Obama Facts Instead of Fiction

The McCain/Palin campaign continues to use desperate scare tactics during their stump speeches in the run-up to Tuesday's election. McCain and Palin are liars. The campaign is morally bankrupt and they are now resorting to fear and loathing to try and win the battleground states. Here are three lies McCain/Palin are spreading: 
  • Obama will NOT raise taxes on small business owners. Read the facts here.
  • Obama is NOT a Muslim and he does NOT "pal around" with terrorists. Yesterday, Palin suggested that Rashid Khalidi, director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia University, was an agent of the PLO and ally of Obama. Read the facts here.
  • McCain and Palin's "lynchpin" on the stump, "Joe the Plumber," is a liar and an opportunist. He's not a licensed plumber, but a Republican shill. Read this story.
  • Obama is NOT a socialist. Read this story and its accompanying links.
Do your own research, get the facts. McCain and Palin are liars and will say anything to tip the election in their favor.

Comments

Rachel Mallino said…
All I'm saying is - come November 4th, when I go to the polls, I'm bringing my camera - I live in a swing state ( who knew NC would be a swing state!) and I'm terrified of what types of shenanigans that might go down at the voting centers.
jaxx said…
great roundup, collin. thank god there's only a few days left. my head is exploding over here.
Rupert said…
But Karen Handel (Ga Sec of State in Charge of Voter Repression) IS Katherine Harris only she doesn't use a trowel to apply her make-up.
And Go Jim Martin, an ex PTA bud,! Saxby Shameless is so vile Chuck Hagel (a Rep) avoids him after the attack ads on Max Cleland 6 yrs ago . . .
Brrrooom! said…
On the issue of Obama's socialism - why regard that as such a negative characteristic? Socialism coupled with a system that does permit a degree of free-market success tends to create a society where people can neither fal as far nor rise as high... a "smoothing", if you will. The Scandanavian countries are a perfect example of this kind of system.

I would say Obama is pretty clearly a socialist, and I presume that's a big part of his popularity; if his socialism can generate progress in such areas as education and health care, so much the better... frankly, the main reason to vote for Obama in the first place would be to promote socialist socioeconomic regulation of American society.

Now, I realize "socialism" has been rendered into a "bad word" - kind of like "Christian" from the other direction - but the fact is it's a perfectly viable economic philosophy.

I myself would actually be harmed by Obama in the near term - I make enough money to fall into Obama's financial scope, and most of that is from capital gains - but in the long term it COULD be a net benefit to have a more educated and healthy population - those are my employees and clients, after all.

My current preferred scenario is an Obama presidential win with Republicans retaining enough Senate control to prevent filibuster-proofing it - I think one-party domination of the government is always a bad thing, because it prevents the kind of executive leanness and dexterity that makes for good policy; one party should always be filtering the other.

But is Obama a socialist? Absolutely! That's the strongest card he brings to the table.
DeadMule said…
During the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s, any time blacks got too ambitious and made the establishment (old white men) nervous, the old white men cried “socialist” or “communist.” What they meant was, I’m loosing my privileged status. Martin Luther King Jr. was called a “communist” many times. This charge was investigated by the FBI and proven untrue.

Have none of you read King’s "Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?" In 1964, King explained that while white people were satisfied with “progress,” blacks were seeking “equality.” The marches changed the laws, and whites were okay with that. But King said the fight for “equality” would not be won so easily. White people would resist because “equality” would cost more than they were willing to pay; it would cost them their status and their wealth. It might also mean costs for their children. So why are you shocked now that a black man is running for POTUS that he wants to “share the wealth”?

This election is more about race than most people know. It is not about “socialism” or about “communism”; it”s about economic equality for blacks and other poor people (for King identified racism, poverty, and militarism as the “triple evils” that must be fought together). White people know that “equality” will require a loss of “their money,” and they won’t have that privilege and power, so they scream “socialist,” because they don’t want to see themselves as racists.

When Obama has said, “power concedes nothing,” he is quoting Frederick Douglass. Obama knows his history. Do you? Black history is American history. Has America given equal power (and money) to her black citizens? Should She?

If you believe in equality, vote for Obama. If you don’t think there’s a black America and a white America, if you don’t think there’s a rich America and a poor America, if you don’t think there’s an educated America and an uneducated America, You just think, there’s the United States of America, vote for Obama. If you think these divisions exist but shouldn’t, vote for Obama. It’s time for a change.

If you like white privilege and the status quo (and more of the same), vote otherwise. If you enjoy pretending it’s okay to have poor people in a rich nation and if you want to blame that on someone who hasn’t had the capital (only they call it “money”) to start a business or get an education, if you enjoy calling such people “lazy” because that means you aren’t, then vote otherwise. In this country, you can vote as you will and should be able to do so. But don’t be so foolish as to pretend this isn’t about white greed and racism. Don’t look the other way and pretend God likes you better.

from my blog
http://helenl.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/hes-a-socialist/
Lisa Allender said…
Hi Coll--methinks you'll have quite a debate brewing here, soon!
Yaa Rupert--I have a "Jim Martin" sign on my front lawn, just to the side of my Obama/Biden sign!
Yaa Helen--totally with you on this!
Brrrooom--nice to see you pop in at CK's blog! I posted somewhere recently(here, or at my blog, or at Poet With A Day Job's blog, or some other blog--I can't recall right now)about Socialism not being a "bad" thing, but that it's "perceived" as a bad thing.
Glad to hear you are voting Obama. In a comment from you at my blog, some weeks ago, you said you would not vote Obama. Glad you've come around!
I disagree on having Repubs majority in Congress--it could work if we could all be/remain "moderates"--and I used to consider myself one--but...this is NO TIME FOR MODERATION--I say: it's time for RADICAL CHANGE!And you can't get ANYthing done, if you have "gridlock" between the Prez and Congress.
And congrats on starting up your own business. That sounds exciting!
Brrrooom! said…
Well, Lisa, I didn't say I'm "voting for Obama" (nor did I ever say I wasn't), I said the *optimal* outcome was pairing an Obama presidency with a Republican senate. And I actually do think socialism is basically bad (it's never really fair to take from those who succeed and give to those who fail, via government fiat), but it's perhaps not as bad as the current level of laissez-faire, just from a purely practical standpoint.
Collin Kelley said…
I tend to lean socialist and I'm not afraid to admit it. However, the way McPalin is using the word as something inherently evil is not only stupid, but completely wrong. Obama's tax plan has about as much to do with socialism as McCain's. Angry Johnny is using the word "socialist" to scare up Cold War fears and stoke the fear-loving base. Luckily, the rest of the country isn't buying it.
Brrrooom! said…
Well, it's important to distinguish between "socialism" and "liberalism". The liberal position, per von Mises et.al. and also comprising the liberal philosophy the founding fathers espoused, sets as an ideal a society of equal opportunity... which is of course easier said than done.

Now, in the real world one a society can use socialist policy to "force" or "simulate" equal opportunity (in the US we have the force of law to prohibit discriminatory hiring, for example), so practically speaking one might view socialism as a "tool" of liberalism.

In kind of an odd way the Wall Street bail-out is a very liberal policy. As always, these words tend to be misused.

I HIGHLY recommend anyone (liberal or conservative) to read "Freedom's Power" by Paul Starr (a very well-argued defense of modern liberalism) and of course von Mises' "Liberalism" for a more sophisticated economic treatment of the philosophy.

Popular Posts