Organizing for America | Posts with the tag Pandering

Posts with the tag Pandering

Page 1 of 2 | Next

By Joshua Mathews - Sep 23rd, 2008 at 5:11 pm EDT

Mark Morford on Palin:

Truly, among women in the know and especially among those who fought so hard to bring Hillary Clinton to the brink of history, nausea and a general recoiling appear to be the universal reactions to Palin's sudden presence on the national stage, stemming straight from the idea that there's even a slight chance in hell such an antagonistic, anti-female politico could be within a 72-year-old heartbeat of becoming the most powerful and iconic woman of all time.

They say: You've got to be kidding me. They say: This is what we get? This could be our historic role model? Two hundred years (OK, more like 2000) of struggle, only to have this nasty caricature of femininity try to hijack and mock and undermine it all?

It cannot be true, they say. The universe must be joking; it would not dare dump such a homophobic, Creationist evangelical nutball on us, this anti-choice, God-pandering woman who's the inverse of Hillary, this woman of deep inexperience who abhors birth control and supports abstinence education and shoots exhausted wolves from helicopters and hates polar bears and actually stands for everything progressive women have resented since the first pope Swift-Boated Eve.

http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/morford/

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

SNIDE BROOKS

By Giddian from Fairview, NJ - Sep 18th, 2008 at 9:55 am EDT

Also listed in: Secularists on Scene

Dr. Drew Westen, professor of psychology at Emory University, has written, “The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation,” (457 pp. PublicAffairs. $26.95) in which he offers explanations for the Democrat’s relatively poor performance in elections.

On Aug. 26, NY Times columnist David Brooks wrote “Stop Making Sense” a derogatory review. In his review Brooks asks several snide questions. Here are those question and my snide answers:

“First, why did someone with so little faith in rational inquiry go into academia . . .?” THE FACT THAT MUCH OF THE ELECTORATE IS NOT RATIONAL, IS POORLY INFORMED AND IS RECEPTIVE TO SUPERMARKET-TABLOID-TYPE JOURNALISM DOES NOT DEVALUE RATIONAL INQUIRY.

“Second, the states of upper New England and the Pacific Coast regularly used to vote Republican in presidential elections but now they generally vote Democratic. Did people in those states become less emotional, and therefore more amenable to the Democrats’ rational appeals over the past few decades?” NO, THEY REALIZED HOW MUCH THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS FUCKED UP THE NATION!

“Third, how did John Kerry beat Howard Dean in the Democratic primaries? Was it because of his Oprah-esque displays of emotional intensity?” DEMOCRATS WERE OVERWHELMED, PANICKED ACTUALLY, BY THE REPUBLICAN-STOKED WAR HYSTERIA. THEY THOUGHT THEY NEEDED A GENUINE WAR HERO WHO HAD, AT THE TIME, SUPPORTED THE INVASION OF IRAQ.

“Fourth, is it possible that substance has something to do with the political fortunes of parties?” NO, IT’S NOT SUBSTANCE THAT’S PROPELLING THE MCCAIN CAMPAIGN. “Could it be that Democrats won in the middle part of the 20th century because they were right about the big issues — the New Deal and the civil rights movement?” ABSOLUTLY! “Is it possible Republicans won in the latter part of the century because they were right about economic growth and the cold war?” NO. CARTER WAS INEFFECTIVE. REGAN COULD SELL SUGAR TO CUBANS, AND REPUBLICANS HAD PERFECTED THE TECHNIQUES THAT WESTEN COMPLAINS ABOUT. “Is it possible Democrats are winning now because they were right about whether to go to war in Iraq?” THEY’RE NOT WINNING LATELY! “And if substantive policies correlate with political fortunes, what does that say about the human mind?” THERE’S LITTLE CORRELATION ONCE CAMPAIGNING BEGINS, NONE AT ALL IN THE PAST EIGHT YEARS.

“Finally, if voter decisions are driven by the sort of crude emotional outbursts Westen recommends, and if . . . “a substantial minority of Americans hold authoritarian, intolerant ideologies driven by fear, hate and prejudice that are fundamentally incompatible with Democratic (and democratic) principles,” then shouldn’t we abandon this whole democracy thing?” NO, WE MUST HOPE THAT ONE DAY REPUBLICANS WILL STOP PANDERING TO THE LEAST INFORMED AND MOST GULLIBLE.

“It’s rare that one comes across a book that raises so many questions.” BUT NOT THE ONES BROOKS ASKS. HE IGNORES THE OBVIOUS. HIS QUESTIONS ARE EXAMPLES OF THE VERY THINGS HE SEEMS TO SAY DO NOT EXIST. “Of course it’s rare that one comes across a book that so avidly flatters the prejudices of its partisan readers.” WHAT NONSENSE! NEW ONES ARE COMING OUT ALL THE TIME, MOSTLY, BUT NOT EXCUSIVELY, BY REPUBLICANS.

“The core problem with Westen’s book is that he doesn’t really make use of what we know about emotion. He builds on the work of Antonio Damasio, without applying Damasio’s conception of how emotion emerges from and contributes to reason.” REALLY?? MOST EVIDENCE INDICATES OTHERWISE.

“In this more sophisticated view, emotions are produced by learning.” RIDICULOUS! IT’S MOSTLY BY BIOLOGICAL IMPERITIVES AND ACQUIRED PREJUDICES!

“ . . . It’s not necessary to dumb things down to appeal to emotions.” BUT, IF YOU DO, YOU GET MORE VOTES! “ . . . “The best way to win votes . . . is to offer people an accurate view of the world and a set of policies that seem likely to produce good results.” THEN, WHY DO REPUBLICANS PEDDLE BULLSHIT A LA CHENEY & ROVE?

CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT AT ALL AS BROOKS IMAGINES. HE REALLY NEEDS TO GIVE UP POP-PSYCHOLOGY.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

I'm completing a McCain slogan

By WNYmathGuy - Sep 5th, 2008 at 10:42 am EDT

Also listed in: 9 groups

Hello Bloggers,

John McCain states, "I would rather lose an election than lose a war." I believe he is truthful about that, and I will leave alone the argument about winning unjust wars for now (e.g. Opium and Boxer).

During the Republican Convention, McCain wove into his speech the ides of war against Russia, and Iran. This kind of demonizing of another country right before an election brought the thought to mind below that I believe is his completed campaign slogan.

"I would rather lose an election than lose a war
BUT
I would rather Start A War than lose an election."

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Hurricane Pandering and Grand Standing by McCain

By Jim - Sep 1st, 2008 at 7:53 am EDT

Also listed in: Action Wire

Having gone through many hurricanes while living in Florida and experienced with relatives Katrina it is clear that we must be concerned and take every precaution when threatened with a hurricane. Once again our daughter and her family have evacuated New Orleans.

It appears that FEMA is prepared as are all the state and local governments in those areas that might be hit by the storm. This is good and necessary.

What is suspect is the “Grand Standing” by the McCain Campaign using the hurricane to grab media attention and feign concern. With the Republican Convention and McCain being upstaged by the real concerns and attention being paid to preparing for the storm, McCain and his entourage go to Mississippi to talk to local officials. What possible help was it for them to go there? Even GW Bush said he was not going to visit the area, before the storm so as not to disrupt preparations.

One should note that Mississippi is the state that potentially and ultimately, it appears, has had the least amount of risk and that it is the most likely area to vote Republican.

Now with prominent Republicans using the storm as an excuse not to go to the Convention, McBush says he’s not going either, and wants to be in Mississippi! All of this points to someone who makes bad decisions, who’s judgment is influenced by political concerns, and who will pander without hesitation. This political pandering and poor judgment includes his VP pick. McCain and his campaign have the aura of dementia. There is no doubt that they are trying to use this potential disaster for political purpose.

What Barack Obama did was to offer real help to all concerned to aid in the aftermath of the storm which is a positive non-pandering, sincere reaction.. There is no "grand standing" or using this event for political gain. What people in the hurricane area need is real concern and real help.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Sarah Palin

By Melissa U. - Aug 29th, 2008 at 8:02 pm EDT

My husband shamed me. After I finished my ranting over McCain’s choice of vice president, offended that McCain, as well as the Republican Party powers that be, believe that women are stupid enough to fail to see the obvious pandering to disaffected Hillary supporters, my husband reminded me that even the most alienated among them are bright enough to eschew McCain’s strategy. My husband is right. I would like to think that women who supported Hillary’s nomination bid (myself included) did so because they trusted her ability to lead our country and they endorsed her views. I would not like to think that these women’s only agenda was simply to put a woman in the White House regardless of platform. Any previous Hillary supporter who now votes for McCain and Palin because of some misguided feminism should not have voted for Hillary to begin with. Hillary Clinton was and continues to be about bringing our country back to reason. This election is not about gender politics. Rather, it is about intelligent and thoughtful choice.

Barack Obama is right: John McCain just doesn't get it.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (4) | Report Objectionable Content

Pondering our future in a letter to editors

By David from Libertyville, IL - Aug 26th, 2008 at 2:48 pm EDT

I just signed in for the first time. The opportunity to write a letter to the editors of a slew of newspapers piqued my short little attention span and I constructed some thoughts that I post here. I'd love to have some feedback -- does anyone else feel like Mr. McCain has sold himself for his last crack at the nation's highest office -- I don't get a feeling from watching him that he has an interest in serving as much as he wants the office. It's kind of like he has been deprived by the Bushies and now he wants his turn. It feels a bit awkward and inauthentic to me.

Anyway, here's the letter I sent out:

Little can be said that can add to John McCain's honorable legacy serving our great country. As Navy pilot fighting far from home as his father and grandfather did before him, as a casualty in a shipboard fire, as prisoner of war to a merciless and God-less regime in unspeakable conditions, and as a longtime maverick legislator in the world's greatest democracy, John McCain has served nobly and with distinction.

However, Mr. McCain's day has passed, his noble acts are behind him. This great American servant has given himself over to the ignoble and shameful ways to which he was himself made victim in the 2000 campaign. Mr. McCain has decided, apparently, that having not beaten them that he must join them for his last chance at the office for which he must have come to lust. For only lust can explain how a principled man can give up his principles and practice the despicable politics of smear and smoke. The demagoguery of Rove, GW Bush, Ralph Reed, Lee Atwater, GHW Bush, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Newt Gingrich, Pat Buchanan, James Dobson, Rush Limbaugh, and the countless others, that demagoguery of Joe McCarthy and Father Coughlin has become John McCain's. The Republican party, once a standard for truth and freedom, the party of Lincoln, has become the party that panders to hate and fear for the sake of power, and power for its own sake. For no party has ever flip-flopped so breathtakingly from its rhetoric to its policies. Rhetoric that railed against big government, mountainous deficits, nation-building, international adventurism, and government intrusion into everyday life has become policy that gives the lie to all the Republican campaign slogans of the last 30 years.

This is the party of John McCain, this is what John McCain has become. We could mourn the death of his virtue, were he less apparently proud of his hand in its demise. Nobility cast aside can no longer be counted in the measure of that man's character.

Instead of mourning the demise of one man's soul, we can rejoice in the morning in America that is the promise of Senator Barack Obama. This election year could be an inspirational story of the resurrection of American ideals, of American strength, of American respect and of the American dream for millions here at home and for the the masses around the world who want to believe in us.

We have the choice -- fear and hate, or the dream of the America that we can be and which was the dream of previous generations.

Please, please, take your hand off the lever that would cast your vote for fear, for hate, for Mr. McCain and for more of the same that we have had since Mr. Bush was so dubiously elected. Place it instead firmly, confidently and joyfully on the the lever that can make Barak Obama our next president and make us into America again. Do your bit in a cause that is greater than ourselves. This is a rare and passing opportunity that may not see us soon again.

David A Johnston

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Clothes (Un)make the Candidate

By Hilo Greg - Jul 29th, 2008 at 10:17 pm EDT

Also listed in: Ukes for Obama | Upper East Side for Obama

I had to chuckle when I came across an AP story this week about Presidential candidate fashions.

So far, the article said, both Obama and McCain have avoided such ridiculed wardrobe mishaps as Mike Dukakis’ tank-ridin’ army helmet and John Kerry’s windsurfing wetsuit

And it looks like they are smart enough to stay the sartorial course for the rest of the campaign.

Perhaps the funniest line in the story referred to President Bush in his “brush-clearing outfit.”
At 1,600 acres, Bush’s Crawford, Texas ranch probably has a lot of brush to clear. And by all indications clearing it is something W loves to do.

Unfortunately, I think President Bush will be remembered more for his passion for clearing brush than his success as the nation’s chief executive.

(Our own Ukes for Obama song even has a line about clearing brush. Check it out at
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeyxiec/aloha_mama.mp3 )

According to CBS Radio News and the Washington Post, as of March 2008, Bush made 70 visits to Crawford, spending all or part of 452 days of his presidency there. He has also made 134 separate trips to Camp David, for a total of 879 full or partial vacation days. That figure does not count 10 trips (39 days) to the Bush compound in Kennebunkport, Maine.

That makes Bush the most-vacationed president ever – overtaking Ronald Reagan, who logged all or part of 866 days at Camp David or his ranch in California during his eight years in office.
And to think, Bush still has a few months to go.

There’s no doubt that Reagan inspired Bush’s many brush-clearing photo ops. Looking back, it was kind of neat to see a guy over 70, the leader of the free world no less, riding a horse, chopping wood and yes, clearing brush.

But W is no Reagan. For one thing, he’s a little younger (W. was elected in his mid 50s, and he’s now in his early 60s).

One more thing: a self-described “wartime president” shouldn’t really spend 30% (and counting) of his administration on vacation.

Then again, with horrible poll numbers, a tanking housing market and a costly mismanaged war, something tells me the president is looking forward to a future of memoir writing and brush clearing.

Get the original AP story here: http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080729/NEWS15/807290315

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (2) | Report Objectionable Content

Get Us off the High Wire

By MinuteMan - Jul 11th, 2008 at 11:36 pm EDT

Peter Gosselin's High Wire looks at the shift in economic life for Americans that began around 1970. He argues that the economy has shifted much of the risk that used to be born by government and industry onto the back of the typical American worker who is often ill-prepared to deal with that risk. Although the shift has brought Americans more gain, it has also made the fall for those who hit on of life's potholes much, much worse. Worker's health insurance premiums have increased steadily and a twisted interpretation of a worker-protection statute by conservative SCOTUS justices has allowed bottomline-conscious insurers an almost free hand to breach their contracts with the insured. Pensions are history, and the average worker is left to assume all of the investment risk of their retirement saving. What can Obama do about this? Read More »

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

From the New York Times Today

By Pam from Cambridge, MA - Jul 8th, 2008 at 9:09 am EDT

Lurching With Abandon
By BOB HERBERT
Published: July 8, 2008

In one of the numbers from "Fiddler on the Roof," Tevye sings, with a mixture of emotions: "We haven't got the man ... we had when we began."

Back in January when Barack Obama pulled off his stunning win in the Iowa caucuses, and people were lining up in the cold and snow for hours just to get a glimpse of him, there was a wide and growing belief -- encouraged to the max by the candidate -- that something new in American politics had arrived.

His brilliant, nationally televised victory speech in Des Moines sent a shiver of hope through much of the electorate. "The time has come for a president who will be honest about the choices and the challenges we face," said Senator Obama, "who will listen to you and learn from you, even when we disagree, who won't just tell you what you want to hear, but what you need to know."

Only an idiot would think or hope that a politician going through the crucible of a presidential campaign could hold fast to every position, steer clear of the stumbling blocks of nuance and never make a mistake. But Barack Obama went out of his way to create the impression that he was a new kind of political leader -- more honest, less cynical and less relentlessly calculating than most.

You would be able to listen to him without worrying about what the meaning of "is" is.

This is why so many of Senator Obama's strongest supporters are uneasy, upset, dismayed and even angry at the candidate who is now emerging in the bright light of summer.

One issue or another might not have made much difference. Tacking toward the center in a general election is as common as kissing babies in a campaign, and lord knows the Democrats need to expand their coalition.

But Senator Obama is not just tacking gently toward the center. He's lurching right when it suits him, and he's zigging with the kind of reckless abandon that's guaranteed to cause disillusion, if not whiplash.

So there he was in Zanesville, Ohio, pandering to evangelicals by promising not just to maintain the Bush program of investing taxpayer dollars in religious-based initiatives, but to expand it. Separation of church and state? Forget about it.

And there he was, in the midst of an election campaign in which the makeup of the Supreme Court is as important as it has ever been, agreeing with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas that the death penalty could be imposed for crimes other than murder. What was the man thinking?

Thankfully, a majority on the court left the barbaric Scalia-Thomas-Obama (and John McCain) reasoning behind and held that capital punishment would apply only to homicides.

"What's he doing?" is the most common question heard recently from Obama supporters.

For one thing, he's taking his base for granted, apparently believing that such stalwart supporters as blacks, progressives and pumped-up younger voters will be with him no matter what. A taste of the backlash this can produce erupted on the candidate's own Web site.

Thousands of Obama supporters flooded the site with protests over his decision to support an electronic surveillance bill that gives retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program. The senator had previously promised to filibuster the bill if it contained the immunity clause.

There has been a reluctance among blacks to openly criticize Senator Obama, the first black candidate with a real shot at the presidency. But behind the scenes, there is discontent among African-Americans, as well, over Mr. Obama's move away from progressive issues, including his support of the Supreme Court's decision affirming the constitutional right of individuals to bear arms.

There's even concern that he's doing the Obama two-step on the issue that has been the cornerstone of his campaign: his opposition to the war in Iraq. But the senator denied that any significant change should be inferred from his comment that he would "continue to refine" his policy on the war.

Mr. Obama is betting that in the long run none of this will matter, that the most important thing is winning the White House, that his staunchest supporters (horrified at the very idea of a President McCain) will be there when he needs them.

He seems to believe that his shifts and twists and clever panders -- as opposed to bold, principled leadership on important matters -- will entice large numbers of independent and conservative voters to climb off the fence and run into his yard.

Maybe. But that's a very dangerous game for a man who first turned voters on by presenting himself as someone who was different, who wouldn't engage in the terminal emptiness of politics as usual.

Time flies and the Iowa caucuses seem a very long time ago.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Moving Towards the Center- is it Worth it?

By PattyM - Jul 6th, 2008 at 8:44 pm EDT

Also listed in: Rhode Islanders For Obama

There has been a lot of media activity around Senator Obama's not so subtle moves from left to right now that he is the presumptive nominee. I am wondering if supporters share this view. Has our candidate become a sell-out or is reaching out to Evangelicals and NRA supporters essential to build a national consensus? My feelings are mixed right now because, though I believe in the need to not be a radical leftist, I also feel as though Barack's originality and integrity, his honesty and outright opinions based on careful thought are what drew me to him in the first place. I don't want his message to get diluted, even though I want him to sway the majority of Americans.

I would love to know what other people think about this. Right now my stomache is unnecessarily queasy as I anticipate Senator Obama the "flip flopper" coming out of McCain's mouth. I also cringe at the thought of my conservative family members saying- see, he's just a politician like the rest of them. Images of John Kerry hunting for geese come to mind as a nauseating flashback.

I say- why pander to the far-right - we're not going to get their vote now matter what-- and I don't want our base to become disenfranchised. So while I support our candidate- I worry.

Also, what do others think about the lack of town meetings scheduled? I hope they happen soon because Obama will whoop McCain regardless of the forum- I just want to see it start happening so the country can see the difference between cliche's and old style politics and the real thing.

Hope these topics are of interest. I don't have many answers at this point- just lots of questions-I'm hoping Obama will provide the answers in the coming weeks.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (4) | Report Objectionable Content

The Man Crush on the Man Crush Fades Just a Bit

By Todd Epp - Jul 5th, 2008 at 10:01 pm EDT

Also listed in: 10 groups

IMG_6272-1.jpg picture by sdwatch

Barack Obama doesn’t need me anymore.

He knows he had me at “hello.”

He knows he’s still going to have me.

He knows that liberals like me are not going to vote for John McCain.

And we’re not so stupid as to throw our votes away for Ralph Nader. (Been there, done that.)

But he did need me and fellow Lefties during the primaries.

This past week, besides trying to capture “the middle” (whatever that is), Barack also took several steps away from being something different to being something we see all too often—a pandering politician.

Are you an evangelical? Then by golly, like President George Bush, Barack likes “faith-based” initiatives too!

Are you afraid of terrorists slamming more planes into our skyscrapers? Then by golly, like President Bush, he thinks the FISA bill is just okey-dokey and giving up some more of your civil liberties is swell.

Are you an NRA member? Then by golly, Barack seems to like the recent Supreme Court case on Second Amendment rights. (And here I actually probably agree with him, but in South Dakota, liberals like me like guns too, so I’m an anomaly.)

Perhaps this is a winning strategy. Lefties like me alone will not get Barack elected this fall. He has to capture conservative Democrats, independents, and open minded Republicans. I get that.

And maybe this is just his way of “taking out the garbage” of capitulating on some issues just before not only a Friday, but a 4th of July Friday.

It’s all so coy, all so, well, political. Barack learned his political lessons well in Chicago.

What seemed to separate Obama from particularly Hillary Clinton was that he was an agent of change, of politics NOT as usual. Hell, if I wanted politics AS usual, I’d have voted for and supported Hillary as she has that down pat.

But I didn’t. And millions of others didn’t. We actually thought we were voting for HOPE and CHANGE.

Perhaps we still are.

But like my man crush on The Man Crush, after this week, those ideals have faded, if just a little.

Photo: Ah, the good old days, when Barack Obama wanted me. This is the craziness on June 1, 2008—just a month ago—when Barack was about to take the stage at the Corn Palace in Mitchell, SD.

Originally posted at SD Watch http://www.southdakotawatch.net

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, pandering, man crush, 2008 election, guns, faith-based initiatives, national security, FISA

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (5) | Report Objectionable Content

Don't pander to the right, Barack!

By Steve Gore - Jul 2nd, 2008 at 12:14 pm EDT

The hugely exciting thing about Barack's candidacy was his willingness to tell the truth, even when it wasn't popular- whether it was about big cars in Michigan, or the BS about the gas tax holiday. It's very worrisome to see Barack coming out with statement which clearly pander to the right: supporting the Supreme's decision regarding gun control, coming out for the death penalty in the case of the LA child rape (having been a champion of the Illinois death penalty moratorium), and now supporting the so-called faith-based initiatives as opposed to community based organizing with clear separation of church and state. I understand that we are now in a general election and need to avoid being Swift-boated or Willy Hortonized, but I hope we don't lose the Barack we have worked so hard to nominate, to one looking a bit like gun totin', whiskey-swillin' Hillary in the nomination battle.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Moving to the center

By Graham - Jul 1st, 2008 at 3:08 pm EDT

Also listed in: President Obama, Please Get FISA Right

i am a supporter of Sen. Obama in his quest for POTUS. I do not currently have a vote in the USA because I am not a citizen. My involvement extends to providing support on internet blogs, forums, personal interactions with people, and the donation of money.

I have donated money to Sen. Obama's campaign in the past, but currently I do not intend to donate any more money. This is because I am starting to see signs that Sen. Obama is trying to move away from principled positions on a number of issues that are important to me. He appears to be ignoring the old saying that the only things you find in the middle of the road are road markings and roadkill.

His apparent support for the creation of and passage of a bill to provide retrospective immunity for telecomms corporations that agreed to violate the law when engaging in covert surveillance is not a policy that I can support. It drives a coach and horses through fundamental protections defined in the US Constitution. Corporations should not be indemnified against illegal activity by assertions from the President of the United States. The President has no power to condone or support law-breaking; the decisions are not his to make, since they are defined in current law and enforced by the Judicial Branch. The proposed immunity provisions in the latest House bill absolve the telcos of illegal activity. This is a terrible precedent that undermines the integrity of the entire legal system in the USA.

I also find his decision to support faith-based programs to be incomprehensible. It is time that we stopped funding faith-based anything, and started funding fact-based programs. I do not want to see taxpayer money being diverted to religious bodies for their use. IMHO this is a violation of the separation between church and state, and i see no compelling evidence that the money is being wisely or properly spent. This decision to support the programs is unprincipled pandering.

As I write this, I have concluded that I will spend my donation money elsewhere to help fund campaigns by true progressives. The Democratic party must stop "running to the center". This approach plays into the meme that the Democratic Party does not stand for anything. Any progressive party that wants my full support must demonstrate that it has principles and a spine. Right now Sen. Obama is not proving his fidelity to me on either of those fronts. Until he does, I will not be donating a cent to his campaign.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

More Proof Offshore Drilling is Simply Pandering

By Fred - Team Liaison - Smyrna-Vinings - Jun 19th, 2008 at 11:28 am EDT

Also listed in: 10 groups

As if we needed more proof that the suggestion to open more offshore drilling areas (let's not forget there are plenty of offshore drilling areas not being used by oil companies because they're "too expensive" to work...poor oil companies wouldn't make quite the same profits on those areas) is simply pandering to both the oil companies and right-wingers who don't know anything other than to clap when they hear we're going to go after more oil, we got more proof anyway.

In California, even Governor Schwarzenegger couldn't be swayed to come along for the ride. In Florida, where Governor Crist is nothing more than a Bush/McCain puppet, he not-at-all-surprisingly jumped right on board. But, guess who didn't? The state's CFO, Alex Cink -- you know, the woman most directly responsible for the state's FINANCIAL well-being, and the person arguably most informed of the impacts of all this.

In this article at Forbes.com, Cink and others point out that Crist has repeatedly -- and as recently as a couple weeks ago -- adamantly opposed offshore drilling. But, lo and behold, when the puppetmasters say, "Time to pander, Charlie," he hops to it.

So, as McCain and Bush and the Republican "strategists" out there push this oh-so-novel idea, be glad that there are some people refusing to go along with it.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (4) | Report Objectionable Content

The Gas Tax 'Holiday' Shell Game

By Janet Ritz - Jun 5th, 2008 at 3:55 am EDT

Cross-posted from Reuters, The Environmentalist and The Huffington Post - original publish date: May 4, 2008

Senators Hillary Clinton and John McCain have challenged Senator Barack Obama over his refusal to support their proposal that would suspend the .18 Federal gas tax for three months this summer.

The problem?

A near-unanimous chorus of protests from experts, economists and environmentalists...

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Say "NO" TO COAL-TO-LIQUID

By Esther Buddenhagen - May 12th, 2008 at 11:29 am EDT

Andrew Sullivan yesterday reported that Obama has an ad in Kentucky touting the fact that he cosponsored a bill with Senator Jim Bunning to promote coal-to-liquid legislation. Obama needs to take the same firm stand AGAINST coal-to-liquid research and development funding. This is NOT a viable fuel alternative technically, economically, environmentally or in terms of jobs. There is no reputable scientist without a corporate interest who would support this idea. You can start by checking the blog Climate Progress which I mention because I have the link handy.

If Obama knows this, then advertising his efforts with Bunning which I hope he undertook when he didn't kow better is sheer pandering. And for what? Better to assume people can hear the truth and probably know it anyway and would like to hear some proposals for honest-to-goodness job development in green industries.

As a very strong Obama supporter, this disappoints me a great deal.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (1) | Report Objectionable Content

New Published Letter on Gas Tax debate

By Craig from Dalton, MA - May 9th, 2008 at 7:31 am EDT

Also listed in: Massachusetts Action Team

Obama trusts common man

Published in Berkshire Eagle Letters
Article Last Updated: 05/05/2008 10:03:21 AM EDT

Monday, May 05

For elitism and the truth, this past week has seen a great example. Hillary Clinton and John McCain offer voters a torn Band-Aid in a gasoline tax rollback that depends on and presumes that the average American voter is plug stupid. Barack Obama, in stark contrast says, "You guys who want change; let's start right here. This gas tax rebate gimmick is simple pandering and serves no positive economic purpose for the country you love and wish to set on the right road again."

Obama trusts the intelligence of the voters, blue collar Catholics included, to have plenty of good old American common sense to sniff out pandering politics. Only Obama trusts the melting pot cast of Americans. That is 180 degrees from the yammerings that he is elitist.

CRAIG A. JOHNSON
Dalton

In online comments in the Berkshire Eagle about this Letter, several commentors made it clear that they did not like Barry Hussein Obama. However, when I queried these hostile folks by name as to did they think Obama's position was principled, correct and non-pandering they did not push back on the merits. Interesting.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Gas Tax Holiday-o-Rama - or - An Elitist Holiday from Reality

By Thor - May 5th, 2008 at 9:48 pm EDT

Amazingly, no matter how many economists, editorials and even former Clinton advisors come out against this wondrously panderous gas tax holiday - there are those who are simply taking it at face value and saying, "So what? I don't trust all those "elitists" who don't understand me telling me about their long-term plans. Hillary is just trying to help us out a little."

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

I want to have hope folks, but...

By Michael - May 5th, 2008 at 7:50 pm EDT

Also listed in: 5 groups

I get so discouraged by the effectiveness of "say anything" kitchen-sink smear tactics, incessant tabloid-media distractions passed off as real news, pandering, innuendo, and outright lies that rely on the general ignorance of the lowest common denominator in this country - confidently knowing all along that by the time the actual truth filters down to the masses, it'll be too late!... it makes me sick!

Over the weekend, my girlfriend was walking through the parking lot of our semi-rural Indiana Walmart wearing her Obama shirt, when some hayseed jackass called her a "terrorist lover"!

You know, I WANT to have hope... I WANT to believe in this country's ability to rise above the BS... But misinformed hate like this makes me infinitely frustrated, bitter, and angry! Not to mention the fact that it happened to MY girlfriend! (I really hope I'm the one that runs across you next time you redneck pr***!)

I'm no less proud to be an American, but I'm a little less proud of America - and its liars and hate-mongers from both the GOP and (yes) the Clinton campaign that continue to perpetuate their vile messages to the gullible, with absolutely no remorse what-so-ever! Stupid people shouldn't be allowed to vote, but unfortunately they are - with their evil puppet-masters happily pulling their strings all the way to the polls!

HOPE...

I HOPE the majority of people aren't this ignorant. I HOPE we outnumber the stupid. I HOPE we will collectively rise-up and politically crush the manipulative evil that runs rampant within our system. I HOPE this really IS "our time".

Rednecks 4 Obama '08
Ye-ha we can, y'all!!!

P.S.: Let's do it tomorrow Hoosiers!!! I DO have faith in us!!!

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (2) | Report Objectionable Content

MORE ATTACKS!

By ObamaBob NSB - May 5th, 2008 at 4:39 pm EDT

Also listed in: 8 groups

For those of you that have heard about, or maybe even seen the attack ads the clinton camp is putting out just before Indiana and NC, it's now requiring more response ads from us:

Here's one if you haven't seen it and i'll post any others as they become available:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QDqScU1GsQ

YES WE CAN!!

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Page 1 of 2 | Next

Posts

Content on blogs in My.BarackObama represents the opinions of community members and in no way should be interpreted as endorsed or approved by the campaign.