by bedobe, Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:12:32 PM EDT
Since George Stephanopoulos requests, over at PERRspectives Blog, Jon Perr has come up with a list of ten questions for Stephanopoulos to ask McCain this Sunday:
4. Given your past adultery, should Americans consider you a moral exemplar of family values?
You are the nominee of a Republican Party which claims to support so-called "family values." Yet you commenced an adulterous relationship with your current wife Cindy months before the dissolution of your previous marriage to your first wife Carol. Should Americans consider you to be a moral exemplar of family values?
You can read the other nine questions below the fold...
by bedobe, Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:37:05 AM EDT
This was McCain back then:
The American people want them home...
The criteria should be to bring [troops] home as rapidly as possible...
Date certain is not the criteria... the criteria ought to be immediate and rapid withdrawal...
And if we don't do that, and other Americans die or are captured because we stayed too long... then I would say that the responsibilities for that lie with the Congress of the United States...
The mission has been accomplished...
The American people do not support nation building...
The argument that some how the United States would suffer a loss to our prestige... I think is boloney.
... I tell you what can hurt our prestige... that's if we enmesh ourselves in a drawn out situations which entails loss of American lives... more debacles... with a failed mission... that then will be what will hurt our prestige...
Too bad we can't post YouTube videos here, so you must click here to see it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8TFKXHiefs
by bedobe, Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 07:51:36 PM EDT
John Edwards was on PBS's “News Hour with Jim Lehrer” and, well, the man was on fire, seriously. Listening to Edwards one can easily image how his administration would be transformational. More importantly, as far as his candidacy is concerned, if Edwards is able to speak with the same clarity with which he spoke during tonight's show, his policies and vision for our country can only resonate with the general electorate.
I'll spare you further commentary and let John Edwards speak for himself (audio is available here):
by bedobe, Sat Feb 24, 2007 at 07:29:23 AM EST
Based on mainstream media (MSM) coverage and on comments by the religious right (read republican party), one gets the sense that the Jewish public is supportive of the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq and of its other policies in that region of the world. Of course, as with anything that comes out of the right wing (read republican party) and its supporters in the MSM, the facts demonstrate a liberal bias that simply don't support the claim.
The Gallup Poll is reporting: Among Religious Groups, Jewish Americans Most Strongly Oppose War -- opposition goes beyond Jewish Americans' political affiliations.
That bears repeating, because of how it refutes what seems to have been the conventional narrative over the past couple of years, that is: the right wing's (read republican party) claim that Jewish Americans are abandoning the Democratic party (and their commitment to Progressive values) and joining the republican party due to Bush's Middle East policies, including the Iraq war. So lemme repeat the Gallup Poll headline and quote from their poll: Among Religious Groups, Jewish Americans Most Strongly Oppose War.
PRINCETON, NJ -- An analysis of Gallup Poll data collected since the beginning of 2005 finds that among the major religious groups in the United States, Jewish Americans are the most strongly opposed to the Iraq war. Catholics and Protestants are more or less divided in their views on the war, while Mormons are the most likely to favor it. Those with no religious affiliation also oppose the war, but not to the same extent that Jewish people do. The greater opposition to the war is not simply a result of high Democratic identification among U.S. Jews, as Jews of all political persuasions are more likely to oppose the war than non-Jews who share the same political leanings.
by bedobe, Mon Dec 25, 2006 at 02:33:34 PM EST
I'm not steeped in the minutia of legislative amendments, counter amendments, nor parliamentary rules that affect passage of one bill over another. I understand that often, in close legislative combat, the name of the game is not to outright kill a bill, but to load it with poison pills, etc., so that the opposition is less likely to vote for a benign sounding bill. I write all this to indicate that I know that there's often a lot more going on behind the passage of a bill or amendment than what at first meets the eye -- I know that.
That said, lemme ask a question: back in June of 2006, why would a reportedly anti-Iraq war Senator, which had the foresight to oppose the war when he was a state legislator, oppose an amendment that stated the following?
To require the redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq in order to further a political solution in Iraq, encourage the people of Iraq to provide for their own security, and achieve victory in the war on terror. [link]
by bedobe, Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 05:48:49 PM EST
Time.com has a put together a handy list debunking the top five myths of these past elections:
MYTH: Joe Lieberman's victory proves the netroots don't matter.
REALITY: The netroots had some key victories.
MYTH: Democrats won because they carefully recruited more conservative candidates.
REALITY: Democrats won because their candidates were conservative about their message.
MYTH: The losses Republicans suffered this election were no different than what you usually see in a President's sixth year in office.
REALITY: Redistricting minimized what might have been a truly historic shellacking.
MYTH: The election was all about the war.
REALITY: It's the dishonesty, stupid.
MYTH: Republicans lost their base.
REALITY: The base turned out, they just got beat.
by bedobe, Wed May 03, 2006 at 10:12:07 AM EDT
Leave it to the miserable establishment media to predictably rely on their out-of-the-box, already-assembled "objective journalism" artifact as a tool of covering any story, that is: weighing opposing arguments as if they merited the same factual standing, and thereby failing to inform the public.
This Washington Post article presents just one more example of how, by resorting on the "he said, she said" story covering ploy, these so-called liberal media stenographers (posing as journalists) misinform and often provide cover to the conservative/republican frame of reference. Incredulously, the Washington Post stenographer (see Steven Colbert's comment on the media, "He's the decider, he announces the decisions, and you type them up and report") begins with:
While a series of marches focused much of the nation's attention on the plight of illegal immigrants, scores of other Americans quietly seethed. Now, with the same full-throated cry expressed by those in the country illegally, they are shouting back.
Let's read that second sentence again: [W]ith the same full-throated cry expressed by those in the country illegally, [opponents of undocumented immigrants] are shouting back. This sentence is laughable and deserving of my contempt. Seriously. Let's consider what the pro-citizenship rallies that I and other American citizens, including documented and undocumented immigrants, looked like (from the LA Times, see here and here) and let us just imagine what it must have sounded like:
by bedobe, Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 09:42:45 PM EDT
In one of the diaries someone posted a comment that the netroots can't define for themselves what it is that we want from the Democratic party and its elected officials. It was with that in mind that I put together this brief list, er, wish list. Please feel free to add anything you'd like to see coming from the Democratic party and its candidates.
- National commitment to the Energy Apollo Project, to curtail, if not end, our dependence on fossil fuels -- I'd also like to see more exploration on alternative energy sources
- No US forces in Iraq, no permanent basis the country
- Rebuild and regain the trust of our nation's military after the catastrophic abuse of the past six years
- As an aside, and as someone that served in the military, I'd like to see a mandatory -- yes, mandatory -- military service period for every American after completing high school for a two year period. (Conscientious objectors could serve in non-combat units that are not required to undergo any direct weapons training -- our nation must commit to an ideal wherein war must be a shared sacrifice, across the board, period.)
(Of course there's more...)
by bedobe, Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 08:18:57 AM EDT
There's some talk around the liberal, Democratic leaning blogsphere about what it is that the Democratic party can do to energize and motivate the base, given the apparent grassroots passivity that some observe. The apparent grassroots passivity seems counter intuitive, given how poll after poll shows that Democrats are preferred over republicans to take control of Congress after the November elections; and, yet, Democratic voters do not appear to have turned out in large numbers in the recent CA-50 special election for. Understandably, one wonders, What can the Democratic party do to motivate the grassroots and the general public?
Here are my suggestions:
by bedobe, Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 11:19:35 PM EDT
Many around here have asked, how can I show solidarity with the hundreds of thousands of immigrants that marched across the country over the last few weeks?
Well, here's something you can do without leaving the comfort your home: stand up for the 15 women that were fired for attending the marches.
A manager at a Detroit meatpacking plant said Monday that 15 immigrant women were fired last month after attending a protest for immigrant rights.
[A]bout 20 union officials went Monday to Wolverine Packing Co. offices on Rivard to inquire about what happened.
[A]s Wolverine knows, the workers were documented, but an employment agency does the actual hiring. He said the workers had been told, "written and verbally," on the Friday before the protests that their attendance was mandatory on the day of the protest.
They were fired "for standing up for their rights."
The fired workers were natives of Mexico and many had worked at the plant for several years. Most have children and are worried about supporting their families, Herrada said.