Obama Repudiates Ex-pastor

Senator Barack Obama, saying that he’d had enough, forcefully repudiated his former pastor yesterday and declared that racially charged remarks made by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. contradict “all that I stand for.”

Obama said he had tried to give Wright “the benefit of the doubt,” but decided to disavow Wright after the minister’s nationally televised appearance on Monday reignited a lingering controversy on the eve of two crucial Democratic presidential primaries.

The Illinois senator said Wright’s appearance, including his dismissal of Obama’s attempts to defuse the controversy as political posturing, “was a show of disrespect to me” and “an insult to what we’ve been trying to do in this campaign.”

Wright, he added, is no longer “the man I met 20 years ago.”

“When I say I found his comments appalling, I mean it . . . Anybody who has worked with me, who knows my life, who read my books, who has seen what this campaign is about will understand it is completely opposed to what I stand for and where I want to take this country,” Obama said at a news conference in Winston-Salem, N.C.

The condemnation was a dramatic shift for Obama, who had tried to navigate a personal and political minefield: maintaining a relationship with the minister who brought him to Christianity, performed his wedding, and baptized his two daughters, while distancing himself from Wright’s most incendiary sermons and trying to quell a controversy that threatened to undermine Obama’s campaign’s focus on racial unity.

Answering questions submitted by reporters on Monday, Wright praised Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan as “one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century,” and said it’s possible that the US government created the AIDS virus and introduced it into the black community. He also said he’s become a victim of “unfair accusations taken from soundbites” that have developed into an “attack on the black church launched by people who know nothing about the African-American religious tradition.”

William Galston of the Brookings Institution, a nonpartisan Washington think tank, said Obama had to disavow Wright, the former pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ, but added that the controversy has already taken a toll on Obama’s campaign. Galston said the most recent polling data show that Obama’s substantial lead over Hillary Clinton, his Democratic rival, is narrowing in North Carolina and that Clinton is gaining ground in a neck-and-neck race in Indiana.

“I would be surprised if [Obama's statements] made it go away. It’s certainly helpful,” he said. “But I think that Senator Obama will be lucky if this dies down before people are voting in the primaries” Tuesday… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Boston Globe>

I have to agree.  More than any other single factor, media dwelling on Wright’s campaign for self-aggrandizement is responsible for stalling Obama’s campaign in recent weeks.

The Truth About McCain and MLK Day

…McCain claimed to have voted against a federal holiday before changing his mind a “very short time after that.” But McCain voted against the federal holiday in 1983, opposed a state holiday in 1987 (four years later), opposed a new federal holiday in 1989 (six years later) and voted against funding for the commission established to encourage all states to recognize the King holiday in 1994—11 years after his vote. Although, when you’ve been around the block for as long as McCain has, maybe 11 years feels like a short time. [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Crooks and Liars>

McBigot is just another GOP liar who has not yet learned that we, unlike the MSM, won’t let his lies go unchallenged.

O’Lielly Attacks Moyers

On PBS’s Bill Moyers Journal last night, Moyers interviewed Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-IL) former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, whose controversial remarks created a political storm last month.

Reacting to advance excerpts of the interview, Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly attacked Moyers on his show last night, calling him a “far left PBS guy” who is “extreme” and “pathetic.” At the end of his Talking Points Memo segment, O’Reilly suggested that Moyers and Wright should “take a long vacation, perhaps in Iran.”

Watch it:

…

Inserted from <Think Progress>

At the time of O’Lielly’s attack, the interview had not yet aired.  We need to start boycotting his advertisers.

Rush: Riot in Denver!

I know how tiresome it can get to play one of my favorite parlor games: “Imagine if a Democrat had said this.” But I’m trying to imagine what the response would be if, say, a host on Air America Radio told listeners how helpful it would be to Democrats if people started a riot at the Republican National Convention.

Because that’s what Rush Limbaugh seemed to tell his listeners this week about the Democratic convention in Denver.

Talk show host Rush Limbaugh is sparking controversy again after he made comments calling for riots in Denver during the Democratic National Convention this summer.

He said the riots would ensure a Democrat is not elected as president, and his listeners have a responsibility to make sure it happens.

“Riots in Denver, the Democrat Convention would see to it that we don’t elect Democrats,” Limbaugh said during Wednesday’s radio broadcast. He then went on to say that’s the best thing that could happen to the country.

When callers suggested it’s probably inappropriate for a radio host to call for violence at a political convention, Limbaugh clarified: “I am not inspiring or inciting riots, I am dreaming of riots in Denver.”…

…Limbaugh’s website told visitors: “Screw the world! Riot in Denver!”… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <The Carpetbagger Report>

I’m appalled that Limbaugh could stoop to such a statement, but in truth, he does mirror the hopes and strategy of the GOP. There is much more I could say about this, but since Keith Olbermann and Rachael Maddow said it far better, I’ll turn it over to them.

All articles cross-posted from Politics Plus

Murdoch Moving to Buy Newsday

Rupert Murdoch is moving to tighten his already-imposing grip on American news media, striking a tentative deal to buy his third New York-based paper, Newsday, and getting his first chance to appoint the top editor of The Wall Street Journal, after the resignation of the editor on Tuesday.

His $580 million bid for Newsday and his urgency in remaking The Journal worry his competitors and cause angst in many newsrooms, including his own. And both moves are vintage Rupert Murdoch, a man who operates his sprawling News Corporation like an old-style media mogul, making big bets on old and new media — bankrolling the new Fox Business Network, aggressively pursuing a deal for Yahoo, and buying Dow Jones & Company, publisher of The Journal, for far more than analysts thought it was worth. And that was just in the last year… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <NY Times>

Many times you have asked in comments why the stories here are not echoed in the MSM.  This is the answer.  Our press is captive to Rupert Murdoch and others of his ilk.  Eight days ago, I posted a list pf what Murdoch owns.  If you missed it, click HERE.

North Carolina Democratic Debate Canceled

Katie Couric won’t get her debate after all.

After several weeks of behind-the-scenes negotiations with the campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the North Carolina Democratic Party said Monday it was canceling plans for an April 27 debate that would have aired on CBS following “60 Minutes.”

Clinton had immediately agreed to the debate, which would have been held in Raleigh, but Obama’s camp wanted to wait until after Tuesday’s primary in Pennsylvania. But the logistical questions and concerns had become so great that the debate couldn’t continue without a commitment from Obama.

That leaves hanging CBS News and Couric, who had staked out a claim to this debate and had given prime TV real estate — following “60 Minutes” — in order to assure the debate. An earlier attempt to hold a debate with Couric and “Face the Nation” host Bob Schieffer last December in Los Angeles was canceled due to the writers strike… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Reuters>

Frankly, I’m thrilled at this news.  If I thought there was half a chance that we’d have an authentic debate on real issues, I’d love to watch it, but the US broadcast MSM cannot be trusted not to turn it into another infotainment media circus, and given that Couric is such a lightweight, I can’t see this being anything better than the ABC fiasco.

Newt Reveals Fear Card Agenda

Yesterday, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich visited Drew University in New Jersey, where he took questions from 20 political science majors there. When one asked him how the government could justify stripping rights from Americans in such pieces of legislation as the Patriot Act, Gingrich said that the government has a “right to defend society,” and when under threat, “people will give up all their liberties“:

“If there’s a threat, you have a right to defend society,” Gingrich said. “People will give up all their liberties to avoid that level of threat.“

Gingrich is directly contradicted by Benjamin Franklin, who rejected the notion that one should give up one’s liberties out of fear:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

This disagreement is significant, because Gingrich considers Franklin one of his heroes… [emphasis original]

Inserted from <Think Progress>

Not only did Newt contradict one of his favorite heroes, but also he revealed the key to the GOP agenda for dismantling our Constitution.  As long as they can keep us in fear, they believe we will ba-a-a-a-a-a-a-a like Faux Noise sheep.  Are we people, or are we sheeple?

The Pennsylvania Debate

To my dismay, instead of showing it live, ABC News delayed the debate coverage three hours on the West Coast, showing it at 8 PM local time.  Since I start my daily research at 11 PM, that’s right in the middle of my sleep time, so I didn’t watch it.  In order to give you the best possible coverage, I’ve watched several news broadcasts, read over a dozen articles, and viewed several clips.

It appears I missed very little, as ABC turned the event of an infotainment media circus.  Here are comments from ABC’s website:

Reflecting what seemed to be the main consensus of the night – that ABC botched this debate, big time – Charlie Gibson tells the crowd there will be one more, superfluous commercial break of the night and is subsequently jeered.

“OH…” he declares, hands raised in defense. “The crowd is turning on me, the crowd is turning on me.”

Off camera, observers let out their frustrations….

…Visitors to ABC’s site weren’t much kinder. Here’s a sampling on page 1:

…This is AWFUL. Thank goodness for Jon Stewart and Comedy Central. He does a better job of interviewing and asking relevant questions of his guests in 5 minutes than these 2 yahoos have in more than an hour. ABC should be ashamed. George should be ashamed. Charlie should be ashamed. This isn’t a debate. This is a hit job.

…Asinine questions – abysmal debate. Fire these silly moderators NOW. They insult the intelligence of the American people.

…I haven’t watched ABC “news” in a few years. I see I haven’t been missing much! MORE THAN half the debate turned over to Bittergate, Rev Wright, the Weathermen, Tuzla, FLAG LAPEL PINS? Most of the televised debates I’ve seen this campaign season have been lame, but this one takes the prize. Either you guys are morons or you think that we are. Either way, I’m glad to have seen the last of you. Really, really bad.No winners in this debate, but a definite loser: ABC “NEWS”

…This is the WORST debate I have ever watched. Never in my life have I been more disenchanted with the news media as a whole, especially a news organization such as ABC that I believed to have some sense of purpose to bring substantive information and perspective to the American people. Americans are tired of the snipping between the candidates and the lack of discussion about what each candidate will do to help the country. ABC News should be ashamed for presenting such a failure of a debate.

…Are you kidding me? “We don’t have much time left. Let’s have a MINUTE to talk about gas?” Charlie and George, you need a crash course on the distinction between “issues” and an “agendas.” Hint: The candidates have the former; you have the latter.

…ABC News . . you should be ashamed of this debate. Where did you get these questions?? Where are the ISSUES. We have heard enough about Rev Wright and what Hillary did or didn’t do in Bosnia. Let’s hear about issues that matter such as the cost of Health Care, the war in Iraq, the Energy Crisi, the Crisis in Our Schools, and THE ECONOMY, STUPID!!

…Geoirge and Charlie= narcissistic elite “journalists” trying to score a rating point, but asking questions that would yield a “F” in middle school journalism. This debate may be used for years in journalism classes, on how to not run a debate. Disney-who owns ABC- get better cartoon characters to run a debate. Elmer Fudd would do much better… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Huffington Post>

Nuff said?

In the tiny portion of the debate that did cover issues, Clinton and Obama both acknowledged that the other is electable.  This could be problematic for Clinton, because she has based her campaign for super delegates on the supposition that Obama is not.  Now she either has to abandon that focus, or she will smell worse than my cat-box on a hot day.

Both committed unequivocally to withdraw from Iraq, and both pledged that they will not, under any circumstances, raise taxes on people making less that $250,000 annually.  The latter is great ammo to diffuse McConJob’s tax lie.

Here’s a video on the debate from Keith Olbermann with Chuck Todd:

On the whole, I’m glad I missed it.

Reich Wing Media Consolidation

There has been much discussion here and elsewhere of late questioning why the media ignores stories such as Bush’s admission that he is a torture maven, a regular Texas Torquemada. I have tried to explain that the media have their own right wing agenda, based on the their own corporate interest to consolidate their huge corporate empires and on the interest of the giant corporate interests of their advertisers. To demonstrate the former, here are the holdings of just one right wing ideologue:

As in (this is but a fraction of what Murdoch owns):

20th Century Fox

20th Century Fox Home Entertainment

20th Century Fox International

20th Century Fox Television

Fox Searchlight Pictures

Fox Television Studios

among others, as well as,

FOX Broadcasting Company

FOX Sports Australia

FOX Television Stations

FOXTEL

MyNetworkTV

STAR

among others and including,

SKY Television

Sky Italia

and,

Inside Out Magazine

The Weekly Standard

TV Guide

and,

The Wall Street Journal

Dow Jones

The New York Post

and (in the UK),

News International

News of the World

The Sun

and

Publisher HarperCollins which has dozens and dozens of subsidiaries,

and

Broadsystem

Fox Interactive Media

IGN Entertainment

Rotten Tomatoes

AskMen

FoxSports

Scout

WhatIfSports

kSolo

Fox.com

American Idol

National Geographic Channel

Spring Widgets

National Rugby League

News Digital Media

News Outdoor

The Sunday Times

Sibelius Software

The Times (of London),

and, if that isn’t enough,

DIRECTV, and

MySpace.com

… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <News Hounds>

Any questions?

Cross-posted from Politics Plus

Some Kool-Aid from the Reich

There are probably some grounded, half-way reasonable arguments against withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, but the fact that the White House keeps relying on sheer nonsense suggests the Bush gang can’t think of any, either.

Consider Dick Cheney’s remarks on Sean Hannity’s radio show yesterday.

• HANNITY: If we pull out too early, what do you believe the consequences would be? […]
• CHENEY: For us to walk away from Iraq I think would have at least that bad an effect, probably worse, because if al Qaeda were to take over big parts of Iraq, among other things, they would acquire control of a significant oil resource. Iraq has almost 100 billion barrel reserves, producing 2.5-3 million barrels of oil a day. If you take a terrorist organization like al Qaeda and give it that kind of revenue, there’s no telling the amount of trouble they could get into.

It’s hard to overstate how ridiculously far-fetched this is.

What’s especially striking about this is that the president, about three weeks ago, emphasized the same point. Bush insisted that if we withdraw, there will be chaos in Iraq, which would lead al Qaeda to acquire Iraq’s oil. At that point, the president said, the terrorist network “could pursue its ambitions to acquire weapons of mass destruction and to attack America and other free nations.”… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <The Carpetbagger Report>

Earth to MonkeyFuhrer!! Earth to GOPerReich!! Hello? Isw anybody home?!!?

Let’s return to reality. Al Qaeda Iraq consists of 3,000 – 5,000 fighters at most and they are Sunni. Iraq is a country of 26.5 million people who are 62% Shia. How could such a tiny force possibly take control of Iraq’s oil? Of course this blatant fear mongering comes courtesy of Faux Noise. Is it any wonder that the sheeple who get their news propaganda there are so ignorant?

Cross-posted from Politics Plus