Text
Even though the election is over, there is no need to stop trying to subtly sway your opinion concerning the candidates. Take the following article, for instance, about our new Chief of Staff, and his previous jobs (which is actually not very interesting). The title of the article is, “Emanuel Was Director of Freddie Mac During Scandal,” a title that implies he was solely responsible for said scandal. The article, of course, does not even attempt to draw such a ridiculous conclusion, instead saying (much later, and more drawn out, however): a) that he was part of an 18-member board b) that since he was a presidential appointment, his term was too short for him to have any influence c) that he was not named in the SEC’s report, and d) that he didn’t make any votes in Congress concerning Freddie Mac.
Perhaps the title of the article should have been: “Emanuel Briefly Served on Large Board of Freddie Mac, But Had Nothing To Do With The Scandal,” or owing to the fact that the headline is too long, maybe just this would have sufficed (with a similar article):
””
Text
I voted for Nader.
I’m a happy guy and I have a good life. Things are bad all over the world; I am aware of that, and I care about it. But, with things as bad as they are, and with a president as wholly incompetent as he is, I’m still happy. So, here’s the thing: why would I vote against a candidate that I believe in 100%?
Sure, I think that Obama is a step in the right direction, but so is McCain. Believe you me, McCain isn’t four more years of W. any more than Obama is. But, and here is the important bit, both of them are business as usual. Both candidates have said a lot of bullshit in an attempt to get themselves (the money to get themselves) elected, and both of them have strayed far from where they started.
But my boy Nader has stuck to his guns for four decades, and he continues to be about all the right things.
Text
That would be Monday Night Farce. McCain and Obama are getting interviewed on Monday Night Football… so depressing.
Text
From The Dallas Morning News, a story about McCain’s response to Obama’s Tax Plan.
The article is funny on several levels (and no, it has nothing to do with a series of jokes traded between the two “main” candidates that continue to expose this campaign as a complete farce, while independent candidates who are speaking real talk about the issues continue to get ignored). First, McCain lashes out at Obama for trying to redistribute wealth under a more socialist model (which is true, as far as I can tell), and for disguising tax cuts as tax credits. Of course, the flash point for his whole argument is that money will be going from people who have it (rich taxpayers like himself) to people who don’t (I am assuming here that by McCain saying non-taxpayers, he actually means black people and illegal immigrants), which is, of course, false (generally… it is true in some cases, though).
Then, the article happens to bring up What’sHisPlumberface, whom I assume you’ve heard about, with McCain trying to defend the poor man because he was critical of Obama on TV and is now being scrutinized by everbody, apparently forgetting the fact that he’s without a plumbing license, and that McCain himself used him not two days ago. Sorry, John, he gets his fifteen minutes, too.
The article closes with appropriate hilarity as it highlights McCain’s new effort to distance himself from Bush (good luck with that, rich, white, conservative, politician), by, and get this, “chiding him for failing to buy into [McCain’s] idea of using $300 billion to buy troubled mortgages directly from homeowners, allowing them to refinance into smaller loans.” Aside from the economic idiocy of the whole thing, I’m pretty sure that the idea is a textbook definition of… (wait for it)… corporate socialism.
Tangentially, I was pretty sure that the thing that separated newspapers from blogs was that newspapers have editors.
Text
Text
I’d advise against watching the debates and for using stuff like glassbooth (Nader > Obama) and these ten election ‘08 tools (from lifehacker)
Link
A look at Obama and McCain’s foreign policies…
Video
Reminds me a lot of the Rage Against the Machine video for (Testify)
Link
Only because I assume it is too late to get them together this year. The quote of the article is:
Nader recounted a recent meeting with editors at The Washington Post, who he said told him the paper wasn’t covering his campaign because he had no chance of winning. According to Nader, he replied: “Then why are you covering the Nationals?”
Page 1 of 5
