The following blurb was on First Read, which is MSNBC political blog.
Stealing The Spotlight: Edwards’ poverty tour comes to an end today, with stops in Virginia and Kentucky and a major speech. Per the campaign, Edwards will use this speech to sum his three-day tour and talk about the faces of poverty he met. Yet partly overshadowing Day Two of the tour was wife Elizabeth’s comments to Salon about Hillary Clinton. They weren’t as incendiary as Drudge made them out to be, but Elizabeth still made news -- as she did when she called Ann Coulter, or when it was revealed her cancer had returned. And now there’s a brand new campaign TV ad that features her, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reported on TODAY this morning. We knew it was possible that a spouse might become the story in this presidential race. But just we also thought it would be Bill, not Elizabeth Edwards.
This is the kind of passive story that the MSM puts out there that can drive you insane. It seems like NBC news is saying that “Gee we would really like to cover the substance of the Edwards campaign, but it just out of our hands”. The reason Elizabeth Edwards is the bigger story is you made the choice for it to be the story. Chris Matthews interviewed John Edwards yesterday on Hardball and half the five minute interview was about Elizabeth in one way or another. Instead of taking some of the responsibility for their actions as far was is and is not a story, the MSM says that we report what people are interested in and they have no control over content. NBC news represents a large part of the small group of entities that provide news and information for the majority of Americans, and for them to say they have no control of the flow of news is simply insulting.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
John Edwards in Memphis
The John Edwards event at MIFA, Memphis Inter Faith Association, last night was a great success. A crowd of about 300 people gave a great speech about poverty in America and how we approach these issues as a people and a government.
The choir from the First Baptist Church performed first and did an excellent job. After the choir there were three people that MIFA is helping through their various programs, and each one told the crowd about themselves and how MIFA has helped them. Senator Edwards came on after that and he spoke about how government can help people, but that it is people that start these movements. He made a reference to how Civil Rights movement started in towns like Memphis and not in Washington. I also like the way he addressed the media and how they frame and talk about what people care and don’t care about. I liked addressing the media, because there have been so many goofy stories about Edwards that have nothing to do with the issues. The crowd was very responsive and I think there was great amount of energy and enthusiasm.
I really liked the way John Edwards talked about government and what they can do, but also talked about people and what they can do to help. The Bush administration and specifically the Iraq War has divided the country and made everything highly partisan. The Administration has really tried to play up on these differences as a tool for re-election and a means to push their agenda through. So I think it is very important that the next president is the president of the whole country and not just the people who support him. I think John Edwards could be the person to do that job, and I was very happy to my small part to help that effort. Hopefully we will see a lot more of John in Memphis and all over the country in the next year and half or so.
The choir from the First Baptist Church performed first and did an excellent job. After the choir there were three people that MIFA is helping through their various programs, and each one told the crowd about themselves and how MIFA has helped them. Senator Edwards came on after that and he spoke about how government can help people, but that it is people that start these movements. He made a reference to how Civil Rights movement started in towns like Memphis and not in Washington. I also like the way he addressed the media and how they frame and talk about what people care and don’t care about. I liked addressing the media, because there have been so many goofy stories about Edwards that have nothing to do with the issues. The crowd was very responsive and I think there was great amount of energy and enthusiasm.
I really liked the way John Edwards talked about government and what they can do, but also talked about people and what they can do to help. The Bush administration and specifically the Iraq War has divided the country and made everything highly partisan. The Administration has really tried to play up on these differences as a tool for re-election and a means to push their agenda through. So I think it is very important that the next president is the president of the whole country and not just the people who support him. I think John Edwards could be the person to do that job, and I was very happy to my small part to help that effort. Hopefully we will see a lot more of John in Memphis and all over the country in the next year and half or so.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Helping John Edwards in Memphis
Today I went out for a few hours and gave out flyers to promote the upcoming event that John Edwards in Memphis. It was the first of many chances where I get to help the campaign. I got a lot of different responses to Edwards and the event. Very little negative but I did get a little. One snooty Republican type told me “We do not need a Democrat in the White House”, and another lady was nice but firmly said “Sorry I am a Republican” I guess that means heck no. However several people were very excited about John and the event. One nice man said the John was just the kind of man he wants to vote for. The most interesting response came from two people giving away Red Bull. They were very excited about the event and the girl thought John was cute. I was not sure if they were excited about John Edwards or just riding on the buzz of one too many Red Bulls, but either way they were very nice and told us they would tell others about the event. Overall it was a very positive experience and I hope I was able to help in a small way to make sure that John has a good event here in Memphis.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
To Impeach or Not To Impeach
Impeachment seems to be on a lot of people’s minds these days. Cable news, blogs, columns, and just about anybody with an interest in politics has an opinion on the subject. There are some who think that Bush and Cheney have committed multiple crimes against the American people and the Constitution and should be brought up on charges. Some who think the any kinds of charges are unfounded and that any attempt at impeachment is just a cheap political ploy. Then you get the split the difference people who say while there is a possible case for impeachment that is politically risky for the Democrats to try. I guess I fall in the middle myself. You can read the Washing Post articles on Cheney or see John Dean on Countdown and not see that Bush administration is operating by its own rules. Under the guise of the War on Terror that anything is justifiable under the excuse of keeping the country safe. While this has been harmful to our country and made a shamble of reputation there is not much we can do about it right now. One of two things would have to happen to make impeachment viable either there would need to be some major defections from the Congressional Republicans so that the mathematics would overwhelm the White House or something that would have to come out that proved beyond a shadow of doubt that Bush and company knowingly lied or did something illegal. Much is of the administration’s defense is built around executive privilege that he has the right to do these things because he is president. That has been challenged somewhat, but not completely. From this defensive position Bush, Cheney, and company have fought, scrapped, and dodged any attempt by the Congress to find what’s going in the White House and Vice President’s office on a myriad of topics like torture, spying, The War on Terror, Iraq, and the attorney firings just to name a few. From this position they can draw this process until the end of the term especially if the Republicans in Congress back them up. While I think the things these people have done is beyond horrible and in a just world they would be brought up on charges I don’t think that can realistically happen. Instead of a possible impeachment they Democrats should focus on winning the White House and expanding their majorities in the Congress in 08. Also try to figure how to gather more Republicans into the fold on getting us out of Iraq. I think would be easier to convince Republican Congressmen nervous about re-election that they need to rethink their views on Iraq. Besides a large portion of the Republican are very depressed about Iraq, immigration, and their choices for 08. There is nothing that will fire that base up faster than fight. Even if they are not happy about Bush’s performance, they will defend if they think he is being attacked by the Democrats. I still think it’s a possibility that the Democrats could go after impeachment, but I do not think it should be their main focus. Get us out of Iraq and get a Democrat in the White House 2009 because no matter what January 20, 2009 George Bush will be heading back to Crawford.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
McCain in Freefall
I am not sure who the Republican nominee for 08 is going to be, but it is becoming clear that it will not be John McCain. For a long time I thought McCain was going to win almost by default, because the conservatives would not buy Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani. However after a couple of really bad months for him the McCain 08 campaign appears to be in complete freefall mode. His campaign manager and chief political strategist have both just resigned. This is on top of having to fire staff and taking stands on Iraq and immigration that managed to anger both moderates and conservatives. The problems may have started by speaking at Liberty University because the conservatives saw it as a ploy to woo them and it angered the moderates who liked the McCain that spoke against the religious right. The McCain Straight Talk Express is short on ideas, cash, and apparently time. He has faltered badly and now the question can he regain his traction. I think it is possible for McCain to recover, but it does appear to be an easy path for him. He has tied his reputation to Bush’s Iraq War and the news from there does not appear to be changing any time soon. The latest news is that the new Iraqi government has met none of the benchmarks set up before the surge and the news that will come out in September will not be good. He tied his name to an immigration bill that is DOA and only managed to make the conservatives he was courting furious. The McCain bills for immigration and campaign finance might be seen as trying to be bipartisan in some circles, but to the mostly conservative primary voters is only seen as a sell out and reasons not to trust him. As far as the other people running Fred Thompson seems to be the conservative darling du jour and to make matters worse Romney and Giuliani are hanging in there. McCain is not out yet but he needs some good news really, really soon.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Fighting the Talking Points
I cruise by the right wing blog Townhall from time to time to see what is on the right's mind. It usually some form of whining about mean or clueless liberals or how the right is not tough enough. Today Lorie Byrd wrote a column about the Rosie vs Hasllebeck silliness on The View a couple of days ago. Anyway I could care less about Rosie or Elisabeth said but Lorie Byrd made her points with all the these Republican talking points. Here is a sample of the column.
"Myths are born when an untrue statement is repeated frequently enough, and loudly enough, that many come to believe the statement must be true because they have heard it said over and over again, usually with no refutation. For too long conservatives have allowed statements like Bush “stole the election” and “lied us into war” to be repeated with little if any opposition."
Perhaps because these statements are true and it is hard to deny the truth of them. Maybe if you keep repeating they are not true, you can make yourself believe that. You can even make yourself believe W is a great president or that Saddam really had WMDs or that there a was connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda.
Here is the rest of her column.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/LorieByrd/2007/05/25/republicans_should_follow_elisabeth_hasselbecks_example
I am not a big letter writer but I wrote Ms. Byrd a letter just to see how or even if she would repsond. Here is the letter.
First of all I do not like Rosie O'Donnell or Elisabeth Hasslebeck. So I do not really care who said what to whom. I simply do not like the way framed the issues in your column. I disagree with you lumping 9-11 conspiracy theories in with Bush stole the election, Bush lied us into war, and Ron Paul invited 9-11 to happen.
Let's start with the debacle of 2000. Before the election you have Katherine Harris purging voters and then you see her handy work again in the hanging chad fiasco. Then there is the simple Al Gore won the popular vote. You had the faux the demonstrations that were really people that worked for Bush or the RNC who’s only purpose seemed to be to stir up trouble and muddy the waters in trying to decide who the next president would be. Last but last but not least you get the bogus decision by the Supreme Court in Gore v Bush. Maybe he not did steal the election but just received the benefit of the forces that are working for him, kind of like what Ken Blackwell did for him in 2004. Besides stealing the election would require planning and if there is one thing these guys have shown is that they are very bad at planning things.
Next is the idea that Bush lied us into war. This seems to hinge around the world lie, as in knowingly mislead people. This of course is difficult to prove because nobody will ever know for sure. However it does seem pretty clear that the administration was very selective in the information that they used as proof that Iraq had weapons. Plus they relied on men like Chilabi and his bogus information even though most people said he was a liar and a con artist. Once again this goes back to planning. The Bush Administration took their shaky intelligence and went a step further by creating one of the worst war plans in history. So if you want to get into a semantic discussion about the word lie that's fine, but it is clear the Bush was not completely truthful in presenting his case for war. He also had the benefit of the media and a compliant congress (yes both Republicans and Democrats), who were dozing off and for the most part failed to ask the right questions.
Then there is calling Ron Paul a 9-11 conspiracy guy. This is simply not true. I can see in the oversimplified conservative thinking where everything is black and white and there is no room for shades of gray. However in reality based world things are not always so clear. What Ron Paul was saying is that Western interference in the Middle East over the past 50 years has been a factor in men like Bin Laden wanting to attack us. The US bombing Iraq for the 10 years after the first Gulf War, having troops in Saudi Arabia, and abandoning them in Afghanistan after the Russians left. Now one may ask where Ron Paul got such a kooky, perhaps it because it is because what bin Laden said. This does not justify or make what happened on 9-11 right, but it does explain why it happened. That was not a just a random act of violence or because of the right wing talking point of they hate us for our freedom which may be partially true but is not the complete answer. What Ron Paul said in that debate is not some crazed conspiracy theory, but simply acknowledged that our actions in the Middle East have consequences and if we ignore this in our foreign policy we are doomed to make the same mistakes over and over again. So no Ron Paul is not a nut, he just dared not buy into the oversimplified Republican talking points.
As far as the Bush caused 9-11 or let it happen or the whole host of conspiracies. I do not buy into the idea that Bush was directly involved. Once again the whole it goes back to the planning thing. However the war president did screw up by not paying attention to terrorism until it was too late. Plus there are several questions that have never been answered about that day. Like why were the planes not scrambled when they noticed something was wrong. Plus what the heck was Bush doing just sitting there reading My Pet Goat when he knew the country had been attacked. Even there are questions about what happened on 9-11 most of the conspiracies are either too far fetched or just out and out wrong. The real crime of 9-11 was that Bush has used it to hammer anybody that disagrees with him and of course he used it as an excuse to invade Iraq.
Anyway I will see what happens.
"Myths are born when an untrue statement is repeated frequently enough, and loudly enough, that many come to believe the statement must be true because they have heard it said over and over again, usually with no refutation. For too long conservatives have allowed statements like Bush “stole the election” and “lied us into war” to be repeated with little if any opposition."
Perhaps because these statements are true and it is hard to deny the truth of them. Maybe if you keep repeating they are not true, you can make yourself believe that. You can even make yourself believe W is a great president or that Saddam really had WMDs or that there a was connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda.
Here is the rest of her column.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/LorieByrd/2007/05/25/republicans_should_follow_elisabeth_hasselbecks_example
I am not a big letter writer but I wrote Ms. Byrd a letter just to see how or even if she would repsond. Here is the letter.
First of all I do not like Rosie O'Donnell or Elisabeth Hasslebeck. So I do not really care who said what to whom. I simply do not like the way framed the issues in your column. I disagree with you lumping 9-11 conspiracy theories in with Bush stole the election, Bush lied us into war, and Ron Paul invited 9-11 to happen.
Let's start with the debacle of 2000. Before the election you have Katherine Harris purging voters and then you see her handy work again in the hanging chad fiasco. Then there is the simple Al Gore won the popular vote. You had the faux the demonstrations that were really people that worked for Bush or the RNC who’s only purpose seemed to be to stir up trouble and muddy the waters in trying to decide who the next president would be. Last but last but not least you get the bogus decision by the Supreme Court in Gore v Bush. Maybe he not did steal the election but just received the benefit of the forces that are working for him, kind of like what Ken Blackwell did for him in 2004. Besides stealing the election would require planning and if there is one thing these guys have shown is that they are very bad at planning things.
Next is the idea that Bush lied us into war. This seems to hinge around the world lie, as in knowingly mislead people. This of course is difficult to prove because nobody will ever know for sure. However it does seem pretty clear that the administration was very selective in the information that they used as proof that Iraq had weapons. Plus they relied on men like Chilabi and his bogus information even though most people said he was a liar and a con artist. Once again this goes back to planning. The Bush Administration took their shaky intelligence and went a step further by creating one of the worst war plans in history. So if you want to get into a semantic discussion about the word lie that's fine, but it is clear the Bush was not completely truthful in presenting his case for war. He also had the benefit of the media and a compliant congress (yes both Republicans and Democrats), who were dozing off and for the most part failed to ask the right questions.
Then there is calling Ron Paul a 9-11 conspiracy guy. This is simply not true. I can see in the oversimplified conservative thinking where everything is black and white and there is no room for shades of gray. However in reality based world things are not always so clear. What Ron Paul was saying is that Western interference in the Middle East over the past 50 years has been a factor in men like Bin Laden wanting to attack us. The US bombing Iraq for the 10 years after the first Gulf War, having troops in Saudi Arabia, and abandoning them in Afghanistan after the Russians left. Now one may ask where Ron Paul got such a kooky, perhaps it because it is because what bin Laden said. This does not justify or make what happened on 9-11 right, but it does explain why it happened. That was not a just a random act of violence or because of the right wing talking point of they hate us for our freedom which may be partially true but is not the complete answer. What Ron Paul said in that debate is not some crazed conspiracy theory, but simply acknowledged that our actions in the Middle East have consequences and if we ignore this in our foreign policy we are doomed to make the same mistakes over and over again. So no Ron Paul is not a nut, he just dared not buy into the oversimplified Republican talking points.
As far as the Bush caused 9-11 or let it happen or the whole host of conspiracies. I do not buy into the idea that Bush was directly involved. Once again the whole it goes back to the planning thing. However the war president did screw up by not paying attention to terrorism until it was too late. Plus there are several questions that have never been answered about that day. Like why were the planes not scrambled when they noticed something was wrong. Plus what the heck was Bush doing just sitting there reading My Pet Goat when he knew the country had been attacked. Even there are questions about what happened on 9-11 most of the conspiracies are either too far fetched or just out and out wrong. The real crime of 9-11 was that Bush has used it to hammer anybody that disagrees with him and of course he used it as an excuse to invade Iraq.
Anyway I will see what happens.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Al Gore in 08
The more time passes and the more times Al Gore says he is not running, the more I believe he is not running. I think there are several reasons to think that he is not running. Number one on that list is that he simply does not want to run. Also the Democrats are much happier with their choices for president. The main reason Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich are seriously thinking about running is that the Republicans are not pleased with their choices. Thompson is running double digit in the polls by only giving a few interviews and some speeches. Al Gore on the other hand seems to be facing an uphill battle against Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. I think several months ago that Gore was being coy about answering the questions about are you running in 08. He was saying no but giving himself an out by saying things like as of now I am not running. Now he is more definitive about saying he is not running for president. Aside from the fact there is a strong field of Democrats Al Gore likes just attacking the climate change issue. Also after running several times maybe Gore does not want to go through all the headaches and hassles that comes with running. He knows firsthand about the endless fundraising, handshaking, and giving the same speech over and over again that is required to run. That has to be very draining and you really have to have to be strong willed to go through that. All of these factors seem to point to the idea that Gore is not running.
This brings me to the question why do some of us want Gore to run anyway. The answer to that question seems pretty simple, and that is it only seems just and fair that Gore gets another chance. Candidate Gore is was not overly impressive but then again neither was George Bush. Then the whole Florida debacle happened and Bush was able to weasel his way into the White House with the help of James Baker, Katherine Harris, and the Supreme Court. Six years of George W. Bush as president has been an utter disaster, and it has only increased the idea that his “winning” in 2000 was a grievous error and simply wrong in so many ways. About the only good thing that has come out this administration is that his train wreck of a presidency has the set Republican Party back at least ten years and has destroyed the coalition that was created under the Reagan Revolution. Other than that I don’t there is anything you can point to out of this gang has done as being a major accomplishment. So given the disaster Bush has been maybe it is that sense fairness that some of think that Al Gore deserves another chance. However, that was then and this is now, and I can’t blame Gore if he does not want to go through that again. It just makes you wonder what President Gore would have been like.
This brings me to the question why do some of us want Gore to run anyway. The answer to that question seems pretty simple, and that is it only seems just and fair that Gore gets another chance. Candidate Gore is was not overly impressive but then again neither was George Bush. Then the whole Florida debacle happened and Bush was able to weasel his way into the White House with the help of James Baker, Katherine Harris, and the Supreme Court. Six years of George W. Bush as president has been an utter disaster, and it has only increased the idea that his “winning” in 2000 was a grievous error and simply wrong in so many ways. About the only good thing that has come out this administration is that his train wreck of a presidency has the set Republican Party back at least ten years and has destroyed the coalition that was created under the Reagan Revolution. Other than that I don’t there is anything you can point to out of this gang has done as being a major accomplishment. So given the disaster Bush has been maybe it is that sense fairness that some of think that Al Gore deserves another chance. However, that was then and this is now, and I can’t blame Gore if he does not want to go through that again. It just makes you wonder what President Gore would have been like.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
