Thursday - October 16, 2008

Now that’s moxie, baby

Obama pushes back World Series so he can run a 30 minute campaign ad

Baseball fans can take a hike ... Fearless Leader will be talking. Put down the remote, don’t open that beer. Pay attention. Pay attention!!! And do as you are told. And don’t go and try to change the channel. Fearless Leader the Boy Prince Urkel The Big Goatse Senator Government will be on all the networks at once! And his minions will know if you turn off the TV!

Major League Baseball agreed Wednesday to push back the start time of Game 6 of the World Series by about 15 minutes so that Fox Broadcasting Co. could sell Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama half an hour of prime time on Oct. 29.

The campaign also has bought the same time period—8 p.m. on Oct. 29— on CBS and NBC so that he can run a 30-minute program on all of the networks. Each network is selling the time for between $950,000 to $1 million. Buying time on all of the major broadcast networks would allow Obama to reach more than 20 million people on the Wednesday before the election. A spokesman for Fox said the network will make available a similar 30-minute block of time for the Republican candidate, Sen. John McCain, if he chooses. Time for McCain would be either later that night (if there is no Game 6) or the following evening.

Major League Baseball did not have an immediate comment.

This could be your last chance to accept the words of The One. Watch carefully. Take notes. Submit. And vote properly and often. Black Jesus is watching. It is not arrogance that lets him pre-empt this time slot. It is his right, his duty, and he’s doing it for your own good. Resistance is futile. Otherwise you are a racist.

   Wednesday - October 15, 2008

Mickey Mouse’s vote for the Democrats could rebound on Obama’s chances of becoming U.S. president.

WE CAN HOPE .... GUESS I WON’T KNOW TILL TOMORROW MORNING HOW TONIGHT’S DEBATE WENT.  BUT DO NOT EXPECT MUCH FROM MCCAIN.

Why Mickey Mouse’s vote for the Democrats could rebound on Obama’s chances of becoming U.S. president
By DAVID GARDNER
Last updated at 1:04 AM on 15th October 2008

Barack Obama is facing demands for an investigation into alleged links to a Left-wing group accused of creating bogus voters to boost his chances of becoming U.S. president.

The scandal involving tens of thousands of fake registrations across the U.S. has led to eight states launching criminal probes into the Association of Community Organisations for Reform Now (Acorn).

It claims to have signed up 1.3million poor and working-class voters in a mass registration in 18 states this year.

But it has been accused of trying to register a voter named Mickey Mouse in Orlando, Florida, and enrolling a 19-year-old to vote 73 times in Ohio.

One set of false registration forms filed by the group in Las Vegas included the starting line-up for the Dallas Cowboys football team.

Mickey vote: Acorn registered a voter by the name of Mickey Mouse in Orlando

The controversy could undermine support for Democrat Mr Obama to become the first black president on November 4 because he would benefit from many of the first-time voters signed up by Acorn.

Republican candidate John He says it created bogus new voters to manipulate the result of the election in favour of the Democrats.

The Wall Street Journal says the Obama campaign paid £477,000 to help finance Acorn’s vote drive.

He is also said to have led registration efforts early in his political career in a Chicago project involving the group and was a lawyer for Acorn in 1995.

Republican pundits last night drew parallels to claims in a new book about Mr Obama, saying he employed a consultant to have all his opponents in his 1996 Senate race removed over procedural errors.

According to The Case Against Barack Obama, anyone standing as a senator must collect 757 voters’ signatures.

But the consultant found fault with so many signatures of rivals’ backers - such as printing names rather than writing them - that they were dropped from the election and Mr Obama was elected unopposed.

The Obama campaign denies being involved with illegal voter registration and says he never worked closely with Acorn.

Acorn blames any wrongdoing on lazy staff who wanted to be paid for doing no work and were subsequently fired.

Spokesman Brian Kettenring said: ‘The attention being paid by the Right is tremendously disproportionate to the problem.’has called for an investigation into Mr Obama’s ties to Acorn.

http://tinyurl.com/3mmch9

   Tuesday - October 14, 2008

‘I’ve lost faith in The Messiah’: How EDWARD HEATHCOAT AMORY lost his Obama-mania.

Ok people now this really is interesting.  It has me a bit lost though.

This Brit (like we need or want his input) is saying that O. is a fraud and a cheat and not exactly partial to the truth.  So, he is disillusioned with Obama but still wants him to be our president. ?? huh?  Oh yeah, he doesn’t want Mrs. Palin a heartbeat away from so much power. 

Earlier, Drew and Turtler (quickly becoming our site historian) had an interesting exchange of comments.

Here in this article I think are some of the issues that we should be talking about and trying to tell people about.  And it’s an Obama supporter who has the goods and spills the beans.  See what you think.  I believe it’s issues like these that Turtler is saying we need desperately to pursue.

This is not a short article and as a rule I’d post part of it and simply give you the link for the rest.  But not today.

Oh, one more thing.  This fellow doesn’t like President Bush’s cowboy boots or prayer meetings.  I’m trying to figure out just what his boots and prayers have to do with anything.  Seems a bit like snobbery to me.  His boots?  Why should this guy care if our prez. wears boots?

By Edward Heathcoat-amory
Last updated at 10:36 AM on 14th October 2008

Four years ago, during one of the dullest and most depressing American presidential election campaigns in living memory, I happened by chance to watch an obscure senator from Illinois deliver a speech to the Democratic National Convention.

It was electrifying. I can still remember the power of his voice, as he said: ‘I stand here knowing that my story is part of the larger American story, that I owe a debt to all of those who came before me, and that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.’

Barack Obama was the best political speaker I’d seen in my lifetime. And I wasn’t the only one who thought so. He walked off that stage a star, and four years later he is the Democratic candidate for President of the United States.
Obama-mania: Taking the world by storm

My enthusiasm that day is now shared by millions, in America and in Europe. He gives hope to those of us in Britain who admire what America stands for but can’t abide George Bush, with his cowboy boots, prayer meetings and appalling judgment - over Iraq, in particular.

For us, Barack Obama - who risked his career with a speech in 2002 against the war - seems to be the man who can decontaminate the American brand.

So I’ve rooted for Obama as he fought first to defeat Hillary Clinton and now John McCain, his admirable but not inspirational opponent. I’ve followed Obama’s speeches on YouTube, and they’ve gone on getting better.

I’ve listened to him narrate his own remarkable autobiography - Dreams From My Father - and I’ve willed him on to victory.

Then a friend recommended a short book entitled The Case Against Barack Obama, by a respected U.S. investigative journalist called David Freddoso, which has stirred up a storm of controversy in America since it was published in August.

Based on forensic research into Obama’s political background, it casts a fascinating light on his early years in politics, and in so doing debunks many of the compelling myths that have been built up around him.

‘Have a read,’ my friend suggested, ‘and see if you still feel the same.’ So I did. And the result has profoundly altered my views. Oh, I still want Obama to win. Sarah Palin may be a remarkable person, but I don’t want her a heartbeat away from leadership of the free world.

But when Barack Obama becomes President, as I still hope he will, I no longer expect him to change the world. As I shall explain, I’ve lost most of what Mr Freddoso would call my ‘Obamamania’. And here’s why.

First, let’s examine how Obama took his first significant step on to the political scene when be became a state senator for Illinois in January 1996.

It was a rather remarkable contest, in that Obama was elected unopposed. And the reason for that was that he had found a way to have all the other candidates removed from the ballot, including the incumbent.

Obama under the glare of the spotlight: He has at times played a dirty game to get into politics.

If you want to run for a U.S. state senate seat, you need the backing - ie, the signatures - of a minimum of 757 ordinary electors within your district.

Obama employed a special consultant, Ronald Davis, to look at each of the 1,600 signatures that the sitting senator, Alice Palmer, a member of his own party, had gathered. And Mr Davis found problems with so many that Palmer was dropped from the ballot, and for good measure he managed to have the other three candidates ditched as well.

According to a local newspaper, problems included ‘printing registered voters name [sic] instead of writing, a female voter got married after she registered to vote and signed her maiden name’.

It was a legal electoral tactic, but a little odd from the man who had run ‘Project Vote’ - a campaign to persuade the disenfranchised to vote for the first time. Yet here was Obama disenfranchising those same voters in another way, using the toughest of political tactics to deny them a choice at the election.

Asked about it later, he said: ‘If you can win, you should win, and get to work doing the people’s business.’

The next telling aspect to the case against Obama is his attitude towards the corrupt politics of Cook County, the five-million-strong council area that includes Chicago.

Until recently, Cook County was run by John Stroger, the President of the Cook County Board of Commissioners. And he ran an extraordinary political machine, in which a full 50 per cent of all the campaign contributions he received came from either employees on the county payroll, or contractors doing work for the county.

A federal investigation found that jobs were handed out not on merit, but thanks to personal connections with the Stroger machine. If you were a ‘soldier for Stroger’, you would get a job. And then, allegedly, you would in return contribute campaign funds to re- elect your political patron.
‘He was in a prime position to speak out against this appalling corruption. Instead, he did nothing’

‘He was in a prime position to speak out against this appalling corruption. Instead, he did nothing’

What’s that got to do with Obama? Well, as a local state senator and then as a U.S. senator for Illinois, he was in a prime position to speak out against this appalling corruption. Instead, he did nothing.

In fact, when a well-qualified liberal challenger, Forrest Claypool, stood against Stroger with support from both Democrats and Republicans, again Obama did nothing.

And when Stroger had a stroke, and his unqualified son, Todd Stroger, was nominated by the machine to replace him, again Obama did nothing.

Worse, he issued a statement saying that: ‘Todd Stroger is a good progressive Democrat who will bring those values and sensibilities to the job.’

Young Stroger won that election, and since his victory he has continued with his father’s patronage politics. For example, he gave his cousin, the county’s chief financial officer, a 12 per cent pay increase to $160,000 (£92,500), hired his best friend’s wife on $126,000 (£73,000), and appointed a childhood pal as his official spokesman.

Hardly the ‘good progressive Democrat’ whom Obama supported. But that was by no means Obama’s only connection with tainted political empires.

Obama has also enthusiastically endorsed Richard Daley, mayor of Chicago. Daley managed to cling to office despite a federal investigation into a widespread system of political patronage over which he presided.

Two of his aides were convicted in 2006 for running this system, and rewarding the mayor’s allies with jobs and promotions. One job applicant was actually in Iraq on the day that his supposed ‘interview’ took place, but still managed to score a perfect five out of five to secure a coveted position.

Yet in 2007, Obama endorsed Daley’s campaign for re-election as Chicago’s mayor, saying ‘the city overall has moved in a positive direction’.

This should come as no surprise, since Obama has inherited his chief spokesman and political adviser directly from Mayor Daley. David Axelrod worked for Daley for 15 years and has consistently defended him, arguing at the time that Daley’s men were about to go to jail: ‘The so-called machine doesn’t exist any more.’

Obama said earlier this year: ‘I think I have done a good job in rising politically in this environment without becoming entangled in some of the traditional problems of Chicago politics.’ The evidence, unfortunately, suggests otherwise.

Freddoso’s case against Obama then moves on to his time in the U.S. Senate. Obama hasn’t been there long, but one of his much-trumpeted-achievements was the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, 2006.

This helped expose, and therefore limit, the system of ‘earmarking’, where legislators direct national funds to parochial local projects, often as part of dodgy deals to get their support for national legislation.

So it is doubly disappointing that in 2007, Senator Obama ‘earmarked’ $1 million for the University of Chicago medical centre. The vice-president of the centre is his own wife, Michelle Obama.

Indeed, she had received a pay rise of $200,000 (£115,500) at the very same time that Obama first became a senator - and thus able to organise earmarks. Coincidence? Or something more sinister? Obama insists the former, but it certainly doesn’t look good.

Change in the system: But Obama realised he could raise more than the limit and changed his policy

Then the book moves on to Obama’s single most disappointing decision. In the wake of Nixon’s Watergate scandal, state funding for Presidential elections was introduced as an option.

Under the terms of the deal, candidates can choose to receive a fixed sum of $84 million from U.S. taxpayers to pay their election expenses, but then can’t spend any more of their own money. Alternatively, they can opt to raise all their funds independently with no fixed ceiling.

Progressives have long argued for mandatory state funding, since it’s intended to make newly elected presidents less indebted to the donors who paid their way to the White House. So it was no surprise when, in 2006, Obama said he ‘strongly supported’ state funding.

In 2007, he promised to ‘ aggressively pursue’ a deal with McCain, under which both candidates would opt for central funding rather than private donations. But then he realised how much money he could raise on his own - perhaps as much as half a billion dollars.

So he promptly dumped his commitment to state funding. He said the decision ‘wasn’t an easy one’ but that the system was ‘broken’. This is rubbish. It’s just that he has a better chance of beating McCain - who has accepted the $84 million state funding deal - if he can massively outspend him.

Like the time he had all his fellow candidates eliminated from the ballot in 1996, he wanted to win, more than he wanted to hang on to his principles.

Next, the book has a look at Obama’s long-term relationship with the Church of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who believes that the American government has been deliberately infecting black people with the HIV virus.

Changes: But Obama has switched his position when it benefited him

Freddoso points out that the Church’s ‘vision statement’ says it is founded on the writings of Dr James Cone. Dr Cone argues, among other things, that ‘ Christianity and Whiteness’ are opposites.

Obama left Wright’s Church only earlier this year - when the Reverend accused him of ‘political posturing’. This is well-worn territory, of course. Obama’s critics never tire of criticising his links to Wright. But they are no less disturbing for that.

Finally, Freddoso looks at Obama’s relationships with a series of property developers, including Tony Rezko, who recently went to jail for fraud.

When Obama bought his house in 2005 for $300,000 (£173,000) less than the market value, Rezko bought the plot next door. When challenged about their connections, Obama claimed: ‘I’ve never done any favours for him.’

Not quite true, apparently. The two were friends and Obama wrote a series of letters supporting Rezko’s successful attempts to get state subsidy to build affordable housing in Chicago.
Chicago real estate developer and fast-food magnate Antoin ‘Tony’ Rezko spent years pouring thousands of dollars in campaign contributions into Barack Obama’s campaign

Unfortunately, Rezko’s 30 buildings have subsequently run into financial difficulties, which is a bit tough for their tenants as living conditions have deteriorated. Rezko even turned off the heating in the middle of winter to save money.

Not a nice man, then. But a generous supporter of Obama, collecting and donating $250,000 (£144,000) to his political patron over the years.

So there, in essence, is Freddoso’s case against Obama. But as he also says, his book doesn’t demonstrate that Obama is in any way personally corrupt or even ‘a bad man’. Yet it does suggest that ‘he’s like all the rest of them in Washington’.

Those Americans who support him, and the billions around the world who believe that he could rebuild Brand America, would do well to remember that Obama’s a politician with huge gifts, but also great flaws. He’s a beacon of hope. But not now - nor ever - a political Messiah.

http://tinyurl.com/3qydyp

   Sunday - October 12, 2008

A bit of toon humor to lighten my mood. Hmmmm, isn’t working too well.

A bit of political humor on this warm Sunday afternoon from the soon to be island caliphate. akbar-snackbar or whatever it is Vilmar calls it.
Actually, I’m really not in a humorous mood, having read two Sunday papers.

Awful,awful news folks ..... Madonna, it’s reported, sucking up to an audience in the US, says that Palin won’t be invited to her party.
Cue the tears. 

The Joan Collins, the 75 year old actress/journalist (?) puts in her cheap shots at McCain/Palin in an editorial today.  Well, least Mrs. Palin didn’t have to take down her knickers for every man in Alaska to get a job.  I understand that Collins slept her way through so many directors/producers, the only way she can recognize any of em is with their pants down.

CAN’T TELL IT EITHER ... 

   Saturday - October 11, 2008

US Election: Why top Tories are turning their backs on John McCain .

I think this falls under something like misery loves company. So does anger.  Yeah,yeah the right to opinion and all that.  I still don’t think our internal politics and especially an election this important, is any of their damn business.  So yeah, I’m a bit miffed.  And I’m not in love with McAmnasty either but he’s all we got except for Sarah Palin and countless ppl who could do the job but won’t run.
It is true sadly, that McCain is not an inspirational speaker.

US Election: Why top Tories are turning their backs on John McCain

By Iain Dale
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 10/10/2008

Have your say Read comments

All my adult life I have supported Republican candidates in American presidential elections. Like most Tory MPs and activists, I have wanted to be impressed by John McCain. I went to see him speak at the Tory conference in 2006, expecting to be wowed. Like most others, I left profoundly disappointed by his speech, which was pedestrian and devoid of inspiration. Maybe he was having an off day, I thought.

I felt McCain - as a maverick - could distance himself from the ideological zealots in his party who have done so much to turn it from a political party into a narrow sect. Many of us thought Sarah Palin could give his ticket the “wow” factor Barack Obama had given the Democrats. We were wrong on both counts.

Few senior Tories have expressed any enthusiasm for John McCain as US President.

(and I bet fewer still know anything about the supreme court and what left leaning administration would do to the USA. Well screw these ppl. Frankly, I’m bothered that foreigners would stick their unwanted fuckin noses in our politics anyway. I don’t want them showing anything for either party.  And I resent the FACT that many come to the states and work for both. It shouldn’t be allowed. )

Many Conservative MPs have travelled a similar journey over the past few months - a journey most of us thought we could never make, and a journey that has resulted in a decision to break the habit of a lifetime and declare our support for the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama.

Tory MP Richard Spring, who doubles as David Cameron’s envoy to the City of London, is one of many who have always supported the Republicans, but are now backing Obama. “It’s important for America’s reputation in the world to be improved and Obama can be instrumental in bringing this about,” he says. ”He sends out a signal of change.”

Oh that’s just peachy.  Our reputation rests on electing a left leaning socialist who belonged to a church where his preacher “God Damned America”

Spring’s colleague Andrew Tyrie agrees: “I have always been a Republican, but Bush has done so much damage to the project of the family of western nations that I feel only an Obama presidency can rectify it. We need something that is demonstrably a huge change.”

(Family of WHAT?  WTF is that all about?  Sure, if we agree with everything they (euros) decree and go sheep like along with their demands, we’re good guys. Otherwise I guess we’re guilty of the fall of western civilization.)

Richard Spring estimates that at least half the Conservative Parliamentary Party would vote for Obama given the chance, something that would have been unthinkable in the pre-George W. Bush era.

Many shadow ministers remain publicly coy about their leanings, but it’s remarkable how few, even privately, express any enthusiasm for the McCain-Palin ticket.

(Well screw them anyway. Who are they to be enthused or not? Whose election is it? What? We have to impress these asswipes?)

Senior whip Simon Burns and the shadow business secretary, Alan Duncan, have both outed themselves as Democrat supporters, but few others are willing to go on the record.

One shadow cabinet member is a signed-up member of the Obama fan club, yet believes if he were to admit to it publicly, it would damage his status within the party. He likens it to the reluctance of so many Tory MPs to sign up to David Cameron’s leadership campaign in the early days. “We thought people would think we had taken leave of our senses,” he tells me. “Cameron and Obama are both agents of change, in a way that their opponents never could be.” He adds: “The Conservative Party is always suspicious of change - until it has been proved to work.”

Few Obama-supporting Tories seem remotely bothered by his extremely liberal voting record in the Senate. Simon Burns says: “Obama is like any true compassionate Conservative. He is focusing on helping the vulnerable and the middle classes.” Another former Republican-supporting Tory MP, Ben Wallace, thinks an Obama victory is necessary to give the Republicans a much-needed jolt. “Young people on the centre-Right don’t have a home to go to,” he complains. “The religious Right has taken over the Republicans.” He cites the so-called Blue Dog Democrats, who believe in fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets, as the reason British Conservatives can feel comfortable about supporting Obama.

While Cameron remains a fan of McCain, he has been very careful to demonstrate even-handedness, as he knows only too well that Obama is closer to many of his own ideas and goals. Cameron’s trusted adviser, Steve Hilton, has wisely been give the task of developing closer relations with Obama’s entourage during his six-month stay in California. Could it be that the Tory leader himself is a closet Obama backer?

http://tinyurl.com/48d426

   Friday - October 10, 2008

spread it around like peanut butter

BMEWS .... helping good videos go viral for over ... well, at least a couple weeks now.

via Rusty’s, via Liberty Zone, via Mischa’s, via Rachel’s comments, Pal2Pal, etc.

for your daily dose of campaign videos, high thee hence to Pal2Pal.

   Thursday - October 09, 2008

Barack Obama looks the part .  (I HATE to post this but, as it’s seen from here.)

This is the editorial that appeared in today’s paper over here.  I’m hearing this from American friends who are conservative, and frankly I am worried.
Not that there’s anything I can do about it.  Maybe I’ll go live in Lyndon’s house in Canada. Claim it as a human right.  Why am I joking about this?
Taint funny McGee!  Cause if I don’t laugh I might cry. 

Should O. carry it off and win, I guess the most consv. can do is try and block supreme nominations of the left.  What a mess.

Singapore’s lookin pretty good right now.

Barack Obama looks the part

Last Updated: 12:01am BST 09/10/2008

There will be many victims of the financial crisis, and one of the most prominent could be John McCain. However much he tries to distance himself from the Bush administration, the Republican candidate in America’s presidential election is finding it increasingly hard to make up ground on Barack Obama, his Democrat opponent.

But it was less their policies for dealing with economic calamity than their demeanour that provided the most noticeable difference between the two men during their second televised debate on Tuesday night. Mr Obama appeared calm and confident; Mr McCain seemed uncertain, tired and tetchy.

It felt, admittedly from afar, like the modern-day equivalent of the famous clash between John F Kennedy and Richard Nixon in 1960, when those who listened to the debate on the radio believed Nixon had won while those watching on television felt that the more youthful and assured Kennedy triumphed.

With just 27 days to the election, Mr McCain must make his experience and more astute grasp of foreign policy tell, though even on this, his supposed strong suit, he found Mr Obama able to brush off the charge of being wet behind the ears. Polls taken after the debate in Tennessee handed a clear win to Mr Obama, who is now forging ahead in the so-called ‘’battleground” states that will determine who will occupy the White House.

This was supposed to resemble an old-fashioned town hall meeting, of the sort we used to have in this country; and while there was something almost comical about the exercise as the two men prowled around the stage, the cut and thrust of American politics is refreshing to those who lament the absence of similar clashes between party leaders during general elections here.

http://tinyurl.com/3l3vdu

   Monday - October 06, 2008

OK, EVEN IF YOU DON’T AGREE WITH EVERYTHING, THIS IS A MUST WATCH AND LISTEN VIDEO.

Just before getting ready to shut down for the night, I paid a visit to Vilmar’s site where I stole this.
I don’t think he’ll mind me doing that.

Now then, please, please stay with this fellow even if it is a mite hard to watch because he’s jumps a lot.
This really does have a large WOW factor.

One of the things I’ve always liked about Vilmar, is his take no prisoners attitude and kick the hell out of the left when ya have em down.

Well, while this young man might not be Vilmar he sure does score some points and doesn’t seem to worry much about prisoners either.

NOW THEN ... WANNA TALK ABOUT TAKE NO PRISONERS?

HE GOES ON AGAIN HERE.  THIS YOUNG FELLA IS ON A ROLL. 

Thanks Vilmar.  http://antzinpantz.com/kns/ and thanks as well to Sndrak, which is where V got it.  http://tinyurl.com/48qoj8

   Friday - October 03, 2008

Barack Obama is ‘aloof’ says British ambassador to US .

Revealed: UK ambassador’s verdict on Barack Obama
Posted By: Toby Harnden at Oct 2, 2008 at 21:10:29 [General]
Posted in: Foreign Correspondents

The following is the full text of a July 2008 letter sent by Sir Nigel Sheinwald, British ambassador to the United States, to Gordon Brown, British Prime Minister, shortly before the visit of Senator Barack Obama, then the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, to London.

My news story about the leaked document is here.  http://tinyurl.com/49rtwk

BARACK OBAMA

This letter contains sensitive judgements. Please limit copying, and protect the contents carefully.

1. Ahead of Senator Obama’s visit to London next week, I thought it would be useful to give you a snapshot of his personality, politics and emerging policies.

Background and Personality

2. The key themes which are important in understanding Obama’s political makeup are the following:

- His struggle to understand his racial identity. His first book “Dreams from My Father” (1995) traces this struggle through Hawaii, New York, Chicago and Kenya. Raised by his white Kansas-born mother and her parents after his Kenyan father left, Obama made a conscious decision in the 1980s to choose his African-American identity – he worked as a community organiser in the poorest areas of Chicago, and went on to travel to Kenya to learn about his father. His decision after Harvard Law School to settle back in Chicago led to growing integration into the city’s black middle class culture and provided him with the political laboratory from which his career was launched;

- His personal makeup drives his view of politics. Obama talks of wanting to reach out to all Americans (“no red states or blue states, only the United States”). “I will never forget that in no other country on earth is my story even possible. It’s a story that hasn’t made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story which has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts – that out of many we are truly one.” The race issue is present in the campaign – the debate continues to rage over how much. Obama wanted to avoid it as much as possible until the Reverend Wright videos forced him to make his elegant speech on race in March and then, when this was clearly not enough for the latest Wright outburst, to disown him completely and leave his church;

- Star quality. Obama has always had it, at least since his arrival at Harvard. A friend in the progressive Chicago establishment said, “I honestly don’t remember what it was about him, but I was absolutely blown away. I said to several people that this guy, who is now 30 years old, is some day going to be President. He will be our first black President”. That was in the 1990s. His rise has been meteoric. He first came to the notice of the national political establishment when he won the Illinois Democratic primary for the US Senate in early 2004. But it was his mesmerising speech to the 2004 Democratic Convention in Boston which propelled him to stardom, at a low point for his party. He is the only black member of the Senate. He is already the most successful black elected politician in American history, to the discomfort of Jesse Jackson and others;

- The promise of post-partisanship. Throughout his career, from the time he won over the conservative board of the Harvard Law Review to today, Obama has succeeded in crossing traditional boundaries, and making a virtue of it. His political personality is much more difficult to define than McCain’s. His campaign has the features of a movement, but he has himself said that “without organisation, without policy, without plans”, movements will dissipate. He uses Howard Dean’s 2004 campaign as his example. More broadly, he is a mixture of idealism and progressive politics on the one hand and pragmatism and disciplined organization on the other. He resists pigeon-holing. People disagree about how sincere his post-partisanship is, and how successful his attempts to reach across the aisle would be, given his mixed record in the Senate;

- Obama is highly intelligent. Not just savvy – which most people at this level of American politics have to be. But intellectually smart; cerebral. His manner is frequently interrogative. He is a quick learner. He has the confidence to surround himself with bright people, and is said to listen carefully to and weight thir views. This can have its downsides – he can seem to sit on the fence, assiduously balancing pros and cons. He can talk too dispassionately for a national campaign about issues which touch people personally, eg his notorious San Francisco comments about small-town Pennsylvanians “clinging” to guns and religion. The charge of elitism leveled by both Clinton and McCain was rich coming from them, but not entirely unfair. Despite his blue-collar upbringing. Obama does betray a highly educated and upper middle class mindset;

- He is a supreme organiser and networker. Obama has 20 years’ experience of organising from the grassroots up. He has surrounded himself with experienced, creative campaign organisers, particularly David Axelrod and David Plouffe. He has broken all the financial records, especially for donations via the internet and from younger people. His campaign has been a brilliant combination of the strategic and emotional on the one hand (“change you can believe in”) and state-by-state organisation on the other. The latter, as much as the former, beat Hillary Clinton; and that remains in place against McCain;

- He is tough and competitive. That is of course the Chicago school. You don’t beat Clinton without being resilient (but, like her, his energy levels do dip and he can be uninspiring e.g. in debates). He loves basketball and poker. He demands loyalty.

- Ambition. Of course. He has talked at least since the 1980s about a shot at the Presidency. He plans each move carefully, and incrementally. The 1995 book was a very clever platform.

- Obama is cool. He looks cool, tall, slim. He is temperamentally cool (by any standards, not just in comparison with the more impetuous McCain). And maybe aloof, insensitive – see above. Friends like Tom Daschle told me that he demands calm and “no dramas” from those around him. That will, I think, be an important criterion for his choice of running mate;

- Luck. Obama has had his fair share, but also made his own. He was certainly lucky in having Democratic and Republican opponents for the US Senate in 2004 who were tarnished. He was lucky that Hillary Clinton had such a bad organisation in the primary campaign, and took so long to respond to Obama’s threat.

(This is a very long but interesting read. Therefore, see the link for the rest. There really is too much to post it all here)

http://tinyurl.com/4gubxs

   Wednesday - October 01, 2008

Wake me up I must be dreaming

Should Congress Be ‘Perp-Walked’?

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, September 30, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Justice: A federal grand jury in New York is probing the accounting shenanigans at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It’s about time, and we hope it doesn’t end there.

Remember the early 2000s, when companies such as WorldCom, Enron, Tyco and Xerox suddenly and spectacularly were revealed to have been cooking their books?

Remember the glee expressed by Washington politicians, especially Democrats, as they watched CEOs and their underlings get perp-walked out of their buildings and into federal custody?

Enron became the poster child for corporate misdeeds. In the accounting crisis of 2002, CEO Ken Lay was one of the most loathed human beings on Earth. And no, that’s not an exaggeration.

we now have an opportunity, thanks to the New York grand jury, to probe perhaps the greatest financial crime ever — one that dwarfs Enron in size and scope.

Fannie’s and Freddie’s top executives, almost all with deep ties to the Democratic Party? Did they get perp-walked to prison like WorldCom’s Bernie Ebbers, Tyco’s Dennis Koslowski, Adelphia’s John Rigas, ImClone’s Sam Waksal, or any of the others who did time for corporate misdeeds in the early 2000s?

No. Jim Johnson, former Walter Mondale aide, became head of Barack Obama’s vice presidential search committee. Franklin Raines, who headed Fannie from 1998 to 2004, the years of its worst excesses, pocketed nearly $100 million in pay and bonuses from Fannie. He, too, became an adviser to Obama.

Other Fannie-Freddie alumni did equally well. Rep. Rahm Emanuel has been front and center in crafting a new rescue bill. Ex-Clinton Justice official Jamie Gorelick careens from career catastrophe to catastrophe, and still gets top jobs. It pays to have ties.

Meanwhile, as previously documented, Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd repeatedly thwarted reforms. Yet today they stand front-and-center as Democrats try to “fix” a problem they created.

As such, any investigation into Fannie and Freddie must include Congress, both current and past.

There’s lots of evidence that the two mortgage giants had become little more than taxpayer-guaranteed front companies for Democrats, who used them to reward supporters with cheap loans and to provide jobs for out-of-work politicians.

(hornswaggled from Rodger, The Real King of France)

Also at IBD today:

I think Mischa’s gonna need a bigger tree!

And on that note, I’m taking my poor tired feets to bed.

Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our crisis

Drew’s post and his comments following pretty much say as much as can be said.
I really can’t add anything of my own but will let this speak for itself.  Perhaps some of you haven’t seen it. It runs 8 minutes so grab a coffee or tea or whatever, click the start button but don’t be repaired to relax.

   Thursday - September 25, 2008

Barack Obama today rejected a call from rival John McCain to call off tomorrow’s televised debate.

okay folks, what’s this all about?  Yeah I can read alright.  But don’t understand this.  It looks like McC is looking for a way to avoid a debate.  ???
That can’t be right, can it?

Since neither of these guys have yet to be elected, I honestly do not see what good would come of McCain’s suggestion to hold off the debate in the national interest.  Or, is it in his own interest?

I would think the debate might be in a national interest as are not many ppl interested to see how they do and what topics are covered?

I should also mention to American friends that the reports here are that rama-lama ding-dong is now enjoying a nine point lead in polls (if they mean anything) due to the banking disaster.  So I’m at a loss to understand.

Also ... if McC doesn’t wanna debate or is frightened for some odd reason, why can’t he sic the Sarahcuda on what’s his name?

Obama and McCain face off over holding televised debate as Republicans suspend campaign to focus on economy

By David Gardner and Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 10:50 AM on 25th September 2008

Barack Obama today rejected a call from rival John McCain to call off tomorrow’s televised presidential debate so they can tackle America’s crippling financial problems.

Mr McCain has suspended his election campaign to return to the US capital until a proposed government bail-out plan has been approved. He asked Mr Obama to postpone the crucial TV debate - an offer that was flatly rejected.

Mr Obama said it was “more important than ever” that the country hear from its next president and continued with his preparations for the prime-time debate at the University of Mississippi.

It was unclear last night if the debate would go ahead or not. Mr McCain said he would attend only if Congress reaches accord on a financial bailout package before then, the Wall Street Journal reported.

Mr Obama said he plans to be at the debate Friday, declining to take up the challenge. “Sen. McCain is running his campaign, I’m running mine,” he said.

The Commission on Presidential Debates released a statement saying it was going ahead with the debate, which pundits believe will help propel the winner firmly towards the White House.

Speaking in Florida, Mr Obama explained why he wanted to go ahead with the highly anticipated confrontation. His handling of the economic problems have helped propel him into a nine-point lead over Mr McCain, according to the latest polls.

The Illinois senator said he had no plans to suspend his campaign, while Mr McCain said he would stop all advertising, fundraising and other campaign events to return to Washington and work for a bipartisan solution.

http://tinyurl.com/3wsje9

It is also my understanding as reported here, that President Bush has put the GOP in a bind of sorts because his package (or Paulson’s) that the pres. agreed to, is seen to put 700 billion in place to bail out banks with no thought to all the ppl that will lose their homes.
So the donks are saying they won’t pass any bill unless the “little folks” are seen to. So it make them look good.
It’s seen as bailing out Wall Street (their friends in Wall St.) while giving no protection to the average person who willlose homes through foreclosure.

btw ... these are not the ppl who gambled or invested that are being referred to as losing their homes.

So ,,,, that’s what the reportage here is saying.  It’ll be the ppl’s taxes that will do the bailing, without the same benefits that the fat cats will get.

Caution ... do not shoot messenger as he’s reporting what he is hearing and some of what’s read.

   Friday - September 19, 2008

Voices From The Left

I’ve mentioned before that I get daily emails from some lefty who’s trying to convert me? Talk about willful blindness. Or extraordinary projection. What we say about them is exactly what they say about us. Or worse. The media is controlled by the right wing machine in their opinion. There is no foul deed the GOP hasn’t already stooped to, to win this election. It’s frightening. Today’s screed was all about some journalist who got arrested at the GOP convention (Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!). Terrible! But gosh, finally, charges were dropped. Because of concerted efforts of all good thinking Dems you know. That was followed by this ( I added the underline ):

Subject: Republican police state: Stunning video footage
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/99433/?type=blog

This is stunning footage of a mass of people being arrested in St. Paul, Minnesota with NO Probable Cause, in clear violation of the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution, on the first day of the Republican convention.  I do not see how it could be any clearer.  The videographer had buried this video to prevent its confiscation.  The Republicans had protected Minneapolis against liability by providing insurance to allow police to act illegally without fear of legal consequences. I have no idea whether or not St. Paul was similarly protected.  I just hope that for the sake of our country the lawyers for those kids can cost both the Republican Party, the police agencies, and the individual police officers all a LOT of money.  THIS IS AMERICA, NOT SOME PISS-ANT DICTATORSHIP! THEY SHOULD PAY!!!

Note that the video has a full screen mode button.

“LI”

Now, I’ll leave it up to our intrepid readers to fully Google up what actually happened that day, but even this far left leaning blog can’t hide all of truth:

Perched above the Mississippi, the boulevard played host to tear gas clouds and a handful of arrests. The provocateurs weren’t all innocent: I witnessed bottles thrown. (I hope the shots I heard were only rubber bullets fired over the river.)

The goal, apparently, was to block delegates from traveling to the convention. I doubt the clash produced this result, but it did temporarily stop guests staying in hotels along the boulevard from going anywhere. (It also made a bogus convention day genuinely interesting.)
...
UPDATE: I wrongly assumed the group of protesters clashing with police along Kellogg Boulevard was connected to the RNC Welcoming Committee. In fact, the demonstrators toting boom-boxes on wheels were members of DC Students for a Democratic Society,

Yes, the Denver Police were more than a bit strong handed in some cases. But they had a riot to quell, and they knew that every left wing stoner nutjob in the country had descended on their city to cause havoc. How would you react in that situation?

Funny thing ... the news media didn’t exactly see things the same way our resident lefty did. Nor did they see the same thing the really well edited “secret video” that “had to be buried” (which is why it’s all over the internet. Try Googling “labor day arrests St Paul”, you’ll see). The way the news media (that fully owned whore of the GOP) put it, WITH VIDEO:

Anarchists who had threatened to “crash the convention” wreaked havoc Monday in downtown St. Paul as the Republican National Convention opened, shattering windows, throwing rocks, slashing tires and blocking traffic. Their violence on the first day of the convention overshadowed an anti-war march that drew a fraction of the number expected. The march, which sparked at least three free-speech court challenges, came off without a hitch. But breakaway groups of anarchists — some clad in black and others dressed as colorfully as clowns — kept police busy. Nearly 300 people had been arrested as of late Monday night.

Spasms of violence erupted throughout downtown as tear gas was fired and protesters — some angry, some insistent on dancing amid the chaos — played a game of cat-and-mouse as police, backed up by 150 Minnesota National Guard soldiers, alternately accommodated, confronted and chased roving bands intent on disrupting the convention.

I think Captain Video has been doing Moore than a good job with the editing, what what?

The Obama Singalong

found online in some blog comments somewhere, and then modified a bit






Chocolate Jesus

I don’t care if it rains or freezes
‘long as I got my Chocolate Jesus
tellin’ me everything’s gonna change
Barack, he is the Black Messiah
he ain’t like no redneck pariah
the Reverend Wright, he tells me that is true


Chorus:
Chocolate Jesus! Chocolate Jesus,
We’re now told to get up in your face!
You’ll be afraid to just vote NO
Against this assclown rodeo
An empty suite who’s nothing more than race.


I won’t be clingin’ to my guns and ‘ligion
don’t need ‘em now, not even a smidgeon
Barry’s going to show me the righteous way
I can’t be makin’ any dumb errors
I listen to his pal, Ol’ Bill Ayers
Baracky is the best man for the job


(Chorus)


So, don’t you diss my sweet Obama
he’s the one who’ll get Osama
right out of that cave in downtown Pocky-stahn
Yeah, I don’t care if it’s rain and cloud
Me and and Michelle, we’re so damn proud
Our Barack’s got some change in mind for us.


(Chorus)

---

---

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2008 Domain Owner