We agree with Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama, we support the progressive values they support, and we share their dedication to making this nation better... That's why we're Democrats! :-)
I just received this in my inbox, and I can't help sharing it with you. I had the freakiest experience of my life when I attended the 2007 CPAC Dinner after receiving an invitation from a friend. Everyone was foaming at the mouth when Tom McClintock was screaming about how evil Al Gore is by "telling lies about the great global warming hoax". And honestly, Steve Poizner was no better when he screamed about how everyone else in Sacramento is an evil "tax-and-spend lib'rul!!!!"
But in case you're the curious type that likes hearing what the other side is saying, this is the event for you. Just make sure you can find a Republican friend who can get you in for free. 'Cuz believe me, you don't want to pay to have those Howard Jarvis crazies harass you with their "literature"! ;-)
Join Michael Reagan in Newport Beach to help take back America!!!
You Are Cordially Invited To The Western Conservative Political Action Conference 2009
"Preserving the Reagan Legacy" with radio talk show host and Presidential son Michael
Reagan and conservative California Congressman Tom McClintock serving as
Honorary Co-Chairs!
Friday, October 16th & Saturday, October 17th at the Radisson Hotel, in lovely
Last year's Conference Featured Speakers Including:
Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, Congressman Ed Royce, Ca. Ins. Commissioner Steve Poizner
Ca Senator Dennis Hollingsworth, Ca. Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, Majority Leader Tom DeLay,
Ron Prentice, Chair, ProtectMarriage.com, and Floyd Brown, ExposeObama.com, and many more!
GO TO THE WEBSITE AND REGISTER TODAY! GET AN EARLY-BIRD PRICE! SUPPORT A STUDENT REGISTRATION! JUST GO TO WWW.WESTERNCPAC.COMAND SIGN UP!!!
California
Conservative
Congressman Tom McClintcock
Tom McClintock is a principled conservative who is a leading light in the new Congress
Barack Obama nemisis
Floyd Brown
Seattle's Floyd Brown helped create the famous "Willie Horton" ad in the 1988 Presidential election. He made Obama's "Smears" list during the 2008 Presidential election. He is the author of "OBama Unmasked." Seewww.exposeobama.com
Michael Reagan
Michael Reagan, the eldest son of former President Ronald Reagan, hosts a national radio talk show program on the American Family Network. Visit www.reagan.com
This frightens me. I'm sorry, but I just can't ignore it any longer. I need to ask this question. Is President Obama considering privatizing Social Security and/or Medicare?
Word has it that President Obama intends to appoint a task force the week after next which will be charged with "reforming" Social Security. According to inside gossip, the task force will be led entirely by economists who were not able to see the $8 trillion housing bubble, the collapse of which is giving the country its sharpest downturn since the Great Depression. [...]
[...] Due to the reckless policies of the Rubin-Greenspan-Bush clique, this cohort has just seen [baby boomers'] housing equity wiped out with the collapse of the housing bubble. Tens of millions of baby boomers who might have felt reasonably secure three years ago are now approaching retirement with little or no equity in their homes. [...]
In short, the vast majority of baby boomers will be approaching retirement with little other than their Social Security and Medicare to support them. And now President Obama is apparently prepared to appoint a commission that will attack these only remaining pillars of support.
It is especially infuriating that this task force is likely to headed up by economists who somehow could not see an $8 trillion housing bubble. The incompetence of such economists has inflicted enormous pain on billions of people around the world. However, unlike people who fail in other professions, economists who mess up on the job just get promoted so that they can do even more harm.
Governing elites in Washington and Wall Street have devised a fiendishly clever "grand bargain" they want President Obama to embrace in the name of "fiscal responsibility." The government, they argue, having spent billions on bailing out the banks, can recover its costs by looting the Social Security system. They are also targeting Medicare and Medicaid. The pitch sounds preposterous to millions of ordinary working people anxious about their economic security and worried about their retirement years. But an impressive armada is lined up to push the idea--Washington's leading think tanks, the prestige media, tax-exempt foundations, skillful propagandists posing as economic experts and a self-righteous billionaire spending his fortune to save the nation from the elderly.
These players are promoting a tricky way to whack Social Security benefits, but to do it behind closed doors so the public cannot see what's happening or figure out which politicians to blame. The essential transaction would amount to misappropriating the trillions in Social Security taxes that workers have paid to finance their retirement benefits. This swindle is portrayed as "fiscal reform." In fact, it's the political equivalent of bait-and-switch fraud.
Oh yes, none other than Mr. "IOUSA", Republican billionaire Peter Peterson, is out on a mission to finish what George W. Bush started in destroying the bedrock American social safety net. And why is he out to take away working people's right to a poverty-free retirement? Bascially, he and his fellow "market fundamentalist" buddies hate The New Deal. They hate the fact that "socialist" policies have kept the American capitalist system intact, so they're out to dismantle our social safety net so they can have their laissez-faire nirvana.
But why is President Obama cozying up to this? Hasn't he promised us that he will protect Social Security and Medicare? Yes, he has. So why are we even talking about this "fiscal responsibility summit" that's nothing more than a radical right scheme in disguise? That's what we need to know.
Now's a good time for us to contact President Obama and our members of Congress, before any "fiscal responsibility" ponzi scheme takes hold. Again, we need to remind them that they work for us, not the "Broder-Friedman media establishment". We defeated Bush's privatization program in 2005, and we can defeat it again in 2009. With so many other crises to tackle, like health care and climate change, there's no reason to rush into the non-crisis of Social Security & Medicare.
We elected President Obama & the new Congress on the promise that they will bring change to Washington. So why should we let Washington change them? Let's remind them who they're working for and what kind of change we want to see on "entitlement reform".
It seemed from the start that President Obama really wasn't interested in the kind of raw partisan warfare that defined the Bush Era. After all, hasn't Obama preached "the politics of unity"? But now, it seems like those happy dreams of "bipartisanship" have been dashed.
I mean, wasn't this stimulus bill supposed to get at least 80 votes in the Senate? Wasn't Republican Judd Gregg supposed to be our Commerce Secretary? Weren't we all supposed to get along?
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming President Obama for the collapse of "bipartisanship". I just wonder if it was ever realistic for him to think the GOP would immediately cease fire and cooperate. After all, don't they stand to gain more if Obama fails than if this nation were to succeed with Democratic policies?
Am I wrong? Am I being too cynical? Or am I onto something? Will the President need to focus more on keeping Democrats together than bringing in all the Republicans? What are you thinking this weekend?
Let's chat about what "the end of bipartisanship" really means.
Really. President Obama needs to make a choice, and we need to push him to make the right choice. I've had enough of the "bipartisan" BS and the corporate media idiots chattering on about how success will be mesaured by whether or not John McCain likes the bill. Shouldn't we mesaure success on how many people are saved from financial catastrophe?
Paul Krugman hit the nail on the head today in diagnosing the disease in DC that's causing the stimulus bill to gradually weaken and worsen into nothingness.
What do you call someone who eliminates hundreds of thousands of American jobs, deprives millions of adequate health care and nutrition, undermines schools, but offers a $15,000 bonus to affluent people who flip their houses?
A proud centrist. For that is what the senators who ended up calling the tune on the stimulus bill just accomplished.
Even if the original Obama plan — around $800 billion in stimulus, with a substantial fraction of that total given over to ineffective tax cuts — had been enacted, it wouldn’t have been enough to fill the looming hole in the U.S. economy, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will amount to $2.9 trillion over the next three years.
Yet the centrists did their best to make the plan weaker and worse.
First off, the bill in its present shape is far too little to be very effective. How the hell can an $820 billion package with 40% of it consisting of near-worthless tax cuts be enough spending to fill that $2.9 trillion gap? And secondly, why were the most effective parts of the bill either trimmed down or completely eliminated? Studies have shown that direct aid, like food stamps and state & local government assistance, are the best ways to prevent an economy from failing. So why is President Obama so open to allowing a "stimulus bill" to pass that excludes what's really needed to stimulate this economy?
The problem, as Jane Hamsher pointed out this morning, is that effective provisions of the bill are being forsaken for the sake of "bipartisanship". Why? So Susan Collins and Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman can feel good about themselves? So Mitch McConnell and John Boehner can really have their way despite being in the minority? So "El Rushbo" Limbaugh can be "vindicated"?
Bipartisanship should be the means to an end, not some religious cult. There's no reason why aid for the working poor should be sacrificed for "bipartisanship". There's no reason why aid for states like California, states about to literally go bankrupt, should be sacrificed for "bipartisanship". There's no reason why kids should be deprived of a college education for the sake of "bipartisanship". There's no reason why people should be deprived of needed health care for the sake of "bipartisanship". And no, there's no reason why we shouldn't start investing in better energy choices for the sake of "bipartisanship".
President Obama made a serious mistake in elevating the process over the substance, and we need to correct that. Tell the President not to sacrifice his values for the sake of placating cruel and bloodthirsty Rethuglicans. If you have GOP members of Congress, tell them to stop holding needy people hostage for the sake of "bipartisanship". And if you have Democratic members of Congress, tell them to stand firm in supporting good provisions in the stimulus that actually help all of us in need.
We need real help, not empty rhetoric. We need a bill that puts people back to work, not a bill George W. Bush would be proud of. We need to remind our elected officials in Washington that they work for us, so they need to stop bending over backwards for stupid Beltway Pundits and start doing something for us.
I couldn't have possibly said it better than Jane Hamsher at HuffPo & FDL:
The stimulus package is consistently being attacked because not enough Republicans support it. The fact that the bill received no Republican votes in the House, and "only" three Republicans support the Senate version, is sufficient to conclude that it fails Obama's objective of being "bipartisan."
We'll overlook for the moment that two years ago, any bill Joe Lieberman voted for was considered "bipartisan." When Obama sketched out the goals for the stimulus package in early January, he started negotiating with himself by offering "huge tax cuts" as "a way to defuse conservative criticism and enlist Republican support."
But the biggest ground he gave up to the Republicans was control of the primary objective he set for the bill, that it have "bipartisan" support.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The purpose of the stimulus should NOT be to "show bipartisanship in action". No, the purpose should be putting people back to work and helping working-class people afford the necessities of life. By following the advice of the idiots in the Beltway Insiders' Chattering Class Club and bending over backwards to "be bipartisan" and give the GOP a sharp knife to stab him, President Obama may be undermining his own mandate.
Here's more of what Jane had to say:
If this becomes the template for all future sausage making between the White House and the Hill, progressive interests will continue to be offered up in sacrifice every time the Republicans decide they don't like something so the administration can appear to "rise above it all." And rather than being forced to defend their propositions, dithering "centrists" will continue to be patted on the head for pitching public temper tantrums, holding the Senate hostage and parading before the cameras like a bunch of peacocks until their egos are suitably stroked.
There is no inherent value in bipartisanship, it's the means to an end. If the administration doesn't define what that "end" is and gives the Republicans the power to determine success or failure by a simple refusal to participate, they will continue to do so.
How very true. So again, why do we care how "bipartisan" the process is and how many Republicans get to insert more stupid Bushian sh*t into this bill? Shouldn't we care more about getting a good bill passed ASAP that actually helps people? So go ahead, get as many Republicans as possible to support the best bill possible. But please, let's not forsake our own scruples for the sake of "bipartisanship".
I really don’t understand how bipartisanship is ever going to work when one of the parties is insane. Imagine trying to negotiate an agreement on dinner plans with your date, and you suggest Italian and she states her preference would be a meal of tire rims and anthrax. If you can figure out a way to split the difference there and find a meal you will both enjoy, you can probably figure out how bipartisanship is going to work the next few years.
Well, at least Balloon Juice gets it. And yes, I'm back... ;-)
I know there's been plenty of chatter lately on President-Elect Obama's foreign policy. In particular, I've heard the usual Beltway Pundits proclaim Obama must abandon his "leftist dovishness" and embrace his inner "center-right hawk" to be a "credible Commander-in-Chief". Meanwhile, I'm also seeing some progressives wail in despair over how Obama is supposedly abandoning them for "neocon-lite".
But what if both camps are wrong? What if today's revelation of the foreign policy/national security wing of the Obama Administration reveals something completely different? Hold on, because you may be surprised.
Now yes, Obama has two prominent ex-Republicans advising him. And yes, we don't even know if Defense Secretary Bob Gates and soon to be National Security Adviser Jim Jones even voted for the President-Elect. However, we need to remember that these two indivduals have never been part of the neoconservative cabal that caused so much damage in the Bush II Administration. While they're far from liberal internationalists, they do seem to hold a more pragmatic realist point of view that can help inform our next President understand the many dangers and challenges our nation faces. And if they provide "realist" reasons to support a more liberal internationalist (aka "progressive") foreign policy, more power to them.
So I do believe that we can get a glimpse into President Obama's foreign policy by looking at who will be on his national security team. But rather than looking at them and seeing a "neocon Obama", I see something different. Rather, I see an Obama Administration that will engage the world far differently than the current Administration has.
Honestly, it does look like Obama split the difference between realists who use diplomacy to keep threats at bay and liberal internationalists who use diplomacy to solve the world's problems. And frankly, I'm OK with it.
People talk about "hawkish" policies or people, but for national security focused analysts, with earned expertise over years of study, like myself, it's about America's history of strength going back to Truman that Bush-Cheney and the Republicans have made a mockery through their campaigns of fear, snubbing diplomacy for bellicose saber rattling, using the military as a threat instead of a very last resort, while undermining our moral authority by sending a message to underdeveloped nations that the rule of law across the globe is not to be respected by the most powerful.
What Obama faces in Central Asia was instigated under Ronald Reagan, which I'll leave for another time. But suffice it to say that it will take a strong team led by a 21st century mind to turn the U.S. ship of state in a new direction. Obama is that man, and today he proved he knows what it will take to get the job done through the choices of the people who will surround him.
Perhaps Obama's foreign policy team isn't wholly "progressive". Still, they're all great minds and they all agree on the value of diplomacy. Each may have a different view on diplomacy, but ultimately President Obama will be the one deciding what happens. And judging by the whole of his choices so far, I feel good about that.
Political Wire suggests that he may. In fact, behind-the-scenes mumbling from the McBush campaign has it that Powell may endorse Obama this weekend. Could it be true? I dunno.
I just love watching the ongoing trainwreck that was once the Republican Party. ;-)
We are all in this together. Necessity is the mother of bipartisanship. And so, for the first time in my life, I'll be pulling the Democratic lever in November. As the saying goes, God save the United States of America.
Who do you think this is? Lincoln Chafee? Jim Leach? Chuck Hagel? Some other moderate Republican disgusted with the current state of the GOP?
Nope, it's CHRISTOPHER BUCKLEY of "National Review"! Yes, William F. Buckley's son will be voting for a Democrat this fall! Crazy, huh? Nah, it's nothing compared to a "normal" day at the McCrazy campaign. ;-)
I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly that is not the finger I want next to that red button.
It is also disappointing to see him take on and support Bush's war in Iraq, even stating we might be there for another 100 years. For me John represents the entrenched and bankrupt policies of Washington-as-usual. The past 7 years have proven to be disastrous for our country. And I believe John's views on war, foreign policy, economics, environment, health care, education, national infrastructure and other important areas are much the same as those of the Bush administration.
I'm disappointed to see John represent himself politically in ways that are not accurate. He is not a moderate Republican. On some issues he is a maverick. But his voting record is far to the right. I fear for his nominations to our Supreme Court, and the consequent continuing loss of individual freedoms, especially regarding moral and religious issues. John is not a religious person, but he has taken every opportunity to ally himself with some really obnoxious and crazy fundamentalist ministers lately. I was also disappointed to see him cozy up to Bush because I know he hates that man. He disingenuously and famously put his arm around the guy, even after Bush had intensely disrespected him with lies and slander. So on these and many other instances, I don't see that John is the "straight talk express" he markets himself to be.
I guess those military veterans that know John McBush best refuse to support him. So why won't the corporate media cover this? Oh, that's right. This may hurt their dear "McMaverick Darling".
Are you as sick & tired of right-wing lies & smears as I am? If so, watch out! The same liars who spread untrue smears against John Kerry are back... And they're out to spread the ugliest lies about Barack Obama.
Please check out this urgent message from DNC Chairman Howard Dean... And please take action to stop the lies!
C4O Reader --
This morning our team here sent this email to a group of dedicated supporters, but I'm sending it to everyone I know.
In 2004, the media let right-wing crackpots like Jerome Corsi spread lies about John Kerry. Now Corsi is publishing another hit piece attacking Barack Obama.
This year I'm drawing the line -- we're not going to let Corsi and the Republicans get away with it again.
Go here to check out Corsi's track record of ideologically driven lies and conspiracy theories, then sign up for the DNC Rapid Response Team and help keep these dirty tricks from ruining another election.
I hope you'll forward this to everyone you know, too.
The past week has seen the mainstream corporate media continue their love affair with McBush. Ironically, this is the same media that Republicans have for years termed liberal.
Now, follow me on this one, as I'm moving quickly ...
The following block quotes are from an e-mail sent out by the Obama Campaign:
Just last week, McCain and his party attacked Barack Obama and ridiculed the idea that keeping your car tires inflated is an effective way to improve fuel efficiency and keep down the cost of gasoline. They even mailed out tire gauges as a joke.
I think the shortest response I can give is "Duh!"
Anyone who has limited mechanical experience with vehicles (or has a loved one who possesses such experience) has heard preaching ad nauseum regarding the need for properly inflated tires. This has been something known to millions for decades, but the MSM has gotten away with discounting this because McBush says it's simplistic. Sometimes the best ways for John and Jane Doe to assist with global issues, is something as simple as maintaining your vehicle properly. Not to mention it helps the pocketbook immensely.
The even more shocking thing to me, however, is that the MSM didn't call McCain or the RNC on this. All they did is laugh it off. McCain wasn't even made to eat his share of crow over such a stellar gaffe.
NEXT! . . .
Earlier this week, the McCain campaign put out an ad saying that Washington is broken.
Again, another obvious statement. The thing that the Rethuglicans don't mention is that Obama's been there 4 years ... their guy has been there 26 years. McBush has had a LOT more time to fix things, yet chooses to play the blame game. Look at McSame's voting record ... in the past 7.5 years, he's voted with Bush and the Republican Party 95% of the time. Maverick my @$$!
And again, the MSM is allowing him to make baseless claims without repercussions.
And Finally ...
Another ad uses scare tactics to claim Barack's tax policy will hurt middle class Americans.
The Media conveniently forgot that McSame's plan only helps the top echelon of wage earners. Over 100 million middle class families will take the tax burden of the upper class . . . the SAME upper class that has the ability to have people lobby for their tax loopholes, and who perpetuate the broken system that McSame talks about. Which party has spoken out against lobbyists and special interests? Certainly not the Rethuglicans!
Again and again it's painfully clear that McSame is truly the darling of the Mainstream Corporate Media ... the same media that the Right Wing-nuts loves to call Liberal!
And to hear the candidate speak to it himself:
So, how is McSame's campaign different than the normal Rethuglican faire? Where's the "Straight Talk Express"? And, lord knows if he can't campaign differently than the Republican standard of smear and fear, then how will he TRULY Govern?
What I mean, instead, is that know-nothingism - the insistence that there are simple, brute-force, instant-gratification answers to every problem, and that there's something effeminate and weak about anyone who suggests otherwise - has become the core of Republican policy and political strategy. The party's de facto slogan has become: "Real men don't think things through." [...]
In any case, remember this the next time someone calls for an end to partisanship, for working together to solve the country's problems. It's not going to happen - not as long as one of America's two great parties believes that when it comes to politics, stupidity is the best policy.
Why isn't anyone else in the "mainstream" corporate media asking this about the GOP's electoral "strategery"? Have you ever before seen so much idiocy packed into one party's platform? I didn't think so.
But hey, remember not to think in public when you're around Republicans... :-D
1. No attacks on posters or other commenters. 2. No thread hijacking is allowed. 3. Foul language is permitted, but language that is demeaning of one's race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and/or gender identity is NOT.
The administrators reserve the right to moderate and/or delete any comments that violate the Terms of Use.
Comments, suggestions, or complaints may be sent to c4oblog@yahoo.com
Posts
