BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

John McCain:
Portrait of a Demagogue

Demagogue: “A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.”
The American Heritage Dictionary

Demagogues are vampires who prey on the viability of society. They depend on hatred, hostility, and dissension for their very political survival. Wherever there is underlying tension and hostility, they exploit it, and in the absence of hostility, they create it. They have a vested interest in creating discontent, and they are most creatively prolific, when society is in turmoil.

And there’s a very good reason for that. A demagogue’s agenda is virtually always fundamentally at odds with what’s in the best interest of the people. So the only way that they can get the people’s support is to appeal to their hatred, fear, or anger��"that’s when individuals are most prone to act without taking the time to think about their actions. Demagogues specialize, therefore, in appealing to the emotions. That allows them to circumvent the mind, and thus, not have to deal with the nuisance of one’s common sense.

An example of that strategy at work is clearly demonstrated at a recent John McCain rally. While addressing his angry supporters--who were already frustrated over the economy, the financial bailout, pending foreclosures, and the loss of jobs--instead of reassuring them by sharing policy initiatives that he’d developed to address their concerns, he further inflamed the crowd by giving the floor to, and agreeing with, a supporter who stood up to called Barack and Nancy Pelosi hooligan socialists.   Read More »

I've been investigating ACORN for the past 2 days. Nearly all of the voter fraud allegations against ACORN have come from the Consumers Rights League.

The Consumers Rights League just popped up out of nowhere. I called them. There is only one person running this "non-profit, non-partisan, educational organization", Jim Terry.

A week ago, Terry submitted written testimony against ACORN. You can see it on their website here: http://www.consumersrightsleague.org/uploadedfiles/JamesTerryACORN9-24.pdf

Practically the whole document substantiates its findings with news articles, no actual court cases. My research is showing that many of these articles don't exist or refer to cases that were shown to have a low-level employee filling out voter registrations to show paid-time work, but Prosecutors of these cases point out that there was obviously NO INTENT TO CAST A VOTE with these.


One of Terry's citations in his written testimony:
10 Ervin, Keith. �Felony charges filed against 7 in state�s biggest case of voter-registration fraud.� Seattle Times. July 26, 2007.

Statement from the Prosecuting Attorney on the case:
��Indeed, a joint federal and state investigation has determined that this scheme was not intended to permit illegal voting." http://www.metrokc.gov/proatty/news/2007/Voter%20Registration%20Statement.htm


Jim Terry is the one credited for "exposing ACORN" and his "findings" are the primary source of quotes against ACORN. He's been quoted throughout the news & even interviewed on FOX News.

This is a Republican posing as a Consumer Advocate organization, setup to smear ACORN (and subsequently Obama).   Read More »

I hope you don't mind, but I'm posting this one to the Democratic site. Somehow I think Obama will view this as the best $25 he's collected during the entire campaign:

"That one" (14+ / 0-)

My husband, blue collar white guy, truck mechanic,
flag outside on the front porch, not a political junkie at all (basically, someone Sarah Palin would condescendingly describe as "Joe Six-Pack"), called me a little while ago to tell me he sent $25 to Obama's campaign. (With no prompting at all from me, BTW.)

It was his first political contribution in the 20 years I've known him. You know why he did it? Because McCain called Obama "that one." He yelled at the screen when McCain said that, and couldn't stop venting about it all through the debate.

I can't exactly describe his reaction -- it wasn't just "how dare he insult the candidate I'm voting for." It was as if it was his patriotic duty to help stand up for Obama and stop McCain.

So yeah, I think he sees Obama as his President.

From Daily Kos

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

A Footnote to Posterity

As I watched the second presidential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain, my mind drifted off to when I once watched a Space Shuttle landing. All the drama of the mission was over, and the space walk had been completed successfully. Now all that was left to complete a perfect mission, was to bring the bird in for a landing.

As the shuttle grew larger over the horizon, I remember being overwhelmed with pride over this marvel of engineering, and for the thousands of ordinary people who had come together to accomplish its mission. Then as we continued to look out over the horizon, the sound of unabridged competence suddenly crackled forth as the commander of this magnificent vessel spoke to ground control: “Landing gear down, and all systems online. Glide path and descent, five by five.” Then after several seconds of awestruck silence, and as we watched the majestic bird descend, the commander’s voice chimed in once again, with that matter-of-fact tone, as though he was pulling his car into the driveway. “Thirty seconds to touchdown.”

As impressed as I was over the feat of engineering that went into the space shuttle and its mission, I found myself even more fascinated by what must have gone into building the kind of man with the competence, intelligence, and cool professionalism that could command such a vessel--and I had that very same feeling as I watched the cool professionalism of Barack Obama’s performance last night. I felt privileged to bear witness, to the very best this nation has to offer.   Read More »

I saw a report on yahoo news recently that John McCain seems to be very irritated in recent interviews. After Sarah Palin becoming a political laughing stock due to the cast of Saturday Night Live, I wouldn't expect him to react any other way. I'm not voting for the man, but I think he's made a couple serious mistakes he should have seen the repurcusions ahead of time from.First of all, choosing a beautiful female VP is going to put much more attention on her every words than someone who has less attractive qualities. I haven't heard much at all about Joe Biden in the past couple weeks, but if Obama had picked a female just as equally as attractive as Palin, as unjust as it sounds, I believe she'd be taking the spotlight just as much. As a nation, and as sad as it is to mention, many of the people cannot look beyond Palin's looks and look at her seriously about politics. I believe McCain should have seen this coming, and would be ready for the news media's onslaught.

On another note, he decided to chum it up with Bush. Surely they are out there, but I haven't met many republicans that feel too confident voting for someone that's a buddy with the guy. In my opinion, I don't think this was such a smart move. When going against someone as articulate as Obama, you've got to be ready for everything.

Besides actually getting out to vote next month, being REGISTERED to vote is the next most important thing we need to do.  

This site has a very detailed look at each state's requirements, but here's a quick look at the deadlines for registering:

Alabama     Fri, Oct. 24
Alaska     Sun, Oct. 5 (postmark by Sat, Oct. 4)
Arizona     Mon, Oct. 6
Arkansas     Mon, Oct. 6
California     Mon, Oct. 20
Colorado     Mon, Oct. 6
Connecticut     Tues, Oct. 21
Delaware     Sat, Oct. 11
District of Columbia     Mon, Oct. 6
Florida     Mon, Oct. 6

   Read More »

On September 11, John McCain spoke in Shanksville, Pennsylvania about the heroes of Flight 93. On this historic flight, a few very brave people charged the cockpit to try to wrest control of the airplane from 9/11 terrorists. Their selfless act quite possibly stopped a second attack of Washington D.C. which is widely believed would have targeted the White House or Capitol building. McCain states “They and, very possibly I, owe our lives to the passengers who summoned the courage and love necessary to deny our depraved and hateful enemies their terrible triumph.”

In his speech, John McCain points out one hero in particular, Mark Bingham �" Mark was a great man, respected and loved by his colleagues and friends. In his speech, John McCain continues “I spoke at the memorial service for one of them, Mark Bingham. I acknowledged that few of us could say we loved our country as well as he and all the heroes of September 11 had. The only means we possess to thank them is to try to be as good an American as they were. We might fall well short of their standard, but there is honor in the effort.”

As a speaker at that memorial service, John McCain would also know that Mark was gay. Perhaps, Mr. McCain, if you feel the need to tout your involvement in his memorial service, you could honor his sacrifice by providing him some of the basic rights allowed to others in our great country.

By rights, I am not even talking about the issue of gay marriage. Notably, John McCain voted against prohibiting job discrimination based upon sexual orientation. He does not believe openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the military. McCain also voted against extending the definition of hate crimes to include sexual orientation.

Even with such heroism, McCain would have supported someone’s right to fire Mark because he was gay or even target him for violence because of his sexual preference. And while John McCain is thankful for Mark Bingham possibly saving his life, he would not support him as an openly gay person in the military.

I guess that is just John McCain’s way of saying thank you.

The vast majority of us Europeans are apalled at the possibility that American voters will choose McCain/Palin as our leaders (we have have no united voice in the world).

It's not a question of left or right, Rep. of Dem. - for us Europeans it's plain (Palin?) fear: American voters elected the obviously unqualified G W Bush and the well known neo-conservative Cheney in 2000. AND did the same again in 2004 when the full worldwide disaster of Iraq was already becoming apparent.

America's voters, now once again about even in the polls, are quite likely to show their dangerous ignorance a third time and give us 72 yr old past sell-by-date McCain and even more dangerous and utterly unqualified Palin with her good actuarial chance of "running the world".

KEY POINT - McCain's whole campaign depends on bragging that his 'experience' automatically qualifies him to be Commander-in-Chief. But of course experience does not in itself qualify!

Cheney and Rumsfeld had far more experience (executive not just Senatorial) but they manufactured the Iraq war that has proved far more disastrous financially as well as militarily, than ever did the Vietnam war.

And McCain, despite all that boasted "experience" in Vietnam and the Senate, backed and enthusiastically supported Cheney/Rumsfeld - thereby risking a second "Vietnam" in Iraq (Gen. Petraeus himself insists the temporary improvement is extremely fragile and could disappear as the US draws down: i.e the same "can't stay,can't leave" situation as in Vietnam).

Indeed, as a direct result of "Iraq", there's maybe even another "Vietnam" looming in Afghanistan!

Yet he - McCain - was the one US politician who might have made Bush think twice about the invasion had he - with his "experience" - come out against it!

Obama really must deliver this knockout blow: "experience" is NOT qualification - bad judgement nullifies it! And McCain voted for the worldwide catastrophe for the U.S. of "Iraq"
On all this please see my: www.dipconsult.eu

I'm glad most of you have finally realized that this bailout legislation is a major issue.

Unfortunately, you're running a about a week behind the power curve.
That is about the time I wrote my first post on this mess - to almost universal condemnation here.

I think the problem is that you aren't thinking enough like those people who have rifles and shot guns hanging in the back of their trucks.

They spend a lot more money on beer and cigarettes than they do at Starbucks - or for gasoline for that matter.

But they will decide this election.

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE


ODE TO A BLEEDING HEART�"2008

The one factor that has contributed most to the downward trajectory of America, was allowing the Republican Party to seize control of the political rhetoric. For over forty years the Democratic Party has allowed conservative zealots to run rampant in spreading distortions and misrepresentations regarding liberalism with impunity. As a direct result, two generations of Americans have come of age with a distorted view of what it means to be a liberal.

By failing to address this issue in a vigorous and forthright manner, the Democratic Party is not only doing a gross disservice to the honored memory of great Americans, but they're allowing the reckless distortion of fact to both blur our history, and gradually chip away at the fabric of this great nation. And by simply sitting back, without rebuttal, and allowing themselves, their constituency, and their agenda to be redefined in the eyes of the American people, they've allowed the term "liberal" to become a bad word in the political lexicon.

When you consider how methodically the conservatives have gone about mounting their assault on the liberal agenda, you can't help but recognize that it was a stroke of genius. Ironically, the Conservatives took the Democratic Party's primary strength and made it a political liability. First they took the party's penchant for being concern with the plight of the downtrodden and coined phrases such as "bleeding heart liberals" and "tax and spend Democrats." They then played on the frustration of the middle class by tying civil rights legislation, welfare, and crime into one neat bundle as the source of middle class woes; then they attributed all of these problems to what they called the Democrat's tendency to be " bleeding heart liberals". Then once the connection was made between minorities, welfare, crime, and the liberal agenda, it was just a matter of repeatedly hammering the message home.

The conservatives have used such tactics as spitting out the word "liberal" as though they were saying rapist. In this way they not only implanted a negative attitude toward liberalism in the mind of the voter, but it was said in such a way that the implication was made that it went without saying that all the negative stereotyping of liberalism was true. Their attitude seems to suggest, "I could substantiate what I'm saying about liberals, but I don't think it's necessary, since we all know what they're like." And in the election that spawned the "Republican revolution" the voters said, yes, we do, while the Democrats said absolutely nothing.

Through these strategies conservatives accomplished three goals with one ingenious stroke--they define minorities as slovenly criminals, they define liberal Democrats as "soft on crime", and they allowed themselves the freedom to place these thoughts in the American psyche wit

Hout having to substantiate their facts. Moreover, they accomplish all this in every sound bite, and without seeming to be racist, with the use of just one word--"liberal." In fact, conservatives have been so thorough in their disparagement of liberalism that at this point the word "liberal" is treated like vulgarity, and simply referred to as "the L word." one would think that Democrats would have been up in arms in defense of their great liberal tradition. It would seem that they would be falling all over one another in an attempt to debate this issue. But instead, they fell over one another trying to put distance between themselves and their own tradition. Much of the misery this nation has gone through over the past forty years might have been avoided if just one Democrat would have said, wait a minute, people! Read your history! It was the "bleeding heart liberal" policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt that brought this country back from the brink of disaster!

History is clear. In 1921--eight years before the great depression--Republicans took over the helm of this nation for 12 years. During that time there were three Republican administrations, the first of which was the administration of Warren G. Harding. History remembers Harding's administration for one thing more than anything other--scandal. It was during Harding's presidency that the Teapot Dome Scandal erupted. His administration was considered the most corrupt administration in the history of the United States--until Nixon's, then Reagan, and now Bush's administration.

Next, in 1923, came Calvin Coolidge, the president that Ronald Reagan is said to have most admired. Coolidge's policies of large tax cuts, allowing business a free-rein, and his encouragement of stock speculation contributed greatly to the impending stock market crash and The great depression that was to come.

Then in 1929 Herbert Hoover came to power. During his administration the stock market crashed, starting the great depression. In spite of the fact that by 1933 the unemployment rate was at 33.3% with 16 million people out of work, Hoover, the Republican, just sat, thinking that the economy would eventually rejuvenate itself. He felt the economy was fundamentally (Sound familiar?). Also during his administration 15,000 WWI veterans marched on Washington demanding that they be paid what they were owed by the government. Hoover responded by calling in federal troops to throw these ex-servicemen off government property.

Finally in 1933 Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a liberal Democrat, was elected overwhelmingly. After his election he immediately went about the business of developing a" New Deal" for the working class people of this country.

The New Deal had two components--one to help the economy to recover from the effects of the great depression, and a second component to give relief to the American people and to insure that they would never be placed in a position of total destitution again. To help heal the economy Roosevelt created programs that regulated business, controlled inflation, and brought about price stabilization; to bring relief to the people he signed The National Labor Relations Act , which guaranteed workers the right to collective bargaining, and he created the Social Security Administration to guarantee workers some sort of income once they became too old to work. He also signed the Fair Labor Standards Act which protected workers rights, and set a minimum wage to prevent workers from being exploited.

With his New Deal in place Franklin Delano Roosevelt, this "bleeding heart liberal", not only ledthis country out of the worst, Republican generated, crisis that this country has ever faced, but went on to lead the free world in victory over Hitler in WWII. He then ushered in the most sustained prosperity that the world has ever known.

One would think that conservatives would have seen the light at that point, but their passion to further enrich the wealthy at the expense of the middle and lower classes seemed to supersede all logic. Thus, from the moment that the New Deal went into place, conservatives have been determined to dismantle it. The closest they've come to succeeding started during the Reagan Administration with Supply-Side Economics, or, "Reaganomics"--and the battle is currently raging in Washington D.C. as we speak.

It started with Supply- Side Economics. That was a scheme hatched by U.S.C. economist Arthur Laffer and the Reagan crowd which was supposed to cut the deficit and balance the budget. The theory behind this sheme, came to be known as "Reaganomics," was ostensibly, if you cut taxes for business and people in the upper tax brackets, and then deregulated business of such nuisances as safety regulations and environmental safeguards, the beneficiaries would invest their savings into creating new jobs. In that way the money would eventually "trickle down" to the rest of us. Then, the resulting broadened tax base would not only help to bring down the deficit, but also subsidize the tremendously high defense budget. When the plan was first floated, even George Bush Sr, Reagan's vice president to be, called it "voodoo economics."

Reaganomics, for the most part, sought to undo many of the safeguards put into place during the Roosevelt era and create a business environment similar to that which was in place during the Coolidge Administration. What actually took place, however, was even more like the Coolidge era than planed. Instead of taking the money and investing it into creating new jobs, the money was used in wild schemes and stock market speculation. One of these schemes, the leveraged buy out, involved buying up large companies with borrowed funds secured by the company's assets, then paying off the loan by selling off the assets of the purchased company. This practice cost the citizens of this country an untold number of jobs. In addition, the bottom fell out of the stock market. On Monday, October 19, 1987 the Dow-Jones Average fell 508.32 points. It was the greatest one-day decline since 1914 - 15 years before the Great Depression.

And what about Ronald Reagan's promise to balance the budget and lower the deficit? By the time he left office he was not only the most prolific spender of any president in the history of the nation, but he also added more to the deficit than all of the other presidents from George Washington to his own administration combined. And what did the Republican Party propose to do about that? One of the Republican proposals in their "contract with America" was again, a capitol gains tax cut--for the rich.

So now, once again, a generation later, Republican, George W. Bush has come along and convinced the American people not to believe their lying eyes. And once again, he convinced America that we could create jobs by selling Gucci bags in a homeless shelter. Once again--even though we're still waiting for the "trickling windfall" from the Reagan era,�"he sold us on the fact that all we had to do was give Gucci a big enough tax break and he would create jobs.

But the laws of supply and demand are immutable--in the absence of resources, demand must come first , then supply. So just as in the Reagan era, if the people in the homeless shelter don't have the money to purchase the handbags, it doesn't matter how big a tax windfall we give Gucci, he's not going to hire more workers to make handbags that he can't sell.

But in their greed, the Republican Party and its business constituency refused to accept that simple principle. They said, we'll loan them the money to by the bags. But again, due to the boundless greed of the business community, instead of hiring the homeless consumers that they'd loaned the money to as workers to make the bags, they tried to squeeze every penny of profit out of the deal by hiring cheaper labor overseas. As a result, when the bill became due, not only did the homeless default on their loans, but the elaborate house of cards built on selling the valueless loans also collapse�"and guess who's now holding the "bag?" And now, all of a sudden, as McCain's position clearly demonstrates, the very same free-marketers who paid millions of dollars to keep the government out of the "free market", sees 85 billion reasons for government intervention.

Thus, history is clear. Conservative Republicans don't mind spending money, they just don't want
to spend it on those who need it--us; and they certainly don't mind government intervention in the free market�"as long as it's on their behalf.

When dealing with the Republican Party we must always remember, they're the party of Alexander Hamilton, one of this nation's founding fathers who believed that only those who owned property should even be allowed to vote. He was the quintessential elitist�"and with regard to the theme of the current election, firmly against change. He also said:

"All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the
rich and wellborn, the other the mass of the people.... The people are turbulent
and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first
class a distinct, permanent share in government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second, and as they cannot receive an advantage by a change, they therefore will ever maintain good government."
Debates of the Federalist Convention (May 14-September 17, 1787).

So, let's set the record straight. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, that "bleeding heart liberal", not only brought this nation back from the Great Depression, while saving the world from Hitler and imperialist Japan during his life, but his "New Deal" for the American people gave us the greatest prosperity we've ever known. It also allowed him to reach back from the grave, through the person of Bill Clinton, to save the nation from Ronald Reagan 50 years after his death. Now he's poised to do it, yet again, through Barack Obama, if the American people will simply open their eyes.

That isn't to say that the liberal Democratic philosophy corners the market on what is in the best interest of the nation--it is clear that both parties have had illustrious moments in the past. But this is one of those defining moments in American history that will determine whether this is to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, or a government where the citizens or nothing more than disposable resources for big business.


Eric L. Wattree



I take great pride in being the product of adversity, because having simply survived, provides me with unassailable credentials.

I haven't written in a while, but after the collapse of several of the largest financial keystones in the country I feel like it's important to get a few words out. The NY times and a few other news agencies have mentioned how Barack Obama is now changing his focus from previous topics over to the economy. I think that's great. There are enough Barack Obama supporters to understand where he's going and coming from to realize it's not just a publicity stunt. The thing that the NY Times and other organizations don't realize is that there is a huge fear in the back of many Americans minds as to what will happen now that banks and other huge companies are collapsing. It's NOT a publicity move. Obama didn't make this happen and he's not benefiting from giving his opinions about the situation. I for one would love to know how he will react to such a newsworthy even such as lehman going down the tubes. This is respectable. I hope the media don't twist it any more than they already have.

Roger Moore, Orlando Sentinel blog, 9/16/08
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_movies_blog/2008/09/obsession-a-dvd.html

The movie Obsession: Radical Islam's War With the West, whose trailer is below, was delivered with your Orlando Sentinel newspaper this AM. And, it is my understanding, the DVD was delivered to households receiving other newspapers around the country today as well. True?
Apparently, Parade Magazine isn't conservative enough for some folks. But hey, they paid to package it with our paper, so glad to be of service! Did the check clear?

Anyhoo, didya watch it? Check out the trailer if you have any questions about what it's about, and those who endorse it. Lots of Fox and Limbaugh plugs for it in that trailer. They're in lock step over its virtues. It's two-to-three years old, and the reason it's being shipped out to newspaper readers across America? Scaring the scareable before an election, apparently. Michael Moore's giving away his latest film on the Internet to do the same thing, but Obsession at least helps a paper's bottom line. More power to'em.   Read More »

Wayne Garcia, Creative Loafing, 9/15/08
http://blogs.creativeloafing.com/politicalwhore/2008/09/15/hate-mail-courtesy-of-your-daily-newspaper/

Readers of the St. Petersburg Times on Sunday found a little rancid bonus in their newspapers this weekend: a DVD called Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West, which is a hate film ostensibly about Islamic terror. It’s really a thinly veiled attempt to influence the presidential election by flooding anti-Muslim sentiment ahead of the Obama-McCain balloting in November.

Nothing like infusing the voters’ minds with fresh images of terror, especially little children as jihadists, only 50 days away from the day we decide whether to put a man named Barack Hussein Obama into office

Greg Mitchell, Editor & Publisher, 9/15/08
http://www.cair.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?mid1=676&&ArticleID=25477&&name=n&&currPage=1

As explored here this past weekend, the Clarion Fund has paid dozens of newspapers across the country -- almost solely in "swing" election states -- and The New York Times to distribute the "Islam terror" DVD "Obsession" with their home delivery packages. Among the larger cities where this has taken place: Miami, Philadelphia, Denver and Pittsburgh.

An estimated 28 million copies have been distributed so far, also through the mails and other magazines. An article at the group's site, www.radicalislam.org, all but endorsed John McCain this past week, then was pulled down.

But at least one newspaper turned away the money and refused to distribute it, calling it "divisive."

It's the Greensboro News & Record in North Carolina.. The longtime editor, John Robinson, explained his reasoning in a column yesterday.