--- In NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Richard" <rsierra12@...> wrote: > > Like I said you're being anti-rad so when you and your "anarchist" > beanie baby find your opinions refuted don't be surprised. Huh? How did the noble doctrine of anarchism get dragged into this tedious discussion of bourgeois politics? There is nothing remotely 'anarchist' about actively supporting either Nader or Obama. fel@shi of@n > Fyi, this is the New > Pacifica listserve not the Democratic Party's mouthpiece for the Obama > campaign. You're free to state what you believe but not free to ignore the > substance of what those who oppose your views post. Please, tell the board > specifically what it is you object to in Matt's remarks as well as in > regards to those opinions which have been posted in his support. May reason > prevail. /R > > > > _____ > > From: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Melinda Iley-Dohn > Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 11:03 AM > To: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [NewPacifica] Obama's Voting Record (Matt Gonzalez: "Count Me > Out") > > > > I thought that the whole POINT about being Progressive is that unlike > > the Neo-Cons, we are not required to goose step to a "Prime Directive". > > Progressives are voting for Obama and Clinton also. > > Kevin White <cuitlacoche1@...> wrote: > > "Accept the Progressive pov?" You make it sound like the Logos. There is > room for other opinions. Even for your "rad/anti-rad" gibberish. > > > > K > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Richard <rsierra12@...> > To: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 12:07:23 PM > Subject: RE: [NewPacifica] Obama's Voting Record (Matt Gonzalez: "Count Me > Out") > > Melinda's anti-rad and rads. She can't even accept the Progressive pov and > analysis rendered by Matt G. > > > > By the way Matt was live on KPFA's Morning Show this AM. /R > > > > > _____ > > > From: NewPacifica@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:NewPacifica @yahoogroups. com] > On Behalf Of Melinda Iley-Dohn > Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 9:19 AM > To: NewPacifica@ yahoogroups. com > Subject: Re: [NewPacifica] Obama's Voting Record (Matt Gonzalez: "Count Me > Out") > > > > Maybe they don't have the same views that you do. Those of us who support > Obama > > did so after weighing our alternatives. It's fairly disengenuous to accuse > Pacificans > > of a lack of judgement because they differ from your opinion. You are > entitled to > > express your own opinions and to vote as you chose. Kindly respect the right > of > > others to do the same. > > Mitchel Cohen <mitchelcohen@ mindspring. com> wrote: > > I am amazed that WBAI seems to have uncritically > jumped onto the Obama bandwagon. It is even offer > as a premium some compilations of Obama's > speeches. One would think that there would be > more reflection on Obama's actual record, above > and beyond the notable enthusiasm that his candidacy has generated. > > So I offer this to the WBAI / Pacifica community > to think about. It is written by Matt Gonzalez, > who is a former president of the San Francisco > Board of Supervisors, and who is running for > Vice-President of the United States on an independent ticket with Ralph > Nader. > > - Mitchel Cohen > > The Obama Craze: Count Me Out > by Matt Gonzalez > > Part of me shares the enthusiasm for Barack > Obama. After all, how could someone calling > themself a progressive not sense the importance > of what it means to have an African-American so > close to the presidency? But as his campaign has > unfolded, and I heard that we are not red states > or blue states for the 6th or 7th time, I > realized I knew virtually nothing about him. > > Like most, I know he gave a stirring speech at > the Democratic National Convention in 2004. I > know he defeated Alan Keyes in the Illinois > Senate race; although it wasn't much of a contest > (Keyes was living in Maryland when he announced). > Recently, I started looking into Obama's voting > record, and I'm afraid to say I'm not just > uninspired: I'm downright fearful. Here's why: > > This is a candidate who says he's going to usher > in change; that he is a different kind of > politician who has the skills to get things done. > He reminds us again and again that he had the > foresight to oppose the war in Iraq. And he seems > to have a genuine interest in lifting up the poor. > > But his record suggests that he is incapable of > ushering in any kind of change I'd like to see. > It is one of accommodation and concession to the > very political powers that we need to reign in > and oppose if we are to make truly lasting advances. > > THE WAR IN IRAQ > > Let's start with his signature position against > the Iraq war. Obama has sent mixed messages at best. > > First, he opposed the war in Iraq while in the > Illinois state legislature. Once he was running > for US Senate though, when public opinion and > support for the war was at its highest, he was > quoted in the July 27, 2004 Chicago Tribune as > saying, "There's not that much difference between > my position and George Bush's position at this > stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a > position to execute." The Tribune went on to say > that Obama, "now believes US forces must remain > to stabilize the war-ravaged nation - a policy > not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration." > > Obama's campaign says he was referring to the > ongoing occupation and how best to stabilize the > region. But why wouldn't he have taken the > opportunity to urge withdrawal if he truly > opposed the war? Was he trying to signal to > conservative voters that he would subjugate his > anti-war position if elected to the US Senate and > perhaps support a lengthy occupation? Well as it > turns out, he's done just that. > > Since taking office in January 2005 he has voted > to approve every war appropriation the > Republicans have put forward, totaling over $300 > billion. He also voted to confirm Condoleezza > Rice as Secretary of State despite her complicity > in the Bush Administration' s various false > justifications for going to war in Iraq. Why > would he vote to make one of the architects of > "Operation Iraqi Liberation" the head of US > foreign policy? Curiously, he lacked the courage > of 13 of his colleagues who voted against her confirmation. > > And though he often cites his background as a > civil rights lawyer, Obama voted to reauthorize > the Patriot Act in July 2005, easily the worse > attack on civil liberties in the last > half-century. It allows for wholesale > eavesdropping on American citizens under the guise of anti-terrorism > efforts. > > And in March 2006, Obama went out of his way to > travel to Connecticut to campaign for Senator > Joseph Lieberman who faced a tough challenge by > anti-war candidate Ned Lamont. At a Democratic > Party dinner attended by Lamont, Obama called > Lieberman "his mentor" and urged those in > attendance to vote and give financial > contributions to him. This is the same Lieberman > who Alexander Cockburn called "Bush's closest > Democratic ally on the Iraq War." Why would Obama > have done that if he was truly against the war? > > Recently, with anti-war sentiment on the rise, > Obama declared he will get our combat troops out > of Iraq in 2009. But Obama isn't actually saying > he wants to get all of our troops out of Iraq. At > a September 2007 debate before the New Hampshire > primary, moderated by Tim Russert, Obama refused > to commit to getting our troops out of Iraq by > January 2013 and, on the campaign trail, he has > repeatedly stated his desire to add 100,000 combat troops to the military. > > At the same event, Obama committed to keeping > enough soldiers in Iraq to "carry out our > counter-terrorism activities there" which > includes "striking at al Qaeda in Iraq." What he > didn't say is this continued warfare will require > an estimated 60,000 troops to remain in Iraq > according to a May 2006 report prepared by the > Center for American Progress. Moreover, it > appears he intends to "redeploy" the troops he > takes out of the unpopular war in Iraq and send > them to Afghanistan. So it appears that under > Obama's plan the US will remain heavily engaged in war. > > This is hardly a position to get excited about. > > CLASS ACTION REFORM: > > In 2005, Obama joined Republicans in passing a > law dubiously called the Class Action Fairness > Act (CAFA) that would shut down state courts as a > venue to hear many class action lawsuits. Long a > desired objective of large corporations and > President George Bush, Obama in effect voted to > deny redress in many of the courts where these > kinds of cases have the best chance of surviving > corporate legal challenges. Instead, it forces > them into the backlogged Republican-judge dominated federal courts. > > By contrast, Senators Clinton, Edwards and Kerry > joined 23 others to vote against CAFA, noting the > "reform" was a thinly-veiled "special interest > extravaganza" that favored banking, creditors and > other corporate interests. David Sirota, the > former spokesman for Democrats on the House > Appropriations Committee, commented on CAFA in > the June 26, 2006 issue of The Nation, "Opposed > by most major civil rights and consumer watchdog > groups, this Big Business-backed legislation was > sold to the public as a way to stop "frivolous" > lawsuits. But everyone in Washington knew the > bill's real objective was to protect corporate abusers." > > Nation contributor Dan Zegart noted further: "On > its face, the class-action bill is mere > procedural tinkering, transferring from state to > federal court actions involving more than $5 > million where any plaintiff is from a different > state from the defendant company. But federal > courts are much more hostile to class actions > than their state counterparts; such cases tend to > be rooted in the finer points of state law, in > which federal judges are reluctant to dabble. And > even if federal judges do take on these suits, > with only 678 of them on the bench (compared with > 9,200 state judges), already overburdened dockets > will grow. Thus, the bill will make class actions > - most of which involve discrimination, consumer > fraud and wage-and-hour violations - all but > impossible. One example: After forty lawsuits > were filed against Wal-Mart for allegedly forcing > employees to work "off the clock," four state > courts certified these suits as class actions. > Not a single federal court did so, although the > practice probably involves hundreds of thousands of employees nationwide." > > Why would a civil rights lawyer knowingly make it > harder for working-class people to have their day > in court, in effect shutting off avenues of redress? > > CREDIT CARD INTEREST RATES: > > Obama has a way of ducking hard votes or > explaining away his bad votes by trying to blame > poorly-written statutes. Case in point: an > amendment he voted on as part of a recent > bankruptcy bill before the US Senate would have > capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent. > Inexplicably, Obama voted against it, although it > would have been the beginning of setting these > predatory lending rates under federal control. > Even Senator Hillary Clinton supported it. > > Now Obama explains his vote by saying the > amendment was poorly written or set the ceiling > too high. His explanation isn't credible as Obama > offered no lower number as an alternative, and > didn't put forward his own amendment clarifying > whatever language he found objectionable. > > Why wouldn't Obama have voted to create the first > federal ceiling on predatory credit card interest > rates, particularly as he calls himself a > champion of the poor and middle classes? Perhaps > he was signaling to the corporate establishment > that they need not fear him. For all of his > dynamic rhetoric about lifting up the masses, it > seems Obama has little intention of doing > anything concrete to reverse the cycle of poverty many struggle to overcome. > > LIMITING NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES: > > These seemingly unusual votes wherein Obama > aligns himself with Republican Party interests > aren't new. While in the Illinois Senate, Obama > voted to limit the recovery that victims of > medical malpractice could obtain through the > courts. Capping non-economic damages in medical > malpractice cases means a victim cannot fully > recover for pain and suffering or for punitive > damages. Moreover, it ignored that courts were > already empowered to adjust awards when > appropriate, and that the Illinois Supreme Court > had previously ruled such limits on tort reform > violated the state constitution. > > In the US Senate, Obama continued interfering > with patients' full recovery for tortious > conduct. He was a sponsor of the National Medical > Error Disclosure and Compensation Act of 2005. > The bill requires hospitals to disclose errors to > patients and has a mechanism whereby disclosure, > coupled with apologies, is rewarded by limiting > patients' economic recovery. Rather than simply > mandating disclosure, Obama's solution is to > trade what should be mandated for something that > should never be given away: namely, full recovery for the injured patient. > > MINING LAW OF 1872: > > In November 2007, Obama came out against a bill > that would have reformed the notorious Mining Law > of 1872. The current statute, signed into law by > Ulysses Grant, allows mining companies to pay a > nominal fee, as little as $2.50 an acre, to mine > for hardrock minerals like gold, silver, and > copper without paying royalties. Yearly profits > for mining hardrock on public lands is estimated > to be in excess of $1 billion a year according to > Earthworks, a group that monitors the industry. > Not surprisingly, the industry spends freely when > it comes to lobbying: an estimated $60 million > between 1998-2004 according to The Center on > Public Integrity. And it appears to be paying off, yet again. > > The Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007 > would have finally overhauled the law and allowed > American taxpayers to reap part of the royalties > (4 percent of gross revenue on existing mining > operations and 8 percent on new ones). The bill > provided a revenue source to cleanup abandoned > hardrock mines, which is likely to cost taxpayers > over $50 million, and addressed health and safety > concerns in the 11 affected western states. > > Later it came to light that one of Obama's key > advisors in Nevada is a Nevada-based lobbyist in > the employ of various mining companies (CBS News > "Obama's Position On Mining Law Questioned. > Democrat Shares Position with Mining Executives > Who Employ Lobbyist Advising Him," November 14, 2007). > > REGULATING NUCLEAR INDUSTRY: > > The New York Times reported that, while > campaigning in Iowa in December 2007, Obama > boasted that he had passed a bill requiring > nuclear plants to promptly report radioactive > leaks. This came after residents of his home > state of Illinois complained they were not told > of leaks that occurred at a nuclear plant operated by Exelon Corporation. > > The truth, however, was that Obama allowed the > bill to be amended in Committee by Senate > Republicans, replacing language mandating > reporting with verbiage that merely offered > guidance to regulators on how to address > unreported leaks. The story noted that even this > version of Obama's bill failed to pass the > Senate, so it was unclear why Obama was claiming > to have passed the legislation. The February 3, > 2008 The New York Times article titled "Nuclear > Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate" by > Mike McIntire also noted the opinion of one of > Obama's constituents, which was hardly > enthusiastic about Obama's legislative efforts: > > "Senator Obama's staff was sending us copies of > the bill to review, and we could see it weakening > with each successive draft," said Joe Cosgrove, a > park district director in Will County, Ill., > where low-level radioactive runoff had turned up > in groundwater. "The teeth were just taken out of it." > > As it turns out, the New York Times story noted: > "Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, > which is based in Illinois, have contributed at > least $227,000 to Mr. Obama's campaigns for the > United States Senate and for president. Two top > Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice > president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, > are among his largest fund-raisers." > > ENERGY POLICY: > > On energy policy, it turns out Obama is a big > supporter of corn-based ethanol which is well > known for being an energy-intensive crop to grow. > It is estimated that seven barrels of oil are > required to produce eight barrels of corn > ethanol, according to research by the Cato > Institute. Ethanol's impact on climate change is > nominal and isn't "green" according to Alisa > Gravitz, Co-op America executive director. "It > simply isn't a major improvement over gasoline > when it comes to reducing our greenhouse gas > emissions." A 2006 University of Minnesota study > by Jason Hill and David Tilman, and an earlier > study published in BioScience in 2005, concur. > (There's even concern that a reliance on > corn-based ethanol would lead to higher food prices.) > > So why would Obama be touting this as a solution > to our oil dependency? Could it have something to > do with the fact that the first presidential > primary is located in Iowa, corn capitol of the > country? In legislative terms this means Obama > voted in favor of $8 billion worth of corn > subsidies in 2006 alone, when most of that money > should have been committed to alternative energy > sources such as solar, tidal and wind. > > SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH CARE: > > Obama opposed single-payer bill HR676, sponsored > by Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers > in 2006, although at least 75 members of Congress > supported it. Single-payer works by trying to > diminish the administrative costs that comprise > somewhere around one-third of every health care > dollar spent, by eliminating the duplicative > nature of these services. The expected $300 > billion in annual savings such a system would > produce would go directly to cover the uninsured > and expand coverage to those who already have > insurance, according to Dr. Stephanie > Woolhandler, an Associate Professor of Medicine > at Harvard Medical School and co-founder of > Physicians for a National Health Program. > > Obama's own plan has been widely criticized for > leaving health care industry administrative costs > in place and for allowing millions of people to > remain uninsured. "Sicko" filmmaker Michael Moore > ridiculed it saying, "Obama wants the insurance > companies to help us develop a new health care > plan-the same companies who have created the mess in the first place." > > NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT: > > Regarding the North American Free Trade > Agreement, Obama recently boasted, "I don't think > NAFTA has been good for Americans, and I never > have." Yet, Calvin Woodward reviewed Obama's > record on NAFTA in a February 26, 2008 Associated > Press article and found that comment to be > misleading: "In his 2004 Senate campaign, Obama > said the US should pursue more deals such as > NAFTA, and argued more broadly that his > opponent's call for tariffs would spark a trade > war. AP reported then that the Illinois senator > had spoken of enormous benefits having accrued to > his state from NAFTA, while adding that he also > called for more aggressive trade protections for US workers." > > Putting aside campaign rhetoric, when actually > given an opportunity to protect workers from > unfair trade agreements, Obama cast the deciding > vote against an amendment to a September 2005 > Commerce Appropriations Bill, proposed by North > Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan, that would have > prohibited US trade negotiators from weakening US > laws that provide safeguards from unfair foreign > trade practices. The bill would have been a vital > tool to combat the outsourcing of jobs to foreign > workers and would have ended a common corporate > practice known as "pole-vaulting" over > regulations, which allows companies doing foreign > business to avoid "right to organize," "minimum > wage," and other worker protections. > > SOME FINAL EXAMPLES: > > On March 2, 2007 Obama gave a speech at AIPAC, > America's pro-Israeli government lobby, wherein > he disavowed his previous support for the plight > of the Palestinians. In what appears to be a > troubling pattern, Obama told his audience what > they wanted to hear. He recounted a one-sided > history of the region and called for continued > military support for Israel, rather than taking > the opportunity to promote the various peace > movements in and outside of Israel. > > Why should we believe Obama has courage to bring > about change? He wouldn't have his picture taken > with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom when > visiting San Francisco for a fundraiser in his > honor because Obama was scared voters might think > he supports gay marriage (Newsom acknowledged > this to Reuters on January 26, 2007 and former > Mayor Willie Brown admitted to the San Francisco > Chronicle on February 5, 2008 that Obama told him > he wanted to avoid Newsom for that reason.) > > Obama acknowledges the disproportionate impact > the death penalty has on blacks, but still > supports it, while other politicians are fighting > to stop it. (On December 17, 2007 New Jersey > Governor Jon Corzine signed a bill banning the > death penalty after it was passed by the New Jersey Assembly.) > > On September 29, 2006, Obama joined Republicans > in voting to build 700 miles of double fencing on > the Mexican border (The Secure Fence Act of > 2006), abandoning 19 of his colleagues who had > the courage to oppose it. But now that he's > campaigning in Texas and eager to win over > Mexican-American voters, he says he'd employ a different border solution. > > It is shocking how frequently and consistently > Obama is willing to subjugate good decision > making for his personal and political benefit. > > Obama aggressively opposed initiating impeachment > proceedings against the president ("Obama: > Impeachment is not acceptable," USA Today, June > 28, 2007) and he wouldn't even support Wisconsin > Senator Russ Feingold's effort to censure the > Bush administration for illegally wiretapping > American citizens in violation of the 1978 > Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. In > Feingold's words "I'm amazed at Democrats . > cowering with this president's number's so low." > Once again, it's troubling that Obama would take > these positions and miss the opportunity to > document the abuses of the Bush regime. > > CONCLUSION: > > Once I started looking at the votes Obama > actually cast, I began to hear his rhetoric > differently. The principal conclusion I draw > about "change" and Barack Obama is that Obama > needs to change his voting habits and stop > pandering to win votes. If he does this he might > someday make a decent candidate who could earn my > support. For now Obama has fallen into a > dangerous pattern of capitulation that he cannot > reconcile with his growing popularity as an agent of change. > > I remain impressed by the enthusiasm generated by > Obama's style and skill as an orator. But I > remain more loyal to my values, and I'm glad to > say that I want no part in the Obama craze sweeping our country. > > ------------ --------- --------- --------- ------- > Matt Gonzalez is a former president of the San > Francisco Board of Supervisors, and is running > for Vice-President of the United States on an > independent ticket with Ralph Nader. > > - >