"Napolitano: GOP VP nominee faces sexism in coverage" (Howard Fischer, Yuma Sun):
Gov. Janet Napolitano says Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin probably is facing a bit of sexism in coverage, particularly as it relates to her family.
But, Napolitano said Wednesday, that's still no reason to vote for her - or, more to the point, for John McCain who is at the top of the ticket. The Arizona governor said her Alaska counterpart is "very much from the far right of the Republican Party.''
Napolitano, in her first press conference since returning from the Democratic National Convention, noted the attention being paid to Palin's family life, particularly the fuss over her pregnant 17-year-old daughter. She said there's really nothing new about that.
"There's a line that Ann Richards used to use about running for public office,'' Napolitano said quoting the former Texas governor.
"If you're a woman, this is what happens: If you're not married, you couldn't get a man. If you're married, you're ignoring your man. If you're divorced, you couldn't keep your man. And if you're widowed, you killed your man,'' Napolitano recalled, "so that when a woman runs there does tend to be a different emphasis with the coverage.''
A few comments on the above.
Saying 'Ann Richards said it was to be expected' doesn't make it right. Ann Richards, a great woman, is dead and has been for some time. I really don't think we make what Richards faced back then (she was governor of Texas before Bush) as 'acceptable' for someone to face now. It's over ten years since Richards held office. There should have been some progress.
The sexism Palin's facing can be a reason to vote for her.
Many women have faced it. They may relate.
If they do and want to vote for Palin, that's a valid reason.
I've never written a blog post here saying, "How dare African-Americans vote for Barack!" I never would.
If someone sees Barack's experience and identifies with it, that's a valid reason to vote for him.
It's only when a woman might gain votes (and it's true of all women -- regardless of skin color) that so many get nervous and start insisting, "Don't vote for her because she's a woman!"
Janet's vote is Janet's vote.
What anyone else does is honestly none of her business.
I caught Janet's DNC speech. It's funny to hear the whining over how 'mean' the RNC was. I'll assume few caught Janet's speech. At least very few of those whining.
Lastly, Janet, where were you when Hillary was facing one sexist attack after another?
I mean, I applaud you for acknowledging that Palin is facing sexism. You don't go into it and some of your comments are dismissive. But at least you obliquely acknowledge it.
But where were you when Hillary was being attacked?
I'm not remembering you speaking out?
So my question for Janet would be, "Do you think Hillary faced sexism?"
Obviously Hillary did.
Hopefully Janet could be honest about that.
But for those who are fretting that Sarah's getting defense that Hillary didn't, take it up with people like Janet.
Don't blame Sarah Palin.
Some of us were calling out the rank sexism used against Hillary. We called it out repeatedly.
It's a real shame that Janet and other Democratic women chose to be silent.
I doubt the Republican Party will be silent and, guess what, I'm glad about that.
It shouldn't have happened to Hillary and it shouldn't happen to Sarah Palin.
If the Democrat 'leaders' (as a governor, Janet is one) had called out what was done to Hillary in real time (when it mattered) the huge split in the party would not be so great.
But the way it worked out was that Geraldine Ferraro was the only Democrat to hold office or be on a ticket that called it out.
So it was Hillary and her supporters on one side and everyone else on the other.
That's still the split today.
They brought it on themselves.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Monday, September 15, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, US Secretary of Defense Gates goes to Baghdad, tensions flare within Iraq and more.
Al Jazeera reports Gen David Petraeus is back in Baghdad as he gets ready "to hand over his role to general Raymond Odierno, his second-in-command." Over the weekend, Jim Michaels (USA Today) reported that Gen David Petraeus, eager to assume control of CENTCOM and no longer be the 'top [US] commander' in Iraq, managed to send off "a farewell letter issued Saturday". At Baghdad Bureau (New York Times Iraq blog), [PDF format warning] the letter is posted. In the second to the last paragraph, Petraeus notes Odierno, "Your new commander is precisely the right man for the job. General Ray Odierno played a central role in the progress achieved during the surge. He brings tremendous skill, experience, and understanding as he returns to Iraq for a third tour and takes the helm of MNF-I just seven months after relinquishing command of Multi-National Corps-Iraq. I have total confidence in him, and I will do all that I can as the commander of Central Command to help him, MNF-I, and our Iraqi partners to achieve the important goals that we all share for the new Iraq." Publicly, Odierno's role was largely to repeatedly insist that Iran was guilty of whatever the charge being pushed was and demanding that there was hard proof. But when asked to provide the evidence, Odierno would have to backtrack.
Julian E. Barnes and Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) report that US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was in Baghdad both for the handover between Petraeus and Odierno and to insist on "a cautious approach to cuts". Gates, Petraeus and Odierno all attempt to sell the escalation ('surge') as a success. But even Martha Raddatz was noting on Friday's Washington Week (PBS) that there will be more US service members in Iraq than before the escalation started. While the US sees an increase, other countries see the opposite. Friday night, Tina Susman (Babylon & Beyond, Los Angeles Times) explained that, "The coalition of the willing has become the coalition of the dwindling in Iraq, where non-U.S. forces now number about 7,000 compared with the 146,000 American troops here. More than half the non-U.S. troops are British, with Poland, Romania and South Korea being the other main providers to a multinational force that at its height numbered 49 countries and more than 200,000 troops." Simon Assaf (Great Britain's Socialist Worker) observes:
The US is now confidently predicting that it will finally be able to start drawing down its troops. The "surge", Bush's gamble to stabilise the occupation, is being paraded as a success. But in fact Iraq is poised to enter a new era of instability -- and the US is finding itself trapped by a series of dirty deals that are coming back to haunt it.Foremost among these is the deal the US hoped it could forge with the Shia‑dominated Iraqi government. This deal, known as the "status of forces agreement", would have granted the US the right to stage military operations inside Iraq without Iraqi government approval, and the right to launch wars on other countries from permanent bases on Iraqi soil. But progress towards the agreement has been grindingly slow. Talks on Iraq's oil resources, electoral reform and amnesties for members of Saddam Hussein's regime have all stalled. Meanwhile the Kurds are blocking constitutional reforms that will claw back the autonomy granted to them in the earlier phase of the occupation.
AFP reports that Gates praised Petraeus and US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker "during a dinner at Petraeus' headquarters in a former Saddam Hussein-era palace on the outskirts of Baghdad" while Ryan Crocker told Petraeus, "It's been one heck of a ride, buddy." The US military notes that Iraq's "Ministry of Defense held a ceremony today to say goodbye to U.S. Army Gen. David Petraeus, the outgoing commanding general of Multi-National Forces-Iraq. . . . Iraqi Minister of Defense Abd al-Qadir congratulated Petraeus on his next assignement and expressed his regret to lose a man he called a close friend to himself and the Iraqi people." Petraeus is scheduled to take control of CENTCOM October 31st. Tim Albone (Times of London) reports, "The outgoing Bush Administration and both US presidential candidates promised to send thousands of US reinforcements to the country, although the nature of the conflict was very different."
Sunday Hala Jaber (Times of London) reported on his Beirut conversation with Sheikh Ahmad Fartusi who claims credit both for attacks on British soldiers in Basra and for being "able to halt the onslaught last year in a secret deal negotiated with British officials in his cell" but who now claims that "British forces had reneged on the deal that allowed them to withdraw peacefully from central Basra to an airbase outside the city, reportedly in return for the release of 120 Mahdi Army prisoners. The agreement had been broken, he said, when the British returned to Basra last March following Maliki's 15,000-strong 'charge of the knights' to seize control from the Mahdi Army and other militias." Fartuis now promises attacks will resume.
Saturday BBC reported, "A roadside bomb killed six Kurdish peshmerga fighters in Khanaqin town in Diyala province, north-east of Baghdad." Sam Dagher (New York Times) observed that the Saturday bombing increased "tensions with the Iraqi government and local Arabs over the Kurds' presence in the area. The Kurdish presence in Khanaquin, and in other nearby areas, has been a growing source of tension. Kurdish forces have been moving the borders of their semiautonomous region in northern Iraq, in what they say is an effort to improve security. But the move has been viewed by many Iraqi and American officials as a threat to stability in areas that are already prone to violence." Amit R. Paley (Washington Post) reported before the bombing, "Kurdish leaders have expanded their authority over a roughly 300-mile-long swath of territory beyond the borders of their autonomous region in northern Iraq, stationing thousands of soldiers in ethnically mixed areas in what Iraqi Arabs see as an encroachment on their homelands. The assertion of greater Kurdish control, which has taken hold gradually since the war began and caused tens of thousands of Arabs to flee their homes, is viewed by Iraqi Arab and U.S. officials as a provocative and potentially destabilizing action." An Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy (at Inside Iraq) reviews the benefits for the Kurds and wonders if "is it right to cause a state to collapse into entities to realize your dream?" The correspondent notes how the Peshmerga appears to decide what they will do and which areas (Kurdish or non-Kurdish) they will 'patrol.' Of oil-rich Kirkuk, the correspondent notes that Kurds compose only an estimated 40% of the city's population but have "taken control of it and the Pershmerga handle the security there". Of the Iraqi Constitution, the correspondents notes that "the Kurds objected to the statement that read 'Iraq is an Arab state and part of the Arab nation' pointing out that there are other ethnic groups that would be offended. So the statement was struck out -- as if by a magic wand disregarding the other constituents of the Iraqi population. Arabs constitute 84% of the population."
Journalists were murdered over the weekend in Iraq. Reporters Without Borders noted:
"Reporters Without Borders is appalled and saddened by the murder of four employees of privately-owned TV station Al-Sharqiya yesterday in the northern city of Mosul. Al-Sharqiya's news director noted that the murders followed a smear campaign against the station by state TV broadcaster Al Iraqiya. 'We condemn the abduction and murder of the three Al-Sharqiya journalists and their driver and we call for a thorough investigation into the circumstances,' Reporters Without Borders said. 'The comments by Al-Sharqiya's news director make such an investigation all the more urgent'." Nicholas Spangler and Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reported that the foru were bringing "gifts that had come to be the trademark of their reality show: some basic household appliances and a delicious supper to break the Ramadan fast for a family of little means." Meanwhile Caesar Ahmad and Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) report on the diminishing press freedoms in Iraq and among the stories included is Saad Khalaf's -- he is a photograph who was harassed by the military, threatened with arrest and had his camera taken from him: "Col. Ali then ordered the soldier to return the cameras. Khalaf, thinking that Ali was afraid the photographers had taken pictures of the soldiers, said he had been taking shots only of the burning car that carried the bomb. That did not satisfy the colonel, who shouted back. 'In this neighborhood under my jurisdiction, no one is allowed to shoot any photos. I don't care what others say, but Col. Ali bans any pictures here'." There was also a verbal assault on the press in Iraq over the weekend. As noted in "Naeema al-Gasseer: the United Nations' embarrassment in Iraq" (here) and "The UN's embarrassment in Iraq" (Third Estate Sunday Review) a press conference was held Friday in Baghdad supposedly to address cholera. Participating were Iraq's Minster of Health Dr. Salith al-Hasnawi, Dr. Tahseen al-Sheikhly and WHO's Dr. Naeema al-Gasseer. They attacked the press verbally throughout. The worst was al-Gasseer because she's an employee of the United Nations -- a fact she frequently forgot while speaking (saying "we" and then having to back up and clarify she meant the Iraqi government). She blamed the cholera outbreak on Iraqi women, on lack of cleanliness, made comments that were insulting and non-medical. She ignored the fact that the puppet government sits on billions and does nothing to repair the infrastucture. But in ten years, some of it will be up and running, it was explained. In ten years. al-Gasseer blamed Iraqi women for not boiling water and apparently she doesn't grasp that not only is electricity 'iffy' in most areas of Iraq, fuel for heating is expensive. al-Gasseer repeatedly lectured such as with this gem: "Your role is to deliver the information rapidly in order to help us stop spreading the disease." For all their faults, the media does know their role. al-Gasseer's the one who seems to have forgotten that she's an allegedly neutral party. Instead, she gave cover for the government that does nothing, attacked the media and ignored the real roots of the problem. It was an embarrassment. Among the roots of the problem is the issue of sanitation. Click here for Zaineb Naji (Wall St. Journal) writing about the huge trash piles.
Bombings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 Baghdad car bombings resulting in 12 deaths with thirty-seven wounded. Reuters notes a female bomber killed herself in Diyala Province and claimed 20 other lives (with thirty wounded). Al Dulaimy notes 22 dead from that bombing and, "The attack occurred at a feast to celebrate the release of police sergeant Adnan Shukri, released yesterday from a U.S. detention facility."
Corpses?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses discovered in Baghdad.
Sunday the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division - Center Soldier died this morning of non-combat related causes." And they also announced: "A second Multi-National Division - Center Soldier died this morning of non-combat related causes. The soldier died of wounds Sept. 14 at a Coalition forces Combat Army Support Hospital."
Turning to the US race for president. Senator Hillary Clinton campaigned for Barack Obama, Democratic presidential nominee, in Ohio. It's among the many states Hillary won during the primaries. Translation, among the many big states Barack lost in the primaries. Toby Harnden (Telegraph of London) reports a large crowd turned out for Hillary in Akron and the ones he spoke with after have no plans to vote for Barack which would explain why Hardin observers that "the response to her remarks about him" Barack "was relatively muted." Many speak of hoping for a 2012 run by Hillary, Sandy Wierzbicki wishes Hillary had been picked at the v.p. nominee, and Paul Barry may speak for a number when he declares, "I'll probably stay at home. It's all a media love fest with Obama. It's like it's 'American Idol' to choose the president. I don't like all the mystical, transcendental stuff from him. Anyone can be in favour of change and brotherly love. Yes, he's inspirational. So why not give him his own show after Oprah? I'm into reality. I want to know the facts about what he'll get done. We need the meat and the potatoes, not just pie in the sky."
Riverdaughter (The Confluence) writes for many who will not vote for Barack, "One of the things that sets PUMAs apart from other Democrats is our built-in BS detectors. The other thing is that we were supporters of Hillary Clinton because we saw her as the true Democrat in the race. We liked her stands on the issues, her ability to reach out to every voter and her grace under pressure. But the PUMA movement is not about Hillary. It is about us, the voters. The Obama campaign, the DNC and the media targetted *US*, Hillary's voters, for a peculiar brand of derision, disrespect and disenfranchisement this year." Meanwhile Peggy Simpson (WMC) reports, "The Sarah Surge is unmistakable. GOP presidential nominee John McCain's support rose markedly after he named Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate--although after two solid weeks of Palin-all-the-time media attention, McCain still hasn't broken 50 percent. Republicans now are far more fervent backers of McCain, a candidate that the religious right and social conservatives opposed in past races and were lukewarm about in this one. Post-Palin, Republicans' strong backing of McCain nearly has doubled, from 39 percent in July to 71 percent in September, in a Newsweek poll." Dr. Violet Socks (Reclusive Leftist) has compiled a series of quotes by Palin on feminist issues. While Socks compiles what Palin has said, Joseph (Cannonfire) focuses on what was left out of an interview last week: "ABC News deliberately edited the interview with Governor Palin to make her appear bellicose and ignorant. You'll be shocked when you see what they left out. " Palin was a hit in Carson City, Nevada Saturday. Scott Conroy (CBS News) describes it as a "rally in front of a raucus crowd of several thousands" Lynn Sweet (Chicago Sun-Times) has posted the transcript which includes Palin noting one person attending, "I'm honored to hear that we have with us in our midst, so many of us who admire, Chuck Yeager, and I hear that he may be here. (Cheers, applause.) Now, he is a true American hero and maybe the first man to break the sound barrier. Hopefully he has a good idea maybe how that first woman can break the glass ceiling once and for all! (Cheers, applause.)"
Jo Freeman's "The 1976 Republican Convention" (JoFreeman.com) is a photo essay of a historic convention:
In this fractious atmosphere women and women's issues took a back seat to the Presidential campaigns. Feminists, acting through the Republican Women's Task Force (RWTF) of the National Women's Political Caucus (NWPC), were part of the Ford campaign. The anti-feminists, acting through Phyllis Schlafly's STOP ERA, were Reagan supporters.
These two groups fought over whether support for the Equal Rights Amendment should remain in the Republican Party Platform. It had been in the Platform from 1940 until 1964, when it disappeared without actually being removed. Even though all of the candidates for the 1964 Republican nomination (Goldwater, Rockefeller, Scranton, Smith) supported the ERA, a decision to write a very brief platform that year caused removal of many planks which had traditionally been in the Platform. In 1972, Republican feminists put it back in without opposition. Serious opposition to the ERA emerged the following year as the states debated whether or not to ratify the proposed Constitutional amendment.
Both Ford and Reagan had supported the ERA when it was sent by Congress to the states on March 22, 1972. Between then and 1976, Ford strengthened his support. His wife, Betty, was an ERA champion. While Governor of California, Reagan had also supported the ERA. When he decided to run for the 1976 nomination he switched sides to court the large number of conservative women who did not like it.
Again, it's a photo essay with many photos from her own personal collection. (She covered both the Democratic and Republican 1976 conventions and may be posting a photo essay of the Dems shortly.) Staying with photos and journalism, David Bacon's latest book is Illegal People -- How Globalization Creates Migration and Criminalizes Immigrants (Beacon Press). He is in the midst of a book tour and some of the upcoming dates include:
Sept 16 Photography exhibition and reception, 6:30PM Living Under the Trees Exhibition 9/1-10/1 Santa Paula Family Resource Center 940 E. Main Street, Santa Paula, CA Sept 17 Book discussion, Illegal People, 2:30PM Transborder Institute, University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park, San Diego, CA
Sept 21 Presentation at REFORMA Conference, 10AM National Association to Promote Library and Information Services to Latinos and the Spanish Speaking, El Paso, Texas
Sept 22 Book presentation, Illegal People,12:30PM Fall for the Book, Grand Tier III, Center for the Arts, Photography exhibition, Johnson Center's Gallery 123, 9/21-26 George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Sept 29 Book discussion, Illegal People, 6PM World Affairs Council, 312 Sutter St., #200, San Francisco
Sept 30 Book discussion, 7:30PM Illegal People and The Accidental American, by Rinku Sen Modern Times Bookstore, 888 Valencia St., San Francisco
Last week, Bacon appeared on Democracy Now!:
JUAN GONZALEZ: And the spread of these huge raids over the last few years, it seems almost in response to the immigrant rights protests that developed a couple of years ago, when you saw this new movement developing in America, and suddenly the federal government all across the country begins clamping down and raiding factories, communities, stopping buses and trains, boarding buses and trains, even Amtrak trains and regular commercial buses, checking IDs all over the place.DAVID BACON: That's right. These are-as you say, Juan, these are terror raids, really. The purpose of these raids is really to terrorize and frighten immigrant communities, partly because, I think, the government is afraid of people asserting their rights and asserting their existence in the country through the marches and through other kinds of immigrant rights activities, organizing unions in plants and so forth. But also, I think the government has an agenda here. In fact, it's pretty open. Michael Chertoff keeps saying it over and over and over, and that is that he says we're going to shut the back door and open the front door. And what that means is that ICE is trying to push for the establishment of new guest worker programs, so that people can come here as workers, but only as workers, without rights, without eventually getting political rights, without becoming citizens, certainly without voting, but whose labor is going to be used in the economy. And so, these raids are a way of terrorizing people and saying to people: don't think that you're going to be able to come to the United States; don't think that you're going to be able to work in any other way other than through these programs.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And I think one of the things that you raise in your book and in a lot of your articles is that the movement for comprehensive immigration reform, even among Democrats, is divided in terms of the purposes of that immigration reform, that there are groups that are really representative of business interests who are looking for that front-door situation. Could you expound on that?DAVID BACON: Sure. The comprehensive immigration bills that we saw in Congress in a lot of ways were labor supply bills. These were bills that were really intended to supply guest workers to industry and then an enforcement program to kind of drive workers into those programs. So, the difference of opinion, I think in the Democratic Party, especially, is between people who sponsored those programs and other people like Sheila Jackson-Lee, the congresswoman from Houston, who said instead of having a guest worker program, what we need is people to be able to come here with green cards and with permanent residence visas. And also, the thing I think that she said that was really a pioneering idea, and that was that we also need a jobs program. We need to couple immigration reform with jobs programs. So she said, let's take the fees that people pay when they're normalizing their status and use that to set up job creation and job training programs in communities with high unemployment, so that all communities can have some kind of benefit out of these bills. You know, these labor supply bills, comprehensive immigration reform bills, what they do is they pit communities against each other over jobs, over wages and so forth.
Freeman's essay provided us with the transition into Bacon. Some might have expected us to go to Cynthia McKinney next and I would love to. But I've gone through about 30 articles and blog posts on or related to her that were published over the weekend. Not interested. That's nothing against Cynthia. I have a lot of respect for her. But if she has female supporters, they need to start making themselves heard because if I see one more article or blog post about how she's not a woman, she's a ___ (whatever compliment), I'm not even going to bother to try to highlight the campaign again. And notice, it's men writing these things and men being quoted in them. Again, if she has female supporters, they need to start speaking up. Reality, Cynthia is indeed a woman and it's nothing to run from. I won't highlight any articles or blog posts that claim or suggest it is. Cynthia has an amazing personal story and an amazing legislative record. She is also a "she." And all three things can and, in fact, do go together. Some of those pieces are so bad they read like the writers want to strap down her breasts, paste a mustache on her and insist she's really "Sidney McKinney."
Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate (Cynthia is the Green Party candidate). His running mate is Matt Gonzalez. This is the latest from Team Nader:
On this momentous Monday, September 15, 2008, we make a simple request.
Donate $15 to Nader/Gonzalez.
The prudential choice for 2008.
We woke up this morning early.
Turned on C-Span radio.
And heard Brian Lamb quoting Ralph Nader.
From years ago.
With Ralph warning about extravagance, recklessness, and excessive compensation on Wall Street.
Warning years ago about the undue influence of Fannie and Freddie on Democrats and Republicans alike.
Warning about the failure of our government to protect small investors.
Throughout his career, Nader has strong been a strong advocate for due diligence.
For protecting shareholder rights.
For prudential regulation.
And strict oversight of the markets.
While the Democrats and Republicans have bent to the whims of their corporate masters and Wall Street's bottom line imperatives.
Nader has been steadfast in his advocacy for safety, regulation, and protecting the little guy.
Unfortunately for the nation and for investors, his warnings have gone largely unheeded.
On this momentous Monday, as we watch the fallout from the failed policies, greed and extravagance of the corporate political class unfold, we make this simple note.
Due diligence, prudential regulation, and strict oversight of the markets -- Nader-style -- would have gone a long way to averting the disaster currently hitting Wall Street.
Instead, it was short-term fast and dirty profits, muzzled politicians, and throw caution to the wind.
And so now, the American people are learning the hard way about the consequences of a reckless corporate dominated political economy.
But thanks to your hard work, we are in a position to give America a choice in November.
For prudence.
For strict oversight.
For regulation.
Right now, we're in the stretch drive of our $80,000 fundraiser -- to help fund our get out the vote drive.
To get Ralph Nader into the presidential debates.
To let the American people know that they don't have to settle for corporate rule.
There will be a choice in November.
But first, we need to reach $80,000 by September 17th.
We're at $50,000.
We have three days to reach $80,000.
We haven't missed one fundraising goal yet.
And we don't plan to start now.
So, please, drop $15 now on Nader/Gonzalez.
Help shift the power.
From Wall Street and the corporate giants.
Back into the hands of the American people.
Together, we are making a difference.
Wednesday's snapshot noted a Feminist Wire Daily news item. Some e-mails ask where is it? Ask them. Here's the item they took down:
Donny Deutsch recently made sexist comments about Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin and former Democratic Presidential contender Hillary Clinton. Deutsch appeared on CNBC's Squawk the Street (Watch the video here) and made several misogynistic comments including praising Palin for earning respect through her ability to make men "want to mate with her" and calling Senator Clinton's loss in the Democratic Primaries a direct result of the fact that she "didn't put a skirt on." Deutsch also said that "if you were gonna sell a new concept, a Woman in Power, to the American people, if it was a cereal, was a product, what ingredients would you put in? Hillary Clinton never figured it out. She (Sarah Palin) figured it out." Later, he said that it was a "huge lesson that if you have a woman candidate "you gotta first sell her as a woman" before you can sell her as a candidate. The blogosphere quickly responded to Deutsch's comments. A CNBC blogger wrote that, "to imply men want to sleep with [Palin] as a reason for her popularity is about as chauvinist as it comes." A blogger on Feministing posed the question, "Would he even think to talk about packaging a product in quite so demeaning a way if he were talking about McCain?"
Media Resources: Feministing 9/8/08; Shakesville 9/8/08; ThinkProgress 9/5/08
That's their brief in full. Again, ask them where it went. Also this Friday's NOW on PBS will be an hour long special broadcast and will examine women -- in the electorate and in office
iraqthe new york timessam dagherjim michaels
the washington postamit r. paley
david bacon
jo freeman
simon assafthe socialist worker
mcclatchy newspapershussein kadhimnicholas spangler
the los angeles timestina susmancaesar ahmed
now on pbspbswashington week
Monday, September 15, 2008
Friday, September 12, 2008
Sunsara Taylor and political honesty
"The world could be radically different and it’s time we start talking about real change" (Sunsara Taylor, Revolution):
I want to start by giving everyone who came out and protested today a shout out. People had to go up against a lot and this needs to be appreciated. There was the "freedom cages" with barbed wire that the police built for the protesters, the storm troopers in the streets, there was all the media hype about protesters being dangerous. And then there is all the Obama hype (the Obama "hope") that is being built up and that people are being sucked into. To go out in the face of that and to stand true to principle, against the war, against theocracy, against everything this Bush program has brought, and everything that Obama is not challenging, is very courageous and very heroic and very precious.
At the same time, our numbers were smaller than they need to be, than they should have been and than many of us were hoping they’d be. I want to talk bluntly and honestly about this and what we should make of this. I write for Revolution newspaper and this is something I've been writing about. I did an article recently, "The Dangerous Logic of Blocking Protests in the Name of Getting Obama Elected." This has been going on. People maybe have heard some of the groups talk about having an "inside/outside strategy." As World Can't Wait was working to help build these protests we talked to a lot of people who said, "Oh yeah, we're glad you’re organizing street protests against a new war on Iran, against the war in Iraq. We'll be there too—and we'll be doing our inside strategy." That is, trying to influence the Democratic Party from within the convention and by appealing to delegates.
But in reality what's been happening is that a lot of these so-called "anti-war" groups and "anti-war" leaders have been demobilizing protest. They have been working on their "inside strategy" but they have done nothing to mobilize protests out in the streets to oppose this direction that can be seen by the world.
I know Recreate '68 had to go up against this. I'm going to be really blunt because it matters. United for Peace and Justice, Leslie Cagan, she said maybe we should call off the protest today and advocated instead that we should mingle with the delegates. I'm all for going and talking to delegates…in order to get them to join us in the streets, okay? But Code Pink, Progressive Democrats of America, where were they today?
That's a text version of a speech Sunsara Taylor delivered in Denver. It is a very important speech. It tells a lot of hard truths. On the section above, weren't we suppose to avoid that happening again?
What she's describing is exactly what happened in 2004 as the 'anti-war' movement shut their mouths for 'the good of John Kerry.' The 'leaders' swore never again. The 'leaders' are revealed as liars.
Sunsara is not a liar. She's a Communist and, unlike the 20th century stragglers in the Barack campaign, she's not hiding in a political closet.
Sunsara Taylor's speech is amazing but equally amazing is that she refuses to fall back on the knee-jerk 'mainstream' response of so many of her elders and treat Communism like a dirty word or something to be ashamed of.
She's talking about movements and I agree with her comments there but I know a number of us are damn sick of the closeted Communists running to prop up Barack and pose as Democrats. If those people truly believed in the Communism they claim to, how do they think they're doing it any good by hiding who they are?
That was a question that came into Third during the Democratic Party primaries. The writer was a young Communist and he couldn't believe that anyone would be one but hide it.
Good for him. The fact that he is shocked by it shows how far along the Communist Party is coming.
The Closet Cases like to pretend like McCarthyism still exists when the reality is they've chosen to enforce McCarthyism internally by silencing who they are.
I firmly believe in a dynamic discussion in America and that includes people from the left, right and center. But what I do not believe in is people lying to the public.
Don't pretend to be a Democrat if you'd not.
The 21st Century is just starting and no one knows where it will go; however, people like Sunsara who are not afraid to state who they are loudly and clearly will do more to advance political thought and discussion in this country than a hundred Barack Obamas. One Sunsara is worth more than 100 Baracks.
One Sunsara is worth 1,000 Leslie Cagans. I cannot believe Cagan has behaved the way she has. I'm going beyond what Sunsara is writing about in my previous remark. I think when people refuse political closets, they are able to have a more honest discussion which allows them to plant more seeds.
For the youngsters, McCarthyism was a witch hunt in the middle half of the last century. People were outed as Communists or tarred and feathered as such (when they weren't) and their entire life systems crumbled and many lost work.
Some went to prison.
Before Vietnam ended the Congressional committee on McCarthyism was finally disbanded (and it wasn't really important to the 60s at all). But a number of 'high profile' people have used that as their excuse to stay in the political closet.
I'll go to Sesame Street because I assume we all know that there's nothing Communist about that program. But pretend there was, pretend Big Bird was a 'flaming red.' Pretend that and that Big Bird hid that from the public. Imagaine all he could have accomplished for his party by being open about it. All that went out the window because Big Bird was more interested in pretending he was a Democrat.
When we began talking about the closet case politically, the reaction was swift from Team Obama with charges of McCarthyism. That is so false because McCarthyism was done by the government.
However, there is one thing that the lead up to McCarthyism and this era share: Closet Cases passing themselves off as Democrats. That's why the committee was staffed with Dems and Republicans. Had people not been in the closet and posing, there would have been no need for the committee. But the Republicans saw everyone who was even center as a Communist and Dems were getting pretty tired of closet cases glomming on and attempting to take over the Democratic Party.
The resentments created by the Closet Cases is not usually mentioned in the historical write ups but it was very real resentment on the part of Democrats.
It was cute to watch Bill Ayers' brother write at Aging Socialite's Cat Litter Box that there was a new "McCarthyism" afoot. No, there wasn't. There was a desire that people choosing to make political endorsements get honest about who they were. That's not a desire that's false or uncommon. Those choosing to endorse Barack should state which party they belonged to.
At this late date, the Closet Cases had nothing to fear except for one thing: Not being able to pass.
It was the passing that ticked off many in the earlier era.
That was why people like then House Speaker Bankhead were so angry with the Communists as the era of McCarthyism started.
The ones passing that made Democrats in Congress angry were the ones trying to influence outcomes within the Democratic Party.
There wouldn't have been the "Red Scare" otherwise even with the US turning on the USSR as WWII drew to a close.
So along comes today's Closet Cases pissing off Democratic insiders and they're harming the Communist movement. There's no shame in being a Communist. There's nothing wrong with it or illegal. But you can't argue the Party's points and also hide in a closet.
People like Sunsara are taking the country in a direction that will produce many positive effects. If more would be honest, you'd have a thriving left that went far beyond Democrats.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Friday, September 12, 2008. Chaos and violence continues, the theft of Iraqi oil is still pursued, tensions remain between the puppet government and the "Awakening" Council, Charlie Gibson makes a huge error in his interview with Sarah Palin, and more.
Starting with Iraqi oil. Edward S. Herman (ZNet) noted at the start of this month, "On the oil front, in late June the newspapers featured the announcement of the Iraqi oil minister Mohamad Sharastani that contracts had been drawn up between the Maliki government and five major Western oil companies to develop some of the largest fields in Iraq. No competitive bidding was allowed and the terms announced were very poor by existing international contract standards. The contracts were written with the help of 'a group of U.S. advisers led by a small State Department team.' This was all in conformity with the Declaration of Principles of November 26, 2007, whereby the 'sovereign country' of Iraq would use 'especially American investments' in its attempt to recover from the effects of the American aggression." Thursday Andrew E. Kramer and Campbell Robertson (New York Times) reported on a Tuesday press conference, held by Hussain al-Shahristani (Iraq's Minister of Oil) at OPEC's meet-up, where it was announced that the contracts with western corporations (including Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP) were being cancelled which the coporations "confirmed on Wednesday." Ernesto London (Washington Post) reports on the cancellations today and notes that the companies "are expected to submit bids in coming weeks for deals" and explains it was not just public outrage that killed the contracts, "The oil companies were not surprised by the Iraqi decision, given the political sensitivities raised by the issue, according to an executive at one of the five companies. Speaking on the condition that he not be identified further, the executive said the deals had become less attractive because Iraqi officials had shortened the proposed length of the contracts from two years to one in response to criticism." The cancelled contracts aren't the only bad news for those hoping to play Let's Steal Iraqi Oil! Not all that long ago, with much happy gasbagging in the press, Iraq announced Iraq's Energy Expo and Conference to be held October 17th through 19th. Ben Lando (UPI) reports that, woops, no one bothered to think about construction -- the convention center's not done yet -- so the Expo's dates have been moved to December 3rd through 5th. The puppet government can't get it together to hold provincial elections and they can't even pull off a conference they got a ton of positive press for when they announced it. And Andy Rowell (Oil Change International) offers, "Oh it's so good to be back. After a 35 year absence Shell has become the first western oil company to land a major deal with the government in Baghdad since the invasion of the country five years ago. They will be smiling in the Hague and London. Shell has been awarded a $4bn contract in the south of the country to supply gas for Iraqi domestic use but also for export. Shell's project is intended to make use of the gas flared off by the oil industry in the south of Iraq. In that region alone, an estimated 700m cubic feet of gas is burned off every day -- enough to meet the demand for power generation in the entire country."
Yesterday's snapshot noted the Thursday meet up between the puppet government in Baghdad and the "Awakening" Council members. Saif Rasheed and Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) report on it today noting,the supposed impending melding of "Awakening" Council members and the Iraqi 'government': "Leaders of the so-called Sons of Iraq disputed Iraqi plans to absorb only 20% of the fighters into the Iraqi military and police, and they expressed doubts that their members would be protected when the U.S. military turned over responsibility for the units to Iraqi officials. . . . The plan worries many Sons of Iraq leaders, who say Maliki's government already has begun a campaign of arrest and intimidation against them. U.S. officials, who embraced the program last year as a way to turn around the Sunni insurgency, now say the Iraqi government has the right to arrest fighters it suspects of crimes."
Today's bombings include an attack in Salaheddin Province. AFP puts the death toll at 31 plus the "suicide bomber" whom they note "detnoate his explosives-filled truck near the police station of the central Iraqi Shiite town of Dujail". AP says the count rose to 32 dead (forty-three wounded) citing police and hospital sources. Reuters adds, "They said casualties were a mix of civilians shopping at a nearby market as well as police." While Al Bawaba notes, "Police said the bombing occurred just before dusk, when many people were on the streets before the breaking of the fast during the month of Ramadan." Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) provides the historical background, "The mainly Shiite city is best known as the site of a campaign of vengeance by former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein following an assassination attempt against him there in the 1980s. After the attempt on his life, the Sunni leader ordered the roundup of young Shiite boys and men and destruction of homes in the town. Hussein and six others were convicted in 2006 in the killings of 148 Dujayl residents, and Hussein was hanged for the crimes later that year." Al Jazeera goes with more recent history, "The last major suicide attack occurred on August 26, when a bomber thwarted a security checkpoint in Jalawla, a police recruiting centre, and blew himself up, killing at least 25 people."
In other reported violence today . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad car bombng that left five people wounded, a Baghdad grenade attack that injured thirteen people, a Nineveh bomber who killed themselves outside a Shi'ite mosque and claimed 3 more lives with fifteen more people injured and a Salahuddin Province car bombing which claimed 27 lives with forty more wounded.
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Mosul home invasion that resulted in the deaths of "parents and their son".
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad.
Turning to the US presidential race and starting with indepdent presidential candidate Ralph Nader who appeared on The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer (CNN) Wednesday (click here for transcript). Blitzer asked Ralph his goal in the election?
RALPH NADER, INDEPENDENT PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well if we're in the presidential debates, it might be a Jesse Ventura, three-way race. But-- yet today, we put together -- BLITZER: Three presidential debates, but the Presidential Debate Commission has set a bar that's pretty hard for you to overcome. NADER: Yes, since it's controlled by the two parties, as you know. Today I think is an historic day because we, Ron Paul and the candidate for the Green Party, the candidate for the Constitutional Party, and me, and Bob Barr, agreed on four major areas: foreign policy -- get the soldiers back, end the war in Iraq, stop being imperialistic, privacy, deal with the repeal of the Patriot Act; the revision of FISA -- Military Commissions Act and you know, get rid of torture; and a third is the national debt. Deficits are now used for reckless government adventurism. The -- BLITZER: The national debt has nearly doubled over the last -- NADER: Yes, and the Iraq war is financed from deficit spending. BLITZER: And the fourth issue? NADER: And the fourth issue is the Federal Reserve is now a government within a government. It is totally out of control. Congress doesn't control it. It's funded by the banks. And we either have constitutional government or we don't because of this. Well -- here's the question: Is there anything left for the American people to decide about their country?
Is there anything left to decide? Earlier this week, Steve Horn (The Badger Herald) hit on similar points:
We've been conditioned by the mass media to believe there are only two political parties worthy of our attention. Because only the Republican Party and the Democratic Party receive significant coverage, especially during election cycles, it's easy to forget that other parties do indeed exist.Case in point: While Democratic presidential-nominee Barack Obama filled the Kohl Center to an over-capacity crowd of over 17,000 during his trip to Madison in February prior to the Wisconsin presidential primaries, Independent candidate Ralph Nader, running for president for the fifth time, struggled to fill the small Orpheum Theatre this past Friday on State Street, which has a capacity that is only 10 percent of the Kohl Center at 1,700. Most students here probably didn't even know Nader would be speaking at the Orpheum, and those who did know scoffed at the idea of him running for president again. The situation is shameful -- because over the past eight years, the two mainstream parties have failed us and no one really seems to care, nor do they really want to do anything about it. With wars on two fronts both deemed failures by the general public and key congressional leaders involvement in Jack Abramoff's money laundering scandal, the odds were rightfully stacked against the Republicans for the 2006 midterm elections. And indeed, they resulted in sweeping changes in the United States' political landscape from the local level all the way on up. Democrats gained 31 seats in the House of Representatives and five seats in the Senate, drastically altering the landscape of Congress. Democrats won these seats under the premise that Washington -- under the leadership of the Republican Party -- was broken, and a change in leadership was necessary to fix it. Two years later, looking at the voting records of the spineless Democrats, they have, by-and-large, failed us.
On the campaign trail, Ralph will be heading to New Orleans September 17th where he will speak at Tulane University where he will hold a press conference at the Freeman Auditorium starting at 2:30 p.m. and a rally starting at 3:00 p.m.
Turning to Sarah Palin who is John McCain's running mate on the GOP ticket. This is a quote from her when she was speaking to her church:
Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan.
That's what Palin said in her church. Here for text (Glen Beck, CNN), here for audio (KPFK's Uprising -- and Sonoli Kolhatkar notes that the clips are cutting off short during the segment). Note it because Charlie Gibson distorted her words.
ABC News has the first interview with Governor Palin. Charlie Gibson conducted the interview. One segment aired 'dealing' with Iraq. Russell Goldman (ABC News) summarizes it as follows:
Palin defended a previous statement in which she reportedly characterized the war in Iraq as a "task from God."
Gibson quoted her as saying: "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God."
But Palin said she was referencing a famous quote by Abraham Lincoln.
"I would never presume to know God's will or to speak God's words. But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that's a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side."
Actually, Goldman, Gibson got what she said wrong. Click here for World News Tonight's official transcript, click here for the video.
GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?
PALIN: You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote.
GIBSON: Exact words.
PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln's words when he said -- first, he suggested never presume to know what God's will is, and I would never presume to know God's will or to speak God's words.
But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that's a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side.
That's what that comment was all about, Charlie. And I do believe, though, that this war against extreme Islamic terrorists is the right thing. It's an unfortunate thing, because war is hell and I hate war, and, Charlie, today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son overseas with his Stryker brigade, 4,000 other wonderful American men and women, to fight for our country, for democracy, for our freedoms.
Charlie, those are freedoms that too many of us just take for granted. I hate war and I want to see war ended. We end war when we see victory, and we do see victory in sight in Iraq.
GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln's words, but you went on and said, "There is a plan and it is God's plan."
PALIN: I believe that there is a plan for this world and that plan for this world is for good. I believe that there is great hope and great potential for every country to be able to live and be protected with inalienable rights that I believe are God-given, Charlie, and I believe that those are the rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That, in my world view, is a grand -- the grand plan.
Charlie quoted Palin stating, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." That wasn't a sentence, that was part of a sentence with additions to it by Charlie Gibson. Again, what Palin actually said:
Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan.
When Palain said, "I don't know if that was my exact quote," Gibson insisted, "Exact words." No, they were not. Gibson was also wrong when he stated, ". . . you went on and said, 'There is a plan and it is God's plan'." She did not say that, she asked her church to pray that there was.
Even Sarah Posner told Sonali, "I mean, in a way, she was right with respect to the words that Gibson was quoting." And note that MSM Gibson got it wrong and did not play clips of Palin's remarks while left-wing Sonali was more than happy to play the clips and allow a discussing (with Posner) and for listeners to make their own judgments. If Gibson had access to a recording of Palin's remarks, then he lied. If Gibson was using a secondary source, he practiced bad journalism. Sonali showed more fairness than he did (not at all surprising considering Sonali's track record, but it needs to be noted).
Staying with the topic of religion, US House Rep and Idiot Steve Cohen was back in the news this week. Jake Tapper (ABC News, link has video) points out, "Last seen in election 2008 comparing Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., to the villain played by Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction" -- having survived an anti-Semitic primary challenge -- Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., feels liberated to come on the House floor and say that 'Jesus was a community organizer, Pontius Pilate a governor'." No, JPT, that's not what Cohen said. The video shows Cohen stating, "Barack Obama was a community organizer like Jesus, who our minister prayed about, Pontius Pilate was a governor." So Cohen -- that would be Jewish Cohen for those not paying attention -- was 'endorsing' Barack on the House floor by comparing him to Jesus? Or as the Jews might say, "You know, him." Jewish people do not believe in or pray to Jesus (unless they are "Jews For Jesus"). Exactly what belief does Cohen have left and, if there is one, has put a price tag on it already? And for the record, Christian theologians will dispute Cohen's crackpot claim re: Jesus and historians will say, "Not so fast" on the Pilate claim. Meanwhile Laura Strickler (CBS News) provides a fact check on several rumors about Palin currently making the rounds while Women's Media Center highlights Republicans for Choice's Ann E. W. Stone weighing in on the meaning of Sarah Palin's being the GOP's choice for v.p.:
Also, we are incensed by the petty and misogyny of the small-minded statement the Obama campaign released totally dissing her background! Couple that with Obama telling the Hillary folks to "get over it" and I would think disenchanted Hillary supporters should flock to the GOP.
We need to reach out to Palin and try to find common ground--social issues are not her front and center agenda. No nonsense, no BS--Palin is a doer, not a talker, and not afraid to take the boys on.
Did we mention she is a feminist for life? Again, her position on abortion means we will never endorse her, but even her selection advances all women.
The Democrats stood by while the media and others, including extreme elements in our own party, trashed Hillary Clinton and did not speak up to defend her. Many were baseless attacks and jabs having to do more with her hairstyle or clothing than with her policies. That stops now.
As Sarah Palin said when she thanked pro-choice Democrat icons Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton during her first speech upon being selected, they led the way but women are not finished yet and we will crash through the glass ceiling.
Tell it to the The Daily Toilet Scrubber -- and their squeaked voice tiny-tot 'leader' -- which continues their smears on Palin. The latest recalls what Bully Boy did to McCain in 2000 -- spreading lies about John and Cindy McCain's daughter Bridget. The trash being spread shouldn't be surprising, Toilet Scrubber is not left. Joseph (Cannonfire) explores that latest nonsense and notes, "This is the first election that finds me observing Democrats 'from the outside.' My god. My good god. Have we always been this foolish, this clueless, this self-defeating? Have lefties always gone so far out of their way to alienate huge voting blocs?"
"I try to take the reigns and lead me somewhere better, I try to keep on moving on," sings I Am Three ("I Try") which sums up World Can't Wait's Sunsara Taylor who hides in no political closet and refuses to silence herself in the latest in the never ending Quiet Game To Elect Democrats. Taylor spoke in Denver during the DNC convention (no, she didn't speak to the convention) and Revolution has an edited transcript: "I know Recreate '68 had to go up against this. I'm going to be really blunt because it matters. United for Peace and Justice, Leslie Cagan, she said maybe we should call off the protest today and advocated instead that we should mingle with the delegates. I'm all for going and talking to delegates...in order to get them to join us in the streets, okay? But Code Pink, Progressive Democrats of America, where were they today? . . . I'm not going to prettify this. We are in the belly of an empire. It is committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. They have legalized torture and both parties, the whole system, is involved in that. History is going to judge us by how we act. If your allegiance to the Democratic Party is bigger than your allegiance to the people of the world then you have foreclosed your right to call yourself an 'anti-war leader'." Use the link to read all of Taylor's strong speech.
Turning to public televsion, NOW on PBS begins airing tonight on most PBS stations (and it will stream online) with topics that include: "Are tactical mistakes by Obama going to cost him the election? Maybe, says psychologist and Democratic political consultant Drew Westen. The author of "The Political Brain," talks to NOW's David Brancaccio about how appealing to voters' emotions reaps bigger electoral rewards than hammering home policy proposals. Westen is a Professor of Psychology at Emory University and the founder of Westen Strategies, LLC, a political and corporate consulting firm." PBS' Washington Week (begins airing tonight, check local listings) features Gwyn being joined by ABC News's Martha Raddatz, Time's Karen Tumulty, the New York Times' Jackie Calmes and Slate's John Dickerson. And Krystalline Kraus has an article on an important topic.
iraq
the new york timesandrew e. kramer
campbell robertson
the washington posternesto londono
ben lando
andy rowell
jake tapper
i am three
sunsara taylor
mcclatchy newspapersthe los angeles times
tina susmansaif rasheed
kpfkuprising radiosonali kolhatkar
womens media center
edward herman
now on pbspbswashington week
I want to start by giving everyone who came out and protested today a shout out. People had to go up against a lot and this needs to be appreciated. There was the "freedom cages" with barbed wire that the police built for the protesters, the storm troopers in the streets, there was all the media hype about protesters being dangerous. And then there is all the Obama hype (the Obama "hope") that is being built up and that people are being sucked into. To go out in the face of that and to stand true to principle, against the war, against theocracy, against everything this Bush program has brought, and everything that Obama is not challenging, is very courageous and very heroic and very precious.
At the same time, our numbers were smaller than they need to be, than they should have been and than many of us were hoping they’d be. I want to talk bluntly and honestly about this and what we should make of this. I write for Revolution newspaper and this is something I've been writing about. I did an article recently, "The Dangerous Logic of Blocking Protests in the Name of Getting Obama Elected." This has been going on. People maybe have heard some of the groups talk about having an "inside/outside strategy." As World Can't Wait was working to help build these protests we talked to a lot of people who said, "Oh yeah, we're glad you’re organizing street protests against a new war on Iran, against the war in Iraq. We'll be there too—and we'll be doing our inside strategy." That is, trying to influence the Democratic Party from within the convention and by appealing to delegates.
But in reality what's been happening is that a lot of these so-called "anti-war" groups and "anti-war" leaders have been demobilizing protest. They have been working on their "inside strategy" but they have done nothing to mobilize protests out in the streets to oppose this direction that can be seen by the world.
I know Recreate '68 had to go up against this. I'm going to be really blunt because it matters. United for Peace and Justice, Leslie Cagan, she said maybe we should call off the protest today and advocated instead that we should mingle with the delegates. I'm all for going and talking to delegates…in order to get them to join us in the streets, okay? But Code Pink, Progressive Democrats of America, where were they today?
That's a text version of a speech Sunsara Taylor delivered in Denver. It is a very important speech. It tells a lot of hard truths. On the section above, weren't we suppose to avoid that happening again?
What she's describing is exactly what happened in 2004 as the 'anti-war' movement shut their mouths for 'the good of John Kerry.' The 'leaders' swore never again. The 'leaders' are revealed as liars.
Sunsara is not a liar. She's a Communist and, unlike the 20th century stragglers in the Barack campaign, she's not hiding in a political closet.
Sunsara Taylor's speech is amazing but equally amazing is that she refuses to fall back on the knee-jerk 'mainstream' response of so many of her elders and treat Communism like a dirty word or something to be ashamed of.
She's talking about movements and I agree with her comments there but I know a number of us are damn sick of the closeted Communists running to prop up Barack and pose as Democrats. If those people truly believed in the Communism they claim to, how do they think they're doing it any good by hiding who they are?
That was a question that came into Third during the Democratic Party primaries. The writer was a young Communist and he couldn't believe that anyone would be one but hide it.
Good for him. The fact that he is shocked by it shows how far along the Communist Party is coming.
The Closet Cases like to pretend like McCarthyism still exists when the reality is they've chosen to enforce McCarthyism internally by silencing who they are.
I firmly believe in a dynamic discussion in America and that includes people from the left, right and center. But what I do not believe in is people lying to the public.
Don't pretend to be a Democrat if you'd not.
The 21st Century is just starting and no one knows where it will go; however, people like Sunsara who are not afraid to state who they are loudly and clearly will do more to advance political thought and discussion in this country than a hundred Barack Obamas. One Sunsara is worth more than 100 Baracks.
One Sunsara is worth 1,000 Leslie Cagans. I cannot believe Cagan has behaved the way she has. I'm going beyond what Sunsara is writing about in my previous remark. I think when people refuse political closets, they are able to have a more honest discussion which allows them to plant more seeds.
For the youngsters, McCarthyism was a witch hunt in the middle half of the last century. People were outed as Communists or tarred and feathered as such (when they weren't) and their entire life systems crumbled and many lost work.
Some went to prison.
Before Vietnam ended the Congressional committee on McCarthyism was finally disbanded (and it wasn't really important to the 60s at all). But a number of 'high profile' people have used that as their excuse to stay in the political closet.
I'll go to Sesame Street because I assume we all know that there's nothing Communist about that program. But pretend there was, pretend Big Bird was a 'flaming red.' Pretend that and that Big Bird hid that from the public. Imagaine all he could have accomplished for his party by being open about it. All that went out the window because Big Bird was more interested in pretending he was a Democrat.
When we began talking about the closet case politically, the reaction was swift from Team Obama with charges of McCarthyism. That is so false because McCarthyism was done by the government.
However, there is one thing that the lead up to McCarthyism and this era share: Closet Cases passing themselves off as Democrats. That's why the committee was staffed with Dems and Republicans. Had people not been in the closet and posing, there would have been no need for the committee. But the Republicans saw everyone who was even center as a Communist and Dems were getting pretty tired of closet cases glomming on and attempting to take over the Democratic Party.
The resentments created by the Closet Cases is not usually mentioned in the historical write ups but it was very real resentment on the part of Democrats.
It was cute to watch Bill Ayers' brother write at Aging Socialite's Cat Litter Box that there was a new "McCarthyism" afoot. No, there wasn't. There was a desire that people choosing to make political endorsements get honest about who they were. That's not a desire that's false or uncommon. Those choosing to endorse Barack should state which party they belonged to.
At this late date, the Closet Cases had nothing to fear except for one thing: Not being able to pass.
It was the passing that ticked off many in the earlier era.
That was why people like then House Speaker Bankhead were so angry with the Communists as the era of McCarthyism started.
The ones passing that made Democrats in Congress angry were the ones trying to influence outcomes within the Democratic Party.
There wouldn't have been the "Red Scare" otherwise even with the US turning on the USSR as WWII drew to a close.
So along comes today's Closet Cases pissing off Democratic insiders and they're harming the Communist movement. There's no shame in being a Communist. There's nothing wrong with it or illegal. But you can't argue the Party's points and also hide in a closet.
People like Sunsara are taking the country in a direction that will produce many positive effects. If more would be honest, you'd have a thriving left that went far beyond Democrats.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Friday, September 12, 2008. Chaos and violence continues, the theft of Iraqi oil is still pursued, tensions remain between the puppet government and the "Awakening" Council, Charlie Gibson makes a huge error in his interview with Sarah Palin, and more.
Starting with Iraqi oil. Edward S. Herman (ZNet) noted at the start of this month, "On the oil front, in late June the newspapers featured the announcement of the Iraqi oil minister Mohamad Sharastani that contracts had been drawn up between the Maliki government and five major Western oil companies to develop some of the largest fields in Iraq. No competitive bidding was allowed and the terms announced were very poor by existing international contract standards. The contracts were written with the help of 'a group of U.S. advisers led by a small State Department team.' This was all in conformity with the Declaration of Principles of November 26, 2007, whereby the 'sovereign country' of Iraq would use 'especially American investments' in its attempt to recover from the effects of the American aggression." Thursday Andrew E. Kramer and Campbell Robertson (New York Times) reported on a Tuesday press conference, held by Hussain al-Shahristani (Iraq's Minister of Oil) at OPEC's meet-up, where it was announced that the contracts with western corporations (including Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP) were being cancelled which the coporations "confirmed on Wednesday." Ernesto London (Washington Post) reports on the cancellations today and notes that the companies "are expected to submit bids in coming weeks for deals" and explains it was not just public outrage that killed the contracts, "The oil companies were not surprised by the Iraqi decision, given the political sensitivities raised by the issue, according to an executive at one of the five companies. Speaking on the condition that he not be identified further, the executive said the deals had become less attractive because Iraqi officials had shortened the proposed length of the contracts from two years to one in response to criticism." The cancelled contracts aren't the only bad news for those hoping to play Let's Steal Iraqi Oil! Not all that long ago, with much happy gasbagging in the press, Iraq announced Iraq's Energy Expo and Conference to be held October 17th through 19th. Ben Lando (UPI) reports that, woops, no one bothered to think about construction -- the convention center's not done yet -- so the Expo's dates have been moved to December 3rd through 5th. The puppet government can't get it together to hold provincial elections and they can't even pull off a conference they got a ton of positive press for when they announced it. And Andy Rowell (Oil Change International) offers, "Oh it's so good to be back. After a 35 year absence Shell has become the first western oil company to land a major deal with the government in Baghdad since the invasion of the country five years ago. They will be smiling in the Hague and London. Shell has been awarded a $4bn contract in the south of the country to supply gas for Iraqi domestic use but also for export. Shell's project is intended to make use of the gas flared off by the oil industry in the south of Iraq. In that region alone, an estimated 700m cubic feet of gas is burned off every day -- enough to meet the demand for power generation in the entire country."
Yesterday's snapshot noted the Thursday meet up between the puppet government in Baghdad and the "Awakening" Council members. Saif Rasheed and Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) report on it today noting,the supposed impending melding of "Awakening" Council members and the Iraqi 'government': "Leaders of the so-called Sons of Iraq disputed Iraqi plans to absorb only 20% of the fighters into the Iraqi military and police, and they expressed doubts that their members would be protected when the U.S. military turned over responsibility for the units to Iraqi officials. . . . The plan worries many Sons of Iraq leaders, who say Maliki's government already has begun a campaign of arrest and intimidation against them. U.S. officials, who embraced the program last year as a way to turn around the Sunni insurgency, now say the Iraqi government has the right to arrest fighters it suspects of crimes."
Today's bombings include an attack in Salaheddin Province. AFP puts the death toll at 31 plus the "suicide bomber" whom they note "detnoate his explosives-filled truck near the police station of the central Iraqi Shiite town of Dujail". AP says the count rose to 32 dead (forty-three wounded) citing police and hospital sources. Reuters adds, "They said casualties were a mix of civilians shopping at a nearby market as well as police." While Al Bawaba notes, "Police said the bombing occurred just before dusk, when many people were on the streets before the breaking of the fast during the month of Ramadan." Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) provides the historical background, "The mainly Shiite city is best known as the site of a campaign of vengeance by former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein following an assassination attempt against him there in the 1980s. After the attempt on his life, the Sunni leader ordered the roundup of young Shiite boys and men and destruction of homes in the town. Hussein and six others were convicted in 2006 in the killings of 148 Dujayl residents, and Hussein was hanged for the crimes later that year." Al Jazeera goes with more recent history, "The last major suicide attack occurred on August 26, when a bomber thwarted a security checkpoint in Jalawla, a police recruiting centre, and blew himself up, killing at least 25 people."
In other reported violence today . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad car bombng that left five people wounded, a Baghdad grenade attack that injured thirteen people, a Nineveh bomber who killed themselves outside a Shi'ite mosque and claimed 3 more lives with fifteen more people injured and a Salahuddin Province car bombing which claimed 27 lives with forty more wounded.
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Mosul home invasion that resulted in the deaths of "parents and their son".
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad.
Turning to the US presidential race and starting with indepdent presidential candidate Ralph Nader who appeared on The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer (CNN) Wednesday (click here for transcript). Blitzer asked Ralph his goal in the election?
RALPH NADER, INDEPENDENT PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well if we're in the presidential debates, it might be a Jesse Ventura, three-way race. But-- yet today, we put together -- BLITZER: Three presidential debates, but the Presidential Debate Commission has set a bar that's pretty hard for you to overcome. NADER: Yes, since it's controlled by the two parties, as you know. Today I think is an historic day because we, Ron Paul and the candidate for the Green Party, the candidate for the Constitutional Party, and me, and Bob Barr, agreed on four major areas: foreign policy -- get the soldiers back, end the war in Iraq, stop being imperialistic, privacy, deal with the repeal of the Patriot Act; the revision of FISA -- Military Commissions Act and you know, get rid of torture; and a third is the national debt. Deficits are now used for reckless government adventurism. The -- BLITZER: The national debt has nearly doubled over the last -- NADER: Yes, and the Iraq war is financed from deficit spending. BLITZER: And the fourth issue? NADER: And the fourth issue is the Federal Reserve is now a government within a government. It is totally out of control. Congress doesn't control it. It's funded by the banks. And we either have constitutional government or we don't because of this. Well -- here's the question: Is there anything left for the American people to decide about their country?
Is there anything left to decide? Earlier this week, Steve Horn (The Badger Herald) hit on similar points:
We've been conditioned by the mass media to believe there are only two political parties worthy of our attention. Because only the Republican Party and the Democratic Party receive significant coverage, especially during election cycles, it's easy to forget that other parties do indeed exist.Case in point: While Democratic presidential-nominee Barack Obama filled the Kohl Center to an over-capacity crowd of over 17,000 during his trip to Madison in February prior to the Wisconsin presidential primaries, Independent candidate Ralph Nader, running for president for the fifth time, struggled to fill the small Orpheum Theatre this past Friday on State Street, which has a capacity that is only 10 percent of the Kohl Center at 1,700. Most students here probably didn't even know Nader would be speaking at the Orpheum, and those who did know scoffed at the idea of him running for president again. The situation is shameful -- because over the past eight years, the two mainstream parties have failed us and no one really seems to care, nor do they really want to do anything about it. With wars on two fronts both deemed failures by the general public and key congressional leaders involvement in Jack Abramoff's money laundering scandal, the odds were rightfully stacked against the Republicans for the 2006 midterm elections. And indeed, they resulted in sweeping changes in the United States' political landscape from the local level all the way on up. Democrats gained 31 seats in the House of Representatives and five seats in the Senate, drastically altering the landscape of Congress. Democrats won these seats under the premise that Washington -- under the leadership of the Republican Party -- was broken, and a change in leadership was necessary to fix it. Two years later, looking at the voting records of the spineless Democrats, they have, by-and-large, failed us.
On the campaign trail, Ralph will be heading to New Orleans September 17th where he will speak at Tulane University where he will hold a press conference at the Freeman Auditorium starting at 2:30 p.m. and a rally starting at 3:00 p.m.
Turning to Sarah Palin who is John McCain's running mate on the GOP ticket. This is a quote from her when she was speaking to her church:
Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan.
That's what Palin said in her church. Here for text (Glen Beck, CNN), here for audio (KPFK's Uprising -- and Sonoli Kolhatkar notes that the clips are cutting off short during the segment). Note it because Charlie Gibson distorted her words.
ABC News has the first interview with Governor Palin. Charlie Gibson conducted the interview. One segment aired 'dealing' with Iraq. Russell Goldman (ABC News) summarizes it as follows:
Palin defended a previous statement in which she reportedly characterized the war in Iraq as a "task from God."
Gibson quoted her as saying: "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God."
But Palin said she was referencing a famous quote by Abraham Lincoln.
"I would never presume to know God's will or to speak God's words. But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that's a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side."
Actually, Goldman, Gibson got what she said wrong. Click here for World News Tonight's official transcript, click here for the video.
GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?
PALIN: You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote.
GIBSON: Exact words.
PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln's words when he said -- first, he suggested never presume to know what God's will is, and I would never presume to know God's will or to speak God's words.
But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that's a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side.
That's what that comment was all about, Charlie. And I do believe, though, that this war against extreme Islamic terrorists is the right thing. It's an unfortunate thing, because war is hell and I hate war, and, Charlie, today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son overseas with his Stryker brigade, 4,000 other wonderful American men and women, to fight for our country, for democracy, for our freedoms.
Charlie, those are freedoms that too many of us just take for granted. I hate war and I want to see war ended. We end war when we see victory, and we do see victory in sight in Iraq.
GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln's words, but you went on and said, "There is a plan and it is God's plan."
PALIN: I believe that there is a plan for this world and that plan for this world is for good. I believe that there is great hope and great potential for every country to be able to live and be protected with inalienable rights that I believe are God-given, Charlie, and I believe that those are the rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That, in my world view, is a grand -- the grand plan.
Charlie quoted Palin stating, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." That wasn't a sentence, that was part of a sentence with additions to it by Charlie Gibson. Again, what Palin actually said:
Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan.
When Palain said, "I don't know if that was my exact quote," Gibson insisted, "Exact words." No, they were not. Gibson was also wrong when he stated, ". . . you went on and said, 'There is a plan and it is God's plan'." She did not say that, she asked her church to pray that there was.
Even Sarah Posner told Sonali, "I mean, in a way, she was right with respect to the words that Gibson was quoting." And note that MSM Gibson got it wrong and did not play clips of Palin's remarks while left-wing Sonali was more than happy to play the clips and allow a discussing (with Posner) and for listeners to make their own judgments. If Gibson had access to a recording of Palin's remarks, then he lied. If Gibson was using a secondary source, he practiced bad journalism. Sonali showed more fairness than he did (not at all surprising considering Sonali's track record, but it needs to be noted).
Staying with the topic of religion, US House Rep and Idiot Steve Cohen was back in the news this week. Jake Tapper (ABC News, link has video) points out, "Last seen in election 2008 comparing Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., to the villain played by Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction" -- having survived an anti-Semitic primary challenge -- Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., feels liberated to come on the House floor and say that 'Jesus was a community organizer, Pontius Pilate a governor'." No, JPT, that's not what Cohen said. The video shows Cohen stating, "Barack Obama was a community organizer like Jesus, who our minister prayed about, Pontius Pilate was a governor." So Cohen -- that would be Jewish Cohen for those not paying attention -- was 'endorsing' Barack on the House floor by comparing him to Jesus? Or as the Jews might say, "You know, him." Jewish people do not believe in or pray to Jesus (unless they are "Jews For Jesus"). Exactly what belief does Cohen have left and, if there is one, has put a price tag on it already? And for the record, Christian theologians will dispute Cohen's crackpot claim re: Jesus and historians will say, "Not so fast" on the Pilate claim. Meanwhile Laura Strickler (CBS News) provides a fact check on several rumors about Palin currently making the rounds while Women's Media Center highlights Republicans for Choice's Ann E. W. Stone weighing in on the meaning of Sarah Palin's being the GOP's choice for v.p.:
Also, we are incensed by the petty and misogyny of the small-minded statement the Obama campaign released totally dissing her background! Couple that with Obama telling the Hillary folks to "get over it" and I would think disenchanted Hillary supporters should flock to the GOP.
We need to reach out to Palin and try to find common ground--social issues are not her front and center agenda. No nonsense, no BS--Palin is a doer, not a talker, and not afraid to take the boys on.
Did we mention she is a feminist for life? Again, her position on abortion means we will never endorse her, but even her selection advances all women.
The Democrats stood by while the media and others, including extreme elements in our own party, trashed Hillary Clinton and did not speak up to defend her. Many were baseless attacks and jabs having to do more with her hairstyle or clothing than with her policies. That stops now.
As Sarah Palin said when she thanked pro-choice Democrat icons Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton during her first speech upon being selected, they led the way but women are not finished yet and we will crash through the glass ceiling.
Tell it to the The Daily Toilet Scrubber -- and their squeaked voice tiny-tot 'leader' -- which continues their smears on Palin. The latest recalls what Bully Boy did to McCain in 2000 -- spreading lies about John and Cindy McCain's daughter Bridget. The trash being spread shouldn't be surprising, Toilet Scrubber is not left. Joseph (Cannonfire) explores that latest nonsense and notes, "This is the first election that finds me observing Democrats 'from the outside.' My god. My good god. Have we always been this foolish, this clueless, this self-defeating? Have lefties always gone so far out of their way to alienate huge voting blocs?"
"I try to take the reigns and lead me somewhere better, I try to keep on moving on," sings I Am Three ("I Try") which sums up World Can't Wait's Sunsara Taylor who hides in no political closet and refuses to silence herself in the latest in the never ending Quiet Game To Elect Democrats. Taylor spoke in Denver during the DNC convention (no, she didn't speak to the convention) and Revolution has an edited transcript: "I know Recreate '68 had to go up against this. I'm going to be really blunt because it matters. United for Peace and Justice, Leslie Cagan, she said maybe we should call off the protest today and advocated instead that we should mingle with the delegates. I'm all for going and talking to delegates...in order to get them to join us in the streets, okay? But Code Pink, Progressive Democrats of America, where were they today? . . . I'm not going to prettify this. We are in the belly of an empire. It is committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. They have legalized torture and both parties, the whole system, is involved in that. History is going to judge us by how we act. If your allegiance to the Democratic Party is bigger than your allegiance to the people of the world then you have foreclosed your right to call yourself an 'anti-war leader'." Use the link to read all of Taylor's strong speech.
Turning to public televsion, NOW on PBS begins airing tonight on most PBS stations (and it will stream online) with topics that include: "Are tactical mistakes by Obama going to cost him the election? Maybe, says psychologist and Democratic political consultant Drew Westen. The author of "The Political Brain," talks to NOW's David Brancaccio about how appealing to voters' emotions reaps bigger electoral rewards than hammering home policy proposals. Westen is a Professor of Psychology at Emory University and the founder of Westen Strategies, LLC, a political and corporate consulting firm." PBS' Washington Week (begins airing tonight, check local listings) features Gwyn being joined by ABC News's Martha Raddatz, Time's Karen Tumulty, the New York Times' Jackie Calmes and Slate's John Dickerson. And Krystalline Kraus has an article on an important topic.
iraq
the new york timesandrew e. kramer
campbell robertson
the washington posternesto londono
ben lando
andy rowell
jake tapper
i am three
sunsara taylor
mcclatchy newspapersthe los angeles times
tina susmansaif rasheed
kpfkuprising radiosonali kolhatkar
womens media center
edward herman
now on pbspbswashington week
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Ralph talks issues, Cult of Barack talks trash
"Ralph Nader on Bailing Out Fannie and Freddie" (Ralph Nader, Team Nader):
ShareThis
When Members of Congress or the Administration or the corporate CEOs or the empirically starved right-wing ideologues start whining about regulation the right-wing echo chamber goes wild. When the absence of adequate regulation lets an industry wreak havoc, Congress and the Administration meekly admit a bit of regulation might have averted disaster. The corporate CEOs, expelled with their lucrative golden parachutes, have “no comment.”
The taxpayers, who are too often the guarantors of last resort and who are stuck with the tab, are asking each other why their public watchdogs were asleep at the switch. The Washington merry-go-round is something to behold.
As the recent headlines note, the Federal Government has taken over the giant companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is using the legal process of a “conservatorship” to “stabilize” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Talk about regulation!
On Sunday, September 7, 2008, U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said, “Since this difficult period for the GSEs began, I have clearly stated three critical objectives: providing stability to financial markets, supporting the availability of mortgage finance, and protecting taxpayers - both by minimizing the near term costs to the taxpayer and by setting policymakers on a course to resolve the systemic risk created by the inherent conflict in the GSE structure.”
Nice words – but they will provide little comfort to the many common shareholders who have seen the value of their Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stock collapse to pennies per share. And more than a few taxpayers are wondering what the Fannie/Freddie debacle will end up costing them.
We and others have been telling members of Congress, government regulators and members of the media about the structural and operational problems of Fannie and Freddie for years. I have written many columns about the lack of proper regulation of Fannie and Freddie. I testified before Congress about the need to focus Fannie and Freddie and my long-time associates Jonathan Brown and Jake Lewis have spent countless hours advocating that federal regulators push Fannie and Freddie to meet housing goals that would benefit under-served populations.
In 1991, lawyer Tom Stanton, a former colleague, warned about the risks and non-regulation of Fannie and Freddie in his prophetic book—A State of Risk (Harper Business).
In May of 1998, we even held a conference dedicated to Fannie and Freddie. In my welcoming statement to the conference participants, I noted that we would be discussing the adequacy of capital required of Fannie and Freddie and the efficacy of regulation of the two GSEs. I noted that both corporations had been enjoying good times. And, I cautioned that one of the unintended consequences of fat profits over a long period is the tendency of governments and private corporations to start believing in fantasies about living happily ever after in the glory of ever-rising profits.
My statement asserted that, “Taxpayers have learned that contingent liabilities such as those inherent in the GSE structure do, at times, become quite costly. It wasn't long ago--in the high interest rate period in the late 1970s and early 1980s – that Fannie Mae was having serious financial troubles. And the Farm Credit System, another GSE, required a bail out of approximately $5 billion in the 1980s when the agricultural industry had a severe downturn.”
In July of this year I lamented the fact that Fannie and Freddie have been deeply unregulated for decades which allowed their capital ratios to be lower—far lower—than they should have been, adding:
Over at the multi-trillion dollar companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the shareholders have lost about 75 percent of their stock value in one year. Farcically regulated by the Department of Housing and Urban Affairs, Fannie and Freddie were run into the ground by taking on very shaky mortgages under the command of CEOs and their top executives who paid themselves enormous sums.
These two institutions were set up many years ago to provide liquidity in the housing and loan markets and thereby expand home ownership especially among lower income families. Instead, they turned themselves into casinos, taking advantage of an implied U.S. government guarantee.
The Fannie and Freddie bosses created another guarantee. They hired top appointees from both Republican and Democratic Administrations (such as Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick) and lathered them with tens of millions of dollars in executive compensation. In this way, they kept federal supervision at a minimum and held off efforts in Congress to toughen regulation.
So here we are. On Monday September 8, 2008, the value of common Fannie and Freddie stock dropped to under one dollar – just one day after Secretary of the Treasury announced the government takeover. White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said, “[F]or years we have encouraged Congress to put in place a strong, independent regulator to oversee the institutions. We believe the actions will help to improve conditions in the housing market.”
Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn has questions for the Administration, so there is more to be revealed. And, reporters are spilling buckets of ink talking about the takeover of Fannie and Freddie and the lack of proper oversight by regulators and Congress which brought us to this day of appreciation for regulation. Too bad it is all a little late for the small shareholders, and pensioners and taxpayers who pay the bill for speculators and executives, many of whom seem to escape with lots of money.
END.
ShareThis
ShareThis
When Members of Congress or the Administration or the corporate CEOs or the empirically starved right-wing ideologues start whining about regulation the right-wing echo chamber goes wild. When the absence of adequate regulation lets an industry wreak havoc, Congress and the Administration meekly admit a bit of regulation might have averted disaster. The corporate CEOs, expelled with their lucrative golden parachutes, have “no comment.”
The taxpayers, who are too often the guarantors of last resort and who are stuck with the tab, are asking each other why their public watchdogs were asleep at the switch. The Washington merry-go-round is something to behold.
As the recent headlines note, the Federal Government has taken over the giant companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is using the legal process of a “conservatorship” to “stabilize” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Talk about regulation!
On Sunday, September 7, 2008, U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said, “Since this difficult period for the GSEs began, I have clearly stated three critical objectives: providing stability to financial markets, supporting the availability of mortgage finance, and protecting taxpayers - both by minimizing the near term costs to the taxpayer and by setting policymakers on a course to resolve the systemic risk created by the inherent conflict in the GSE structure.”
Nice words – but they will provide little comfort to the many common shareholders who have seen the value of their Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stock collapse to pennies per share. And more than a few taxpayers are wondering what the Fannie/Freddie debacle will end up costing them.
We and others have been telling members of Congress, government regulators and members of the media about the structural and operational problems of Fannie and Freddie for years. I have written many columns about the lack of proper regulation of Fannie and Freddie. I testified before Congress about the need to focus Fannie and Freddie and my long-time associates Jonathan Brown and Jake Lewis have spent countless hours advocating that federal regulators push Fannie and Freddie to meet housing goals that would benefit under-served populations.
In 1991, lawyer Tom Stanton, a former colleague, warned about the risks and non-regulation of Fannie and Freddie in his prophetic book—A State of Risk (Harper Business).
In May of 1998, we even held a conference dedicated to Fannie and Freddie. In my welcoming statement to the conference participants, I noted that we would be discussing the adequacy of capital required of Fannie and Freddie and the efficacy of regulation of the two GSEs. I noted that both corporations had been enjoying good times. And, I cautioned that one of the unintended consequences of fat profits over a long period is the tendency of governments and private corporations to start believing in fantasies about living happily ever after in the glory of ever-rising profits.
My statement asserted that, “Taxpayers have learned that contingent liabilities such as those inherent in the GSE structure do, at times, become quite costly. It wasn't long ago--in the high interest rate period in the late 1970s and early 1980s – that Fannie Mae was having serious financial troubles. And the Farm Credit System, another GSE, required a bail out of approximately $5 billion in the 1980s when the agricultural industry had a severe downturn.”
In July of this year I lamented the fact that Fannie and Freddie have been deeply unregulated for decades which allowed their capital ratios to be lower—far lower—than they should have been, adding:
Over at the multi-trillion dollar companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the shareholders have lost about 75 percent of their stock value in one year. Farcically regulated by the Department of Housing and Urban Affairs, Fannie and Freddie were run into the ground by taking on very shaky mortgages under the command of CEOs and their top executives who paid themselves enormous sums.
These two institutions were set up many years ago to provide liquidity in the housing and loan markets and thereby expand home ownership especially among lower income families. Instead, they turned themselves into casinos, taking advantage of an implied U.S. government guarantee.
The Fannie and Freddie bosses created another guarantee. They hired top appointees from both Republican and Democratic Administrations (such as Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick) and lathered them with tens of millions of dollars in executive compensation. In this way, they kept federal supervision at a minimum and held off efforts in Congress to toughen regulation.
So here we are. On Monday September 8, 2008, the value of common Fannie and Freddie stock dropped to under one dollar – just one day after Secretary of the Treasury announced the government takeover. White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said, “[F]or years we have encouraged Congress to put in place a strong, independent regulator to oversee the institutions. We believe the actions will help to improve conditions in the housing market.”
Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn has questions for the Administration, so there is more to be revealed. And, reporters are spilling buckets of ink talking about the takeover of Fannie and Freddie and the lack of proper oversight by regulators and Congress which brought us to this day of appreciation for regulation. Too bad it is all a little late for the small shareholders, and pensioners and taxpayers who pay the bill for speculators and executives, many of whom seem to escape with lots of money.
END.
ShareThis
So that's Ralph explaining the issues that matters. You'll notice he doesn't have to go around offering excuses for vile sexism and then attempting to play like it was no big deal while whining he wished he could talk about issues. Ralph just talks about issues. It's not that difficult. If you really want to talk issues, you just do it. The way Ralph does.
Does no one remember this excuse from Barack before? Whenever he's questioned, he starts saying it's keeping him from talking about the issues.
But he never talks about issues. He attacks his opponents. He talks a hell of a lot about himself. But he never talks issues.
He's a feather-weight. No substance. A lot of inspirational/motivational words thrown together. But America's not electing a life coach.
He really thinks he can get away with anything. When that doesn't happen, he gets pouty and petulant and starts whining he wanted to talk issues.
He's a small boy caught doing wrong and refusing to own his blame.
Ralph Nader's an adult. He can sit at the grown up's table without a booster chair.
Barack has a trashy Cult.
AP reports that Carol Fowler ("South Carolina's Democratic Party chairwoman) decided to weigh in on the merits of Sarah Palin's vice-presidential run and declared that her "top qualification seems to be not having had an abortion." That is so disgusting and so outrageous.
Fowler's trying to weasel out of it with a weak-ass apology. She needs to make a lengthy public apology to the parents of special-needs children. I am really getting disgusted with the way The Cult of Barack is using a child to try to score cheap points.
The remarks are insulting to Palin for several reasons but the thing that really disgusts me is that woman (Carol Fowler) thought she could get away with jabs at special-needs children. Apparently, she made her comments while en route to do South Park voice overs. I have had it with the crap pushed off on special-needs children for some time now and, one thing to notice, Barack issued no apology.
They demanded apologies for everything from Hillary.
But Barack's Trashy Cult can say anything. They know they can and that they can get away with it because he never gets held accountable and he never does the mature thing and calls the garbage out.
Watch Amy Goodman ignore that news in tomorrow's headlines. She did that during the primaries as well. Anything she should try to pump up hatred for Hillary on made the headlines and the segments repeatedly. But she always looked the other way on Barack and still does. What a laugh, 'the people's media.'
It's just propaganda meant to fool you.
You can do a show from the left and still have standards and practice fairness. But that's only if you're a journalist. If you're Amy Goodman you just lie constantly.
NY's governor -- who was not elected to that office -- is trying to scream "racism" at a non-racist statement and Amy had a full segment on that. But she always ignores Barack's bad news. Even the New York Times at its worst has more journalistic standards than Goodman does.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Wednesday, September 10, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Barack gets semi-called on sexism and makes more insulting remarks in response to being called out, the House Armed Services Committee holds a hearing, Ron Paul holds a press conference with Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader, and more.
Today the US House Armed Services Committee held a hearing on the Security and Stability in Afghanistan and Iraq: Developments in US Strategy and Operations and the Way Ahead. Appearing before the committee were US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm Michael Mullen, DoD's Under Secreatry of Defense for Policy, Eric S. Edelman and the Director of Strategic Plans and Policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Adm James Winnefeld. Ike Skelton is the chair of the committee and his opening remarks included that "I remain concerned about the pace of political progress. The Iraqis have still not been able to even come to an agreement on holding provincial elections, much less address more fundamental questions like the future of Kirkuk. Given this, I have a real question of why we are not redeploying additional forces -- both to bolster our efforts in Afghanistan and to keep the pressure on the Iraqis to come to a sustainable political accomodation." Later in the hearing he would note the "Sun Tzu precept that says 'A war should not be entered into without considering the end of that war'."
The highest ranking Republican on the committee, Duncan Hunter, made a fool of himself as was expected. His dubious statements included, "We are winning in Iraq. The United States is going to be leaving in victory." During Robert Gates' opening remarks he noted these "challenges:"
* Political progress remains too slow -- as seen recently by the inability of the parliament to pass an election law. This means that provincial elections, which we believe will continue and enhance the process of reconciliation, will in all likelihood be pushed back until at least December. Elections also mean the possibility of increased violence.
* There have been some worrisome reports about sectarian efforts to either disrupt or slow the process of assimilation of the Sons of Iraq ["Awakening" Council] into the Iraqi Security Forces. It is a reminder that sectarin tenaions still exist and have the potential to undo recent progress at the local and national level.
* Despite Iran's pledges last year to stop providing weapons, training and funding to armed militias, evidence suggests that this support continues. [These are Gates' words. There is no proof/evidence that Iran has supplied anything. There has never been proof of that.]
* Iraqi security forces still lack many key capabilities. Many of their operations would simply not have been possible without Coalition enablers. That will remain the case for some time to come.
* The threat from al Qaeda and other militant groups has receded, but is still very real. In the last few months, we have seen a number of suicide attacks -- as well as tactical shifts, such as the increased use of women. This is a reminder that al Qaeda still retains the ability to inflict mass casualties, the operational capacity to assess and change strategies and is still trying to sow chaos and reassert itself. [Again, Gates' words. al Qaeda in Iraq has always been inflated and was not present until after the illegal war started. The administration tends to blame any and all violence on "al Qaeda in Iraq" unless they're targeting Iran for blame that day.]
* Similarly, there is the possiblity that Jaish al-Mahdi could return.
Gates insisted the US had "now entered that end game" in Iraq "and our decisions today and in the months ahead will be critical to regional stability and our national security interests for the years to come."
Chair Skelton had serious concerns about a number of issues and they included where the US money is going and why the Iraqi billions are not being spent. He noted two chief concerns, first that "they [Iraqis] have a lot of money on their own and number two the choice of projects" on which they spend money. At this point he requested that the committee be supplied with a list of all US expenditures over $120,000. He expressed concern over Iraq's stated plan "to build the world's largets ferris wheel" and wondered "why are we funding" construction such as hotels with US tax payer money when the central government in Baghdad sits on so many billions that are not being used?
No surprise, no one had an answer for Skelton though a list might be workable at some point.
US House Rep Susan Davis also wanted to know what was happening with the money. She pointed out that the Iraqi air force is lacking in training and equipment and that it went far beyond that with Iraqi security forces stating that even "batteries that are needed for communication" aren't in supply and "they're saying it's just not getting to them." Was it an issue of corruption, she wanted to know, where was the breakdown? Edelman replied, "We're now in the process of getting to those issues." Now? Five years after the illegal war began?
There were no answers supplied to the questions and neither side seemed overly surprised by that (Congress or the witnesses). Gates spoke of success while also maintaining that the United States would be in Iraq for many "years to come -- although in changing and increasingly limited ways." US House Rep Solomon Ortiz wondered, "What planning and work has been done to enable the next administration to make its own decision about force levels upon taking office after who wins the presidency? And what limits does the president's recent decision place on force level changes?"
Robert Gates: Mr. Ortiz, I think first of all, that the new president will have a full array of options when he enters office in terms of troop levels in -- in -- in Jan- in Iraq. Uhm. As I indicated in my opening remarks, I hope that whoever the new president is will listen closely to the commanders in the field and senior military leaders. I've made the comment before that those who worry and are concerned that the military view was not taken sufficiently into account at the beginning of the war would not neglect it as we get deeper into the end game. But-but there is nothing in place that would contrain the decisions of a new president in terms of policies or anything else that, uh, that a new president could not -- could not change. So new president will have complete flexibility and constrained only by his view of our national security interests.
He? There is a woman running for president. (Rep Michael Conway also referred to "our guys" repeatedly in the hearing. Just as Gates can't picture a woman as president, Conway is unaware that women serve in the US military.) Ron Paul ran for the Republican Party's presidential nomination and lost to John McCain. Last week, he held a rally with his supporters in Minnesota. NOW on PBS has an online exclusive with Paul and they also examined his campaign in 2007. Today, he held a press conference with Ralph Nader (independent presidential candidate, now to be on the ballots in 45 states), Cynthia McKinney (Green Party presidential candidate), Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party's candidate) and Bob Barr (Libertarian Party presidential candidate). Ralph Nader explains, "Today, along with other third party candidates, I joined Congressman Ron Paul to endorse a common agenda that stands up for the US Constitution by ending illegal wars, and protecting the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We also jointly called for an immediate halt to the increase in the national debt, an end to corporate subsidies and taxpayer bailouts of corporations, and to start aggressively pursuing prosecution of corporations that commit crimes and frauds. Both Congressman Paul and I also support holding President Bush and Dick Cheney to account for their transgressions against our Constitution. Today's coming together of third party candidates marks the beginning of the realignment of American politics." Third Party Watch reports:
Dr. Paul turned the podium over to the others, and Cynthia McKinney, the Green Party's presidential candidate, thanked him for bringing this group together. She recalled that "it took 72 years of struggle and sacrifice, from the beginning of the women's suffrage movement, for women to get the right to vote. I believe today we are starting a new movement of independence from the orthodoxy of our day." (Let's hope it doesn't take 72 years to achieve most of this group's goals!)
Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party's presidential candidate, said "the real issue in 2008 is not between Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, but between globalists and constitutionalists. McCain and Obama are globalists. Baldwin is a constitutionalist."
McCain, Baldwin said, always refers to the U.S. as an "interdependent nation." "But the Founders didn't sign a Declaration of Interdependence. We are fighting for the preservation of our very form of government, and that's why what Ron Paul is doing today is so important, and why our coming together today is so important."
And, as Baldwin always reminds his audiences: "I supported Ron Paul. It's because the GOP rejected Ron Paul that I'm here today as a candidate."
Ralph Nader, the Independent candidate for President, seemed the most enthusiastic and optimistic about Paul's coalition. "I think when McKinney, Barr, Baldwin and Nader agree with Ron Paul on these four major areas--I think that's the beginning of a realignment in American politics." And later: "I'm very proud that we've been able to put aside our differences on other subjects--such as health and safety regulations [chuckles from the audience]--to come together on these four important subjects."
"Awakening" Councils were cited by Gates. Tom A. Peter (Christian Science Monitor) argues that female members are essential: "To combat this threat, Iraqis have begun recruiting women for the Daughters of Iraq, a female counterpart to the Sons of Iraq community policing program largely credited with reducing violence in Iraq. While female security guards remain a small minority, they've stopped many female insurgents. And, some say their example could help change perceptions about the role of women in Iraq." That's a nice little fantasy since female members are paid 20% less than their male peers and, remember, all "Awakening" Council members have been and are currently paid by the US government. Translation, the White House has said a man doing the same job as a woman is worth more.
Moving over to provincial elections which were mentioned repeatedly in today's hearings. Nicholas Spangler and Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) explain the stalemate remains the oil rich city of Kirkuk, "A loose but powerful coalition of Arab parties is wary of Kurdish control prior to elections; Kurds remain adamentally opposed to any law mandating power sharing in Kirkuk, as the current [election] bill does. The reporters explain the stalemate has some floating the option of going with the a 2005 election law. The United Nations is working on their proposal which is to be presented later this month or at the beginning of October. The United Nations' Staffan de Mistura met with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani on Sunday as part of the research required for the plan they intend to present.
Yesterday Bully Boy gave his speech on Iraq. Nancy A. Youssef and Jonathan S. Landay (McClatchy Newspapers) examine it and note, "President Bush's announcement Tuesday that he'll maintain troop levels in Iraq through the end of his presidency suggests that despite his claim that the surge of additional U.S. troops in Iraq has succeeded, the security gains could be temporary, defense officials and experts said." Michael Abramowitz (Washington Post) noticed that the speech also indicated that other countries are leaving the so-called 'coalition': "The presence of other countries in Iraq, even if the troop contribution was modest, has long been used by the Bush administration as a way of deflecting criticism that its actions in Iraq were "unilateral." Now, Bush is portraying their departure as a sign of "return on success," his policy of bringing home troops as conditions improve in Iraq."
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Salahuddin Province car bombing wounded three people. Reuters notes an Iskandariya roadside bombing that left two police officers wounded.
Shootings?
Reuters notes 1 "Christian man" was shot dead in Mosul.
Corpses?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad and 4 in Mosul.
Back to the race for the US presidency. War Hawk Barack Obama's in trouble for doing something so it was time for all his lovers in the press to come out in full force and defend their Christ-child.
Here's what he said.
Barack Obama: Let-let's just list this for a second. John McCain says he's about change too. Exc-and-and so I guess his whole angle is 'Watch out, George Bush. Except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove style politics, we're really going to shake things up in Washington." That's not change. That's-that's just calling some the same thing something different But you know you can't e-e-e-e You know you can put uh liptick on a pig, it's still a pig.
When he says "You can put lipstick on a pig," what is Barack doing? What is he physically doing? Chicago's gutter boy is flipping the bird and when the finger goes up the howls start. You can see it in the video his campaign/campaign surrogates issued as a response. We see Dick Cheney speak, no bird flipping.
You can watch it at Joe Garafoli's post (San Francisco Chronicle) which reads like "He's Sure The Boy I Love." Barack goes on to make a comment about fish smell. It's not in the video, they cut it before that point. CBS contributes, "CBS News reporter Maria Gavrilovic reports that as the crowd laughed, Obama added: 'You can you can, wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it's still going to stink after 8 years. We've had enough of the same old thing'." Last week, Ruth took on sexist pig Ellen Susman who also had a "fish" 'joke' in her smear of Palin. Writing as if she was Susman, Ruth observed, "And let me call my post 'A Fish Called Sarah.' I will pretend like I think it is a Monty Python film and mention other Monty Python films. But even as stupid as I, Ellen Susman, am, I know it is not. Even as dumb as I am, I do know the "two things smell fish" 'joke.'" And so does Barack.
They weren't even his own words he was speaking -- which is why he stumbles (no teleprompter). Joseph (Cannonfire) explains, "His comments were cribbed -- word for word -- from a Washington Post cartoon. Why is Obama allowed to plagiarize when others are not?" Why indeed and this isn't the first time he's been caught stealing.
As Susan (Random Notes) sums up, "Well, Barack, if you'd have paid attention to presidential campaigns of the past, you would know better than to consider yourself immune to blasphemy, er, criticism, even fake criticism, from the other side." Delilah Boyd (A Scrivner's Lament) lays it out as plain as day, "Before you Obots go all 'Obama didn't call Palin a pig' on me, hear this: How much longer will men get away with 'I was just kidding,' 'I wasn't talking about you,' and 'What's the matter? can't you take a joke?'" miq2xu (Klownhaus) [language warning], "Regarding Obama's 'Lipstick on a Pig' comment, I call bull**it on Christy Hardin Smith, Marc Ambinder, D-Day, Taylor Marsh and Whoever Kidnapped Jeralyn Merritt (WKJM²) Each of these people has taken the position that not only were Obama's comments completely innocent, but that the McCain campaign is trying to manufacture a controversy because no reasonable person could possibly get the idea that Obama was calling Sarah Palin a pig. Even if someone truly believed that it was an innocent gaffe (I don't) it is easy to see how that connection could easily be made. I didn't need anyone to explain it to me, nor did most former Hillary supporters, because we 'periodically' saw these types of misunderstandings before." Lambert (Corrente) weighs in on Barack's pig remarks, "You know, if Obama hadn't indulged himself by getting snarky in front of a friendly crowd, he could be talking about the economy right now -- and winning P.T.A. moms too, who like those kitchen table issues." madamab (The Confluence) advises, "Case in point: When you call your opponent's vice president a pig and say she smells like fish, you do not try to pretend you didn't do it. You did it, in front of God and YouTube. So apologize and move on, otherwise you will engender anger and resentment."
On the topic of sexism, it bears noting that Feminist Wire Daily finally got active calling out sexism against Palin, "Donny Deutsch recently made sexist comments about Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin and former Democratic Presidential contender Hillary Clinton. Deutsch appeared on CNBC's Squawk the Street (Watch the video here) and made several misogynistic comments including praising Palin for earning respect through her ability to make men 'want to mate with her' and calling Senator Clinton's loss in the Democratic Primaries a direct result of the fact that she 'didn't put a skirt on.'" Egalia (Tennessee Guerilla Women) points to another with a need to sexualize Palin Salon's Gary Kamiya who needs to Palin as "a whip-wielding mistress". Last night Kat took on 'progressive' Ed Garvey's need to compare Palin to erectile medications, "The comparison is insulting; however, it may indicate what's in Garvey's own medicine cabinet."
Now before we get to today's remarks by Barack (which are even more insulting to women -- if anyone actually listens), Kirsten Powers (New York Post) provided the backstory leading up to Palin's speech last week, "No, Obama didn't engage in the mass sneering at Palin - but he did fall into the trap of disrespecting her. When McCain chose her, the Obama campaign's first response was to ridicule the size of her town. Then the candidate himself began referring to her as a "former mayor" when she is in fact a sitting governor. When she retaliated (justifiably) by mocking his stint as a organizer, the Obama camp was clearly rattled. Obama himself actually began arguing about the importance of community organizing. His supporters amplified this cry - claiming Palin's attack was a racist slur and passing around e-mails titled 'Jesus was a community organizer, Pontius Pilate was a governor.' Meanwhile, the rest of the country was probably wondering what being a community organizer has to do with being president."
Today, Barack spoke. And what did the Christ-child say? It's wowed some of the usual PIG MEN, Queen Bees and Gender Traitors. From CNN (text and video), this is Barack: "We have real problems in this country right now. The American people are looking to us for answers, not distractions, not diversions, not manipulations. They want real answers to the real problems we are facing."
Sexism isn't a real problem to Barack Obama. It's an annoyance for him to have to address sexism. He's laughing in the video. He finds it all so funny. (I find his attempt to grow a mustache hilarious. That's day two by the way.) "This is what they want to talk about," insists Barack. And talking about it means he's not able to address "the issues that matter to you." Barack, you sad PIG, sexism matters to me and to many. It's not a "diversion" or a "distraction" (his words), it is a very real issue.
And it took Katie Couric calling it out to finally get the MSM to notice it. And what was the Obama campaign's response? Katharine Q. Seelye and Julie Bosman (New York Times) reported in June what US House Rep Debbie Wasserman Schultz told them on behalf of Team Obama, "She said Mr. Obama had no specific plans for a speech on sexism, partly because he already incorporates themes of discrimination as a societal problem into his speeches."
But Barack's bothered that he had to even get near the topic today. He calls it unfair. He didn't think it was unfair when his Cult was tarring Bill Clinton as a racist for using "fairytale." He used the odor of fish and lipstick on a pig to insult a woman. All Bill Clinton did was point out Barack was a damn liar about his positions on the illegal war.
Sexism can be used by Barack's campaign and by Barack but the Christ-child must never have to address the topic and sends out flunkies (he hides behind a lot of women) to insist that he's already addressed an "ism" and wasn't that enough? No. No, it is not enough. In March 2008, he decied to bore the country with a never-ending stream of words (4,683) allegedly on the topic of race. (It wasn't about race it was about the only topic he enjoys getting wordy on: Himself.) He can't address sexism?
He has two daughters and he can't address sexism? He said of Hillary Clinton that "periodically" when Hillary was "feeling blue" "the claws come out." He's now going after Sarah Palin and wants yet another pass? He can't address sexism but, as Marie Cocco's "Obama's Abortion Stance When 'Feeling Blue'" (Washington Post Writers Group) pointed out, he's got plenty of time to speak to anti-women men:
Obama says that these women should not be able to obtain a late-term abortion, because just "feeling blue" isn't the same as suffering "serious clinical mental health diseases." True enough. And totally infuriating. During the recent Obama pander tour -- the one in which he spent about a week trying to win over conservative religious voters -- the presumptive Democratic nominee unnecessarily endorsed President Bush's faith-based initiative, a sort of patronage program that rewards religious activists for their political support with public grants. Then in a St. Louis speech, Obama declared that "I let Jesus Christ into my life." That's fine, but we already have a president who believes this was a qualification for the Oval Office, and look where that's gotten us.Obama's verbal meanderings on the issue of late-term abortion go further. He has muddied his position. Whether this is a mistake or deliberate triangulation, only Obama knows for sure. One thing is certain: Obama has backhandedly given credibility to the right-wing narrative that women who have abortions -- even those who go through the physically and mentally wrenching experience of a late-term abortion -- are frivolous and selfish creatures who might perhaps undergo this ordeal because they are "feeling blue."
When Palin entered the race and made her "lipstick" line, the game changed. If Hillary had been the Democratic nominee and had chosen Joe Biden for her running mate, John McCain could declare that they were negative and refer to their "dark vision" for America's future. With Barack as the nominee, his use of that term would be called out immediately. With Barack in the race, the game changes. It's the same thing with Sarah Palin being in the race. Barack's remarks yesterday were pre-pared as evidenced by the fact that he stole a huge chunk from a cartoon. If he and his team are too stupid to grasp how those remarks would play, that's their own damn fault. He should have apologized.
Instead, he hides behind women and has them trot out to offer excuses and attacks. It's not going to work anymore than it does in a court room when a rapist hires a female attorney or a rapist's defense team uses the sole woman to cross examine the rape victim. If Barack can't even address sexism what does that really say about him? And what does it say about the women who allow him to hide? President of NOW's New York state chapter Marcia Pappas offers "To Women Who Love Their Political Party Too Much" and all -- men and women -- would benefit from reading that. And on a similar note,
To The Contrary's Bonnie Erbe (writing at US News & World Reports) explains:
Women can be sexist, too, you know, just like persons of color can be racist. As the media debate whether Gov. Sarah Palin's public treatment is sexist or not, take this punch, socked to Palin by a woman, that's as clearly out of bounds as a husband slapping his wife in the face in public.
As related by The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus today:
My colleague Sally Quinn put it most provocatively. "Is she prepared for the all-consuming nature of the job?" Quinn wondered. "When the phone rings at three in the morning and one of her children is really sick, what choice will she make?"
Has Quinn ever asked the same question of a man running for vice president? Of course not, nor would she. What if the answer is, Sarah Palin would take the call at 3 a.m. and jump on any plane to anywhere in the world, confident that her husband would care for the sick child? To pose the question is to promote idiotic and sexist media viewpoints, while ignoring the much more important flaws in the Palin candidacy.
iraqmcclatchy newspapersnancy a. youssefjonathan s. landaymichael abramowitzthe washington post
katie couricthe cbs evening news
the new york timeskatharine q. seelyejulie bosman
bonnie erbe
marie cocco
mcclatchy newspaperssahar issanicholas spanglernow on pbspbs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)