One columnist's take. If he's right, the right-wingers may be cooked. And wouldn't that be loverly!
From The Times Online
November 4, 2008
Four reasons why America went for Obama
The old politics has been swept away because the voters themselves have changed: they are richer, smarter and less white
Daniel Finkelstein
In the late summer of 2004 I sat down for dinner with a friend who was running the Republican Senate campaign in Illinois. He looked disconsolate. Things were not going well.
The Republicans hadn't had much luck with their candidate. Their first nominee had been forced to stand down when his wife accused him of taking her to sex clubs with a view to having sex in public. The man who succeeded him was a hardline Christian who declared that Jesus would not support a Democrat and attacked the Vice-President's lesbian daughter for being a “selfish hedonist”.
Strangely, however, that wasn't why my friend believed they were being routed. The real reason was that the Democratic candidate was brilliant, flawless, a rock star, a phenomenon. And that was when I first heard the name of Barack Obama, now President Elect.
One reading of this election is that it has been an ordinary contest transformed by an extraordinary candidate. America remains the same, runs this theory. It is still an innately conservative nation. The reason this election has been different - and has ended up with the victory of such an apparently unlikely man - is because of the talents and failings of the candidates involved.
This is not a theory I accept. This election has turned out as it did because it needed to. The emergence of Barack Obama only happened, only could have happened, because America is changing profoundly. This was not a landmark election because it featured exceptional candidates. It featured exceptional candidates because it was a landmark election.
Here's how America has changed:
The American people are becoming, literally, a different people.
The most obvious change exposed by this election is in attitudes to race. Little more than 40 years ago Barack Obama would have found it hard to be served lunch in a restaurant, let alone be US president.
In 1962 Alabama Democrats chose George Wallace as their candidate for governor and a few months later he was sworn in, standing on the gold star placed on the spot where, a century earlier, Jefferson Davis had been sworn in as President of the Confederate States of America. And Wallace had this to say: “I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation for ever.”
Segregation did not last for ever. It did not even outlast George Wallace. And in 2008 Alabama Democrats chose Barack Obama for president.
The traditional politics of white America are being tranformed. The country is changing demographically, rapidly and visibly. US Census Bureau figures suggest that, by 2042, white Americans will be in a minority.
Karl Rove, George Bush's strategist, has long been convinced that the Republicans had to co-opt the Hispanic community or the party would suffer badly in future. That is one reason why, against the instincts of his party, Mr Bush supported a liberal policy on immigration, one that John McCain backed too.
America will never be the same again, because Americans won't be the same.
The world is changing and with it America's place in the world.
America remains the greatest single power in the world, yet the rise of China, the new belligerence of Russia and the wealth of the Gulf set this election in a very different context to its predecessors.
In this election America was not looking simply for a candidate able to command its forces as it enjoyed undisputed hegemony. It was more anxious than that. It was looking for a leader, like Mr Obama, who could command and might deserve the respect of the world.
The crisis in the financial markets only added to that feeling. For the first time in a generation the free market ideal and its advocates were on the back foot.
American politics is being captured by the rising middle class.
For 40 years American politics has been shaped by the split in the Democratic Party over civil rights. Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy, launched at the end of the 1960s, was to bring over to the Republicans disaffected voters from the segregationist states. It was almost completely successful.
Democratic presidents such as Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John Kennedy had united the liberal North with the poor and dispossessed whites of the deep South. After the Civil Rights Act this link was broken. And Democrats struggled without this source of southern support.
Yet slowly what one might term a mass chattering class has emerged to make a northern liberal candidate like Mr Obama viable as they had not been since Kennedy. A record number of Americans now complete high school or go to college. There are 7.3 million American millionaires, and more than half the country now considers itself middle class and is working less and enjoying more leisure time. Even to be competitive with these voters the Republicans had to select an unconventional candidate. And still he lost.
We have reached the end of the Southern Strategy and that changes American politics profoundly.
The conventional Republican agenda has stopped working.
The big themes of Republican politics - cut income tax, fight crime, reform social security, outlaw abortion, support marriage - no longer cut it politically. The Democrat tunes play better.
Tax cutting has lost its edge because 29 million Americans pay no income tax at all and because the Democrats have learnt how to blunt the message. Success has made crime less of a preoccupation. And the desperate need for Republicans to win votes among women makes their stance on abortion a serious problem.
The Republicans were forced to select a maverick because they did not have an electable mainstream Republican candidate. This was because the mainstream Republican agenda is no longer a winner.
Welcome to a new American president. Welcome to a new American politics.
daniel.finkelstein@thetimes.co.uk
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Friday, November 07, 2008
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Update re Mark Crispin Miller
Ok. Though he hasn't responded to my reply to his unjust and totally unfounded accusation that I'm a covert Bush lover (makes my skin crawl & itch & my legs buckle), he apparently hasn't removed me from receiving his newsletters. I gather for once there were no newsletters dated yesterday.
My question still remains: Why do Obama supporters assume that everyone who questions him is either a Clinton supporter (and therefor pro Bush) or a conservative deadhead, or maybe a racist? Nobody's answered this. I continue to be crapped off by assumptions and blind faith. Today, I argued with a Clinton supporter who thinks she's going to make waves. David, as you recognize, it's highly unlikely that either Democrat will make waves unless they're of the tsunami variety.
PAX AND WAKE UP, AMERICA!
My question still remains: Why do Obama supporters assume that everyone who questions him is either a Clinton supporter (and therefor pro Bush) or a conservative deadhead, or maybe a racist? Nobody's answered this. I continue to be crapped off by assumptions and blind faith. Today, I argued with a Clinton supporter who thinks she's going to make waves. David, as you recognize, it's highly unlikely that either Democrat will make waves unless they're of the tsunami variety.
PAX AND WAKE UP, AMERICA!
Friday, April 25, 2008
Obama Rah Rah Rah --- Mark Crispin Miller: I'm now a tacit Bush supporter.
I've been a huge fan of Mark's and have attended 3 of his shows in NYC. I also invited him to speak at Hunter College of Social Work which he did and my FIRST KGB reading way back when, which was a wonderful presentation. So now, I think probably he's blocked me from receiving his newsletter because he's bought the OBAMA-PROGRESSIVE CHANGE hype I don't buy. And not because I'm a fan of Clinton's. I've told everyone: I'm not a fan of H R Clinton's. For awhile, I said I was opting for her, as I couldn't tolerate (and still can't tolerate) the misogynistic remarks by the Press and others. Then, I said NO. I can't believe in either "Democrat" as someone I'd be content to support. But that's no good. According to Miller, who's now (apparently) gone WOW WOW OBAMA, I'm a tacit Bush supporter.
Here's the exchange. In response to his dissemation of:
"I believe you might enjoy my article Clintons' Blind Eye to Voters at OpEdNews:
"Even Hillary's endorser, Bobby Kennedy, Jr., knows there's something funny
about the pattern of her wins."
Barbara Bellows-TerraNova"
I responded:
Ho Hum. Whenever Clinton wins, there's even more "Hillary" bashing. Well not really. Whenever she loses, everyone wants to shoo her out of the race, so Obama the alleged progressive (whose mentor was hawk Lieberman & who voted for the Patriot Act, and who has a plenty of corporate ties) will be the only candidate. Crap. Btw, why don't people call Obama by his first name? I'm tearing my hairs out, as I don't like any of the candidates and i'm well aware of Machiavellian Repugnican maneuvers, but I'm so so tired of the "Hillary" bashings. And both "Democratic" candidates have run negative campaigns. So get off your lame horses already! What else is new in Ameerica? Where's the leadership of the D party? What's Dean doing? Get over it!
And here was Mark's reply:
You're for Clinton--in fact, you think you are Clinton--so anything
her campaign does is okay.
Between you and a fervent Bush supporter there's no difference.
___
So then, I responded but got no answer, and I've received no posts from the group or a personal reply from Mark. So what am I to think? Here was my answer:
You're misreading me, Mark, and I don't know why. I'm not for Clinton. I said that. And I'm certainly NOT Clinton. That's a strange accusation.. At one point, I decided to back her, reluctantly, due to all the misogynistic attacks. Then I just couldn't. She's way too conservative for my tastes. I think C and O both play dirty and I hate her campaign. And I've said that. I just don't like the fact that Obama's hoodwinked lots of people into thinking he's progressive when he's not. If he gets in (and I'll vote for him if he's the nominee), I'm afraid he's going to disappoint lots of people. What's wrong with questioning people's assumptions? You do that. But when I say anything negative about Obama, I get skewered. What's going on?
_____________
Where are we at? I'm very much an admirer of Mark and I definitely believe that the last two elections were stolen. But I don't know what to do with Obama bandwagon stereotyping. Face it, friends. Neither candidate is progressive. Neither is what we need: an intense, heart/mind driven, ideologically/philosophically driven candidate who's going to MAKE A DIFFERENCE and even do whatever s/he can to ensure that global warming is (if possible) reversed. I AM SO SO TIRED OF OBAMA SUPPORTERS WHO LABEL ME A BUSHkike CONSERVATIVE or otherwise dismiss me totally FOR QUESTIONING HIS VERACITY.
Here's the exchange. In response to his dissemation of:
"I believe you might enjoy my article Clintons' Blind Eye to Voters at OpEdNews:
"Even Hillary's endorser, Bobby Kennedy, Jr., knows there's something funny
about the pattern of her wins."
Barbara Bellows-TerraNova"
I responded:
Ho Hum. Whenever Clinton wins, there's even more "Hillary" bashing. Well not really. Whenever she loses, everyone wants to shoo her out of the race, so Obama the alleged progressive (whose mentor was hawk Lieberman & who voted for the Patriot Act, and who has a plenty of corporate ties) will be the only candidate. Crap. Btw, why don't people call Obama by his first name? I'm tearing my hairs out, as I don't like any of the candidates and i'm well aware of Machiavellian Repugnican maneuvers, but I'm so so tired of the "Hillary" bashings. And both "Democratic" candidates have run negative campaigns. So get off your lame horses already! What else is new in Ameerica? Where's the leadership of the D party? What's Dean doing? Get over it!
And here was Mark's reply:
You're for Clinton--in fact, you think you are Clinton--so anything
her campaign does is okay.
Between you and a fervent Bush supporter there's no difference.
___
So then, I responded but got no answer, and I've received no posts from the group or a personal reply from Mark. So what am I to think? Here was my answer:
You're misreading me, Mark, and I don't know why. I'm not for Clinton. I said that. And I'm certainly NOT Clinton. That's a strange accusation.. At one point, I decided to back her, reluctantly, due to all the misogynistic attacks. Then I just couldn't. She's way too conservative for my tastes. I think C and O both play dirty and I hate her campaign. And I've said that. I just don't like the fact that Obama's hoodwinked lots of people into thinking he's progressive when he's not. If he gets in (and I'll vote for him if he's the nominee), I'm afraid he's going to disappoint lots of people. What's wrong with questioning people's assumptions? You do that. But when I say anything negative about Obama, I get skewered. What's going on?
_____________
Where are we at? I'm very much an admirer of Mark and I definitely believe that the last two elections were stolen. But I don't know what to do with Obama bandwagon stereotyping. Face it, friends. Neither candidate is progressive. Neither is what we need: an intense, heart/mind driven, ideologically/philosophically driven candidate who's going to MAKE A DIFFERENCE and even do whatever s/he can to ensure that global warming is (if possible) reversed. I AM SO SO TIRED OF OBAMA SUPPORTERS WHO LABEL ME A BUSHkike CONSERVATIVE or otherwise dismiss me totally FOR QUESTIONING HIS VERACITY.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
FACTS: Re John McCain, in case you haven't seen them.
For all the coverage this week of Senator John McCain's
background, there are some important things you won't learn
about him from the TV networks. His carefully crafted
positive image relies on people not knowing these facts.
Please check the list below, and then forward it to your
friends, family, and coworkers to tell all about the real
John McCain. SEE SOURCES at bottom:
10 things you should know about John McCain (but not know
all):
1. John McCain voted against establishing a national
holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he
says his position has "evolved," yet he's continued to
oppose key civil rights laws.
2. According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than
Bush on Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says McCain "will make Cheney look like Gandhi."
3. His reputation is built on his opposition to torture,
but McCain voted against a bill to ban water-boarding, and then applauded President
Bush for vetoing that ban. He refuses to ban CIA torture and only opposes torture by the military. What's the dif?
4. McCain opposes a woman's right to choose. He said, "I do
not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."
5. The Children's Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for
children. He voted against the children's health care bill
last year, then defended Bush's veto of the bill.
6. He's one of the richest people in a Senate filled with
millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife
own at least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to
the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get
a "second job and skip their vacations."
7. Many of McCain's fellow Republican senators say he's too
reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator
said: "The thought of his being president sends a cold
chill down my spine. He's erratic. He's hotheaded. He
loses his temper and he worries me."
8. McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but
his campaign manager and top advisers are actually
lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen
says McCain has corporate lobbyists raising money for his
campaign, more than any of the other presidential
candidates.
9. McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious
right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his
"spiritual guide," Rod Parsley, believes America's
founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a
"false religion." McCain sought the political support of
right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane
Katrina was God's punishment for gay rights and called the
Catholic Church "the Antichrist" and a "false cult."
10. He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored
a 0, yes, zero from the
League of Conservation Voters last year.Check their
non-profit website.
John McCain is not who the Washington press corps make him
out to be. He is backed by the military industrialists who
have put our country in HUGE debt in Iraq. They want to
continue making their profits and will back McCain's
election so that the Buxh/Cheney policies can continue
destroying our economy.
Please help get the word out and forward this to
your personal network.
SOURCES:
1) "The Complicated History of John McCain and MLK Day," ABC
News, April 3, 2008
2) "McCain More Hawkish Than Bush on Russia, China, Iraq,"
Bloomberg News, March 12, 2008
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aF28rSC
tk0ZM&refer=us_
"Buchanan: John McCain 'Will Make Cheney Look Like
Gandhi,'" Think Progress, February 6, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/06/buhanan-gandhi-mccain/
3) "McCain Facts," ColorOfChange.org, April 4, 2008
http://colorofchange.org/mccain_facts/_
4) "McCain says Roe v. Wade should be overturned,"
MSNBC, February 18, 2007
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17222147/
5) "McCain Sides With Bush On Torture Again, Supports Veto
Of Anti-Waterboarding Bill," Think Progress, February 20,
2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/20/mccain-torture-veto/
6.) "2007 Children's Defense Fund Action Council:
Nonpartisan Congressional Scorecard," February 2008
http://www.childrensdefense.org/site/PageServer?pagename=act_learn_scorecard2007"
7.) McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance
expansion, CNN, October 3, 2007
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/mccain.interview/
6) "Beer Executive Could Be Next First Lady," Associated
Press, April 3, 2008; http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-S1sWHm0tchtdMP5LcLywg5
ZtMgD8VQ86M80_
7) "McCain Says Bank Bailout Should End `Systemic Risk,'"
Bloomberg News, March 25, 2008
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHMiDVY
aXZFM&refer=home_
7) "Will McCain's Temper Be a Liability?," Associated
Press, February 16, 2008;
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4301022_
"Famed McCain temper is tamed," Boston Globe, January 27,
2008; http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/27/famed_mccain_temper_is_
tamed/_
8) "Black Claims McCain's Campaign Is Above Lobbyist
Influence: 'I Don't Know
What The Criticism Is,'" ThinkProgress, April 2, 2008
_http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/02/mccain-black-lobbyist/_
"McCain's Lobbyist Friends Rally 'Round Their Man," ABC
News, January 29, 2008
_http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4210251_
9. "McCain's Spiritual Guide: Destroy Islam," Mother Jones
Magazine, March 12, 2008
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john
-mccain-rod-parsle y-spiritual-guide.html_
9) "Will McCain Specifically 'Repudiate' Hagee's Anti-Gay
Comments?," ThinkProgress, March 12, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/12/mccain-hagee-anti-gay/_
10. "John McCain Gets a Zero Rating for His
Environmental Record," Sierra Club, February 28, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/environment/77913/_
background, there are some important things you won't learn
about him from the TV networks. His carefully crafted
positive image relies on people not knowing these facts.
Please check the list below, and then forward it to your
friends, family, and coworkers to tell all about the real
John McCain. SEE SOURCES at bottom:
10 things you should know about John McCain (but not know
all):
1. John McCain voted against establishing a national
holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he
says his position has "evolved," yet he's continued to
oppose key civil rights laws.
2. According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than
Bush on Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says McCain "will make Cheney look like Gandhi."
3. His reputation is built on his opposition to torture,
but McCain voted against a bill to ban water-boarding, and then applauded President
Bush for vetoing that ban. He refuses to ban CIA torture and only opposes torture by the military. What's the dif?
4. McCain opposes a woman's right to choose. He said, "I do
not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."
5. The Children's Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for
children. He voted against the children's health care bill
last year, then defended Bush's veto of the bill.
6. He's one of the richest people in a Senate filled with
millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife
own at least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to
the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get
a "second job and skip their vacations."
7. Many of McCain's fellow Republican senators say he's too
reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator
said: "The thought of his being president sends a cold
chill down my spine. He's erratic. He's hotheaded. He
loses his temper and he worries me."
8. McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but
his campaign manager and top advisers are actually
lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen
says McCain has corporate lobbyists raising money for his
campaign, more than any of the other presidential
candidates.
9. McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious
right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his
"spiritual guide," Rod Parsley, believes America's
founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a
"false religion." McCain sought the political support of
right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane
Katrina was God's punishment for gay rights and called the
Catholic Church "the Antichrist" and a "false cult."
10. He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored
a 0, yes, zero from the
League of Conservation Voters last year.Check their
non-profit website.
John McCain is not who the Washington press corps make him
out to be. He is backed by the military industrialists who
have put our country in HUGE debt in Iraq. They want to
continue making their profits and will back McCain's
election so that the Buxh/Cheney policies can continue
destroying our economy.
Please help get the word out and forward this to
your personal network.
SOURCES:
1) "The Complicated History of John McCain and MLK Day," ABC
News, April 3, 2008
2) "McCain More Hawkish Than Bush on Russia, China, Iraq,"
Bloomberg News, March 12, 2008
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aF28rSC
tk0ZM&refer=us_
"Buchanan: John McCain 'Will Make Cheney Look Like
Gandhi,'" Think Progress, February 6, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/06/buhanan-gandhi-mccain/
3) "McCain Facts," ColorOfChange.org, April 4, 2008
http://colorofchange.org/mccain_facts/_
4) "McCain says Roe v. Wade should be overturned,"
MSNBC, February 18, 2007
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17222147/
5) "McCain Sides With Bush On Torture Again, Supports Veto
Of Anti-Waterboarding Bill," Think Progress, February 20,
2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/20/mccain-torture-veto/
6.) "2007 Children's Defense Fund Action Council:
Nonpartisan Congressional Scorecard," February 2008
http://www.childrensdefense.org/site/PageServer?pagename=act_learn_scorecard2007"
7.) McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance
expansion, CNN, October 3, 2007
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/mccain.interview/
6) "Beer Executive Could Be Next First Lady," Associated
Press, April 3, 2008; http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-S1sWHm0tchtdMP5LcLywg5
ZtMgD8VQ86M80_
7) "McCain Says Bank Bailout Should End `Systemic Risk,'"
Bloomberg News, March 25, 2008
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHMiDVY
aXZFM&refer=home_
7) "Will McCain's Temper Be a Liability?," Associated
Press, February 16, 2008;
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4301022_
"Famed McCain temper is tamed," Boston Globe, January 27,
2008; http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/27/famed_mccain_temper_is_
tamed/_
8) "Black Claims McCain's Campaign Is Above Lobbyist
Influence: 'I Don't Know
What The Criticism Is,'" ThinkProgress, April 2, 2008
_http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/02/mccain-black-lobbyist/_
"McCain's Lobbyist Friends Rally 'Round Their Man," ABC
News, January 29, 2008
_http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4210251_
9. "McCain's Spiritual Guide: Destroy Islam," Mother Jones
Magazine, March 12, 2008
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john
-mccain-rod-parsle y-spiritual-guide.html_
9) "Will McCain Specifically 'Repudiate' Hagee's Anti-Gay
Comments?," ThinkProgress, March 12, 2008
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/12/mccain-hagee-anti-gay/_
10. "John McCain Gets a Zero Rating for His
Environmental Record," Sierra Club, February 28, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/environment/77913/_
Saturday, March 29, 2008
False Advertising: New Obama Ad Falsely Claims He Does Not Accept Money From Oil Companies
False Advertising: New Obama Ad Falsely Claims He Does Not Accept Money From Oil Companies: Article and Ad here: HERE
Phil Singer: "It's unfortunate that Senator Obama is using false advertising to explain why he can be trusted to do something about energy prices. Senator Obama says he doesn't take campaign contributions from oil companies but the reality is that Exxon, Shell, and others are among his donors. I wonder if they'll fix the ad."
A new ad by Sen. Obama running in Pennsylvania falsely claims that Sen. Obama does not accept money from the oil industry. In the ad, Sen. Obama says "I'm Barack Obama and I don't take money from oil companies or lobbyists and I won't let them block change anymore."
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Sen. Obama has received over $160,000 from the oil and gas companies. Two major bundlers for his campaign -- George Kaiser and Robert Cavnar - are oil company CEOs. Sen. Obama has accepted money from Exxon, Shell, BP, Chevron and just about every other major oil company. Just last month, Sen. Obama accepted another $8,400 from ExxonMobil, $12,370 from Chevron and $6,500 from British Petroleum.
In 2005, Sen. Obama voted for the Dick Cheney energy bill, which was written in secret with the oil industry. Hillary Clinton opposed Cheney's energy bill, has a plan to eliminate oil industry tax breaks, and would require oil companies to contribute to a $50 billion strategic energy fund to jumpstart research and investment in clean energy technologies.
-----------------
OK. You can fool some people some of the time and most of the American people most of the time. The prognosis: this country will continue to descend deeper into the bullshit.
Phil Singer: "It's unfortunate that Senator Obama is using false advertising to explain why he can be trusted to do something about energy prices. Senator Obama says he doesn't take campaign contributions from oil companies but the reality is that Exxon, Shell, and others are among his donors. I wonder if they'll fix the ad."
A new ad by Sen. Obama running in Pennsylvania falsely claims that Sen. Obama does not accept money from the oil industry. In the ad, Sen. Obama says "I'm Barack Obama and I don't take money from oil companies or lobbyists and I won't let them block change anymore."
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Sen. Obama has received over $160,000 from the oil and gas companies. Two major bundlers for his campaign -- George Kaiser and Robert Cavnar - are oil company CEOs. Sen. Obama has accepted money from Exxon, Shell, BP, Chevron and just about every other major oil company. Just last month, Sen. Obama accepted another $8,400 from ExxonMobil, $12,370 from Chevron and $6,500 from British Petroleum.
In 2005, Sen. Obama voted for the Dick Cheney energy bill, which was written in secret with the oil industry. Hillary Clinton opposed Cheney's energy bill, has a plan to eliminate oil industry tax breaks, and would require oil companies to contribute to a $50 billion strategic energy fund to jumpstart research and investment in clean energy technologies.
-----------------
OK. You can fool some people some of the time and most of the American people most of the time. The prognosis: this country will continue to descend deeper into the bullshit.
Monday, March 03, 2008
OK I'M DISGUSTED. BACK TO WRITING
to express what I feel. The misogyny is making me ill.
Here is a "literary" re/action to what's happening, part of my new piece "PICNIC."
Beginning:
PICNIC
By Carol Novack
Introduction
In the game “picnic,” a designated leader creates a secret rule concerning what other players may bring to a picnic. Players must attempt to guess what rule the leader (Player 1) has created in order to participate in the picnic. PICNIC, a conceptual play by the author (Player 1), is a reworking of her part (interior and exterior monologues, plus the omniscient voice) in the unfinished collaborative play, PICNIC, co-authored by four players who departed from the playing field.
---------------------------------------------------- EXCERPT:
PLAYER 1 INTERJECTS
You are veering off the course, chasing after your own balls, Player 3. Off the course, what course? You might ask naturally, always asking yourself questions you don't understand. You are breaking o lives not bread. You are full of static. I cannot hear your voice amongst the many. I heard you ask Grandma: Is it essential to stick to a course, to go from A to B, B to C, logically? Decide for yourself -- don't bother me. Do you know how to ride a donkey? Do you know how to see? Watch the Valentine roses and beware. Their mouths open, displaying eloquent pink tongues. Flies swoon and drop, head first, into the roses. Promises promises. When will the primaries end?
In these fields of mine, Player 1 loses score of the supplicants. What does Player 3 say? I lost my hearing aide. Who is coming? No one is really here. I am looking for nourishment, as usual, so boring I am. No one has brought anything of use to the Picnic. The Players come and go. Those who drop by cough and stutter, claiming helplessness, inoculation, family crises, weddings and anniversaries. There are CEO's around. We are afraid to speak. What did you say, Player 4? Focus!
I hallucinate Players in a fog, cough from the stench from the oil refineries belching the new fuel: lard from the bodies of prisoners, the cellular energy of the putrefied dying and dead. When will the hurley-burley end?
Don't lose the evidence. Place it in baggies as if it were peanut butter sandwiches for the detainees. Continue to drown them, but keep them alive: they’ll talk sooner or later. Tell me what they say.
Here is a "literary" re/action to what's happening, part of my new piece "PICNIC."
Beginning:
PICNIC
By Carol Novack
Introduction
In the game “picnic,” a designated leader creates a secret rule concerning what other players may bring to a picnic. Players must attempt to guess what rule the leader (Player 1) has created in order to participate in the picnic. PICNIC, a conceptual play by the author (Player 1), is a reworking of her part (interior and exterior monologues, plus the omniscient voice) in the unfinished collaborative play, PICNIC, co-authored by four players who departed from the playing field.
---------------------------------------------------- EXCERPT:
PLAYER 1 INTERJECTS
You are veering off the course, chasing after your own balls, Player 3. Off the course, what course? You might ask naturally, always asking yourself questions you don't understand. You are breaking o lives not bread. You are full of static. I cannot hear your voice amongst the many. I heard you ask Grandma: Is it essential to stick to a course, to go from A to B, B to C, logically? Decide for yourself -- don't bother me. Do you know how to ride a donkey? Do you know how to see? Watch the Valentine roses and beware. Their mouths open, displaying eloquent pink tongues. Flies swoon and drop, head first, into the roses. Promises promises. When will the primaries end?
In these fields of mine, Player 1 loses score of the supplicants. What does Player 3 say? I lost my hearing aide. Who is coming? No one is really here. I am looking for nourishment, as usual, so boring I am. No one has brought anything of use to the Picnic. The Players come and go. Those who drop by cough and stutter, claiming helplessness, inoculation, family crises, weddings and anniversaries. There are CEO's around. We are afraid to speak. What did you say, Player 4? Focus!
I hallucinate Players in a fog, cough from the stench from the oil refineries belching the new fuel: lard from the bodies of prisoners, the cellular energy of the putrefied dying and dead. When will the hurley-burley end?
Don't lose the evidence. Place it in baggies as if it were peanut butter sandwiches for the detainees. Continue to drown them, but keep them alive: they’ll talk sooner or later. Tell me what they say.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Electile Dysfunction Defined
Electile Dysfunction: the inability to become aroused over any of the choices for president put forth by either party in the 2008 election year.
(Well, the Repugs are out of the question. Among the Democrats [so to speak], this definition applies to Clinton and Obama; the best I can do is support the contender who wasn't born with a silver pen in his/her mouth & has the smallest cadre of corporate fatbellies in his pocket -- Edwards).
(Well, the Repugs are out of the question. Among the Democrats [so to speak], this definition applies to Clinton and Obama; the best I can do is support the contender who wasn't born with a silver pen in his/her mouth & has the smallest cadre of corporate fatbellies in his pocket -- Edwards).
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
SCIENCE AND THE CANDIDATES
Almost all of the major challenges we will face as a nation in this new century, from the environment, national security and economic competitiveness to energy strategies, have a scientific or technological basis. Can a president who is not comfortable thinking about science hope to lead instead of follow? Earlier Republican debates underscored this problem. In May, when candidates were asked if they believed in the theory of evolution, three candidates said no. In the next debate Mike Huckabee explained that he was running for president of the U.S., not writing the curriculum for an eighth-grade science book, and therefore the issue was unimportant.
SCIENCE AND THE CANDIDATES
By Lawrence M. Krauss
SCIENCE AND THE CANDIDATES
By Lawrence M. Krauss
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Take action to PROTEST new media monopoly rules
From: FreePress.net: December 18th
It happened. A few minutes ago, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin and his two
fellow GOP commissioners approved new rules that will unleash a flood
of media consolidation across America. The rules will further consolidate
local media markets -- taking away independent voices in cities already
woefully short on local news and investigative journalism.
In 2003, the FCC tried to do the same thing, but millions of people
demanded that Congress reject the FCC's rules. And they did. It's
time to do it again.
We need 100,000 people to get Congress to reverse the FCC's rules right now.
And send an Open Letter to Congress.
This is about whether we will have access to the information that
democracy requires. It is about whether or not we'll have real news
and local voices on radio, television and in the newspaper in your
town. It's about whether the public airwaves will represent our
nation's diversity.
Just yesterday -- spurred by your calls and letters -- 26 senators
from both parties sent a letter to the FCC Chairman promising "to
revoke and nullify the proposed rule" if the FCC voted to lift the
longstanding ban on "newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership." But
Chairman Martin did it anyway.
Congress has the power to throw out these rules -- and if 100,000
people demand it, they'll have to listen.
Some say that nobody listens to letters like this. Well they
definitely do, and it's a way you can truly help the cause with just
a few clicks. Sign on now -- and get your friends to do the same.
Your actions are making a difference. Let's keep up the pressure. And
stay tuned -- this fight is far from over.
Free Press is a national, nonpartisan organization working to reform
the media. Through education, organizing and advocacy, we promote
diverse and independent media ownership, strong public media, and
universal access to communications. Learn more at
<http://www.freepress.net>www.freepress.net
It happened. A few minutes ago, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin and his two
fellow GOP commissioners approved new rules that will unleash a flood
of media consolidation across America. The rules will further consolidate
local media markets -- taking away independent voices in cities already
woefully short on local news and investigative journalism.
In 2003, the FCC tried to do the same thing, but millions of people
demanded that Congress reject the FCC's rules. And they did. It's
time to do it again.
We need 100,000 people to get Congress to reverse the FCC's rules right now.
And send an Open Letter to Congress.
This is about whether we will have access to the information that
democracy requires. It is about whether or not we'll have real news
and local voices on radio, television and in the newspaper in your
town. It's about whether the public airwaves will represent our
nation's diversity.
Just yesterday -- spurred by your calls and letters -- 26 senators
from both parties sent a letter to the FCC Chairman promising "to
revoke and nullify the proposed rule" if the FCC voted to lift the
longstanding ban on "newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership." But
Chairman Martin did it anyway.
Congress has the power to throw out these rules -- and if 100,000
people demand it, they'll have to listen.
Some say that nobody listens to letters like this. Well they
definitely do, and it's a way you can truly help the cause with just
a few clicks. Sign on now -- and get your friends to do the same.
Your actions are making a difference. Let's keep up the pressure. And
stay tuned -- this fight is far from over.
Free Press is a national, nonpartisan organization working to reform
the media. Through education, organizing and advocacy, we promote
diverse and independent media ownership, strong public media, and
universal access to communications. Learn more at
<http://www.freepress.net>www.freepress.net
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
The New Anti-Semitism: an article
washingtonpost.com
The New Anti-Semitism
By Denis MacShane
Tuesday, September 4, 2007; A17
Hatred of Jews has reached new heights in Europe and many points south and east of the old continent. Last year I chaired a blue-ribbon committee of British parliamentarians, including former ministers and a party leader, that examined the problem of anti-Semitism in Britain. None of us are Jewish or active in the unending debates on the Israeli-Palestinian question.
Our report showed a pattern of fear among a small number of British citizens -- there are around 300,000 Jews in Britain, of whom about a third are observant -- that is not acceptable in a modern democracy. Synagogues attacked. Jewish schoolboys jostled on public transportation. Rabbis punched and knifed. British Jews feeling compelled to raise millions to provide private security for their weddings and community events. On campuses, militant anti-Jewish students fueled by Islamist or far-left hate seeking to prevent Jewish students from expressing their opinions.
More worrisome was what we described as anti-Jewish discourse, a mood and tone whenever Jews are discussed, whether in the media, at universities, among the liberal media elite or at dinner parties of modish London. To express any support for Israel or any feeling for the right of a Jewish state to exist produces denunciation, even contempt.
Our report sent a shock wave through the British government. Tony Blair called us in and told his staff to fan out throughout government departments and produce answers to the problems we outlined. To Britain's credit, the Blair administration produced a formal government response setting out tough new guidelines for the police to investigate anti-Semitic attacks and for universities to stop anti-Jewish ideology from taking root on campuses. Britain's Foreign Office has been told to protest to Arab states that allow anti-Jewish broadcasts.
We made clear that criticism of actions of Israeli politicians was not off-limits. On the contrary, we noted that some of the strongest criticisms of Israeli policy come from Israeli campuses, journalists and political activists, and from the Jewish intellectual elite of many countries. American universities have provided a base for Noam Chomsky and the late Edward Said, among others, to launch campaigns of criticism against Israel, and the bulk of the West's university intelligentsia remains hostile to the Jewish state.
Tony Blair's successor as British prime minister, Gordon Brown, recently said in London that he stood with Israel "in bad times as well as good times," and one of the remarkable turnarounds of the new Labor leadership that governs Britain is a strong support for Israel and its commitment to combating anti-Semitism. The problem is worse in other European countries. The Polish politician, Maciej Marian Giertych, recently published a pamphlet under the auspices of the European Parliament that attacked Jews. No action has been taken against him. France and Germany have seen anti-Jewish attacks. Some references to Jews in the Lithuanian press do not bear translating.
Europe is reawakening its old demons, but today there is a difference. The old anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism have morphed into something more dangerous. Anti-Semitism today is officially sanctioned state ideology and is being turned into a mobilizing and organizing force to recruit thousands in a new crusade -- the word is chosen deliberately -- to eradicate Jewishness from the region whence it came and to weaken and undermine all the humanist values of rule of law, tolerance and respect for core rights such as free expression that Jews have fought for over time.
The president of Iran is the most odious example of this new state-sanctioned anti-Semitism. But from the Egyptian Writers Union to the notorious anti-Jewish articles in the charters of Hamas and Hezbollah, hatred of Jews is an integral element of a new ideology rising to prominence in many regions of the world.
Democracies always take their time, often too much time, to recognize and face a totalitarian threat when it is posed in ideological terms. In prewar Europe, conservatives were soft on right-wing ideologies because they were seen as being anti-communist and anti-labor. In postwar Europe, socialists were soft on the Soviet Union because the communists appeared to challenge capitalism and imperialism. Today there is still denial about the universal ideology of the new anti-Semitism. It has power and reach, and it enters into the soft underbelly of the Western mind-set that does not like Jews or what Israel does to defend its right to exist.
A counterattack is being organized. My own House of Commons has led the way with its report. The 47-nation Council of Europe, on which I sit as a British representative, has launched a lengthy inquiry into combating anti-Semitism in Europe. The European Union has produced a directive outlawing Internet hate speech originating within its jurisdiction.
We are at the beginning of a long intellectual and ideological struggle. It is not about Jews or Israel. It is about everything democrats have long fought for: the truth without fear, no matter one's religion or political beliefs. The new anti-Semitism threatens all of humanity. The Jew-haters must not pass.
The writer is a Labor member of the British House of Commons and has served as Britain's Europe minister.
The New Anti-Semitism
By Denis MacShane
Tuesday, September 4, 2007; A17
Hatred of Jews has reached new heights in Europe and many points south and east of the old continent. Last year I chaired a blue-ribbon committee of British parliamentarians, including former ministers and a party leader, that examined the problem of anti-Semitism in Britain. None of us are Jewish or active in the unending debates on the Israeli-Palestinian question.
Our report showed a pattern of fear among a small number of British citizens -- there are around 300,000 Jews in Britain, of whom about a third are observant -- that is not acceptable in a modern democracy. Synagogues attacked. Jewish schoolboys jostled on public transportation. Rabbis punched and knifed. British Jews feeling compelled to raise millions to provide private security for their weddings and community events. On campuses, militant anti-Jewish students fueled by Islamist or far-left hate seeking to prevent Jewish students from expressing their opinions.
More worrisome was what we described as anti-Jewish discourse, a mood and tone whenever Jews are discussed, whether in the media, at universities, among the liberal media elite or at dinner parties of modish London. To express any support for Israel or any feeling for the right of a Jewish state to exist produces denunciation, even contempt.
Our report sent a shock wave through the British government. Tony Blair called us in and told his staff to fan out throughout government departments and produce answers to the problems we outlined. To Britain's credit, the Blair administration produced a formal government response setting out tough new guidelines for the police to investigate anti-Semitic attacks and for universities to stop anti-Jewish ideology from taking root on campuses. Britain's Foreign Office has been told to protest to Arab states that allow anti-Jewish broadcasts.
We made clear that criticism of actions of Israeli politicians was not off-limits. On the contrary, we noted that some of the strongest criticisms of Israeli policy come from Israeli campuses, journalists and political activists, and from the Jewish intellectual elite of many countries. American universities have provided a base for Noam Chomsky and the late Edward Said, among others, to launch campaigns of criticism against Israel, and the bulk of the West's university intelligentsia remains hostile to the Jewish state.
Tony Blair's successor as British prime minister, Gordon Brown, recently said in London that he stood with Israel "in bad times as well as good times," and one of the remarkable turnarounds of the new Labor leadership that governs Britain is a strong support for Israel and its commitment to combating anti-Semitism. The problem is worse in other European countries. The Polish politician, Maciej Marian Giertych, recently published a pamphlet under the auspices of the European Parliament that attacked Jews. No action has been taken against him. France and Germany have seen anti-Jewish attacks. Some references to Jews in the Lithuanian press do not bear translating.
Europe is reawakening its old demons, but today there is a difference. The old anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism have morphed into something more dangerous. Anti-Semitism today is officially sanctioned state ideology and is being turned into a mobilizing and organizing force to recruit thousands in a new crusade -- the word is chosen deliberately -- to eradicate Jewishness from the region whence it came and to weaken and undermine all the humanist values of rule of law, tolerance and respect for core rights such as free expression that Jews have fought for over time.
The president of Iran is the most odious example of this new state-sanctioned anti-Semitism. But from the Egyptian Writers Union to the notorious anti-Jewish articles in the charters of Hamas and Hezbollah, hatred of Jews is an integral element of a new ideology rising to prominence in many regions of the world.
Democracies always take their time, often too much time, to recognize and face a totalitarian threat when it is posed in ideological terms. In prewar Europe, conservatives were soft on right-wing ideologies because they were seen as being anti-communist and anti-labor. In postwar Europe, socialists were soft on the Soviet Union because the communists appeared to challenge capitalism and imperialism. Today there is still denial about the universal ideology of the new anti-Semitism. It has power and reach, and it enters into the soft underbelly of the Western mind-set that does not like Jews or what Israel does to defend its right to exist.
A counterattack is being organized. My own House of Commons has led the way with its report. The 47-nation Council of Europe, on which I sit as a British representative, has launched a lengthy inquiry into combating anti-Semitism in Europe. The European Union has produced a directive outlawing Internet hate speech originating within its jurisdiction.
We are at the beginning of a long intellectual and ideological struggle. It is not about Jews or Israel. It is about everything democrats have long fought for: the truth without fear, no matter one's religion or political beliefs. The new anti-Semitism threatens all of humanity. The Jew-haters must not pass.
The writer is a Labor member of the British House of Commons and has served as Britain's Europe minister.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.JPG)
Posts
