It Looks Like GOP ‘Sucker Bait’ is Still Attracting some Union Fish

by Berry Craig

MAYFIELD, Ky. – Thirty-four percent of union members and retirees are undecided about the election “and are open to either candidate,” according to an AFL-CIO report.

One in three people who pack union cards don’t know whom to vote for? I don’t get it.

-- A recent Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll has President Bush’s overall job approval rating at 25 percent.

-- Through last year, Sen. John McCain, the Republican who wants to succeed Bush, had voted for Bush-backed bills almost 90 percent of the time, according to a 2007 Congressional Quarterly report. He voted the Bush way 95 percent of the time in 2007. 

-- McCain has voted for union-supported legislation only 16 percent of the time, says the AFL-CIO’s Committee on Political Education.

There’s more:

-- Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential hopeful, has a COPE score of 98 percent.

-- He’s been with Bush on bills less than 41 percent of the time through 2007, including just 40 percent in 2007, Congressional Quarterly says. 

So what gives with 34 percent undecided union voters? 

No doubt some of them are white people who are reluctant to vote for Obama because he is African American. Others may be inclined to believe the lies being spread by Internet nut jobs and other right-wing crazies that Obama’s a Muslim who hates his country and swore his oath of office on the Koran. 

“A lot of union members also have their own hot buttons,” said Jeff Wiggins, a Steelworker who sits on the Kentucky State AFL-CIO executive board. “They don't vote on union issues. They vote on social issues that don't have a thing to do with their jobs or their unions.”

Those issues include “the Three-Gs,” Wiggins added. “God, guns and gays -- Republicans run on them all the time.” 

The social issues are sucker bait that attracts union fish. “I had a guy the other day tell me he’d vote for union candidates if they’re against ‘partial-birth abortion,’” said Wiggins, who is putting hundreds of miles on his union-made Ford SUV as Kentucky Zone One coordinator for the AFL-CIO’s Labor 2008 program.

Wiggins, who is also president of the Paducah-based Western Kentucky Area Council, AFL-CIO, has visited dozens of union halls in Western Kentucky, his territory. He talks up AFL-CIO-endorsed office-seekers from Obama down through candidates for the Kentucky legislature. He hands out stacks of pamphlets and other literature and gives away bright yellow “Labor 2008” tee shirts. 

“Barack Obama votes with us 98 percent of the time and John McCain votes with us 16 percent of the time,” Wiggins said. “That makes Obama 82 percent better for labor. 

“John McCain is ‘John McSame’ as in the same old anti-union policies of George W. Bush. It’s as simple as that.”

McCain’s message for union voters is simple, too. He’s against abortion, “partial birth” or otherwise. He loves God and guns, but not gay rights. 

But mum’s the word from McCain on union issues when he’s fishing in labor’s lake. He’d just as soon union members didn’t know he also loves right to work, NAFTA and CAFTA, but not the Employee Free Choice Act.

In his address at the Steelworkers’ 2008 convention, Leo W. Gerard, the union president, warned against union-busting politicians like McCain who try to scam workers with social issues.

“….In one election, it might be gun rights,” he said, “…In another it’s tax cuts or the right to life. 

“But the bottom line is always the same. Distract and deceive. Divide and conquer.

“Time and again, they try to fill our hearts with fear. Time and again, their strategies get some of our members voting for politicians who couldn’t give a damn about working people.” 

In 2004, 38 percent of union members voted to reelect Bush – who in his first term had proven himself to be one of the most anti-union presidents in history -- over union-endorsed Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., a CNN election day exit poll showed. You’d think convincing union members to vote against their own interests would be mission impossible for anti-union candidates. But with the “Three Gs” for sucker bait, it’s been mission accomplished for a lot of them.

Wiggins knows about the report that says around a third of union members are on the fence over the presidential election. “The fact that they’re undecided means we can still win them over,” he said. “The choice is clear: Obama is 98 percent with us. McCain is 84 percent against us.”

Gerard agreed that Obama is the right choice. “....If we want a president hell bent on privatizing Social Security, McCain will give us that, just like Bush did,” he said in his speech. “If we want a president who voted to legalize scabs, we’ll get that with McCain, the same as we did with Bush. If we want the union cut out of bargaining health care benefits, that’s what McCain wants to do. 

“If we want our health care benefits taxed as income, that’s what McCain plans to do. If we want a president who’ll veto the Employee Free Choice Act, McCain’s all for that, just like Bush was. 

“If we want a president who says he’s never seen a free trade deal he doesn’t love, that’s exactly what McCain says….John McCain will stick us with four more years of legalizing scabs, undercutting our pensions, messing with our health care, and cutting more rotten trade deals that are killing our jobs.”

Obama supports the Employee Free Choice Act, Gerard said. Obama “will go to bat for universal health care that lowers costs.” He has “a plan to revitalize manufacturing” and he “…wants to restore a measure of sovereignty to our lives by making workers the top priority in any trade deal he negotiates,” according to Gerard. 

“So, sisters and brothers,” the top Steelworker concluded, “There’s a real choice this time around. We can have real change by shooting for the stars. Or we can shoot ourselves in the foot and get four more years of Bush’s assault on working people with John McCain.”

Do Good Soldiers Necessarily Make Good Politicians?

by Craig Rhodes

Anyone who has seen the Tom Cruise movie Top Gun will remember the scene in which the Cruise character, Maverick, flies upside down...cockpit to cockpit during a dogfight with a Soviet pilot. However, most people don't know that the scene was based on a real incident that occurred during the Vietnam War.

There were only two Navy aces during the Vietnam war, one of whom was the inspiration for the aforementioned scene in Top Gun. This particular pilot found himself in a grueling extended dogfight with one of North Vietnam's top pilots known as "Colonel Tomb" during which the "cockpit to cockpit" incident happened. After much maneuvering, the U.S. pilot shot down Colonel Tomb with a sidewinder.

The Navy pilot, who was one of the early graduates of the Navy's TOPGUN school that taught dogfighting techniques to F-4 Phantom pilots, received the Navy Cross once, the Silver Star twice, the Air Medal 15 times, and the Purple Heart for wounds he received under enemy fire. In other words he was a true war hero.

After his stint in Vietnam he went on to become an instructor at the TOPGUN school as well as a commentator for the History Channel, NOVA and became nationally known as a CNN commentator on naval aircraft in the run-up to the Persian Gulf War. He eventually parlayed his war hero status and visibility as a CNN commentator into a seat in Congress as Republican representative for California's 44th district.

His name is Duke Cunningham and he now resides in federal prison for tax evasion, conspiracy to commit bribery, mail fraud, and wire fraud while serving in Congress.

This is relevant because we now have a candidate for president who is relying on his status as a POW to warrant his becoming president. John McCain touts his POW status during Vietnam on an almost daily basis as a legitimate reason to vote for him. By doing so, he has created the necessity to examine the premise upon which he asks for our votes. 

Does a good soldier necessarily make for a good politician or a legitimate reason to vote for him for president? 

The corporate media has assiduously avoided investigating McCain's tenure in the military before, during or after his imprisonment at the Hanoi Hilton. So we will have to defer to McCain's peers for that information. Who better to know about McCain's imprisonment than those who were there with him. 

Phillip Butler was a POW at the Hanoi Hilton 2 1/2 years before McCain arrived and he has recently written an article as to why he will not vote for McCain. He also lived across the hall with McCain at the Naval Academy in 1957-58 so he knew McCain both before and during their stay at the Hanoi Hilton. Butler, while not minimizing McCain's service, lays to rest the notion being promoted by McCain that his service might translate to him being a good president. His article is indicative of other articles being written by those who served with McCain in the military as well as his fellow legislators on both sides of the aisle.

However from simply listening to McCain, it becomes evident that being a POW does not qualify him to be president as he would have us believe. 

Being a POW does not help his self admitted computer illiteracy in our increasingly computerized culture. It has not helped him connect with ordinary Americans who are losing their homes in the millions while he can't remember how many houses he owns (7-10 by last count). It does not help when he thinks the definition of middle class is anyone making less than 5 million dollars. It does not help when he doesn't know the difference between Sunni and Shia. It does not help when he claims that the "Surge" worked while admitting that he doesn't know when the Surge began, how many troops were involved, where it was focused nor why our troops can't come home now that the surge "worked". It does not help when after 8 years of watching George Bush run this nation into the ground he proposes more of the same if not worse.

In other words given his disconnect with the American people as well as our culture, he's going to have to offer more than the time he spent as a POW 40 years ago to be a credible candidate. To date he has offered little else to recommend him for president.

Being a good soldier does not necessarily translate to being a good politician nor by extension, a good president. 

Just ask Duke Cunningham.

Craig

Sunday News Show

Today I watched Chris Matthews, and portions of ABC Sunday Morning and Meet the Press (come on, Channel 6 and 3, do some coordination other than when you are going to run ads so that the public can see all of these important shows) and Face the Nation.

Of course the shows were dominated by discussion of Obama's pick for VP of Sen. Biden. And, all in all, the mainstream pundits thought that it was a good, solid choice. I think the "Matthew's Meter," where he asks 12 of his panelists what they think on a particular question, sums up what the mainstream media thinks - 11 -1 that it was a good choice.

My email box, on the other hand, had a number of columns written from the left blasting the choice. And, from that perspective, which is more my perspective, it's just one more reason for the left of the spectrum to actually go ahead and abandon Obama, which is a really hard choice because we all know that another term of Republicans is going to ruin us totally. But people of conscience and a very strong sense of justice can't help but look at the totality of what someone says and does, and there is a lot of things on the record that Biden said and did that are...well...less than what an idealistic view of the Democratic party should be. 

I don't think Obama's campaign cares that much that. I think he thinks that he can alienate the furthest of the left on the political spectrum and still win the election. And he may very well be right. But, if he pushes too far, he could eat too far into the left and it could hurt him. There are very good alternatives for the far left - primarily Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney, who has a record of standing up for progressive issues even when it wasn't in her political interest. 

But, the mainstream pundits' blessing of Obama's choice of Biden is important in a certain way, and Obama passed that test. But of course, and it had to come up today, several times as a matter of fact in about every show, what do the Clintons think of it, and why didn't Obama pick Sen. Clinton. I, myself, had predicted that Obama, who wants to be seen as the pragmatic as well as the dreamer, would pick Clinton as his running mate because it would be obvious that he needed her. I think it is obvious that he needs her, but he is betting that he can win without her and push the Clintons out of the Democratic party leadership. I don't necessarily argue with the goal, because Bill Clinton did some horrible things as president, and then destroyed Al Gore's chances to be president by his indiscretions and lies. But, at this point in history, the country needs the executive branch wrestled away from the Republicans, and it is going to take a monumental effort to do it. I'm not sure Obama can do it without the Clintons as full partners. I guess we will see.

The mainstream pundits today said that a lot rides on what "Bill and Hillary" say in their speeches at the convention. But the fact that they report as if there is uncertainty as to their level of committment to Obama has to be troubling to the Obama campaign. Whether they will be "good democrats" or set the stage for a Hillary comback in 4 years is still up in the air. But, their legacy will be one of letting the country continue to go down the tubes while they wait for power, if they fail to support Obama fully, and that isn't necessarily the legacy they want. It's quite a tightrope for everyone, and who knows how it is going to come out? I still think Obama would have locked the election by picking Clinton as his running mate, but without knowing whether or not Clinton was asked, declined, put conditions on it that Obama couldn't meet, or whatever, it needs to all come out during the convention in a convincing way that will appease Clinton supporters and assure them that Hillary is OK with what is going on, or Obama is in trouble.

George Will gets the quote of the day. While this may or may not be an exact quote, he said something very close to, in response to a discussion about McCain's many houses which he can't remember, that we shouldn't be questioning whether or not the elite will rule, but only which one of the elite will rule. That's the kind of comment that makes me want the Illinois General Assembly to disown him officially as an Illinoisian, and ban him from entering the state! Well, OK, not ban him, but restrict him to two visits a year - Christmas and Easter!

The other bogus argument that I heard was on Stephanopolous. Some dude, who I didn't catch his name, said that Obama's ad knocking McCain on his not knowing how many houses he had, was the worst thing Obama could have done, and is a turning point in the election, because it allows McCain to bring up Rev. Wright, and Bill Ayers, blah blah blah. Even Stephanopolous had to say that he didn't understand the logic. I mean, McCain has already thrown everything he has at Obama. 

I guess, for better or worse, barring any worse revelations about Biden, and if Biden doesn't shoot off his mouth and screw things up, the Biden pick plays OK with the mainstream, which means it has a chance to live on. In response, most of the pundits say that this forces McCain to pick Romney to try and pick up Michigan. If I was McCain, I'd pick a woman, but he's probably not that smart.

The Welcome Demise of National and Local Corporate Media

by Craig Rhodes

While there are still too many Americans who rely on the corporate media, both national and local, as their go-to source for information, there are signs that it's fast losing its grip as the gate keeper of information. It is none too soon given the failure of the corporate media on nearly every issue of importance now facing our republic.

The cracks became obvious in the run up to the Iraq Invasion and Occupation. When the grand old lady of news organizations, the New York Times, became the mouthpiece of conservatives in promoting war with Iraq through their disgraced senior reporter Judith Miller, it became increasingly evident that the grand old lady was growing long in the tooth. This only added to the already bogus reporting as epitomized by the Jason Blair scandal and his fictitious articles that led to his dismissal.

And to this day the beltway newspaper, the Washington Post, still editorializes a pro-war stance that ignores the reality of the quagmire the U.S. has created by invading Iraq. Added to this is the bias of the AP as epitomized by its Washington bureau chief, Ron Fournier, as well as the Moonie owned UPI and Washington Times. And I won't even go into the extreme right wing bias of Fox News, which serves as a mouthpiece and transcriber for the Republican Party. At this late date, anyone who thinks Fox is fair and balanced is beyond help.

The hemorrhaging networks, NBC, CBS and ABC, have faired no better. With their focus on the salacious, as evidenced by the Stephonopoulis/Gibson moderation of the Obama/Clinton debate, their corporate bias, or their focus on transitory pop culture at the exclusion of more serious issues; the networks have relegated themselves to bit players in the information revolution? At this point, according to ratings, a significant number of Americans have turned off the network screaming heads for more reliable sources of information coming from the internet or even comedy shows like The Daily Show. No wonder that they are becoming news sources of last resort.

This same pro-war, pro-corporate, conservative bias has also made its way into National Public Radio and its sister media outlet the Public Broadcasting Service. It is likely that the appointment of the right wing zealot Kenneth Tomlinson to head the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was the impetus for Public Broadcasting's turn to the extreme right. 

On the the national level we have Fox pundits like Mara Liasson and Juan Williams masquerading as senior political reporters for NPR. It's interesting to note that when both of these "reporters" are introduced on their gigs for Fox they are identified as NPR senior reporters as well as Fox commentators. However, when introduced on NPR they are only introduced as NPR senior staff while their roles as Fox pundits are disingenuously ignored. 

Juan Williams, because of his lap dog deference, is Cheney's go to reporter for his rare interviews and Liasson's reporting is laced with none too subtle promotion of conservative ideology. Neither can be taken serious and by consequence one has to listen with some skepticism to NPR reportage in general. Add to this NPR's promotion of all things corporate, whether it be nuclear power, "clean coal", agribusiness, military industrial complex etc. and it is obvious that Public Broadcasting has been co-opted like the other mainstream media.

This scenario is not just relegated to the national media but has also worked its way down to regional and local media. The Paxton Media Group's Paducah Sun is an example. 

Two unnamed inside sources working for the Paxtons have told us that loss of revenues have resulted in the Paducah Sun cutting staff to the bone. Senior staff are now doing the job of junior reporters who've been laid off. And while the Paducah Sun has many serious, hard working journalists in its employ, the fact that their editorial staff write some of the most extreme, ultra conservative editorials in the nation as well as their history of editing their ultra-conservative bias into otherwise legit articles; their present predicament was inevitable. 

I monitor the Paducah Sun under the dictum that if you don't know your opponent's argument then you don't know your own but most people I know have finally given up on them because of their editorials. No wonder they're going broke. I suspect that the Paxton Media Group's days are numbered and expect McClatchy, Gannet or the equivalent thereof to buy them out in the future.

Moreover our local NPR outlet, WKMS-FM, provides an outlet for conservative hate-mongering in order to appear "fair and balanced". This is the "Fox" excuse they gave last week for allowing commentator Richard Nelson to use the airwaves for his bigotry. At the same time they stonewall any commentator who dares take their crony corporate sponsors to task. Meanwhile they extend their high pressure fund raising from a week to months for ever more money without any sign of improvement over their local news coverage. 

The upshot is that we are witnessing a revolution in the media and how the public is informed. This revolution is being driven by the internet which is placing the power of information gathering into the hands of ordinary citizens. And while we have to remain vigilant in order to prevent corporate control of the internet, I hope that over time a neutral internet will loosen the hold of the corporate media over what we view or read. In other words, we're witnessing the democratization of information.

In the end, Senator Al Gore, who was responsible for writing and pushing through the legislation that made the internet available to the American public, will have the last laugh over the corporate media that was complicit in subverting democracy in 2000 at the expense of our nation and the world. 

Craig

Yesterday's McLaughlin Group discussion about the Russia/Georgia conflict

I watched the McLaughlin Group Friday evening. I try to watch it whenever I can. I think it’s the best talking heads show, all in all. Of course, it is known for its freewheeling format, and always, several times during the show, it ends up in a shouting match with everyone shouting at once trying to get a word in edgewise. It is the hallmark of the show. I find it interesting that I grew up thinking McLaughlin was an arch conservative, but I don’t think that anymore. 

This week was interesting. The panel was, of course, Buchanan and Clift, Page and Crowley. Crowley, the token blonde, is becoming increasingly isolated in her neocon views, even with Buchanan.

The most interesting discussion was the first and longest segment – about the Russia/Georgia conflict. Buchanan was adamant that Georgia had stupidly been the provocateur, and that Bush knew about it. He also said that there was no way out for Bush, and that Bush would not be able to extract any serious concessions from Russia because of his lame duck status. 

Clift agreed with Buchanan, and said that it wasn’t in the U.S. interest to get involved over the independence of distant disputed territories. Crowley, in her usual neocon ways, took the hard line, saying that we needed to kick Russia out of the G8. Page said, correctly, that Bush was too weak to do anything.

Buchanan noted that if the U.S. tried to “isolate” Russia, they would just shift to trading with China, Iran and the like, insinuating that we and the west would be the losers of that strategy. McLaughlin himself suggested that the disputed territories should have referendums on whether or not to stay with Georgia. 

Then the discussion shifted to the U.S. and Polish response to the Georgia issue by agreeing that the U.S. would put missiles in Poland, which is no doubt a provocation to Russia. Buchanan said that the Polish people should not be the ones to decide whether or not the U.S. confronts Russia so blatantly.

They also discussed, briefly, the presidential race, but I’ve already talked about that enough recently. I just had to comment about the Russia/Georgia discussion, however.

Biden for VP?

Well, I was wrong. Obama, true to the mainstream reporter's prognostications, and false to mine, picked U.S. Sen. Joe Biden as his running mate. If he wins, it will be a good pick, if he loses, it will be another blunder by a Democrat, especially if Biden flubs, which he is somewhat prone to doing. I think he has improved in the last few years.

My only question is why would you pick the guy who had to drop out first for lack of support and not the person who had as much support as you had? Is this about personal comfort or about winning? In politics we should be playing to win. 

Ok, now Mr. Joe, show us what you got. Step up to the plate and do your job and do it well, or else - you will be doomed as a failure. In Biden's favor, one has to say that he probably didn't become the "biggest loser" in the Democratic primary race because people didn't like him - I think most everyone does respect him, his experience, and his knowledge. So, that will help him in the long run. But, he wasn't the number one, two, three or four pick of most Democrats, and that says something too. Biden's knowledge of foreign affairs will help Obama, but will it help him more than it will hurt him that he has snubbed females? I'm not sure. Hopefully this was all orchestrated with Clinton's participation, and she can honestly go to her supporters and convince them to support Obama. If it is felt that Clinton was snubbed on personal reasons, that is going to backfire on Obama and the election, which could be a landslide for Obama, could be lost. Surely Obama is smarter than that!

"Tater" wins gold medal!

BREAKING NEWS! "TATER" wins gold in garden tool hurdles in vegetable olympics! This is a photo of Tater on the medal stand after taking the gold medal in the garden tool hurdles in world record time! This is the first gold medal for the Potato nation in this event in the last 75 years. Our congratulations to Tater for her world record effort and bringing home the gold for the country of Potato. (photo by Kristi Hanson)

McCain peaking too soon

I just have to make a brief comment about all the recent reports that show that McCain is edging toward Obama in most national polls. (for example, NBC reported on the Today Show this morning that their poll had shifted to a 45%-42% Obama lead, down by about half). 

The news here, in my opinion, is that while McCain is throwing everything negative at Obama that he has, he has only been able to bring Obama down a couple of points, and he not been able to erase his lead in the polls. Doesn't that say something about the depth of McCain's support and Obama's resiliance? 

Does Obama need to be better at responding to McCain? Yes. But, does the fact that McCain is, with his nonstop negative attacks on Obama, moving up a couple points in the polls at this time a huge worry to Obama? I don't think so. I'm going to predict that McCain is making a mistake by throwing everything he has at Obama so early, and that he is peaking too soon. He about to run out of ammo, and the battle is just beginning.

Of course, it's too soon to really predict, but I have to say that I think Obama is better off with the polls where they are than with the polls showing him way ahead. It's going to be easier for him to raise money and motivate people to help with the race close. McCain won't be able to exploit the "underdog" label, which could happen and could play on people's sympathies if Obama looks like he's trouncing the "white haired dude."

But, just like a racer that goes out too fast and runs out of juice only to get left behind at the end, McCain seems to be using up everything he has. But, Obama hasn't. He still has a lot of firepower left. That's how I'm perceiving this at this point. When the campaign really gets going, all of what McCain has been throwing at Obama will be old and stale, and will have lost a lot of it's punch. 

It's very possible that we are heading toward an Obama and Democratic pary landslide, assuming that all of the eligible voters that want to vote get to vote reasonably, and votes are counted fairly, both of which are risky assumptions and shouldn't be taken for granted. 

One of the interesting things about the NBC poll, at least according to comments by NBC political director Chuck Todd, speaking on the Today Show this morning, regards the 13% of the poll undecided. Todd said that a good portion of those are former supporters of Sen. Clinton, and they still haven't gotten over the primary. Todd said a lot of the question about whether or not they will support Obama will come down to whether or not Sen. Clinton convinces them to support him. Wouldn't the best way for Obama to insure that is to put her on the ticket? Who else deserves it as much?

 

Sunday News Shows

I watched Chris Matthews, parts of ABC Sunday Morning and Meet the Press (which come on at the same time unfortunately) and Face the Nation.

Matthews had a better panel than the last times I watched. He had Kelly O'Donnell, Dan Rather, Cynthia Tucker, and Howard Feinstein. The first half of the show was a discussion of whether or not McCain can win in a campaign of change. This was a discussion of whether or not one of McCain's latest tactics, which is to also bill himself as a "change" agent, can succeed. 

McCain is doing this by saying in speeches, a couple of which Matthews showed clips, in which McCain says that he agrees that w change, but we need the "right" kind of change. McCain also has run his now becoming infamous TV ad in which he says, "we're worse off now than we were 4 years ago," a quasi-kamikazi action to try and distance himself from Bush, but which ties him, as a Republican, to the current economic disaster. What is interesting to me is that the USA Today reported in a little blurb a couple days ago that McCain was pulling that ad, and had only run it "6" times. But here, it continues to run - over and over and over again. 

Bottom line on discussion with Matthew's panel is that McCain cannot win on a change campaign - in that he tries to convince the public that he is "better change" than Obama. I do agree with their panel. But, the panel went on to say that they all believed that McCain would abandon that campaign tactic and move toward all out attack on Obama in order to make the election into a referendum on whether Obama is "ready" to be president, and whether he is "American enough" to be president. This undoubtedly will be done through a Karl Rove type of smear campaign that we probably can't even imagine. So get ready to get slimed, cause it's coming.

I switched back and forth between the talking head discussions on both Meet the Press and ABC Sunday Morning. The ABC panel talked about whether or not Obama could cut into the Republican's dominance of the "evangelical" vote. Both McCain and Obama had just appeared at Rev. Warren's forum in California last night. The general consensus was that Obama would probably get more votes from that constituency than Kerry got, and, if he got as much as Clinton got, some 35% of that vote (i'm sure they are regretting that too, much to the detriment of Obama), that he would win handily in November. 

The Meet the Press panel had an interesting blurb from a top Republican in Texas, I didn't catch his name, but they had several paragraphs from the guy who was saying that the negative campaign against Obama would fail. Chuck Todd, the NBC political director, said, however, that the McCain people were cocky about the "success" of their negative campaign thus far, and that we could expect more. I agree with him. 

Andrea Mitchell spoke on the Georgia/Russia conflict, and had the interesting comment that Obama, speaking in "nuances" about diplomacy with both Russia and Georgia was the right policy, but not conducive to political soundbites. 

There was considerable discussion on all the shows about the VP picks. I found the Meet the Press discussion to be the most interesting. The NBC pundits did agree that Obama was looking for an attack dog that would go after the Republicans. But then, they pointed toward Biden. Biden is in Georgia now, meeting with the Georgian government, but isn't that like meeting with jello? What about a meeting with Putin? Who is doing that? But why would pick Biden, who got like almost no votes for President, when you have Sen. Clinton, who got like 18 million votes, and still controls a sizeable voting block that Obama needs? If Obama doesn't pick Clinton as his running mate, in my opinion, his judgment is flawed. She is the attack dog that he needs, and she can deliver the women's vote. But If these pundits are right about Biden, then I have a lot to learn about the stupidity of national politics.

They are pretty much saying that Romney is the pick for McCain. McCain doesnt' have a good pick, although it was interesting that all of the shows mentioned Lieberman as a possible running mate for McCain. My advice to McCain is to go for it with Lieberman. He has proven himself to be unsuccessful as a running mate, and that would be perfect for McCain.

One interesting segment on Meet the Press was Chuck Todd's analysis of the latest polls. While McCain is raising a lot of money, (not as much as Obama) and going way negative, Todd reported that states that some states that were "toss up" states had moved into the likely or strong for Obama - mentioning in specific Oregon and New Jersey. And, he noted that McCain was not putting any states that could be considered leaning toward Republican away. In specific, Todd mentioned Indiana and North Carolina. Finally, both Mitchell and Todd discussed how Virginia and Colorado were still in play for Obama. This seems to be contradictory to what a lot of the pundits and polls are trying to say these days.

Face the Nation had Evan Bayh and Tim Pawlenty. These are two highly punditized candidates for VP - Bayh a Democratic U.S. Senator from Indiana and Pawlenty, a Republican governor of Minnesota, were auditioning for the VP position, it seemed, and both did well. I actually thought Bayh slightly won the debate, although I still think that nominating someone like Bayh, who didn't go through the bruising campaign, will alienate a lot of females. Obama does not need that.

The bottom line on McCain's campaign is that we can expect, after Labor Day, an all out assault on Obama's patriotism, his Americanism, and in other issues that are clearly on the table but will be handled much more subtly. These include such things as religion and race. It's going to get slimy, and Obama is going to have to find a way to fight back without getting slimed himself. It's a heck of a challenge, and whether he can meet the challenge will probably mean the difference between whether or not we get Obama change and McCain change.

McCain and the NRA are soul mates in union-busting

by Berry Craig

MAYFIELD, Ky. – Sen. John McCain and the National Rifle Association seem to be a perfect fit.

McCain is the NRA-endorsed candidate for president. He supported a national right to work law, which the fiercely anti-union National Right to Work Committee has wanted for years. 

The NRA is cozy with the NRTWC, which also pushes hard for state right to work laws. 

The NRA claims it is pro-gun rights, not anti-union. Yet the NRA and NRTWC often back the same candidates. Almost always, those candidates are anti-union like McCain.

A lot of union members are hunters who own guns, especially in rural states like Kentucky. For years, conservative, anti-labor politicians – often aided by the NRA -- have used gun control as a wedge issue to split the union vote and “…to divert workers from voting according to their economic interests and that of their families," wrote Joanne Ricca of the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO.

Unions endorse candidates “based on economic interests of their members,” Ricca explained. "The Right sees [gun control] as a particularly clever way to prevent workers from following the candidate endorsements of their union.”

Ricca authored "Politics in America: The Right Wing Attack on the American Labor Movement." The article, documented with many footnotes, appeared on the Dairy State labor federation's website, www.wisaflcio.org/political_action/rightwing.

Many gun-owning union members shun the NRA as a shill group for union-busting politicians, most of whom are Republicans. “I refer to the NRA as the ‘National Republican Association,’” said Bill Londrigan, Kentucky State AFL-CIO president.

The name mostly fits. While the NRA sometimes endorses Democrats -- nearly all of them less-than-labor-friendly “Blue Dog” conservatives from Southern right-to-work states – most politicians the NRA gets behind are anti-union Republicans. 

McCain’s a good example. He votes the union way only 16 percent of the time, according to the national AFL-CIO’s Committee on Political Education. (Barack Obama’s COPE score is 98 percent pro-union.)

The NRA is glad to help anti-labor politicians like McCain try to convince union members to vote on guns instead of union issues. “Guns are a secondary issue to the workers of this country,” Londrigan added. “If [gun owners]…don’t have a decent job, they won’t be able to afford bullets for their guns.” 

Other labor leaders are on to the NRA, too. "We know that the NRA is communicating to our members what clearly are anti-union positions and urging them to support anti-union candidates," The Washington Post quoted Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters.

The Kentucky State AFL-CIO and the IAFF are part of the national AFL-CIO, which is on the NRA’s enemies list as an organization “with anti-gun policies.” The list, which also includes individuals and businesses, is on the Internet at http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=15.

If you want to offer your name for the NRA’s blacklist, key in http://www.nrablacklist.com/. It’s a website sponsored by stoptheNRA.com. I turned in my name when stoptheNRA started four years ago. Just in case it has become lost in cyberspace, I resubmitted my name the other day.

Ricca named names of NRA top guns who are openly anti-union. She quoted Neal Knox, former NRA vice president. He bragged that the gun issue "is the one thing that will spin the blue-collar union member away from his union." Ricca also wrote that before Grover Norquist joined the NRA board, he led anti-union "paycheck protection" ballot initiatives in a number of states. 

Norquist is chummy with President George W. Bush, whom unions consider one of the most anti-labor presidents in history. Chuck Cunningham is another NRA union-buster and Bush backer. He led the NRA’s national get-out-the-vote campaign for Bush in 2000, according to Ricca. "Cunningham was executive director of the anti-union New England Citizens for Right-to-Work," she added.

In addition, Ricca said that while he was NRA president, movie star Charlton Heston helped the NRTWC lobby Congress to defeat a measure to prevent employers from breaking strikes by hiring permanent replacement workers. 

Though Heston was president of the Screen Actors Guild, he produced a video for the NRWTC, which praised him as “their ‘world famous ally,’” Ricca added. In 1996, Heston, a liberal pro-union Democrat turned ultra-conservative, anti-union Republican, helped the committee’s failed campaign to convince Congress to pass a national right to work bill, she also wrote.

Meanwhile, in denying Schaitberger’s charge, the NRA’s Chris W. Cox said the gun group is not against unions. “As for supporting anti-union candidates, that is purely the result of political reality,” he said on the NRA’s Internet website. 

Metaphorically-speaking, Cox failed to practice what the NRA preaches about gun safety with his next sentence. He shot himself in the foot.

“The truth is,” he wrote, “that the vast majority of union political support goes to candidates who actively work against our freedoms” (Italics mine). 

So on the one hand, Cox insists that the NRA is not anti-union. On the other, he says unions are in league with freedom-menacing politicians.

The NRA believes “our freedoms” include the right of civilians to pack all the heat they want, including pistols more powerful than sidearms cops carry and machine guns made for mowing down enemy soldiers in war, not for hunting deer in a Kentucky woods. But I wouldn’t bet the farm that NRA “freedoms” include the freedom to have a union. Almost all candidates the NRA supports – from McCain down – put unions on their lists of enemies, too.

Lundsford and McConnell TV ad campaigns

I may have been too quick to write off Bruce Lunsford as a result of the "Thanks Bruce" TV ad campaign by Mitch McConnell. At the moment, I thought that McConnell's campaign gave him unbreakable momentum. However, I'm beginning to think I may have been wrong.

While Lunsford was late to respond, and his first response was weak in my opinion, his subsequent responses have been quicker and stronger. McConnell, on the other hand, has gone too far in two simultaneous ads - the first one attacking newspapers across the state for their almost unanimous criticism of McConnell for his "Thanks Bruce" campaign. A candidate might get away with criticizing a few newspapers in a state when they are divided in their opinions, but when you make a blanket attack on virtually every newspaper in the state, you are playing with fire - and that's just what McConnell did. That's arrogance and overconfidence that may come back to bite him.

Now, McConnell is running an ad in which he tries to tell everyone what Lunsford is really thinking when Lunsford is talking in one of his ads. The only trouble is that the ad is so sarcastic and malicious that it comes off bad. It makes one think that McConnell isn't taking things seriously and is belittling Lunsford. Plus, how does McConnell know what Lunsford is thinking? The ad is over the top and is hurting McConnell, in my opinion. 

Lunsford's grabbing onto a newspaper editorial referring to McConnell's ads as a McCON job and using that in his new TV ads is clever and catchy, and it is hurting McConnell you can be sure. If all of this keeps this up, McConnell could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I guess if that happens, we'll all be saying, "Thanks Bruce!"

McCain, Lehrer, Lowry and Marcus on Georgia and Russia

Yesterday I was watching the Jim Lehrer news hour on PBS and they had a segment on the Georgia/Russia conflict. Then, after that, they had Rich Lowry, from the National Review, and Ruth Marcus, from the Washington Post, substituting for Shields and Brooks, for their regular Friday punditizing. Of course, Brooks and Shields is supposed to be an exchange of a liberal and conservative point of view, but it's more like a middle of the roader and an arch conservative. 

Yesterday, with Brooks, and Shields on vacation Lowry and Marcus were the panel. She's more conservative than Shields, which means that it was a very conservative panel - insultingly so, if you ask me. 

But during the discussion between Ms. almost conservative and Mr. hard core conservative, the Georgia/Russia conflict was discussed. Both of them seemed to be drooling over McCain's "tough" response to Russia, and how he bettered Obama in responding to the situation. 

OK, here is what they showed McCain saying. "But in the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations." Say what? Um, what did we do in Iraq, have a picnic? And then Lowry turns around and says the same thing! And Marcus says, "oh yeah, McCain did better than Obama on this." Of course Lowry was going to agree - it was a softball for the conservatives. 

Give me a break! Does Lehrer, Marcus and Lowry think we fell off the turnip truck on the way into town? And Lehrer sat there and never said a word. Shouldn't he have asked, "well, isn't it a little hypocritical for Bush and McCain to be talking about how bad it is to invade another country, considering what we did in Iraq in the 21st century?" He didn't ask anything! They all got away with bashing Obama with impunity. 

And don't get me wrong, I'm not crazy about Obama's militarism. He's trying to act tough, and he's going too far. At least he said we need to be talking to both Russia and Georgia. 

But come on Mr. Lehrer, Ms. Marcus, and Mr. Lowry. If we are going to get in the face of Russia and "get tough" with them, and that is the absolute correct posture we should be taking with them, then how are we going to back up our words - with nuclear weapons? Is that what you are saying, because there is no way in the world we can take on Russia militarily right now in conventional battle, especially on what is essentially their home court.

I'm not defending Russia's militarism, but let's look at the differences between what the U.S. did in Iraq and what Russia did in Georgia. (1) Russia and Georgia have a common border - Iraq is thousands of miles from the U.S.; (2) Georgia took military action against Russia and killed some of their people - Iraq took no such action against the U.S.; (3) Georgia is actively pursuing NATO membership - Iraq had no such alliances with anti - U.S. coalitions. It goes on and on. So for McCain to make such hollow statements of belligerence against Russia, and then to have these so-called "two sides" of the argument both say that McCain was exactly right in how he responded to this reeks of nothing more than a newscast fronting for U.S. corporate interests of the worst kind. Shame on you Jim Lehrer, for allowing it.

And don't think I'm the only one thinking it. Check this out - http://mwcnews.net/content/view/24643/26/ . This editorial, out of Canada is much tougher than my column on the hypocricy, and I agree with it.

 

Bush, Georgia and Russia

Can you believe George W Bush? He has the gall to stand up in front of reporters and talk about the "brutality" of the Russians and how dare they invade a soverign country! Geez, as information comes out almost weekly which continues to confirm that Bush and Cheney knew that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction yet they invaded anyway and continued to lie to the American people, Bush has become the world's figurehead of brutality and occupation. He has like zero credibility to be making these comments and Putin knows it.

Secondly, Bush has squandered our military and left us with no option to confront the Russians other than all out nuclear war. If we resorted to that, we would lose what modicum of support we still have from the European Union and the rest of the world. So, for the most part, we are helpless to do anything about Russia's actions. And Putin knows it.

Third, one has to wonder if Bush and Cheney didn't know and agree with Georgia's military actions against Russia. How dumb were they? Or is it just suicidal tendancies? What are these people trying to do, get us into world war 3? (or is it 4 by now?)
Georgia, however, got suckered into sending troops to Iraq, thinking that by doing so, they could count us if they needed military help. Not so fast Georgia. But come on, Mr. Saakasvili, or whatever his name is, president of Georgia, had to know that he was, as one commentator put it, "putting his hand in the lion's cage." But, if you do that, don't be surprised if it gets bit off, and it did in this case.

Congress needs a full, open hearing on what happened here and to what extent the U.S. was involved. Also, perhaps, just as we were a little premature in our "Mission Accomplished" ceremony that Bush held on the aircraft carrier, maybe all these years of talk about how we won the cold war and how Russia has been reduced and we are now the only superpower in the world were a little premature also. But that's our biggest flaw as a society - we can't see anymore than a few minutes into the future, let alone decades.

Rural Thoughts, One Year Out

The Home page entry on Rural Thoughts was posted one year ago today. That was the beginning of this webpage. In the year that followed, this webpage has has 153 total entries, or about 3 a week. While it started out with just Mark and Kristi, we now have other regular contributors - Craig Rhodes and Berry Craig - and we have had other guest contributors. This has really helped to give the blog a variety of writing styles and opinions. And, the Home Page entry will be updated to reflect this. Hopefully, in the next year, we can add more writers. We sure want to. If you think your writing would fit well with Rural Thoughts, let us know. Just submit a comment to this message. 

I believe that Rural Thoughts has brought a different perspective, and when you compare it to what we have available in our region, it's like totally different. And we have brought a counterpoint to the ultra conservative voice of the Paxton Media Group, who uses their editorial space in the Paducah Sun to espouse the most conservative, reactionary political views that can be imagined. 

But, we have not just brought an important local perspective with this webpage, but we have been on top of national and international issue also - with a rural perspective. This has been sorely lacking in the mainstream media. And, we have had some important insights. We predicted Obama's nomination while the mainstream media was writing him off. We have brought an important union perspective to the elections while the mainstream media writes off the unions. And, we recently reported that an Obama presidency will likely bring a Justice Dept. investigation into criminal acts by the Bush administration. The mainstream media hasn't touched this either, even though it came from the mouth of an important Senator.

We haven't advertised at all on Rural Thoughts yet, but we have a good group of supporters. We appreciate everyone who shares with us. Please help us spread the word about Rural Thoughts. Don't hesitate to contact us if you want to contribute. My email is markkris@earthlink.net. But, don't fret, because we are going to continue to write about progressive ideas, and give you nice original photos as a bonus. 

Of course, those photos are property of Rural Thoughts, and while we don't care if they are used for the most part, you do need to tell us that you are using them and what for. 

Thanks for all of your support. The next year will be even better yet, I'm sure.

One Year Anniversary of Rural Thoughts

Tomorrow, August 11, 2008, is the one year anniversary of the first post to Rural Thoughts. I will post a rundown of some of the significant thoughts that have come across this webpage. We thank the about 200 individuals who have come to this site and shared with us. We appreciate your audience, and extend a welcome for all of you to chime in. We want this to be an open forum. Tomorrow, I will post a message recapping what we have done in the last year. And enjoy the poem that Kristi contributed on behalf of our first year. It's been exciting. And, more great stuff to come!

1 Year Anniversary of Rural Thoughts: Poem, "Summertime, 2008"

by Kristi Hanson

The asparagus fern glissens in the morning sun, coated in last nights rain, twinkling in the slight breeze.

All of the day creatures are busy with their daily chores, as the racoons and other night creatures sleep.

Wasps by the hundreds fly along the eves of my house.
paper wasps making their nests.
Beautiful, delicate combs that hang on by a thread.
They roll up spiders, their favorite food for their young.

The day is drifting by,
beautiful air,
awaft with butterflys.

The plants grow before my eyes,
I try to see but miss so much.
Birds sing to each other very intent, saying, life is moving on, let's get with it, quick!
We must be moving on.

Heather Ryan's Valiant Campaign

Back on January 25, 2007, I wrote a column in Rural Thoughts http://www.ruralthoughts.net/?q=node/57 about the incident at the Maiden Alley Cinema (MAC), in Paducah, Kentucky, in which then Executive Director Heather Ryan confronted U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell, who was at the MAC working on a campaign ad, about the war in Iraq. She had her young daughter with her, who also spoke to McConnell. The exchange, which was video taped to a degree, and posted on the internet, shows that the encounter wasn’t always polite, calm and collected, although there wasn't any profanity, threats, or “danger” to McConnell. 

As a result of the encounter, Ryan was fired as Director in a “kangaroo court” of sorts. At the time, I, and others did question Ryan’s tactics, although not her desire to get McConnell to answer for the Iraq war. And, while I didn't second guess the MAC Board's decision at the time, Rural Thoughts and others raised questions about MAC's involvement (they are 501c3 not for profit organization which cannot get involved in political campaigns) in the McConnell campaign. I specifically wrote to the Secretary of Maiden Alley asking him questions about this relationship and whether or not McConnell paid for the facility. Those questions have yet to be answered, and they still present a stain on the organization in my opinion. 

Ryan, instead of moping around, almost immediately rolled up her sleeves and announced her candidacy for U.S. House of Representatives as Democrat, www.ryanforkentucky.com challenging incumbent Republican Ed Whitfield. When Ryan first announced her candidacy, I, and others, thought that the regional press would destroy her and she would become a candidate of ridicule. Much to my surprise, and my pleasure, just the opposite has occurred. She has worked diligently, has articulated thoughtful and smart positions, has showed herself to be a strong and intelligent speaker, and has become a credible candidate in opposition to Whitfield, a candidate that deserves to have the strong support of those wanting a change in the First Congressional District of Western Kentucky. 

I watched parts of Ryan’s speech at Fancy Farm last weekend on KET, along with the others’ speeches they carried. Ryan’s speech was strong, and she shouted out progressive positions on the war and the economy, and held Whitfield to account for his failed policies, over the attempts by Whitfield supporters to shout her down. Even Gov. Beshear mentioned her in the list of Democratic candidates that need to be elected. She is running strong, and just as I criticized her during the McConnell confrontation, I now have to praise her for her actions in the wake of that incident. She has redeemed herself.

Whitfield’s usefulness as a Congressman of the First District of Kentucky has come to an end. He has failed his constituencies on everything from getting us into the Iraq war, energy policy, the deficit and the economy, to the cleanup of the gaseous diffusion plant and not making sure that all deserving sick atomic workers get desperately needed compensation, to the management of Land Between the Lakes and other issues important to Western Kentucky. Now, Whitfield, part of the sinking House Republican minority, has less and less clout, and the likelihood of him being able to accomplish anything substantial for the district is shrinking as fast as the Republican minority in the House. In fact, as Ryan has repeatedly stated, Whitfield did little even when he was in the majority.

The First District of Western Kentucky needs a Democrat. It needs a Democrat to bring progressive policies and to join the majority of Congress pushing for a change in the way this country is doing things. I have noticed Ryan’s valiant efforts over the past months and how she has overcome the MAC firing. Her rapid firing by the MAC board, however, as time goes on, more and more appears to be a kneejerk and less than just firing from MAC. The lack of openness by MAC creates suspicion that MAC did illegally assist McConnell in his campaign, and that there was an overtly political aspect to Ryan's firing.

It’s time for West Kentucky Democrats to get behind Ms. Ryan and help her defeat Whitfield. It seems like an almost impossible goal for this election, but with enough excitement and financial support, it isn’t impossible. It would be one of the greatest political upsets of all times, and Ryan would once again prove that in America, hard work and the truth can still win out.

Durbin in Metropolis and Impeachment

Yesterday, Senator Durbin had a town hall meeting in Metropolis, Il and during the Q&A he said something interesting that I have not heard from anyone yet including Obama.

He was asked if he spoke much with Nancy Pelosi and if so, has she
given him a good reason as to why impeachment is off the table.
Durbin responded that there's too little time left, too much to do, to
pursue impeachment at this time. However, he had it on good
authority, (he's in contact with Obama daily), that when Obama takes
office, the new Justice Dept. would be charged with investigating the
criminal activities of the Bush Administration.

If this is true then criminal indictments of top officials in the
criminal enterprise occupying the Oval Office could end in worse
consequences for the thugs than impeachment.

Just this week Ron Suskind has released his new book, "The Way of the
World" in which top officials he interviewed in the Bush
Administration admit to a criminal conspiracy to forge documents that
would justify the invasion of Iraq. 

Although I prefer impeachment if for no other reason that another
Repub administration would do the same if they think there are no
consequences, but still....here's hoping.

Craig