The Obama FISA Flop

B’Man: What will it take for Dems to realize that he took them for a ride?

Glenn Greenwald continues to evaluate an obvious flip-flop from “Mr Change” on his backing of this FISA legislation and what is apparently a move to attract right-leaning folks to the total consternation of those who voted for him in the Primaries.

In his article Obama Advisor Greg Craig: Adding Insult to Injury, Glenn shows the blatant turn-around on this issue over the past year and how the explanations now are not only false, but by all appearances, downright lies.

In today’s New York Times, James Risen — who won the Pulitzer Prize for exposing Bush’s illegal NSA spying program — has an article reporting on Obama supporters who are criticizing Obama for his FISA reversal and who are attempting to defeat the bill which Obama supports. The article quotes Jane Hamsher, Markos Moulitsas and myself and features the very innovative effort by Obama supporters to use his campaign’s social networking tools to urge Obama to oppose the FISA bill (more on that campaign here). For his article, Risen spoke with Obama adviser Greg Craig, a partner at the Washington law firm Williams & Connolly, and this is what Craig told Risen:

Greg Craig, a Washington lawyer who advises the Obama campaign, said Tuesday in an interview that Mr. Obama had decided to support the compromise FISA legislation only after concluding it was the best deal possible.”This was a deliberative process, and not something that was shooting from the hip,” Mr. Craig said. “Obviously, there was an element of what’s possible here. But he concluded that with FISA expiring, that it was better to get a compromise than letting the law expire.”

Craig’s statement is flat-out false. FISA — enacted in 1978 and amended many times to accommodate modern communications technology — has no expiration date. The Protect America Act, which Congress enacted last August to legalize warrantless eavesdropping on Americas, had a 6-month sunset provision and thus already expired back in February, restoring FISA as the governing law. Thus, if Congress does nothing now, FISA will continue indefinitely to govern the Government’s power to spy on the communications of Americans. It doesn’t expire. What Craig said in defense of Obama is just wrong.

B’Man: These people are truly scrambling, trying to cover Obama’s tracks. Thing is, this is a total capitulation of him on this issue, as Glenn points out further down into his article:

Back in August, when he was seeking the Democratic nomination, Obama voted against the Protect America Act. Therefore, had Obama had his way, there never would have been any PAA in the first place, and therefore, there never would have been any PAA orders possible. Having voted against the PAA last August, how can Obama now claim that he considers it important that the PAA orders not expire? How can he be eager to avoid the expiration of surveillance orders which he opposed authorizing in the first place?

I asked Craig that question several times and received completely incoherent replies, after which he started insisting that he already answered me and had nothing else to add (he then changed the subject to talk about the “improvements” the current bill achieves over the Rockefeller Senate bill). The fact is that there is no answer. In the past, Obama has opposed the type of warrantless eavesdropping which those PAA orders authorize. He’s repeatedly said that the FISA court works and there’s no need to authorize eavesdropping without individual warrants. None of that can be reconciled with his current claim that he supports this FISA “compromise” because National Security requires that those PAA orders not expire and that there be massive changes to FISA. It’s just as simple as that.

B’Man: Ah, but Glenn, aren’t we supposed to just “believe” that Mr Obama is only slightly rubbing up close to the illegal activities, so that he can bring havoc when he is the president? That Keith Olbermann is correct, that we should elect Barack at any cost, because McCain would be much worse? Hell, why don’t we just let Bush pass a presidential declaration that he will stay on for a few more years, because he really has good things planned…

Am I the only redneck on the planet that wants to know the truth and is NOT ok with them lying to me and the country? Really? I’m the ONLY one?

Truth would require that he actually, eh, tell the truth. Just come out and say it. Don’t lie.

It’s bad enough that Obama is supporting a new warrantless eavesdropping scheme. They should just candidly admit that he changed his position rather than feeding incoherent and insultingly false rationalizations to the public — whereby they throw around the terms “National Security” and “balance” enough times and hope that nobody notices or cares that what they’re saying makes no sense. One of the strengths of the Obama campaign has been a willingness to have adult discussions about complex political issues, assume a fair amount of rationality and intelligence on the part of the voting public, and avoid manipulative, obfuscating sloganeering like this. It’s just adding insult to injury to resort to nonsensical justifications of the type Craig put into the New York Times today.

Just to get a flavor for how fundamental a reversal is Obama’s FISA position, here is what Obama said back in February when accepting Chris Dodd’s endorsement:

We know it’s time to time to restore our Constitution and the rule of law. This is an issue that was at the heart of Senator Dodd’s candidacy, and I share his passion for restoring the balance between the security we demand and the civil liberties that we cherish.The American people must be able to trust that their president values principle over politics, and justice over unchecked power. I’ve been proud to stand with Senator Dodd in his fight against retroactive immunity for the telecommunications industry. Secrecy and special interests must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens — and set an example to the world — that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient. Because in America –- no one is above the law.

Here is what he said back in January:

Ever since 9/11, this Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand.The FISA court works. The separation of power works. We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight, and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend.

No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people — not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed. . . .

A grassroots movement of Americans has pushed this issue to the forefront. You have come together across this country. You have called upon our leaders to adhere to the Constitution. You have sent a message to the halls of power that the American people will not permit the abuse of power — and demanded that we reclaim our core values by restoring the rule of law.

It’s time for Washington to hear your voices, and to act. I share your commitment to this cause, and will stand with you in the fights to come.

And obviously, his vow last October to “support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies” can’t be reconciled with his vow to “support” such a bill now…

…The issue is that Obama has repeatedly, over the course of the last year, made emphatic commitments and clear statements about his own core political values that are completely irreconcilable with his support for the FISA bill. It’s possible to recognize that someone is just a “politician” and still trust that they’re essentially telling you the truth about what they think and what they’ll do. One hard-core Obama supporter explains that here.

As I said, it’s bad enough that this is being done. Eventually, the sting of what Obama and Democrats generally have done will diminish somewhat for many people. But for those who have sat by watching the Bush administration and its followers exploit complexities over spying issues in order to issue one false claim after the next to justify Bush’s lawbreaking, having the Obama campaign issue factually false and/or incoherent explanations to justify Obama’s conduct only makes matters worse, not better.

B’Man: It is not only bad enough that he does these things, then tries to slither away from previous statements, it is exactly what we have had for 7 + years and is time to stop. Maybe this is a blessing, if people will pay attention.

The fact is that neither of the “Big Two” are anything but lying shift-changers. America is too stupid to realize you are being led to slaughter, even by your precious Barack.

Baaa

Taking On The White Establishment: Delusional?

One reason I like Ralph Nader so much is that he holds back no punches on the issues (Manila Ryce at The Largest Minority called him the “Termi-Nader” and made the pic to the right). Nader goes straight to the heart of the issue, where the others will avoid those true issues with all their ability. No matter whether or not Ralph stands a chance in winning, his being on the ballot will insure that America hears the heart of the issue and we won’t allow the Big Two to hide those things MOST important.

In the meantime, if America would awake from its hopelie-induced slumber, maybe they will see that the issues Ralph supports are the best for each and every American (except the richest who have been stealing us blind all along: the White Establishment.)

So, when Nader told Obama that he needs to “take on the white establishment”, do you know what he means? Is Nader “delusional” as Obama claimed or is Obama “illusional” as Nader claimed?

If you are a black person, do you feel like Nader meant that Obama should take on the white people in some retributive way? If you are white, do you feel like Nader is asking for an assault against whites by blacks?

Do you (virtually anyone who reads this blog) think that YOU are a part of the white establishment? Unless there are people reading this piss ant blog that I am unaware of (who knows which government agency reads here) you ain’t a part of it. I guarantee it. Being white don’t buy you shit with Big Money, but the truth is that most Big Money is white. There are, of course, the Arab exceptions (and they are barely allowed to play in Big Money’s back yard) and a few others dispersed throughout the world, but by and large, it is white people (how many blacks have been in Skull and Bones?).

I’m obviously white and I hold no illusions to my standing in The White Establishment. They don’t give a damn about me.

But back to Obama. Could Nader be right about this? That Obama needs to challenge the establishment instead of give in? Instead of becoming THEM? Looking at his recent flip-flops on key issues… seeing that he supports enlarging the military, instead of taking on the Military Industrial Complex… seeing him capitualte on any number of issues shows me that 1) either he is changing before our eyes… or 2) he has been lying all along.

That is the “illusion”. Obama has been an illusion all along and has fooled many Americans into thinking he was different. he’s not. Never has been, but milked the suckers for all they are worth.

Take ON the White Establishment? Shit. Don’t make me laugh.

He is their puppet.

What Is Your Idea Of Bipartisanship?

B’Man: Apparently many of the Bushie Demublicans feel like this idea constitutes reTHUGlicans voting 100% lockstep and the Bushie Dems “reaching across the aisle” in “bipartisan” fashion, so that the THUGS always win. I’m so happy that you guys are so “fair”. Glenn Greenwald points out specific cases and lays out the vote for you to judge for yourself:

Many people, especially partisans, always believe that their own side is compromising too much and that the other side is always winning, so it’s best to consult objective facts in order to know how “bipartisanship” works. Here are the vote breakdowns by party over the last couple years on the most significant and contentious pieces of legislation, particularly (though not only) in the area of national security.

In almost every case, the proposals that are enacted are ones favored by the White House and supported by all GOP lawmakers, and then Democrats split and enough of them join with Republicans to ensure that the GOP gets what it wants. That’s “bipartisanhip” in Washington:

To support the new Bush-supported FISA law:

GOP - 48-0

Dems - 12-36

To compel redeployment of troops from Iraq:

GOP - 0-49

Dems - 24-21

To confirm Michael Mukasey as Attorney General:

GOP - 46-0

Dems - 7-40

To confirm Leslie Southwick as Circuit Court Judge:

GOP - 49-0

Dems - 8-38

Kyl-Lieberman Resolution on Iran:

GOP - 46-2

Dems - 30-20

To condemn MoveOn.org:

GOP - 49-0

Dems - 23-25

The Protect America Act:

GOP - 44-0

Dems - 20-28

Declaring English to be the Government’s official language:

GOP - 48-1

Dems - 16-33

The Military Commissions Act:

GOP - 53-0

Dems - 12-34

To renew the Patriot Act:

GOP - 54-0

Dems - 34-10

Cloture Vote on Sam Alito’s confirmation to the Supreme Court:

GOP - 54-0

Dems - 18-25

Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq:

GOP - 48-1

Dems - 29-22

On virtually every major controversial issue — particularly, though not only, ones involving national security and terrorism — the Republicans (including their vaunted mythical moderates and mavericks) vote in almost complete lockstep in favor of the President, the Democratic caucus splits, and the Republicans then get their way on every issue thanks to “bipartisan” support. That’s what “bipartisanship” in Washington means.

B’Man: They are playing us, people. Always just enough to claim a fight, but losing nonetheless. And the money continues to flow… and you get poorer and sicker and lose your rights.

h/t Digby at Hullabaloo

Progressives Getting Pissed

B’Man: Anyone reading here knows I’m pissed about what is happening to this election right before our eyes. We witnessed a man (a black man on top of that) rise to the top of the heap of the Democratic candidates (I never felt he was the best choice to begin with) by telling the Progressives and the base that he was the same as they and made many statements to wistfully brainwash them with “Change” and “Hope”… understandable after what we have endured the last 8 years.

We are at a crossroads in our country and the only way to address the issues is with truth… to hell with party affiliation and commitment.

Dan Fejes wrote a good article (although he didn’t even mention Ralph as a potential third party candidate, but did Bob Barr… wtf?) called The Democrat’s Risky Strategy posted at OpEdNews. The bigger point of the article is that in this particular year of “change” from the maniac, it is not a smart idea to lie and flip-flop on the ones that brought you to the dance, as it were.

Democrats are playing a dangerous game. They apparently reason that Republicans will bear the brunt of dissatisfaction over Washington’s unpopular policies. That may well be true. The GOP faces a disaster this year because they gained control of all major parts of government and then engaged in an orgy of excess, alienating moderates and depressing their loyalists. Having achieved their electoral goal they spent all their credibility very quickly. Democrats seem to be in the process of a sellout of a different sort. They seized control of both houses of Congress but seem oblivious (or indifferent) to the public’s anger. Instead they seem to be playing a game of political jujitsu, using the overexertions of the right to give them leverage to flip them totally off the mat. It may be a brilliant tactical move but one with long term risks. First, urgent policy issues fester because no meaningful action can happen under such a strategy. That leads to the second problem, deep dissatisfaction with what comes to be seen as a lesser of two evils. By eschewing opposition the Democrats are creating a pool of thwarted activists. Such people are primed to create new realities or respond to the latest version of a quirky billionaire with homemade charts. I’ve written before about the Republicans’ implosion; the ground may be shifting underneath the Democrats as well.

B’Man: Political jujitsu is an apt description. They feel like they can because most Americans are so afraid of McBush that they think they can sit on their ass and do ANYTHING they desire without fear of losing. This political game is the last thing America needs right now. We need a leader who is truthful from day one and throughout the election process and his time in office.

Then we have two articles written by Jason Rosenbaum and Sam Stein from the Huffington Post and featured at Alternet examining this phenomena and come to the conclusion of bending over and taking the screwing, because we have no real choice… … the choice being McBush.

The Obama Problem
by Jason Rosenbaum

In the last week, Barack Obama has handed progressives a string of stinging rebukes. First, he all but capitulated on the issue of retroactive immunity for lawbreaking telecom companies by endorsing the FISA “compromise.” Next came his disagreement with the Supreme Court ruling that the death penalty shouldn’t be imposed for rape. And then his flip on the heels of the Supreme Court ruling allowing the sale of handguns in DC.

It’s been a hell of a week.

So, what are progressives to do? As has been evident for some time now, Obama is only loosely affected by progressive pressure. While he has moved left on some important issues, overall he has bigger constituencies to please, and he will do what he wants.

B’Man: He is a smart politician and has snookered America. He knows we feel we have no choice, so does the Democratic Party as a whole. He has calculated this from the beginning and can now approach the right, even to the extent of total capitulation on issue promises that got him the nomination… and we are supposed to select the lesser of two evils, then offers the real “hope” of the Obama campaign… the hope that we can change him after he is elected:

I am not willing to actively work against him. I’m not willing to call on people to pull their money and their volunteer hours either. But two can play at Obama’s game.

To me, Obama’s methods are obvious. He is selling out a constituency without leverage (progressives) to burnish his centrist image, which he believes will bring him more votes in November. Obama is practicing, as BooMan puts it, “raw political calculation.” Well, guess what; I can do that, too!

I will work to elect Obama because, a la “Crashing The Gate,” he is the candidate who will most likely bring about the change I want. But I realize that this raw political calculation is only a marriage of convenience. As soon as Obama is elected, I become his critic, looking to move him left.

B’Man: Well, folks. Here is where I differ. Why the hell should we accept this as what it is without a fight up front? Why accept that another person, no matter the color, can lie and shift-change with abandon and we not stand up and call a liar a damned liar? Demand truth and honor?

I’m sick of this shit.

Jane Hamsher said we should have expected this. I agree. They apparently all lie if in the Dem or reTHUG parties.

Its time for the people of this country to wake up and realize what they are doing to us and stop it.

Must Avoid TV: When Olbermann Became Owned

He used to put on a decent show. He would rave and rant at the right times. He made it “acceptable” to accuse the President of his shenanigans and evil-doing. He helped many Americans realize that the Right has taken over, by brute force, the airways and mindset of the American people, even though many Americans knew these things to be against their core values and beliefs.

Keith used to help me to feel like we had hope that the political movement “could” be changed. That maybe, just maybe, someone from the progressive side of the political spectrum could actually become a voice again. But, slowly and surely, he has become owned by “them” and I feel he has either been told something that changed his mind or he is a flip-flopper on one of the most crucial things happening today in Washigton.

I have found myself becoming less attentive to his show and over the last week or so have not really watched at all. Why? Because he has fallen for the Obama rhetoric and has totally capitulated on a Special Comment regarding the telecom immunity deal that Obama now flip-floppingly supports (his flip-flops are becoming quite regular now).

So Keith has decided that it isn’t so bad now that Obama has capitulated to Big Telecom’s influence and has decided that Mr Obama simply knows something the rest doesn’t and that stopping the civil court process will enable a super-secret Criminal attack when Obama wins. Its all planned and we should believe that they will be held accountable in the future. Just elect him to get it done, I suppose (the carrot dangles before the Progressives, again).

Keith, who still holds some of my admiration, has become just another TV personality. You know, the kind that you can’t trust for anything truthful, but will be controlled by other rationale. They all seem to do it. I still hold out hope for Bill Moyers.

Glenn Greenwald took Keith to task about this and Olbermann replied… thing is, with Glenn, you better have your shit together, for he will proverbially spank you if you bullshit him. I recommend everyone subscribing to his blog.

In his Kos reply, Olbermann pronounces that my piece yesterday was “simplistic and childish” but then adds the standard dismissive Journalist defense: “I don’t know much about Mr. Greenwald and I didn’t read his full piece.” He says that he refrained from criticizing Obama’s support for the FISA bill in reliance on John Dean’s comments, and “John Dean is the smartest person I’ve ever met” and “John Dean is worth 25 Glenn Greenwalds” — so that settles that (for what it’s worth, I also have a high opinion of Dean’s legal acumen; hosted his appearance at FDL’s Book Salon; don’t disagree with him about this bill at all; have communicated with him about many issues; and he has said many complimentary things about my work in the past, so waving the flag of Dean’s Unassailable Authority establishes nothing).

Olbermman then denies that he was justifying Obama’s support for the FISA bill but then goes on to do exactly that:

Seriously, there is little in the polls to suggest McCain has anything to run with other than terror . . . . So why hand them a brick to hit him with — Obama Voted Against FISA — if voting Aye enhances his chances of getting himself his own Attorney General to prosecute FISA.

How can Olbermann accuse me of distorting his commentary and deny that he’s rationalizing Obama’s support for the bill and then write the above — which does nothing but justify Obama’s support for the bill? That’s exactly the mentality I was criticizing yesterday — that Obama should be excused for supporting this assault on core Constitutional liberties and the rule of law because doing so is necessary to avoid appearing Weak on Terrorism. That’s the behavior which Obama has repeatedly vowed to reject, and it’s that precise mentality that has to be extinguished, not perpetuated.

Isn’t it amazing how Keith finds himself in such a mixed up conundrum? I call it hypocrisy.

to give Obama a pass on his support for such a heinous bill — one which Dean himself describes as a grave assault on the Constitution — based on this imagined secret plan for the Good that Obama is harboring is to illustrate exactly the sort of blind faith in political leaders that is so dangerous. That’s been the Right’s mentality to excuse every last thing Bush does:

It may look to you like Bush is breaking the law or doing something wrong, but he’s a Good person and so we can trust in him that he’s doing it for our own Good, even when he doesn’t tell us why he’s doing it and even when he keeps his real motives a secret. He probably has a good reason for doing these things and we don’t need to know what that is. Besides, we’re facing such an extreme crisis that it’s more important to support him than criticize him even when we don’t understand why he’s doing something and even when we don’t know what it is that he’s doing.

No political leader deserves that sort of blind faith — not Bush and not Obama.

There is so much more in Glenn’s article, but let me finish with the following observation that I totally agree with. I am sick and tired of hearing about chnage in how leadership operates. I want to SEE IT IN ACTION!

As he mentions in his Kos diary, Olbermann had the vocally pro-Obama Markos Moulitsas on his show on Monday night and tried to get Markos to embrace this excuse for Obama. Markos rejected it emphatically:

OLBERMANN: But to the point of the Constitution, John Dean made a fascinating point on this news hour on Friday. He read this bill and he knows a little something about the Constitution, too. He says it’s so sloppily written that nothing in there would rule out later criminal liabilities for the telecom companies.Could that be, actually, what Obama is counting on, just sort of cede this civil action stuff which is basically in lieu of sending these people to jail and just concentrate on, you know, closing up whatever perceived weakness there is of the Democrats being soft on counterterror and, in fact, just hold a bigger punch back until after the election?

MOULITSAS: Well, if that’s the strategy, he has said nothing to indicate that and this is not the sort of thing that I think you have to keep quiet and secretive. I mean, if that’s his strategy, he can say, “This is a bill that’s flawed,” but, really at the end of the day he has a chance to stand for the Constitution and to show that he will protect it against forces that seek to undermine it and he will show that he has, like I said before, that he is a leader and will take the mantle of leadership on this issue and take control of the Democratic Party.

Markos — who observed: “I don’t think he’s going to lose any support, I mean, let’s be honest. I mean, it’s either Obama or John McCain” — nonetheless added:

I think what’s at stake, though, is a lot of the intensity of support for Barack Obama. And he spent the last two years telling us how he’s going to be the leader of the free world, not to mention the Democratic Party and this nation . . . . I don’t want to hear him talk about leadership. I don’t want to hear him talk about defending the Constitution; I want to see him do it.

That is precisely the point, and of course those who believe in defending core constitutional liberties shouldn’t remain quiet when any politician — including Obama — takes actions to erode them.

Truth Hurts… But Obama Is Owned By Big Money Influence

June 25, 2008
www.votenader.org

www.officialnaderstore.com

Senator Obama said earlier today that I haven’t been paying attention to his campaign.

Actually, I have.

And it’s clear from Senator Obama’s campaign that he is not willing to tackle the white power structure - whether in the form of the corporate power structure or many of the super-rich - who are taking advantage of 100 million low income Americans who are suffering in poverty or near poverty.

Senator Obama is opposed to single payer national health insurance.

Why?

Because he favors the health insurance giants over the millions of Americans in poverty or near poverty who are uninsured or under-insured. Eighteen thousand Americans die every year because they cannot afford health insurance, according to the Institute of Medicine.

Senator Obama wants to expand the military budget which is loaded with waste, fraud and abuse - instead of cutting it and investing the long ignored peace dividend in the inner cities with good jobs and public works - including schools, clinics, and libraries.

Why?

Because he fears and favors those thousands of lobbyists in charge of enlarging the military industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us against.

Senator Obama says he favors a living wage. But he doesn’t say he would immediately increase the minimum wage to $10 an hour, which is the equivalent of the 1968 minimum wage adjusted for inflation - because by doing so he would offend the big corporations who exploit labor in places like Wal-Mart and fast food chains. (The minimum wage needs to be increased immediately, not phased in over a number of years, as Senator Obama would have it.)

So Senator Obama, let’s get specific.

We’re looking for deeds, not, as Shakespeare put it, words, words, mere words.

Your public career, which I have also been paying attention to, is long on words, and short on action when it comes to consumer protection, cracking down on corporate crime, curbing the violence of toxic environmental racism, and extending clean, affordable public transit, among other issues.

For the purposes of the here and now, three things:

One, why don’t you support single payer national health insurance, which is supported by a majority of doctors and the American people?

Two, why do you favor expanding the military budget which is replete with waste, fraud and abuse?

And three, why don’t you come out and support an immediate increase of the minimum wage to $10 an hour?

When can we expect the authenticity of hope and change?
Your contribution could be doubled. Public campaign financing may match your contribution total up to $250.

When Georgia Redneck THUGS speak

They sound like this stupid asshole…

He said that like he is proud of his record. Georgia rednecks, wake up and get rid of this trash.

If anyone has supported Bush and the neocon agenda, then their judgment is lacking and they should never represent you good people. You can do better.

As an example of better, check out Regina Thomas.

What’s The Difference between a Tennessee Democrat and Republican? Not Much…

B’Man: h/t Matt at ThinkProgress:

Last week, Fred Hobbs, a state Democratic Party Executive Committee member in Tennessee, told Nashville’s City Paper that for all he knew, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) “may be terrorist connected.” In a letter of apology to the Executive Committee, Hobbs now says he had that “incorrect” impression because he watched Fox News:

Dear State Executive Committee Member:
I am writing to apologize for my recent remarks about Senator Barack Obama.
My statements to various Nashville media were wrong and offensive. I apologize if my remarks in any way hurt any of our great Democratic candidates, including Senator Obama. Also, I apologize if my comments embarrassed our state or my friends at the Tennessee Democratic Party.

I was not as well prepared as I should have been when speaking with reporters, and I should have taken more time to research Senator Obama’s positions. My comments did reflect questions I had after what I had seen reported on Fox News, but I should have taken some time to check the accuracy of what I saw on television before speaking publicly. My statement that Senator Obama “may be terrorist-connected” was incorrect, and I apologize for making it.

B’Man: I don’t give a rat’s ass about Dems or THUGs. But I do care about why rednecks keep voting against their own needs and desires, which, in turn, fucks up my world. I can’t tell you how many times I have spoken to people who claim to be a Dem or Progressive and they only watch Fox News.

I mean, how stupid can one be?

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.

Obama’s Right Turn

June 16, 2008
www.votenader.org
www.officialnaderstore.com

Obama and the Democrats are raking it in from the big corporations.

Big corporate executives, for some reason, like Obama and the Democrats, but do not like Nader/Gonzalez.

Therefore, we must rely on you - our loyal supporters.

After securing the nomination, Obama immediately ripped into absentee black fathers, while kowtowing to the right-wing AIPAC lobby.

What’s wrong with this picture?

What’s wrong is that Obama is moving right.

He’s got the corporate money, the powerful lobbies, and big business in his corner.

And he’s not looking back.

But we have to make sure Obama knows that we are organizing.

And will be relentless in pursuit of justice throughout the year.

Obama might have the corporate executives and big law firms in his corner.

But we have you.

And with your help, Nader/Gonzalez will be on ten state ballots by the end of the month.

And forty by the end of the summer.

So once again, thank you for your generous and ongoing donations to our campaign.

Together, we are making a difference.

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.

Nader The ‘Spoiler’: As Much As I Agree With You, Please Don’t Run

June 13, 2008
www.votenader.org
www.officialnaderstore.com

2008 Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader discusses a remark made to him by a fellow alumnus at a recent Princeton reunion.

Watch the video here, read the transcript below.

Do you think Ralph Nader should run? If so, let him know now with your contribution. (Your contribution could be doubled. Public campaign financing may match your contribution total up to $250.) - The Nader Team

****

I was at my Princeton reunion the other day, and a young alumnus came up to me - he was very kind - and he said “You know, I really like what you’re doing - I like what you did - but please don’t run.”

I said “Do you realize what you are saying?”

And he said “Yes, I said please don’t run.”

I said “You’re telling me not to use my First Amendment rights of speech, assembly, and petition inside the electoral arena. You’re telling me to shut up. Are you aware of what you’re saying?”

He said “I understand, I understand, I like what you’re doing, but please don’t run.”

So I went through and I said “Well, would you tell those voters instead of trying to determine which one was worse between the Democrats and the Whigs, the two major parties in the 19th century, and instead cut out and voted for the Liberty Party, which was the anti-slavery party - would you say to those candidates, ‘Don’t run’?”

And he sort of paused.

And I said “How about the people who refused to go least-worst between the Republicans and Democrats on women’s suffrage? Would you tell those candidates ‘don’t run’? What do you say to that?”

And he paused.

And I took it up to date and I said “Would you tell Buchanan not to run?”

And he said “I understand what you are saying, but please don’t run.”

And I said “You know, unwittingly, you are engaging in a politically bigoted statement. Because you can oppose, and you can support, any candidates you want. But when you are saying to someone ‘don’t run’ you are saying to someone ‘do not speak, do not petition, do not assemble inside the electoral arena.’”

Now I’m saying this because I’m sure you’ve had these conversations with people. Look at the word spoiler. Spoiler is a contemptuous word of political bigotry. They do not accuse George W. Bush of being the spoiler in 2000, and last I heard he got more votes than I did, vis-a-vis Al Gore. It’s only the independent and third parties that are called spoilers.

And think of the hubris here - these two parties have spoiled our elections, they’ve spoiled our government, they’ve spoiled our politics - and to have the temerity to say to someone who wants to reform the process that they are spoilers - they have no sense of humor - I mean, how do you satire satire?

- Ralph Nader, New York City, May 31, 2008 - Watch the video | Comment on this blog

“Ralph Nader should run for President so we all have a better choice in November. Please accept my support!“

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

Obama Will Not Change NAFTA: He’s One Of ‘THEM’

I am convinced that Senator Obama has been saying some things simply to garner support for his election, when the truth will show that he will not pursue many of the issues that need the most work. NAFTA is one, and no matter what rhetoric you have heard, Big Money interests will not allow it. Like everything else I hear from Obama, most is pretty talk but no real balls to make it happen.

America is in for a let-down when we elect Barack, for he will not do what we need done. He is one of ‘THEM’.

From OpEdNews:

President Obama Won’t Change NAFTA

by Dana Gabriel

Barack Obama has all but wrapped up the Democratic nomination, with only the formalities of the convention remaining. There is a good chance that he will become the next president of the United States. For all his talk of change, it appears that in areas of trade, economics, foreign and monetary policy, things for the most part will remain status quo. During the grueling nomination battle, both the Obama and Clinton camps were highly critical of NAFTA and accused the other of changing their position on the trade agreement. What is really worrisome is that you don’t hear Obama, or McCain for that matter, talking about preserving the constitution or protecting American sovereignty. The reality is that NAFTA will remain intact, and the push towards a North American Union and global governance will continue.

Obama has promised that one of his first orders of business as president will be to call upon the leaders of Canada and Mexico to renegotiate stronger labor and environmental provisions into NAFTA. Both he and Clinton were specific about using the six-month opt-out clause in order to put pressure for changes to be made. It appears as if Obama has backed himself into a corner. With all this talk about renegotiating NAFTA, the U.S. ambassador to Canada , David Wilkins, has said that NAFTA is too important to do away with or make any drastic changes to. He pointed to the fact that regardless who wins the American presidential election, NAFTA will stand.

With the sharp tone of language directed towards NAFTA, some Canadian government officials became concerned. It was reported that the Obama campaign contacted Canadian officials to set the record straight and told them not to take the criticism seriously. They also received warnings that Obama would be further speaking out against the agreement. Does this mean that all this tough talk regarding NAFTA was nothing more than political positioning and rhetoric? It’s not just Obama as Clinton tried to court working-class voters in the industrial Midwest, where NAFTA has hit the hardest by also telling the people what they wanted to hear.

For years, both the Democrats and Republicans have been double teaming the American people. One gets in power and further advances the New World Order agenda, and then falls out of favor and passes the baton to the other. In Canada , it was the Liberal party who spearheaded the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) initiative, and with the Conservatives now in power, deeper integration has continued. It will be the same with the Democrats, who will further push for a North American Union, and this will not include dismantling NAFTA. Just like the Republicans, the Democrats are run by special interest groups and corporate powers that are pushing globalization and world government. With Obama in office, I am afraid that many on the left will go to sleep because their man and party will be in power. He doesn’t have the political baggage of a McCain or Clinton, and this makes him an even more useful tool of the elite.

In a recent article from washingtonpost.com, there are suggestions on what Obama should do as president. It included using the European Union as an example for economic and political integration. It talked about, “A functioning American Union that pools sovereignty.” It went on to say that this would not be possible by tearing down NAFTA. Much of the economic integration has already been achieved through NAFTA, and the SPP is continuing this process, further laying the foundation for a North American Union.

It is doubtful that the Democrats and President Obama will follow through on promises to fix NAFTA. It is so badly flawed, and a trade agreement that puts the interests of the people ahead of those of multinational corporations is what is needed. With all his talk on NAFTA, Obama has been silent on the SPP and the North American Union agenda. If there are no intentions of abandoning NAFTA, then it appears as if Obama’s change will be more of what we’ve come to expect from our politicians. With the next phase of the presidential campaign underway, I hope that this is not the last we’ve seen of NAFTA as an election issue.

newworldordermustbestopped.com

“I do this for the love of my family and humanity. If it sparks debate and leads people searching for the truth then it is all worth it. Keep up the fight against the NWO.”