Dirty Politics

Flashforward

Overachiever
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
227
Location
Providence, RI
Clinton and Clinton-related groups do it again. Evidently a group supporting one candidate (hmm...I wonder who that could be), has been running a series of deceptive robo-calls in North Carolina, aimed at confusing black voters.

http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/elections_board_hunting_robocaller

Elections board hunting robocaller

Submitted by bniolet on April 28, 2008 - 5:45pm.
Tags: Bob Hall | Democracy North Carolina | robocalls | State Board of Elections | Under the Dome | voter registration

State elections officials are asking for the public's help in identifying the source of misleading and potentially illegal robocalls.

In at least one version of the call, a man says that voter registration packets must be returned before a person can vote. The State Board of Elections released a transcript of the call.

"Hello, this is Lamont Williams. In the next few days, you will receive a voter registration packet in the mail. All you need to do is sign it, date it and return your application. Then you will be able to vote and make your voice heard. Please return the voter registration form when it arrives. Thank you."

Bob Hall, executive director of Democracy North Carolina, said in a news release that the calls were being made to African American households. The good government watchdog posted audio of the call.

"This is another in a long line of deceptive practices used in North Carolina and elsewhere that particularly target African-American voters," Hall said. "In our view, this phone message plainly violates North Carolina law. We ask the Attorney General, State Bureau of Investigation, and the State Board of Elections to investigate, expose, and prosecute the sponsors of these calls."

Hall said that in North Carolina, it is a Class I felony for any person "to misrepresent the law to the public through mass mailing or any other means of communication where the intent and the effect is to intimidate or discourage potential voters from exercising their lawful right to vote."

The state board is asking anyone with information about the source of the calls to contact the State Board of Elections at (919) 733-7173 or toll free 1-866-522-4723. If any citizens are uncertain about their voter registration status, they may call their county board of elections or check online.

Any Dome readers get this call?

And today, we learn that the group running the robo-calls is Women's Voices, Women's Vote, a non-profit organization which supports Hillary Clinton, and which is controlled and bankrolled by former Clinton officials.

http://southernstudies.org/facingsouth/2008/04/facing-south-exclusive-dc-nonprofit.asp

FACING SOUTH EXCLUSIVE: D.C. nonprofit aimed at women voters behind deceptive N.C. robo-calls
By Chris Kromm
Facing South

Who's behind the mysterious "robo-calls" that have spread misleading voter information and sown confusion and frustration among North Carolina residents over the last week?

Facing South has confirmed the source of the calls, and the mastermind is Women's Voices Women Vote, a D.C.-based nonprofit which aims to boost voting among "unmarried women voters."

What's more, Facing South has learned that the firestorm Women's Voices has ignited in North Carolina isn't the group's first brush with controversy. Women's Voices' questionable tactics have spawned thousands of voter complaints in at least 11 states and brought harsh condemnation from some election officials for their secrecy, misleading nature and likely violations of election law.

First, a quick recap: As we covered yesterday, N.C. residents have reported receiving peculiar automated calls from someone claiming to be "Lamont Williams." The caller says that a "voter registration packet" is coming in the mail, and the recipient can sign it and mail it back to be registered to vote. No other information is provided.

The call is deceptive because the deadline has already passed for mail-in registrations for North Carolina's May 6 primary. Also, many who have received the calls -- like Kevin Farmer in Durham, who made a tape of the call that is available here -- are already registered. The call's suggestion that they're not registered has caused widespread confusion and drawn hundreds of complaints, including many from African-American voters who received the calls.

The calls are also probably illegal. Farmer and others have told Facing South the calls use a blocked phone number and provided no contact information -- a violation of North Carolina rules regulating "robo-calls" (N.C. General Statute 163-104(b)(1)c). N.C. Attorney General Roy Cooper further stated in a recent memo that the identifying information must be clear enough to allow the recipient to "complain or seek redress" -- something not included in the calls.

It is also a Class I felony in North Carolina "to misrepresent the law to the public through mass mailing or any other means of communication where the intent and the effect is to intimidate or discourage potential voters from exercising their lawful right to vote."

The calls have been denounced by the N.C. State Board of Elections, as well as by voter advocacy groups including Democracy North Carolina, which called them "another in a long line of deceptive practices used in North Carolina and elsewhere that particularly target African-American voters."

Yesterday, I placed a call to the Virginia State Police, which had investigated similar suspicious robo-calls before that Virginia's primaries last February. Their investigation concluded that the source of the calls was Women's Voices Women Vote.

Facing South then contacted Women's Voices, and staffer Sarah Johnson confirmed they were doing similar robo-calls in North Carolina; they later admitted that they were the ones behind the deceptive "Lamont Williams" calls.

So who is Women's Voices Women Vote, and why are they making shadowy and legally-questionable calls that are causing North Carolina voters so many headaches?

The D.C.-based nonprofit, led by well-connected Washington operatives, claims in a press release they sent to Facing South [PDF] that the North Carolina calls are part of a 24-state effort targeted at a list of 3 million voters, especially unmarried women. The robo-calls, which never mention Women's Voices, are followed by mailings that include information on how to register to vote. They plan to mail some 276,000 packets in North Carolina alone.

But since last November, in at least 11 states nationwide, Women's Voices -- sometimes working through its Voter Participation Center project -- has developed a checkered reputation, drawing rebukes from leading election officials and complaints from thousands of would-be voters as a result of their secretive tactics, deceptive mailings and calls, and penchant for skirting or violating the law. For example:

* In Arizona last November, election officials were "inundated with complaints" after Women's Voices sent a mailing erroneously claiming that recipients were "required" to mail back an enclosed voter registration form. Many who received the mailing were already registered; the mailing also gave the wrong registration date. Secretary of State Jan Brewer denounced the group's tactics as "misleading and deceptive." A similar mailing in Colorado that month "[drew] fire and caused confusion," according to a state press release.

* In Wisconsin, state officials singled out Women's Voices for misleading and possibly disenfranchising voters, stating in a press release [PDF]: "One group in particular -- Women's Voices. Women Vote, of Washington, D.C. -- apparently ignored or disregarded state deadlines in seeking to register voters," sending in registrations past the January 30 deadline and causing "hundreds of Wisconsin voters who think they registered in advance" to actually not be.

* Michigan officials ended up "fielding tons of calls from confused voters" after Women's Voices did a February mailing to "380,000 unmarried women" -- including numerous deceased voters and even more that were already registered. Sarah Johnson of Women's Voices "seemed confused by the confusion," the Lansing State Journal reported.

* A 1.5 million-piece Women's Voices mailing in Florida falsely stated: "To comply with state voting requirements, please return the enclosed application." Pasco County's elections supervisor called it "disingenuous"; another said it created "a lot of unnecessary panic on behalf of the voters," reported local newspapers. Sarah Johnson of Women's Voice said, "I'm sorry to hear that."

* By March, Women's Voices was backing off the erroneous "registration is required" language, but there were still problems. For example, a mailing in Arkansas allowed that "registering to vote is voluntary," but a clerk in Washington County reported that "the majority [of forms] sent back to the county come from registered voters, causing needless labor for office employees."

Problems with the group's tactics have also been documented in Louisiana, Kentucky and Ohio.

In each state, the Women's Voices campaigns have brought the same news and the same themes, again and again: Deceptive claims and misrepresentations of the law -- sometimes even breaking the law. Wildly inaccurate mailing lists, supposedly aimed at "unregistered single women," but in reality reaching many registered voters as well as families, deceased persons and pets. Tactics that confuse voters and potentially disenfranchise them.

For such a sophisticated and well-funded operation, which counts among its ranks some of the country's most seasoned political operatives, such missteps are peculiar, as is the surprise expressed by Women's Voices staff after each controversy.

In at least two states, the timing of Women's Voices' activities have raised alarm that they are attempting to influence the outcome of a primary. As we reported earlier, in Virginia, news reports surfaced the first week in February that prospective voters were receiving anonymous robo-calls telling voters that they were about to receive a voter registration packet in the mail.

The timing of the calls was astoundingly off: As the Virginia State Police confirm, the calls were made Feb. 5 and 6 -- about 10 days before the then-critical Virginia primary, but more than two weeks after the deadline for registering in the state had passed (Jan. 14). The Virginia State Board of Elections was deluged with calls by confused voters -- many who were already registered. When they heard the calls from Women's Voices, they feared that they really weren't.

Because of the horrible timing and their secretive nature, state officials assumed the calls and mailings were part of an identity theft scheme. When the Virginia State Police investigated, they found Women's Voices was behind them. Women's Voices was unapologetic after the controversy, merely issuing a boilerplate press release trumpeting the success of the program.

Now Women's Voices is plunging North Carolina into the same confusion. State officials tell Facing South they are still receiving calls from frustrated and confused voters, wondering why "Lamont Williams" is offering to send them a "voter registration packet" after the deadline for mail-in registration for the primaries has passed.

In correspondence with North Carolina election officials, Women's Voices founder and President Page Gardner merely said that the disruptive timing was an "unfortunate coincidence" -- a strange alibi for a group with their level of resources and sophistication.

There are other questions about Women's Voices' outreach efforts. Although the group purports to be targeting "unmarried women," their calls and mailings don't fit the profile. Kevin Farmer in Durham, who first recorded the call, is a white male. Many of the recipients are African-American; Rev. Nelson Johnson, who is a married, male and African-American, reported that his house was called four times by the mysterious "Lamont Williams."

And as Farmer asks, "Why are they using a guy for the calls if the target audience is single women?"

Some have also questioned the ties between Women's Voices operatives and Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton. Gardner, for example, contributed $2,500 to Clinton's HILLPAC on May 4, 2006, and in March 2005 she donated a total of $4,200 to Clinton, according to The Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org. She has not contributed to the Obama campaign, according to the database.

Women's Voices Executive Director Joe Goode worked for Bill Clinton's election campaign in 1992 as a pollster; the group's website says he was intimately involved in "development and implementation of all polling and focus groups done for the presidential primary and general election campaigns" for Clinton.

Women's Voices board member John Podesta, former Chief of Staff for President Bill Clinton, donated $2,300 to Hillary Clinton on April 19, 2007, according to OpenSecrets.org. Podesta also donated $1,000 to Barack Obama in July 2004, but that was well before Obama announced his candidacy for president.


"The reports from other states are very disturbing, especially the pattern of mass confusion among targeted voters on the eve of a state's primary," Democracy North Carolina's Bob Hall tells Facing South. "These are highly skilled political operatives -- something doesn't add up. Maybe it's all well-intended and explainable. At this moment, our first priority is to stop the robo-calls and prevent the chaos and potential disenfranchisement caused by this group sending 276,000 packets of registration forms into North Carolina a few days before a heated primary election. We need their immediate cooperation."

While Hall says his group has "begged" the group to stop the mailings, Women's Voices has refused to do so -- even though the mail-in voter registration deadline for the primaries passed April 11.

State election officials say they are bracing for the deluge of confused phone calls and complaints that are sure to follow.

[UPDATE: Bob Hall tells us that Women's Voices is now cooperating and trying to stop the North Carolina mailing. The mailing has apparently left the mail house but there’s still a chance it can be stopped before it gets into the mail system.]

Reporting and research assistance by Sue Sturgis

How interesting that so many former Clinton officials would be on the board of that particular group. And why did they choose to make up a name like "Lamont Williams" to place in the robo-calls? Why did they only target African-American households if this group claims that their goal is to empower women? Seriously, I am so sick of this shit from the Clinton campaign and their surrogates that at this point, I won't vote for her if the nomination is stolen from Obama and she is made the nominee. In fact, I'll actively work against her. I can't support or reward these kinds of despicable tactics. From going on Bill o' Reilly today and making snide comments about the Wright "scandal" to this total bullshit, I've had enough crap from the Clintons to last for decades. And this is coming from someone who defended Bill Clinton all throughout the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and who supported him in 1996. This is the kind of shit I expect Republicans to do to Democrats. When Hillary does it, it's unforgivable.
 
Update: Evidently ABC news has been deleting blog entries from their website that mention in the Clinton-Robo-call connection. This, after the network tried to swiftboat Obama the other week in their debate. Am I the only one seeing a pattern here?

Additionally, WVWV has released a statement about their despicable conduct:

"We understand concerns have been raised about the source of phone calls placed by Women's Voices, Women Vote. These calls were our sincere attempt to encourage voter registration for those not registered for the general election this fall. We understand North Carolina's primary registration effort deadline was April 11, (other than those participating in early voting who may register and vote at the same time this week). We apologize for any confusion our calls may have caused. Our intent and purpose was solely to call attention to the registration applications we hope will be completed and returned to the Board of Elections office making thousands more North Carolinians participants in one of the most important elections of our lifetimes."

Also, current Clinton campaign strategist Maggie Williams was once a board member of this organization. More information can be found at this website:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070706100052/http://www.wvwv.org/aboutwvwv/index.cfm?id=3

There is no way that this is just a coincidence. A women's advocacy group bankrolled by the Clintons and controlled by former Clinton administration officials is placing deceptive robo-calls to African Americans in one of the major upcoming primary states of North Carolina, where Obama is favored due to the large black vote?
 
More slimy tactics...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/sidney-blumenthal-uses-fo_b_99695.html

Sidney Blumenthal Uses Former Right-Wing Foes To Attack Obama

Former journalist Sidney Blumenthal has been widely credited with coining the term "vast right-wing conspiracy" used by Hillary Clinton in 1998 to describe the alliance of conservative media, think tanks, and political operatives that sought to destroy the Clinton White House where he worked as a high-level aide. A decade later, and now acting as a senior campaign advisor to Senator Clinton, Blumenthal is exploiting that same right-wing network to attack and discredit Barack Obama. And he's not hesitating to use the same sort of guilt-by-association tactics that have been the hallmark of the political right dating back to the McCarthy era.

Almost every day over the past six months, I have been the recipient of an email that attacks Obama's character, political views, electability, and real or manufactured associations. The original source of many of these hit pieces are virulent and sometimes extreme right-wing websites, bloggers, and publications. But they aren't being emailed out from some fringe right-wing group that somehow managed to get my email address. Instead, it is Sidney Blumenthal who, on a regular basis, methodically dispatches these email mudballs to an influential list of opinion shapers -- including journalists, former Clinton administration officials, academics, policy entrepreneurs, and think tankers -- in what is an obvious attempt to create an echo chamber that reverberates among talk shows, columnists, and Democratic Party funders and activists. One of the recipients of the Blumenthal email blast, himself a Clinton supporter, forwards the material to me and perhaps to others.

These attacks sent out by Blumenthal, long known for his fierce and combative loyalty to the Clintons, draw on a wide variety of sources to spread his Obama-bashing. Some of the pieces are culled from the mainstream media and include some reasoned swipes at Obama's policy and political positions.

But, rather remarkably for such a self-professed liberal operative like Blumenthal, a staggering number of the anti-Obama attacks he circulates derive from highly-ideological and militant right-wing sources such as the misnamed Accuracy in Media (AIM), The Weekly Standard, City Journal, The American Conservative, and The National Review.

To cite just one recent example, Blumenthal circulated an article taken from the fervently hard-right AIM website on February 18 entitled, "Obama's Communist Mentor" by Cliff Kincaid. Kincaid is a right-wing writer and activist, a longtime critic of the United Nations, whose group, America's Survival, has been funded by foundations controlled by conservative financier Richard Mellon Scaife, the same millionaire who helped fund attacks on the Clintons during their White House years. Scaife also funds AIM, the right-wing media "watchdog" group.

The Kincaid article that Blumenthal circulated sought to discredit Obama by linking him to an African-American poet and writer whom Obama knew while he was in high school in Hawaii. That writer, Frank Marshall Davis, was, Kincaid wrote, a member of the Communist Party. Supported by no tangible evidence, Kincaid claimed that Obama considered his relationship to Davis to be "almost like a son." In his memoir, Dreams from My Father, Obama wrote about meeting, during his teenage years, a writer named "Frank" who "had some modest notoriety once" and with whom he occasionally discussed poetry and politics. From this snippet, Kincaid weaves an incredulous tale that turns Davis into Obama's "mentor."

Kincaid's piece had been previously circulating within the right-wing blogosphere, but Blumenthal sought to inject the story into more respectable opinion circles by amplifying it in his email blast.

In the same piece, Kincaid, expanding his guilt-by-association tactics, also wrote that Obama "came into contact with more far-left political forces," including former Weather Underground member William Ayers. Until a few weeks ago, Obama's tangential connection with Ayers -- whose 1960s anti-war terrorism occurred when Obama was in grade school -- was echoing among right-wing bloggers.

Some Clinton supporters who also knew about Ayers have been discreetly trying to catapult the story out of the right-wing sandbox into the wider mainstream media. On April 9, Fox News' Sean Hannity interviewed fellow right-winger Karl Rove, who raised the Ayers-Obama connection. The next day, ABC News reporter Jake Tapper wrote about Ayers in his Political Punch blog. The following week, on his radio show, Hannity suggested to his guest, George Stephanopoulos, that he ask Obama about his relationship with Ayers at the upcoming Philadelphia presidential debate. Stephanopoulos, who was Bill Clinton's press secretary, replied, "Well, I'm taking notes." The following night during the April 16 nationally televised Presidential debate, Stephanopoulos dutifully asked Obama about Ayers, who is now a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

One can only speculate how much influence Blumenthal did or did not have in elevating the Ayers story into the mainstream media and into the national political debate. What is certain is that Blumenthal sought to keep this classic red-baiting controversy alive.

Blumenthal's April 24 email dispatch featured a two-year old article by Sol Stern, published in City Journal, sponsored by the right-wing Manhattan Institute. The article, from the journal's Summer 2006 issue, doesn't mention Obama. Why would Blumenthal resurrect it now? The article, entitled "The Ed Schools' Latest--and Worst--Humbug," was, instead, a frontal attack on Ayers' views on educational theory and policy. Blumenthal obviously wasn't trying to offer enlightenment on educational policy or Obama's positions on school reform as much as he was presumably trying to keep Ayers' name, and his controversial past, in the public eye.

As a follow-up punch, Blumenthal again dipped directly into the "vast right wing conspiracy" by retrieving and circulating an article from the current issue of National Review -- the staunchly conservative opinion journal founded by William F. Buckley. The piece, titled "The Obama Way," was penned by Fred Siegel who, like Sol Stern, is a former 60s leftist who has moved to the opposite end of the political spectrum, serving at one point as a political advisor to Rudy Giuliani. Siegel's piece links Obama to corrupt Chicago machine politics, observing that "Blacks adapted to both the tribalism and the corrupt patronage politics" of Chicago's Democratic Party. In the process, he manages to throw in as many spurious ad hominem attacks on Obama as he can, calling him a "friend of race-baiters" and a "man who would lead our efforts against terrorism yet was friendly with Bill Ayers, the unrepentant 1960s terrorist."

When Blumenthal worked in the White House, a big thorn in Bill Clinton's side was the Weekly Standard, the right-wing magazine edited by William Kristol and owned by Rupert Murdoch. But in mid-February, Blumenthal's email attack featured an article, "Republicans Root for Obama," written by Weekly Standard executive editor and Fox News talking head Fred Barnes. That same month, Blumenthal also offered up a piece by Scott McConnell, titled "Untested Savior," that appeared in The American Conservative (a magazine founded by Pat Buchanan) claiming that Obama "would probably lead them [Democrats] to disaster in November."

When Blumenthal isn't relying directly on anti-Obama smears from the extreme right, he's pumping up more traditionally sourced material, from the Washington Post, New Republic, and other publications, to question and damage Obama's character and electability. On several occasions, Blumenthal has circulated articles from the Chicago Sun Times and the Chicago Tribune about Obama's ties to developer Tony Rezko, a relationship Obama has said he regrets. In one email, Blumenthal wrote: "The record on Obama's fabled 'judgement'? So how would he conduct himself in those promised summits without preconditions with Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, Chavez, Castro, and Assad? Let's look at how he did with Tony Rezko."
 
This isnt Hillary SO MUCH as it is her camp. Not that i'm excusing it or anything, it's just sad how much this reminds me of Bush and HIS cronies. By HIMSELF he's actually rather incompetent (his IQ score is among the lowest of any president in history) but the thugs he had in his cabinet, Cheney, Rove, Libby and others...THEY did so much damage at his behest or with his blessing.

That's what looks to be happening with Hillary and her group. She's really tarnishing the "Clinton" name now. :(
 
I liv ein Northa Carolina, and it is amazing how much of apush is needed to deal with this. Instead of informiong voters of their actual rights, there are so many people who think thay canot vote.My wife has been active in the last week in doing on-foot canvassing to simply let people know that they can STILL register and vote in Northa Carolina. I already have...
 
This isnt Hillary SO MUCH as it is her camp. Not that i'm excusing it or anything, it's just sad how much this reminds me of Bush and HIS cronies. By HIMSELF he's actually rather incompetent (his IQ score is among the lowest of any president in history) but the thugs he had in his cabinet, Cheney, Rove, Libby and others...THEY did so much damage at his behest or with his blessing.

That's what looks to be happening with Hillary and her group. She's really tarnishing the "Clinton" name now. :(

People like to accuse Bush of dirty politics, but never seem to give any specific examples.
People like to talk about Bush's incompetence, but his GPA was higher than Jonh Kerry's.
And the Clinton name is already tranished beyond all redemption thanks to Bill's continual philandering and lying.
 
You wanted examples? Here you go.

Bush's dirty politics:

1. When running against McCain in 2000, Bush used a combination of push polls and other unethical tactics to make voters in South Carolina think that John McCain had been driven insane by his experiences in Vietnam and that he had fathered an illegitimate black baby

2. Revealed the name of an undercover CIA agent as political payback for her husband's speaking out against the Iraq War

3. Branded John Kerry a war criminal in 2004

4. Stole the election in 2000 in a Supreme Court vote that was narrowly decided along political lines

Bush's incompetence:

1. Watched as a major American city was destroyed by a hurricane.

2. Shown his continual inability to rebuild said city.

3. Staffed the majority of our government with political appointees who are unqualified for their positions, i.e. Michael Brown, Alberto Gonzalez, etc.

4. Lack of leadership on the issue of global warming

5. Inability to pass meaningful security reforms to guard the ports and the borders

6. Tried to outsource the security of the country's ports to Dubai, a country with terrorist ties

7. Wasn't able to stop 9/11 despite being warned about it early in a Presidential Daily Brief entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack US"

8. Military occupation in Iraq which has cost thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives

9. Inability to catch Osama Bin Laden

10. Invaded Afghanistan but didn't finish the job, and now it is a haven for terrorists, and it's number one export is cocaine

11. North Korea and soon Iran to obtain nuclear weapons after branding them part of an "Axis of Evil" in his State of the Union Address

12. Tried to appoint Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court despite the fact that she was not qualified in any way whatsoever

13. Justice Department staffed by graduates of Liberty University, an unaccredited fourth tier school, most of whom worked on the Bush campaign in 2000

14. Accrued massive debt due to uncontrolled spending along with giant tax cuts

15. Outsourced most government jobs to independent contractors, thereby ensuring that the jobs would cost many more times as much had government employees done it themselves

16. Loss of American reputation overseas during Bush's presidency

17. Declared "mission accomplished" in Iraq

And a few other Bush scandals:

1. Crappy conditions at Walter Reed medical center and other military facilities

2. Fired federal prosecutors for political reasons, i.e.: they were either going after Republicans or were not going hard enough after Democrats

3. Lied to the American public about the reasons for war with Iraq

4. Lied to the American public about the reasons for potential war with Iran, which were thankfully debunked by the NIE

5. Cheney's Energy Task Force meetings that fixed the price of energy in favor of oil and gas companies

6. Troops are underfunded with extended tours of duty, backdoor draft/stop loss

7. PATRIOT Act, which resulted in the suspension of Habeas Corpus and the violation of civil liberties

8. The illegal wiretapping of American citizens

9. Torture at secret prisons and US military installations

10. Bush ties to Enron CEO Ken Lay

11. Ties to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff

12. Presidential signing statements, the content of which violates federal law

13. Cover-up over the death of Pat Tillman, the capture of Jessica Lynch

14. Wartime massacres in the Iraqi city of Haditha and other areas

15. Invasion of government into the private lives of Americans as witnessed in the Terri Schiavo case

*If anyone can think of more, feel free to let me know and I'll add them to this list*

I'd also like to note that quite frankly, it's silly to compare competence based on GPA. It's hard to argue that Kerry isn't more competent than Bush. And yes, Clinton's name is tarnished, but he's still better than Bush, but then again, that's not a very high bar at this point.
 
If that's the best you can do, you're more intellectually dishonest than the President you hate so much. Half of those statements are outright false and the rest are wishful thinking on the part of bitter liberals. If I cared a little a more I'd go point by point refuting each one, but I don't and it wouldn't change your mind anyway.
One quick thing though: You blame Bush for everything that happened during his tenure as President and that's just absured. NTake ew Orleans for example. Why not blame the Democratic mayor for failing to evacuate his city in time. He had the means, he had the warning, he just didn't have the will to act. As far as the rebuliding goes, I've been there several times in the last few years and I can assure you that rebuilding is happening all over the city. Tourism is back up and people there are optimistic. Parts of the city look better than they ever have.
 
wow, Archon, you make a FABULOUS spin doctor. You sure you're not employed by Fox News? :p

( a little political ribbing can be fun sometimes lol)

now i may be categorized as "liberal", but i do happen to believe in civil liberties, equal rights for gays (including marraige) , a woman's right to CHOOSE and host of other things that conservatives seem to think matter MORE than getting our budget balanced, gas prices under control, ENDING the "war on the middle class" and ENDING the war in iraq, but alot of the items that Flash listed have been beared out.

and while Bush (surprisingly) may NOT be the wicked mastermind many people thinks he is, his CRONIES aka his CABINET certainly did his dirty work for him. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove and many others have all participated in bending this country over a chair and fucking it without vaseline and when the public FINALLY had enough and gave democrats control of congress, noticed how ALL of bush's political thugs resigned back to back?

the damage they have done to this country is evident ALL around us...and we are going to be years before we see any real recovery.
 
If that's the best you can do, you're more intellectually dishonest than the President you hate so much. Half of those statements are outright false and the rest are wishful thinking on the part of bitter liberals. If I cared a little a more I'd go point by point refuting each one, but I don't and it wouldn't change your mind anyway.
One quick thing though: You blame Bush for everything that happened during his tenure as President and that's just absured. NTake ew Orleans for example. Why not blame the Democratic mayor for failing to evacuate his city in time. He had the means, he had the warning, he just didn't have the will to act. As far as the rebuliding goes, I've been there several times in the last few years and I can assure you that rebuilding is happening all over the city. Tourism is back up and people there are optimistic. Parts of the city look better than they ever have.

So you admit the president is intellectually dishonest? :pconfused:

Parts of New Orleans look better than they ever have? You're hilarious. No wonder you're a Republican. You're completely detached from reality. Either that or you're only visiting the French Quarter and not actually going to places like the 9th ward, which were hit hardest by Katrina. Hell, most of the residents are still fighting their insurance companies at this point. In most places, abandoned houses are waiting to be torn down. To say that they've rebuilt the city is sheer lunacy and hyperbole on your part. Fact is that the money that was supposed to be allocated and distributed by the federal government hasn't gotten to the city or the people who need it. A ton of New Orleans residents are still stuck in Texas. Plus, the levees which have been more or less rebuilt by the army corps of engineers aren't even guaranteed to hold if another category five storm comes flying into the gulf area.

By the way, nice dismissal of all my points by refusing to even address them. It just shows that you have no argument whatsoever, and that your only defense of Bush is to generalize his ineptitude and to reject all accusations of bad leadership voiced by his critics. The president is responsible for whatever happens during their term in office. Truman was famous for coining the phrase, "The buck stops here." Nice to see that Republicans who are so high on personal responsibility are so eager to avoid any sort of culpability whatsoever for the shit job they've done while in power for the last eight years. It reeks of hypocrisy. But then again, at this point, I expect nothing less.
 
Liberals are so bitter. I would hate to have to go through life feeling like that all the time.
Of course I've been through the Frechn Quarter. it wasn't damaged in the flood, so it's pretty much the same as it's always been. The 9th Ward had one of the city's highest crime rates before Katrina so it wasn't exactly a Garden of Eden. New Orleans East is being rebuilt. Yeah, it's going slowly but it's quite a large area. Dowtown looks good, everything is back open. I've seen most of the campuses for area colleges and universities and they do, in fact, look better than they did before Katrina. Most of the residents I've talked to are actually pretty pleased with the way things are proceeding. As for residents being "stuck" in Texas, one of my best friends is in that situation. Only he isn't "stuck." He made the decision to stay because he got a nice check from the government you hate so much and he was finally able to open his own business which he has wanted to do for years.
Is the President responsible for higher gas prices which our Democratic congress (which has an exceptionally low approval rating) has blocked every effort to drill domestically for oil that would decrease our dependance on foreign sources? Talk about hypocrisy.
 
Liberals are bitter. You're right about that point. You just forgot to add that conservatives are delusional. Liberals are pissed off that the country has been fucked up so badly in the last eight years, and anyone can see how bad things are at the moment. I'm assuming you're part of the 28% of the population that thinks that Bush is doing a great job. You do realize that there are more people who think that Elvis is still alive than support the president at this point, right?

Your statements are contradictory. Is progress being made in New Orleans at the rate you first claimed, or is it moving slowly but steadily? I'm sure that you haven't been to any of the community meetings where a large number of people have publicly complained about the condition of their neighborhoods to Ray Nagin. Who exactly are these "residents" you're talking to?

You also apparently don't understand liberal ideology. Most liberals feel the government is a good thing. The only reason I currently "hate" it is because it's being run inefficiently by an incompetent boob who spends money like water. At some point, we're going to have to pay off that debt, and it won't be pleasant. It used to be a conservative idea to not spend what you don't have and to pay as you go. It's amazing how much conservatives have become exactly what they railed against for decades.

As for gas prices, there is such a thing as limited resources. Even if we drilled in the Alaskan wildlife refuge, there's only so much oil in the world. Do you propose that we use up all the oil in the world, then explore the possibility of alternative energy sources? Conservatives are so short-sighted that it's amazing. Yes, if we had more oil right now, the prices would go lower. Will we get oil right away if we were to drill today? Of course not. It would take a few years at best to see any results. Liberals recognize this and are trying to use technology to achieve energy independence. I know that the idea probably doesn't appeal to conservatives, mainly because most of them feel that it won't matter because the rapture will be occurring in a few years' time. To some of us who live in the reality-based world, long-term solutions with rational goals and expectations are preferable to quick political fixes and gimmicks like drilling for more oil in federally protected areas and working to repeal the gas tax for the summer. It used to be a conservative idea to protect the environment. Again, how quickly things change.
 
To add the points made., there is NO oil scarcity. NONE. It costs no more, and is no harder to obtain, sweet crude than it has ever been. The fact is that Bush and company have run interference while the oil companies have used every excuse to raise prices and lower output. The reason for shortages has as much to do with the fact that no refineries have been built in years as anything else. The gas companies are crazy like a fox in that they are running this game in order to get Alaska when they don't really need it and it is doubtful how much oil is there in any case. They want unfettered access without environmental checks. The win-win scenario for them is make big money now while forcing the hand of people in order to get the rights later to Alaska.

If you actually believe that the prices for gas are not artificially inflated, then explain the higher cost of diesel fuel.
 
You also apparently don't understand liberal ideology. Most liberals feel the government is a good thing. The only reason I currently "hate" it is because it's being run inefficiently by an incompetent boob who spends money like water. At some point, we're going to have to pay off that debt, and it won't be pleasant.

Oh, yeah you're right. I must not understand liberal ideology because I was under the impression that Clinton and Obama want to make America socialist. And that's clearly the best way to decrease spending.
 
Socialist? Do you even understand the basic doctrine of socialism, which is the equal redistribution of existing capital? Have you even read Marx, Gramsci or any of the other preeminent socialist writers who advocate a doctrine far more radical than any of the two Democratic candidates have forwarded?

If you want to see a socialist, look at Dennis Kucinich or Bernie Sanders. Neither Obama nor Clinton are socialists, and if you think they are, you're just so far to the right that you don't know any better and can't differentiate between liberalism and socialism.
 
Unfortunately, socialism has become a new buzzword to use whenever someone proposes anything in government that spends funds on anything that might actually HELP people. Any suggestion that a basic need be removed from wild wild west market capitalism and its excesses is decried as socialist, which could not be further from the truth.
 
By his definition, almost all of Europe would be socialist at its core.

In fact, European countries like Switzerland and Sweden have the highest standard of living, despite their high tax rate, mainly because the government provides most of the essential services to its citizens in a way that would be far more efficient than if they hired out private companies out to do so.

Some of the most important programs that help the poor and the elderly in this country, such as social security and medicare, would be labeled as "socialist" in today's political environment. It's sad when the richest, most powerful nation in the world opposes meaningful governmental reform on the basis of it being perceived as "socialist."
 
First this:
In fact, European countries like Switzerland and Sweden have the highest standard of living, despite their high tax rate, mainly because the government provides most of the essential services to its citizens in a way that would be far more efficient than if they hired out private companies out to do so.

It's the government's job to provide stuff for me. Here's what I want:
1. Safety in which to persue my own goals.
2. A free market in which to do so.
That's it. I don't need the government handling my retirement, my healthcare, my education, my insurance, etc. I believe I can do a better job looking out for myself than the government can. Liberals have adopted the idea that people need the government. We don't. We just need the government to get out of the way.

Now this:
Some of the most important programs that help the poor and the elderly in this country, such as social security and medicare, would be labeled as "socialist" in today's political environment. It's sad when the richest, most powerful nation in the world opposes meaningful governmental reform on the basis of it being perceived as "socialist."

Those are programs I would eliminate. WE've become dependant on the government to look out for us. We've created a "nanny state." We can, in fact, stand on our own.
I'm all for helping the poor and needy and elderly. I do so on a regular basis and I encourage others to do the same. I just don't believe we need to rely on the government to take care of us.
We've discussed New Orleans. The aftermath of Katrina is a perfect example of what happens when people rely on the government to take care of them. The government couldn't evacuate the people, the government couldn't house the people, and the people were not equipped to fend for themselves. Why would we want to turn more programs and responsibilty over to the government when, historically, they haven't done a bang up job, with the responsibilities they have had?
 
If that's the case, I hope you didn't attend public schools. I also hope you didn't attend state universities or those that receive funding from the federal government. I also hope you didn't receive any publicly funded scholarships, especially since you're so against the government being involved in providing an education to its citizens.

I also hope that when you're old, you plan to reject all forms of social security and medicare that are offered to you, especially since you seem to feel that you can do better on your own.

Secondly, you're being silly. There are some things that only the government can take handle. You really think that individuals could handle the post-Katrina situation? You're saying that people living paycheck to paycheck should be made to rely completely on their own means after a major natural disaster destroys their city?

If you want to live in a country that only provides for your safety and your access to the markets, then you don't belong in the United States, let alone any other industrialized country in the world, because they're all too "socialist" for you. I'd recommend you go to Mexico or Saudi Arabia, as they seem to be offering more of what you want.
 
First this:


It's the government's job to provide stuff for me. Here's what I want:
1. Safety in which to persue my own goals.
2. A free market in which to do so.
That's it. I don't need the government handling my retirement, my healthcare, my education, my insurance, etc. I believe I can do a better job looking out for myself than the government can. Liberals have adopted the idea that people need the government. We don't. We just need the government to get out of the way.

if that's the case, can the government "get out of" our WALLETS? we pay TAXES, therefore we ARE entitled to SOME kind of service from the government. We shouldnt just PAY into a machine that does nothing in return.


Now this:


Those are programs I would eliminate. WE've become dependant on the government to look out for us. We've created a "nanny state." We can, in fact, stand on our own.
I'm all for helping the poor and needy and elderly. I do so on a regular basis and I encourage others to do the same. I just don't believe we need to rely on the government to take care of us.
We've discussed New Orleans. The aftermath of Katrina is a perfect example of what happens when people rely on the government to take care of them. The government couldn't evacuate the people, the government couldn't house the people, and the people were not equipped to fend for themselves. Why would we want to turn more programs and responsibilty over to the government when, historically, they haven't done a bang up job, with the responsibilities they have had?

i think most people COULD stand on their own...until the "war on the middle class" began. MOST people dont LOOK for handouts, they WANT to work, they WANT to provide for their families and th emselves... but be real, no one, not even a SINGLE person with no children can LIVE on a minimum wage job. not with the cost of everyday living skyrocketing. EVERYTHING is increasing BUT the paycheck. even people with college degrees and higher education and therefore "higher paying" j obs are feeling the crunch.

the "aftermath" of katrina....BUSH sat there and watched as a city was almost destroyed and wiped off the U.S. map. he was SLOW in sending the people the help they needed. again...they pay their taxes, they were ENTITLED to help in time of a natural disaster. there's nothing WRONG or unreasonable about that.

I notice that Flashforward cited countries like Switzerland, who ROUTINELY top the lists of industrialized countries who provide the HIGHEST standards of life around the world. If these countires can do it, why cant America at least ATTEMPT to implement some of these ideas?
 
Back
Top