When this site returns to the kind of stories it used to do before Obama, nobody cares. Interesting.
A day or so ago, I mentioned that Daily Kos halved its potential readership when it became The Obama Channel. Meanwhile, Larry Johnson says that his anti-Obama No-Quarter has acquired a massive new readership -- which he services with some excellent investigative pieces.
And, alas, some piffle.
In today's installment, Johnson pretends to be outraged by an innocent joke made by Obama during a photo op. This hyperbolic nonsense reminds me of the DUmmies who pretended to be outraged by innocent comments made by Hillary or Bill Clinton.
Shirts versus skins, as Bob Somersby puts it. That's what the audience wants.
The shirts versus skins mentality caused Randi Rhodes to lose her gig after she called Hillary Clinton a "fucking whore" at a pro-Obama event sponsored by an Air America affiliate. Even if you agree with her assessment, ask yourself: Is this kind of insult really the way to turn Clinton voters? Seems to me that Obama is going to need those votes in November. Why should they help him after being insulted by his surrogates?
Somewhere between a quarter to a third of Clinton voters won't vote for Obama in the general. I am one of 'em -- and if Hillary doesn't approve of that attitude, to hell with Hillary.
Rhodes is so arrogant that she won't entertain the possibility that the reason people like me cannot bring ourselves to vote for Obama is not because we are pro-GOP (have I written pro-GOP material over the past four years?) but because we've been alienated. People like Randi Rhodes and Markos Moulitsas made me rethink my lifelong commitment to the Democratic Party.
You screwed up, guys. You failed a lesson from Politics 101: You don't run a smear campaign in a primary -- because you are going to need those "enemies" in the general.
So go ahead. Call me, us, conservative. If you really think that insulting people whose votes you need is the way to capture hearts and minds -- do it. And when you see John McCain take the oath, try to convince yourself that it ain't your fault, and do not for one second allow the dread thought to enter your brain: Gee, maybe my tactics were wrong.
(By the way, is there any truth to the rumor that the real name of Josh Marshall's replacement is Billy Shears?)
Goodbye, Ms. Gabby: Rhodes has left Air America and is taking up shop at Nova M Radio -- which, last I heard, runs a lot of Air America programming. I stopped listening to her program a while ago, before Obama-mania took hold, so I doubt that I'll catch her new act. What annoyed me about Rhodes was not her politics but her logorrhea.
I'm not the only person who has formed the queasy suspicion that her epic loquaciousness has segued into the pathological. Was I out of line to suggest (in a previous column) the possibility of substance abuse? We all judge from previous experience, and most of the folks I've known who suffered from "talkaholism" also were pill-poppers.
In the case of Rhodes, the evidence for this suspicion is thin, if it can be called "evidence" at all. She's a chain-smoker, which means that she has an addictive personality. Not long ago, she fell unconscious on a public sidewalk after drinking in an Irish pub. Initially, she pretended that she had been mugged, even though nothing was stolen. That incident, like Rush Limbaugh's hearing loss, may be the first public indicator of a personal issue.
So perhaps she has a problem. More likely, her on-air personality simply took a turn for the creepy.
I've also noted that people enamored of conspiracy theories have a disease I call interruptitus. They won't let you finish a single thought, no matter how brief you try to be. Mention a noun, any noun, and they will give you a twenty-minute "brain dump" inspired by that noun.
That's why I had to drive all the "conspiracy guys" out of my life. It's also one reason why I started a blog. In writing, one may finish.
29 comments:
"Rhodes is so arrogant that she won't entertain the possibility that the reason people like me cannot bring ourselves to vote for Obama is not because we are pro-GOP (have I written pro-GOP material over the past four years?) but because we've been alienated."
Yeah, and Hillary alienated and upset a lot of people like me when she went on TV calling Obama supporters cultists, taking her que from that shithead Krugman in the New York times.
Personally, I don't give a rats ass if you're alienated. Hillary Clinton is disliked for many reasons. She will NOT win against McCain. You guys just live in fantasy land and don't want to confront reality are destroying the Dem party. She has no center. She just says things to get elected. People keep TELLING you guys this and you don't listen.
She has associated herself with the likes of Rupert Murdoch and Scaife.
She gives Drudge first dibs on her inside scoops.
SHE IS A DLC PHONEY.
Are you going to delete this message too because I said the D word? DLC
Vote for whoever the hell you want to vote for. Keep pushing the IDIOT vote until you destroy America.
IF YOU WANT PEOPLE TO VOTE DEMOCRATIC THEN STOPPING CHOOSING PHONIES. CHOOSE CANDIDATES WHO MEAN WHAT THEY SAY AND SAY WHAT THEY MEAN. NOT ONES JUST SAYING THINGS TO GET ELECTED!
As much as I don't like Randhi Rhodes, when it comes to Hillary Clinton's behavior when it comes to "doing anything for a vote"... yeah, she's a WHORE.
I think many of your readers are turned off by your Obama screeds. We don't think Obama has run a smear campaign and think your alienation has more to do with some personal freakout that you are putting off on Obama. Your insults, anger and nastiness are in themselves smears. You have become what you rail against. Your other posts are usually interesting but why bother commenting to such a angry, insulting guy. Who cares any more? You are so far off on Obama that your judgement about what is real or imagined is now in question. For many of us.
Joe, Larry Johnson did not write the small article that you link to...I suggest you check the link again.
Meanwhile, here I go again...now please follow the links...Markos is a Libertarian.
He is not a Democrat, and he does not represent Democrats.
As for nutty Randi Rhodes, if you don't know that she's way way left in outer space, dude, I'll find some links for that as well. Bottom line again - NOT A DEMOCRAT.
These people are thugs, trying to "crash the gates" of the Democratic Party from all sides.
John
Scott, I have not even begun on Obama. He has destroyed the Democratic party.
Don't you think it is about time you found some other blog? You do not have and never will find the words to turn me around.
You're welcome to bring to my attention any evidence that you think will show me up -- those videos you brought up were REALLY helpful -- but don't flatter yourself with the thought that you possess any powers of rhetoric.
Anon -- you guys are ALWAYS anonymous, aren't you? -- stop drinking the Kos Kool-aid. Look at your words. Cliche after cliche. Obviously, you lack the IQ points necessary to find new ways to express the tired accusations that have been drummed into your head by the progbloggers. Hell, purely as an exercise, I could have argued YOUR position with more originality.
Paul Fussell once wrote an amusing piece about proles whose conversational skills have atrophied to the point that they can do little more than repeat TV ad slogans. You remind me of those guys, anon.
Your reference to the dreaded DLC is the giveaway.
Long, long before the race narrowed to two -- before the election season proper -- I expressed my bewilderment at this DLC bogeyman. The group has no power. The view you have of it is entirely created by incessant progblog propaganda and brainwashing. It is, to coin a phrase, a Potemkin Mordor.
Oddly enough, the DLC was not considered a big deal in 2000, 2002, 2004, or 2006 -- except by a very few. Suddenly, it is a Big Fucking Issue on the progblogs, even though it has less actual influence than ever before.
By the way, some of Obama's key advisers are DLC.
And the DLC was co-founded by -- gasp! -- AL GORE.
That fact doesn't bother me, since I could not give even one half of one fleck of crap about the DLC one way or the other. But I suspect that you, or other anonymous folk who think like you, may now feel obligated to go into rationalization mode.
Let me guess: If you are of a mind to defend Gore, to keep him admitted to your pantheon, you may now be tempted to say: "But Gore has changed!"
No, he hasn't.
What has changed are the problogs. What has changed is the left. I don't think the left would support Gore now.
And that is why I have left the left.
The party of Gore and Kerry is no more. And I will continue to say that even if Gore joins Kerry in supporting Obama. (I don't think that will happen soon.)
Progbloggers have trained you to call Krugman -- Paul freaking Krugman! -- a "piece of shit." This mudslinging -- this unreasoning hate-mongering DURING A PRIMARY -- demonstrates precisely why the Kossacks have alienated me from the current Democratic party. You are incapable of rational thought. You are simply one more torch-bearing villager rampaging through the last act of a Frankenstein movie.
Moulitsas, Rhodes and their kind are awfully proud of their power to hypnotize unthinking thugs into doing their bidding. But they will soon realize that they've mis-used their power.
As for Barack Obama's ability to win in the general -- I doubt he can do it. (I also doubt Hillary can do it.) You know who was the only Republican Obama has ever run against (outside his very liberal district in Illinois)?
Alan Keyes.
Wow. He beat Alan Keyes. I can't tell you how impressive that is.
Obama has never in his life faced a true challenge from a Republican. The 2004 campaign was a gimme. He has been able to claw his way to the top in the Democratic primary by playing the race card and by using his Kos and Air America pals to create a cult.
And yes, it IS a political cult, similar to the Moonies or the LaRouchies. (Did Hillary ever use the word "cultists"? I hope she did, but I can't find the cite.)
The tricks he has used in the primaries won't cut it in the general.
Go ahead, anon (and all you other cliche-spewing anons out there). Keep on insulting the Clinton supporters with such vehemence. Keep on calling Krugman readers shitheads. Keep it up.
That'll be a SURE way to fetch 'em in November.
A bunch of tactical geniuses, you are.
One more.
Obama has not destroyed the Democratic Party.
That's absurd. Record numbers of people have registered to vote Democrat and many of those are Obama supporters. NO matter who wins the primary the Dems are having a renaissance.
Aad Joe- I am just a working class liberal Democrat. I have voted that way for 40 years.
I have never voted for a republican except for Milton Marks when he was one.
And now you are voting for a Libertarian.
Took a Nixon to go to China. Now an Obama will "reform" Social Security. Look up the backgrounds of Goolsbee and Liebman. Follow the links provided by John. Get the picture?
Joseph, I just happened upon your blog and found it very refreshing. I am so sick of the cult Obama blogs with everyone spouting his talking points in lock step. I see that many of them are now experiencing 30-50% drops in daily visits. I recall Markos complaining about his February earnings. That makes me chuckle. They have allowed their blogs to become sewers and I have no sympathy. They are reaping what they so richly deserve.
I agree that Obama and his followers have split the party. There is no way I can ever vote for the man after what I've seen. Anyone who could throw Krugman under the bus is not someone I will support. If I have to hold my nose and choose between him and McCain, it will have to be McCain, even though I've never voted Republican in my life. This is the year when it should have been a cakewalk to get a dem elected. But what happens? We have a coup inside the party that will hand it back to the Republicans so they can destroy the world and the country a little bit more. What is sad is that Obama would be even more of a disaster.
CD, I'll never vote for a McCain. Although I suppose a vote for a third party candidate amounts to a vote for McCain.
In 1968, there were a surprising number of write-in votes for Batman.
Just a thought.
This primary is not just about the Obama/Dean/ MoveOn/DNC coalition's efforts to "crush" and deny Sen. clinton's campaign, aided by an in the tank media. It is about "control" of the Democratic party now and for years to come.
They want a "controllable, owned" President, just as the R's have had with GW Bush. They know "a Clinton" is not controllable and therefore seek to destroy them.
The "Far-left wing" of the Democratic party , an element that I thought had abated with the demise of Howard Dean's run, is hell bent to "transform" the party to fit their agenda, now and forever.
They found them a new candidate, "their half-black Lincoln" and will stop at nothing in trying to force him on all of us.
( *to verify the previous, please go to "Burning at the Grass Roots. com---explore and read all, esp sample chapter on Kerry. To read the Kerry "sample chapter" is equivalent to seeing exactly what Obama's campaign is doing to Clinton.
The author Dana Dunnan relates how he as an operative for the "Dean/MoveOn movement" tried to "swift-boat" Kerry before RNC did. Dean's movement ironically used race as their trap for Kerry, ie Malcolm X!)
It is hard to believe that the Kerry's(J. 0r T.) have ever seen this book, otherwise how could they support the same Democratic group that tried to "destroy" them. Perhaps "the white liberal guilt" factor is at work?
They chose Obama before he even became a Senator and helped elect him. The Senate was to be, just as it has been, merely a "jumping off point".
The "far-left's" vitriole and pernicious attacks completely turn me off. I have never seen anything like this from Democrats, and thought such vile individuals only inhabited the "far-right"! To me they are a mirror image of the extreme far-right.
I have been a voting Democrat for 46 years and have never witnessed such behavior. I naively thought we were "the good guys", and were above such.
The "far-right, swiftboating", Rovian element of the Bush supporters is my nemesis because of their lack of civility, and their willingness to wage ad-hominem, political "warfare". I now feel the same way about the "far-left" of my party. I will never coalesce with them under any circumstance.
This is my last year as a voting, donating Democrat. I will continue to donate to, and support HRC as my personal choice, not for HRC as "a Democratic candidate".
By the GE I will become an independent, and unless HRC is the nominee I will hold my vote, or cast it for McCain and hope he will govern moderately.
Neither I, nor the Democratic party have any further "need" for each other. The "far-left wingers" now control the party, and it shall be my goal henceforth to try to "tear" the party down. starting at the top with Dean, Brazile, Shrum, Soros, MoveOn, DailyKos, ad infinitum!
I certainly hope this post makes "a bit of" sense, and shall cause others to dig deeper as to whom we HRC supporters are truly "fighting"! The list is extensive, and involves only losers trying to regain lost credibility and power.
Obama has "organized" nothing, despite the claims of his supporters. This organization "organized" him, with the intent of owning him. What we have is the remnants of 3 failed campaigns, Gore's, Dean's, and Kerry's trying to destroy the only "winning" campaigners, the Clintons, we have had in the past 3 decades. The only "players" missing, to their credit, are Al Gore and John Edwards. Lieberman was discredited long ago.
GMC,
Sounds to me like you were never really a Democrat!
Adios...BUD!
You were always the problem in the Democratic Party and now with all you guys departing, maybe , WE THE DEMOCRATS can do and be what we really want to be.
BTW, have you ever wondered what that is?
POPULIST!
AS IN .........What benefits the CITIZENS!
A GOOD DAY.... is in store for us with out you!
ohhhhhhhhh damn...Was that the door that hit your ASS!!!!
GMC, don't listen to beeta. I'm not sure I agree, but I'm not sure you're wrong, either. I think you go off the mark when you see a grand conspiracy. Still...
The Libertarian connection is starting to resound with me. (Thanks, John.)
And I'm always wary when people starting popping off about populism. The populist impulse is "kissing cousin" to the libertarian impulse. Populism is where the far left and the conspiratorial right tend to meet. When the guy on the late-night Pacifica station plays a speech by Bo Gritz, you know that before the evening is out, you are going to hear some blather about populism.
Besides, the example of Tom Watson -- if you don't know the name, look it up -- always flashes through my head every time someone mentions populism.
I think I should say something else to our bravely anonymous friend who came to our fair site toting his bag of cliches.
Reaching into his sac, he disgorges the following:
"She has associated herself with the likes of Rupert Murdoch and Scaife.
She gives Drudge first dibs on her inside scoops."
She was in the same room with Scaife, a person who persecuted the Clintons. You have only Drudge's word for that accusation. I could as easily blame the Kossacks for taking Drudge AT his word -- they've certainly been according him an unusual credence this election season. Mudoch? No less than five times, Obamabots have sent me links to stories which allegedly told "the truth" about Hillary. They were all printed in the WSJ and other examples of the Murdoch press. Lord knows I've seen the anti-Clintonians line to FOX videos, when doing so fit their purposes.
Joe,
My humble apologies to your new audience. Apparently I didn't get the memo about welcoming I-Hate-Obama crowd.
And did I miss another memo "Code-Word-Populist"?
I am just one those "Green" Democrats, who thinks that "People" ought to have some say in what happens to them.
Again, my apologies all around!
Shirts v. skins. Is it really what we want, or is it just that they are the only choices offered? The latter seems more likely, to me.
Istvan the Mad! You see, that is why I discourage anonymous comments. I want more cool nicks like that.
I see that you hail from Vancouver Island. I was there once. Gorgeous place, and great prices on good food. Seriously, we're talking like $2.50 American for a breakfast that keeps you going all day. But the price of gas must be murderous these days.
Yes, there is a third choice if you don't like shirts or skins. There is the shirtless, skinless blood dripping all over the floor team. It's a bit gruesome.
She was in the same room with Scaife, a person who persecuted the Clintons. You have only Drudge's word for that accusation
While I know some epistemology (from my mis-spent youth!), and seeing shouldn't always result in believing, STILL... beyond Drudge's WORD, there WAS that PICTURE (which I haven't seen denied as real). I have little doubt that meeting occurred.
...sofla
Joseph won't acknowledge that LBJ destroyed the Democratic Party by capping off the FDR legacy; or that FDR only turned from his own patrician instincts and bearing to save the nation from disaster and fascism.
Next month I'll vote for Hillary. I'll vote for Barry if he's the party's candidate, and gladly. He won't be any kind of imperial POTUS, but he'll check and be checked by a re-invigorated Congress. Barry's so-called health plan sounds like a strategic plan that's open-ended, meaning he won't veto universal coverage if Congress writes the health coverage as such.
What about the Supreme Court, Joseph? Where the fuck are your brains, man?
Barry's quiet health-care and other social safety net programs, which scare Joseph white, are targeting young voters who selfishly don't want to help anyone, especially geezers and out-of-shape Boomers and GenXers. Why Joseph thinks Congress will roll over and dance to Barry's economic advisers betrays his political immaturity while making his writing fun and provocative.
Girls didn't play as shirts and skins when I went to school. How did they team up?
this silicon "Graal" will save the day. Ladies and Gentlemen..forget the past and start your search engines. After May 22nd the rules of the game go out the window. A new day is dawning with new rules to play.
What fun these mortals be..
http://www.mitchell-hedges.com/news/
The Holy Ghost rides rough
"Somewhere between a quarter to a third of Clinton voters won't vote for Obama in the general. I am one of 'em -- and
if Hillary doesn't approve of that attitude, to hell with Hillary.
Rhodes is so arrogant that she won't entertain the possibility that the reason people like me cannot bring ourselves
to vote for Obama is not because we are pro-GOP (have I written pro-GOP material over the past four years?) but
because we've been alienated. "
This gets a huge whopping "ZLOL!" given all your past bleeting and whining about those terrible Nader voters. Welcome to the club, Joe.
I have always thought Randi Rhodes' main problem is that she is dumb as a box of rocks. Whenever a reasonably bright person would call she was absolutely out of her depth.
Once, someone called who stated that Fortune 500 CEOs will one day be the biggest proponents of single-payer health care, because their company profits will be dragged down by 'legacy costs' – retirees whose benefits packages cost companies lots of money.
Randi simply didn’t understand the issue and said, in that dead-stupid tone of voice, 'Tell me another one.' (I happen to disagree with the caller -- I think that companies will simply dump the retirees in the cold, but that’s another issue.) My point is: Rhodes didn’t understand what he was saying. She's dumb, really dumb.
She’s an alcoholic:
http://gawker.com/news/developing/was-talk-show-host-randi-rhodes-jumped-by-14-ketel-ones-311453.php
14 Bloody Marys at once? On a Sunday night? That’s a bit much.
She's not stupid. You should know that sometimes radio hosts have several things going on at once in the studio, so attention does get divided.
Then again, downing 14 bloody Marys -- before SUNSET! -- ain't bright. Yow!
(Me, I get depressed and surly when I've had a few.)
(That was your straight line, folks.)
Saw a poll today. Obama 45 - McCain 45. 30% of Clinton voters say they will vote for McCain over Obama. But if half of those voters come back to the Democratic Party (after Clinton endorses Obama) doesn't that give Obama a good chance? Plus Obama is registering a lot of new voters. It's not over until it's over.
I still predict Obama wins. Perhaps we could come up with some sort of bet.
Gary, I don't bet. I wouldnt bet on sunshine in the summer. I find sloth and gluttony to be such satisfactory vices that I don't know why anyone even BOTHERS with the others.
Okay, wrath. Wrath is good too.
joseph and others,
I realize what I posted previously sounds like a "conspiracy theory" and I regret that aspect. However, I know of no way to point out the "mirror image" of Dean's 2004 machine and its tactics, compared to the current Obama campaign without it coming across as such.
I do not base this on conjecture, I base it on a Rovian style "playbook" as delineated in a book by Dana Dunnan, titled: "Burning at the Grassroots: Inside the Dean Machine"(2004): you can view it and explore chapter summaries, as well as a "sample" chapter on Kerry at burningatthegrassroots.com. Check it out. Dunnan apparently wrote it to prove how slick the Dean apparatus had been in 2004, until the scheme ran off the rails with the scream, and the loss in NH. However, they quickly tweaked it, determined to be even more ruthless, and not fail again.
Dunnan was part of the Dean/MoveOn movement (working the press, "spying, being a spook in crowds (authors term), posing in Kerry crowds, asking questions to "trip Kerry up", such as one regarding Malcolm X's autobiography, had Kerry read it and what had he "gleaned" from it ?(ironically). The author says Kerry would later, when asked by a child to name his heroes, first cite his supporter Max Cleland, then Christopher Reeves, and Mother Teresa, all for their inspiration to others in rising above their adversity. Then he states that as Kerry did so, he (Dunnan) was struck by how Kerry was describing Dunnan's own vision of Malcolm X’s life. And he was intrigued that Kerry's heroes were all white folk (authors term). He implies that he saw that as a "weak spot" for Kerry, and one to be expolited if he could do it in front of cameras and the right crowd. He goes on to aver that people asked Kerry about civil rights and he waffled for minutes without answering. Dunnan says that politicians should always have a pat answer on civil rights in their head.. That Dean did!
Dunnan says his effort was aimed at getting Kerry to commit a gaffe of the magnitude of Dean’s Confederate flag controversy . Dunnan then laments that "if he(Dunnan) had been black, surrounded by a black audience in South Carolina when he asked Kerry about MalcolmX (certainly has a familiar ring, does it not), he would have fared differently in his effort to trip Kerry up'. He says what Kerry did (re the Malcolm X question) was try to be another white guy talking about race- he just couldn’t figure out how to do it.
He talks in another chapter about how Wesley Clark ("a general threat") had to be minimized.and states that given a chance to bird-dog Clark and work the media, the author (Dunnan) jumped all over it, and cultivated his own "press scrum", to Clark’s consternation and detriment.
I find it very interesting that the author points out that Dean claimed that he was the only white candidate talking about race, and that they planned to definitely capture the African-American, senior citizen, and the youth vote. The "Dean/MoveON/Obama machine has the majority of two of the three this time, but has for the most part driven away the third.
Dunnan apparently is still a part of the "machine". He started the book by talking about finding a "Lincoln"(apparently Dean), then later talks about Kerry being compared to Lincoln stature wise, and has since added a "footnote" saying they have finally found their "Lincoln", and "this time it is not a tall white man". He held a book tour/signing for Obama's 2004 Senate campaign. Obama's Us Senate race was never meant to make him "a sitting Senator", as he has not been. The Senate was just a short pause in the quest "the machine" started mapping out for him in 2004. When Dean lost, the new search for their "Lincoln" began. They found him quickly, having "discovered" him at the convention.
As I have stated before, I would never have imagined that a "far-left", Rovian type playbook existed until I found this book. If you just read the "chapter summaries" and the Kerry sample chapter, while mentally substituting Obama for Dean and Clinton for Kerry, you will be amazed at the mirror of the present primary. You will definitely wonder why Kerry and Theresa are "hooked up" with Obama considering their denigrating, pernicious treatment by this "machine" ( perhaps they have never seen the book).
Hopefully you will question how Dean could so smoothly, and subtly pass the MoveOn/MeetUp/DailyKos/Etc. alliance to Obama, while at the same time heading the DNC. This book refutes all praise regarding "what a fantastic, well organized campaign Obama has put together and manages"! Obama has neither "put together" nor organized anything. This campaign was handed to him intact "lock, stock, and barrel".
We currently have have three sets of losing campaigners(Gore's, Dean's, Kerry's) trying to "quash" the campaign of the only "winners"(the Clintons) we have had in the past 32 years since Carter's win.
You will have no trouble seeing "why" this cabal has joined forces.. The why is a desire to "root out the old party", replacing it with "theirs", establishing a self-perpetuating "movement" that will equal the "far-right" in its desire to hold power indefininately. Their desire for absolute power explains their deep disdain for anything Clinton, "their" candidate must be controllable, HRC would not).
Read the summaries, the sample chapter, and explore the site. See how much it parallels everything happening in this primary. Ask yourself if 2004 and 2008 have merged?
All I ask is that anyone read and explore the site before judging the soundness of my take on it. If you read it and draw a different conclusion I welcome your rebuttal. However, if you do the exploration of the site and agree with me, I would appreciate your pointing out such to others.
I simply find it too difficult to believe that the "race card" aspects re Kerry, the South Carolina analogy, the fact that many of that 2004 organization like Aswini Anburajan now write for the anti-Hillary first read blog at MSNBC, etc. are merely coincidence in relation to current campaign techniques.
I have no problem with being proven wrong. I just ask that you use your own determination, after thoroughly exploring the site to do so. Rather than simply dismissing it because it sounds conspiratorial.
OK GMC,
My apologies for judging you so harshly, but you are new to me and we have gotten some weird folks here lately and one does not throw such theories out there without some background (such as you have done now).
Now after reading your intro, I am tempted to read the book, but until I do, I have a couple of questions for you.
-What is the core philosophy of this so called cabal (as in values, role of government, corporations versus citizens...etc.)?
-Aside from wanting to devise a winning campaign, which I do not have a problem with, what else makes them so unsavory in your opinion? (Joe's point is that you do not use smear in the primaries)
Funny, I can remember puzzling over having seen what seemed to be my initials on the tailgates of pickup trucks back in 1953--GMC.
Anyway, I am not a car manufacturer, nor I am the poster GMC. But that's pretty good stuff, and I want to say thank you for your time and effort in your posts.
LaRouche and colleagues have beet busting Howard Dean for some time. At first, I thought they were nuts... not so. Here's a bunch of links via a google search at lpac:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6a36hm
Gary McGowan
Post a Comment