Home » Blog » Corporate Control
Blog for America
Corporate Control
It is a well-known and unfortunate fact in the United States that businesses, corporations, and special interests play a much greater role in our politics and government than we would certainly like it to. There has been, for decades, if not centuries, the element to our politics that is the corrupting influence of money. It has become particularly pronounced in recent years, especially in this 2008 Presidential Election, where candidates of both political parties are raising millions and millions of dollars each in campaign cash. In fact, this could be the first billion-dollar presidential campaign in our country’s history. That is, assuredly, not a positive sign.
The great influence of money in our politics is a very dangerous thing because, if the main emphasis in politics becomes money, the people who have the most money, also known as the people who can afford to donate large sums to political campaigns, will gain an inordinate influence in our government. This means that the rich and the corporations will gain a much greater influence in our politics than will the povertized and the Middle-Class. It is very important to ensure that this small minority of ultra-rich citizens never gains complete and total control of our government. That would degrade and deplenish our grand democracy, which is based upon the values of being of the people, by the people, and for the people.
(Click Read More for the rest of this post)Unfortunately, it seems as though the ultra-rich minority has already gained nearly complete control of our government, the Democratic Party, and the Republican Party, and, not only that, but our entire country as well. Let me explain my thoughts on this matter. Firstly, the financial and political elites are often the same people, for the reason that the financial elites have enough money to launch and run a political campaign, and to maintain a political career. These financial elites who gain political office have, first and foremost, their own self-interest, and therefore the self-interest of other financial elites, at heart. Adding to the reasoning of the statement that politicians have the self-interest of financial elites at heart is the knowledge that most politicians take extraordinary amounts of money from the ultra-rich and the corporations (financial elites). Political leaders find it necessary to take money from these elites, for the reason that they would not be able to win elections otherwise. In order to win an election, one political party has to out-raise another political party. Make no mistake, money is the greatest determining factor in the outcome of elections. The Republican Party has been raising money from the businesses and special interests for years now, and the Democrats, in an attempt to regain power from the Republicans and win elections, had to establish an allegiance to the corporations and ultra-rich as well, to raise enough money to be serious competition. Bill and Hillary Clinton accomplished this, by taking the Democratic Party to Wall Street, and removing it from Main Street, where it had resided for decades. Shame on them, and other Democratic political leaders, for degrading the sacred “Party of the People”.
So, both of our political parties, both competing with each other by trying to raise the most amount of money for elections, have sold out and both become the property of the ultra-rich and the corporations, who are the entities which can donate the most money to political campaigns. And, since our two-party system, with the Republican and Democratic parties, completely controls, and in fact has a monopoly on, our politics and government, our government itself has been sold out to the corporations, ultra-rich, and special interests.
It is also a noted fact in the United States that these same corporations, and the same ultra-rich people, who buy and sell our politicians on a regular basis also own all of the media outlets in the United States. All of the major media outlets in this country are owned by five large corporations. That is a fact. This has caused many to rightfully describe and decry the mainstream media in the United States as the “Corporate-Owned Media”.
Now, when I’m talking about the corporate media, some mistakenly believe that I mean FOX News alone, as it is seemingly the worst, most corrupt media outlet. But, in actuality, with regard to the corporate media, I’m talking about every single major news network. MSNBC, CNN, FOX, etcetera. They’re all owned by large, greedy corporations. And having all of our major media outlets owned by large corporations is very bad for our democracy, especially since it now seems that the corporations are allowed to exercise censorship with disregard to the public good, and to promote the interests of the corporations rather than the interests of the entire country. These corporations can exclude and include presidential candidates on their media outlets based on whether or not these candidates agree with the corporations and whether they would help the corporations as President. If you don’t have the best interest of the corporations at heart, don’t expect to be given an opportunity to talk and express your view and spread your message on their news media channel.
There was a recent example of this in the decision to keep Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich out of a recent MSNBC Presidential debate. General Electric, a beneficiary of the military-industrial complex which Kucinich would fight as President, instructed their MSNBC media outlet to keep Kucinich (and, earlier, Former Senator Mike Gravel) out of the debate. The Kucinich campaign appealed to a judge, because Kucinich had been invited to the debate, and then disinvited just a few days later. The judge ruled in favor of Kucinich’s inclusion and ordered that Kucinich be included (or he would stop the debate), so MSNBC (backed by GE) fought tooth and nail to keep Kucinich out, appealing the judge’s decision. The case went to the Nevada Supreme Court. The Nevada Supreme Court ruled in favor of MSNBC and GE, and set the precedent that the corporate media can determine who can and who can’t speak out on their media outlets, based on the 1st Amendment right of Freedom of the Press. But I thought that Freedom of the Press was supposed to bolster the already-given individual right of Freedom of Speech, not to allow large corporations to decide who’s allowed to speak and who’s not. Corporate control of the media needs to be more regulated, not less regulated.
Corporations owning the media gives the media, in my mind, two very unfortunate goals that they might not have otherwise. One of them is to maintain the status quo (under which both the media outlets, the corporations, and the rich are currently flourishing), and keep average Americans good and distracted and ignorant in order to do so. As long as the ultra-rich and the corporations maintain the ignorance of the poor and the middle-class, they can remain in power. If the People realized what was going on here, there would be a revolution. The other goal of the corporate media is to, of course, like any good corporation, make lots of money. Having a media outlet be owned by a business essentially makes that media outlet a business in itself, as the main goal of the business that owns it will be to make money.
The Corporate Media accomplishes both of its main goals (maintaining the status quo and making money) by using the material that they air on the corporate media television channels to frighten, misinform, and distract the People. The fear, distractions, and misinformation serve to preserve the status quo by promoting ignorance throughout the population. Also, the distractions that they air also appeal to the worst part of human nature (the most small-minded part of human nature, focusing on people, gossip, and celebrity). Because the media material appeals to the most basic, primitive, small-minded part of our nature, we all enjoy it and tune in and watch, and so the news media profits a great deal as a result. Sensationalist and celebrity stories are what the media lives upon today. They breathe it as we breathe air.
In reality, “politics” means “policies”, but the type of “politics” that the news media outlets air does not have anything to do with policies. It is a new brand of politics, “celebritics”, which focuses on the sensationalism and celebrity of certain candidates and their individual actions rather than focusing on policy issues.
The focus on celebrity has worked out so well profit-wise for the Corporate Media that they have even tried to incorporate celebrity into every aspect of the 2008 presidential race. This is reflected in the fact that, from the beginning, the media has tried to make the Democratic Presidential race a competition between the two most sensationalist stories. Of course, I’m talking about the stories of electing the first woman or first African American as President. The Media gave so much more media attention to the sensationalist and celebrity stories (which is profitable for them), and, also, the corporations who own the media have both Clinton and Obama very soundly in their pockets. It’s a double-benefit for the media and the corporations which own it. But, you have a third choice on the Democratic side, a candidate who is not owned, lock, stock, and barrel, by the corporations: Former Alaskan Senator Mike Gravel. However, it is unlikely that Gravel will ever be elected President, even though he is honest and has integrity and courage. The corporations of this country use the media outlets to further their goals, and ensure that they, the corporations, are firmly and completely in control of our government and all of the major leaders in it. The corporations, with the power of the propaganda sent from their media outlets behind them, can make it a certainty that only a presidential candidate friendly to the corporations will be elected in 2008.
When the corporations who own the politicians own the media outlets, it is essentially as though the state, the government, owns the media outlets, in an indirect way. It seems to me that, in that way, our press is no freer than the press in Russia, where the three major media outlets are all owned directly by the State. In my mind, the corporations are the government here in the United States, and they, even more frighteningly, own nearly all of our sources of information. Capitalism can be a force for good in the world, but only when it is regulated. And it is my belief that we certainly don’t regulate our corporations enough, especially with respect to the ownership of media outlets. But, really, how can we expect to get anything major done in the realm of regulating corporations when all of the political leaders lack the political will to do so, for the very reason that they are owned by those corporations? Only the most courageous of political leaders will forfeit their political careers and go against the corporations (their campaign donors) on the basis of principle. And it seems to me that, right now, we have quite a shortage of courageous and principled politicians; no one in our government today even has the courage enough to filibuster a war funding bill for this illegal, unconstitutional, damaging Iraq War that we are currently immersed in. Political calculation trumps political courage.
Not only is our government controlled by corporations, our entire country and our culture is controlled by corporations, and we, like good brainwashed sheep, march in step, on their command, to their tune of greed and selfishness. Our entire culture has been permeated by the values of the corporations. This is illustrated by the emphasis that the United States puts on both competition and the individual. These two values are ingrained into our beings. These two things combined, emphasis on competition and emphasis on the individual, breeds a culture of selfishness, one of the most notable characteristics of a corporation, which nearly always puts profit and its own self-interest before the public interest. We are seeing that culture of selfishness being bred in Americans every day; many of us all all so immersed in our own selfish little material pursuits, such as watching reality TV and American Idol and focusing on making a great deal of money and so on, that we care relatively little about informing ourselves about politics and focusing on our shared necessity for things to be done in the name of the public good. We are living in country ruled by the corporations, both in our government and in our media, so it is really no wonder that things are so bad here in the United States today.
5:47 PM EST
Michael -
As usal, you are often first to comment but not first to give Howard any credit.
Howard is first.
Obama needs a big bat up and tens of thousands of small donations can bury Clinton right now.
Another wierd post....
Bill planned to take the hits instead of Hillary. He is returning the favor.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01222008/new...
We can't afford four more years with a President who drives the economy into the ground. We can't afford four more years with a President who fights an endless war in Iraq. We can't afford four more years with a President who gives tax cuts to companies who ship jobs overseas; with a President who can't get every American the health care they deserve; with a President we just can't trust.
I don't just want to beat John McCain - I want it to be a landslide. If you're as committed as I am, I need you to make a contribution today:
Only the Democratic Party is legally allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money to back our nominee and tell the real story about John McCain. We proved that our strategy worked in 2006, and it will work again this fall.
Help us today:
http://www.democrats.org/FightMcCain
Let's get going,
Howard Dean
seashell wrote "Yes, it would Tom. JE was my 4th choice."
So then, here's the thing. You complain about it as part of Obama's platform, but never let it bother you the whole time you were sitting here pumping up John Edwards' balloon. Why not acknowledge that candidates have the potential to be good presidents regardless of some policy positions they have with which you may not agree. I would hazard a guess that that was the case with Dean for virtually everyone here.
John Lennon, Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr and George Harrison join the Maharishi for a meditation weekend in August 1967.
Photo: AP
February 7, 2008
THE guru to the Beatles who introduced transcendental meditation to the West, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, has died at his Dutch home.
The 91-year-old reclusive Indian mystic shot to international prominence when the Beatles visited him in the Himalayas in 1968 to learn his meditation techniques.
Film footage of the four Beatles sitting cross-legged in white robes and garlanded with flowers was beamed round the world. The Beach Boy Mike Love, the British singer Donovan and the American actress Mia Farrow joined the sessions.
After teaching other 1960s and '70s stars, the Maharishi with the flowing hair and white beard gained a worldwide following, with more than 5 million people studying his methods.
The Maharishi was both an entrepreneur and a monk, a spiritual man who sought a world stage from which to expound the joys of inner happiness. His critics called his organisation a cult business enterprise. In the press he was often dismissed as a hippie mystic, the "Giggling Guru".
His Global Country of World Peace movement said in a statement yesterday: "His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi … passed away peacefully. Maharishi's work is complete. He has done what he set out to do in 1957 - to lay the foundation for a peaceful world. Now, Maharishi is being welcomed with open arms into heaven."
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/02/06/1202233948286.html
(RIP Maharishi Mahesh - the meditation for love and peace will continue.
Mike wrote "none of my $ is going towards politcians............instead..a nice vacation."
How long?
Tom, not getting into it with you. Yes, even Hillary has the potential to be a good prez. Happy now? LOL
Bye! Important peaceful things calling.
seashell "Yes, even Hillary has the potential to be a good prez. Happy now?"
I'm delighted no end.
For anyone interested in perhaps a little humor tonight, Michael Moore will be on Larry King tonight. (gotta really like Larry, even when he's grouchy:))
Jeanne Cummings is reporting now at Politico that:
"Barack Obama's campaign is on track to raise another $30 million in February, sources close to the Illinois senator say, . . .
" . . . .
"His campaign has raised $2.2 million in the past 24 hours, sources say.
"Obama's financial superiority is straining the Clinton campaign at this point. . . .
" . . . .
"And, according to the Obama campaign, only 3 percent of his donors have given the maximum $2,300 donation for the primary.
"That means he can go back to the vast majority of his supporters."
" . . . .
"[N]early half of Obama’s individual contributors in the fourth quarter of 2007 gave donations of $200 or less — amounts so small that the Federal Election Commission doesn’t even demand the givers be named on disclosure reports.
"According to the campaign, that pattern continued in January. Of the thousands of Internet donations Obama received, 90 percent amounted to less than $100 each. Ten thousand people gave between $5 and $10."
Hillary using failed Nelson strategy to try and get Florida delegates. Shame on both of them.
Hi all. Both candidates did well. Essentially, a tie. What next?
* rdorgan
Wed, 02/06/08
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Im being very merciful with you this week, I am not without compassion.............dont push your luck.
Seeing [San Francisco} Mayor Gavin Newsom on the national stage with former president Bill Clinton on Monday night is a reminder of how political winds can change. On the eve of the biggest night of the presidential primaries, Newsom shared the spotlight during a town hall meeting staged and broadcast on cable TV and satellite radio by the Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign.
But just four years ago, current Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is said to have declined to have his picture taken in San Francisco with Newsom, who was then at the center of a national uproar over his decision to allow same-sex marriage in San Francisco.
"I gave a fundraiser, at his (Obama's) request at the Waterfront restaurant," said former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown. "And he said to me, he would really appreciate it if he didn't get his photo taken with my mayor. He said he would really not like to have his picture taken with Gavin."
Today, of course, Obama's people are backpedaling away from that account like crazy. His deputy campaign director, Steve Hildebrand, who lives with his partner as an openly gay man, calls it "a ridiculous story."
"Barack Obama gets his picture taken with gay people all the time," Hildebrand said. "Including me, his deputy campaign manager."
But insiders at City Hall, both current and former members of Newsom's staff, recall the incident well. And you can bet that Newsom hasn't forgotten it either.
"He was pissed," said one former staffer.
7:18 PM
15.Michael Ellis
Wed, 02/06/08
Reply to this
* rdorgan
Wed, 02/06/08
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Im being very merciful with you this week, I am not without compassion.............dont push your luck.
+++
Sir Michael -
What ? As Jack Nicholson says in one of his movies "You can't handle the truth", that you often catch the new thread wave but never mention that your (all of our) surfing, in this particular blog realm, is due to one man -- Dean, Howard Dean ? It's just customary to give him his dues, that's all.
Now as to you threatning me "don't push your luck", well that's your problem.
7:23 PM EST
.
*** cChalfonte***
Wed, 02/06/08
Reply to this
Hi all. Both candidates did well. Essentially, a tie. What next?
+++
Well, cChalfonte, a guy with the initials MB is getting restless:
http://wcbstv.com/local/michael.bloomberg.president.2.647576.html
In California:
Gays and lesbians also broke sharply for Clinton, backing her 60 percent to 25 percent.
don't p!ss of The Gays;)
Pats fans are touchy this week Mike
Bloomberg may run, he may not. Meanwhile we support our candidate(s).
He can bring this same passion to the White House. We need a President who not only talks about compassion but has lived a life of compassionate choices. We need a man who has lived a life outside of Washington to understand the problems we all face.
Americans know this; they are ready for a new course in our politics. Just as the voters in my state turned away from the politics of the past and embraced the Democratic Party’s vision for the future, so our country can as well.
Thank you,
Tim Kaine
What did Howard say????
Amdrea Mitchell just mentioned that Howard Dean said something to the effect that if there was no frontrunner just before the convention that the candidates were going to have to "sit down" and get their heads together and one or the other was going to have to drop out.
Looks like Howard wants smooth sailing through the Convention and on into the WH.
I'm thinking, at this point, he's right. Get through the mechanics, doesn't matter who.
It's sort of like his answer about single payer, which was that we should get everyone covered now, and we can argue about the details later. So, go Howard. Let's get ANY Democrat elected, get a 60 plus congress and we'll deal with arguing with whoever it is later.
cC, thank you. Another point where Obama differs from Al Gore. You would think they would stop asking for his endorsement and putting those rumors out there. Didn't they hear of that EXCELLENT video Al Gore put out calling for equal rights and there should be same sex marriages?
Gay men and women should have the same rights
http://current.com/items/88817757_gay_me...
puddle has some rough weather going through her neighborhood today and PA has one wicked cell west of Gettysburg
26. Audrey, wOOT!
"Single Payer....Universal....not really....It's a punishment to force people to buy Health Care".......eeehhhhrrrr....NEXT!
I'm thinking, at this point, he's right. Get through the mechanics, doesn't matter who.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
the policies of the two might be similar but one unites the Republicans and the other expands the base of our Party
Linda wrote "Single Payer....Universal....not really....It's a punishment to force people to buy Health Care".......eeehhhhrrrr....NEXT!'
What did you think of candidate Howard Dean's plan to extend health care coverage?
audrey, I certainly disagree with Howard on this.
It does matter who the candidate is. I'm voting for the person not the party. Been there done that. No more.
Linda in NM--I'm just making the point that one can legitimately make the claim that Barack Obama clearly "games" decisions. Not saying this makes him a poor choice but it isn't fair to put that claim solely on Hillary. Obama does it too.
7:47 PM EST
19.Phil Specht
Wed, 02/06/08
Reply to this
Pats fans are touchy this week Mike
+++
Ok, so I stick up for Howard and that gets segwayed into something else.
Well, Phil, I'm off -- happy ?
Obama has raised 3,896,005 since polls closed on 5 Feb.
Really just popped in to say, my state still hasn't finalized the election.
Hillary is still up by 210 votes, but they have not given any updates on the 17,000 provisional ballots and the other 3 or 4 caucus sites.
President - Dem Primary
New Mexico -180 of 184 precincts
Name Party Votes
Clinton , Hillary Dem 66,173
Obama , Barack Dem 65,963
Source: Associated Press as of noon MST
Almost 17,000 provisional ballots yet to be counted.
I sense a mini blog movement by Edwards supporters to flirt with Clinton and it might just be to get a rise out of you Obama freaks lol
Huckabee would be in lead if Fred Thompson hadn't been in the race because he would have won South Carolina and leveraged that into a MO win
34. cC, yes, I definitely agree. Like his 3 day Religious Tour in South Carolina.
rae hart.....
We have two candidates, they are both big D's.
They are both going to bear watching. We better have a veto proof congress.
Anyway, I was asking if someone else knew exactly what Howard said, because you couldn't tell from what Andrea said.
BBC: Bush's Grandfather Planned Fascist Coup In America
New investigation sheds light on clique of powerbrokers, including Prescott Bush, who sought to overthrow U.S. government and implement Hitlerian policies
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
A BBC Radio 4 investigation sheds new light on a major subject that has received little historical attention, the conspiracy on behalf of a group of influential powerbrokers, led by Prescott Bush, to overthrow FDR and implement a fascist dictatorship in the U.S. based around the ideology of Mussolini and Hitler.
In 1933, Marine Corps Maj.-Gen. Smedley Butler was approached by a wealthy and secretive group of industrialists and bankers, including Prescott Bush the current President's grandfather, who asked him to command a 500,000 strong rogue army of veterans that would help stage a coup to topple then President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
According to the BBC, the plotters intended to impose a fascist takeover and "Adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression."
(Article continues below)
The conspirators were operating under the umbrella of a front group called the American Liberty League, which included many families that are still household names today, including Heinz, Colgate, Birds Eye and General Motors.
Butler played along with the clique to determine who was involved but later blew the whistle and identified the ringleaders in testimony given to the House Committee on un-American Activities.
However, the Committee refused to even question any of the individuals named by Butler and his testimony was omitted from the record, leading to charges that they were involved in covering the matter up, and the majority of the media blackballed the story.
General Smedley Butler, author of the famous quote "war is a racket", exposed the fascist plotters but was subsequently demonized and shunned by the government and the media.
In 1936, William Dodd, the U.S. Ambassador to Germany, wrote a letter to President Roosevelt in which he stated,
"A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state to supplant our democratic government and is working closely with the fascist regime in Germany and Italy. I have had plenty of opportunity in my post in Berlin to witness how close some of our American ruling families are to the Nazi regime.... A prominent executive of one of the largest corporations, told me point blank that he would be ready to take definite action to bring fascism into America if President Roosevelt continued his progressive policies. Certain American industrialists had a great deal to do with bringing fascist regimes into being in both Germany and Italy. They extended aid to help Fascism occupy the seat of power, and they are helping to keep it there. Propagandists for fascist groups try to dismiss the fascist scare. We should be aware of the symptoms. When industrialists ignore laws designed for social and economic progress they will seek recourse to a fascist state when the institutions of our government compel them to comply with the provisions."
The proven record of Prescott Bush's involvement in financing the Nazi war machine dovetails with the fact that he was part of a criminal cabal that actively sought to impose a fascist coup in America.
Prescott did not succeed but many would argue that two generations down the line the mission has all but been accomplished.
In his documentary film Martial Law, Alex Jones interviews John Buchanan, who was instrumental in uncovering the documents tying Prescott Bush to the financing of the Third Reich. Watch a clip above. The subject is also covered in Alex's upcoming film, End Game, which includes rare video of Smedley Butler's testimony.
Click here to listen to the BBC Radio 4 investigation
Phil wrote "I sense a mini blog movement by Edwards supporters to flirt with Clinton and it might just be to get a rise out of you Obama freaks lol"
It seems more likely that Edwards supporters always gravitated towards white senators with moderate voting records, only temporarily keeping Clinton from ending the race early as you've suggested. They enjoy parroting the populist rhetoric but when push comes to shove, war authorization voters are like soulmates. They're together in the trenches.
I haven't given to the Obama campaign in months put this email gave me the motivation to give $25
"The Clinton infusion (loan) of $5 million -- and there are reports it could end up being as much as $20 million -- will give them huge resources for the next set of primaries and caucuses.
Thanks to you, we have raised more than $3 million since the polls closed on February 5th. But we have no choice -- we must match their $5 million right now.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community...
can somebody explain the Washington caucus and primary division? is the caucus the allocation and election of delegates?
Obama Says GOP Will Have Dirt on Clinton
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
Sen. Barack Obama predicted Wednesday that Republicans will have a dump truck full of dirt to unload on Hillary Rodham Clinton if the former first lady wins the Democratic presidential nomination. Obama said he offers the party its best hope of winning the White House, a claim Clinton also made.
At a news conference the morning after Super Tuesday, Obama offered some pointed advice to members of Congress and other party leaders who will attend the national convention this summer as delegates not chosen in primaries or caucuses.
He said if he winds up winning the most delegates in voting, they "would have to think long and hard about how they approach the nomination when the people they claim to represent have said, 'Obama's our guy.'" ... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...
Ron Paul has $30 million maybe Hillary can borrow some.
He said if he winds up winning the most delegates in voting, they "would have to think long and hard about how they approach the nomination when the people they claim to represent have said, 'Obama's our guy.'"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
had Obama won CA he would be in the drivers seat instead of tied
he needs to win a few more before he starts talking about an end game
Ron Paul isn't spending his money. I'm thinking he might be closer to a third party run than Bloomberg.
I haven't even got the credit card bill for my last donation to Edwards Holly or I would join you. It is going to take a lot of money to run in Texas and Ohio the same day and right now is the time to be opening more offices
A new thread has dawned ...
As I recall, Kerry pretty much bought the IA caucus by mortgaging his house. HC can't be faulted IMO.
Quote by BO? "Asked about Clinton's recent comment that she would not allow herself to be victimized by the type of Swift Boat-style attacks that were leveled against the Democratic nominee, Sen. John Kerry, in the 2004 race, Obama said he had been vetted by his opponent in the nominating campaign.
"I have to just respond by saying that the Clinton research operation is about as good as anybody's out there," he said.
"I assure you that having engaged in a contest against them for the last year that they've pulled out all the stops." end quote
Truly, I wish this guy didn't seem so naive. He ain't seen nothing yet, if he's the nominee. Both of them have skeltons and even if BO were to be squeaky clean, Rovey-poo will find something, lies or not.
If there's truth to the Howard statement, watch for a HC/BO ticket.
Keith made mention of Howard's statement in that he said that if there were a tie, there would have to be an "arrangement" before the convention. Howard is trying to avoid a spectacle at the convention, which I would enjoy actually, but then so would Rove.
Add your comment
(to reply directly to a comment, click the reply icon for that comment)Post closed to commenting
Videos of some of the 64 House Healthcare Heroes standing strong for a public health insurance option
Congressman Emanuel Cleaver
Congressman Lloyd Dogget
Congressman Keith Ellison
Congressman Bob Filner
Congressman Phil Hare
Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey
Congresswoman Maxine Waters
Blog for America
-
1 Turncoat Senator vs. 410,649 Americans
By Mary R on Nov 19, 2009 3:06 PM EST -
Send a message they can't miss
By Mary R on Nov 17, 2009 12:00 PM EST -
Will the real Democrat please stand up?
By Mary R on Nov 11, 2009 2:03 PM EST -
3 Million and Counting
By Mary R on Nov 6, 2009 12:47 PM EST -
Is Sen. Nelson listening to Nebraska?
By Mary R on Nov 6, 2009 12:31 PM EST
Recent Blog Posts
-
Sunday items
By Gerry Lykins on Nov 22, 2009 8:25 AM EST -
Friday finds
By Gerry Lykins on Nov 20, 2009 7:48 AM EST -
1 Turncoat Senator vs. 410,649 Americans
By Mary R on Nov 19, 2009 3:06 PM EST -
Nationalize all Health Insurance companies
By Carl B on Nov 19, 2009 3:05 PM EST -
Hanover Township 2010 Primary Election Candidates
By Trudy Zaja on Nov 19, 2009 2:26 AM EST
-
By Michael Ellis on Feb 6, 2008 6:20 PM ESTFirst...............and none of my $ is going towards politcians............instead..a nice vacation.