Beware of the Republican mole

Why are quasi-democrats destroying our party? Why are we letting them drive a wedge through our party and destroy us? Do they really have the best interest of America in mind or are do they have their own agenda like playing kingmaker or maybe even eventually have a Republican in power.
Ariana Huffington, the woman who single handedly is creating the biggest and largest wedge in the Democratic party. Who is she? Is she a Democrat? Is she a Republican? After ginning up and driving every fake racial controversy and sometimes even manufacturing some against the Senator Clinton. This past week she planted a friendly journalist at an private Obama fundraiser at "billionaire's row" in San Francisco. Surrounded by a receptive liberal crowd feeling at ease Barack Obama let loose some mistimed words. Unfortunately the journalist, Mayhill Flower, who is an avid Obama supporter and has contributed as much as $2250 to his campaign reported this in her column. Those words recorded on audio and video came to bite Senator Obama in a big way. But that is the nature of politics. Today in order to make amends Huffington's mouthpiece Sam Stein had this headline in red letters (very much like Drudgereport):
Clinton On Southern Working Class Whites "Screw 'Em"
Keep in mind that the entire reporting is hearsay. Somebody wrote about something they purportedly heard in 1995 and published it in 2001. No corroborations, no audio or video record and this comes close behind her screed about Bill Clinton's efforts to supply weapons to the Colombian govt. in their war against drugs which was thoroughly debunked too: The Hill
Lockheed was an unusual client for us. From the outset, we made clear that we would not work on their defense contracting issues, but I was intrigued about the possibility of a serious study on the underexplored subject of drug policy. What did we find? In 1999, 56 percent of Americans believed drug use was on the rise and there was substantial worry about the ease with which kids could buy drugs (as well as about healthcare and other issues). More interestingly, we used several different techniques to probe the relative priority voters attached to four policy approaches -- anti-drug education, law enforcement (arresting more dealers), interdiction and treatment. "Reducing the supply of drugs by preventing illegal drugs from being smuggled into the U.S." consistently emerged as the public's preferred policy. To my personal chagrin, treatment consistently brought up the rear. We then dug deeper, asking about specific programs within each category, including, for example, funding anti-drug TV ads. As part of that exercise, we asked voters in general terms whether they favored or opposed increased funding for interdiction efforts. Support was substantial.
and from the same article:
Huffington roundly criticizes a subsequent question that asked whether voters supported or opposed spending $2 billion on tracking planes for interdiction. She assumes the question was tailor-made to serve the client's interest. In fact, the opposite was true -- I insisted on including the item, fearing that whatever support people might express for interdiction in general might evaporate at the thought of vast spending on airplanes. It did not -- voters favored spending on the planes by 56 percent-29. The airplanes weren't for Colombia, however. They were for the U.S. -- a fact clearly stated in the question. When I briefed Customs Commissioner Raymond Kelly on the results he was delighted, telling me he had been trying to get more tracking planes, but had been unable to obtain the funding and thought this demonstration of public interest would help. It may have. The U.S. Customs Service subsequently bought several and used them to stop thousands of tons of drugs from entering the U.S. And what of the tie between the poll and the lurid tale of billions for drug wars in Colombia's jungles? Oops. There was none. The poll was all about U.S. interdiction efforts.
So who is Arianna Huffington? Her wikipedia page has some startling revelations: She is the very well educated daughter of Greek journalists but came first into the American public sphere as the partner of now ex-California governor Jerry Brown. During this time Arianna was a liberal left-winger. Then the story of her life changed again:
She met millionaire Michael Huffington at a 1985 party hosted by Ann Getty in San Francisco. The couple were married in 1986. They moved to Washington, D.C., when he was appointed to the Department of Defense. They later established residency in Santa Barbara, California, in order for him to run in 1992 as a Republican for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, which he won by a significant margin. He was a political conservative, although he had publicly supported gays in the military. In 1994 he narrowly lost the race for the U.S. Senate seat from California to incumbent Dianne Feinstein. The couple divorced in 1997, and in 1998 Michael Huffington disclosed his bisexuality. A 1999 magazine article claimed that Arianna Huffington "entered the marriage... with full knowledge of Michael Huffington's sexual interests in men".[1] The financial terms of their divorce agreement remain undisclosed, but Huffington gained most of her wealth from her husband. Arianna Huffington chose to retain her former husband's surname, although she had been known as Arianna Stassinopoulos Huffington during the period of her marriage
Let me point out a couple of things. The Getty house was where the Obama fundraiser/blooper happened. So we now know where Ariana's source of wealth is (Kanye West anyone??). Anyway round about the time she was married to Michael Huffington Ariana became the confidante of Newt Gingrich and part of the Gingrich revolution whose motto was less government, to do away with the "welfare state" which is code for doing away with all government programs like Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security and "Welfare Reform". David Phinney wrote about Ariana in 1995 in the LA times: http://www.davidphinney.com/pages/2007/0 1/aggressive_purs.php
"It's about three revolutions, really," she explained. "There's the political revolution that launched the Republican landslide, the cultural revolution without which the political revolution cannot succeed, and the personal revolution in how we see the purpose of our lives." And Arianna Huffington's purpose these days -- her public-personal purpose -- is to fill the public welfare void that will be left if the Republican majority in Congress succeeds in dismantling the welfare system. "If you believe, as we believe, that the safety net government provides is full of holes and torn and doesn't really work anymore, then there has got to be something to take its place," she said. And that is what her monthly lunches in a Georgetown condominium overlooking the Potomac River -- contributed by the Seagram's Corp. -- are all about, she said. She invites people to a "brown bag lunch" so they can join in intimate discussions about how to replace the welfare state. The fare is not literally brown bag: Guests treat themselves to a beef stroganoff buffet and baby carrots served on blue-rimmed Limoges china.
During this time she has been in record as being against all government programs and not yielding an inch to Democrats and spoke with derision about the "common ground" (yeah it is again big these thanks to Obama): http://ariannaonline.huffingtonpost.com/ columns/column.php?id=682
Washington overflows with talk of bipartisanship these days. The president has even resurrected the phrase "vital center," which Arthur Schlesinger coined 48 years ago to describe the common ground between fascism and communism. Schlesinger, who calls himself "an unrepentant and unreconstructed liberal," has expressed concern that the phrase is being reduced to nothing more than "middle of the road." As an unrepentant and unreconstructed conservative, I share his concern. The middle of the road is indeed strictly for yellow lines and dead armadillos. At a dinner given by the Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom on Tuesday night, Henry Kissinger, celebrated seeker of common ground, gave -- perhaps unintentionally -- the best reason it is not all it is cracked up to be. Leadership, he said, is "about moving a people from where it is to where it has never been."
During this time as well she was opposed to the Bosnia intervention which stopped a genocide (with or without NATO) and intervention in Somalia. Today the blue-eyed girl of the Gingrich revolution, the bete noir of the Democratic party during the 1990s, is a Democratic diva. Yet for all her "change of heart" which is hard to believe she still hates the most successful democratic president since FDR with a passion that only a Republican can muster. And like she said before she does not believe in the common ground...at least not within the Democratic party. Is this then the greates con job that has been pulled on us progressives?

Tags: conservative, Huffington, Republican (all tags)

Comments

2 Comments

Re: Beware of the Republican mole

lmao

Seeing trolls under the bed?

by switching sides 2008-04-17 12:17AM | 0 recs
A pretty compelling influence on humanity is

technological progress. If the level of education in a country or community remains constant, i.e. does not keep up with the rate of technological progress in society as a whole, the level of employment will drop. Ultimately, relative education (a community relative to other communities, or really, often the US relative to other countries?) is more important than absolute education. We can keep becoming better but if the rate at which we keep becoming better is too slow, we will still end up with lots of unemployed and fairly unemployable people. Computers will be cheaper, and there is the 'bitterness factor' which really has not been looked at until now.

That deters employers from hiring people and encourages the adoption of technology-based solutions despite their often higher costs. The payback will come in simplicity and reduced government regulation, such as government requirements to provide healthcare.

Computers don't need health insurance, only service contracts, and they are becoming so cheap as to not need them, just have a large supply of hot swappable parts on hand.. :/

There's also Moore's Law which effects the relative cost of computers vs. people. Computers are becoming cheaper very rapidly. (doubling in power vs. cost approx every 18mo.)

So, I think a compelling argument can be made for the rapidly increasing importance of safety nets!

by architek 2008-04-17 02:37AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads