Oh those Independents, how they add-up

About Those Independents… The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll hints that the 2008 presidential election could mark the year independents reclaim their status as a swing group. After Karl Rove’s 2004 strategy attempted to circumvent independents by focusing on the GOP base, independents appear to be back in the driver’s seat. In this poll, independents split evenly between Barack Obama (44 percent) and John McCain (43 percent). A closer look at their views on the candidates themselves and key issues and attributes hints that McCain faces a more uphill battle to convince independents that he is the better candidate to handle many top domestic issues or reflect their personal values. But even with these obstacles, McCain is viewed positively and runs about evenly with Barack Obama in a general election match-up. Here are more crosstabs from the latest poll. Q. If the 2008 presidential election were being held today and the candidates were (Barack Obama, the Democrat) and (John McCain, the Republican), for whom would you vote?

NET LEANED VOTE Obama- McCain All adults 48- 42 Independents 44- 43

The following results are only among political independents:

Q. Do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of (NAME)? Obama McCain Favorable NET 63 57 Strong fav. 29 18 Somewhat fav. 34 39 Unfavorable NET 32 38 Somewhat unfav. 13 21 Strong unfav. 19 17 Q.

Regardless of who you may support, who do you trust more to handle [ITEM] – (Obama) or (McCain)? Obama McCain Issues of special concern to women 56 25

Global warming and other environmental issues 50 29

Health care 50 32

 Energy policy 48 33

Gasoline prices 45 32

The economy 49 37

Appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court 45 39

Taxes 43 41

The war in Iraq 43 45

International affairs 42 45

The U.S. campaign against terrorism 33 55

Q. Regardless of who you may support, who do you think [ITEM] – (Obama) or (McCain)?

Obama McCain Would do more to bring needed change to Washington 64 22

Better understands the problems of people like you 50 32

Would do more to stand up to lobbyists and special interest groups 49 35

Better represents your own personal values 49 36

Is the stronger leader 44 45

Q. Which of these is more important to you in a candidate for president: (strength and experience) or (a new direction and new ideas)?

Strength and experience 39 New direction and new ideas 51

You’ve Been Obama’d

How many believed him when he said he was about “Change”… then PLASTERED it everywhere, just to make sure the mass hypnosis occurred? How many “hoped” for the change from politics, as usual? Not just in eloquence of speech (McCain lacks and Bush, well… you know) but in doing things differently? Did you notice how “progressive” he was in the primaries and immediately became “conservative” now that he is vying for McCain’s supporters? Nothing new in the world of the politics of “change”, apparently.

I got a hair cut today (ok, don’t laugh you young whippersnappers with flowing manes) and my stylist said, “Well, I guess we’ll have a black president…”

“Given the choice of the two,” I said, “I suppose so”.

“Well, I think many people will just stay at home.”

I asked her, “What if you had a choice of someone, irregardless of color, that stood for what you want and need for America and your family?” (Her son has been to Iraq… not the best story)

I told her about Ralph Nader.

I explained that Obama’s color means nothing to me. It is his stance on the issues and how I see him falling for the control of the ones he bitched about to get where he is today. I see the same old bullshit that I have witnessed my entire life in politics. Big Money/Big Military get “to” them.

Kevin Zeese at OpEdNews has a post on this subject and makes note about the latest Washington Post article, where it evaluates the money issue and Mr Obama’s decisionflipflop. In it, he points out these issues of notice:

The Washington Post (see below) has looked behind the claims that Obama is creating a new politics with small donors and finds that there are less small donors in 2008 compared to 2004, that Obama is getting big business support and this is the politics of “the usual” not of “change.” This is consistent with the tracking of Obama’s support from OpenSecrets.org which finds Obama reaping in big support from big business interests. He is pulling in massively from representatives of the industries he is showing support to: health care — where he moved from single payer to health insurance subsidies, coal and nuclear — where he favors clean coal and nuclear as a solution to energy shortages, big finance — where he oppsed putting a cap on usurious interest rates. No doubt his flip flop to support protection for the illegal spying on Americans by the telecom industry will garner support there as well and his speech to AIPAC should get the right wing pro-Israel money flowing into his coffers. Now that he is hiring the Clinton fundraising team and the corporate interests that support the Democrats have a candidate — Obama should be rolling in the campaign donations of big business like no other candidate before him — even George W. Bush will be jealous when this campaign is over.

By the way, when it comes to support from militarists — Obama and McCain are virtually tied when it comes to donations from military contractors. (McCain, John $300,034, Oama, Barack $296,673, Nader, Ralph $700.) This is not surprising since Obama has sent clear signals to the military industrial complex that he is no threat to them. His promise to expand the military, already bloated and wasteful, with 92,000 more troops will result in tens of billions annually to defense contractors. And, his promise to leave the private security mercenaries should make the Blackwaters of the world feel secure that the so-called change he is bringing will provide them with billions in contracts. In the next reporting cycle Obama should capture the support of the military industrial complex in a dominating way since the election is looking more and more like Obama’s at this early stage. See www.electoral-vote.com.

It is interesting that some anti-war progressives like Progressives for Obama and the weapons industry are supporting the same candidate. I wonder if it were McCain who opted out of the campaign finance system, planned record fundraising from big business representatives, had staff who were also consultants to PACs and 527s and had put out the false myth that he was raising his record hundreds of millions from small donors — whether progressive Democrats would by shouting? Calling him corrput? Describing him as a sell out? But, when it is Obama they sit silently, applaud at his calls for “hope” and “change” and urge others to vote for him rather than candidates like McKinney or Nader who actually stand for clean campaigns.

The man (Barack) speaks in nuances and says key words that cause many people seeking for a savior from Bush/McCain’s ideology to not understand that there is no real substance. And the few places that he had substance (health care, war in Iraq, Palestinian/Israeli conflict, money, and even race) are now crumbling from the weight of the Big Money pressure.

Ralph Nader is the antithesis of McCain AND Obama.

Let’s stop the “change” candidates whose only change is to sell themselves to the highest bidder.

Countdown video : Bush fails to gain a ‘hello’

Bush, you looked surprised that those two people wouldn’t wave. It is very simple.

We don’t like you. We don’t like your attitude. We don’t like your murderous cabal. We don’t like what you have done to our country and its name in the world. We don’t like anything that you have done while in office. You are a miserable, criminal failure and most people don’t wave at mass murderers.

When you are thrown into the real world, the one that is not over-stuffed with your koolaid drinking followers who worship the chimp-like grin, you are forced to see the truth. Your handlers can’t protect you from the truth, so most of the time they form the reality for you.

All those speeches where the people seemed to really agree and give standing ovations and shit? Those are cronies, dumbass. Those are representative of less than 30% of America (I am being VERY generous with that estimation). I’m thinking that you may actually have around 15% that would gobble your goob.

Narcissism is blinding. And when you have these handlers who take full advantage of retardation on top of that, well, America stands no chance. Allow reality to creep in.

Don’t you get it, you thieving, murderous, ignorant bastard?

It would be the same feeling I would get if I were standing as they brought Hitler by and he, in his narcissistic idiocy, would wave, expecting his beloved followers to jump up and down for the recognition of His Mighty warrior-ship. I am surprised they didn’t offer him the bird, for all his effort.

You dumb-ass:

WE DO NOT LIKE YOU!

Israel: America’s Pussy

My family are cat people. I like cats because by and large they can fend for themselves and don’t require constant petting and care. They pretty much decide when and where to be petted and bothered. They insist on us doing their bidding when they need it, at the moment they need it. Our cats, in many ways, control us, more than we do them. Such it is with Israel.

Have you heard recently that Israel is reaching out to its enemies and offering peace? Have you wondered why and why now? Is it a change of heart of the Israeli government?

Do you think that they have “listened to their hearts” and realize that what they have done is wrong and want to give Syria back its lands? Or that they finally realize that Hamas was democratically elected or that the Palestinian people need to be treated better than dogs.

Or do you think that the Israeli government is trying to pursuade its neighbors that it is really a loving country that is misunderstood… that they are really, at heart, nice guys.

Or do you consider it even remotely possible that this government is simply trying to convince its neighbors that peace is its goal, just to do the magician’s sleight-of-hand where the actual goal is to attack Iran?

At the beginning of this month, Israel conducted a war exercise that seemed to simulate an air assault on Iran (mission was same general distance with refueling planes and rescue operations conducted in the Gulf). Olmert (immersed in controversy, himself, in Israel) had a meeting with Bush recently where he eluded that something is afoot and that there would be action taken against Iran.

The old adage is “follow the money” to find the corruption. Here is a quick breakdown to show how we have supported Israel with far more support than we have given anyone in the world:

Considering economic assistance that the USA has given the world from 1949 – 1996, we gave Israel $62.5Billion (58 Million people) and in the same timeframe gave the REST OF THE WORLD (1.05 Billion) $62.5 Billion. That works out to $10,775 per Israeli and a whopping $59 per person for the rest of the world. Wonder what that kind of investment gets us?

Of the USA’s annual aid, Israel gets a full 1/3 (there are 191 countries in the world).

In March of 2003 America gave Israel $10Billion and we give more and more. From 1946- 2006, US aid to Israel was a conservative estimate of $108Billion.

For a population the size of Wisconsin, we are giving $2-3 Billion per year or $6-8 Million per day. We defend Israel, no matter what they do or violations they conduct in the world. Although the USA strongly held Iraq accountable for breaking UN Security Council violations, Israel has broken these resolutions 40 times and the USA uses its veto strength in the council to save them… EVERY TIME.

It doesn’t matter what Israel does in the world. Lie, kill, starve, steal land. We protect them.

Am I the only redneck in this country who is questioning why we support the biggest destabilizing country in the world ?

Richard Noggin’ Saturday: Steny Hoyer

The Obama “Change”: People’s Candidate to Corporation’s Savior

June 20, 2008
www.votenader.org
www.officialnaderstore.com

Ralph Nader stands for shifting the power from the big corporations back to the people.

Period.

Full stop.

End of story.

Contrast that with Senator Obama.

The old Obama said that he thought NAFTA was a “big mistake.”

The new Obama isn’t so sure.

The old Obama said he would abide by public spending limits in this election.

The new Obama he says he won’t.

The old Obama said he was for a change in foreign policy and surrounded himself with innovative thinkers with a chance to make a difference.

The new Obama has surrounded himself with veterans of the military industrial complex status quo.

The old Obama talked economic populism.

The new Obama talks corporate-speak and surrounds himself with economists from the Chicago School.

You know where Nader and Gonzalez stand on corporate power.

And that isn’t changing.

We’re at six percent nationwide in the most recent CNN poll.

We’re going to be on ten state ballots by the end of June.

And we’re shooting for 40 by the end of the summer.

Together, we are moving forward.

And together, we will make a difference in November.

Onward.

The Nader Team

PS: We invite your comments to the blog.

Your contribution could be doubled. Public campaign financing may match your contribution total up to $250.