Progressive Groups

Obama, don't follow McCain into the mud

mr_twist — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 15:02:14 -0400

Please help unite
Obama supporters in rejecting McCain’s
negative campaign style. We must clean up politics if things are ever to get
better. We have a chance to be so much more than the same old attack politics,
but Obama must hear the voices of his supporters on this.

Please read the message to Obama on the following blog and
help spread it to others.

http://manyhands.blogspot.com/

Senator Barack Obama,

I realize that you have already endured
much since the start of your campaign for the presidency. Along with
the grueling schedules, lack of sleep, and time away from your family,
you have had to deal with being the target of racial slurs, hateful jokes, untrue attacks on your faith, and even slander against your loved ones. All of us who support your bid for president and many of those who do not condemn such unethical political trash.

I call upon you to recognize in these difficult times that the Obama campaign belongs to its supporters. It belongs to all of us. We want to support what we have seen in you. Maybe it was something we read in one of your books, a rousing speech
you made at a huge rally, or a small commitment you expressed in a more
personal setting. Regardless, we all found something to believe in that
we share. We found a hope for something better in the potential that
you contain and in what we have seen from your best moments. Do not
forget this. Even when you falter you must still be committed to the
steady course of something new, something positive, and something which
makes you capable of inspiring and leading millions.

This needs
to be said in light of McCain deciding recently that there is only one
way for him to defeat you: by drawing you into his mud. Unable to rally
the enthusiasm and hope that you stir in people McCain has decided
instead to take the low road and lash out
at you for inspiring so many to believe in and work for change in their
country. These are McCain's politics, do not let them become yours. Our
country does not need a second McCain campaign, we need something
different, something new, and something better.

I am not asking you to be soft and avoid holding people accountable, asking tough questions, or defending yourself from lies.
I am asking you to not be drawn into the negative campaigning that your
opponent so wishes to see you engage in. There is a difference between
hard politics and dirty politics. Do not become a mudslinger instead of
a "hope monger". Many of us want something different and you are our
best hope for that. Please Sen. Obama, do not walk into the politics of
anger and spite.

--- One of your inspired supporters

Sen. Feingold Seeks Citizen Sponsors for Censure Resolutions

Chip — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:01:01 -0400

Just in from Senator Feingold:

Over the last week, I've held Listening Sessions across Wisconsin and heard the same sort of comments that thousands of people like you have emailed my way over the last week - it's time to hold the President, and his administration, accountable.

Become A Citizen Co-Sponsor of Censure

The President and Vice President led our nation into an unwise war, under false pretenses, without adequate planning, and have mismanaged the situation that continues today. The President and Attorney General have time and time again thumbed their noses at the Constitution and the rule of law - on everything from warrantless wiretapping to undermining Congress' role to conduct adequate oversight.

If Congress stands by and does nothing to hold this administration responsible, we open the door for this President, and future presidents, to continue to undermine the very foundation of our government whenever they see fit. The President, Vice President and Attorney General must be held accountable.

Become A Citizen Co-Sponsor of Censure

The President has taken our country down the wrong path for far too long and it is up to each and every one of us to get America moving back in the right direction. As I mentioned above, thousands of you have joined our effort and signed on as Citizen Co-Sponsors of Censure. By showing your support today, Congressman Hinchey - the lead sponsor of both censure resolutions in the House - and I can show our colleagues in Congress that the American people demand accountability.

Sincerely,

Senator Russ Feingold

###

Let me be crystal clear here: I support impeachment. Do I think that censure should be in lieu of impeachment? NO. But do I think that censure may heighten the public's push for impeachment, for the constitutional restoration of our republic with its democratic traditions? Do I think it's at least a minimal effort toward our national restoration? Could be...

It's another opportunity to tell Congress that the Bush administration cabal is the anti-thesis of authentic American values and the rule of law. Please join me in signing.

Code Pink-PDA-IVAW Adam Schiff Stop the War! Day 1

CactusPat — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:27:19 -0500

Code Pink, Progressive Democrats of America, Iraq Veterans Against The War demonstrate outside Rep. Adam Schiff's Office (Day 1 Occupation Project)

How nice, he sent down cookies... How 'bout STOPPING THE WAR! I think some variant of conventional wisdom has set in amongst the Dem brain-dead-trust and they've decided to not take any political risks and just let Smirk and the Repubnuts twist in the wind on Iraq.

Meanwhile, more US personnel are dying each day. More Iraqi citizens slaughtered, raped, and pillaged each day. More national treasure squandered. Plus, the Dem base gets more alienated each day.

Don't know about you, but that appears to be "risk" they're not taking seriously in their calculus....

Help VoteVets.org Run this Ad During the Super Bowl

CactusPat — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 06:05:05 -0500

VoteVets.org, with Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, is leading the charge against the President’s escalation of the war in Iraq with a new television advertisement today. We’re targeting a number of Senators who still have not come out in favor of the strongest Senate resolution, sponsored by Senators Joe Biden and Chuck Hagel. We are backing up the ad with a two-day, seven-city tour, that will take this battle right into the Senators’ back yards...

Click Here To Keep Our Ad On The Air

VoteVets.org is joining organizations such as MoveOn.org, SEIU (Service Employees International Union), and Center for America Progress as founding members of Americans Against Escalation in Iraq.

You can also donate through the MoveOn.org online interface

500,000 March on Washington - Corporate Media Yawns

CactusPat — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 00:23:04 -0500

Danny Schechter opines on the corporate media's despicable marginalization of Saturday's historic March on Washington DC and related nationwide protests against Congress calling for an end to Bush's escalation of the Iraq War.... A half a million marched in DC alone. Add in the hundreds of protests from across the country and you have another historic event taking place, with the corporate media twisting into contortions in attempt to down-play.

The Anti War March Meets The Media - MEDIA DOWNPLAYS ANTI-WAR MARCH SIZE
This past weekend’s anti-war march was big, say the organizers and I have no reason to doubt them. They made this claim:

“Washington, D.C. -- In a massive showing of public opposition to the Iraq war, 500,000 people filled the streets around the Capitol today, completely surrounding the building. Participants converged on the National Mall from all over the country to voice their support for an end to the conflict in Iraq. Three hundred buses rolled in early this morning, coming from more than 40 states and including at least 20 buses filled by New York City trade unions. United For Peace & Justice, the march coordinator, called this one of the the largest and most diverse demonstrations since the war began....(more) According to UFPJ National Coordinator and veteran peace and justice leader Leslie Cagan, “This is a decisive moment in the history of this country and of our peace movement. In November, the people of this nation voted for peace. We are here today, all ages, from all walks of life, to hold our elected officials to the mandate of the people.”

Add in protests in the rest of the country and it was even bigger.

But is that the picture most of America received? I didn’t see any report Saturday night on the front page of the Sunday NY Times online but, by the morning , the print edition of the Times wrote:

"Tens of thousands of protesters converged on the National Mall on Saturday to oppose President Bush’s plan for a troop increase in Iraq in what organizers hoped would be one of the largest shows of antiwar sentiment in the nation’s capital since the war began."

The story was carried as headline at the bottom of the page, not exactly prominent positioning. No Photo. A story about tennis got bigger play. The story was actually placed on p 21 (although it said p 22 on page l.) The story itself by Ian Urbina was well done. And the Times had two other reporters on the scene. The picture caption said thousands, not tens of thouands and certainly not a half-million. Low down in the story, it said 400,000. Bloomberg News reported 500,000, one of the few.

This was not the coverage "organizers hoped" for. Actually the organizers said it WAS the largest show of force since the war began with 500,000. The Times only acknowledged "tens of thousands." Does this matter? It doesn't if the numbers game doesn't matter. Years, ago the National Park Service which initially always underreported crowd sizes and then began having aerial photos taken that were analyzed by experts using grids, decided not to provide police estimates which were routinely reported. Perhaps that’s why the march did its own count.

Yesterday, the March claimed a half million—which IS "one of the largest shows of anti-war sentiment" (although I seem to remember the number of 750,000 used to quantify how many showed up in the big pre-war march of 2003). But the papers, seem to have followed the AP's earlier in the day estimate of "tens of thousands." True to form, the Washington Post online edition only reported "THOUSANDS." The Huffington Post headline: "Why The Anti-War March Won't Change Anything..."

Was this right on Or right off? I wasn’t there this time. My first anti-war march was in l965 so I have burned up my share of shoe or sneaker leather over the years as well as energy cheering some of the same speakers who turned up Saturday. I wasn’t feeling well enough to make the trip this time, but reported on it anyway.

I support marches as PART of a bigger strategy, not as THE strategy. And at least this time, many activists were planning to lobby Congress.

As readers know by now, I think its kind of important to get this message out to the people through the media, and not just the message that there’s opposition to the war but that there’s a movement opposing it. We need to show activism in action as a way for citizens to try to hold politicians accountable and participate in the process. Did that double message get through?

This approach requires a media strategy--and a challenge to the media— beyond sending out press releases and getting on Pacifica radio outlets.

It also requires a commitment to forging a stronger movement by ON GOING organizing and efforts to democratize and INVOLVE member groups and individuals in independent action outside of the Democratic Party. There needs to be some discipline too and a better presentation. Personally I think Dennis Kucinich has a strong message--but he shouldn't be given time on the program just to hype his campaign. That shows no respect for the movement. We need some independent journalists to really analyze this movement's strengths and weknesses, a former peace movement organizer told me. In that sense the numbers issue is not necessarily the only issue even if it does deserve comment. Another criticism I heard was that indy media was not represented with no blogger speaking.

On Saturday morning, the United For Peace and Justice website announced “(Watch live on C-SPAN!) Wow, I thought, you could see the March and Rally LIVE on CSPAN. At l:30, I tuned in just before the march was slated to start, and sure enough several cameras were in the crowed. The only commentary I heard then was that there were “thousands” there. Sounded small. All we saw was a rapper on the stage and people milling around, No interviews. No explanation. I guess I missed it.

Soon, a notice appeared on screen that CSPAN would switch away from the March to cover Hillary Clinton’s first speech in Iowa. And so they did, off to East High School for a stump speech. I expected them to come back while the march was happening. They didn’t. Instead they rebroadcast last Friday’s coverage of a National Review Institute conference on conservatism. Was CSPAN that nervous, that they had to preemptively “balance” the anti-war march?

Instead of the ongoing march, we heard righter than right columnist Michelle Malkin complaining that the media didn’t show the “throngs” at a right to life march, but only a few counter demonstrators. (CNN showed the 15 counter demonstrators and, for balance, had an interview with a conservative critic—but also a song by the raging grannies and a sound bite or two from well-known speakers like Jane Fonda.) It was superficial at best.

CSPAN promised to show it later, but when I tuned in, CSPAN l was running a session from the Memphis Media Conference earlier this month at 9:30 PM. (Later, I received an email saying I was in it so I can't criticize that, can I?)

I am sure the anti-war rally will be rebroadcast but the format with its endless parade of speakers and torrent of rhetoric is not exactly a media or audience turn on.

My point is that there was no real ‘live” coverage on the main CSPAN channel that I saw in a culture with news channels that can’t wait to go live. (When I worked at ABC, there was a term called SLR for Silly Live Remote referring to someone on freeway overpass “reporting live” on an ordinary rush hour where nothing was happening.) We have a media that will go "live" to the opening of an envelope. Just not to an anti-war march!

Coverage is more than just showing it; it is reporting on it, commenting on it, interviewing people there etc.

I flipped to Fox. If there was coverage I missed it. They were spinning a statement by John Kerry to the effect that world public opinion does not support the US war. This was being presented as “anti-American.” What do you expect from Faux News?

CNN did have a report with a journalist who had been at the march discussing it, saying there were “tens of thousands,” not a half million. He was in the studio, not on the Mall, with an anchor who patronizingly referred to protesters as “the kind of people we’ve seen before.” The march was treated as ho-hummer with the only interest expressed about whether active duty soldiers were marching. The CNN man said he heard about there were but didn’t see them.

It was then time for a standup from the White House lawn with a reporter discussing how the White House would respond to Congressional criticism of the war, as if the marchers didn’t exist. And then there was a replay of a soundbyte from President Bush under a graphic banner that said, can you believe, “THE SOUNDS OF DISSENT.”

AP reported “tens of thousands” not half a million.

Convinced this is their moment, tens of thousands marched Saturday in an anti-war demonstration linking military families, ordinary people and an icon of the Vietnam protest movement in a spirited call to get out of Iraq.

Andrea Hsu of NPR turned tens of thousands into: “Thousands of protesters gathered Saturday on the Mall in Washington, D.C.” Thousands!

NPR reported January 27: “While some citizens have protested against the Iraq war ever since the invasion of March 2003, the movement has failed to mobilize large numbers of people in public spaces. Has that changed now that a majority of Americans oppose the war?”
www.npr.org

For some reason, there seemed to be more movie stars speaking than usual. What signal does that send? Of course CNN ran image of Jane Fonda now and in North Vietnam in l973. There was a photo of Sean Penn marching.

Headline in a newspaper in Komo Washington: "Middle America meets celebrity glitter in anti-war march."

Some outlets, but mostly on the West coast noted that there were protests there too: “WASHINGTON — Anti-war protesters from around the country converged on Washington, Los Angeles, San Francisco and other cities today, …”

Don’t the anti-war organizers see this as a problem? Don’t they think they should try to do something about it and take it as a challenge, and protest this ritualistic treatment? Shouldn’t they make the media coverage a issue? Are they only listening to themselves?

I was on Air America in LA on Saturday afternoon and host Bree Walker, a feisty former TV anchor agreed. But the anti-war movement continues to pay lipservice to this problem, perhaps for fear of “alienating” the press. Give me a break! Back in 2003, the Washington Posts own omsbudsman Michael Getler indicted his own newspaper for “downplaying protests.” He now works for Public Television.

This coverage is deplorable but worse: the anti-war movement had not made it an issue. With more than half the country opposing the war, the movement is still being under reported and marginalized! And, naively, not doing anything about it.

We still need a march on the media. Anyone with me?

Comments to Dissector@mediachannel.org

Yes, Danny! Let's march on the media! Better yet, let's get the new Democratic majority to re-institute the Fairness Doctrine. That would go a long way toward ending the corporatist monopoly on free speech on the public's airwaves.

In fact here's Dennis Kucinich talking about the fairness Doctrine on Lou Dobbs a week or so back...

The Iraq Veterans Memorial

CactusPat — Sun, 21 Jan 2007 22:17:28 -0500

The Iraq Veterans Memorial

Gold Star Families Speak Out · Military Families Speak Out · Iraq Veterans Against the War · North Texas Vets · Veterans for Peace · Soldiers of Today and Yesterday · GI Special · United for Peace and Justice · Brave New Foundation

Inspired by the AIDS Quilt, the Vietnam memorial, and the New York Times biographies of the 9/11 victims, Robert Greenwald and Brave New Foundation, in partnership with numerous Iraq veterans groups, are creating a living online memorial to U.S. soldiers killed during the Iraq war. The Iraq Veterans Memorial will bear witness with the video testimonies of family, friends, co-workers, and military colleagues of those lost.....

It will be unveiled on March 19th, 2007 all across the internet.

Contribute your video testimonial
Host video memorial on your site March 19th

A project of the Brave New Foundation
Email: info@iraqmemorial.org

Can the Netroots Restore Habeas Corpus?

Bob Fertik — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 19:16:12 -0500

The Nation's Ari Melber raises a hugely important question: can the netroots restore Habeas Corpus?

Just before its implosion last November, the Republican Congress passed the Military Commissions Act (MCA), one of the worst legislative setbacks to human rights policy since World War II. The law dilutes restrictions against torture; provides new immunity for war criminals; eliminates habeas corpus, the sacrosanct right to go to court and challenge government detention, for US residents; and authorizes rigged military trials for people captured on and off the battlefield, without any oversight by American courts.

But the public barely noticed because Congress approved the sweeping legislation with no hearings in a seven-day rush before the midterm elections. Some Democrats in the new Congress say they will roll back the law. Yet they are under pressure instead to address the Iraq War and the requests of their top interest groups, which rarely focus on constitutional rights. Some Democrats want to avoid the entire issue, arguing that because Bush will veto any reforms, they should just hope the Supreme Court finds the law unconstitutional. (This timid logic was recently outlined by an anonymous Democratic Senate staffer who told the The New Yorker that "we're basically leaving it up to the courts" instead of confronting Bush.) But there is one progressive group with the political influence, financial clout and policy expertise to put constitutional rights on the Congressional agenda: the emerging network of liberal bloggers, netroots activists and blink tanks--blogs that function as online think tanks--that have been doggedly fighting the Bush Administration's six-year assault on the Constitution.

Melber is kind to mention my effort to mobilize the netroots around fundamental Constitutional issues like Habeas Corpus, as well as our 100-day agenda poll where restoring Habeas Corpus ranked first.

I believe our poll is an excellent measure of netroots sentiment. The problem - which is also reflected in our poll - is that there are so many urgent issues that it's hard to focus on any single one.

And this problem is compounded by Iraq, which was enough of a mess before Bush decided to escalate the war - and possibly expand it to Iran and Syria.

The problem of Iraq is not merely a military one, although that is bad enough. It also goes to the heart of both American Imperialism (in the militarist version favored by Bush, Cheney, the neocons, the Republican Party, corporate America, and the right wing media) and to the Imperial Presidency that was created to carry out that imperialist policy.

Melber mentions Senator Chris Dodd's legislation to restore Habeas Corpus and repeal the worst parts of the Military Commissions Act. Dodd's bill will have the support of Senate Judiciary Committee chair Pat Leahy, who is a staunch supporter of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It may also get support across the aisle from Arlen Specter, who never had the guts to stand up to Bush and Cheney while he chaired the Judiciary Committee, but might find it easier to play a supporting role behind Leahy. But that bill will inevitably face a filibuster from Imperialists like Lindsey Graham, Orrin Hatch, and Mitch McConnell. And even if Democrats can get 60 votes to overcome the filibuster, they will need 67 to override Bush's inevitable veto.

Given these numbers, it will be impossible to restore the Constitution one bill at a time while Bush is in the White House, and while Republicans have 49 votes in the Senate.

That's why our top priority is to build an overwhelming grassroots movement to impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney for all of their collective crimes. If we can turn the national tide against Bush and Cheney for their overall disastrous policies, we will be strong enough either to break GOP filibusters - or pick up 9 more Senate seats in 2008 for a filibuster-proof Democratic majority.

The Whole Picture!

Despicable — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 04:56:34 -0500

It is my opinion that many progressives are at this point in time, not seeing the big picture.
The BIG picture being, that a global world economy and modern technology is more progressive in the short term, than nationalism, tribal loyalty ... and protecting our borders!
The rich and powerful can only go in one of two directions, being a global entity they must as a class, grab the world resources, build a middle class, where their is no middle class, and then destroy that middle class just like they built and are now destroying the rural farmers and the industrial working class and the middle class in the developed parts of the world.

What is occuring is a predictable process, and this process cannot be stopped within the short term. But it can and will be stopped ultimately by a world wide revolution,by those that are forced by their revolting conditions to become revolutionary!

What will take the place of a no longer functioning capitalist system is the complete opposite of the system that existed previously.

Everything eventually turns into it's opposite!

Bill Moyers at NCMR 2007 -- PARTS 1 & 2

CactusPat — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 22:28:55 -0500

Update: Truthout's got the prepared speech transcript for those who'd like to read it...

Part 1 - 32 min.

Moyers: We ‘Lit a Fire’ in Washington From SavetheInternet.com, January 14, 2007 By Timothy Karr

Veteran television journalist Bill Moyers opened the National Conference for Media Reform Friday with praise for SavetheInternet.com’s grassroots campaign to keep the Internet open and fair. “You lit a fire under people to put Washington on Notice,” Moyers told a packed house of more than 3,000 activists and organizers. Net Neutrality, which Moyers dubbed the “Equal Access Provision of the Internet,” became a broad public issue “that once again reminded the powers that be that people want the media to foster democracy not to quench it.”...

Moyers called our campaign critical, as soon virtually all media will be delivered to homes via a single high speed broadband connection.

“This is the great gift of the digital revolution and you must never let them take it away from you,” he said.

“Without equality of access the Net will become just like cable television where the provider decides what you see and what you pay.”

Moyers highlighted SavetheInternet.com’s grassroots and online organizing efforts, saying that Washington “hadn’t reckoned with this movement.”

“Free Press and SavetheInternet.com orchestrated 800 organizations, a million and a half petitions, countless local events, legions of home-made videos, smart collaboration with allies in industry and a top-shelf communications campaign,” he said.

“Who would have imagined that sitting together in the same democratic broadband pew would be the Christian Coalition, Gun Owners of America, Common Cause and MoveOn.org. And who would have imagined that these would link arms with some of the powerful new media companies to fight for the Internet’s First Amendment.”

Speaking about the recent agreement by AT&T executive Ed Whitacre to adhere to strict Net Neutrality as a condition of his company’s $86 billion merger with BellSouth, Moyers said, “AT&T had to cry uncle.”

“The agreement marks the first time that the federal government has imposed true neutrality — oops equality — on an Internet Access Provider since the debate erupted almost two years ago.”

Regarding our prospects for 2007 and beyond, Moyers said this: “I believe you changed the terms of the debate. It is no longer about whether equality of access will govern the future of the Internet, it’s about when and how.

“It also signals a change from defense to offense for the backers of the open Net. Arguably, the biggest most effective online organizing campaign ever conducted on a media issue can now turn to passing good laws rather than always having to fight to block the bad ones.”

Part 2 - 30 min.

Impeachment Forum Videos

CactusPat — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:50:45 -0500

Voices for Impeachment - Powerful set of video clips from last week's Impeachment Forum held at the National Press Club in Washington DC. Sponsored by World Can't Wait.org.

Speakers include Gore Vidal, John Nichols, Cindy Sheehan, Daniel Ellsburg, Michael Ratner of the Ctr. for Constitutional Rights, David Swanson, and Sunsara Taylor. Plus video of the Impeachmentmobile in action and Cindy Sheehan at the opening of Congress... (much more below the fold!)

Gore Vidal Lets Loose:

John Nichols puts current movement for impeachment into historical context:

Cindy Sheehan:

Daniel Ellsberg on How Campaigns to Cut off War Funds and Impeach Criminal Presidents Help Each Other and Can Best Succeed in Tandem (Introduced by David Swanson):

Daniel Ellsberg on Bush and Hitler Seizing Right to Read Anyone's Mail:

Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights:

David Swanson and Sunsara Taylor:

ImpeachMobile Video:

Cindy Sheehan at Opening of Congress 01-04-07:

Full length videos of each speaker's presentations are available on the World Can't Wait website...