Sunday, May 4, 2008
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Goodbye, Obama. Goodbye.
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations"
Barack, you're done.
"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations"
Barack, you're done.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Wright, McClurkin, and now Meeks. Yes, judge Obama by the company he keeps (ps. they also hate the gays)
ChicagoPride.Com News
March 31, 2008
Barack Obama’s Latest Pastor Problem: Chicago's Rev. James T. Meeks
By GayWebMonkey.com
Chicago, IL - Just as the dust surrounding Sen. Barack Obama's long-term association with controversial minister Rev. Jeremiah
Wright has begun to settle comes new reports of the democratic presidential hopeful's connection to another racially divisive
public figure—the stridently homophobic Rev. James T. Meeks, an Illinois state senator who also serves as the pastor of
Chicago's 22,000 member strong Salem Baptist Church.
Described in a 2004 Chicago Sun Times article as someone Barack Obama regularly seeks out for "spiritual counsel", James
Meeks, who will serve as an Obama delegate at the 2008 Democratic convention in Denver, is a long-time political ally to the
democratic frontrunner.
When Obama ran for the U.S. Senate in 2003, he frequently campaigned at Salem Baptist Church while Rev. Meeks appeared in
television ads supporting the Illinois senator's campaign. Later, according to the same Chicago Sun Times article, on the night
after he won the Democratic primary, Sen. Obama attended bible study at Meeks' church ‘for prayer' and ‘to say thank you.'
Since that time, not only has Meeks himself served on Obama's exploratory committee for the presidency and been listed on the
Obama's campaign website as one of the senator's ‘influential black supporters', but his church choir was called on to raise their
voices in praise at a rally the night Obama announced his run for the White House back in 2007.
Interestingly, the Chicago Sun Times has also reported that both Meeks and Obama share a history of substantial campaign
contributions from indicted real estate magnate Tony Rezko.
The problem for Obama is that Rev. James Meeks, like Rev. Jeremiah Wright, preaches a message that appears to be directly at
odds with the promise of hope, unity and bridging social, racial and political divisions upon which his campaign is built.
Over the years, Rev. Meeks has garnered significant media attention as a result of a number of racially charged remarks he's
made from both behind and out in front of the pulpit. Most notably, in 2006, Meeks came under fire for an inflammatory sermon
he gave in which he savaged Chicago mayor Richard Daley and others, including African-Americans who were Daley allies.
In the course of July 5, 2006 attack, Rev. James Meeks ranted:
"We don't have slave masters. We got mayors. But they still the same white people who are presiding over systems where black
people are not able, or to be educated."
"You got some preachers that are house niggers. You got some elected officials that are house niggers. And rather than them
trying to break this up, they gonna fight you to protect this white man," Meeks said in a sermon tape which he later defended in
an interview with Chicago CBS2 reporter, Mike Flannery.
Perhaps of even more concern than race-baiting diatribes like these is Rev. Meeks disturbing history of antagonism towards the
LGBT community.
A spring 2007 newsletter from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) named Meeks one of the "10 leading black religious
voices in the anti-gay movement". The newsletter cites him as both "a key member of Chicago's ‘Gatekeepers' network, an
interracial group of evangelical ministers who strive to erase the division between church and state" and "a stalwart anti-gay
activist... [who]... has used his House of Hope mega-church to launch petition drives for the Illinois Family Institute (IFI), a major
state-level ‘family values' pressure group that lauded him last year for leading African Americans in ‘clearly understanding the
threat of gay marriage.'"
The SPLC newsletter also noted that, "Meeks and the IFI are partnered with Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council
and the Alliance Defense Fund, major anti-gay organizations of the Christian Right. They also are tightly allied with Americans for
Truth, an Illinois group that said in a press release last year that ‘fighting AIDS without talking against homosexuality is like
fighting lung cancer without talking against smoking.'"
On a more personal level, Meeks has reportedly blamed "Hollywood Jews for bringing us Brokeback Mountain" and actively
campaigned to defeat SB3186, an Illinois LGBT non-discrimination bill, while serving in the Illinois state legislature alongside
Obama. According to a 2006 Chicago Sun Times article, his church sponsored a "Halloween fright night" which "consigned to the
flames of hell two mincing young men wearing body glitter who were supposed to be homosexuals."
And so here we are again confronted with a situation in which Barack Obama's choice of allies is likely to confound
voters. Though his relationship with Rev. Meeks is not nearly as significant as his affiliation with "spiritual mentor" Rev. Jeremiah
Wright, Sen. Obama's ties to Meeks are nonetheless disconcerting, particularly in the wake of his recent address on race in
America and his campaign's early fumble surrounding the decision to invite homophobic gospel artist Donnie McClurkin to
perform at a campaign Faith and Family Values fundraiser in South Carolina.
Some, like CNN contributor Roland S. Martin (who, for the record, is a member of Meeks' Salem Baptist Church), say, as he did in
a recent commentary on the cable news network: "Everyone has an association that is open for scrutiny. Our real focus should be
on the candidates and their views on the issues, because one of them will stand before the nation and take the oath of office and
swear to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States."
But the question remains: At what point must a candidate for the highest office in the United States be held accountable for the
small coterie of individuals who make up his or her inner circle and potentially bear influence on his interpretation of the
constitution? And at what point does the benefit of the doubt give way to guilt by association?
Moreover, how can a candidate cultivate a constituency like that of Rev. James Meek, essentially espousing a shared belief in
their value system, become an effective and powerful advocate on behalf of issues like LGBT rights that run counter to
fundamental agenda of that constituency without experiencing severe repercussions? The answer is he can't.
Just as Hillary Clinton cannot cherry pick the successes and pitfalls from her husband's administration that suit her campaign,
neither can Barack Obama divorce himself from the implications surrounding the bedfellows he has made over the course of his
relatively short political career.
Put even more plainly... Barack Obama can't have it both ways, which increasingly seems to be his campaign's modus operandi.
While it is altogether plausible that, in the spirit of bringing hope and unity, a civil rights leader might sit down with members of
white supremacist groups to address racial differences, it is another thing entirely to propose that the same civil rights leader
could count any of those white supremacists among his closest friends because he finds them to be inspirational people if, you
know, you take that pesky race thing out of the equation.
Similarly, while potentially capable of co-existing peacefully in an environment of mutual respect, the homophobe and the LGBT
rights advocate aren't likely to be found cooing at or canoodling with one another in private because they share so many other
common interests. Yet these are precisely the kinds of scenarios that Barack Obama asks the American people to accept on faith
each and every time unsavory questions arise about the associates with whom he has chosen to surround himself. Ultimately, it
is this porous type of reaction that may be Sen. Obama's undoing. But, then again, perhaps not.
Obama's critically well-received speech on race in response to the Jeremiah Wright scandal seems to have quieted mainstream
concern over the senator's views about race while simultaneously forcing the media to tip toe around discussing race as it
pertains to his campaign to become the Democratic presidential nominee. So maybe talk about Rev. James Meek and Barack
Obama will summarily disappear from the political radar, but one thing is for sure —it shouldn't.
Growing up, my octogenarian grandmother always told me, "If you lie down with dogs, you're going to get fleas." Life and
experience have taught me she was right, which says to me that in light of his cozy relationship with anti-gay poster child,
Rev. James Meeks, Barack Obama ought to be feeling awfully itchy right about now.
Written By Duane Wells
March 31, 2008
Barack Obama’s Latest Pastor Problem: Chicago's Rev. James T. Meeks
By GayWebMonkey.com
Chicago, IL - Just as the dust surrounding Sen. Barack Obama's long-term association with controversial minister Rev. Jeremiah
Wright has begun to settle comes new reports of the democratic presidential hopeful's connection to another racially divisive
public figure—the stridently homophobic Rev. James T. Meeks, an Illinois state senator who also serves as the pastor of
Chicago's 22,000 member strong Salem Baptist Church.
Described in a 2004 Chicago Sun Times article as someone Barack Obama regularly seeks out for "spiritual counsel", James
Meeks, who will serve as an Obama delegate at the 2008 Democratic convention in Denver, is a long-time political ally to the
democratic frontrunner.
When Obama ran for the U.S. Senate in 2003, he frequently campaigned at Salem Baptist Church while Rev. Meeks appeared in
television ads supporting the Illinois senator's campaign. Later, according to the same Chicago Sun Times article, on the night
after he won the Democratic primary, Sen. Obama attended bible study at Meeks' church ‘for prayer' and ‘to say thank you.'
Since that time, not only has Meeks himself served on Obama's exploratory committee for the presidency and been listed on the
Obama's campaign website as one of the senator's ‘influential black supporters', but his church choir was called on to raise their
voices in praise at a rally the night Obama announced his run for the White House back in 2007.
Interestingly, the Chicago Sun Times has also reported that both Meeks and Obama share a history of substantial campaign
contributions from indicted real estate magnate Tony Rezko.
The problem for Obama is that Rev. James Meeks, like Rev. Jeremiah Wright, preaches a message that appears to be directly at
odds with the promise of hope, unity and bridging social, racial and political divisions upon which his campaign is built.
Over the years, Rev. Meeks has garnered significant media attention as a result of a number of racially charged remarks he's
made from both behind and out in front of the pulpit. Most notably, in 2006, Meeks came under fire for an inflammatory sermon
he gave in which he savaged Chicago mayor Richard Daley and others, including African-Americans who were Daley allies.
In the course of July 5, 2006 attack, Rev. James Meeks ranted:
"We don't have slave masters. We got mayors. But they still the same white people who are presiding over systems where black
people are not able, or to be educated."
"You got some preachers that are house niggers. You got some elected officials that are house niggers. And rather than them
trying to break this up, they gonna fight you to protect this white man," Meeks said in a sermon tape which he later defended in
an interview with Chicago CBS2 reporter, Mike Flannery.
Perhaps of even more concern than race-baiting diatribes like these is Rev. Meeks disturbing history of antagonism towards the
LGBT community.
A spring 2007 newsletter from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) named Meeks one of the "10 leading black religious
voices in the anti-gay movement". The newsletter cites him as both "a key member of Chicago's ‘Gatekeepers' network, an
interracial group of evangelical ministers who strive to erase the division between church and state" and "a stalwart anti-gay
activist... [who]... has used his House of Hope mega-church to launch petition drives for the Illinois Family Institute (IFI), a major
state-level ‘family values' pressure group that lauded him last year for leading African Americans in ‘clearly understanding the
threat of gay marriage.'"
The SPLC newsletter also noted that, "Meeks and the IFI are partnered with Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council
and the Alliance Defense Fund, major anti-gay organizations of the Christian Right. They also are tightly allied with Americans for
Truth, an Illinois group that said in a press release last year that ‘fighting AIDS without talking against homosexuality is like
fighting lung cancer without talking against smoking.'"
On a more personal level, Meeks has reportedly blamed "Hollywood Jews for bringing us Brokeback Mountain" and actively
campaigned to defeat SB3186, an Illinois LGBT non-discrimination bill, while serving in the Illinois state legislature alongside
Obama. According to a 2006 Chicago Sun Times article, his church sponsored a "Halloween fright night" which "consigned to the
flames of hell two mincing young men wearing body glitter who were supposed to be homosexuals."
And so here we are again confronted with a situation in which Barack Obama's choice of allies is likely to confound
voters. Though his relationship with Rev. Meeks is not nearly as significant as his affiliation with "spiritual mentor" Rev. Jeremiah
Wright, Sen. Obama's ties to Meeks are nonetheless disconcerting, particularly in the wake of his recent address on race in
America and his campaign's early fumble surrounding the decision to invite homophobic gospel artist Donnie McClurkin to
perform at a campaign Faith and Family Values fundraiser in South Carolina.
Some, like CNN contributor Roland S. Martin (who, for the record, is a member of Meeks' Salem Baptist Church), say, as he did in
a recent commentary on the cable news network: "Everyone has an association that is open for scrutiny. Our real focus should be
on the candidates and their views on the issues, because one of them will stand before the nation and take the oath of office and
swear to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States."
But the question remains: At what point must a candidate for the highest office in the United States be held accountable for the
small coterie of individuals who make up his or her inner circle and potentially bear influence on his interpretation of the
constitution? And at what point does the benefit of the doubt give way to guilt by association?
Moreover, how can a candidate cultivate a constituency like that of Rev. James Meek, essentially espousing a shared belief in
their value system, become an effective and powerful advocate on behalf of issues like LGBT rights that run counter to
fundamental agenda of that constituency without experiencing severe repercussions? The answer is he can't.
Just as Hillary Clinton cannot cherry pick the successes and pitfalls from her husband's administration that suit her campaign,
neither can Barack Obama divorce himself from the implications surrounding the bedfellows he has made over the course of his
relatively short political career.
Put even more plainly... Barack Obama can't have it both ways, which increasingly seems to be his campaign's modus operandi.
While it is altogether plausible that, in the spirit of bringing hope and unity, a civil rights leader might sit down with members of
white supremacist groups to address racial differences, it is another thing entirely to propose that the same civil rights leader
could count any of those white supremacists among his closest friends because he finds them to be inspirational people if, you
know, you take that pesky race thing out of the equation.
Similarly, while potentially capable of co-existing peacefully in an environment of mutual respect, the homophobe and the LGBT
rights advocate aren't likely to be found cooing at or canoodling with one another in private because they share so many other
common interests. Yet these are precisely the kinds of scenarios that Barack Obama asks the American people to accept on faith
each and every time unsavory questions arise about the associates with whom he has chosen to surround himself. Ultimately, it
is this porous type of reaction that may be Sen. Obama's undoing. But, then again, perhaps not.
Obama's critically well-received speech on race in response to the Jeremiah Wright scandal seems to have quieted mainstream
concern over the senator's views about race while simultaneously forcing the media to tip toe around discussing race as it
pertains to his campaign to become the Democratic presidential nominee. So maybe talk about Rev. James Meek and Barack
Obama will summarily disappear from the political radar, but one thing is for sure —it shouldn't.
Growing up, my octogenarian grandmother always told me, "If you lie down with dogs, you're going to get fleas." Life and
experience have taught me she was right, which says to me that in light of his cozy relationship with anti-gay poster child,
Rev. James Meeks, Barack Obama ought to be feeling awfully itchy right about now.
Written By Duane Wells
Columbia Journalism Review to Obama: Why Are You Such a Fucking Liar?
CJR published these two articles on Obama's lying problem
- about not taking lobbyist money, which he in fact does
- about John McCain's "100 years" Iraq comment
The Obama lie list gets longer...
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Research shows anti-Clinton/pro-Obama bias
Bill Maxwell at the St. Petersburg Times wrote this column today that outlined the media's anti-Hillary bias, citing evidence from several new studies:
"...Several independent watchdog organizations, including Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting and the Center for Media and Public Affairs, have documented persistent and widespread bias against Clinton and in favor of Obama.
"The Center for Media and Public Affairs reported that since mid December, when the Iowa caucuses came into play, Obama has received the lion's share of the positive coverage: 'From Dec. 16 through Jan. 27, five out of six on-air evaluations of Obama (84 percent) have been favorable, compared to a bare majority (51 percent) of evaluations of Mrs. Clinton. The gap in good press widened since the New Hampshire primary, with Clinton dropping to 47 percent positive comments and Obama holding steady at 83 percent positive.
"The Center for Media and Public Affairs reported that since mid December, when the Iowa caucuses came into play, Obama has received the lion's share of the positive coverage: 'From Dec. 16 through Jan. 27, five out of six on-air evaluations of Obama (84 percent) have been favorable, compared to a bare majority (51 percent) of evaluations of Mrs. Clinton. The gap in good press widened since the New Hampshire primary, with Clinton dropping to 47 percent positive comments and Obama holding steady at 83 percent positive.
" 'NBC's coverage has been the most critical of Clinton - nearly 2 to 1 negative (36 percent positive and to 64 percent negative). Conversely, ABC's coverage was most supportive - nearly 2 to 1 positive (63 percent vs. 37 percent). CBS and Fox were more balanced - 50 percent positive comments on Fox and 56 percent positive on CBS.'
"The Pew Research Center found a sharp difference in tone between coverage of Clinton and Obama. Here, I also must address the pundits. Most, left and right, have been unfriendly to Clinton, some writing her obit and others advising her to fold up her tent. Obama, on the other hand, has been treated like the Second Coming."
Obama's Math Problem
Marie Cocco at WaPo writes about unmentionable's (I know, he's mentioned in the headline) caucus and primary wins show exactly why Hillary is the stronger candidate in the general election:
"Hillary Clinton is not the only Democrat with a math problem. But the arithmetical difficulty that Barack Obama faces is fundamentally different from Clinton's: She doesn't have the numbers that plot a clear path to the nomination. He doesn't have the numbers that plot a clear path to a Democratic victory in the fall...
"There is a reason some states are called general election 'battlegrounds.' It is because partisan identification is roughly even, or because certain groups in the electorate, such as Catholics, Hispanics or blue-collar whites, switch their allegiances -- or split their votes. That's why Clinton made so much in her victory speech about the 'bellwether' nature of Ohio: 'It's a battleground state. It's a state that knows how to pick a president. And no candidate in recent history, Democrat or Republican, has won the White House without winning the Ohio primary,' she said.
"There is no papering over the depth of the problem Obama faced there. He won only five of the state's 88 counties, an inauspicious foundation for a general election campaign. Clinton trounced him among Catholic voters, 63 percent-36 percent, according to exit polls. She beat him among voters in every income category and bested him by 14 points among those making less than $50,000 annually..."
The Times of London, "They Must Go for Hillary Clinton"
Anatole Kaletsky at the Times of London argues that Our Lady is the one for the job.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Above it all he ain't (is that colloquial enough to use on the trail, in preacher voice?)
Apparently the unmentionable's staff really does assrape the press, and some don't love him for it.
Oink
Don' get me wrong about pork (as in barrel spending--I'm vegan after all), but the unmentionable certainly loves a good earmark, fried. When will hopetards start the self mutilation out of despair? Oh, March 4.
I miss grass. Sometimes
(hopetards: when unmentionable loses, feel free to take a break from your arms to help an old lady w/her lawn)
Hopetards bend over (Nafta Shafta)
Apparently the unmentionable's campaign dispatched senior economic advisor Austin Goolsbee to soothe Canadian Government fears that he was articulating an anti-NAFTA position, despite the fact that he is. "Don't listen to all of that," Goolsbee said. "It's just talk." (ok, I'm paraphrasing for you.)
Thank you to AP's Nedra Pickler for blowing the lid off by obtaining the smoking-gun Canadian Gov. memo and filing this extensive report.
And to Jake Tapper (we heart him, at least briefly) for his post and inspiring headline on ABC's Political Punch, which sums it up this way:
"The Obama campaign over the weekend falsely claimed the CTV story had been 'retracted.' It has not.
And in fact, the story seems today more alive than ever. That is, if the press does its job. If."
Will Hopetards still love him tomorrow?
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Take lobbyist money? Yes, Yes he does.
I hear the unmentionable say again and again that he's "not beholden to corporate interests and Washington lobbyists." Another example of his ability to spoonfeed shit to the American people, media, fellow Democrats--and they think it tastes like swiss cake rolls. Here's a break down of exactly how unmentionable is lying about his ties to PACs, lobbyists, etc--from Michael Dobbs' FactChecker blog at WaPo last Fall, which examined his and Edwards' claims to be above it all, etc.:
" -They still take money from state lobbyists.
-They make no attempt to distinguish between lobbyists for big corporations and lobbyists for small non-profits. They treat a lobbyist for Haliburton in the same way as a lobbyist for child poverty or cancer research.
-They accept money from former lobbyists and future lobbyists.
-As Clinton has pointed out, her rivals have no problem taking money from the people who pay the lobbyists, and give them their "marching orders." (ABC News debate, August 19, 2007.)
-They have no problem about taking money from people representing other "special interests," e.g. trial lawyers and the hedge fund industry.
So far this year, according to Opensecrets.org, Edwards has taken more than $8 million from lawyers and law firms, some of whom employ the federally-registered lobbyists whose lucre he refuses to touch. Obama is not far behind: $7.5 million. (Clinton has taken $9.2 million.)
Obama has emphasized that he does not take money from PhRMA, the powerful lobbying arm of the pharmaceutical industry. On the other hand, he does not seem to mind taking money from senior employees of PhRMA members, such as Pfizer and Eli Lilly. Campaign finance records show that he has raised about $250,000 in pharmaceutical-related contributions this year. (Clinton collected $269,000.) He has also not been averse to helping out Illinois-based pharmaceutical companies with "tariff suspensions." more
"A Thin Record For a Bridge Builder." No Shit.
We're at this point in the campaign, and a major national daily finally writes that current Senators and former colleagues in the Illinois state legislature are saying that the unmentionable has a thin record on bipartisanship, that he's unwilling to take political risks, that he's better known for his ambition than substance? Thanks Washington Post, thanks David Ignatius. I wish you had published this months ago before the unmentionablematons' music videos caused this nation (or at least this apartment) to be flooded with vomit. Fortunately, pets like to eat vomit.
Yes, You can shove it
Thank you to Can't Fight City Hall for this post:I support Hillary Clinton, so you can take your “We are the Change we’ve been waiting for” and shove it!
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Ready to Be Commander-in-Chief
HRC today received an endorsement from former Joint Chiefs Chairman (Bush 41, Clinton) Hugh Shelton.: "I’ve been with Senator Clinton when she has been with our military men and women," Shelton said in a statement. "I know from those experiences that she understands the demands and sacrifice of military life. I am confident she will always put the readiness and well being of our troops first. She is ready to be commander-in-chief"
And they blamed papa Bill?
New Republic's Sean Wilentz has a new article that examines how the unmentionable's campaign injected race into the race. Like a prison wife getting his ass slammed again and again, the tards will only love him more for this, I'm sure.
Battered wife syndrome
Todd Spivak at the Houston Press reveals how a certain Jim Jonesian presidential candidate climbed over the backs of and exploited fellow established state legislators. Revelations include: using unknown loopholes in election law to get opponents (including established liberal community leader incumbent) thrown off of ticket so he could run unchallenged; didn't accomplish anything in first several terms, until kingmaker state senate leader attached his name as sponsor to more than 20 important bills in one year, so he could have platform of "experience" to run for US Senate; (won US Senate seat against lunatic Alan Keyes--not news, but no feat that. I'd rather vote for Keyes, myself); isn't such a nice guy when not having salad tossed by media and public; etc.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
My first blog
This is my first blog. I promise not to go into hysterics and shart. Today, I was reading Wonkette. They have one of the best Obamatard roundups on the net:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)