GOP Gets Smack-down in CA.

State Dem Group Played Hardball to Kill GOP Election System Plan
By Carla Marinucci
The San Francisco Chronicle

Sunday 07 October 2007

They called themselves "The Lincoln Brigade."

Even as Democrats feared having to spend as much as $40 million for a bruising, bloody fight expected to drag on for months, this makeshift group of California Democratic operatives needed just weeks to pummel a Republican-funded push for a ballot measure that threatened to change the outcome of the 2008 presidential election.

The ruthlessly effective battle plan of the California Democrats' group raises the specter that, as the 2008 election looms, Republicans may have to confront a far more aggressive Democratic ground game that has revived the old "Clinton war room" philosophy.

"We need to fight back and not be reluctant - that if they come after you with a knife, to pull out a gun," said California Democratic strategist Chris Lehane, former spokesman for President Bill Clinton's White House and Vice President Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign.

The group took aim at the Presidential Election Reform Act, a proposed California ballot measure that would change the way the state apportions its Electoral College votes and likely benefit the Republican nominee.

After two terms of Republican control of the White House - and angered by what they perceived as a history of electoral "dirty tricks" by GOP strategists such as President Bush's key adviser Karl Rove - the Democrats' response in California could serve as an indication of what lies ahead in the 2008 battle for the White House.

"We ran it like a military operation," says Margie Sullivan, a former chief of staff to three Clinton Cabinet secretaries who was closely involved in the effort. "You had this SWAT team of talented, hyper-engaged people. ... It was: boom, boom, boom."

Lehane and Sullivan are some of the lead players in the group, which includes many former insiders from the Clinton administration. They named their group after the brigade of American volunteers who fought against fascism in the Spanish Civil War.

After events such as the 2000 Florida presidential election recount, the 2003 California recall election that ousted Democratic Gov. Gray Davis, the 2004 "Swift Boat" campaign against Sen. John Kerry, "Democrats are waking up to reality, " said Doug Boxer, the son of U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer and a Bay Area consultant who was political director for the effort against the ballot measure.

"It doesn't mean (Democrats are) jettisoning their values system ... but the Clinton administration played hardball on a lot of things, and we'd gotten away from that," Boxer said. "We're back to the Clinton era."

Veteran California Republican strategist Dan Schnur conceded that the recent Democratic effort against the ballot measure was astonishingly effective. But he argued that the result - Republican supporters have for the most part backed away from the measure - may have been due more to the high stakes and a hunger to get back into the White House than brilliant campaign strategy.

"There's an old saying: Nothing concentrates your attention like the prospect of your own destruction," Schnur said. "They correctly identified this as a mortal blow to their Electoral College prospects next year. If they hadn't mobilized with everything they had, they would have been signing their own death warrant."

Interviews with lead players in the effort last week reinforced that scenario: Democrats from local to national levels shifted into gear almost as soon as rumors surfaced in May that Republicans might try to "steal the election" in the Democratic-leaning state with a ballot measure to benefit the GOP nominee.

Instead of the winner-take-all system used in all but two states, the measure provided that 53 of California's 55 electoral colleges votes would go one-by-one to the presidential candidate who wins each of the state's 53 congressional districts.

Analysts said such a change could swing about 20 of California's Electoral College votes - about as many as key states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania - from the Democratic candidate, who would be favored to win the statewide popular vote, to the Republican candidate who could win Republican-dominated congressional districts.

By the time the GOP-backed group called "Californians for Equal Representation," led by attorney Thomas Hiltachk - who has represented Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state GOP - submitted the ballot measure to the state attorney general's office on July 17, the ad-hoc Democratic group was already engaged in a flurry of action.

Lehane had contacted Sullivan and Tom Steyer, a longtime major party donor and lead fundraiser for Kerry who heads San Francisco-based Farallon Capitol.

"He said, 'We've got to stop this - now' ... and immediately kicked in $150,000," Lehane recalled.

They roused a crew of party operatives including Peter Ragone, longtime aide to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who acknowledged that many believed the GOP effort was a longshot.

But "we'd seen that movie before," Ragone said. "We had learned ... that when Republicans start with these shenanigans, you have to hit them hard. Our attitude was: Not in our state."

The goal, Sullivan said, was to "strangle the baby in the cradle" and kill the ballot measure early, rather than let it qualify for the ballot - where it would be much tougher and more expensive to beat.

As the campaign in favor of the measure prepared to circulate the petitions and get the voter signatures needed to qualify it for the ballot, Doug Boxer contacted every major Democratic elected official from mayors to state legislators to California's U.S. senators and urged them to speak publicly against the Electoral College plan.

Steyer and Sullivan hit the phones, rounding up financial backing and commitments from deep-pocketed donors like Nancy Parrish, a leading supporter of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign and Hollywood producer Norman Lear, who put up $50,000. Also at the ready: producer Steven Bing and major Democratic donor and developer Walter Shorenstein, Sullivan said.

Pollster Paul Maslin's early focus groups found that a slim majority of Californians initially backed the Republicans' call for an end to "winner take all," so the Democrats began a daily drumbeat aimed at the media - press conferences, meeting with the state's leading editorial boards and outreach to Internet Web sites and blogs.

The Democrats wanted to "tell our side of the story" additionally through TV and radio ads to erode public support and scare off potential GOP donors, Lehane said.

At one point, "Norman Lear pitched in on a script change," Lehane said. "That made us nervous ... it's was kind of like Picasso giving you advice on painting."

Frank Russo, publisher of the California Progress Report, a popular Democratic Web site, said the strategy achieved "a clarion call that went out to all the troops," prompting netroots activists such as the Courage Campaign and Daily Kos loyalists to pound the issue to the grassroots. "It was like the old Who song: We won't get fooled again," he said.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean flew to San Francisco for a press conference with labor leaders to "make it very clear from the beginning that the new Democratic Party is not going to take it lying down - we still stand and fight," said DNC spokesman Karen Finney.

Editorial boards lined up against the measure. Then came a turning point - Schwarzenegger's public slap at the measure, which he said suggested a "loser mentality" by his party and an attempt to change election rules in the middle of the game.

Democrats still felt they had a big challenge: unmasking the money people behind Hiltachk's group - which by early September had said it had collected 40,000 signatures to put the measure on the June 2008 ballot.

Many of the original backers of the GOP ballot measure also were supporters of GOP presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani. Then came the news that the single $175,000 contribution to Hiltachk's Sacramento group was from a separate organization run by a Missouri GOP attorney named Charles Hurtt III - another Giuliani donor. But Hurtt's group wouldn't reveal its donors.

Democratic attorney James Harrison announced the party would file a complaint with federal election officials alleging money laundering - and the state's Fair Political Practices Commission acknowledged looking into the issue.

Quickly, the GOP ballot measure drive collapsed. Hiltachk resigned - as did his group's spokesman, Kevin Eckery and the chief fundraiser, Marty Wilson. They said they didn't want to accept money from anonymous donors - and support and funding had dried up for the measure.

In the last week, the money man behind the Missouri group was revealed to be Giuliani policy adviser and top fundraiser, billionaire New York hedge fund executive Paul Singer. That has prompted Harrison to pledge that Democrats will continue demanding answers regarding Giuliani's links to the effort - right into the 2008 primary season.

Eckery, the former spokesman for the ballot measure group, said that while the experience served as "a tune-up for the Clinton machine in California," Democrats shouldn't get overconfident from the result.

"Politics is a contact sport," he said, "and the presidential election is the Super Bowl."

Cast of Characters

Some of the key Lincoln Brigade players and their Clinton connections:

Chris Lehane: former White House spokesman for President Bill Clinton and 2000 spokesman for Al Gore's presidential campaign. Lehane is supporting Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential effort.

Doug Boxer: consultant and son of U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer of California.

Tom Steyer: founder of San Francisco's Farallon Capital Management, one of Sen. Clinton's biggest donors and a leading fundraiser for 2004 John Kerry campaign.

Margie Sullivan: Farallon Capital management analyst, Democratic fundraiser and former chief of staff to three U.S. Cabinet secretaries during the Clinton administration.

Ari Swiller: Democratic fundraiser and "kitchen cabinet" insider of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a Hillary Clinton backer.

Peter Ragone: a former aide in the Clinton administration and Gore spokesman. He is former spokesman for San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, a Clinton endorser.

Bill Carrick: longtime Democratic strategist for U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who has endorsed Hillary Clinton.

Paul Maslin: veteran Democratic pollster, formerly for Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and now for New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democratic presidential candidate.

Sean Sullivan: opposition researcher formerly with the San Francisco firm of Averell "Ace" Smith, who is now Hillary Clinton's California campaign manager.

--------

E-mail Carla Marinucci at cmarinucci@sfchronicle.com.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

The Pentagon and the Evangelicals

Glad I'm not paying for this unconstitutional crappola.

Report: Pentagon Facilitating Christian Evangelism
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report

Monday 08 October 2007

The Defense Department (DOD) allegedly provided two fundamentalist Christian organizations exclusive access to several military bases around the country. This access became official sanction for these groups to proselytize amid the ranks, despite the fact that such activities were in violation of federal law.

The evangelical Christian groups have posted detailed instruction guides on their web site that advises their members about tactics to use to win over soldiers, or "pre-Christians," to evangelical Christianity when visiting military installations around the country.

Spokespeople for the DOD and for the fundamentalist Christian organizations identified in this report did not return numerous calls or reply to several emails seeking comment.

According to a week-long investigation by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, a government watchdog organization, the evidence it has uncovered proves the Pentagon has been engaged in a pattern of widespread evangelizing in violation of Clause 3, Article VI of the Constitution, which forbids a religion test for any position in the federal government, and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which says Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion. Furthermore, individuals representing a specific denomination may only offer spiritual guidance to soldiers and are prohibited from using the "machinery of the state" to proselytize or try to convert members of the military.

But that is not the intent of Military Ministry, a fundamentalist Christian organization, according to documents posted on the group's web site.

The group says its members are responsible for "working with Chaplains and Military personnel to bring lost soldiers closer to Christ, build them in their faith and send them out into the world as Government paid missionaries" - a clear-cut violation of federal law.

Military Ministry boasts that it has successfully "targeted" basic training installations, or "gateways" and has converted soldiers to Christianity.

"Young recruits are under great pressure as they enter the military at their initial training gateways," the group has said, according to an archive on its web site. "The demands of drill instructors push recruits and new cadets to the edge. This is why they are most open to the 'good news.' We target specific locations, like Lackland AFB [Air Force base] and Fort Jackson, where large numbers of military members transition early in their career. These sites are excellent locations to pursue our strategic goals."

Military Ministry is a subsidiary of Campus Crusade for Christ, an evangelical missionary organization. In August, several high-level Pentagon officials were admonished for participating, while in uniform and on active duty, in a promotional video sponsored by Campus Crusade for Christ's Christian Embassy group.

The inspector general issued a 47-page report that said former Pentagon Chaplain Col. Ralph G. Benson knowingly misled the DOD when he requested permission from Pentagon officials to film a video inside the Pentagon claiming he was interested in gathering information about the DOD's "own ministry." In fact, the report says, Benson was determined to use the video to "attract new supporters" to the Christian Embassy, an evangelical organization that evangelizes members of the military and politicians in Washington, DC via daily Bible studies and outreach events. The group holds prayer breakfasts on Wednesdays in the Pentagon's executive dining room, according to the organization's web site. Bill Bright, the founder of Campus Crusade for Christ, founded the Christian Embassy 30 years ago.

Another fundamentalist group, Military Missions Network, says its mission is to build "an expanding global network of kingdom minded movements of evangelism and discipleship reaching the world through the military of the world."

On its web site, the group has posted a 40-page instruction manual for winning over so-called "pre-Christians" to evangelical Christianity.

"As you begin to launch a movement on a base, ship or post, it is evangelism that will make the difference between a maintenance ministry and a thriving movement- like you see in the Book of Acts," the group says in the "Unstoppable Evangelism" section of its manual. "Military men, women and their families are barraged daily with messages from a secular world view. To counter this, we must use every appropriate means to communicate a Christian world view."

The instruction manual also says that soldiers are more vulnerable in stressful situations and that Military Missions Network members can tap into that vulnerability to proselytize and perhaps convince soldiers to embrace Christianity.

"Of course, you should recognize as well that some environments and situations (i.e. basic training, stressful TDYs, threats of violence) create a very receptive audience," the manual says.

Additionally, the manual suggests evangelizers become familiar with what makes their "targets tick."

"We need to ask as a team 'Who is it exactly that we are trying to reach?' Cadets, enlisted, officers, singles, marrieds, senior NCOs [non-commissioned officers], senior officers, retirees? Army, Navy, Air Force? Internationals? No doubt, other categories for our audiences exist. Take the time to define them. Once you know the target, you'll be able to begin to design your approach to reach them. Become as Paul was 'all things to all' (1 Corinthians 9:22). As you define your target more clearly, take the time to get to know a few of them! Mark Mittelberg says: 'Find out what makes them tick. What are their questions? What interests them? What do they wrestle with? Get to know their background. Learn their language-find out what words and concepts connect with them and which ones make their eyes glaze over. Then speak to them in their own language.'"

Military Missions Network and Military Ministry count current and former high-level personnel from all four branches of the military as board members and use their relationships with base commanders to gain access to soldiers, according to documents from both groups.

Mikey Weinstein, the founder and president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, said the new evidence that has surfaced proves proselytizing among military bases is not an isolated issue, which some of his critics have charged.

"Today is a tragically dark day of infamy for the Constitutional religious liberties of the guardians of the American Dream: the United States armed forces," Weinstein said in an interview. "Today, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation is publicly releasing incontrovertible and comprehensive evidence of a profoundly unconstitutional and previously undetected alliance between fundamentalist Christian churches, parachurch organizations and the most intricate machinery of the American military. We are resolute and determined to present this compelling volume of evidence before the Judge in our current Federal litigation in Kansas City. It is our fervent hope that its shocking impact will formidably buttress the likelihood of a favorable legal victory to stem the engulfing tide of the Department of Defense's pernicious pattern and practice of Constitutional rape of the religious freedoms of our honorable and noble sailors, soldiers, marines, airmen and veterans."

Since Weinstein started his foundation more than two years ago, he has been contacted by more than 6,000 soldiers from all over the world who said they were being pressured to embrace some form of fundamental Christianity.

Last month, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation filed a lawsuit in federal court against Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and US Army major Freddy Welborn, on behalf of an Army soldier stationed in Iraq. The complaint filed in US District Court in Kansas City on behalf of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation for Jeremy Hall, an Army specialist currently on active duty in Combat Operations Base Speicher, Iraq, alleges Hall's First Amendment rights were violated when Welborn threatened to retaliate against Hall and block his reenlistment in the Army because of Hall's atheist beliefs.

---

Jason Leopold is senior editor and reporter for Truthout. He received a Project Censored award in 2007 for his story on Halliburton's work in Iran.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Is There Strain Between The GOP and Business?

Ties fraying between GOP, business

Some policies seen as shift from core values

David Callender — 10/08/2007 7:09 am

While national observers see a split developing in the traditional alliance between big business and the Republican Party, leaders here say that while some of those ties may be fraying, they continue to hold for now.

"I think it's a critical crossroads for Republicans in Wisconsin and across the country because a lot of people believe the party has lost its way," said Mark Bugher, director of the UW Research Park and a former top aide to Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson.

Bugher, like other Republican business leaders nationally, contend that because of escalating federal budget deficits and the growth of the federal bureaucracy under the Bush administration, the party has forfeited its claim as the voice of fiscal responsibility.

And he says the party's slide toward social conservatism -- by stressing such issues as opposition to abortion, gay marriage, and embryonic stem cell research -- has also alienated more moderate Republican voices.

"I think a lot of people, like myself, who have been in the Republican Party for a long time and who believe in things like stem cell research, are concerned about the hijacking of the party by what can be described as single-interest groups," he said, describing such disputes as part of a battle for the soul of the Republican Party.

"I find it alarming because if we don't take a more holistic approach we could be viewed by non-aligned voters as a kind of knee-jerk party," he says.

(You already are)

Historic shift?

Bugher and other GOP activists and business leaders were reacting to a report in the Wall Street Journal this week that indicated a "potentially historic shift" in the longstanding relationship between business and the Republican Party.

The Journal reported that "some business leaders are drifting away from the party because of the war in Iraq, the growing federal debt, and a conservative agenda they don't share." Others, the paper reported, are breaking with the party over the need for federal action on health care.

Bugher contends that the disconnect may be most acute for Republican candidates at the national level and not quite as pressing for Wisconsin Republicans, a view shared by state GOP director Mark Jefferson and others.

Bugher argues, for example, that the Assembly Republicans' battle with Senate Democrats over proposed tax increases in Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle's budget reinforces the image of Republicans as fiscal hawks.

Although some have seen the Republicans as obstructing a final budget deal, Bugher said Doyle's original proposal, which called for about $1.7 billion in new taxes and fee increases, "was pretty hard to swallow.

"In some ways (Assembly Speaker) Mike Huebsch is trying to restore some of the soul of the Republican Party," Bugher said, warning that there could be fallout from conservative voters if Assembly Republicans "knuckle under" to the Democrats on taxes.

Jefferson acknowledged that some party loyalists -- including business leaders -- believe that the party has lost its "brand" because of Bush and the Republicans' free-spending ways.

But he said U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Janesville, and others in Wisconsin's congressional delegation have done a better job than most in articulating traditional Republican values of fiscal responsibility.

GOP's business ally

There are few signs that the state GOP's traditional big-business ally, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, is abandoning the party.

Officially the group is "a business organization that doesn't worry about the inner workings of the political parties," in the words of WMC spokesman Jim Pugh.

But last year it spent heavily on behalf of Republican Attorney General candidate J.B. Van Hollen and a host of GOP legislative candidates. And, in a move that surprised even some of its members, it went on record opposing Doyle, who has consistently sought to portray himself as a no-tax-increase, pro-business Democrat.

In 2002, the group stayed neutral in the contest between Doyle and Republican Gov. Scott McCallum, in part because of Doyle's promise not to raise state income or sales taxes.

Pugh maintains that his group's stance is that "there should be a bipartisan consensus that what's good for business is good for Wisconsin."

But one longtime WMC observer adds that the group hasn't changed in its overwhelming support for Republicans "and given their leadership and their board of directors, it's not going to."

Joe Murray, political director of the Wisconsin Association of Realtors, said he doesn't believe a political realignment is taking place among Wisconsin business leaders.

While the Realtors have endorsed individual Democratic lawmakers -- and took the unusual step of endorsing Democratic Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager in her primary race against Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk last year -- like WMC, it remains a GOP-dominated organization.

Murray said that to the extent that Republicans lost support last year, "it was over the war and the corruption in Congress," and not any change in core beliefs.

dcallender@madison.coms

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

UnFreakin'Believable

VIDEO EXCLUSIVE: DoJ Voting Rights Chief Says 'It's a Shame' Elderly May be Disenfranchised by Photo ID Laws, But Minority Voters 'Don't Become Elderly, They Die First'

Incredibly, John Tanner Argues Restrictive Photo ID Laws at the Polls Actually Give Minorities a Greater Voice!

Rest of Panel, Audience Members at 2007 National Latino Congresso in Los Angeles Strongly Disagree...

Posted By Alan Breslauer On 8th October 2007 @ 16:10 In Election Irregularities, Election 2004, Election Reform, Election 2006, Election Fraud, Election 2008, Dirty Tricks, Exit Polls, Election 2007 | 6 Comments

Guest Blogged by Alan Breslauer ^[1]

Unbelievably, the Chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, John Tanner, contends that while it's "a shame" that elderly voters may be disenfranchised by new Photo ID restrictions at the polls because many don't have driver's licenses, minorities don't have to worry quite as much. Why? Because "minorities don't become elderly the way white people do. They die first."

Yes, that's what Tanner said last Friday at the National Latino Congreso ^[2] in Los Angeles and The BRAD BLOG ^[3] was in tow with video camera to prove it.

The NLC kicked off their 2nd Annual convention over the weekend, including an expert panel titled, "It's Not Over - Defending the Right to Vote Against Disenfranchising Tactics". While many issues were covered over the course of the 2 1/2 hour panel, the most hotly debated subject was the current rash of GOP-pushed Photo ID laws sweeping the nation, just in time for the 2008 Presidential Election.

Tanner --- and we'll repeat it again, he's the Chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Justice --seems to believe that restrictive Photo ID laws are not only non-discriminatory but actually favor minorities (at least in Georgia). All of the other expert panelists, audience members and even one particular vocal cameraman (that would be me), were incredulous, and found Tanner's comments absurd and objectionable.

The BRAD BLOG ^[4]has long been covering the use of the GOP Photo ID scam, meant to do little more than keep minorities and the elderly (read: Dem-leaning voters) from being able to cast a legal vote at all. They created a White House-tied front group to do exactly that after the 2004 election (special coverage page on ACVR here ^[5]), and our coverage of recent chapters in this regrettable, anti-democracy tale, includes (Vice) Presidential candidate Duncan Hunter's claim at a Republican debate that in California, he's seen "people that are illegally in the country being rounded up, herded into the polls [and] voting illegally."

As well, Democratic Senators Barack Obama and Russ Feingold recently stepped up to block a deal ^[6] made by Majority Leader Harry Reid to allow one of the most notorious "Voter Fraud" disenfranchisers, Hans von Spakovsky, to be seated on the Federal Election Commission (FEC). That, in a Presidential Election year where the GOP's strategy #1 will be to "win" by keeping as many legally registered voters from voting as possible.

In the first of several exclusive video clips below, Tanner states that Voter ID laws "very much [are] a state by state issue" that come down to "who has the ID and who doesn't." Tanner goes on to contend that Photo ID issues really only impact the elderly. There is a racial link however, because "our society is such that minorities don't become elderly the way white people do. They die first," he told those of us in the room. And things that disproportionately impact the elderly have the opposite impact on minorities. In other words, Tanner concludes that Photo ID laws actually negatively impact non-minorities and seemingly give minorities a greater voice.

Yes, that's what he was contending. Even as he failed to satisfactorily answer The BRAD BLOG's ^[7] fervent contention that such laws are little more than a solution in search of a problem, given the exceedingly rare number of voter fraud cases (as distinct from election fraud) which actually occur, by even DoJ statistics, and which would be prevented by Photo ID restrictions at the polls.

Military sees big decline in black enlistees

Iraq war cited in 58% drop since 2000

By Joseph Williams and Kevin Baron, Globe Staff and Globe Correspondent | October 7, 2007

WASHINGTON - African-Americans, whose longstanding relationship with the US military helped them prove their abilities and offered a way to get ahead, have turned away from the armed forces in record numbers since 2000, a period covering the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the start of the Iraq war.

Defense Department statistics show the number of young black enlistees has fallen by more than 58 percent since fiscal year 2000. The Army in particular has been hit hard: In fiscal year 2000, according to the Pentagon statistics, more than 42,000 black men and women applied to enlist; in fiscal year 2005, the most recent for which a racial breakdown is available, just over 17,000 signed up.

The unpopular Iraq war is the biggest reason, according to military analysts, Pentagon surveys, and interviews with young African-Americans. But they say mistrust of the Bush administration is adding to the problem - along with the notion that black soldiers are being steered to combat jobs, a lingering perception from the Vietnam War.

The decline in enlistment applications among blacks is by far the fastest of any demographic group. Between fiscal 2000 and 2005, white applicants declined by more than 10 percent. Hispanic applicants dropped by almost 7 percent.

The Army Recruiting Command acknowledged that the Iraq war has presented special challenges in the African-American community, but said it continues to reach out to black recruits.

"The main thing everyone has to realize is that an all-volunteer force is just that," said S. Douglas Smith, public affairs officer for the US Army Recruiting Command. "We try to make sure we communicate to every part of society and let them know what we have to offer. We try to be as open as we can about the risk of service and the benefits of service. After that, it's a matter of people choosing if they want to come in and serve."

But some military specialists worry that the trend could persist long after the current administration and war are over.

"African-Americans have been such a key part of the modern military," said Michael O'Hanlon, military analyst for the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution. "There's obviously been a degree where the black community in the United States has seen [military service] as culturally valuable and promoted it. That whole culture and value system is at risk in the black community. That is a big, big change. To me, it portends the possibility of a longer-term loss of interest. It can be tough to get it back."

Interviews with young African-Americans confirmed a lack of faith in the president and the war.

Nathaniel Daley, a young African-American from Atlantic City, N.J., said he doesn't believe in the Iraq war and won't enlist because of it. Daley, 28, and two friends, Brian Jackson, 27, and Eddie Mickle Jr., 26, talked one recent afternoon at the Pentagon City Mall in Arlington, Va., a vast shopping complex just blocks from the military's nerve center. As they talked, uniformed servicemen and women, some wearing battle fatigues, passed by.

In high school during the late 1990s, Daley said, he signed a letter of intent to join the Army upon graduation, "to pay for my college, get a better job, and better myself." He said he broke that commitment for a higher-paying job at a nearby casino.

Though the Army would likely consider them ideal recruits - young, fit, high school-educated - each said the Iraq war and Bush's presidency, particularly after the Hurricane Katrina disaster in 2005, has kept them out of uniform.

"Why would we go over there and help them [Iraqis], when [the US government] can't help us over here?" he said, referring to the cleanup after Katrina.

The war "is unnecessary," Jackson said. "It's not our war. We got our own war here, just staying alive," he added, noting his hometown of Philadelphia has racked up more than 200 homicides so far this year, most involving young black men.

Eager to bolster its stretched-thin ranks - and meet a congressional mandate to increase its force by about 65,000 troops within five years - the Army has launched an aggressive recruiting campaign targeted at young black people like Daley and his friends, with ads featuring a young black man convincing his parents that enlistment is a good choice. The Army has also raised its enlistment bonuses, highlighted its access to college tuition money, and loosened its age and physical fitness standards.

But Damon Wright, a senior at Anacostia High School in Southeast Washington, was not impressed. "There's no guarantee I wouldn't have to go over there," he said. "I'm trying to play football in college. I might go over there and lose a leg."

The Pentagon and military analysts say the downturn in enlistments partly reflects the fact that young African-Americans have broader options, pointing to the growing number of black students in college. But the decrease in enlistment also comes amid high dropout rates among African-American youths and a 7.7 percent unemployment rate in the black community, almost twice that of whites.

Negative opinions about Iraq - and attitudes like Wright's - have overshadowed the military's efforts to highlight the positives about military service.

A recent CBS News poll showed 83 percent of African-American respondents said the Iraq invasion was a mistake. In addition, the president's approval rating has hit rock-bottom with black voters at about 9 percent, according to a 2006 Pew Research Center poll.

The relationship between African-Americans and military service is complex, dating back to the 1700s. Both freedmen and slaves joined colonists in the fight against British rule. A century later, the all-black corps known as the Buffalo Soldiers helped settle the West.

Meanwhile, during the Civil War, black Union regiments won acclaim for heroism. In World War I, more than 350,000 black troops served in segregated Army units but few were allowed to fight, dashing hopes that courage under fire in Europe would help them defeat Jim Crow laws at home.

In World War II, African-Americans were again assigned mostly to support duty, but they made up 75 percent of truck drivers for the Red Ball Express - a dangerous, nonstop supply convoy that fueled General George H. Patton's sweep across Europe.

When President Harry S. Truman desegregated the military in 1948, African-Americans saw the Army as a key avenue for advancement. Joining up became "a way out of a worse situation," said Gregory A. Black, a retired Navy dive commander and creator of blackmilitaryworld.com, a website devoted to the history of African-Americans and the military.

By the Vietnam War, the Army had a full complement of black combat troops, including Colin Powell, who did two combat tours as a captain and major and later became secretary of state. But civil-rights leaders complained about the disproportionately high casualty rate among black soldiers, arguing that the Pentagon was drafting young black men and sending them directly into combat.

"A lot of African-Americans are still messed up over Vietnam," said Black. Yet Defense Department statistics show African-American soldiers today are more likely to work in clerical or support jobs than fight on the front lines.

Despite the sharp decline in enlistments, the percentage of blacks in the military still slightly exceeds that of the general population: 14.5 percent in the military, as of 2005, versus 12.8 percent in the US population. Nonetheless, recent Pentagon-sponsored surveys suggest that attitudes among military-age African-Americans may have changed for good.

Adult influencers of all youths, such as parents, sports coaches, or mentors, say Iraq makes them less likely to recommend military service, according to Pentagon surveys. Of all racial groups, African-American influencers are the least likely to suggest enlistment, according to the surveys.

At Oxon Hill High School, located in a predominantly black Washington suburb, guidance counselor Kabir Tompkins is also an Army National Guard sergeant wounded in Iraq. He tells interested students the Army can lead to better life: a good salary, health benefits, and tens of thousands of dollars for college. But their parents are harder to convince, he said.

"They see it from the aspect of . . . 'I don't care about the benefits, I don't care about the money, I don't care about nothing. I don't want my child going to Iraq,' " Tompkins said.

Lieutenant Colonel Irving Smith, a sociologist at the US Military Academy at West Point, isn't surprised the war "has had its toll" on black enlistment. But Smith, who is black, said he fears that a proud legacy of black men and women is at risk, and could be lost in a generation.

"We fought for many reasons, we enlisted for many reasons," Smith said. "Particularly in early times, we fought because we thought we'd get all the opportunities of citizenship . . . The fewer African-Americans that enlist, the fewer African-Americans there are that can tell their stories in the future. The fewer that get commissioned as officers, the smaller the leadership pool will be in the future."

© Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

New Excuse For Calling In Sick

"I watched a Thompson speech last night and I can't wake up."

Powered by ScribeFire.

This Country Doesn't Torture

Yeah Right, and Pigs Fly, there really is a Santa Claus and 27 virgins wait just on the other side of the Pearly Gates.

Give Us Freakin' break, you little dim bulb

…even when our own partisan Justice Department, eager to obey our sociopath commander in chief, secretly says we can.”

I honestly don’t know why Dana Perino even tries, anymore. She has about as much credibility as a whore that says “I love you” and she can’t even come up with denials that sound any different than the lockstep drumbeat we were hearing about torture back in 2005.

It had come out yesterday a 2005 secret torture memo that was written, surprise surprise, right after Gonzo was installed as Attorney General, seems to contradict the 2004 anti-torture memo written by Ashcroft's Justice Department, the one piously held up by the Bush administration as the standard to which they still adhere.

CIA spokesman George Little said, as did Bush today, that all these “enhanced interrogation techniques” have “produced vital information that has helped our country disrupt terrorist plots and save innocent lives.” Uh huh.

Which neatly explains why Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff has been reduced to going by his “gut feelings” about future terrorism attacks.

Which neatly explains this:

After 9/11 the Bush Administration called in 80,000 foreign nationals for fingerprinting, photographing and "special registration" simply because they came from predominantly Arab or Muslim countries; sought out another 8,000 young men from the same countries for FBI interviews; and placed more than 5,000 foreign nationals here in preventive detention. Yet as of September 2007, not one of these people stands convicted of a terrorist crime. The government's record, in what is surely the largest campaign of ethnic profiling since the Japanese internment of World War II, is 0 for 93,000.

Which neatly explains why many of the so-called terror plots that have been stopped were actually Three Stooges plans to blow up buildings and airports by Muslim al Qaida wannbes who are no more affiliated with any known terrorist organization than college Republicans are with the Department of Defense.

Which neatly explains why two of the biggest convictions of which we can boast are those of Jose Padilla and Richard Reid, two bozos who proved to be as incompetent at overthrowing our government as the Bush administration was in overthrowing Saddam’s Ba’athist government.

The predictable spin from the White House is that neither 2005 memo, especially the secret one, officially supplanted its Dec. 2004 predecessor that banned torture, calling it “abhorrent.”

Naturally, this beggars the following responses:

If the secret 2005 memo was never intended for official policy purposes, then why commission it in the first place? Who commissioned it? And why had it been kept hush hush for 2/12 years before its existence (if not the text) had to be leaked to the NY Times?

No matter how many times you add it up, no matter how you try to fudge the math a la Arthur Anderson, a thinking person has to come to the same conclusions based on the facts and a rough, basic timeline.

A Justice Dept. memo from 2002 (the infamous Yoo memo) specifies that anything goes in an interrogation as long as it doesn’t result in organ failure or death (which, if accepted as legal fact, and if one were to completely ignore every one of the Geneva Conventions, would still leave the door open to bastinado, waterboarding, branding, thumbscrews, bamboo shoots under the fingernails and all sorts of wonderful, exciting versions of the FBI-preferred face-to-face, patient, repetitive questioning that actually produced results).

The 2004 memo banning torture in the Ashcroft/Comey era was looked at as a liability by the White House. Beset with legal “challenges” such as the use of torture, the sacking of the 4th amendment, the persecution of non-loyal Bushies, and the Executive branch’s relentless attempts to get the JD to see things the Bush/Cheney way, Ashcroft resigned or was forced to resign.

In comes Alberto Gonzales, a career, professional Bush bootlicker who’d already signed off on a torture memo as chief WH counsel and got Bush to do the same. If you ever needed a man not nearly as interested in following the rule of law as he is in blindly following the rule of the only man who has ever employed him in his entire legal career, then your man is Alberto Gonzales.

Considering the Chang and Eng Bunker relationship between Bush and Gonzales, it’s astounding in retrospect at how completely this symbiotic arrangement got by the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee during the confirmation hearings. These are largely the same Democrats, mind you, who are appealing to Peter Keisler and Mukasey both to turn over the secret memo. My guess is that Keisler the motherfucker's reason for stonewalling Congress this time around will be the Justice Department's investigating of the writing of the memo and we cannot hand over documents that are being investigated, blah blah. How much you want to bet?

Immediately after Gonzales’s installation as Attorney General, this memo relaxing torture guidelines is quietly written in invisible ink. In the process, John Ashcroft is now hailed by conservatives and liberals alike as a champion of constitutional rectitude by conspicuous relief, a neat trick indeed considering Ashcroft's own record if left to stand on its own.

The following year, the Military Commissions Act is passed by the still-honeymooning-with-Bush Congress, a bill that threatens to victimize American civilians if they, too, are disloyal Bushies who don’t see things the Bush/Cheney way.

Now they're trying to get us to believe that they didn't, in fact, pull some rock-for-treasure, Indiana Jones switcheroo and substitute the '04 memo for the first '05 memo, in essence resurrecting the draconian Yoo memorandum of '02.

Reading the NY Times article, one is astounded to read time and again that the people who were doing the actual torturing were constantly nervously appealing to the DOJ for guidance and advice in what they could or couldn’t get away with. Finally, the Yoo memo was circulated in 2002, essentially giving the CIA carte blanche to do whatever they wanted, short of “organ failure or death.”

Yet dozens of “terror suspects”, admits the Pentagon, died despite our tender ministrations. And we're supposed to forget all about the Sy Hersh article from 2004, expunge from our memories the pictures from Abu Ghraib, the ones taken during the same time John Yoo said they could torture to their hearts' content.

As a postscript to this story, I have to say that it‘s sad state of affairs indeed when Democrats have to sign something like the American Freedom Pledge promising to defend the Constitution (and maybe I’m misinformed but didn’t they already do that when they took the oath of office?) and to declare that we do not torture.

Hillary Clinton signed the petition. Finally.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Disappearing Pols? Not A Bad Idea Really....

I can think of quite a few I never want to see or hear again

LOL, LOL, LOL

October 6, 2007

Atlantic City’s Latest Problem: Mayor Is Missing

By RICHARD G. JONES

ATLANTIC CITY, Oct. 5 — This long-suffering city is no stranger to scandal. After all, in the past 40 years, five mayors have either pleaded guilty or been convicted of one bit of criminal malfeasance or another. But few episodes, even by the three-ring standards here, could match the latest act of political theater.

A week ago, the mayor of this carnival-like town, Robert W. Levy, 64, abruptly stopped showing up at City Hall, and his aides issued a cryptic one-sentence news release saying he was temporarily stepping aside to deal with medical matters. He has not been seen in public since, and in that vacuum all sorts of explanations have flourished.

Whatever made him disappear and hand the reins of government to the city’s business administrator, he has a lot more to deal with.

For one thing, there have been reports that the United States attorney for New Jersey is investigating whether Mayor Levy falsified his military record to improperly increase his military pension. Some City Council members are clamoring for the council president to run the city, leading Gov. Jon S. Corzine to say he would ask the state attorney general to look into the question of succession.

“It’s another really pathetic example of the problems of leadership at the top in Atlantic City,” said David P. Rebovich, director of the Institute for New Jersey Politics at Rider University.

Speculation and innuendo have been rampant over why the mayor simply dropped from sight. Mr. Levy’s lawyer, Edwin J. Jacobs, told the city last week that he had checked into a hospital, but he refused to say where or for how long.

Not surprisingly, the mayor’s absence has set off a scrum among elected officials here.

One councilman has filed suit in State Superior Court asking that the mayor’s seat be declared vacant, a move that would allow the Council to appoint a successor. “Other efforts under way to determine the legally sufficient transfer of authority have yet to resolve the ongoing dilemma,” Councilman G. Bruce Ward said on Friday.

As Mr. Ward put it, “The mysterious disappearance of Mayor Levy is now a national news story causing significant embarrassment and exposing the city to unwarranted risk.”

Later in the day, about two dozen demonstrators gathered at City Hall to protest Mr. Levy’s absence, saying it has paralyzed this city of 40,000.

To veteran observers of politics in this city where drug-infested neighborhoods are still waiting for the full benefits of the $16 million-a-day casino industry, the episode seems sadly familiar.

“This isn’t the way it’s supposed to be,” said Louvinia Nixon, a retired hostess at Caesars Casino who was casting a fishing line into the tea-colored surf off the Pacific Avenue jetty on Wednesday afternoon.

Mr. Levy, a longtime chief of the beach patrol here, is a Democrat and first-term mayor whose political problems apparently began last fall when several articles appeared in The Press of Atlantic City questioning his service record in Vietnam. Although he said for years that he had been a member of the Army Special Forces, the newspaper reported that he never had.

Last fall, the mayor acknowledged the misrepresentation and apologized. “I’m sorry for having this happen at all,” Mr. Levy told The Associated Press. “It’s something I should have corrected 40 years ago. It is what it is, and I apologize for the embarrassment I’ve created for myself and my family.”

In recent weeks, it was reported that the United States attorney for New Jersey, Christopher J. Christie, was investigating whether Mr. Levy has improperly collected pension payments by claiming that he served in the Special Forces. According to the news accounts, the designation would entitle him to an additional $25,000 in military benefits.

A spokesman for Mr. Christie, Michael Drewniak, declined to comment on reports of the investigation.

Then, last week, Mr. Levy simply dropped from sight, and aides issued the 36-word statement saying that the mayor was taking an indefinite medical leave.

“His attorney shared with us that he’s in the hospital,” said Nicholas J. Morici, a spokesman for the mayor. “Which hospital? Where? We weren’t privy to that information.”

In Mr. Levy’s absence, the city’s business administrator, Dominic Cappella, has served as mayor. But Councilman Ward said he asked the court to rule the office vacant because the city’s order-of-succession rules are vague and Mr. Cappella has no authority to hold the office.

“There is a difference between an absence and a vacancy,” he said in a telephone interview on Friday. “There has been no formal designation by the mayor.”

Mr. Corzine seemed to agree. At a boardwalk news conference here on Friday, he said, “It’s seems to me the situation can’t go on,” and added, “You can’t just create a vacuum.”

For much of the past week, Assemblyman James Whelan, a former three-term mayor here and close friend of Mr. Levy, has called for him to speak out and put an end to the speculation over his whereabouts and even resign if he has committed a crime. “You can’t go months on end with a situation where you don’t know where the mayor is,” Mr. Whelan said at the news conference with the governor.

Residents are equally exasperated.

“He’s in the hospital?” said Ms. Nixon, the hostess. “For what? O.K., maybe some things are personal. But you owe it to the people who put you in office to say what’s going on.”

Ms. Nixon, 66, talked about the many politicians who have been brought low by scandal and how this city has fallen so far short of the prosperity promised by the opening of casinos three decades ago.

“I’m disgusted,” she said. “Like most of us, I’m disgusted. I can’t remember when Atlantic City was an easygoing town.”

Jeremy W. Peters contributed reporting.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

A Brittish View Of A War With Iran

The fallout from an attack on Iran would be devastating

No Shit, Sherlock

The drumbeat of war in Washington is growing - and so must public pressure against British involvement in such folly

Seumas Milne
Friday October 5, 2007
The Guardian

It seems almost incredible after the catastrophe of the Iraq war, but the signs are growing that the Bush administration wants to do it all over again - this time to Iran. Just as in the runup to the invasion of Iraq, the Washington air is thick with unsubstantiated claims about weapons of mass destruction; demonisation of the country's president has reached bizarre proportions; intelligence leaks about links with al-Qaida and attacks on US and British targets are now routine; demands for war from the administration's neoconservative outriders are becoming increasingly strident; the pronouncements of George Bush and his vice-president, Dick Cheney, are turning ever more belligerent - and administration sources claim that the British government is privately ready to play ball.

---

You might imagine after invading and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq at such huge human and strategic cost, an attack on another Muslim country would be the last thing on the US president's mind. But the drumbeat of war has been unmistakable since the summer, when Bush declared he had "authorised our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities", and the administration let it be known that it was preparing to brand Iran's Revolutionary Guards a "terrorist organisation".

Last month Bernard Kouchner, the hawkish new French foreign minister, insisted that "we must expect the worst" and "the worst is war" - while Mohamed ElBaradei, the UN's chief weapons inspector in charge of overseeing Iran's nuclear programme, warned against the "neo-crazies" pushing for an attack after 700,000 had died in Iraq on "suspicion that a country has nuclear weapons". Meanwhile, Israel's recent air raid on Iran's ally Syria has been widely interpreted as, at least in part, a power play aimed at Tehran.

This week John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the UN, used the Tory conference to call for an attack on Iran, as leaks to the US press about war preparations continued. Newsweek reported that Cheney had been discussing the possibility of encouraging Israel to launch missile strikes at an Iranian nuclear site in order to provoke Iran into "lashing out", and open the way to a wider US assault. And in the New Yorker magazine, the investigative writer Seymour Hersh reported that in a videoconference this summer Bush told the US ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, that he was thinking of attacking targets in Iran, and the British "were on board".

A Downing Street spokesman said yesterday that the "prime minister and president have never had a discussion about an attack on Iran in Iran" and that the government was pursuing a diplomatic solution. "Of course, it's the job of a lot of people to see that contingency planning is done," he added, but denied that any go-ahead had been given. The echoes of similar denials in the runup to the Iraq war, however, cannot be missed. Nor should the reference to an attack on Iran "in Iran". Both the US and British military now regard themselves as already involved in a proxy war with Iran in Iraq, as General Petraeus recently told the US congress.

What is becoming clearer is that the likely pretext for aggression against Iran has shifted from the possibility that Tehran might develop nuclear weapons to its role in supporting and allegedly arming the resistance in neighbouring Iraq and Afghanistan. The administration is increasingly convinced that it will be far easier to convince the American public of the case for war on Iran if it's seen as being about the protection of US troops rather than nuclear scaremongering from the people who brought you Saddam Hussein's WMD. So the focus of the military plans has changed accordingly: from a wide-ranging bombing assault on Iran's known and suspected nuclear sites to "surgical" strikes on the Revolutionary Guards, who the US claims are backing armed attacks on its occupation forces.

In reality, the growing confrontation between Washington and Iran has less to do with nuclear weapons or Iraqi resistance and more with the fact that Iran has emerged as the main strategic beneficiary of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran and its allies now offer the only effective challenge to US domination of the Middle East and its resources. It's hardly surprising that the US is alarmed by the increased influence of an avowedly anti-imperialist state sitting astride a sea of oil, now making common cause with other radical, independent regimes in Latin America. But it is of course the direct result of Bush's own policies, which have also provided an object demonstration of the advantages of possessing nuclear weapons - even if there is as yet no evidence that Iran actually intends to acquire them.

Of the three states Bush originally damned as the axis of evil, one - Iraq - had no nuclear weapons and was duly destroyed. The second, North Korea, managed to acquire some nuclear capability and is this week reaping the benefits in aid and negotiation. The third is Iran, a country surrounded by US troops and caught between two nuclear-armed US allies: Pakistan and Israel. And despite the populist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's ugly remarks about the Holocaust, it is the nuclear states America and Israel that now threaten and have the capacity to attack Iran, not the other way round.

What should not be in doubt is that the consequences of an attack on Iran would be devastating, both in the region and beyond. Iran has the reach to deliver an unconventional armed response in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf - as well as on the streets of London. The economic impact could be even greater, given Iran's grip on the 20% of global oil supplies that are shipped through the Strait of Hormuz. It would also certainly set back the cause of progressive change in Iran.

Iranian leaders have dismissed the threat of attack as "psychological warfare", and no doubt the US would prefer to bring Iran to heel through political upheaval in Tehran rather than by force. But current destabilisation efforts seem unlikely to succeed, and so, short of a sudden US embrace of genuine negotiation, the chances of war before Bush leaves office look high. The likelihood of a Brown government directly participating in an attack must be small after the debacle of Iraq. But the possibility that logistical or political support might be offered is more serious. The need to step up public pressure to make sure that does not happen could not be clearer.

s.milne@guardian.co.uk

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

The Pundo-elite Simply Love The Clintons

Which is the main reason to vote for a ham sandwich rather than Hillary.

It's way past time for the Bush/Clinton decades to end, period.

Pundit Elite Enraptured by Hillary's 'Flawless Campaign'

Submitted by BuzzFlash on Fri, 10/05/2007 - 3:04pm. Guest Contribution

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION

by Jeff Cohen

The satirical video short "Harlan McCraney, Presidential Speechalist" offers a comedic explanation of why George W. Bush comes off to many Americans as an inarticulate, even stupid politician. It's intentional: There's "a genius behind the stupidity" - speechalist McCraney (played by Andy Dick), a consultant who coaches Bush to come off as a misspoken, folksy everyman.

So while many of us see an ill-equipped president not up to the job, there's McCraney off-stage, exclaiming "Yes!" and pumping his fist in victory as Bush mangles the "Fool Me Once" aphorism.

A similar dichotomy exists as many of us watch Hillary Clinton in TV interviews or Democratic debates. We see a politician vacillating to the point of self-parody, talking out of both sides of her mouth on issue after issue. "Her flat, monotonic voice lays out yards of opaque white gauze," observed Barbara Ehrenreich. "Where does she stand? Over here, and a little to the side, and maybe a few steps to the right."

But that's not how elite pundits see it. Powerful media voices praise a "flawless campaign" and declare that Clinton has "won every debate." They enthuse that she's "never off-message" and "doesn't make mistakes."

I imagine a bunch of Harlan McCraneys in the Clinton campaign, scripting her long-winded non-responses to please first and foremost the D.C. political press corps -- with enough doubletalk to avoid offending the Democratic Party base.

Democratic activists who want their party to forthrightly move the country toward peace and justice may be frustrated by Clinton's mumbo jumbo and non-answer answers, but the privileged, unelected (never term-limited) punditocracy finds those same answers to be brilliant.

The reality is that Clinton and the pundit clique (with a spectrum from conservative Republican to conservative Democrat, from GE to GM) are largely in sync in holding positions that are not only unpopular among Democrats, but also unpopular among the public at large.

To obscure this reality, Clinton keeps issuing doubletalk, and corporate media keep cheering.

Beltway pundits know that most of our country wants out of Iraq, and they seem to like it when Clinton offers the antiwar base rhetorical teases ("If we in Congress don't end this war by January 2009, as President, I will!") -- while the laptop warriors in the media know damn well she'll prolong for years an occupation that none of their kids are dying in.

National pundits -- whose jobs can't be outsourced overseas -- know that most of the public opposes corporate-written trade deals such as NAFTA. They like it when Clinton deftly implies she may change course ("I believe in pro-American trade") -- knowing full well that Clinton and her corporate backers are as blindly worshipful of "free trade" as they in the national press corps.

Polls show that most Americans want government-provided national health insurance. Pundits applaud Clinton's cautious talk of incremental healthcare reform that keeps big bureaucratic private insurance firms at the center of the system, a status quo that will never work for most Americans but suits the well-insured pundit elite just fine.

I know a bit about mainstream punditry, having been a talking head on cable news for years until I was muzzled on the eve of the Iraq War. While millions of Americans vocally opposed an invasion of Iraq, the few TV voices who supported those millions were marginalized or silenced. I spoke for a majority of Americans when I advocated national health insurance and opposed corporate trade deals -- but within the pundit club, I was a fringe minority.

Given the conservative tilt of the punditocracy, it doesn't surprise me that many in the media are seeking to anoint Clinton as the Democratic nominee, or that they (including at Fox News) tend to side with her in disputes with Edwards or Obama.

I'm old enough to remember that while corporate media exploited and savaged (perhaps partly in envy) Bill Clinton's sexual misbehavior, they liked most of his appointees and policies -- especially his corporate-oriented "New Democratic" approach to economics.

It will be up to grassroots Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire and other early states -- not the 40 Wealthiest Pundits on Forbes' list -- to determine their party's nominee. Democratic voters can choose to insulate themselves from media coronations and preferences, ignore distractions such as Edwards' haircuts and Obama's missing American flag pin, and reject the prodding of a pundit elite that has been wildly wrong on everything from invading Iraq to the impact of NAFTA.

(Amen! Americans simply must stop waiting for the corporate, elite Putzes to tell them who to vote for or, worse yet, the two candidates they are allowed to vote for.)

If not, I'm glad I won't be backstage in Iowa next January to see the Harlan McCraneys in Hillary Clinton's camp high-fiving each other.

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

OMG? Will It Ever Stop?

By Nathan Baca
NewsChannel 3

The male escort responsible for the downfall of Christian evangelist leader Ted Haggard is now alleging that embattled Senator Larry Craig also came to see him.

While promoting his new book during a radio interview with KNWQ-AM in Palm Springs Wednesday night, Mike Jones hesitated from making the allegation on the air.

Management for the radio station says Jones told them he would reveal something about Idaho Senator Larry Craig on the "Bulldog Bill Feingold Show."

While he hesitated doing so on the air, a NewsChannel 3 camera was rolling when he made the accusation during a commercial break.

Feingold asked whether the Senator had seen Jones in a hotel room.

Jones responded, "No, he came to see me."

Jones then added, "His travel records to Denver have been documented. That's what I wanted to say."

NewsChannel 3 asked Senator Craig's office to comment on the allegations that Craig came to Denver to see Jones, who calls himself a gay escort.

Craig's office said in response, "Mike Jones' allegations are completely false."

Christian evangelist Ted Haggard originally denied Jones' allegations of sexual relations in 2006.

Haggard later stepped down from his national leadership post and his New Life Church in Colorado.

Jones is not alleging that he has had sex with Senator Craig but that he is alleging the senator came to see him.

"One of the things I was good at was figuring out what people did for a living when they came to see me by things they said or their actions," Jones said on-air Wednesday night.

"So be in a position where you have to guess what people did for a living, occupation-wise. Someone comes in to you and the first question they say to you is 'do you follow politics?' and you would say, 'yes'. 'Oh.' 'the weather is cold outside, isn't it? What would you think that person is involved with?

"I will just tell you a gentleman came in and said that exact thing to me.

"Did he look similar to Senator Craig?" Feingold asked.

"I've been with many politicians and all I can tell you is for a fact, that Larry Craig is a hypocrite."

Senator Craig's office also added "clearly anyone can make an accusation absent of details that would be easy to refute."

NewsChannel 3 has contacted Jones for additional explanation of his allegation and reaction to Senator Craig's denials.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.