Lies And Politics

One of the common questions when it comes to politics is, why do Politicians lie? The most straightforward answer, of course, is money and votes. Every elected official within the United States has to walk a fine line between their constituents and the entities which fund their campaigns. From a monetary stand point, it has grown increasingly more expensive to run a successful campaign. That is to say, the cost of creating an image for each candidate, while at the same time fudging certain facts about their position on key issues, has risen considerably.

Take the 2008 presidential race for example. The funding between Barack Obama and John McCain neared $1billion dollars, the most expensive political endeavor of its kind in history. A distant second would be the 2004 elections where the entire presidential fundraising totals only reached $880.5 million. At this rate, the 2012 race could easily cost in the range of 2 billion dollars.

While appealing to their top funders, candidates from both sides of the aisle must also pacify their loyal base, or the “inconvenient mob” as some circles call them. Lobbyists are a third group which both the Democrats and Republicans know that they must pander to. To pull off this feat of political spin, language becomes increasingly important.

For the Republicans, the dialogue of less Government becomes paramount when speaking to their base. One only needs to listen to past speeches given by John McCain or the Governor of Louisiana Bobby Jindal, to be under the impression that we were dealing with populist party of Abraham Lincoln, but that party is long dead. The 19^th century industrialists set the framework for what has become land owners representatives. Here is a quote from Jindal, in a response to Barack Obama’s address to Congress, “The strength of America is not found in our government. It is found in the compassionate hearts and enterprising spirit of our citizens.” Unfortunately the language of pandering often doesn’t reflect the actions of the party.

For the Democrats, their message must consistently appeal to Unions, women’s rights groups and community organizing groups, along with African Americans organizations which by and large have been the most loyal supporters of the party. Like Republicans, Democrats seek to deliver a populist message but some of them actually mean it. They will break with party lines and support policies that are popular among the American people but unpopular on the Hill. One prime example is the issue of single payer healthcare. According to one report, 60% of the polled public supports such system but less than half of those in Congress are willing to back it at the moment – and Obama has come out against it, despite supporting it as a State Senator.

Because both sides of aisle receive such heavy campaign funding from the insurance industry, Democrats and Republicans are quick to decry the idea as “socialism”, which shows the fear of a dying free market system and not a moment too soon. This brings up the issue of special interest groups. Both parties have to appeal to many of these large lobby groups even if they oppose the base of either political divide. This breaks with the notion that each presidential election is a ideological tug-of-war; a battle of Right versus Left.

Let’s take the so-called pro-Israel faction as an example of a lobby group that has helped develop American policy. Every fours year the Republicans like to paint the false picture that the Democratic presidential candidate has plans to overturn the US policy of lending the Israeli government unconditional support. The reason is simple, the Jewish community, despite being less than 10% of the total US population consistently prove to be one of the most organized and potent voting forces under the flag. The truth of the matter is that, since 1948 our unconditional policy towards Israel has been the policy of both parties and this seems very unlikely to change under president Obama.

But in the end, every politician knows that it costs money to run a successful campaign and this is where the best interests of 90% of the American publican are kicked to the curb by both parties. This is where the lies really are given birth. Below is a list of the top contributors in the latest presidential race cycle.

Industry	Grand Total	%Dem	%Repub
Retired	$11,510,739	45%	55%
Lawyers/Law Firms	$6,122,714	70%	30%
Securities & Investment	$3,330,854	50%	50%
Real Estate	$2,852,061	47%	53%
Health Professionals	$2,153,116	49%	51%
Education	$2,077,402	73%	27%
Business Services	$2,013,354	62%	38%
Misc Business	$1,747,086	51%	49%
Misc Finance	$1,412,332	44%	56%
Computers/Internet	$1,400,256	56%	44%

ActBlue	$2,246,871	100%	0%
Goldman Sachs	$1,472,646	71%	29%
Citigroup Inc	$1,317,453	61%	39%
Morgan Stanley	$1,012,097	62%	38%
Lehman Brothers	$990,150	61%	39%
Merrill Lynch	$932,376	42%	58%
JP Morgan Chase & Co	$793,894	66%	34%
UBS AG	$696,839	64%	36%
DLA Piper	$682,560	92%	8%
Credit Suisse Group	$651,895	45%	55%

Top 10 Contributors to Presidential Candidates, 4th Quarter

Donor	Grand Total	%Dem	%Repub
Lehman Brothers	$234,060	56%	44%
Microsoft Corp	$180,620	71%	29%
Merrill Lynch	$174,654	28%	72%
Goldman Sachs	$174,143	52%	48%
Morgan Stanley	$169,922	55%	45%
Citigroup Inc	$169,839	36%	64%
Sullivan & Cromwell	$167,785	48%	52%
DLA Piper	$136,400	92%	8%
Google Inc	$115,511	71%	29%
Pricewaterhousecoopers	$112,914	86%	14%

All three charts can be found on the Open Secrets website. What seems increasingly clear is that, for many businesses, the election cycle is really about hedging one’s bets and in the end, they will win no matter who gets into office. As a result of receiving the funding listed above, both the candidates running for Congress and for the White House find themselves in the position of selling policies to their bases, frequently in a storm of protest. So the electeds must become in essence used car sales people, selling the American people a bill of goods that only Wall Street wants.

Until next time…

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/27/hillary-attacked-for-mideast/

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5610

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/02/cost-of-08-presidential-race-a.html

http://www.newkerala.com/topstory-fullnews-100438.html

http://www.democracynow.org/

http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/106196/why_iraqis,_afghans,_palestinians,_and_others_might_be_nervous_about_president_obama/

Race And The Obama Campaign

Perhaps it was a bit naïve for Barak Obama to believe that he could slide through the dirty game of American politics without the issue of race becoming a focus point on his campaign. Looking back several months now, it appeared that he had avoided discussing race on any real platform outside of touting the progress of the United States during the California Democratic debates. Instead he spoke of Uniting the United States after eight of divisive politics and pulling US forces out of Iraq, along with creating “Green Jobs” with the production of a renewable energy infrastructure, all issues that many White Americans consider safe. He even rode a wave of inspiration with those three words, “Yes We Can,” a campaign message that first started with current Obama Adviser David Axelrod during his own political run. His approach put him ahead of Hillary Clinton in most, if not all the polls, in the months of January and February and he was all but on his way to ending the race during the Ohio and Texas primaries. But this is American politics and to think for a second that the best in the game wouldn’t play the race card is more than a bit of a mistake

 

 

During his rise in the polls, several Karl Rove like tactics were already being too used to put questions into minds of the voters. The first rumor that started circulating around the web was that Obama was a Black Muslim, despite the fact that he had been going to the same church for the past years. The rumor stated that he gave up his mother’s religion and joined the nation of Islam. The aim was to stir the hornet’s nest of current US suspicion of Muslims in a fashion not so dissimilar to that of the American hatred towards the Japanese during War II or the Communists the cold war. Anyone who has followed politics for any amount of time could see that the situation was heading towards a, “oh no here we go again” scenario. Conservative talk show hosts, Bill O Reily of Fox and Glenn Beck even did their best not to disprove the message when the issue was brought up on their shows.

But the issue didn’t really hurt the support he was receiving even among white republicans to what was meant to be a Rovenian type of trick which fell flat on its face. The issue of race came up again during the South Carolina primaries when former president Bill Clinton dismissed Barak Obama’s victory in the state. Clinton remarked that Jessie Jackson also did well in South Carolina in the 1983 elections, but then went on to become a non-factor. Clinton has since back peddled from the remark stating that he took too much heat over it. However the aim of the message was clearly to entrap Obama in the race net. The remark actually back fired on the Clinton’s as Hillary’s numbers began to drop. Mr. Obama continued deliver the message of Unity which put him in front of both of his presidential rivals.

The latest attempt to lay the topic of race at the feet of Barak Obama was by former liberal icon Geraldine Ferraro. Ferraro, like Bill Clinton tried to dismiss the Obama rage by connecting his race to the sudden surge of his popularity. While the move only led to Ferraro’s resignation and more bitterness by the Obama people towards Hillary Clinton, It was the spiritual leader and close friend to the Obamas that forced the Illinois senator to go where he once tried to avoid, on the path of race. About a week after Ferraro’s statement, Pastor Jeremiah Wright of the Trinity United Church of Christ gave a sermon where stated that the United States was built on bigotry and then went onto say three words that could amount to a bomb to the Obama campaign, “America God Dam.” From that point on it as been little more than damage control for the Barak camp. Any ties that Obama has with the preacher have become fatal. So it came as no surprise that it was time the for the presidential candidate gave a speech dealing with the issue of race. The surprise came when Obama refused to disown his friend Wright.

In the speech, Barak Obama recognized the racial divide between Whites and Blacks and he acknowledged the frustration and anger by both parties. Barak Obama warned the country that the anger over the issue is real. He then called for understanding and unity among all the races. It was in fact the important speech that he needed give if he has any chance to put the issue of race to sleep for the foreseeable future. The bad news however, while Obama might have tried to avoid the topic altogether, White America seems to want no part of it and now we may be seeing the unfortunate backlash with the decline in his numbers. Since the remarks by Wright and the speech itself, Hillary Clinton has regained the lead and some white supporters of his have turned to the Clinton camp.

The real question here has yet to be asked by the mainstream media, why is White America so turned off by the issue? The answer could very well be two fold. First, the US seems to be country of sweeping problems under the rug. Something like race is on top of that list. By not facing the racial divide, it allows some within white communities to believe that there is no longer inequality among non-whites in this country, despite numerous reports by the human rights commission to prove other wise. According to a report from United for a Fair Economy, on the present pace, it would take African Americans 594 years to close the economic gap. But lets make no mistake, the, to acknowledge the racial economic, health and education gap would mean that someone would have to take responsibility for what is commonly referred to as “sins of the father.” And in a society where tradition is more important than progression. Questioning ones ancestors is unacceptable.

The second reason for the rejection of the race issue could stem from the fact that many Whites find themselves slipping economically. At a time where  jobs that have long been held by the white community are no longer safe and are being sent overseas due to the disastrous economic policies like NAFTA and CAFTA, many of the Anglo population are more worried about the dying communities around around them which you can see in the South and the Mid-West.

Until next time.

 

http://www.groundhog.tv/apps/editor/staticplayer.jsp?clip=1206391763415.wmv

 

http://www.groundhog.tv/apps/editor/staticplayer.jsp?clip=1206391649115.wmv

 

http://www.groundhog.tv/apps/editor/staticplayer.jsp?clip=1206391555019.wmv

 

http://www.groundhog.tv/apps/editor/staticplayer.jsp?clip=1206391293262.wmv

 

http://www.groundhog.tv/apps/editor/staticplayer.jsp?clip=1206391182150.wmv

The Talk Of Change Is The Latest Scam

Now that the final hours of the greatest American tragedy, known as the Bush administration, is just around the corner, the call for change is permeating the political winds from both the Democratic and Republican parties and voters have signed on to those calls lock, stock and barrel. The desire for change among the US citizens is evident in impressive showings at this year primaries in both Iowa and New Hampshire and south Carolina along with the influx of new voters. Also apparent is that the hunger for change is leading many to vote blindly for those candidates that speak of a major shake up in Washington.

 

But do any of the candidates really have the intention to bring real change to the White House? According to several reports and a list of each presidential hopeful’s advisors, the answer is an unequivocal no. Here is a list of each of Democratic presidential candidates and their advisors and how they could shape US politics over next four years.

At the head of the “change” chain is Barak Obama. As we have all heard so far from his camp is that he is the only one of the presidential candidates that can deliver change. So far this message is working very well for him but his cabinet choices tell a very different story. Two of Obama’s top advisors are pro-war Hawks .

Zbigniew Brzezinski

War hawk under former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronal Reagan, Brzezinski was notoriously instrumental in the creation of the Mujhadean of Afghanistan, something he brags about in his book “The Grand Chess Board.” During the late 1970s he worked with the CIA to help build up Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, one of the most powerful religious fanatics of Afghanistan at the time. Working through Heckmatyar, Brzezinski was able to overthrow the secular government of the PDPA, Peoples Democratic Part of Afghanistan and, in the process, lure the Soviet Union into invading the country to quell the unrest. What Lawrence Moesha called Operation “Bait The Bear” lead to the creation of Osama Bin Laden. When asked by the French media if the fact that Afghan and Pakistani fundamentalists had taken over the country was worth the resultant bloodshed Brzezinski replied it was “worth a few stirred up Muslims”.

Anthony Lake

Under Bill Clinton, Lake advised the then president to invade Haiti and bring back Aristide under what amounts to political chains. Under Lake’s plan, enacted President Clinton, the rate of malnutrition sky rocketed as did mass destabilization of Haiti. In his earlier days, he worked under Henry Kissinger only to resign in 1970 under the protest of Nixon’s expiation of the Vietnam war. Despite that, Lake is still no where near being a dove as staff of the USIA Paul Malamud, points out, “Lake joined the Foreign Service, and was posted to Vietnam, where became a special assistant to then-ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge.
Singled out early for his talent, Lake rose quickly to become an aide to
Secretary of State Kissinger in 1969, accompanying the secretary on his
first secret meeting with North Vietnamese negotiators in Paris.”

David Axelrod (media advisor to Obama)

If it seems somewhat odd that Barak Obama is not playing the race card, you have his main media advisor to thank for that. David Axelrod of the Chicago tribune, who brought in the tag line “yes we can”, has been often praised by the John McCain camp as one of the best in the media business. Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick also used Axelrod in his media campaign to deliver the same uplifting message, as Christopher Hayes of the Nation magazine points out. Both men used roughly the same message when discussing the plight of the country’s problem (black population?) that it was not a deficit of the dollar but “the deficit of leadership.” Most importantly, it is Axelrod the largely keeps Barak Obama’s message away from the issue of race. In fact, one can assume that Obama’s “African Americans have made it 90% of the way” comment most likely came from Axelrod. Far from being considered a hawk, Axelrod has some political connections with Paul Simmon, and former Mayor Harold Washington. He has also praised Martin Luther King’s movement. But in keeping race “off the table” shows that the issues concerning African Americans have little problem of getting addressed.

And then there us Dennis Ross, another former Clinton advisor. He has come out with statements that suggest that the US would take the position that Israel’s needs should come before that of the Palestine’s. Interestingly enough, he has gone after Jimmy Carter on several occasions has been known to attack Jimmy Carter.

HILLARY

Hillary Clinton’s cabinet is not much better. In fact, she is looking to bring in some the most hawkish Bill Clinton’s inner circle. On top of her advisor list is Richard Holbrooke. In 1975 Holborroke spoke with the Indonesian government which was led by general Suharto   about the US’s backing of the plan to invade East Timor. The invasion equaled to nothing less than a genocidal attack on a helpless nation. In all, 200,000 people were killed, 1/3 of the pre-invasion population. He was later placed into the role of advisor to Asian affairs under Jimmy Carter administration. After the invasion, Halborroke led a fraudulent campaign that on the surface would have put a ban on weapons sent to Indonesia. As it turned out, there was no actual ban in place and the fraud was exposed Cornell University professor Benedict Anderson. To read more on him, you can check out the Z magazine link bellow.

Then there is Madeleine Albright, a former close advisor to Bill Clinton and former ambassador to the UN and than later, US Secretary of State. Ms. Albright has a long history in what she calls humanitarian missions in foreign affairs but is in fact, acts humanitarian crisis. She has Oked several horrific acts of violence such as the Somalia where Albright, as well as Wesley Clark supported the use of sulfur shells which rained down on several towns in this poverty torn nation with, to quote a great film “with extreme prejudice.” She was also a main player in the bombing massacre of Kosovo where the Clinton administration supported the KLA, the countries answer to the drug running mob.

Sandy Berger was one of the main architects of some of Clintons most conversion policies which including plans to Yugoslavia and opening trade with China which have lead to the loss of tens of thousands of jobs. But Berger will be most remembered for his theft of terrorist records from the US archives shortly before the 9/11 commission was formed. This scandal created such a fire storm, it lead to his firing from the John Kerry campaign in his presidential of 2004. Clinton’s decision to bring him on board has even raised a few eyebrows of some of her staff.

Despite his message of populism, the funding of John Edwards is well with in the inner circle of murder inc. Expect for a few exceptions, John Edwards is heavily funded my the military industrial complex and as you can see on his own campaign website, he is gearing up to take the advice about our current wars from the same brass that has stood among the rank and file in two wars that could only be described as weapons against US Democracy. For the list, you can check out the link below. Others on his advisory boards are David “Mud Cat” Saunders and Washington insider, former advisor to Howard Dean and fat cat, Joe Trippi.

Next up will be the list of Republican candidates and their band of corporate criminals .

Until Next time.

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20070523-military-advisory-group/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Berger

http://www.examiner.com/a-977346~He_s_back__Sandy_Berger_now_advising_Hillary_Clinton.html

http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/sunil.htm

http://www.rense.com/general31/cyc.htm

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/lake1.htm

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070219/hayes

http://jpundit.typepad.com/jci/2006/12/carters_maps_wo.html

Questions I Would Like To Have Seen Asked During The New Hamphsire Debates

While Scott Spradling did a better than expected job in asking the candidates some of the tougher questions about issues that ranged from military intervention in Pakistan to the Iraq war. But his series of questions, as to be expected, fell far short of reaching the full spectrum of problems that is being faced both here at home and the world at large. So, here are just some of the questions I wish were asked.

 

1.                  With so much controversy surrounding Abu Ghraib prison, both as a well known center of torture, based on the pictures taken from the center, and as a danger to American civil liberties, which of you support closing the prison down?

2.                  We have seen George Bush add more signing statements to each bill he as passed than every president before him combined, do any of you believe that these statements have any real legal value or is this away to circumvent the law?

3.                  Do you believe that Government should have right to spy on Americans and others without a warrant?

4.                  Should telecommunications companies be immune from legal actions when they allow spying on their customers?

5.                    With all of the outrages committed by the Bush administration, for example questionable reasons for going into Iraq, faulty handling of the New Orleans disaster and even illegal wiretapping, do you believe that he or any other sitting president should be impeached or face some other legal actions?

6.                  With all problems surrounding Blackwater and other paramilitary groups being used by the US government both on the domestic security front and in Iraq, should these companies be dismantled? Remember there are many reports of unjustified shootings in Iraq and there is no legal dynamic to govern them.

7.                  What is your stance on the attack on affordable housing in New Orleans?

8.                  According to several reports, the grand majority of jobs that have already been outsourced to other countries are being replaced with jobs that offer much smaller salaries which are often non-livable in terms of wage, how do you propose fixing this problem. In a related question, how do you recommend creating livable wage careers?

 

Those are just a few questions that were sorely lacking in a debate that attracted the US population as a whole. Further, it would shine some light on where each Democrat stands on some of the most pressing issues that are affecting us today. But,

With the media being what it is, it is not surprising that they were not asked.

Until next time.  

US Democratic Poll

Many election polls ignore the 18 to 25 year old population since historically they tend not to vote in the same volume of older categories. So for those younger voters which one of the three are you most likely to vote for in the 2008 presidential elections? For the 18-25 year old population, you can take the poll below. Below are both the top running Democratic candidates and one mobile candidate. Depending on the results, next piece will focus on the top four Republican candidates.

For those of you who vote, please let me know if you have been polled already this year so I can keep a record of who to include in my next piece. Please email me your answer or post it in your comments.
Barak Obama

Hillary Clinton

John Edwards

Dennis Kucinich