Ridiculing Ralph

In a letter to Congress on July 23, 2008, Ralph Nader warned that the federal government's bank insurance fund may be insufficient to handle the developing crisis in the banking industry.

The day after Ralph sent out his warning, he was ridiculed in Congress.

One member, Spencer Bachus, at a Congressional hearing, mentioned Ralph's letter and said point blank "Our banks are well capitalized, our deposit insurance fund is sound. There's absolutely no factual basis for saying that there's not money there to pay."

Fast forward to September 17, 2008, today, less than two months after Ralph sent his letter.

And now we have an Associated Press story, featured prominently right now on the Drudge Report, with the headline "Federal bank insurance fund dwindling."

Here's the opening sentence from the AP report today:

"Banks are not the only ones struggling in the growing financial crisis. The fund established to insure their deposits is also feeling the pinch, and the taxpayer may be the lender of last resort."

The reality is that the Democrats and Republicans have screwed up royally.

They have screwed up because they are under the thumb of the big corporations.

The big corporations said -- weak regulation, weak law and order for corporations.

And the Democrats and Republicans delivered for their corporate paymasters.

The rest of us -- taxpayers and workers alike -- will now suffer the consequences -- through either increased taxes, lost jobs -- or both.

For his entire career, Ralph Nader has been sounding the alarm about the dangers of deregulation, about the dangers of a hands off approach to corporate power.

Time to listen up.

Reassert the public will.

And get behind the one Presidential candidacy that has the track record and will power to set things straight.

How?

If you haven't donated yet to Nader/Gonzalez -- do it now.

We're really close to meeting our goal of $80,000 by midnight tonight.

Donate now, whatever you can afford -- $10, $20, $50, $100.

And help push us over the top.

If you give $100 or more now, we will send you In Pursuit of Justice, the 520-page book of essays by Ralph Nader -- essays on corporate power, the Constitution, and transforming our country. If you donate $100 now, we will send you this historic collection -- autographed by the man himself -- Ralph Nader. (This offer ends at 11:59 p.m. tonight.)

Together, we will make a difference.

Onward to November.

The Nader Team

ShareThisShareThis

Thursday, September 18, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, a US helicopter crashes, 1 US soldier enters a guilty plea, independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader makes news even when the news outlets don't report it, this weekend's NOW on PBS examines women and politics, and more. Starting with Tuesday's US House Committee on the Budget's hearing on Iraq's Budget Surplus. We're focused on the first panel where the witness was the Government Accountability Office's Joseph A. Christoff. Tuesday's snapshot covered some of the statements by the committee chair John Spratt Jr., US House Rep Chet Edwards and US House Rep Lloyd Doggett. Tuesday night, Mike noted some of US House Rep James McGovern's questioning as did Wednesday's snapshot which also noted Bob Etheridge, Dennis Moore and Tim Bishop. Marion Berry: I also think anytime we have a hearing like this, we should first and foremost recognize the contribution and sacrifice that our men and women in uniform and their families have made and we should never ever fail to be appreciative of that. Joseph Christoff: Absolutely. Marion Berry: And show that appreciation in every possible way. As I've listened to this testimony and we can talk about numbers, we can talk about policy and all of those things -- it seems to me that we're in a situation where it reminds me of a bumper sticker you see from time-to-time: "DON'T FOLLOW ME, I'M LOST." You just said a while ago, that there's not a plan. I don't know who doesn't have a plan. It seems to me to be pretty obvious that nobody does. I cannot imagine a more ridiculous situation than we're in right now. I would like to think from some of the things you've said that we may actually have a reasonable expectation that it'll get a little better but at the same time we don't have any reason to think it's going to be cleared up and every thing's going to be in really good shape over there in the next few years. Don't know how you define "few." I'd say anything under five years. But I just -- I don't see any, I'm like Mr. McGovern, I don't see any way to end this. We just keep pouring money into that place. We continue to make deals that no responsible person would enter into, it seems to me. And we thank you for bringing us this information too, at least letting us know what is really going on as best as you're able to determine it and I'm confident that you've done that. And we appreciate all of that. Beyond that, I think it's time for the Congress, the American people, the administration and anyone else in a position of responsibility to being to start figuring out how we're going to get out of there and how we're going to bring this to a conclusion because the American people can't stand much more of it. And I thank you for the work that you've done. We have two more Democrats to note. Other than Pete Ryan (Ranking Minority Member), Republicans elected to skip to the first panel. Allyson Schwarts: I also thank you for this information. And it's important for us to be having this hearing today and I thank the chairman for doing it because we -- and in some ways, you're offering suggestion on how we can see our way out of this if we just really look at things really quite differently which is that -- as has been pointed out, you pointed out and many of the speakers before me have pointed out -- we have, we're looking at working with the Iraqis to make sure that they use their almost $80 billion surplus to start spending their money on reconstruction. And I was particularly struck that recently there was a -- I guess it was back in August -- some discussions about rebuilding police stations in Iraq and spending American dollars to do that. I have to say representing the city of Philadelphia and the suburbs, I go to police stations and fire stations all across my district and they need reconstruction. And so instead of a president saying we're going to spend our dollars on reconstructing our police stations and helping our first responders we're spending American dollars on reconstruction in Iraq when the Iraqis are actually sitting on $79 billion. Now you talked about the politics of why it hasn't happened but my question really is how can we -- is there a way for us to, one, start to say -- we've tried to in Congress -- to say Iraqis should start paying for reconstruction. I believe the last bill we passed actually had the condition of their spending 50% Joseph Christoff: Right. Allyson Schwartz: -- on going forward on that. Is there anyway that you would actually -- that we could insist upon that happening? Is there a way that we could get back some of these dollars that we're spending now that are committed into the future? We were led to believe several years ago that we would not have to pay for this war at all. And that's been pointed out as well. And yet we are right now spending billions of American tax payer dollars to reconstruct Iraq when Iraq has the money. And adding insult to injury we're spending a whole lot, every American family, on the price of gasoline that we're buying from the Iraqis. I mean something about this picture just isn't right no matter how you feel about this war or our going into it. I've been asked just recently this weekend was asked about how we could -- why we're not doing enough to make sure that we get the Iraqis to spend their money on reconstruction. And I understand the politics of it. And I understand even the difficulties on some of the buerocrats. But even if we lend expertise even if we help them figure out how to do this -- why -- is there more that we could be doing to make sure that going forward the Iraqis are spending their money, particularly the surplus -- $80 billion dollars surplus, rather than the American tax payer on reconstruction of basic infrastructure for the Iraqi people which we all agree needs to get done. But why not the Iraqis? And why is this administration -- that's political. What could we be doing even from your perspective to make sure that going forward this is really a changed world, we're not spending American tax dollars on reconstruction, the Iraqis are? Joseph Christoff: Well let's just talk about this concept of trying to get repayment for perhaps what we did. I think we began in 2004 with good intentions. With good intentions to the fact that the Iraqis at that time did not have the resources. So when you appropriated the $18.4 billion dollars in IRRF 2 (Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund) it was "to jump start the reconstruction process" under two premises that generaly did not pan out. One that it would be a benign environment where you could do reconstruction without violence and secondly the Iraqis would step up to the plate and third the international community would contribute. Those premises never really panned out until quite frankly recently where we see the Iraqis now have a substantial amount of money. I shouldn't say recently. They had surpluses in '05, '06 and '07 as well because they didn't spend on the investments. Allyson Y. Schwartz: But you're making a good point, if things are more secure if the issues around violence allows them to do some of this reconstrutcion without spending so many dollars on security can we actually get them to both repay us and get them to pay going forward? Joseph Christoff: Yeah, I don't know if we want to take back our generous contributions to try to jump start -- because I thought they were good intentions back in 2004. But again going forward I do think you should have the healthy debate about cost sharing. And you began it with the roughly three billion dollars that you put and the restrictions you put on the economic support fund -- that it should be a dollar for dollar cost sharing. The State Department in two weeks has to send a report to the Congress certifying that the Iraqis are engaged in cost sharing on the ESF so it will be interesting to see exaclty how the State Department can confirm that that is actually occurring Allyson Y. Schwartz: I should say not just interesting but also important to our financial security here at home and to respond to the Amercian people that we've actually said that there had to be cost sharing dollar for dollar and it will be important for us to see that that is actually happening going forward. And of course we'd like to see at some point the Iraqis pick up much more of the reconstruction if not all of it. The last Congress member to question Christoff was Marcy Kaptur. Pay close attention to his final answer to her. She's asking for very basic information, stats and figures (including arrests) and that information, according to Christoff, isn't public. It recalls his earlier comment to House Rep Tim Bishop who merely asked about the possible impact of the de-Baathifcation legislation (passed but not implemented) which resulted in Christoff informing Bishop that it was classified information he could not reveal in an open hearing. What are the possible effects of that legislation -- labeled a benchmark by the White House -- can't be made public. Now Bishop and Kaptur both have clearance. They can get the information as members of Congress. But what Christoff's testimony repeatedly underscored was how much information is being kept from the American people. Marcy Kaptur: I've been looking over one of the charts that we've been provided that shows the increase in spending by the people of the United States on the war in Iraq and I think everyone knows that every year it gets larger. I remember Secretary [Paul] Wolfowitz coming up before our defense committee saying that we didn't have to worry about this because it would all be paid for. Well, where is he now? I have no idea where he is but he certainly wasn't correct in those statements which I think influenced a lot of the members of this Congress to vote in the way that they did. But one of the bits of information that I have here, that I want you to clarify for me deals with the, what appears to me to be two structures operating in Iraq -- one by the United States and one by the government of Iraq. It says: "While the United States has spent 70% of the $33 billion that it has allocated for key security, oild, water and electricity sectors." In other words, we're spending down the money that the American people have allocated for this. Iraq has only spent 14% of the $28 billion it allocated to those sectors or less than 3% of the 10 billion that it had programmed from the year 2005 to 2008. So as I read these numbers and I'm looking at the expenditure of our dollars and we look at how much we have spent versus how much they have spent, it seems to me then that there may be two structures operating in Iraq: The American paid for structure and then the Iraqi structure. Because how could the Iraqis be doing such a poor job? Is my perception correct that in fact there are two structures operating there? Joseph Christoff: Well in terms of the -- Marcy Kaptur: For electricity, for water, for oil and security> Joseph Christoff: Well in terms of how things are spent, obviously when the US spends its money, the majority of that is being spent through the Corp of Engineers -- they've been the big builder using US appropriated dollars. So they're using Corp of Engineering contracting, procurement, budgeting procedures. When you look at how the Iraqi government is spending its resources, it's going through its own ministries -- oil and electricity, water -- to try to do the types of contracting and procurement. So yes there are seperate procedures because there are seperate pots of money. Marcy Kaptur: I appreciate that because if in fact oil production has gone up it's been because of US expenditures because obviously the Iraqi expenditures aren't locking in. Joseph Christoff: Right. Most of the money on oil infrastructure has been the US funding. Marcy Kaptur: Then why would Iraq sign its first contract with China? You have any -- Joseph Christoff: I don't know. Marcy Kaptur: -- clarity on that? Joseph Christoff: No. Marcy Kaptur: And Royal Dutch Petroleum, Royal Dutch/Shell is the next one they signed a deal with? I just find all of this very, very strange. Could you also tell me in terms of the sabatoge and the smuggling -- Joseph Christoff: Mmh-hmm Marcy Kaptur: -- it's estimated by some that at least a third of what is occurring in the oil sector -- and again, it's unclear to me who is really managing the oil sector? Is it the US dollars that have been allocated or is it the Iraqi dollars that really have a handle on what is happening in the oil sector? But regardless, if you have any comments on that I would appreciate it, of the dollars being expended, why is so much being smuggled out of there? Who doesn't have control of what's happening in the oil fields? Joseph Christoff: Well I think actually the smuggling and the diversions have declined over the past couple years. The biggest problem that occurred back in 2006 was massive smuggling -- estimates of up to two million dollars out of the Baiji refinery because there was not sufficient protection forces around it. The US and the Iraqi government have responded by putting more protection forces around the majory refinery in Iraq at Baiji and also trying to set up these oil facility police forces that are trying to manage and protect the oil pipelines and the infrastructures particularly in the north. But there are still interdictions that are occuring because you can't cover everything and -- Marcy Kaptur: May I ask you, sir, who hires those security officers for those oil installations? Joseph Christoff: Yeah, right now it's the Ministry of OIl but it's supposed to eventually be subsumed in the Ministry of Interior's police forces Marcy Kaptur: But if we look at the expenditure of Iraqi dollars to do all of this, it looks like the US contracted operations are spending their dollars down without them, Iraq wouldn't be able to function. Am I correct? If you just pulled the US contracts and llet them fly on their own. Joseph Christoff: Well we have lots of reconstruction projects in all of the critical sectors including the oil sector so we have been investing over the past several years in trying to build pipelines, trying to improve the refinery capacity -- a lot of individual projects have added up to billions of dollars. The Iraqis are trying to spend more money in terms of the oil sector. One of the problems with the Ministry of Oil is that, unlike the Ministry of Electricity, it has not developed any type of a plan to determine what its needs are, its priorities and exactly where it should be spending its future resources. And the Ministry of Electricity has a pretty good plan. The Ministry of Oil does not yet have a plan to try to set its own priorities. And he himself has estimated that he needs $30 billion to try to improve the oil infrastructure in Iraq. Marcy Kaptur: I know my time has expired. If I wanted to read one clear report on what is really going on inside the Iraqi oil sector what would I read? Joseph Christoff: Inside the Iraqi oil sector? Marcy Kaptur: For security officers. Who's paying for it, how much is being smuggled, who did the smuggling, was anybody aprehended? Where do I find that? Joseph Christoff: Well I'd probably have to go back to some of the CIA reports that I read that you wouldn't be able to read in public domain. Marcy Kaptur: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, Kaptur is asking for very basic information. She's not asking for information on how to build a weapon. Stats is all she's asking for and she's informed that the information isn't for the public. The operations Christoff is reporting on are paid for by the tax payer and the tax payer is repeatedly told that things are 'improving' in Iraq. So why is very basic information being kept from the tax payers. And if, dropping back to Bishop's question, the US anticipates that there will be some awful bloodbath as a result of the de-Baathification legislation, since the White House has labeled it a benchmark and since it has yet to be put into effect, shouldn't both the American people and the Iraqi people have a right to know the projections that have been made on that? Turning to Iraq, last night CNN reported that a helicopter has crashed in Iraq claiming the lives of 5 US service members. Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) said the death toll is "seven U.S. soldiers" and cites M-NF as the source. M-NF updated it today announcing: "Seven U.S. Soldiers were killed when a CH-47 Chinook crashed about 100 km west of Basra at approximately 12:01 a.m. Thursday. The Chinook was part of a four-aircraft aerial convoy flying from Kuwait to Balad. The seven Soldiers were the only ones onboard the Chinook at the time of the crash. A British Quick Reaction Force team was dispatched from Basra to assist at the site. A road convoy in the vicinity was also diverted to the scene. The names of the deceased are being withheld pending notification of next of kin and official release by the Department of Defense The incident is under investigation, however enemy activity is not suspected." The Washington Post notes, "There was no word on the cause of the crash or whether hostile fire was involved." Camilla Hall and Michael Heath (Bloomberg News) report that the military is now publicly stating that this should be considered "an accident" on their 'initial' information but that the US military added, "At this time we are uncertain of the cause, but hostile fire has been ruled out." Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) observes, "In total, that means 11 U.S. service members have died since Sunday for non-combat-related reasons" while noting the helicopter crash itself "was the deadliest U.S. helicopter accident in Iraq since Aug. 22 of last year, when a Black Hawk helicopter crashed in the northern part of the country, killing 14 U.S. soldiers." Joseph Giordono (Stars & Stripes) notes, "The AP reported that an aide to U.S. Rep. Mary Fallin, R-Okla., said four Texans and three from Oklahoma were among the seven National Guardsmen killed in [the helicopter crash[ . . . Fallin's spokesman Alex Weintz says the four Texans killed were soldiers from the Texas National Guard." ICCC lists 4168 as the number of US service members killed since the start of the illegal war with 17 for the month thus far. On shootings, yesterday's snapshot noted: "Meanwhile, AP reports that Staff Sgt. Darris J. Dawson and Sgt. Wesley R. Durbin's deaths on Sunday in Iraq are under investigation and a US soldier 'has been taken into custody' due to the deaths. Troy Moon (Pensacola News Journal) reports that Dawson was 'a father of four' and a graduate of Escambia High and quotes his stepmother Maxine Mathis stating, 'It's bad enough he had to fear the enemy. But he had to fear a fellow soldier. This is senseless. Not only did (the alleged shooter) take our son's life, he took another man's life as well. It's just horrible. I want people to know what happened.'' Chris Vaughn (Fort Worth Star-Telegram) reports that Durbin was from Dallas and 'an honor student and 2001 gradute of Dallas Luterhan School. He volunteered in the Civil Air Patrol in high school, then joined the Marines. After he left the Marine Corps, he joined the Army two years ago'." Greg Mitchell (Editor & Publisher) notes the silence on this story and then amends an AP story at the end which, please note, raids Troy Moon's report and does so without credit. Today Nicholas Spangler (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that Dawson was on his third tour of duty and that his stepmother (Maxine Mathis) states, "He was telling me about these nightmares he'd have. He'd wake up in a cold sweat, seeing the things he was seeing over there. It really was messing with my son's mind." NYT's Stephen Farrell (for the Times' owned International Herald Tribune) explains that April of 2005 saw "Seargent Hasan Akbar, of the 101st Airborne Division, was sentenced to death over a grenade attack on his comrades in March 2003 in Kuwait, at the very outset of the war" and "In November 2006, Staff Seargent Alberto Martinez, serving with the New York National Guard, was arraigned in a military court suspected of murdering two officers in a grenade and mine explosion at one of Saddam Hussein's former palaces in Tikrit in June 2005. He has consistently maintained his innocence but if convicted could face the death penalty." Yesterday's snapshot also included this: "BBC reports that Sgt John Hatley, Sgt 1st Class Joseph Mayo and Sgt Michael Lehy Jr. are charged with murdering four Iraqis ('blindfolded, shot and dumped in a canal in April 2007'). . . . CBC notes, 'The killings are alleged to have been retribution for casualties suffered by U.S. forces.' CBC also states that four more are being held and are under investigation (with two of the four US soldiers having been charged). AP, however, says the four additional soldiers 'have already been charged with conspiracy in the case'." None of those three soldiers charged with murder has entered a plea but one of the four charged with conspiracy has: Spc Belmor Ramos. AP reports that Ramos "pleaded guilty to conspiracy to murder and was sentenced to seven months in prison Thursday in the deaths of four Iraqis, saying he stood guard from a machine-gun turret while the bound and blindfolded prisoners were shot." In some of today's reported violence . . . Bombings? Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 Baghdad roadside bombings that left twelve people wounded (including five Iraqi soldiers), a Nineveh roadside bombing that claimed the lives of 2 Iraqi soldiers (one more wounded) and, dropping back to last night, a Nineveh car bombing that wounded one police officer. Reuters notes a Mosul roadside bombing that claimed the lives of 3 Iraqi soldiers, 2 Tal Afar roadside bombings that left nine people injured and a Hawija roadside bombing that left two people injured. Shootings? Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a man shot dead in Mosul and his wife and daughter injured in the shooting and 1 person shot dead in Nineveh province. Reuters notes a Mosul home invasion that claimed 4 lives and 2 drive-by shootings in Mosul that each claimed the life of a "retired security personnel". Corpses? Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes 3 corpse discovered in Mosul. Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate. Matt Gonzalez is his running mate. Yesterday the campaign was able to announce that Nader - Gonzales was on the ballot in Florida (officially). Today they announce Nader made 46 ballots. That is the 45 states ballots they set as their goal (and achieved before their self-declared deadline) as well as the ballot in the District of Columbia. Team Nader notes that residents of Texas, Georgia, Indiana and North Carolina will be able to vote for Nader - Gonzalez via write-in which means the residents of 49 states (and DC) can vote for them. The 45 state ballots is eleven more than in 2004 and one more than in 2000. The Nader campaign's Michael Richardson explains, "This means 85 percent of the American electorate will actually see the names Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez on their ballots. . . . This is quite a feat since states generally make it really hard for third-party candidates to get on state ballots. But in every state, our volunteers collected more than enough signatures to qualify. The response has been positive -- much better than in 2004. It's obvious that there is national interest in more choices and independent candidates outside the two-party system." Tomorrow the Nader - Gonzalez campaign holds a rally in Lousiville, Kentucky (6:30 p.m., University of Louisville, Swain Student Activities Center, Suite W310). Team Nader notes: I have always been skeptical when people blame a lack of news coverage on some nefarious plot by the media. Most people who cry media 'blackout' aren't that newsworthy, have stories that don't check out, or don't pitch their story that well. The truth is, unless you have a compelling, timely, well pitched story, today's media will not cover it. They are too burdened by ever tighter web-driven deadlines, fewer reporting staff, and the barrage of sophisticated public relations professionals who definitely do know how to pitch a story, and outnumber reporters 5-to-1. But after a full week working as Ralph Nader's media coordinator, I have a new perspective. The story of the decade is breaking, we have the candidate of the century on this story--and we are getting no coverage by major media. After years of neglect, deregulation, and sharp declines in corporate transparency and corporate accountability, the gig is up and Wall Street is being shaken to its foundations. What has already happened towers over the savings and loan crisis, and we are not even close to the end, or even the beginning of the end. The Wall Street bailouts and wipe outs are on track to be the biggest frontal assault on financial consumers and taxpayers in history. Ralph Nader, America's undisputed protector of consumers, has uncannily tracked the chain of events--on the documented public record--that has led our economy down this devastating path. In countless letters, testimonies and reports--all warning of the dangers of unrestrained greed absent accountability and transparency (check for yourself at Nader.org), Ralph proposed alternative paths, and all along the way he was ignored or ridiculed. Now he has a plan to soften the blow, get us out of the morass, and help ensure it doesn't happen again. But no major press will cover it. No New York Times. No Wall Street Journal. No Associated Press. No network news. Nothing but a pundit on C-Span, kudos from a newsletter and a little article on the web site Politico. The September 16th Washington Post summed up the gravity of this issue on its front page: "Yesterday's meltdown on Wall Street brought the economy roaring back to the center of the presidential campaign, and the question for the final seven weeks of the general-election campaign is whether Barack Obama or John McCain can convince voters that he is capable of leading the country out of the morass." If the meltdown on Wall Street and bailout by taxpayers is the deciding factor of this election: Which candidate has the best record for consumer protection, standing up for small investors and taxpayers in America? Which candidate has been warning us all along the way of the dangers of deregulating Wall Street? Which candidate has a plan to get us out of this morass, restore accountability and transparency to Wall Street, and can actually be trusted to do what he says? His name is not Barack Obama or Senator McCain, and he is invisible as far as the media is concerned. Yesterday, Ralph Nader issued a chronology of the lead-up to the current meltdown, and his ten-point plan to restore a semblance of accountability, transparency, and incentives that would steer Wall Street away from short-termist, out-of-control casino capitalism toward fulfilling its proper function of efficiently allocating capital to advance our long-term economic well-being. The plan was sent out to 6,000 reporters, including specific e-mails and phone calls to the editors and reporters from the major newspapers that are on this beat and evening TV news producers. Aside from the Fox cable business channel, no major media picked it up. After a series of editorial board meetings we did this week with the Washington Post and New York Times Washington Bureau, I think I know why. When we asked them what their standards for covering Ralph Nader were, it was clear they didn't have any. But Fred Hiatt, the editorial page editor at the Washington Post, hit the nail on the head. He said, "I like some of your issues, but I don't see how you being a presidential candidate affects them. I see you more as a consumer advocate." In other words, if Ralph was just some guy running for president on the ballot in 45 states with 5 percent support in the polls, he might actually get some coverage in that role, rather than having his giant stature as a consumer advocate trivialize his presidential candidate stature. So today, when AP broke a story that the Federal bank insurance fund was dwindling and in danger of needing a taxpayer bailout, I tried taking Fred up on his advice and pitched to the economic editors and financial reporters, emphasizing 'Ralph the consumer advocate.' It happened that just two months ago Ralph wrote a letter to Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, who have oversight over the FDIC, warning of exactly this and suggesting some measures to shore up the FDIC reserves before it was too late. As usual Congress dismissed Ralph's warning, with Congressman Spencer Bachus saying there was "no factual basis" for his concern. Six years ago, Ralph warned of the potential shakeout from Clinton giving most of the commercial banks free federal deposit insurance since 1995, saying, "Don't be surprised if this latest banking reform deteriorates into little more than another version of the savings and loan deposit insurance reforms of 1980 which helped fuel that industry's demise and lightened taxpayers' pockets by several hundred billions of dollars." Here we have a substantive story where Ralph is right in the sweet spot from the beginning of the problem to the present. I phoned up Marcy Jones, the AP SEC reporter who had broken the story to let her know Ralph had called it six years back, and that he now had a plan to fix it. But Marcy didn't want to hear from Ralph either, and referred to me to the political desk. I called the AP Washington Politics Editor, Donna Cassata, with great enthusiasm, saying "Now I have something that is too good to pass on." But she passed. The Wall Street meltdown story has Ralph Nader's name all over it, and as a candidate or as a consumer advocate he should be getting an avalanche of requests and invitations--not a stone-wall. That's ok. This story is not going away and neither are we. If need be, our supporters will overwhelm the political and economic editors and producers, taking the public relations professional-to-journalist ratio to a new order of magnitude. In the mean time, thank goodness for our Cardozo the Parrot video, which goes to show that even sheep cannot ignore a talking bird. Team Nader then links to this Washington Post piece by Chris Cillizza. Staying with politics, this weekend's NOW on PBS offers: How have women in politics changed America and the world? NOW on PBS investigates with an hour-long special hosted by Maria Hinojosa: "Women, Power and Politics: A Rising Tide?" See the show on television this weekend or watch online STARTING SATURDAY [. . .] Show Description: Given the hoopla surrounding Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton's historical political ascendance, why does the U.S. rank so low among countries for percentage of women holding national office? On Friday, September 19 at 8:30 pm (check local listings), in a one-hour special, NOW's Maria Hinojosa talks to women leaders around the world and here in the United States for an intimate look at the high-stakes risks, triumphs, and setbacks for women leaders of today and tomorrow. Among these women are President Michelle Bachelet of Chile, the first woman leader in Latin America who did not have a husband precede her as President, and former New Hampshire Governor Jeanne Shaheen, now in a tight race for a seat in the U.S. Senate. We also travel to Rwanda, where, 14 years after a horrific massacre left nearly one million people dead, women make up nearly half of parliament; and to Manhattan, where ambitious high school girls are competing in a high-stakes debate tournament. "Women, Power and Politics," is also about the personal journey of mother and award-winning journalist Maria Hinojosa as she strives to answer the question: "What does to mean to be a woman in power?" Watch a preview and excerpt of this special program at this web address: Use this directory tool to find out where the show is airing in your area: The NOW website ... will feature web-exclusive commentary from noteworthy women including Maria Bartiromo, Sandra Cisneros, and Tina Brown; a personal essay from Maria Hinojosa; an interactive debate over Sarah Palin's candidacy; as well as opportunities for all women to post and share their stories of ambition, success, and discouragement. (The "interactive debate" over Sarah Palin's candidacy is live now ...) iraq cnn troy moon greg mitchell the washington post sudarsan raghavan mcclatchy newspapers camilla hall nicholas spangler sahar issa stephen farrell now on pbs pbs

Constitution Day Civics Quiz

Donate $17 to Nader/Gonzalez.

Why?

It's September 17, 2008.

Constitution Day.

And we're really close to meeting our fundraising goal of $80,000 by midnight tonight.

Last we looked, we were just under $70,000.

So, let's crank it up.

And get it done now.

And to honor the day the Constitution was signed, we have a five question Constitution Day civics quiz for you.

1. Which candidate opposed the snoop enabling FISA law and the immunity bailout for the telecom companies -- Obama, McCain or Nader?
   
2. Which candidate called for the impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney for all of their crimes from the illegal war in Iraq to illegal wiretapping of unsuspecting Americas -- Obama, McCain or Nader?
   
3. Which candidate opposed passage of the Patriot Act and calls for its repeal -- Obama, McCain or Nader?
   
4. Which candidate opposes the death penalty -- Obama, McCain or Nader?
   
5. Which candidate would work to repeal corporate personhood --- and shift the power from the corporations back into the hands of the people -- Obama, McCain or Nader?

The answers -- Nader, Nader, Nader, Nader and Nader.

The Constitution is under siege.

And Ralph Nader is its defender-in-chief.

To honor Nader and his courageous defense of the Constitution, let's push Nader/Gonzalez over the top today.

Again, we're only $10,000 away from meeting our goal.

We need 600 of you -- our loyal supporters -- to give $17 each.

And we'll make it.

And remember, this is the last day of our book offer.

If you give $100 or more now, we will send you In Pursuit of Justice, the 520-page book of essays by Ralph Nader -- essays on corporate power, the Constitution, and transforming our country. If you donate $100 now, we will send you this historic collection -- autographed by the man himself -- Ralph Nader. (This offer ends at 11:59 p.m. tonight.)

So, keep your eye on the widget as we climb toward $80,000.

Give whatever you can afford.

Thanks to your ongoing support, we haven't missed a fundraising goal all year.

And we don't plan to start today.

Onward toward a momentous November.

The Nader Team

ShareThisShareThis

1. Which candidate opposed the snoop enabling FISA law and the immunity bailout for the telecom companies -- Obama, McCain or Nader?
   
2. Which candidate called for the impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney for all of their crimes from the illegal war in Iraq to illegal wiretapping of unsuspecting Americas -- Obama, McCain or Nader?
   
3. Which candidate opposed passage of the Patriot Act and calls for its repeal -- Obama, McCain or Nader?
   
4. Which candidate opposes the death penalty -- Obama, McCain or Nader?
   
5. Which candidate would work to repeal corporate personhood --- and shift the power from the corporations back into the hands of the people -- Obama, McCain or Nader?

robert f. worth

the new york times

marie cocco

the washington post

howard kurtz

the los angeles times

tina susman

mikey likes it

Pass It On Invitation

The Nader Team is launching an exciting new e-mail campaign, called Pass It On, that will feature an important news article from the mainstream, Internet, or alternative media. These e-mails will give readers crucial information about important election issues and prepare them to make educated arguments to their friends, families, and news outlets.

With so much news happening out there, it can be difficult to sort through it all to find relevant information on important topics. This becomes increasingly frustrating in an election year, when there is more news than ever and a good knowledge of the issues is imperative to voters. In an election dominated by corporate media, it is vital for informed citizens to counteract misinformation with intelligent, articulate arguments.

But why do we need to do this ourselves? Aren't the mainstream media providing enough information in their round-the clock news programs?

Quite simply, no, they're not.

Here's an example. While stuck at a Greyhound bus station last month, I had the dubious fortune of watching fours hours of unrelenting election coverage on national television. A dozen different pundits, bloggers, and politicos came on, ostensibly to discuss pressing issues in the campaign. The strange thing was, not one of those speakers addressed a single substantive issue. Instead, they spouted strategy and traded in trivia: who had collected the most money, who was or wasn't wearing a flag pin, the effect smiling had on a candidate's electability.

This is the national network news, the place where millions of Americans get their information on critical issues. Yet in an election year when so much is at stake -- when we have to make decisions about war, recession, healthcare, poverty, and global warming -- we are being given virtually no valuable information that could help us make good decisions.

As Bill Moyers reminds us in "Moyers on America," the media aren't so much biased as they are plain bad. Not only do they commit egregious errors of omission -- refusing to cover third-party candidates and failing to convey the context of a situation -- they also fail to fact-check the information they present, choosing instead to quote from two equally vapid and opposing sources and then hastily ending their reports.

These media failures have a doubly negative effect on candidacies like Ralph Nader's. As a corporate critic and third-party candidate, Nader threatens both the two-party system and the media conglomerates -- which then prove him right by refusing to cover his campaign! As a candidate who tries to address the roots of problems, Nader is misrepresented by a sound-bite media that depends on bipartisan platitudes.

The result?

Millions of voters don't know Ralph Nader is running and don't understand the significance of the critiques he is making. Without a responsible media articulating the cause and effects of the different crises we are facing, we will continue to throw $500 rebate checks at a failing economy and ethanol at oil.

With that in mind, we are pleased to introduce our Pass It On campaign. On a regular basis, we will send you a compelling, well-researched article about a pressing election issue -- something you won't get from the sound-bite media. Reading the article will help you stay informed. But the next step is most important -- and this is where you come in. You become the alternative media by passing the article on to your friends, family, and co-workers. Think of it as information's pay-it-forward movement: regular people circulating good articles until they go viral. With this kind of concerted grassroots media effort, we can change the conversation, educate the electorate, and pass along Ralph Nader's ideas.

Sign up now to become the new media!

Yes, I’m in! (Fill in your e-mail address in the form below.)

No, I'll trust the mainstream corporate media to provide all the info I need.

Onward to November!

Ashley Sanders
The Nader Team

ShareThisShareThis

Tuesday, September 16, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the Congress discussed the spending in Iraq, NOW PAC made an endorsement but even Kim Gandy unwisely keeps insisting NOW made the endorsement, and more. Today the House Committee on the Budget held a hearing on Iraq's Budget Surplus. Some background. April 8th the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing and US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and Gen David Petraeus offered testimony. Senator Barbara Boxer raised the issue of the "Awakening" Council and how "you are asking us for millions more to pay off the militias and, by the way, I have an article here that says Maliki recently told a London paper that he was concerned about half of them". Boxer noted that the US was spending $182 million each year ($18 million a month) to "Awakening" Council members and "why don't we ask the Iraqis to pay the entire cost of that program"? As Sam Dagher (New York Times) noted Monday, the puppet government in Baghdad "is expected" to take over payment on October 1st. Iraq has yet another outbreak of cholera currently. Friday a press conference was held in Baghdad that offered blame for everyone but the Iraqi government which sits on billions that Nouri al-Maliki refuses to spend on reconstruction or rebuilding. This at a time when trash piles up, when electricity continues to be largely unavailable and when fuel costs soar. Monday Mohammed Abbas (Reuters) reported that the puppet government was stating, via spokesperson Ali al-Dabbagh, that "we are in a position now not to ask for financial aid from anybody, even the United States. I think we have enough money to spend and we are not in need of any money in the future." US House Rep John Spratt Jr. chairs the Budget Committee (Paul Ryan is the Ranking Member of the Republican Party). Appearing before the committee were (first panel) the GAO's Joseph A. Christoff, (second panel) Congressional Research Service's Christopher M. Blanchard, AEI's Frederick Kagan and the Center for American Progress' Lawrence J. Korb. We'll focus on some of the first panel only. Spratt called the hearing to order and noted: This hearing will be the first opportunity for the Congress to receive testimony on this report, the GAO report, since the Government Accountability Office released it several weeks ago. GAO reports that Iraq is now running a substantial budget surplus -- it may reach $79 billion. At the same time the CBO [Congressional Budget Office] reported last week that in contrast to Iraq's growing surplus, the budget deficit for the United States. is expected to exceed $400 billion for the current fiscal year. That's the second largest deficit in our history. Even bigger deficits are projected next year. This hearing will give the Budget Committee the chance to develop some insight into Iraq's fiscal situation and its ability to help pay for its own reconstruction. So far the United States has provided more than $650 billion dollars for efforts in Iraq, $50 billion of which were for reconstruction and security forces training. We're spending today at the rate of more than $10 billion a month which is by anybody's calculus a significant sum of money. Given our budget deficits here at home, some find it difficult to understand why American tax payers are still funding Iraqi reconstruction and security training. In funding the Gulf War, the first President Bush was able to secure much critical sharing from allies which greatly reduced the bill that the tax payers ultimately had to pay. Let me say at the outset that this hearing is not a debate on the war, not a debate on the surge or plans for redeploying any troops we may have. In fact, even the strictly budgetary issue of the total cost of the war -- military and reconstruction -- is larger than today's topic. We invited the Department of Defense to address a broader budgetary issue in our hearing this fall. They declined to appear. Thus today's hearing is called to examine the issue of the Iraqi budget surplus. We on the Budget Committee want to asses for the purpose of projecting the bottom line whether the burden of Iraq's reconstruction can finally begin to shift from the United States to Iraq itself given the surplus they're currently enjoying. Following the ranking Republican speaking, a cry of "End the occupation by defunding the occupation!" was chanted by one woman. "You gonna call 'em?" asked Ryan leading Spratt to bang the gavel and declare to the woman, "I'm sorry you're out of order and you'll be removed from the room if you persist in doing what you're doing." Ryan chuckled at that. "Iraq has an estimated 115 billion barrels of crude oil reserves," declared Christoff at the start of his testimony. "It's the third largest in the world. And oil revenues are critical to Iraq's economy accounting for over half of the country's GDP [Gross Domestic Product] and over 90% of its revenues. My statement today is based on the report we issued last month on Iraq's revenues, expenditures and surpluses from 2005 to 2008." Christoff then reviewed some findings. From 2005 to 2007, $96 billion was generated in revenues (oil accounting for more than 90% of that money) and in 2008 $73 to $86 billion is the estimate for revenues "nearly as much as it generated in the prior three years." By contrast, 2005 to 2007 saw the puppet government spent "$67 billion on operating expenses and investments. Operating expenses such as salaries and goods and services consumed 90% of that total. The remaining 10% was spent on investments such as structures and vehicles. In general, Iraq has spent less on investments than operating expenses." Christoff estimates the surplus will be between $67 billion and $79 billion for this year. He noted the claim that this would all be spent and how "a similar claim" was made from 2005 to 2007 but that never happened and instead "ended each of these years with budget surpluses." John Spratt: If the will was there they could be spending it at a faster rate than they are? Joseph Christoff: Well they can spend it on their operating budget with no difficulties. They spent a large percent -- almost 80 percent -- on their operating budget. They can pay salaries. They can buy certain operating goods and services but when it comes to the actual investment side to reconsruct bridges, roads, electricity and water facilities they fall short. During his time, US House Rep Chet Edwards asked that Paul Wolfowitz ' statements be put up from 2003 when he was then Deputy Secretary of Defense and testified to the House Appropriations Subcommittee (March 27, 2003): "We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon." Chet Edwards: Given the GAO report, I guess I rank that administration prediction right up there with some of the predictions that we would be greeted as liberators, the war would be short-lived, it would cost the American tax payers less than a hundred billion dollars and we're turning the corner. We've turned so many corners in Iraq I think we're all dizzy from that. Every time we turn one corner we find another roadbloc down the way. I would like to ask you, just again, to get the facts on the table, in fact, let me ask staff to put up the chart on how much Iraq has spent and how much less it has spent than the US. I just want to verify, Mr. Christoff, that according to this chart, the United States tax payers that are now facing historic deficits of over $400 billion this coming year, US tax payers have spent $23.2 billion on Iraq reconstruction. Is that correct, Mr. Christoff? Joseph Christoff: That's for four sectors that we looked at. Chet Edwards: Okay. Joseph Christoff: Security, oil, electricity and water. Chet Edwards: Okay. So reconstruction in those four sectors. And the Iraqi government which I think now has an approximately $79 billion surplus has spent only $4.3 billion. Is that fact -- Joseph Christoff: That's correct. Chet Edwards: -- correct? Joseph Christoff: Yes. Chet Edwards: So the US tax payers -- in addition to something you can't put a dollar value on, we've sacrificed over 4,000 of our young men and women in combat there -- we've then also spent five times what the Iraqis have spent on reconstruction despite Secretary Wolfowitz' prediction that Iraq would very quickly be able to pay for its own reconstruction. Let me ask you about this. Am I correct in understanding from your report that the same Iraq for which we have sacrificed over 4,000 American lives has just signed a $3 billion agreement with the Communist Chinese National Petroleum Corporation to develop the Ahdab oil field, is that correct? Joseph Christoff: I don't have any first-hand information on it, sir. It's just what I've read in the paper as perhaps you have as well. Chet Edwards: Okay. Well for the record, I think that is, Mr. Chairman, correct. The Iraqi government, the same one that's building up a $79 billion surplus while American tax payers are paying for most of their reconstruction efforts has just signed a $3 billion agreement with the Communist Chinese National Petroleum Corporation. And Mr. Chairman, it just boggles my mind to think that there would be any evidence that the Communist Chinese ability to develop oil fields is better than US corporations ability to do so. So once again, we turn a corner and we're hit in the face with something I consider to be insulting. Edwards is correct re: CNP's contract. August 29th snapshot: "Meanwhile, China scores big! Erica Goode and Riyadh Mohammed (New York Times) announce that China National Petroleum signed a contract with the puppet government in Baghdad. With the DNC speeches this week repeatedly hitting on the borrowing from China, that will probably not go over well in this country." Sept 3rd snapshot: " Eric Watkins (Oil & Gas Journal) states the oil contract to China National Petroleum Co (CNPC) has been approved by the Iraqi Oil Ministry today. Today's Azzaman sees an exclusion of the US from the oil deals and insists this is due to pressure from Iran. David Berman (Globe & Mail) dismisses 'the concern about China cornering Iraqi oil, it's nonsense'. BBC via redOrbit documents the press conference in Baghdad today, presided over by Husayn al-Shahrastani." US House Rep Lloyd Doggett was among the other Democrats asking questions and we'll note this exchange. Lloyd Doggett: Do I understand from your testimony to Mr. Edwards a moment ago that a time when we were squandering our money and the Iraqis were saving their's that Iraqi citizens were paying about four cents a gallon for gasoline? Joseph Christoff: Two years ago that's correct. Lloyd Doggett: It's risen some since then? Joseph Christoff: It's up to about $1.18 per gallon. Lloyd Doggett: I think there are probably a lot of Americans who are paying for this so-called reconstruction in Iraq that would be mighty glad if they could get $1.18 gasoline. Did you play a role in the analysis of the benchmarks that the Government Accountability Office provided last year? Joseph Christoff: Yes, sir. Lloyd Doggett: What was that role? Joseph Christoff: I was the director in charge of that report. Lloyd Doggett: And have you also played the same role in responding to questions about the benchmarks from [House Armed Services Committee] Chairman [Ike] Skelton this year with the report that you just did in the last few weeks? Joseph Christoff: Yes, I was the director on the progress report as well. Lloyd Dogget: All of us remember, except maybe President Bush, that in January of 2007, he selected the benchmarks, the guidelines by which to measure success, by which to measure victory in Iraq and when we sought an analysis so we would have an objective information instead of just the propaganda from the administration about whether those benchmarks had been met the Congress turned to the Government Accountability Office. And my recollection is that when you came out with your report on August the 30th of last year that you determined that . . . 11 of the 18 benchmarks that President Bush had set were not met. Is that correct? Joseph Christoff: Based on that prior report correct. Lloyd Doggett: Yes, sir. And you found that of the 18 benchmarks the president set himself to measure success in Iraq that only three had been met as of August 30, 2007. Now this year, a year later, you did some evaluation again. You did not evaluate every single benchmark but you really found that there had been very little progress in the year. We know that fortunately fewer Americans are being killed there. But in terms of the objective of the Bush policy in Iraq, you had a grand amount of success in that they met one more benchmark than they had the year before, isn't that correct? Joseph Christoff: Well we didn't go through a benchmark by benchmark analysis but we did provide a report that talked about progess on the security front, the legislative front and the economic front in our June report. Lloyd Doggett: Right and I believe you found one more benchmark met than the year before. Joseph Christoff: Again we didn't do a benchmark by benchmark analysis, sir. Lloyd Doggett: Well if you look at the -- it may not have been called a benchmark analysis -- but you looked at some of the same factors you had the year before. Just to begin to go through them, on the Constitutional Review Committee, you found that they'd formed the committee but the committee hadn't done anything. Right? Joseph Christoff: And that's still true. Lloyd Doggett: Well they hadn't met that. On enacting and implementing legislation on de-Baathification you found that they had enacted the legislation but they hadn't implemented and of it, right? Joseph Christoff: That's correct. Lloyd Doggett: Well they hadn't met the second benchmark. On the question of enacting the hydrocarbon or oil legislation, you concluded that they had not met that again this year, did you not? Joseph Christoff: Correct, and no progess this year either. Lloyd Doggett: On enacting and implementing legislation on procedures to form semi-autonomous regions -- that was the fourth benchmark President Bush had -- you found that that was only partially met. Again they passed a law to allow the provinces to act but it hadn't been implemented. Joseph Christoff: Well on that one it will be implemented when provinces come together to form regions so that's an open -- Lloyd Doggett: Right, but we're not there yet. Joseph Christoff: Well no provinces have voted to form regions other than the KRG originally. Lloyd Doggett: On enacting and implementing legislation for an Independent High Electoral Commission you found only partially meeting it. Again, they passed a law but hadn't implemented it. Joseph Christoff: The commission was established. The provincial election law -- the date was established for October 1 but the implementing laws have not been enacted. Lloyd Doggett: Right. And they won't have the elections they've been promising us they'd have for a year in October. Joseph Christoff: October 1, they will not meet that date. Lloyd Doggett: On the enacting and implementing legislation for a strong militia disarmament program -- Joseph Christoff: That's not met. Lloyd Doggett: That's not met. And I see my time's up but, Mr. Chairman, we can keep going down the objectives that President Bush set himself for success, for victory in Iraq, and you'll find that it continues to fail. That this policy has been a failure, American tax payers are having to fund the failure while the Iraqis pay a fraction of the price we pay for a gallon of gasoline. Thank you. In Iraq today, Robert H. Reid (AP) reports that the handover from Petraeus to Gen Ray Odierno took place, "With Defense Secretary Robert Gates presiding at the ceremony in a cavernous rotunda of a former Saddam Hussein palace outside Baghdad, Petraeus handed over the flag of his command, known as Multi-National Force Iraq, to Odierno and then bade farewell." Thom Shanker and Stephen Farrell (New York Times, A13) report that Monday's hijinx included a Gates' 'joke' that US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and Gen David Petraeus have alternated playing "good cop, bad cop" in Iraq. The reporters fail to inform how many (if any) Iraqis laughed at the 'joke.' Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) reports one Odierno change already -- he wants to be called "Ray" and not "Raymond". Susman also notes, "Odierno gained a star but lost a syllable in his first name. He was promoted to a full four-star general moments before the event took place. No reason was given for the change in his preferred first name, which must have happened suddenly. The press packet provided to the media included a biography of Odierno that introduced him as Gen. Raymond Odierno." A dust storm hit Iraq, she reports, for the second day in a row. Some of today's violence . . . Bombings? Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing that claimed 2 lives with thirteen left wounded and a Baghdad roadside bombing that left eight people wounded. Reuters notes a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed the life of 1 police officers and injured seven people. Shootings? Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Sheikh Omar Raddam Getan was assassinated today in Diyala Province. Corpses? Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad. Today NOW PAC (not NOW as ABC and others are reporting -- the National Organization for Women CANNOT endorse, it's a violation of their tax status) endorsed the Obama-Biden ticket and Kim Gandy (NOW president) explains in several paragraph: 'Lesbians, go screw yourself.' There's no other way to put it after Barack's use of homophobia in South Carolina to scare up votes which NOW (or NOW PAC) never bothered to call out. For years The Ego of Us All tried to chase lesbians out of NOW and Kim Gandy's apparently decided to follow in Red Betty's footsteps. Lesbians really don't have abortions. The main reason would be rape. Pregnancies are planned by lesbian couples. So outside of rape, abortion rights isn't one of the biggest concerns on their lists. Nor did his mentor or pastor for 20 years who compared likened gay sex to rape, murder and lynching. Jeremiah Wright made that comparison not in some unearthed sermon but on national television (Bill Moyers' embarrassing interview with Wright back in April -- and no, Moyers didn't question him on that call). They do care about self-respect. Barack showed no respect to the LGBT community. Most laughable is Gandy's claim that "Sen. Obama opposed the nominations of George Bush's extreme right-wing nominees to the Supreme Court, who have consistently ruled against women's rights," -- Kim ends her sentence with a comma and not a period. Cass Sunstein is one of Barack's advisors. Sunstein endorsed John Roberts appointment to the Court. chicago dyke (Corrente) takes on Sunstein's latest stupidity, "Is the man really that dumb? That is, does he truly fail to understand that naming a post 'trimmers' that discusses reproductive and sexual rights places him squarely in the ass of many a joke? What a fool. The argument he makes there too is stupid. I guess young pregnant women don't deserve any rights because you know, they're too young to have sex but when they do and they get pregnant they can't be trusted to decide for themselves what to do about it, and anyway if Daddy's the Father he deserves to have another say in how to use her body Maturely, or something…" As for Barack and abortion rights, Marie Cocco (Washington Post Writers Group) noted of Barack, "One thing is certain: Obama has backhandedly given credibility to the right-wing narrative that women who have abortions -- even those who go through the physically and mentally wrenching experience of a late-term abortion -- are frivolous and selfish creatures who might perhaps undergo this ordeal because they are 'feeling blue'." A point Kim chooses to ignore. If Gandy's going to rail against Bully Boy's appointees (Alito and Roberts) she might take a minute to find out where Barack's team stood on those appointments. But Gandy's been hawking Barack like an Amway product for sometime now. When she tried it at NOW's July convention, the response from NOW members was underwhelming which should have been Gandy's first clue that NOW ("for women") should either sit out the 2008 election or endorse the ticket of Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente. Unlike Barack, Cynthia actually has a strong leglislative record on women's issues (no "present" votes, not even one). But Gandy proved it was all about sucking up to perceived power and not about being "for women" throughout 2008. Since NOW cannot endorse (or risk losing their tax status), Kim Gandy's statements should be pulled from NOW's website and appear only at NOW PAC (where it already appears). Failure to do so means more McCain-Feingold work on soft money is strongly needed. But, hey, just PULL THE TAX EXEMPTION STATUS ALREADY. Kim Gandy went on NPR's Morning Edition today and repeatedly referred to NOW PAC's endoresement (as did Renee Montagne) as a "NOW endorsement." She can't do that. NOW proper CANNOT make an endorsement. Kim Gandy's actions are begging for NOW's tax status to be pulled. NOW PAC is a much smaller organization than NOW so Gandy hopes to piggy back on NOW proper (which actually has national name recognition) -- even though it skirts the law. Lisal Loring (The Daily Kenoshan) notes that voter choice isn't just an abstract, it's a genuine issue and quotes Cynthia McKinney explaining, "I sponsored the Voter Choice Act in Congress, which would have provided for the use of ranked choice voting in Congressional elections. I fought to defend and reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. I have long been a supporter of publicly financed elections. I have advocated same-day voter registration. I voted in opposition to requiring photo ID for voting in federal elections." Cynthia McKinney's long Congress record (she served several terms -- Barack hasn't even completely his first) allowed her to amass a strong voting record on what Project Vote Smart calls "abortion issues" -- 29 chances to vote and she only missed one. (McKinney was in the US House of Rep from 1995 to 2003 and from 2005 to 2007.) Barack's been in the Senate since 2005. Project Vote Smart shows four times he could have stood up. In 2005 he did. The other three votes? He didn't bother to vote. But hey, Kim Gandy loves him, that's good enough for . . . well for Kim Gandy. Here's Cynthia on some of the stands she took on reproductive rights: "In 1999, I voted NO on barring the interstate transportation of minors to get an abortion. I supported funding contraception and UN family planning. I voted NO to oppose banning partial-birth abortions. In 2001, I voted NO on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad and NO on a new federal crime for harming a fetus while committing other crimes. In 2005, I voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions." Cynthia stood up. Kim Gandy cowered. One's a leader, one's desperately hoping to be invited to the party. Apparently, Cynthia McKinney doesn't speak to Kim Gandy or NOW PAC. That's a good reason to revisit McKinney's July 12th acceptance speech when she won the presidential nomination (in a real roll call vote -- not the farce the Democratic Party offered) of the Green Party: In 1851, in Akron, Ohio a former slave woman, abolitionist, and woman's rights activist by the name of Sojourner Truth gave a speech now known as "Ain't I a Woman." Sojourner Truth began her remarks, "Well children, where there is so much racket, there must be something out of kilter." She then went on to say that even though she was a woman, no one had ever helped her out of carriages or lifted her over ditches or given her a seat of honor in any place. Instead, she acknowledged, that as a former slave and as a black woman, she had had to bear the lash as well as any man; and that she had borne "thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And Ain't I a woman?" Finally, Sojourner Truth says, "If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back, and get it right side up again!" As it was in 1851, so too it is in 2008. There is so much racket that we, too, know something is out of kilter. In 1851, the racket was about a woman's right to vote. In 1848, just a few years before Sojourner uttered those now famous words, "Ain't I a Woman?" suffragists met in Seneca Falls, New York and issued a declaration. That declaration began: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of those who suffer from it to refuse allegiance to it, and to insist upon the institution of a new government . . . But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of the women under this government, and such is now the necessity which constrains them to demand the equal station to which they are entitled." Two hundred sixty women and forty men gathered in Seneca Falls, NY and declared their independence from the politics of their present and embarked upon a struggle to create a politics for the future. That bold move by a handful of people in one relatively small room laid the groundwork and is the precedent for what we do today. The Seneca Falls Declaration represented a clean break from the past: Freedom, at last, from mental slavery. The Seneca Falls Declaration and the Akron, Ohio meeting inaugurated 72 years of struggle that ended with the passage of the 19th Amendment in August of 1920, granting women the right to vote. And 88 years later, with the Green Party as its conductor, the History Train is rolling down the tracks. [. . .] My son grew up playing on the Floor underneath my desk in the Chamber of the Georgia House of Representatives. His buddies were the legislators down there, under the Gold Dome, who were my and my father's colleagues. [. . .] Women are still the overwhelming profile of the minimum wage worker in this country. 65% of all minimum wage workers are women, according to 2005 statistics. Despite the law, women still go to work every day, performing the same tasks as men, yet bring home less pay than their male counterparts. Asian-American and Pacific Island women make 88 cents for every dollar earned by men, but African-American women earn only 72 cents and my Latina sisters earn only 60 cents for every dollar earned by men. Overall, according to 2007 statistics, women with similar education, skills, and experience are paid 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. Equal pay for equal work is not yet a reality for working women in this country. And the glass ceiling is all too real. [. . .] It is for all these reasons and more that I redeclare my goals in the language of my sisters who convened at Seneca Falls, NY 160 years ago. They wrote: "It is their duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." That declaration not only avoids the politics of the past, it contains a kernel for the future. How can those new guards for the future be won?" Here's how: When I was first running for Congress and it was the year of the woman, women all over the country were saying, "We want our seat at the table." And when I got to Washington, I saw that policy was really made in a room, at a table. There were real seats at the table. Well, imagine what has happened to public policy making now. Apparently there was nothing in the above speech that NOW PAC could endorse. What a proud day today is for the National Organization FOR Women. Maybe Cynthia needs to be asking NOW PAC, "Ain't I a woman?" Maybe NOW PAC needs to read NOW's mission statement: "Our prupose is to take action to bring women into full participation in society -- sharing equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities with men, while living free from discrimination." To NOW PAC, that translates as "endorse men, ignore the women of color ticket, ignore that Cynthia has a long record of standing up for women's rights, go with Barack because we can do a trade-off and hopefully look like power players inside the Beltway!" Someone ask Kim to explain how endorsing Obama-Biden over Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente reaches NOW's "priority issues" (advancing reproductive freedom, promoting diversity & ending racism, stopping violence against women, winning lesbian rights, achieving Constitutional equality and ensuring economic justice)? Answer? It doesn't. Meanwhile Barack played True Confessions. Delilah Boyd (A Scriverner's Lament -- video and text) emphasizes this statement by Barack on yesterday's Good Morning America, "If we're going to ask questions about, you know, who has been promulgating negative ads that are completely unrelated to the issues at hand, I think I win that context pretty handily." Staying with TV for a moment, this Friday's NOW on PBS will be an hour long special broadcast and will examine women -- in the electorate and in office. Ralph Nader is the indepenent presidential candidate. Team Nader notes: Cardoso, my feathered friend, you've come from flying over the Amazon jungle to a cage in Utah--albeit an open-door cage with a fine master. Do not feel alone, Cardoso. Millions of voters have also been put into a cage. It is a corporate-dominated, two-party cage with no open door unless they break out and vote for Nader/Gonzalez. This ticket stands tall for justice, peace and freedom within a competitive democracy. WATCH THE VIDEO And Team Nader notes: Drop $15 on Nader/Gonzalez now. Why? Last night, fifteen of the best and brightest of the Nader/Gonzalez campaign -- some of them pictured here -- met at our DC headquarters office. And they decided as a group. To bypass the mainstream media. And take it directly to the American people. Door to door. Person to person. The best and the brightest of our ballot access drive. The warriors who put Nader/Gonzalez on the ballot in 45 states. They will now be deployed to key states. With tens of thousands of lawn signs. Hundreds of thousands of pamphlets. And ready to make thousands of phone calls. To inform the American people that they now have a choice in November. For a candidacy that will shift the power from the corporations, back into the hands of the American people. With ballot access now complete. With Nader/Gonzalez polling well in a number of key swing states. We're ready to strike. As you know, we're in the final two days of our Get Out the Vote Fundraising Drive. Our goal: $80,000 by tomorrow night. Right now, thanks to your ongoing support, we're at $62,000. So, we need to raise $9,000 today. And $9,000 tomorrow. We're within striking distance. So, drop $15 dollars on Nader/Gonzalez now. And remember, if you give $100 or more now, we will send you In Pursuit of Justice, the 520-page book of essays by Ralph Nader -- essays on corporate power, the Constitution, and transforming our country. If you donate $100 now, we will send you this historic collection -- autographed by the man himself -- Ralph Nader. (This offer ends at 11:59 p.m. September 17, 2008.) iraq the new york times erica goode riyadh mohammed mcclatchy newspapers the new york times thom shanker stephen farrell the los angeles times tina susman now on pbs pbs

Statement to Ron Paul Supporters

Today, along with other third party candidates, I joined Congressman Ron Paul to endorse a common agenda that stands up for the US Constitution by ending illegal wars, and protecting the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We also jointly called for an immediate halt to the increase in the national debt, an end to corporate subsidies and taxpayer bailouts of corporations, and to start aggressively pursuing prosecution of corporations that commit crimes and frauds.

Both Congressman Paul and I also support holding President Bush and Dick Cheney to account for their transgressions against our Constitution.

Today's coming together of third party candidates marks the beginning of the realignment of American politics.

While Congressman Paul and I do not agree on all things -- such as health and safety regulations and health insurance systems and how to handle areas where the market fails or is not up to the task of getting the best outcomes for the American people -- on the overriding foreign policy, reckless waste financed by deficit spending, and civil liberties issues of the day, we stand together. He is a stalwart who has consistently stood up for what he believes in and never wavered when he is opposed by the legions of commercial interests and lobbyists that swarm the Capitol.

Congressman Paul said today, "the strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two-party system, which in reality is a one-party system with no possible chance for the changes to occur which are necessary to solve our economic and foreign policy problems." He also called on his supporters to vote for Nader/Gonzalez or one of the other non-establishment, principled candidates, who support the joint statement issued today.

For all the millions of people who have broken free from the establishment parties' domination over our dwindling democracy, Nader/Gonzalez presents a clear choice for those who want to support a candidate who will stand up against the war and stand up for personal liberties and privacy that have been trampled on by the notorious, misnamed, PATRIOT Act, the FISA 'snoop' Bill, and the unilateral dictates of the Bush/Cheney regime.

Some unfairly paint the Nader/Gonzalez candidacy as being for big government. Nothing could be more untrue.

Nader/Gonzalez supports a government of the people, by the people, for the people. We agree with Congressman Paul that government is rife with waste and corporate demands, and needs to be scaled back in many areas -- most of all the bloated, wasteful US military budget, which is half of the government's total operating budget.

We are also against big government doling out hundreds of billions in corporate welfare, subsidies, and bailouts to companies.

We support abolishing income tax on the first $50,000 of income to be made up with a fraction of a percent Wall Street speculation tax, especially on derivatives.

Click here to listen to Ralph's remarks at today's press conference.

ShareThisShareThis

Wednesday, September 10, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Barack gets semi-called on sexism and makes more insulting remarks in response to being called out, the House Armed Services Committee holds a hearing, Ron Paul holds a press conference with Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader, and more.

Today the US House Armed Services Committee held a hearing on the Security and Stability in Afghanistan and Iraq: Developments in US Strategy and Operations and the Way Ahead. Appearing before the committee were US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm Michael Mullen, DoD's Under Secreatry of Defense for Policy, Eric S. Edelman and the Director of Strategic Plans and Policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Adm James Winnefeld. Ike Skelton is the chair of the committee and his opening remarks included that "I remain concerned about the pace of political progress. The Iraqis have still not been able to even come to an agreement on holding provincial elections, much less address more fundamental questions like the future of Kirkuk. Given this, I have a real question of why we are not redeploying additional forces -- both to bolster our efforts in Afghanistan and to keep the pressure on the Iraqis to come to a sustainable political accomodation." Later in the hearing he would note the "Sun Tzu precept that says 'A war should not be entered into without considering the end of that war'."


The highest ranking Republican on the committee, Duncan Hunter, made a fool of himself as was expected. His dubious statements included, "We are winning in Iraq. The United States is going to be leaving in victory." During Robert Gates' opening remarks he noted these "challenges:"

* Political progress remains too slow -- as seen recently by the inability of the parliament to pass an election law. This means that provincial elections, which we believe will continue and enhance the process of reconciliation, will in all likelihood be pushed back until at least December. Elections also mean the possibility of increased violence.

* There have been some worrisome reports about sectarian efforts to either disrupt or slow the process of assimilation of the Sons of Iraq ["Awakening" Council] into the Iraqi Security Forces. It is a reminder that sectarin tenaions still exist and have the potential to undo recent progress at the local and national level.

* Despite Iran's pledges last year to stop providing weapons, training and funding to armed militias, evidence suggests that this support continues. [These are Gates' words. There is no proof/evidence that Iran has supplied anything. There has never been proof of that.]

* Iraqi security forces still lack many key capabilities. Many of their operations would simply not have been possible without Coalition enablers. That will remain the case for some time to come.

* The threat from al Qaeda and other militant groups has receded, but is still very real. In the last few months, we have seen a number of suicide attacks -- as well as tactical shifts, such as the increased use of women. This is a reminder that al Qaeda still retains the ability to inflict mass casualties, the operational capacity to assess and change strategies and is still trying to sow chaos and reassert itself. [Again, Gates' words. al Qaeda in Iraq has always been inflated and was not present until after the illegal war started. The administration tends to blame any and all violence on "al Qaeda in Iraq" unless they're targeting Iran for blame that day.]

* Similarly, there is the possiblity that Jaish al-Mahdi could return.

Gates insisted the US had "now entered that end game" in Iraq "and our decisions today and in the months ahead will be critical to regional stability and our national security interests for the years to come."

Chair Skelton had serious concerns about a number of issues and they included where the US money is going and why the Iraqi billions are not being spent. He noted two chief concerns, first that "they [Iraqis] have a lot of money on their own and number two the choice of projects" on which they spend money. At this point he requested that the committee be supplied with a list of all US expenditures over $120,000. He expressed concern over Iraq's stated plan "to build the world's largets ferris wheel" and wondered "why are we funding" construction such as hotels with US tax payer money when the central government in Baghdad sits on so many billions that are not being used?

No surprise, no one had an answer for Skelton though a list might be workable at some point.

US House Rep Susan Davis also wanted to know what was happening with the money. She pointed out that the Iraqi air force is lacking in training and equipment and that it went far beyond that with Iraqi security forces stating that even "batteries that are needed for communication" aren't in supply and "they're saying it's just not getting to them." Was it an issue of corruption, she wanted to know, where was the breakdown? Edelman replied, "We're now in the process of getting to those issues." Now? Five years after the illegal war began?

There were no answers supplied to the questions and neither side seemed overly surprised by that (Congress or the witnesses). Gates spoke of success while also maintaining that the United States would be in Iraq for many "years to come -- although in changing and increasingly limited ways." US House Rep Solomon Ortiz wondered, "What planning and work has been done to enable the next administration to make its own decision about force levels upon taking office after who wins the presidency? And what limits does the president's recent decision place on force level changes?"

Robert Gates: Mr. Ortiz, I think first of all, that the new president will have a full array of options when he enters office in terms of troop levels in -- in -- in Jan- in Iraq. Uhm. As I indicated in my opening remarks, I hope that whoever the new president is will listen closely to the commanders in the field and senior military leaders. I've made the comment before that those who worry and are concerned that the military view was not taken sufficiently into account at the beginning of the war would not neglect it as we get deeper into the end game. But-but there is nothing in place that would contrain the decisions of a new president in terms of policies or anything else that, uh, that a new president could not -- could not change. So new president will have complete flexibility and constrained only by his view of our national security interests.

He? There is a woman running for president. (Rep Michael Conway also referred to "our guys" repeatedly in the hearing. Just as Gates can't picture a woman as president, Conway is unaware that women serve in the US military.) Ron Paul ran for the Republican Party's presidential nomination and lost to John McCain. Last week, he held a rally with his supporters in Minnesota. NOW on PBS has an online exclusive with Paul and they also examined his campaign in 2007. Today, he held a press conference with Ralph Nader (independent presidential candidate, now to be on the ballots in 45 states), Cynthia McKinney (Green Party presidential candidate), Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party's candidate) and Bob Barr (Libertarian Party presidential candidate). Ralph Nader explains, "Today, along with other third party candidates, I joined Congressman Ron Paul to endorse a common agenda that stands up for the US Constitution by ending illegal wars, and protecting the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We also jointly called for an immediate halt to the increase in the national debt, an end to corporate subsidies and taxpayer bailouts of corporations, and to start aggressively pursuing prosecution of corporations that commit crimes and frauds. Both Congressman Paul and I also support holding President Bush and Dick Cheney to account for their transgressions against our Constitution. Today's coming together of third party candidates marks the beginning of the realignment of American politics." Third Party Watch reports:

Dr. Paul turned the podium over to the others, and Cynthia McKinney, the Green Party's presidential candidate, thanked him for bringing this group together. She recalled that "it took 72 years of struggle and sacrifice, from the beginning of the women's suffrage movement, for women to get the right to vote. I believe today we are starting a new movement of independence from the orthodoxy of our day." (Let's hope it doesn't take 72 years to achieve most of this group's goals!)
Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party's presidential candidate, said "the real issue in 2008 is not between Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, but between globalists and constitutionalists. McCain and Obama are globalists. Baldwin is a constitutionalist."
McCain, Baldwin said, always refers to the U.S. as an "interdependent nation." "But the Founders didn't sign a Declaration of Interdependence. We are fighting for the preservation of our very form of government, and that's why what Ron Paul is doing today is so important, and why our coming together today is so important."
And, as Baldwin always reminds his audiences: "I supported Ron Paul. It's because the GOP rejected Ron Paul that I'm here today as a candidate."
Ralph Nader, the Independent candidate for President, seemed the most enthusiastic and optimistic about Paul's coalition. "I think when McKinney, Barr, Baldwin and Nader agree with Ron Paul on these four major areas--I think that's the beginning of a realignment in American politics." And later: "I'm very proud that we've been able to put aside our differences on other subjects--such as health and safety regulations [chuckles from the audience]--to come together on these four important subjects."

"Awakening" Councils were cited by Gates. Tom A. Peter (Christian Science Monitor) argues that female members are essential: "To combat this threat, Iraqis have begun recruiting women for the Daughters of Iraq, a female counterpart to the Sons of Iraq community policing program largely credited with reducing violence in Iraq. While female security guards remain a small minority, they've stopped many female insurgents. And, some say their example could help change perceptions about the role of women in Iraq." That's a nice little fantasy since female members are paid 20% less than their male peers and, remember, all "Awakening" Council members have been and are currently paid by the US government. Translation, the White House has said a man doing the same job as a woman is worth more.

Moving over to provincial elections which were mentioned repeatedly in today's hearings. Nicholas Spangler and Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) explain the stalemate remains the oil rich city of Kirkuk, "A loose but powerful coalition of Arab parties is wary of Kurdish control prior to elections; Kurds remain adamentally opposed to any law mandating power sharing in Kirkuk, as the current [election] bill does. The reporters explain the stalemate has some floating the option of going with the a 2005 election law. The United Nations is working on their proposal which is to be presented later this month or at the beginning of October. The United Nations' Staffan de Mistura met with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani on Sunday as part of the research required for the plan they intend to present.

Yesterday Bully Boy gave his speech on Iraq. Nancy A. Youssef and Jonathan S. Landay (McClatchy Newspapers) examine it and note, "President Bush's announcement Tuesday that he'll maintain troop levels in Iraq through the end of his presidency suggests that despite his claim that the surge of additional U.S. troops in Iraq has succeeded, the security gains could be temporary, defense officials and experts said." Michael Abramowitz (Washington Post) noticed that the speech also indicated that other countries are leaving the so-called 'coalition': "The presence of other countries in Iraq, even if the troop contribution was modest, has long been used by the Bush administration as a way of deflecting criticism that its actions in Iraq were "unilateral." Now, Bush is portraying their departure as a sign of "return on success," his policy of bringing home troops as conditions improve in Iraq."

Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Salahuddin Province car bombing wounded three people. Reuters notes an Iskandariya roadside bombing that left two police officers wounded.

Shootings?

Reuters notes 1 "Christian man" was shot dead in Mosul.

Corpses?

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad and 4 in Mosul.

Back to the race for the US presidency. War Hawk Barack Obama's in trouble for doing something so it was time for all his lovers in the press to come out in full force and defend their Christ-child.

Here's what he said.

Barack Obama: Let-let's just list this for a second. John McCain says he's about change too. Exc-and-and so I guess his whole angle is 'Watch out, George Bush. Except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove style politics, we're really going to shake things up in Washington." That's not change. That's-that's just calling some the same thing something different But you know you can't e-e-e-e You know you can put uh liptick on a pig, it's still a pig.

When he says "You can put lipstick on a pig," what is Barack doing? What is he physically doing? Chicago's gutter boy is flipping the bird and when the finger goes up the howls start. You can see it in the video his campaign/campaign surrogates issued as a response. We see Dick Cheney speak, no bird flipping.

You can watch it at Joe Garafoli's post (San Francisco Chronicle) which reads like "He's Sure The Boy I Love." Barack goes on to make a comment about fish smell. It's not in the video, they cut it before that point. CBS contributes, "CBS News reporter Maria Gavrilovic reports that as the crowd laughed, Obama added: 'You can you can, wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it's still going to stink after 8 years. We've had enough of the same old thing'." Last week, Ruth took on sexist pig Ellen Susman who also had a "fish" 'joke' in her smear of Palin. Writing as if she was Susman, Ruth observed, "And let me call my post 'A Fish Called Sarah.' I will pretend like I think it is a Monty Python film and mention other Monty Python films. But even as stupid as I, Ellen Susman, am, I know it is not. Even as dumb as I am, I do know the "two things smell fish" 'joke.'" And so does Barack.

They weren't even his own words he was speaking -- which is why he stumbles (no teleprompter). Joseph (Cannonfire) explains, "His comments were cribbed -- word for word -- from a Washington Post cartoon. Why is Obama allowed to plagiarize when others are not?" Why indeed and this isn't the first time he's been caught stealing.

As Susan (Random Notes) sums up, "Well, Barack, if you'd have paid attention to presidential campaigns of the past, you would know better than to consider yourself immune to blasphemy, er, criticism, even fake criticism, from the other side." Delilah Boyd (A Scrivner's Lament) lays it out as plain as day, "Before you Obots go all 'Obama didn't call Palin a pig' on me, hear this: How much longer will men get away with 'I was just kidding,' 'I wasn't talking about you,' and 'What's the matter? can't you take a joke?'" miq2xu (Klownhaus) [language warning], "Regarding Obama's 'Lipstick on a Pig' comment, I call bull**it on Christy Hardin Smith, Marc Ambinder, D-Day, Taylor Marsh and Whoever Kidnapped Jeralyn Merritt (WKJM²) Each of these people has taken the position that not only were Obama's comments completely innocent, but that the McCain campaign is trying to manufacture a controversy because no reasonable person could possibly get the idea that Obama was calling Sarah Palin a pig. Even if someone truly believed that it was an innocent gaffe (I don't) it is easy to see how that connection could easily be made. I didn't need anyone to explain it to me, nor did most former Hillary supporters, because we 'periodically' saw these types of misunderstandings before." Lambert (Corrente) weighs in on Barack's pig remarks, "You know, if Obama hadn't indulged himself by getting snarky in front of a friendly crowd, he could be talking about the economy right now -- and winning P.T.A. moms too, who like those kitchen table issues." madamab (The Confluence) advises, "Case in point: When you call your opponent's vice president a pig and say she smells like fish, you do not try to pretend you didn't do it. You did it, in front of God and YouTube. So apologize and move on, otherwise you will engender anger and resentment."

On the topic of sexism, it bears noting that Feminist Wire Daily finally got active calling out sexism against Palin, "Donny Deutsch recently made sexist comments about Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin and former Democratic Presidential contender Hillary Clinton. Deutsch appeared on CNBC's Squawk the Street (Watch the video here) and made several misogynistic comments including praising Palin for earning respect through her ability to make men 'want to mate with her' and calling Senator Clinton's loss in the Democratic Primaries a direct result of the fact that she 'didn't put a skirt on.'" Egalia (Tennessee Guerilla Women) points to another with a need to sexualize Palin Salon's Gary Kamiya who needs to Palin as "a whip-wielding mistress". Last night Kat took on 'progressive' Ed Garvey's need to compare Palin to erectile medications, "The comparison is insulting; however, it may indicate what's in Garvey's own medicine cabinet."

Now before we get to today's remarks by Barack (which are even more insulting to women -- if anyone actually listens), Kirsten Powers (New York Post) provided the backstory leading up to Palin's speech last week, "No, Obama didn't engage in the mass sneering at Palin - but he did fall into the trap of disrespecting her. When McCain chose her, the Obama campaign's first response was to ridicule the size of her town. Then the candidate himself began referring to her as a "former mayor" when she is in fact a sitting governor. When she retaliated (justifiably) by mocking his stint as a organizer, the Obama camp was clearly rattled. Obama himself actually began arguing about the importance of community organizing. His supporters amplified this cry - claiming Palin's attack was a racist slur and passing around e-mails titled 'Jesus was a community organizer, Pontius Pilate was a governor.' Meanwhile, the rest of the country was probably wondering what being a community organizer has to do with being president."

Today, Barack spoke. And what did the Christ-child say? It's wowed some of the usual PIG MEN, Queen Bees and Gender Traitors. From CNN (text and video), this is Barack: "We have real problems in this country right now. The American people are looking to us for answers, not distractions, not diversions, not manipulations. They want real answers to the real problems we are facing."

Sexism isn't a real problem to Barack Obama. It's an annoyance for him to have to address sexism. He's laughing in the video. He finds it all so funny. (I find his attempt to grow a mustache hilarious. That's day two by the way.) "This is what they want to talk about," insists Barack. And talking about it means he's not able to address "the issues that matter to you." Barack, you sad PIG, sexism matters to me and to many. It's not a "diversion" or a "distraction" (his words), it is a very real issue.

And it took Katie Couric calling it out to finally get the MSM to notice it. And what was the Obama campaign's response? Katharine Q. Seelye and Julie Bosman (New York Times) reported in June what US House Rep Debbie Wasserman Schultz told them on behalf of Team Obama, "She said Mr. Obama had no specific plans for a speech on sexism, partly because he already incorporates themes of discrimination as a societal problem into his speeches."

But Barack's bothered that he had to even get near the topic today. He calls it unfair. He didn't think it was unfair when his Cult was tarring Bill Clinton as a racist for using "fairytale." He used the odor of fish and lipstick on a pig to insult a woman. All Bill Clinton did was point out Barack was a damn liar about his positions on the illegal war.

Sexism can be used by Barack's campaign and by Barack but the Christ-child must never have to address the topic and sends out flunkies (he hides behind a lot of women) to insist that he's already addressed an "ism" and wasn't that enough? No. No, it is not enough. In March 2008, he decied to bore the country with a never-ending stream of words (4,683) allegedly on the topic of race. (It wasn't about race it was about the only topic he enjoys getting wordy on: Himself.) He can't address sexism?

He has two daughters and he can't address sexism? He said of Hillary Clinton that "periodically" when Hillary was "feeling blue" "the claws come out." He's now going after Sarah Palin and wants yet another pass? He can't address sexism but, as Marie Cocco's "Obama's Abortion Stance When 'Feeling Blue'" (Washington Post Writers Group) pointed out, he's got plenty of time to speak to anti-women men:

Obama says that these women should not be able to obtain a late-term abortion, because just "feeling blue" isn't the same as suffering "serious clinical mental health diseases." True enough. And totally infuriating.
During the recent Obama pander tour -- the one in which he spent about a week trying to win over conservative religious voters -- the presumptive Democratic nominee unnecessarily endorsed President Bush's faith-based initiative, a sort of patronage program that rewards religious activists for their political support with public grants. Then in a St. Louis speech, Obama declared that "I let Jesus Christ into my life." That's fine, but we already have a president who believes this was a qualification for the Oval Office, and look where that's gotten us.Obama's verbal meanderings on the issue of late-term abortion go further. He has muddied his position. Whether this is a mistake or deliberate triangulation, only Obama knows for sure.
One thing is certain: Obama has backhandedly given credibility to the right-wing narrative that women who have abortions -- even those who go through the physically and mentally wrenching experience of a late-term abortion -- are frivolous and selfish creatures who might perhaps undergo this ordeal because they are "feeling blue."

When Palin entered the race and made her "lipstick" line, the game changed. If Hillary had been the Democratic nominee and had chosen Joe Biden for her running mate, John McCain could declare that they were negative and refer to their "dark vision" for America's future. With Barack as the nominee, his use of that term would be called out immediately. With Barack in the race, the game changes. It's the same thing with Sarah Palin being in the race. Barack's remarks yesterday were pre-pared as evidenced by the fact that he stole a huge chunk from a cartoon. If he and his team are too stupid to grasp how those remarks would play, that's their own damn fault. He should have apologized.

Instead, he hides behind women and has them trot out to offer excuses and attacks. It's not going to work anymore than it does in a court room when a rapist hires a female attorney or a rapist's defense team uses the sole woman to cross examine the rape victim. If Barack can't even address sexism what does that really say about him? And what does it say about the women who allow him to hide? President of NOW's New York state chapter Marcia Pappas offers "To Women Who Love Their Political Party Too Much" and all -- men and women -- would benefit from reading that. And on a similar note,

To The Contrary's Bonnie Erbe (writing at US News & World Reports) explains:

Women can be sexist, too, you know, just like persons of color can be racist. As the media debate whether Gov. Sarah Palin's public treatment is sexist or not, take this punch, socked to Palin by a woman, that's as clearly out of bounds as a husband slapping his wife in the face in public.

As related by The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus today:

My colleague Sally Quinn put it most provocatively. "Is she prepared for the all-consuming nature of the job?" Quinn wondered. "When the phone rings at three in the morning and one of her children is really sick, what choice will she make?"

Has Quinn ever asked the same question of a man running for vice president? Of course not, nor would she. What if the answer is, Sarah Palin would take the call at 3 a.m. and jump on any plane to anywhere in the world, confident that her husband would care for the sick child? To pose the question is to promote idiotic and sexist media viewpoints, while ignoring the much more important flaws in the Palin candidacy.

iraq
mcclatchy newspapers
nancy a. youssef
jonathan s. landay
michael abramowitz
the washington post

katie couric
the cbs evening news

the new york times
katharine q. seelye
julie bosman

bonnie erbe

marie cocco

mcclatchy newspapers
sahar issa
nicholas spangler
now on pbs
pbs

Breaking News -- Nader/Gonzalez on in 45 States!

Drop $11 on Nader/Gonzalez.

Why?

We're celebrating.

At the beginning of this campaign, we made a promise:

Nader/Gonzalez on the ballot in 45 states by September 20.

Today -- Tuesday, September 9, 2008 -- eleven days ahead of schedule -- we declare victory.

We have completed our ballot access efforts and we're set to be on in 45 states.

On in more states than in 2000 (43).

On in more states than in 2004 (34).

On in 45 states.

Now, the American people will have a choice.

To vote for a campaign free from corporate influence.

But, as you probably have figured out by now, we are not a campaign that rests on its laurels.

So, today we are proud to announce the launch of our eight-week Nader/Gonzalez Get Out the Vote drive.

We need to raise $80,000 by September 17.

This money will be used to reach out to Americans throughout this country.

We're planning on deploying 30 full-time field staff.

Ordering tens of thousands of lawn signs.

Printing hundreds of thousands of pamphlets.

And making hundreds of thousands of phone calls.

To inform the American people that they now have a choice in November.

And to get them to vote for Nader/Gonzalez.

Want health care for all? Vote Nader/Gonzalez.

Need a living wage? Vote Nader/Gonzalez.

Want to transform the country to a solar energy economy? Vote Nader/Gonzalez.

Want to reverse course in the Middle East? Vote Nader/Gonzalez.

Help us celebrate this historic opportunity the only way we know how.

With action for a change.

So, donate $11 now to the Nader/Gonzalez Get Out the Vote Fund.

(If you give $100 or more now, we will send to you In Pursuit of Justice, the 520-page book of essays by Ralph Nader -- essays on corporate power, the Constitution, and transforming our country. If you donate $100 now, we will send you this historic collection -- autographed by the man himself -- Ralph Nader. (This offer ends at 11:59 p.m. September 17, 2008))

So, let's start to spread the word.

Nader/Gonzalez on in 45 states.

Time to crank it up.

And get out the vote.

Let's get it done.

The Nader Team

ShareThisShareThis

Tuesday, September 9, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Bully Boy lies about the illegal war (again), the puppet 'government' continues their tag sale on Iraqi resources, Kuwait is all over the map, Iraq's Parliament resumes sessions, Ralph Nader has big news, and more. Today Bully Boy spoke at Eisenhower Hall at the National Defense University. He hailed the 'handover' of Al Anbar Province as a "remarkable event," referred to the followers of Moqtada al-Sadr as "Shia extremist groups" and more blah blah before he got to the only reason anyone was paying attention to him: drawdowns. "By November," he declared, "we'll bring home a marine battalion that is now serving in Anbar Province. And in Feburary of 2009, another army combat brigade will come come home. This amounts to about 8,000 additional American troops returning home without replacement." Reality, Bully Boy leaves the White House in January. Anything done prior to that he is over, anything after that, he can't promise. So today's announcement went beyond what many were expection in that he's promising a marien battalion will be brought back in November without a replacement sent back in. And that's the only thing he announced regarding Iraq. Thom Shanker (New York Times) reported before the speech and didn't grasp that Bully Boy cannot make any promises regarding what the incoming president will do. Not only does Bully Boy not have that power, considering stop-loss and tour extensions, reporters should be a little less quick to repeat hollow 'announcements' when it is the service members and their families that are harmed when 'announcements' don't come to pass. Dan Eggen (Washington Post) demonstrated how you report 'announcements' of events that would take place after a new president was sworn in: "President Bush will announce today that the number of U.S. combat brigades in Iraq will remain steady until after he leaves office, deferring any further decisions about troop withdrawals to his successor, according to a copy of his speech released by the White House." That is what Bully Boy did, he left it in the hands of the next president. The illegal war he started over five years ago is one he will leave office without ending and without any major reductions in the number of US troops stationed in Iraq. The point is not lost on all. CQ Politics reports, "Missouri Democrat Ike Skelton, chairman of the House Armed Services commitee, said the president's action merely defers decisions until the next administration." The point is lost on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who is quoted foaming at the mouth, "Given the increasingly violent situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, I am stunned that President Bush has decided to bring so few troops home from Iraq and send so few resources to Afghanistan." 146,000 US service members are stationed in Iraq and Harry Reid's big concern is not ending the illegal war it's getting them out of Iraq . . . to ship them off to Aghanistan. Let's drop back to the 90s, via Caroline Frost (the BBC), to remember what War Hawk Democrats (Reid is one) really think: "UN ambassador Madeleine Albright asked him, 'What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?' For General Colin Powell, this most military of politicians who has watched men die, the answer was, and remains, simple. 'American GIs are not toy soldiers to be moved around on some global game board'." Someone needs to tell that to Harry Reid -- not Powell, of course, he destroyed his name long ago. At the White House today, Dana Perino had laughs at Harry's expense with remarks during a press briefing which included: "Look, I don't know who briefs Senator Reid and I don't know what sort of staff work he gets or the updates he gets. . . . Well, you know, when Senator Reid becomes Commander-in-Chief he'll have a little bit more credibility on that score." Also during the briefing, Perino was asked why Bully Boy didn't announce a large draw-down and she pushed US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Admiral Mike Mullen and Gen David Petraeus' recommendations before declaring, "So I can't say why he didn't choose something else. But he accepted their recommendation." Asked why the number of the draw-down wasn't larger after the White House has repeatedly sold the 'success' in Iraq (and Bully Boy sold it in his speech today) which resulted in a jumbled response by Perino: "Well one thing President Bush has said, and he asked his commanders, is how do we make sure that the gains that we have made in security are cemented enough so that when we do pull back, it won't be -- it won't mean that terrorists come back and fill that space. So President Bush thinks that taking 8,000 troops out is the recommendation from the Pentagon, and the one that is prudent right now. And Secretary -- I'm sorry, General Petraeus believes that further reductions are possible in the first half of 2009, but it's going to have to depend on conditions on the ground. And so we'll continue to look at it. I think that either way, the President -- people would question -- should he send more/should he send less? He thinks that he hit it just right, that the Pentagon's recommendation was about the right size." What she eventually gets out are the talking points the White House repeats over and over. The news is in the stumble it took for her to arrive at them. Like Thom Shanker, CBS News fails to grasp that the Bully Boy has no control over the next presidency so his 'promises' for 2009 are meaningless. They do point out that prior to the escalation (the so-called 'surge'), the US had 136,000 service members stationed in Iraq. Ther are approximately 146,000 stationed in Iraq today. Not only does what Bully Boy can promise not bring the number down to pre-'surge' levels, even including what he 'promises' someone else will do does not bring it down to pre-'surge' levels. AFP notes, "The decision means the president's successor will take office in January with the US military presence in Iraq at about 140,000 troops -- still a bigger deployment than two years ago despite the deep unpopularity of the war." US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi bungles it with her statements almost as badly as Reid does, "After five and a half years of war, President Bush will leave office with nearly as many U.S. troops in Iraq as were there before the 'surge' began in January 2007. The continued heavy commitment of U.S. forces is hampering our ability to fight the real war against terrorism in Afghanistan, is hurting our military readiness, and is extending the strain of long deployments on our military families. The President is incapable of finding a way to make our troops the beneficiaries of whatever improvements there have been in security in Iraq." Pelosi, facing a serious challenge in the November election from Cindy Sheehan, had no reason to toss in Afghanistan. Strip that out and her only word problem is minor (there will be more US forces in Iraq than prior to the 'surge'). The larger problem -- that she herself has done little (though Pelosi blames that on the US Senate) -- may make her statements hard for many to believe in but when she starts playing the idiot on Afghanistan, she's begging the eighth district to send Cindy to Congress. And let's drive this point home because not only can Bully Boy not make promises for the next president, the situation changes all the time and the ones hurt are the service members and their families. For those with short (or non-existant) memories in the press corps, August 2006, AP reported: "About 300 Alaska-based soldiers sent home from Iraq just before their unit's deployment was extended last month must now bo back, the Army said Monday, setting up a wrenching departure for troops and families who thought their service there was finished." So instead of propping up a lame-duck on his way out, the press should be very careful about how they 'report' announcements. Bully Boy can turn around tomorrow and decided that the November return (the only one in his speech he has any control over) won't happen. The same urge to treat every stammer out of his mouth as gospel was present in the lead-up to the illegal war. Wasn't the press have supposed to learned from that? For those still confused, follow the example of Demetri Sevastopulo (Financial Times of London): "George W. Bush plans to withdraw 4,000 troops from Iraq before the end of his presidency as the Pentagon starts to shift its focus to Afghanistan, the White House said yesterday." While on the topic of service members, yesterday the US Defense Dept announced a new service, Wounded Warrior Resource Center for service members and their families who "have concerns or other difficulties during their recovery process" and the WWRC can be contacted via e-mail at wwrc@militaryresource.com or by phone at (800) 342-9647. Turning to the topic of fleecing, the US installed puppet government continues signing deals on behalf of the occupied country of Iraq. Nicholas Spangler and Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) report an agreement was reached "with Royal Dutch Shell to exploit the immense amount of natural gas in souther Iraq". AFP notes the deal is to be finalized in October and "Royal Dutch Shell will form a gas venture with energy-rich Iraq worth up to four billion dollars, the oil ministry said Tuesday of the first Western oil major to do a deal with the central government since the 2003 invasion." Yesterday the Jerusalem Post noted, "The United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Bahrain and Kuwait are sending ambassadors to Iraq, and other countries are considering following suit." Waleed Ibrahim (Reuters) reports today that Abdullah Ibrahim al-Shehhi, UAE's Ambassador to Iraq, arrived in Baghdad today and was welcomed by Iraq's Sunni vice-president Tareq al-Hashemi who stated, "It is a message to all states which are still hesitant to open their diplomatic missions in Iraq. This new, heavy diplomatic presence in Iraq is proof that Iraq has started to recover from the last five years of crisis." But let's not pretend it was all about the diplomacy and not about the coin. Azzaman explains, "Foreign investors from Germany, the United Arab Emirates and Iraq are offering to set up oil refineries in southern Iraq." And the renewal of diplomatic ties also comes as UPI reports, "Officials in the United Arab Emirates are examing a proposal to build a $200 billion, 112-mile canal to transport oil around the volatile Strait of Hormuz." Staying with the topic of coin, Erica Goode and Muhafer al-Husaini (New York Times) note the Sunni thugs who stopped attacking the US and Iraqis when the US put them on the payroll ("Awakening" Council) heard Brig Gen Tarek Abdul Hameed declare that the puppet government in Baghdad would indeed pick up their payrolls. Meanwhile on the legislative front, Iraq's Parliament is back in session after their summer recess. Robert H. Reid (AP) observes, "Tuesday's session was held in the Baghdad Convention Center inside the U.S.-protected Green Zone, despite an announcement last June that the assembly would meet in the former National Assembly building outside the zone." Mohammed Abbas and Waleed Ibrahim (Reuters) report Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, Speaker of Parliament, is calling a meeting of "the heads of political parties" tomorrow to address the stalled provincial elections. Meanwhile Sunday Nicholas Spangler (McClatchy Newspapers) reported that Iraq sent their finance minister to Kuwait today re: Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1991 in order to discuss "payment of debts and compensation" for that action. The visit was put on hold. CNN reports Sheikh Nasser al-Mohammed al-Ahmed al-Sabah, Prime Minister of Kuwait, will visited Baghdad "soon". Well that is interesting . . . as is [PDF format warning] this: "The Defense Security Cooperation AGency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Kuwait of AIM-120C-7 AMRAAM Missiles as well as associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $178 million. . . . The proposed sale will improve Kuwait's capability to meet current and future threats of enemy air-to-air weapons. Kuwait will use the enhanced capability as a deterrent to regional threats and to strengthen its homeland defense. . . . The prime contractor will be Raytheon Missile Systems Corporation, Tucson, Arizona." Tina Susman and Caesar Ahmed (Los Angeles Times) report on yesterday's attack on civilians in Baghdad, "Bodyguards of the minister of displacement and migration, who has been telling Iraqis it is safe to come home after five years of war, were involved in a rush-hour shooting Monday that police said killed a woman and injured six other people. Circumstances surrounding the incident were unclear. The ministry said traffic police fired toward the minister's convoy and that the bodyguards only fired into the air. Police said the bodyguards were trying to clear traffic by shooting into the air and that one of them accidentally aimed his gun into nearby cars. Witnesses said the shooting was the result of a dispute between the ministry bodyguards and traffic police." Nicholas Spangler and Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) quote an eye witness (unnamed police officer) who states, "I saw guards carrying maching guns shooting randomly. First, they killed a woman who was trying to cross the intersection. After that they opened fire on the traffic policeman who was doing his job. They shot him twice and he was injured. He fell down on the street. Then they left the cards and were walking with machine guns and pistols in their hands." Turning to some of today's reported violence . . . Bombings? Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports the latest assasination attempt on an official via a Baghdad bombing targeting Gen Hasen Maeen ("Prime Minister's office") that wounded him "and two of his security personnel" while journalist Jawad al-Hattab ("bureau chief of al-Arabiyah") was targeted with a car bombing as well but discovered it before it detonated and was unharmed, a Baghdad roadside bombing claimed 1 life and left six people wounded and a Salahuddin Province bombing claimed the life of 1 police officer and left three more wounded. Shootings? Reuters notes 1 person shot dead and another wounded outside of Mussayab, 1 "local aid agency" official shot dead in Mosul, 1 police officer shot dead in Mosul, 1 person shot dead in Kut and 1 person shot dead outside Suwayra. Corpses? Reuters notes 1 corpse discovered in Mosul. Turning to the US presidential race. Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader can announce that the plan for the Nader-Gonzalez ticket to be on the ballot in 45 states by September 20th happened nine days early. Ralph and his running mate Matt Gonzalez (and their team of supporters) have already advanced the independent run further than in 2004 and have had to jump through obstacles of ballot access that no one should have to. In addition to that news, Team Nader picked an endorsement, from Jaclyn E.'s "Ralph Nader for President" (Teen Ink): Choosing between the ­Republican and Democratic candidate would mean choosing the lesser of two evils. Instead, I prefer to align myself with a candidate who shares my views on stabilizing the economy, preventing war, and downsizing the government. This candidate is Ralph Nader. Nader is the only presidential candidate who has experience running his own business. He has applicable knowledge of the economy and strives to distribute wealth equally. He was quoted on "Meet The Press" as saying: "There is a two-tier economy where the top 10 percent is doing quite well, the top one percent spectacularly. But the top one percent of the richest ­people in this country have financial wealth equal to the combined 95 percent of the American people. That's a very ­unhealthy inequality." In order to fix this, Nader proposes to repeal the Bush administration tax cuts and adjust the federal income tax. This shows that he is driven to help the average American survive the current ­economic slump. Nader also wants to help America move past Congress's war-happy regime. He proposes a "draft from the top," meaning when an administration approves a war, the service-aged children of all members of that Congress and Cabinet will be the first to serve. This would ensure that elected officials think carefully before declaring war. Nader also supports pulling out of Iraq within six months and trying to negotiate with Iran. He wants to take our men and women in uniform out of Iraq and bring them home where they belong. Team Nader announces: Drop $11 on Nader/Gonzalez. Why? We're celebrating. At the beginning of this campaign, we made a promise: Nader/Gonzalez on the ballot in 45 states by September 20. Today -- Tuesday, September 9, 2008 -- eleven days ahead of schedule -- we declare victory. We have completed our ballot access efforts and we're set to be on in 45 states. On in more states than in 2000 (43). On in more states than in 2004 (34). On in 45 states. Now, the American people will have a choice. To vote for a campaign free from corporate influence. But, as you probably have figured out by now, we are not a campaign that rests on its laurels. So, today we are proud to announce the launch of our eight-week Nader/Gonzalez Get Out the Vote drive. We need to raise $80,000 by September 17. This money will be used to reach out to Americans throughout this country. We're planning on deploying 30 full-time field staff. Ordering tens of thousands of lawn signs. Printing hundreds of thousands of pamphlets. And making hundreds of thousands of phone calls. To inform the American people that they now have a choice in November. And to get them to vote for Nader/Gonzalez. Want health care for all? Vote Nader/Gonzalez. Need a living wage? Vote Nader/Gonzalez. Want to transform the country to a solar energy economy? Vote Nader/Gonzalez. Want to reverse course in the Middle East? Vote Nader/Gonzalez. Help us celebrate this historic opportunity the only way we know how. With action for a change. So, donate $11 now to the Nader/Gonzalez Get Out the Vote Fund. (If you give $100 or more now, we will send to you In Pursuit of Justice, the 520-page book of essays by Ralph Nader -- essays on corporate power, the Constitution, and transforming our country. If you donate $100 now, we will send you this historic collection -- autographed by the man himself -- Ralph Nader. (This offer ends at 11:59 p.m. September 17, 2008)) So, let's start to spread the word. Nader/Gonzalez on in 45 states. Time to crank it up. And get out the vote. Let's get it done. Onward to November. iraq the new york times erica goode thom shanker mudhafer al-husaini dan eggen the washington post the los angeles times tina susman caesar ahmed mcclatchy newspapers hussein kadhim nicholas spangler teen ink jaclyn e.