July 5, 2008 (LPAC)--City of London mouthpiece Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of the Daily Telegraph writes a freaked-out article denouncing the European Central Bank's intention of raising interest rates by 0.25% to 4.25% today. He uses all his powers of sophistry in a desperate bid to convince the ECB and the Fed to cut rates--to save the world's bankrupt financial system.
http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/07/05/evans-pritchards-freaked-out-over-ecb-interest-rate-hike.html

http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/07/05/shakespeares-principle-tragedy-ambrose-evans-pritchard.html

MaryBeth Buchanan seems to be over her head. Last year, at least one lawyer called on her to resign.

Can we make our voices heard over the din of the MSM and the Republican noise/smear machine?

This is a fundamental question I am asking myself - and now, you.

In 2004, we witnessed thousands of people yelling "flip-flop" like five-year-olds, holding signs and berating a thoughtful candidate for president because he seemed able to assess an issue and change position from time to time. Today, we see McCain changing positions faster than a speeding bullet (super flip-flopper?), but those who once yelled "flip-flopper" at John Kerry are silent on the matter - unless Obama seems to shift position, even by a micro-milimeter. Then they are all over it, trying to tear him down because they fear him even more than Kerry.

We watched Kerry get blasted for windsurfing, but apparently it was ok for Cheney to shoot someone in the face.

"Don't you think John Kerry looks a little French?"

Then there were the magnificent Swift Boaters, who defamed a genuine war hero, fueled by Republican money and apparently some long-held vendetta that found the presidential campaign the perfect place to unleash their ire and mean spirits. They were so successful at trashing a war hero that they added a phrase to the English language.

And now McCain has joined forces with some of those same people to trash another war hero - Wesley Clark - while he sits back and rests on his laurels as a... oh yeah, a war hero.

And, as the 527s tag-team with the Republican Party to demean, accuse and smear anyone who gets in their way, the mainstream media forms up in lockstep, just like the Republican Congress did around BushCo, and echoes every sick, dishonest, mangled assertion uttered by these unscrupulous, sorry excuses for human beings. Every juvenile slur, every partially quoted and misinterpreted sound bite, every excuse to undermine the legitimacy of the "elite, liberal, tax 'n' spend, flip-flopping, 'he's black! muslim! unpatriotic!'... ad nauseum" candidate who represents the one real chance we have to bail ourselves out of the tragedy these idiots, extremists and sheeple have gotten us into.

So where's our voice?

We can blog all day long. We can comment among ourselves, preach to the choir, send money (good), argue over our differences (good, only if we don't forget the Big Picture), and be right almost all the time. But can we be heard?

Can we somehow drown out the din of the talking head/sock puppets of the MSM? Can we deliver a message that reaches people still susceptible to the lies, distortions and name-calling? Can we get people to think deeper and move past the labels and the divisions, which seem only to serve those in power - divided we fall - and start on the path of re-United States-ing  this country in common vision and recognition of our mutual equality?

I don't blame the vast majority of people who buy into this crap. They are being manipulated, and as easy as it would be for me to take a morally superior position, I'd be wrong. For decades there has been a concerted propaganda effort dedicated to the dumbing down and oversimplication of our political process so that those who care only for power can manipulate those who care about other issues. Name an issue, and it probably has been politicised by operatives who care nothing for the issue, but only for the overthrow of our government to fit their ideology - an ideology that began at least as far  back as Nixon.

How do we take our country back? I don't believe it's by being as juvenile and sick as our opponents, but how, then? We of the netroots have great voices, great wisdom and understanding, and we can fuel a revolution in our world, but we have not yet found a way to reach past our own insularity and into the mainstream of opinion where people don't check the internet every day, become blog junkies or get any news but the distortions they get from the MSM. There are a lot of those people. I think - hope - that there are a lot of us, too.

How do we invade the MSM? Or can we make it irrelevant?


How can we invalidate the message of fear and division?

I hope someone has the answer.

Boeing Whistleblower, Gerald Eastman, has just issued a press release which gives much information about the mechanizations employed by Boeing and those they influence and control regarding Boeings retribution against whistleblower, Mr. Eastman.  This story may shock some of you, those who have not been keeping up with the outrageious activities in Justice and government and industry oversightover the past seven or so years.  Reading about the travesty that has been marketed as Justice in Seattle will confirm for you that a major clean up of our government and defense contractors and major commercial corporations is long past due.


You may read the whole text at Mr. Eastman's site:  www.thelastinspector.com

You may read this information also at http://whistleblowersupporter.typepad.com

and at:  http://gflorencescott.wordpress.com

as well as a host of other information about and of use to whistleblowers and those who support them.

-Flyover

(Author note:  
This is listed w/o text several times because of technical difficulties.)

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO FORWARD THIS POST TO ANY & ALL APPROPRIATE SOURCES

An Open Letter to America's Churches:

As a nation, we currently face one of the most important  elections in our nation's history.   It will be an election discussed in the history books for generations to come.  And it is an election that both sides realize the importance of.

Little wonder that it is also showing signs of being one of the most embarrassing elections ever.   Each side believes so strongly that it is an important election that there are supporters on either side willing to say ANYTHING about the other candidate.

For this reason,  I am coming to you to ask your help.   Since Senator Obama has announced his candidacy, numerous false e-mails are being circulated throughout the web.   The first round of false rumors stated that Sen. Obama is a Muslim.  This is simply not true.  Senator Obama speaks eloquently of discovering that the most effective means of community organizing in Chicago is through the local churches.  He eventually found salvation in one of those churches and traveled from aethiesm to  proclaiming Jesus as his personal saviour.  You may not agree with him regarding spiritual matters but at least give honest voice to the fact that he is not and never has been Muslim.

The second round was even more offensive.  Lately e-mails have cirulated that list "coincidences" that point to the end of the world.  It then raises the question of Senator Obama being the antichrist!  THIS IS SIMPLY WRONG.  Throughout the history of the world people have tried to identify the antichrist.  Napoleon, Hitler, Idi Amin have all shared the title.   And apparently none of them were the antichrist.   Don't get me wrong.   They were very bad people...but not as bad as the antichrist is supposed to be.

There is no single human more reviled by Christians than the image of this evil world leader who begins the times of tribulation.  Naming this person before he is revealed is a very slipper slope to walk.  The Bible teaches that no one, not even the angels know the time and place of Christ's return.   So technically, no one can really know who the antichrist is.  And don't forget, history teaches us that we've been wrong before.

By raising the spectre that Obama is the antichrist, you have asked an unanswerable question and placed a lingering doubt in the minds of many believers.   Think of this as the Campaign 08 version of the question, "Mr. Candidate, have you stopped beating your wife?"

This does not strike me as the type of campaign that would start from within a church.  I can, however; envision others (with an urgent desire to see Senator Obama lose) raise this question.  They realize that every church has a member or two that would be willing to pass an e-mail along raising doubts in the minds of thousands.  In other words, the Church is being duped and used for political purposes.

The way people just pass the lies along by e-mail, taking no responsibility for their actions is the saddest part of all.   (Because I don't think many people truly believe that Senator Obama is the antichrist.  If they did, more of them would be making plans to move to a remote 3rd World country....just in case!)  This is merely the 21st Century equivalent of the rumor mill, untrue gossip that we enjoy because it's so "exciting".   By itself; it means little, but the problem is that it leaves a lingering doubt about the "character" of the candidate.  "He's probably not the antichrist, but if everyone thinks he's that bad...there must be something to it."

Jesus said in Matthew 12: 36-37;

"But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgement.   For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."                                                             

                 
If we are judged by and condemned by the words we speak idly, are we also judged and condemned by our e-mails?

I am not  asking that you support Sen. Obama for President.  I do hope that everyone will take time to examine the issues to make an informed decision, you may find that he is a candidate you can support. 

I do ask that America's Churches take it upon themselves to speak out strongly against these e-mails and others like them.   They are nothing but malicious gossip being used to smear a good man.   Even if his political beliefs do not agree with yours, it does not change the fact that he is a good man with a family that can be hurt by your false accusations and insinuations.

Please take time next Sunday to speak out against being used for political gain.   Speak out about the consequences of malicious gossip and false witness. And pray that our nation makes the best choice possible this November  (Be it Sen McCain or Sen. Obama.)   But please make sure that your actions as Americans during a campaign season reflect well upon your faith.

 

 

Is It A Mere Story ?

After witnessing, time after time after time, the illogical and
baseless collusion by democrats of bowing down to this completely
corrupt administration in allowing illegal and unethical legislation to
slither through, I can only reach one undeniable conclusion. Whatever
reasons and unfathomable objectives are being used to justify being
accomplices in reformulating the legal and governmental processes in
the United States are being achieved by completely willing legislators
and officials on every level. In spite of the deafening outcry from the
citizens of this land to stop undermining our way of life and
government, Democrat leadership, in concert with republicans have
forged ahead with legalizing fraud, tyranny, murder, plundering the
treasury and purposely undermining and rendering ineffective our
military. These completely counterproductive and destructive acts COULD
NOT be achieved without mutual cooperation from dark souled legislators
from both sides of the aisle and from both houses of congress. People
of America, we are being used, abused, lied to and manipulated by our
own government. Democrats and republicans alike. It is time, the time
is now.

Mary Beth Buchanan is a US Attorney, formerly the director of the Executive Office of US Attorneys.

Buchanan asserted she directed FBI agents to conduct "hom interviews" of Wech Jury Members.

Yet, we have a different picture when it comes to the firing of US Attorneys, and FBI agents at Guantanamo. FBI agents were told not to retain war crimes records.

When Buchanan was asked about her involvement with the US Attorney firings, her attorney and GOP said she "wasn't involved".

War crimes have been documented on FBI agent 302. Those forms are missing. Addington and CIA General Counsel Rizzo visited Guantanamo to review the POW interrogation. MajGen Teguba asserts this Administration did direct an effort to commit war crimes.

War crimes are offenses against civilians, unarmed combatants, and people who are protected under the Geneva Conventions.

The public should find out what role Buchanan had in reviewing the war crimes evidence from Guantanamo. She may not have been involved with the US Attorney firings, but she should have been in a position to hear something. She was connnected, indirectly, with Attorney General Ashroft who asked that discussions about war crimes be kept out of the White House.

Buchanan had led a prosecution against someone for obscenity. The public should ask Buchanan how her views of the Guantanamo inerrogation might change if the President had detained young children, or abuse women in Iraq.

Oh, wait. The President did detain young children, and US combat forces have sexually assaulted women and children in combat zones and in non-combat zones.

Buchanan's role as a prosecutor isn;t merely to narrowly look at her jurisidication. It is to provide leadership, where it is absent, for the Department of Justice. The public has a right to know what role Buchanan had in reviewing detailed descriptions of POW interrogations.

It is one thing to enforce the laws of war, quite another to do something when reading in emails detailed descriptions of those horrific abuses during interrogations. Buchanan should shed light on what information she has about POW abuse, her connections with the CIA General counsel, and what information she as Director EOUSA had access related to POW abuse, prisoner logs, and FBI descriptions of abuses committed against POWs.

Buchanan's made a name for herself for providing lega insight on FISA issues and conduting high profile litigation. Buchanan should disclose what information she has about the obscene war crimes her President directed, and what information she and others were reading in the JCON database related to prisoner abuse.

It's one thing to get upset when someone writes about obscenity. It's quite another to do something about obscene war crimes. The questoin is whether Buchanan did what she should have done; or, as with the US Attorney firings, she "had no role" in taking action to ensure US personnel did not engage in any obscene abuses of the Geneva Conventions.

When Buchanan cooperates in disclosing what information she had access to during obscene, repulsive prisoner interrogations, the public might take seriously her efforts to confront obscenity at home.

Greetings friends in Christ.  Throughout my years in the ministry I've had to deal with thousands of old people in my congregation and my community.  

As you might expect - dealing with them is a massive challenge.  They are obstinent, rude, hard of hearing, set in their ways, and - well - I'm just going to come out and say it - they smell funny.  I think it goes without saying that it’s much easier to just ignore them and allow them to burden society with their mere presence than to waste a whole afternoon listening to their mind numbingly boring stories about playing Kanasta or comparing the differences in denture cleaners.  Forgive me for saying it - but I think I’d rather spend eternity in hell than spend an afternoon listening to grandma wax nostalgic about the social structure of Shady Pines nursing home.   I don’t spend good money (out of my inheritance) on that overcrowded disease ridden facility to have to actually participate in her life.  Thank Jesus for that one.   

But friends, the elderly have finally banded together for something other than casino gambling or bingo night at the Elks lodge.  Yes - they have embraced racism with all their hearts (as shriveled up and disease ridden as those hearts may be).  They used to live in an era where you could be proud of whites only drinking fountains and didn’t have to look both ways before dropping the “N” word in public.   Those my friends were what you call the “Good ol’ days”.  No - now we live in an era of political correctness where pussy concepts like tolerance and understanding have turned us into a nation of namby pamby’s.  No wonder there are so many kids choosing the gay lifestyle - they’re indoctrinated with homo ideas like compassion for the struggle of the negro from the time they enter the Godless public education system.  But thanks to the idiot Democrat party nominating a black man for President - good old fashioned racism is making a major comeback.  And not a moment too soon if you ask me!

Now - we all know that the uneducated probably inbred (hey - inbreeding is in the bible so if it’s OK with God, it’s OK with me - how else could we get 6 billion people on earth from Adam and Eve) populations of States like West Virginia, Kentucky, and Texas are highly racist.  I mean - your self esteem has to come from somewhere - and when you live in a trailer, sport one hell of a mullet, and drive a beat up el camino, well, picking on the non racially pure in our society is just something you grow up doing.   But we expect racism from these folks.  We’d be very surprised and appalled if they didn’t burn a cross on their front lawn once in a while.

But the elderly did surprise us this time.   No longer are they just a burden to us - sitting around picking the hair that mysteriously sprouts from every orafice on their withered aged bodies.  No - with Fox News telling them that it’s OK to be racist again - they are a segment of the voting public that can no longer be ignored.  Just because we ignore them at every family holiday and church function for years - we now realize that we need their blind racial hated at the voting booth.  We need their blind racial hated at the bingo halls and the church socials and the emergency rooms, etc.  You see - our society looks down on the inbred hillbilly with a thick southern drawl who uses the word Jigaboo in public.  But if Grandpa calls a black person a watermelon eating pickaninny - we all just let him off with an “aaawww gramps - you racist ol’ coot”  But it’s the letting them off the hook that makes racism seem just a bit more socially acceptable.

And to make it even better - the Republican candidate isn’t just “the non black guy” - he’s an old asian hating racist himself.  Any man who will openly call his wife a cunt, call asians “gooks” and twice vote against giving Martin Luther King Jr. a national holiday is someone that the elderly can really get behind.  He hates gays, uses profanity on the senate floor - and is so senile that he changes positions more than he changes his depends undergarments.  In short - a perfect Republican President!  Praise Jesus! 

In the history of America, the concept of an honest politician has seemed somewhat more concept than reality. However, two of our most revered presidents were at least historically remembered for their integrity - George "I cannot tell a lie" Washington and Honest Abe Lincoln.

Our current White House resident can make no such claims - understatement of the year - but his erstwhile successor likes to be known as John "Straight Talk" McCain, with a little "maverick" thrown in. Now, I won't debate Obama's honesty quotient at the moment, other than to say that I believe it soars far above that of Mr. Straight Talk.

There are numerous examples of McCain's duplicity and lack of candor, but one that stands out for me, mostly because it means that you and I will have to suffer through yet another election cycle marred by base, incomprehensibly nasty lies, distortions and smears. So here McCain's promise of a clean, honest campaign, while it was never really believable, was something I really would have liked to have seen.

But it's clear from the recent changes in McCain's campaign leadership, his absolute lack of follow-through on his promise to reign in the 527 groups, and his own campaign's recent response to Gen. Wesley Clark's statements that the McCain strategy is going to be more of the Rovian McSame.

On the issue of Wesley Clark's statements, I think we see a real example that casts shame on McCain. The willful distortion, misrepresentation and vindictive attacks on Clark are incomprehensible coming from a fellow Vietnam veteran and, at least by his own account, loyal soldier such as McCain. To disagree is one thing. To villify and demean a 4-star general, ex-commander of all NATO forces, and a war hero in his own right is a violation of all that McCain claims to stand for.

Clearly, McCain is scared that if Clark's statements - the real ones - were to be believed, it would cut the legs out of his biggest claim of superiority over Obama - namely, that he has the better claim over our security and military matters by virtue of his military service. So it's not too surprising that, like a cornered animal, McCain struck out at Clark with such vehemence. But what is suprising is that this so-called patriot would reduce himself to lie and misrepresent another military officer who has simply stated the truth as he sees it.

Let's face it, despite what the MSM and McCain camp say, Clark is a very credible source, and he has been martyred to McCain's ambition. And I, for one, think McCain should be thoroughly ashamed of having treated someone of Clark's accomplishments in this way. He should apologize immediately if he wants to continue to have any moral stand. But, alas, morality is no longer McCain's strategy, if it ever was, and we're in for a very ugly campaign.

Get out your barf bags.It's going to be a bumpy ride.

We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude (but not money) to BMW Direct. Any organization that dedicates itself to bilking right-wing idiots with loose checkbooks is performing a major patriotic service and should be lauded.
What they've done is not much different from what's done by other so-called conservative fundraisers, but they've accomplished it without adding to the campaign clamor.

 
RIP JESSE HELMS

I always wonder what it is that makes someone do harm to people who've
done nothing to them; where does that hate come from? In other words,
what was it inside of Jesse Helms that made him spend so much energy
trying to hurt gay people?

I
asked the same about Rick Santorum, all those guys who seem to have
enough intelligence that evolution is a possible outcome. I don't mean
big "E" evolution. I mean the kind of evolution that comes from
humility and an ability to examine one's prejudices and see them for
the bigotry they are.

I have to say that, in my four-plus
decades of life, I've yet to find anyone who's desire to harm others is
anything but a misplaced desire to kill something inside themselves.

I
remember watching "B-1" Bob Dornan attack with a violent demeanor a gay
activist he was debating on one of the networks. I watched him react to
the activist's calm statements with "vein in the forehead" screaming.
And I realized: Bob Dornan is gay. He can't stand it and he has to
attack all those who ARE gay to help kill it inside himself.

I
remember when I was in high school, all the guys who announced most
loudly their conquests with women, in every case, they wound up coming
out of the closet later on down the road.

It's pretty much a
spiritual axiom that any time one is bothered by someone else...that
person has to look inside him or herself to see what's REALLY bothering
him or her. It's such a simple truth.

So back to Senator
Helms. What was it inside of him that he was able to express not only
satisfaction, but genuine glee at hurting gay people? He always seemed
happiest when he was hurting people. It was painful to watch and think
of all the pain inside of him that made him so happy to spend energy on
hurting gay people.

And all that energy spent by people to
hurt gay people, who have never been anything, but, ahem, Christian to
them, has an effect. It does the trick it's asked to do; it means that
gay people grow up and come of age wondering about their own existence.
Then they hide and, in their hiding, they come to loathe themselves,
and in their self-loathing, they discover a gnawing need to do harm to
others in order to kill that part of themselves.

In other words, I've just outlined how we wind up with Gay Republicans.

I
hope Senator Helms has found his inner peace. I have to figure that God
welcomed him and said, "It's OK Jesse; all is forgiven."

As you noted, and as I have read elsewhere, Black arranged Washington junkets for Jonas Savimbi in the 1980's through his lobbying firm. I have also read unconfirmed reports that Savimbi practiced cannibalism. Have any of these reports been confirmed? If so, I guess cannibals need lobbyists too.

According to the wiki on Wecht, there is some inconsistent information floating around about the Wecht Trial. Some have said that jury polling is permitted; and that the FBI agents were engaged in lawful interviews.

Defense counsel contends an individual "jury poll" -- interviews by a judge of the jury members during trial during deliberations -- never occurred. According to the defense:

"The procedures violated were that the judge failed to poll jurors individually to ensure they were, in fact, deadlocked, failed to ask the attorneys if they consented to a mistrial, failed to show the attorneys the final note from the jurors that said they were "essentially" deadlocked, and failed to question the jury foreman."

This language above explicitly links "jury poll" with an in-court action, during trial, before the jury reaches it's conclusion. A "jury poll" as the defense counsel is using the term, has nothing to do with post-trial interviews.

The court of appeals has stayed the second trial pending a review of defense motion that a second trial of Wecht would be double jeopardy.

The first trial is over. There is no set date for a second trial.

The court said prosecutors were allowed to record the names of the seated jurors.

The government has no adeuately explained how did the FBI agents get the names of the seated jurors to conduct post-trial home interviews, different than a jury poll.

(Cross-posted here.)

I've seldom been more tempted to actually delight in a man's
death as I am right now.

Jesse Helms is dead.

As recently as April, this deeply bigoted man was still at it, this time targeting
Barack Obama:

The North Carolina Republican Party -- forged by the hand of Dixiecrat segregationists like Jesse ("White people, wake up before it is too late. Do you want Negroes working beside you, your wife and your daughters, in your mills and factories?") Helms -- has never been cautious about playing the race card. When North Carolina Democrats nominated Harvey Gantt, an exceptionally-qualified moderate African-American candidate against Helms in a 1990 U.S. Senate race, the North Carolina Republican machine countered with a series of ads that emphasized Gantt's race and played on fears and prejudices.

Because the media tends to be afraid of calling racists out, Helms and the North Carolina Republicans had no trouble running a blatantly racist campaign. And, when Helms was reelected over Gantt, a powerful lesson was learned.

Under the guise of opposing the a pair of Democratic gubernatorial candidates who have endorsed Barack Obama for the party's presidential nomination, the state party is airing a commercial designed to do exactly what the Helms campaign's anti-Gantt ad did back in 1990: scare white voters away from an African-American candidate they might otherwise support.

If the material in the current ad was accurate in its portrayal of Obama, the North Carolina Republicans might have a defense. But it's not.

Sigh. This about sums it up:

Unlike many of his Republican counterparts, Helms has changed little over the past 50 years. Long before Rush Limbaugh, Helms pioneered the use of television to rally public sentiment. While Ronald Reagan was losing primaries to Gerald Ford, Helms mobilized the religious right and built one of the most profitable political fundraising machines ever. And long after die-hard segregationists like George Wallace and Strom Thurmond began courting black voters, Helms fueled white fears by opposing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., whistling "Dixie" while standing next to Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, and supporting apartheid in South Africa.

"His racial politics are deeply held convictions, not simply politics of convenience," says Christopher Scott. "He has a view of a fundamentalist Christian society in which everyone is not welcome. If you could pick up the South Africa of 20 years ago and transplant it to America, that's what he would do."

I need to pray on this. No one should be cursed in their death.

But that doesn't exactly mean anyone should be shedding tears, either.

As I said, I need to pray on this.

Yes, this is another post about Obama's stance on telecom immunity.  No, I am not encouraging anyone, including myself,  to vote for Mcain instead. 
But Obama's response to the anti-immunity group on his blog is transparently misleading and underestimates the intelligence of many of his supporters.  (Many of us against telecom immunity are not as far left as the media would lead you to believe.  I'm center-left. ) 
Here is Glenn Greenwald's assessment:  http://utdocuments.blogspot.com/2008/07/obamas-new-statement-on-fisa.html
And for those of you that say, "hey, at least he took the time to address those who oppose his view".  Has communicating with the electorate become so rare that it is now considered an indulgence for a politician to go out of his way to talk to voters?  
That's ridiculous.  
The more Obama, or any other politician, is asked to explain his or her positions, to justify his or her points of view, the more transparent that justification becomes.  
Thus, a position either holds up under scrutiny and is reinforced with logic, reason and fact, or  a position doesn't.  
Obama's response to his supporters is coherent and presents some good points, but  in some ways, his response is transparently misleading.  And that is what outrages me the most.  
Too many politicians are only one talking point deep. When they try to explain themselves, they can't.
I don't believe Obama strengthens his chances of winning this election by weakening his positions.   
The democrats are already perceived as spineless.  








 

To Govern a Republic, One Must Know the Minds That Created It.

"...while a nation goes speculation crazy the people neglect to think of fundamental principles."

These were the words of Franklin Roosevelt in the months leading into the Democratic National Convention of 1932. Roosevelt knew that the fight for the United States Presidency was not simply a game of political machines and punditry, but that this coming fight demanded a leader who understood the historic enemy of the United States and the founding principles of the nation.

http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/07/02/1932-video.html

I have never seen such god-awful, terrible, stupid, sad displays of journalistic incompetence since the reporting in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq. These past few days in particular I have been watching the cable news anchors float the "fact" that Obama had shifted his position on Iraq. They also seem to think this upcoming visit will be his first ever. Campbell Brown said "first time ever" tonight and I nearly croaked. That was the first time I had seen her broadcast.. obviously it will also be the last.

It occurred to me that the majority of these talking heads do not care one bit about the news, or the world, or people. They can't, if they did they wouldn't do such a poor job, no? I understand if you are hosting a live daily news program you can't be expected to know everything, but this is nothing short of taking McCain campaign talking points and passing them off as actual news.

Still, shouldn't something as basic and important as to whether or not the Democratic nominee for POTUS has in fact changed his position on Iraq? And if you don't know and you think it's true because John McCain's campaign keeps saying it in print; don't you think that's something you should check on before saying it on your live television news broadcast? News shows ya know? The kind of show people watch with the understanding that you are telling them the facts?

Coming up next; Barack Obama shifting his position on ending the war? His comments today seemed to say so. You decide when we get back!

So today they all got exactly what they wanted. Barack Obama was talking to the press like they were adults! Clearly this was something the press is not used to. (Did you know McCain's plane has a couch!?) They jumped on his words as breaking news, Obama has flipped on Iraq. The McCain campaign naturally had been waiting for this and the press played right along. Later we got the story of the second press conference and the was reported was something like this.

OBAMA SAID WE ARE STAYING IN IRAQ FOREVER

THEN HE SCRAMBLED

AN UNHEARD OF RIDICULOUS SECOND PRESS CONFERENCE!

REALLY TRIED HARD TO CONVINCE US

NOPE, NOT BUYING IT

BUT YOU MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND

It's a basic outline of the same script they all used. Then we had the next story: John McCain is Awesome in Columbia!

How sad. I miss Tim Russert. At least he cared.

Has anyone noticed this?

Come back to us, Fake Sinbad.  Come back.

OK--first things first, so I'm a little bit old school.  And I don't particularly care to think about Wesley Clark of FISA today.

To wit, one of the first rap concerts I ever attended was in 1986; at the Sun Dome in Tampa, Florida.  It was headlined by Run DMC, although there were four acts overall.

The other three were Whodini [anyone remember 'Friends' or  'The Freaks Come Out at Night' or, my personal favorite 'I'm A Ho'?], The Beastie Boys [who opened and, I believe, only had two songs: 'She's Crafty' and 'Girls'] and LL Cool J.

I mention this because: [1] I am extremely old; and, [2] heard the LL Cool J song "Radio" played on the local "oldies" rock station [I know--rock? but that's for another time] last night.

So, feeling incredibly bored and slightly nostalgic last night, I culled my eight favorite LL Cool J song lyrics from his catalogue [I'm using that term relatively loosely].

I'll list these in reverse order [and would love to hear anyone's comments if they feel I have snubbed a truly awful LL Cool J lyric].

[8]Suckas on my jock when I walk down the block I really don't care if you're jealous or not

[7]You lied about the lies that you lied about You even lied to your aunt when you went down south

[6]I'm the type of guy to make her say, "Why you're illin, Bee?" ...You're the type of guy to say, "My lower back is killin me"

[5]You can scratch my back, we'll get cozy and huddle I'll lay down my jacket so you can walk over a puddle

[4]See something's smellin' fishy and they say it's you All I know is that you made it with the whole damn crew

[3]You're the type of guy that gets suspicious I'm the type of guy that says, "The puddin is delicious"

[2]I'm the type of guy to cold put on a pamper You're the type of guy to say, "What you talkin bout?"
I'm the type of guy to leave my drawers in your hamper

[1]Cut Creator's good, Cool J. is good-good
You bring the wood pecker, I'll bring the wood!

Indeed.

Barack Obama has a growing enthusiasm gap.  Not with John McCain mind you; his support would have to completely flat-line before it would sink below the enthusiasm of McCain's supporters who have the collective enthusiasm of a group going for a root-canal.  

No, the enthusiasm gap is with his own supporters [myself included]; and their view towards Sen. Obama during the primary campaign compared to their view of him at the moment.

Sure, I don't think anyone has abandoned Sen. Obama.  I still write the occasional blog in support of Barack and will certainly cast my vote for him in the fall.  However, the frequency with which I'm donating to his campaign and expending energy on his behalf has markedly decreased.

I've been disappointed with Sen. Obama's rightward tack since clinching the nomination.  I understand why he's doing what he's doing [although I disagree with the political effectiveness of the strategy and strongly believe he is doing incredible damage to his political brand].  It seems to me that the Obama campaign, which to now has been quite forward thinking, has allowed itself to be drawn to the "center" based on what constituted the "center" in previous elections.  Unfortunately, the "center" in American politics has drifted increasingly rightward over the past thirty years; it's somewhat of a false floor.  And the only way to have the debate on Democratic Party turf is to strongly advocate progressive positions and pull the "center" back to a more traditionally center place.

Prior to this year's campaign I was a fairly apathetic [at least politically] registered independent  that leaned towards the Democratic Party, although I did not always cast my votes for a Democrat.  I gave money [for the first time] to the DCCC in 2006; a whopping sum of $50.

This year I have given the maximum $2300 during the primary campaign, blogged, did volunteer work and raised an additional $1500 through my Obama Fundraising Page.  In short, I have expended a considerable amount of time and energy; time and energy that could easily be allocated to any number of other endeavors in my life.

I did this [such as making some contributions on my credit card--I know, I'm not a smart man, but that's for another diary] because Barack was able to tap into the general dissatisfaction with the political process that many people genuinely held.  I think there are millions of others out there that were there for the political taking, but just didn't see anything worth getting excited about.  Barack expertly tapped into that dissatisfaction with Washington in general, and, politics specifically.

I started my Obama page in January.  This is what I wrote then:

Barack Obama and I are committed to changing the political process
with a campaign built on a broad base of support from ordinary
Americans.  We believe the only way to bring about lasting and needed
change in our government is by rejecting the typical Washington-style
slash and burn politics; by seeking to inspire voters by highlighting
our possibilities rather than preying on our fears; and, by tapping
into the hard work and ingenuity that has served us so well.

But
this can only happen with your help.  Today, I ask you to stand with me
and believe that government can be more than driving up your opponent's
negatives; that government can be more than lowest common denominator
partisanship.  Our government is a direct reflection of who we are. 
Our elected leaders represent us.  It is not enough to merely replace a
president with an "R" next to their name with someone with a "D" next
to their name.

Those words seem kind of overly simplistic and, frankly, silly now.  Maybe that's for the best.  Maybe the old adage that 'Democrats fall in love & Republicans fall in line' is correct.  I certainly wouldn't take any pride in some dreamy, wide-eyed idealistic losing campaign.  The most important thing is to win.

However, I have quite a bit to do during my day.  Like most people, I'm quite busy.  I also have about $100K in law school loans and can't really afford to give any more money away.  So, it's not too difficult to find an excuse not to donate to Sen. Obama's campaign.  And not that I'm a harbinger by any stretch, but I think there are a lot of people out there like me.  Sen. Obama isn't going to lose our vote.  But he can lose our enthusiasm.  In the end, that might be just as bad because it was the enthusiasm that allowed Barack to prevail over Sen. Clinton in the primary.

Maybe I'm wrong, but if I were with the Obama campaign, I'd be concerned.