Thanks, but it's ok if Richard, or anyone else, wants to attack me or my posts. In fact, I invite it, when there is a real and meaningful difference of opinion. That's how intellectual progress gets made. I took no offense at his reply. It was actually mild compared to a lot of what I get. And I have a very thick skin, compared to most net- folks. Since I usually give as good or better than I get, I don't object to attacks. Be well, F.O. --- In NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Melinda Iley-Dohn <Iley_dohn@...> wrote: > > Your whole message was rude and insulting to him. This sort of attitude has been known to drive people away. As for the inaccuracies.....that is easy.... > > " If you weren't so sleepy-headed you might have figured out why I put them" > > You didn't so much as tell him that he couldn't post as it is that you > acted as though you had the right to jump right on him and treat him > badly. > > Richard <rsierra12@...> wrote: > Tell me what I said that was inaccurate and, secondly, tell me where I said he couldn't post to the board. /R > > > --------------------------------- > > From: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Melinda Iley-Dohn > Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 9:20 PM > To: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: [NewPacifica] Re: Obama's Voting Record (Matt Gonzalez: "Count Me Out") > > > Felashi is entitled to add thoughts to this board. The insulting remarks do > nothing to promote communication. > > Richard <rsierra12@...> wrote: > There's quotation marks around the word -- anarchist -- for good reason. If > you weren't so sleepy-headed you might have figured out why I put them > there. /R > > -----Original Message----- > From: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Felashi Ofan > Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 8:45 PM > To: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: [NewPacifica] Re: Obama's Voting Record (Matt Gonzalez: "Count Me > Out") > > --- 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. > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. >