I can't disagree with much of what Ralph Nader says. I agree with him about "political bigotry" from liberals ridiculing his campaign rather than tending to facets of their own that cause left-liberal votes to peel off. I think Atrios, Josh Marshall, and many others just fall into pit of blind nonsense where Nader is concerned.
Take this truculent column by Reed Hundt, carried somewhere in the vast TPM site. Hundt says Nader "doesn't deserve attention." What a stupid position if what you're concerned about is Nader peeling votes off the Democrat. Hundt writes Nader "has no credibility on issues." To who?
In my metal ears, Nader speaks consistently, directly, and positively to issues of peace, human rights, corporate power, consumer protection, etc., etc., etc. What does Hundt think about all this? That we should let the corporation agenda of overlord authoritarianism just own the Democrat? And we should vote for the Democrat simply because she is not the Republican. Hundt's is a debased, hopeless, conscienceless, top-down, non-participatory politics. Why should a Nader (or Kucinich, or Gravel, for that matter) not continue to challenge the front runners all the way? I'll stand for Obama, but I'll never stop challenging him. We'll find out if Obama is serious about participation, or if he is just a tool. Nader being there on the ballot and in the game will do nothing but help.
Let's take a look at some of what Nader is saying.
After a 2005 conviction by a jury was overturned, federal judge now says GOP operative cannot be "proven" to have ill intent against voters in phone blocking scheme
A federal judge in Concord, N.H., Thursday acquitted former GOP operative James Tobin, 47, of Bangor of charges that he conspired to jam the 2002 get-out-the-vote phone banks run by New Hampshire Democrats and a firefighters union. ...
The judge ruled that to find Tobin guilty, a jury would have had to conclude that his intent in having the repeated hang-up phone calls made was "to harass or invoke adverse reactions in the called parties." ...
I think this is the first time I've ever posted on this story. It's unusual because it's so rare that Republicans are ever caught for their vote-suppression programs. In fact, even in this case, the suspects were not found guilty of the more serious charge of "conspiring to deprive New Hampshire residents of their right to vote."
A novel interpretation of a law intended to punish Vietnam-era protesters was instead the basis of the convictions. Now, the judge has foreclosed that avenue of holding these operatives responsible.
Two other operatives were convicted in the case, and a third plead guilty, but may be off the hook too. The place to go for very comprehensive rundown of all these dirty dealings and the efforts to prosecute them is Talking Points Memo, using THIS LINK.
He's perceived as a traitor in important quarters of the right
It could be immigration. Some months ago, McCain's wee bit more humane stance at a point in the past almost sank him for good last summer. Maybe he was seen as too soft on Terror War detainees, though he recently has flopped hard right on that one. At times whiffs of slightly more decent positions McCain may have held at one time or another on Law of the Sea, tax cuts, abortion, and gay rights are all wingnuttia-unfriendly. This post from The Carpetbagger Report traces McCain-style unprincipled pandering/flopping on many of these things.
But what really sticks in the craw of certain reactionaries like former Republican U.S. Congressman Robert Dornan can be found at the fascinating website, Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain. It boils down to they think McCain was a traitor. (See their YouTube below the fold)
Below the fold is the text and photo from an email message the "church member" who "keeps up" with the campaign may have used to "inform" the others. A well-meaning family member had sent this to me in order to alert me about Obama.
So, is this what the campaign could look like in the Fall of 2008? Has politics become so debased that Jeffersonian "informed citizenry" is impossible? What say you, dear readers?
Local NPR station's flagship news program Maine Things Considered exhibits low reporting standards on Collins smear of Rep. Tom Allen and the peace movement
National Public Radio and its Maine affiliate have a long and on occasion deserved reputation for excellent, fact-based reporting with a human touch. They certainly have the ability to cover a story in depth and with scrupulous fairness. That is, until pro-war messages Republican officials wish to transmit without excessive scrutiny are involved.
The example from the past I would bring up is the Charlotte Renner Albright interview of the late Caspar Weinberger, first broadcast in June 2004 and rebroadcast upon his death in 2006. I wrote HERE that the Weinberger interview contained "highly controversial, unabashed pro-war views about the invasion and occupation of Iraq" that were presented without that "balance" for which public broadcasting is supposed to be known.
Now, we have on display a four-minute report during the February 12 edition of Maine Things Considered where reporter A. J. Higgins "investigates" the vile attack ad against U.S. Senate challenger, Rep. Tom Allen, that incumbent Senator Susan Collins has approved. I heard this yesterday and prepared to drop everything and write a long post about it. But Gerald at Turn Maine Blue has done the work!
I've gone ahead and clipped out the radio report by Higgins, LISTEN TO AUDIO HERE:
Gerald writes,
How not to write a news story by: Gerald - Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 23:35 EST
There was a time when journalists actually did some research when writing a story, but those days seem long gone - perhaps they never were. Today, what stands in place for reporting is asking each side of an issue what they have to say, and then calling it a day.
This Maine Public Radio report by A. J. Higgins about the recent ad from Susan Collins in which she attacks Tom Allen and MoveOn.org is one such example. ...
Without ever talking to either Collins or Allen, one would think that a reporter would first view the ad several times with a critical eye, looking for statements of facts to check for veracity, and also inuendo implied through context. Mr. Higgins certainly watched it at least once, for he describes the beginning for his radio listeners, noting the "controversial" Petraeus ad, a screen shot of Tom Allen on the MoveOn.org website, and then this:
The video then disolves into flag burnings, war demonstrators, and a woman with bloody hands confronting Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice.
What Higgins fails to note, and this is very important, is that NONE of these images has ANY association with MoveOn.org. It is hard to know when and where the image of the flag burning took place, for example, and the woman pictured confronting Condi Rice is Desiree Anita Ali-Fairooz from Group CodePink. (The confrontation took place on 24 October of last year, at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing.)
I believe that there is so little attempt to analyze the obvious non sequiturs because NPR/MPBN actually believe themselves the smear of the peace movement contained in this ad, that is in fact worse than the smear against Tom Allen. They sure didn't talk to us. When the peace activists in this state are covered, they are always treated like they are a little unhinged, and always are carefully "balanced" with some kind of military representative. Militarism on the other hand, is allowed to run rampant while its proponents can say anything without scrutiny.
Gerald concludes that in public radio and A. J. Higgins, the Collins campaign has found a "friendly" voice they can count on. Absolutely.
Excellent introduction video from 2008 senate candidate Tom Allen
Maine voters are rarely inclined to remove incumbent senators. U.S. Representative Tom Allen (D-1st District Maine), who is running to unseat Senator Susan Collins, offers the best chance we're going to have to get rid of this mendacious Republican.
She must be at least slightly worried. She has apparently approved a vile smear video that is indicative of the kind of dishonest campaign she will be running to save her seat. It's so grotesque that I'm only going to give you an indirect link. Follow through to this good comment HERE at Collins Watch for a link to view the smear.
Good Lord! That is a swiftboating/Rovian smear at its vile worst. Here's a response ad I'd like to see:
---------------------------------------
[stills of Tom speaking forcefully]
"While Representative Tom Allen was standing up to President Bush and voting against war in October 2002, Senator Collins ignored her constituents"
[cut to small clip of Collins repeating weapons of mass destruction myths]
[cut to interview clip w/a very sane, rational expert from the local peace movement]
"We asked her to look at the information contrary to what the Administration was saying, but she wasn't interested"
[cut to a slightly less-than flattering picture of Collins mixed with some brief, rapidly changing awful war scenes]
Narration: "Senator Susan Collins did not stand up to President Bush when it really counted. Now she wants to blame people who opposed the war for the disaster she helped create"
[cut to black screen with Collins's phone number in center in white]
"Call Senator Collins and tell her you want the Iraq war ended now."
---------------------------------------
Well, we'll probably never see this, but I sure do hope Tom will respond to the smear head on and forcefully!!
Update: Turn Maine Blue has more, asking, "Where will you be in 2018 Ms. Collins? Happy in retirement while others fight for your mistake?"
The response to the ad from Tom Allen is quoted at Turn Maine Blue,
Tom Allen believes that this campaign should be about ideas, substantive issues, and the future of our country. We are saddened that Sen. Collins has chosen to launch personal, negative attacks as characterized in this video. Such attacks and negativity are inappropriate for Maine.
Our support comes from thousands of individuals across the country - many of whom donated just $5 or $10 - who respect Tom's leadership on the war in Iraq. Tom Allen voted against the war in 2002 and has long stood for a responsible and safe way to bring our troops home.
We urge Senator Collins to rethink the strategy of attacking ordinary Americans for voicing their opinions on the most important issues of our time. Maine voters are expecting a lot from the candidates in this race, and Tom Allen looks forward to a substantive debate on the issues. Let's leave personal and partisan attacks out of it.
I think that the responses about small donations and the attack by Collins against "ordinary Americans voicing their opinions" are good ones. But I'd be careful about staking out too much of a "high road". Collins will have to be criticized if Tom is to win. If Tom boxes himself in too tightly, it will become difficult to point out how wrong Collins is on the "substantive issues" without facing a counter attack on the basis of "negativity."
I thought this was cool. We have a house guest tonight, a traveler from Melbourne, Australia. So where do you learn today's results first from a Google search on "Maine caucus"? Why the Melbourne Herald Sun, of course!
Obama appears to have a 58-41 margin among Maine Democrats, and takes 15 of 24 convention delegates.
These results are consistent with Bangor, where the enthusiasm for Obama was great, and the rooms were absolutely loaded with people at their very first caucus. In our room, a caucus of sixty Veazie Democrats showed up. According to Stan, our wise man with the institutional memory, the number today easily was a record for recent decades. (The turnout in 2004 was closer to thirty.) We split 2-1 for Obama. I ended up a state convention delegate for Obama. I know, I wrote in this blog that I wouldn't do that this year. But all of these new people hungry for participation, hungry to see the back of Bush and the Republicans just gave me a good kick.
The campaign speeches by Governor Baldacci endorsing Hillary Clinton, and Senator John Kerry endorsing Obama, were pretty forgettable. Though Kerry did play up the importance of the Obama movement, which I think is right on. But please, as little as possible let Kerry near crowds you want to stay excited.
I may be extremely critical of Obama's positions on many things. But the potential for righting many of the wrongs of the last few years is overwhelming, and only a social movement for justice that rises up strong will be able to do it. Obama seems like the pony to be riding there now.
What the Republicans have left: pseudo-fascism; Edwards's answer from 2004
Mittens, February 2008 Cheney, September 2004
I just listened to an extended excerpt of Willard "Mitt" Romney's Republican presidential nomination bow-out speech on Friday's Democracy Now! podcast. He says he's "suspending his campaign" because,
ROMNEY: I’d make it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win. Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror. ... And one of the things we believe in is that we cannot allow the next president of the United States to retreat in the face of evil extremism. [emphasis added]
In other words, voters, vote Republican or die.
With shameless hacks like Jonah Goldberg making hay by diluting the term "fascism" to a meaningless surrogate for liberalism, I run the risk of diluting the term myself. But I don't think so. Romney incites a dangerous form of politically cynical right-wing reaction that David Neiwert calls "pseudo-fascism." Conservatives may hate the notion, but pseudo-fascism "creates the ground conditions for the real thing to break out. Which is bad news for liberals and conservatives alike."
This is a chapter out of Dick Cheney's 2004 playbook, when in the old blog I asked about what I called "protofascism":
CHENEY (September 2004): ...it's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice. Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we’ll get hit again, that we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we’ll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we’re not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us.
It seems absurd today to think the Republicans could win the 2008 election on a straight appeal to fear and promise to keep us "safe" by making sure their offensive of bloodletting across the oil arc of South Asia continues for at least 100 years. But it worked like a charm in 2004. (see archive media below the fold)
My vote is not necessarily for Obama's policies but for a social movement
It's time to stand up and be counted if you're a Democrat in Maine. Yes, I'm a registered Democrat and have had periods of actual participation in Party activities over the years. I put out for a couple years a newsletter for the Portland Democrats and served as City Committee chair for about a year. This year I've been estranged and suspicious of the Party (you can look up those posts on telecom immunity for past & future spying, for example, and I hold deep suspicion of Democratic lawmakers' approach to war.) This is not a declaration that the estrangement is over. But I've made up my mind for Obama and I will stand for him at the caucus on Sunday.
Why? Well, it happened today at a talk I went to record in Orono at the University. It was by Jarvis Tyner (pictured), executive vice-chair of the Communist Party USA, and former candidate for vice president of the U.S. Tyner made the case in favor of the social movement building behind Obama. How'd he put it? Well, I have the audio...
Former CP USA veep candidate on Obama, AUDIO HERE:
Jarvis Tyner: I hope to see Obama win... The reason people are attracted to him? He calls for the development of a multi-racial movement for social justice. ... He is a social revolutionist. He wants to change this country and take it to another level of greater democracy.
I'm sold not because I put any special weight on the CP, but because I do believe in social movement, as Tyner helped me understand. The Republicans are all about crushing the people, making them cower in fear. Obama is no leftist, but he is as opposite as can be to the Republicans on positive participation. I am highly critical of Obama's policies, and I will remain so in this blog. But a view towards social justice ain't too bad. For me on Sunday, it will be Obama.
Oh yes, Tyner is the brother of jazz great McCoy. Now there is a reason to heed his words!
Maine Owl is a comment & nature photography blog. It is written by The Owl, a long-time peace & justice activist now residing in the Bangor, Maine area...
