Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Gallup Poll EXCLUDING Nader from Polls becuase of "internal judgement"
To protest the sheer arrogance of the Gallup Organization.
In a recent WSJ/NBC national poll, Ralph Nader pulls 5 percent.
Contrast that to the most recent Gallup national poll, where Nader polls a fraction of one percent.
Why the big difference?
Answer: Gallup, the 800-pound gorilla of the polling world, doesn't list Ralph Nader as one of the Presidential candidates in the primary polling question.
Are you kidding me?
No.
We are not kidding you.
And guess who the Commission on Presidential Debates depends on to do its polling to see which Presidential candidates get to debate before tens of millions of Americans tonight in Nashville?
You guessed it: Gallup.
I called Frank Newport.
Newport is the editor-in-chief at Gallup.
I asked Newport:
Is there an objective standard you use to keep Ralph off your primary polling question?
"No," Newport said.
"We use our internal judgment to decide."
Whoa!
Gallup's "internal judgment" keeps Ralph Nader out of their polling.
So, I tried again.
Any ballpark levels of support Gallup looks to as a threshold?
"No," Newport said.
Again, it was just subject to unidentified "internal judgment criteria."
What a total crock of you know what.
There are some polling agencies -- such as Ipsos/McClatchey and CNN/Opinion Research Corp. -- that include all the major third party candidates.
Not Gallup.
In a recent WSJ/NBC national poll, Ralph Nader pulls 5 percent.
Contrast that to the most recent Gallup national poll, where Nader polls a fraction of one percent.
Why the big difference?
Answer: Gallup, the 800-pound gorilla of the polling world, doesn't list Ralph Nader as one of the Presidential candidates in the primary polling question.
Are you kidding me?
No.
We are not kidding you.
And guess who the Commission on Presidential Debates depends on to do its polling to see which Presidential candidates get to debate before tens of millions of Americans tonight in Nashville?
You guessed it: Gallup.
I called Frank Newport.
Newport is the editor-in-chief at Gallup.
I asked Newport:
Is there an objective standard you use to keep Ralph off your primary polling question?
"No," Newport said.
"We use our internal judgment to decide."
Whoa!
Gallup's "internal judgment" keeps Ralph Nader out of their polling.
So, I tried again.
Any ballpark levels of support Gallup looks to as a threshold?
"No," Newport said.
Again, it was just subject to unidentified "internal judgment criteria."
What a total crock of you know what.
There are some polling agencies -- such as Ipsos/McClatchey and CNN/Opinion Research Corp. -- that include all the major third party candidates.
Not Gallup.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Nader is stealing votes from MCCAIN! NOT OBAMA! - one of the best interviews yet.
http://www.votenader.org/blog/2008/10/04/nader-at-commonwealth-club/
(scroll down the page a little)
Going to be on C-span tonight!
Dont worry the sound gets better as you watch
(scroll down the page a little)
Going to be on C-span tonight!
Dont worry the sound gets better as you watch
McCain and Obama - both want free markets when we need regulation
How Free Should a Free Market Be?
By ALEX BERENSON
Published: October 4, 2008
Is this the end of hypercapitalism?
For nearly a generation, the United States has driven growth by deregulating markets, lowering tax rates and promoting trade. Across wide swaths of the economy — from airlines to banks to energy to telecommunications — Washington stood aside, believing less regulation would produce broad prosperity, even at the cost of greater income inequality.
Now, with Washington setting aside $700 billion to bail out financial companies, the economy weakening daily and the Democrats likely to enlarge their majorities in Congress, it may seem that the United States is shifting away from faith in markets and distrust of government.
In Europe, some political leaders, including conservatives like President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, have declared the death of laissez-faire economics. “A certain idea of globalization is drawing to a close with the end of a financial capitalism that imposed its logic on the whole economy,” Mr. Sarkozy said last month. “The idea that the markets are always right was a crazy idea.”
What about America? In one sense, the present crisis would seem likely to continue the retreat from the free-market ideas associated with Ronald Reagan and President Bush suggested by the passage of the Medicare drug benefit plan in 2003 and the failure of Mr. Bush’s proposal to privatize Social Security in 2005, the centerpiece of his vision of an “ownership society.” Then, in 2006, Democrats took Congress for the first time in 12 years.
Whoever becomes president in January, lawmakers will be under pressure to strengthen financial regulation and give more resources to agencies like the Food and Drug Administration, which have appeared overwhelmed in recent years. Some critics of the bailout legislation complain, for instance, that at the same time that it empowers the Treasury Department to buy hundreds of billions in troubled debt from financial firms, it fails to fortify oversight of the nation’s financial system.
But Americans are fundamentally suspicious of government in a way that Europeans are not, a cultural and political difference that stretches back centuries. Anyone expecting a major expansion of Washington’s powers after November — whether under a Barack Obama or John McCain administration — may be disappointed. - read more at nytimes.com
By ALEX BERENSON
Published: October 4, 2008
Is this the end of hypercapitalism?
For nearly a generation, the United States has driven growth by deregulating markets, lowering tax rates and promoting trade. Across wide swaths of the economy — from airlines to banks to energy to telecommunications — Washington stood aside, believing less regulation would produce broad prosperity, even at the cost of greater income inequality.
Now, with Washington setting aside $700 billion to bail out financial companies, the economy weakening daily and the Democrats likely to enlarge their majorities in Congress, it may seem that the United States is shifting away from faith in markets and distrust of government.
In Europe, some political leaders, including conservatives like President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, have declared the death of laissez-faire economics. “A certain idea of globalization is drawing to a close with the end of a financial capitalism that imposed its logic on the whole economy,” Mr. Sarkozy said last month. “The idea that the markets are always right was a crazy idea.”
What about America? In one sense, the present crisis would seem likely to continue the retreat from the free-market ideas associated with Ronald Reagan and President Bush suggested by the passage of the Medicare drug benefit plan in 2003 and the failure of Mr. Bush’s proposal to privatize Social Security in 2005, the centerpiece of his vision of an “ownership society.” Then, in 2006, Democrats took Congress for the first time in 12 years.
Whoever becomes president in January, lawmakers will be under pressure to strengthen financial regulation and give more resources to agencies like the Food and Drug Administration, which have appeared overwhelmed in recent years. Some critics of the bailout legislation complain, for instance, that at the same time that it empowers the Treasury Department to buy hundreds of billions in troubled debt from financial firms, it fails to fortify oversight of the nation’s financial system.
But Americans are fundamentally suspicious of government in a way that Europeans are not, a cultural and political difference that stretches back centuries. Anyone expecting a major expansion of Washington’s powers after November — whether under a Barack Obama or John McCain administration — may be disappointed. - read more at nytimes.com
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Of, By and For the People…Not the Parties.
The idea of opening the debates to include voices beyond that of
the two major parties seems to have the power to unite people
from either end of the broad spectrum of American viewpoints…
"The Commission on Presidential Debates is a corrupt
stranglehold on our democracy." ---Phil Donahue
Many people would likely expect to hear such a quote from
someone described as "having gone off the deep end of the
left-wing", but how many would expect a person so often
described as a "right-wing extremist" to agree…
"I'm for more open debates. I think we have nothing to fear
by allowing people to be seen and to argue and to talk with
each other and I think the very concept of an elite commission
deciding for the American people who deserves to be heard
is profoundly wrong." ---Newt Gingrich
And who would expect an actual participant from either camp
to confess such complicity…
"I'm trying to forget the whole damn experience of those debates.
'Cause I think it's too much show business and too much
prompting, too much artificiality, and not really debates. They're
rehearsed appearances." ---Former President George HW Bush
The following petition is being circulated by Open Debates,
a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization
working to ensure the public's interests:
We, the undersigned, support Open Debates' campaign to reform the presidential debate process. We believe that the presidential debates should serve the American people first, not political parties. We support replacing the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates with the nonpartisan Citizens' Debate Commission, so that inspiring formats can be employed, pressing national issues can be addressed, and popular independent and third party candidates can be included.
Please visit this link to add your name and to see the
growing list of your fellow citizens in support of debate reform.
http://opendebates.com/yourrole/petition/index.php
Whether you choose to sign or not, please check out
http://opendebates.com/ for yourself to find a wealth of reliable
resources on the topic, including this well-documented overview:
The Commission on Presidential Debates is a Tool of the
Major Parties - It's Time for a Citizens' Debate Commission
http://opendebates.com/theissue/
the two major parties seems to have the power to unite people
from either end of the broad spectrum of American viewpoints…
"The Commission on Presidential Debates is a corrupt
stranglehold on our democracy." ---Phil Donahue
Many people would likely expect to hear such a quote from
someone described as "having gone off the deep end of the
left-wing", but how many would expect a person so often
described as a "right-wing extremist" to agree…
"I'm for more open debates. I think we have nothing to fear
by allowing people to be seen and to argue and to talk with
each other and I think the very concept of an elite commission
deciding for the American people who deserves to be heard
is profoundly wrong." ---Newt Gingrich
And who would expect an actual participant from either camp
to confess such complicity…
"I'm trying to forget the whole damn experience of those debates.
'Cause I think it's too much show business and too much
prompting, too much artificiality, and not really debates. They're
rehearsed appearances." ---Former President George HW Bush
The following petition is being circulated by Open Debates,
a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization
working to ensure the public's interests:
We, the undersigned, support Open Debates' campaign to reform the presidential debate process. We believe that the presidential debates should serve the American people first, not political parties. We support replacing the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates with the nonpartisan Citizens' Debate Commission, so that inspiring formats can be employed, pressing national issues can be addressed, and popular independent and third party candidates can be included.
Please visit this link to add your name and to see the
growing list of your fellow citizens in support of debate reform.
http://opendebates.com/yourrole/petition/index.php
Whether you choose to sign or not, please check out
http://opendebates.com/ for yourself to find a wealth of reliable
resources on the topic, including this well-documented overview:
The Commission on Presidential Debates is a Tool of the
Major Parties - It's Time for a Citizens' Debate Commission
http://opendebates.com/theissue/
Friday, October 3, 2008
Mark Udall tried - Thanks! (This is his letter to me)
Dear Joe,
Thank you for contacting me about the bill to aid financial firms. I appreciate hearing from you.
When I look ed at it through the eyes of Coloradans, I didn't see what they needed to see. Instead, I saw a $700 billion bailout for Wall Street banks , no assurance taxpayers will get their money back, no sure process for holding CEOs accountable and limiting taxpayer- funded golden parachutes , and not enough to address the mortgage crisis at the root of our economic problems that is forcing hard-working Coloradans out of their homes. What I saw was a "rescue" for Wall Street that did nothing to begin fixing the broken finan cial system that led us to this crisis. I do not mak e the perfect the enemy of the good or operate as a "my-way-or-the-highway" legislator. G reed and l ack of oversight on Wall Street has brought a grave economic crisis demanding Congress ional act ion . Bu t I recall the words of a legendary coach , John Wooden, who told his players, "Boys, be quick. B ut don't hurry." After rejection of the first version, I hoped we would be quick to work together, improve the bill , and pass one that would deserve and obtain broad support in Colorado and across the country. But that didn't happen. Instead, the Senate made just one improvement , then added hundreds of pages of "sweeteners" aimed at winning ov er those of us who had opposed the bill . Many were things I support , including middle-class tax breaks and provisions to aid the transition to a new energy economy . But adding them didn't change the fact that Americans deserve a better solution to our ec onomic crisis than the one the House ea rlier rejected. We could and should h ave added provisions for independent oversight of the program, a stronger equity position for taxpayers , help for responsible homeowners seeking to refinance mortgages, and a guarantee taxpayers will not be on the hook for lavish payouts to irresponsible CEOs. Th e bill lacked those, and I could not support it.
Thanks again for contacting me. For more information, please visit www.house.gov/markudall
Warm Regards,
Mark Udall
Member of Congress
Gotta love the headline from CNN Money - speaks for itself
"Stocks slump despite bank rescue"
Dow suffers worst weekly performance since the week after 9/11 attacks, as investors remain fearful about the economy.
Dow suffers worst weekly performance since the week after 9/11 attacks, as investors remain fearful about the economy.
A sad day for americans
Oh of course the corporations wouldn't stop at "no". The house passed the bailout. Now watch as your dollar becomes worth less and less.
Time to start being careful about who you vote for.
Picket sign - "The bailout - like giving you $1000 to punch me in the nuts"
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Critics See Only Slight Changes in new bailout plan
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/1/as_senate_prepares_to_vote_on
click on the link above
As Senate Prepares to Vote on Revised Wall St. Bailout, Critics See Only Slight Changes Following Widespread Public Opposition
Following Monday’s rejection in the House, the Senate plans to vote today on the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street. Lawmakers are said to have revised the bill following public outcry, but critics say the measure includes only slight, cosmetic changes. We get an update from Washington insider and former Senate Banking Committee chief economist Robert Johnson and speak to veteran journalist William Greider of The Nation magazine. [includes rush transcript]
click on the link above
As Senate Prepares to Vote on Revised Wall St. Bailout, Critics See Only Slight Changes Following Widespread Public Opposition
Following Monday’s rejection in the House, the Senate plans to vote today on the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street. Lawmakers are said to have revised the bill following public outcry, but critics say the measure includes only slight, cosmetic changes. We get an update from Washington insider and former Senate Banking Committee chief economist Robert Johnson and speak to veteran journalist William Greider of The Nation magazine. [includes rush transcript]
Palin is a problem
Palin's history
Steven Wu
Issue date: 9/22/08 Section: Opinion
PrintEmail Article Tools
Page 1 of 1
McCain's Vice Presidential running mate, Alaskan governor Sarah Palin, is being endorsed as a "pro-family" and "pro-women" candidate, but recently investigated statistics may suggest otherwise. Alaska has a negative reputation for abuse cases, making Palin's state one of the "most dangerous places in the country for women and children" (Rood, ABC News). It has the highest number of forcible rapes per capita compared to the rest of the United States. Most people consider the state of assault and abuse an epidemic, including Palin. However, her history reveals her lack of initiative in tackling the problems.
State troopers are the ones that respond to domestic violence calls, however there is insufficient funding to support the troopers. Frequently, only one trooper is available to respond at any given time, but two are required. Organizations for Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault seem very low on Palin's priority list, where as oil and gas rank very highly. Although 2% of the current budget was allocated for victim assistance, extra money would not go to prevention of the crimes. It also cannot ensure "accountability of offenders" as stated by a panel investigating the situation. In her defense, the director of an abused women's group said Palin has played an active role in speaking out against domestic abuse.
The state legislature proposed a multi-million dollar plan to take care of offenses within the state, however, the governor's office postponed the commencement. Later, the most adamant supporter of the policy was fired after deciding to not dismiss a trooper who Palin said threatened her family.
Republican state legislators have filed a lawsuit against the Democratic Party, trying to prevent them from investigating whether or not Palin violated her power in firing Commissioner Walt Monegan.
These actions sum up to a very questionable candidate; one who claims to be a strong advocate of women's rights, but seems to have turned her back on problems that affect women in her state. Seeing this, it is hard not to question what her true intentions for Vice President are and whether she can really be trusted. Would she fire someone else or manipulate the situation and her power to try and mold things to her will? This is for us, as voters, to decide on our own.
Steven Wu
Issue date: 9/22/08 Section: Opinion
PrintEmail Article Tools
Page 1 of 1
McCain's Vice Presidential running mate, Alaskan governor Sarah Palin, is being endorsed as a "pro-family" and "pro-women" candidate, but recently investigated statistics may suggest otherwise. Alaska has a negative reputation for abuse cases, making Palin's state one of the "most dangerous places in the country for women and children" (Rood, ABC News). It has the highest number of forcible rapes per capita compared to the rest of the United States. Most people consider the state of assault and abuse an epidemic, including Palin. However, her history reveals her lack of initiative in tackling the problems.
State troopers are the ones that respond to domestic violence calls, however there is insufficient funding to support the troopers. Frequently, only one trooper is available to respond at any given time, but two are required. Organizations for Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault seem very low on Palin's priority list, where as oil and gas rank very highly. Although 2% of the current budget was allocated for victim assistance, extra money would not go to prevention of the crimes. It also cannot ensure "accountability of offenders" as stated by a panel investigating the situation. In her defense, the director of an abused women's group said Palin has played an active role in speaking out against domestic abuse.
The state legislature proposed a multi-million dollar plan to take care of offenses within the state, however, the governor's office postponed the commencement. Later, the most adamant supporter of the policy was fired after deciding to not dismiss a trooper who Palin said threatened her family.
Republican state legislators have filed a lawsuit against the Democratic Party, trying to prevent them from investigating whether or not Palin violated her power in firing Commissioner Walt Monegan.
These actions sum up to a very questionable candidate; one who claims to be a strong advocate of women's rights, but seems to have turned her back on problems that affect women in her state. Seeing this, it is hard not to question what her true intentions for Vice President are and whether she can really be trusted. Would she fire someone else or manipulate the situation and her power to try and mold things to her will? This is for us, as voters, to decide on our own.
Wow is Sarah Palin the biggest d-bag or what?
This is just a general comment.
She cancels the bridge in alaska - the "bridge to nowhere" and keeps all the money!
LOL yeah thanks Palin.
PS - Palin is also a creationist and anti-abortion. You can see the crazy in her eyes. LOL!
She cancels the bridge in alaska - the "bridge to nowhere" and keeps all the money!
LOL yeah thanks Palin.
PS - Palin is also a creationist and anti-abortion. You can see the crazy in her eyes. LOL!
Biden - Friend of credit cards
Biden and son - friends of the credit card industry (Updated)
Ed Lasky
As more details emerge about Senator Joe Biden's track record, more questions are emerging about the wisdom of Barack Obama in selecting him to be his Vice-Presidential running mate.
One area of concern is revealed by Biden's moniker 'The Senator from MBNA." MBNA is a large credit card company now owned by the Bank of America that was formerly domiciled in Biden's home state of Delaware. As a Senator, Biden advocated for the credit-card industry and received large donations from MBNA, in particular. He supported a bankruptcy bill that made it arduous for consumers to escape from their credit card debt by filing for bankruptcy.
Today's New York Times is reporting that the largesse of MBNA also extended to Joe Biden's son, Hunter, who was paid large sums ($100,000) every year from 2001 to 2005 as a "consultant" to MBNA. Hunter serves as a lawyer and lobbyist in Washington-as do many other family members of Congressmen.
The irony is palpable. Barack Obama has made protecting consumers from credit card companies-who he portrays as predatory -- a signature issue. In late 2007, Obama introduced his "Credit Card Safety Act" to help consumers evaluate credit card agreements
Just a few months ago he spoke out against credit card companies and specifically addressed the power of credit card companies stating he "fought against the credit card industry's bankruptcy bill that made it harder for working families to climb out of debt" and criticized John McCain for supporting the very same bankruptcy bill that Joe Biden and his son supported and promoted. He has called for new restrictions on "predatory" credit card companies he says deceive consumers into piling up massive debt they have little hope of repaying and spoke of his opposition to the overhaul of the bankruptcy laws that "Biden and Son" supported and promises to overturn the very law that they helped to pass.
File under cynicism and hypocrisy-two words that are more appropriate than hope and change in describing the Obama campaign.
UPDATE
Jim Geraghty reminds us that it is nice to be a Senator's son:
He points out that Hunter Biden at 28, less than two years out of law school, was already a "senior vice president" at Delaware-based credit card giant MBNA."
Ed Lasky
As more details emerge about Senator Joe Biden's track record, more questions are emerging about the wisdom of Barack Obama in selecting him to be his Vice-Presidential running mate.
One area of concern is revealed by Biden's moniker 'The Senator from MBNA." MBNA is a large credit card company now owned by the Bank of America that was formerly domiciled in Biden's home state of Delaware. As a Senator, Biden advocated for the credit-card industry and received large donations from MBNA, in particular. He supported a bankruptcy bill that made it arduous for consumers to escape from their credit card debt by filing for bankruptcy.
Today's New York Times is reporting that the largesse of MBNA also extended to Joe Biden's son, Hunter, who was paid large sums ($100,000) every year from 2001 to 2005 as a "consultant" to MBNA. Hunter serves as a lawyer and lobbyist in Washington-as do many other family members of Congressmen.
The irony is palpable. Barack Obama has made protecting consumers from credit card companies-who he portrays as predatory -- a signature issue. In late 2007, Obama introduced his "Credit Card Safety Act" to help consumers evaluate credit card agreements
Just a few months ago he spoke out against credit card companies and specifically addressed the power of credit card companies stating he "fought against the credit card industry's bankruptcy bill that made it harder for working families to climb out of debt" and criticized John McCain for supporting the very same bankruptcy bill that Joe Biden and his son supported and promoted. He has called for new restrictions on "predatory" credit card companies he says deceive consumers into piling up massive debt they have little hope of repaying and spoke of his opposition to the overhaul of the bankruptcy laws that "Biden and Son" supported and promises to overturn the very law that they helped to pass.
File under cynicism and hypocrisy-two words that are more appropriate than hope and change in describing the Obama campaign.
UPDATE
Jim Geraghty reminds us that it is nice to be a Senator's son:
He points out that Hunter Biden at 28, less than two years out of law school, was already a "senior vice president" at Delaware-based credit card giant MBNA."
How to deny the second bailout bill
Call Congress' main switchboard number at 202.224.3121.
Ask for your member of Congress.
(If the main switchboard number is jammed, you can Google your member's name and find a direct dial phone number. If your member of Congress voted against the first bailout bill, you can find their direct dial phone number on this spreadsheet our staff just cobbled together.)
Tell the person who answers the phone to please take a message for your elected representative.
The message for your member of Congress is this:
Please vote against the bailout bill.
Call 202.224.3121.
Ask for your member of Congress.
(If the main switchboard number is jammed, you can Google your member's name and find a direct dial phone number. If your member of Congress voted against the first bailout bill, you can find their direct dial phone number on this spreadsheet our staff just cobbled together.)
Tell the person who answers the phone to please take a message for your elected representative.
The message for your member of Congress is this:
Please vote against the bailout bill.
Call 202.224.3121.
Tell your member of Congress:
Please vote no on the bailout.
Let's crank it up.
And get it done.
No Debate on Democracy Now!
here is the link to the broadcast to listen for yourself...
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/2/no_debate_how_the_republican_and
The Obama and McCain campaigns jointly negotiated a detailed secret contract dictating the terms of all the 2008 debates. This includes who gets to participate, as well as the topics raised during the debates. We speak to Open Debates founder and executive director George Farah...
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Why the U.S. should welcome the emergence of a viable third party
From the blog "Headgear"
I posted this last night on a blog called debatethedebate.com and I wanted to post it here too.
You can lead a horse to water... I wonder what would happen if people everywhere would take up the practice of questioning everything all of the time. Because, every time an individual gets out of the proverbial box and engages in critical and creative thought, something original and fascinating is bound to happen... When universities were first formed, the point was this; to engage people in progressive thought processes that would propel the human family foward and renew our resolve to improve our collective lot. Of course, after a while the educational process becomes diluted and formulaic. Inevitably, one or more people will give the collegiate experience a shot in the arm via some perposterous declaration like; the right to die on ones own terms or that the earth is actually round and the sun is not the center of the Universe. The ivory tower burns and the phoenix perdictably arises from the desecration, renewed.You do not have to appreciate any of this but the irrepresible socio-political evolution of any nation is necessary for it's survival. The United States of America(My beloved) is being called on by it's current circumstances to evolve or...That We have every reason to welcome a third party into our broken and tired political system should go without saying. headgear.blogspot.com
I posted this last night on a blog called debatethedebate.com and I wanted to post it here too.
You can lead a horse to water... I wonder what would happen if people everywhere would take up the practice of questioning everything all of the time. Because, every time an individual gets out of the proverbial box and engages in critical and creative thought, something original and fascinating is bound to happen... When universities were first formed, the point was this; to engage people in progressive thought processes that would propel the human family foward and renew our resolve to improve our collective lot. Of course, after a while the educational process becomes diluted and formulaic. Inevitably, one or more people will give the collegiate experience a shot in the arm via some perposterous declaration like; the right to die on ones own terms or that the earth is actually round and the sun is not the center of the Universe. The ivory tower burns and the phoenix perdictably arises from the desecration, renewed.You do not have to appreciate any of this but the irrepresible socio-political evolution of any nation is necessary for it's survival. The United States of America(My beloved) is being called on by it's current circumstances to evolve or...That We have every reason to welcome a third party into our broken and tired political system should go without saying. headgear.blogspot.com
Director Barry Sonnefeld - supports Nader tonight on Late show
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu_moia-oVI
- kinda takes a while but makes comments later on saying "vote for the candidate who was teh editor of the Harvard law review" - aka Ralph Nader
- kinda takes a while but makes comments later on saying "vote for the candidate who was teh editor of the Harvard law review" - aka Ralph Nader
Some things you might not know are important if you get all your information from TV
From Seth
I need to remark on a notion that I would've thought was self-evident, but apparently isn't. A two-party system does not mean only two takes on any given issue. Parties consist of groups of people with similar ideologies about most issues. Those ideologies often conflict, and within any ideology that is under the fold of a given party, there can be numerous ways to approach an issue. All ideas are welcome, some just suck.
Brendan's Contribution 3
The fact is that the opinions of 3rd parties DONT matter. Not to me, and not to the vast, vast majority of American voters. Why? Because they are wrong? No, although as I said from what Ive heard of Mr. Nader's ideas I have not been impressed.
They do not matter because they dont join a team and play ball with the rest of us. They are the ones standing in the bleachers heckling players in a difficult, intense game, all doing the best they can, while they stand there and take pot shots in the shade, fat and lazy. These third party folks MUST not want me to take their ideas seriously, otherwise they would join a team and get in the game.
So I might agree TOTALLY with Nader, but it doesnt matter. Thats right, it matters not. Because Nader doesnt take ME and MY VOTE seriously enough to join a team so that he actually has a shot at having his ideas make a difference in society. Im forced to choose between candidates that I dont agree with - not because our system is corrupt, but because Nader decides not to play by the rules.
Truthfully, though, I dont think "most people agree more with third parties." If most, or just more, people agreed with Nader then youd here more candidates talking like him, or you might just find the Democrats absorm him into their own party, or the Green Party suddenly has a massive following - none of which are actually happening. Nader is fringe, he's "out there," Im afraid, which is yet another reason he's not getting a chance to be president -- because most Americans think he's wrong.
And who knows? Maybe one day an independent will be president -- we do have independent Senators, after all. But she or he wont be president because they sit on the sidelines and heckle and say the system is corrupt and corporations and military and corporate militaries and military corporations. She or he will win because they get on the stump and campaign and convince most people theyre right.
And dont knock poli sci school, dude, come on now. Lets be civil. Ive been to poli sci school and Im going to one of the best poli sci schools next year. The kids there are there because theyve worked hard and care enough to learn about our system from the experts. Almost everyone there wants to work for change of some kind (why go to poli sci school to defend the status quo?). Theyre good, very idealistic people working and striving to change things for the better, however they may view "the better." Theyre idealists, not scheemers. So be nice to the poli sci kids, okay?
I think that brings my total contribution to somewhere around $0.06.
They do not matter because they dont join a team and play ball with the rest of us. They are the ones standing in the bleachers heckling players in a difficult, intense game, all doing the best they can, while they stand there and take pot shots in the shade, fat and lazy. These third party folks MUST not want me to take their ideas seriously, otherwise they would join a team and get in the game.
So I might agree TOTALLY with Nader, but it doesnt matter. Thats right, it matters not. Because Nader doesnt take ME and MY VOTE seriously enough to join a team so that he actually has a shot at having his ideas make a difference in society. Im forced to choose between candidates that I dont agree with - not because our system is corrupt, but because Nader decides not to play by the rules.
Truthfully, though, I dont think "most people agree more with third parties." If most, or just more, people agreed with Nader then youd here more candidates talking like him, or you might just find the Democrats absorm him into their own party, or the Green Party suddenly has a massive following - none of which are actually happening. Nader is fringe, he's "out there," Im afraid, which is yet another reason he's not getting a chance to be president -- because most Americans think he's wrong.
And who knows? Maybe one day an independent will be president -- we do have independent Senators, after all. But she or he wont be president because they sit on the sidelines and heckle and say the system is corrupt and corporations and military and corporate militaries and military corporations. She or he will win because they get on the stump and campaign and convince most people theyre right.
And dont knock poli sci school, dude, come on now. Lets be civil. Ive been to poli sci school and Im going to one of the best poli sci schools next year. The kids there are there because theyve worked hard and care enough to learn about our system from the experts. Almost everyone there wants to work for change of some kind (why go to poli sci school to defend the status quo?). Theyre good, very idealistic people working and striving to change things for the better, however they may view "the better." Theyre idealists, not scheemers. So be nice to the poli sci kids, okay?
I think that brings my total contribution to somewhere around $0.06.
Joe's Contribution
Joe said, in his commentary on my blog, the following (Im posting it here for convenience):
I think our system now is completely corrupt. I do agree that is is possible that we might need to work it from the inside out.
It is possible that the only way we are going to get real change is for someone to go in, through all of poly sci school pretending to be for the party that they are associated with. Work there way up the system, take all the money from the lobbyists and play the game. Somehow make it to the presidency and tell all the lobbyists to fuck off. and change the system...
But to not have people even understanding what the third parties stand for or even hear there ideas is just a crime. You yourself said that you don;t know what their messages are. And maybe that is because you think they don;t matter... but if you don;t hear other ideas it is hard not to think the ones you are hearing are the ones that matter.
it is the same as when you take a art history class and you learn about the sistine chapel... Your eyes go WOW!
I think our system now is completely corrupt. I do agree that is is possible that we might need to work it from the inside out.
It is possible that the only way we are going to get real change is for someone to go in, through all of poly sci school pretending to be for the party that they are associated with. Work there way up the system, take all the money from the lobbyists and play the game. Somehow make it to the presidency and tell all the lobbyists to fuck off. and change the system...
But to not have people even understanding what the third parties stand for or even hear there ideas is just a crime. You yourself said that you don;t know what their messages are. And maybe that is because you think they don;t matter... but if you don;t hear other ideas it is hard not to think the ones you are hearing are the ones that matter.
it is the same as when you take a art history class and you learn about the sistine chapel... Your eyes go WOW!
Brendan Contribution 2
Thats why we have primaries Joe!
The only way youre going to get more than 2 parties in this country is if you totally revamp the political institutional structure of the United States. Which is NEVER going to happen without a vote from Congress, which is unlikely to occur given that change is so very very costly and difficult.
Check out Paul Pierson's Politics in Time for a good read about this, but he points out that decisions that are made early-on in the institution-building process often have lasting and unitended consequences for the societies they govern. These early decisions then become locked-in, meaning they are increasingly costly and difficult to change.
But I suppose it is possible, but definitely not without working the system from the inside out. Not to mention that it would be undemocratic to just impose a new system from the outside, even if it is a better -- namely Parliamentary, or any system based on proportional representation -- system that will allow multiple parties to compete.
Even countries with PR systems have to form coalitions in any event, so two large coalitions usually emerge even with more pluralistic voting regimes. There is something to be said about a society making its decisions based off a democratic system, wherein if more than 50% of a country want a given policy, and if that policy doesnt take away the rights of anyone else (majority or minority), then that policy should be enacted. Policies should meet the criteria of a democratically-approved pareto optimum, or not be enacted at all.
My $0.02.
The only way youre going to get more than 2 parties in this country is if you totally revamp the political institutional structure of the United States. Which is NEVER going to happen without a vote from Congress, which is unlikely to occur given that change is so very very costly and difficult.
Check out Paul Pierson's Politics in Time for a good read about this, but he points out that decisions that are made early-on in the institution-building process often have lasting and unitended consequences for the societies they govern. These early decisions then become locked-in, meaning they are increasingly costly and difficult to change.
But I suppose it is possible, but definitely not without working the system from the inside out. Not to mention that it would be undemocratic to just impose a new system from the outside, even if it is a better -- namely Parliamentary, or any system based on proportional representation -- system that will allow multiple parties to compete.
Even countries with PR systems have to form coalitions in any event, so two large coalitions usually emerge even with more pluralistic voting regimes. There is something to be said about a society making its decisions based off a democratic system, wherein if more than 50% of a country want a given policy, and if that policy doesnt take away the rights of anyone else (majority or minority), then that policy should be enacted. Policies should meet the criteria of a democratically-approved pareto optimum, or not be enacted at all.
My $0.02.
Retorting Third Parties, the Seth Version, Pt. 2
(This was an email reply to some comments made on my initial post. I think it's helpful in fleshing out some of the ideas in the original post.)
I have, in my past, been a stalwart Green Party supporter. I don't have time to go into a detailed explanation, but suffice it to say, I did, however, become very quickly disillusioned with what they were trying to provide. I believe in government, particularly a centralized government that can approach all citizens in a balanced way, and I believe strongly in its ability to help those who are unable to help themselves. As a consequence, any vote for a libertarian candidate is way way way out.
I strongly believe in Obama. I see in him a history that has the potential to craft a great man and I see someone now who is fulfilling that potential. He's reasoned, compassionate, thoughtful, assertive. If I got all of my information from the mass media, my opinion may be different. Fortunately, I do vast quantities of research. Doing research, in fact, is my job and I'm quite good at it. When you tell me that if I research more, I'll come to a different conclusion, you're misguided. I do encourage everyone to do all the research they have the time or inclination for. I wish they'd do much more. We do live in a culture that does not promote individual thought or expression as well as it ought to, and critical thinking as well as self-motivated learning are large parts of what I try to encourage in others.
Nader was a revolutionary presence in the 70's. He helped bring about great and necessary changes that improved our drinking water and improved the safety of our cars, along with countless other endeavors. How did he do that, though? As a lobbyist and activist. His ego has overtaken his reason and he's forgotten how to be truly effective. So it goes, I guess.
I have, in my past, been a stalwart Green Party supporter. I don't have time to go into a detailed explanation, but suffice it to say, I did, however, become very quickly disillusioned with what they were trying to provide. I believe in government, particularly a centralized government that can approach all citizens in a balanced way, and I believe strongly in its ability to help those who are unable to help themselves. As a consequence, any vote for a libertarian candidate is way way way out.
I strongly believe in Obama. I see in him a history that has the potential to craft a great man and I see someone now who is fulfilling that potential. He's reasoned, compassionate, thoughtful, assertive. If I got all of my information from the mass media, my opinion may be different. Fortunately, I do vast quantities of research. Doing research, in fact, is my job and I'm quite good at it. When you tell me that if I research more, I'll come to a different conclusion, you're misguided. I do encourage everyone to do all the research they have the time or inclination for. I wish they'd do much more. We do live in a culture that does not promote individual thought or expression as well as it ought to, and critical thinking as well as self-motivated learning are large parts of what I try to encourage in others.
Nader was a revolutionary presence in the 70's. He helped bring about great and necessary changes that improved our drinking water and improved the safety of our cars, along with countless other endeavors. How did he do that, though? As a lobbyist and activist. His ego has overtaken his reason and he's forgotten how to be truly effective. So it goes, I guess.
Retorting Third Parties, the Seth Version
I'm not going to get into a discussion over whether or not the bailout was a good idea. Frankly, I'm certain to a level near absolute that nobody on the receiving end of this email, myself duly included, understands the complexities of the issue at hand to be able to have a reasoned and productive discussion. That having been said, is there anyone here who thinks that any of the third-party candidates do know better than Obama? We haven't seen them have to make decisions, vote on the issues, or make widely publicized statements regarding these issues, but it doesn't follow that, should we, we'd agreed with them more than we do with either Obama or McCain. On the contrary, I'm sure we'd be able to pick out a lot more with which we'd take issue. That's why they're not major parties; nobody agrees with most of what they've got to say.
The two-party culture in which we've found ourselves (it's not a system, it's a culture; the American people prefer having dichotomies rather than authentic custom choices) is not ideal; it does not, by any stretch of the imagination, promote the common interest efficiently or effectively. That having been said, it's what we have. I strongly support Obama because I've liked the vast majority of what I've seen come from him and I trust him to be able to make far better decisions than I could, not to mention his undeniable ability to make far far far better decisions than could or has McCain. A vote for a third party candidate is, contrary to one of the many rather unfortunate ideas of Ron Paul, a wasted vote at this point in our history. It hasn't always been this way and I assure you it won't always be this way. However, even the most successful third-party candidate in modern history, Ross Perot in 1992, was successful only in paving the way for Clinton by diverting votes away from the conservative voting majority that almost certainly would've otherwise gone to Bush. To be clear, I don't blame Nader for doing the same thing in 2000, I blame Bush for being a wanker.
Anyway, please, everyone, don't let yourself get distracted from the goal at hand; a moderate-to-progressive majority in Congress and a progressive inhabitant of the White House.
To brendan
The two parties need competetion Brendan!
Also learn about third parties. Maybe you will feel that they have a better message?
Don;t know until you learn...
Also learn about third parties. Maybe you will feel that they have a better message?
Don;t know until you learn...
Obama and McCain - coporate
Wall Street said -- vote for the bailout.
>
> Obama said -- vote for the bailout.
>
> McCain said -- vote for the bailout.
>
> Bush said -- vote for the bailout.
>
> The House Democratic leadership said -- vote for the bailout.
>
> The Republican Democratic leadership said -- vote the bailout.
>
> But in overwhelming numbers and with outrage, the American people said
> -- if you vote for this bailout, we will vote against you in November.
>
> And so, today the House voted 228 to 205 against the bailout.
>
> Do we have a pulse yet?
>
> Maybe yes.
>
> And if we do have a pulse, we're going to have to transfer that energy
> and outrage from Capitol Hill into the Presidential electoral arena.
>
> With denying the bail out the American people rose up and slapped down
> the two Wall Street controlled political parties.
>
> In October, we must keep up the energy.
>
> Look at your third party options and learn about them.
>
> They are Nader, McKinney, Barr
>
> - Obama is the front man for Robert Rubin. (look him up)
>
> - McCain is the front man for Phil Graham. (look him up)
>
> - That corporate debate was hardly a debate. The dems and repubs
> control the debates, that's why you don't know anything about the
> third party ideas.
>
> - 150 reporters have been killed in iraq. The white house controls
> war footage - they say to the journalists, "if you don't let use show
> what we want on TV then we wont protect you."
>
> - The dems starting taking lobbyist money in 1984 to keep up with the
> republicans. They used to be the "party of the people", now they
> can't say that with a straight face.
>
> - Howard Dean said, that you can't win an election if you don't take
> money from the military industrial complex. It is why Obama wants to
> keep troops in the middle-east. Your man is bought out.
>
> - Did you notice how Obama flip-flopped on the wiretapping bill and
> then AT&T sponsored the DNC?
>
> - The Washington Post said that it will not cover stories about third
> party candidates because "they will not win".
>
> - Ralph Nader sold out, SOLD OUT, Madison Square Garden in 2000 and
> the New York Times didn't even cover it.
>
> - Ron Paul, a republican, won't even endorse McCain.
>
> - today in NYTIMES.com Obama pushing the bailout plan again!
>
>
> Spin in the media - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vl2t3n74SM
>
>
> www.accuracy.org
> www.votepact.org
> www.npr.org
> www.votenader.org
> www.votetruth08.com
>
> Rupert Murdoch - republican agenda d-bag - owns Myspace, Fox,
> Washington post - list here http://www.ketupa.net/murdoch1.html
>
> Educated yourself. If you vote for emotion you will surely be
> betrayed! There is a reason these two corporate own people front
> runners are the main candidates.
>
> Which of the lesser of the two evils are you voting for this year?
>
> -----------
> -----------
>
> Bankrolling a Presidential Campaign
>
> The Obama Bubble Agenda
>
> Pam Martens
> May 5, 2008
>
>
> The Obama phenomenon has been likened to that of cults, celebrity
> groupies and Messiah worshipers. But what we're actually witnessing is
> ObamaMania (as in tulip mania), the third and final bubble
> orchestrated and financed by the wonderful Wall Street folks who
> brought us the first two: the Nasdaq/tech bubble and a
> subprime-mortgage-in-every-pot bubble.
>
> To understand why Wall Street desperately needs this final bubble, we
> need to first review how the first two bubbles were orchestrated and
> why.
>
> In March of 2000, the Nasdaq stock market, hyped with spurious claims
> for startup tech and dot.com companies, reached a peak of over 5,000.
> Eight years later, it's trading in the 2,300 range and most of those
> companies no longer exist. From peak to trough, Nasdaq transferred
> over $4 trillion from the pockets of small mania-gripped investors to
> the wealthy and elite market manipulators.
>
> The highest monetary authority during those bubble days, Alan
> Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve, consistently told us that
> the market was efficient and stock prices were being set by the
> judgment of millions of "highly knowledgeable" investors.
>
> Mr. Greenspan was the wind beneath the wings of a carefully
> orchestrated wealth transfer system known as "pump and dump" on Wall
> Street. As hundreds of court cases, internal emails, and insider
> testimony now confirm, this bubble was no naturally occurring
> phenomenon any more than the Obama bubble is.
>
> First, Wall Street firms issued knowingly false research reports to
> trumpet the growth prospects for the company and stock price; second,
> they lined up big institutional clients who were instructed how and
> when to buy at escalating prices to make the stock price skyrocket
> (laddering); third, the firms instructed the hundreds of thousands of
> stockbrokers serving the mom-and-pop market to advise their clients to
> sit still as the stock price flew to the moon or else the broker would
> have his commissions taken away (penalty bid). While the little folks'
> money served as a prop under prices, the wealthy elite on Wall Street
> and corporate insiders were allowed to sell at the top of the market
> (pump-and-dump wealth transfer).
>
> Why did people buy into this mania for brand new, untested companies
> when there is a basic caveat that most people in this country know,
> i.e., the majority of all new businesses fail? Common sense failed and
> mania prevailed because of massive hype pumped by big media, big
> public relations, and shielded from regulation by big law firms, all
> eager to collect their share of Wall Street's rigged cash cow.
>
> The current housing bubble bust is just a freshly minted version of
> Wall Street’s real estate limited partnership frauds of the '80s,
> but on a grander scale. In the 1980s version, the firms packaged real
> estate into limited partnerships and peddled it as secure investments
> to moms and pops. The major underpinning of this wealth transfer
> mechanism was that regulators turned a blind eye to the fact that the
> investments were listed at the original face amount on the clients'
> brokerage statements long after they had lost most of their value.
>
> Today's real estate related securities (CDOs and SIVs) that are
> blowing up around the globe are simply the above scheme with more
> billable hours for corporate law firms.
>
> Wall Street created an artificial demand for housing (a bubble) by
> soliciting high interest rate mortgages (subprime) because they could
> be bundled and quickly resold for big fees to yield-hungry hedge funds
> and institutions. A major underpinning of this scheme was that Wall
> Street secured an artificial rating of AAA from rating agencies that
> were paid by Wall Street to provide the rating. When demand from
> institutions was saturated, Wall Street kept the scheme going by
> hiding the debt off its balance sheets and stuffed this long-term
> product into mom-and-pop money markets, notwithstanding that money
> markets are required by law to hold only short-term investments. To
> further perpetuate the bubble as long as possible, Wall Street
> prevented pricing transparency by keeping the trading off regulated
> exchanges and used unregulated over-the-counter contracts instead.
> (All of this required lots of lobbyist hours in Washington.)
>
> But how could there be a genuine national housing price boom propelled
> by massive consumer demand at the same time there was the largest
> income and wealth disparity in the nation's history? Rational thought
> is no match for manias.
>
> That brings us to today's bubble. We are being asked to accept on its
> face the notion that after more than two centuries of entrenched
> racism in this country, which saw only five black members of the U.S.
> Senate, it's all being eradicated with some rousing stump speeches.
>
> We are asked to believe that those kindly white executives at all the
> biggest Wall Street firms, which rank in the top 20 donors to the
> Obama presidential campaign, after failing to achieve more than 3.5
> per cent black stockbrokers over 30 years, now want a black populist
> president because they crave a level playing field for the American
> people.
>
> The number one industry supporting the Obama presidential bid, by the
> start of February, -- the crucial time in primary season -- according
> to the widely respected, nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics,
> was "lawyers/law firms" (most on Wall Street’s payroll), giving a
> total of $11,246,596.
>
> This presents three unique credibility problems for the
> yes-we-can-little-choo-choo-that-could campaign: (1) these are not
> just "lawyers/law firms"; the vast majority of these firms are also
> registered lobbyists at the Federal level; (2) Senator Obama has made
> it a core tenet of his campaign platform that the way he is going to
> bring the country hope and change is not taking money from federal
> lobbyists; and (3) with the past seven ignoble years of lies and
> distortions fresh in the minds of voters, building a candidacy based
> on half-truths is not a sustainable strategy to secure the west wing
> from the right wing.
>
> Yes, the other leading presidential candidates are taking money from
> lawyers/law firms/lobbyists, but Senator Obama is the only one
> rallying with the populist cry that he isn't. That makes it not only a
> legitimate but a necessary line of inquiry.
>
> The Obama campaign's populist bubble is underpinned by what, on the
> surface, seems to be a real snoozer of a story. It all centers around
> business classification codes developed by the U.S. government and
> used by the Center for Responsive Politics to classify contributions.
> Here's how the Center explained its classifications in 2003:
>
> "The codes used for business groups follow the general guidelines of
> the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes initially designed
> by the Office of Management and Budget and later replaced by the North
> American Industry Classification System (NAICS) ... "
>
> The Akin Gump law firm is a prime example of how something as mundane
> as a business classification code can be gamed for political
> advantage. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Akin Gump
> ranks third among all Federal lobbyists, raking in $205,225,000 to
> lobby our elected officials in Washington from 1998 through 2007. The
> firm is listed as a registered federal lobbyist with the House of
> Representatives and the Senate; the firm held lobbying retainer
> contracts for more than 100 corporate clients in 2007. But when its
> non-registered law partners, the people who own this business and
> profit from its lobbying operations, give to the Obama campaign, the
> contribution is classified as coming from a law firm, not a lobbyist.
>
> The same holds true for Greenberg Traurig, the law firm that employed
> the criminally inclined lobbyist, Jack Abramoff. Greenberg Traurig
> ranks ninth among all lobbyists for the same period, with lobbying
> revenues of $96,708,249. Its partners and employee donations to the
> Obama campaign of $70,650 by February 1 -- again at that strategic
> time -- appear not under lobbyist but the classification lawyers/law
> firms, as do 30 other corporate law firm/lobbyists.
>
> Additionally, looking at Public Citizen's list of bundlers for the
> Obama campaign (people soliciting donations from others), 27 are
> employed by law firms registered as federal lobbyists. The total sum
> raised by bundlers for Obama from these 27 firms till February 1:
> $2,650,000. (There are also dozens of high powered bundlers from Wall
> Street working the Armani-suit and red-suspenders cocktail circuits,
> like Bruce Heyman, managing director at Goldman Sachs; J. Michael
> Schell, vice chairman of Global Banking at Citigroup; Louis Susman,
> managing director, Citigroup; Robert Wolf, CEO, UBS Americas. Each
> raised over $200,000 for the Obama campaign.)
>
> Senator Obama's premise and credibility of not taking money from
> federal lobbyists hangs on a carefully crafted distinction: he is
> taking money, lots of it, from owners and employees of firms
> registered as federal lobbyists but not the actual individual
> lobbyists.
>
> But is that dealing honestly with the American people? According to
> the website of Akin Gump, it takes a village to deliver a capital to
> the corporations:
>
> "The public law and policy practice [lobbying] at Akin Gump is
> integrated throughout the firm's offices in the United States and
> abroad. As part of a full-service law firm, the group is able to draw
> upon the experience of members of other Akin Gump practices --
> including bankruptcy, communications, corporate, energy,
> environmental, labor and employment, health care, intellectual
> property, international, real estate, tax and trade regulation -- that
> may have substantive, day-to-day experience with the issues that lie
> at the heart of a client's situation. This is the internal component
> of Akin Gump’s team-based approach: matching the needs of clients
> with the appropriate area of experience in the firm ... Akin Gump has
> a broad range of active representations before every major committee
> of Congress and executive branch department and agency."
>
> When queried about this, Massie Ritsch, communications director at the
> Center for Responsive Politics, says: "The wall between a firm's legal
> practice and its lobbying shop can be low -- the work of an attorney
> and a lobbyist trying to influence regulations and laws can be so
> intertwined. So, if anything, the influence of the lobbying industry
> in presidential campaigns is undercounted."
>
> Those critical thinkers over at the Black Agenda Report for the
> Journal of African American Political Thought and Action have zeroed
> in on the making of the Obama bubble:
>
> "The 2008 Obama presidential run may be the most slickly orchestrated
> marketing machine in memory. That's not a good thing. Marketing is not
> even distantly related to democracy or civic empowerment. Marketing is
> about creating emotional, even irrational bonds between your product
> and your target audience."
>
> And slick it is. According to the Obama campaign's financial filings
> with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and aggregated at the
> Center for Responsive Politics, the Obama campaign has spent over $52
> million on media, strategy consultants, image building, marketing
> research and telemarketing.
>
> The money has gone to firms like GMMB, whose website says its "goal is
> to change minds and change hearts, win in the court of public opinion
> and win votes" using "the power of branding -- with principles rooted
> in commercial marketing," and Elevation Ltd., which targets the
> Hispanic population and has "a combined experience of well over 50
> years in developing and implementing advertising and marketing
> solutions for Fortune 500 companies, political candidates, government
> agencies."
>
> Their client list includes the Department of Homeland Security.
> There's also the Birmingham, Alabama, based The Parker Group which
> promises: "Valid research results are assured given our extensive
> experience with testing, scripting, skip logic, question rotation and
> quota control ... In-house list management and maintenance services
> encompass sophisticated geo-coding, mapping and scrubbing
> applications." Is it any wonder America's brains are scrambled?
>
> The Wall Street plan for the Obama-bubble presidency is that of the
> cleanup crew for the housing bubble: sweep all the corruption and
> losses, would-be indictments, perp walks and prosecutions under the
> rug and get on with an unprecedented taxpayer bailout of Wall Street.
> (The corporate law firms have piled on to funding the plan because
> most were up to their eyeballs in writing prospectuses or providing
> legal opinions for what has turned out to be bogus AAA securities.
> Lawsuits naming the Wall Street firms will, no doubt, shortly begin
> adding the law firms that rendered the legal guidance to issue the
> securities.) Who better to sell this agenda to the millions of duped
> mortgage holders and foreclosed homeowners in minority communities
> across America than our first, beloved, black president of hope and
> change?
>
> Why do Wall Street and the corporate law firms think they will find a
> President Obama to be accommodating? As the Black Agenda Report notes,
> "Evidently, the giant insurance companies, the airlines, oil
> companies, Wall Street, military contractors and others had closely
> examined and vetted Barack Obama and found him pleasing."
>
> That vetting included his remarkable "yes" vote on the Class Action
> Fairness Act of 2005, a five-year effort by 475 lobbyists, despite
> appeals from the NAACP and every other major civil rights group.
> Thanks to the passage of that legislation, when defrauded homeowners
> of the housing bubble and defrauded investors of the bundled mortgages
> try to fight back through the class-action vehicle, they will find a
> new layer of corporate-friendly hurdles.
>
> I personally admire Senator Obama. I want to believe Senator Obama is
> not a party to the scheme. But corporate interests have had plenty of
> time to do their vetting. Democracy demands no less of we, the
> people.
>
> [This is the second of two parts. The first ran yesterday. Editors.]
>
> Pam Martens worked on Wall Street for 21 years; she has no securities
> position, long or short, in any company mentioned in this article. She
> writes on public interest issues from New Hampshire. She can be
> reached at pamk741@aol.com.
>
>
> Obama said -- vote for the bailout.
>
> McCain said -- vote for the bailout.
>
> Bush said -- vote for the bailout.
>
> The House Democratic leadership said -- vote for the bailout.
>
> The Republican Democratic leadership said -- vote the bailout.
>
> But in overwhelming numbers and with outrage, the American people said
> -- if you vote for this bailout, we will vote against you in November.
>
> And so, today the House voted 228 to 205 against the bailout.
>
> Do we have a pulse yet?
>
> Maybe yes.
>
> And if we do have a pulse, we're going to have to transfer that energy
> and outrage from Capitol Hill into the Presidential electoral arena.
>
> With denying the bail out the American people rose up and slapped down
> the two Wall Street controlled political parties.
>
> In October, we must keep up the energy.
>
> Look at your third party options and learn about them.
>
> They are Nader, McKinney, Barr
>
> - Obama is the front man for Robert Rubin. (look him up)
>
> - McCain is the front man for Phil Graham. (look him up)
>
> - That corporate debate was hardly a debate. The dems and repubs
> control the debates, that's why you don't know anything about the
> third party ideas.
>
> - 150 reporters have been killed in iraq. The white house controls
> war footage - they say to the journalists, "if you don't let use show
> what we want on TV then we wont protect you."
>
> - The dems starting taking lobbyist money in 1984 to keep up with the
> republicans. They used to be the "party of the people", now they
> can't say that with a straight face.
>
> - Howard Dean said, that you can't win an election if you don't take
> money from the military industrial complex. It is why Obama wants to
> keep troops in the middle-east. Your man is bought out.
>
> - Did you notice how Obama flip-flopped on the wiretapping bill and
> then AT&T sponsored the DNC?
>
> - The Washington Post said that it will not cover stories about third
> party candidates because "they will not win".
>
> - Ralph Nader sold out, SOLD OUT, Madison Square Garden in 2000 and
> the New York Times didn't even cover it.
>
> - Ron Paul, a republican, won't even endorse McCain.
>
> - today in NYTIMES.com Obama pushing the bailout plan again!
>
>
> Spin in the media - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vl2t3n74SM
>
>
> www.accuracy.org
> www.votepact.org
> www.npr.org
> www.votenader.org
> www.votetruth08.com
>
> Rupert Murdoch - republican agenda d-bag - owns Myspace, Fox,
> Washington post - list here http://www.ketupa.net/murdoch1.html
>
> Educated yourself. If you vote for emotion you will surely be
> betrayed! There is a reason these two corporate own people front
> runners are the main candidates.
>
> Which of the lesser of the two evils are you voting for this year?
>
> -----------
> -----------
>
> Bankrolling a Presidential Campaign
>
> The Obama Bubble Agenda
>
> Pam Martens
> May 5, 2008
>
>
> The Obama phenomenon has been likened to that of cults, celebrity
> groupies and Messiah worshipers. But what we're actually witnessing is
> ObamaMania (as in tulip mania), the third and final bubble
> orchestrated and financed by the wonderful Wall Street folks who
> brought us the first two: the Nasdaq/tech bubble and a
> subprime-mortgage-in-every-pot bubble.
>
> To understand why Wall Street desperately needs this final bubble, we
> need to first review how the first two bubbles were orchestrated and
> why.
>
> In March of 2000, the Nasdaq stock market, hyped with spurious claims
> for startup tech and dot.com companies, reached a peak of over 5,000.
> Eight years later, it's trading in the 2,300 range and most of those
> companies no longer exist. From peak to trough, Nasdaq transferred
> over $4 trillion from the pockets of small mania-gripped investors to
> the wealthy and elite market manipulators.
>
> The highest monetary authority during those bubble days, Alan
> Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve, consistently told us that
> the market was efficient and stock prices were being set by the
> judgment of millions of "highly knowledgeable" investors.
>
> Mr. Greenspan was the wind beneath the wings of a carefully
> orchestrated wealth transfer system known as "pump and dump" on Wall
> Street. As hundreds of court cases, internal emails, and insider
> testimony now confirm, this bubble was no naturally occurring
> phenomenon any more than the Obama bubble is.
>
> First, Wall Street firms issued knowingly false research reports to
> trumpet the growth prospects for the company and stock price; second,
> they lined up big institutional clients who were instructed how and
> when to buy at escalating prices to make the stock price skyrocket
> (laddering); third, the firms instructed the hundreds of thousands of
> stockbrokers serving the mom-and-pop market to advise their clients to
> sit still as the stock price flew to the moon or else the broker would
> have his commissions taken away (penalty bid). While the little folks'
> money served as a prop under prices, the wealthy elite on Wall Street
> and corporate insiders were allowed to sell at the top of the market
> (pump-and-dump wealth transfer).
>
> Why did people buy into this mania for brand new, untested companies
> when there is a basic caveat that most people in this country know,
> i.e., the majority of all new businesses fail? Common sense failed and
> mania prevailed because of massive hype pumped by big media, big
> public relations, and shielded from regulation by big law firms, all
> eager to collect their share of Wall Street's rigged cash cow.
>
> The current housing bubble bust is just a freshly minted version of
> Wall Street’s real estate limited partnership frauds of the '80s,
> but on a grander scale. In the 1980s version, the firms packaged real
> estate into limited partnerships and peddled it as secure investments
> to moms and pops. The major underpinning of this wealth transfer
> mechanism was that regulators turned a blind eye to the fact that the
> investments were listed at the original face amount on the clients'
> brokerage statements long after they had lost most of their value.
>
> Today's real estate related securities (CDOs and SIVs) that are
> blowing up around the globe are simply the above scheme with more
> billable hours for corporate law firms.
>
> Wall Street created an artificial demand for housing (a bubble) by
> soliciting high interest rate mortgages (subprime) because they could
> be bundled and quickly resold for big fees to yield-hungry hedge funds
> and institutions. A major underpinning of this scheme was that Wall
> Street secured an artificial rating of AAA from rating agencies that
> were paid by Wall Street to provide the rating. When demand from
> institutions was saturated, Wall Street kept the scheme going by
> hiding the debt off its balance sheets and stuffed this long-term
> product into mom-and-pop money markets, notwithstanding that money
> markets are required by law to hold only short-term investments. To
> further perpetuate the bubble as long as possible, Wall Street
> prevented pricing transparency by keeping the trading off regulated
> exchanges and used unregulated over-the-counter contracts instead.
> (All of this required lots of lobbyist hours in Washington.)
>
> But how could there be a genuine national housing price boom propelled
> by massive consumer demand at the same time there was the largest
> income and wealth disparity in the nation's history? Rational thought
> is no match for manias.
>
> That brings us to today's bubble. We are being asked to accept on its
> face the notion that after more than two centuries of entrenched
> racism in this country, which saw only five black members of the U.S.
> Senate, it's all being eradicated with some rousing stump speeches.
>
> We are asked to believe that those kindly white executives at all the
> biggest Wall Street firms, which rank in the top 20 donors to the
> Obama presidential campaign, after failing to achieve more than 3.5
> per cent black stockbrokers over 30 years, now want a black populist
> president because they crave a level playing field for the American
> people.
>
> The number one industry supporting the Obama presidential bid, by the
> start of February, -- the crucial time in primary season -- according
> to the widely respected, nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics,
> was "lawyers/law firms" (most on Wall Street’s payroll), giving a
> total of $11,246,596.
>
> This presents three unique credibility problems for the
> yes-we-can-little-choo-choo-that-could campaign: (1) these are not
> just "lawyers/law firms"; the vast majority of these firms are also
> registered lobbyists at the Federal level; (2) Senator Obama has made
> it a core tenet of his campaign platform that the way he is going to
> bring the country hope and change is not taking money from federal
> lobbyists; and (3) with the past seven ignoble years of lies and
> distortions fresh in the minds of voters, building a candidacy based
> on half-truths is not a sustainable strategy to secure the west wing
> from the right wing.
>
> Yes, the other leading presidential candidates are taking money from
> lawyers/law firms/lobbyists, but Senator Obama is the only one
> rallying with the populist cry that he isn't. That makes it not only a
> legitimate but a necessary line of inquiry.
>
> The Obama campaign's populist bubble is underpinned by what, on the
> surface, seems to be a real snoozer of a story. It all centers around
> business classification codes developed by the U.S. government and
> used by the Center for Responsive Politics to classify contributions.
> Here's how the Center explained its classifications in 2003:
>
> "The codes used for business groups follow the general guidelines of
> the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes initially designed
> by the Office of Management and Budget and later replaced by the North
> American Industry Classification System (NAICS) ... "
>
> The Akin Gump law firm is a prime example of how something as mundane
> as a business classification code can be gamed for political
> advantage. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Akin Gump
> ranks third among all Federal lobbyists, raking in $205,225,000 to
> lobby our elected officials in Washington from 1998 through 2007. The
> firm is listed as a registered federal lobbyist with the House of
> Representatives and the Senate; the firm held lobbying retainer
> contracts for more than 100 corporate clients in 2007. But when its
> non-registered law partners, the people who own this business and
> profit from its lobbying operations, give to the Obama campaign, the
> contribution is classified as coming from a law firm, not a lobbyist.
>
> The same holds true for Greenberg Traurig, the law firm that employed
> the criminally inclined lobbyist, Jack Abramoff. Greenberg Traurig
> ranks ninth among all lobbyists for the same period, with lobbying
> revenues of $96,708,249. Its partners and employee donations to the
> Obama campaign of $70,650 by February 1 -- again at that strategic
> time -- appear not under lobbyist but the classification lawyers/law
> firms, as do 30 other corporate law firm/lobbyists.
>
> Additionally, looking at Public Citizen's list of bundlers for the
> Obama campaign (people soliciting donations from others), 27 are
> employed by law firms registered as federal lobbyists. The total sum
> raised by bundlers for Obama from these 27 firms till February 1:
> $2,650,000. (There are also dozens of high powered bundlers from Wall
> Street working the Armani-suit and red-suspenders cocktail circuits,
> like Bruce Heyman, managing director at Goldman Sachs; J. Michael
> Schell, vice chairman of Global Banking at Citigroup; Louis Susman,
> managing director, Citigroup; Robert Wolf, CEO, UBS Americas. Each
> raised over $200,000 for the Obama campaign.)
>
> Senator Obama's premise and credibility of not taking money from
> federal lobbyists hangs on a carefully crafted distinction: he is
> taking money, lots of it, from owners and employees of firms
> registered as federal lobbyists but not the actual individual
> lobbyists.
>
> But is that dealing honestly with the American people? According to
> the website of Akin Gump, it takes a village to deliver a capital to
> the corporations:
>
> "The public law and policy practice [lobbying] at Akin Gump is
> integrated throughout the firm's offices in the United States and
> abroad. As part of a full-service law firm, the group is able to draw
> upon the experience of members of other Akin Gump practices --
> including bankruptcy, communications, corporate, energy,
> environmental, labor and employment, health care, intellectual
> property, international, real estate, tax and trade regulation -- that
> may have substantive, day-to-day experience with the issues that lie
> at the heart of a client's situation. This is the internal component
> of Akin Gump’s team-based approach: matching the needs of clients
> with the appropriate area of experience in the firm ... Akin Gump has
> a broad range of active representations before every major committee
> of Congress and executive branch department and agency."
>
> When queried about this, Massie Ritsch, communications director at the
> Center for Responsive Politics, says: "The wall between a firm's legal
> practice and its lobbying shop can be low -- the work of an attorney
> and a lobbyist trying to influence regulations and laws can be so
> intertwined. So, if anything, the influence of the lobbying industry
> in presidential campaigns is undercounted."
>
> Those critical thinkers over at the Black Agenda Report for the
> Journal of African American Political Thought and Action have zeroed
> in on the making of the Obama bubble:
>
> "The 2008 Obama presidential run may be the most slickly orchestrated
> marketing machine in memory. That's not a good thing. Marketing is not
> even distantly related to democracy or civic empowerment. Marketing is
> about creating emotional, even irrational bonds between your product
> and your target audience."
>
> And slick it is. According to the Obama campaign's financial filings
> with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and aggregated at the
> Center for Responsive Politics, the Obama campaign has spent over $52
> million on media, strategy consultants, image building, marketing
> research and telemarketing.
>
> The money has gone to firms like GMMB, whose website says its "goal is
> to change minds and change hearts, win in the court of public opinion
> and win votes" using "the power of branding -- with principles rooted
> in commercial marketing," and Elevation Ltd., which targets the
> Hispanic population and has "a combined experience of well over 50
> years in developing and implementing advertising and marketing
> solutions for Fortune 500 companies, political candidates, government
> agencies."
>
> Their client list includes the Department of Homeland Security.
> There's also the Birmingham, Alabama, based The Parker Group which
> promises: "Valid research results are assured given our extensive
> experience with testing, scripting, skip logic, question rotation and
> quota control ... In-house list management and maintenance services
> encompass sophisticated geo-coding, mapping and scrubbing
> applications." Is it any wonder America's brains are scrambled?
>
> The Wall Street plan for the Obama-bubble presidency is that of the
> cleanup crew for the housing bubble: sweep all the corruption and
> losses, would-be indictments, perp walks and prosecutions under the
> rug and get on with an unprecedented taxpayer bailout of Wall Street.
> (The corporate law firms have piled on to funding the plan because
> most were up to their eyeballs in writing prospectuses or providing
> legal opinions for what has turned out to be bogus AAA securities.
> Lawsuits naming the Wall Street firms will, no doubt, shortly begin
> adding the law firms that rendered the legal guidance to issue the
> securities.) Who better to sell this agenda to the millions of duped
> mortgage holders and foreclosed homeowners in minority communities
> across America than our first, beloved, black president of hope and
> change?
>
> Why do Wall Street and the corporate law firms think they will find a
> President Obama to be accommodating? As the Black Agenda Report notes,
> "Evidently, the giant insurance companies, the airlines, oil
> companies, Wall Street, military contractors and others had closely
> examined and vetted Barack Obama and found him pleasing."
>
> That vetting included his remarkable "yes" vote on the Class Action
> Fairness Act of 2005, a five-year effort by 475 lobbyists, despite
> appeals from the NAACP and every other major civil rights group.
> Thanks to the passage of that legislation, when defrauded homeowners
> of the housing bubble and defrauded investors of the bundled mortgages
> try to fight back through the class-action vehicle, they will find a
> new layer of corporate-friendly hurdles.
>
> I personally admire Senator Obama. I want to believe Senator Obama is
> not a party to the scheme. But corporate interests have had plenty of
> time to do their vetting. Democracy demands no less of we, the
> people.
>
> [This is the second of two parts. The first ran yesterday. Editors.]
>
> Pam Martens worked on Wall Street for 21 years; she has no securities
> position, long or short, in any company mentioned in this article. She
> writes on public interest issues from New Hampshire. She can be
> reached at pamk741@aol.com.
>
Brendan Contribution 1
Sigh. Ive just got to throw in a few perspectives to this mix. I will try to make them brief. As an aside, Ive removed Mr. Shires from this list as per his request.
I mostly agree with Seth and Rachel. I disagree with Seth that our political culture "chooses" a two party system - there is actually a pretty solid body of literature in political science that points out that our system is one in which the winner takes all - called First Past the Post, as in a race of some kind - wherein instead of divvying up seats in congress (or parliament, or a state legislature, etc) based off a percentage of votes won by each party in a given election, the winning party grabs all the seats. Take the electoral college in the states as an example of this.
This kind of institutional system makes it strategically optimal for parties to align themselves with those that have similar views in broad coalitions, ultimately forming two large parties, since you need the biggest coalition you can get to capture the more than 50% of the vote necessary to win an election here in the States. So that is why we have a two party system, one that in fact coalesces conservative and liberal factions in both Democratic and Republican camps into two large parties. In fact the US has more like 4 political cultures, conservative Christian, libertarian, socially progressive Keynsians, and all out socialists. That is a VERY rough approximation, but you get the idea. Long story short, our institutions make our two party system, or make it a heavily favorable strategy for political candidates.
Which brings us back to Nader and other 3rd party animals (hah, Im joking!). The thing that turns me off to Nader isnt really his policies (which I dont know all that much about but truthfully havent been too impressed with what Ive heard) but the fact that he seems so strategically defunct. If he really cared about leveraging the kind of change he wants, he'd play by the rules of the system and fight for his change from the inside out. He's never going to be president not because of propaganda, or because all the American voters are little sheep being manipulated by evil corporations or military states -- no -- its because he doesnt play the game of politics.
Im not too inclined to vote for someone whose strategy to change things is take potshots to the system from the outside. What is he going to do if we are attacked again by terrorists? I just dont trust him to make good strategic moves since he cant even seem to get it together with the American political system. If he were more serious he'd join the Democrats, and compete for American votes just like the rest of our politicians do, and work to convince the majority of Americans that he's right. From inside the system, not outside.
Obama has done this, and I think Obama is actually able to to talk to some extent to ALL those political cultures I mentioned earlier -- he "sees purple"-- and this is why I think he's the shizzle. Yes We Can.
As for the bailout, I personally am totally in favor of it. There's a totally true joke which is, What do you do if you want 4 opinions? Ask 2 economists. Haha, that is totally true, and Seth alluded to this in his email. The whole thing is enormoulsy complex, but what I do know is that Wall St and Main St are inextricably linked -- foreclosures on Main St are where this whole problem on Wall St got started, even though Wall St was just as undisciplined as Main St -- and if we dont get this bad debt out of the economy, confidence in the market collapses, which means that people dont lend money, which eventually means that its very difficult for you to finance your education, or home mortgage, or car, or small business, or have access to credit. Furthermore, over time the RETURN on this bailout money could be used to pay down the national debt or, say, shore up Social Security. So yeah, lets hope the Senate, and subsequently the House, passes this Emergency Economic Stabilization Bill 2.0 by the end of this week so financial markets can be liquid again and things can get moving before we all have reach under our mattress and hope to find something there.
OKAY - well, Ive totally and completely failed to be brief. Wow, I didnt know I could be so long winded. Chances are you didnt either - sorry about that. Id love to get feedback on anything Ive said, and I like the whole town hall thing we've got going with this email. Again, sorry for the long-windedness, and thanks for reading.
I mostly agree with Seth and Rachel. I disagree with Seth that our political culture "chooses" a two party system - there is actually a pretty solid body of literature in political science that points out that our system is one in which the winner takes all - called First Past the Post, as in a race of some kind - wherein instead of divvying up seats in congress (or parliament, or a state legislature, etc) based off a percentage of votes won by each party in a given election, the winning party grabs all the seats. Take the electoral college in the states as an example of this.
This kind of institutional system makes it strategically optimal for parties to align themselves with those that have similar views in broad coalitions, ultimately forming two large parties, since you need the biggest coalition you can get to capture the more than 50% of the vote necessary to win an election here in the States. So that is why we have a two party system, one that in fact coalesces conservative and liberal factions in both Democratic and Republican camps into two large parties. In fact the US has more like 4 political cultures, conservative Christian, libertarian, socially progressive Keynsians, and all out socialists. That is a VERY rough approximation, but you get the idea. Long story short, our institutions make our two party system, or make it a heavily favorable strategy for political candidates.
Which brings us back to Nader and other 3rd party animals (hah, Im joking!). The thing that turns me off to Nader isnt really his policies (which I dont know all that much about but truthfully havent been too impressed with what Ive heard) but the fact that he seems so strategically defunct. If he really cared about leveraging the kind of change he wants, he'd play by the rules of the system and fight for his change from the inside out. He's never going to be president not because of propaganda, or because all the American voters are little sheep being manipulated by evil corporations or military states -- no -- its because he doesnt play the game of politics.
Im not too inclined to vote for someone whose strategy to change things is take potshots to the system from the outside. What is he going to do if we are attacked again by terrorists? I just dont trust him to make good strategic moves since he cant even seem to get it together with the American political system. If he were more serious he'd join the Democrats, and compete for American votes just like the rest of our politicians do, and work to convince the majority of Americans that he's right. From inside the system, not outside.
Obama has done this, and I think Obama is actually able to to talk to some extent to ALL those political cultures I mentioned earlier -- he "sees purple"-- and this is why I think he's the shizzle. Yes We Can.
As for the bailout, I personally am totally in favor of it. There's a totally true joke which is, What do you do if you want 4 opinions? Ask 2 economists. Haha, that is totally true, and Seth alluded to this in his email. The whole thing is enormoulsy complex, but what I do know is that Wall St and Main St are inextricably linked -- foreclosures on Main St are where this whole problem on Wall St got started, even though Wall St was just as undisciplined as Main St -- and if we dont get this bad debt out of the economy, confidence in the market collapses, which means that people dont lend money, which eventually means that its very difficult for you to finance your education, or home mortgage, or car, or small business, or have access to credit. Furthermore, over time the RETURN on this bailout money could be used to pay down the national debt or, say, shore up Social Security. So yeah, lets hope the Senate, and subsequently the House, passes this Emergency Economic Stabilization Bill 2.0 by the end of this week so financial markets can be liquid again and things can get moving before we all have reach under our mattress and hope to find something there.
OKAY - well, Ive totally and completely failed to be brief. Wow, I didnt know I could be so long winded. Chances are you didnt either - sorry about that. Id love to get feedback on anything Ive said, and I like the whole town hall thing we've got going with this email. Again, sorry for the long-windedness, and thanks for reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
