Thoughts, observations, opinions and rants from small "i" independents, who usually decide the more important elections in America. Now, we are taking names and kicking ass; all year, every year!
THE top suits and some of the on-air talent at CNBC were recently ordered to a top-secret meeting with General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt and NBC Universal President Jeff Zuckerto discuss whether they've turned into the President Obama-bashing network, Page Six has learned.
"It was an intensive, three-hour dinner at 30 Rock which Zucker himself was behind," a source familiar with the powwow told us. "There was a long discussion about whether CNBC has become too conservative and is beating up on Obama too much. There's great concern that CNBC is now the anti-Obama network. The whole meeting was really kind of creepy."
One topic under the microscope, our insider said, was on-air CNBC editor Rick Santelli's rant two months ago about staging a "Chicago Tea Party" to protest the president's bailout programs -- an idea that spawned tax protest tea parties in other big cities, infuriating the White House. Oddly, Santelli was not at the meeting, while Jim Cramer was, noted our source, who added that no edict was ultimately handed down by the network chieftains.
CNBC flack Brian Steel confirmed the get-together, but insisted: "The dinner was to thank CNBC for a job well done in our in-depth reporting throughout the financial crisis. As far as our coverage is concerned, we are built for balance and we are unabashedly pro-investor."
Our source retorted: "That is complete bull[bleep] . . . they didn't invite a lot of people to [the meeting]. There were many staffers who were working 24/7 during the crisis who weren't asked to attend, even Santelli, who was a big star for the network during those weeks. Why not?"
In addition, the insider said: "News of the meeting is starting to leak out and people are contacting a number of the on-air people to ask if they've been muzzled by GE."
(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.
Thanks to some sleuth work on the Internet, we're starting to learn more about Richard Poplawski, the 23-year-old who killed three police officers yesterday in Pittsburgh, evidently out of fear that his guns were going to be taken away.
It appears that what police may be looking at is a budding white supremacist who frequented one of the most popular neo-Nazi websites and harbored an apocalyptic dread of the federal government...
[T]he Pittsburgh Tribune-Review has some corroboration from other sources that indicates he fits this profile:
Richard Andrew "Pop" Poplawski's ex-girlfriend said he dragged her by the hair and threatened to shoot her.
He slept with a gun under his pillow in a basement room filled with firearms and ammunition, convinced that Jews controlled the media and President Obama was scheming to take away his arsenal, friends and relatives said Saturday.
"He was a violent, abusive man. He dragged me by the hair, pulling me across the floor. I saw him choke his own mother. He was controlling," said Melissa Gladish, 23, of Verona, his former girlfriend who received a protection from abuse order against him in 2005. She said she had no doubt he would kill someone.
I can't begin to tell you how frightened this makes me. The radical right wingers that were so prevalent during the Clinton administration went dormant during the Bush years. Now that Obama is in office, and irresponsible sociopaths like Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck and Rep. Michele Bachmann are recklessly stoking the fires of paranoid rightwing victimization, I fear we will face countless tragedies like what just went on in Pittsburgh.
When liberal radicals get upset, they engage in protests and damage property, like the nonsense you saw outside the G-20 summit.
When right wing radicals get upset, they either shoot lots of people and or blow up a building with lots of people in it (see, e.g., the FBI building in Oklahoma City).
How is that “orderly revolution” going, Michelle? How about that laundry soap rebellion, Erick? This is what Glenn Beck’s citizen army looks like. People like Michelle Malkin fantasize about citizens rising up against the (Democratic) state. They stoke their followers’ paranoia with bullshit that, mostly, they know is bullshit, for ratings and a shot at political traction. Did they expect the American revolution?
In response to John’s famous Peak Wingnut post I pointed out that political irrelevance will hardly stifle rightwing victimology but feed it like CO2, manure and sunlight. I tend to call the relevant phenomenon ‘toxic victim syndrome’, or TVS. The feeling that one is a powerless victim has a corrosive psychological effect. It exempts self-appointed victims from normal moral standards. It justifies (in one’s own mind) an endless list of behaviors that an ordinary person would never consider.
How many people have to die before the right-wing media acknowledges their complicity in these kinds of attacks and voluntarily dials back their inflammatory rhetoric and incitements to violence?
Sadly, I think it's going to take a long time for that to happen -- and a lot more innocent people are going to die in the interim. I guess this is what "America First" means for the radical right under an Obama presidency.
And, of course, when you point out that certain individuals with all their talk about “revolution” and “armed insurrection” are inciting this kind of behavior in unstable people, you will get howls of protest about the 1st Amendment and what not. Sure, crazy people do crazy things. But that doesn’t make it responsible to encourage them, which is what a lot of really foolish people are doing right now for purely political reasons.
Many of us have worried that the heated, apocalyptic rhetoric of the anti-Obama forces might spill over at some point into violence in the hands of individuals prone to lashing out. We now have what seems to be a clear instance of that and three dead police officers. One wonders whether Fox News or the Second Amendment fanatics will chill it out a little. And then one realizes who we're talking about.
(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.
Thousands of people gather in Hradcany Square ahead of US President Barack Obama's speech in Prague. (Photo: Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP)
The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking ... the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker.
- Albert Einstein
Monday in Ohio, Texas, Arizona, Maryland, Missouri, Minnesota, Illinois, California and a small corner of Canada was Opening Day for the 2009 Major League Baseball season. Last year's World Series winners, the Philadelphia Phillies, began their season the night before with a 4-1 loss to the Atlanta Braves, but will have 161 more chances to make up for it before the last first pitch of the regular season is thrown in Dodger Stadium six months from now.
It is quite possible that Monday was also an opening day of a different kind, one that involves every living thing on planet Earth. There has been a far deadlier game than baseball being played without reprieve every day for more than 60 years. Done the right way and with the right people in the right positions, Monday could become known as the day humanity finally began to stop playing the nuclear game.
"Hours after North Korea's missile test," reported The New York Times on Monday morning, "President Obama on Sunday called for new United Nations sanctions and laid out a new approach to American nuclear disarmament policy - one intended to strengthen the United States and its allies in halting proliferation. 'In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up,' Mr. Obama told a huge crowd in Prague's central square. 'Black market trade in nuclear secrets and nuclear materials abound. The technology to build a bomb has spread.' And yet, he said, too few resources have been committed to developing a strategy to stop terrorist groups like Al Qaeda that are 'determined to buy, build or steal' a bomb."
"Mr. Obama," continued the Times report, "said that his administration would 'reduce the role of nuclear weapons' in its national security strategy, and would urge other countries to do the same. He pointed to the agreement he reached last week with President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia to begin negotiations on reducing warheads and stockpiles, and said the two countries would try to reach an agreement by the end of the year. He also promised to aggressively pursue American ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which in the past has faced strong opposition in Congress. It is a strategy based on the idea that if the United States shows it is willing to greatly shrink the size of its atomic arsenal, ban nuclear testing and cut off the worldwide production of bomb material, reluctant allies and partners around the world will be more likely to rewrite nuclear treaties and enforce sanctions against North Korea and Iran."
The "No Nukes!" cry seems almost quaint with nearly 20 years now standing between today and the end of the cold war, a hold-over from the heyday of the ban-the-bomb movement that flourished during Reagan's time. The facts, however, are precisely as President Obama stated them; the world today is more threatened by the use of nuclear weaponry than at any time in history short of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The two best examples of this grave threat are not Iran and North Korea, contrary to popular belief. North Korea has tested such weapons, and Iran appears bound and determined to possess nuclear arms someday (or at least appears bound and determined to appear bound and determined), but neither country at this time presents the same level of threat to the world as Pakistan and Russia. Both own formidable stockpiles of nuclear arms, if the definition of the word "own" is taken to mean "having nukes within their borders." Their control over these weapons, unfortunately, is the lethal rub.
Estimates vary, but it is believed Pakistan currently possesses somewhere between 60 and 100 nuclear weapons. This is a nerve-wracking reality given the nature of that nation's relations with neighboring India - the two countries have gone to war a number of times already over the disputed Kashmir region and other issues - and given the shaky nature of the Pakistani government.
Specifically, Pakistan's stability is threatened by the wide swath of its population that shares ethnic, cultural and religious connections to the fundamentalist Islamic populace of Afghanistan. It is widely suspected that Pakistan's intelligence services and religiously-devoted civilians have provided aid and support to both the Taliban and al-Qaeda along Pakistan's border with Afghanistan, and the constant foment within Pakistan's hard-line Islamic community presents a serious threat to that nation's government.
If the hard-liners in Pakistan are ever successful in toppling the government, several very scary things will happen at once. Nuclear-armed India would be galvanized by the sheer terror of sharing a border with a madhouse, and could quickly be compelled to take military action of some kind, as could nuclear-armed China. If the Pakistani government falls, and all those Pakistani nukes are not immediately accounted for and secured, the specter of loose Pakistani nukes falling into the hands of terrorist organizations would have the entire Western Hemisphere hiding under the bed.
The threat posed by Russia's nuclear arsenal is no less severe, and is in many ways far more insidious and chilling. Before the fall of the Soviet Union, thousands upon thousands of nuclear weapons were produced and placed inside Russia. Since the collapse of the USSR and the creation of the Russian Republic, military protection and safekeeping of the radioactive leftovers from the construction of these weapons have fallen into an unimaginable state of disrepair. In many places within Russia, fissionable materials vital to the creation of a bomb are left unguarded, secured by little more than a deadbolt lock.
Anyone with an Internet connection and a modicum of mechanical ability can find plans for building a nuclear device and build one from scratch. The hard part about making a functional homemade bomb is getting hold of the nuclear materials for the bomb's core. To date, and as far as we know, nobody has managed to get this done. But with nuclear materials literally laying unprotected all over the Russian landscape, the danger of someone successfully constructing a nuclear weapon is all too real.
The time has come to remove finally and forever this nuclear scourge from our world. President Obama has put the challenge before the American people, the American Congress and the global community at large. "This goal will not be reached quickly - perhaps not in my lifetime," he told a crowd in Prague this weekend. "We must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to insist, 'Yes, we can.'"
(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.
Ravi Batra comments that if Democratic President Barack Obama is a "small" socialist, then Reagan was the "Great American Socialist." (Photo: University of Texas)
Socialism has been much in the news for some months. Recently, some GOP stalwarts charged President Obama with preaching the heresy. John Boehner, the House minority leader, characterized Obama's stimulus package as, "one big down payment on a new American socialist experiment."
"Socialism" is a pejorative term in American politics and needs to be carefully examined. It usually refers to increased government control over the economy, or policies that promote the redistribution of wealth. There is no doubt that President Obama's economic measures, passed and proposed, will raise tax rates on the richest Americans to pay for increased government funding of health care, green energy and education. So the new president is indeed a redistributionist, but so was Ronald Reagan, except that Obama's plans will transfer wealth from the rich to the poor, whereas Reagan's bills transferred wealth from the poor and the middle class to the opulent. In fact, Obama's measures are puny, whereas Reagan's were massive. If the Democrat is a "small" socialist, Reagan was the Great American Socialist.
Let's go back to the early 1980's. In 1981, Reagan signed a law that sharply reduced the income tax for the wealthiest Americans and corporations. The president asserted his program would create jobs, purge inflation and, get this, trim the budget deficit. However, following the tax cut, the deficit soared from 2.5 percent of GDP to over 6 percent, alarming financial markets, sending interest rates sky high, and culminating in the worst recession since the 1930's.
Soon the president realized he needed new revenues to trim the deficit, bring down interest rates and improve his chances for reelection. He would not rescind the income tax cut, but other taxes were acceptable. In 1982, taxes were raised on gasoline and cigarettes, but the deficit hardly budged. In 1983, the president signed the biggest tax rise on payrolls, promising to create a surplus in the Social Security system, while knowing all along that the new revenue would be used to finance the deficit.
The retirement system was looted from the first day the Social Security surplus came into being, because the legislation itself gave the president a free hand to spend the surplus in any way he liked. Thus began a massive transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class, especially the self-employed small businessman, to the wealthy. The self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent.
In 1986, Reagan slashed the top tax rate further. His redistributionist obsession led to a perversity in the law. The wealthiest faced a 28 percent tax rate, while those with lower incomes faced a 33 percent rate; in addition, the bottom rate climbed from 11 percent to 15 percent. For the first time in history, the top rate fell and the bottom rate rose simultaneously. Even unemployment compensation was not spared. The jobless had to pay income tax on their benefits. A year later, the man who would not spare unemployment compensation from taxation called for a cut in the capital gains tax. Thus, Reagan was a staunch socialist, totally committed to his cause of wealth redistribution towards the affluent.
How much wealth transfer has occurred through Reagan's policies? At least $3 trillion.
The Social Security hike generated over $2 trillion in surplus between 1984 and 2007, and if it had been properly invested, say, in AAA corporate bonds it could have earned another trillion by now. At present, the fund is empty, because it has been used up to finance the federal deficits resulting from frequent cuts in income tax rates. If this is not redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, what else is?
Thus, Reagan was the first Republican socialist - and a great one, because his wealth transfer occurred on a massive scale. His accomplishment dwarfs even FDR's, and if today the small businessman suffers a crippling tax burden, he must thank Reagan the redistributionist. However, FDR took pains to help the poor, while Reagan took pains to help the wealthiest like himself.
Reagan's measures were similar to those that the Republicans adopted during the 1920's, which were followed by the catastrophic Depression. More recently, such policies were mimicked by President George W. Bush and they are about to plunge the world into a depression as well. Ironically, the Reagan-style socialism or wealth redistribution is about to destroy monopoly capitalism, the very system that he wanted to preserve and enrich.
Wake up America and elect leaders with a heart - not those who would tax your unemployment benefits and cut the capital gains tax.
------- Dr. Ravi Batra, a professor of economics at Southern Methodist University, Dallas, is the author of five international best sellers. He was the chairperson of his department from 1977 to 1980. This article is based on Batra's two books, "The New Golden Age" and "Greenspan's Fraud." His web site is Ravibatra.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.
As we are reminded by Democrat and Obama Campaign manager, David Plouffe , now is not the time to revert back to our typical, uniquely American ADD/ADHD/Coma.
If you are finally awake stay that way. We are far from out of the woods yet. To do otherwise could well cost us our life, liberty and our country.
Change has to come in America. It must!
We did not get to this hellish place overnight and at it is, indeed, a long journey back Exactly one month ago, you made history by giving all Americans a real opportunity for change.
Now it's time to start preparing and working for change in our communities.
On December 13th and 14th, supporters are coming together in every part of the country to reflect on what we've accomplished and plan the future of this movement. Your ideas and feedback will be collected and used to guide this movement in the months and years ahead.
To get our country back on track, it will take all of us working together.
Barack and Joe have a clear agenda and an unprecedented opportunity for change. But they can't do it alone.
Will you join us at a house meeting and help plan the next steps for this movement?
Thanks,
David
David Plouffe Campaign Manager Obama for America
(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.
"If you had a 'hate meter' and filled one gymnasium with 6,000 Klansmen and the other with a lone Obama button wearing liberal, the gymnasium with the liberal would emanate a spectrum of hate and intolerance that would take a team of NASA physicist years to interpret."
The writer still won't give his identity (he's actually quite paranoid about it, writing that my interest in his identity must be because I want to "email Obama HQ and have them look into my tax records." He does say he's named "Buffoon" and he's a father, husband and veteran), but he's aligned himself with the Klan. Enough said.
But it's not just anonymous racist nuts trying to get the hate out. It's full-fledged companies and their high-powered CEOs getting in on the game. Grassfire leader Steve Elliott spews the same anti-environment talking points on his blog heard earlier this month in West Virginia. Don Blankenship, CEO of Virginia-based coal company Massey Energy, used a recent speaking engagement to spread alarm among the business community.
According to the Williamson Daily News, Blankenship compared the editor of the Charleston Gazette to Osama bin Laden in his address to the Tug Valley Mining Institute in Williamson, West Virginia, Nov. 22. He also called prominent Democrats such as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi "crazy" and "idiotic" for wanting to protect the environment.
Blankenship also said that global warming is a myth, and that he was afraid to say how he really feels about climate change because "the greeniacs are taking over the world."
He seems to think that water pollution doesn‘t matter either. Massey, the nation's fourth largest coal company, has ignored the Environmental Protection Agency's fines and warnings to such an extent that regulators took the highly unusual step to sue the company to stop violations, which occur up to 28 times a day. Massey settled and was fined the largest amount since the passage of the Clean Water Act, due to more than 4,500 violations over a six-year period.
Massey has perpetuated other serious environmental disasters in West Virginia and Kentucky. Massey has lost millions in lawsuits for polluting towns with coal dust in one area and soiling well water in another community.
Blankenship spent $3.5 million on an ad campaign and virtually bought himself a justice on the West Virginia Supreme Court. Not only that, but he was revealed to have been vacationing in the French Riviera with another West Virginia justice at the time of a state Supreme Court case involving Massey worth millions of dollars.
Blankenship, like Grassfire and others, is forced to rely on some pretty shaky logic. For example, he told the Tug Valley Mining Institute that reducing emissions in the U.S. will somehow increase carbon releases in China. He also relies on the failed sales pitch of the McCain/Palin campaign that Obama is a socialist or communist.
Say What?
He said that a government that encourages conservation is the first step to communism, and that a plea from the president to turn down one's thermostat and buy fuel-efficient cars leads to "sharing kitchens with four families" and other socialist tendencies such as public transportation.
There is simply no accounting for some people's idiocy. These "Dudes" are just two examples!
He said he's seen what goes on in China and Russia, and that's what's going to happen here. To avoid that, Blankenship ironically proposes the United States do exactly what China and Russia are doing: burn dirty national energy reserves, shunning conservation at every opportunity.
While the recent election may seem to grant a progressive mandate, it's important to look beneath the surface to see what the new administration is up against. There are a lot of people, for reasons ranging from economics to racism to just plain fear of change, who are receptive to the lying invective of Blankenship, Grassfire and others. For that reason, BuzzFlash is still watching.
Why is it that these idiots cannot see the difference between socialism and communism. Have any of them actually ever read Marx's Communist manifesto? I seriously doubt it. What they seem to be talking about is Stalinism, which has nothing to do with the thoughts of Karl Marx.
Thanks, Buzzflash, for keeping an eye on these fools!
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
For more on Blankenship and Massey, watch this West Virginia public television documentary called "The Kingmaker." (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.
Let's face it. Countries, like individuals, get lost sometimes -- really lost, ignoring the maps of morality and civil behavior, bringing shame and disrepute on themselves.
In terms of individuals, good people do weird stuff on occasion: run off, or inexplicably go on a bender, or visit purveyors of easy virtue, or get addicted, or use hate-speech in extremes and so on. Stuff happens.
Nations, too, often take leave of their senses. Crises occur. Citizens get frightened by something and don't know how to respond. A strong leader comes along and channels that fright, usually aiming it at perceived enemies, real or invented, or at least highly exaggerated.
The powers-that-be love crises and catastrophes; at such nodal points, the public is more malleable, more easily rolled. (See Naomi Klein's brilliant book "The Shock Doctrine.")
And when these power-hungry rulers or elites grossly abuse their granted authority, the result often is social chaos, police-state laws, warped or broken economies, and often hundreds of thousands, even millions, of dead and maimed in ill-advised wars of choice.
AUTHORITARIAN RULERS
History is replete with examples of nations, even democratic ones, that go crazy like this for awhile, head off into authoritarian rule, and sometimes even totalitarian control. And it isn't easy to turn that ship around. Sometimes that reversal can be accomplished by the populace, who wake up to what atrocities are being carried out in their name and throw the bums out at the next election, or by a coup. Sometimes natural death intervenes, making intervention moot. Other times, it takes a village, so to speak: The regional or world community has to act in concert to force a change in behavior by removing the ruling elite from the country in question.
You know what I'm talking about. Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mugabe, Amin, George W. Bush.
You may think it's unfair to throw Dubya into that line-up of political monsters, and I agree that not all miscreants are equal. George W. is no Hitler or Stalin or Idi Amin.
But it's fair to acknowledge that Bush does deserve to be in that continuum of grossly awful leaders who used and then abused their power and, by so doing, brought their countries to wrack and ruin and to worldwide condemnation and shame. Because Bush was in charge of the world's most powerful nation on earth, his crimes were magnified in their consequences and in their regional and global social impact, so his place in the pantheon of shame is correct.
WHY BUSH IS STILL A DANGER
So why am I bringing up Bush now, after a democratic election has, as it were, thrown out the bums? Am I being mean-spirited, just beating a dead horse?
Two reasons:
1. Bush will still be president for the next two months. Out of failed ideology and thoroughgoing ignorance and incompetence, he has left his successor with an ungodly mess to deal with. But he ain't through yet. He has concocted, so to speak, a scorched-earth welcome-to-the-White-House for Barack Obama, along with burrowing key political-appointed Bushies into civil-service positions of power in order to gum up the works even more for the incoming administration.
By executive order in the past several months, Bush, for example, has bent all sorts of environmental rules and regulations to give the exploiters and polluters even more leeway to take what they want, including permitting cutting some of the last old-growth forests in Oregon and oil/gas drilling in public lands and immediately adjacent to key National Parks, in particular in Utah. The idea is to get these projects started, with money in the federal pipeline, before Bush leaves office, making it more difficult for the Obama Administration to execute an immediate U-turn.
In addition, Bush has taken many of his mid-level political appointees and placed them under the civil-service umbrella in jobs overseeing energy and science experiments for which they are not trained or have no experience. Being civil service employees makes it virtually impossible for the new president to get rid of them. In effect, they would be moles inside the new government in key positions to harm or hamstring Obama's environmental policies. Among many others complaining about this last-minute tactic by Bush are scientists, angry that political ideologues with no scientific training will have important input on scientific policy.
AUTHORITARIAN-TYPE RULES
2. Many of the authoritarian rules and precedents established during the CheneyBush years are still in place, and could be abused by Obama or presidents who follow him. True, Obama's transition team has listed 200 of Bush's executive orders that they will rescind quickly with the stroke of a pen. But some of the larger issues are still hanging out there:
The overuse of presidential "signing statements" to nullify aspects of laws passed by the Congress, as part of the "unitary executive" theory of government, which theory basically turns the president into a near-dictator;
The policy of "pre-emptive war," attacking a country that is not an actual imminent threat to the U.S.;
The use of torture as official state policy;
The nullification of the legal concept of habeas corpus from American law, whereby a judge has to certify the legitimacy of an arrest;
The employment of massive domestic spying on and data mining of American citizens, including eavesdropping without a court warrant on phone conversations, snooping into mail, examining personal computer files without the knowledge of the citizen, etc;
The throwing of citizens into jail as suspected "terrorists" or "enemy combatants," with no access to lawyers; etc. etc.
All of these violations of the Constitution's Bill of Rights, in the Patriot Act and elsewhere, have been enacted on a regular basis during the past eight years of CheneyBush. How much of this will be quickly and aggressively reversed by Obama and how much will he keep some of these police-state tactics still in place, just in case he wants to use them?
TRUST OBAMA TO DO RIGHT THING?
Which brings us to a key dilemma facing the progressive base of the Democratic Party: After eight years under CheneyBush, during which the U.S. was lost in a dark ideological/corrupt shadow world, President-Elect Obama promises us, finally, the return of light in our politics so that we can find our way back to some higher level of moral/spiritual/social health. He probably won't take the country as far in that regard as many of us might wish, but his landslide victory did break the back of the CheneyBush HardRight as an all-powerful movement and offers us, yes, hope for significant change and progress in righting many of the wrongs of the past eight years.
As many of us have been saying for months now, if you believe Obama will do, or even can do, all of the many things he's promised, you're in for a rude surprise. Obama is not a radical or progressive in how he operates; he's a pragmatic centrist, with liberal leanings but beholden to many of the same economic and political forces that have great influence in contemporary politics. But he's an unusually intelligent politician, open to argument and persuasion. That's why we on the progressive left must speak out forcefully when we see him straying from positions that we think can be most useful in repairing the damage of the past eight years.
So here's the nub of our current dilemma, much talked about in liberal/progressive circles: How much should we trust Obama to do the right thing and thus hold back our criticisms of his actions and policies during this interregnum before he actually is inaugurated as President and during the first few-months "honeymoon" period? And how much should we start criticizing him now for his sins of omission and commission, especially with regard to his somewhat more hawkish foreign/military policies? (See Jeremy Scahill's "This Is Change? 20 Hawks, Clintonites and Neocons to Watch for in Obama's White House.")
SLACK VS. PRESSURE
My inclination, given the enormity of the problems facing the new president, is to cut Obama some slack, at least until he takes office and starts messing up. On the other hand, he's making key decisions now, especially as he fills out his Cabinet and operational staff, and unless progressives take a stand now, it may be too late later.
For instance, as far as we can tell, most of his national-security appointments seem to come from the middle to the middle-right; there is not one true progressive who can balance out the arguments that will be made inside the Cabinet. Not a good sign.
I'll be interested to hear where you come down on this dilemma. How we act in the next few months may have much to do with how President Obama begins his Administration post-January 20. Join the debate and help "change the world."
Copyright 2008, by Bernard Weiner
(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.
We have "only one President at a time," Barack Obama said in his debut press conference as President-elect. Normally, that would be a safe assumption — but we're learning not to assume anything as the charcoal-dreary economic winter approaches. By mid-November, with the financial crisis growing worse by the day, it had become obvious that one President was no longer enough (at least not the President we had). So, in the days before Thanksgiving, Obama began to move — if not to take charge outright, then at least to preview what things will be like when he does take over in January. He became a more public presence, taking questions from the press three days in a row. He named his economic team. He promised an enormous stimulus package that would somehow create 2.5 million new jobs, and began to maneuver the new Congress toward having the bill ready for him to sign — in a dramatic ceremony, no doubt — as soon as he assumes office.
That we have slightly more than one President for the moment is mostly a consequence of the extraordinary economic times. Even if George Washington were the incumbent, the markets would want to know what John Adams was planning to do after his Inauguration. And yet this final humiliation seems particularly appropriate for George W. Bush. At the end of a presidency of stupefying ineptitude, he has become the lamest of all possible ducks. (See TIME's best pictures of Barack Obama.)
It is in the nature of mainstream journalism to attempt to be kind to Presidents when they are coming and going but to be fiercely skeptical in between. I've been feeling sorry for Bush lately, a feeling partly induced by recent fictional depictions of the President as an amiable lunkhead in Oliver Stone's W. and in Curtis Sittenfeld's terrific novel American Wife. There was a photo in the New York Times that seemed to sum up his current circumstance: Bush in Peru, dressed in an alpaca poncho, standing alone just after the photo op at the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, with various Asian leaders departing the stage, none of them making eye contact with him. Bush has that forlorn what-the-hell-happened? expression on his face, the one that has marked his presidency at difficult times. You never want to see the President of the United States looking like that.
So I've been searching for valedictory encomiums. His position on immigration was admirable and courageous; he was right about the Dubai Ports deal and about free trade in general. He spoke well, in the abstract, about the importance of freedom. He is an impeccable classicist when it comes to baseball. And that just about does it for me. I'd add the bracing moment of Bush with the bullhorn in the ruins of the World Trade Center, but that was neutered in my memory by his ridiculous, preening appearance in a flight suit on the deck of the aircraft carrier beneath the "Mission Accomplished" sign. The flight-suit image is one of the two defining moments of the Bush failure. The other is the photo of Bush staring out the window of Air Force One, helplessly viewing the destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina. This is a presidency that has wobbled between those two poles — overweening arrogance and paralytic incompetence.(President Bush in the Middle East.)
The latter has held sway these past few months as the economy has crumbled. It is too early to rate the performance of Bush's economic team, but we have more than enough evidence to say, definitively, that at a moment when there was a vast national need for reassurance, the President himself was a cipher. Yes, he's a lame duck with an Antarctic approval rating — but can you imagine Bill Clinton going so gently into the night? There are substantive gestures available to a President that do not involve the use of force or photo ops. For example, Bush could have boosted the public spirit — and the auto industry — by announcing that he was scrapping the entire federal automotive fleet, including the presidential limousine, and replacing it with hybrids made in Detroit. He could have jump-started — and he still could — the Obama plan by releasing funds for a green-jobs program to insulate public buildings. He could start funding the transit projects already approved by Congress.
In the end, though, it will not be the creative paralysis that defines Bush. It will be his intellectual laziness, at home and abroad. Bush never understood, or cared about, the delicate balance between freedom and regulation that was necessary to make markets work. He never understood, or cared about, the delicate balance between freedom and equity that was necessary to maintain the strong middle class required for both prosperity and democracy. He never considered the complexities of the cultures he was invading. He never understood that faith, unaccompanied by rigorous skepticism, is a recipe for myopia and foolishness. He is less than President now, and that is appropriate. He was never very much of one.
(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.
It would be a great first step, but only that. Let the investigations begin and we'll go where they lead us, no matter how hurtful and nightmarish the revelations. No more can be swept under the national carpet. It's getting to lumpy to walk on.
Wed Nov 12, 2008 1:03pm EST
By Michael Conlon, Religion Writer
CHICAGO (Reuters) - A coalition of more than 200 religious groups urged U.S. President-elect Barack Obama on Wednesday to sign an order, once he takes office, banning torture by any federal government entity.
"This is an opportunity where one official could ... with one stroke of a pen, really change history here," said Linda Gustitus, president of the National Religious Campaign Against Torture.
The group, which has been pressing the issue since 2006, also wants the U.S. Congress to establish a special committee to investigate the use of what the Bush administration has called "enhanced interrogation techniques" used on terrorism suspects detained after the attacks of September 11, 2001.
President George W. Bush has said the United States does not practice torture. But the Central Intelligence Agency has admitted using waterboarding, a form of simulated drowning, on three occasions. Critics consider waterboarding torture.
"We want a full accounting," Gustitus said in a telephone briefing from Washington. "We know that we tortured people ... the country needs to come to grips with this."
The Bush administration has been under fire both at home and abroad for its interrogation and detainment practices, particularly at the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
During the campaign both Democrat Obama and his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, said they wanted the detention center at Guantanamo closed. Obama takes office on January 20.
Revelations of prisoner abuse by U.S. military personnel at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq caused an international outcry in 2004.
The coalition said it was mounting events on Wednesday at locations across the country, including a demonstration outside the White House, and was lobbying members of Congress on the issue. It was also dropping off its petition to Obama's representatives at his offices in Chicago.
The coalition said more than 240 religious groups have joined in the effort, including representatives of Roman Catholic, evangelical Christian, mainline Protestant, Unitarian, Quaker, Orthodox Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, and Sikh communities.
Thomson Reuters journalists are subject to an Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.
(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 visibly moved Juan Williams reacted to the news that Barack Obama was elected President of the United States shortly after the race was called on Fox News Tuesday. Williams called it "stunning," noting that African Americans were barely able to vote until just 43 years ago, and saying, "I don't care how you feel about him politically, on some level you have to say this is America at its grandest."
His full comments:
It's a stunning sight. It's incomprehensible. Even a year ago, I wouldn't have thought this was possible. That an African American man could be elected President of the United States. When I think of it from a historical point of view, and you go back and think of people, that fact that black people didn't have the right to vote in this country. There were only black men until 1870. In 1870, black men got the right to vote and of course it didn't mean much until going forward until 1965 and the Voting Rights Act. And at that point, Linden Johnson said the Democrat Party lost the South forever and there was no possibility really of full enfranchisement that said black people could somehow be the leader of the United States of America. This is truly an incredible moment of American history. I can't think of another country in the world where you could have a significant minority that was once so maligned and so oppressed finally have one of its sons rise to this level. This is ah... I don't care how you feel about him politically, on some level you have to say this is America at its grandest, the potential, the possibility, and what it says for our children. Black and white, the image of Barack Obama and those little girls in the Rose Garden in these years to come. I think it's just stunning.
(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.
Obama wins in earliest vote in Dixville Notch, N.H.
DIXVILLE NOTCH, N.H. -- Democrat Barack Obama came up a big winner in the presidential race in Dixville Notch, N.H., where the nation's first Election Day votes were cast and counted early Tuesday.
Obama defeated John McCain 15-6. Independent Ralph Nader was also on the ballot, but received no votes.
The first voter, following tradition established in 1948, was picked ahead of the midnight voting and the rest of the town's 19 registered voters followed suit in Tuesday's first minutes.
Town Clerk Rick Erwin says the northern New Hampshire town is proud of its tradition, but says the most important thing is that the turnout represents 100 percent vote.
President Bush won the vote in Dixville Notch in 2004 on the way to his re-election.
Created: 11/3/2008 | Updated: 11/3/2008
(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.
reuters.com — NEW YORK (Reuters) - The New York Times endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for U.S. president on Thursday, saying he had ''met challenge after challenge, growing as a leader and putting real flesh on his early promises of hope and change.'' The Times...More…(World News)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
....and maybe not then, if there are more shenanigans of the sort we saw in 2000 & 2004.
Hey, Goopers! If you are seriously thinking about trying to steal this one, DON'T! You might lose more than one election.
This Race Goes to 11 - Powell Helps with Indies
Barack Obama is up 11 points on John McCain among likely voters in the new Washington Post-ABC News tracking poll, 54 to 43 percent. Though little changed from yesterday, Obama's national lead is now his biggest of the campaign in Post-ABC polling.
Former secretary of state Colin Powell's endorsement provides a new boost for Obama, who has made significant progress with voters as a leader in international affairs. But Obama also continues to be lifted by more fundamental advantages, including a 2 to 1 advantage on "helping the middle-class."
First on Powell - Two in 10 independent voters said they are more inclined to vote for Obama because of Powell's backing; 4 percent said they were nudged the other way.
In polling after the Powell nod, Obama trails McCain by 19-points on the question of who would be a better commander in chief. But McCain's advantage as prospective commander in chief is sharply diminished from early September, when he held a whopping 43-point lead on the question coming out of the nominating conventions.
Of course, the intervening period also includes the three presidential debates and other events that have turned what was then a roughly even race into one with Obama clearly ahead. And the Powell endorsement does not carry the weight it would have in the 1990s. In the new poll, 77 percent of voters said it will not sway them this year; in late 1995, 55 percent said it would have had an impact during that campaign.
Nevertheless, among those who said Powell sways them toward Obama, nearly six in 10 said the Democrat would be the better commander in chief, while a similarly large proportion of those unmoved by Powell side with McCain on the question.
On the broader question of who would be better on international affairs, it is close to even, with McCain at 49 percent, Obama at 46 percent. That is only marginally different from a poll a month ago, but significantly worse for McCain than the 14-point advantage he had following the GOP convention.
Elsewhere in the new poll - Obama leads by about 2 to 1 on health care (which nudged into the double-digits on the most important issue question) and on helping the middle class. No headway on either for McCain as he and the GOP have stepped up their criticisms of Obama on this front.
Obama's 17-point advantage on dealing with the economy (which remains the breakaway top issue) ties high for the campaign. He also maintains a lead over McCain on handling taxes, 51 to 43 percent. At eight-points, Obama's edge on this question is identical to the one George W. Bush held over John F. Kerry at this stage four years ago. Eight years ago, Bush was up 13 points on Al Gore in late October.
McCain-Bush - After ticking below 50 for the first time two days ago, the percentage of voters who see McCain as a continuation of Bush is back to 51. Voters again split 51-46 on the question of whether McCain would mainly continue in Bush's direction or chart a new course.
Obama-experience - 56 percent of voters said Obama has the kind of experience it takes to be an effective president, 42 percent said he does not. Those numbers match his best of the campaign, and are a touch better than the split on Bush's experience on the eve of the 2000 election (52 percent said he had enough experience to be a good president, 44 percent said not).
(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.
Diving into the morning news cloud, you can discern an emerging thread threatening to become conventional wisdom -- the election appears to be breaking toward Obama now. As the Huffington Post has reported, there is all sorts of evidence coming from the McCain camp that they see the Electoral College slipping away. Early voting numbers show significant advantages for the Democrats, even in vital swing states. After trending toward McCain a bit late last week, the national polls are now trending Obama, and surprisingly the movement is two way -- toward Barack and away from McCain.
Increasingly, we will start to hear quiet talk of realignment, blowout, rout, coattails, new political era. For if the trends continue, we are headed toward a true blowout with the top of the Democratic ticket getting its highest vote share since 1964, Democrats having more ideological control of Washington since the mid 1960s and Democrats having the makings of a new very 21st century majority coalition they could ride for the next 30-40 years of politics.
Their opposition, the conservatives and Republicans, have become intellectually exhausted, politically discredited and temperamentally reactionary and angry. This is a movement and party that prospered in the 20th century but now seems lost, adrift and resistant to the new politics of the 21st. In these last few weeks in particular, the GOP looks like a party that could be out of power for a very long time.
For those on the American center-left, these are heady political times. But they are also sober and serious times, as the Democrats begin to confront the enormity of the governing challenges facing the next Congress and President.
As is custom now, DemFromCT has an excellent analysis on all these new polling trends this morning over at Daily Kos.
(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.
I can't say I have ever been a big fan of Donna Brazile. What Newtie said was preposterous; Hannity and Limbaugh stand to lose their right to free speech? Good Lord, why didn't she swat that down? No one can shut either of these guys up. Their bosses can fire them, but all that does is take away the huge megaphone and no one has a Constitutional right to a huge megaphone. As long as these guys continue to make money for their radio and Teevee stations they aren't going to lose their huge megaphones. Remember this is America and if hate and diversion sells, so be it.
As far as the "Liberal" hoo-hah goes, as an independent moderate, I must say that it's time the country swung back to the left. We have moved so far to the Right in the last 40 years, and especially during the Bush/Cheney years, it will take a liberal swing to re-balance the nation.
Seriously, where are all these scary liberals? Obama is not nearly as liberal as the Right would have us believe. Neither is Harry Reid. He's a Mormon for Gawdssake! Pelosi is considered fairly moderate in San Francisco.
Brazile is right about one thing. If Obama wins, he will be prevented from doing much of what he would like to do because of the humonguous mess, both international and domestic, Junior and Vice will be leaving him.
If I really hated Republicans I would vote for McCain, but I love my country too much for that. I will vote for the man who is the smartest and shows the best judgement, the man who has the most energy, because he is going to need it. I will vote for the man for whom every American should be proud to vote, the man who will electrify the world, if we elect him; Barack Obama
I've complained about the Democratic TV surrogates before so this is just a follow up. Donna Brazile, you have to do better. Please, Obama needs your help. The Newties are trotting out their "Pelosi-Reid" liberal deck of cards to try and intimidate Americans to not vote for Obama. "Don't vote for Obama because the Democratic Party may control the White House and Congress and America can't afford that!"
Right, because as we've seen, Conservatives really know how to govern this nation. Gingrich---for the most part is running McCain's campaign already (with Hannity's help of course) and gets enough time on FOX already so why is he on ABC? OK, let me stay on point. When I watched ABC's THIS WEEK, I wondered why Donna was already throwing cold water on Obama's head if he actually does win the election in November.
Newt Gingrich: If Obama won and had a moderate House and a moderate Senate, he would probably be a moderate president. His temperament would lead him to be much more like Richard Daley than like Reverend Wright. He's not gonna have that. he's gonna have card check to take away your right to a secret ballot. He's going to have an effort to eliminate freedom of speech for Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. He's going to have a congress that wants to raise taxes, that wants to increase government --- is he really going to veto and fight with Pelosi and Reid? ... As the Wall Street Journal said on Friday, here is what their promising their allies they're going to do.
Donna Brazile: Yeah, but they're not in office Mr. Speaker. Senator Obama will inherit a 10 trillion dollar deficit and he's going to have to put things on the table that perhaps many of us would not like to see a Democratic president put on the table in terms of cutting back on spending, freezing hiring and making some real tough decisions. So, I think he will be constrained by the deficit and also by the fact that we're still in two major wars.
God forbid that policies we believe in should get a legitimate shot at trying to heal this great nation after it has been ravaged by Newt, Bush and Conservatism. And Gingrich actually brought up that protecting Sean Hannity was more important than getting you a job...Yikes. I won't even get into all the obstructionism that will go on by the Blue Dogs and the GOP, but I'll let Digby explain it.
That's a relief. No need for anyone to worry that Obama isn't going to govern like a Republican. Except, you know, Republicans are really unpopular.
Gingrich is playing for 2010, here, preparing his troops to run against the already unpopular congress. He's calling Obama a wimp for being unable to stand up to his crazed, radical base. It's a natural move for the Republicans.
But there is no excuse for Brazile to fall into the rhetorical fetal position and help him. My God, we are in the final two weeks of a presidential campaign which is taking place in the middle of an economic crisis and is this the best she can do? He gave her the most perfect opening in the world --- "the Republicans are more worried about a non-existent free speech threat to multi-millionaires like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity than they are about the real threat to average Americans financial security. Obama is going to be dealing with real problems of average people and will do what it takes to get this country back on the right track after the Republicans drove it off the rails over the last eight years."
This defensiveness is going to kill any mandate Obama gets before he even gets in office.
(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.
Anyhoo, I watched this and I must admit that Powell spoke 100% of what I feel. It's too damn bad that BuCheney used this man the way they did. It's even sadder than he allowed them to do so.
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell announced Sunday that he will break with his party and vote for Sen. Barack Obama. "He has both style and substance. I think he is a transformational figure," Powell said on NBC's Meet the Press.
"I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities -- and you have to take that into account -- as well as his substance -- he has both style and substance," Powell said. "He has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president."
Powell noted that McCain has been a good friend for 25 years, but expressed disappointment in the "over the top" negative tone of the GOP campaign, as well as in McCain's choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as the vice presidential nominee.
"Now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don't believe she's ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president," Powell said. "And so that raised some question in my mind as to the judgment that Senator McCain made."
He also harshly criticized some of McCain's campaign tactics, such as the robocall campaign linking Obama to former 1960s radical Bill Ayers.
"Mr. McCain says that he's a washed up terrorist, but then why do we keep talking about him? And why do we have the robocalls going on around the country trying to suggest that because of this very, very limited relationship that Senator Obama has had with Mr. Ayers, somehow Mr. Obama is tainted. What they're trying to connect him to is some kind of terrorist feelings. And I think that's inappropriate. Now, I understand what politics is all about, I know how you can go after one another and that's good. But I think this goes too far, and I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrow. It's not what the American people are looking for."
Powell also spoke passionately against the insinuations by some Republicans that Obama is a Muslim.
"Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian," he said. "But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, 'He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists.' This is not the way we should be doing it in America."
Story continues below
Powell said he does not plan to campaign for Obama.
Following the interview, Powell told reporters outside NBC's Washington studio that McCain "is essentially going to execute the Republican agenda, the orthodoxy of the Republican agenda with a new face and a maverick approach to it, and he'd be quite good at it, but I think we need more than that. I think we need a generational change. I think Senator Obama has captured the feelings of the young people of America and is reaching out in a more diverse, inclusive way across our society."
Powell charged that the Republican focus on William Ayers and Obama's religious affiliations were damaging America's image abroad.
"Those kinds of images going out on al Jazeera are killing us around the world," he said. "And we have got to say to the world, it doesn't make any difference who you are or what you are, if you're an American you're an American. And this business of, for example a congresswoman from Minnesota going around saying let's examine all congressmen to see who is pro America or not pro America, we have got to stop this kind of non-sense and pull ourselves together and remember that our great strength is in our unity and diversity. That really was driving me."
Powell continued, defending Obama against McCain's latest charge that the Democrat's policies are quasi-socialist:
We can't judge our people and hold our elections on that kind of basis. Yes, that kind of negativity troubled me. And the constant shifting of the argument, I was troubled a couple of weeks ago when in the middle of the crisis the campaign said 'we're going to go negative,' and they announced it. 'We're going to go negative and attack his character through Bill Ayers.' Now I guess the message this week is we're going to call him a socialist. Mr. Obama is now a socialist, because he dares to suggest that maybe we ought to look at the tax structure that we have. Taxes are always a redistribution of money. Most of the taxes that are redistributed go back to those who pay them, in roads and airports and hospitals and schools. And taxes are necessary for the common good. And there's nothing wrong with examining what our tax structure is or who should be paying more or who should be paying les, and for us to say that makes you a socialist is an unfortunate characterization that I don't think is accurate.
Asked whether he still considers himself a Republican, Powell responded, "Yes."
Robert Gibbs told reporters that Obama called Powell to thank him for his endorsement and express how honored he was to have it.
Obama "said he looked forward to taking advantage of his advice in the next two weeks and hopefully over the next four years," Gibbs said in an email to the traveling press. "They talked for ten minutes."
Appearing on Fox News Sunday, John McCain said he respectfully disagreed with Powell's decision, but "this doesn't come as a surprise."
In fact, aside from their shared history as Republican military men, Powell's endorsement is significant due to the fact that McCain has repeatedly singled him out for lavish praise. In a July New York Times interview, McCain described the former secretary of state and Joint Chiefs chairman as "a man who I admire as much as any man in the world, person in the world" when answering a question in which Powell was not brought up. Meanwhile, near the same time as that interview, McCain was reportedly considering Powell as a potential running mate.
McCain's high opinion of Powell as one of the "most credible, most respected" men in America is not merely an election-year spasm, either. When asked in 2001 if he would have chosen Powell for a Cabinet position had he succeeded in his first presidential run, McCain said "oh, yes." During two December 2000 appearances on NBC Nightly News, McCain described himself as "exuberant" over Powell's selection as secretary of state, which he predicted would secure "a beneficial effect on the conduct of American foreign policy." McCain added in another TV appearance that President Bush was "blessed" to have Powell working for him. In 2003, when Powell faced criticism from Newt Gingrich over his plan to travel to Syria, it was McCain who rose to the secretary's defense on MSNBC's Hardball, when he said: "I think it's appropriate that Colin Powell is going there."
Even at the end of Powell's somewhat frustrating tenure in George W. Bush's inner circle of policy advisers, McCain praised his overall performance, saying: "When he took the helm at the State Department nearly four years ago, I was confident that Secretary Powell would lead with honor and distinction ... I have not been disappointed." And in a CBS interview during this year's primary race, McCain suggested that one of President Bush's chief failures "was not to listen more to our military leadership, including people like General Colin Powell."
The praise has not only run in one direction, as Powell described McCain the "toughest man I've ever met" last year. But in the end, what sounded like a compliment could have been the beginning of the end. During this summer's conflict between Russia and Georgia, Powell criticized McCain for being, in essence, too mindlessly tough. When asked by CNN's what McCain meant when he said "We are all Georgians now," Powell demurred. "One candidate said that, and I'll let the candidate explain it for himself."
When pressed for further opinion, Powell distanced himself from McCain's staunchly pro-Georgian line. "The fact of the matter is that you have to be very careful in a situation like this not just to leap to one side or the other until you take a good analysis of the whole situation," Powell said, tamping down the rush to herald the rise of a new Soviet threat.
"The Russian Federation is not going to become the Soviet Union again. That movie failed at the box office. But they do have interests. And we have to think carefully about their interests."
(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.
It appears that what police may be looking at is a budding white supremacist who frequented one of the most popular neo-Nazi websites and harbored an apocalyptic dread of the federal government...
