This is the left-wing cop-killer apologist for Mumia Abu-Jamal. Both  he and Van Jones were also associated with the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress. Hill had also spoken before a black communist group-something he had proudly listed in his official curriculum vitae. He was frequent  paid guest on O’Reilly, as well as other evening hosts.

Back in 2007, he wrote an article, “Why I Support the Fairness Doctrine,” hyping a study by the Center for American Progress on the alleged need to challenge conservative domination of talk radio. A graphic by the article depicted Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh as the targets of this effort (O’Reilly then had a radio show). In addition,  he lectured on “The Importance of Ideological Training in the New Millenium (sic)” at the Polymathematic University, also known as the “Political Education Program for the Poor Righteous Communist Party.”

Come on, Bill O’Reilly. Did you recommend hiring the pinhead? If not, why did you put him on the air so many times? It’s time to emerge from your own no-spin zone.

So, say good-night, Marc.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/fox-news-on-the-spot-in-marc-lamont-hill-scandal/

Though I caught part of President Obama’s radio interview during a coffee refill yesterday, Ezra Klein prompted me to read the entire transcript.

While there is a lot here to appreciate, I find this incredibly discouraging:

OBAMA: I’d be happy to. First of all, you mentioned illegal immigrants. This has been an example of just pure misinformation out there. None of the bills that have been voted on in Congress, and none of the proposals coming out of the White House propose giving coverage to illegal immigrants — none of them. That has never been on the table; nobody has discussed it. So everybody who is listening out there, when you start hearing that somehow this is all designed to provide health insurance to illegal immigrants, that is simply not true and has never been the case.

SMERCONISH: What is their fate, if I might ask? Because there’s a 1986 law on the book that says if you show up at an ER, you’ve got to be treated.

OBAMA: Well, that will continue because we don’t want a situation in which some child, even if they’re an illegal immigrant, shows up in an emergency room with tuberculosis and nobody is giving them treatment, and then they’re going back to the playground and playing next to our kids.

So I think there is a basic standard of decency where if somebody is in a death situation or a severe illness, that we’re going to provide them emergency care. But nobody has talked about providing health insurance to illegal immigrants. I want to make that absolutely clear.

I understand that undocumented folks aren’t going to gain access to health insurance through any of this fall’s legislation.  I get the political reality.  And I get why Obama answered the question that way.

But it’s still the wrong answer.

EMTALA isn’t about containing contagious diseases.  And differentiating between “our kids” and those other kids is wrong and counterproductive.

It doesn’t take someone particularly malicious to see that there are two solutions to the hypothetical Obama offered.  EMTALA.  Or segregated playgrounds.

Jonas

]]> http://moderateinthemiddle.wordpress.com/2009/08/20/on-the-radio-air-america-bashes-totus-obama-takes-calls-on-smerconish-to-bump-health-care-plan/ Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:51:39 +0000 ginaswo http://moderateinthemiddle.wordpress.com/2009/08/20/on-the-radio-air-america-bashes-totus-obama-takes-calls-on-smerconish-to-bump-health-care-plan/ http://plenaryreview.com/2009/07/22/welcome-to-post-racial-america/ Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:44:45 +0000 Tieffa Harper http://plenaryreview.com/2009/07/22/welcome-to-post-racial-america/

I visited The Huffington Post this morning and a quick review of its site reflected what seems like the media’s increased interest in giving a platform to the racists and lunatics that have cropped up since President Obama’s election. Now mind you, these folks have always been here: hovering around the fringes, locking their car doors when you walk down the street, clutching purses when a brother steps on the elevator, asking if you work here or quietly assuming that the reason you’ve accomplished certain milestones is because someone gave you the answers to the test.

Last week, as I luxuriated (for work purposes!) in one of Southern California’s beautiful beach communities, I watched Pat Buchanan spew forth angry, inaccurate and highly offensive statements about Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor and the overall contribution (or his perceived lack thereof) of minorities to America. Buchanan’s hateful and presumptive assumptions about Judge Sotomayor’s intellect and blatantly racist comments got the Twitter world into a tizzy, as people from all walks of life posted comments about his KKK-inspired rant.  

For me, what’s even more shocking than Buchanan’s statements -because it really is no secret where he stands on race in America – is that MSNBC continues to give him air time and prominence as a commentator. After all, he’s just crazy old Uncle Pat, and it’s ok because we all have that crazy uncle who regularly spouts racist rhetoric, right? Yet Buchanan’s continued defense of Sarah Palin’s lightweight and now incomplete acccomplishments, and support of her as a viable candidate for president, highlight that Buchanan’s politics are singularly racial.

I’m all for giving platform to opposing opinions. It’s one of the reasons that I don’t limit myself to one network or website for my news source, that I listen to Michael Smerconish in the morning (he admirably offers great balance on the issues he discusses, even though his audience is heavily and rigidly conservative),  and that I like to talk to strangers about their belief  systems. You have to step out of your bubble to get a true flavor of what people really think and feel.

Critical debate is essential to progress. Narrow-minded, ill-informed and divisive commentary is not. Debate Judge Sotomayor on her comments and her merits, whether she properly explained herself, or what her judicial record may reveal about how she’ll impact the Supreme Court.  You don’t have to like her, and you can go on TV and say that.  

But to suggest that Judge Sotomayor got to where she is because she stole opportunities from more deserving white men, that she made law review and garnered her legal jobs because of affirmative action, and that she doesn’t deserve to be on the bench – despite having a far more substantial judicial record than the Chief Justice himself – is ridiculous. And to warn her about her alleged temperament, as Sen. Lindsey Graham did, pays homage to that black tax reminder that once you do make it, you better remember to stay in your lane since we’re letting you up in here. 

Side bar: Another one of my black tax favorites is that once you do get in the door, please don’t try to do “too much.” Example: the current theme in the media  as to whether President Obama is trying to do too much, and whether he should just focus on the economy. Can I tell you how many times I’ve personally heard that, while the underlying directive is to work harder, smarter and faster?    

If we’re going to truly evolve in the aftermath of President Obama’s historic election, it means that we do not have the right to remain silent (for these purposes). It means that when you’re arrested in your own home, you raise hell about it. When racist idiots pollute your television, you raise hell about it. When the publishing world refuses to publish diverse thought, you raise hell about it. When your kids can’t swim in pools for fearing of changing the complexion, you raise hell about it.

For the sake of balance, I note that MSNBC does have several African-American anchors and commentators on air throughout the day. Those commentators of color, however, are not using their time on the air to rail against white Americans or other minorities, or to insert divisive inaccuracies into the mainstream- thought that is an affront to progress.  

Rachel Maddow took on Buchanan in a follow-up after his appearance, but for me it’s not enough. The point is that regardless of what MSNBC does with Buchanan, we have a voice and options. Let’s exercise them, even if it’s as simple as changing the channel and not buying from the advertisers who implicitly support these offensive thoughts. Let’s use these options to push for more balance, and to create alternative platforms that give air to both sides and actually educate. 

It also means that we hold our own accountable, because when they do or say things in the mainstream, like performing ”Every Girl” on stage with underage girls, it furthers the stereotypes of African-Americans generally. Those stereotypes that fuel, and in some minds, support Pat Buchanan’s lunancy. 

Below is your morning round up of what ”post-racial” American looks like. I don’t cite these headlines from HuffPo’s site to sensationalize the problem, but, rather, to illustrate that we’re far from a post-facial America. So what are you going to do about it?       

Maddow Demolishes Buchanan’s Surreal Facts About America’s Racial Past

Lou Dobbs Speculates If Obama Is Undocumented

Liz Cheney Defends Birthers On Larry King

Fox News Host: Is Obama’s Surgeon General Too Fat For The Position?

Brian Kilmeade Apologizes For Racist “Pure Species” Comment

Bad Day For Birthers As Matthews Picks Up Where Sanchez Left Off 

Riot Police Storm Texas Town After Black, White Protesters Clash Over Dragging Death

Just an annoyance:

I’ve been watching some of the fallout from the Specter switch on MSNBC and I can’t help but notice a complete disconnect between my definition of the far-right Republican base and the commentators’ definition of the Party’s base. Let me see if I have my facts right: 1) Arlen Specter was being challenged in the Republican Primary by Pat Toomey, former director of the Club for Growth; 2) The Club for Growth is an economically Right-wing group that came out of the libertarian CATO Institute; 3) Specter had come under attack from Republicans for voting in favor of Obama’s stimulus bill.

So, what about Specter’s switch yesterday demonstrated the power of the social/religious conservatives within the Republican Party? Why has MSNBC had Michael Smerconish on every 30 minutes to argue that Republicans are losing moderates because the Party leaders and base aren’t “libertarian” enough (and that if they would stay away from social issues and focus on economic conservatism, they would hold Senators like Specter)? Why does Chris Matthews believe this is further evidence that the Republican Party is becoming a “religious party?” Even Howard Dean got in the act with some convoluted explanation about the Club for Growth becoming Right-wing because they had to take on the smorgasbord of Republican social issues. Howard Dean! The “tax-hiking, government expanding” target of the Club for Growth ad five years ago! It’s not like Pat Toomey came out of the Family Research Council or the Christian Coalition.

As for the base of the Party, it seems to me that the assorted bag of nutjobs who gathered around the country a couple weeks ago were there to protest taxes, not abortion. They threw tea bags, not Bibles. The C-PAC convention a couple months ago? Their beef was socialism, not godlessness.

I just don’t get how the economic conservatives can always skate by in the media with an assumption of rationality, and the crazies on the Right are always sorted with the religious fundamentalists. That’s not a defense of said fundamentalists – they certainly have their share of crazies – but I don’t think they own the exclusive rights. It must drive the Club for Growth crazy too… they’ve worked so hard to take down any Republican who doesn’t want to spit on poor people, and they get no credit for it.

There was one bright spot. On Hardball last night, Hendrik Hertzberg went appropriately retro in quoting an interview he did with Mike Huckabee a little over a year ago. On what Huckabee termed the “Club for Greed”:

They have a disregard for the realities of having to actually govern, when you have a broad array of responsibilities. Governing would be very simple under their formula. It wouldn’t require an I.Q. above broccoli to do it, because you simply go in and you say, . . .We’re going to eliminate all the taxes.’ The budget is very simple. You don’t really make any decisions. You don’t manage or govern. You operate essentially like a vending machine: you put in the money and you get out limited government, and you don’t care if it hurts somebody.

He also referred to them as “cowardly” and as a “despicable political hit organization.”

Wow… I miss primary season.

Aside from Hertzberg, no guest made any distinction between the cultural Right and the economic Right. Specter was apparently forced out of the Republican Party because he’s pro-choice, which I guess just never caught up to him in the previous three decades of being a pro-choice Republican Senator.

Now, I’m all for a shrinking Republican Party that can’t compete in the Northeast. Or the mid-Atlantic. Or the West Coast. Or the rust belt. Or the Southwest. That’s all just fine with me. But, credit where credit is due: the Republican Party has become a far-Right libertarian extremist Party dominated by the Club for Growth. And that seems to be the take-away lesson from yesterday’s switch.

On a sidenote, while I’m glad Democrats picked up the PA seat, I really can’t stand disloyalty.

Here’s the announcement we’ve been waiting for…CBS Radio and Dial-Global will syndicate Philadelphia-based talker Michael Smerconish nationally beginning Monday February 2nd. Smerconish, currently heard from 6-9am on CBS Radio News/Talkers WPHT Philadelphia and WHFS-AM Washington, will launch an additional two-hour live program from noon-2pm daily. Both shows will be available to stations. WOR-AM New York is already signed as the first affiliate. Smerconish, a Philadelphia lawyer-turned-talk-host, also appears in regular columns for the Philadephia Inquirer and Daily News and is the author of several New York Times bestselling books. He’s also been a regular fill-in on The Radio Factor and a frequent guest host on MSNBC. “I have  wanted to replicate my success at WPHT on the national stage for some time,” said Smerconish. “Now, with Dial-Global and CBS Radio I have a partnership with the organizational depth and reach to roll out the type of entertaining and issues-oriented program that I am privileged to host. I’m ready for launch!”

In response to Charles M. Blow’s The Demise of Dating article in The New York Times, Michael Smerconish wrote a response opinion article in the Philadelphia Daily News. 

Smerconish gives us another “adult” perspective on the hooking-up phenomenon.  Unlike (I’m assuming here) the writer of the Salon.com article and myself, Blow and Smerconish are married adults and have very little understanding of hooking up.  To them it truly is a phenomenon, whereas to everyone I know, it’s a given.  Should we just file it under Will Smith’s line that “Parents just don’t understand”?

But one thing that was interesting to me in this article was when he writes:

“Who can forget the nervousness of initiating a date? Planning what to do. Rehearsing your rap. Then anxiously dialing the telephone to make the bid.  The concern for making small talk if one of her parents answers. (I actually made notes diagramming the possible outcomes and my plan of attack.)

Although I am in college and my prospective suitors don’t need to worry about making small talk with my parents, the nervousness of asking someone on a date is still present and perhaps the biggest obstacle thrown in good ol’fashioned dating’s face.  Because what it boils down to, is what a boy once told me.  ”It’s not like you can just ask the pretty girl in Astromony out on a date with you.”  When told this story, my friend Jenny looked straight at me and said, “Uh, but yes… yes, you can.”

Just read an interesting article in the Inquirer about Facebook. The author derided the “online epidemic” of people joining Facebook who were over the age that is commonly associated with online social networking. It was amusing, and since I kind of share similar views, I was even more annoyed when I logged in to my email account shortly after, and found a “notification” from MySpace that my friend had uploaded new photos of her kids. I also had a “friend alert” from LinkedIn, where his status update informed me that he’d been laid off and was looking for a new job.

I don’t know, I’m kinda tired of all that. Can we not talk in person anymore? Understand that the web has made things easier in general (I happen to be a big fan of Evite, and email has helped me keep in touch with people as I’ve moved on & away), but personal contact should not be made obsolete. I should not have to learn that a friend is dating someone by looking at their new Facebook status; what, we talk (okay, gChat) every day anyway and you can’t be bothered to tell me you have a girlfriend?

I’m really not a fan of the new facebook format. The one where anytime you do ANYTHING, it’s logged on your homepage. Maybe I don’t want people to know that I just spent 45 minutes playing the pirate game, eh? I don’t really want EVERYONE who looks at my facebook page to know I commented on an ex’s photo. But I have to delete those posts from my wall now. It’s creepy the way that these sites assume that everyone wants to know everything that you’re doing at every minute. Geez, and don’t even get me started on Twitter! Can’t anyone have a little privacy?

Intrepid Philadelphia Inquirer/Daily News columnist Michael Smerconish (who famously proclaimed here that “I don’t do reporting” – uh, kind of odd to admit that in a newspaper, n’est-ce pas?) blamed the tragic death of Long Island, NY Wal-Mart employee Jdimytai Damour on “semicrazed shoppers (who) left a man’s body lying next to a metal door frame that was ‘crumpled like an accordion’,” here.

Yep, that’s partly the reason, but then Smerky, in his inimitable fashion, goes on to decry other individuals in our corporate media such as Peter Goodman of the New York Times, who blamed Damour’s death on “the bleak economy.”

I grudgingly admit that Smerky has a point; as awful as our times currently are, at least we still have SOME credit, and there was none to be had during the Great Depression, a comparison invoked by Goodman (or so an expert on this subject tells me, and that would be my mom, because she lived through it). I think comparing these times to those awful years is a little off base (probably not by much, though).

However, did anyone else know that two other Wal-Mart customers in Maryland are filing personal injury lawsuits because they claim back and neck injuries from a similar accident as the one that claimed the life of Damour (here)?

But then again, what else can you expect from a company that demoted a female assistant manager because she had to take time off from work for an emergency hysterectomy (here – h/t Wake Up Wal-Mart)? Or successfully sued a brain damaged former employee for insurance money that she received before an award in a car accident case here (and did I mention that she also lost her son in Iraq?).

Yes, the people who did nothing while Damour was trampled to death deserve a measure of blame. But is it too much to ask of the smiley-faced vendor of cheap knockoff junk to perform a little crowd control on the busiest shopping day of the year?

Update 12/7/08: Curiouser and curiouser…

Let’s take a moment to do what most commentators are doing now – speculate on what an Obama presidency will look like. Let’s have a dialogue about what Obama will bring to the table.  Rather than talk about what challenges he will face, I’d like to expound on what we have seen of him throughout the election that could potentially translate into some things that a President Obama might accomplish during his administration.

Here’s the first point:  Obama’s strength truly is in unity, and he can bring the country together. The way that he attracts Republicans like Colin Powell, Christopher Buckley, Kathleen Parker, George Will and conservative radio talk-show host Michael Smerconish to his side is admirable and compelling. He attracts voters from all races.  He is a unifier in the sense that people from almost all walks of life (the exceptions are the hard-core conservatives out there) are willing to follow his leadership.  We can expect to see that from him as president.

• Some have speculated on the potential that, if we do see a two-thirds plus Democratic majority in the Senate and a strong Democratic majority in the House, then our leaders will strongly tilt towards a progressive agenda.  While Congress may lean that way, I do not expect resident Obama to.  He understands what inclusiveness means, and he wants to be able to speak to Republicans, independents, and Democrats.
• He is lining up a team of advisors and a cabinet that crosses both sides of the aisle.  He is looking to appoint those who served in either Republican and Democratic administrations as possible options.
• The message here, then, is that experience and judgment are the criteria he will use in choosing his political appointees, not their political affiliation.  If this holds true, it would be a repudiation of the way the Bush administration handled its political appointments.

Second point:  Obama can reorient the nature of our political dialogue and promote acceptance. Note that I am not calling for tolerance, which suggests a willingness to be in the same room as the other person, but acceptance, which suggests being in the same room, acknowledging there are differences in views among those present, and then promoting understanding of these differences. You can see this in the way he handled some pretty nasty name-calling from his opponents campaign.  He refutes simplistic but deadly name-calling with ease and common sense.  Pallin’ around with terrorists?  Silly.  He’s a Socialist?  Well, who isn’t, nowadays?  Refuting these kinds of charges with grace and calm will hopefully help elevate the political dialogue in this country.  Let’s admit it, folks – the state of our political dialogue is broken.

• We don’t talk to each other; we talk to others who think like us.  As many pundits have eloquently put it, our political dialogue has evolved to where commentators reinforce long-held beliefs rather than to enlighten and promote a dialogue.  As a result, people talk about issues in an all-or-nothing fashion.  If you support McCain, then you must think Obama is terrible, and vice versa.  This is simply not true.  Both candidates would make good, even great, presidents.  Choosing one candidate over the other should not have to be accompanied with the shredding of the other candidate’s integrity and character.
• The degree of vitriol and anger  in reaction to contrary views is astounding and shameful.  The reaction to Kathleen Parker’s endorsement of Obama is shocking.  Hate mail that says her mother should have aborted her?  Very ugly.  This kind of dialogue has got to stop.
• The Palin effigy that was on display in the front yard of a home in Los Angeles was disgusting.  But what was also disappointing was that the homeowners took their time in bringing it down.  There is free speech, and then there is hate speech.  This was clearly an example of the latter, and our freedoms should not be used as a cover for encouraging hate behavior.

How or why we got here is not important — blaming Fox News or MSNBC, or whoever else, is a waste of time. What is most interesting and useful to think about is that Obama has the leadership ability to turn this around. Some signs that to look for that would indicate our political dialogue is becoming more tolerant:

• Politically- or racially-motivated hate stunts come to an end because people understand the gravity of these actions and the hurt they cause;
• People from both ends of the political spectrum can sit in a room together, share their views, and not be accused of “pallin’ around” with each other.  There is a reason for everyone’s point of view.  The manner in which that point of view is expressed can be objectionable and unacceptable, but the reasons for them are real.  Let’s steer the dialogue toward those reasons rather than toward the sensational jargon that ultimately serves as a distraction from the meat of the topic.
• Commentators stop using incendiary language and extreme characterizations to justify their points.  They would have the integrity and ability to talk to their audience in a reasoned fashion.  Conservatives and liberals have both gone overboard in their rhetoric.

This goal may sound lofty and a bit pie-in-the-sky, but it is worth striving for.

Finally, Obama can start a grassroots movement and get people from all walks of life involved in politics. He can make national politics relevant to the average Jane or Joe.  His campaign has seen an unprecedented level of contribution and support from small donors.  If he wins, every one of those contributors will feel good in thinking that they helped make it happen.  That kind of empowerment can in turn be potentially channeled into increased interest in community  and public service.

There you have it – some initial thoughts on the potential for an Obama presidency in broad strokes.  This goes beyond my economic condition or the challenges the country is facing that have been identified by many others.  This is alot to ask of a president, but someone needs to start tackling these issues.  We shall see if Obama can be that someone.

Another Conservative/Republican endorses Obama: More here, here, and here.

Certainly, one thing this election has shown is that we aren’t all born with the gift of objectivity—or perhaps the parenting of fairness just wasn’t provided to some folks. Weighing the evidence objectively and taking the facts facially, Obama is certainly the superior candidate. Week after week, there has been mounting hard evidence that a McCain/Palin presidency would be disastrous. From Sarah Palin’s inexperience, to John McCain’s fundamental beliefs regarding economics, the world cannot stomach another eight years of status quo maverick politics delivered by a superpower.

By objectively assessing the facts and evidence, more and more Conservatives and/or Republicans are disassociating themselves from their party or ideology by endorsing or showing an intent to support Obama, because the evidence and facts cannot be ignored. These dissenters are observing something greater than their beliefs in a political party—the world is on fire.

Finally, John McCain keeps warning about an all democratically controlled House, Senate, and Executive. However, maybe this is the progressiveness that America needs, since the Republicans have continually diluted legislation into ineffectiveness with their policies, while continually blaming the Democrats for the resulting ineffectiveness, although the Republicans have had a continuous negative impact on government. For example, the Republicans haven’t gone far enough on climate change policy and energy issues—they keep relying on the unsustainable policy of offshore drilling; furthermore, health care and education haven’t been Republican priorities, only deregulation. We need progressive leadership into this new era, because we have complex problems that require broad, progressive thinking, not narrow restrictive ideology.

Some Conservative/Republican endorsements for Obama have included:

Colin Powell endorses Obama:

“I watched Mr. Obama,” particularly in recent weeks, Powell said, and “he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge . . . in not just jumping in and changing every day, but showing intellectual vigor.”

Obama “has given us a more inclusive, broader reach into the needs and aspirations of our people,” he said. “He is crossing lines — ethnic lines, racial lines, generational lines.” Powell added that the Democratic senator had chosen in Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. a running mate who “is ready to be president on Day One.”

In a telephone interview yesterday, Powell said his decision had been “emerging since the conventions, when I heard the convention speeches, saw who the vice presidential candidates were and then watched the debates.”

.       .       .

Former Bush White House press secretary Scott McClellan will be voting for Obama:

The White House press secretary hinted he would do it in May, and now Scott McClellan has finally pulled the trigger, telling CNN’s D.L. Hughley “I will be voting for Barack Obama… I am going to support the candidate that has the best chance for changing the way Washington works and getting things done.” This scenario looks familiar, and may presage more last-minute Obama endorsements to come.

McClellan is the second high-ranking Bush administration official to endorse the Democratic presidential nominee in as many weeks, following former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s surprise (and surprisingly moving) declaration of support for Obama last weekend.

If and when a third ex-Bushie declares for Obama — there is, conveniently, one more pre-election weekend clear for an announcement — we’ll know this is a coordinated effort to produce maximum gain for Obama, not to mention maximum losses for McCain and his party.

.       .       .

McCain’s ex-aide, Charles Fried, to vote for Obama:

A Harvard Law School professor who advised the McCain campaign and once served as a high-ranking official in the Reagan Justice Department announced Friday that he had voted for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, part of a growing trend of leading Republicans crossing party lines to endorse the Illinois senator.

Conservative legal icon Charles Fried elaborates on his Obama endorsement:

To me, the most neck-snapping Republican endorsement of Obama comes from Charles Fried, the solicitor general under Ronald Reagan. To say Fried is an important legal figure in the pro-life world is an understatement.

As Solicitor General under Ronald Reagan, Fried was the one who argued that the court should overturn Roe v. Wade in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

.       .       .

Former Republican Senator Charles McC. Mathias Jr. endorses Obama:

Sens. Obama and McCain have vastly different backgrounds and strikingly different visions of how America should navigate these tumultuous times. For me, the decision on who should be the next president transcends private friendship or political affiliation. My decision is based on the long-range needs of our country and which of these two candidates I feel is better suited to recharge America’s economic health, restore its prestige abroad and inspire anew all people who cherish freedom and equality. For me, that person is Barack Obama.

Lifelong Conservative Ken Adelman intends to vote for Barack Obama:

Ken Adelman is a lifelong conservative Republican. Campaigned for Goldwater, was hired by Rumsfeld at the Office of Economic Opportunity under Nixon, was assistant to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld under Ford, served as Reagan’s director of arms control, and joined the Defense Policy Board for Rumsfeld’s second go-round at the Pentagon, in 2001. Adelman’s friendship with Rumsfeld, Cheney, and their wives goes back to the sixties, and he introduced Cheney to Paul Wolfowitz at a Washington brunch the day Reagan was sworn in.

In recent years, Adelman and his friends Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz fell out over his criticisms of the botching of the Iraq War. Still, he remains a bona-fide hawk (“not really a neo-con but a con-con”) who has never supported a Democrat for President in his life. Two weeks from now that’s going to change: Ken Adelman intends to vote for Barack Obama. He can hardly believe it himself.

.       .       .

Former Republican Governor Arne Carlson endorses Obama, spurred by Bachmann remarks:

Former Republican Gov. Arne Carlson endorsed Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama on Thursday, saying Obama represented the best hope for an America facing an economic crisis and criticizing Republicans for waging a mean-spirited campaign that has “been going down all these side roads.”

Speaking at the State Capitol, where he was introduced by U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., Carlson said his party had strayed from the moderate philosophies of past Republican leaders such as Ohio Sen. Robert Taft and President Dwight Eisenhower. “I consider myself a Republican maverick,” Carlson said in explaining his endorsement of Obama.

Former Republican Governor William Weld of Massachusetts endorses Obama:

Former Governor William Weld of Massachusetts is the latest Republican to cross over and support Democrat Barack Obama for president.

Weld held a press conference in Salem, N.H. to announce his endorsement. While Massachusetts is a slam dunk for Obama, neighboring New Hampshire is a competitive state.

Weld told the Associated Press that while he has never endorsed a Democrat for president before, his choice in recent weeks became “close to a no-brainer.”

.       .       .

Christopher Buckley endorses Obama:

Joining the steady drumbeat of conservative pundits giving up on John McCain today is Christopher Buckley. Unlike, say, David Brooks or Charles Krauthammer, Buckley doesn’t merely lament the nasty turn McCain’s campaign has taken, or predict a Republican defeat. Instead, he goes so far as actually promising to vote for Barack Obama and offering praise for the Democrat.

To demonstrate the magnitude of this heresy, a bit of background: The son of modern conservatism’s patron saint, the late William F. Buckley, Christopher remains a columnist for the National Review, his father’s magazine.

.       .       .

Former Republican Senator Larry Pressler endorses Obama:

Former Sen. Larry Pressler, R-S.D., has decided to endorse Democrat Barack Obama for president, Politico reported Sunday.

Pressler — the first Vietnam veteran to serve in the U.S. Senate — joins a list of prominent Republicans who have endorsed Obama. He has also donated $500 to the Obama campaign, Politico said.

“I just got the feeling that Obama will be able to handle this financial crisis better, and I like his financial team of (former Treasury Secretary Robert) Rubin and (former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul) Volcker better,” he said.

London’s Conservative Mayor Boris Johnson endorses Obama:

The mayor of London, a member of the British political party that is a traditional ally of U.S. Republicans, says Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama “visibly incarnates change and hope, at a time when America desperately needs both.”

In an article for Tuesday’s edition of The Daily Telegraph newspaper, London Mayor Boris Johnson of the center-right Conservative Party was blunt in his assessment of President Bush’s legacy and how an Obama presidency would break from it.

Johnson’s endorsement of the Democratic candidate came after McCain declared in a radio address Saturday that “socialist leaders” in Europe admire Obama. The Republican candidate has likened Obama’s tax policies to socialism.

Criticizing the Bush administration, Johnson called the invasion of Iraq “catastrophic” and said the economic crisis had forced the U.S. government into a “humiliating resort to semi-socialist solutions.”

“Democracy and capitalism are the two great pillars of the American idea,” he wrote. “To have rocked one of those pillars may be regarded as a misfortune. To have damaged the reputation of both, at home and abroad, is a pretty stunning achievement for an American president. “

Johnson said that only a clean break in the form of an Obama victory would help the U.S. recover in the eyes of the world.

UPDATE: +5 FOR OBAMA

Francis Fukuyama, an original developer of neoconservativism, endorses Obama:

I’m voting for Barack Obama this November for a very simple reason. It is hard to imagine a more disastrous presidency than that of George W. Bush. It was bad enough that he launched an unnecessary war and undermined the standing of the United States throughout the world in his first term. But in the waning days of his administration, he is presiding over a collapse of the American financial system and broader economy that will have consequences for years to come. As a general rule, democracies don’t work well if voters do not hold political parties accountable for failure. While John McCain is trying desperately to pretend that he never had anything to do with the Republican Party, I think it would a travesty to reward the Republicans for failure on such a grand scale.

McCain’s appeal was always that he could think for himself, but as the campaign has progressed, he has seemed simply erratic and hotheaded. His choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate was highly irresponsible; we have suffered under the current president who entered office without much knowledge of the world and was easily captured by the wrong advisers. McCain’s lurching from Reaganite free- marketer to populist tribune makes one wonder whether he has any underlying principles at all.

Former Reagan chief of staff Ken Duberstein endorses Obama:

Duberstein said he was influenced by another prominent Reagan official – Colin Powell – in his decision.

“Well let’s put it this way – I think Colin Powell’s decision is in fact the good housekeeping seal of approval on Barack Obama.”

Powell served as national security advisor to Reagan during Duberstein’s tenure as chief of staff.

.       .       .

Former co-chair of Mike Huckabee’s New Hampshire campaign and alternate delegate to the Republican National Convention Fred Bramante endorses Obama:

Fred Bramante announced on a conference call with reporters that he is backing Obama because he opposes John McCain’s plan to use school vouchers.

“I can’t live with that, I can’t be out there advocating for a candidate who I believe is going to have the center piece of his education plan an issue that I have opposed,” Bramante told reporters.

Bramante also said that he notified former Gov. Craig Benson about his decision last night.

“I had a conversation with Governor Benson, I wanted to give him a heads-up about what I was doing and he said, ‘Fred you’re putting the kids before the party and I applaud you for doing it,’” Bramante said.

Bramante stressed that he is not switching his party affiliation and still intends to vote for Republicans down-the-ballot.

Former head of the Office of Legal Counsel (U.S. Assistant Attorney General) for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, Republican Douglas W. Kmiec endorses Obama:

This endorsement may be of little note or consequence, except perhaps that it comes from an unlikely source: namely, a former constitutional legal counsel to two Republican presidents. The endorsement will likely supply no strategic advantage equivalent to that represented by the very helpful accolades the senator has received from many of high stature and accomplishment, including most recently, from Gov. Bill Richardson. Nevertheless, it is important to be said publicly in a public forum in order that it be understood. It is not arrived at without careful thought and some difficulty.

As a Republican, I strongly wish to preserve traditional marriage not as a suspicion or denigration of my homosexual friends but as recognition of the significance of the procreative family as a building block of society. As a Republican and as a Catholic, I believe life begins at conception, and it is important for every life to be given sustenance and encouragement. As a Republican, I strongly believe that the Supreme Court of the United States must be fully dedicated to the rule of law and to the employ of a consistent method of interpretation that keeps the court within its limited judicial role. As a Republican, I believe problems are best resolved closest to their source and that we should never arrogate to a higher level of government that which can be more effectively and efficiently resolved below. As a Republican and a constitutional lawyer, I believe religious freedom does not mean religious separation or mindless exclusion from the public square.

In various ways, Sen. Barack Obama and I may disagree on aspects of these important fundamentals, but I am convinced, based upon his public pronouncements and his personal writing, that on each of these questions he is not closed to understanding opposing points of view and, as best as it is humanly possible, he will respect and accommodate them.

Conservative Radio Host Michael Smerconish Endorses Obama:

On his talk show on WPHT today, conservative Philadelphian Michael Smerconish endorsed Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

.       .       .

“I’ve decided,” he said. “My conclusion comes after reading the candidates’ memoirs and campaign platforms, attending both party conventions, interviewing both men multiple times, and watching all primary and general election debates.

“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.

“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,” says the Republican.

Smerconish has given us some more from his op-ed:

“Terrorism. The candidates disagree as to where to prosecute the war against Islamic fundamentalists. Barack Obama is correct in saying the front line in that battle is not Iraq, it’s the Afghan-Pakistan border. Osama bin Laden crossed that border from Tora Bora in December 2001, and we stopped pursuit. The Bush administration outsourced the hunt for bin Laden and, instead, invaded Iraq.

.       .       .

On the Net: The rise of the Obamacons: A striking number of conservatives are planning to vote for Obama

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

I’ve been reading the apologists for the GOP and the McCain joke candidacy and I have found out that yes, I am a liberal. Who knew?

SO lets see here:

• I oppose Roe vs Wade because I think it’s bad law and believe in federalism. (Even though I think government should leave this decision to women -If you agree with me that abortion is at best a trade-off of rights, then don’t have one).
• I think government in general should keep their noses out of people’s private lives, specifically what they ingest or who they have sex with, but in general, leaving me the Hell alone unless I’m doing someone else injury.
• I think small government is a good thing. What government we need should be held strictly accountable and work as cheaply as possible while remaining efficient.
• I think any program which spends money needs to be matched by either revenues or spending cuts in other areas.
• I think the military needs to be well funded, trained and used both in direct support of our national interests and in the interests of world stability, because instability always comes back to bite us.
• I think the Second Amendment to the constitution means exactly what it says and resent government trying to restrict my fundamental rights under the guise of safety.
• I think taxes should be no higher than necessary to support government spending. I’m a believer in no tax breaks for anyone. If we decide to subsidize, we should do so directly and in the open light of day.
• In keeping with Catholic Social Doctrine I believe society and government have an obligation to the poor and dispossessed. If this is “liberal” then the Catholic Church is a “liberal” institution.
• I think it’s the duty of all men and women to serve their country, either with military service or some other community service. (Peace Corps, Teach for America, etc.). Those who do not serve are free-loaders.
• Like Jefferson, I view banks and the stock market with distrust, knowing that great wealth acts in it’s own interests, often counter to those of the nation.

Now the last time I looked, these things all lined up with the views expressed by people like Edmund Burke, William F. Buckley, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, et al.

But according to the new GOP, the “new conservatives,” these aren’t conservative positions at all. Apparently if one is hostile to fundamentalist wackos, reveres learning or disagrees over a strictly religious or frankly extremist position that a 2-second-old fetus is the same as a human being, you’re a “liberal.”

According to these people, if you vote anything other than Republican, if you question the racist, fear-based, politics of Karl Rove and company, If you look at Sarah Palin and see the obvious; that she is an incurious buffoon hopelessly out of her depth, or if you fail to show proper deference to bible-thumping wackos who’d never pass a sophomore test in any reputable seminary, you’re a liberal and a traitor to conservatism.

And people wonder why the number of conservatives deserting the GOP this year is so large?  It’s because the GOP has been taken over by the kooks. People who value their intellectual integrity and critical thinking don’t want anything to do with these people. -And rightly so.

Who has left the ship?

• Colin Powell
• Christopher Buckley
• George Will
• Peggy Noonan
• Former MA Republican Governor Bill Weld
• NRO writer Kathleen Parker
• Bush Appointee and conservative Talk Show Host Michael Smerconish
• Former MN Rep. Governor Arne Carlson
• The Goldwater Family
• Dan Drezner
• Scott McClellan
• Ken Adelman
• Doug Kmeic

The list goes on and on.

So riddle me this my conservative friends: If virtually every conservative heavyweight out there has either endorsed Obama outright or publicly repudiated the McCain candidacy, are they all traitors? Were they all paid off by the “librul media?” Or maybe, just maybe, is the McCain cadidacy specifically and the GOP in general no longer very “conservative” at all?

Awesome photo from the awesomer MurderBurger

Happy Barfday U Slut from BalladofBob

I haven’t written in a while so I think I’m gonna put everything into this one random post.

EVERYTHING OLD IS NEW AGAIN- THE MCCARTHY ERA IS BACK! THANK YOU MICHELE BACHMANN.

From Hardball with Chris Matthews:

“I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America or anti-America?”

You’ve gotta be fucking kidding me.

The Republican congresswoman from Minn. now claims she was “trapped” by Matthews:

“I probably should have taken a look at what the show was like … A trap was laid, but I stepped into it.”

From Colin Powell:

“We’ve got to stop this kind of nonsense and pull ourselves together and remember that our great strength is in our unity and our diversity,”

Video here

I can’t wait till election day and she goes down in flames.

I never listen to right-wing radio station WPHT The Big Talker but I thought I’d give Michael Smerconish a listen after his surprising endorsement of Obama.
This morning I heard Geno’s owner, Mr. “speak English” Joey Vento complaining about savage anarchist bicyclists on Philly’s streets. Apparently he’s now paying good money for radio spots and he’s starting a petition to rid Philly’s streets of scofflaw cyclists. Mm hmm. Biiig problem that must be dealt with ASAP. Forget about the city’s problem schools, trash, violence, traffic, homelessness, and oh yeah, non-native speakers.
Next on his list? He’s going to tackle the baggy pants epidemic.

What. A. Dick.

I’m not supposed to tell you where this was taken but I was able to check out and snap a pic of a pre-production carbon Cannondale road bike. Wanna take a guess at how much this ~56 cm bike weighs?

14 lbs.

Think of the major mayhem on Philly sidewalks you could create on this puppy!

On my iPod, Plus/Minus from Brooklyn.

That seems like a rather unintentionally ironic thing to say, coming from Chris Matthews, of all people. Ditto for the comment about “tribalist talk”…

Still, it’s nice to see him and fellow yakkers like conservative talk show host Michael Smerconish (who recently endorsed Obama, surprisingly enough) expressing their disgust at Rush’s race-bating antics.

Michael Smerconish is a Republican pundit who has his own column in the Philadelphia Inquirer. He also host makes appearances on radio and TV.

Here is an article by Smerconish. In the article the author lays out the reasons he is voting for Barak Obama.

You can check out Smerconishs work at www.mastalk.com.