I don't want to trash anyone's favorite candidate or dismiss their dreams. But I was struck by the tone of an article from the LA Times recently, of a vow by the "Chief" US Chamber of Commerce. I truly wonder at the efficacy of trying to sit at this table and negotiate in a bi-partisan fashion. I think it's time to get real here. Two decades of date rape are quite enough for me.
Alarmed at the increasingly populist tone of the 2008 political campaign, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is set to issue a fiery promise to spend millions of dollars to defeat candidates deemed to be anti-business.
"We plan to build a grass-roots business organization so strong that when it bites you in the butt, you bleed," chamber President Tom Donohue said.
Reacting to what it sees as a potentially hostile political climate, Donohue said, the chamber will seek to punish candidates who target business interests with their rhetoric or policy proposals, including congressional and state-level candidates.
Although Donohue shied away from precise figures, he indicated that his organization would spend in excess of the approximately $60 million it spent in the last presidential cycle. That approaches the spending levels planned by the largest labor unions.
Under Donohue, the organization has also frequently aligned itself with GOP priorities.
If you haven't already, please read the entire diatribe. It's quite "honest". And then, please explain to me how sunny rhetoric and charisma will overcome $$$BILLIONS of illicit profits and an obvious, visceral hatred of ANYTHING resembling truth, justice or the (ORIGINAL) American WAY. Oh1 And Democrats. ANY DEMOCRAT!
Posted by DeminNewJ at January 11, 2008 04:55 AMIt's a new day. The dust has settled from the New Hampshire primaries. Let's all get back to hating Hillary Clinton. It's what liberals used to do.
Posted by factotum at January 11, 2008 04:57 AMWow, the first news break this morning on the radio:
Bush gets tears in his eyes at the Holocaust Memorial in Israel. Is he too emotional to be president??
According to story over at Faux..."President Bush had tears in his eyes during an hour-long tour of Israel's Holocaust memorial Friday and told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the U.S. should have bombed Auschwitz to halt the killing, the memorial's chairman said."
Let's see...we have a compound where people are being killed. I know, let's bomb it! Would have worked wonders with those "precision" munitions used in the 1940. How many of the Jewish prisoners would we have killed in a strike like that? Is that what the tear is for? We could have had a higher body count and missed the opportunity? God I love this president!
Posted by the professor at January 11, 2008 05:52 AMAnd then, please explain to me how sunny rhetoric and charisma will overcome $$$BILLIONS of illicit profits and an obvious, visceral hatred of ANYTHING resembling truth, justice or the (ORIGINAL) American WAY.
*in a young, sweet southern voice* Why DeminNewJ, didn't you know... unregulated capitalism is America's best friend!
Is he too emotional to be president??
Yes, he is. IMPEACH!!
John Stewart did ask the other night, "You think his butts kosher?"
"Wow, the first news break this morning on the radio: Bush gets tears in his eyes at the Holocaust Memorial in Israel. Is he too emotional to be president??"
Iamcoyote, 'Mr. Bush' is just a 'sensitive' kinda guy, you know like when Tiger Woods cried in his Father's arms, or Johnny Carson wipped tears on his last show. Everyone thought it was so touching.
Posted by Judith at January 11, 2008 05:58 AMProfessor, that's George's solution to everything, destroy, and if that doesn't work, destroy some more.
Posted by Judith at January 11, 2008 06:00 AMSince republicans are incapable of any real feelings these so called tears must be the chemical products of male menopause.
Fortunately, the "football" is equipped with a retina scan which would detect and shut down a teary hot flash driven nuclear attack on Iran.
Posted by TIKI AL at January 11, 2008 06:19 AMWell, we knew the barrage of garbage would keep coming against Obama. Here is another email that is circulating in the shadows. This one attacks his church...
Subject: FW: Obama's ChurchBarack Obama mentioned his church during his appearance with Oprah. It's the Trinity Church of Christ. I found this interesting.
Obama's church: Please read and go to this church's website and read what is written there. It is very alarming.
Barack Obama is a member of this church and is running for President of the U.S. If you look at the first page of their website, you will learn that this congregation has a non-negotiable commitment to Africa . No where is AMERICA even mentioned.
Notice too, what color you will need to be if you should want to join Obama's church... B-L-A-C-K!!! Doesn't look like his choice of religion has improved much over his (former?) Muslim upbringing.
Are you aware that Obama's middle name is Mohammed? Strip away his nice looks, the big smile and smooth talk and what do you get? Certainly a racist, as plainly defined by the stated position of his church! And possibly a covert worshiper of the Muslim faith, even today. This guy desires to rule over America while his loyalty is totally vested in a Black Africa!
I cannot believe this has not been all over the TV and newspapers. This is why it is so important to pass this message along to all of our family and friends. To think that Obama has even the slightest chance in the run for the presidency, is really scary.
Click on the link below for the website of the church Barack Obama belongs to: www.tucc.org/about.htm
I'll give you one guess how many people of color go to the author of this email's church... uh... try zero. You know the old addage: "What's the most segregated hour of the week? Sunday morning at 10am"
There have been a few news stories lately about a "swift boat-style" group preparing an attack on Obama through his affiliation with this church. So, if you like Obama, get ready to fight back...
... to that end, here is an excellent and reasoned break-down of Obama's church from The Christian Century: Africentric Church: A visit to Chicago's Trinity UCC
Some folks think we should simply ignore this stuff and hope it doesn't do any damage. Some folks think posting it on a blog like this, or forwarding it on to others, only perpetuates it and gives it strength.
I'm of a different opinion. I think we need to shine light on this crap and call it what it is: a racist attack. We need to not shrink away but stand up to it. The time has come for a massive movement of people, in the face of this inevitable onslaught of divisive, racist innuendo, to say, "No more! We reject these tired politics. We will defeat you at the ballot box and make a better America. We have hope and we will make change."
I find it interesting that currently everyone is talking loud about the gender dynamics of the election, while most commentators I read and hear out there (even on the liberal/progressive/left) want to minimize the racial dynamics of this race. Don't get me wrong, sexism is very much alive and well out there and Hillary faces it. I just find it strange that folks don't want to face the racial reality, too, or as vigorously...
... for instance, while I am not sure I'd call it "racist," take Hillary's ludicrous statements that LBJ was more important to realizing Dr. King's dream than Dr. King or, by implication, the civil rights movement. Yikes! I'll write more on this later, but suffice it to say that Clinton fundamentally misapprehends the way social change happens. And, essentially, she got a free ride on that cheap shot.
IT COULD COST HER BIG IN SC:
NYTIMES: "Ranking African American in Congress Rethinking Neutrality in SC After Clinton's Comments on Civil Rights Movement"
What do you think?
Posted by Patrick at January 11, 2008 06:40 AMSo, Patrick, you decided to use you own name today instead of mine, huh? Sockpuppetry's just not as fun as you thought it would be is it?
And yes, the emails are heinous, but luckily, it's getting a lot of coverage, since the damn emails have been sent to just about everyone left and right multiple times. I just heard Stephanie Miller talking about it on Air America. What we also need to watch for is the media and some bad actors deliberately misinterpreting Clinton remarks, then spreading the misinterpretation around as if it were fact. Hard to believe some people can be so assholish, but it's got to be put out in the sunshine, don't you think?
Posted by iamcoyote at January 11, 2008 07:22 AMSenator Clinton's comments were poorly conceived. The intent was not to downplay the importance of MLK. She tried to shift the focus off of Civil Rights specifically to a more general point about the presidency and about being an affective president. Hence her comments about Kennedy not being able to get it done and LBJ getting it done. Her point? That she'll be the kind of president that gets things done and she doesn't believe that Obama will be.
It had nothing to do with taking anything away from MLK. It didn't even have specifically to do with Civil Rights. Obama used the "dreams" of MLK as his example. That's the only reason the comments were made in that context.
She tried to make a segwey and it didn't come of well.
Posted by snark at January 11, 2008 08:30 AMBush is in tears because he couldn't take his morning mountain bike ride.
Posted by T2 at January 11, 2008 08:34 AMT2, Bush is in tears because his plan for a new push against Iran failed so stupidly when the Pentagon had to admit it totally fucked up their part of the propaganda catapult!
Yeah, snark, it was an inartful comment by Hillary; complicated analogies like that will always get you into trouble. Sometimes our candidates seem to forget that the media, and a lot of the public don't have very good attention spans; nor do they know all that much about history. It was instantly obvious what she was trying to do, and instantly obvious she didn't get there. Here's a pretty good rundown of that gaffe, and the whole Cuomo thing, which is also being distorted by Obamabots. Boy, if this is how it's going to be for the next few weeks, this primary is going to suck 10 times more than it already does. I know, hard to believe it can get worse, but yup, it can. (I heard a good one on another site, btw - He's the Obamessiah! Funny!)
Jimmy Fucking Carter for President!
I needed a good laugh.
Posted by snark at January 11, 2008 08:55 AMOh man, I'm gonna start a Draft Carter site right now! Hilarious!
And now for something completely different: Condi responsible for Bhutto's death.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 11, 2008 09:00 AMYeah, iamcoyote, I messed with you... because you've been so damn rude since I came here. Touché... (smile)
I do think it funny how quickly this Hillary-love-fest of a blog minimizes, excuses or dismisses the race stuff, or at least doesn't get as fired up over it. hhhhmmm... I wonder why that is...?
Hell, just look at the listing of recent blog entries. The bias of this blog is clear.
Oh, yeah, remember Clinton's campaign official in NH smearing Obama with the racially coded suggestion not only that Obama did drugs as a young man (which was old news), but that he might - oooo, scary -have been a dealer, despite NO EVIDENCE of that. Scary black man as drug dealer! Yikes... No racism there.
Oh, I can hear you now all running to protect the poor damsel in distress by saying, she didn't say it Shaheen did... and she fired him. Yeah, right. That was all part of the game. Watch, he'll be back in a position in the campaign soon, if he already isn't. The dirty work was done and Clinton had plausible deniability. That is the oldest political trick in the book.
If an Obama campaign leader in SC suggested with coded language that Hillary might be a - ooooo, scary - lesbian and then Obama came out and said and did the exact same thing as Hillary did with the drug smear, you all would crucify Obama. Yet, you let Hillary and her campaign off the hook.
I know, Turkana or someone blogged about it at the time and said it was lame. But, apparently, the lovefest gives you all short-term memory on Hillary's purposeful attacks on Obama.
Admit it. C'mon. Have some integrity around here...
From the get go I have acknowledged sexism and racism in this race, but you all minimize one for the other because this place is designed to be a Hillary site. That is why most of the time there isn't really any meaningful discussion going on, but rather a small group of regulars agreeing with each other over everything.
Posted by Patrick at January 11, 2008 11:43 AMYeah, iamcoyote, I messed with you.
Heh, thanks for confirming what I was only guessing at, idiot. And stealing names is not just messing with me, it's messing with everyone on the blog.
because you've been so damn rude since I came here.
This from the person whose first words were "stop being crybabies." Sorry kiddo, you've lost any credibility you might have had with your antics.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 11, 2008 12:00 PMYou're really pathetic.
Hard to believe you're a coleege professor.
Posted by snark at January 11, 2008 12:02 PMThat's college.
And directed at...well, he knows who it's directed at.
Posted by snark at January 11, 2008 12:03 PMUnfortunately our election bombardment has masked the atrocities of Iraq:
Surveying civilian deaths in Iraq is like walking through Lincoln, Nebraska, after it was hit by a neutron bomb, with everyone dead. Everyone. Juan Cole, 01/11/08
Heehee, I think coleege is funnier!
Posted by iamcoyote at January 11, 2008 12:18 PMGoyo, you're right about the election overshadowing everything! I was just thinking about that this morning, that the occupation, the telcom spying scandal, the DOJ stacking, was all being ignored because of the wall to wall polling, speculation on polling, campaigning and speculation on campaigns. Thanks for the sobering reminder!
Posted by iamcoyote at January 11, 2008 12:24 PMI hate to even think about it but I am afraid some racist Idiot will try to assinate him. I would not wanto see that happen.
Posted by George E. Seeger at January 11, 2008 01:34 PM