Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Poll

Why did Sarah Palin resign?

Personal scandal
 5 (17.2%)
Probable indictment
 7 (24.1%)
Just plain craziness
 3 (10.3%)
Looooong lead up to 2012
 4 (13.8%)
Something else
 2 (6.9%)
Some combination of the above
 8 (27.6%)

Total Members Voted: 29

Author Topic: The Thread on Politics  (Read 409201 times)

7S

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2647
  • Self-determination.
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #4330 on: April 15, 2008, 01:12:27 PM »
April 22nd can't get here fast enough. :P

tru dat.
It is easy to change the language of oppression without changing the sociopolitical situation of its victims.

blk_reign

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 7978
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #4331 on: April 16, 2008, 11:12:26 AM »
Hillary again playing the race card
Polarizing politics seen as her only way to slow Obama's roll



A disturbing trend has emerged from the long Democratic primary. Whenever Sen. Hillary Clinton is trailing in the polls, a racially divisive issue pops up.

Clinton loses 11 consecutive races, and the photograph of Sen. Barack Obama in Somalian garb shows up.

Clinton falls behind in pledged delegates and gets caught in a lie about her Bosnia adventure, and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. story reignites.

The fallout over Obama's "bitter" comment fits that same pattern.

He's quoted as saying: "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Obama was apparently referring to rural voters, a demographic he has had difficulty reaching.

The comment is being characterized by some pundits, Clinton and the GOP nominee John McCain as "elitist," and evidence that Obama is "out-of-touch" with ordinary Americans.

But during his bus tour through Pennsylvania two weeks ago, Obama made the same point at several town hall meetings and crowds applauded.

Although he may not have used the exact same words that have caused such a furor, he offered the same assessment: When people believe they are getting a raw deal, they become bitter.
Here we go again

With polls showing that Obama has begun to narrow the gap in Pennsylvania -- a state Clinton was predicted to win by double digits -- Clinton is stirring up a backlash that her campaign hopes will net her some swing voters.

"Pennsylvanians don't need a president who looks down on them," Clinton told a crowd in Philadelphia.

Her campaign has fueled the controversy, with supporters passing out "I'm not bitter" stickers in North Carolina.

But Clinton and McCain's outrage has more to do with the demographic Obama called bitter than the words he used.

Indeed, neither of them said a word when Obama used harsher language to tell a predominantly black audience in Beaumont, Texas, that they needed to do a better job parenting.

"We can't keep on feeding our children junk all day long, giving them no exercise. They are overweight by the time they are 4 or 5 years old, and then we are surprised when they get sick," Obama said, drawing loud applause.

Obama also chided parents for letting their kids eat "potato chips for lunch or Popeye's for breakfast."

He gave a similar speech at a town hall meeting in Pittsburgh, and black people applauded along with everyone else.

Obviously, it is tough for African Americans to be called out on a subject that is rarely discussed publicly, let alone in mixed company.

But blacks in the audience took the attitude that Obama wasn't talking about them -- he was talking about their cousin.

At least one expert, Bart Landry, a sociology professor of the University of Maryland, criticized Obama for his remarks, saying he gave black parents a "bum rap."

But there wasn't anywhere near the blowup that happened after angry sermons by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's former pastor, were looped on the Internet.
Obama takes the high road

Indeed, given that Gov. Ed Rendell, who is leading Clinton's campaign in Pennsylvania, has said publicly that "conservative whites" would not vote for Obama because he is black, Obama could have had a lot more to say about the mind-set of rural voters in that state.

Instead, throughout his campaign across Pennsylvania, Obama took the high road. He left race out of the conversation, and focused on the issues that voters raised during town hall meetings.

Clinton, who not once has challenged Rendell's disgraceful stereotype of Pennsylvania voters as racist, has consistently seized upon polarizing issues in an effort to boost her campaign.

Obama has tried to end this latest battle of words, saying: "If I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that."

He had no reason to apologize.

In attacking Obama as "elitist" and "arrogant," Clinton is again appealing to the lower nature of voters.

She has once again proved that she is willing to feed the ignorance of voters like the ones Rendell has described.

But worst yet, Clinton is now communicating to these voters that she that can put an "uppity" black man in his place.
We're not accepting this CHANGE UP in the rules. Period. American presidents have been in the bed with organized crime, corporate pilferers, and the like for years. And all u want to put on this man is that his pastor said "Gotdamn America?" Hell, America.U got off pretty damn well, if you ask me...

A.

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 15712
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #4332 on: April 16, 2008, 12:45:37 PM »
Clinton for Governor? Democrats Dismiss Rumblings
By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE

ALBANY — It would mean more trips to Rome, N.Y., than Rome, Italy, more dinners with state legislators than dinners with heads of state.

But should Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton run for governor of New York rather than president of the United States, some things would be familiar: outraged Republicans, legislative gridlock and many men who have never had a woman for a boss.

At least some New York Democrats have reportedly been pitching the Executive Mansion as a kind of consolation prize for Mrs. Clinton — a face-saving exit to the presidential primary that they believe she cannot win and that, they fear, is tearing the party apart.

The notion of a Clinton run for governor, floated in Newsweek last month and recycled on blogs and talk shows since, is flatly rejected by Mrs. Clinton’s aides and closest supporters, and many others in New York politics.

Even hypothetically, she would face any number of obstacles, starting with the practical and political unpalatability of running against the incumbent, David A. Paterson, who despite early stumbles remains a well-liked fellow Democrat and is New York’s first black governor.

But that has not stopped the chatter. After all, some noted, there was a time when few believed the rumblings that Mrs. Clinton would run for president.

“It looks like she’s not going to win the presidency, so I guess you’ve got to figure out where she’s going next,” said Douglas A. Muzzio, a professor at the Baruch College School of Public Affairs.

Those New York Democrats who were willing to talk on the record about the possibility of a Governor Clinton unfailingly emphasized their belief that she would be taking up residence in the White House come next year. But some conceded that the governor idea had its attractions — in theory, of course.

“Especially since I’m supporting her for president, I would say she certainly could do a bang-up job as governor of the state,” said Assemblyman Joseph R. Lentol, a prominent Clinton backer in New York.

Howard Wolfson, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, dismissed the idea on Tuesday, saying that she would support Mr. Paterson.

“This whole line of inquiry is ridiculous,” Mr. Wolfson said. “There are no circumstances under which Senator Clinton will run for governor.”

Still, based on her experience in the Senate, some said, it is possible to imagine Mrs. Clinton having a smooth transition to Albany, especially compared with that of Eliot Spitzer, who entered office in 2007 as a political star in his own right. Upon arriving in Washington, Mrs. Clinton worked diligently to play down her celebrity. She devoted herself to bread-and-butter New York issues, sought out senior senators as mentors and reached across the aisle to prominent Republicans who tormented her husband during his presidency.

After a tumultuous year of political battles between Mr. Spitzer and the Legislature, Mrs. Clinton’s fans say, Albany could use that kind of touch.

“She would cross party lines to bring people together,” said Assemblywoman RoAnn M. Destito, an upstate Democrat who, like Mr. Lentol, said she believed Mr. Paterson was just as capable of bringing harmony to Albany. “That’s the trait she would bring to the presidency and — hypothetically — any job she would choose.”

New Yorkers have always preferred their politicians to be larger than life — one factor, arguably, in their openness to making Mrs. Clinton a senator in 2000 despite her shallow roots in the state.

But by the same token, should Mrs. Clinton aim for the governor’s mansion, voters might come to resent playing the eternal bridesmaid to Mrs. Clinton’s ambitions. “It would be like, ‘We gave you our vote for the Senate, and you ran for the presidency. That’s one thing,’ ” Mr. Muzzio said. “But now you’re going to run for governor?”

Some of her fellow Democrats might have similar feelings, especially those who have been patiently waiting for Mrs. Clinton to depart New York’s political sandbox and pave the way for a successor. And any challenge to Mr. Paterson, a Clinton friend who has campaigned extensively for her, would carry particular risks. Mr. Paterson, who is serving out the remainder of Mr. Spitzer’s term, has indicated that he is likely to run in 2010.

Mrs. Clinton has already dismayed some black voters by running against Barack Obama, a fellow Democratic senator. Any effort to nudge Mr. Paterson aside could provoke a deadly backlash from black voters. Indeed, several people said they assumed that Mr. Obama’s supporters were circulating the rumor in part to damage Mrs. Clinton in the Pennsylvania primary next week.

“Even if it were real, it would destroy her potential base vote among blacks and boost up black turnout for Obama,” said Hank Sheinkopf, a New York political consultant who worked on Bill Clinton’s 1996 presidential campaign.

Another Clinton supporter, an elected official from New York City who spoke anonymously for fear of offending Mrs. Clinton, said it was hard to imagine her ever running for governor. She would not even consider it, the official said, unless Mr. Paterson had been too weakened by his admissions of drug use and marital infidelity to stand for re-election, and party leaders appealed to her to run.

“He’d have to be really, really weak,” said the official. “And there’d have to be some kind of consolation for him.”

For the moment, however, Albany Republicans and Democrats alike appear eager to give the new governor a honeymoon. And polls show Mr. Paterson with fairly high approval ratings despite his rocky early weeks in office. New York Democrats, Mr. Lentol asserted, did not need a savior.

“Not right now,” he said. “But you never know. You’ve got to take it one day at a time.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/us/politics/16hillary.html

t L

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2201
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #4333 on: April 16, 2008, 01:10:17 PM »
Hillary again playing the race card
Polarizing politics seen as her only way to slow Obama's roll



A disturbing trend has emerged from the long Democratic primary. Whenever Sen. Hillary Clinton is trailing in the polls, a racially divisive issue pops up.

Clinton loses 11 consecutive races, and the photograph of Sen. Barack Obama in Somalian garb shows up.

Clinton falls behind in pledged delegates and gets caught in a lie about her Bosnia adventure, and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. story reignites.

The fallout over Obama's "bitter" comment fits that same pattern.

He's quoted as saying: "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Obama was apparently referring to rural voters, a demographic he has had difficulty reaching.

The comment is being characterized by some pundits, Clinton and the GOP nominee John McCain as "elitist," and evidence that Obama is "out-of-touch" with ordinary Americans.

But during his bus tour through Pennsylvania two weeks ago, Obama made the same point at several town hall meetings and crowds applauded.

Although he may not have used the exact same words that have caused such a furor, he offered the same assessment: When people believe they are getting a raw deal, they become bitter.
Here we go again

With polls showing that Obama has begun to narrow the gap in Pennsylvania -- a state Clinton was predicted to win by double digits -- Clinton is stirring up a backlash that her campaign hopes will net her some swing voters.

"Pennsylvanians don't need a president who looks down on them," Clinton told a crowd in Philadelphia.

Her campaign has fueled the controversy, with supporters passing out "I'm not bitter" stickers in North Carolina.

But Clinton and McCain's outrage has more to do with the demographic Obama called bitter than the words he used.

Indeed, neither of them said a word when Obama used harsher language to tell a predominantly black audience in Beaumont, Texas, that they needed to do a better job parenting.

"We can't keep on feeding our children junk all day long, giving them no exercise. They are overweight by the time they are 4 or 5 years old, and then we are surprised when they get sick," Obama said, drawing loud applause.

Obama also chided parents for letting their kids eat "potato chips for lunch or Popeye's for breakfast."

He gave a similar speech at a town hall meeting in Pittsburgh, and black people applauded along with everyone else.

Obviously, it is tough for African Americans to be called out on a subject that is rarely discussed publicly, let alone in mixed company.

But blacks in the audience took the attitude that Obama wasn't talking about them -- he was talking about their cousin.

At least one expert, Bart Landry, a sociology professor of the University of Maryland, criticized Obama for his remarks, saying he gave black parents a "bum rap."

But there wasn't anywhere near the blowup that happened after angry sermons by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's former pastor, were looped on the Internet.
Obama takes the high road

Indeed, given that Gov. Ed Rendell, who is leading Clinton's campaign in Pennsylvania, has said publicly that "conservative whites" would not vote for Obama because he is black, Obama could have had a lot more to say about the mind-set of rural voters in that state.

Instead, throughout his campaign across Pennsylvania, Obama took the high road. He left race out of the conversation, and focused on the issues that voters raised during town hall meetings.

Clinton, who not once has challenged Rendell's disgraceful stereotype of Pennsylvania voters as racist, has consistently seized upon polarizing issues in an effort to boost her campaign.

Obama has tried to end this latest battle of words, saying: "If I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that."

He had no reason to apologize.

In attacking Obama as "elitist" and "arrogant," Clinton is again appealing to the lower nature of voters.

She has once again proved that she is willing to feed the ignorance of voters like the ones Rendell has described.

But worst yet, Clinton is now communicating to these voters that she that can put an "uppity" black man in his place.

 ::) @ this article.  Where does Hillary mention ANYTHING about race?  The Obamaniacs are reaching.  -->
Michigan 2L

Burning Sands, Esq.

  • Global Moderator
  • LSD Obsessed
  • ****
  • Posts: 7023
  • Yes We Kan-sas!!!
    • View Profile
    • Black Law Students Association
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #4334 on: April 16, 2008, 01:50:36 PM »
Sharpe Sharpe Sharpe.... >:(



Newark ex-mayor Sharpe James is convicted of fraud
by Jeff Whelan and John P. Martin/
The Star-Ledger Wednesday April 16, 2008, 10:02 AM


A federal jury today convicted former Newark Mayor Sharpe James of fraud for conspiring to rig the sale of nine city lots to his mistress, who quickly resold them for hundreds of thousands of dollars in profit.

Ending a five-week trial, the jury returned its verdict in a courtroom just a block from the City Hall office that James occupied for two decades. Less than an hour into its sixth day of deliberations, the jury found James guilty on all 13 counts in the indictment.

James' co-defendant and former girlfriend, Tamika Riley, was also found guilty on all counts.

Both James and Riley face between four- and seven-year prison terms under federal sentencing guidelines, Judith Germano, the Assistant U.S. Attorney and lead prosecutor, said after the verdict. U.S. District Judge William Martini allowed both to remain free on bail until sentencing, which was set for July 29 at 10 a.m.

James' lead attorney, Thomas Ashley, said he intends to appeal the verdict, but did not say on what grounds.

"Justice has finally been served," U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie said at a post-verdict news conference on the front steps of the federal courthouse. "There is no one beyond the reach of the law."

As the verdict was read just after 10 a.m., the defendants stared ahead, showing no emotion. Ashley clasped his hands over his head and looked downward. Christie, who was sitting in the front row, congratulated Germano with a handshake and kiss on the cheek.

James' wife, Mary, missed the reading of the verdict and met him outside the elevator on the first floor. They kissed on the cheek, and he repeated "no comment" to reporters as they left the building.

"It was deathly quiet in the elevator," said Jeffrey Bacon, 50, who worked under James at city hall and rode down to the lobby with the former mayor and his two lawyers after the verdict. "No one could believe it."

Riley also left the courtroom minutes after the verdict was read. Wearing sunglasses and with her head bowed, Riley was escorted by her attorney, Gerald Krovatin. Riley drove away in a black GMC Yukon with Krovatin and two other women.

The jurors, six men and six women, were protected from the post-verdict media frenzy by U.S. Marshals. Huddled together, the jurors were shepherded out of the courthouse to their cars, with reporters held at bay.

The verdict tarnishes the legacy of Newark's most towering political figure, the onetime gym teacher with an oversized personality who led the state's largest city as it tried to rise from decades of blight and derision. News of his conviction today drew a mix of celebration and lament from city streets.

James, 72, served five terms as mayor, two also as state senator and wielded influence as one of the state's top Democratic powerbrokers, all the while sidestepping graft investigations that snared some friends and political allies. He left office two years ago, choosing not to seek re-election, which cleared the way for current Mayor Cory Booker.

Booker said the verdict marks "a sad day for Newark."

"My prayers are with Sharpe James and his family," Booker said at a ribbon-cutting this morning for a Subway restaurant. "He was mayor for 20 years and accomplished a lot of things in that time. I hope that the citizens of Newark stay focused on the future and the great things that are happening now."

During the trial, the prosecution called nearly three dozen witnesses, from police bodyguards to city officials to developers, to suggest the mayor secretly manipulated the government approval process to give his girlfriend a real estate windfall.

Riley, a 39-year-old publicist from Jersey City with no development experience, paid the city $46,000 for six parcels in a redevelopment zone between 2001 and 2005. She resold them, often just weeks later, for $665,000.

James' attorneys countered that Riley got the same treatment as many other developers -- at a time when the city was trying to spur investments in some of its most devastated neighborhoods. They also argued the city council - not James - had the ultimate authority over land deals.

Neither James nor Riley testified.

James could still face another trial, over allegations that he billed the city for $58,000 in personal expenses, including lavish vacations with Riley and other women. Prosecutors reserved their decision on those charges until this case was done.

James joins a long list of New Jersey politicians convicted of corruption in recent years, including former State Senate President John Lynch, county executives James Treffinger of Essex and Robert Janiszewski of Hudson and dozens of mayors, freeholders and council members.





http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/04/newark_ex_mayor_sharpe_james_convicted.html#comments


"A lawyer's either a social engineer or a parasite on society. A social engineer is a highly skilled...lawyer who understands the Constitution of the U.S. and knows how to explore its uses in the solving of problems of local communities and in bettering [our] conditions."
Charles H. Houston

7S

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2647
  • Self-determination.
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #4335 on: April 16, 2008, 01:52:22 PM »
t.L., I guess you're not going to respond to the misrepresentations in the video you posted or give any real substanitive reasoning for your support for Clinton?
It is easy to change the language of oppression without changing the sociopolitical situation of its victims.

t L

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2201
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #4336 on: April 16, 2008, 02:05:13 PM »
can't you just answer my question? What makes Hillary the better candidate? Your criticism of Obama is based on the unknown...Given everything you KNOW about Clinton,  I'm curious as to why you perceive her to be a better candidate.

Because she is an evil I know and can deal with.  He is an unknown evil that claims to be the agent of change and claims to beyond old school politics.  He portrays himself as an honest man and does things like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts3U939CD3g

That's why.

oh wow....you are unreal. This sloppy-made video is the true distortion.

The video you posted:
-------
Meredith Vieira: Senator, both you and Senator Clinton have said that Senator McCain favors 100 more years of war in Iraq. Well on Sunday, Frank Rich wrote, “Really, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should be ashamed of themselves for libeling John McCain.” That in fact Sen. McCain never said he wanted another 100 years of war, he just said he felt American troops should be a long-term presence they way they are in Japan and South Korea. Are willing to admit you’ve distorted his statements?”

Obama: That’s just not accurate, Meredith. We can pull up the quotes on YouTube..."

-------
Then the video proceeds to insert two speeches by Obama where he states that "McCain suggests that the war might go on another 100 years." Either through intent or retarded-ness, the video editor is somehow trying to imply that Obama is saying that the never made those statements. However, consider the rest of his statement.

More of the clip:

Meredith Vieira: Senator, both you and Senator Clinton have said that Senator McCain favors 100 more years of war in Iraq. Well on Sunday, Frank Rich wrote, “Really, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should be ashamed of themselves for libeling John McCain.” That in fact Sen. McCain never said he wanted another 100 years of war, he just said he felt American troops should be a long-term presence they way they are in Japan and South Korea. Are willing to admit you’ve distorted his statements?”

Obama: That’s just not accurate, Meredith. We can pull up the quotes on YouTube.
What John McCain was saying was, that he is happy to have a potential, long-term occupation in Iraq. Happy may be overstating it. He is willing to have a long-term occupation of Iraq—as long as a hundred years. In fact, he said, 10,000 years. However long it took. That was his argument. The problem is that there’s no end in sight because John McCain has not offered any clear point at which he suggests its time for us to move our troops home

Obama was responding to McCain's remarks about the 100 years Iraq Occupation and is not trying to disown his previous statements. So please....this was a deliberate misrepresentation by a youtube poster and you fell for it. But I guess you can't rape the willing.

I won't even get on the lies behind Clinton's Bosnia/Sniper story. What I really wanted to get at regarding your support for Clinton were the ISSUES!!!

The clip in its entirety: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzUBqZBeH-g


That clip DOES NOT misrepresent Obama.  It CLEARLY shows what McCain said and then it showed Obama twisting McCain's statements at his speeches for his own political gain.  Obama is employing the same political tactics that he claims he is against.
Michigan 2L

7S

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2647
  • Self-determination.
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #4337 on: April 16, 2008, 02:22:31 PM »
2 Things

#1. If you believe that Obama misrepresented McCain's statements, then why does that reaffirm your distaste for Obama while having no effect on your support for Hillary, who, according to Viera and Rich, did the exact same thing?

#2. I believe when McCain made the 100 year statements he did not seek to contextualize those statements in that way, at least not initially. In fact, on Charlie Rose (PBS), he outright rejected the comparison between South Korea and Japan with Iraq. Now, that video is on youtube and if I weren't at work I would provide the link.

edit (damn ergonomic keyboards)
It is easy to change the language of oppression without changing the sociopolitical situation of its victims.

Burning Sands, Esq.

  • Global Moderator
  • LSD Obsessed
  • ****
  • Posts: 7023
  • Yes We Kan-sas!!!
    • View Profile
    • Black Law Students Association
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #4338 on: April 16, 2008, 02:45:28 PM »
Commentary: An 'average' American will never be president

(CNN) -- Can we all just stop the silly nonsense over who is an elitist and whether an "average American" will occupy the White House?

Listening to the punditry today, you would think folks who revel in the comedy of Larry the Cable Guy or Katt Williams really would have a shot at the White House.

It's totally absurd.

So, Sen. Barack Obama is all of a sudden an elitist because he went to Columbia and Harvard? And Sen. Hillary Clinton is an elitist because she went to Yale? Do you actually think Sen. John McCain isn't an elitist? He went to an exclusive college -- the Naval Academy, and that is one of the hardest places to get into. (You can't even apply unless a member of Congress recommends you.)


Karl Rove, who tries to portray himself as the common man but is just another rich Republican, has called both Democratic candidates elitists. Well, his former boss, President George W. Bush, went to Yale. So did Bush's dad, former president George H.W. Bush, and his granddaddy, former Sen. Prescott Bush. All three Bushes also were members of the super elite organization Skull and Bones. The younger Bush later went to Harvard.

He walked into the governor's mansion and the presidency on the strength of his name and his dad's money and connections. Sounds like an elitist to me!

But no, we're supposed to be fooled by the cowboy boots, folksy charm and him removing brush at his Crawford, Texas, ranch (don't forget the family compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, where all the "regular" folks hang out).


Surely you recall when Bush nominated Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court? Those same conservative voices decrying the elitist Democrats were blasting her because she went to little old Southern Methodist University, that unremarkable -- their view -- university in Dallas, Texas. (By the way, that will be the home of the George W. Bush Library.)

You can bet a pitcher of beer that had she graduated from Harvard, Yale or Princeton, she wouldn't have been derisively referred to as too plain and not educated enough by the elitists in the Republican Party.


And let's stay with the Supreme Court for a moment. Where did its members go to school?

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. -- Undergrad and law school, Harvard.

Justice John Paul Stevens -- Undergrad: University of Chicago. Law school: Northwestern.

Justice Antonin Scalia -- Undergrad: Georgetown University and the University of Fribourg, Switzerland. Law school: Harvard.

Justice Anthony Kennedy -- Undergrad: Stanford University and the London School of Economics. Law school: Harvard.

Justice David Souter -- Undergrad: Harvard; Magdalen College, Oxford; Oxford University. Law school: Harvard.

Justice Clarence Thomas -- Undergrad: Holy Cross. Law school: Yale.

Justice Ruth Ginsburg -- Undergrad: Cornell. Law school: Harvard (attended); finished at Columbia.

Justice Stephen Breyer -- Undergrad, Stanford; Magdalen College, Oxford. Law school: Harvard.

Justice Samuel Alito -- Undegrad: Princeton. Law school: Yale.

That's pretty much an elite list of schools.

We have deluded ourselves into thinking the person elected to the White House is really and truly like the rest of us.

All three candidates don't know what it's like to face the daunting health care challenges millions of Americans are confronted with daily. Each are members of the U.S. Senate, and they have the best health care money can buy for life -- we pay for it! While your pension plan is shot to hell, their plan will NEVER be underfunded. The members will see to that, courtesy of taxpayer dollars.

Forget how many times Obama bowls gutter balls, Clinton tosses back shots of whiskey and McCain talks about how he's a regular guy. Each, courtesy of their $169,300 annual salary, makes far more than the average American.

And when it comes to wealth, Clinton gets to enjoy the $100 million she and her husband raked in since he left the White House (even their hefty book advances dwarf regular authors).

McCain's wife, Cindy, runs one of Anheuser Busch's largest beer distributors and is worth more than $100 million. They will never be living paycheck-to-paycheck.

Obama is the poorest of the three, but he did earn more than a million bucks courtesy of his best-selling books, "The Audacity of Hope" and "Dreams from My Father" after delivering his 2004 keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention. How many average Americans wouldn't mind having a million dollars in their savings account?

Bottom line: The narrative about our presidential candidates being just regular folks is a tired myth that gets repeated each and every day. And their efforts to show that they are "just like us" are really pathetic.

You don't have to go duck hunting, be seen buying milk at the grocery store for your family or having a beer at the local bar to show that you're "one of us." Just do what rich and highly educated folks do when they are in politics: Advance policies that will at least allow me to keep a few more dollars in my pocket and be able to afford a home.

One more thing: Don't buy fully into the nonsense tossed out by some of the loudest voices on television, radio and in print who decry these "elitists" and trumpet that they are for the blue collar, middle-class worker in middle America.

Many of them pull down multimillion-dollar salaries and run into these same candidates on Martha's Vineyard and in the Hamptons when they all vacation. They, too, will pull every favor they have to get their children in the posh private schools and Ivy League institutions.

Yes, we even have elitists in the media.

Who would've thunkit?



http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/15/roland.martin/index.html
"A lawyer's either a social engineer or a parasite on society. A social engineer is a highly skilled...lawyer who understands the Constitution of the U.S. and knows how to explore its uses in the solving of problems of local communities and in bettering [our] conditions."
Charles H. Houston

A.

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 15712
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #4339 on: April 16, 2008, 03:42:12 PM »
Sharpe Sharpe Sharpe.... >:(



Newark ex-mayor Sharpe James is convicted of fraud

Lol I thought of you yesterday when I saw this: http://gawker.com/379610/corrupt-ex+mayor-shat-upon-by-bird-of-justice