For quite some time now I have been meaning to write on the topic of ACORN. From the beginning, this Republican tactic of yelling "ACORN ACORN ACORN" has been a complete (excuse my language) FUCKING joke. What it has done is that it has forced the Media and the Public to focus upon Voter Fraud (when there has never been a single documented case of this occurring...and even though they claim there are over 5 million examples, when asked for names of people who voted illegally, they can't even give 5, and all of those that they have given have been REAL voters) when the REAL problem that is occurring is VOTE SUPPRESSION on the part of the Republicans. This was widespread in 2000 and 2004.
In fact, in 2004, it has been shown through an audit that in Ohio alone Kerry was illegally cost 200,000 votes (and that was in only 18 counties), well over the margin that Bush won by and more than enough to catapult him to the Presidency. That is just one state. And it is happening all over again in Ohio.
Don't be surprised, the Republicans are trying to steal this election. It will occur in 2008. In fact it already has. 1/9 voters in New Mexico...Purged! In Colorado? Well that figure is 1 in 5. All we can do is hope that more people turn out than are suppressed.
Lucky for me, I don't really need to write too much on this, as a professional has done it for me. Here is Robert Greenwald's new short film on ACORN:
Pretty scary stuff, huh?! Want to know how to steal back you vote? Greg Palast and RFK, Jr. are here to help. They have created a website at stealbackyourvote.org with a nice comic book. Here is a sample of how they say to steal your vote back in the comic book:
The site also include a film that Palast made on the subject:
So, I know you are all worried now, but that is why it is important to make sure your vote counts. The elections were stolen in 2000 and 2004...let's not let it happen again. Now get out there and VOTE!
In a week where he have seen several key Conservatives come out in favor of Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, the tide seems to be shifting even further in Sen. Obama's favor. As the polls move more and more to the left, and people are becoming more concerned with Sen. McCain's erratic behavior, even some of the most surprising individuals and entities are coming out in Obama's favor.
First, the one we have all been talking about. On Meet the Press this past weekend, former Secretary of State (and still Republican) Colin Powell endorsed Obama, saying that he is a "transformational figure" and going on to say:
because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities — and you have to take that into account — as well as his substance — he has both style and substance, [Obama] has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president.
But that wasn't the only major endorsement from the Right. Let us not forget about Christopher Buckley, son of National Review founder and Conservative intellectual (yes, that wasn't always an oxymoron!) William F. Buckley, who proclaimed in his endorsement of Barack Obama, "Sorry, Dad, I'm Voting for Obama." Making the "Conservative case for Obama," Buckley declared:
Obama has in him—I think, despite his sometimes airy-fairy “We are the people we have been waiting for” silly rhetoric—the potential to be a good, perhaps even great leader. He is, it seems clear enough, what the historical moment seems to be calling for.
Third, Conservative talk show host Michael Smerconish, came out in favor of Obama, saying "I may have been an appointee in the George H.W. Bush administration, and master of ceremonies for George W. Bush in 2004, but last Saturday I stood amidst the crowd at an Obama event in North Philadelphia." In his explanation he declared "John McCain is an honorable man who has served his country well. But he will not get my vote. For the first time since registering as a Republican 28 years ago, I’m voting for a Democrat for president." You can listen to his endorsement here.
And let us not forget the endorsement of Frank Schaeffer, son of evangelist Francis Schaeffer and one of the founders of the Christian Right movement. As he stated on Democracy Now!:
I come from an evangelical family that was really evangelical royalty in the ’70s and ’80s. My father was a frequent guest in the Reagan, Bush and also even the Ford White House—Bush, first, that is. And my background, therefore, was very unthinkingly Republican. We were always just associated with these folks. And so, in 2000, I was actually on a number of evangelical and right-wing stations, like with Ollie North, for instance, on his radio station, pleading the cause of John McCain, who I thought would be a much better candidate than George W. Bush.
His interview was preceded by an op-ed in the Baltimore Sun entitled An Open Letter to John McCain, which chastises the Senator for "Deliberately Feeding the Most Unhinged Elements of Our Society the Red Meat of Hate."
In a most striking series of passages, Schaeffer proclaims:
John McCain: In 2000, as a lifelong Republican, I worked to get you elected instead of George W. Bush. In return, you wrote an endorsement of one of my books about military service. You seemed to be a man who put principle ahead of mere political gain....You have changed. You have a choice: Go down in history as a decent senator and an honorable military man with many successes, or go down in history as the latest abettor of right-wing extremist hate...John McCain, you are no fool, and you understand the depths of hatred that [surround] the issue of race in this country. You also know that, post-9/11, to call someone a friend of a terrorist is a very serious matter. You also know we are [a bitterly divided country] on many other issues. You know that, sadly, in America, violence is always just a moment away. You know that there are plenty of crazy people out there...“Stop! Think! Your rallies are beginning to look, sound, feel and smell like lynch mobs.
However, it isn't just the columnists that are getting in on the act. It seems as if newspaper after newspaper is endorsing Barack Obama, even those who have traditionally favored Republicans. In the last couple of weeks we have seen the Chicago-Sun Times, Kansas City Star, Southwest News-Herald (Ill.) and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution all endorse Sen. Obama. These papers, however, favored John Kerry in 2004. On this list we can now include The Houston Chronicle, The Austin American Statesman, and The Denver Post, all of which endorsed George W. Bush in 2004. And, maybe most shockingly, the Chicago Tribune has endorsed a Democrat for the first time in its 161 year history, opting for local favorite Barack Obama.
Overall, Sen. Obama now leads the newspaper endorsement tally 121 to 42. In 2004, John Kerry did not even come close to this 3-1 margin, beating out President Bush by a 213 to 205 margin. What may be even more significant is the circulation of the newspapers that have endorsed Obama. While the papers that have endorsed Obama have a circulation of 13.5 million readers, those that have endorsed McCain have a circulation of only 3.8 million readers.
All in all, even considering the way the election seems to be going, it is nonetheless a surprising series of events for so many Conservatives to favor Barack Obama. Let's hope they can sway some of their followers.
Every four years since 1960 (save for 1996 and 2004), the Presidential Candidates speak at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner, a fundraiser for Catholic charities. Al Smith was the four-time Governor of the state of New York, and failed Democratic Presidential Candidate of 1928, losing to Herbert Hoover because of his Catholicism (as they feared he would answer to the Pope) and his perceived anti-Prohibitionism. He was the first Catholic to be a major party nominee (the first Catholic Candidate overall being Charles O'Conor of the Bourbon Democrats in 1872).
This time around, both Candidates spoke at the dinner, after neither candidate was allowed to in the last election due to the spat between John Kerry and the Catholic Church on the issue of abortion. First, it was John McCain's opportunity to wow the crowd with his comedy...
If your reaction was the same as mine, you are wondering why McCain hasn't been showing this side of himself the entire campaign? I was literally on the floor I was laughing so hard. This must be why they say he is so good in Town Hall meetings (although he was pretty horrible in the sole Town Hall Debate). After McCain came his Democratic counterpart, Barack Obama...
Obama was pretty funny, too. I do not think his comedy rose to the level of that of McCain's, but I was still highly impressed nonetheless. In a time when the smear campaign (especially from the McCain/Palin ticket) has been in full force, it was good to see some good natured, and yet sometimes vicious yet funny, blows be thrown at the opponent. And the self-deprecating humor, especially from Obama, is always a favorite of mine.
I know, you all probably want more political commentary...and believe me it is coming. But if you will recall, I do talk about film and other pop culture items from time to time. Thus, I present for your viewing pleasure the trailer for Nick & Norah's Infinite Playlist!
Now, I had heard a lot about this film. That it was great. Just like Juno. That it was horrible and not worth your time...and the truth is somewhere in the middle there. As a huge fan of Juno, I think I was going into this film with higher expectations. The premise of the film is super "cute" and it could have been absolutely amazing. And yet, what comes out seems really contrived. Michael Cera, who plays Nick, is essentially playing the exact same character he does in every film...and yet, someone that didn't bother me. I expected it to, since he is certainly now typecast as the shy emo kid who is way into music and pretty smart, and maybe even a little bit artsy, who somehow gets girls (now THAT requires willing suspension of disbelief...otherwise I would be rolling in the ladies...kidding, kidding!).
The film was just missing that certain something. There were times where it was overly predictable, and the connection that the two main characters so obviously had with each other (based upon the way they acted) just didn't seem plausible. At times, I was just plain bored (good thing I brought oranges and carrots with me to keep me entertained). And...the things I laughed at were mere chuckles, nothing too grandiose. Don't get me wrong, it is not a bad film, it is just that it could have been so much better.
I don't want to give too much away about the film, so that if you feel compelled to go watch it you still can, but I will say this...unless you are going on a date with a guy or girl you have just started seeing, you might as well wait for video. That is really the only reason I can recommend paying the $10+ to go see this in the theaters. Don't get me wrong, it is not a bad film. There were several parts I enjoyed quite a bit, and I would venture to say that I may have even liked the film as a whole. But at best I would say maybe 3 stars. It was missing that super cute factor to make it a great date movie, and a great movie for all you hopeless romantics out there (cough cough this guy).
There is so much I can say about this debate...and I know you, my loyal readers, have come to expect me to comment. However, every single issue in the debate I could write for pages on. So I will simply say these three things:
1) McCain was strong in the beginning. I was impressed by his poise considering the way he acted in the previous two debates. Then, at some point, it was like he lost his mind. He got fed up and grumpy and the crotchety ol' McCain we have come to expect came out. Much like the Nixon/Kennedy debate, those people I have talked to that only listened on the radio thought McCain won. But it isn't telelisten...it is television!
2) In my opinion, and I have actually been very critical of Obama in the debates despite the fact that I think he won the first two, Obama also won this one. His answers were more effective and he was able to brush of McCain attacks and set his own vision. Every poll on every news network of undecided voters agreed with this opinion. Enough said.
3) This sums up the entire debate:
Sorry for the sort coverage, I just have a lot of other things I would like to cover coming up soon. Expect some information on ACORN, Palin, and I each day starting next week I will cover two issues on our local ballots here in Washington, and one of interest from another state...if you have any suggestions for sommething you would like me to go over, just let me know!
After 8 years of Bush, and the way every part of our society has been utterly devastated (even Jimmy Carter is now attacking Bush on the economy), you would think that it is us on the LEFT who should be angry. I mean, maybe we are. I am angry. I cannot believe that even this many people would support McCain and am sick of this country moving further and further to the right. There are parts of the Obama platform which, under a Kennedy administration, were considered so far-right wing that candidates who advocated such things lost in landslides (but we can get into the whole Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush fleecing of the electoral system another time). And yet, it seems like us on the left, when we are angry, use intellect and go out and try and make a difference, not just spew angry, hateful rhetoric.
THAT'S RIGHT!!! I AM MAD!!! I am angry that McCain can continually state that the surge in Iraq was successful, and that Obama tacitly agrees with this, when a recent UCLA study showed very clearly it was in fact not the surge that has lessened violence in Iraq. As the study itself states, "the surge has had no observable effect." Using nighttime light signatures, it was shown that it was in fact ethno- sectarian neighborhood homogenization that led to a decrease in violence. As one ethnicity was essentially killed or driven out of a neighborhood, leaving the majority ethnicity to "rule" the neighborhood, the violence would, understandably, lessen in that neighborhood. So why doesn't Obama say this? Why doesn't he fight back? This would shore up his position on Iraq, and would give McCain no legs to stand on with this issue.
So, while the Left uses logic and strong arguments to defeat the nonsense on the right (and yes, 90% of it is nonsense), the Right yells and screams and, you guessed it, turns into an angry mob, or so says McCain's former top strategist, John Weaver. Weaver has even called upon McCain and Palin to stop stoking the flames of hatred and anger, and to control the crowds (since such crowds would be unattractive to a swing voter). Obviously they are not doing their job...watch this:
And another thing, I am tired of people on the right calling Obama socialist...there is NOTHING remotely socialist about the policies of the Democratic party. Health care, you say?! ummm...no! Obama is not calling out for health care for all, he wants health INSURANCE for everyone. Big difference. Speaking of socialists, shall we talk about Wall Street bailouts? Enough said. Now go forth and (try not to) be angry!
The Simpsons have always been political. As many of you out there know, the writers of the show have a knack for dissecting American Politics, in a humorous yet oftentimes extremely cynical way. Who can forget the 1996 episode Treehouse of Horror VII in which the aliens Kang and Kodos kidnap Bill Clinton and Bob Dole, placing them in suspended animation tubes, and then impersonating them in order to win the 1996 Presidential Elections (and thus enslave humanity for their alien race). This speech by Alien Dole sums up American Politics so very nicely:
And let us not forget, this is also the episode where the earthlings threaten to vote third party when they discover what has happened, and Kang tells them to go ahead and throw away their votes (confounding Ross Perot)!
There have also been numerous Presidential appearances. Here are a few examples:
Yet, as FOX has moved more to the right, the show has begun to criticize the media and mock the right wing notion of the so-called liberal media, flying in the face of its parent network. This has been matched by calls on the right of a liberal bias, and yet if you listen to the DVD commentary Matt Groening makes it clear that although there are people on the writing staff who are extremely liberal, there are many conservatives, including the main writer of episodes, John Swartzwelder.
Why do I bring all of this up? Well...news has broken that on November 2, the Simpsons episode that airs will have Homer going to his polling place to try and cast a vote for Barack Obama. And here is the madness that ensues:
Pretty scary, huh?! It hits a little too close to home with all of the dirty tricks Republicans are already pulling, from caging lists to using foreclosures to bar voters. This is why people need to turn out in record numbers to vote for Obama...there will be many who experience what Homer does here, and those that get their votes through need to outnumber the Homers of the USA.
For the last week, I have been saying to anyone who would listen that they should not underestimate Sarah Palin. Sure, she doesn’t know any Supreme Court cases other than [i]Roe v. Wade[/i], but if there is one thing she knows how to do, it is use rhetoric to create nice little sound bites. And what does a debate provide? The opportunity to create such sound bites with questions that are pretty much expected to come, making it easy to prep for them. Thus, when every once was saying they couldn’t wait to watch Palin make a fool of herself, I was saying hold on a minute…have you watched the Alaska Gubernatorial debates? Because I have, and she can hold her own.
That being said, there was no way that people weren’t going to be impressed by Gov. Palin in tonight’s debate? When you set expectations that low, it is an easy bar to jump over. Even during the debate I could see the media spin already: “America Gets to Know Palin…And Loves Her!” Middle America was going to eat her phony, obviously played-up Fargo accent and her folksy pronunciation of words (nuke-you-lur anyone?) right up! However, what I didn’t expect was for Joe Biden to shine so brightly…
Although, maybe that shouldn’t have been the case, since it was Sen. Biden who delivered probably the two best moments of the Democratic Primary debates:
and
Time and time again, Joe Biden effectively attacked John McCain, with straight forward, factual comments. Here is one hard hitting example:
That is one of the most effective attacks I have heard made upon Sen. McCain, and it was made in the right place…a nationally televised debate. So much for all that maverick talk.
And, in one of the most heart-felt moments I have ever seen from any public official (making the whole Hillary crying debacle in the primary look like the ploy for votes that it was), Sen. Biden choked up, and had to fight off tears, while speaking of being a single father after the death of his wife and daughter:
Look how the uncommitted voters of Ohio responded to that on the bottom of the screen…wow! That was not just some stunt…that was real pain. And people could see that. Biden impressed me. I think he is an even better debater than Barack Obama.
Palin, for all of her composure, delivered line after line of deceptive information. And when the McCain-Palin’s stance on an issue was attacked (especially early on), she would oftentimes simply try to change the subject. See for yourself:
Thus, for the second straight debate, I was wrong. My impression that America would likely side with the folksy Republican candidate over the “elitist” Democratic candidate was off base (what kind of bizarro world do we live in where the truths of the 2000 and 2004 campaigns no longer apply?! I guess Bush still had people fooled in 2004…?). Although, I was correct that people would be impressed Palin…just wrong that this would in turn cause people to believe she won the debate.
First, those same uncommitted Ohio voters I spoke of above overwhelmingly felt Biden won the debate, with 51% saying Sen. Biden won the debate, while 36% said Palin won:
Second, the extremely detailed CBS-Knowledge Networks poll also showed Joe Biden to be the winner. It broke down as follows:
WHO WON THE DEBATE? (Uncommitted Voters Who Watched Debate) Biden 46% Palin 21 Tie 33
The other numbers from that poll bear this out even further. In terms of the uncommitted voters’ opinions of the candidates, following the debate, 53% had a better opinion of Biden, 5% had a worse opinion of Biden, and 42% held the same opinion of the candidate. As to Sarah Palin, 55% had a better opinion of her, while 14% actually had a worse opinion of her, and 30% felt the same.
When asked about whether the candidate was knowledgeable about important issues, prior to the debate 79% said Joe Biden was (with 17% saying he was not), while after the debate, a whopping 98% of the uncommitted voters who were polled said that Joe Biden was knowledgeable (while only 2% said he was not). This same question in terms of Gov. Palin had 43% of voters prior to the debate saying she was knowledgeable, while 66% said she was after the debate (pre-debate 54% said she was not knowledgeable, while only 32% said she was not following the debate).
Similarly, and most significantly, the uncommitted voters were asked whether the candidate would be an effective President if necessary. The numbers bore out like this:
Is Joe Biden prepared for the job of Vice President? Pre-Debate: Yes 66% No 30
Post-Debate: Yes 91% No 8
Is Sarah Palin prepared for the job of Vice President? Pre-Debate: Yes 35% No 62
Post-Debate: Yes 44% No 56
These uncommitted voters saw a huge jump in their view of Biden’s preparedness to lead, while the jump for Palin was quite small.
Maybe I need to have more faith in the American voter. 8 years of Bush has tested my opinion of them, but alas, maybe I’m coming back around. Whatever the case may be, I leave you with this humorous portrayal of the entire Palin situation:
Attorney with an emphasis in entertainment law. College radio dj. Bassist. Keyboardist. Former college radio music director. Former show promoter. Former college radio general manager.
.jpg)
