Saturday, May 31, 2008
Congress Should Hold Propaganda Hearings
Posted on May 30.2008 by Timothy Karr
New information about the extent of the government and the mainstream media’s propaganda campaign continue to emerge, and we have not let up on pushing Congress to act.
More than 100,000 Free Press activists and our allies have already urged their members of Congress to launch an investigation into the media's role in spreading pro-war propaganda.
Now Free Press is calling on Congress to convene hearings to determine the extent of the mainstream media and the government’s wrongdoing. Sign the letter and tell Congress that we're not backing down until the truth comes out.
The country is buzzing today over a tell-all book by former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. In his explosive memoir, McClellan reveals that the Bush administration ran a "political propaganda campaign" to mislead the American public on the war in Iraq.
But he takes it one step further, implicating the mainstream media for its role in "enabling" this propaganda: "The national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House" in spreading the president's case for the war, McClellan writes. The mainstream media didn't live up to its watchdog reputation. "If it had, the country would have been better served."
This should be a shock to everyone. The president's own spokesman lays a large share of the blame for Bush's pro-war propaganda on the media's "deferential" treatment of White House spin.
Please become part of a growing people-powered campaign to investigate this scandal and make media more accountable to the public:
Click on the link above and sign a letter that urges House Committee Chairs Ike Skelton, John Tierney and Henry Waxman to convene full congressional hearings about propaganda in the news.
The media's complicity in promoting this war was confirmed Wednesday night by CNN correspondent Jessica Yellin who said that network executives had pushed her not to do hard-hitting pieces on the Bush administration as the nation readied for war.
"The press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation," Yellin told CNN's Anderson Cooper. (Watch the video).
More than 100,000 Free Press activists and allies have already urged their members of Congress to launch an investigation into the media's role in spreading pro-war propaganda. By joining their call, you will be part of a massive coalition of citizens, bloggers and independent media who refuse to let Big Media off the hook:
Expose the Propaganda 'Enablers' and End Fake News
McClellan's memoir comes on the heels of an April 20 New York Times exposé, which revealed an extensive -- and likely illegal -- Pentagon program to recruit and place pro-war military pundits on nearly every major news outlet in America. Congress has promised to investigate the Pentagon’s role in the scandal, but it shouldn't end there.
Our democracy is in peril when mainstream media fail to question the official view and put the interests of ordinary Americans first. This watchdog role is especially critical during a time of war.
Sign the letter and then tell your friends to help send a loud message to Congress: We're not backing down until the truth comes out.
New information about the extent of the government and the mainstream media’s propaganda campaign continue to emerge, and we have not let up on pushing Congress to act.
More than 100,000 Free Press activists and our allies have already urged their members of Congress to launch an investigation into the media's role in spreading pro-war propaganda.
Now Free Press is calling on Congress to convene hearings to determine the extent of the mainstream media and the government’s wrongdoing. Sign the letter and tell Congress that we're not backing down until the truth comes out.
The country is buzzing today over a tell-all book by former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. In his explosive memoir, McClellan reveals that the Bush administration ran a "political propaganda campaign" to mislead the American public on the war in Iraq.
But he takes it one step further, implicating the mainstream media for its role in "enabling" this propaganda: "The national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House" in spreading the president's case for the war, McClellan writes. The mainstream media didn't live up to its watchdog reputation. "If it had, the country would have been better served."
This should be a shock to everyone. The president's own spokesman lays a large share of the blame for Bush's pro-war propaganda on the media's "deferential" treatment of White House spin.
Please become part of a growing people-powered campaign to investigate this scandal and make media more accountable to the public:
Click on the link above and sign a letter that urges House Committee Chairs Ike Skelton, John Tierney and Henry Waxman to convene full congressional hearings about propaganda in the news.
The media's complicity in promoting this war was confirmed Wednesday night by CNN correspondent Jessica Yellin who said that network executives had pushed her not to do hard-hitting pieces on the Bush administration as the nation readied for war.
"The press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation," Yellin told CNN's Anderson Cooper. (Watch the video).
More than 100,000 Free Press activists and allies have already urged their members of Congress to launch an investigation into the media's role in spreading pro-war propaganda. By joining their call, you will be part of a massive coalition of citizens, bloggers and independent media who refuse to let Big Media off the hook:
Expose the Propaganda 'Enablers' and End Fake News
McClellan's memoir comes on the heels of an April 20 New York Times exposé, which revealed an extensive -- and likely illegal -- Pentagon program to recruit and place pro-war military pundits on nearly every major news outlet in America. Congress has promised to investigate the Pentagon’s role in the scandal, but it shouldn't end there.
Our democracy is in peril when mainstream media fail to question the official view and put the interests of ordinary Americans first. This watchdog role is especially critical during a time of war.
Sign the letter and then tell your friends to help send a loud message to Congress: We're not backing down until the truth comes out.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Hillary, the GOP, and Obama: And never the two shall meet.
"You just don’t know what might happen".
Something bad could happen in June. I am not saying something will, mind you, but nonetheless, something may very well happen. On a few occasions, the woman who has nothing to lose, and decreasing amount to win, is now hinting that bad things may happen. Smell that, friends, smell that odor of fear she is trying to cover the room with? Fear the uncertainties; fear the unknown, a chance on hope is not worth what “might” happen.
She is quietly selling fear. She is slowly, trying to justify her political actions, by using the same book which is used by the Republicans.
She has pandered to her older white rural and uneducated base, by trying to sell them on her legitimacy as a candidate, by referring to none other than Karl Rove and an analysis he did between herself and McCain. An analysis which shows she is far stronger than her opponent, Sen. Obama.
Karl Rove of all people she uses to support her case.
I never seem to be able to get that acid imprinted mantra out of my mind. The one where she says over and over, “If this were a republican presidential primary, I would have already won”, says a member of the Democratic Party.
As if our friends in the GOP, who have “little real blame” in letting Bush get whatever he wanted, are not so bad. It’s as if she is saying, “Don’t hate the playa’, hate the game”. Again, she dangles Republicanism in the faces of fellow democrats. At whose gain, I ask you; and at what loss.
What about Fox News, while playing softball question hour with the pundit of all pundits, Greta.
What about the slights about race made by Bill Clinton, “…at least I didn’t steal the car.” Remember South Carolina? And no, if you watch and listen to the video long enough to get his point, you see what he meant.
You have seen it. Maybe for so long it's hard to separate the true politicking of the citizen, and the divisiveness of the politics itself.
Hey wait a minute, that’s my game she wants to change. I don’t want another president who has been in Washington long enough to truly know how to play the game. I want someone in Washington who will bring a new direction to the game.
And a vote for Obama, in my view, is a vote for the future style of governmental leadership, from which I feel Americans were derailed, and have been waiting for, the last eight years.
I grew up in Washington, I have met these people. I know where they hang out. What restaurants and bars, and to which after-hours joint de fantaisie et d'élite, they go to.
My brother Aaron has a great restaurant in Washington, DC, called
The Russia House Restaurant & Lounge. It is a great and hip place (check out the link), and if you ever stop by, tell him I sent you and don’t talk politics with him (maybe I’ll get some brother credit?).
But anyway, you get those people in there as well. They are not bad people themselves, for they are just doing a job, and doing it anyway and wherever they can. It’s just the way their job is set up.
It is about time that we elected a person that will work with others in running our country. Not at the direction or insistence of a heavy lobbyist group, or from a fat and deep PAC, but because that which is trying to be done is the best thing for “our” country.
We need a person who can look at a situation from a multitude of various perspectives, and with the end goal being to have made the wisest decision for our country, and our future, that solves the issue as best as possible. That is what we need. We need governance, not from the perspective of the corporations and special interest, but from someone who is not beholden to the gold coffers of the heavy industry players.
We need someone who has a vision of what things can be like, someone who is not afraid to imagine what may be, and one who has the innate sense of diversity which allows him to see from many perspectives, and come to a much wiser decision.
We need someone in Washington who has not lost their imagination, due to the many years of the political enculturation and doctrinarian, into the old ways of politics. Be they young or old, Republican or Democrat, the old ways are dead, and information has changed the court.
It should be obvious that I support Sen. Obama, but just for the record; I support Barry. He can be trusted to make the best decisions for this great country, if and when they arise.
We need, as a Party and a Country, to move beyond the politics of destruction, and into the politics of Hope. To bring to our present political system, a more transparent and citizen minded, perspective, outlook, and visage. A 21st century view on what is the best that government can do for its citizens and the world.
That’s no different than any other President would try to do, but the crux difference between Sen. Obama and the rest, is where he has already been. The gathered world perspective he has experienced, to be able to see the world through another’s eyes, is something that comes along ever so rarely. And, for the last 8 years, not at all, it seems.
And that my friend is a bit about why I support Sen. Barack Obama.
Something bad could happen in June. I am not saying something will, mind you, but nonetheless, something may very well happen. On a few occasions, the woman who has nothing to lose, and decreasing amount to win, is now hinting that bad things may happen. Smell that, friends, smell that odor of fear she is trying to cover the room with? Fear the uncertainties; fear the unknown, a chance on hope is not worth what “might” happen.
She is quietly selling fear. She is slowly, trying to justify her political actions, by using the same book which is used by the Republicans.
She has pandered to her older white rural and uneducated base, by trying to sell them on her legitimacy as a candidate, by referring to none other than Karl Rove and an analysis he did between herself and McCain. An analysis which shows she is far stronger than her opponent, Sen. Obama.
Karl Rove of all people she uses to support her case.
I never seem to be able to get that acid imprinted mantra out of my mind. The one where she says over and over, “If this were a republican presidential primary, I would have already won”, says a member of the Democratic Party.
As if our friends in the GOP, who have “little real blame” in letting Bush get whatever he wanted, are not so bad. It’s as if she is saying, “Don’t hate the playa’, hate the game”. Again, she dangles Republicanism in the faces of fellow democrats. At whose gain, I ask you; and at what loss.
What about Fox News, while playing softball question hour with the pundit of all pundits, Greta.
What about the slights about race made by Bill Clinton, “…at least I didn’t steal the car.” Remember South Carolina? And no, if you watch and listen to the video long enough to get his point, you see what he meant.
You have seen it. Maybe for so long it's hard to separate the true politicking of the citizen, and the divisiveness of the politics itself.
Hey wait a minute, that’s my game she wants to change. I don’t want another president who has been in Washington long enough to truly know how to play the game. I want someone in Washington who will bring a new direction to the game.
And a vote for Obama, in my view, is a vote for the future style of governmental leadership, from which I feel Americans were derailed, and have been waiting for, the last eight years.
I grew up in Washington, I have met these people. I know where they hang out. What restaurants and bars, and to which after-hours joint de fantaisie et d'élite, they go to.
My brother Aaron has a great restaurant in Washington, DC, called
The Russia House Restaurant & Lounge. It is a great and hip place (check out the link), and if you ever stop by, tell him I sent you and don’t talk politics with him (maybe I’ll get some brother credit?).
But anyway, you get those people in there as well. They are not bad people themselves, for they are just doing a job, and doing it anyway and wherever they can. It’s just the way their job is set up.
It is about time that we elected a person that will work with others in running our country. Not at the direction or insistence of a heavy lobbyist group, or from a fat and deep PAC, but because that which is trying to be done is the best thing for “our” country.
We need a person who can look at a situation from a multitude of various perspectives, and with the end goal being to have made the wisest decision for our country, and our future, that solves the issue as best as possible. That is what we need. We need governance, not from the perspective of the corporations and special interest, but from someone who is not beholden to the gold coffers of the heavy industry players.
We need someone who has a vision of what things can be like, someone who is not afraid to imagine what may be, and one who has the innate sense of diversity which allows him to see from many perspectives, and come to a much wiser decision.
We need someone in Washington who has not lost their imagination, due to the many years of the political enculturation and doctrinarian, into the old ways of politics. Be they young or old, Republican or Democrat, the old ways are dead, and information has changed the court.
It should be obvious that I support Sen. Obama, but just for the record; I support Barry. He can be trusted to make the best decisions for this great country, if and when they arise.
We need, as a Party and a Country, to move beyond the politics of destruction, and into the politics of Hope. To bring to our present political system, a more transparent and citizen minded, perspective, outlook, and visage. A 21st century view on what is the best that government can do for its citizens and the world.
That’s no different than any other President would try to do, but the crux difference between Sen. Obama and the rest, is where he has already been. The gathered world perspective he has experienced, to be able to see the world through another’s eyes, is something that comes along ever so rarely. And, for the last 8 years, not at all, it seems.
And that my friend is a bit about why I support Sen. Barack Obama.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Republicans and Our Enemies
By JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.
May 23, 2008; WSJ Page A15
On Wednesday, Joe Lieberman wrote on this page that the Democratic Party he and I grew up in has drifted far from the foreign policy espoused by Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John Kennedy.
In fact, it is the policies that President George W. Bush has pursued, and that John McCain would continue, that are divorced from that great tradition – and from the legacy of Republican presidents like Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
Sen. Lieberman is right: 9/11 was a pivotal moment. History will judge Mr. Bush's reaction less for the mistakes he made than for the opportunities he squandered.
The president had a historic opportunity to unite Americans and the world in common cause. Instead – by exploiting the politics of fear, instigating an optional war in Iraq before finishing a necessary war in Afghanistan, and instituting policies on torture, detainees and domestic surveillance that fly in the face of our values and interests – Mr. Bush divided Americans from each other and from the world.
At the heart of this failure is an obsession with the "war on terrorism" that ignores larger forces shaping the world: the emergence of China, India, Russia and Europe; the spread of lethal weapons and dangerous diseases; uncertain supplies of energy, food and water; the persistence of poverty; ethnic animosities and state failures; a rapidly warming planet; the challenge to nation states from above and below.
Instead, Mr. Bush has turned a small number of radical groups that hate America into a 10-foot tall existential monster that dictates every move we make.
The intersection of al Qaeda with the world's most lethal weapons is a deadly serious problem. Al Qaeda must be destroyed. But to compare terrorism with an all-encompassing ideology like communism and fascism is evidence of profound confusion.
Terrorism is a means, not an end, and very different groups and countries are using it toward very different goals. Messrs. Bush and McCain lump together, as a single threat, extremist groups and states more at odds with each other than with us: Sunnis and Shiites, Persians and Arabs, Iraq and Iran, al Qaeda and Shiite militias. If they can't identify the enemy or describe the war we're fighting, it's difficult to see how we will win.
The results speak for themselves.
On George Bush's watch, Iran, not freedom, has been on the march: Iran is much closer to the bomb; its influence in Iraq is expanding; its terrorist proxy Hezbollah is ascendant in Lebanon and that country is on the brink of civil war.
Beyond Iran, al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan – the people who actually attacked us on 9/11 – are stronger now than at any time since 9/11. Radical recruitment is on the rise. Hamas controls Gaza and launches rockets at Israel every day. Some 140,000 American troops remain stuck in Iraq with no end in sight.
Because of the policies Mr. Bush has pursued and Mr. McCain would continue, the entire Middle East is more dangerous. The United States and our allies, including Israel, are less secure.
The election in November is a vital opportunity for America to start anew. That will require more than a great soldier. It will require a wise leader.
Here, the controversy over engaging Iran is especially instructive.
Last week, John McCain was very clear. He ruled out talking to Iran. He said that Barack Obama was "naïve and inexperienced" for advocating engagement; "What is it he wants to talk about?" he asked.
Well, for a start, Iran's nuclear program, its support for Shiite militias in Iraq, and its patronage of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.
Beyond bluster, how would Mr. McCain actually deal with these dangers? You either talk, you maintain the status quo, or you go to war. If Mr. McCain has ruled out talking, we're stuck with an ineffectual policy or military strikes that could quickly spiral out of control.
Sen. Obama is right that the U.S. should be willing to engage Iran on its nuclear program without "preconditions" – i.e. without insisting that Iran first freeze the program, which is the very subject of any negotiations. He has been clear that he would not become personally involved until the necessary preparations had been made and unless he was convinced his engagement would advance our interests.
President Nixon didn't demand that China end military support to the Vietnamese killing Americans before meeting with Mao. President Reagan didn't insist that the Soviets freeze their nuclear arsenal before sitting down with Mikhail Gorbachev. Even George W. Bush – whose initial disengagement allowed dangers to proliferate – didn't demand that Libya relinquish its nuclear program, that North Korea give up its plutonium, or even that Iran stop aiding those attacking our soldiers in Iraq before authorizing talks.
The net effect of demanding preconditions that Iran rejects is this: We get no results and Iran gets closer to the bomb.
Equally unwise is the Bush-McCain fixation on regime change. The regime is abhorrent, but their logic defies comprehension: renounce the bomb – and when you do, we're still going to take you down. The result is that Iran accelerated its efforts to produce fissile material.
Instead of regime change, we should focus on conduct change. We should make it very clear to Iran what it risks in terms of isolation if it continues to pursue a dangerous nuclear program but also what it stands to gain if it does the right thing. That will require keeping our allies in Europe, as well as Russia and China, on the same page as we ratchet up pressure.
It also requires a much more sophisticated understanding than Mr. Bush or Mr. McCain seem to possess that by publicly engaging Iran – including through direct talks – we can exploit cracks within the ruling elite, and between Iran's rulers and its people, who are struggling economically and stifled politically.
Iran's people need to know that their government, not the U.S., is choosing confrontation over cooperation. Our allies and partners need to know that the U.S. will go the extra diplomatic mile – if we do, they are much more likely to stand with us if diplomacy fails and force proves necessary.
The Bush-McCain saber rattling is the most self-defeating policy imaginable. It achieves nothing. But it forces Iranians who despise the regime to rally behind their leaders. And it spurs instability in the Middle East, which adds to the price of oil, with the proceeds going right from American wallets into Tehran's pockets.
The worst nightmare for a regime that thrives on tension with America is an America ready, willing and able to engage. Since when has talking removed the word "no" from our vocabulary?
It's amazing how little faith George Bush, Joe Lieberman and John McCain have in themselves – and in America.
Mr. Biden, a Democratic senator from Delaware, is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
May 23, 2008; WSJ Page A15
On Wednesday, Joe Lieberman wrote on this page that the Democratic Party he and I grew up in has drifted far from the foreign policy espoused by Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John Kennedy.
In fact, it is the policies that President George W. Bush has pursued, and that John McCain would continue, that are divorced from that great tradition – and from the legacy of Republican presidents like Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
Sen. Lieberman is right: 9/11 was a pivotal moment. History will judge Mr. Bush's reaction less for the mistakes he made than for the opportunities he squandered.
The president had a historic opportunity to unite Americans and the world in common cause. Instead – by exploiting the politics of fear, instigating an optional war in Iraq before finishing a necessary war in Afghanistan, and instituting policies on torture, detainees and domestic surveillance that fly in the face of our values and interests – Mr. Bush divided Americans from each other and from the world.
At the heart of this failure is an obsession with the "war on terrorism" that ignores larger forces shaping the world: the emergence of China, India, Russia and Europe; the spread of lethal weapons and dangerous diseases; uncertain supplies of energy, food and water; the persistence of poverty; ethnic animosities and state failures; a rapidly warming planet; the challenge to nation states from above and below.
Instead, Mr. Bush has turned a small number of radical groups that hate America into a 10-foot tall existential monster that dictates every move we make.
The intersection of al Qaeda with the world's most lethal weapons is a deadly serious problem. Al Qaeda must be destroyed. But to compare terrorism with an all-encompassing ideology like communism and fascism is evidence of profound confusion.
Terrorism is a means, not an end, and very different groups and countries are using it toward very different goals. Messrs. Bush and McCain lump together, as a single threat, extremist groups and states more at odds with each other than with us: Sunnis and Shiites, Persians and Arabs, Iraq and Iran, al Qaeda and Shiite militias. If they can't identify the enemy or describe the war we're fighting, it's difficult to see how we will win.
The results speak for themselves.
On George Bush's watch, Iran, not freedom, has been on the march: Iran is much closer to the bomb; its influence in Iraq is expanding; its terrorist proxy Hezbollah is ascendant in Lebanon and that country is on the brink of civil war.
Beyond Iran, al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan – the people who actually attacked us on 9/11 – are stronger now than at any time since 9/11. Radical recruitment is on the rise. Hamas controls Gaza and launches rockets at Israel every day. Some 140,000 American troops remain stuck in Iraq with no end in sight.
Because of the policies Mr. Bush has pursued and Mr. McCain would continue, the entire Middle East is more dangerous. The United States and our allies, including Israel, are less secure.
The election in November is a vital opportunity for America to start anew. That will require more than a great soldier. It will require a wise leader.
Here, the controversy over engaging Iran is especially instructive.
Last week, John McCain was very clear. He ruled out talking to Iran. He said that Barack Obama was "naïve and inexperienced" for advocating engagement; "What is it he wants to talk about?" he asked.
Well, for a start, Iran's nuclear program, its support for Shiite militias in Iraq, and its patronage of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.
Beyond bluster, how would Mr. McCain actually deal with these dangers? You either talk, you maintain the status quo, or you go to war. If Mr. McCain has ruled out talking, we're stuck with an ineffectual policy or military strikes that could quickly spiral out of control.
Sen. Obama is right that the U.S. should be willing to engage Iran on its nuclear program without "preconditions" – i.e. without insisting that Iran first freeze the program, which is the very subject of any negotiations. He has been clear that he would not become personally involved until the necessary preparations had been made and unless he was convinced his engagement would advance our interests.
President Nixon didn't demand that China end military support to the Vietnamese killing Americans before meeting with Mao. President Reagan didn't insist that the Soviets freeze their nuclear arsenal before sitting down with Mikhail Gorbachev. Even George W. Bush – whose initial disengagement allowed dangers to proliferate – didn't demand that Libya relinquish its nuclear program, that North Korea give up its plutonium, or even that Iran stop aiding those attacking our soldiers in Iraq before authorizing talks.
The net effect of demanding preconditions that Iran rejects is this: We get no results and Iran gets closer to the bomb.
Equally unwise is the Bush-McCain fixation on regime change. The regime is abhorrent, but their logic defies comprehension: renounce the bomb – and when you do, we're still going to take you down. The result is that Iran accelerated its efforts to produce fissile material.
Instead of regime change, we should focus on conduct change. We should make it very clear to Iran what it risks in terms of isolation if it continues to pursue a dangerous nuclear program but also what it stands to gain if it does the right thing. That will require keeping our allies in Europe, as well as Russia and China, on the same page as we ratchet up pressure.
It also requires a much more sophisticated understanding than Mr. Bush or Mr. McCain seem to possess that by publicly engaging Iran – including through direct talks – we can exploit cracks within the ruling elite, and between Iran's rulers and its people, who are struggling economically and stifled politically.
Iran's people need to know that their government, not the U.S., is choosing confrontation over cooperation. Our allies and partners need to know that the U.S. will go the extra diplomatic mile – if we do, they are much more likely to stand with us if diplomacy fails and force proves necessary.
The Bush-McCain saber rattling is the most self-defeating policy imaginable. It achieves nothing. But it forces Iranians who despise the regime to rally behind their leaders. And it spurs instability in the Middle East, which adds to the price of oil, with the proceeds going right from American wallets into Tehran's pockets.
The worst nightmare for a regime that thrives on tension with America is an America ready, willing and able to engage. Since when has talking removed the word "no" from our vocabulary?
It's amazing how little faith George Bush, Joe Lieberman and John McCain have in themselves – and in America.
Mr. Biden, a Democratic senator from Delaware, is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
McCain and Hagee sitting in a tree...
Well, it is Mother’s Day, and I am tired of getting e-mails from Hillary, Bill, and even Chelsea. Scrapbook photo’s showing how much Chelsea loves her mother, How Bill is so proud of Hillary for being able to breed a child, and Hillary, for being able to produce a child who loves her so much.
To be fair, if it were not for these e-mails, I would not have really believed that Hillary was a Mother, and not just a politically fabricated one. But that misses the true point of this missive. Hillary is done when it comes to this campaign, and now she must step aside.
The focus now for the Democratic Party, and as should be for Hillary as well, is to begin on McCain. Johnny “Jungle Rot” McCain, who has vowed to run a clean and negative free campaign, is starting his dirty republican ways, vis-à-vis his “uncontrollable” 3rd party surrogates.
Even though Sen. Obama has not sought the endorsement of Hamas, he has received it. And, according to McCain, he should have something to say about such an unsought endorsement. The fueling of terrorist fears, ignorant questioning of Sen. Obama’s Christianity, and justifications for the White Vote to question whether a man named Barack Hussein Obama should be the president of a John Smith white country, shows the true colors of our GOP opponent.
What about Rev. Hagee? Well, here is just a tidbit:
Hagee on Hurricane Katrina: "All hurricanes are acts of God because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that." [NPR Fresh Air, 9/18/06]
Hagee on Islamic Beliefs:
Fresh Air host Terry Gross asked if Hagee believed that "all Muslims have a mandate to kill Christians and Jews," to which Hagee replied, "Well, the Quran teaches that. Yes, it teaches that very clearly." [NPR Fresh Air, 9/18/06]
Hagee on African-Americans:
The San Antonio Express-News reported that Hagee was going to "meet with black religious leaders privately at an unspecified future date to discuss comments he made in his newsletter about a 'slave sale,' an East Side minister said Wednesday." The Express-News reported:
"Hagee, pastor of the 16,000-member Cornerstone Church, last week had announced a 'slave sale' to raise funds for high school seniors in his church bulletin, 'The Cluster.'
"The item was introduced with the sentence 'Slavery in America is returning to Cornerstone" and ended with "Make plans to come and go home with a slave." [San Antonio Express-News 3/7/96]
Hagee on Catholicism:
"Most readers will be shocked by the clear record of history linking Adolf Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews." [Jerusalem Countdown by John Hagee]
Hagee on Women:
"Do you know the difference between a woman with PMS and a snarling Doberman pinscher? The answer is lipstick. Do you know the difference between a terrorist and a woman with PMS? You can negotiate with a terrorist." [God's Profits: Faith, Fraud and the Republican Crusade for Values Voters, Sarah Posner]
"[T]he feminist movement today is throwing off authority in rebellion against God's pattern for the family." ["Bible Positions on Political Issues," John Hagee]
Hagee on LGBT Americans:
"The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing. I know that there are people who demur from that, but I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the day of judgment." [NPR Fresh Air, 9/18/06]
Hagee on Iran:
"The coming nuclear showdown with Iran is a certainty," Hagee wrote [in 2006] in the Pentecostal magazine Charisma. "Israel and America must confront Iran's nuclear ability and willingness to destroy Israel with nuclear weapons. For Israel to wait is to risk committing national suicide." [The Nation, 8/8/2006]
And what might be McCain’s response to an endorsement from Rev. John Hagee?
"Well I think it's important to note that pastor John Hagee who has supported and endorsed my candidacy supports what I stand for and believe in. When he endorses me, it does not mean that I embrace everything that he stands for and believes. And I am very proud of the Pastor John Hagee's spiritual leadership to thousands of people and I am proud of his commitment to the independence and the freedom of the state of Israel. That does not mean that I support or endorse or agree with some of the things that Pastor John Hagee might have said or positions that he may have taken on other issues. I don't have to agree with everyone who endorses my candidacy. They are supporting my candidacy. I am not endorsing some of their positions."
And Reverend Wright was a problem? Let us see what kind of people really don’t have a problem with race, and are willing to take to task anyone, of any background, who is “associated” with someone who makes comments that are seen as offensive.
We shall see!
To be fair, if it were not for these e-mails, I would not have really believed that Hillary was a Mother, and not just a politically fabricated one. But that misses the true point of this missive. Hillary is done when it comes to this campaign, and now she must step aside.
The focus now for the Democratic Party, and as should be for Hillary as well, is to begin on McCain. Johnny “Jungle Rot” McCain, who has vowed to run a clean and negative free campaign, is starting his dirty republican ways, vis-à-vis his “uncontrollable” 3rd party surrogates.
Even though Sen. Obama has not sought the endorsement of Hamas, he has received it. And, according to McCain, he should have something to say about such an unsought endorsement. The fueling of terrorist fears, ignorant questioning of Sen. Obama’s Christianity, and justifications for the White Vote to question whether a man named Barack Hussein Obama should be the president of a John Smith white country, shows the true colors of our GOP opponent.
What about Rev. Hagee? Well, here is just a tidbit:
Hagee on Hurricane Katrina: "All hurricanes are acts of God because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that." [NPR Fresh Air, 9/18/06]
Hagee on Islamic Beliefs:
Fresh Air host Terry Gross asked if Hagee believed that "all Muslims have a mandate to kill Christians and Jews," to which Hagee replied, "Well, the Quran teaches that. Yes, it teaches that very clearly." [NPR Fresh Air, 9/18/06]
Hagee on African-Americans:
The San Antonio Express-News reported that Hagee was going to "meet with black religious leaders privately at an unspecified future date to discuss comments he made in his newsletter about a 'slave sale,' an East Side minister said Wednesday." The Express-News reported:
"Hagee, pastor of the 16,000-member Cornerstone Church, last week had announced a 'slave sale' to raise funds for high school seniors in his church bulletin, 'The Cluster.'
"The item was introduced with the sentence 'Slavery in America is returning to Cornerstone" and ended with "Make plans to come and go home with a slave." [San Antonio Express-News 3/7/96]
Hagee on Catholicism:
"Most readers will be shocked by the clear record of history linking Adolf Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews." [Jerusalem Countdown by John Hagee]
Hagee on Women:
"Do you know the difference between a woman with PMS and a snarling Doberman pinscher? The answer is lipstick. Do you know the difference between a terrorist and a woman with PMS? You can negotiate with a terrorist." [God's Profits: Faith, Fraud and the Republican Crusade for Values Voters, Sarah Posner]
"[T]he feminist movement today is throwing off authority in rebellion against God's pattern for the family." ["Bible Positions on Political Issues," John Hagee]
Hagee on LGBT Americans:
"The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing. I know that there are people who demur from that, but I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the day of judgment." [NPR Fresh Air, 9/18/06]
Hagee on Iran:
"The coming nuclear showdown with Iran is a certainty," Hagee wrote [in 2006] in the Pentecostal magazine Charisma. "Israel and America must confront Iran's nuclear ability and willingness to destroy Israel with nuclear weapons. For Israel to wait is to risk committing national suicide." [The Nation, 8/8/2006]
And what might be McCain’s response to an endorsement from Rev. John Hagee?
"Well I think it's important to note that pastor John Hagee who has supported and endorsed my candidacy supports what I stand for and believe in. When he endorses me, it does not mean that I embrace everything that he stands for and believes. And I am very proud of the Pastor John Hagee's spiritual leadership to thousands of people and I am proud of his commitment to the independence and the freedom of the state of Israel. That does not mean that I support or endorse or agree with some of the things that Pastor John Hagee might have said or positions that he may have taken on other issues. I don't have to agree with everyone who endorses my candidacy. They are supporting my candidacy. I am not endorsing some of their positions."
And Reverend Wright was a problem? Let us see what kind of people really don’t have a problem with race, and are willing to take to task anyone, of any background, who is “associated” with someone who makes comments that are seen as offensive.
We shall see!
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Pass me more kool-aid please.
When it is all said and done, and the numbers are put into the books, Sen. Obama will gain about 214,000 more popular votes and 8 delegates more then Hillary Clinton. So, where does that leave us, my friends?
During the lowest point in the Obama campaign, there was no stunning victory in Indiana, as was predicted by the Clinton campaign. After reeling from the loss in Pennsylvania, and having to deal yet again with the never-ending Rev. Wright situation, Sen. Obama beat Hillary Clinton handily in North Carolina, and only lost in Indiana by about 18,000.
But, we must realize that these are only numbers. The leader of the popular vote, the number delegate vote, or even the leader of contests won, makes no real difference. What really matters in this primary race is one thing; Hillary thinks she would be a stronger candidate.
Pass me more kool-aid please.
After Pennsylvania and the Clinton campaign’s 10 million dollar donation boost, which by the way helped them to make up for being 9 million in the hole, all looked liked the Clinton comeback kid status had kicked in.
They touted that such a flood of donations proved that they were supported by the people. And they told us that over and over again.
But wait, as it turns out, she loaned herself another 6.4 of the 10 million. That brings her personal loans to her own campaign to 11.4 million.
Not bad for a “working class” woman of the people. Imagine how much she might have loaned herself if she were an elitist. It’s as if she quietly has become the Mit Romney of the Democratic Party.
But, do not fear, she claims that she is staying in until the end. Be that the end of this primary race, or the end of the Clintonian Era.
During the lowest point in the Obama campaign, there was no stunning victory in Indiana, as was predicted by the Clinton campaign. After reeling from the loss in Pennsylvania, and having to deal yet again with the never-ending Rev. Wright situation, Sen. Obama beat Hillary Clinton handily in North Carolina, and only lost in Indiana by about 18,000.
But, we must realize that these are only numbers. The leader of the popular vote, the number delegate vote, or even the leader of contests won, makes no real difference. What really matters in this primary race is one thing; Hillary thinks she would be a stronger candidate.
Pass me more kool-aid please.
After Pennsylvania and the Clinton campaign’s 10 million dollar donation boost, which by the way helped them to make up for being 9 million in the hole, all looked liked the Clinton comeback kid status had kicked in.
They touted that such a flood of donations proved that they were supported by the people. And they told us that over and over again.
But wait, as it turns out, she loaned herself another 6.4 of the 10 million. That brings her personal loans to her own campaign to 11.4 million.
Not bad for a “working class” woman of the people. Imagine how much she might have loaned herself if she were an elitist. It’s as if she quietly has become the Mit Romney of the Democratic Party.
But, do not fear, she claims that she is staying in until the end. Be that the end of this primary race, or the end of the Clintonian Era.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
