Polls, I guess, are like that oft-cited bullet that concentrates the mind.
For seven years we've watched fiscal sanity, global responsibility and anything even remotely recognizable as presidential accountability go the way of the horse and buggy, but only now -- after the release of one poll showing that four out of five Americans may finally stop getting out of bed -- do the media huddle and pronounce things not so good. Washington, we have a problem.
Or most of us think so, anyway. Just most. The New York Times, for instance, presumably in search of a silver lining around the apocalypse, finds in its own polling results that we have arrived at "nearly a national consensus that the country faces significant problems" -- nearly, since there is still that 19 percent in extraordinary denial that "things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track."
There are two definitions of "consensus" -- unanimity or general agreement -- but when you get into the 80 percent+ range it would seem a distinction with no weighty difference. After all, a full four of that 19 actually said things are better off. And they said so, one assumes, just before their five o'clock feeding.
One of them may have been Senator John McCain, he of four more years and apocalypse promotion. For what he had to say in the face of all this was nothing less than stunning, although one must grant that he's as ideologically boxed in as any pol could be. The sky may be falling, nevertheless he himself must feed the faithful or he would have no base at all.
First, before we get to what he said, some general findings that surely caused the senator to join the rest of Americans in pulling those covers over the head:
A majority of nearly every demographic and political group — Democrats and Republicans, men and women, residents of cities and rural areas, college graduates and those who finished only high school — say the United States is headed in the wrong direction.
But in my view, as bad as that was for McCain, it wasn't the worst of it. For there was also this:
Fewer than half of parents — 46 percent — said they expected their children to enjoy a better standard of living than they themselves do, down from 56 percent in 2005. Respondents were more pessimistic when asked in general terms about the next generation, with only a third saying it would live better than people do today.
American politics is fashioned around that which is now fading: the American Dream -- the fundamental faith that even if one's own economic circumstances and general welfare fail to improve, at least those of the succeeding generation will. Fundamental and enduring hope: that's what our politics has always been about.
And the successful sort has always played into American pragmatism as well. When, for instance, the Great Depression descended, Americans took all that 19th- and early 20th-century ideological gobbledygook about laissez-faire economics and hands-off government and threw it in the trash bin. They instead demanded whatever would work, might work -- any kind of honest trying, at least -- and said to hell with dusty, impersonal philosophies.
Franklin Roosevelt delivered. A conservative at heart, he nevertheless gave some dramatically new ways a try. They didn't always work -- in fact, they rarely did -- but they supplied the confidence we now lack and propelled our characteristic hope, without which we would have been doomed.
And now comes Senator John McCain: "acknowledging that 'many Americans are hurting,' [he] said that lower taxes and less regulation would generate jobs."
That poor man. He's been reading his Hoover again, and quite obviously he hasn't yet made it to the last chapter to see how things turned out.
What an absolutely lethal and stupendously unpragmatic political approach. The good news, however, is that it's also the only one he can take, because he's as boxed in as he can get.
Senator Barack Obama, on the other hand, is free to run the field with, for instance, massive jobs-creating programs that address long-unattended problems such as our crumbling infrastructure, paid for with McCain's Iraq-war money.
In short, not since Roosevelt's reign has a presidential election been this far in the bag for Democrats. Their only problem? -- the only snag that could alter Herbert McCain's final chapter?
They're Democrats, and they're acting like it.
Buzz this on Buzzflash.net
In his own words
The Illinois senator also defended the recently re-authorized Patriot Act.
Responding to a question from the audience, asking whether he was a member for the Council on Foreign Relations, a group many allege is leading a move toward one world government, Obama said:
"I don’t know if I’m an official member. I’ve spoken there before. It basically is a forum where people talk about foreign policy. There is no official membership. I don’t have a card, or you know a special handshake or anything like that."
In his own words - from the John Birch Society's list of rants
Robertjones is a troll for the right wing John Birch Society. He keeps repeating the society's crackpot conspiracy rants, such as the assertion that Obama is "a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a group many [ie. John Birch kooks] allege is leading a move toward one world government."
A few days ago, he touted the group of bigoted fanatics as being "dedicated to restoring and preserving freedom under the United States Constitution."
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/carpenter/032#comment-25456
Here's an example of the craziness of the hate group. It's a crackpot rant against Planned Parenthood, the Council on Foreign Relations, the United Nations, and other groups involved in the promotion of family planning. It begins:
"One of the greatest hoaxes of the 20th century, now accepted without question by much of the world’s 'educated' populace, is the fraudulent contention that the earth is terribly overpopulated with humans."
And it ends: "And the leader of those 'major enemies of unborn children, women and families' is the United Nations, supported by major funding from the U.S. government."
You've got to read their stuff to believe anyone can be so crazy as to argue against the availability of family planning information and safe and affordable contraception.
"The UN War on Population"
Considering the John Birch Society's decades-long history of supporting apartheid in South Africa and fighting against civil rights in the United States, it's hardly surprising to see this troll rant against the candidacy of an African-American for President.
A John Bircher would rather be dead than live to see a black man become President.
Now for some truth about what the Council on Foreign Relations is: It's an 86-year-old, non-partisan and independent think tank. Many U.S. Presidents have given talks at FRC forums -- including Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
Among the current Board of Directors are Clinton's former Secretary of State Madeline Albright; Bush's former Secretary of State, Colin Powell; noted TV broadcaster Tom Brokaw; former Republican governor of New Jersey, Christine Todd Whitman; and many other American leaders of different political persuasion.
truth
We End The Iraq War & We'll Have A Consensus
We're blowing an opportunity, alright
Feh, making people have a
I believe you've missed my point
The answer's in the middle
Here's a counter to the GOP, darlene
Actually, I'm w/Darlene - we need to do both
What CONservatives always seemed to do well...
Democrats bring this on themselves
He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a group many allege is leading a move toward one world government.
He says he was against the War Against the People of Iraq before he had a vote in the Senate, but he has voted for extending and funding it every chance he's had since he has been in the Senate.
Most of his financial contributions have come from Republicans, and most of the states he has won in the primary are "red" states that have not voted for a Democrat since 1964 and are not likely to give their electoral college votes to a Democrat in November.
He chose Joe Lieberman as his mentor in the Senate.
He voted to end the debate and seat two right wing Justices on the Supreme Court.
He only talks about "hope" and "change", and never talks about policy. This kind of empty rhetoric is stock footage for politicians with a hidden agenda.
He allows and encourages his supporters to engage in a noise machine hate campaign against Hillary Clinton while pretending to be the holier-than-thou savior for all that ails us.
And yet, his supporters think that he some kind of "new politician" who is going to change the way things work in Washington. No one seems to even want to know the truth about him and will respond with virulent attacks on Hillary Clinton instead of seeking the truth and asking questions about what Obama is saying.
Watch . . .
Anita----Again,.......LET IT GO !!!!!
The following is a revised re-post of an earlier post to you, ANITA, concerning your "EPIC battle" with Askolnick over his use of the word "translational". While considering PGbowdens reply to your "input"---its apparent to me that all that older post contains--still pertains---to your 'contributions' here. You really ought to consider them in the context of the spirit they were intended to be given in.
Your current course of endeavor is soon to be as relevant as the buggy whip, in a very short amount of time--Obama will be the last man standing. Is one suppose to believe you will, in good faith, positively engage ALL those (only group left)---Obama supporters?? If thats so, then where does all your previous bankrupt premises leave you....credibilty-wise? You claim you would support "the eventual democratic nominee"--but that would make you intellectually dishonest, and idealogically conflicted, if you TRULY believe Obama is guilty of participating in these activities and alliances you profess. And, if he's so 'compromised'--how is one to believe you can look past all YOUR current allegations---and support him. Its highly unlikely, and totally contradictory. But, once again,......
This goes back to MY surmises of you----you are NOT WHAT YOU PORTRAY. You are NOT 'interested in the process'...that many of us would like to, (and have tried to), engage in, before you interfere, (witness your "input" to the already established conversation above)---NOTHING you said even fit the flow of conversation that was already in discussion. You seem to only be interested in how you may use, corrupt, and disrupt the the exchange of ideas here---to state....what??? You stated somewhere, you were, by inference, a BLACK MAN. This, by the body of your work here, I seriously doubt. It just happened to fit your situational need, at that time. If you truly were/are...Black, what does it say about your character to have been so quietly acquiescent during that time. You would have commented somewhere, at least once, on the ruinous and spurious behavior demonstrated by Hillary toward the Black community, EVEN, if you happen to agree with her stances, from a black perspective. This you have never done. Somehow, you have been strangely non-committal on this over all your posts; I believe, once again, you feigned 'Blackness", because it was expedient at the time; if you so readily swap out identities, (much as you do with political realities), it may not be entirely relevant, but it is...again, evidence of your duplicity.
Indeed, you find the time to pester every poster here by bellicously coercing them to find sources, for you, about whatever assertions they make---yet, you seldom do so yourself. You make many aspersions as to the validity of someones opinion, yet, when YOUR erroneous allegations are sometimes investigated, found to be lacking, and contrary evidence is provided---you simply ignore the veracity of its existence. You also have a naughty little habit of going back to several days-old posts, then insert your scurrilous little comments, and try to portray it as if you REALLY set someone straight. If one doesn't happen to go back and review an old post---they'd never realize some of your best commentary is sneakily made in a belated fashion. Revisionist history, perhaps? This says a lot about your character.
You waste everyones valuable time by arguing, again, minutia, over every sleight---real or perceived---you think you have to endure. If, at your age, you can't cooperatively guide younger progressives to a greater insight, or awareness, of the impending realities of this "process"--you profess to be so interested in......than you, frankly, are wasting your own time. Look at what you're addressing here in this post. Who cares........really? For example, you wrote:
"He only talks about "hope" and "change", and never talks about policy. This kind of empty rhetoric is stock footage for politicians with a hidden agenda"
How do you logically progress from assertion 'A', and then use this as some sort of proof, sans concrete evidence, to support allegation 'B'? Because YOU think its 'empty rhetoric'. All your other assertions could be just as accurately, (and laboriously), refuted the same way with just a little research---but who cares?? These observations...are no more than YOUR opinions, and your interpretations, on 'historical' events---passing for some kind of 'informed study'--by YOU!
How, or when, can he ever talk about 'policy'--when the only thing ignorant, empty-headed pundits like (Matthews and Russert), are only interested in asking him is....."why he stays there and never left his madrassa, er.., excuse me, Christian Church"--which is it?? You may remember, early on, he was accused of being 'to stiff' and 'professorial'--when he spoke of policy---now you claim he "NEVER TALKS ABOUT POLICY"...when all you have to do is LISTEN to his recent campaign-trail speeches, he is talking in more detail, then ever before. Further, if that doesn't satisfy you...you can always refer to his web-site which goes into specifics, details, and how he plans to implement them. So you're either being, again, disingenuous, or intentionally uninformed.
Like I said before, ANITA, get back on track, give yourself an air of credibility----by stating what you are truly about. Dispense with the vaque, vacuous comments of not being against Obama, yet, not supporting Hillary but profess to be only, "interested in the process"....that, frankly...isn't credible--when compared to your words and deeds here; you don't help anyone to progress; you only suceed in generating caustic anger. Tell us, for example, what it was, (is), about Kucinichs campaign you felt could/would be uplifting to fellow progressives here; motivate and inspire, instead of dampening and discouraging valuable confederates in our cause--when they post here; show how the unification of us all---not the divisiveness of the other party's tactics, can be enhanced by us all reading up on this or that. Stop the condescending, castigating criticisms you recklessly disperse--try to forge a more positive verbal campaign here, and you might truly be a proponent, or agent, in engendering a self-realizing actuality here.
Hell, you might even get Askolnick to translate his justifiable disdain of you into a sense of comradeship........translationally speaking....... ANITA.
Agree, Sort of... but...
Now, I do have to address a couple of your other statements. I don't think that "most" of Obama's contributions have come from Republicans. True, they seem to really want him to be the dem candidate, but I'd have to see some proof about your assertion on contributions. Also, I don't agree that Obama never talks about policy. If you take a look at his website and read some of his position papers, you can see he actually talks quite a bit about policy and programs - only trouble is that in most cases he is somewhat to the right of Senator Clinton.
Unfortunately, the other points you make about Senator Obama are all part of the public record and not very debatable - voted to renew the Patriot Act, voted to extend and fund the Iraq adventure, is Joe Lieberman's protege, went along with seating right-wing Supreme Court Justices...
All that said, though, he is far and away superior to McCain on just about everything, so if (when?) he wraps up the nomination, we'll need to get behind him for the sake of turning the real nutcases out of power...
In his own words
The Illinois senator also defended the recently re-authorized Patriot Act.
Responding to a question from the audience, asking whether he was a member for the Council on Foreign Relations, a group many allege is leading a move toward one world government, Obama said:
"I don’t know if I’m an official member. I’ve spoken there before. It basically is a forum where people talk about foreign policy. There is no official membership. I don’t have a card, or you know a special handshake or anything like that."
Robertjones is a John Birch Society troll
Robertjones says he keeps posting on Buzzflash only because he wants to "save the Democratic Party" from the dark and evil candidacy of Sen. Obama. He insists he's not for Hillary Clinton. That is probably the only true thing he ever posted here.
Robertjones is a troll for the right wing John Birch Society. He's often caught repeating the society's crackpot conspiracy rants, such as the assertion above that Obama is "a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a group many [ie. John Birch kooks] allege is leading a move toward one world government."
Considering the John Birch Society's decades-long history of supporting apartheid in South Africa and fighting against civil rights in the United States, it's hardly surprising to see this troll rant against the candidacy of an African-American for President.
Sheez, Bob, don't you ever let up?
Don't believe a word from the John Birch troll
pgbowden, don't fall for any of Robertjones cock & bull. He's not a long-time Democrat. He's done nothing but attack the likely Democratic Presidential nominee, while parroting a lot of the crackpot conspiracy rants of the John Birch Society - one of the most racist "conservative" groups in the country. Like Robertjones, John Birchers are also anti-homosexual.
The society was a staunch defender of apartheid in South Africa and segregation in the U.S. The last thing any John Bircher would want to see is a black person elected President of the United States.
Not falling
They did it again
Ralph Nader likes to say . . .
The Democrats will never bash or be successful at bashing a Republican the way Republicans are successful at bashing Democrats. There's just a different kind of dynamic involved when Republicans are on the attack. They reach in and appeal to the deepest darkest regions of the primitive brain such as fear, hatred of the outsider, the need to conquer and kill, misogyny, and primal mythology. These deep seeded instincts, irrational though they be, are the place that every human being dwells to some extent. Such instincts get people to vote for the authoritarian strong man and against their self-interests even when he is burning down their own houses, stealing from them, and destroying their future.
Democrats keep appealing to people on the basis of what is actually happening to them but many people can't hear it because the message is not as potent as the dark images of fear, misogyny, racism, militarism, vitrolic hatred, and nativism, that is hammered at them through the right wing media.
And - Ralph Nader is the answer HOW, precisely, robertjones2001?