raw story
Looks like Ralph Nader thinks John Edwards might be his choice "if he doesn't back off." Chris Matthews has Ralph on his show and it turned out to be a great exchange. Especially interesting are his comments on Obama, saying:
"he doesn't have the agenda"
and
"he's a lot smarter than his public statements, which are extremely conciliatory to concentrated power and big business".
wooo-weeee.
This one is gonna get steamy.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
John Edwards on Cover of Latest Newsweek: The Sleeper?
Well. Is he the sleeper candidate? Is he?Damn right he is.
This is for a few of my fellow Crinchers here who are all up on the J-Eds tip. Well guys, here you go. I'm posting about John Edwards. I must admit though, and I've had this discussion within the circle of Crinch Pin bloggers, that there is something to this John Edwards thing lately. I have been noticing how little attention he has been getting and commenting on how this mudslinging between Obama and Hitlery has really been quietly working to Edwards' advantage. He seems to have taken on a new tone lately: a little more angry, and little more ballsy, and a lot less bullshit. Maybe he has been taken off of the establishment's list of "potential puppets" and is finally fighting back against those on the insider track. We know that at one point John Edwards was a darling for the establishment, being essentially chosen as the VP candidate by the Bilderberg Group at their 2004 meeting.
So it's still too early to tell what's really might be going on behind closed doors, but from a glance, it looks like Edwards is NOT being pushed by the machine any longer, and just maybe he's starting to fight back. Hey, he's not known for making great initial decisions (see Iraq War vote) but we can all agree that he has taken a knack for owning up to his mistakes later (see mistaken Iraq War vote admission).
Presidential Candidate Ron Paul Hints that Huckabee is a Fascist on Fox Morning Show
This is great. Presidential Candidate Ron Paul, appearing yesterday on Fox News morning show Fox and Friends, has an interesting take on the recent story revolving around Mike Huckabee's "cross ad". He evens drops one of my favorite quotes by Sinclair Lewis.
"When Fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross".
"When Fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross".
Moneymonk's Loyalty
But, maybe Moneymonk should consider voting Republican, since it seems that Huckabee, Giuliani and Romney all hate puppies, the natural enemy of the cuddly kitten.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Iowa's First Lady endorses Edwards
Although it might not make the national headlines that Joe Lieberman's endorsement of McMaverick have been garnering, John Edwards has just received the endorsement of Iowa's First Lady, Mari Culver.
And, although it's not an endorsement, Paul Krugman's Op-Ed in today's New York Times is about a close to an endorsement of Edwards as you can get without just coming out and saying it.
Of Obama, Krugman notes that "in an important sense, he has in effect become the anti-change candidate."
Krugman's piece, of course, comes in the wake of a number of articles on the shortcomings of Obama's healthcare plan, as well as his use of republican frames like "The Social Security Crisis." But this column seems to me to also be a response to yesterday's column by Frank Rich, who seesm enamored of Obama's Hope Campaign.
For the record, I do like a lot about Obama, but I prefer Edwards's plan for change to Obama's hope for change.
And, although it's not an endorsement, Paul Krugman's Op-Ed in today's New York Times is about a close to an endorsement of Edwards as you can get without just coming out and saying it.
Of Obama, Krugman notes that "in an important sense, he has in effect become the anti-change candidate."
Krugman's piece, of course, comes in the wake of a number of articles on the shortcomings of Obama's healthcare plan, as well as his use of republican frames like "The Social Security Crisis." But this column seems to me to also be a response to yesterday's column by Frank Rich, who seesm enamored of Obama's Hope Campaign.
For the record, I do like a lot about Obama, but I prefer Edwards's plan for change to Obama's hope for change.
Joe Lieberman Endorses McMaverick
The Connecticut for Lieberman Party has just endorsed Republican presidential candidate John McCain.
Lying. Pandering. Sack. Of. Shit.
Joe thinks McCain is his ticket to the VP slot. Seems obvious, cynical and utterly Lieberman to me. Soon he will be totally irrelevent.
Lying. Pandering. Sack. Of. Shit.
Joe thinks McCain is his ticket to the VP slot. Seems obvious, cynical and utterly Lieberman to me. Soon he will be totally irrelevent.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Ron Paul's 2nd "Money Bomb" is Nothing Short of Amazing
So, throughout the day today I have been checking in on version 2.0 of the Ron Paul "Money Bomb". It was set for today, December 16th, in remembrance of the Boston Tea Party. As of last night, Paul's Q4 total was at about 11.5 million. When I checked it this morning at around 9:30am CST, the number was already up to 13 million. Mind you, the campaign's stated goal was to raise 12 million by December 31. As of right now, 9:30 pm, its 16.95 million. This is nothing short of astounding, Congressman Paul will have broken his record of 4.3 million back on November 5th by, at the very least, a million dollars. Its already amazing to have one successful fund-raising day, but to have two of these is well...something to really pay attention to. I'm guessing the mainstream media is wringing their hands right now knowing that they cannot deny the "emerging contender" status that they will have to adorn him with. I bet they are regretting pushing the "Mike Huckabee is a real dark horse" project. Here's Paul's website donation counter, its pretty fascinating.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
Friday, December 14, 2007
She Don't Lie, She Don't Lie, She Don't Lie
You know, back in the 90s when Bill was pulling his "I didn't inhale" bullshit (and c'mon...we all know it's bullshit), I was pissed he didn't just own up to smoking pot. I said at the time and I say it now: If someone who came of age in the 1960s didn't smoke pot, they're probably a republican and I don't trust them.
But what of Hillary's drug use? Has anyone asked her? It seems a legitimate question now that her campaign has opend up the issue. Has she ever tried cocaine? Has she ever smoked pot? I mean, she was hanging out with Bill, so maybe she just "didn't inhale" all that second hand pot smoke?
But seriously, people, Justice Stevens (who is 87) wrote this in one of his recent Supreme Court opinions:
“. . . The current dominant opinion supporting the war on drugs in general, and our anti-marijuana laws in particular, is reminiscent of the opinion that supported the nationwide ban on alcohol consumption when I was a student. While alcoholic beverages are now regarded as ordinary articles of commerce, their use was then condemned with the same moral fervor that now supports the war on drugs. The ensuing change in public opinion occurred much more slowly than the relatively rapid shift in Americans’ views on the Vietnam War, and progressed on a state-by-state basis over a period of many years. But just as prohibition in the 1920’s and early 1930’s was secretly questioned by thousands of otherwise law-abiding patrons of bootleggers and speakeasies, today the actions of literally millions of otherwise law-abiding users of marijuana, and of the majority of voters in each of the several States that tolerate medicinal uses of the product, lead me to wonder whether the fear of disapproval by those in the majority is silencing opponents of the war on drugs. Surely our national experience with alcohol should make us wary of dampening speech suggesting however inarticulately that it would be better to tax and regulate marijuana than to persevere in a futile effort to ban its use entirely."
And what of Cocaine? Well, there was time in Regan's 80s (back when a tipsy Nancy Regan would speak passionately about the war on drugs, with martini in hand) when cocaine was the drug of choice for those same 60s pot smokers (Bill? Hillary? George W?). It. Was. Everywhere.
If you had the money and were young enough in the 80s, you probably did a little blow. Cocaine was EVERYwhere. I'm glad Obama was honest about his drug use, and I hope honesty on the issue is what wins the day, not below-the-belt holier-than-thou attacks from hypocritical candidates, and not the moralizing judgment of Washington pundits.
And for the record, I don't want to hear a peep of judgment or high-minded fretting from "Cokie" Roberts.
Finally, Watch how Clinton's Rove, sleazebag schlub Mark Penn, ever-so-offhandedly introduces 'cocaine' into a discussion about generic 'drug' use, and watch how Joe Trippi calls him on it. Penn acts surprised (and he's a bad actor), but c'mon people. These are political advisors who scrutinize everything and are aware to a sickening degree of the impact of every word they speak. Penn knew exactly what he was doing, and Trippi called bullshit. Good for Trippi.
UPDATE: Todd Beeton now has a post up on MyDD about this. Check it out. The money quote:
But what of Hillary's drug use? Has anyone asked her? It seems a legitimate question now that her campaign has opend up the issue. Has she ever tried cocaine? Has she ever smoked pot? I mean, she was hanging out with Bill, so maybe she just "didn't inhale" all that second hand pot smoke?
But seriously, people, Justice Stevens (who is 87) wrote this in one of his recent Supreme Court opinions:
“. . . The current dominant opinion supporting the war on drugs in general, and our anti-marijuana laws in particular, is reminiscent of the opinion that supported the nationwide ban on alcohol consumption when I was a student. While alcoholic beverages are now regarded as ordinary articles of commerce, their use was then condemned with the same moral fervor that now supports the war on drugs. The ensuing change in public opinion occurred much more slowly than the relatively rapid shift in Americans’ views on the Vietnam War, and progressed on a state-by-state basis over a period of many years. But just as prohibition in the 1920’s and early 1930’s was secretly questioned by thousands of otherwise law-abiding patrons of bootleggers and speakeasies, today the actions of literally millions of otherwise law-abiding users of marijuana, and of the majority of voters in each of the several States that tolerate medicinal uses of the product, lead me to wonder whether the fear of disapproval by those in the majority is silencing opponents of the war on drugs. Surely our national experience with alcohol should make us wary of dampening speech suggesting however inarticulately that it would be better to tax and regulate marijuana than to persevere in a futile effort to ban its use entirely."
And what of Cocaine? Well, there was time in Regan's 80s (back when a tipsy Nancy Regan would speak passionately about the war on drugs, with martini in hand) when cocaine was the drug of choice for those same 60s pot smokers (Bill? Hillary? George W?). It. Was. Everywhere.
If you had the money and were young enough in the 80s, you probably did a little blow. Cocaine was EVERYwhere. I'm glad Obama was honest about his drug use, and I hope honesty on the issue is what wins the day, not below-the-belt holier-than-thou attacks from hypocritical candidates, and not the moralizing judgment of Washington pundits.
And for the record, I don't want to hear a peep of judgment or high-minded fretting from "Cokie" Roberts.
Finally, Watch how Clinton's Rove, sleazebag schlub Mark Penn, ever-so-offhandedly introduces 'cocaine' into a discussion about generic 'drug' use, and watch how Joe Trippi calls him on it. Penn acts surprised (and he's a bad actor), but c'mon people. These are political advisors who scrutinize everything and are aware to a sickening degree of the impact of every word they speak. Penn knew exactly what he was doing, and Trippi called bullshit. Good for Trippi.
UPDATE: Todd Beeton now has a post up on MyDD about this. Check it out. The money quote:
The fire in the belly that Trippi exhibited on Hardball yesterday reflected perfectly Edwards's populist fighter persona, just as Axelrod's mellow above the fray style echoed Obama. What does Penn's slimy shiftiness say about his candidate?
NO!!! Not Lenny! I just can't believe it!
Lenny "Nails" Dykstra was fingered as part of the former Senator George Mitchell's report on steroid use in major league baseball. The report, which has been in progress for 21 months, called out 70 players for drug use and will serve as evidence for Commish Bud Selig that random drug testing is needed in the MLB. Detractors in the sports press and the Player's Association assert that Selig knew of the rampant drug use all along, but was pleased with the home runs, pitching duals, and all-around increased popularity of the game after the devastating player's strike of 1995. They claim Selig turned a blind eye to the problem and is as culpable as the players themselves.
All of this hubbub, of course, is a total waste of time. EVERYONE KNEW, guys! EVERYONE! Although it will be nice to see some action taken based on a long-anticipated report, the results of which were apparent to everyone involved before it was even commissioned, let alone released. As fucked as baseball is, at least something gets done.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
PBS NOW Preview: The Ron Paul Phenomenon
You Tube/PBS
NOW talks to Congressman Ron Paul and his supporters across the country about Paul's extraordinary presidential campaign and the political waves it's causing.
NOW talks to Congressman Ron Paul and his supporters across the country about Paul's extraordinary presidential campaign and the political waves it's causing.
Bill From Portland, Maine CHEERS John Edwards!
From CHEERS & JEERS:
CHEERS to John Edwards. A striking new CNN/Opinion Research poll shows that the populist candidate would pummel the Republicans hardest in 2008. Hey, I've got an idea for the traditional media. I know it's a little crazy, but hear me out. I think you guys should start covering his campaign again! Give it a whirl---it might lead to, like, journalism or something.
CHEERS to John Edwards. A striking new CNN/Opinion Research poll shows that the populist candidate would pummel the Republicans hardest in 2008. Hey, I've got an idea for the traditional media. I know it's a little crazy, but hear me out. I think you guys should start covering his campaign again! Give it a whirl---it might lead to, like, journalism or something.
Merry Craigmas!
[To the tune of Jingle Bells]
Tap tap tap
Tap tap tap
Tap tap tap tap tap
Tap tap tap
Ta-tap tap tap
Ta-ta-tap tap tap tap tap. TAP!
Tap tap tap
Tap tap tap
Tap tap tap tap tap
Tap tap tap
Ta-tap tap tap
Ta-ta-tap tap tap tap tap.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
