Friday, May 23, 2008

An Angry McCain Shows Just What Type of Dirty Campaign He's Running. Somewhere Karl Rove is Smiling

Sen. Barack Obama took to the floor of the U.S. Senate Thursday over a GI Bill co-sponsored by Vietnam veterans Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va) and Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Ne). What followed was an in-your-face indication of the kind of dirty campaign Obama faces from Sen. John McCain, the GOP's presumptive nominee.

The Senate passed a $165 billion bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it includes the $51 billion GI Bill which expands education benefits for veterans. The bill passed 70 to 26 (25 Republicans, 48 Democrats and 2 independents) and will go before the House for final approval after the Memorial Day holiday.

The bill does not have the support of the White House, and it's expected that President Bush will veto it. And it is not supported by McCain, who was not present for the vote yesterday because he was out stumping in California. In opposing the measure, McCain is at odds with almost all of the major veterans' rights groups including the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion and Given his status as a Vietnam vet and decorated war hero, it's truly unbelievable how he could oppose increasing veterans' benefits. But crazy things happen in an election year.

Speaking to his Senate colleagues, Obama criticized McCain for not supporting the measure:

"I respect Sen. John McCain's service to our country. He is one of those heroes of which I speak. But I can't understand why he would line up behind the president in opposition to this GI Bill. I can't believe why he believes it is too generous to our veterans. I could not disagree with him and the president more on this issue."

In response, McCain issue a terse, angry, confrontational and ad hominem, off-message statement attacking Obama's patriotism and lack of military service, a theme you can bet is going to be his mantra for the next five months:

"I take a backseat to no one in my affection, respect and devotion to veterans. And I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did....Perhaps, if Senator Obama would take the time and trouble to understand this issue he would learn to debate an honest disagreement respectfully. But, as he always does, he prefers impugning the motives of his opponent, and exploiting a thoughtful difference of opinion to advance his own ambitions. If that is how he would behave as President, the country would regret his election."

Nice framing job, John. It's more of the same Rovian tactics we've come to know and hate these past eight years. Don't support the Iraq war, you say? Well then you must be against the troops. This sort of convoluted nuancing is straight out of Karl Rove's playbook. What McCain was essentially saying Thursday was, "you're against my vote? Then you're attacking my patriotism and military record." Additionally, the suggestion that Obama has no right to criticize McCain, or worse, discuss the merits of a veterans' benefits bill because he himself never served in the military, is both preposterous and offensive. Does McCain need to be a trucker in order to discuss and vote on a transportation bill? Does he need to be personally insolvent in order to discuss and vote on a bankruptcy bill? Does need to have been molested as a child in order to discuss and vote on a bill protecting children from predators? His logic is ridiculous.

And what about the shameless hypocrisy in McCain's fiery diatribe? Has he forgotten his blind, unconditional support these past five years of major war-mongering hawks like Bush, Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Pearle, who never served a day in the armed forces yet took it upon themselves to send 4000 U.S. troops to die in battle?

McCain's temper is legendary, and he's famous for flying off the handle at the drop of a hat. Certainly, his vitriolic reaction to Obama's very respectful comments was overly dramatic and highly overblown. Obama did not impugn McCain's integrity or military service. He went out of his way to recognize McCain's patriotism, something his petulant opponent chose to attack instead. What Obama criticized concerned McCain's position on this bill and his lack of support for it, not his personal character or service to his country. Might McCain be just a tad too sensitive? Defensive? Insecure? Angry? To use McCain's own words...If that is how he would behave as President, the country would regret his election.

McCain is quickly showing his true colors, despite for years presenting himself as above the fray of dirty politics. He offers himself as a candidate who wishes to run a more respectful, honest campaign, yet his actions of the past few weeks--including the incendiary remarks about Obama and Hamas and Iran appeasement--demonstrate that McCain's number one strategy is to lie to and deceive Americans over the issue of Obama's patriotism, or lack thereof. That Obama is a weak-kneed liberal who hates his country, hates the military, and who is the favorite-son of terrorist groups and the rogue nations who sponsor them. It's clear that McCain has no problem whatsoever saying whatever he feels he needs to say to attack Obama's character and patriotism in order to win in November.

This is just the start. It's going to get real ugly as November gets closer.

On another note, we could use your help at The The Adrienne Shelly Foundation. We are a tax-exempt, non-profit organization dedicated in my wife's honor to help carry out her spirit and passion, with the goal of assisting women filmmakers. Adrienne was brutally killed in NYC on November 1, 2006. Through the Foundation, her commitment to filmmaking lives on. We've established scholarships, grants, finishing funds and living stipends at NYU's Tisch School of the Arts/Kanbar Institute of Film; Columbia University; American Film Institute; Women in Film; the Independent Feature Project; the Nantucket Film Festival; and the Sundance Institute. We're very pleased to announce that one of last year's grant recipients, Cynthia Wade, just won an Oscar for Best Documentary Short Subject for "Freeheld." We are proud of Cynthia and to have supported this film. Your generous contribution will go a long way towards helping us continue to achieve our very important mission.
Thank you.


Unknown said...

After all these years of mumble mouth, stick to the script G.W. Bush it may seem difficult for many to realize that words do matter. Especially those words from the President of the US. An ill timed statement made in anger could cause great harm and history is full of examples.
Also, GW Bush and McCain have really demonstrated how they want to "take care of the troops" by opposing the new GI bill.
McCain does not have the temperment or the intelligence to be President. He would indeed be a George III.

Anonymous said...

Yes, it will get ugly because this is who John McCain is. His "McCain Notes" are famous in the halls of the Senate as is his choice of language when challenged in areas where he assumes not only superior understanding but judgment.

When a man (Thad Cochran) who has known McCain in and out of office for nearly four decades and currently serves with him in the Senate says the idea of McCain in the White House "scares him" due to his temper, I think it speaks volumes. Even moreso was McCain's willingness to throw this friend and colleague under the bus by saying he's "not among the most respected of Senators".

No matter what one may think of Obama's inexperience, one clear point of differentiation between he and McCain is temperament. For the most part, Obama has remained unflappable while McCain is flippant and an angry loose cannon.

Anonymous said...

Andy,what your saying is true,Mccain will use these tactic's.But PLEEEEEASE,don't just blame Mccain.These tactics are a play right out of the Obama camp play book.Obama claimed he was against the war in Iraq,hillary's vote was wrong.Obama didn't have to make that vote,did he???It's easy to say you would of voted against something,when you didn't have to. And if you listen to his war plan NOW it's so much like Mccains,you wouldn't know which is which.Hillary never laid a glove on Obama because she didn't play to distroy Obama and damage the party.Obama played hard ball and said to hell with the party,Win at any cost.THE ROOSTERS HAVE COME HOME TO ROOST.The rev.Wright problem Obama thought he put to bed. That now has new legs.

Anonymous said...

Obamakins better get ready. This is going to be one dirty campaign. All the racists aren't dead yet.

And if Hillary supporters aren't on board, Obama will be back in the Senate come 1/09.

Obaba needs Hillary supporers. Wake up.

Anonymous said...


Those who support Obama understand full well that he cannot win without a majority of those who support Hillary Clinton coming to his side.

What I, not representing anyone else, fail to understand is the reticence of some Clinton voters to support the most likely candidate of the party, Barack Obama, in November.

Be mad at the sexist media. Be angry about a woman getting so close to the nomination and falling just short. I can accept and empathize. What I need help understanding is why those who support Clinton say they will not support Obama under any circumstance.

If you truly believe in the positions Clinton stands for and the work she has done on behalf of the American people why you would spit on all of this by not voting for a candidate who shares her opinion on the vast majority of issues of the day or by voting for someone who represents a reversal of everything Hillary stands for and has fought for.

It's not logical and as I see it, frankly, dangerous for our future - not only as a party but as a country.

This Obama supporter would happily cast his vote for Clinton were she to win the nomination.

Anonymous said...

The only reason Obama people like 12:12 now say they would vote for clinton Now ,is Obama has it locked up.They know they are never going to have to vote for clinton at the top of the ticket this time. The proof is in the pudding. Go back and look at post of Obama supporters over the last 6 months.Their now saying the would,because they need your vote.They want you to forget they made Hillary and Bill Clinton into racists.And thats a ad that repuks will use against the dems. if they put hillary on the ticket as VP.Was she a racist all the time or only when she was running agaist Obama it will say.You people burnt a few to many bridges

Anonymous said...


Don't pretend to know me or my intentions.

I've been active in Dem politics for nearly 25 years. I worked for Bill Clinton. I worked for Ann Richards and many other Texas Democrats in a state that bleeds red.

At my precinct caucus, I introduced a resolution calling for all Democrats to rally behind whomever was the eventual nominee. It was not supported unanimously but out of the 60+ who remained to the end, only 2 were so strident as to vote against it.

Yes, indeed, the proof is in the pudding. Andy Ostroy knows the truth. I hectored him about supporting Obama if he was the eventual nominee and every time I did so I indicated that I would vote for Clinton if she won the nomination.

As Mr. Stengel used to say, "you could look it up".

Anonymous said...

yea the 60 plus who stayed(obama supporters)after you took a clinton win by 200,000 reg.voters and turned it into a clinton loss in the state of texas,And when did you speak out about Obama's people making the clintons into racist,you didn't,thats the point.It was Obama win at any price,why worry he won.And I'm just saying you people burnt too many bridges to win in the fall. As john f kennedy said the night meggar everts died.If you stand by and let something happen and say nothing your just as guilty as those who do it.

Anonymous said...


My precinct caucus was actually won by Hillary Clinton.

Clinton won the popular vote by just under 100,000 votes, not 200,000, out of nearly 2.9 million votes cast.

Complain all you like about the rules of the state party but the fact is, Bill Clinton not only won the state twice under the same rules, people who helped run his campaign actually participated in establishing these rules in the first place.

You really don't have a leg to stand on in your false portrayal of who I am, what I have or have not done or what I will do.

Anonymous said...

so when did you tell people the clintons weren't didn't thats whole point sidney

Anonymous said...

Are you 2 done,Clinton lost Obama won,JOHN MCCAIN will be president jan. 2009 END OF STORY

Anonymous said...

The immature rants of "obama won, clinton didn't" is exactly why Clinton supporters are ticked off.

You can't win without them, and how are you going to get them back?

I believe that Clinton must be offered the VP spot. That is exactly what Kennedy did with Johnson. It was done to unite the party.

Wake up Obamakins. You seem to have forgotten what the real goal is.

Anonymous said...

Calling out the Clinton campaign for race baiting was the right thing to do. Calling out Obama supporters for capitalizing on sexism was the right thing to do. That doesn't change the fact that however reprehensible people are in the campaign, we need a Dem in the WH come November. (Incidentally, using racist discourse isn't quite the same as being "a racist".)

I really don't understand how it's "insulting" to suggest that the only way Clinton can win is by a superdelegate landslide in her favor, which won't happen barring a MAJOR Obama collapse. Things could change between now and August, but let's face it: at this point the only thing Clinton's doing is undermining our chances of getting a Dem in the WH, herself included. That's why I would like her to gracefully exit.

As for the McCain-Obama back and forth. To me, this is very encouraging on a number of levels. First, Ostroy's right: Obama struck the right tone in both his attack on McCain and in his response. McCain's spittle-laced attack is not only indicative of his temper, but arguments that I just don't think hold water any more with most of the electorate. Further, the larger framing of the issue is that McCain is on record as opposing this, Obama is on record as supporting it, and the nuance regarding "generous" benefits in the competing plans will be lost on most voters. Watch Barack bring this up in their debates and watch McCain lose his temper. It has to be handled delicately, but it seems to me that Obama can make him out to be a hypocrite and a hothead.

Anonymous said...

The Anon who says too many bridges have been burned is right. Many of us Hillary supporters will never vote for Obama. Never. I won't vote for him if she's on the vp which is in agreement with other posts I've seen posted by others on this blog. He is what he is and that is not who should be president.

Even in the recent exchange with MCCain Obama has shifted and lied about how he stood and what he said before. He's lied, pandered, deceived and presented himself as unflappable. And that seems to be true. His attitude is = oh, not to worry -- I said "such and such" which was a mistake - now I'll just say this. They're too dumb to notice."

I have never seen any kind of emotion from him. Even when denoucing Wright he was calm and collected and calculating. I find nothing wrong with honest emotions since we all have them and they motivate us. Anger is not a sin. Maniacal anger is dangerous, but there's nothing to suggest that McCain has an anger mangement problem. But, if it becomes apparent I won't switch my "Hillary" vote to him. I'll just stay home.

Anonymous said...

I'll just stay home too. At the end of the day, I really don't see a dime's worth of difference b/t Obama and McCain. And since gasoline is four dollars a gallon, I won't spend two dollars to drive to the polls to vote for a dime.

Anonymous said...

I'm with thelast two posters. I'm for sure going to stay home. For one thing the gas is going to be a lot more than four dollars by the election. Every day for a week the price has increased about fifteen cents where I live.

Anonymous said...

Andy is right 100%,The war games will begin the minute the dems convention is over.If hillary has any sence what-so-ever she will turn down the VP spot on the ticket.The repuks will use every tactic in the book,they will also embrass those white blue collar voters,Obama and his fans call racist just because they voted for Hillary.Their making photo copies of all the post Obama fans have been making calling them racist,It'll make a great commercial.And don't think they won't do it.Mccain understands no black is going to vote republican with Obama in the race.So he has nothing to lose.And he'll remind voters how the Obama team made the Clintons RACIST for telling people the truth.that jessie jackson took the black vote in south carolina when he ran.WhiCH HE DID.DAAAAA.He'll run ads how the obama camp made race a priority in their campaigning to try and get the press to forget the REV.Wright problem.Which for some ungodly reason is gaining new legs.You Obama fans think you were able to smear clinton.You people are about to see what real sleaze is.Your about to enter the big arena now,and the republicans don't play nice,they cheat to win if thats what it takes.And whinning about it,just turns them on more.

Anonymous said...

There are MAJOR differences between McCain and Obama. MAJOR. The subtle differences in policy are actually between Clinton and Obama. Sometimes they are substantive differences (healthcare and foreign policy), but mostly Obama and Clinton's differences are small. When you say there are no differences between Obama and McCain, you are either lying, misinformed, or just spouting because you're upset at the Obama campaign and/or that Hillary will in all likelihood not be the nominee.

You don't have to LIKE Obama (although wouldn't it be great if everyone could). However staying home or voting for McCain is a terrible strategy. Do you really believe Clinton will have a shot in 2012? Are you willing to gamble all that on the near certainty that in even a single term McCain could get us into conflict with Iran or appoint 1-2 Supreme Court justices? Come back to reality, Clintonites: the stakes are very high, and we need a Dem in the WH, however "arrogant" and "elitist" and otherwise contemptible you find Obama to be.

1:02: People are referring to the Clinton supporters in Appalachia as being motivated by race because, um, those voters said so. Subsequent interviews and reports have demonstrated this. They might also have good reasons for supporting Clinton, but denying that racism factored mightily there is tantamount to putting on blinders. But you know, we wouldn't want to offend racists who wouldn't vote for Obama anyway, would we? God forbid.

Meanwhile "hard working whites" in places like OR, CA, PA, OH, WI, etc. are largely turning their support to Obama, if we can believe the polling. I don't doubt the GOP will try to exploit race, and will even make some headway there. However at the end of the day it will be about the issues, and on that score I think Obama will win.

Anonymous said...

The reason many Democrats are either staying home or voting for McCain is not because we are holding out for Hillary in 2012, or that we don't see that Hillary's and Obama's policies are very much alike. It's about the character amd the desirability of who becomes our next president.

Racism is an issue and it's black racism as much as white. Some of the racism that the exit polls indicate is the black racism expressed by Rev. Wright. It does not necessarily mean that those who say race is an issue mean "white" racism or that they are racists. They are offended by black racism. That is the racism issue. I do not want a man for president who belongs to an organization that tells lies about our government and expresses vitriolic hatred of "rich white people" and America. Obama lied about not knowing this was being taught to his wife, children and the congregation as a whole; and he's flip-flopped on the diplomacy issue.

Those of you who are supporting him will find that the reasons I base my decision on are the ones that will defeat Obama in the general election. This time the swiftboaters won't have to make it up. There're plenty of tapes and documentation. Even if you claim "so what -- he didn't know. He renounced the Rev." etc. It doesn't matter. The evidence is overwheleming to most of us.

I commend 1:02 for his insight and telling it "like it is." McCain is our next president.

Anonymous said...


Lies about our government? Certainly Wright's rantings about AIDS are lies (or incredible misperceptions on his part), but I for one thing it's long past due for our government to be held accountable for its horrendous foreign policy debacles in places like Latin America and the Middle East. And WTF is Barack gonna do in office, assuming he wished to act on his "hatred" of white people (which I'll remind you would include his own family: he's just as much white as he is black)? Will he appoint Farrakhan to cabinet? The Black Panthers will be deputized? Good grief, maybe you're just projecting your own fear and loathing of black people?

However, let's just say for a moment that what Wright said is indefensible, and likewise so is Obama's character. I fail to see how this makes him much worse than McCain, who sought the endorsement of men who clearly despise Jews, Catholics, and particularly gays, who openly advocate an attack on Iran because they believe this will spur the war that starts the End Times. I should think that such positions will have a much more profound effect on our policies and politics than "anti-white" sentiment. Well, McCain's rejected Hagee and Parsley now, but why would he have stuck with them before, when he would have known about nearly all of these views?

I do not defend Obama's relationship to Wright, and I don't think it reflects well on his character, but I also don't see it as the dealbreaker you're making it out to be, for reasons I have yet to comprehend, particularly in light of how it compares with the much more powerful and influential religious nuts in the GOP.

Perhaps you can in good conscience therefore not support Obama, but you're just as damned if you support McCain, probably worse.

Anonymous said...

10:11 I appreciate your reasoning but I think it's flawed. McCain's relationship with the reprehensible preacher was one he thought of as political expediency and it backfired. McCain had no idea how radical the man was and thought it would bring him evangelical votes. Not admiralble but not supportive of hatred. McCain denounced his support. Obama, on the other hand -- and you've heard this but it doesn't register with you, was a member of the church; contributed thousands of dollars; he, Michelle and the children attended the church as the source of their spiritual development. No comparison between that and McCain's opportunism. And, you bring up another point: how could Obama and his family sit there and hear the hatred spewed at white people when he himself had a white mother. Talk about disloyalty and skewed thinking. I think that is another indication of Obama's lack of character, integrity and loyalty.

I dont fear or loathe black people --my life and efforts reflect the exact opposite. I fear people enthralled by hatred; and, especially those entralled who justify their hatred in the guise of religions and perhaps even "God's will." At one time it was more "the Devil made me do it" than, the current "God told me to do it." When God/religion justifies a belief dangerous to others, there are terrible consequences.

I am not saying that Obama is dangerous or that he hates whites as his pastor obviously does. I am merely saying that I can't vote for a person who belongs to a group that teaches hatred.

I've decided not to vote.

perspicio said...

It's interesting how EVERYBODY who has decided not to vote is named "Anonymous".

Wait, did I say "interesting"? I meant transparent.

Anonymous said...

11:15 Call yourself perspicio or omniscience -- it won't make you any smarter or persipicacioius.

The "group" you are accusing of being "one" gives a varied and different perspective on the no-vote which indicates more than one spokesman. The same cannot be said for posts defending Obama presented by you, Sidny and Michael who are all undoubtedly the same person.That make your "perception" a projection. You're obviously sidney yet again, once, more trying to be cute in your claim of acuity.

Sidney posted obsessively and has not appeared lately, which is proof-positive he's assumed another "identity."

Anonymous said...

How can anyone vote for Obama when he belongs to a church that teaches as its religion that rich white people and our government are evil and to be hated. That's teaching racism and encouraging revenge. People listen to messages supposedly based on a "higher power" faster than they listen to secular hate talk.

Anonymous said...

Perspicio -- If you really think there is only one of us, posing as many, who won't vote for Obama, read Paul Krugman's column in the NY Times today, Monday the 26, He said the number promising not to vote for Obama is large enough to cost him the election.

And the reasons Krugman cites are disgusting enough for us to stick to is no matter how large the effort Obama's campaign might make.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of the NY Times and op ed writers, I was shocked to read this in Dowd's column yesterday:


'Some people compare one or the other candidates to John F, Kennedy. BuT he was assassinated. And Lyndon Baines Johnson was the one who actually' " signed the civil rights bill into law.

This entire campaign and I believe the Republican victory in the fall will have been caused by Ted Kennedy's perceiving the truth as a slight made by Hillary against JFK.


Dowd also reminds us of Michelle's comment about assassination that she made on 60 Minutes: "I don't lose sleep over it, because the realities are that, you know, as a black man, you know, Barack can get shot going to the gas station."

How's that for fueling the flames of racism against whites.

Anonymous said...

"Obama ... belongs to a church that teaches as its religion that rich white people and our government are evil and to be hated"

Oh give me a break — that is patent horse manure, and you know it. That's taking Wright's comments so far out of context as to be absurd. It's the equivalent of saying that Hillary is calling for Obama's assassination so that the "right" person can be prez. Step back from the crazy table.

This goes for Michelle's comments, too (well, to a limited extent). Daily we hear reports of black men being erroneously accused of crimes, and on some occasions being the innocent victims of violence, whether at the hands of white racists or the hands of other black men (the latter being the overwhelming majority of cases, obviously). Her comment is about black men being the victims of violence, whatever the race of the perpetrators. Now, obviously her comments are still a bit eye-rolling and careless, because black men in fine suits are pretty unlikely to be shot, eh? Nonetheless, your willingness to see her comment as "fueling the flames of racism against whites" reveals a lot about your character. I would think that her comments were a bungled effort to achieve the opposite: that Obama being in danger has little to do with being the first African-American to be a presidential nominee, as such.

Also, some of you Obama haters really are being incredible. You bitch about "Republican victory" (despite every credible poll indicating otherwise at this stage), yet you are also wholly willing to cede this, and in some cases even work for it. And although some here have indicated that it's a matter of "conscience" (I don't agree, but I can understand the logic), for most of you the best you can come up with is, "Obama will start a race war and as a white person black people scare me" or "Waaaaa! Hillary should be the nominee!"

I respect the decisions of people who have articulated sensible opposition to Obama, or who have articulated defensible support for McCain, but it appears to me as if the majority of you "Anonymous" haters are being childish and ridiculous, and yes, I have no qualms "disrespecting" you if you can't demonstrate any trace of self-respect or respectful consideration of the opinions of others.

Anonymous said...

Thank you 9:23 for pointing out the Kruguman column in the Times today. I went to a nearby town and bought a copy. Thank goodness it is now reported by a reputable columnist the truth of massive defection from supporting the Democratic candidate if he is Obama. And, if it is as 10: 58 suggests that those who feel that way "are being childish and ridiculous", so be it. (He/she should have learned in childhood that "calling others mean names" worsens situations) It's too late now for Obama to muzzle Michelle, Wright, the other Black Liberation Preachers and, for that matter, watch his own remarks. What is, is.

Anonymous said...


While I imagine it to be great sport among you to assume there is a multiple personality within the person named Sidney who posts to this blog, it has become wearisome to read it. As is the repititous nonsense about Reverend Wright hating America, Hillary Clinton is a martyr and bears no responsibility for her actions or that of her campaign and her defeat for the nomination is solely the responsibility of the MSM and racist African-Americans, therefore we're voting for McCain or staying home.

It's your right to stay home if you wish. But from where I sit, moreso than the Republicans it will the those of you who support Hillary only and will not support the Democratic Party candidate for president who will be to blame for 4 more years in Iraq, 4 more years of special interest control of Washington DC, 4 more years of no progress on a compreshensive strategy on health care and energy policy.

If you all can live with this, it becomes clear why you choose to remain anonymous and refuse accountability.

Lastly, it seems there are some of you who read Krugman's article and missed something very important: not only does the Obama campaign need to do the hard work necessary to repair the rift in the party, it is also incumbent upon Hillary and her crew to do so as well.

Anonymous said...

fiercepuka -- what I think Obama will do is continue doing what he did before. He joined Al Sharpton's "race police" and as a Senator, went after Imus for using the word "ho" about some basketball team of girls. They didn't rest until Imus was humiliated and lost his job. Then us "no good anons" will probably be too afraid to even post on a blog at all. But you gotta admit signing a name gives no info at all about the person and that person can change names with every entry. You "protestors against anon" are so stupid.

Anonymous said...


RE: Imus

Not only did Barack Obama publicly agree with the firing of Imus, so did Hillary Clinton.

Personally I have no idea if you are good or not. What I do believe is that you are a coward.

Anonymous said...

2"13 what has become wearisome is your faulty reasoning. But in the spirit or your allowing us to stay home if we wish, you have the right to be wrong.

THe blame for McCain's victory will not be ours. It will be

A.1) the Democratic Party chose the wrong candidate; 2) Obama chose the wrong preacher and church; 3) Michelle talked too much 4) Obamba gave a "bitter speech; 5) too many in power were brutally unfair to Hillary; 6) Obama hasn't had enough experience 7)Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama 8) Dean screwed things up -- this is a partial list just for starters.

B. The name Michael is as anoymous as the word "Anonymous" You are no more accountable for your remarks than any "annoymous" on this blog. The only one we know is Ostroy. Any anonymous could call himself "Tom" "Dick" "Harry" or "Sidney" and we would know nothing about him. You have read this many times and it just doesn't sink in, so we DO KNOW your're not a good reader.

Ah, this reminds me of an event in the past. There used to be a poster on Ostroy's blog who called himself "Larry." He, too, posted frequently and wrote some outrageious things and responded crudely sometimes.. Soon others were contributing commentaries and calling themselves "Larry".He finally had to change his posting name. However, his content revealed who he was even with the new name. I hope this history interests you. UMMMM.I may call myself "Michael" the next time I post.

Back to my list:

C. Again, you stupidly assume that because the readers of Krugman's article didn't mention everything in his article, that they missed the part you mentioned. What probably happened is that they found the rest of the article irrelevant.

I saw Obama's picture and voice supporting Jackson against Imus. I did not see Hillary's picture or hear her name mentioned. As an Imus fan I watched all of his programs and followed the public "lynching" closely and felt he was wronged. I knew of Obama's particpation -again, Hillary was never mentioned.

I have no idea if it's I you believe to be a coward since there are so many of us "anonymees" but please know I don't care what you believe. How could I since I don't know who you are and know nothing about you. You could be Hillary making posts to engender responses in her favor.

Anonymous said...


If you did not care, you would not have spent the time to respond, or read, the commentary under the name "Michael". But you do. And you respond.

You betray yourself and remain not only a coward but a dishonest simpleton.

Anonymous said...

The Ostroy Report is a fresh, aggressive answer to the powerful Right Wing spin machine. We take on Bush, the Republican Party and the conservative media. Our mission is to help Democrats regain the White House and Congress.

Oh Please shut the the fuck up about your dems or your repubs.

Have you ever heard of the constitution. This is the law of the land people who try to destroy this are doing a great job.

Your forefather's fought in vain and now the corps won and you lose welcomed to corp hell, Cause you aint seen nothing yet.

Everything you see around you is an Illusion of entertainment and pleasure it was set up in a way to dumb you down and keep you away from the real issues.

It's sad that what you have is all lost just a little more time is that is needed and there 100 year plane for domination will be complete.

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." - Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin (1802)

Paper is poverty,... it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself." Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1788

"Arms are the only true badges of liberty. The possession of arms is the distinction of a free man from a slave."

"The unarmed man is not just defenseless, he is also contemptible." Machiavelli

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt, they have more need of masters." Benjamin Franklin.

Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt." Samuel Adams

Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt." Samuel Adams

“Unfortunately, nothing will preserve [liberty] but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” Patrick Henry

Courage is reckoned the greatest of all virtues; because, unless a man has that virtue, he has no security for preserving any other.” Samaul Johnson

One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” Plato

“The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern”
Lord Acton.

I predict futur happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. Thomas Jefferson

In the name of patriotism, we have participated in a planned deception to create a state of permanent war. In the name of profit, America has been sacrificed on the altar of the god of war, to create a global empire based on the mass-marketing of death.

“We are a ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the [war] with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match...” John F Kennedy, 1961.

"Anyone who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither". Ben Franklin (paraphrased)

"I would rather die with the constitution clinched in my fist, then live with shackles on my feet" Greywolf

Freemasonry has tenets peculiar to itself. They serve as testimonials of character and qualifications, which are only conferred after due course of instruction and examination. These are of no small value; they speak a universal language, and act as a passport to the attentions and support of the initiated in all parts of the world. They cannot be lost as long as memory retains its power. Let the possessor of them be expatriated, shipwrecked or imprisoned, let him be stripped of everything he has got in the world, still those credentials remain, and are available for use as circumstances require. The good effects they have produced are established by the most incontestable facts of history. They have stayed the uplifted hand of the destroyer; they have softened the asperities of the tyrant; they have mitigated the horrors of captivity; they have subdued the rancor of malevolence; and broken down the barriers of political animosity and sectarian alienation. On the field of battle, in the solitudes of the uncultivated forest, or in the busy haunts of the crowded city, they have made men of the most hostile feelings, the most distant regions, and diversified conditions, rush to the aid of each other, and feel a special joy and satisfaction that they have been able to afford relief to a Brother Mason.
Benjamin Franklin

Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. -James Madison

"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, Liberals and Serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, Whigs and Tories, Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last one of Aristocrats and Democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all." ~ Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee, 1824. ME 16:73

The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately by the grace of God." ~ Thomas Jefferson to Roger C. Weightman, 1826. ME 16:182

“The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of [private cartel] lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.”
President Thomas Jefferson (a founder of America in condemnation of present and future monopoly money power. 1743-1826)

“Competition [i.e. capitalism] is a sin.”
“I want to own nothing and control everything.”
“The ability to deal with people is as purchasable a commodity as sugar or coffee and I will pay more for that ability than for any other under the sun.”
John D. Rockefeller (Fascist cartel robber baron and promoter of the U.S. “Federal Reserve” Act in alliance with the Rothschild bloc. 1839-1937)

“I don’t care who the government is. Let me control the money and I will control the country.”
Mayer Amschel Rothschild (attributed to the German godfather of the Rothschild bank cartel and grandfather to heir Lord Baron Nathaniel Mayer de Rothschild: owner of the Bank of England and a key promoter of the U.S. “Federal Reserve” Act. 1744-1812)

“We will have world government whether or not we like it. The only question is whether world government will be achieved by conquest or consent.”
James Paul Warburg (monopoly banker in testimony before the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Warburg was an agent of the Rockefeller-JP Morgan-Rothschild banking bloc and son of Paul Warburg, chief architect of the “Federal Reserve” Corporation, an unconstitutional private bank monopoly set up for cartel hegemony. February 17, 1950)

"Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people."
Henry Kissinger (ex U.S. Secretary of State and ongoing agent for the ruling class. Living. Quote 1970)

“The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the government of the U.S. ever since the days of Andrew Jackson. History depicts Andrew Jackson as the last truly honorable and incorruptible American president.”

President FDR (on Fascist rule in a letter to corporate con man “Colonel” Edward M. House, a founder of the Council on Foreign Relations and political fixer for the ruling class. House also handled President Wilson for the foisting of the privately rigged “Federal Reserve” Corp bank monopoly. 11/21