???Nowforsomethingotherthanthetruth??? exemplifies the measures employed by the McCain campaign starting with the anonymous smear emails that began when McC hired the Bush propaganda machine.
This deception campaign tries to benefit from party loyalties. It preys upon hate, prejudice and fear, and on the ???unanswered questions??? fabricated by the anonymous emails this campaign perpetrated. Links to debunks of many of those fabrications are in an earlier posting.
This is by far the greatest extreme ever in American politics. It is a fundamental threat to our political process. It would further entrench the Bush operatives who took over the McC campaign, and the republican lobbyists who represent only the megarich who looted our economy.
McC was a maverick. He promised to root out the lobbyists he said are what???s wrong with Washington. He said he would not take the low road employed by the Bush machine when it smeared him. He sold out when he got behind and subscribed to the ideology that the end justifies the means.
McC would continue the Bush tax give away to the rich that McC previously opposed and called ???irresponsible??? because ???it only benefits the rich.???
McC now wants to give more billions in tax give aways to oil companies that have just reported the largest profits in history for two consecutive quarters, while he claims that lowering taxes for everyone under $250k in after-deduction income will somehow keep businessmen from starting businesses.
???Nowfor??? has employed many of the themes in the anonymous viral emails. He recently said it was ???revealed that Obama has PLO buddies??? referring to Rashid Khalidi to whom McC donated $440k:
http://richmonddemocrat.blogspot.com/2008/10/mccain-funded-rashid-khalidi.html Guilt by association.
"Nowfor" continues repasting that the cause of our problem is a law decades old that encourages loans to qualified low income people.
Alan Greenspan said the cause is that an entire financial system was built outside of regulation; "we trusted" these self-interested looters ???to regulate themselves???. Credit Default Swaps resulted. They increased from $106 trillion in '02 to $531 trillion under R stewardship.
The legitimate news has reported that Fannie and Freddie paid many millions to McC's campaign manager, Rick Davis, who received up to $35K/mo. from Fannie and Freddie from 2000 to while he has been McC's campaign manager.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/us/politics/22mccain.html and http://www.newsweek.com/id/164732/page/1
Trillions were looted from our economy because the Rs allowed it. The Rs, including McC's campaign manager, are in the pockets of big money.
Without solutions, it is necessary to campaign with deception, misdirection, fear, smears, hypocrisy.
Attempts to hijack our political process with deceit and abuse of the trust of party loyalties are reasons I'm voting for Obama after 40 years of never voted for a Dem.
A 40
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next Page »
It’s Not Easy Bein’ Blue
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
Like the apostles of Jesus who expected their Messiah to return in triumph before they themselves died, many liberals are almost certain to be disappointed in a President Obama. "I think right now people are in a pragmatic mood, not an ideological mood," says David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist. Perhaps, but on the off chance that ideology is on the mind of a voter or two, Axelrod's candidate has taken care to avoid the L word. Obama opposes gay marriage; talks about tax cuts, God and veterans' benefits; and is spending money to try to remain competitive in traditionally Republican states such as Virginia, North Carolina and even West Virginia, where Hillary Clinton trounced him earlier this year. "I think he will govern a little right of center," says Harold Ford Jr., the former Tennessee congressman and chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council. "He is not an ideologue."
An Obama presidency would be one of the few exceptions to a 40-year-old historical rule. Why do Republicans tend to win the White House? Not surprisingly, each party's answer to the fundamental question about the GOP lock on the presidency is less than satisfying. Republicans say the policies and values they represent are wholly American, and so it is natural that they win so often. Democrats explain their failures by asserting that the Republicans are evil geniuses and fearmongers who exploit whatever is at hand to scare people into having their resentments win out against their better angels. In this scenario, Nixon and Reagan and the Bushes won only through the dark arts of the Southern strategy, of Atwater and Rove.
The truth, as it so often does, lies somewhere between these extremes. The Republicans have seemed fatherly and tough (see Bill Buckley's paean to possible Armageddon), the Democrats motherly and soft. Understanding the forces behind the usual Republican hold on the White House explains much about the country, and is essential to Obama's potential success if he were to win, for the most effective presidents have had an appreciation of the nation's intrinsic tendency toward conservatism.
Contrary to caricature, to be conservative is not necessarily to be racist, or retrograde, or close-minded. It is, rather, to be driven by a fundamental human impulse to preserve what one has and loves. Liberals and moderates share this impulse, of course; and many conservatives, like many liberals and moderates, are generous, future-oriented and interested in reform. The point is that history suggests America is more likely to tack toward the familiar on big questions of politics and culture than it is to enthusiastically embrace radical change. If you doubt this, ask an African-American or an advocate of universal health coverage.
This is not a new phenomenon. In introducing his classic 1948 book "The American Political Tradition," Richard Hofstadter quoted John Dos Passos: "In times of change and danger, when there is a quicksand of fear under men's reasoning, a sense of continuity with generations gone before can stretch like a lifeline across the scary present." The need for that lifeline transcends any given generation's political labels. In the popular imagination the conservative epoch that may well be coming to an end this November is generally considered to have begun with Reagan's election to the White House. But a wider reading of history suggests that the impulse we now think of as conservative—that politics can help us recover a lost, better world, if we heed custom—is one that, in varied manifestations, stretches back to at least the 1820s and '30s, when Americans nostalgic for the Revolutionary generation spoke of the Jeffersonian "old republican" school. As Hofstadter argued in the 1940s, the Progressive Era was in many ways driven by a sense of restoration: William Jennings Bryan, Robert La Follette and Woodrow Wilson were, he said, "trying to undo the mischief of the past forty years and re-create the old nation of limited and decentralized power, genuine competition, democratic opportunity, and enterprise."
Hofstadter encapsulated the center-right point about the country better than most, writing: "The sanctity of private property, the right of the individual to dispose of and invest it, the value of opportunity, and the natural evolution of self-interest and self-assertion, within broad legal limits, into a beneficent social order have been staple tenets of the central faith in American political ideologies; these conceptions have been shared in large part by men as diverse as Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Cleveland, Bryan, Wilson, and Hoover." To this list we may safely add Barack Obama (and John McCain, for that matter).
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next Page »
Discuss