Monday, December 31, 2007

The Republican Field of 2008

The Republican Field of 2008.

In watching the GOP Field of 2008, it's like watching Alice in Wonderland, because so many things that just go in opposite of everything we supposedly knew about the GOP has been turned on its head.

The GOP used to be about ' authenticity'. They cherished 'true believers' above all else.

That is why Flipping Mitt and Rudy having ANY sort of a chance makes absolutely no sense.

Mitt Romney

Flipping Mitt is the most phony, plastic politician that I've ever seen. He has no core. He has no set of values, except for that he believes he should be President. That's the ONLY value he has.

He was against abortion until he became for abortion to win Governor of Massachusetts before he became against it again because he was running for President.

Pick and issue, and you'll see the same flip-flop all over the place.

He lied on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He's a total fraud.

He is a phony. Not only is he a phony, but he's a phony who believes in the continuation of the Imperial Presidency, as his responses to the Boston Globe questionnaire about Presidential Power proves. If you believe in The Constitution, Flipping Mitt's not your man.

EVERY PAPER that has studied Flipping Mitt in New Hampshire and Massachusetts has taken a pass on endorsing him.

If you want to read what those who know Flipping Mitt best TRULY think about him, try the Manchester Union Leader, Boston Globe, Boston Herald, and Concord Monitor.

And, I guess, I'm suspicious of ANYONE who was part of a secret meeting last year with Conservative bigwigs including Dick Cheney. NO OTHER GOP candidate was invited to the meeting - only Romney? That's enough guilt by association to cast yet another shadow on Flipping Mitt.

Rudy Giuliani


If the GOP nominates a pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-gun, thrice married MAYOR as their nominee...a few things...


Don't even open the mouth to utter the words.

Rudy should be disqualified for many reasons,but if you only need one, here you go:

He's welcomed, with open arms, into the busom of his campaign...


They are firmly ensconsed in Camp Rudy, and that kind of ' company he keeps' should make you think more than twice about him.

And, it's not just the ' Progressives' who have a problem with Rudy.

This is what the AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE MAGAZINE thought about him.

Now, these are his OWN PEOPLE...his OWN PARTY...telling you which way is up...

So, that really leaves us with Huckabee and McCain.

Mike Huckabee.

I understand the appeal. He is a personable man, with an air of being comfortable in his own skin and making others at ease at the same time. While it's clear that Huckabee is a Christian, and that his faith is the cornerstone to his approach to governmental policy, it is also quite clear that Huckabee DOES NOT define his Christianity narrowly to the issues of: Abortion and Homosexuals. While those issues are in there for him, they are NOT the central focus of his Christianity, and that is one of the problems that the GOP Establishment has with Huckabee. As long as they could throw red meat to the Evangelicals, by so narrowly defining Christianity on the lines of Abortion and Gays, knowing full well that they had no intention of really doing anything on either issue, it was ok.

But, Huckabee is NOT that kind of Evangelical. He is NOT that kind of religious conservative. In listening to Huckabee give a few speeches, I have realized why the man was able to garner over 40% of the Black vote. It's because the Black voters in Arkansas saw that Huckabee was NOT a ' let them eat cake' conservative. Listening to him talk about keeping in mind the poverty-striken young boy in one of the poorest parts of Arkansas when he made decisions, he was speaking to the Christianity that African-Americans were pretty much raised upon until this Prosperity Gospel came on the scene. It was a Jesus that helped those 'least among us'.

Huckabee speaks a Populist message. He talks about those on ' Main Street' who are experiencing the economic anxiety of the middle-class and working class. He doesn't believe in unfettered capitalism without regards to the working man and woman. And nothing scares the GOP Establishment more than someone talking a Populist Message. Someone who isn't following the ' let them eat cake' model, which is why they are determined to stomp out Huckabee at all costs.

John McCain.

A candidate left for dead this summer has climbed out of the doldrums and back into the hunt.


Because, he finally became the John McCain of 2000 again. He may not be from central casting (a la Romney), or be a smooth talker (the Huckster), but there is something unmistakeably authentic about John McCain. It's when he lost it that he walked away from who he was.

In their endorsement of McCain, the conservative Manchester Union Leader said the following:

On Jan. 8, New Hampshire Republicans will make one of the most important choices for their party and nation in the history of our presidential primary. Their choice ought to be John McCain.

We don't agree with him on every issue. We disagree with him strongly on campaign finance reform. What is most compelling about McCain, however, is that his record, his character, and his courage show him to be the most trustworthy, competent, and conservative of all those seeking the nomination. Simply put, McCain can be trusted to make informed decisions based on the best interests of his country, come hell or high water

I think that's the bottom line about McCain. You don't have to agree with him on every issue. But, you can be certain that behind his decisions, there is a certain CORE there. He took his lumps in those debates because of his stances on issues that made him out of the mainstream with the party, but he took them because he believed in them. In debate after debate, John McCain would often provide the most ' HUMAN ' of moments in those debates, and they stood out because of his humanity and authenticity. In his Boston Globe Questionnaire, McCain stands up for The Constitution and the belief that the President is NOT above the law.

McCain has garnered the endorsements of the Boston Globe, Boston Herald,Concord Monitor and Nashua Telegraph.

I don't root for John McCain because I think he'd be the easiest GOP candidate. In fact, I believe he's the hardest GOP candidate. But, when I think of the possibility of a Republican President, he's the only one that DOESN'T make me think the very foundation of this country would be in jeopardy with his win.

Sunday, December 30, 2007

McCain Losing Votes to Obama in New Hampshire

Hat tip: Prometheus6

McCain losing votes to Obama in N.H.
By Maeve Reston and Doyle McManus, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
December 30, 2007

NASHUA, N.H. -- Like many New Hampshire voters, Dave Montgomery considers himself a dyed-in-the-wool independent -- which in this state means he can vote in either the Republican or Democratic presidential primary when he goes to the polls Jan. 8.

This year, the semi-retired school bus driver from Milford finds himself torn between two candidates, one from each party: Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Barack Obama of (D-Ill.).

Montgomery likes McCain, he said, because "he seems to be enough of a rebel." He likes Obama for pretty much the same reason -- because he seems to be "his own man."

"I think either one of them could do the job," he said.

Independents like Montgomery may be the decisive factor for both major parties when New Hampshire holds the nation's first primary next week, hot on the heel's of Iowa's caucuses on Thursday. And the choices these nonaligned New Hampshire voters make almost assuredly will shape the nation's later primary races.

"This big group in the middle . . . has a chance to really transform the election," said Tom Rath, a veteran New Hampshire Republican strategist who is advising former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-Mass.). Describing the efforts to woo independents, he added: "It's more like a general election here."

If Obama bests national front runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), he probably will owe his New Hampshire victory to independents, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll suggested last week.

Among the state's registered Democrats, the survey found Clinton led Obama, 35% to 28%. But among independents who plan to vote in the Democratic primary, Obama led, 37% to 24% -- turning the contest into a virtual tie.

Rest of the article is HERE.

The reason why this article is important, is because it points out the fallacy of Barack Obama's ' Unelectability'.

In the last month, poll after poll has consistently shown that Barack Obama polls well, against every major GOP Candidate in the General Election. He consistently polls BETTER than Hillary Clinton.


Because of his appeal to independents and some Republicans.

You see in this article that Hillary wasn't remotely a choice for him. It was Obama or McCain. Independents have already told the pollsters that they aren't voting for Hillary Clinton. They will consider Obama.

You win elections by trying to appeal to the broadest possible constituency. Of course you CAN win with '50%+1', but what has that brought us in this country the past seven years? Nothing but bitterness upon bitterness. Why set ourselves up for that AGAIN (with Clinton), when we don't have to. When you have a candidate that can gather a broad coalition to govern.

Barack Obama is electable.

He's NOT the one that HALF THE COUNTRY says they will NEVER VOTE FOR.

I have said it before; I'm not naive to think that Obama couldn't be victim to some sort of Bradley Effect. But, I stand by this: for him to catch up to where Clinton is RIGHT NOW?

It would have to be the size of a tsunami.

Cross-posted at BrownIowa

Saturday, December 29, 2007

Where are the Gun Rights, Second Amendment People With THIS Case?

Originally saw this case on Prometheus 6.

A commentary at Black America Web opens with this:

A bunch of white guys show up at your house after 11 p.m., cursing, calling your 20-year-old son the N-word and threatening to kill him. You take your .32 Beretta, go outside and order the mob off your property.

Instead of leaving, one of the white guys slaps the gun in defiance. What do you do?

John H. White, a resident of Riverhead, N.Y., said he knew what he had to do. On Aug. 9, 2006, White found himself and his son Aaron faced with precisely the scenario described above. Daniel Cicciaro, 17 years old, was the white kid who slapped the gun in White’s hand. White shot Cicciaro in the face, fatally wounding him.

Three days before Christmas, a jury of 11 whites and one black in Suffolk County, N.Y., found White guilty of second-degree manslaughter.

You read right. They come onto his property; threaten his child. Don't leave after KNOWING that there is a gun. One of them gets killed, and JOHN WHITE is the one who was found guilty?



The man in Texas kills 2 who weren't even breaking into HIS house, but his NEIGHBOR'S house...not charged.

This Black man is on HIS property, protecting HIS child, from a White mob spewing racial epithets at him....and he's been found GUILTY?

WHAT THE #*$&?

Where the hell is the National Rifle Association?
Where the hell are all those Second Amendment fanatics?
Where the hell are all those Property Rights fanatics?

Is anyone going to sit here and tell me that a WHITE MAN...
if FIVE BLACK GUYS showed up at his house...
and after you've told them about the gun, they don't go away and you shoot them would ACTUALLY BE CHARGED?

Show me the case.

And, where the hell are our ' so-called' LEADERS?

Friday, December 28, 2007

J. Edgar Hoover's Habeas-Suspending Scheme


J. Edgar Hoover's Habeas-Suspending Scheme
from: Bonnie Goldstein
Posted Thursday, Dec. 27, 2007, at 4:08 PM ET

On Dec. 21, the State Department released a collection of historic documents about "high-level policy plans, discussions, administrative decisions, and managerial actions" at the height of the Cold War. Titled The Intelligence Community 1950-1955, the 867-page volume is the sequel to The Emergence of the Intelligence Establishment, 1945–1950, published in 1996.

Among the more startling documents included is a proposal submitted to the White House in July 1950 by J. Edgar Hoover, the excitable founding director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In a letter drafted two weeks after the Korean War broke out, Hoover called for mass arrests should the United States experience a "threatened invasion," an attack on "legally occupied territory," or a "rebellion" (see below). Hoover addressed his letter to Admiral Sidney W. Souers, previously a director of central intelligence and at that time special consultant on military and foreign affairs to President Harry Truman. Hoover proposed a ready-to-go presidential proclamation and companion order to "suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus" (Page 2). This proclamation would permit Hoover to apprehend and detain "approximately twelve thousand individuals" whose names and "potentially dangerous" activities the FBI had already accumulated and was constantly updating. Ninety-seven percent of these presumed subversives were American citizens. Hoover assured Souers that "Federal detention facilities ... have been confidentially surveyed and … found to be adequate" in nearly every region except for those "covered by the FBI's New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco offices" (Page 3), where the high proportion of potential detainees would overwhelm the available prison space. These city-dwellers, however, could be placed in "military facilities."

Rest of article is HERE.

If you never had a reason to think that Harry S. Truman was a good President, here's a reason. He stopped Hoover. What is described in these documents is as horrific now as it was in 1950.

Candidates on Executive Power - Use of Signing Statements

Interesting article from The Boston Globe:

Candidates on executive power: a full spectrum
They assess use of signing statements
By Charlie Savage
Globe Staff / December 22, 2007

WASHINGTON - Republican John McCain says that if he is elected president, he would consider himself bound to obey treaties because they are "the law of the land." But Mitt Romney says he would consider himself free to bypass treaties if they "impinge" on his powers as commander in chief.

Democrat Hillary Clinton says "in very rare instances," she might attach a so-called signing statement to a bill reserving a right to bypass "provisions that contradict the Constitution." But Bill Richardson says if a president thinks that parts of a bill are unconstitutional, then "he should veto it," not issue a signing statement.
These contrasts are found in the answers to a Globe survey of the presidential candidates about the limits of executive power. The study is the most comprehensive effort to date to get the candidates to declare in specific terms what checks and balances they would respect, and whether they would reverse the Bush administration's legacy of expanded presidential powers.
"These are essential questions that all the candidates should answer," said Illinois Senator Barack Obama in responding to the survey. "The American people need to know where we stand on these issues before they entrust us with this responsibility - particularly at a time when our laws, our traditions, and our Constitution have been repeatedly challenged by this administration."

In 2000, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were not asked about presidential power, and they volunteered nothing about their attitude toward the issue to voters. Yet once in office, they immediately began seeking out ways to concentrate more unchecked power in the White House - not just for themselves, but also for their successors.
Bush has bypassed laws and treaties that he said infringed on his wartime powers, expanded his right to keep information secret from Congress and the courts, centralized greater control over the government in the White House, imprisoned US citizens without charges, and used signing statements to challenge more laws than all predecessors combined.

Legal specialists say decisions by the next president - either to keep using the expanded powers Bush and Cheney developed, or to abandon their legal and political precedents - will help determine whether a stronger presidency becomes permanent.

Rest of article is HERE, along with the answers to the individual questionnaires by the candidates who replied.

The prospect of the continuation of the Imperial Presidency SHOULD be of concern to any of us who value The Constitution as RULE OF LAW in this country. The one reason why I fully supported impeachment of Dick Cheney is because I wanted the message to be sent: NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

As a country, the Imperial Presidency and the imbalance it brings to The Constitution's Separation of Powers, is one of the worst legacies of George W. Bush. As a country, we can only stand strong if RULE OF LAW is followed. We have had 7 years of people believing that following THE LAW was 'optional' for them, and has degraded this country because of it.

This might seem like a non-glamorous reason to choose a President, but it's one of those fundamentals that will last long after the President has left office.

Thursday, December 27, 2007

Benazir Bhutto Assassinated

I'm watching this on CNN right now. Benazir Bhutto was assassinated today at a rally in Pakistan. There was a suicide bomber at the rally. Ms. Bhutto was shot in the neck AFTER the bomb. Fifteen others were killed at the rally.

I'll update later.

Ms. Bhutto leaves behind a husband and three children.


The Angry Independent

Benazir Bhutto killed in Suicide Attack

Pakistan in Chaos

UN Security Council To Go Into Emergency Session.

One of the most powerful leaders in Pakistan and in the Muslim world, Bhutto was the first female Prime Minister of the Country and one of the first female leaders of a major Muslim Country. She was also leader of the Pakistan Peoples Party, one of the largest Parties in Pakistan. She was the daughter of former Pakistani President & Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.

Pervez Musharraf will have his hands full trying to keep a lid on this situation. Many will wonder if he was involved.


The Angry Independent

Nawaz Sharif also under attack. Could this assasination have been part of a larger coordinated plot?

Meanwhile, unrest is spreading in Pakistan with riots reported across the country. Civil conflict is now a possibility.



RAWALPINDI, Pakistan (CNN) -- Pakistan's former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated Thursday after addressing a large gathering of her supporters.

Bhutto died of a gunshot wound to the neck, the Pakistani Interior Ministry said. The attacker then blew himself up. The bomb attack killed at least 22 others, doctors said.

Video of the scene just moments before the explosion showed Bhutto stepping into a heavily guarded vehicle to leave the rally.

John Moore, a photographer for Getty Images, said Bhutto was standing through the sunroof of her vehicle, waving to supporters, when two shots rang out.

Bhutto fell back into the vehicle, and almost immediately a bomb blast rocked the scene, sending twisting metal and shrapnel into the crowd, he added.

Police sources told CNN the bomber, who was riding a motorcycle, blew himself up near Bhutto's vehicle.

Bhutto was rushed to Rawalpindi General Hospital -- less than two miles from the bombing scene -- where doctors pronounced her dead.

Her body was removed from the hospital -- carried above a crowd of supporters -- late Thursday night, about six hours after the assassination.

Chaos erupted at the hospital when former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif arrived to pay his respects to Bhutto less than three hours after her death.

Hundreds of Bhutto supporters crammed into the entrance shouted and cried, some clutching their heads in pain and shock. Sharif called it "the saddest day" in Pakistan's history. "Something unthinkable has happened," he said

Sharif said his party will boycott Pakistan's January 8 parliamentary elections in the wake of the assassination.

President Pervez Musharraf said the killers were the same extremists that Pakistan is fighting a war against, and announced three days of national mourning.

Police warned citizens to stay home as they expected rioting to break out in city streets in reaction to the death.

Rioters burned tires and blocked roads in Karachi and other cities, police sources said. Police fired on an angry mob, killing two people, in the city of Khairpur in the Sindh province, Geo TV reported.

Bhutto's husband issued a statement from his home in Dubai saying, "All I can say is we're devastated, it's a total shock." He arrived in Pakistan late Thursday.

President Bush said those responsible "must be brought to justice" and praised Bhutto as a woman who had "fought the forces of terror." He said: "She refused to allow assassins to dictate the course of her country."

The number of wounded was not immediately known. However, video of the scene showed ambulances lined up to take many to hospitals.

The assassination happened in Rawalpindi's Liaquat Bagh Park, named for Pakistan's first prime minister -- Liaquat Ali Khan -- who was assassinated in the same location in 1951.

The attack came just hours after four supporters of former Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif died when members of another political party opened fire on them at a rally near the Islamabad airport Thursday, Pakistan police said.

Several other members of Sharif's party were wounded, police said.

Bhutto, who led Pakistan from 1988 to 1990 and was the first female prime minister of any Islamic nation, was participating in the parliamentary election set for January 8, hoping for a third term.

A terror attack targeting her motorcade in Karachi killed 136 people on the day she returned to Pakistan after eight years of self-imposed exile. View timeline. »

CNN's Mohsin Naqvi, who was at the scene of both bombings, said Thursday's blast was not as powerful as that October attack.

Thursday's attacks come less than two weeks after Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf lifted an emergency declaration he said was necessary to secure his country from terrorists.

Bhutto had been critical of what she believed was a lack of effort by Musharraf's government to protect her.

Two weeks after the October assassination attempt, she wrote a commentary for in which she questioned why Pakistan investigators refused international offers of help in finding the attackers.

"The sham investigation of the October 19 massacre and the attempt by the ruling party to politically capitalize on this catastrophe are discomforting, but do not suggest any direct involvement by General Pervez Musharraf," Bhutto wrote.

I think of her 3 children; only one is ' of age.' How they were worried for her. I read about her; how she had her frivolous years at Harvard and Oxford. But, somewhere along the line, frivolity went away, and she grew up. She took the mantle from her father and brother and stepped up to the plate. Not liking what she saw, she came back to Pakistan, because of that pull of duty to her people. Was she perfect? Of course not. But, she believed in 'The Pakistani People' and wanted to help fight for her country against those that would clap down on her as a woman and strip her of any and all freedoms. She WAS a ' Moderate Muslim', and sadly, I believe she was killed because of it.

I have been writing about Pakistan for a few months. Pointing out that it really is the most dangerous place on Earth right now. As usual, the U.S. backed the wrong guy, Musharraf, for too long. By propping him up as long as we have, we have been eroding the middle ground of Pakistan. The longer we continue to prop him up, the LESS LIKELY it will be that the person who replaces him will be as friendly to the United States. Make no mistake; there are a lot of shady characters in the world - we deal with a lot of them. But, better a shady character that we can work with, rather than the militant Islamists who wouldn't hesitate to give their fellow Militant Islamists one of the nukes that Pakistan controls.

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

95% of Black men are "semi-criminal or criminal" - Ron Paul

Ron Paul

I haven’t paid a lot of attention to Ron Paul. There are many reasons for this. 1) There are only 24 hours in a day. 2) Although he sounds great on Iraq nothing else that I have heard makes any sense. Eliminate Income Tax. What? Replace it with what? Nothing. Nothing? That’s what Ron Paul has said. Eliminate Income Tax. So, I haven’t really sought out many of his opinions on other matters. Once I get to unrealistic, I move on.

I was struck by a post on Think Progress. He was waxing poetically in his political newsletter in 1992 (back in the stone ages). Where he mentions -

Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action…. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the “criminal justice system,” I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.

I know this is kind of weird but as a Black Man, I must say that, I haven’t murdered anyone. I haven’t raped or robbed anyone. I did try to get my roommate in college to pay more than his share of the phone bill once but I don’t think that counts as a mugging or a burglary. I think to paraphrase Ron Paul, that I can safely assume that Mr. Paul is full of cow patties.

On (Real) Movement-Building

Excellent political commentary by political scientist and activist Adolph Reed, Jr. on what voting Democratic means for the prospects of a progressive, political movement. Particularly hard-hitting and illuminating are the following passages where he outlines the futility of relying on a program exclusively dependent on appealing to Democratic politicians to realize progressive political goals:
Despite a mountain range of evidence to the contrary, we—the labor, anti-war, women’s, environmental, and racial justice movements—all continue to craft political strategy based on the assumption that the problem is that the Democrats simply don’t understand what we want and how important those things are to us. They know; they just have different priorities.

That’s why the endless cycle of unofficial hearings and tribunals and rallies and demonstrations and Internet petitions never has any effect on anything. They’re all directed to bearing witness before an officialdom that doesn’t care and feels no compulsion to take our demands into account. To that extent, this form of activism has become little more than a combination of theater—a pageantry of protest—and therapy for the activists.

Then at the apex of every election cycle, after having marched around in the same pointless circle, chanting the same slogans in the interim, we look feverishly to one of the Democrats or some Quixote to do our organizing work for us, magically, all at once.

We need to think about politics in a different way, one that doesn’t assume that the task is to lobby the Democrats or give them good ideas, and correct their misconceptions.

It’s a mistake to focus so much on the election cycle; we didn’t vote ourselves into this mess, and we’re not going to vote ourselves out of it. Electoral politics is an arena for consolidating majorities that have been created on the plane of social movement organizing. It’s not an alternative or a shortcut to building those movements, and building them takes time and concerted effort. Not only can that process not be compressed to fit the election cycle; it also doesn’t happen through mass actions. It happens through cultivating one-on-one relationships with people who have standing and influence in their neighborhoods, workplaces, schools, families, and organizations. It happens through struggling with people over time for things they’re concerned about and linking those concerns to a broader political vision and program. This is how the populist movement grew in the late nineteenth century, the CIO in the 1930s and 1940s, and the civil rights movement after World War II. It is how we’ve won all our victories. And it is also how the right came to power.

Full article here from the Progressive Magazine

Cross-posted in An Ordinary Person

Tuesday, December 25, 2007

Oscar Peterson 1925-2007

Oscar Peterson

Oscar Peterson got his wings yesterday.

He was the template...the standard on the piano over the last 50 years that pianists such as Herbie Hancock, Joe Sample, Chick Corea, Keith Jarrett (& others) aspired to. For many he was the point of reference.

Peterson shared a seat at the top of the jazz piano food chain (from the Bop period forward) with Dave Brubeck, Gil Evans, Ahmad Jamal & Thelonious Monk. But in terms of pure playing, he is considered by many to be the GOAT.

Oscar Peterson Trio - A Gal In Gallico (1958)
(w/ Ray Brown & Herb Ellis)

Oscar Peterson Trio w/ Coleman Hawkins, and Nat King Cole

You Look Good To Me - Montreux (1977)

Merry Christmas!

From the Blogging Family here at Mirror On America, we would like to wish our readers a Merry Christmas. Enjoy family, friends, and have a peaceful day.

Monday, December 24, 2007

Mitt Romney and Race

I don't know if Mitt Romney truly believes what he says or not. After several of the comments that I got on this story, I thought that I would post the video and ask those Romney supporters to defend this.

Tim Russert asks Mitt Romney about race and his faith. Romney supports his faith. This is good. Governor Romney could have stopped there but he didn't. He added that his father marched with Martin Luther King. His father walked out the Republican convention in part because Goldwater was not embracing civil rights. He continued that his mother was also a champion of civil rights.

Let's look at each of these points individually. First there is a claim that George Romney marched with Martin Luther King. A story in the on-line journal Politico states that several witnesses saw Martin Luther King walk hand-in-hand with then Governor George Romney. One witness, Ashby Richardson, states, "The press is being disingenuous in terms of reporting what actually happened. I remember it vividly. I was only 15 or 20 feet from where both of them were." Then there is the account by David Broder of the Washington Post and Stephen Hess in the 1967 book, The Republican Establishment: The Present and Future of the G.O.P. On the other side of the coin where are the civil rights leaders. Where is Jesse Jackson and Andrew Young? They were there, weren't they? They would know. There should also be some pictures.

Sunday, December 23, 2007

Ike Turner - A Lost Legacy

Ike Turner will always be remembered as the Wife Beater, and for the movie- What's Love Got To Do With It- for which he had no part in putting together. That's his legacy.

He won't be remembered for the important role he played in the pantheon of American music.

Hear NPR Report

It is true that he made his own bed.... he created his own situation. I just wish there was a way to separate these two parts of his life. Elvis had a drug habit....and was a womanizer, but he is worshipped to this day as an American hero. I'm not suggesting that Turner should be worshipped in any way. I am suggesting that the baby shouldn't be thrown out with the bathwater. Should his musical legacy be wiped away completely, as it surely will be? Turner's contribution to American music is culturally significant.... unfortunately most Americans, especially Black Americans, only remember him as sort of the Black male symbol for domestic abuse, and have no clue about his music.

My hometown of St. Louis, the city that set the stage for Ike and Tina's careers, was one of the only places where Ike Turner was not treated as a complete monster.... and where some folks actually knew who he was by name. But even in St. Louis, he couldn't completely escape his past.

Turner is not the only famous musician who was involved in abuse..... in fact a few big name African American musicians come to mind, but because of What's Love Got To Do With It, Ike Turner is the one who became synonymous with "wife beater".

I'm not defending Ike Turner... I am only pointing out that a little more perspective may be needed when examining his life. This is especially true for a culture, especially a degenerate Black/Rap culture, that today honors & worships people like R. Kelly, 50 cent, Ludacris, Nelly, Jarule, Tupac, and others...elements that represent cultural rot. In fact, unlike Ike Turner, who kept his personal matters private, the clowns today literally include their misogyny & abuse in their act...for the world to see & hear. That is a distinction worth mentioning. Yet, they are celebrated & honored by today's rotting Black culture...even by many Black women who, for some reason, fawn over them, and those like them. Go figure!

Here you have a man who had a musical career that actually meant something culturally...and he is disregarded out of hand....and in addition to that..."his people" don't even know who he was.

The Errington Thompson Show - Interview With Senatorial Candidate Jim Neal

Hear 2 great episodes of the Errington Thompson Show. The first, from December 15th, includes an interview with Jim Neal, a candidate for U.S. Senate -North Carolina.

And hear another great episode from December 22nd. In this program, Doc talks about phony Mitt Romney, and the lies about his father marching with MLK; and he also covers the Presidential campaign & the upcoming contests in Iowa.

John Edwards On NPR

John Edwards takes part in a radio discussion about his campaign and the issues facing voters. Listen Here

The program (onpoint) unfortunately devotes the first 15-20 minutes to pundits, clearly attempting to shape the discussion. They should have spent the entire hour speaking with the candidate. There are enough pundits on CNN and FOX distorting his message. But there seems to be filters and pundits everywhere these days.

Meanwhile, Clinton and Obama continue to get all of the attention.....(especially Clinton... the corporate media is clearly attempting to tell voters who to support).

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Grassroots Power

When I talk about or discuss politics in blogging it inevitably is usually about national politics, issues and politicians. This happens by reflex—I don’t intend to focus on the national scene in my political rants and ravings on purpose.

I don’t mean to ignore or give short shrift to politics on a local, grassroots level. On the level of city council, school board, state assembly, advisory neighborhood commission, etc.

Most of the opportunities for participating in politics for ordinary people occurs on the local level. Whether it is being elected to a local office, or trying to affect public policy by being an activist for local issues, there is a lot of fertile ground for political participation I haven’t explored in blogging about politics.

This idea comes to mind to me because I would very much like to have an independent or third party choice in our national leaders. Politicians and activists who run outside of the two-party paradigm to shake things up and to effect real change in the gridlocked, polarized scene in Washington, DC.

Yet if the far-fetched notion of an independent or a third party politician winning a national level office does indeed happen, I shudder to think that this victory will be short-lived and won’t effect much change. Because we would have elected a head which will not have a body attached to it.

If an independent were to win a national office, that leader will not have a nationwide, grassroots network of allies and political comrades to turn to for support, legislative votes, and honest advice. He or she would be sitting ducks surrounded by potential enemies who would like nothing more than to trip them up and watch them fail.

Democrats and Republicans, by and large, don’t have this problem. Because they are organized grassroots to a national level—they will always have a network of Democrat or Republican activists to turn to for help, support, and legislative votes when they need it.

So given this situation, it is crucial for any independent or third-party effort to have a local, grassroots component. Don’t just focus on the high-profile, big-name races and offices. There is a need to have people from out of the political mainstream fill offices and be active on the local level.

Being a part of the local school board, alderman, or an activist applying pressure to city council may not have as much sexiness and political heft as Congress or the presidential race. But such offices and activities are crucial for a fully-functioning independent political movement.

Any serious political effort trying to effect change and to provide an alternative to the two-party system should look local to build its base, and then focus on the national scene once it has already built a solid, grassroots network of local bases.

Cross-posted in An Ordinary Person.

17 Year Old Girl Dies After Insurance Company Interferes With Doctors Care

Another Story of Legal Murder By An American Corporation

This comes just after Bush vetoed an expansion of S-Chip (twice).

This also comes at a time when Americans are close to crowning Hillary Clinton as their next leader...even though she is one of the top recipients of corrupt Lobbying money from the health insurance industry and the drug companies. And she is supposed to reform healthcare? She is supposed to be the "change" candidate?

This is why I believe American voters are politically/intellectually lazy. It's much easier for Americans to be told how to vote (by the Corporate media) than to do their homework and vote for their best interests. This kind of laziness is the reason why the Country is in the hole that it's in now. And with Clinton, the hole will only get deeper. She will sell you out to the Corporations completely....and send you right down the river with no paddle and no life jacket...

I just hope that the people of Iowa are paying attention....

Saturday December 22, 2007
The Guardian

The family of a California teenager plan to sue her health insurer which refused to pay for a liver transplant until hours before and she died on Thursday night.
Her family's lawyer, Mark Geragos, will ask the Los Angeles district attorney to press murder or manslaughter charges against Cigna HealthCare, arguing that the firm "maliciously killed" Nataline Sarkisyan by its reluctance to pay for her treatment. The company reversed its stance after protesters called for a rethink, but the decision came too late.

The 17-year-old from Glendale, California, had been in a coma for weeks after complications following a bone marrow transplant to counter leukaemia.
After the operation, her liver failed and doctors referred her for an emergency transplant. Although she was fully insured and had a matching donor, Cigna refused to pay on the grounds that her healthcare plan "does not cover experimental, investigational and unproven services".

Cigna's rejection on December 11 led Sarkisyan's doctors at UCLA medical centre, including the head of its transplant unit, to write a letter to protest that the treatment which they proposed was neither experimental nor unproven. They called on the firm to urgently review its decision.

In the absence of a response from Cigna, doctors told the Sarkisyan family that the only alternative would be for the family to pay. But they could not afford the immediate down payment of $75,000 (£38,000).

The family, backed by nurses, relatives and Sarkisyan's friends, mounted a protest of 150 people outside Cigna's Glendale offices. "Cigna cannot decide who is going to live and who is going to die," the teenager's mother, Hilda Sarkisyan, told the crowd.

The demo was amplified by an internet campaign orchestrated by the liberal Daily Kos website and other blogs that bombarded Cigna's HQ in Philadephia. In the middle of the rally, a note was handed to Mrs Sarkisyan saying that Cigna had decided to reverse its decision.

"Cigna HealthCare has decided to make an exception in this rare and unusual case and we will provide coverage should she proceed with the requested liver transplant," it said in a statement.
The news drew cheers from the crowd, but they quickly grew sombre when they heard Sarkisyan's condition had deteriorated. A few hours later, her life support was switched off.

"She passed away, and the insurance [company] is responsible for this," Mrs Sarkisyan told the Los Angeles Daily News.

"Why did it take public humiliation for a multibillion-dollar insurance company to force them to provide appropriate medical care?" asked Charles Idelson of the California Nurses Association.

"This is what's wrong with our health system - insurers decide treatment, not doctors."

The protests over Sarkisyan's case point to growing public disenchantment with the healthcare system in America.

Politicians vying to be the Democratic candidate for the presidential race next year have prepared plans for reform to bring the 47 million uninsured Americans into the healthcare net, and to improve terms for those already insured like Sarkisyan.

The subject was given an added boost this summer by Michael Moore's documentary on the state of the American health service, Sicko.

Moore refers to the case of Sarkisyan on his website, under the simple banner: "Justice delayed is justice denied."

Following the teenager's death, Cigna issued another statement yesterday.

"Their loss is immeasurable, and our thoughts and prayers are with them," it said. "We deeply hope that the outpouring of concern, care and love that are being expressed for Nataline's family help them at this time."

The company recently posted figures for its third-quarter performance this year, which showed profits up 22%. Next year it expects to earn an income of up to $1.2bn.


Also See Coverage from Rawstory

Nurses Association Says Cigna Should Have Listened To Her Doctors and Approved The Transplant

Friday, December 21, 2007

Sometimes, the picture IS the post

Sometimes, a picture is worth 1,000 words.

Never have I agreed with The American Conservative more than with this cover. Though the GOP Field brings with its fair share of folks that I wouldn't like, I hope the GOP voters have the sense NOT to nominate Rudy. NOBODY who has given refuge and comfort to the Architects of the Iraq War, welcoming them into the busom of his campaign, should be a credible candidate.

Thursday, December 20, 2007

Just in case you thought Kerrey's apology MEANT ANYTHING

Here is Bob Kerrey's insincere apology to Barack Obama:

Dear Barack,

I want to sincerely apologize for the remarks I made on Sunday in Council Bluffs, Iowa, after an event at which I endorsed Senator Hillary Clinton's Presidential candidacy. I answered a question about your qualifications to be President in a way that has been interpreted as a backhanded insult of you. I assure you I meant to do just the opposite.

After you and I met during your primary campaign for the Senate, I wrote a public letter in which I said that that you were among the two or three most talented people I have ever met in politics. Nothing in your performance in the Senate or your campaign for the Presidency has altered that view.

The question I was asked in Iowa on Sunday was something like this: "Senator Kerrey, you ran for President in your first term in the Senate. If you were qualified, why isn't Senator Obama?" With the benefit of my computer's capacity to make certain that my words reflect my belief let me answer that question in this letter which you are free to use anyway you choose.

You are exceptionally qualified by experience and judgment to be President of the United States. I do not doubt that you would use the power of the Presidency to bring peace and prosperity to as many people as possible on our fragile planet. You inspire my highest hopes for that office's potential: That it be used as a force for good in America and the world.

It is your capacity to inspire hope that is your greatest God given talent. Without spending a dime of tax payer's money or changing a single law your presence in the Oval Office will send a clear and compelling message to four groups of people who will be altered for good as a consequence. That was what I was trying to say on Sunday and what I hope I said more clearly in this letter.

Again, I am sorry for the insult and wish you the best on January 3 and beyond.

Merry Christmas to you and your family.

Respectfully yours,

Bob Kerrey

Here you go- proof that it's not worth spit:

Clinton Launches Obama Attack Web Sites

ABC News has learned that the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has registered the names of two Web sites with the express goal of attacking her chief rival, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

It's the first time this election cycle a presidential campaign has launched a Web site with the express purpose of of launching serious criticisms on a rival.

And, just to sum it all up for the readers, especially those who stand there, and go, ' you Obama folks are just ' too sensitive', a reader of Andrew Sullivan's summed it up quite well:

So far this month Mrs. Clinton has "apologized" for two Iowa county volunteer coordinators' forwarding Obama-is-a-Muslim emails; Bill Shaheen does the Obama-is-a-druggie routine; Howard Wolfson goes on national TV and repeats it; Bill Clinton says we're "rolling the dice" with Obama, and now Kerrey is "apologizing" for his Obama-went-to-a-Madrassa remarks. This many events in a three-week span indicate a coherent plan. If one accepts Mrs. Clinton's explanations that these events are not what they obviously are, then the only other explanation would seem to be that she cannot control her campaign staff. That seems fairly incompetent leadership for someone who claims to be ready to lead on day one.

Like I've said before....ISOLATED incidents can only be qualified as such, when they remain ISOLATED. When they stop being ISOLATED and begin to form a PATTERN, then accept the PATTERN and what it tells you.

The Southern Strategy, and its racist underbelly, is all the same, whether used in Mississippi & Georgia, or in this case, IOWA AND NEW HAMPSHIRE.

Clinton Acolytes' Racist Attacks
The Real Race Card

Cross-posted at BrownIowa.

Flipping Mitt LIED about his father and MLK, Jr.

He frigging LIED about his father and Martin Luther King, Jr.

Remember his Meet the Press moment about his father and Martin Luther King, Jr.

"You can see what I believed and what my family believed by looking at our lives. My dad marched with Martin Luther King. My mom was a tireless crusader for civil rights."


This guy is gives snake oil salesman a bad name.

The actual article is here: Romney fields questions on King

Money Quote:

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has said he watched his father, the late Michigan Gov. George Romney, in a 1960s civil rights march in Michigan with Martin Luther King Jr.

On Wednesday, Romney's campaign said his recollections of watching his father, an ardent civil rights supporter, march with King were meant to be figurative.

"He was speaking figuratively, not literally," Eric Fehrnstrom, spokesman for the Romney campaign, said of the candidate


If we're speaking FIGURATIVELY, then I can say I hung out with Harriet Tubman, Booker T, and W.E.B. DuBois.



Andrew Sullivan really explains it well:
There really is a character issue here. Romney is at almost Clinton levels of deception. He has become so used to trying to say what people want to hear that he has lost all touch with actual reality.

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Support For Edwards Growing In Iowa

This supports what I have been saying all along. Now that we are getting close to Caucus night, Iowans are giving Edwards a closer look.

He now leads in the State according to a Poll released today.... although, as I stated, Polls don't mean much. However, it means a little more for Edwards, because he is the most viable candidate of the top three. The survey also indicates that he leads among "second choices".

Read more here.

John Edwards Is In A Good Position To Take Iowa

You read it here first :)

Expanding on an earlier post...

I am glad Iowa is first in the election (or coronation) process.

I don't have much confidence in Iowa's voters necessarily.... American voters as a whole are a little lazy when it comes to politics, being aware of the actual issues, and when it comes to why they support certain candidates. I saw one e-mail that someone sent to CNN a few days ago which stated that they were supporting Hillary Clinton because they loved the Bill Clinton years. NOT because of her policy positions, actual experience, platform, campaigning, background, track record, honesty, etc. Go figure! I think I mentioned this idiocy before...about Americans having a habit of voting for symbols & last names instead of Candidates & policies. This is how we ended up with George W... people thought they were voting for George H.W. These are two different men, supported by different cadres of people, with different views of the world, and are men with VERY different experience levels. Talk about novice vs. Powerful Statesman/Master Politician.

In fact, I don't have much of a reason to feel confident about anything related to the corrupt and undemocratic American political system. Based on the facts about America's broken political system and all the nonsense that I have seen, I probably should not have any hope when it comes to John Edwards. But it is Iowa's system that gives me a little more confidence about Edwards's chances there. I don't like making predictions, but for months now I have been saying that Iowa was an opportunity for Edwards to make a good showing. Although, he believes that he is lagging and that he is not where he had planned to be in Iowa at this point. A guy named Obama ruined the show. But Edwards will probably be able to weather the challenge from Obama.

Why is Edwards still in the race? Because Polls mean little in the Iowa Caucus process. Throw the Polls out of the window.

I hate to use wikipedia for anything, but it provided the clearest, most succinct description of the Caucus process that I have found online. I was going to explain it myself, but I started to develop a headache about halfway through. So just how does the Iowa Caucus process work?

"The Iowa caucus operates very differently from the more common primary election used by most other states. The caucus is generally defined as a "gathering of neighbors." Rather than going to polls and casting ballots, Iowans gather at a set location in each of Iowa's 1784 precincts. Typically, these meetings occur in schools, churches, or public libraries. The caucuses are held every two years, but the ones that receive national attention are the presidential preference caucuses held every four years. In addition to the voting, caucus attendees propose planks for their party's platform, select members of the county committees, and discuss issues important to their local organizations.

Unlike the first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary, the Iowa caucus does not result directly in national delegates for each candidate. Instead, caucus-goers elect delegates to county conventions, who elect delegates to district and state conventions where the national convention delegates are selected.

The Republicans and Democrats each hold their own set of caucuses subject to their own particular rules that change from time to time. Participants in each party's caucuses must be registered with that party. Participants can change their registration at the caucus location. Additionally, 17-year-olds can participate, as long as they will be 18 years old by the date of the general election. Observers are allowed to attend, as long as they do not become actively involved in the debate and voting process.

The process used by the Democrats is more complicated than the Republican Party caucus process. Each precinct divides its delegate seats among the candidates in proportion to caucus goers' votes.

Participants indicate their support for a particular candidate by standing in a designated area of the caucus site (forming a "preference group"). An area may also be designated for undecided participants. Then, for roughly 30 minutes, participants try to convince their neighbors to support their candidates. Each preference group might informally deputize a few members to recruit supporters from the other groups and, in particular, from among those undecided. Undecided participants might visit each preference group to ask its members about their candidate.

After 30 minutes, the electioneering is temporarily halted and the supporters for each candidate are counted. At this point, the caucus officials determine which candidates are "viable". Depending on the number of county delegates to be elected, the "viability threshold" can be anywhere from 15% to 25% of attendees. For a candidate to receive any delegates from a particular precinct, he or she must have the support of at least that many caucus participants in that precinct. Once viability is determined, participants have roughly another 30 minutes to "realign": the supporters of inviable candidates may find a viable candidate to support, join together with supporters of another inviable candidate to secure a delegate for one of the two, or choose to abstain. This "realignment" is a crucial distinction of caucuses in that (unlike a primary) being a voter's "second candidate of choice" can help a candidate.

When the voting is closed, a final head count is conducted, and each precinct apportions delegates to the county convention. These numbers are reported to the state party, which counts the total number of delegates for each candidate and reports the results to the media. Most of the participants go home, leaving a few to finish the business of the caucus: each preference group elects its delegates, and then the groups reconvene to elect local party officers and discuss the platform.

The delegates chosen by the precinct then go to a later caucus, the county convention, to choose delegates to the district convention and state convention. Most of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention are selected at the district convention, with the remaining ones selected at the state convention. Delegates to each level of convention are initially bound to support their chosen candidate but can later switch in a process very similar to what goes on at the precinct level; however, as major shifts in delegate support are rare, the media declares the candidate with the most delegates on the precinct caucus night the winner, and relatively little attention is paid to the later caucuses."

Here is a similar explanation from

The Iowa Caucus is not a vote like you would see in a typical primary. The Caucus is a deliberative process that is very fluid. The January Caucus will probably be one of the most contentious Caucuses in years.

There are several things about the Caucus process that are in Edwards's favor:

#1. 17 year olds can participate (as long as they will be 18 by election time). Edwards has a strong following from young Iowans.... just like Obama. The media has counted on new, young Iowans to stay home. This is a mistake in my opinion. This Caucus will be different. A new generation is coming into its own. The war in Iraq, Climate change, and other issues have awaken young people. Young folks are now taking matters into their own hands. Edwards connected with young people early in his campaign. Edwards also has an impressive plan for dealing with Climate change. His advocacy for the poor and middle class is also appealing. Young people don't have the same connection to Clinton. She represents the "business as usual", "old guard" to many teens and 20 somethings. I believe young folks will shock the nation come Caucus night.

#2. In more ways than one, Iowans use "viability" as part of their process. From a technical point of view, each candidates group will have to garner at least 15% in the first round of the Caucus process in order to remain viable. This will almost surely make this a 3 way race early. Edwards has a chance to pick up support from the unviable groups... Richardson is close to the Clintons and may give his support to Hillary. But the others may go for Edwards. In addition to that support, he may also get support from undecideds.... which could be 10% or more of the total participants. When you add support from the undecided's and from the other candidates who didn't make the cut, Edwards could have enough to win.

Also, there is another viability test that is important to Iowans. That viability test has to do with who would be the strongest candidate in a general election. Hillary has too many negatives. And great as he is, may be too vulnerable as a general election candidate. Although I would love to see him as a VP. The Republicans (and even some Democrats) are already starting to use dirty tricks against Obama. And the colorline is still very present in much as some people would like to ignore it, or wish it away. Could Obama generate the kind of wide geographical support needed for a General election? Probably not. Iowans will figure this out very quickly and will go to an alternate choice. Many Obama supporters will likely switch to Edwards before the end of the night. They certainly won't support Hillary.

Edwards may not only win Iowa...but he may win in convincing fashion.

#3. From what I have read/heard, Edwards has a broader distribution of support throughout the State than the other candidates, especially from rural areas. Obama has support from more isolated pockets. Broad distribution of support is more important in the Caucus process than concentrated areas of support. Edward's campaigning in 2003 and 2004, as well as his early campaigning in 2007 may have paid off.

#4. Clinton is an establishment figure. I believe the people of Iowa are seeking a break from the establishment. They want a "change" candidate. Edwards and Obama are both stronger than Clinton when it comes to who represents change. Plus her support is moving down at the wrong time right time :)..., and her campaign has turned ugly in recent weeks. She had a few incidents that hurt her in Iowa.... her scolding of an Iowa voter who asked her a question was a bad move. Iowans don't like being lectured to from outsiders. They also probably didn't care for the planted questions from her staff.

#5. Edwards is polling strong against potential Republican opponents.

#6. Edwards may do better with independents in a general election... a crucial point that Iowans will be looking at. Independents are important for a Democratic victory.

#7. Edwards may be able to carry more purple States....or at least as many as Clinton could carry. Being able to carry purple States, like my home State of Missouri, will be crucial for Democrats. They have to flip (and are poised to flip) at least 3-4 States that they didn't flip in 2004. Democrats cannot afford to have another close election like 2000, and 2004. Missouri, Ohio, Florida, Tennessee, Nevada, New Mexico (and a few others) could go to the Democrats. Edwards may be the best candidate to do it.

I'm just afraid that during the deliberations... the other establishment candidates will throw their support behind the chosen "establishment" front-runner, Hillary order to make sure power stays in the hands of the establishment camp. In other words, Richardson, Dodd, & Biden may encourage their supporters to go for Clinton. But if Edwards and Obama put their heads together.... they can team up to prevent this from happening or at least prevent Clinton from winning if this does happen. I hope Obama will be willing to swallow his pride and take one for the people.... and that goes for Edwards as well if Iowans choose Obama as the strongest candidate...although I don't really see that happening.

Here is a video from the Edwards camp that explains the process.

Additional Reading About the Caucus Process

Bob Kerrey on Barack Obama - A Modest Translation

From Jill Tubman over at Jack and Jill Politics:


rikyrah just wrote on this. I give her props and just want to echo and deconstruct what Bob Kerrey said. Cuz let me tell y'all something -- black folk can hear a dog whistle just as well as whatsoever pitifully few ignant, fearful country whites in Iowa to whom Kerrey is signaling and might actually respond to this lizard-brained level of thought. It's something African-Americans have learned to do out of a spirit of sheer self-preservation. Which is to listen very carefully.

Thus, I give you select passages and my translation -- hear's what Bob Kerrey was actually saying with an astonishing glib insincerity to the public on CNN:

"I have a very high regard for Senator Obama..."

Translation: In no way, shape or form therefore could anything I am about to say (or repeat) possibly be construed as racist...

"[...] As an African-American, he can speak in an authentic way to underperforming black youth who I think will follow his example."

The niggers are coming! The Niggers are COMING! NIGGERS!!! And they will be emboldened by Barack Obama (didn't he say he sold drugs? or maybe he just used them, whatever) to rob your stores, rape your daughters and generally run amok. Crime! Lowered property values! NIGGERS!

And of course:

"I’ve watched the blogs try to say that you can’t trust him because he spent a little bit of time in a secular madrassa. I feel quite the opposite — I think it’s a tremendous strength. Whether he’s in the United States Senate or whether he’s in the White House, I think it’s a tremendous asset for him."

Translation: Did I mention there are a billion sand niggers, ahem, Muslims?! Better kiss any hope of immigration restrictions or successful war on terrorism goodbye because guess who's coming to dinner and getting a green card from Cousin Barack Hussein? No matter what he claims to be, fact is -- he's one of them! He lived with them. He went to school with them -- he is related to them. Elect him and expect your kids to be speaking Arabic at school and worshiping Allah in the not so distant future. NIGGERS!

Peep more analysis and video over at
Huffington Post
and Think Progress..

Honestly though, I have a soft spot for the Clintons. And this just makes me ashamed of them. That they would stoop so low as to send out a surrogate to say such things. It's also a risky and desperate strategy that they have to know will alienate black votes which they must hope to compensate for with a higher number of scared white votes. They should know better.

It will say a lot to me if Hillary fails to distance herself from a man who continues to defend the invasion of Iraq as necessary and justified (as recently as May 2007!) and who sided with President Bush on privatizing Social Security saying in the Wall Street Journal in 2005 after the re-election of Bush --

There is no doubt that Social Security and Medicare are two of liberalism's most enduring and popular triumphs. And there is no doubt that a vocal and influential minority remains true to its strong conservative belief that the Social Security Act of 1935 and the 1965 amendments to this act, which created Medicare and Medicaid, represent socialistic and dangerous interferences with the marketplace. However, liberals are wrong to fear that President Bush's proposal represents a threat to Social Security.

I sincerely hope they do not merely defend their proudest achievement. I hope they see that President Bush is giving them an opportunity to finally do something about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

Ugh...when black is white and positive is negative. Are we in 1984 yet?

Monday, December 17, 2007

Obama 'Willie Horton' Watch - Back to the Muslim Smear Today

From Marc Ambinder:

Speaking on CNN tonight:

BOB KERREY: "It's something by the way I have told Barack Obama when I've met with him. It something that I've spoken about before. So this is not something that just sort of came out of the head birth out there in Iowa. I've thought about it a great deal. I've watched the blogs try to say that you can't trust him because he spent a little bit of time in a secular madrassa. I feel quite the opposite. I feel it's a tremendous strength whether he is in the United States Senate or whether he's in the White House, I think it's a tremendous asset for him.


You can be naive if you want to be. But then, I'll be telling you that you're a fool. It's all part of a coordinated effort. Remember now, not one, but TWO people have had to quit for spreading the Madrassa LIE in the Clinton campaign. And now, they have Kerrey talking about it.

If you can't see a hit job when it's in front of your face, then I feel bad for you. It's marching orders from Hillary and Company.

Cross-posted at BrownIowa

Sunday, December 16, 2007

Bill Clinton on Charlie Rose about Obama - ' Who does he think he is?'

Bill Clinton took to the airwaves on The Charlie Rose Show. Basically, it was an attack fest on Barack Obama, with more than a little subtext of ' Who does he think he is, running for President?'

UPDATE: Bill Clinton, on 'Charlie Rose' Show, Suggests Obama Not Ready -- Obama Responds

NEW YORK In a surprisingly frank interview with Charlie Rose on his PBS show late Friday night, former President Bill Clinton declared that his wife was not only far better prepared to be president than her chief rival Sen. Barack Obama -- "it's not close" -- but that voters who disagreed would be taking a "risk" if they picked the latter.

Repeatedly dismissive of Obama -- which could come back to haunt the Clinton campaign -- the former president at one point said that voters were, of course, free to pick someone with little experience, even "a gifted television commentator" who would have just "one year less" experience in national service than Obama. He had earlier pointed out that Obama had started to run for president just one year into his first term in the U.S. Senate.

He praised Obama's intelligence and "sensational political skills" but repeatedly suggested that, unlike his wife and some of the other candidates, he might not be ready for the job. Asked directly about that, Clinton refused to state it bluntly, but did point out that when he was elected president in 1992 at about the same age as Obama, he was the "senior governor" in the U.S. and had worked for years on international business issues. Viewers could draw their own conclusions.

Asked if Obama was ready to be president, Clinton failed to endorse that view, saying, "Well the voters have to make up their mind." He added that "even when I was a governor and young and thought I was the best politician in the Democratic Party, I didn't run the first time. I could have."

Later he said that his friends in the Republican party had indicated that they felt his wife would be the strongest candidate, partly because she had already been "vetted" -- another subtle slap at Obama.

Also: He said the most important thing to judge was who would be "the best agent for change" not merely a "symbol for change....symbol is not as important as substance."

He also hit back at the charge that experienced politicians had helped get us into the Iraq war, saying that this was "like saying that because 100 percent of the malpractice cases are committed by doctors, the next time I need surgery I'll get a chef or a plumber to do it."


Rest of article is HERE.

Ok, here I go. I was trying to be nice, but no more.

I want someone to tell me, exactly what EXPERIENCE does Hillary Clinton have?

Are you going to try and make it that her being MARRIED to Bill Clinton counts as experience?

Are you?

Being MARRIED to someone is experience?

If that's the case, then sign me up for the Laura Bush for Governor of Texas Exploratory Committe. Laura Bush will have the said EXPERIENCE that Hillary Clinton had when she ran for the U.S. Senate.

Exactly what the hell did she do as First Lady?

Oops, that right, we don't exactly know what is part of Hillary's 'EXPERIENCE', because they won't release her papers showing what she did as First Lady.

We DO know that the ONE thing she was assigned to do- Health Care-


Not only in terms of results, but her APPROACH.

Secret Meetings.
Not willing to tell how it was organized.

Does this approach remind you of anyone? Oh yeah, Dick Cheney.

This is her natural instinct. This is her style. This is her EXPERIENCE.

Hate it with Cheney. Hillary is no better.

So, let's go to ELECTIVE experience.

She has ONE full term of elected office. ONE term in the Senate. That's it.

She got it because?

Because she was married to Bill Clinton.

She's gotten everything in her professional life because of WHO SHE WAS MARRIED TO.


She walked into NYC, and ran on her husband's coattails.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, wasn't even completely well known on the South Side of Chicago, let alone the state, when he ran. But, he did the hard work. The grunt work, going from town to town, winning over the voters, until he earned the Democratic Nomination.

Same thing for President.

She expected a coronation.

Barack Obama wants to be elected.

Huge difference.

He's done the work for it; going state to state, raising the money - FROM THE PEOPLE - not PACS or Lobbyists - FROM THE PEOPLE. He put together the organization, state by state, from the ground up. Doing the hard work. Doing the grunt work. Presenting himself to the American people, and trusting them to respond.And, they have.

Is part of the ' Experience' mantra of Bill Clinton, is that HE'S part of the experience?

So, you're telling me that the reason we should elect the first FEMALE President is because she'll bring ALONG A MAN TO HELP HER?

Hillary Clinton's EXPERIENCE can be whittled down to 2 pivotal moments:
1. Her handling of Health Care
2. Her vote on the Iraq War - a vote in which she has NEVER APOLOGIZED FOR.

Don't we already have a President that makes bad decisions, and refuses to live up to the mistakes that they bring? Why the hell would we elect another? And, she was on her way TO IRAN, until the NIE came out.


Let's get this straight, once and for all.

IF you tell me that you're choosing a candidate based upon ELECTABILITY - then you should be going with JOHN EDWARDS - you see that, in the history of the United States, there has never been anyone elected other than a White Male, and he's a White Male.

I wouldn't like it. I would think you were wrong. BUT, I wouldn't think that you've lost your mind.

BUT, do not try and shill me, that, a woman who HALF THE COUNTRY has already told you, they will NEVER VOTE FOR, is the one that is most ELECTABLE.

This is a year out from the November 2008 elections, and HALF THE COUNTRY has told you they will NEVER vote for her - and, in what world, does that make her more ELECTABLE?

I am not naive. I fully know that Barack Obama could be a victim of a ' Bradley Effect'. But, for him to get where Hillary is RIGHT NOW TODAY....the 'Bradley Effect' would have to the size of a TSUNAMI.

I'll remind people again.

Barack Obama is NO OLDER than when Bill Clinton won the Presidency in 1992.


Barack Obama was a Senator from a state with 12 million people.

Bill Clinton was Governor of a state of only 3 million people.

Who had a harder road to tow to election?

Obama's response?

Obama throws back Bill Clinton's 1992 quote in his face.......
Q: Can you respond to President Clinton's comments last night when he asked when was the last time we elected a president with less than a year of service in the Senate before running for president. Can you respond?

OBAMA: Well look this is an argument they have been making during the duration of this campaign. I guess, here is a quote: (he reads) 'The same old experience is irreverent, you can have right kind of experience or the wrong kind of experience and mine is rooted in the real lives of real people and it will bring real results if we have the courage to change' ... and that was Bill Clinton in 1992.

Other comments from Obama:

Obama cites 'over a decade' of experience
“And I’ve been involved in government for over a decade,” replied Obama.

The Illinois senator said he had "the experience that the country needs right now, of bringing people together, pushing against the special interests, of speaking to the American people about what needs to be done to move the country forward."

When asked about Sen. Clinton’s reference to possible “surprises” coming out about her rivals for the nomination, Obama said, referring to the senator and the ex-president, “The argument they’re making is that they’ve been around a long time. So whatever negative information is out there, people already know about. The assumption, then, is that lurking in other candidates’ pasts that haven’t been around for 20 years there might be something.”

But Obama said “I’ve probably been more reported on than any political figure in the country over the last year … I hardly think that I’ve been under-exposed during the course of this race.”

He added, “I understand there’s a history of politics being all about slash and burn…. I recall what the Clintons themselves called the ‘politics of personal destruction’ -- which they decried. My suspicion is that that’s just not where the country is at right now. They are not interested in politics as a blood sport; they’re interested in governance and solving problems” such as job creation and product safety.

The sense of ENTITLEMENT REEKED from Clinton during the Charlie Rose interview. And, that is exactly why he, and his wife, need to be sent packing. She is NOT ENTITLED to be PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES because she suffered the public humiliation of his philandering.

This is as nice as I can be. There was another undercurrent in that interview, but maybe I'm too ' sensitive' as a Black person and picked up on it. If any other Black folk saw the interview, maybe they'll tell me if they picked up on the undercurrent too.......

Saturday, December 15, 2007

Congresswoman Julia Carson has Passed Away

Rep. Julia Carson Dies at 69
2 hours ago

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Rep. Julia Carson, the first black and first woman to represent Indianapolis in Congress, died Saturday, a family spokeswoman said. She was 69.

Carson died after a battle with lung cancer, spokeswoman Vanessa Summer said.

Carson announced last month that she was diagnosed with terminal lung cancer and that she would not run next year for a seventh term representing Indianapolis' 7th District. She had not been in Washington since September, when she was hospitalized with a leg infection.

She had said that she expected to return to Washington after recuperating, but a doctor then diagnosed that her lung cancer, which had been in remission, was back.

Carson was first elected to Congress in 1996. She championed children's issues, women's rights and efforts to reduce homelessness and was a staunch opponent of the war in Iraq.

Carson was born to a single mother who worked as a housekeeper. She graduated in 1955 from the same segregated high school school as basketball star Oscar Robertson.

She began her political career in the 1960s when then-Rep. Andy Jacobs Jr. hired her to work in his office. Jacobs encouraged Carson to run for the Indiana Legislature in 1972 — the first of more than two dozen victories in local, legislative and congressional elections. She ran for Congress in 1996 after Jacobs retired.

Funeral arrangements were pending.

Friday, December 14, 2007

Is Hillary Clinton trying to 'Willie Horton' Barack Obama?

In case you haven't been paying attention to politics in the past few days, the former head of Hillary Clinton's campaign in New Hampshire, Bill Shaheen, 'resigned' because of remarks that he made about Barack Obama.

Per the WashingtonPost, here is the money quote:
Shaheen said Obama's candor on the subject would "open the door" to further questions. "It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'" Shaheen said. "There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome."

Now, numerous previous candidates have admitted to drug use. George W. Bush spent the better part of TWENTY YEARS under some sort of influence, be it booze or drugs, and nobody EVER ASKED HIM THIS QUESTION.

But, THE BLACK MAN, who has TWO Ivy League Degrees, is ASKED IF HE'S A DRUG DEALER?

But, if Sheehan was 'acting solo'/ 'going rogue', then what the hell was Mark Penn doing on Hardball with the same slime, not an hour AFTER the debate was over.

Thanks to our friend, sagereader, over at Think On These Things, breaks it down in this post: Evidence That Clinton Camp’s Attack On Obama’s Drug Use Was Deliberate

The title of this post comes from a reply at Jack and Jill.

NMP asked:
The larger question for the hankerchief heads, as you like to call them, supporting Hillary Clinton is will they join her in effectively using a Wille Horton on Obama...using the unjust incarceration of mostly Black men as a wedge issue to scare White folks against Obama?

I have written about Hillary Clinton's stance AGAINST retroactivity with regards to drug sentencing HERE.

Here is the money quote from Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic:

Campaign aides have said that Obama's support for retroactivity in drug sentences would kill him with tough-on-crime white independents. But the Supreme Court, in a 7 to 2 decision yesterday that included Antonin Scalia, endorsed the view that judges could ignore sentencing guidelines when handing down prison terms for distributing crack versus powder cocaine, and a Bush administration panel today voted seven to nothing to impose retroactivity.

Now, her choice puts her to the RIGHT of SCALIA. It's going to be on the backs of Black Men and Women - who are the ones disproportionately incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses. She'll prove her ELECTABILITY by proving how many BLACK FOLK she can keep locked up.

First scaring the White folk in Iowa with the Obama is a Drug Dealer smear, then once she's won that, have her Handkerchief Heads, come front and center, about why Black folk should vote for her, after she's vowed to keep standing, one of the most obvious and blatant examples of Racial Disparity in the Justice System.

We must suffer through this racist BS when it comes from a Republican.

But, I’ll be damned if I’m going to suffer through it from a Democrat.

PS- And, don't forget, that not one, but TWO folks have had to resign in Iowa because of the Madrassa LIE.

Cross-posted at Brown Iowa

Comics Roundup

Click To Enlarge

Final Democratic Debate In Iowa

The Democratic candidates squared off in Iowa for the last time last night.

I was a little disappointed about Dennis Kucinich not being there. It seems as though they designed the rules to specifically exclude certain people.... Kucinich had a tendancy to tell the truth about the other candidates (something that the powers that be in the DNC probably didn't want in the final Debate).
See Review of debate from Congressional Quarterly

Winners/Losers From the Washington Post