?"

I join him in asking why not. Why has there not been a widespread demand for a retraction from McCain?

Why is McCain still not being grilled on why he has continually confused Shia and Sunni groups in Iraq?

Those are but a few of McCain's mistakes. Why is he not be held accountable for them?

Give the Federal Reserve Credit for Bankrupting the USA

Ron Paul Patriot — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 10:54:18 EDT

So far, Barack is mum on the US Treasury Bank bailouts, on reducing US bureaucracy, on abolishing the Federal Reserve moral hazard created when propping up the Wall Street sleaze that runs the nation.

We all know that McCain is simply a tool of the Wall Street and Washington lobbyists. If Barack wants to shake these bankers from their stranglehold on the taxpaying citizens why doesn't he speak up? He could garner quite a few libertarian supporters if he cared.

San Diego

Blizzard of Lies

Tammy — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 13:45:52 EDT

Paul Krugman, thanks for calling a spade a spade in your op-ed in the NY Times today.

I sincerely hope the Obama campaign takes his words to heart and finds a way to really share this viewpoint... that is, that the way someone campaigns can give you insight into how they will govern. Below is an excerpt:

"...how a politician campaigns tells you a lot about how he or she would govern.

I’m not talking about the theory, often advanced as a defense of horse-race political reporting, that the skills needed to run a winning campaign are the same as those needed to run the country. The contrast between the Bush political team’s ruthless effectiveness and the heckuva job done by the Bush administration is living, breathing, bumbling, and, in the case of the emerging Interior Department scandal, coke-snorting and bed-hopping proof to the contrary.

I’m talking, instead, about the relationship between the character of a campaign and that of the administration that follows. Thus, the deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an all-too-revealing preview of things to come. In fact, my early suspicion that we were being misled about the threat from Iraq came from the way the political tactics being used to sell the war resembled the tactics that had earlier been used to sell the Bush tax cuts.

And now the team that hopes to form the next administration is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class. What does that say about how that team would run the country?

What it says, I’d argue, is that the Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much, much worse."

I wholeheartedly agree with Krugman's hypothesis that McCain/Palin would be much worse than what we've seen the last 7 years.

Voting for Barack Obama

Suhail from Alpharetta, GA — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 00:21:34 EDT

The main thing that initially attracted me to Republican Ron Paul was his strong stance against the Iraq War and his overall ideas on foreign policy. Also his economic policies. However, I disagree with Ron Paul that "socialized" medicine would be so bad... too much scare tactics on that idea that the "government" is getting too powerful... the government is we the people of the people and by the people so there's not that much to really worry about in my opinion. Ron Paul was the best republican running this year and won every single GOP debate. Knowing that Barack Obama is an extremely intelligent person and also a very skilled debater makes me excited to see when McCain gets torn down to shreds. I disagree with many things from both Obama and Ron Paul, but they're by far my favorite candidates. On the issues, they at least are both intelligent enough to think through and make choices rather then McCain who would just rely on an inner circle of friends to make his choices (watch McCain's reaction in a GOP debate against Ron Paul to see how stupid he is). I don't agree 100% with Obama economically, but I believe he's able to at least understand what's going on.

There's been a lot of rhetoric by the Obama camp that McCain and Palin are more of the same and will bring 4 more years bla bla bla... I think for comedic effect, at least 1 time, they should end with this lil sound agree with George Bush on this sound byte you can see on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A

"There's an old saying here in Tennessee, fool me once, shame on... yooooou... fool... me... ... the thing is you can't get fooled again!"

Republicans like me who voted for Bush 4 years ago will not be causing SHAME ON ME! lol

Ultimately 4 years ago Pennsylvania went to John Kerry :)

Sorry for the long post!

If someone could download this video from youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM3oww9Vk-c

and edit in Bush saying his fool me once line either in the beginning or the end? i'd really appreciate it! i think something like that would be both effective and funny =)

She knew Palin for 20 years...

Deb — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 00:45:34 EDT

Anne is from Wasilla, Alaska.
I found this on the Washington Post comment board and have posted it
exactly as I found it.
Amazing Letter From a Local Wasillian Who Knows Sarah Palin Well.
From: http://www.washingtonindependent.com/3671/the-reform-candidate
Submitted by Michael Wrightson on Sept 1, 2008

A note to all by {the Author}

Dear friends,

So many people have asked me about what I know about Sarah Palin in the
last 2 days that I decided to write something up . . .

Basically, Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton have only 2 things in
common: their gender and their good looks.

You have my permission to forward this to your friends/email contacts
with my name and email address attached, but please do not post it on
any websites, as there are too many kooks out there . . .

[ This was already posted on Washington Independent comments area,
with a controllable hotmail account, and was obviously meant by the
author to be read. ]

Thanks,

Anne

ABOUT SARAH PALIN

I am a resident of Wasilla, Alaska. I have known Sarah since 1992.
Everyone here knows Sarah, so it is nothing special to say we are on a
first-name basis. Our children have attended the same schools. Her
father was my child's favorite substitute teacher. I also am on a
first name basis with her parents and mother-in-law. I attended more
City Council meetings during her administration than about 99% of the
residents of the city.

She is enormously popular; in every way she's like the most popular
girl in middle school. Even men who think she is a poor choice and
won't vote for her can't quit smiling when talking about her because
she is a "babe".

It is astonishing and almost scary how well she can keep a secret. She
kept her most recent pregnancy a secret from her children and parents
for seven months.

She is "pro-life". She recently gave birth to a Down's syndrome baby.
There is no cover-up involved, here; Trig is her baby.

She is energetic and hardworking. She regularly worked out at the gym.

She is savvy. She doesn't take positions; she just "puts things out
there" and if they prove to be popular, then she takes credit.

Her husband works a union job on the North Slope for BP and is a
champion snowmobile racer. Todd Palin's kind of job is highly
sought-after because of the schedule and high pay. He arranges his
work schedule so he can fish for salmon in Bristol Bay for a month or
so in summer, but by no stretch of the imagination is fishing their
major source of income. Nor has her life-style ever been anything
like that of native Alaskans.

Sarah and her whole family are avid hunters.

She's smart.

Her experience is as mayor of a city with a population of about 5,000
(at the time), and less than 2 years as governor of a state with about
670,000 residents.

During her mayoral administration most of the actual work of running
this small city was turned over to an administrator. She had been
pushed to hire this administrator by party power-brokers after she had
gotten herself into some trouble over precipitous firings which had
given rise to a recall campaign.

Sarah campaigned in Wasilla as a "fiscal conservative". During her 6
years as Mayor, she increased general government expenditures by over
33%. During those same 6 years the amount of taxes collected by the
City increased by 38%. This was during a period of low inflation
(1996-2002). She reduced progressive property taxes and increased a
regressive sales tax which taxed even food. The tax cuts that she
promoted benefited large corporate property owners way more than they
benefited residents.

The huge increases in tax revenues during her mayoral administration
weren't enough to fund everything on her wish list though, borrowed
money was needed, too. She inherited a city with zero debt, but left it
with indebtedness of over $22 million. What did Mayor Palin encourage
the voters to borrow money for? Was it the infrastructure that she said
she supported? The sewage treatment plant that the city lacked? or a
new library? No. $1m for a park. $15m-plus for construction of a
multi-use sports complex which she rushed through to build on a piece
of property that the City didn't even have clear title to, that was
still in litigation 7 yrs later–to the delight of the lawyers
involved! The sports complex itself is a nice addition to the
community but a huge money pit, not the profit-generator she claimed it
would be. She also supported bonds for $5.5m for road projects that
could have been done in 5-7 yrs without any borrowing.

While Mayor, City Hall was extensively remodeled and her office
redecorated more than once.

These are small numbers, but Wasilla is a very small city.

As an oil producer, the high price of oil has created a budget surplus
in Alaska. Rather than invest this surplus in technology that will
make us energy independent and increase efficiency, as Governor she
proposed distribution of this surplus to every individual in the state.

In this time of record state revenues and budget surpluses, she
recommended that the state borrow/bond for road projects, even while
she proposed distribution of surplus state revenues: spend today's
surplus, borrow for needs.

She's not very tolerant of divergent opinions or open to outside ideas
or compromise. As Mayor, she fought ideas that weren't generated by
her or her staff. Ideas weren't evaluated on their merits, but on the
basis of who proposed them.

While Sarah was Mayor of Wasilla she tried to fire our highly respected
City Librarian because the Librarian refused to consider removing from
the library some books that Sarah wanted removed. City residents
rallied to the defense of the City Librarian and against Palin's
attempt at out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew
her termination letter. People who fought her attempt to oust the
Librarian are on her enemies list to this day.

Sarah complained about the "old boy's club" when she first ran for
Mayor, so what did she bring Wasilla? A new set of "old boys". Palin
fired most of the experienced staff she inherited. At the City and as
Governor she hired or elevated new, inexperienced, obscure people,
creating a staff totally dependent on her for their jobs and eternally
grateful and fiercely loyal–loyal to the point of abusing their power
to further her personal agenda, as she has acknowledged happened in the
case of pressuring the State's top cop (see below).

As Mayor, Sarah fired Wasilla's Police Chief because he "intimidated"
her, she told the press. As Governor, her recent firing of Alaska's top
cop has the ring of familiarity about it. He served at her pleasure
and she had every legal right to fire him, but it's pretty clear that
an important factor in her decision to fire him was because he wouldn't
fire her sister's ex-husband, a State Trooper. Under investigation
for abuse of power, she has had to admit that more than 2 dozen
contacts were made between her staff and family to the person that she
later fired, pressuring him to fire her ex-brother-in-law. She tried to
replace the man she fired with a man who she knew had been reprimanded
for sexual harassment; when this caused a public furor, she withdrew
her support.

She has bitten the hand of every person who extended theirs to her in
help. The City Council person who personally escorted her around town
introducing her to voters when she first ran for Wasilla City Council
became one of her first targets when she was later elected Mayor. She
abruptly fired her loyal City Administrator; even people who didn't
like the guy were stunned by this ruthlessness.

Fear of retribution has kept all of these people from saying anything
publicly about her.

When then-Governor Murkowski was handing out political plums, Sarah got
the best, Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: one
of the few jobs not in Juneau and one of the best paid. She had no
background in oil & gas issues. Within months of scoring this great
job which paid $122,400/yr, she was complaining in the press about the
high salary. I was told that she hated that job: the commute, the
structured hours, the work. Sarah became aware that a member of this
Commission (who was also the State Chair of the Republican Party)
engaged in unethical behavior on the job. In a gutsy move which some
undoubtedly cautioned her could be political suicide, Sarah solved all
her problems in one fell swoop: got out of the job she hated and
garnered gobs of media attention as the patron saint of ethics and as a
gutsy fighter against the "old boys' club" when she dramatically quit,
exposing this man's ethics violations (for which he was fined).

As Mayor, she had her hand stuck out as far as anyone for pork from
Senator Ted Stevens. Lately, she has castigated his pork-barrel
politics and publicly humiliated him. She only opposed the "bridge to
nowhere" after it became clear that it would be unwise not to.

As Governor, she gave the Legislature no direction and budget
guidelines, then made a big grandstand display of line-item vetoing
projects, calling them pork. Public outcry and further legislative
action restored most of these projects–which had been vetoed simply
because she was not aware of their importance–but with the unobservant
she had gained a reputation as "anti-pork".

She is solidly Republican: no political maverick. The State party
leaders hate her because she has bit them in the back and humiliated
them. Other members of the party object to her self-description as a
fiscal conservative.

Around Wasilla there are people who went to high school with Sarah.
They call her "Sarah Barracuda" because of her unbridled ambition and
predatory ruthlessness. Before she became so powerful, very ugly
stories circulated around town about shenanigans she pulled to be made
point guard on the high school basketball team. When Sarah's
mother-in-law, a highly respected member of the community and
experienced manager, ran for Mayor, Sarah refused to endorse her.

As Governor, she stepped outside of the box and put together of package
of legislation known as "AGIA" that forced the oil companies to march
to the beat of her drum.

Like most Alaskans, she favors drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge. She has questioned if the loss of sea ice is linked to
global warming. She campaigned "as a private citizen" against a state
initiaitive that would have either a) protected salmon streams from
pollution from mines, or b) tied up in the courts all mining in the
state (depending on who you listen to). She has pushed the State's
lawsuit against the Dept. of the Interior's decision to list polar
bears as threatened species.

McCain is the oldest person to ever run for President; Sarah will be a
heartbeat away from being President.

There has to be literally millions of Americans who are more
knowledgeable and experienced than she.

However, there's a lot of people who have underestimated her and are
regretting it.

CLAIM VS FACT
•"Hockey mom": true for a few years
•"PTA mom": true years ago when her first-born was in elementary
school, not since
•"NRA supporter": absolutely true
•social conservative: mixed. Opposes gay marriage, BUT vetoed a bill
that would have denied benefits to employees in same-sex relationships
(said she did this because it was unconsitutional).
•pro-creationism: mixed. Supports it, BUT did nothing as Governor to
promote it.
•"Pro-life": mixed. Knowingly gave birth to a Down's syndrome baby
BUT declined to call a special legislative session on some pro-life
legislation
•"Experienced": Some high schools have more students than Wasilla has
residents. Many cities have more residents than the state of Alaska.
No legislative experience other than City Council. Little hands-on
supervisory or managerial experience; needed help of a city
administrator to run town of about 5,000.
•political maverick: not at all
•gutsy: absolutely!
•open & transparent: ??? Good at keeping secrets. Not good at
explaining actions.
•has a developed philosophy of public policy: no
•"a Greenie": no. Turned Wasilla into a wasteland of big box stores
and disconnected parking lots. Is pro-drilling off-shore and in ANWR.
•fiscal conservative: not by my definition!
•pro-infrastructure: No. Promoted a sports complex and park in a city
without a sewage treatment plant or storm drainage system. Built
streets to early 20th century standards.
•pro-tax relief: Lowered taxes for businesses, increased tax burden on
residents
•pro-small government: No. Oversaw greatest expansion of city
government in Wasilla's history.
•pro-labor/pro-union. No. Just because her husband works union
doesn't make her pro-labor. I have seen nothing to support any claim
that she is pro-labor/pro-union.

WHY AM I WRITING THIS?

First, I have long believed in the importance of being an informed
voter. I am a voter registrar. For 10 years I put on student voting
programs in the schools. If you google my name (Anne Kilkenny +
Alaska), you will find references to my participation in local
government, education, and PTA/parent organizations.

Secondly, I've always operated in the belief that "Bad things happen
when good people stay silent". Few people know as much as I do because
few have gone to as many City Council meetings.

Third, I am just a housewife. I don't have a job she can bump me out
of. I don't belong to any organization that she can hurt. But, I am no
fool; she is immensely popular here, and it is likely that this will
cost me somehow in the future: that's life.

Fourth, she has hated me since back in 1996, when I was one of the 100
or so people who rallied to support the City Librarian against Sarah's
attempt at censorship.

Fifth, I looked around and realized that everybody else was afraid to
say anything because they were somehow vulnerable.

CAVEATS
I am not a statistician. I developed the numbers for the increase in
spending & taxation 2 years ago (when Palin was running for Governor)
from information supplied to me by the Finance Director of the City of
Wasilla, and I can't recall exactly what I adjusted for: did I adjust
for inflation? for population increases? Right now, it is impossible
for a private person to get any info out of City Hall–they are
swamped. So I can't verify my numbers.

You may have noticed that there are various numbers circulating for the
population of Wasilla, ranging from my "about 5,000″, up to 9,000. The
day Palin's selection was announced a city official told me that the
current population is about 7,000. The official 2000 census count was
5,460. I have used about 5,000 because Palin was Mayor from 1996 to
2002, and the city was growing rapidly in the mid-90's.

The Code Of The West - What Barack Can Learn

Deb — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 22:02:24 EDT

One day in early August, Bill Ritter, Jr., the governor of Colorado, met with Steve Feld, a professional filmmaker, to work on the video that will welcome delegates to the Democratic National Convention—and present Colorado to the rest of the country. Feld, whose television credits include “The New Lassie” and “America’s Funniest People,” steered the Governor toward a conference room on the seventeenth floor of a downtown building and clipped a microphone to his lapel. The backdrop for the shoot, visible through a window, was the city of Denver—bristling with construction cranes and skyscrapers for high-tech companies like Qwest Communications—and, in the distance, the Rockies.

Ritter was elected governor in 2006 by a persuasive seventeen-point margin—a victory that emphasized Colorado’s political transformation. In just the past four years, Democrats have won control of the sixty-five-member Colorado House, where they now hold a fifteen-seat majority, and the thirty-five-member Senate, where they’re up by five seats. In 2004, the Democrat Ken Salazar, a former state attorney general, won the United States Senate seat that was vacated by the Republican Ben Nighthorse Campbell, and Democrats now occupy four of Colorado’s seven seats in the House of Representatives. This November, the Party is favored to win the state’s other Senate seat (the incumbent Republican, Wayne Allard, is retiring), and Democrats are increasingly confident about picking up a fifth House seat. (George W. Bush won Colorado in both of his Presidential elections, but his margin fell from eight points in 2000 to less than five points in 2004.) There’s a reason that the Party chose Denver as the host city for this year’s Convention: they expect that it will only help the Democratic Presidential nominee to win the state this fall.

Ritter, who is soft-spoken and oddly reticent for a politician, told Feld that the film should help to tell the story of how Democrats have been winning in the West. “It shouldn’t be just a Chamber of Commerce video,” he said. “It should be political in its orientation and talk about what we in the Democratic Party have really achieved in the West. If you take a map and just look at where Democratic governors have succeeded Republicans, it’s pretty dramatic.”

It is in fact a startling change. Since 2002, Democrats have replaced Republican governors in Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arizona. It is possible to drive from the Canadian border to the Mexican border and not pass through a single state governed by a Republican. “That’s a good pictorial of how you can think about what Democrats have done out here,” Ritter said.

Ritter, who is scheduled to address the Convention on Thursday night, is an improbable choice to be pointing Democrats toward the Party’s future. He is a Catholic in a Protestant state. In his opposition to abortion, he is out of synch with Party members as well as with the Party platform; twice during his rise through Colorado politics, pro-choice Democrats tried to derail his career—in 1993, when he was appointed district attorney of Denver, and in 2005, as he was preparing to run for governor. “When I was making phone calls, raising money,” he said, “I probably talked about abortion in ninety to ninety-five per cent of my calls.” Many potential donors said that because of his view they couldn’t support him.

Nor is Ritter a particularly magnetic politician. In a party that is now defined by the youth and energy at the top of the ticket, Ritter, who is fifty-one, is a sort of anti-Obama. A self-described “policy wonk,” he reaches a pitch of excitement when he talks about the benefits of highly efficient photovoltaic cells or when he recalls what he learned from glaciologists on a recent trip to the Arctic. Rather than charisma, he exudes a beguiling genuineness. “He’s in the Colorado mold,” Gary Hart, the former Colorado senator and Presidential candidate, told me. “He’s smart but he’s not uppity. He’s a down-to-earth, everyday guy, which is very important out here.”

On a recent morning, I met Ritter outside the governor’s mansion, an imposing building on a hill in downtown Denver; its entrance is bracketed by two-story Ionic columns, and the interior is filled with museum-quality furnishings from all over the world, the legacy of a Colorado pioneer family that built the house in 1908. Ritter emerged in a suit and open collar, looking slightly dishevelled, with his tie undone and slung around his neck. He carried a newspaper in one hand and, in the other, a briefcase so heavy it threw his stride slightly off balance. We drove to the closest Starbucks. “Can I get you anything?” he asked his travelling companions—his press secretary, a state trooper, an economic adviser, and me—as he stepped out of the car. He returned carrying two grande coffees and he finished knotting his rep tie—quickly and without recourse to a mirror—as we drove the thirty miles to the college town of Boulder, where Ritter was going to speak about the state to a conference of venture capitalists.

In his low-key, no-frills way, Ritter may be in the vanguard of what the national Democratic Party is becoming, both in its demographics and its policies. After about four years of lively discussion, strategists and Party leaders have decided that growth for Democrats is more likely to occur in the conservative but idiosyncratic West than in the solidly Republican South. Barack Obama’s campaign, for example, is competing seriously in Colorado, Montana, Nevada, and New Mexico—places where Democratic Presidential candidates have had only limited success during the past three decades.

A significant reallocation of resources to the Western states is likely to have remarkable political consequences. As an election nears, voters in swing states like Colorado get much more attention from candidates, and a party’s consulting class spends a disproportionate amount of time developing strategies tailored to the demands of these spoiled voters. Over time, the political process may change the very outlook of a party, forcing it to become more attuned to the peculiar issues and coalitions of new voters. (That’s the effect that Iowa and New Hampshire have had on both parties.) As the Democrats take the first steps toward remaking themselves as a Western party, Ritter’s Colorado offers a glimpse of what may be the Democratic future.

On a recent afternoon, Jim Carpenter, Ritter’s chief of staff, a goodnatured political junkie steeped in the arcana of Colorado demographics, stood in front of two giant state maps tacked to a wall in his office in the capitol building. Like the mansion, the capitol is impressive—a Corinthian-style structure capped by a gold-leafed dome. A brass disk on its steps marks a spot that is exactly a mile above sea level. One of Carpenter’s maps showed cities and highways, and the other depicted the state’s natural resources—a way to help Carpenter keep track of issues unique to Colorado, such as public lands, oil and gas reserves, invasive species of insects, and fire threats. “So much of Colorado’s history and economy is wrapped up in our land,” Carpenter said.

Carpenter has worked in Democratic politics for thirty years and has seen his party’s fortunes come full circle. In the nineteen-seventies, the state’s politics were partially defined by ardent environmentalists and the slow-growth movement—they were able to keep the 1976 Winter Olympics away from Denver—and by Democrats with national profiles, like Gary Hart (who was born in Kansas) and Patricia Schroeder (who was born in Oregon). By the nineties, the state was known as a cradle of both the religious right and the anti-tax movement. Colorado Springs, the most conservative area of the state, serves as home to James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, as well as to Douglas Bruce, a California transplant who wrote and helped pass Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, or TABOR, a set of laws restricting government spending.

Using the roadmap, Carpenter indicated a swath of cities and towns to the east of the Continental Divide, which bisects the state. Stretching for about a hundred and seventy-five miles along Interstate 25—from Fort Collins, in the north, through Denver, in the middle, to Pueblo, in the south—this twenty-five-mile-wide area, known as the Front Range, is home to some eighty per cent of Coloradans, or about four million people. “Colorado really is one of the most urbanized states in the country, in terms of population concentration,” Carpenter said. “Even with all this landmass.”

The old method of winning Colorado, Carpenter explained, was similar to the approach that Democrats used in the East: a statewide candidate needed to dominate in a big city—Denver—as well as in the steel town of Pueblo, a rare sort of Western city whose politics were closer to those of a Rust Belt state than to those of the Rockies. “It’s an old traditional blue-collar type of place,” Carpenter said. “There were ethnic politics in Pueblo, blue-collar politics. It was like Milwaukee. There was the Hispanic part of town, and the Italian part of town, and the Eastern European part of town.” Finally, Democrats also needed a big turnout in the heavily Hispanic San Luis Valley, in the south-central area of the state, as well as in Boulder, the epicenter for the environmentalists and a place where the politics were akin to those found in Berkeley, California, or Madison, Wisconsin. In some ways, it was a classic coalition for a Democratic victory: the urban core of a big city, the white working class, minorities, and student activists. Republicans, meanwhile, dominated the rural areas of the state and the fast-growing Denver suburbs.

“In the eighties and nineties, the demographics moved very far away from the Democratic Party,” Carpenter continued. Since 1990, the Front Range has added almost 1.3 million residents—most of that growth in the Denver suburbs, where Democrats were routinely defeated by wide margins. During the nineties, Republicans found these new arrivals to be eager companions in the populist movements of the right, such as term limits and the Contract with America. The most influential political actor during this period—Douglas Bruce, now a state representative—managed to put TABOR on the Colorado ballot three times, starting in 1988, and kept it there until it finally passed, in 1992. The law mandates a popular vote on any tax increase, strictly limits over-all government growth, and requires that budget surpluses be returned to taxpayers via rebate checks. Bruce’s ballot initiative served as a model for small-government conservatives nationwide, and it has played such a dominant part in Colorado political life that jurisdictions trying to overturn its restrictions call the process “de-Brucing.”

Over dinner one night at the Elephant Bar, a chain restaurant in Colorado Springs that boasts of its “elephant-size portions,” Bruce, a heavyset man of fifty-nine with fierce opinions (Obama is a “moron,” a gay person is a “homo,” illegal immigrants are “illiterate peasants”), complained that the conservative movement, even in Colorado Springs, was on the wane. “We have nine socialists on the city council and five RINOs”—Republicans in Name Only—“as county commissioners,” he said between sips of a mango-raspberry swirl and outbursts directed at our waitress and the restaurant manager concerning the service. Bruce may have been unusually agitated that night; when we met, he was facing a primary challenge in ten days. “In the Republican Party, there’s probably twenty-five to thirty per cent of the people who hate my guts,” he said. “I have what are known as high negatives.” Then again his opponent, Mark Waller, a former Air Force officer whose views were not so conservative as Bruce’s, was a mere novice. “He’s doing everything wrong,” Bruce said. “So, frankly, it’ll be a miracle if he won.”

The Republican crackup in Colorado occurred early this decade, when a tenuous pact between economic and social conservatives came undone, and the Party’s religious wing alienated moderates in the Denver suburbs by putting what was seen as an excessive emphasis on social issues. In 2004, in the midst of a state fiscal crisis—Colorado’s budget deficit was a billion dollars, which threatened a cut in funding for higher education by a third—the Republican legislature spent an inordinate amount of time debating a resolution in support of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and revising a statute that required students and teachers in public schools to recite the Pledge of Allegiance every morning. The following November, the Democrats took over the legislature.

A year later, with the exploding population of the Front Range demanding more government services, Colorado Republicans faced their most serious crisis: they were divided over a ballot measure to suspend some TABOR rules for five years, allowing the government to use budget surpluses for health care, education, and transportation rather than refunding them to taxpayers.

Bill Owens, the Republican governor, surprised conservatives by coming out in favor of the referendum. Owens, after all, had been elected as an anti-government warrior. (“He sold us out,” Bruce told me.) The measure passed in 2005, although not by much. The following year, Bill Ritter succeeded Owens, who had to step down because of term limits.

By 2006, the Democratic coalition was further altered by some striking new demographics. An area of opportunity had sprung up in what Carpenter calls “the blue strip”—the resort communities on the western side of the Rockies, including Steamboat Springs, Vail, Aspen, Crested Butte, and Breckenridge. “That’s a change, because this used to be rural, traditional, Western, Republican ranch country, and now it’s full of second homes and growing,” Carpenter said. “It’s a brand-new phenomenon.” In effect, the ranks of blue-collar voters in places like Pueblo, where growth has come to a standstill, are being augmented by wealthy skiers. Furthermore, the Latino population in the state has doubled—to twenty per cent—since 1990. But, more important than the rise of the resort class and the growing number of Hispanics, Democrats became competitive in the Denver suburbs.

The Front Range is expected to have 6.3 million residents by 2040—a fifty-per-cent increase over today—and demographers have devised a new vocabulary to describe the distinctive characteristics of this and similar regions in the Southwest, such as Arizona’s Sun Corridor, Nevada’s Greater Las Vegas, and Northern New Mexico; the Brookings Institution, in a report called “Mountain Megas,” has recently dubbed them “megapolitans.” The fastest-growing suburbs in these areas, such as Westminster and Lakewood, outside Denver, are known as “boomburbs.” What these megapolitans have in common are economies that are moving away from agriculture and the extraction industries (like mining, gas, and oil) and toward service industries (like tourism and hospitality) and high technology (like aerospace and biosciences). According to Brookings, the region will soon become the center of the postindustrial economy, meaning that “the southern Intermountain West is well on its way to earning itself the title of the New American Heartland.” Change in Colorado is occurring even in Doug Bruce’s home town of Colorado Springs. On August 12th, Bruce, the leader of the once ascendant anti-government movement, lost his primary to Mark Waller, the novice.

On the short drive to Boulder, Governor Ritter talked about his unlikely passage to the statehouse. He grew up outside Denver, in what is today Aurora—now one of those boomburbs—on a five-acre wheat farm where he and his eleven siblings helped his parents raise chickens, pigs, and cows. His father, a rancher, was an alcoholic who deserted the family when Bill, the sixth child, was thirteen, forcing the older Ritter kids to work to help support their mother, who was a bookkeeper, and the rest of the family.

Bill Ritter laid pipe and worked as a roofer. He was educated in both Catholic and public schools before attending Colorado State University as an undergraduate and then the University of Colorado as a law student. He worked his way up to chief deputy prosecutor in the Denver D.A.’s office and abruptly left the job for something completely different: a Catholic mission to Zambia, where for three years he and his wife ran a nutrition center and quietly taught villagers in the grip of an H.I.V. pandemic how to use condoms. When he returned home, he worked for two years as a federal prosecutor and then went back to the D.A.’s office. In 1993, after the elected D.A. retired, the Democratic governor, Roy Romer, appointed Ritter to the top post. Romer was won over by Ritter, at least in part, because of Ritter’s unusual history, especially the chronicle of his experiences in Zambia. Ritter was elected district attorney of Denver three times and retired in 2004, because of term limits.

In the car, Ritter explained how, when he and David Beattie, his pollster, plotted his 2006 gubernatorial race, they divided the state’s electorate into five groups. Ritter, who was sitting in the front passenger seat, took out a pen and paper and sketched a pie chart. He drew one wedge and marked it with the number twenty, which he said represented the “very liberal” base of the Democratic Party. “Then another sixteen per cent are what we call Fox News conservatives,” he said, drawing a second wedge. “They’re just really conservative and they’re never gonna be with a Democrat because they’re just hardened conservatives in terms of thinking the government has no role. They would privatize just about every public function except perhaps law enforcement.”

No chance with those guys? I asked.

“No chance.”

Ritter continued: “Then there’s thirteen per cent of what we call moral conservatives, and there’s some overlap between the morals and the Fox News conservatives, but they’re hardened moral conservatives and they will not vote for a Democrat, even a pro-life Democrat, because he’s a Democrat. I have a brother-in-law who’s a moral conservative—didn’t vote for me.” The rest of the electorate, according to Ritter, was split between what he called “government pragmatists,” which are thirty-seven per cent of voters, and “moral pragmatists,” which are fourteen per cent. The first group, he said, “are pro-choice and they don’t have issues around gay marriage. They just want to make sure government works, but they’re not liberals, and they don’t think the government should be increasing. It should spend your tax dollar prudently and wisely.” Finally, the moral pragmatists, Ritter explained, “do have issues around gay marriage and they have issues having to do with abortion, but at the same time they don’t want those issues to bog down government’s ability to deliver appropriate functions.”

These voters were the key to Ritter’s victory. “If you win among the liberals, and you win all the government pragmatists, then you’re over fifty per cent,” he said as we pulled off the highway and arrived at the sprawling and very modern campus of the University of Colorado at Boulder. “But you may not win all the government pragmatists for one reason or another. So you have to carve into those moral pragmatists, and I think the reason we won pretty significantly was because we carved heavily into that group.”

Ritter’s emphasis tends to be on the pragmatic. At the stop in Boulder, he told the venture capitalists how, during his gubernatorial campaign, his opponent ran ads portraying him as soft on crime. Ritter’s aides told him that he needed to respond with commercials that showed his toughness. Ritter, though, recalled saying, “No, the first commercial we’re gonna make will be in a wind farm.”

In “Whistling Past Dixie,” a book widely read and debated in Democratic circles when it was published in 2006, Thomas Schaller, a political scientist at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, argues that Democrats should give up on the South and focus on the West, partly because white Southerners, more than any other group, use social issues as a prism through which they view all other issues—and that attempts by Democrats to express some cultural affinity with these voters are rarely successful. Therefore, if the South remains the unattainable goal for Democrats—a political white whale—striving to win the region will end up pulling the Party to the right on social issues like abortion and gay marriage, while achieving no electoral benefits. At the very least it will force Democrats to pander, leading voters to question the authenticity of candidates like John Kerry in 2004, who tried to pay homage to Southern culture. (No one quite believed that Kerry really enjoyed hunting and NASCAR.) Ritter’s analysis suggests that he agrees with Schaller. Democrats don’t need to speak in tongues to win the West. They simply need to give the electorate an honest signal that they take the concerns of moderate religious voters seriously. In office, Ritter’s top priorities have been education, climate change, and the effort to move his state closer to a post-fossil-fuel energy economy. He almost never talks about social issues, and there is by now a bipartisan consensus in Colorado that emphasis on such issues is not good for a party’s long-term health.

Other factors are at work out West for the Democrats. For one, the racial dynamics of Colorado and the region are not as fraught as they are elsewhere. “We never had slavery out here,” Gary Hart said. “I mean, it’s a Southern issue. And obviously the number of African-Americans is smaller, but that’s not the point. The point is we just didn’t have the heritage of slavery.” The Obama campaign has claimed that a huge increase in black turnout could make him competitive in the Deep South, especially Georgia. But this doesn’t seem a likely outcome to most analysts, who argue that the larger the black population in a Southern state the more the white population tends to vote Republican. David Beattie told me, “From a lot of work we’ve done in Georgia in state legislature seats, we learned that when the black percentage passes eighteen per cent, the whites in that seat tend to be more Republican than whites in seats where it is under eighteen per cent black.”

Another fact of Western politics—one that also helps Democrats—is an absence of a strong party tradition. “They didn’t have political machines two hundred years ago that dictated party, because they weren’t even states,” Beattie said. “They don’t have that history like Chicago or New York or anything along the East Coast.” There’s no culture of political patronage, so individual candidates and personalities matter far more than party labels. Colorado’s voter registration is divided roughly into equal thirds: Republicans, Democrats, and independents, with independents growing the fastest. That’s why Ritter governs ruthlessly from the center. He sees independence from the extremes as his guiding philosophy, and is therefore almost as quick to buck Democrats as he is to oppose Republicans. Among many Democrats, being associated with the centrist Democratic Leadership Council has become toxic, but not in the West. “In Colorado, it’s a badge of honor,” Ritter told me. One of his first acts as governor was to veto a piece of legislation that would have made it easier for unions to organize in the state. The veto so infuriated national labor leaders that James P. Hoffa, the president of the Teamsters, confronted Ritter at the annual Gridiron Dinner, in Washington, and warned him that labor issues could “blow up” the Democratic Convention. (Recently, Ritter has steered in a more pro-labor direction.)

Ritter is vigilant about correcting the impression, often stoked by the national press and liberal Democratic strategists, that Colorado is turning a deep blue. During his session with Feld, the filmmaker eagerly suggested that the theme of his video might be “from red to blue to green” and excitedly noted that it would show “how Colorado has transformed from a red state to a blue state, and now we’re going green!” The Governor visibly cringed at the idea and delicately steered the project in a different direction.

“I am a little concerned about that,” Ritter said, “because I think, while we have great emphasis on green, that it should be about different kinds of symbols than the color green—wind farms, solar, renewable-energy laboratories, those things that are symbolic of the new energy economy. People think that we overuse the concept of green, and it could become trite in its expression.” Later, Ritter returned to the point. “This idea about green in a lot of people’s minds still conjures up this notion of a fringe or something that’s out-there,” he told me. “It doesn’t inspire this notion of a new America. It just seems more substantive than a color.” He continued, “If you only make it about being green, you lose the sense that you can build a national economy around this.”

In the fall of 2006, Gary Hart sent Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, a memo outlining a new, Western-oriented political future. Under a grand-sounding title—“Manifesto: Democrats and the West”—Hart presented a ten-point plan for the transformation of the Democratic Party. When Dean announced, in January of 2007, that Denver would be the site of the 2008 Convention, he mentioned Hart’s document as having influenced his decision. Hart’s prescription is provocative. It calls for an outlook that is simultaneously more libertarian and more progressive. There is a renewed emphasis on private-property rights, accompanied by the suggestion that Democrats condemn the Supreme Court’s 2005 Kelo decision, which expanded the right of eminent domain by allowing governments to seize private property in the name of economic development. Taking land “for public use is one thing,” Hart wrote. “Taking homesteads, family farms and ranches, and small businesses for ‘public purposes,’ such as malls, shopping centers, and Wal-Marts, is quite another.” Much of Hart’s document dealt with how the Party should balance resource development and conservation. Like Ritter, Hart urged Democrats to promote the interior West as a center for the high-tech industry and a showcase for the transition to an economy built on renewable sources of energy.

Hart’s approach for deëmphasizing the culture wars is different from Ritter’s. Whereas Ritter appealed to the religious convictions of voters, Hart suggests a more laissez-faire approach. “Westerners are individualists who do not like the beliefs of others imposed on us,” he wrote. “We are people who believe in principles: integrity, honor, courage, accountability. The religious right preaches values. Democrats, regionally and nationally, should espouse principles, for ourselves and for our country.” He argues that while “values” have religious connotations, “principles” are secular.

I asked Hart how the Democratic Party would look if it faithfully followed his counsel. “If we brought the mountain states into the Democratic Party for the next twenty, thirty, forty years, it would make the Party younger. It would make the Party more environmentally concerned and attentive. It would certainly move energy-related issues to the forefront,” he said. “And you will find people here more technologically sophisticated. It would be much more new economy versus old economy. This is not an industrial area. This is small business and cutting-edge technologies. We’re about where California was twenty-five, thirty years ago.”

Hart would like the Democratic Party to become closer to the coalition that he rallied in his 1984 insurgent primary campaign against Walter Mondale. “Fritz Mondale and I split the country,” Hart said. “I swept the West, including California, and almost every Western state. The signature issue was globalization, even at that period, twenty-five years ago. Every state that was benefitting from international trade voted for me, and every state that was being hurt by international trade voted for Fritz. That was the issue.” It hardly needed pointing out that Obama and Hillary Clinton were divided by the same set of issues in their primary contests this year, with Obama rallying the Hart coalition and Clinton winning the Mondale voters. “I didn’t get the nomination and Obama did,” Hart said. “But the country has moved into the new economy much more than twenty-five years ago.”

There is an irony in the party of the downtrodden becoming the party of America’s economic winners, but in fact Democrats are doing better among voters in places that are prospering, like Colorado and New Mexico, and losing ground among voters in regions that are experiencing hard times, such as West Virginia or parts of Pennsylvania and Ohio. A Democratic turn toward the West would accelerate this trend. A party of the Western megapolitans and resort communities would be a party less and less like the party of F.D.R., Truman, and Lyndon Johnson. It would be more oriented to the haves than to the have-nots. It would rely more on educated voters. Its approach to social issues would be more matter-of-fact, and candidates would be less fearful of alienating the most reactionary evangelicals. It would be more oriented toward small businesses and thus more skeptical of workplace regulations. It might become a party that puts more emphasis on achieving energy independence and combatting global warming than on providing universal health care and social justice. “It’s a party that becomes more Hispanic, and less African-American,” Kenneth Baer, the co-founder of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, said. “More oriented toward high-tech workers and less towards labor. It’s the end of the New Deal coalition.”

Schaller sees the American West as a place to refashion a Democratic future—one less tethered to the Party’s old interest groups. “Democrats have the chance in the Western states to forge parties that reflect a post-Great Society, new-economy identity,” he said. “That will be much harder to do on the Eastern Seaboard, where the parties are dominated by Catholics and union households. The Colorado Democratic Party is a much better opportunity to forge a new party than, say, the Democratic Party of New York, which is filled with patronage politicians and dominated by identity politics and the barons of the old New York metropolitan machine.”

Such changes are not going to take full effect this year, or next, in part because the Obama campaign is wealthy enough to compete in every region of the country. (Think of the Obama organization as a political venture-capital fund with enough money to test various theories of Democratic growth.) The campaign is certainly not about to pursue Western states at the expense of other regions of America. For example, along with Colorado, Virginia is one of Obama’s most important targets.

It may be more useful to think of “the West” not just as a place beyond the Great Plains but as shorthand for all those places where the demographics are moving in a direction similar to Colorado’s Front Range. In that sense, Obama’s hope to win Virginia is consistent with his party’s Western strategy. Democrats have recently done well there because northern Virginia has become increasingly moderate, suburban, and high-tech; the Party still falls short with rural and culturally conservative voters.

Democrats often pay homage to the symbols of the American frontier. But the iconography of their Western strategy is not so much about mountains, cowboys, and tumbleweed as it is about tract houses, research labs, and wind farms. Over the next decades, the Party will inevitably follow the lead of politicians like Bill Ritter and focus more attention on the West and all that it represents. As the population and electoral votes flow in that direction, so will the Democrats.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/09/01/080901fa_fact_lizza?printable=true

Palin on Obama

Deb — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 00:57:19 EDT

Palin on Obama
The New Yorker
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2008/09/08/080908ta_talk_gourevitch

by Philip Gourevitch
September 8, 2008

Before she was running against him, Sarah Palin—the governor of Alaska
and now the Republican candidate for Vice-President of the United
States—thought it was pretty neat that Barack Obama was edging ahead
of John McCain in her usually solidly red state. After all, she said,
Obama's campaign was using the same sort of language that she had in
her gubernatorial race. "The theme of our campaign was 'new energy,' "
she said recently. "It was no more status quo, no more politics as
usual, it was all about change. So then to see that Obama—literally,
part of his campaign uses those themes, even, new energy, change, all
that, I think, O.K., well, we were a little bit ahead on that." She
also noted, "Something's kind of changing here in Alaska, too, for
being such a red state on the Presidential level. Obama's doing just
fine in polls up here, which is kind of wigging people out, because
they're saying, 'This hasn't happened for decades that in polls the D'
"—the Democratic candidate—" 'is doing just fine.' To me, that's
indicative, too. It's the no-more-status-quo, it's change."

This was two weeks ago, at the statehouse in Juneau. After persistent
reports, in July, that Palin was on McCain's short list of potential
running mates, her name had faded back into obscurity. Nobody in
Alaska seemed to take her seriously as a national prospect, and she
had shrugged the whole thing off on television, telling CNBC's Larry
Kudlow that, before considering the job, she would want to know "what
is it, exactly, that the V.P. does every day." Now, at the statehouse,
she sat, unattended by aides, curled up in a cardigan, and explained
that what she had done every day since becoming governor was to stick
her thumb in the eye of Alaska's Republican Party establishment. "The
G.O.P. leader of the state—we haven't spoken since I got elected," she
said.

She went on, "I guess if you take the individual issues, two that I
believe would be benchmarks showing whether you're a hard-core
Republican conservative or not, would be: I'm a lifetime member of the
N.R.A.—but this is Alaska, who isn't?—and I am pro-life, absolutely."
She continued, "I guess that puts me in a box of being hard-core
Republican." But she said she recognized that "the Democrats also
preach individual freedoms and individual rights, capitalism, free
market, let-it-do-its-thing-best, let people keep as much of their
money that they earn as possible. And when it comes to, like, the
Party machine, no one will accuse me of being partisan."

So the possibility that Obama might win Alaska did not worry Palin:
"Turning maybe purple in the state means, to me, it's more
independent, it's not the obsessive partisanship that gets in the way
of doing what's right for this state, and I think on a national level
that's what we're gonna see." And she added, "That's why McCain is the
candidate for the G.O.P.—because he's been known as the maverick, as
the conduit for some change." In the state's Republican caucus, McCain
came in fourth, trailing Ron Paul. "I always looked at Senator McCain
just as a Joe Blow public member, looking from the outside in," she
said. "He's been buttin' heads with Republicans for years, and that's
a healthy place to be." Then again, on McCain's signature issue—the
prosecution of the war in Iraq—she did not sound so gung-ho. Her son
is a soldier, and she said, "I'm a mom, and my son is going to get
deployed in September, and we better have a real clear plan for this
war. And it better not have to do with oil and dependence on foreign
energy." ♦

The Lie: Drilling will only occupy 2000 ACRES.

Deb — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 19:03:01 EDT

Palin's LIE Repeated 4 Times on MTP by oregonj Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:41:58 AM PDT

On Meet the Press, Maria Bartoromo just repeated Sarah Palin's lie as fact about drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The Lie: Drilling will only occupy 2000 ACRES.

Maria B. repeated Palin's seductive lie at least 4 times in describing last week's interview with the inexperienced Governor.

The Facts: 2000 acres refers only to the square footage under the drilling pads. The area impacted is actually millions of acres of pads, roads, pipelines, facilities, pumping stations emission sources......

"2000 ACRES" IS ACTUALLY 1,500,000 ACRES OF INDUSTRIAL SPRAWL!

Here is a map of the 2000 acre scam.

And the text. Digg it.

UPDATE: THANKS FOR MY FIRST TIME ON THE REC LIST! DIGGIT

oregonj's diary :: ::

To say that it’s only going to impact 2,000 acres is an OUTRIGHT LIE.

One word: INFRASTRUCTURE.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, oil in the refuge is not concentrated in one large reservoir within a 2,000-acre area but is spread across its 1.5-million-acre coastal plain in more than 30 small deposits. To produce oil from this vast area, supporting infrastructure would have to stretch across the coastal plain.

Facilities NOT subject to the 2,000-acre limitation include:
• Roads (in-field roads; main roads to docks, etc.)
• Pipelines (main trunk and sales lines, feeder lines; except negligible amount for support posts (VSM’s))
• 8 Gravel Mines @ 150 acres each
Facilities and activities not subject to the 2,000-acre limitation that are not mapped:
• Seismic exploration trials
• Exploration and delineation wells
• Water reservoir excavations, Water withdrawal sites
• Ice roads
For reference: Oil companies in the North Slope oil fields excavated gravel from mines that stretched over 2,000 acres, and then covered 10,000 acres of tundra with gravel for roads, drilling pads and building foundations.

There is absolute evidence of the negative impact of oil exploration and development on wildlife. The refuge’s coastal plain is a breeding ground for caribou, home to polar bears and musk oxen and site of an annual influx of migratory birds.

Biologists have found that decreased caribou calving within a 2.5-mile zone of pipelines and roads show that the "extent of avoidance greatly exceeds the physical ‘footprint’ of an oil-field complex."

We must EXPOSE Palin's LIE!

Did Palin Really Fight The “Bridge To Nowhere”?

Deb — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 18:14:34 EDT

29.08.2008 Did Palin Really Fight The “Bridge To Nowhere”?

Republicans have been heavily touting Sarah Palin's reformist credentials, with her supposed opposition to Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere" as Exhibit A. But how hard did she really fight the project? Not very, it seems. Here's what she told the Anchorage Daily News on October 22, 2006, during the race for the governor's seat (via Nexis):

5. Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?

Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now--while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.

So she was very much for the bridge and insisted that Alaska had to act quickly—the party of Ted Stevens and Don Young might soon lose its majority, after all. By that point, the project was endangered for reasons that had nothing to do with Palin—the bridge had become a national laughingstock, Congress had stripped away the offending earmark, shifting the money back to the state's general fund, and future federal support seemed unlikely. True, after Palin was sworn into office that fall, her first budget didn't allocate any money for the bridge. But when the Daily News asked on December 16, 2006, if she now opposed the project, Palin demurred and said she was just trying to figure out where the bridge fit on the state's list of transportation priorities, given the lack of support from Congress. Finally, on September 19, 2007, she decided to redirect funds away from the project altogether with this sorry-sounding statement:

"Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer," said Governor Palin. "Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island," Governor Palin added. "Much of the public's attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened."

Maybe I've missed something, but it sure looks like she was fine with the bridge in principle, never had a problem with the earmarks, bristled at all the mockery, and only gave up on the project when it was clear that federal support wasn't forthcoming. Now, Charles Homans, who knows Alaska well, says Palin's anti-corruption instincts are fairly solid (she sold off the gubenatorial jet upon taking office, for one), and a casual Nexis search suggests that she's fiscally conservative (insofar as that term makes sense in a quasi-socialist state like Alaska), but this hardly looks like the "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" moment everyone's making it out to be.

P.S. Here's a piece that Palin's special counsel, John Katz, wrote in March of this year for the Juneau Empire, assuring the Alaskan public that Palin was still very much in favor of earmarks, but sadly needed to scale back her requests somewhat (to "only" 31 earmarks this year—down from 54 last year) in response to "unwanted attention" from Congress and the press.

--Bradford Plumer

VP and BIG problem of party politics

anatolant — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 18:32:50 EDT

8.23 -- my comment to NYT on VP for Obama:

Are you still voting "party ticket"? Democrats, Republicans? Now -- eat it!
Make Obama a safe choice? How about ObaMcCain? Don't blame the politicians -- you have no guts to vote your hearts, you minds. You turn the election into selection between Pepsi and Coke! Continue to play team football between red and blue, but do not ask -- where is the MAN?
Go on, cheer your support group as 50 years ago. So sad to see how you. yes, you all, turning Barack into Mr. President ... and they complain about Bush? How about that for hypocrisy? God bless America? Are you taking God for an idiot to bless people who turn FREE elections into counting chats. Not again, Lord!

Blue Collar means a lot of things

Deb — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 10:07:55 EDT

Is Our Addiction to Saving Money Destroying the Real America?from Zen Habits by LeoEditor’s note: This is a guest post from Paul Michael, Senior Writer for Wise Bread.

As a young boy growing up in a gray, rainy seaside town in England, I had a fascination for America; maybe even a love affair. America was the land of opportunity, sure. But it was also vastly different and eccentric (in a good way) from state to state. So when I came to the U.S. around seven years ago, I was somewhat disappointed. The roads were lined as far as the eye could see with signs for fast food chains, corporate-ran hotels and big, bad gas companies. Where was the other America? Had she disappeared?

Clearly I’m not the only weird Brit who feels this way, because a documentary called “America Unchained,” based on the book of the same name, explores that very theme. It stars Dave Gorman, a fellow Englishman and a guy on a mission; to cross America, coast to coast, without giving one cent of his hard-earned money to “the man.” No stays in hotel chains. No money to the chain gas stations. It had to be independent, family-owned mom & pop shops all the way. So, how did he do?

At first, I thought the premise of the movie was simplistic and perhaps a little too easy. Surely it was possible to cross America without spending any cash at a corporate-owned store or establishment. About 30 minutes into the movie, I realized it wasn’t just a difficult task…it was almost impossible.

But let’s backtrack for a second and understand why Dave had set out on this historic quest. A few years earlier he was touring the States with a comedy stage show called Googlewhack Adventure. Entailing seven to eight shows per week, over a period of four months, Dave spent night after night in a seemingly endless array of hotel chains; the Holiday Inn; Best Western; Comfort Suites. He’d eat at chain restaurants and buy gas at Shell or Texaco. And just like my good self when I first saw this new America, he was disappointed. His dreams, to a certain extent were shattered.

Where was the America he’d fell in love with as a young boy; the family-focused US of A that featured in so many of his favorite TV shows? There was only one way to find out; rediscover America by visiting only those family-owned establishments that we both saw in so many of the TV shows we grew up on. If that kinder, more charming America did exist, driving coast-to-coast without spending a dime at anything owned by “the man” was certainly one way to find her.

The first part of the trip, staying true to the mission, was to buy a used car from a private seller. This car, classic Americana in every way, proved to be both a curse and a gift along the way. Yes, it broke down more often than a jittery manic depressive in group therapy, but these breakdowns also helped Dave find some of the most amazing little stores and motels.

From the mechanic who made mufflers while you wait, to the motel with themed rooms like Little Tokyo and Little Africa, there was character and a sense of belonging. One small eatery had been in business over 60 years. Family owned and operated, an old couple in their 70s had started dating there some 50 years earlier, and a woman’s water had broke on the third stool from the right. History was frothing up from these places; they were rich with memories.

I’m not going to tell you how Dave did, you need to see the movie for yourself (or read the book). But what I can say is that after years of trying to save money, any way I can, I am guilty of letting this part of America disappear. And I’m not the only one.

Every time we make a decision to give our patronage to a Target or Wal-Mart instead of a family-owned grocery store, we may save money…but what do we lose? When we fill up at a Shell or Texaco, we’re missing out on the family-owned gas station that still pumps the gas for you, cleans your windows and checks the air in your tires. When we stay at a Best Western, we’re missing out on the kindness and genuine good will of the smaller, independent motels.

In one very memorable scene in the movie, Dave had run out of gas and the family-owned gas station in town was closed. But, one quick phone call and a guy arrived on a bicycle, with his cat in tow, and opened up the shop so that the happy Brit could fill up and carry on his journey. How many corporate-owned stations would do that? You already know the answer. In another scene, the local hotel owner invited Dave to stay for Thanksgiving dinner, with his family. Again, corporate America wouldn’t care…you’d have to make do with mac’n’cheese.

During these difficult financial times, it’s hard to think of anything other than the bottom line. Yes, we have saved money. Yes, we have the ability to put more food on our table for less money. But hearing the amazing stories, and seeing the wonderful people that Dave met on his travels, I do wonder if we have made too much of a sacrifice for those few extra bucks in our pockets.

I don’t want to see the magic of the family-owned America disappear. I don’t want to see highway after highway of Taco Bell, KFC and McDonald’s signs. I don’t want every hotel room to look like every other hotel room. Life is about experiencing the differences and the riches that make us all so unique. And if I have to pay a dime extra for a can of green beans or a gallon of gas, well, maybe that’s well worth the price.

Barack Evening Buzz - 8-19-08

Barack Daily Buzz - Victory2008.net — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:44:17 EDT

Barack Evening Buzz - 8-19-08
See You at the Convention

(1) Obama Says McCain "Does Not Know What He is Up Against"
Beth Fouhy-Associated Press
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080820/ap_on_el_pr/obama_13

(2) Obama and Veep Choice to Campaign on Saturday
Christopher Wills and Beth Fouhy-Associated Press
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gxVW-aUPQsPkU0JKEleSPNCyxSsAD92LMU5G0

(3) Obama Will Return to the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois Joined by Newly Minted Running Mate
John McCormick and Rick Pearson-Chicago Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-campaign_wedaug20,0,7962463.story

(4) Obama and Running Mate to Hold Joint Event on Saturday
Jake Tapper-ABC News-Political Punch
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/08/obama-and-runni.html

(5) Speculation Rife on Obama and McCain Running Mates
John Whitesides-Reuters
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1928744420080820

(6) Obama's Ads in Key States Go on Attack
Jim Rutenberg-New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/us/politics/20ads.html?ref=politics

(7) Speaking to VFW, Obama Fires Back at McCain on Iraq
Shailagh Murray-Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/19/AR2008081903041.html?hpid=topnews

(8) Women for Obama Group Courts Hillary Clinton Faithful
Tina Daunt-Los Angeles-Cause Celebre
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-cause20-2008aug20,0,6836567.story

(9) One Gibe Too Many Has Obama Hitting Back
Edward Luce-Financial Times-UK
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cd38bf92-6e50-11dd-b5df-0000779fd18c.html

(10) Obama Faces New Criticism on Abortion
Christopher Wills-Associated Press
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5giojIhr1t6DX6K27JDnIVDciQDTgD92LOC3G1

Why is it that Keith Olbermann is the only one who forcefully responds to McCain's baseless attacks on and character assassination of Barack Obama?

William — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:10:55 EDT

Why is it that Keith Olbermann is the only one who forcefully responds to McCain's baseless attacks and character assassination on Barack Obama?

McCain will do anything, including flip-flopping and selling out his maverick image, to realize his ambition to become president. When is the Obama campaign going to more effectively call him on his BS.

is ANYONE honest anymore?

Deb — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:22:32 EDT

Did Rick Warren admit to sending John McCain ALL the questions he was going to ask? by Phelix DaCat Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:11:21 PM PDT

jbalazs' diary McCain cheated? proof he knew the questions ahead of time. UPDATED with video link and Terre's diary McCain KNEW the Questions beforehand catch John McCain's ESP moment on a question about Supreme Court Justices. I'd like to highlight what appears to be the collusion of Rick Warren with John McCain. It's very easy to miss because it moves by so quickly in the crosstalk and does not appear in the transcripts correctly.

What is Rick Warren talking about when he said "You're jumping ahead. You got all my questions, good. " after John McCain said "...are we going to get back to the importance of Supreme Court Justices..."? Why is Rick Warren saying "You got all my questions, good" to John McCain missing from the CNN transcript? Why is "You're jumping ahead" missing from Rick Warrens transcript? The transcripts and this small portion of video do not match each other. The transcripts don't match each other either.

Phelix DaCat's diary :: ::

How many questions did Rick Warren send to John McCain ahead of this forum? 1? 2? 5? All of them? Did Rick Warren admit to sending John McCain a copy of all his questions? It sure sounds that way. Is this how Rick Warren is so sure McCain did not listen to him ask these questions to Barack Obama? Because John McCain already had them all, sent by Rick Warren or under his direction?

Look at the differences for yourself. Then listen to that segment of video for yourself.

From the CNN Saddleback Presidential Candidates Forum video at approximately 14:26 I hear:

Rick Warren: Okay. We don't have to go longer on that one. uh .. define marriage.

John McCain: Union (clears throat) a .. a union between man and woman .. between one man and one woman. That's my definition of marriage.

Could I .. are you .. are we going to get back to the importance of Supreme Court Justices or should I mention ..

Rick Warren: We will get to that.

John McCain: Okay. All right. Okay.

Rick Warren: You're jumping ahead. You got all my questions, good.

The CNN transcript shows:

WARREN: OK, we don't have to beleaguer on that one. Define marriage.

MCCAIN: A union -- a union between man and woman, between one man and one woman. That's my definition of marriage.

Could I -- are we going to get back to the importance of Supreme Court Justices or should I mention --

WARREN: We will get to that.

MCCAIN:

WARREN: You're jumping ahead (inaudible).

Rick Warrens transcript shows:

Q OKAY. WE DON'T HAVE TO GO LONGER ON THAT ONE. DEFINE MARRIAGE.

A UNION -- A UNION BETWEEN MAN AND WOMAN, BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN, THAT'S MY DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE. ARE WE GOING TO GET BACK TO THE IMPORTANCE OF SUPREME COURT JUSTICES.

Q WE'LL GET TO THAT.

A ALL RIGHT. OKAY.

Q YOU GOT ALL MY QUESTIONS, GOOD.

Ouside of USA

anatolant — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 04:58:54 EDT

A couple links for foreign POV on Obama :

Russians for Obama

How to read the world's preferences for next US president (Obama)?

Symbolic powers -- Is America popular as it was in XX century? "American Century" -- and what is for Century 21? Is it over?

The impact on America and Americans : Vietman War was the turning point...

Does America knows its enimies? No friendship in politics?

Quote for myself :

I somehow doubt that a superpower, however defined (even as a democratic or liberal superpower) can ever practice a "libertarian" foreign policy. Neither the populist nor the elite version of such a system seems to lend itself to limited government. However, it can perhaps be made, with a protracted struggle, to uphold the anti-totalitarian and above all secular values for which it claims to be contending. These are not easy times to be a libertarian, whether civil or social. But the easy time for that will never arrive. It's supposed to be difficult.

Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His latest book is A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq (Plume).

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28872.html

"Superpower"? Or maybe just the INERTIA, the track USA should change?

Is America became a superpower by default? Is (indirect) predesposition for it in the US Contitution?

"It's supposed to be difficult (to be an American)"? In the 3rd millennium (globalism) it's for sure.

Many corners of this "one world" live in different centuries, some in 1st millennium?

[collect] LINKS from www.theworldwantsobama.org

Fabulous Oppo Ad on McCain

Tammy — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:57:58 EDT

I just saw the most wonderful ad about how McCain and Bush are linked. No dirty negative campaigning, just simply stating approval ratings and showing that while the American public has become increasingly disenchanted with GWB, McCain, himself, has increased his support of him over the exact same period. I love the graph on this ad. It shows the disconnect that McCain has with Americans with such clarity!

Drugs!

Deb — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:19:53 EDT

Julian Critchley: All the experts admit that we should legalise drugs

Thursday, 14 August 2008

Eight years ago, I left my civil service job as director of the UK Anti-Drug Co-Ordination Unit. I went partly because I was sick of having to implement policies that I knew, and my political masters knew, were unsupported by evidence. Yesterday, after a surreal flurry of media requests referring to a blog I wrote that questioned the wisdom of the UK's drug policies, I found myself in the thick of the debate again, and I was sorry to discover that the terms hadn't changed a bit.

I was being interviewed on the BBC World Service, and after I tried to explain why I believe that drugs should be decriminalised, the person representing the other side of the argument pointed out that drugs are terrible, that they destroy lives. Now, I am a deeply boring, undruggy person myself, and I think the world would be a better place without drugs. But I think that we must live in the world as it is, and not as we want it to be. And so my answer was, yes, I know that drugs are terrible. I'm not saying that drugs should be decriminalised because it would be fun if we could all get stoned with impunity. I'm saying that we've tried minimising harm through a draconian legal policy. It is now clear that enforcement and supply-side interventions are largely pointless. They haven't worked. There is evidence that this works.

Unfortunately, evidence is still not a major component in our policy. Take cannabis. When I was in the Anti-Drug Unit, the moves towards making it a class C drug began, and I hoped that our position on drugs was finally moving in a rational direction. But then Gordon Brown ignored his scientific advisers to make it a class B again. It was a decision that pandered to the instincts of the tabloids, and it made no sense whatsoever.

There is no doubt at all that the benefits to society of the fall in crime as a result of legalisation would be dramatic. The argument always put forward against this is that there would be a commensurate increase in drug use as a result of legalisation. This, it seems to me, is a bogus point: tobacco is a legal drug, whose use is declining, and precisely because it is legal, its users are far more amenable to Government control, education programmes and taxation than they would be otherwise. Studies suggest that the market is already almost saturated, and anyone who wishes to purchase the drug of their choice anywhere in the UK can already do so. The idea that many people are holding back solely because of a law which they know is already unenforceable is ridiculous.

Ultimately, people will make choices which harm themselves, whether they involve diet, smoking, drinking, lack of exercise, sexual activity or pursuit of extreme sports. In all these instances, the Government rightly takes the line that if these activities are to be pursued, society will ensure that those who pursue them have access to accurate information about the risks; can access assistance to change their harmful habits should they so wish; are protected by a legal standards regime; are taxed accordingly; and – crucially – do not harm other people. Only in the field of drugs does the Government take a different line.

The case is overwhelming. But I fear that policy will not catch up with the facts any time soon. It would take a mature society to accept that some individuals may hurt, or even kill themselves, as a result of a policy change, even if the evidence suggested that fewer people died or were harmed as a result. It would take a brave government to face down the tabloid fury in the face of anecdotes about middle-class children who bought drugs legally and came to grief, and this is not a brave government.

I think what was truly depressing about my time in the civil service was that the professionals I met from every sector held the same view: the illegality of drugs causes far more problems for society and the individual than it solves. Yet publicly, all those people were forced to repeat the mantra that the Government would be "tough on drugs", even though they all knew that the policy was causing harm.

I recall a conversation I had with a Number 10 policy advisor about a series of announcements in which we were to emphasise the shift of resources to treatment and highlight successes in prevention and education. She asked me whether we couldn't arrange for "a drugs bust in Brighton" at the same time, or "a boat speeding down the Thames to catch smugglers". For that advisor, what worked mattered considerably less than what would play well in the right-wing press. The tragedy of our drugs policy is that it is dictated by tabloid irrationality, and not by evidence.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/julian-critchley-all-the-experts-admit-that-we-should-legalise-drugs-894367.html

GUNS!

Deb — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:08:14 EDT

From TheAtlasphere.com

Column
Guns: Selling the 'Reason' Not the 'Right'
By Bob Burg
Aug 14, 2008

In the parking lot of my local Publix grocery store, I saw a pickup truck recently with a bumper sticker that read: “Gun control means hitting your target.”

Ha ha. That’s really funny.

Actually, it kind of is funny. And, those of us who agree with the Supreme Court’s recent decision — that gun ownership is an individual right — would probably agree that this is exactly how gun control should be defined.

However, it is not a particularly effective bumper sticker if our goal is to persuade gun control advocates to re-think their position.

Why? Because, first, only those of us who already agree with the message will agree and find it amusing. Great, we can all get together and have a nice Kumbaya moment.

Second, those who are not already inclined to agree will take offense, shut down any alternative way of thinking, and be more fully convinced that people who are not for gun control are simply “gun nuts.”

Third, effective persuasion must include presenting ideas in a way that includes — not excludes — the person you desire to convert.

And I believe that today, more than ever, that is important. We are in a war right now — a war of ideas, of philosophies, of basic premises concerning the effective working of our country — especially as it pertains to the proper role of government in our lives.

In a recent column in his excellent e-zine “A Voice of Sanity in An Insane World,” Robert Ringer recently wrote:

Those who are celebrating the recent pro-gun victory are blinded by the reality of what it really means. It was, in fact, a sad day in the waning years of the American Empire when the Supreme Court voted 5-4 that the D.C. ban on handguns is unconstitutional.

I say that because when the U.S. was still the home of the free, the vote would have been 9-0. Actually, there would not have been a vote, because there would not have been a ban in the first place. There was a time when government would not have dared to tell a person he didn’t have the right to protect his family.

I agree with Robert completely.

But here’s the problem. Many wouldn’t agree with him at all. And they don’t agree with the decision.

And we are not going to get the many individual citizens who want to press the government to take away our right to keep and bear arms to see the light by quoting the Second Amendment.

Remember, they don’t care.

Let me repeat that: They don’t care.

So, we have a choice. Actually, I see three options:

Option 1 – We don’t care what they think: This means that we maintain our self-righteous attitude, knowing we are correct and they are wrong.

Of course, nothing will change and our right to protect ourselves and our loved ones in the way we see fit will be more and more in danger.

Option 2 – We can try to intellectualize them into submission: We can quote the 2nd Amendment. We can explain that rights refer to individuals and powers refer to government.

We can even point out the number of times and the context within our founding documents where rights and powers are used and — as the adults used to sound to the children on the Charlie Brown/Peanuts television specials ... “Waa Waa Wa Waaa Waaa Wa Waaa.”

Option 3 – We can persuade them, by showing how they benefit from the right to keep and bear arms and how they and their loved ones are in danger by having these rights taken away.

Note, this doesn’t mean we need to persuade them to personally keep and bear arms. As we know, it’s the very “right” itself — the possibility that someone might own a gun — that messes with the mind of the would-be criminal or home invader and, hopefully, keeps them from taking the chance.

I’ll tell you right now — I don’t own a handgun and probably never will. Not because I’m against handguns; obviously, I’m an outspoken advocate of the right to keep and bear arms.

No, I won’t buy a gun because I’m a klutz. I’m sort of like Barney Fife and am just as likely to shoot myself in the foot as I am to hit the target. I say that only half-jokingly. (On the other hand, if you are a potential home-invader reading this, I actually do own a hand gun. Or, do I? I guess you’ll find out if you’re stupid enough to try invading my home.)

So, let’s go with the persuasion aspect. One of my heroes, the late Harry Browne (www.HarryBrowne.com), taught that we have to “sell” liberty because, unfortunately, too many people today simply don’t understand the benefits. And, the gentleman that Harry was, he taught us that the key was gentle persuasion. Indeed, it is the most effective.

How do we do this? My suggestion is to first focus on being inclusive rather than exclusive. Don’t make the gun control advocate your enemy. Instead, turn him or her into a friend.

The basic premise of my book Endless Referrals: Network Your Everyday Contacts into Sales can be summarized as this: All things being equal, people will do business with, and refer business to, those people they know, like and trust.

It’s the same when selling an idea. Before they’ll buy into your idea, and spread the word to others, they must first buy into you.

You can do this by communicating to them that you both have the same basic goal — which, please realize, you do indeed have: It is protecting yourself and your loved ones. Their ignorance should not be confused with mal-intent.

You might begin the discussion by utilizing “The Ransberger Pivot,” developed by Ray Ransberger and Marshall Fritz. You start by finding a point of agreement, and express is thusly: “Dave, like you, I’d also like to...” In this case, you’d fill in the blank with words such as, “...live in a country where everyone and their loved ones felt safe from threats of violence.”

How could the person not agree with that statement? After all, that is the very reason why he or she wants gun control. Because they currently think that is what will keep them and their loved ones safe from guns. Of course, since you know the very opposite is true, once you have their ear, now you can explain why the very opposite is true.

However, this must be done with tact, kindness, and patience if — and only if — you are truly interested in changing their mind and not just making them feel badly for their incorrect thinking. That, of course, is up to you.

The purpose of this article is to share methods of persuasion. I truly hope you agree that this is the route to go, and that you care too much about the safety of you and your loved ones to instead let your ego take over and just put down another person.

Remember — to the degree you make them think that you think they’re an idiot, that is the degree to which they will resist you and your ideas and, as a result, not change their thinking. Should it be that way? Perhaps not. But, it is.

Now, back to the bumper sticker.

I believe that bumper stickers should be used — but not as the person in our initial paragraph used his. He used his to separate the two sides, and, of course, that is his right.

I suggest, instead, that we use bumper stickers to persuade. While there is not enough space on a bumper sticker to actually cause someone to change their mind, there is enough space to get them curious to want to know more.

My suggestions for bumper stickers would be along the lines of: “Gun control is a blessing to criminals.”

That might cause a person to think and hopefully ask the — hopefully polite and well-spoken — vehicle owner why that is. It is then up to that owner to be able to explain why gun control leads to more violence, rather than less. (Since there have been many articles on this topic, we won’t cover that here.)

“Criminals love gun control. Then they get to have all the guns.”

“Gun control only disarms us — the already law-abiding citizens.”

Even better, put a website address on these bumper stickers, where people could go to get more information and have the underlying premises explained to them in a non-threatening and persuasive manner.

Perhaps the NRA, GOA, JPFO or other similar organizations will pick up on this idea and put it into action.

Imagine ... instead of trying to bully the gun control advocates into re-thinking their position — which won’t work — we can actually “educate” them to do so.

Easy? Probably not.

But, then again, very few things of consequence are easy. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be done.

http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/printer_080814-burg-selling-the-reason.php

Archives 2008

anatolant — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 07:26:13 EDT

links:

Endorsement by US Admirals and Generals 3.12

RSS -- tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com -- ***

Polls -- filmplus.org/politics/obama

...

I have to work on my own "Personal Politics" pages for now.

anatoly.org

Globalisn and Am. Foreign Policy

anatolant — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:26:00 EDT

Fareed Zakaria

Obama, Foreign Policy Realist

comments? links?

commander-in-chief

anatolant — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 19:24:01 EDT

I made NEW group commander-in-chief for foucs on most questioned aspect of Obama's candidacy.

Posting records, statements, concepts [comparing with McCain]

links, references, and etc.

Anatoly

Hagel for VP!

Deb — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 19:06:49 EDT

Criticism of the Bush Administration

On August 18, 2005, Hagel compared the Iraq War to Vietnam and openly mocked Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that the Iraqi insurgency was in its "last throes."[9]

In November 2005, Hagel made a much-publicized statement: "To question your government is not unpatriotic — to not question your government is unpatriotic." This was in reference to the lack of open debate in Congress regarding the Iraq War, and in defense of his assertion that the United States should withdraw its troops.

In December 2005, in reference to Bush, the Republican Party, and the PATRIOT Act, Hagel made a much-publicized statement: "I took an oath of office to the Constitution, I didn't take an oath of office to my party or my president."[10]

In January 2006, Hagel took issue with Karl Rove over controversial statements the White House advisor made concerning the mindset of Republicans and Democrats. Hagel said, "Well, I didn't like what Mr. Rove said, because it frames terrorism and the issue of terrorism and everything that goes with it, whether it's the renewal of the Patriot Act or the NSA wiretapping, in a political context." He also said that "dark clouds" are hanging over the Republican party", and "If you look at the environment and the atmospherics politically in this town, read any poll. The sixth year of a governing party usually... is not good... the country is tired, a lot of complications in these international issues, we're at war."[11]

Hagel further criticized the Bush administration, saying, "National security is more important than the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. And to use it to try and get someone elected will ultimately end up in defeat and disaster for that political party."[11]

In July 2006, Hagel again took issue with the Bush administration, this time on its handling of the Israel-Lebanon issue saying "The sickening slaughter on both sides must end and it must end now. President Bush must call for an immediate cease-fire. This madness must stop."[12]

After Republican losses in the 2006 midterm election, Hagel penned an editorial in the Washington Post highly critical of military strategies both employed and proposed for Iraq. He unequivocally declared that "There will be no victory or defeat for the United States in Iraq," and called for a "phased troop withdrawal"—making Hagel one of the most prominent voices in his party to do so.[13]

According to a SurveyUSA poll, Hagel has a 10% higher approval rating among Nebraska Democrats than Republicans.[14][15] OnTheIssues.org rates Hagel as a "libertarian-leaning conservative".

In January 2007, Hagel openly criticized President Bush's plan to send an additional 20,000 troops to Iraq. He called it, "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out."[16] Together with Democrats Joseph Biden and Carl Levin he proposed a non-binding resolution to the Democratic-controlled Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which rejected Bush's policy as "not in the national interest" in a 12-9 vote.[17] However, in a Senate vote of 94-2 to revoke executive power to replace federal prosecutors without a preliminary hearing, Senator Hagel and Senator Kit Bond were the only opposition.[18]

After an April 2007 visit to Iraq with Pennsylvania Democratic Representative Joe Sestak, Hagel expressed his belief that the occupation of Iraq should not continue indefinitely and defended Congressional actions to set a timeline for an end in occupation.

In July 2007, Hagel expressed his intention to cooperate with Senate Democrats in voting for a bill that would set a timeline to get out of Iraq.[19]

In November 2007, he rated the Bush administration "the lowest in capacity, in capability, in policy, in consensus -- almost every area" of any presidency in the last forty years. He also revealed he is open to running as vice-president with the 2008 Democratic nominee.[20] In the same month, he said, "I have to say this is one of the most arrogant, incompetent administrations I've ever seen or ever read about."[20]

[edit] Retirement

On September 10, 2007, Hagel announced that he would be retiring from the Senate at the end of his term in 2009.[21] The announcement ended speculation regarding a possible bid for the presidency in 2008.

On its website The Times reported that the Senator is a possible candidate for the cabinet position of United States Secretary of Defense in the Barack Obama administration, if the Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Obama, was to be elected president:

Obama is hoping to appoint cross-party figures to his cabinet such as Chuck Hagel, the Republican senator for Nebraska and an opponent of the Iraq war […] Senior advisers confirmed that Hagel, a highly decorated Vietnam war veteran and one of McCain’s closest friends in the Senate, was considered an ideal candidate for defense secretary.[22]

Senator Obama was quoted in the same article, when asked about Hagel as a potential cabinet member: "Chuck Hagel is a great friend of mine and I respect him very much."[22] Hagel is also rumored to be a possible Obama pick for the Vice-Presidential candidacy in his 2008 presidential election ticket[23] and has said that he would consider serving if asked.[24] As of yet Hagel has not made an endorsement for the 2008 presidential election.

[edit] New book

In Senator Hagel's new book, America: Our Next Chapter, he suggests that the United States should adopt independent leadership and possibly another political party. He also believes that the Iraq War is one of the five biggest blunders in history. Hagel is critical of George W. Bush's foreign policy, calling it "reckless." He has been a major critic of the war since it started, and has stated that the United States should learn from their mistakes in the Vietnam War. He considers Bush's foreign policy a "ping pong game with American lives".

[edit] Vice President possibilities

In June 2008, CNN's ElectionCenter 2008 listed Chuck Hagel as a possible running mate for Democratic Party nominee Barack Obama.[25]

On June 20, 2008, Chuck Hagel said he would consider running with Obama if offered the VP spot. [26] He has also been mentioned as a potential United States Secretary of Defense in an Obama Administration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel

McCain's Position on Russian-Georgian Conflict Parrots His Campaign Advisor's Lobbyist Ties To Georgia

William — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 22:07:29 EDT

McCain has 134 lobbyists on his staff. One of the most prominent is Randy Scheunemann who has been on the payroll of the Georgian government and the Burmese Dictatorship. Not surprisingly, McCain is giving carte blanche to Georgia and is putting Scheunemann's financial relationship before that of the United States. Isn't his what George Bush has done for the last 8 years?

Obama on Georgia

anatolant — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 20:06:30 EDT

Perhaps, the first international politics test for Obama: if, indeed, the New American is a citezen of the world, what US present does when big Russia takes on small but westen-style Georgia?

Libertarian foreign is non-existent by definition. Alas, moral grounds! American volunteers like in 1930s in Spain?

Commander-in-chief is the second name of the president.

What do you do when diplomacy time is passed? A lot of places in the world where it's too late for talks. "Might is Right" -- motto of the many... and what now?

accountability now

Ann — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 13:46:24 EDT

34 years ago today, Nixon was forced to resign. He was actually held accountable for his actions.

Infant group Accountability Now is symbolically dropping a money bomb today to kick off the organization and its efforts.

Please donate & help restore accountability to government. We need a big bomb to really make an impact..... ;)

A Black Flag for White America.

Deb — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:36:46 EDT

Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, of Louisiana, said Democrat Obama would be a "visual aid" to the idea that whites have lost control of America.Duke, once a Democrat who became a Republican in 1988 and served in the Louisiana House of Representatives, posted an essay on his Web site in June titled, "Obama Wins Demo Nomination: A Black Flag for White America."Obama "will be a clear signal for millions of our people," Duke wrote. "Obama is a visual aid for White Americans who just don't get it yet that we have lost control of our country, and unless we get it back we are heading for complete annihilation as a people."Richard Barrett, a 65-year-old lawyer who traveled the country for 40 years advocating what he perceives as the white side in racial issues, is convinced Obama will defeat Republican John McCain in November.One of the leaders in the Nationalist Movement, Barrett told The Associated Press in an interview at his rural Mississippi home that, "Instead of this so-called civil rights bill, for example, that says you have to give preferences to minorities, I think the American people are going -- once they see the 'Obamanation' -- they're going to demand a tweaking of that and say, 'You have to put the majority into office,'" Barrett said.While most Americans have little or no direct contact with white supremacists, organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center keep close tabs; the law center estimates some 200,000 people nationwide are active in such groups.

http://www.wnbc.com/politics/17131027/detail.html

Rice: US would be safe under Obama

Deb — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 16:39:42 EDT

Rice: US would be safe under Obama

7 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) — US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says the nation would be safe under a Barack Obama presidency and that she is ruling out a shot at the vice presidency under either Obama or Republican John McCain.

In an interview with Politico and Yahoo News released Thursday, Rice was asked if she would feel secure with a president Obama.

"Oh, the United States will be fine," she responded. "I think that we are having an important debate about how we keep the country safe," she said, pointing to the Middle East and Iraq.

"Those are important judgments for the American people to make."

McCain has vied to portray the Illinois senator as a dangerous bet for US security given his relative inexperience.

During their primary race, Obama's defeated Democratic rival Hillary Clinton ran a now-infamous ad that questioned whether he had the right leadership mettle to cope with a foreign policy crisis in the dead of night.

Rice, occasionally mentioned as a potential running mate for McCain, demurred when asked if she might serve as second-in-command to his Democratic rival.

"I don't need another job in government with anybody. Look, I'm a Republican, all right? Senator McCain is a fine patriot and he would be a great president," she said.

"But there's something to be said for fresh blood," Rice added in reference to the running mate talk. "And I know that there are a lot of very good people who could be his vice president."

Why McCain would be a mediocre president

Deb — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 16:31:35 EDT

REX NUTTING Why McCain would be a mediocre president Commentary: It's not a given that Republican candidate has the right stuff By Rex Nutting, MarketWatch Last update: 3:53 p.m. EDT Aug. 7, 2008 WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- In his frivolous Paris and Britney ad, Sen. John McCain has asked the right question: Is Barack Obama ready to lead this country? Since last January, Sen. Obama's fitness for the presidency has been the only question that matters in American politics. The pollsters and pundits agree that if Obama can show the voters that he's up to the job, he'll win. If not, he won't. But that begs another question: Is McCain fit to lead America? That question hasn't been asked, nor has it been answered. The assumption seems to be that McCain's years of experience in the military and in Congress of course give him the background and tools he'd need in the White House. As Britney might say, "Duh! For sure he's qualified!!! He's Mac!!!" But is that true? Does McCain have the right stuff? A careful look at McCain's biography shows that he isn't prepared for the job. His resume is much thinner than most people think. Here are some reasons why McCain would be a mediocre president. Lack of accomplishments Like the current occupant of the White House, McCain got his first career breaks from the connections and money of his family, not from hard work. The son and grandson of Navy admirals, he attended Annapolis where he did poorly. Nevertheless, he was commissioned as a pilot, where he performed poorly, crashing three planes before he failed to evade a North Vietnamese missile that destroyed his plane. McCain spent more than five years in a prison camp. After his release, McCain knew his weak military record meant he'd never make admiral, so he turned his sights to a career in politics. With the help of his new wife's wealth, his new father-in-law's business connections and some powerful friends had made as a lobbyist for the Navy, he was elected in 1982 to a Congress in a district that he didn't reside in until the day the seat opened up. A few years later, he succeeded Barry Goldwater as a senator. McCain hasn't accomplished much in the Senate. Even his own campaign doesn't trumpet his successes, probably because the few victories he's had still rankle Republicans. His campaign finance law failed to significantly reduce the role of money in politics. He failed to get a big tobacco bill through the Senate. He's failed to change the way Congress spends money; his bill to give the president a line-item veto was declared unconstitutional, and the system of pork and earmarks continues unabated. He failed to reform the immigration system. Every senator who runs for president misses votes back in Washington, so it's no surprise that McCain and all the others who ran in the primaries have missed a lot of votes in the past year. But between the beginning of 2005 and mid-2007, no senator missed more roll-call votes than McCain did, except Tim Johnson, who was recovering from a near-fatal brain aneurysm. Shallow McCain says he doesn't understand the economy. He's demonstrated that he doesn't understand the workings of Social Security, or the political history of the Middle East. He doesn't know who our enemies are. He says he wants to reduce global warming, but then proposes ideas that would stimulate -- not reduce -- demand for fossil fuels. McCain has done one thing well -- self promotion. Instead of working on legislation or boning up on the issues, he's been on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" more than any other guest. He's been on the Sunday talk shows more than any other guest in the past 10 years. He's hosted "Saturday Night Live" and even announced his candidacy in 2007 on "The Late Show with David Letterman." McCain has not articulated any lofty goals. So far, his campaign theme has mostly been "McCain: He's None of the Above." In the primaries, he campaigned on "I'm not that robotic businessman, I'm not that sanctimonious hick, I'm not that crazy libertarian, I'm not that washed-up actor, I'm not that delusional 9/11 guy." In the general election, he's emphasized that he's not that treasonous dreamer. No leadership McCain has frequently taken on near-impossible missions that go against the grain of his party. It's the basis of his reputation as a maverick. But McCain has never been able to bring more than a handful of Republicans along with him on issues such as campaign finance reform or immigration. Democrats on the Hill have accepted McCain's help on some issues, but except for a few exceptions (John Kerry and Joe Lieberman), they've never warmed to him. To achieve anything as president, McCain would have to win over two hostile parties: The Democrats and the Republicans. Living in the Sixties McCain is still fighting the Vietnam War. But he's not fighting the real historic war, which taught us the folly of injecting ourselves into a civil war that was none of our business. We learned that, in a world where even peasants have guns, explosives and radios, a determined and popular guerrilla force can defeat a modern army equipped with the mightiest technology if that army has no vital national interest to protect. Instead, McCain is fighting an imaginary Vietnam War, where a sure victory could have been achieved with just a little more bombing, just a little more "pacification," just a little more will to win at home. This fantasy clouds McCain's judgment on foreign policy. Most of the other high-profile politicians who fought in Vietnam -- Colin Powell, Chuck Hegel, John Kerry, and Jim Webb -- aren't stuck in the past, and they don't view the Iraq War as a chance to get Vietnam right. No principles After years of honing a reputation as a guy who'll say the truth regardless of the political consequences, McCain has crashed the Straight Talk Express. On almost every issue where he took a principled stand against the Republican line -- taxes, immigration, oil drilling, the Religious Right -- he's changed his views. We ought to like politicians who change their mind when the facts change; it shows maturity, judgment and flexibility. But politicians who change their mind to suit the prevailing winds show the opposite. The bottom line Successful presidents come from two molds: visionaries, or mechanics. The visionaries -- think Reagan or FDR -- see what others can't and say 'Why not?" to inspire the country. The mechanics -- think LBJ or Eisenhower -- know the ins and outs of government and are able to harness the power of millions of humans to accomplish great things, or at least keep the wheels from coming off. McCain fits neither style. He's neither a dreamer, nor a detail guy. His major accomplishment, in Vietnam and in the Senate, has been merely to survive. Just surviving doesn't make you're a hero, or a decent president. America needs to do more than survive the next four years. Rex Nutting is Washington bureau chief of MarketWatch.

False-Flags' Deep Dark History -- Attempting to Blame or Provoke Iran

Amunaor — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 01:17:17 EDT

For folks that find this type of operation incredible, here is an extensively, well documented false-flag example:

"Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a false flag conspiracy plan, proposed within the United States government in 1962. The plan called for CIA or other operatives to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Castro-led Cuba. One plan was to "develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington". This operation is especially notable in that it included plans for hijackings and bombings followed by the use of phony evidence that would blame the terrorist acts on foreign governments. The plan states, "The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere." Operation Northwoods was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and signed by then-Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer, and sent to the Secretary of Defense."
OPERATION NORTHWOODS, BAMFORD VIDEO
January 31st, 2003 Bush’s proposal to Tony Blair was to paint a U.S. plane in UN colors and fly it over Iraq in the hopes of getting it shot down was straight out of Operation Northwoods (Philippe Sands, Lawless World)

Brzezinski: On The Path To War With Iran
The Rationale for War
“...a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran...” Zbigniew Brzezinski.
01 Feb 2007 The National Security Advisor to former President Carter testified before the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on 1 Feb 2007. Dr.Zbigniew Brzezinski delivered a scathing assessment of the core mistakes made by the Bush administration in the Middle East. Just before describing what he termed the “mythical historical narrative” of the policy, he offered a scenario that the Bush administration might use as a convenient invitation to attack Iran...
“…by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a ‘defensive’ U.S. military action against Iran…”

To Provoke War, Cheney Considered Proposal To Dress Up Navy Seals As Iranians And Shoot At Them
Think Progress | July 31, 2008

Speaking at the Campus Progress journalism conference earlier this month, Seymour Hersh -- a Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist for The New Yorker -- revealed that Bush administration officials held a meeting recently in the Vice President's office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran.

In Hersh's most recent article, he reports that this meeting occurred in the wake of the overblown incident in the Strait of Hormuz, when a U.S. carrier almost shot at a few small Iranian speedboats. The "meeting took place in the Vice-President's office. 'The subject was how to create a casus belli between Tehran and Washington,'" according to one of Hersh's sources.

During the journalism conference event, I asked Hersh specifically about this meeting and if he could elaborate on what occurred. Hersh explained that, during the meeting in Cheney's office, an idea was considered to dress up Navy Seals as Iranians, put them on fake Iranian speedboats, and shoot at them:
HERSH: There were a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don't we build -- we in our shipyard -- build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up.

Hersh argued that one of the things the Bush administration learned during the encounter in the Strait of Hormuz was that, "if you get the right incident, the American public will support it.” "Look, is it high school? Yeah," Hersh said. "Are we playing high school with you know 5,000 nuclear warheads in our arsenal? Yeah we are. We're playing, you know, who's the first guy to run off the highway with us and Iran."

Transcript: HERSH: There was a meeting. Among the items considered and rejected -- which is why the New Yorker did not publish it, on grounds that it wasn't accepted -- one of the items was why not...There was a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don't we build -- we in our shipyard -- build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up. Might cost some lives...

False Flags by Captain Eric H. May
Global Research, February 23, 2008
The easiest way to carry out a false flag attack is by setting up a military exercise that simulates the very attack you want to carry out. As I'll detail below, this is exactly how government perpetrators in the US and UK handled the 9/11 and 7/7 "terror" attacks, which were in reality government attacks blamed on "terrorists."...

The necon regime has had plenty of precedent to study and exploit. Let’s hope we can throw a monkey wrench into their schemes to prevent another.

More Info Here:

The Power of Nightmares - Why We Fight

When is a Surge not a Surge: When an Invasion/Occupation is not a War

Peace, Best Wishes and Hope

The Wall Street Journal says that Barack Obama is too fit to be president. Is WSJ the new way to spell NONSENSE?

William — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 17:02:08 EDT

The Wall Street Journal says that Barack Obama is too fit to be president. Let's see: the McCain Campaign says that he's too popular and now the Wall Street Journal says he's in too good of shape to be president. What's next? Fox News say that Obama is too tall at 6'-1 1/2" and that a president needs to 5' - 7" like John McCain and Napolean! ;-)

Barack Obama on Chicago Pubic Radio talking about voting rights

William — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:11:09 EDT

Here's an episode of Odyssey where Barack Obama discusses voting rights.

http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/audio_library/ram/od/od-010227.ram

See Joe Klein's Take on McCain's Small-Minded Campaign: THE SCUM ALSO RISES

William — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 13:38:13 EDT

See Joe Klein's Take on McCain's Small-Minded Campaign: THE SCUM ALSO RISES.

Eugene Robinson nails it today on the quadrennial Republican scum festival that begins in August of every presidential election year. It seems to me that Britney-boating isn't going to be as lethal to Obama as swift-boating was to Kerry--indeed, it is more embarrassing than devastating--but that doesn't make it any less intolerable. I mean, we've got two wars, an energy crisis, an economy teetering on the edge of real serious trouble--and this is the campaign John McCain wants to run?

Gallup Commits "Polling Malpractice"

Deb — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:22:30 EDT

Gotcha! Gallup Commits "Polling Malpractice" Startling New Info/Controversy on Poll by Excelscior1 Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 09:08:49 AM PDT

There were many problems with the latest Gallup Poll, which has McCain up +4 vs Obama. But now with more information (buried deep into the 9th paragraph of USA Today's own write up), it only gets worse. It's potentially "startlingly" worse

It seems that Gallup according to reporter Seth Colter Walls, "committed polling malpractice", when describing polling expert, Prof. Adam Abramowitz analysis, of Gallup/USA today's latest halting revelation.

Gallup fudged the numbers, in more ways than we ever thought!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Excelscior1's diary :: ::

As for how "likely voters" were identified, USA Today reports that respondents were asked "how much thought they had given the election, how often they voted in the past and whether they plan to vote this fall." Fair enough. But the very next sentence raises even more questions about whether USA Today's effort is actually a snapshot of the electorate, as its website claims, or enters the realm of forward-looking hypothesizing. Buried in the ninth paragraph of USA Today's own write-up, they reveal that "McCain's gains came because there was an even number of likely voters from each party. Last month, the Democrats had an 11-point edge."

Abramowitz says this contradiction is the equivalent of polling malpractice. "It is simply not plausible that there would be an 11-point swing in party ID among likely voters or that there is now an even split in the likely electorate between Republicans and Democrats," he wrote in an email to the Huffington Post.

Agreed! There is no responsible poll in America that would weigh Democrats and Republicans evenly right now.

As Prof. Abramawitz explained, party ID wouldn't be up 11 points in a month (especially for the struggling Republican party) either. Think about it? When is the last time you've seen, or heard about a poll where Republican and Democratic party ID were equal? Gallup tried to hide this initially. It was bad enough they had given us multiple, shaky reasons/data already. But this one (equal party ID) is just as bad as removing a large sample of 109 so called "unlikely voters", who planned to vote for Obama by 61 to 7% (Yes. They did that, and several other highly questionable decisions) to give McCain the "likely voter edge". Obama should of been up BIG in that poll (as he hit 50% vs McCain's 44% in their June poll).

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/...

Something really crazy is happening. I wrote a diary yesterday regarding this subject. http://www.dailykos.com/...

There seems to be a confluence of media and polling firms, that are either against Obama or trying to keep this race close.

I don't know. But Gallup Chief Frank Newport practically admits on MSNBC that they lied and were testing new theories. Back to Mr. Colter of the Huffingtonpost:

But grains of salt aside, there is other evidence to suggest that USA Today's "likely voter" poll runs afoul of its own standards in terms of not forecasting far-off election results. In describing the poll's usefulness on MSNBC Tuesday morning, Gallup chief Frank Newport said "it's important to look at likely voters ... just to see under a scenario where McCain supporters are energized."

"Just to see a scenario where McCain supporters are energized"; so now Gallup is passing off speculation and hypothesis as accurate polling?

Shouldn't this be some type of scandal? What was Gannet's (USA Today's owners) role or influence in this? Why is MSNBC, other media and "pundits", continue to reference this now disgraced poll? What does this mean to our future, the upcoming election, and media/polling priorities and influence?

Gallup/USAToday should certainly feel ashamed and needs to apologize as it attempts to pass off this drivel! Mr. Colter Walls agrees, and Gallups, Newport even tries to defend/explain himself one more time, as well:

So sure, "under a scenario" where McCain's voters are energized at a level equal to Obama's and the national distribution of party ID is equal between Democrats and Republicans, perhaps it would make sense to see McCain with a four-point lead in a poll with a plus/minus 4 percent margin of error. But engineering coverage of a poll with metrics contrived to show results under a certain "scenario" sounds more prospective and hypothetical than the paper's stated mission of covering polls as momentary snapshots and "not forecasts of far-off election days."

As Newport said on MSNBC this morning: "The likely voters simply tell us that turnout could make a difference."

We've all though it at sometime. But I hope this is the first, last, and only poll that has McCain ahead.

Gallup's Frank Newport, The Washington Post's Dana Milbank, John McCain and MSNBC's Joe Scarborough are all a disgrace, and charter members of Keith Olberman's "Worst Person Of The Day".

PS: Obama is kicking ass, and the crowd is juiced in his economic townhall in Missouri today.

He's been funny, articulate, honest and emotionally energized.

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/30/111024/383/27/559333

When is a Surge not a Surge: When an Invasion/Occupation is not a War

Amunaor — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 23:33:09 EDT

Was Enron Behind the War in Afghanistan? Since Enron morphed into the UBS, how does McCain answer the question of what he’s doing handling Phil Gramm’s Enron and UBS baggage? What personal involvement did McCain have in the UNOCAL pipeline?

For the past six years of relentless media pounding, the malleable public mind has been rendered into mush, brow-beaten into accepting the premise for the invasion and occupation of Iraq as, somehow, in fact, being based on a legitimate war. It is not a war and never has been. If you proceed from a false assumption, you will end up with a false argument. In this case, any reference to the term ‘Surge’ is a misnomer, and by default, an attempted extension to justify an already illicit deed. Therefore, any argument for, or against any kind of SURGE as working, or not, is simply a vain, elaborate attempt to mask and justify the mass slaughter and displacement of millions of people the current misconception has already left in its wake. This can not be dismissed, or condoned by a simple play on words. The architects should not be allowed, so easily, to wash from their hands the spilt innocent blood and wryly walk away!

Iraq never attacked the U.S., nor did it ever pose a threat. It was already occupied; cornered and bludgeoned by an already ongoing occupation initiated by Bush I. Bush II simply utilized the chaos that issued forth from the psychodrama of 9/11, as a means to escalate its belligerence against the Iraqi people to satisfy neocon agenda, seize the oil fields and restore U.S. Dollar supremacy. The U.S. Congress never declared war against Iraq, it simply signed off, giving Bush abusive powers to escalate existing aggressions of occupation; technically it has been nothing more than a congressionally sanctioned police action from the very beginning.

Now that the neocon warmongers wish to play a shell game with a ‘redeployment’ of troops from one illicit invasion: Iraq; transferring the focal point of its aggression by escalating those actions into the, long forgotten, initial invasion of Afghanistan, perhaps it would benefit all if we were to revisit the timeline encompassing the events of: Cheney/Enron – Taliban – Afghanistan – leading up to 9/11.

The Enron scandal runs so deep into the Bush/Cheney regime that evidence shows Enron may have been a major factor in Bush/Cheney complicity in 9/11 as pretext for the present "global war on terror" a war for the control of Central Asian oil, gas reserves and pipelines implicating the Bush/Cheney neocon regime in both the Enron scandal and 9/11, as Enron also had its interests in the Afghanistan/Central Asia energy grab.

From 2001 to 2003, Dick Cheney continued to openly break the law by defying GAO requests to turn over his records of meetings with Enron. The General Accounting Office decided not to challenge a judge's decision to dismiss the watchdog agency's lawsuit against Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force.

The decision by GAO ended a nearly two-year battle with the White House over documents detailing meetings Cheney held with the National Energy Policy Development Group in 2001. The meetings resulted in the president's national energy policy and many of the officials there came from Enron Corp., the Houston-based energy company that filed for bankruptcy in December 2001 amid accusations of hidden debt, inflated profits and improper accounting methods.

There are indications that Enron and the White House were working closely with the Taliban -- including Osama bin Laden -- up to weeks before the Sept. 11 attack. Why was the bin Laden family, swiftly whisked out of the country, immediately following the events of 9/11?

How does McCain fit into the Enron ball game? Following Enron’s collapse in December of 2001, it was McCain’s financial guru, Phil Graam, the evil genius of world high-way robbery, whose UBS interests scavenged the remnants of Enron’s energy and oil interests throughout the Middle East. In other words, the chameleon UBS is the new Enron. (The following material will allow you to see the Enron scandal and its ties to Bush-Cheney in a whole new light: Center for Research on Globalization.)

Since the Democrats continue buckling under the weight of their own invertebrate skeletal structure when it comes to defending the Constitution, perhaps the public would best be served, by enlisting the services of those members of courage, who still have eyes, ears and a backbone; to investigate Cheney’s Enron agenda prior to 9/11 and the secretive deals between Big Oil, Bush, and the Taliban in the early months of 2001. If the spineless majority continues to lay prostrate in the face of such questions, perhaps we should raise the specter of their own criminal malfeasance.

What ever the opinions may be regarding the sanitized version for its causes, much weight outside of the anointed pronouncements, suggest that 9/11 may very well have been a rouge GLADIO-CIA styled false-flag operation utilized to ignite the necessary psychodrama that has permeated, and swept the public mind into accepting the all consuming ‘global war on terror’, a bloody cover for imperial madness…money and power!

Think Oliver North type covert ops run by then VP (CIA) Bush-I, in sleepy Reagan’s basement, but this time, Cheney’s basement, along with all of the same Iran/Contra neocon planners. A pliable Bush II, still a complicit traitor, has simply been the epitome of Marx’s ‘useful idiot’ for the neocon agenda, to plunge the world into a clash of civilizations and force into existence a fascist order.

GLADIO - false-flag operations are quite frightening as they are, in fact, quite real! Many will ask, "Well, what happened to the passengers seen boarding the aircraft?" These folks are psyops specialists, mind-benders, who study deception and distraction. My response is, "how did the famous magician, David Copperfield, manage to make the statue of liberty disappear before a, massive, live audience?"

Interestingly, numerous NORAD, and its eastern counterpart, NEADS gamers, were performing live, what if, hijacking scenarios at that very same precise moment; to add a fog of confusion, the actual event was piggybacked into these live games.

Suspicion has it that the 'aircraft' may have been outfitted with a DARPA designed electronics mechanism 'Global Hawk', which had the capacity for disabling and over-riding onboard pilot control of the craft and placing it into the hands of a remote crew. (Webster Tarpley - 9/11 Synthetic Terror-Made in USA)

“Deception is a state of mind and the mind of the state.” - James Jesus Angelton - Director of CIA Counter Intelligence (1954-74)

“The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.” - William Colby - Director of the CIA (1973-76)

The corporate media, along with its PR firms, have done a masterful job in turning upside down the intended original meaning for the idiom ‘conspiracy’. With the association of negative thought patterns, evoked by images bound to such statements as: fringe, lunatic, left-wing, conspiracy-nut, etc, the public mind has been convincingly conjured into suspecting that it is the truth seeker that is fact the conspirator instead. The negative coloring of the word ‘conspiracy’ has effectively become a psychological repellant to any serious prying; as something beyond the pale of ordinary, rational thought; unworthy of consideration; a subliminal mental stop sign, impugning the rational mind that only lunatics and fringe elements dwell therein! Very effective indeed!

The fact of the matter is that history is replete with conspiracies. The American Revolution was a conspiracy against the King of England, a premiere example.

Con – meaning against; Spire – from the Latin, to breath -- giving us the result: to breathe against; from this, have evolved terms such as: con-job, con-artist, or confidence man, all of which are individual conspirators. The only difference being that, a conspiracy involves a 'group' of individual confidence men, or con-artists – think big, think Federal Reserve and Wall Street, both involve 'consumer confidence'. The con builds its subject’s confidence, for the purpose of bilking the supplicant out of something that it has; something of value and which the con desires to take by slight of hand. In 1913, when the money powers centralized their control, consecrated in the creature of the Federal Reserve, the popular press from that bygone era criticized it as a, “den of vipers and thieves”, in other words, a sanctuary of con-artists.

If you tell a little lie, you’ll get caught, but if you tell a BIG lie, and tell it often enough it and teach it as the truth, eventually it will be perceived and accepted by all as the truth. (In other words, the larger and more magnificent the con, the more difficult it is to see through it, especially if it is sanctioned and cloaked in the respectable shroud of one’s own government.)

I’d be willing to venture a ten-fold return on your every dollar, that there are currently, and have been from the very beginning, numerous false-flag fires set off all over the Middle East landscape. To this bloody thought process, the ends justify what ever means are at its disposal.

If these things are not openly vetted, the House can only remain under the dark cloud it has gathered itself under, while innocent blood continues to spill and scream from the ground to haunt the ears of the living.

I say, reopen the investigations into Enron/Cheney (currently, morphed into the UBS of McCain/Gramm/Cheney) because this might very well be the thread to pull that will unravel the cloak, which was 9/11.

In 43 BCE, Cicero spoke these words to the Senate: A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is well known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared.

Peace, Best Wishes and Hope

Referenced Material-----

Afghanistan, the Taliban and the Bush Oil Team

ENRON Entanglements to UNOCAL Taliban to Texas and Controlling Afghanistan

UBS Is Enron

GLADIO-Death Plan for Democracy

The Flight of the Global Hawk

The Power of Nightmares - Why We Fight

9/11 Synthetic Terror-Made in the USA

The Annotico Report (former president of Italy, Francesco Cossiga, reveals 9/11 as rouge GLADIO-CIA op)

Please take 10 seconds and change history

Deb — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:56:28 EDT

Kucinich has a Wednesday night deadline to complete the impeachment petition against George Bush.

Please take 10 seconds right now and fill out the 4 lines of information he requests in order to personally deliver it to your Congressperson. If you are so inclined, please also forward this to 10 people you know feel strongly on this matter and ask for their help!

http://www.kucinich.us/

Illegal Propaganda

Tammy — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 01:57:59 EDT

Scott McClellan came clean and shared that the White House sends Fox daily talking points. Check out Keith O and Rachel Maddow's discussion here.

impeachment hearings today

Ann — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:54:51 EDT

Article Committee hearing will discuss presidential limits on the impeachment hearings taking place today:

"Nothing is going to come out of this hearing with regard to impeachment of the president," [Rep. Lamar] Smith said. "I know it, the media knows it, even the speaker knows it."

I'm not holding my breath, but I'd like to see the hearings proceed nonetheless. Even if it just ends up being one giant ripfest. Actually, I think a ripfest would be fantastic. Satisfying to observe, perhaps even enjoyable.

Conyers said it was still the Congress' duty to "find a way to protect" citizens's rights.

First and foremost, that would be great. That being said, realistically, impeachment doesn't make a whole lot of sense at this point. (Symbolically, it sure as he11 does.) If these hearings do not result in impeachment, but serve to protect our rights, expose the Bush Administration, and restore checks and balances, it is definitely worthwhile to hold them.

From politico.com [the article categorized under 'Bad Behavior'--ha!]:

"Our constitutional system of checks and balances assumes a certain jostling between the President and Congress, but the Bush Administration's refusal to provide information to Congress or the American people is more dangerous and more sinister than just an extravagantly ambitious claim to executive branch powers," added Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) in his own opening statement. "Control of information stifles dissent and insulates an administration from challenge, either by Congress or its critics. Control of information is incompatible with democracy."

More, from Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) [did ya see that--the R between his name and his state?? three cheers for Republicans who are not blindly loyal to the President!]

"To me, what we're really talking about today is trust: for our Nation to [be] free and strong, the people must trust their president to enforce the law," Jones said. "When the president bypasses the will of the people, expressed through Congress, and decides what provisions of law will and will not be enforced, the president goes beyond the Constitutional authority given to him by our Founding Fathers."

two americas discussion group

Ann — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:05:57 EDT

I just created the Two Americas Discussion Group for the following purpose:

This group serves as a place for healthy discussion of dichotomies (not restricted to America).

Potential topics: rich/poor America (à la John Edwards); powerful, well-connected America versus the rest of us who are subject to the rule of law; remnants of apartheid in South Africa today; South Africa historically; racially segregated America; same-sex marriage in America; establishment versus next/change generation; cynical, selfish, aggressive America versus fair, generous, idealistic America.

Please post discussions and share your personal stories.

Please join the group!

McCain Whisperer, Brother Lieberman Attends Hagee Conference

Amunaor — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:31:30 EDT

McCain Whisperer, Brother Lieberman, attends Hagee conference: a McCain surrogate; a man McCain renounced. In attempt to incite and inflame the faitful flock, Brother Joseph, on a mission, spared no effort in spewing malicious villainy against Israel’s neighbor, Iran.

At the annual meeting of Christians United for Israel (CUFI) in Washington its leader, popular televangelist, Christen Zionist, John Hagee, refrained from the kind of controversial comments that have led Senator John McCain to repudiate his endorsement. But McCain's close adviser, Senator Joe Lieberman, did address the meeting, even though progressive Jewish organizations strongly advised him not to. Brother Joseph Lieberman painted a gloomy picture of a "fanatical", nuclear-armed Iranian regime which might attack not only its neighbors but also the United States. Outside the meeting, a number of organizations strongly denounced CUFI and Lieberman as warmongers.

Leiberman Hagee - Real News (Video Clip)

Holy Warriors in the U.S. Armed Forces - Real News (Video Clip)

U.S. Military's Crusade Against the Middle East

Barack! Please take the matches away from all of these mad people!

Peace, Best Wishes and Hope

Ron Paul is still my hero!

Deb — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:31:42 EDT

What happens when, at his own convention, TV cameras turn to cover 15,000 Ron Paul supporters on the other side of town? I’m thinking he’ll go ballistic. Here’s the story:

Supporters of maverick Rep. Ron Paul who are organizing a rally as an alternative to the Republican National Convention are moving their crosstown event to a larger venue.

The Rally for the Republic featuring Paul — the Texas conservative failed in his bid to win the GOP nomination for president — is scheduled for Minneapolis’ Target Center, home of basketball’s Minnesota Timberwolves.

The Target Center can accommodate at least 15,000 people for such an event. Planners for the Paul event had originally considered a college basketball arena that seats about 11,000 people.

Paul is scheduled to speak during the 10-hour rally on Sept. 2, local coordinator Marianne Stebbins said. That’s the second day of the four-day GOP convention.

They have so much support and so many Paulheads coming that they had to get a bigger venue? I’m thinking the second day of the convention is going to be Ron Paul day, and then the Republicans are going to whine about the media coverage for a couple days after that.

http://allspinzone.com/wp/2008/07/23/john-mccain-to-be-upstaged-at-his-own-convention/

Katie Couric vs. Barack Obama

Deb — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:21:18 EDT

In an interview that will air on the CBS Evening News tonight, there was an interesting exchange between anchor Katie Couric and Barack Obama over Obama’s position on the Iraq troop surge strategy.

Here is the exchange:

Couric: But talking microcosmically, did the surge, the addition of 30,000 additional troops ... help the situation in Iraq?

Obama: Katie, as … you've asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There's no doubt.

And later…

Couric: And I really don't mean to belabor this, Senator, because I'm really, I'm trying … to figure out your position. Do you think the level of security in Iraq …

Obama: Yes.

Couric … would exist today without the surge?

Obama: Katie, I have no idea what would have happened had we applied my approach, which was to put more pressure on the Iraqis to arrive at a political reconciliation. So this is all hypotheticals. What I can say is that there's no doubt that our U.S. troops have contributed to a reduction of violence in Iraq. I said that-- not just today, not just yesterday, but I've said that-- previously. What that doesn't change is that we've got to have a different strategic approach if we're going to make America as safe as possible.

I think that it was smart political strategy for Obama to dodge the surge question, but also evaluating the success of the surge really depends on the criteria one uses to define success. Can we attribute the reduction in violence to the addition of 28,000 troops? That seems unlikely given the size of Iraq. What is clear is that reason we were given for the surge was to give the Iraqi government space to get their act together, and this has not happened.

Whether or not the surge worked isn’t the question. The real question is where do we go from here? The Iraqis want us out. The American people want the troops home, and Obama wants to bring them home, so the only thing standing in the way is the Republican Party, who wants to keep the soldiers in Iraq because it is their best chance at winning the election.

Can we please put this idea to bed that the media loves Obama? Couric who isn’t exactly a journalistic heavyweight had no problem with going after Obama, and one only needs to look back to the Rev. Wright mess to see that the media has no qualms about jumping on Obama. The Democrat gets more coverage, from the media because he is the star of the race, and in a Democratic year, people seem to be sick of Republicans. In other words, Obama is great for ratings, while McCain puts America to sleep.

http://www.politicususa.com/en/Obama-Couric

reproductive rights petition

Ann — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:10:38 EDT

Sen. Clinton has a post on HuffPo on the Bush Administration's latest tricks in their assault on women's health and family welfare.

They (the Bush Administration) want to label contraceptives as "abortion." More politicizing of government institutions. More ideological impositions by the Bush Administration. More disregard of science (from a purely biological/physiological perspective, contraceptives PREVENT conception from even taking place, thereby rendering the abortion label inherently false). More attempts to save you from yourself, because of course you and your doctor can't possibly know what's best for you--only a complete stranger without knowledge of any pertinent facts or circumstances should be making this harrowing, life-changing decision on your behalf.

If you want to join the fight against this, you can [in addition to reading about it] sign this petition.

A Locally Grown Diet With Fuss but No Muss

Deb — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:19:36 EDT

July 22, 2008 A Locally Grown Diet With Fuss but No Muss By KIM SEVERSONhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/22/dining/22local.html?ei=5070&em=&en=81e6a9d5775f73be&ex=1216872000&pagewanted=print

Eating locally raised food is a growing trend. But who has time to get to the farmer’s market, let alone plant a garden?

That is where Trevor Paque comes in. For a fee, Mr. Paque, who lives in San Francisco, will build an organic garden in your backyard, weed it weekly and even harvest the bounty, gently placing a box of vegetables on the back porch when he leaves.

Call them the lazy locavores — city dwellers who insist on eating food grown close to home but have no inclination to get their hands dirty. Mr. Paque is typical of a new breed of business owner serving their needs.

Even couples planning a wedding at the Plaza Hotel in New York City can jump on the local food train. For as little as $72 a person, they can offer guests a “100-mile menu” of food from the caterer’s farm and neighboring fields in upstate New York.

“The highest form of luxury is now growing it yourself or paying other people to grow it for you,” said Corby Kummer, the food columnist and book author. “This has become fashion.”

Locally grown food, even fully cooked meals, can be delivered to your door. A share in a cow raised in a nearby field can be brought to you, ready for the freezer — a phenomenon dubbed cow pooling. There is pork pooling as well. At Sugar Mountain Farm in Vermont, the demand for a half or whole rare-breed pig is so great that people will not be seeing pork until the late fall.

Although a completely local diet is out of reach for even the most dedicated, the shift toward it is being driven by the increasingly popular view that fast food is the enemy and that local food tastes better. Depending on the season, local produce can cost an additional $1 a pound or more. But long-distance food, with its attendant petroleum consumption and cheap wages, is harming the planet and does nothing to help build communities, locavores believe.

As a result of interest in local food and rising grocery bills, backyard gardens have been enjoying a renaissance across the country, but what might be called the remote-control backyard garden — no planting, no weeding, no dirt under the fingernails — is a twist. “They want to have a garden, they don’t want to garden,” said the cookbook author Deborah Madison, who lives in Santa Fe, N.M.

Her neighbor Chase Ault, a business consultant, recently had a vegetable garden installed with a customized set of plants and a regular service agreement. “I am working 24-7 these days, but I wanted to have something growing in front of me,” Ms. Ault said.

Like organic food, which corporate manufacturers embraced in the 1990s, before it, local food is quickly moving into the mainstream. Last year, the New Oxford American Dictionary picked locavore as its word of the year. A National Restaurant Association survey this year of more than 1,200 chefs, many of whom work for chain restaurants or large food companies, found locally grown produce to be the second-hottest American food trend, just behind bite-size desserts.

For a growing number of diners, a food’s provenance is more important than its brand name, said Michelle Barry, who studies American eating patterns for the Hartman Group, a research firm in Bellevue, Wash. As a result, grocery stores are looking to repackage products like milk and cheese to play up any local angle.

That will be a boon to people who find that shortcuts are necessary if they wish to eat locally. “If you live on East 80th 14 floors up and all you have is a potted plant, it’s tough,” said Lynne Rossetto Kasper, the host of the radio show “The Splendid Table,” who recruited 15 listeners for a study on the subject. Researchers will record their struggles to make 80 percent of their meals from organic or local sources. Spices are the only exemption.

Lazy locavores would never go to such extremes. Rather, they might simply sign up with the FruitGuys. The company, which has offices in San Francisco and Philadelphia, will deliver boxes of local, sustainably raised or organic fruit right to the cubicle.

In the mood for a meal that reeks of community but does not necessitate a communal activity? Three Stone Hearth in Berkeley, Calif., which describes itself as a community supported kitchen, offers its customers the opportunity to make friends while making food from local, sustainable farms, but the worker-owned company also offers online shopping for people who do not have the time to pick up orders or participate in educational activities.

Customers 20 miles away in the affluent community of Mill Valley, for example, can pay $15 to have jars filled with Andalusian stew, made with pasture-raised pork, delivered to their door. The jars, of course, are returnable.

“It’s a very savvy crowd that understands how all the pieces of sustainable farming and nutrition fit together,” said Larry Wisch, one of five worker-owners at Three Stone Hearth. “But they don’t want the headaches of getting here.”

Or you could just have your private chef handle all your local food needs. At their Hamptons summer house, John and Lorna Brett Howard want to eat almost exclusively local, which means that in place of one trip to the grocery store, their chef, Michael Welch, makes several trips to farm stands and the fishmonger.

“What I’m seeing with my clients is not the trendiness or the politics,” Mr. Welch said. “They are looking only at taste.”

Mrs. Howard said she ate local vegetables growing up in northern Michigan and Chicago. But her husband, a private equity fund manager, ate a lot of expensive imported food with little thought about where it came from. But all that has changed.

“It’s like the first time you start drinking good red wine and you realize what you were drinking was so bad you can’t go back to it,” Mrs. Howard said. “It’s that same way with vegetables.”

The author Barbara Kingsolver, whose book “Animal, Vegetable, Miracle” was a best seller last year, did not have the lazy locavore in mind when she wrote about the implications of making her family spend a year eating local. But she celebrates the trend.

“As a person of rural origin who has lived much of my life in rural places,” she said, “I can’t tell you how joyful it makes me to hear that it’s trendy for people in Manhattan to own a part of a cow.”

League of Conservation Voters endorsing Senator Barack Obama for President.

Deb — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:38:29 EDT

Following the lead of the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth, the League of Conservation Voters announced Monday in Colorado, Ohio, Montana, Michigan, New Mexico, and Washington, D.C., that it is endorsing Senator Barack Obama for President.

Included in the photograph to the right, in my old stomping grounds around Confluence Park in Denver, are Tony Massaro, the LCV's Senior Vice President for Political Affairs and Public Education, former Secretary of Energy Federico Peña, and freshman Congressman Ed Perlmutter from Colorado's 7th District.

"Senator Obama’s proven record and his commitment to a clean, renewable energy future make him the best choice for President," LCV President Gene Karpinski said.

"At a time when this country must reinvent itself for a new energy future, we can imagine no better steward than Barack Obama. Under his leadership, America will finally achieve the economic growth, environmental protection, and national security that are possible with a new, clean energy economy."

"We have a real choice here," said Carol Browner, LCV board member and the longest-serving EPA Administrator in the agency’s history.

"Barack Obama has been a committed leader and has offered bold and comprehensive proposals when it comes to global warming, energy and the environment. John McCain, whose plan will be a continuation of Bush-era political gimmicks, will carry on Bush’s legacy of failure when it comes to energy policy,"

For thirty-eight years, LCV’s annual Environmental Scorecard has been the nationally accepted, non-partisan, environmental report card for our leaders. Barack Obama has earned an impressive lifetime 86% score. His opponent, Senator McCain, has earned only a 24% score.

Juliet Eilperin at Washington Post campaign log "The Trail" wrote:

A new ad from the McCain campaign blaming Obama for rising gas prices prompted the following response from Friends of the Earth Action President Brent Blackwelder: "It's only July, but we're already seeing dishonest and hypocritical gutter politics from John McCain. Flip-flopping John McCain said just two weeks ago that our dangerous dependence on oil 'has been 30 years in the making,' but now he tries to blame Obama -- even though it's McCain who has been in Washington for 26 years. Here's the truth. The Bush/McCain drilling plan won't lower gas prices but will increase our over-reliance on oil. We can provide relief from high gas prices while growing the economy, protecting our security and fighting global warming by focusing on conservation, clean energy and transportation choices instead."

Twenty-six years in Washington. Which is just one year shy of the 27 years the U.S. has had a lousy energy policy, courtesy, originally, of Ronald Reagan and the folks who told us that low-carbon alternatives were a scam and energy conservationists just wanted us all to "freeze to death in the dark."

Why I love Obama

Deb — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:14:28 EDT

Having lost family members on 9/11 and having more family seriously injured (FDNY), this holds a special value to me:

From the SATIRICAL New Yorker magazine:

"For many Illinois state legislators, September 11th was not an event that required much response. The attacks occurred just before an important deadline in the redistricting process. John Corrigan, the Democratic consultant in charge of redistricting, told me that he spent September 12th talking to many legislators, Obama not among them. “It was like nothing had happened,” he said. “Everybody came in and all they cared about was their districts. It wasn’t any one particular legislator from any one particular community. I learned a lot about state government. Their job was not to respond to September 11th. They were more worried about making sure that they had a district that they could run in for reëlection.”

Obama’s response to the event was published on September 19th in the Hyde Park Herald:

“ Even as I hope for some measure of peace and comfort to the bereaved families, I must also hope that we as a nation draw some measure of wisdom from this tragedy. Certain immediate lessons are clear, and we must act upon those lessons decisively. We need to step up security at our airports. We must reexamine the effectiveness of our intelligence networks. And we must be resolute in identifying the perpetrators of these heinous acts and dismantling their organizations of destruction. We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair. We will have to make sure, despite our rage, that any U.S. military action takes into account the lives of innocent civilians abroad. We will have to be unwavering in opposing bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle Eastern descent. Finally, we will have to devote far more attention to the monumental task of raising the hopes and prospects of embittered children across the globe—children not just in the Middle East, but also in Africa, Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe and within our own shores. "

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza?printable=true

McCain ad blames Obama for high gas prices

Deb — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:44:16 EDT

It is really important that we, as Obama supporters, know how to respond to inaccurate accusations like this. Please do your homework and provide the people around you with accurate information as to how John McCain continues to twist the truth. He too was against off-shore drilling until recently.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

He also cannot decide if he is for OR against the Bush tax cuts, so these statements below are that much more crazy.

**************

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/07/21/daily11.html

Republican presidential nominee John McCain launched a new television ad Monday throwing blame on Democratic rival Barack Obama for high gasoline prices.

The McCain ad points to Obama's opposition to offshore, domestic drilling.

The Arizona Republican wants to make it easier for companies to drill offshore in the face of gasoline prices above the $4 per gallon mark.

Obama has voted against the lifting of offshore restrictions and wants to impose new taxes on oil company profits. That revenue would be given to consumers to help deal with the high prices.

Neither candidate favors drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The Sierra Club faulted McCain's energy stance Monday and his call for a 10 percent cut to the 35 percent federal corporate income tax rate. The environmental group, which backs Obama, said the cut will aid Big Oil companies.

McCain said the tax cut is needed to keep the U.S. competitive with other countries.

Bush’s Executive Order Criminalizes Dissent

Amunaor — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 01:52:05 EDT

Are we to be caught, like the proverbial frog, leisurely swimming in a pot of luke-warm water, which temperature is incrementally increased in a manner so as not to alarm the comfortably bathing frog to the point it is inclined to jump from the pot? Eventually the heat becomes sufficiently great to where the sinew of the frog’s muscular structure has become overwhelmed by the heat, incapacitating the frog from saving itself as it boils to death.

First the Patriot Act

Then FISA

Bush’s Executive Order Criminalizing Dissent--

Everything is now in place. All that is required for the neocon regime to implement and turn loose the treachery provided in above documents is a flash of panic.

For the necessary flash of panic, false-flag operations may already be underway in Iran:

Two members of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) have been killed during clashes with rebels in Iran's East Azerbaijan Province.

US President George W. Bush signed a secret finding in March authorizing a covert offensive against Iran.

Actions permitted under the secret directive include arming and funding terrorist groups such as the Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) and the Jundullah (army of god) in an effort to destabilize the Iranian government...

Full Story Here

“Of course the people do not want war. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it is a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism” Herman Goering-Nazi Leader-Nuremberg Trial

What the hell are the, so called, majority Democrats doing – In Our Name!?

The White House is no longer so white, for it has gathered over itself a persistent dark cloud which the assembly insists on nurturing. They have made of itself the focus as a laughing stock for the entire universe.

Peace, Best Wishes and Hope

Obama with troops in Kuwait

Deb — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 01:52:40 EDT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bimTBZPYvWM

It is time to stop defending Obama.

Deb — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 17:42:11 EDT

It is time to stop defending Obama by clammyc Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 07:35:26 AM PDT

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/19/103219/779/400/553859

Before you say, "what the fuck???", hear me out.

It is clear that the corporate media is willing to ask John McCain the tough questions like "don’t you think that Obama is a flip flopper", and that his repeated gaffes, double speak, lies, pandering and outright crazy talk is not only being ignored but is being dismissed as something that he "didn’t mean" or that he "has enough credibility anyway" or is "no big deal" - when what he says and does is far, FAR worse than anything that Obama may or may not have said.

And yet, Obama still holds leads in every poll (even when the results or samples are skewed) and is doing a pretty good job of defending himself from the outrageous attacks and smears. Hell, he beat back the Edwards and Clinton campaigns pretty soundly - which is a very impressive thing. However and more importantly, by continuing to defend himself (or for us to spend so much time defending him), we are missing an opportunity to set the narrative on McCain and force him to go on defense. And when McCain is forced to go on the defensive, we see the angry, unstable, hothead McCain that is being hidden from millions of voters..

clammyc's diary :: ::

When Democratic Party representatives like Harold Ford are interviewed on TV and respond to charges of Obama’s flip flopping or whatever other nonsense is being conjured up on any particular day to hide McCain’s latest pander or lie or doublespeak with the most tepid of defense and even furthering the right wing talking points by admitting that Obama flip flopped on campaign finance or FISA instead of dismissing these charges or going on the offense against McCain and his panders, lies, "flip flops" or double speak, it is clear that not nearly enough time is being spent spreading the word on just how horrific McCain will be for this country.

There is so much information on McCain - some historic, some new and yes, some about Cindy McCain (hell, if they are going to continue to wrongfully attack Michelle Obama, then all is fair game) - whether it be his positions, his votes, his comments, or his lack of a clue - which is something that should be explored for someone who is into his 70s but is much older than his chronological age from a physical and mental health standpoint.

And it is time for us to start vigorously, forcefully, loudly and angrily going on the attack - cross posting everywhere, spreading the word to everyone we know about McCain’s neoconservative policies, shady contacts, far right wing social views and even his misogynist demeaning views towards rape victims and even his wife.

If you click on my signature line in any comment, you can find 40 diaries that I have written over the past 6 months, some with lots of detail and links, that highlight the horrific record and positions of John McCain. There are a lot of good resources to find out more information on McCain, including his voting record on Project VoteSmart’s excellent site, and also on McCainSource.

Over the next few months, I will be working with a few others on a series of diaries (hopefully we can do multiple posts per week) that highlight McCain’s panders, his flip flops, his outrageous positions - the truth about McCain. We have shown in the past that we can spread the word, that we can set the narrative - look at what happened with McCain and Hagee (thanks in large part to troutfishing) as one example. As I have written a few times, there is enough truthful information about McCain that most voters don’t know anything about that should sink his campaign and result in a 6% - 10% popular vote and 300+ electoral vote total for Obama in November. And frankly, it needs to be a blowout so that the election can’t be stolen.

If anyone is interested in taking part, please let me know - not a day should go by without at least one McCain diary on the recommended list so that there is an endless stream of information coming out - I know that not all of these items will make it into the news cycle but a steady stream of truths about McCain being made available in "bite size pieces".

All of us know a number of people who are either undecided voters or who are ill informed about McCain. And armed with not only the information about Obama but also with information that can set the record straight about McCain, there is no way that we can lose in November.

Update [2008-7-19 11:42:30 by clammyc]: see this comment by ArtSchmart for a list of media contacts.

McCain Alerts Enemy To Obama’s War Zone Travel Plans

Deb — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 17:34:30 EDT

By: Teddy Partridge Friday July 18, 2008 5:30 pm

Taking a clue from his senior foreign policy adviser Richard Armitage, who recklessly chatted with Bob Woodward about Joe Wilson's wife's job at the CIA, presumptive GOP Presidential nominee John McCain alerted the enemy to Barack Obama's travel plans this weekend:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain commented on Friday on the unannounced timing of a high-security trip by Barack Obama to Iraq, saying he believed his Democratic rival was going this weekend.

Of course, like Dickie Armitage's "leak," McCain's careless disclosure could have repercussions far beyond its gossipy intent. And it doesn't just endanger Barack Obama:

"I believe that either today or tomorrow -- and I'm not privy to his schedule -- Sen. Obama will be landing in Iraq with some other senators" who make up a congressional delegation, McCain said at a Republican fund-raiser.

I wonder if the GOP-embedded mainstream media will pay attention to this unauthorized release of Congressional Delegation travel plans, since their glamour teevee stars Katie Couric, Charlie Gibson, and Brian Williams are also along for the ride?

the next step(s) in the FISA fight

Ann — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:41:33 EDT

This article discusses two separate legal actions taken against the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. Excerpt:

Late last week, the American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Service Employees International Union and The Nation magazine filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York challenging the constitutionality of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which Bush signed into law on Thursday. In Amnesty v. McConnell, the civil libertarians claim that the new law's allowance of what they call "sweeping and virtually unregulated authority to monitor the international communications" of U.S. citizens and residents is a violation of the 4th Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Separately, the ACLU requested that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, known as the FISA Court -- the secret, 30-year old body that adjudicates domestic-surveillance warrants in intelligence cases -- make public how the government decides whom it can target under the new law. The ACLU also wants to know what the government does with surveillance information it collects but deems irrelevant to a specific case.

Enabling Tyranny

Deb — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:00:37 EDT

Enabling Tyranny

By Paul Craig Roberts

14/07/08 "ICH" --- I recently read that Brigette Bardot, now in her 70s, has been arrested as a hate criminal for complaining that Muslims in France slaughter sheep without first stunning them. The famous actress is known for her sympathy with animals, but the French government preferred to interpret her remarks as hatred for Muslims. Prosecutor Anne de Fontetts promised to throw the book at Bardot.

There are many incongruities here. The French are persecuting one of their own for taking exception to the practices of an alien culture. But then, perhaps this is just being broad-minded. What really jumps out is: if Bardot’s animal rights position makes her a hate criminal, what does French President Nicholas Sarkozy’s foreign policy position make him?

According to Information Clearing House’s running tally as of July 12, 1,236,604 Iraqis have been slaughtered as a result of the Sarkozy-supported US invasion and occupation of Iraq. If Bardot is a hate criminal under French law for complaining about how Muslims prepare their mutton, why isn’t President Sarkozy a hate criminal for supporting an American policy that has resulted in the deaths of 1,236,604 Muslims and the displacement of 4 million Iraqis?

Such incongruities are everywhere. It is as if people are no longer capable of thought.

Last week the US Congress passed an ex post facto law that legalized the illegal behavior of telecommunication companies that enabled the Bush Regime to violate US law and to spy on Americans without warrants. Retroactive laws are unconstitutional. But, alas, the US Constitution does not make campaign contributions, and telecommunication companies do.

The Bush Regime claimed that its illegal behavior, which requires an unconstitutional retroactive law to protect telecommunication companies and President Bush from being held accountable, is necessary to protect us. But as our Founding Fathers and every intelligent patriotic person since has patiently explained to the American public, it is the Constitution that protects us. No safety can be found by fleeing the Constitution.

Without the Constitution we have no protection. We simply stand naked before unbridled government power.

That’s pretty much how we stand now after 7.5 years of the Bush Regime. Electing a Democratic Congress in 2006 did not make any difference. Indeed, it was a Democratic majority Congress that last week gave Bush his unconstitutional ex post facto law.

As Larry Stratton and I point out in the new edition of Tyranny, the US Constitution has no friends. The Democrats don’t like the Second Amendment (another incongruity in the face of the right-wing police state that Bush has created), and the Brownshirt Republicans regard the rest of our civil liberties as coddling devices for criminals and terrorists.

Across the political spectrum, Americans are happy to shred the Constitution in behalf of some agenda or the other.

The government is happy to oblige, because shredding the Constitution removes constraints on the government’s power.

It has fallen to the private, member-supported organization known as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to challenge the retroactive law that destroys the privacy rights granted to US citizens by the Constitution. The ACLU is regarded by conservatives as a Jewish conspiracy to destroy Christianity, and the right-wing idiots on Fox “News” and talk radio will denounce the ACLU for wanting to empower terrorists.

Conservatives will repeat endlessly that Americans who are doing nothing wrong have nothing to fear. If this argument held any water, there would have been no point in the Founding Fathers writing the Constitution.

The position of the US Government is that the rights granted Americans by the Constitution facilitate terrorism. To be safe from terrorists, the argument goes, we must allow the government to take liberties with the Constitution. This argument gives government the power to set aside the Constitution, and, thus, enables tyranny. As Milton Friedman and many others taught us, rules are the essence of freedom, and discretionary power is the essence of tyranny.

Bush’s “war on terror,” essentially a hoax, has transformed the United States into a lawless nation. We are not lawless in the sense of an absence of laws. We are lawless in the sense that despite a surfeit of laws, we no longer have the rule of law.

If the President doesn’t like an existing law, he ignores it. If the President doesn’t like new laws passed by Congress, instead of vetoing them he prepares a “signing statement,” which says that he will determine what the law means.

This lawlessness has spread from the top of the federal government down to local governments and community associations. Recently the state of Georgia passed a law that reaffirmed that anyone with a carry permit was entitled to have their concealed weapon when dropping off or picking up passengers at the Atlanta airport. The Atlanta city government said it would not obey the state law and would arrest anyone, including the state legislator who sponsored the legislation, who carried a permitted weapon onto airport property.

A community in which I live has by-laws that forbid members of the board of the property owners association from serving as general manager of the designated community. This did not prevent the board from appointing one of their own the general manager. The POA board regards the by-laws which govern it as merely words without force.

Just like Bush regards the US Constitution.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, an assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury during the Reagan Administration, is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal and coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

Cheney Enron - 9/11 & Now the Big Escalation in Afghanistan

Amunaor — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:50:57 EDT

Was Enron Behind the War in Afghanistan?

Now that the neocon warmongers wish to play a shell game by moving troops from one illicit invasion: Iraq, into another: Afghanistan, perhaps it would benefit all if we were to revisit the timeline encompassing the events of: Cheney/Enron – Afghanistan – 9/11.

There are indications that Enron and the White House were working closely with the Taliban -- including Osama bin Laden -- up to weeks before the Sept. 11 attack. Why were all of the bin Laden family memebers swiftly whisked out of the country, immediately following the events of 9/11?

The Bush Oil Team, and their neocon drivers can momentarily rely on the support of the interim Prime Minister of Afghanistan, may think that war and oil profits mix, but there is simply too much evidence that the War in Afghanistan was primarily about building UNOCAL's pipeline, not about fighting terrorism. The Democrats, who control the Senate and its investigation agenda, should investigate the secretive deals between Big Oil, Bush, and the Taliban.

Reading this material will allow you to see the Enron scandal and its ties to Bush-Cheney in a whole new light: Center for Research on Globalization.

9/11 may very well have been a rouge GLADIO-CIA styled false-flag operation utilized to ignite the necessary psychodrama that has permeated, and swept the public mind into accepting the all consuming 'global war on terror', a bloody cover for imperial madness…money and power!

Think Oliver North type covert ops run by then VP CIA Bush-I, in sleepy Reagan’s basement, but this time, Cheney’s basement, along with all of the same Iran/Contra neocon planners. Bush-II, although pliable traitor, still complicit, has simply been the epitome of Marx’s ‘useful idiot’ for this neocon agenda, to plunge the world into a clash of civilizations and force into existence a fascist order.

I say, reopen the investigations into Enron/Cheney, because this might very well be the thread to pull that will unravel the cloak, which was 9/11.

Dear Barack, WAKE UP - Stand Tall and stay alert! If not, these very same shadows will ride you to 'THEIR' finish line and the rest of us into the abyss!

Peace, Best Wishes and Hope

Freddie and Fannie's money trail

Deb — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:39:04 EDT

Morning Edition, July 15, 2008 ·

Homeowners might think of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as just the big dogs of the mortgage business, but in Washington, D.C., they're known as big players in lobbying. The two companies managed to stave off government regulation for years by lobbying hard — and spending generously.

In the first three months of the year alone, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac spent a combined total of about $3.5 million on lobbying and hired 42 outside firms.

That kind of clout, coupled with huge mortgage portfolios reaching into every corner of the country, illustrates why they have never lacked for confidence on Capitol Hill.

Former Rep. Jim Leach (R-IA) is an old nemesis of Fannie and Freddie. In Congress, he helped lead efforts to rein them in.

"There've been a lot of rhetorical efforts to tighten regulation, but Fannie and Freddie have both done a pretty deft job of fending that off," Leach says. "Muscular" is another word he uses to describe those efforts.

Fannie and Freddie have kept their profiles high because of their odd situation: They're not government agencies, but they're not regular corporations either. As government sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, they're often thought to have guarantees of federal support. It lets them get discounts when they borrow money.

To maintain that advantage and others, they hire well-placed politicos for big salaries.

A rival lobbyist once described Fannie Mae as a political organization that happened to be in the mortgage business.

Past executives include Democratic operatives and appointees. Former CEO Jim Johnson made headlines last month after reports that he may have received preferential treatment in real estate deals forced him out as head of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's vice presidential search team.

It's a similar story over at Freddie Mac: Former Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY) is a contract lobbyist, and Democratic operative Harold Ickes used to be on the board.

And the two GSEs are famous for campaign contributions to both parties.

Leach, who is now the director of Harvard University's Institute of Politics and chairman of the watchdog group Common Cause, says he finds that especially troubling.

"They have done an awful lot in terms of the money game that have caused the kinds of conflicts of interest that have bedeviled the American political system," he says.

In 2006, Fannie farmed out almost a million dollars in contributions, while Freddie forked over more than $600,000. That same year, the nation's biggest lender, Countrywide, gave $250,000.

The GSEs also raise money from others. Five years ago, a Freddie Mac document described an 18-month push by the company's lobbyists in which they held more than 75 fundraising events for members of one House committee.

Freddie Mac later was forced to pay the Federal Election Commission a record-setting $3.8 million fine.

Even now, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's recent troubles may not dim their influence on Capitol Hill, says Mike House, director of FM Policy Focus, a lobbying group that's campaigned for years to regulate the GSEs more strictly.

"They'll have clout because of the role they have," House says. "Whether it's more or less, we'll just have to see."

The GSEs are waiting to see, as well. Spokespeople at Freddie Mac didn't return requests for comment Monday. And executives at Fannie Mae weren't talking.

Election 2008Political Networks Of Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac

by Will Evans

Enlarge
Doug Mills

James A. Johnson speaks in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 18, 1990. The former Fannie Mae CEO was vetting potential vice presidential picks for Sen. Barack Obama until he was forced to step down after news reports suggested he got favorable treatment from a mortgage lending company. AP

Enlarge
Tyler Mallory

Then-FBI Director Louis J. Freeh (left) and former President George H.W. Bush take part in a 1998 ceremony in Washington, D.C. AP

Enlarge
Kevin Wolf

Harold Ickes, a former adviser to President Clinton, speaks at a news conference at the Democratic National Committee Rules and Bylaws Committee hearing in May in Washington, D.C. AP

Enlarge
Marcy Nighswander

In this 1992 photo, then-Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton speaks with Rahm Emanuel (right), a Democratic Party official, upon arriving at a hotel in Washington, D.C. AP

NPR.org, July 14, 2008 · Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have both had strong ties to the Washington, D.C., political community. The housing finance giants have counted government power brokers as board members and executive staff. Here, a look at key players, past and present.

Fannie Mae

James A. Johnson, former chairman and CEO: Aide to Vice President Walter Mondale; recently led Sen. Barack Obama's vice-presidential search team

Jamie Gorelick, former vice chairwoman: Deputy attorney general under President Bill Clinton; former Defense Department general counsel; member of 9/11 Commission

Franklin D. Raines, former chairman and CEO: Budget director under Clinton

Thomas E. Donilon, former executive vice president: Former assistant secretary of state under Clinton; senior adviser to Michael Dukakis' presidential campaign; national campaign coordinator for Walter Mondale's presidential campaign; congressional liaison for President Jimmy Carter.

Robert B. Zoellick, former executive vice president: Former deputy secretary of state and U.S. Trade Representative under President George W. Bush; currently president of the World Bank

Louis J. Freeh, board member: Director of the FBI under Clinton; federal judge

Stephen Friedman, former board member: Assistant to Bush for economic policy

Michele Davis, former senior vice president: Deputy assistant to Bush; currently assistant secretary of the Treasury.

Wayne Berman, outside lobbyist: Assistant Secretary of Commerce under President George H.W. Bush; senior adviser in Bush-Cheney presidential transition; currently a fundraiser for Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign.

Steve Ricchetti, outside lobbyist: Deputy chief-of-staff to Clinton

Kirsten Chadwick, outside lobbyist: Special assistant to President George W. Bush for legislative affairs; currently a fundraiser for McCain's campaign.

Freddie Mac

Richard F. Syron, chairman and CEO: Deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury

Ralph F. Boyd Jr., executive vice president: Assistant attorney general for civil rights

Dennis DeConcini, former board member: U.S. senator from Arizona

Robert R. Glauber, board member: Undersecretary of the Treasury under President George H.W. Bush

David J. Gribbin III, former board member: Aide to Vice President Dick Cheney; assistant secretary of defense under President George H.W. Bush

Harold Ickes, former board member: Adviser to President Clinton and Sen. Hillary Clinton; member of the Democratic National Committee.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel, former board member: Senior adviser to President Clinton; former chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.

Susan Hirschmann, outside lobbyist: Chief-of-staff to former House Majority Whip Tom DeLay of Texas

Michael J. Bates, outside lobbyist: Campaign official for President Reagan, presidential candidate Bob Dole, President Bush.

Martin Paone, outside lobbyist: Secretary of the Senate

J. Patrick Cave, outside lobbyist: Acting Assistant Secretary and Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury

Susan Molinari, outside lobbyist: U.S. Congresswoman from New York

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92540620#92534513

How Washington Funded the Taliban

Deb — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:18:28 EDT

HASN'T ANYONE SEEN THE MOVIE TRAFFIC?!

The war on drugs is stupid, fuels terrorist organizations, fills our jails, and wastes tax dollars.

by Ted Galen Carpenter

This article appeared on cato.org on August 2, 2002.

(Ted Galen Carpenter is vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and is the author or editor of 14 books on international affairs including the forthcoming "Bad Neighbor Policy: Washington's Futile War on Drugs in Latin America" (Palgrave/ St. Martin's).)

The United States has made common cause with an assortment of dubious regimes around the world to wage the war on drugs. Perhaps the most shocking example was Washington's decision in May 2001 to financially reward Afghanistan's infamous Taliban government for its edict ordering a halt to the cultivation of opium poppies.

When the Taliban implemented a ban on opium cultivation in early 2001, U.S. officials were most complimentary. James P. Callahan, director of Asian Affairs for the State Department's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, uncritically relayed the alleged accounts of Afghan farmers that "the Taliban used a system of consensus-building" to develop and carry out the edict. That characterization was more than a little suspect because the Taliban was not known for pursuing consensus in other aspects of its rule. Columnist Robert Scheer was justifiably scathing in his criticism of the U.S. response. "That a totalitarian country can effectively crack down on its farmers is not surprising," Sheer noted, but he considered it "grotesque" for a U.S. official to describe the drug-crop crackdown in such benign terms. .author_pub2 a { float:right; margin: 10px 0 8px 8px; display:block; height: 160px; width: 110px; background: url(/people/pub_photos/tcarpenter.jpg) no-repeat -110px 0; } .author_pub2a a { float:right; margin: 10px 0 8px 8px; display:block; height: 160px; width: 110px; background: url(/people/pub_photos/tcarpenter.jpg) no-repeat 0 0; }

Ted Galen Carpenter is vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and is the author or editor of 14 books on international affairs including the forthcoming "Bad Neighbor Policy: Washington's Futile War on Drugs in Latin America" (Palgrave/ St. Martin's).

More by Ted Galen Carpenter

Yet the Bush administration did more than praise the Taliban's proclaimed ban of opium cultivation. In mid-May, 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced a $43 million grant to Afghanistan in addition to the humanitarian aid the United States had long been providing to agencies assisting Afghan refugees. Given Callahan's comment, there was little doubt that the new stipend was a reward for Kabul's anti-drug efforts. That $43 million grant needs to be placed in context. Afghanistan's estimated gross domestic product was a mere $2 billion. The equivalent financial impact on the U.S. economy would have required an infusion of $215 billion. In other words, $43 million was very serious money to Afghanistan's theocratic masters.

To make matters worse, U.S. officials were naive to take the Taliban edict at face value. The much-touted crackdown on opium poppy cultivation appears to have been little more than an illusion. Despite U.S. and UN reports that the Taliban had virtually wiped out the poppy crop in 2000-2001, authorities in neighboring Tajikistan reported that the amounts coming across the border were actually increasing. In reality, the Taliban gave its order to halt cultivation merely to drive up the price of opium the regime had already stockpiled.

Even if the Taliban had tried to stem cultivation for honest reasons, U.S. cooperation with that regime should have been morally repugnant. Among other outrages, the Taliban government prohibited the education of girls, tortured and executed political critics, and required non-Muslims to wear distinctive clothing--a practice eerily reminiscent of Nazi Germany's requirement that Jews display the Star of David on their clothing. Yet U.S. officials deemed none of that to be a bar to cooperation with the Taliban on drug policy.

Even if the Bush administration had not been dissuaded by moral considerations, it should have been by purely pragmatic concerns. There was already ample evidence in the spring of 2001 that the Taliban was giving sanctuary to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network that had bombed two U.S. embassies in East Africa. For the State Department to ignore that connection and agree to subsidize the Taliban was inexcusably obtuse. Scheer was on the mark when he concluded, "The war on drugs has become our own fanatics' obsession and easily trumps all other concerns."

Washington's approach came to an especially calamitous end in September 2001 when the Taliban regime was linked to bin Laden's terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that killed some 3,000 people. Moreover, evidence quickly emerged that the Taliban all along had been collecting millions of dollars in profits from the illicit drug trade, with much of that money going into the coffers of the terrorists. Rarely is there such graphic evidence of the bankruptcy of U.S. drug policy.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3556

New Yorker cover...

Deb — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:02:59 EDT

If Obama's campaign is upset by a magazine satire, what will it do when the real attacks begin? July 15, 2008

Let's be frank. People sophisticated enough to read, say, newspaper editorials are smart enough to know that the New Yorker's cover art this week -- portraying Barack Obama as a be-turbaned Muslim and wife Michelle as an Afro-sporting terrorist with an AK-47 across her back -- is a work of satire. But what about the millions of dumb Americans who will think otherwise?

Obama's campaign is deeply worried about the legions of morons who they apparently believe make up the heart of this great nation. Obama spokesman Bill Burton helpfully interpreted the sensibilities of these uneducated masses when he said Monday, "Most readers will see [the cover] as tasteless and offensive. And we agree." Republican nominee-apparent John McCain's spokesman, Tucker Bounds, seemingly too bored with the controversy to come up with an original epithet, simply agreed that the cover was "tasteless and offensive."

Also offended by all the tastelessness was Los Angeles City Councilman Bernard C. Parks, a fervent Obamaphile, who went on CNN on Monday to call for a boycott of this week's issue of the magazine. What Parks, Burton and myriad critics across the blogosphere agree on is that, yes, people who subscribe to the New Yorker are probably smart enough to understand the concept of satire, but the issue will be seen by clueless people at newsstands nationwide -- and they will come to the dangerous conclusion that, well, some artist hired by the New Yorker thinks Obama is a Muslim, his wife is a terrorist, he uses the American flag for kindling and he'd put a portrait of Osama bin Laden in the Oval Office. It's terrifying to imagine the impact this might have on the campaign.

Even before Jonathan Swift modestly proposed in 1729 that poverty-stricken Irish peasants could solve their money problems by selling their children as food for English aristocrats, most people understood that one way to demolish an opponent's argument was to carry it to extremes.

It may be that there are some spectacularly literal-minded Americans who will see the New Yorker's over-the-top portrayal of Obama as a confirmation of their worst fears. But then, they weren't going to vote for him anyway.

The real mudslinging of this year's presidential campaign won't even start until after the party conventions in August, but it's already beginning to seem as though the Obama camp is a trifle thin-skinned. If it reacts this way to a cartoon drawn by a sympathizer who was mocking the outrageous slurs that have been directed at the candidate, what are they going to do when the Republicans start sharpening their artists' pencils?

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-newyorker15-2008jul15,0,3558701.story