THE DEMOCRATS AND THE REPUBLICANS: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. BUT HILLARY IS NOT ONLY POLARIZING BUT BIPOLARIZING. AND GIULIANI IS A SECURITY RISK
UP FRONT News May 9, 2007
Published by Tom Weiss
Editorial Advisor: Willard Whittingham
“The paper that can’t be bought and can’t be sold.” www.tomsupfrontnews.blogspot.com
THE DEMOCRATS AND THE REPUBLICANS: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. BUT HILLARY IS NOT ONLY POLARIZING BUT BIPOLARIZING. AND GIULIANI IS A SECURITY RISK
Anyone who saw and/or has read about the recent separate debates among the Democratic and Republican candidates for president and continues to suggest, like some of the opportunists the Green Party, that the no difference between the major parties, is way off base. While, in consideration of big business candidates such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, there is no question of major corporate authority in the Democratic Party, there is no way that candidates like John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel could ever fit into the Republican Party.
Although Mr. Edwards has not spoken out in some major issues, such as the Chinese Communist Genocide in Tibet and the related matter of having an Olympics in a nation that practices Genocide while abetting same in Darfur, his views on poverty and homelessness are significantly opposed to the Republicans who, no matter what they say, are anti-poor and believe that the best way to eliminate poverty is by eliminating the poor – by any means necessary. Dennis Kucinich, who grew up in a multiply evicted family in Cleveland, has views on the Iraq War and other issues that are diametrically opposed to the Republicans. Kucinich, some of whose people read UP FRONT News, has, as I did a long time ago, called for the impeachment of Dick Cheney – first. I’d like to hear a Re- publican support that idea. Mr. Gravel, the longest shot of all, views the Iraq War as a criminal venture.
The Republicans currently offer the authoritarian Rudolph Giulani, who as mayor appointed a major crook named Bernard Kerik as Police Commissioner and almost made him head of Homeland Security. I don’t care what Giuliani say about abortion and I don’t care how many gullible or mega-ambitious women he marries. He is a security risk. John McCain was certainly right in his view that Donald Rumsfeld was a security risk. McCain’s view of the world, however, is essentially military. The only things “surging” are the bloodshed in Iraq and the hatred for America. The Republicans are a right wing political party, some of whose most prominent members are ideologically not far from Francisco Franco.
While the contrast here is not as clear is it was in the recent French election, Mr. Sarkozy would be a Republican here and Ms. Royal would be a Democrat and not, despite her gender, a Hillarycrat.
No matter what the polls may show at any particular point in time and no matter how may Democrats are purchased by Hillary Clinton’s cash and her Wehrmacht-style political machine, many people recognize that Mrs. Clinton is not only polarizing, she is bipolarizing. I have observed a number of the often well-attended Obama meetups in New York City and it is apparent that much of the Obama “surge” derives from wide- spread distrust and antipathy among Democrats for Mrs. Clinton. As I have made clear in UP FRONT News and in my Democratic write-in campaign against her for the U.S. Senate, Hillary Clinton is the Queens of Opportunism. It is not surprising that this “liberal” is supported by both Rupert Murdoch and Donald Trump. I would vote for her only if for example David Duke became the Republican nominee. While I think Ralph Nader served as a very false prophet in 2000 and 2004 with his not at all “independent” candidacies (they were choreographed by the racist Lenora Fulani, a surrogate for the fas- cist Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.), I’d consider supporting him if Mrs. Clinton became the Democratic nominee.
As far as Barack Obama is concerned, I am thankful to him for attracting enough cash to significantly slow down the Clinton juggernaut. Mr. Obama, who is attracting much Wall Street support (always a concern in my book), however, operates something of a juggernaut of his own. I’ve been involved in many political campaigns. It is not surprising that a campaign organization is a reflection of its candidate. And while Barack Obama preaches populism, accessibility, and participation, the reality is otherwise. His press people presumably respond to the New York Times, but my telephone conversations with Obama press official Katie Hogan and several other Obama campaign staffers in Chicago and my e-mail requesting his views on the Chinese Communist Genocide in Tibet have yielded nothing. Indeed, a local high level Obama meetup official, at my request, raised this matter with a Obama campaign staffer but was told he could not reveal to me the identity of that individual.That is how cover-ups happen. On a lower level, I have found the organizer of the Staten Island Obama meetup to be arbitrary and inconsiderate.
John Edwards’ New York City meetup is organized by political science professor Steven Gradman, an unabashed progressive who is not only a Democrat but a democrat. Andy Solari, a high level Edwards campaign apparently responds to e-mails on tough issues. My views on the Iraq War are close to those of Mr. Kucinich. While Kucinich has (like I did when I ran against Mrs. Clinton) not gotten a fair shake from the media, he is also a long shot because his campaign organization seems to be a scattershot affair with some very questionable participants. For years perhaps the most vocal Kucinich supporter in New York City has been Charlene Barker. The fact is that Ms. Barker, aside from working for one of the most predatory corporations on the planet, runs meet-ups under Joe Stalin’s Rules of Order. A presumably past Kucinich worker is Charles Lenchner, a man directly connected to LaRouche who criminally harassed me several times when I was running against Clinton. Lenchner has tried slither into the Edwards campaign but I have outed him.
The Republicans’ best chance is if the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton.
* * * * * * *
Published by Tom Weiss
Editorial Advisor: Willard Whittingham
“The paper that can’t be bought and can’t be sold.” www.tomsupfrontnews.blogspot.com
THE DEMOCRATS AND THE REPUBLICANS: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. BUT HILLARY IS NOT ONLY POLARIZING BUT BIPOLARIZING. AND GIULIANI IS A SECURITY RISK
Anyone who saw and/or has read about the recent separate debates among the Democratic and Republican candidates for president and continues to suggest, like some of the opportunists the Green Party, that the no difference between the major parties, is way off base. While, in consideration of big business candidates such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, there is no question of major corporate authority in the Democratic Party, there is no way that candidates like John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel could ever fit into the Republican Party.
Although Mr. Edwards has not spoken out in some major issues, such as the Chinese Communist Genocide in Tibet and the related matter of having an Olympics in a nation that practices Genocide while abetting same in Darfur, his views on poverty and homelessness are significantly opposed to the Republicans who, no matter what they say, are anti-poor and believe that the best way to eliminate poverty is by eliminating the poor – by any means necessary. Dennis Kucinich, who grew up in a multiply evicted family in Cleveland, has views on the Iraq War and other issues that are diametrically opposed to the Republicans. Kucinich, some of whose people read UP FRONT News, has, as I did a long time ago, called for the impeachment of Dick Cheney – first. I’d like to hear a Re- publican support that idea. Mr. Gravel, the longest shot of all, views the Iraq War as a criminal venture.
The Republicans currently offer the authoritarian Rudolph Giulani, who as mayor appointed a major crook named Bernard Kerik as Police Commissioner and almost made him head of Homeland Security. I don’t care what Giuliani say about abortion and I don’t care how many gullible or mega-ambitious women he marries. He is a security risk. John McCain was certainly right in his view that Donald Rumsfeld was a security risk. McCain’s view of the world, however, is essentially military. The only things “surging” are the bloodshed in Iraq and the hatred for America. The Republicans are a right wing political party, some of whose most prominent members are ideologically not far from Francisco Franco.
While the contrast here is not as clear is it was in the recent French election, Mr. Sarkozy would be a Republican here and Ms. Royal would be a Democrat and not, despite her gender, a Hillarycrat.
No matter what the polls may show at any particular point in time and no matter how may Democrats are purchased by Hillary Clinton’s cash and her Wehrmacht-style political machine, many people recognize that Mrs. Clinton is not only polarizing, she is bipolarizing. I have observed a number of the often well-attended Obama meetups in New York City and it is apparent that much of the Obama “surge” derives from wide- spread distrust and antipathy among Democrats for Mrs. Clinton. As I have made clear in UP FRONT News and in my Democratic write-in campaign against her for the U.S. Senate, Hillary Clinton is the Queens of Opportunism. It is not surprising that this “liberal” is supported by both Rupert Murdoch and Donald Trump. I would vote for her only if for example David Duke became the Republican nominee. While I think Ralph Nader served as a very false prophet in 2000 and 2004 with his not at all “independent” candidacies (they were choreographed by the racist Lenora Fulani, a surrogate for the fas- cist Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.), I’d consider supporting him if Mrs. Clinton became the Democratic nominee.
As far as Barack Obama is concerned, I am thankful to him for attracting enough cash to significantly slow down the Clinton juggernaut. Mr. Obama, who is attracting much Wall Street support (always a concern in my book), however, operates something of a juggernaut of his own. I’ve been involved in many political campaigns. It is not surprising that a campaign organization is a reflection of its candidate. And while Barack Obama preaches populism, accessibility, and participation, the reality is otherwise. His press people presumably respond to the New York Times, but my telephone conversations with Obama press official Katie Hogan and several other Obama campaign staffers in Chicago and my e-mail requesting his views on the Chinese Communist Genocide in Tibet have yielded nothing. Indeed, a local high level Obama meetup official, at my request, raised this matter with a Obama campaign staffer but was told he could not reveal to me the identity of that individual.That is how cover-ups happen. On a lower level, I have found the organizer of the Staten Island Obama meetup to be arbitrary and inconsiderate.
John Edwards’ New York City meetup is organized by political science professor Steven Gradman, an unabashed progressive who is not only a Democrat but a democrat. Andy Solari, a high level Edwards campaign apparently responds to e-mails on tough issues. My views on the Iraq War are close to those of Mr. Kucinich. While Kucinich has (like I did when I ran against Mrs. Clinton) not gotten a fair shake from the media, he is also a long shot because his campaign organization seems to be a scattershot affair with some very questionable participants. For years perhaps the most vocal Kucinich supporter in New York City has been Charlene Barker. The fact is that Ms. Barker, aside from working for one of the most predatory corporations on the planet, runs meet-ups under Joe Stalin’s Rules of Order. A presumably past Kucinich worker is Charles Lenchner, a man directly connected to LaRouche who criminally harassed me several times when I was running against Clinton. Lenchner has tried slither into the Edwards campaign but I have outed him.
The Republicans’ best chance is if the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton.
* * * * * * *
posted by Tom Weiss at 10:16 AM
<< Home