If you are anything like me then the recent lapse in any kind of reasonable or civil debate in our politics has you feeling frustrated and uncertain of what to do.
I fall back upon my classic standards of political partisanship and playing to the left-base, but in truth I am not satisfied by this in the least.
We don't need word-wars over labeling and branding, we need solutions for America that work.
We don't need more spin and more talking points, we need honest debate and informed decision making.
What Coffee Party USA offers is civility and a place for democracy to take place in a honest fashion.
I encourage any person who has formed an opinion of me that is one of "ultra-left" to understand I was most moved by U.S. Army veteran Alan P. Alborn's words that anything I have seen in a very long time. I understand far more about what motives are behind conservatives and libertarians than I let on and ultimately my views are no different from Alborn's views in regards to the matter of the free market or the size of government.
This is one element that was always part of what makes me "independent," and I am tired of being brought nearly to tears dealing with these Tea Party activists who seek to do nothing more than rewrite history and stop all rational debate while neglecting the more important issues of health care and insurance reform.
The Coffee Party Movement is the answer we have been looking for to send the message to Washington that we sent them there to get something done, not just play procedural games while Americans suffer.
We'll see if they even want me around, they have a statement about "no pundits and partisans and strategists" ... that's me three for three. But punditry can be declared, partisanship can be avoided and they will want my strategies if they ever give me a chance to share them ... so maybe I am reading too much into that statement.
We are a group of concerned Americans who want government "that responds to the needs of the majority of its citizens as expressed by our votes and by our voices; NOT corporate interests as expressed by misleading advertisements and campaign contributions."
During the 2008 Presidential Campaign then-candidate Barack Obama promised the mother a fallen American soldier to not only end the war in Iraq, but the war in Afghanistan as well. I am of the mind that now-president Barack Obama has not forgotten that promise. Many of my fellow Democrats are feeling disenfranchised by the recent official announcement of the decision to increase planned combat-troop levels to 30,000+ in Afghanistan I believe many in the party are taking a dangerously narrow view of militaristic policy.
I'll simply cut the chase: you break a nation, you bought a nation.
The consequences of immediate withdrawal, in my view, far outweighs the alternative. Should we abandon this nation at this critical stage, after invading and attempting to remove the native opium crops, would be a tragic mistake that would incur even greater wrath upon the U.S. than this "end-game" measure of increased combat-troop involvement. We must not be blinded by political partisanship nor by strong personal feelings against war, that I personally share in this decision to prolong the war. This troop "surge" is accompanied with a clear strategy for withdrawal as well as some long since needed pressure upon the Karzai government in the form of this planned 2011 draw-down / transition of security responsibilities.
President Obama rebuked me in my comparison of Afghanistan and Vietnam. I agree with his statements that it is a "false reading of history," upon review. But I disagree that what we are fighting in Afghanistan as being "not a popular insurgency." The radical Taliban and their al-Qaeda allies are indeed a "popular insurgency" in some regions, while not in others. Afghanistan is a highly complex power structure and in every way different from the recent conflict in Iraq or the situation during the Vietnam War, but this is all the more reason to set attainable goals and prepare an exit strategy. We cannot allow ourselves to fall into the trap of counter-insurgency fighting endlessly in the Southern Provinces. We must shift to a counter-terrorism methods in Afghanistan and in order to this it is indeed true that "space" is required, bought with combat-troops of course. The ultimate goal being to seek a similar situation to what exists of involvement in Iraq as of today; a complete withdrawal of all combat-troops.
The sooner it is seen that no nation can "win," or "lose," in Afghanistan the sooner we can conduct sound policies in regards to our involvement therein. This is not the no-man's-land that some make it out to be, much can be achieved with hard work, but we also should not delude ourselves into thinking we can remain troop committed indefinitely to a nation with practically no central government and huge population that is 80% illiterate.
Our humanitarian and intelligence-gathering operations must be secured for the time being and the politically unpopular troop surge is a means to this end. This is a changing in the "face" of this war and I personally hope that we can meet this 2011 time line for beginning combat-troop withdrawal and more importantly that is not simply an arbitrary line in the sand.
I urge people on the left against rush to judgments all is for naught in Afghanistan by value of the nation's long history of failed attempts at conquering it. This new strategy is not "conquest" but rather supporting existing efforts and expanding upon the model of political solutions with regional leaders. An opportunity will be created in the next two years for Afghanistan to stabilize, but in the end the stand against terrorist tactics must come of the people. That much is out of our hands, it is true.
Along with protecting local Afghans and reducing violence, new efforts are focused on cutting off the funding of the Taliban and other Afghan insurgents. US Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke spoke of a new thinking on the issue during a June 2009 visit to Pakistan. Holbrooke said the long-held notion that Afghanistan's illicit opium trade is the main source of funding for the insurgency is simply not true. And, he says US policy is going to reflect that reality. "If the drugs ended tomorrow, it would not have a major effect on the Taliban source of funding," said Holbrooke. "And, that's one of the reasons the United States is going to downgrade crop eradication as part of its policies in Afghanistan. We're going to upgrade interdiction. We're going to upgrade our efforts to go after the main drug traffickers. But we want to focus on where the money really comes from."
According to PBS & independent news media this is indeed true, but mainly because the Taliban has moved toward kidnapping, extortion and money-laundering as opposed to opium-running.
I do not support actions that only needlessly escalate war, but this change in strategy is likely the only course of action that will bring our major operations inside Afghanistan to a timely close. The president spoke of “muddling through” in reference to the former policy and I would say the same of those promoting this policy of rapid withdrawal. It appears to me that many in my party and that I agree with on a host of other issues propose “muddling through” the careful process of timely and permanent withdrawal from these costly foreign incursions brought about under the George W. Bush Presidency.
Regardless of progress on the ground the generals will always ask for more troops and the person we charged with the responsibility over such matters has decided that the 30,000 troops in Afghanistan for the elections is going to stay and more will be deployed in months to come. Provided agencies like the UN are included more directly in solution-seeking and the model of focusing on political solutions as opposed to only military solutions to bring an end to the conflict there is no reason to scoff at the 2011 deadline for strategy review.
This was a mishandled war left by the previous president and one does not clean up a rotten pile of eggs by screaming at it; you get a shovel.
My heart still cries out: “Come home, America!”
But this is very similar to my views on the aftermath of the U.S.-Iraq Invasion: rapid withdrawal has serious consequences not to be ignored but it is equally important to note that keeping the pressure on our representatives to set clear goals and bring the U.S. involvement to an eventual close as quickly as humanly possible is the responsibility of citizens that fund these conflicts.
To leave now is folly.
This was a predictable “middle-option” and under the current circumstances I believe it was the best possible choice available to the president and the true value of this decision is yet to be seen.
Post 9/11
In October 2001, in response to the Taliban regime’s protection of al Qaeda terrorists who attacked the United States, coalition forces forcibly removed the regime from Afghanistan.
Since the Taliban's ouster in late 2001, remnants of the regime have sheltered in remote reaches of Afghanistan's mountains, mainly in the south. While they stood little chance of retaking power while the US-led coalition remains in Afghanistan, rogue Taliban members appeared to be regrouping.
Evidence mounted by early 2003 in the southern regions of Afghanistan that the Taliban was reorganizing and has found an ally in rebel commander Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, labeled a terrorist and hunted by US troops," the Associated Press reported in early April. The evidence included the discovery by coalition forces of around 60 Taliban fighters holed up near the village of Sikai Lashki, 25 miles north of the southeastern village of Spinboldak. Further indication came from the killings in southern Afghanistan of a Red Cross worker and, separately, of two U.S. troops in an ambush, as well as allegations that Taliban leaders had found safe havens in private homes in neighboring Pakistan's Quetta province.
While no reliable estimates existed of the number of Taliban fighters in southern Afghanistan, the Associated Press said in late March that it is believed that "many" Taliban are holed up in the southern mountains.
While a multinational force helped keep the peace in Kabul and surrounding areas, contributing countries have declined to extend the force's mandate to other parts of the country. Remnants of the Taliban and rogue warlords sometimes threatened, robbed, attacked, and occasionally killed local villagers, political opponents, and prisoners.
This is what I spoke of before on this blog.
Our target was al-Qaeda and we should have handled the matter as a militaristic police force instead of "forcibly removing" this Taliban regime in 2001. This is the very nature of the trap of nation-building and these recent changes in war policy are a reflection of the situation as it is now and how to combat the elements are indeed a threat to national security while avoiding the pitfalls of unilateral nation-building. This is a policy that will hopefully provide enough security to focus on counter-terrorism efforts along with regional stabilization so that our exit from the region does not serve to only further destabilize a volatile situation.
"Why do they always catch up to their fears in Democratic administrations?"
"It feels like all these people who want limited government, just want government limited to Republicans."
Well there it is. Lou Dobbs and Jon Stewart hit upon the central issue guiding politics today.
If these "fears about Obama" are so legitimate then why were these people feeling so secure under Bush?
These cries for "limited government" only come from the right wing when we speak of helping Americans and bettering our people. They care not if you expand the government under the call for national security reasons, or for war-making abroad.
Jon Stewart begs the question why everyone's "hair caught on fire" to Lou Dobbs, but I'm sure he knows the answer. Barack Obama, regardless of his record or his words, is what happened. After about two days in office every person on the right wing of politics (it seems) made it their personal goal to destroy him with every vile tactic they could think of. They threw their pride as Americans away and replaced it with bigotry and hatred for America.
Lou Dobbs is very much a danger like Glenn Beck in that he promotes the same wild anti-government myths and rather than approaching it rationally he just begs the question of ambigouity over the whole matter.
Dobbs calls it "advocacy journalism," I'd call it manufactured alarmism for the sake of political gain.
I recommend picking up a copy of Newsweek for yourself. The cover story for the issue of the week of November 2nd 2009 is an excellent piece on President Barack Obama. Anna Quindlen has put to words what I felt to be true since early in the 2008 Presidential Campaign:
Barack Obama campaigned as a populist firebrand but governs like a cerebral consensus builder. The Founding Fathers wouldn’t have it any other way.
…
Campaigns are bad crucibles in which to forge the future. They speak to great aspirations; government amounts to the dripping of water on stone.
…
The president is a person of nuance. But on both ends of the political number line, nuance is seen as wishy-washy. There’s no nuance in partisan attacks, soundbites, slogans, which is why Barack Obama didn’t run with the lines “Some change you might like if you’re willing to settle for” or “Yes, we can, but it will take awhile.”
…
If the American people want the president to be more like the Barack Obama they elected, perhaps they should start acting more like the voters who elected him.
In my personal estimation the liberal-left mainstream view of Barack Obama was overly optimistic as to his clearly stated positions. This situation has altered since the campaign but still seems to maintain elements of previous misconceptions.
This president is entirely unique.
I was adamant about this in the first few months of The Obama Presidency when the media-punditry were attempting to compare Obama to another American President of the recent past. The only comparisons to draw are poor ones.
Many attempt to call The Obama Presidency a “centrist” presidency. I believe this is only in part true and better descriptions would be “staunchly bipartisan” or “consensus builder” as to what we see of The White House of 2009.
Ultimately, I myself am far too left-wing to support every Obama Policy. I am certainly left-wing enough to vote for him, but in the instance of national health care reform I would seek to isolate the insurance giants in the face of the bipartisan concept of bringing them to the table.
I would seek to remind readers that The Founders had many ideological differences between them and while they surely would approve of the goal of consensus building, I believe some would argue that party loyalty or campaign kick-backs mean nothing in the face of protecting the general welfare of the people of The United States.
Allow me to put forth my view on The Founding Fathers as it applies to the proposed health care reform in the U.S.:
A single-payer bill, like H.R. 676, might be scientifically approved but does not incorporate the spirit of incrementalism that is key to sound reform. If one was to augment the “single-payer” model of this bill into a national health care insurance option for citizens ages zero to sixty-five, included the Dennis Kucinich Amendment in which states can opt-in to a single-payer system, and included the Harry Reid Proposal in which the states can opt-out of the national option within a single piece of legislation; this unwritten bill would be within the true desires of the framers of The U.S. Constitution.
--
I can only see two clear flaws in Barack Obama as president, thus far.
Handing health care to the Congress was a bad move.
Isolating the giant of media-misinformation when there are other offenders within the spheres of foe-news.
Both of these are purely strategic flaws and amount to simple criticism and nothing more on my behalf.
On the matter of his appointments I believe what I was speaking on before comes around once again. It’s not a fair assessment to call it a “liberal” cabinet but rather a “bipartisan” cabinet, or “centrist” if you must.
We didn’t elect the liberal-firebrand that came to destroy the GOP and tear down the corporate empire.
Is it a good idea to single out just one outlet in the manner that The Obama White House recently has in the case of removing Fox Broadcasting from the press pool?
--
At first, I was in favor of the move to ignore the Fox Broadcasting Company by Barack Obama.
His efforts to clear his name on the website "Fight The Smears" stem almost entirely from Fox. He has every right to defend himself from these smear-merchants and radical right-wing propagandist supporters.
The right-wing lobby called "Fox News" (as in the cable pseudo-news) and "Fox News Talk" (as in the radio pseudo-news) is still "not a news organization" in my opinion. But I think this label should include everyone from COMEDY CENTRAL to HLN to CNN to MSNBC, everyone except PBS and C-SPAN.
It's been televised tabloidism in place of televised journalism for far too long. In my view.
Any White House that would send a clear signal that The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Countdown, The O'Reilly Factor, and The Glenn Beck Show are all the same thing would be nothing but a benefit in this age of media-hate & mass misinformation.
These programs are not news, they are purely entertainment-television.
Each of these programs has an agenda, as does the network behind each.
There is nothing wrong with doing agenized-news. But it is dishonest and unethical to claim objectivity if you are playing toward a specific political wing, or any specific agenda. This is the greatest offense of the so-called "Fair & Balanced" Fox Broadcasting. As a network they cater to right-wing political agendas and refuse to declare themselves as a format that promotes conservative ideology. In that case I see it as a function of false advertising on behalf of the network.
All these programs, it‘s important to point out, are television-propaganda toward that agenda. Which might be only the agenda to make you laugh.
The broadcasting produced by this political lobby / news agency / entertainment format in only the viewing of it is not dangerous. It is taking these kinds of broadcasts as serious news formats that is problematic in a democratic society.
The informed viewing of propaganda is merely educational. However, to those who refuse to see the difference between opinions and facts the viewing of the propaganda of reckless liars, there is a dangerous situation produced.
Mine is a somewhat complex argument in regards to The News Wars between The Obama White House and Fox Broadcasting Company:
It is a good move that Obama is standing up to bad journalism mixed with bad business practices, but a bad move that he singled out FOX alone when all the news agencies screw something up.
FOX is just the biggest offender of the smears.
I believe radio and satellite should remain untouched by sweeping regulations, but televised broadcasting of race baiting and McCarthyism is just too much tabloidism for me to handle.
This sensationalist-reporting on politics that has been going almost entirely due to FOX NEWS is not exclusive to them, so I think it would be wise to pick out a few other agencies, perhaps CLEARCHANNEL and COMEDY CENTRAL, to also declare as non-news formats.
It is clear to me when a news group is run by an agenda, thus becoming more like a political lobby than a news group, but it is not clear to everyone.
A President who stands for educating the public should seek to educate people on what exactly "bias" is, and hopefully shed some light on the issue.
If it is the desire of this White House to tackle the specific crimes against society that Fox has committed, then I would hope the case was made in specifics.
It is my personal view that a news group, of any sort, can lose it's status as “press” if they fail to uphold the journalistic truth as a matter of course.
I only believe Obama did not go far enough to fight unethical journalism and false reporting.
But I certainly agree with the point that FOX has become something other than a news agency when they promote bad journalism that is not related to their opinion-makers.
Something dangerous that is easily used for ill. Something we see running wild in right-wing politics.
But before we get to that we have to retrace our steps to around the time we experienced the recent global economic meltdown:
1. After lowering taxes, starting two wars, and doing nothing to warn of the coming recession, former President George W. Bush engaged in a government spending program giving out a Stimulus Check to people like myself who are not making any money. Then he bailed out the banks, and we lost a good chunk of the “TARP” money in the exchange for his efforts.
2. Unsubstantiated claims about The President of the United States Barack Hussein Obama ranging from claims that he has a falsified birth-record, to claims that he was secretly of Islamic faith, to claims that he was a cloaked dictator, to claims that he was involved in the disaster of the Bush Presidency, to claims that he was trying to forcibly legislate an increase abortions, to claims that he was being dishonest in his Address on Health Care to Congress. Even with nothing but wild conjecture, oppositional profiling, and personal bias behind all these claims they are still touted across the news media.
3. The first round of “tea parties” was thrown only after President Obama began the Obama Stimulus, and despite their claims they were funded by GOP big-money thus most certainly were not a “grass roots” movement. The second round of “tea parties” has been mainly hijacked by FOX News & Glenn Beck with his “9/12 Protest” on Washington. Just like before they claim their problem is “taxation” but they neglected to protest when the previous president took actions that, under their own logic, would lead to higher taxation through “bail out policy” and a “stimulus program”.
The worst kind of Populism that exists, the purely fascist brand of populist-thought.
It revolves around thinking that all not in agreement with you must be “indoctrinated” or “flawed” and that you and those who associate with your thinking have the purest-form of all logic.
This fascist-mentality, when mixed with populism, makes for an atmosphere of violence. What is worse yet is there is no true agenda to this brand of Populism that we see before us today.
They quite clearly only wish to attack the Obama White House and have no real set goal beyond constant smears as can we clearly seen by the fact that if they got Obama out of office that Joe Biden would be president, and after him Nancy Pelosi.
So they wouldn’t be pleased with even two supposed impeachment proceedings, they would have to go for three and I assume try to install John Boehner. This entire movement has reached a point that it is and actual danger to our society.
Because it is Populism without Peace, it is a form of Populism I can never associate with.
I dream of a day when people could come together and settle many differences as respectful and honest citizens of this great nation, and on that day I would speak of Populism being a good thing. An element that drives democracy and brings people to the table. Something that can enhance our understanding of one another as we come together on common goals. Such a day when we could throw away political parties, or perhaps introduce more, fresh ideas into the national dialogue and power structures of Washington.
But that day is not today.
There is no doubt.
What we see now is simply an anti-Obama crusade of Populist rhetoric that is being used to spread inaccurate claims instead of reasonable discussion on facts.
Misused, as it has been in this case, Populism is a very dangerous thing.
However, the “Cash for Clunkers” program is an example of what I believe is the true essence of Populism. The majority agreed and all parties involved were satisfied of those who took part, and in the end populism ruled because the demand far exceeded the value.
--
When something is truly good for the whole, and the majority wants it, a Liberal Populist like myself is working toward that end.
When something is only a benefit to the selective few, and loud minority wants it, a Fascist Populist like Glenn Beck is working only toward his own selfish ends.
--
These are dark days in North America.
The lies continue to spread, the right-wing political-media continues to be corrupt, and people are buying more guns and ammunition than ever before.
This “danger” does not stop at Obama.
This threat is upon anyone they deem against them.
There's no nice way to say it. The financial cost of health care is killing our citizens, hobbling our economy, crushing small business, and threatening the solvency of our government.
In the meantime, the Health Care Industry is spending almost two million dollars a day lobbying Congress and manipulating public opinion to accept “reform” legislation that leaves a vicious, for-profit system intact. The "public option" is a trap. We need real reform that finds immediate savings, controls costs, andaccomplishes the moral imperative of true Universal Access.
A Single Payer plan is the only real path to a Health Care System that is socially, ethically and fiscally responsible.And yet,our elected officials refuse to even discuss the possibility of a Single Payer plan!
If that doesn't make you mad, we recommend checking your pulse.
The "public option" is doomed.
First: we will still have a dysfunctional health care system designed around insurance companies.
Second: it will be impossible to cover everyone without raising taxes.
The Obama administration is already saying it is acceptable to leave out 15 million people. Which 15 million? Will you be one of them? Who gets to decide?
Third: in a "post-option" environment you can bet that the health insurance industry will manipulate the rules so that the sickest, most expensive patients will gravitate toward the public plan, which will cause it to fail. When it does, the opponents of real reform will point to the "public option" and scream: "See! Single Payer won't work!"
There is a time for compromise - this isn't one of them.
We believe there is only one way to control costs.
Quoting Dr. Hochfeld from a radio-interview with Alan Colmes of FOX News:
"60% of doctors are in favor of government health insurance. The vast majority of primary care providers are in favor of it."
"We are down to about 30% primary care providers in this country, we should be at about 50%. The more primary care providers you have, and the more resources you put into primary care, the better your health care outcomes and at a lower cost."
"We are wasting 20% of our dollars on health care costs. It's a threat to our security. We can't afford to throw money at health care."
"Once we get rid of the insurance companies we can have a health care system run by health care professionals."
"The way 'single-payer' works is we take the money we are now spending on health care .. 60% of this 2.4 trillion dollars is already going through the government .. instead of calling it 'insurance premiums' it's just called 'health tax'. It's not more money, it's the same money. Because we cut out the insurance companies, we actually get more for our health care dollars."
"I'm mad as hell about the political process."
"I think he [Obama] learned that the industry is far more powerful than he could ever imagine and our political process is far more corrupt than he could ever have predicted."
____________________________________
This last quote is vital for me to point out.
I find it distrubing those on the left would find it easy to throw the man we elected to change things for the better down the stairs just because the system is broken.
That's why we elected him.
Let the man work!
This is called 'incrementalism' and in my view President Obama should have just gone for the whole-nine-yards of single-payer but it's looking like that's not going to happen. Mostly because they are all corrupt in Congress and hyper-corrupt in the GOP so it's just plain outside of the list of options before Obama.
Or at least that's my take.
I support Mad as Hell Doctors and all those fighting for Universal Health Care.
My heart is with you. Let's keep making this case until the establishment will finally listen.
In this age of misreported facts and ‘gotcha-journalism' those who claim to hold the truth dear and have a love for American democracy would do well to take note of these modern propagandists and spreaders of lies.
1. James O’Keefe III
2. Hannah Giles
3. Andrew Breitbart
4. Mike Flynn
James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles have both lied on the air of the FOX News show “Hannity” regarding the issue of being asked to leave from ACORN offices in the process of their film making.
The Philadelphia ACORN office is on record as filing a police report against O’Keefe and Giles for misrepresenting themselves and making illegal requests.
O'KEEFE:“In none of the facilities -- none of the facilities kicked us out. That's a lie.”
BREITBART:“There's no place, as ACORN tried to state, that kicked them out based upon the premise that they were doing something nefarious.”
Both Breitbart and O’Keefe reveal in their quotes that they have no credibility behind their case. They claim ACORN is a “criminal organization” but engaged in illegal videotaping to produce these videos and have made baseless slanders against ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis even as the people in question have been fired for their actions caught on tape.
Were it the goal of these people to see quality, ethical journalism they would not misrepresent themselves nor place a blanket charge of criminality to the entire organization by value of the misdeeds of a few.
These slander artists are clearly seeking to destroy an organization based on political and possibly racial motives, and are clearly not invested in uncovering malpractice for the betterment of the community.
O’Keefe has been asked to leave the Leadership Institute after taping phone calls with Planned Parenthood representatives in which he made the proposition of a possible donation under the condition the money would go toward an abortion of a black child.
James O’Keefe has expressly chosen to target a group that helps mainly impoverished blacks living in the inner-city. He has a record of creating disgusting racial sentiments in his own mind and then imposing that racist view to any person unlucky enough to answer his phone call. There is no small amount of evidence to assume that O’Keefe harbors ill will toward African-Americans.
It is also very likely that this story has been picked up but poorly reported on by certain media figures because of a strong desire to connect President Barack Obama with ACORN’s problems.
If these same newsmedia-types were to convey that the credibility of these film makers is below even the lowest measuring bar I might not call them biased, but to me it just proves once more that bias against the truth is one of the strongest factors present in the news media today.
Joe Conason quite clearly lays out that this has been exaggerated from the very beginning, that ACORN helps struggling families, and stating the fact that ACORN has never been found guilty of any voter registration fraud.
Andrew Breitbart, on the other hand, produced a piece on RealClearPolitics that touts the entire slander crusade as courageous. Breitbart is quite clear that he stands with the McCarthyist tactics involved in the Van Jones resignation.
I see the same anti-American tactics at play in this un-Christian and ungodly campaign against minorities and against all of the poor. These people care nothing for the hard facts, and only care to paint others with a brush of guilt by association.
If one person is guilty of something in an ACORN office, they all are guilty in all ACORN offices. Evidence and solid proof be damned!
There is a strong value in good investigative journalism, but no value in anti-minority slander campaigns.
The people in the videos were dismissed and this in itself was a small service to ACORN, however the purpose of the video series was never to improve ACORN but rather to destroy it. Rather than balancing the matter with facts and open disclosure of the footage, these slander artists have elected to lie about the number of times they were asked to leave. This in itself calls to question if they have any desire to cover the story or if they merely wish to present this as irrefutable case of corruption regardless of solid facts.
The American Media also failed utterly to convey this story in full.
Jon Stewart of The Daily Show jumped on board the ACORN smash-wagon.
The Washington Post has ignored the fact that O’Keefe and Giles previously claimed they were never turned away from any office.
FOX News (to my knowledge) has made no effort to obtain the police report, in the procession of CNN, to refute the on-air claim that they were never asked to leave any ACORN office.
And I won’t even get into the matter of the numerous outright lies told on the radio.
I believe this story is an excellent example of how easy it is to besmirch and publicly defame a group.
On that topic, the group Live Action that O’Keefe belongs to is a corrupt organization that uses racial entrapment to levee false claims against innocent citizens. This possibly criminal organization apparently promotes illegal videotaping, dishonest conduct when speaking with the press and engages in false advertising of it’s purposes and functions.
This group is dangerous to our country, dangerous to our communities and dangerous to our democracy. Live Action films is an agent of propaganda and an actor in baseless public defamation.
James O’Keefe, Hannah Giles, Mike Flynn and Andrew Breitbart are currently invested in actions aimed against the well being of the community and against the well being of the poor.
I cannot remain silent as this group of vile individuals wage war against the needy and seek to destroy a community-based group that lends aid to others, rather than seeking to improve it.
I well aware of how vastly arrogant my headline for this post is.
I’m not a TEA Party ("Taxed Enough Already") person, nor a right-winger, nor a libertarian, nor a fringe radical. But I actually pay attention to both sides of the political spectrum, in fact all sides of the political spectrum, and I do it on my own without relying on the work of others to decipher it all for me.
I am stepping outside of my ‘box’ here, but what I’m telling you is based off of real comments of real people who didn’t get paid more if they screamed louder or lied harder.
And these people enraged with everything Obama does or says did not vote. Period.
They all sat home and decided that it was all a wash. Or the vast majority of them did at least. Maybe a few voted for the anti-American psychopath Alan Keyes.
Now Obama came out to say, in a very clever way, that the animosity against him is political and not racial.
I think very likely this is, for the most part, completely accurate.
A lot of these people are so angry because they didn’t vote. And that’s really it. There isn’t a lot more to understand.
Sure they are ‘anti-government‘, but not really. They are only anti-government when the government is run by mainly Democrats and their hatred for the government dissolves as soon as the Republicans are in power. It’s laughable and complete partisanship, but also not racist in any form.
The issue of this modern strain of racism is far more subtle and far more disguised than something so simple as overt anti-black statements.
This is part of why the rightwing cannot process the words of Jimmy Carter.
His courageous words involved looking at the world in more than a black-and-white, on-and-off, bumper sticker mentality. One must dabble in nuance and undercurrents to come to this conclusion.
It’s rather simple:
Some white people in this country are not willing to share power with non-whites.
If you actually read Carter’s comments, that is exactly what he said.
And it would be deplorable and insane if President Barack Obama was going to back up the words of Jimmy Carter. That would be completely wrong-headed and bad for the country.
So this whole issue has been a-swing-and-a-miss in terms of the conservative response to these charges. They constantly imply that Carter said that all rejection of Obama is based on race and everyone political knows that such a statement is completely false.
This example here of the TEA Party people and how they in fact placed no trust in democracy whatsoever during the election and then want to place faith in democracy through protest at this stage is just one of many examples that shows that it‘s not all racial motives.
Basically they came late to table and that’s part of their extreme bitterness. They are quite angry with themselves for the nonsense they were spouting, that I was listening to, that voting was completely pointless. Now they really wish they had gotten out there.
The big point a lot of people on the left fail to make about all this is that it is the failure to reject racialists like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and the failure to reject McCarthyist claims, that started long before Glenn Beck started repeating them, is the best example of racism in The Republican Party.
The howling silence from major ticket Republicans in regards to race-baiting and McCarthyism running wild in their party is pretty much the best evidence that exists that not only was Carter right, he understated the problem.
But I’m no brazen fool, I know exactly what I’m asking the GOP to do. I want them to throw away the Southern White Racists and throw away the White Nationalists, both of which really do vote Republican. So my request is for them to throw away votes.
And they won’t do that. Especially not now that they are wounded, limping party relying on media hounds to do CPR to their wrinkled husk.
But it’s about doing what is right for the country even when that might not be what is best for the party.
And this complete unwillingness to even admit that a boil of festering racism exists upon the fringe of the rightwing, makes me think that perhaps this veiled racism against any non-white leadership is actually present in a vast majority of cases.
Something Carter never said. Something I’ve never heard anyone say whatsoever.
But when many people won’t even explain why they believe Carter was mistaken and all they do is engage in bigoted insults against him, misrepresent what he said and just plain arrogantly insult anyone who backs Carter up; it truly does the beg the question if they just view the matters from a different lens or if they actually are so enraged because they know these statements are true and cannot abide by it being discussed openly in public.
Not once has any major Republican party figure come out to distance themselves from these shameless attempts to drum up anti-black sentiment against Barack Obama.
While Jimmy Carter expressed what I thought needed to be said, the larger part of my personal feelings on the matter is that of the unwillingness to question those that present themselves as conservatives or Republicans but in truth engage in viscous race-baiting.
It is the lack of togetherness around combating racism that leads me to such reasoning.
If their movement was so invested in racial equality, wouldn’t they want Limbaugh thrown off the air? Or at very least to stop calling himself a conservative and just admit to being a Race-baiter more than he is anything else?
But, no.
He is a mainstay in conservative-talk and even the Chairman of The RNC, Michael Steele, wouldn’t stand up to him on a matter as simple as if Limbaugh was an “entertainer“ or not.
Obviously Rush Limbaugh is a Radio Entertainer, but these quotes are examples of exactly what kind of entertainment his program really offers. Race-baiting against African-Americans and vile, political hatred for all who disagree with him all wrapped up in one package.
In that much alone, bringing no other examples, I could say almost the same words the former President Jimmy Carter spoke that have sparked controversy except more directed on to the shoulders of mainstream conservatives than the anti-Obama forces.
This failure to reject the racialist statements of a popular political-talker on any real level begs to question if indeed many support these untrue and racially divisive statements.
In short, it is this defense of figures like Limbaugh or the defense of racist cartoons that promotes the idea in minds of some that perhaps racial motivates do exist far more strongly than political motives in minds of others.
--
PORTSMOUTH, NH - AUGUST 11: Police stand near protesters outside Portsmouth High School where U.S President Barack Obama is holding a town hall August 11, 2009 in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. President Obama is in town to speak about the need for health insurance reform to a crowd of eighteen hundred. (Photo by Darren McCollester/Getty Images)
“We have to take our country back!”
“Get your government hands off my Medicare!”
There are two reasons why I believe some of the extreme sentiments in The Health Care Debate are perhaps more than merely political partisanship from the right.
(1) The Patriot Act expanded federalism and government power, as well as government involvement in our lives, without anywhere near the same level of intense resistance from these same groups who claim to stand only for limiting government power.
(2) Republican President George W. Bush initially expanded federalism, once more in a single presidency, to include market recovery spending again without anywhere near the same level of personal attacks on his character.
The ideals of conservatism state that we should have let the market fall and just let the chips fall where they may. The ideals of conservatism state that creating more government is always the wrong direction and only limiting it is the correct course.
If this resistance was in fact some ‘grass roots’, ‘bipartisan’, ’community event’ based on conservative ideals then these same people would have held protests and thrown tea parties at the actual expanse in federalism, and not at this late stage.
This talk of revolution and talk of oppressive government certainly begs any level of credibility with even the most elementary review of facts. A disconnect exists between the level of outrage and the stances they claim to have hold dear.
‘Astroturfing’ is a political term you don’t hear often. It means that a big entity, like a medical insurance company, is funding the protestors by means of paid-provocateurs and organizers usually working as private contractors.
I am not trying to belittle or demean those that have issues with the Health Care bills or issues with the very notion of government Health Care Reform.
I am only saying that in my view all these events don’t add up.
The problems in Congress and the deficit issue or the many other points I have heard made never include addressing why these issues, that have been this way prior to the election of Barack Obama and during the presidency of George W. Bush, are suddenly such strong points of contention.
I would remind everyone of the Obama Stimulus and how a very similar message was present in those speaking out in public and in the media but none of them ever explained why they neglected to protest or even voice their opinion when Bush issued a Stimulus Check and bailed out the banks.
Non-explanations combined with a specific rejection of specifically this president combined with intense pre-judgments, like the charges of “indoctrination” or despotism coming from people on the right wing when Obama merely addresses school children, are the reasons that I support Jimmy Carter in confronting the issue instead of shying away.
Rightwing pollster Frank Luntz is out promoting his new book: “What Americans Really Want, Really” and getting his definitions completely wrong in regards to Political Science, which I seriously doubt is an amateurish mistake.
On Alan Colmes Radio, Luntz continued the conservative rhetoric that United States of America is a “center-right country” and his words in explanation of this were very revealing as to his own personal bias against getting the definitions right, even when those words might not serve your own political ends.
“This is a center-right country but the definition of ‘Center-Right‘ has changed. ‘Center-Right’ doesn‘t mean keeping government out of our lives anymore, .. now it means fighting corruption.”
This is the Word-Weasel at work.
Fighting corruption in both government and private sectors has always been the ideals of The Progressive Reformist Movement since it's inception and these ideals have remained as a fact of American Life since then. To attach his own ideological group to these values is outright inaccurate.
Frank Luntz is very good at catering messages that appeal to conservatives and work well for The Republican Party but I find the notion that he is not affected by political bias in most of his statements completely absurd.
Center-Right has, and always will, mean exactly what Luntz claimed on the air that it does not mean.
It is clear to me that he feels free to change the definitions of words as he sees fit in order to further his own personal political agenda. If he cannot admit that the nation obviously shifted to Center-Left with the election of a Democratic President, and the ambitions of sixty House seats being attained by The Democratic Party then I am left to question the very conclusions of his work.
No doubt he has attained a great deal of significant data in his 6,000+ focus groups he used to compile his recent book, but if the standards of recognizing professional bias and personal bias are ignored then the conclusions of the body of work become suspect.
This is a Radio-interview Review, not a Book Review, so that body of work is not my focus and I invite anyone interested to avail themselves of this literature.
My only point is that if Frank Luntz is going to change the definitions of sound science to fit his image on a radio show, it begs to question other matters of credibility as well.
In his credit, I don’t believe he ever joined in the hateful mantra of “socialist” aimed at liberals, Democrats and mainly Obama.
On the list of all the partisans out there, Luntz is a minor offender.
But I still find it the worst of offenses to change the words to fit your needs, and considering they call him ‘The Words That Work Guy’; I think maybe it should be elongated to ‘The Words That Work No Matter What Guy’.
Frank Luntz is a smart cookie. But I’d personally almost compared him to Karl Rove, myself. Dancing around the truth has never been part of The Scientific Approach.
--
What Americans really want, really, is for pollsters to stop telling them what they think when it’s really just what the pollster thinks about what you think.
Rep. Wilson calls The President of The United States a "liar" at this point in regards to the legislation effecting illegal immigrants; if you failed to hear the audio that caused the interruption.
This was an excellent Address on Health Care by President Obama. All significant issues were cogently addressed, but I found the president should have expounded further upon the specifics of the budget and the concept of "deficit neutrality." Perhaps it is my own failure in understanding but I do not fully understand this notion as it pertains to health care.
I also think this clear explanation was needed much closer to the onset of the national debate instead of at this point in time and also hopefully prior to the town hall debate setting, but I see the issue of Health Care Reform as being underlined and placed in the foreground.
Those who chose not to listen and refute every word Obama speaks will most likely continue to do so.
The issue of a 'failure to sell' Health Care Reform and explain the proposal is put to rest, in my view.
So this is what we got going on that nobody cares enough about you to tell you in the newsmedia:
Obama has dropped the ball on this round of health care reform.
This is not the say he is now failing as president, or anything else the hate-mongers on the rightwing are sure to say.
But this is the first major misstep of The 44th US President.
There are a whole multitude of reasons, most of which very technical and are not coming to mind right now, (and very boring to cover) but as I prefer to 'cut to the chase' I'll just say it like this:
Obama and The Democrats have failed, and failed utterly, to properly sell good health care reform to be proposed in the Congress.
--
I'm going to give you all a brief lesson in sales ... pay attention:
The first thing you do is explain the value. Is this highly valuable or moderately valuable or barely valuable? Are we talking about a gold-plated coffee maker, or a plastic one? Is this car made for the long haul, or just for going to the store and back?
The second thing you do is explain the benefits. Are these the greatest benefits you could possibly have or just fine benefits or perhaps no benefit exists at all? Will you be better off in a few seconds after owning this or will you be better off in two months or will you never be better for owning this?
--
All the Democrats and President Obama have succeeded in doing at this stage is explaining what this bill won't do.
Not one of them has succeeded in properly conveying the value and benefit of public health care options, nor have they properly conveyed the value and benefit of saving money in a exasperated system.
Call me vastly arrogant, but I feel they need to put my over-the-top with conviction self on this issue. I am a Progressive Reformist to the bone, and I think perhaps that is exactly what is lacking in the Democratic Party these days.
It seems to me the political will to get this done is floating away from the Democrats now that we are faced with actually doing it. After years of campaigning on health care reform, specifically what we are talking about as to medical insurance reform, these same people seem to lost their thunder as the moment in upon them to roar.
I chalk this up to the nature of people and nature of the real world.
President Obama has done an excellent job in terms of foreign affairs and the national security agenda, but seems to have some trouble working toward this particular domestic policy agenda at this time.
In the end, we the people cannot rely on any one political figure or any one group to get what we need from our government.
The fight goes on, and if they fail to achieve meaningful reform then we will pick up this battle once more in days yet to come.
And perhaps in those days yet to be before us, someone can explain clearly and passionately why we need health care reform in the US.
I see these God-forsaken ads running on my blog about how people are supposed to “Stop Obama-care Now!” and I would like to metaphorically spit on this nonsense once and for all. Anyone attaching the misnomer of “socialized medicine” or using the phrase “Obama-care” has already labeled themselves as part of the partisan agenda weakening this country from within everyday.
I contend that if we witnessed these same bills moving through Congress proposed my Republicans instead of Democrats that many of the same harsh opponents of reform would flip-flop their stance entirely. Almost anyone questioned on their position in the media or otherwise states that they think there should be “some kind” of reform.
I am left to think that a vast majority of the resistance to the passage of these measures is simply playing politics on behalf of Republicans, in that if President Obama signs a successful humanitarian bill that enhances the lives of so many American families the political consequences to their party will be too severe to manage.
At least the televised and media punditry are motivated by this end, if noting else.
This ’Party of No’ mentality is dangerous to us all. If anyone has a valid objection or concern by all means they should make themselves known. But when a person simply stands on the legs of right wing talking points and shaky numbers I tend to think they would be a strong advocate for “McCain-care” if the universe where all flipped upside down.
In the midst of civil and uncivil protests against any type of reformist action on the medical insurance corporations and their stranglehold over health care options in the United States there has been a proposed amendment to the bill that I feel best represents the embodiment of liberty and American Values.
The Kucinich Amendment proposes that the federal option remains intact but each state would be allowed to elect into a single-payer system if they chose to do so.
We live in a system of government called Marble-cake Federalism where the federal government and state governments share powers over specific matters.
The best example being the issue of Gay-Marriage and the nature of how each state can decide for itself at this point if it is a legal practice or not, but if a federal law were to pass that either granted or denied the right to all citizens of the nation that would be nationwide legal practice from that point forward.
By granting a public option and in the same motion granting the state’s powers to establish a single-payer model is the best representation of Progressive Reformist action.
I would grant a lot more credit to the protestors of recent days to their commit to their cause and their willingness to do what it takes to heard, except for the facts that the values of non-violent protest seems to lost on far too many of their numbers and that the outright falsehoods coming from their mouths.
If there is a complete absence of logic and desired direction in any movement then ultimately there is one course in it’s direction: violence.
I understand a person if they speak about their fears about over reaching government powers into our lives. But I’m more interested to talk about The Patriot Act and The Homeland Security Department than I am to talk about a bill moving through Congress.
When the same group of people remained mute or even in support of expanding federalism when George W. Bush did it and then shout down their own representatives when they come to speak it becomes clear that some certain number of these people are just the most perverse of political partisans.
We the people do indeed need to find a way to take back the massive expanses in federal and executive powers but lacking a clear message beyond obstructionism of any government action regarding health care reform I am left to question the very motives of these protestors at their very core.
I also believe it to be true that a certain number of these people are paid-provocateurs working for the for-profit insurance agencies in order to make it appear that a vast majority of people support monopolies over the availability of health care in America.
It occurs to me that many people in America care little to perceive and discern political partisanship in both the media and coming from representatives of their party.
Partisanship, better described as political hatred, is the driving force in the televised media and has been the bread and butter of radio broadcasting for as long as one cares to recall.
No person who advocates bipartisan coverage in the media is asking others to forego their own conclusions nor to silence their tongue in terms of political commentary.
Those who request a more bipartisan government and a more bipartisan media are only asking that the rancor and untruths spread by both sides be called out as such. We only ask that a person of any political stance be mindful of the simple fact that using slander, propaganda, and biased reporting does not contribute to the body politic of the nation.
The need to declare one’s self as part of any group is also an element of bipartisanship known as ‘full disclosure.’ This fact does not allow any person to call themselves ‘balanced’ and ‘fair’ in their dialogue while they proceed to make vast assumptions and baseless assertions about another group that they do not belong to nor share any common ideologies with.
The value to the nation is lost. These endless left versus right debates with no mutual respect and no interest in reviewing facts in the process is only serving to tear the nation further away from attaining mutual goals.
We the people did this to ourselves, lest someone feels the urge to blame the media.
The people of America seem to enjoy staying perfectly ‘safe’ within their respective spheres of politics and dare not to stray away from the ‘status quo’ generated by whatever biased programming they choose to absorb.
The media only responds to what it perceives the public wants. The public seems to want to drowned in slanderous, untrue, and vague reporting coming from pundits who make their careers off of lying and obfuscating facts about politics.
The bottom line is that media pundits have tied their own noose around their neck. If even one of them were to admit that they say these slanderous remarks and hateful comments to boost their ratings or book sales they would be thrown away by the very people who currently pay them respect.
I assert that if true honesty and true patriotism were to be included in the modern political media that people would reject these current figures in the media and exchange them so others who would not ever be honest and straight forward with the public could take their place.
In a world where each political camp is dedicated to the notion that the other is ‘evil’ and ‘immoral’ we shall never do anything worthy of the name American in this country.
We shall forever be a nation divided and shall never be a nation united.
The most obvious choice for a tax-payer who is interested in learning more about the stimulus money and how it is being spent is Recovery.Gov.
There is also the addition of the website Recovery.Org to the mix.
But the most open-sourced transparency and best place, in my opinion, to address this issue while using the internet as a source would be at the George Mason Unversity's Mercatus Center who recently released the website StimulusWatch.Org.
If you desire to take a more direct approach to tracking the funds you should visit ShovelWatch.Org.
Today on The Drudge Report we see the latest example of bias and slander against the president by means of using a misleading photo of Barack Obama above the title of the wbsite.
ABC has the whole video, in which you can see what truly transpired.
Yahoo News is where the link provided by Drudge leads you, but the headline "The Second Stimulus" has nothing to do with the article on Yahoo from which this image originated from.
Mike Drudge knows exactly what he is doing by only posting that photo above and then linking into an article that not enabled with the video version thus the 'whole story.'
It is clear to me, and everyone who did more than giggle at the cover piece, that Drudge will use any excuse to slander and degrade the image of President Barack Obama. Even at the cost of his own credibility.
It was in fact Sarkozy taking a look at the young lady's behind, and not Obama. But such facts mean nothing to people care to do nothing but demean Obama's character with their every breath.
The only person affliated with FOX News to accurately report on this issue has been Greta Van Susteren. Further enforcing the concept that FOX News is a network mainly dedicated to this style of misleading coverage of news events and utterly biased content.
